Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Numenera: Third Time Wasn't the Charm
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7622774" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>I have variously encountered this issue as well, depending on party composition. One potential quick work around is to remove static damage and replace it with variable die damage. So Light weapons do d4; Medium weapons do d6; and Heavy weapons do d8. Or knock them up a die. See what works best for your group. This gives a bit more chance that some weapons can exceed typical damage reduction. The other option is to reduce the damage reduction. </p><p></p><p>I am curious about how much damage reduction your opponent had. If you were using a light weapon (+2 dmg) a minimum and got a crit on 17-20 (+1-4 dmg), then that is +3-6 damage. This is not including any other bonuses to damage that your abilities from your type or focus might confer. I'm not familiar with many monsters that have that much damage reduction, but I would need to double-check. </p><p></p><p>I agree that there should probably be a variety of ability attacks, but I have not really experienced this too heavily as a problem in praxis. I don't think that Glaives typically cannibalize their attacks that much. A number of people who have played Glaives in my games also pick foci that are Int or Spd powered, so they can spread their abilities across the different stat types. Because otherwise what would they do with their Int scores? Glaives certainly are at risk for having their Might reduced, but they also have armor and Edges that should help in reducing how much Might (and Speed) they are bleeding. And if you spend Effort in Speed to avoid getting hit in the first place, then you reduce how much you lose from your Might pool. So the game does entail these sort of stat pool management choices as well. Not to mention the ability to put more points into Might from their Descriptor, Foci, or tier progression. </p><p></p><p>Give out another ability or two then? IME, the game isn't so much about combat but, rather, about discovery. Combat mainly serves as an obstacle for making those discoveries. Again, keeping in mind that you get XP not for defeating monsters but for making discoveries. Combat is one pillar that allows players to do cool things, and many options are certainly oriented towards that,* but many are also oriented towards exploration and social pillars. And while players have a small subset of abilities - which makes things easier to learn for new players - they also have a rotation of cyphers that they can use that give them a variable set of choices. </p><p></p><p>* I do think that Monte & Co. are somewhat stuck in their 3.X mindset where they think primarily in combat options. </p><p></p><p>There is also a certain degree of OSR design philosophy present where sometimes you are not meant to confront everything through combat. It's sometimes best to sneak around, negotiate, or use your cyphers to circumvent challenges. I think that this becomes clearer with the newest edition of Numenera where they now added (essentially) a charismatic type, an engineering type, and a salvaging-explorer type. None of which are stellar at combat. Most of these are oriented towards building-up a community so their combat utility is questionable. But I do think that the newer edition edges them closer to their original design goal about creating a game oriented towards buildign a future in the colossal shadow of the past. </p><p></p><p>I enjoy the system, but I do not necessarily love it. It's incredibly easy for me to run a game of Numenera with little prep time. I guess that you are probably missing the cypher use aspect. These are big ticket items that you should be using and finding at a fairly regular pace. But this is GM-dependent, much as [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION] says.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7622774, member: 5142"] I have variously encountered this issue as well, depending on party composition. One potential quick work around is to remove static damage and replace it with variable die damage. So Light weapons do d4; Medium weapons do d6; and Heavy weapons do d8. Or knock them up a die. See what works best for your group. This gives a bit more chance that some weapons can exceed typical damage reduction. The other option is to reduce the damage reduction. I am curious about how much damage reduction your opponent had. If you were using a light weapon (+2 dmg) a minimum and got a crit on 17-20 (+1-4 dmg), then that is +3-6 damage. This is not including any other bonuses to damage that your abilities from your type or focus might confer. I'm not familiar with many monsters that have that much damage reduction, but I would need to double-check. I agree that there should probably be a variety of ability attacks, but I have not really experienced this too heavily as a problem in praxis. I don't think that Glaives typically cannibalize their attacks that much. A number of people who have played Glaives in my games also pick foci that are Int or Spd powered, so they can spread their abilities across the different stat types. Because otherwise what would they do with their Int scores? Glaives certainly are at risk for having their Might reduced, but they also have armor and Edges that should help in reducing how much Might (and Speed) they are bleeding. And if you spend Effort in Speed to avoid getting hit in the first place, then you reduce how much you lose from your Might pool. So the game does entail these sort of stat pool management choices as well. Not to mention the ability to put more points into Might from their Descriptor, Foci, or tier progression. Give out another ability or two then? IME, the game isn't so much about combat but, rather, about discovery. Combat mainly serves as an obstacle for making those discoveries. Again, keeping in mind that you get XP not for defeating monsters but for making discoveries. Combat is one pillar that allows players to do cool things, and many options are certainly oriented towards that,* but many are also oriented towards exploration and social pillars. And while players have a small subset of abilities - which makes things easier to learn for new players - they also have a rotation of cyphers that they can use that give them a variable set of choices. * I do think that Monte & Co. are somewhat stuck in their 3.X mindset where they think primarily in combat options. There is also a certain degree of OSR design philosophy present where sometimes you are not meant to confront everything through combat. It's sometimes best to sneak around, negotiate, or use your cyphers to circumvent challenges. I think that this becomes clearer with the newest edition of Numenera where they now added (essentially) a charismatic type, an engineering type, and a salvaging-explorer type. None of which are stellar at combat. Most of these are oriented towards building-up a community so their combat utility is questionable. But I do think that the newer edition edges them closer to their original design goal about creating a game oriented towards buildign a future in the colossal shadow of the past. I enjoy the system, but I do not necessarily love it. It's incredibly easy for me to run a game of Numenera with little prep time. I guess that you are probably missing the cypher use aspect. These are big ticket items that you should be using and finding at a fairly regular pace. But this is GM-dependent, much as [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION] says. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Numenera: Third Time Wasn't the Charm
Top