Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: runequester on October 13, 2008, 11:10:01 PM
-
So the companions had a ton of professions in them. Which have you used in your games?
Which ones were great?
Which ones were okay and which ones were totally broken?
I imagine most of the non-spell users would be reasonably alright as those would mostly be a case of how skill costs work out.
So what can be recommended and what is utter tosh?
-
There was a profession poll that you might want to take a look at.
MDC
-
I made the Sorceror "Evil only" because of its access to dark channels. I replaced it with the Magus from RM Companion III, which is less evil.
My favorite class has to be the archmage from RM Companion I. (It is so important that I sometimes forget it isn't core rules.)
The class I wanted to use but never did was the Tarot Mage from RM Companion VII. It sounded like an interesting concept.
-
Many of them were good (though some were verging on overpowered). I had quite a few players play quite a few of these classes, and many worked out quite well.
The ones I thought were very good:
Non-Spell Users:
--High Warrior Monk (though it makes the core Warrior Monk obsolete)
Semis:
--Paladin
--Warrior Mage (though many think they are overpowered)
--Beastmaster
--Armsmaster
--Nightblade
--Noble Warrior
Pures:
--Archmage
--Druid
--Forcemage
There were some others that were pretty decent as well, but those were the ones I thought worked the best.
-
No professions are barred but people seldom go for the "odd balls".
- Paladin
- Nightblade
- Archmage
- Armsmaster
Are popular choices.
-
Many of them were good (though some were verging on overpowered). I had quite a few players play quite a few of these classes, and many worked out quite well.
The ones I thought were very good:
Non-Spell Users:
--High Warrior Monk (though it makes the core Warrior Monk obsolete)
Semis:
--Paladin
--Warrior Mage (though many think they are overpowered)
--Beastmaster
--Armsmaster
--Nightblade
--Noble Warrior
Pures:
--Archmage
--Druid
--Forcemage
There were some others that were pretty decent as well, but those were the ones I thought worked the best.
Umm ... after picking myself up off the ground at the description of the "High Warrior Monk" and "Warrior Mage" as onl.y being "verging on overpowered" ... I'd have to day that depending on the campaign, I used to allow almost any character class/profession. However, I am firmly in the camp that would say that in reality there are roughly 12 basic character classes/professions, and the rest is combination of three things ...
1. A different list of spells
2. Minor tweaks in skill cost that make no real difference in the long run
3. Radical amounts of power creep (typically by trying to make the changes to skill cost be more than minor tweaks and/or by providing overpowered spells/spell choices).
To my mind ...
1. Minor skill cost tweaks should be eliminated ... over more than one or two levels, the difference becomes miniscule
2. The proliferation of hundreds of professions simply to introduce variant base spell choices is silly.
As such ... we need a new way of specifying base spell choices (without allowing a "free-for-all" that would generally result in almost all characters learning the most "efficient" list of spells).
Thus instead of having 25 separate professions which are all essentially a Magician ... we state that there is one profession: "Magician"; when selecting that class, you chose from an available list of focuses/spheres/diciplines/whatever ...
This one stop would eliminate 75% of the "professions" right there.
-
1. A different list of spells
2. Minor tweaks in skill cost that make no real difference in the long run
Hence the reason for creating the Priest, Mage, and Mentat professions in the latest EA...
-
... I'd have to day that depending on the campaign, I used to allow almost any character class/profession. However, I am firmly in the camp that would say that in reality there are roughly 12 basic character classes/professions, and the rest is combination of three things ...
1. A different list of spells
Surely a new and thematically strong set of base spell lists can define a new and interesting profession. Yes there were bad examples of professions that were little more than a new word for Mage and a new combination of already known spells. But there is no reason why the truly unique Tarot Mage, to take one already mentioned and classic example, should be force-fitted into one of your 12 boxes.
2. Minor tweaks in skill cost that make no real difference in the long run
I hope you are not assuming that everyone develops the same skills regardless of cost. If not, then minor tweaks to skill cost do make a difference in the long run. A skill cost of 1/4 (instead of 2/5) could save you 2 development points per level, and you should multiply this by some number of skills per level and 10 or 20 levels..
3. Radical amounts of power creep (typically by trying to make the changes to skill cost be more than minor tweaks and/or by providing overpowered spells/spell choices).
On these boards I have often seen the power creep assumption about RM2 professions "they were never checked for balance" etc, but not very often have I seen a list of professions that are supposedly overpowered. The power of a profession, if such a thing is even possible to measure in a pure PvE environment, is highly dependent on the setting and on the GM. What is your list of overpowered professions? You laughed at Hurin's, which to me seems as good as any.
-
Umm ... after picking myself up off the ground at the description of the "High Warrior Monk" and "Warrior Mage" as onl.y being "verging on overpowered" ...
Well, we'll just have to disagree on that one, I guess.
In regards to the Warrior Mage, they can certainly be quite powerful, no doubt about it, and yes, they have great spells... but they also need high stats to have the Dev. Points to buy them, and at the same time they have to max out a number of other skills to be viable in combat. In short, they feel a 'Dev. Point crunch'. They have a semi-spell user's costs for weapons (i.e., not particularly low) and their costs for directed spells are significant as well. On top of that, they have substantial costs for Body Development, and need to keep Transcend Armor maxed as well (and it ain't cheap). All of this makes their Dev. Point crunch even crunchier.
Example: To max out one weapon, Body Development, Transcend Armor and one Directed Spell, a Warrior Mage has to spend a staggering 35 Development Points. Assuming he HAS 35 development points to begin with, he won't be training much in other vital areas: he might, if he is lucky, be able to buy one rank in perception. He certainly won't have much left over for maneuvering in armor. I hope he doesn't fall into a river, because he won't be able to swim. And he hasn't yet bought even a single spell.
Furthermore, depending on how you use Transcend Armor, the Warrior Mage can be very short lived. In the core rules, as Rasyr noted recently, you have to go ahead with your spell even if you fail your Transcend Armor roll. Fail even a moderate Transcend Armor role in the middle of combat and if the ESF roll doesn't kill you, your opponent probably will. This is a major limitation on the effectiveness (and lifespan!) of the typical Warrior Mage.
So yes, the Warrior Mages come into their own at later levels and become very powerful... but the campaigns I have rarely go beyond level 11 or 12, so this is rarely a problem. I had two characters play them and they were fine. They have a great range of spells and are definitely powerful, but they are spread very thin and have to wince every time they try to cast a spell in combat.
The High Warrior Monk is, IMHO, balanced because the 'Warrior Monk' and to some extent the 'Monk' are rather underpowered. Simply put, the costs for Martial Arts are generally too high in the Core books (mainly due to the fact that Martial Arts are split into four ranks). The fact that the designers felt the need to include the 'High Warrior Monk' in the first Companion seems to be a recognition of this fact. The high costs for Martial Arts makes the original Warrior Monk a bit of a problem: yes, he has some nice abilities and can do backflips, but he has to pay 16 Dev. Points just to be as good in his primary attack as a fighter is in his-- yet the fighter pays a whopping 10 less Dev. Points. The same problem makes the Monk rather sub-par (despite great spells and adrenal defense) compared to some other semi-spell users.
I don't know, maybe your games are different than mine... but I've had several people play Warrior Mages and High Warrior Monks, and they seemed to fit right in alongside the Fighters, Clerics, and Magicians. The one time I had someone try to play a Monk, he was rather clearly underpowered compared to the other players, and I felt badly for him. I'm not saying you can't make a decent monk or warrior monk... my first Rolemaster character ever was a Warrior Monk, and I still love him dearly... but those Martial Arts costs are killers. In my experience, after years of playtesting, I've had virtually no problems with the Warrior Mage or the High Warrior Monk.
But if they don't work for you, that's fine with me; don't include them in your campaigns.
Cheers
-
The fact that the designers felt the need to include the 'High Warrior Monk' in the first Companion seems to be a recognition of this fact.
Something to realize -- the "designers" of Rolemaster did not feel the need to include anything in any RM2 Companion. They included whatever folks sent to them, without checking them for play or game balance in any way. The standard procedure was to proof the item for spelling and grammer, and then publish it.
Statements like the one quoted above hold absolutely no water in arguments regarding how balanced a given profession may or may not be.
-
The fact that the designers felt the need to include the 'High Warrior Monk' in the first Companion seems to be a recognition of this fact.
Something to realize -- the "designers" of Rolemaster did not feel the need to include anything in any RM2 Companion. They included whatever folks sent to them, without checking them for play or game balance in any way. The standard procedure was to proof the item for spelling and grammer, and then publish it.
Statements like the one quoted above hold absolutely no water in arguments regarding how balanced a given profession may or may not be.
Ok, let's assume that we can grant all the absolutes in your description of the compiling of the companions (I'm not in any way trying to disparage you, Rasyr, but I have to say I find it a bit hard to believe that the designers included 'whatever' was given to them and that they did not 'in any way' check for game or play balance... how exactly did they decide what got into the companions and what didn't? Did they include everything, or only the things that seemed to be good? Was there no selection process at all? That would indeed be quite surpising... surely some material was left out because it wasn't deemed good enough?).
Anyhoo, I'll modify my statement then:
The fact that players felt the need to include the High Warrior Monk in the first Companion seems to be a recognition of the fact.
Any way you want to slice it, 'res ipsa loquitur'.
Let me be clear in what I'm saying, however, so people don't get the wrong impression. I am saying that the H. Warrior Monk and Warrior Mage are not overpowered in comparison to some of the other stronger classes out there (Fighter, Cleric, Magician, Paladin, Nightblade, etc.). However, they ARE overpowered, one could argue, in comparison to some of the other weaker classes out there (yes, Ranger, i'm looking in your direction). I think we'd all recognize that there are some classes that just tend to be stronger than others, and others that need help. I tend to steer players to classes that tend to be stronger (and thus, away from the Ranger or the Bard, for example). Thus, in my campaigns, H. Warrior Monks and Warrior Mages seem to fit right in. That's essentially what I'm saying.
-
Ok, let's assume that we can grant all the absolutes in your description of the compiling of the companions (I'm not in any way trying to disparage you, Rasyr, but I have to say I find it a bit hard to believe that the designers included 'whatever' was given to them and that they did not 'in any way' check for game or play balance... how exactly did they decide what got into the companions and what didn't? Did they include everything, or only the things that seemed to be good? Was there no selection process at all? That would indeed be quite surpising... surely some material was left out because it wasn't deemed good enough?).
I have no idea what criteria they used. Only that, from what I have been told by those who were there at the time, was that the editors of that time routinely did not check anything for balance.
All I was trying to say was to not assume that the editors from 20+ years ago considered it balanced or that they included it because they thought it may have fixed something. That is making an assumption without proof. That way lies madness. ;D
-
Well, fair enough then.
Though I do still think the fact that people had to come up with a 'High' Warrior Monk suggests there were some problems with the Warrior Monk class in the core rules.
But I guess only Coleman Charlton and Pete Fenlon would know for sure :)
-
Well, yes, there was a problem with the Warrior Monk class for some players. It just wasn't munchkin enough, so they needed the HWM to assure kung fu supremacy uber alles. One of the most common complaints about Rolemaster combat has been that the Fighter can't stand up to Warrior Monk, thanks to the martial artist having access to a table that prefers going against heavy armor (so the armor isn't helping much) and especially the martial artist being able to double up on his combat bonuses by buying Adrenal Defense so he doesn't need to parry.
I think other factors make the Warrior Monk balanced, but the HWM is unnecessary. Unless bonus armor and weapons is so common and powerful in the game world that foregoing some of that awesome magic loot is a serious, serious penalty.
Most of the non-spell-using variant professions were just unnecessary tweaking to get low costs on just those skills the player wanted, when one of the basic professions would have done the job, but would have had to pay a few more DPs. Even some of the spell-users were a bit redundant, but a new set of base lists at least represents a different set of abilities, not just DP cost optimization. I didn't think much of professions that reused base lists, generally.
-
I think other factors make the Warrior Monk balanced, but the HWM is unnecessary. Unless bonus armor and weapons is so common and powerful in the game world that foregoing some of that awesome magic loot is a serious, serious penalty.
I can easily imagine that Shadow World can be run in a way that makes bonus armor and weapons common enough for the WM to be at serious disadvantage....
-
I can easily imagine that Shadow World can be run in a way that makes bonus armor and weapons common enough for the WM to be at serious disadvantage....
Which highligts the fact that the strength of a profession is not an absolute but is highly dependent on the game world, the theme and objectives of the setting, the GM, optional rules and house rules.
When talking about RM2 professions in particular we should also remember that many of the companion professions that were thought to be powerful in some generel sense are accompanied by a warning in the book where it appears: "This profession can be very powerful" or similar, suggesting that the authors and/or editors did consider profession balance, even if they did not check for it, whatever that means.
-
When you're talking powerlevel, are you just making it easy on yourselves and look att combat abilities? There are several "weak" professions that can become highly useful during play. I've had bards save the group's collective behinds on several occations.
-
Personally, one of the big reasons why I like RM2 over other systems is because the professions are not balanced. The world is not balanced. Wishing for all game professions to be balanced is similar to complaining about a king is overpowered compared to a farmer therefore a world shouldn't have kings --just farmers or any social role "balanced" with it. To me, game professions should not be balanced because it's how the world is. It's what makes people work hard in order to obtain them and allows myths such as "the legendary Death Mage whose mere mention would make people shiver since it's rumoured to be such an evil occupation".
-
When you're talking powerlevel, are you just making it easy on yourselves and look att combat abilities? There are several "weak" professions that can become highly useful during play. I've had bards save the group's collective behinds on several occations.
Yep, I totally agree... should have mentioned that myself.
I was going to say that my campaigns are heavily combat-oriented and tend to be more hack-n-slash than roleplaying. In that environment, the Warrior Mage and High Warrior Monk do well. In another type of campaign, say one where the campaign revolves around finding out secret knowledge or infiltrating secret societies or interacting verbally with others to figure out what evil things they are up to, a Warrior Mage might even be at a disadvantage.
So it's all in how you play it.
-
To be perfectly honest, no profession is inherently stronger or weaker than any other. I've seen some characters be incredibly powerful by doing the right things. I'll give you an example:
In our party, we have an illusionist called Wu Tan. She rolled her BGO's and got Lycanthropy. She was a Weretiger, and now had to spend Dev. Pts. on Control Lycanthropy. According to some people, this should have nerfed her. It didn't. Now she is a 13th level Illusionist who can use Ritual Magic to do just about anything (provided she has the requisite materials). Her first ever ritual made her holy symbol a bonus item to Control Lycanthropy. She also has a large assortment of spells she shouldn't even have like other peoples base lists, and other realms lists (I'm looking at you, Organ Law...). Oh, and she has over 1000 PP's!
Another example:
One of my old characters was a Witch called Sephrania. She had very few Dev. Pts., but several good spells, like Potion Magic. She spent her entire time making low-level Healing Potions, and the rest of the party took the mick. Her skill with healing spells made her potions incredibly reliable. Instead of producing potions of Healing(1-10), she was making potions of Healing(10). There was no ambiguity with her creations. They just worked. She was also the only character in the party who could recharge magic items with a set of spells (I'm looking at you, Candle Magic...).
See, regardless of what you end up with, your character should always be more than just Dev. Pts. and Profession. They can be so much more.
Back to the original argument about OP Professions, there is no profession that is innately better than others. They are specialists in one or two fields. A party is more than just one character. Each characters profession brings something to the party, like maybe healing, or social skills.
Sometimes, with the right choices, you can make something truly special...
Let your players experiment with Professions, and see what they come up with. They may surprise you...
-
I see your favored profession is Necromancer, as you have raised an 8-year-old thread from beyond the grave....
-
I see your favored profession is Necromancer, as you have raised an 8-year-old thread from beyond the grave....
Note to self - use caution reading jdale's posts or do not drink coffee when doing so. Cleaning the monitor was a pain.
-BP
-
I don't mind replying to old posts, as people can provide new insight.
On another note, I've never tried a Necromancer. Want to though...
-
I found the most interesting ones to be:
Crystal Mage (nice attacks, buffs, information gathering)
Enchanter (second best at illusions, Great Commands list!)
Taro Mage (Sword, Cup, Pentacle, Staves, and a bunch of pets from the cards)
Dervish (incredible martial artist, MA buff list, teleport list, information list, charm/controlling list, haste movements list)
Mal
-
I very seldom got to play - I was/still am the GM - but enjoyed my brief stints playing Montebanc and Sleuth. From a GMing/campaign point of view, I enjoyed the Evil Alchemist (bane of party magic items), Theocratist, Archmage, Wizard, Macabre, Magus, Gypsy, Shamanic Alchemist, Elementalist (RMC7) and Witch. All these made for good villains/allies/pivotal story figures.
-
One character I'm playing at the moment is a Shaman. She's fairly good at healing, as she is a Channelling user, as well as Shamans get some Animist Base Lists as their own (I'm looking at you, Herb Mastery...). Shamans also get similar spells to Seers, so trying to find stuff out is quite easy with a Dream Vision Spell.
But my shaman's main ability is her Spirits, as She is more of a Kami Priestess than anything else (The game my GM is currently running is a High Fantasy/Wuxia type game, so it's heavily oriental). She also has awesome meditation abilities.
I've never run a game properly, but my group's GM has been doing this for over thirty years, and has gone through all the professions. There are only 1 or 2 that He won't let people play, as they don't fit the campaign styles, as one of them is an oriental, and one is a traditional high fantasy.
That being said, I've been through all of the rules, and found some truly strange professions, but I don't feel that any of them are too OP for a game. It's just a matter of Setting, and Character Development.
-
yes, I always found the Shaman a very versatile profession, particularly (but not necessarily) with judicious use of Background Options - and the apprenticing rules from the Arms Companion: one NPC/travelling companion I used briefly Apprenticed as a Bashkar (i.e. adolescence DP costs as Bashkar, Shaman thereafter). When the Spirits chose, she would Frenzy into a Spirit-driven fury. Otherwise she was very mild, contemplative and gentle.
-
Well, that was one of the great things about RM2-- that tremendous range of professions. Ones that I though were crap turned out to be someone else's treasure, or fit perfectly into their world and playstyle.
Personally, I loved the High Warrior Monk, Warrior Mage, Necromancer, Druid, and Archmage. I also liked the Noble Warrior, and thought the Forcemage and Magus were both quite powerful. But we played combat-heavy games.
I guess we should also remember that the Paladin was a Companion class as well. They were a bit wonky and didn't really seem to live up to their name because it was very hard for them to wear armor, since they were channeling users; but I think there was a later alternate rule in a later companion that allowed them to wear metal, and that was the rule we used.
-
I see your favored profession is Necromancer, as you have raised an 8-year-old thread from beyond the grave....
Note to self - use caution reading jdale's posts or do not drink coffee when doing so. Cleaning the monitor was a pain.
-BP
OMG, you are so right! I almost spit my food out.
Darn you JDale!!!