Topic: Why magic is too powerful

[markc]

 A couple of problems I see.
1) You cannot lump all magic together as one. There are 3 realms for a purpose.
2) What system are you talking about RMC/2/X or RMSS/FRP each have there own limitations and problem areas.
3) Spell Users require [in general] in RMSS 2 rounds to cast spells.
 
 Possible Fixes.
 1) Use the Combat Companion or the Martial Arts Companion.
 2) High level spell casters may or may not share info about there powers or spells with others. So in effect the spell caster has to learn each spell by himself.

 IMO I do not see a big problem with the power level of spell casters vs non-spell casters if you use the CC or the MAC.

MDC

[ironmaul]

I could never understand why there was a need for "Realms." To me this is more setting specific. RM spell system is geared for high magic settings unfortunatly. Hopefuly in the next edition there'll be options/guidlines for high, mid and low magic alterations. This is where the HARP spell system idea for scaleable spells could fix the issue. Another thing that could be eliminated to lower a casters power is to scrap the "effect per level of caster", this concept does not make sense.

[vroomfogle]

I could never understand why there was a need for "Realms." To me this is more setting specific. RM spell system is geared for high magic settings unfortunatly. Hopefuly in the next edition there'll be options/guidlines for high, mid and low magic alterations. This is where the HARP spell system idea for scaleable spells could fix the issue. Another thing that could be eliminated to lower a casters power is to scrap the "effect per level of caster", this concept does not make sense.

This certainly is setting specific...the three realms fit Shadow World but not necessarily other settings.   That's why a future version of RM would need to have a system to create realms as needed.   This was talked about a bunch back in the revision forums.

I use "effect per PP put into the spell" rather then per level of the caster.   This drastically reduces the power of casters, as a 20th level caster who puts in 1 PP into Projected Light still has it last only 10 minutes.   I think we put this option into RMC Spell Law.

[providence13]

I use "effect per PP put into the spell" rather then per level of the caster.   This drastically reduces the power of casters, as a 20th level caster who puts in 1 PP into Projected Light still has it last only 10 minutes.   I think we put this option into RMC Spell Law.

Interesting Vroomfogle, I guess this could be used for levelless RM. Not for me, mind you, it's for a friend. And scaleable spells, I'd always thought that you could cast it at any scale you wanted from min to max.
But I see what you mean; If caster wants a result, then pay for it. Also a good way for GM's to burn away PP!

Another thing that could be eliminated to lower a casters power is to scrap the "effect per level of caster", this concept does not make sense.

Ironmaul, I think I see what you mean here. Non spell casters don't get a bonus like this. Fighters don't receive more attacks per level...(but scaleable damage-ability to pull a punch/hit a location should be in there)   initially it could be a carry over from "other, older games", but IMO, it shows how every caster already has Spell Mastery in every list. They just don't have control over its progression. The progress is assumed. And you are right. No one else gets a bonus like this for free.

[ironmaul]

Another thing that could be eliminated to lower a casters power is to scrap the "effect per level of caster", this concept does not make sense.

Ironmaul, I think I see what you mean here. Non spell casters don't get a bonus like this. Fighters don't receive more attacks per level...(but scaleable damage-ability to pull a punch/hit a location should be in there)   initially it could be a carry over from "other, older games", but IMO, it shows how every caster already has Spell Mastery in every list. They just don't have control over its progression. The progress is assumed. And you are right. No one else gets a bonus like this for free.

Finally someone understands me In "College of Magics" spell creation format they introduced the same aspect of "effect per level of caster."  Needless to say I was dissapointed that HARP had gone down that same path. I like the idea of options in the RMC core books, it gives some flexibility for your style of game/setting. I think that the new RM spell system should have plenty of options. For me the most sensible direction for RM's spell system is to have its foundation to imitate low magic level settings/games and then progress from there. Scaleable spells are the way to go IMO, at least that way you can create higher levels of power in future books/compainions or whatever ICE decides. Easier to start low and go high in magic than the other way round.

[rdanhenry]

How fun is being a master thief is the party spell user can make himself invisible, teleport inside the castle and teleport himself and all the king's treasury out? 

In my game that particular stunt would not go well. Most people seem to think that magic can only be used by the PC's. Of course said king would have wards put on his castle.

In any case, unless he knows the location quite well (and if you're doing an inside job, that's making it much easier with or without magic), he's probably going to have a little error. And suddenly teleporting into, say, a guardroom or a dungeon cell, is probably not going to get good results. And unless the king is rather poor (or the spell-caster really heavy -- and would a giant fit in the treasure room?), his whole treasury should weigh more than you can teleport, at least in one trip. And multiple trips compounds the dangers. So, you need to know what's worth grabbing. A Thief's appraisal skills would come in handy. Fortunately, this ubermage is assumed to have every spell list, even across different realms, so I guess he'll be casting those spells. And we'll assume he's a mentalist, because if he's casting out loud, the guards outside might here. Of course, a smart king who knows about teleporting thieves would have crossbowmen in alcoves with firing slits towards the inside of the treasury, who will shoot anyone who drops in without an appointment.

A mediaval style game changes dramatically when you consider magic. The "Social Implications of Magic" series of articles on the Guild Companion web site is a treasure for this.

 

[rdanhenry]

You cannot have Presence going all the time. At best, some casters can have it with a duration of Concentration, which means they can use it to stand watch very effectively, but this is supposed to be one of their strengths.

Durations in Spell Law already tend to be rather short. In many cases, spells that would at a glance seem of general use become almost entirely combat spells because of it. No spell-user will be walking through the snow in light clothing, because no cold resistance spell lasts long enough to forego a coat. Frankly, I consider magic to a strong degree already nerfed in order to fit a "dungeon crawl" model of balance.

Users of magic will end up more powerful? Yeah, being able to bend the nature of reality to your will is going to do that. On the other hand, to become grossly powerful, Rolemaster spell casters need to advance more than a few levels, while Arms users shine a low levels. And those with experience in high level games tend to say that in the end, it is Semis, who combine spells with those "useless" skills that are the best characters at high levels, after the mid-level dominance of Pures/Hybrids.

[Arioch]

On the other hand, to become grossly powerful, Rolemaster spell casters need to advance more than a few levels, while Arms users shine a low levels.

And this is mainly my problem, I think: IMHO this is a horrible solution, really. I'd prefer that users and non users had the same oppurtunities to "shine" both at low levels and at higher ones.

[ironmaul]

When you look at it, there really is no great consequence for mages casting spells. Oh yeah you've got the spell fumble tables but only if the caster is trying to cross the line. I've always like the concept that "Dark Sun" had sapping the life out of the environment, turning the land eventually into a wasteland. But really that's game setting not mechanics.

I'm still not convinced that the non-spell users need the extra bonuses to balance out the game. I think it's where game setting would influence how powerful a mage could get. Perhaps those of greater power build a reputation and thus be challenged... like the old western movies of who has the fastest gun in the west. Spell components is another to notch them down a peg or two. But yes, it's the core system that the real problem stems from IMO.

[Ecthelion]

I'd prefer that users and non users had the same oppurtunities to "shine" both at low levels and at higher ones.

Is the ability ot "shine" corresponding or equal to the power of a PC? I ask since the topic was about the "power" of spells and spell users. Personally I think that a PC can still "shine" in certain situations, even if he is less powerful than another character, but perhaps this might be less often.

If OTOH your intention is that non-spell users and spell users should be equal in power at low and high levels, then this is different from what at least I'd like to see. I prefer a game world where magic is something special and powerful. This somewhat implies that spell users surpass non-spell users in power at some point - which is exactly what RM IMO does.

What I could imagine is - perhaps for a later revision - a set of rules or guidelines how to customize the RM spell system for different levels of magic power, so that a GM might reduce the power of spells to his liking, if he thinks them too powerful, or perhaps increase the power even further for a world dominated by magic users.

[fac]

And this is mainly my problem, I think: IMHO this is a horrible solution, really. I'd prefer that users and non users had the same oppurtunities to "shine" both at low levels and at higher ones.

So I think you won't like the Young Kingdoms setting where magic is obscenely powerful and the settting is so unbalanced than the best wizard is a very good fighter when he takes his magic potions of strength or takes the life essence of the victims. 

Honestly, I agree with mibsweden. I think the system is good and the implementation comes from the setting.

Many years ago I played a game using RM2 and we had no PP, you have to fuel the spells with blood from victims. It was a perfect sword and sorcery setting, and the GM only changed the PP.

[Dark Schneider]

Spell users have penatlies like less HPs, lesser armor, and sometimes higher cost for non-combat skills, like athletics, etc.

I don't know how many PPs your spell users have, but while non-users can use their skills all they want, any spell use drains PPs. Since we play RMFRP we removed the PP multipliers as it can be an abuse.
So, I think magic would be too powerfull is you could use it all you want, but is not the case.
In addition, compare DPs used to buy spells (3-4 DPs each rank for pure and 6-8 for semis) to non-users skill costs, learning an usual 10 ranks in a level cost 35 DPs (half base and half open or closed ones).

You see only the best case for sell users, like massive hurting with a fireball, but see it in the other side, a good fighter can do a massacre slashing everywhere with no cost, compared with a magician that any 'fire bolt' costs 6 PPs. If you compare with missiles, there is no comparison between a simple arrow with using PPs.
Compare a parry with the use of a 'bladeturn' spell, that costs 7 PPs each use.

PPs are so limited 

We are playing RM since much time ago and I can sure you that is balanced.

The question can be answered simply by playing, try to make a complete group of non-spell users (use outrider instead ranger) like a fighter, a thief/rogue, etc.; and try a complete group of spell users, who can survive more easily?. Spell users pay their versatility with their respective weakness.

So, is magic powerfull?, sure, but a  good fighter too, each one in their domain. IMO each character has its function so there is no need to worry about that. Is a merchant powerfull?, no...it depends, for obtain objects or trade are the best, and maybe for other skills like diplomacy, etc., how are the spell-users or the fighters with these ones?, surely not very good.

[ToM]

I think it all can be balanced easily by never giving spell users large amount of PP's to spend.
NEVER allow multipliers. NEVER allow superhuman PP-generating stats. NEVER allow spells like Power Loan except if you're really knowing what you're doing.
RESTRICT channeling skill.

Make them pay the price for versatility.
A fighter can fight then climb then ride then stalk then fight again then brawl. He has not to spend PP to do it. His resources are always at hand, and always reliable.

Spell users without PPs (I witnessed it in many games) are less than zero, if they didn't develop any skills to back-up.
AND, if you're a good GM, don't allow the party to always recover in a middle of a dungeon run or adventure.

This is, IMHO, the key.

[Arioch]

I'd prefer that users and non users had the same oppurtunities to "shine" both at low levels and at higher ones.

Is the ability ot "shine" corresponding or equal to the power of a PC? I ask since the topic was about the "power" of spells and spell users. Personally I think that a PC can still "shine" in certain situations, even if he is less powerful than another character, but perhaps this might be less often.

Yes, with "power" I mean the power to affect game events (NOT powerful in "firepower" terms!): a powerful character will be use his capabilities in a larger amount of situations and in a more decisive way than a less powerful one.
Surely non users can use their capabilites and have an opportunity to shine from time to time, but users simply get more chances to do it and, often, they're able to influence game events more than non users (unless the GM works really hard to come up with specific ways to hinder their magical powers).

IMHO this is wrong: we play rpg to stay together and have fun with our friends, giving anyone at the table the same chances to influence events in the game makes sure that everyone enjoy the game and that everyone can contribute in the same way to the story we're creating by roleplaying.

This is what I mean when I say that magic is too powerful.

So I think you won't like the Young Kingdoms setting where magic is obscenely powerful and the settting is so unbalanced than the best wizard is a very good fighter when he takes his magic potions of strength or takes the life essence of the victims.  

I don't think that Elric is a good example for rpg situations: he goes through most of his adventures alone, so he actually need to be a one-man-army. But in rpg usually you don't play with just one PC and generally when someone try do build a similar character is seen as a powerplaying munchkin...

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Personally, I think that RM2's magic is alright, or even under-powered. IMO, magic should be powerful, allowing its users to accomplish feats no one is able to perform (without the use of magic). Magic is the use of the laws of the universe; why shouldn't it be powerful?

Could you imagine Merlin not performing feats only doable through magic? Sauron, Gandalf, Sarumane? Why would Elric of Melnibonee use magic, if not because it gives him powers not reachable by non-magic means? Would Circé be feared if not for her magic allowing her impossible feats? Why would magic be a source of wonder if not because it allows actions not even imaginable by any other means? Would the "Books of 1001 Nights" be as interesting if magic didn't allow its users to perform the impossible? What about gods? What do they use if not magic, what do they grant if not through magic? Magic is powerful, and it's why it fascinates.

Seriously, if magic users and non-magic users were equal in power at low and high levels, no one would be a magic user. Why spend scores of years studying old, expensive, rare and hard to find books, spending fortunes to acquire such books, and appropriate ingredients, perform dangerous experiences, and rituals, in order to study magic, build expensive magical locations to safely research magic while you would have the same power with one third time, and the expense of a good weapon and armour?

[Arioch]

Seriously, if magic users and non-magic users were equal in power at low and high levels, no one would be a magic user. Why spend scores of years studying old, expensive, rare and hard to find books, spending fortunes to acquire such books, and appropriate ingredients, perform dangerous experiences, and rituals, in order to study magic, build expensive magical locations to safely research magic while you would have the same power with one third time, and the expense of a good weapon and armour?

Hey, we're not talking about the real world, but about a game! PCs doesn't really train, study, etc, you know? It all just happens in our immagination

Why would one play a mage if he's going to have the same opportunities to affect game events than a fighter?
Because he wants to! Because he wants to play the character who cast spells, summon things etc etc! Isn't roleplaying about this?

BTW, you could also reverse the question: why should one play a fighter, knowing that a spell user will have far more chances to affect the story?

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Hey, we're not talking about the real world, but about a game! PCs doesn't really train, study, etc, you know?

They do, it's called "role-play".
I don't know about you, but my PCs don't exist in a void, but in a world, with which they interact. So, yes, for instance my mages are more often than not older than my non-spell users, yes, researching magic is more dangerous, yes, they cannot learn new spell lists if they don't find a book/teacher (it's the same for non spell users but finding an arms master is a thousand times easier than a mage and, furthermore, one willing to teach you his art --plus the price is just not comparable), yes, they have to train/study regularly, yes, a mage can lose his study material and has more problem replacing it than a non-spell caster (and it's WAY more expensive in any cases), yes, a spell user can be burnt at the stakes while the warrior may just be asked to leave his weapons outside, etc.

At last, since as a GM I have a world I built, magic is not reserved to the PCs. To me, it seems that you want to restrict the usage of magic for the PCs, not of magic in general in RM2.

BTW, you could also reverse the question: why should one play a fighter, knowing that a spell user will have far more chances to affect the story?

Because it's easier, less expensive, less bothersome, less time-consuming? For the same reason there are way more workers in the world than there are senior executives, even if being a senior executive is better in all things to being a worker?

[Ecthelion]

Surely non users can use their capabilites and have an opportunity to shine from time to time, but users simply get more chances to do it and, often, they're able to influence game events more than non users (unless the GM works really hard to come up with specific ways to hinder their magical powers).

So for you there is a close link between the power of a PC and his ability to "shine" in the game. I have a similar view, btw. Where I have a different view is that I think that non-spell users, at least until medium levels, can shine just as well as spell users.

IMHO this is wrong: we play rpg to stay together and have fun with our friends, giving anyone at the table the same chances to influence events in the game makes sure that everyone enjoy the game and that everyone can contribute in the same way to the story we're creating by roleplaying.

I agree that we play RPGs to have fun. But I disagree with your (seeming) view that RM would not offer this fun. If you look at this thread there are many here who think that magic users vs. non-magic users in RM are quite well balanced. If you think that RM magic is too powerful then I'd suggest you use some of the means suggested above, like restricting PPs or reducing spell durations, to tone it done.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

If you think that RM magic is too powerful then I'd suggest you use some of the means suggested above, like restricting PPs or reducing spell durations, to tone it done.

I'd suggest to merely add the need for (rare) components for the most "powerful" spells.

[Arioch]

They do, it's called "role-play".
I don't know about you, but my PCs don't exist in a void, but in a world, with which they interact.

My comment above was mostly a joke, but in part it wasn't: what I meant is that you must make those things actually mechanically happen somehow in your game, or they'll simply won't have any impact on the game at all.

So, yes, for instance my mages are more often than not older than my non-spell users, yes, researching magic is more dangerous, yes, they cannot learn new spell lists if they don't find a book/teacher (it's the same for non spell users but finding an arms master is a thousand times easier than a mage and, furthermore, one willing to teach you his art --plus the price is just not comparable), yes, they have to train/study regularly, yes, a mage can lose his study material and has more problem replacing it than a non-spell caster (and it's WAY more expensive in any cases), yes, a spell user can be burnt at the stakes while the warrior may just be asked to leave his weapons outside, etc.

In other words you used some House Rules to limit magic users because otherwise they were too powerful... 

But I disagree with your (seeming) view that RM would not offer this fun. If you look at this thread there are many here who think that magic users vs. non-magic users in RM are quite well balanced.

Hmm, no I'm not saying that RM is completely unbalanced or not fun at all (otherwise I wouldn't play it!): I'm saying that it could be better. 

I think that in a future revision there're a lot of things the can be improved in the magic system. Some of them came out in this topic (like the discussion on the Realms, or the various HR to limit magic somehow) and probably there are other things which haven't been said yet.