|
Post by shenron on Dec 13, 2013 2:08:55 GMT -5
Most systems are waited toward spellcasters, and to add insult to injury, players who love to play spellcasters are always in denial about this fact. If that's the case with Numenara, then yes, definitely $#@! that. Ya, it bugs me how they are always in denial.... As I said, I have not come across that fact in my reading. Everything seems decently balanced. Here is some more info i dug up on it; Well Rounded Review with links to others
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 13, 2013 3:38:25 GMT -5
How the $#@! did I come up with "waited" there. Weighted! Geeze Tedd *facepalm*
|
|
|
Post by Manah on Dec 13, 2013 3:59:12 GMT -5
I say, generalization, friends, generalization. They are 'usually' in denial. I love spellcasters, and I am perfectly capable of recognizing how systems are usually weighted towards spellcasters. XD That being said, yeah, I get the point... that was a manner of speaking. Still... just wanted to point out there's still hope left for mage players. XD (My friend for example built a D&D mage using mostly only buffs for the rest of the party, making the Thief and Fighter really shine and "steal" the show. Thief pun.) EDIT: Or maybe it wasn't and you two really think all mage players are fully in denial of this. In which case... well, I am in denial of you two being right. EDIT 2: And since the whole point of this post was to joke around a bit, and I'm super tired, have a good remainder of night and see you around. XD
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 13, 2013 4:05:10 GMT -5
Yes, well, obviously the use of the word "always" is hyperbolic... but after YEARS of having D&D 3.5/Pathfinder players try to convince me that magic users aren't more powerful than other characters, my frustration level with the mentality is fairly high.
|
|
|
Post by Manah on Dec 13, 2013 21:25:03 GMT -5
I understand. And I agree. Players who truly think that magic users in D&D are as powerful as other classes at the same level are definitely in denial. ^_^ A 15 level Wizard could wipe the floor with two dozen level 20 fighters. Depending on the builds, obviously, but in general, it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Silentking Alpha on Dec 13, 2013 21:57:33 GMT -5
Fireball them all to death!
|
|
|
Post by ironfox on Dec 13, 2013 22:20:56 GMT -5
The character types appear to be pretty balanced. It's also one of the only systems I've played that don't severely penalize characters who want a mix of "magic" and melee.
Actually I'm pretty sure the fighter types deal the most damage. The casters do more fantastic things and the "Jack" is a great blend between the two without being a copy of either.
|
|
|
Post by ironfox on Dec 13, 2013 22:26:16 GMT -5
Oh, and as far as casters go. There is a curve. Yes casters become more powerful (pretty quickly in 3rd-PF) but in the first few levels the will lose to melee characters almost without exception, which in my experience puts many players off of picking one if your running an early level game.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 13, 2013 22:34:15 GMT -5
Oh, and as far as casters go. There is a curve. Yes casters become more powerful (pretty quickly in 3rd-PF) but in the first few levels the will lose to melee characters almost without exception, which in my experience puts many players off of picking one if your running an early level game. In a one-on-one fight? Yes... but the whole "you suck until 6th level" thing hasn't been true since 3rd edition. In D&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2 the combination of spell choice and spell slots was severely limiting. D&D 3 changed the paradigm dramatically. I've never ever noticed anyone being "put off" from playing spellcasters. If anything, they're blatantly the most popular classes in every single game I've ever played or run. Even if that were true, calling 3 to 4 levels of limited capability a fair trade for utter dominance of the upper levels is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by ironfox on Dec 14, 2013 14:56:10 GMT -5
In a one-on-one fight? Yes... but the whole "you suck until 6th level" thing hasn't been true since 3rd edition. In D&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2 the combination of spell choice and spell slots was severely limiting. D&D 3 changed the paradigm dramatically. I've never ever noticed anyone being "put off" from playing spellcasters. If anything, they're blatantly the most popular classes in every single game I've ever played or run. Even if that were true, calling 3 to 4 levels of limited capability a fair trade for utter dominance of the upper levels is ridiculous. I've had a few people recently decline the spellcaster and one switch from spellcater to a melee class because it was "too limiting". Even after I explained that high level spellcasters are doing things that make Dr Strange look like an OK sorcerer. And I never said those few levels of suck make up for the rest of the game. It may have looked like I implied it but that wasn't what I was going for either. I was just commenting.
|
|
|
Post by Manticore on Dec 15, 2013 14:21:49 GMT -5
I'm not particularly interested in the Numenera roleplaying game. But I am interested in this videogame set in the world of Numenera. Apparently it is a 'spiritual successor' to Planescape: Torment, which was one of my favourite videogames ever. (Because I don't play a lot of videogames and to be honest I'd rather read a book most of the time, but the script for Planescape: Torment contains around 800000 words, sort-of like a book, so it was perfect for boring old me.) I don't know, I'll probably be disappointed one way or another. Maybe Torment: Tides of Numenera will be a fun game, but if I can't read a book at the same time then it's not getting 10/10 from me.
|
|