Topic: Warrior Mage Issue.

[LearningTheGame]

Hi everyone.

One of my players has asked me to play a Warrior-Mage, but he wants to play it as it appears in Rolemaster Companion 2.

The game will be using RMSS/RMFRP rules and the warrior-mage from essence companion seems somewhat different. I have to agree with him that the changes in the basic spell lists make it lose the flavour it had in RM2 ( Due to the loss of Elemental ways, highriding and sleep spells).

I have found in the net this:  http://grevsspace.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/warrior-mage-for-rmfrp.pdf   It's simply a RM2 to RMSS conversion. Minimal changes and the same original spell lists.

Question is simple. Do yo think it is balanced?

[markc]

 I will have to check the spell lists (when I have more time) as I do not remember the differences, if there are any right off the top of my head.
 On theguildcompanion.com in the archives I think there is at least one more take on the WM and I also think there is at least another one in the Vault here at ICE. You can reach the vault by looking for the link on the left side of your page under the main menu section.


MDC

[Suzune]

Only one thing really stands out to me when I look at the build. Is that the stats are dramatically different when it comes to attack spells. Look at power manipulation, the sheet you provided calls for 4/10, however the actual build calls for 6/12. This discrepancy also refers to directed spells as well. My only concern is that mages usually have the most points to spend on skills. If you have a skilled creator making them they might be able to capitalize on the changes and the magic might get out of hand.

Honestly I do not know much about the spell lists differences I would have to look them up. I would also suggest taking Markc suggestion.

[Ecthelion]

Question is simple. Do yo think it is balanced?

Short answer: No. Spell Lists have become more powerful than the WM in Essence Companion, many skill costs have become cheaper. It is IMO too powerful when compared to the other RMSS/RMFRP professions.

[VladD]

One needs to remind oneself of why RM2 went to RMSS. Because of the power creep inherent in add-on products. People like to make the new stuff more appealing, so they tend to be a little generous with the spell level and DP costs.

I think that even the Essence Companion warrior mage is balanced towards the player. The lists are nice and the DP costs are better when compared with the other semi spell users (who get the bad end of the stick in that department mostly).

Never allow cross system professions, before someone asks to play an Arcist, Power mage, Wizard, Force mage, Sage (yes they were pretty overpowered), Shaman, Malignant, Magus, Crystal mage, Beast master,  or Necromancer. When talking power creep, you're seeing the culprits right above!

That said: playing RMFRP, stick with FRP. Whats wrong with assigning a dabbler (one seriously sweet profession) and perhaps adding something like the combat ways and warrior's weapon to the baselists, at the expense of 2 others.
FRP assumes professions to be general avenues of development and the Dabbler is the semi spell user for Essence. None combat geared, but it could be adapted by switching some base lists with either open and closed lists, or (A GM can do that ) baselists from a different booklet.

Coming up with all new DP costs, in the end, will be unbalancing as well. You don't know the algorithme the makers used to balance the costs. You'd be guessing and if you were me, you'd low ball the values and make the DP costs too restrictive, and if you were trying to do your player a favor, you'd underestimate the effect and screw the other players by handing out too strong a profession. While there is nothing wrong with that, it will be bad for GM reputation; which ultimately is what the game runs on.

[yammahoper]

One needs to remind oneself of why RM2 went to RMSS. Because of the power creep inherent in add-on products. People like to make the new stuff more appealing, so they tend to be a little generous with the spell level and DP costs.

I think that even the Essence Companion warrior mage is balanced towards the player. The lists are nice and the DP costs are better when compared with the other semi spell users (who get the bad end of the stick in that department mostly).

Never allow cross system professions, before someone asks to play an Arcist, Power mage, Wizard, Force mage, Sage (yes they were pretty overpowered), Shaman, Malignant, Magus, Crystal mage, Beast master,  or Necromancer. When talking power creep, you're seeing the culprits right above!

That said: playing RMFRP, stick with FRP. Whats wrong with assigning a dabbler (one seriously sweet profession) and perhaps adding something like the combat ways and warrior's weapon to the baselists, at the expense of 2 others.
FRP assumes professions to be general avenues of development and the Dabbler is the semi spell user for Essence. None combat geared, but it could be adapted by switching some base lists with either open and closed lists, or (A GM can do that ) baselists from a different booklet.

Coming up with all new DP costs, in the end, will be unbalancing as well. You don't know the algorithme the makers used to balance the costs. You'd be guessing and if you were me, you'd low ball the values and make the DP costs too restrictive, and if you were trying to do your player a favor, you'd underestimate the effect and screw the other players by handing out too strong a profession. While there is nothing wrong with that, it will be bad for GM reputation; which ultimately is what the game runs on.

+100
However, if you wish to allow it, make the Warrior Mage an Arcane Prof with all restrictions for arcane in full effect.  Do not allow PC to start with all base list. but 2 of the.  Use a D4 roll if a compromise is needed.  Spell books will need to be found to learn the list high and to learn new list.  This will provide you with some control.

Also insert some social impact for possesing such rare knowledge.  Jealous guilds, mage hunters, religios orders, etc.

[VladD]

If I may combine one of your earlier questions about the arcane companion: I'm thinking it might be a good theme for the campaign.

Making the Warrior mage sort of an arcane semi spell user is not a bad idea. It is restricting in the sense he now needs 3 good stats for Pr, In and Em and also might like some St, Ag and Qu not to mention Co...

[rafmeister]

The warrior mage from second edition was one of the most imbalanced character classes in the game. I would not permit it in my game.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

The warrior mage from second edition was one of the most imbalanced character classes in the game. I would not permit it in my game.

Indeed. Its costs for everything were so high it was an absolutely useless profession.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Question is simple. Do yo think it is balanced?

Nothing is truly simply "balanced" or "unbalanced" in the world, least in a game system. The answer depends on what the other players are playing, what the levels of their characters are, in comparison to the other PC's character, what their experience as players is, in comparison to the player for whom you're asking, etc.. If they're all playing, say, "Farmers" (there was such a profession in RoCo.II), well, even a mere Fighter would probably be unbalanced. If their characters are all ten levels higher than the player for who you're asking, then you may indeed want to give him a profession a bit more powerful than theirs. Same if they're all have ten years more experience in RPGs. Etc.
The Warrior-Mage is a profession that is more powerful/useful than others, and less than many. Tell us what you have, and we may tell you how a Warrior-Mage may work out in your game, based on our experience of one in ours.

[Nders]

Olf, i.e. Olf le speaker of truth

[Marrethiel]

The warrior mage from second edition was one of the most imbalanced character classes in the game. I would not permit it in my game.

Indeed. Its costs for everything were so high it was an absolutely useless profession.

Agreed, you were far better of playing a rogue and picking up some Talents in RoCoI to give you some magical capacity. Aura, Lore or Archmage Picks were good. Or you could play a Magician and pick up Martial Arts as Monk then use your Staff as a weapon kata.
I made a high warrior monk for my daughter that had Archmage picks so she could pick up a few open and closed Mentalism spells. More Arms based than a Monk but with less spells.

[Theros]

Funny that some people say about unbalanced character classes. We didn't see any class unbalanced. Still you have to pay development points to get skills up. I think that during 10 years of gaming...there were one warrior mage, one sage and two maguses. Not that much and basically I allowed any class to be made. Players did stick with other professions and very rarely anyone was willing to play professions from Arcane Companion (I did convert statistical and skill information from there to RM2).

[Cory Magel]

If he does not like the base lists for the RMSS/FRP versions you may consider using the Dabbler and swapping out some spell lists with other RMSS/FRP professions.  I suspect you could come very close to creating the Warrior Mage.

If he's doing it just cause the RM2 version is "better" then I think you kind of already have an answer as to if it might be a balance issue.  We've pulled a lot of professions from RM2 over to RMSS and we always re-balance them when we do since many of them suffered from the a fore mentioned power creep.

Still, it depends largely on your gaming style.  Some groups (especially once using all the RM2 materials as their core system) may not notice a problem.

[Hurin]

I'm sure you've figured this out by now, LearningTheGame, but if it's not crystal clear: some people think the RM2 Warrior Mage was way overpowered, others had no problems with it.

I personally lean more towards the latter (maybe, if Cory is right above, because I played RM2 exclusively). The WM's spells were very powerful, especially Elemental Ways combined with Highriding. So perhaps to balance that out you could require the WM to specialize in only one element. Aside from that, though, the WM suffers from spreading his Development Points and his attributes out to cover a lot of bases. He needs to buy both armor and Transcend Armor, and have decent stats in Agility, his spell casting stat, at least some constitution and maybe quickness as well; this will leave him a little short on Development Points, further compounding his problem of covering so many bases.

Still, a well built WM is a formidable adversary, and of course many posters here will be able to explain to you why they think they are overpowered. I'd listen to both sides of the argument and make your own decision.

[Cory Magel]

Aye, I'm not picking on RM2 at all because it's not a huge problem for people who are already experienced using RM2.  I always say if I used RM2 as a complete system from the start I probably wouldn't switch to RMSS unless it fixed things I perceived as broken in RM2 (and I don't think anything other than power creep for NEW RM2 users is really a problem in RM2).  BUT, since I started using RM as a full system using RMSS I likewise see no reason to switch to a different version for the same reasons.  The same degree of power creep might have happened to RMSS/RMFRP if they'd been around long enough to put out as much material as RM2 did.  Our group went from implementing RM1 and parts of RM2 into D&D through 2nd Ed AD&D, then moved to MERP, then to RMSS (skipping over using RM2 as a complete system).  We've converted a good amount of RM2 stuff over to RMSS.

So, anyhow, power creep is also not limited to RM2, it happens in most long published systems that have not started fresh again with a new version... but if you're using everything published for RM2 as is without any real GM oversight (i.e. no you can't play that profession unless we tweak X and Y) then you're probably not concerned enough about imbalances to bother.  Again, that's not BAD, it's just personal play-style.  Most people would consider my crowd hack-and-slash/war gamers (we're in it for the combat, not the actual role-playing).  Some look down on that style, but others think it's a hell of a lot of fun.

And Hurin is quite right, give a semi profession too much good stuff to buy and they'll suffer if they try to buy it all right away to the point that that players character might make the profession look weak.  However, in the long run (12-15th level maybe?) they'll likely start to outshine a lot of the others I suspect.  We've tended to end campaigns around 12-17th level unfortunately.  I really want to see up to at least 20th personally (the campaign I'm working on now will probably never end unless I want to change settings - meaning go from Fantasy to Sci-Fi).

[markc]

 Also remember that if you start a PC at 1st level and then progress to 10th level it is vastly different from just creating a PC at 10th level.
 So if you tend to play games that start at higher levels IMHO the more powerful professions are easier to see and in fact be more powerful as the player can set them up that way. Where as if a PC is raised from level 1 to a high level they often have various skills and maybe a talent or Back Ground Option, that have related to the adventures along the way. Thus being sub prime.


MDC

[Hurin]

Yes, Mark and Corey have good points. Few of my campaigns last beyond level 10, when the WM and other semis really start to come into their own, so we never had too much of a problem with them.