225
« on: November 18, 2009, 10:16:02 PM »
I took a look at a few posts and feel like I shouldn't comment on the system, because I know nothing about it. However, I don't necessarily buy that guns have to be more powerful than swords by definition. Someone could have a light saber or something that could cut through six inches of steel or straight through your body.
On the other hand, I don't think the damage dealt by swords has to be equal to that of automatic weapons. My guess is like someone said, one class is a warrior class and the other is not. They don't have to balance damage and hit points and a ton of other variables if different classes have different roles. Hell the barbarian in our D&D campaign did over 60 points of damage (not a crit) in our last session. The fighter in the party has like a 24 damage max on his best crit. Is D&D unbalanced by that standard?
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but it doesn't seem like the GM has to keep things artificially balanced in combat if each type of character can play to their strengths in different situations. For example, our cleric has one power that does damage in combat and not a lot of damage at that, but could sell ice to eskimos with his diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate checks.
Now I really want to check out this system to see what it's all about.