Topic: Why magic is too powerful

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Yes, the Prosaic lists from the Spell Users Companion (SUC). But also remember, back then, the editors at the time didn't look at spell lists for balance against the rest of the system.
IMHO, one of the mistakes of RM(2) was that it didn't give spell users enough power points to begin with. This meant that it was practically required that spell users have PP Multipliers in order to just survive low levels. Which, in turn, meant that they were very common (or had to be, in order for low level casters to have one).

This, in turn, meant that high level casters would have them as well, and thus have so many PP that they were nearly god-like.

This was one of the primary reasons for the boost in PP found in RMX, to get rid of the need for multipliers.

But yes, somewhat Combat Companion makes fighter "shine" more during fights, which is a good thing IMHO, maybe we need also a Stealth Companion and an Outdoor Companion?

Not this side of the revision you won't.

Well, if somebody submits a proposal for them, then it is possible. And it need not be for a 128 page book, a 64 page supplement is just as viable. 

[Arioch]

I don't know how your games are but in mine there is a combat every 4-5 days, but I think it's important.

Yes, it's important (even if it's not the most important aspect of the game) but, since it's so common it's also easier to balance. In fact it's probably th emost balanced aspect of the game, so combat situations are not my main concern.
It's much more difficult to balance situations outside combat, since they're more unpredictable. And it's in these situations that casters have a large edge over non caster imho.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Look at the Ariochs first post and you'll find that the main argument is a spell caster being able to do what every other proffession does in skills(mundane included) over a period of time and not just offensive power.

That's also one of the arguments that led to D&D 4e...

But otherwise, what else is a spellcaster expected to do?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

But otherwise, what else is a spellcaster expected to do?

I think that that question is perhaps one of the core questions here.

Problem: Overtime spell users use magic to be as good or better than non-spell users in their own niches.

Answer:
          1) Better define the niche of the spell user and be sure that it leave plenty of opportunity for diverse interests

          2) Make sure that future spells do NOT replicate skills and/or make sure that spells are not better than the skills that they do replicate (i.e. limit the results to some other factor about the mage).


Area attacks and distance attacks being the forte of the spell user is fine, but so long as those abilities cannot dominate. As one person pointed out, the Fireball is a spell where the targets get their DB, but the attacker gets no OB (expect maybe level mod).

That is part of the core rules... It is expansions from that that turn and make it even more powerful by allowing targeting or some other OB skill, etc...

The core RM2 rules limited only Base Lists to above 20th level, that has changed over time, to where you can get ANY list to 50th, etc...

In short, under the core RM2 rules, while magic was powerful, it wasn't as powerful as it currently is in RMFRP (or in RMC with many of the options, especially ESF, active).

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

2) Make sure that future spells do NOT replicate skills and/or make sure that spells are not better than the skills that they do replicate (i.e. limit the results to some other factor about the mage).

I would have thought that "magic makes the impossible possible" and "magic can do everything" was the postulates of why most people and stories have magic, though.

[providence13]

IMO, Magic is "too" powerful, if you're not a Full Practitioner. Oh sorry, wrong game; Mage.
Hopefully, there aren't too many powerful mages running around.

Are Dragons "too" powerful?
Are Trolls "too" powerful for low level characters; troll mages..?

The game is scaleable to everyone's level of fun.

[Arioch]

Answer:
          1) Better define the niche of the spell user and be sure that it leave plenty of opportunity for diverse interests

          2) Make sure that future spells do NOT replicate skills and/or make sure that spells are not better than the skills that they do replicate (i.e. limit the results to some other factor about the mage).

I agree with both answers. BTW it happens that the user professions I prefer are those very focused, with a very narrow theme, like many semis...
Maybe the real problem is the versatility given by access to general open and closed lists?

I would have thought that "magic makes the impossible possible" and "magic can do everything" was the postulates of why most people and stories have magic, though.

But magic still would "make the impossible possible": shooting fireballs with your hands and flying around are impossible things that magic makes possible. And I surely don't want to see them gone...

[Ido Tamir]

RMFRP has lots of limitation on spell casting.

Automatic casting is almost never the case (especially in combat), and there are many penalties in case the caster casts a spell higher than his level and / or not preparing it using enough rounds..

So are we talking about such levels that those considerations are not an issue? If so, it sounds like the PCs are so high level that the campaign should change and reflect their mighty abilities, and not the other way around..

[Arioch]

So are we talking about such levels that those considerations are not an issue? If so, it sounds like the PCs are so high level that the campaign should change and reflect their mighty abilities, and not the other way around..

Ido, the point here is not that users (expecially high level ones) are too powerful for a given campaign: the point is that they're too powerful compared to non-users of the same level.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

But magic still would "make the impossible possible": shooting fireballs with your hands and flying around are impossible things that magic makes possible. And I surely don't want to see them gone...

Then, IMO, you're not being coherent. Are you telling me that you want magic to be able to make the impossible possible but not the possible possible? That, using magic, a mage can shoot a fireball from his fingers (an impressive feat) but not open a door (a trivial action)? Mimicking what can already be done, but doing it better, more efficiently, with less effort, etc. is the very first reason why people even try to find alternatives. If magic were to exist, the first thing mages would research is to mimic "what can already be done, but doing it better, more efficiently, with less effort, etc."
And, no, it's not a house rule. It's just a logical consideration, based on how mankind has progressed over millennia.

It's the reason why science exists at all. To make what was impossible possible, and to make what was possible still possible but better done, more efficiently done, with less effort, cost, time, etc. It'd be why magic would exist at all, and be researched.

[yammahoper]

The real power of the spell users is not their combat ability or their ability to wow NPC's through impressive displays of power, it is the ABILITY TO GATHER INFORMATION.

Even low level spell casters can gain volumes of data on just about anything with limited effort.  Fumbles are rare (though lots of fun, particularly with information spells), and the information is reliable.

The best way to stop someone from hurting anyone is for them to not know who they should hurt.  This stops morale people in thier tracks.  Only psychopaths subscribe to genocide.  Lore spells make it easier to peel back the layers of mystery and discover the antagonist.  That's power.

[Ido Tamir]

Ido, the point here is not that users (expecially high level ones) are too powerful for a given campaign: the point is that they're too powerful compared to non-users of the same level.

That depends on the player, isn't it? I mean, a good player can shine even if 'equipped' with a halfling rouge that is missing both hands. IMHO, High Level Wizards are no match for a bright player, no matter what PC he is using.

I do agree that spell-casters tend to be more versatile / dangerous as they go up in levels, but a good Mage will never waste an expensive spell if he can get someone else do his dirty job for him.  

IMHO - It comes out to Roleplay, good group synergy and a watchful eye when the player builds his character.

[Marc R]

I suspect the RM2 PP structure wasn't completely askew, it depended on the very game balance issues in question here.

a spell that nerfs locks or traps could be viewed as having the mage infringing on the thief character's concept.

But, if you need to spend a chunk of DP to nerf said lock or trap, you might want to instead save your PP and allow the thief to pop it.

Thus, in core RM2 or RMC the mage is often too cheap to be "doing everything all the time" as they were PP poor.

Now, you high magic the game, by tossing a x3 PP multiplier in there, and suddenly the mage is doing everything.

shrug, you play in a high end, high magic game, I fully expect that in fair value to the x3 multiplier the thief has a cloak of invisibility, a magic climbing rope and some high bonus armor/weapons. . . .is the thief now stepping on the mage's toes as he scales right up sheer surfaces while invisible? I don't think so, I think it's just in a high end game all the edges get blurry.

if, OTOH you hand the mage a x3 multiplier, and the best the thief can seem to get a hold of is a set of +5 lockpicks of quality and a +5 dagger, then the problem is that as GM you're way favoring the mage over the thief. . .the mage isn't too powerful, the GM is biasing the game in the mage's favor.

Back to the "no multiplier" core RM2/RMC game. . . .in my experience, the lack of PP made the mages tend toward lores, to give them something to do 80% of a session. . .not casting or combat, just "These glyphs are ancient denari, and mark the tomb of a tribal chief." or "This is an unusual metal, I can't identify it but it's neither steel nor silver, despite it's color.". . . saving the firebolts or lore spells for truely critical moments. . . . .Nobody seemed to object in those "dung and beans" games. . .since when pressed, said mages could still fly, or blast an area, or delve the story of a dead body. . . .they just didn't do it so often, focusing more on being the well educated lore wise party member and mostly avoiding combat.

[mibsweden]

Magic is supposed to be out of the ordinary. Trying to nerf magic or boost non-spell users so that magic is just another way to do the same thing as a non-spell user can, will take the "magic" out of magic.

What would magic be if it was not a spectacular display of what would normally not be possible? It would be dull, I tell you.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Magic is supposed to be out of the ordinary. Trying to nerf magic or boost non-spell users so that magic is just another way to do the same thing as a non-spell user can, will take the "magic" out of magic.

Which is eerily similar to what D&D 4e did...
In 4e, everybody has "Powers"... which pretty much all do the same things, just damage type is different...

Yes, very boring!

[Elton Robb]

In 4e, every class is balanced against one another; so that no one class shines above the rest.  Which is probably one of the reasons why D&D oldtimers feel that 4e doesn't feel like D&D. 

[Right Wing Wacko]

In 4e, every class is balanced against one another; so that no one class shines above the rest. 

Or, so that no class shines at all!
 

[Arioch]

And, no, it's not a house rule. It's just a logical consideration, based on how mankind has progressed over millennia.

Lol, now you are the one not being coherent: you're trying to apply logical consideration based on real life to something which is completely illogical and does not exist in real life.

The real power of the spell users is not their combat ability or their ability to wow NPC's through impressive displays of power, it is the ABILITY TO GATHER INFORMATION.

Even low level spell casters can gain volumes of data on just about anything with limited effort.  Fumbles are rare (though lots of fun, particularly with information spells), and the information is reliable.

The best way to stop someone from hurting anyone is for them to not know who they should hurt.  This stops morale people in thier tracks.  Only psychopaths subscribe to genocide.  Lore spells make it easier to peel back the layers of mystery and discover the antagonist.  That's power.

Yes! Those information spells are really nasty and are one of the main reasons I consider spell users too powerful...

Which is eerily similar to what D&D 4e did...

Actually, the idea behind 4e is quite good imho: to make sure that no class is superfluos. Unfortunately the way this idea has been implemented is not very good...

[mibsweden]

Actually, the idea behind 4e is quite good imho: to make sure that no class is superfluos. Unfortunately the way this idea has been implemented is not very good...

I think this is where we differ , at least in part

It is like: "OMG Mages have fireball"

Answer: "No problem. Let's give the Fighters extra feats and whirlwind attacks, and extra attacks every so many levels."

I know that is 3rd edition but still , stuff like that just don't sit well with me.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Lol, now you are the one not being coherent: you're trying to apply logical consideration based on real life to something which is completely illogical and does not exist in real life.

As I mentioned, save if your characters act in a void, the world in which they live follow logical behavioural patterns when it comes to how mankind react to events. Meaning, it progresses following the same behaviours it did in real life... or in your world, mankind isn't just mankind.
Or are you telling me that, in your world, social structures, financial structures, economical structures, political structures and even religious behavioural patterns for mankind is totally different from what happened in our world? That, of course, is possible (it's your world, after all) but I think most GMs base important parts of their worlds on ours, making people thinking the same way they do in ours, but with the paradigm of magic being a reality. Basing one's fictional mankind on real life mankind thus giving it the same behavioural and thinking patterns, applied to the new context, that is being coherent (what I'm suggesting) while doing so when making people suddenly have completely different considerations (what you're suggesting, from what I can tell) isn't. In other words, sorry, but I'm being infinitely coherent since I'm applying human nature to what I consider to be essentially human beings projected in a different setting where magic is a reality. You, on the opposite, consider you have human beings, yet not behaving at all like human beings, and not following human nature.