Topic: Why magic is too powerful

[Arioch]

In another topic I've said that magic users in RM are too powerful compared to other characters, here I'll try to explain why.

The answer, in brief, would be that they've too many options at their disposal. Spell users can do anything non users can do, better... and then some.
While at the beginning a user is more or less at the same "power level" of a non user (sure, a 1st level fighter will be more efficient in combat than a 1st level mage, but the magician have other strenghts, for example lores or skills like read runes, not counting his low level spells), as the user advances he gets more and more options, while the non user strenghts remain the same. Even worse, the options he gains are often far more powerful versions than those of non spell users or are even completely different options, which non users simply cannot obtain.
Think about it, a high level user can:
- fight better than any fighter, with his mass-destruction spells like fireball or with single powerful spells like dark slumbers
- stalk and hide better than any thief, with invisibility, shadows, and other spells
- influence people better than any influence skill, with Charm Kind, Suggestion, etc
- heal wounds instantly and better than any healing skills
- solve mysteries in no time with divination spells
- be better at noticing and analyzing things than any non user
- move around istantly, anywhere, even in places where non user simply cannot go, like the sky
- speak and understand any language, without buying ranks for it
- and many other things

Sure, he must learn the right spell lists and develop PPs, but non users still have to develop their own skills, which cannot compete with spells, so it's not really a big disvantage.

Another problem is that often the only thing that can beat magic is magic alone. On the other topic I've said that a simple spell like Presence would make sure that a SU will be never ambushed. Then someone replied that a Unpresence item would solve the matter. The problem is that Unpresence is another spell, and that means that a non magi using character would have no means, by himself, to solve the problem.
Non users have to rely on external (magical) aid to have a chance to compete with users, while the casters can do all their work by themselves.

Now, the big question:

Why do you think it is supposed to be balanced? I have always viewed high level casters as much more dangerous than the warriors. It takes more to get there but........

Because it's more fun. How fun is being an expert swordsman if the party spell caster can snap his fingers and Absolve any enemy? 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? How fun is spending levels to develop your awareness and lore skills if the party seer can solve any mystery and find anything/anyone without even having to leave his seat?

I'm not saying that magic should lose its versatility, but I think that, should a revision be done, magic should be a little toned down and mundane skills powered up a little bit. IMHO non users should be able to compete with spell casters without having to use magical aids, at least in their field.

[ironmaul]

Arioch, I totally agree with you.  I fervently believe a spell should never be able to mimick a mundane skill. Spells should only be supernatural. I have never been a fan of RM's spell system, this is only one aspect that I dislike about it...there are others.

[mibsweden]

Spell users do tend to become more powerful than non-spell users at higher or even mid-levels (10+). Personally I do not have a problem with it. I guess it all depends on what part of the name roleplaying game you focus on. if you see it as a game first and foremost, then class balance is important for you since you probably choose class from what is the best class. If you see it as roleplaying foremost, then class balance is of less importance to you, since you choose your class based on what you want to play and not what is the best class. Of course these are the two extremes, most people would end up somewhere in between. Imo when you start looking at  RPG more as a game than as a simulation of what you want to portray, you are on the wrong track.

For me a Mage should be more powerful, just look at literature, sure there are great fighter heroes, but RM can have those as well. Though noone complains that Gandalf is powerful, or the Aes Sedai from the Wheel of Time series. I am a strong believer in setting-based balance checks for magic. Maybe all spell users have to be part of the Wizard guild, and pay a membership fee. Maybe they have to do missions for the Mage guild. Maybe magic is forbidden in cities and looked upon with suspicion from the common folk, maybe magic attracts minions of the dark, or maybe it gives corruption points if used for personal gain, etc etc.

Also, the spell system in RM is part of the reason I play RM. Vroomfogle said it best in his introduction to RMC Spell Law:

"Spell users didn’t simply memorize incantations and gestures to produce a specific effect. No, they studied a complete concept in order to gain a magical mastery over it. A Magician did not simply learn Fireball, he learned about Fire and how to manipulate and control it in a variety of manners. To me, always a caster  in any game the spell lists didn’t only define Spell Law they defined the Rolemaster system."

[Arioch]

I guess it all depends on what part of the name roleplaying game you focus on. if you see it as a game first and foremost, then class balance is important for you since you probably choose class from what is the best class. If you see it as roleplaying foremost, then class balance is of less importance to you, since you choose your class based on what you want to play and not what is the best class.

No, IMHO that's not true. Even if you focus on "roles" rather than "playing", rules should be there to help you doing so, and surely having professions that are clearly more powerful than all the others doesn't help.
Surely you can have fun roleplaying a fighter, but you can do exactly the same with a mage or with a paladin. The problem is that when you actually use the rules to do something in game, spell users will be able to do everything, while the fighter will only be able to do a couple of things (and he will not be as good as the others at them).
So if you play a non user you'll only have fun during "roleplaying" moments, with users, you'll have fun at every moment, be it a moment of pure roleplaying or a moment or pure "rule"playing.
Balanced professions would assure (or, at least, try to do so) that you'll have fun equally, whatever profession you choose. In other words, if professions are balanced, you won't be "punished" for choosing a profession following your tastes, the background of your character and other pure roleplaying motivations.
Overtly overpowered professions destroy this balance, discouraging people from choosing certain professions. They basically kill roleplaying with rules, rather than favoring it.

[ironmaul]

Overtly overpowered professions destroy this balance, discouraging people from choosing certain professions. They basically kill roleplaying with rules, rather than favoring it.

And is one reason it broke up our gaming group. One player had a character that could do everything that the rest of the party could do combined. We basically ended up sitty back and let the almighty one do it all. High end magic is such a kill joy.

[GoblynByte]

I guess it all depends on what part of the name roleplaying game you focus on. if you see it as a game first and foremost, then class balance is important for you since you probably choose class from what is the best class. If you see it as roleplaying foremost, then class balance is of less importance to you, since you choose your class based on what you want to play and not what is the best class.

No, IMHO that's not true. Even if you focus on "roles" rather than "playing", rules should be there to help you doing so, and surely having professions that are clearly more powerful than all the others doesn't help.
Surely you can have fun roleplaying a fighter, but you can do exactly the same with a mage or with a paladin. The problem is that when you actually use the rules to do something in game, spell users will be able to do everything, while the fighter will only be able to do a couple of things (and he will not be as good as the others at them).
So if you play a non user you'll only have fun during "roleplaying" moments, with users, you'll have fun at every moment, be it a moment of pure roleplaying or a moment or pure "rule"playing.
Balanced professions would assure (or, at least, try to do so) that you'll have fun equally, whatever profession you choose. In other words, if professions are balanced, you won't be "punished" for choosing a profession following your tastes, the background of your character and other pure roleplaying motivations.
Overtly overpowered professions destroy this balance, discouraging people from choosing certain professions. They basically kill roleplaying with rules, rather than favoring it.

Only if you mind set is in 'gaming' to begin with.  If you are truly in the mindset of playing a 'role' you have no concern about being 'left out' or drowned out by more powerful characters.  I'm certainly not saying the prospect is not without frustration.  Everyone wants to be a part of the story and become justifiably frustrated if they don't get to participate as much as everyone else.  But if you are truly devoted to playing a role in a story, you must also devote yourself to accepting that role as it pertains to that story.  That means accepting character death, less power or importance than the 'main protagonist,' and taking on a supporting role to the plot and theme.

Of course, in RPGs there is a certain expectation among the players that they will all be 'main protagonists.'

My statements are simply academic, though.  The practice of an RPG is very different.  

[mibsweden]

The concept of game balance through the rules system feel to me more like Dungeons & Dragons or World of Warcraft really.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

This is exactly why there are, and should be limitations on magic.

Why a spell user should not be able to learn ANY spell list (even at a higher cost). You will notice that the ICE's own "House Rules" (as it were), the Character Creation Guidelines PDF for RMC does not allow the learning of any spell list, and it keeps the limits on the level to which Open and Closed lists may be learned.

Use of the ESF options also make characters more powerful. Normally a Magician cannot wear any armor (making him easier to hurt if you hit him), but with the ESF options (and for RMSS/FRP, many of these options are now "core") you can cast wearing any armor. And I don't even want to get into how "Transcend Armor" really, really throws balance to the wind...  

The concept of Spell Lists (or scalable spells, and/or a combination of the two) is a VERY GOOD concept.

Is the implementation perfect? Nope, but recognizing that it isn't perfect is indeed the first step towards being able to try to make more so (Note: Nothing is ever perfect, we can strive for perfection, but shall never attain it).

[giulio.trimarco]

Aside system speficif mechanics magic, normally, is more powerfull than anything else because we dismiss whatever issue that spell can create with: "That's magic".

With this approach anything is possibile and the impossible only takes longer...

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

The concept of game balance through the rules system feel to me more like Dungeons & Dragons or World of Warcraft really.

HARP strives for balance...

Balance doesn't have to mean "giving non-spell users special abilities". It only means in making sure that certain arch-types do not have the capabilities to do everything as well as all other archtypes. (i.e. spells should not be able to be used as skills).

[vroomfogle]

I like controlling balance of magic through access.   That is, you limit accessibility to spell lists.   All spell lists aren't available down at the local library, not by a long shot.  Instead, after character creation the players are often lucky to just have full access to their base lists.  If they are traveling, they don't even have that.   Access to open or closed lists is based on what they come across during the game.

This simple thing has great power because when characters are prevented access to all spell lists, they enjoy and find useful even the more lame open/closed lists that you toss their way.

[mibsweden]

Well to me, magic is well magic! Having a fire bolt to me is not much different than having a longbow. For magic to be really somehting, it should be extraordinary and breath-taking.

Giving bonuses to certain skills, or giving a faster learning to languages, or having a spell summon a demon to ask questions about a topic, or having a spell like Fly which makes climbing kind of unnecessary is perfectly ok with me.

I am not certain what spells you are referring to that totally replaces skills.

[providence13]

Perhaps "magic" is too powerful in some peoples games.
Most of the time it might work out. Sometimes it get's out of hand.

"Would snuggle-sharptooth like a treat from the table?"
"Oh, it looks so cute begging! Let's feed it from the table, again."
"Ouch! That dog just bit me!"

I haven't played a game yet where the Mages, Clerics, Illusionists, Seers, Witches, Shaman, Druids or even Rangers out numbered the Fighters and Thieves in the world. IMO, they shouldn't! Everyone here is familiar with the scalable war of keeping up with the Jones'. Mages are weak, so they want Fighter stuff. Now Fighters are weak so they want Mage stuff. Then there's Clerics... and Fighters ... and Mages oh my!

Most of the games I started playing in had an easy fix for restricting magic; PING! Cast a spell over say 5th level and you might want to keep moving/get out of town. If something didn't hear/feel that, they will if you do it again. Whatever it is might not come out en mass for the mundane folk, but the high level casters are more of a threat/source of fuel, food and fiber! It felt like every major opponent had Power Perception.

If you don't like game balance through rules, then have it in the game. The rules slant towards fighter-types.
They are easier to protect/defend/survive the first few levels.
If this feels right to you, support it in your game! There could be more reasons than rules that mages/magic are rare. When kings need to boost their armies numbers, they naturally pay, force, conscript fighters. What happens when they do this to mages of a certain power? Once you hit a certain ping, the king snatches you up to fight in the planar war... or something. All the magic items are needed for the war...
It doesn't have to be in the rules.

As for rules..
As stated. Role playing should be rewarded. We normally get/give a bonus for this.
Mage: "I toasted that entire band of critters with one spell, why is my RP XP bonus lower than ClubFoot Gold Tooth the dwarven thief??
GM: "Because he played a clubfooted, tooth-missing character with poor stats and skills...all night"

[Ecthelion]

While at the beginning a user is more or less at the same "power level" of a non user (sure, a 1st level fighter will be more efficient in combat than a 1st level mage, but the magician have other strenghts, for example lores or skills like read runes, not counting his low level spells)

Not really. At lower levels a non-spell user is mostly more efficient than a spell user. In the area of skills a non-spell user can usually (except for the specialization of a spell user, awareness skills for a Seer) excel a spell user at low levels as well as higher levels since he usually has lower skill costs and higher professional/level bonuses (compare e.g. a Fighter with a Paladin or Warrior Mage). Also spell users are mostly constrained in their choice of equipment (metal/organic material carried) and armor. The strengths in lore skills or magical skills that you refer to are IMO normally not really important for the "power" of a character.

Think about it, a high level user can:
- fight better than any fighter, with his mass-destruction spells like fireball or with single powerful spells like dark slumbers
- stalk and hide better than any thief, with invisibility, shadows, and other spells
- influence people better than any influence skill, with Charm Kind, Suggestion, etc
- heal wounds instantly and better than any healing skills
- solve mysteries in no time with divination spells
- be better at noticing and analyzing things than any non user
- move around istantly, anywhere, even in places where non user simply cannot go, like the sky
- speak and understand any language, without buying ranks for it
- and many other things

What you ignore here is that a spell user will typically have access only to one or very few of the above areas. E.g. a Magician will have such mass-destruction spells like Fireball (not that you'd really kill monsters of level 10+ with this spell for which you can't even develop an OB) but no access to significant healing spells. And vice versa a Healer will be the expert at healing but not have mass-destruction spells. Another thing to consider is that all these nifty effects that a spell user can create only can be created as long as he has Power Points - when he has run out of these his strongest power is gone.

Another problem is that often the only thing that can beat magic is magic alone. On the other topic I've said that a simple spell like Presence would make sure that a SU will be never ambushed.

Only if this Presence spell would always be active, leaving only 50% activity left and using up quite a lot of PPs for most professions except those few who can cast it for free. So the Presence spell is IMO not a good proof for the claim that only magic could beat magic.

Because it's more fun. How fun is being an expert swordsman if the party spell caster can snap his fingers and Absolve any enemy? 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? How fun is spending levels to develop your awareness and lore skills if the party seer can solve any mystery and find anything/anyone without even having to leave his seat?

Indeed the game would lose a lot of the fun if it were as you described. But fortunately I never experienced such situations in my RM gaming time where spells killed the fun in a way as you described. But we often retired groups at ~15th level when we thought the power of the spell users could potentially later kill the fun. Perhaps this decision of ours, to play characters from lvl. 1 to lvl. ~15, leads to satisfied players of spell users and non-spell users alike. The latter have an edge at lower levels and the former at higher levels.

I'm not saying that magic should lose its versatility, but I think that, should a revision be done, magic should be a little toned down and mundane skills powered up a little bit. IMHO non users should be able to compete with spell casters without having to use magical aids, at least in their field.

I tend to agree. HARP seems trying to solve this by e.g. drastically reducing the duration of most spells, so that magic can only produce very short-lived effects. Perhaps this could also be done for RM spells in a next version. And this is something that every GM could even now do for his group if he thinks that magic is too powerful. Just reduce the duration from 1 min/lvl to 1 rnd/lvl, 10 min/lvl becomes 1 min/lvl etc.

[bottg]

In addition to the things said above, it must also be remembered that magic has limitations.

Sure, that fireball will be destructive, but what if 4 enemies are surrounding the mage?

Does the mage have enough PP free?

Does the mage have enough preparation time.  ESF's can be much nastier than a weapon fumble

A mage may be able to out-sneak a thief with invisibility, but he has to become visible to cast "Open locks".

Most mages will be in trouble in a one-on-one fight if the opponent gets close because they have no armour, generally poor db and little OB to parry with

But one of the most important things has already been said.  No mage will have access to all spells.  Even archmages/arcists, who have a good spread of spells, have their drawbacks.

[mibsweden]

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. Probably teleportin in and out would not even be possible. Maybe even an alarm would sound if someone tried to use certain spells inside the castle walls, like invisibility, mind reading etc. 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.

[Arioch]

Is the implementation perfect? Nope, but recognizing that it isn't perfect is indeed the first step towards being able to try to make more so (Note: Nothing is ever perfect, we can strive for perfection, but shall never attain it).

That's the reason for which I started this topic: I don't think that RM magic system is bad, only that it could be better 

What you ignore here is that a spell user will typically have access only to one or very few of the above areas. E.g. a Magician will have such mass-destruction spells like Fireball (not that you'd really kill monsters of level 10+ with this spell for which you can't even develop an OB) but no access to significant healing spells. And vice versa a Healer will be the expert at healing but not have mass-destruction spells. Another thing to consider is that all these nifty effects that a spell user can create only can be created as long as he has Power Points - when he has run out of these his strongest power is gone.

Yes, I was exaggerating it, but not by much. Most mages would not be able to do all those things, but many of them could easly do two or three of them, which is still too powerful IMHO.

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. Probably teleportin in and out would not even be possible. Maybe even an alarm would sound if someone tried to use certain spells inside the castle walls, like invisibility, mind reading etc. 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.

The problem here is that, as I said above, the only solution to magic in many cases is magic again..


You've brought up good points: there are several ways to limit magic, such accessibility and counterspells... but I think that magic could be rethinked a little, to make it work better, rather than just finding ways of limiting it.

For example, as Ecthelion said, many spells could have their duration reduced, so that mages will continue to be "jack-of-all-trades", capable of doing a lot of things but not as good as non-user specialists (if your invisibility lasts only X rounds it can help you escaping the guards, but won't replace a good Stalking bonus...).
Or maybe some spell lists could be made even more specific, so that a user would be exceptionally good at one thing, but only in that...

[Elton Robb]

This is exactly why there are, and should be limitations on magic.

Why a spell user should not be able to learn ANY spell list (even at a higher cost). You will notice that the ICE's own "House Rules" (as it were), the Character Creation Guidelines PDF for RMC does not allow the learning of any spell list, and it keeps the limits on the level to which Open and Closed lists may be learned.

Use of the ESF options also make characters more powerful. Normally a Magician cannot wear any armor (making him easier to hurt if you hit him), but with the ESF options (and for RMSS/FRP, many of these options are now "core") you can cast wearing any armor. And I don't even want to get into how "Transcend Armor" really, really throws balance to the wind... 

You know, it's insights into balance like these that made D&D 4th edition a reality.  And I really don't like 4th ed.

Anyhow, I really like "Transcend Armor" as a restricted skill in RMFRP/RMSS.  Labeling a skill as restricted reduces the likelihood of it being selected; thus providing a balance for that skill.  Not many mages know how to overcome metal and leather armors to cast essence spells, they don't want to deal with it.  In Classic, I'd like to make the Dev cost pretty high for mages and spell users. Like about 10 or 15.

[providence13]

Humbly, I'm in the "spells are the skills of mages" camp.

It is easier, at first, to move the pile of rocks by hand, use tinder to light and then throw a flask of oil or throw a knife.
But it does take a while before your average Mage (for example) can perform these tasks sufficiently to match or equal other professions, IMO. Magic/magic items help them do this.

What if a fighter could use a armor OR a shield until 3rd lvl; and if they tried to manage those two complex tasks at 1st & 2nd, it could have dire repercussions. OB cut in half! Yes, this is silly, I agree.

Keep in mind that if a "controlling/mind reading" type spell fails by a specific margin (don't remember # exactly), then the subject of the spell is aware. Magic is powerful. But isn't it also risky?
If you can afford to use powerful magic as PC's, then it's a good chance that NPC's can too.

I'm not attempting to get into a political conversation. So, Moderator, strike this if ya feel it's inappropriate, of course.
Magic could be a Cold War, of sorts, being able to do "powerful" and horrific things, but not doing so because the opposing side can too.

(My point could be a gaming issue and not a "too powerful" by the rules issue. So I'll try to stick to the point. )

IMO, The "too powerful" aspect comes in when people say that high lvl magic is biased towards magic. Most of the time, but not all, magic must have magic to counter magic.
For me, you might as well ask "Is combat too powerful?" Combat is so biased against low level Mages, that you have to have a Fighter to defend yourself from a Fighter.

Most of you guys have been playing alot longer than me. So, I appreciate the years of wisdom and experience that you bring to the game; really.
But why "nerf" (penalize) magic? Why cut spell durations? That is where they put their DP's.
It isn't like every body is running around with an Arcane List under their belts.

[providence13]

"Jack of all trades" is only half the phrase...
"And a master of none"! is the other. hehe!