Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: Tywyll on April 12, 2022, 08:32:01 AM
-
Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone, but I am curious why the level bonuses system seems to get so much hate over the years? I mean, even RMSS changed it from X per level to a flat bonus. There are tons of optional "fixes" in the companions but I don't understand why.
I mean, it makes sense to me that a rogue or warrior who has developed plenty of combat skills would just be better with a new weapon, even one they have never used, than a thief or magician. Like, it seems like a simplified way of handling "similar skills" and stop punishing characters who develop a skill later in their career. It also seems to help martial classes which, lets face it, need all the help they can get. So why have so many people tried to "fix" this mechanic?
-
I'm not sure it gets all that hate, but the one significant beef I had with it (at least in its RM2 incarnation) was that it rendered some professions less desirable to my players. Since Paladins got a +3/level bonus to combat skills, while Rangers got +1 and Bards got 0, my players played more Paladins than Rangers, and I don't think I ever saw a Bard. I've always played in combat-focused groups, so perhaps this was unusual, but a difference of +20 or +30 in OB at 10th level is significant enough to stratify the character classes into tiers, with some perceived as significantly higher/better.
-
I'm not sure it gets all that hate, but the one significant beef I had with it (at least in its RM2 incarnation) was that it rendered some professions less desirable to my players. Since Paladins got a +3/level bonus to combat skills, while Rangers got +1 and Bards got 0, my players played more Paladins than Rangers, and I don't think I ever saw a Bard. I've always played in combat-focused groups, so perhaps this was unusual, but a difference of +20 or +30 in OB at 10th level is significant enough to stratify the character classes into tiers, with some perceived as significantly higher/better.
Now I do 100% agree here. I do think players should have some flexibility to adjust the level mods so you don't need 4 variants of bard, for example. Kind of subclasses without the name. But then the ranger was just awful so I understand no one wanting to play that class!
-
RMSS/RMFRP put all of those bonuses up front which didn't do anything to limit those gaps, but did improve the competence of starting characters quite a bit.
RMU gives you a choice of 10 out of 15 skills, and the amount of bonus is always the same (e.g. both paladins and rangers get the same +1). Also, the bonus is based on ranks rather than levels, so you don't get any bonus if you aren't improving the skill. So that addresses both the gap and the desire for flexibility.
-
The advantage of having flat bonuses is twofold IMHO
- it increases proficiency notably at earlier levels (which, TBH, was something of an issue in RM2)
- there is no divergence at higher levels : given an equal number of ranks developed, the difference between a profession with a skill bonus and a profession without will not change.
Per level bonuses tend to increase the stereotyping effect at high levels (while flat bonuses tend to increase it at very low levels). My opinion is that the latter is desirable while the former is not, but YMMV, as usual.
-
RMSS/RMFRP put all of those bonuses up front which didn't do anything to limit those gaps, but did improve the competence of starting characters quite a bit.
RMU gives you a choice of 10 out of 15 skills, and the amount of bonus is always the same (e.g. both paladins and rangers get the same +1). Also, the bonus is based on ranks rather than levels, so you don't get any bonus if you aren't improving the skill. So that addresses both the gap and the desire for flexibility.
Yeah, see, personally I hate that "fix" because it still means that late development is always a poor choice and it gets rid of the holistic improvement that levels should grant. I guess my issue is that casters get PP for free when leveling, so I see nothing wrong with other classes getting something "free" that sets them apart. Especially martials! I mean, learning spell lists in chunks gives casters something that continues to get better as they level without additional investment.
I do agree that a front loaded bonus helps low level characters, but I guess I would like to see that front loaded bonus continue to improve after a certain point.
-
The advantage of having flat bonuses is twofold IMHO
- it increases proficiency notably at earlier levels (which, TBH, was something of an issue in RM2)
- there is no divergence at higher levels : given an equal number of ranks developed, the difference between a profession with a skill bonus and a profession without will not change.
Per level bonuses tend to increase the stereotyping effect at high levels (while flat bonuses tend to increase it at very low levels). My opinion is that the latter is desirable while the former is not, but YMMV, as usual.
I feel the opposite! 😆
So thinking of fictive concepts, I can't think of an example of a mighty warrior being reduced to neophyte status when they were forced to use a new or unfamiliar weapon. Their skill with dodging and weapon use is still transferable across weapon types. In fact, defensive ability being almost solely tied to skill development is actually what's at fault here, since avoiding hits has a lot to do with footwork and observation which would be handled differently in a different combat system. So that 20th level fighter deserves that +60 even when using an alien weapon because they have years of avoiding attacks, reading opponents, etc. Doesn't matter if they haven't used a hammer before, they should still know more than a first level warrior about dodging and taking advantage of their opponents.
-
RMU deals with that with skill similarity, weapon skills purchased in categories rather than individual weapons, rapid development, and fighting techniques that only need to be purchased up to a functional level instead of permanently kept on par with your OB skill. I would venture to say that it is more viable to change fighting styles in RMU than in any previous edition.
-
I'll use the RM2 level bonus system even when running RMSS. It's one of the things I think is better about RM2 over RMSS.
Put simply, it prevents the problem of there being little to no point in increasing a skill past level 20 or so.
-
The level bonus breaks down, IMO, in the non-combat skills. That thief at 20th level has +60 to subterfuge skills, plus likely a +70 for skill rank of just 20, and another +10 to +30 for stats, so even at +140, they will succeed at an absurd maneuver 2/3 of the time, while a fighter for example, has 30 ranks, and +20 for stats, will succeed at same absurd maneuver only 1/3 of the time, despite developing it more. I don't have a problem with a thief being better at the same rank but that much of a difference I think is too much.
Also another point, I agree with Tywyll in that the mechanic does to an extent make someone experienced in combat picking up an unfamiliar weapon doesn't forget all the training. Fighting with a weapon is much more than just how to swing a weapon, it's about footwork, balance, attacking opponents weakness while defending your own.
I think this is where professions without level bonus or low ones get shafted with specific weapon development.
-
I feel the opposite! 😆
So thinking of fictive concepts, I can't think of an example of a mighty warrior being reduced to neophyte status when they were forced to use a new or unfamiliar weapon. Their skill with dodging and weapon use is still transferable across weapon types. In fact, defensive ability being almost solely tied to skill development is actually what's at fault here, since avoiding hits has a lot to do with footwork and observation which would be handled differently in a different combat system. So that 20th level fighter deserves that +60 even when using an alien weapon because they have years of avoiding attacks, reading opponents, etc. Doesn't matter if they haven't used a hammer before, they should still know more than a first level warrior about dodging and taking advantage of their opponents.
I think that's what category development was for in RMSS/FRP.
-
The level bonus breaks down, IMO, in the non-combat skills. That thief at 20th level has +60 to subterfuge skills, plus likely a +70 for skill rank of just 20, and another +10 to +30 for stats, so even at +140, they will succeed at an absurd maneuver 2/3 of the time, while a fighter for example, has 30 ranks, and +20 for stats, will succeed at same absurd maneuver only 1/3 of the time, despite developing it more. I don't have a problem with a thief being better at the same rank but that much of a difference I think is too much.
See, this is exactly what I think should really happen. You're talking about an 'Absurd' maneuver. If everyone eventually became as good as everyone else at everything, but even bother with professions?
-
The level bonus breaks down, IMO, in the non-combat skills. That thief at 20th level has +60 to subterfuge skills, plus likely a +70 for skill rank of just 20, and another +10 to +30 for stats, so even at +140, they will succeed at an absurd maneuver 2/3 of the time, while a fighter for example, has 30 ranks, and +20 for stats, will succeed at same absurd maneuver only 1/3 of the time, despite developing it more. I don't have a problem with a thief being better at the same rank but that much of a difference I think is too much.
See, this is exactly what I think should really happen. You're talking about an 'Absurd' maneuver. If everyone eventually became as good as everyone else at everything, but even bother with professions?
I will disagree with your conclusion, in no way will a fighter be able to do everything as a thief, or vice versa. The thief should be better overall in subterfuge, but in one skill or a very small group of skills, I feel a Fighter should be able to be nearly as good as the thief, especially if the fighter developed more ranks than the thief.
A 20th level thief with one rank per level developed has 70+60 for a total of 130. 20th level fighter with 40 ranks has 85 bonus, despite having double the ranks. That's a difference of 45.
What I don't want is "you wanna be really good at this skill, you have to be this profession." That goes against the spirit of RM. Otherwise, forget skill development, a profession gets these abilities as they level up, like the other game Rm was set to improve upon.
-
What I don't want is "you wanna be really good at this skill, you have to be this profession." That goes against the spirit of RM. Otherwise, forget skill development, a profession gets these abilities as they level up, like the other game Rm was set to improve upon.
If you want a Fighter to reliably execute 'Absurd' stealth maneuvers you aren't talking about merely being 'good' at it.
-
See, this is exactly what I think should really happen. You're talking about an 'Absurd' maneuver. If everyone eventually became as good as everyone else at everything, but even bother with professions?
Because what is important is the journey, not the destination ?
-
And yet it seems everyone is fine with a thief unlikely to fail an absurd maneuver, just because he's a thief.
And since it seems difficult to understand why I used absurd, since it has been mentioned several times, missing my overall point, is that a thief with moderate effort (meaning one rank per level) is able to be far superior than another with maximum effort (a fighter developing two ranks a level) and by utilizing the odds at Absurd shows the degree of separation that exists. This is because of level bonuses, and a reason that some may have the "hate" of level bonuses that was the topic of this thread.
-
I would just like to note that JDale and the developers of RMU do address some of these issues, and offer a range of options for dealing with them that I think are the best Rolemaster has been able to offer. Jdale has mentioned these above, but I think his post has gotten a bit lost in the animated (and engaging!) discussion.
To address the issue of the Fighter who picks up an unfamiliar weapon: Characters in RMU now get proficiency in categories, so if it is a weapon of the same category (e.g. a Claymore instead of a Great Falchion), then the Fighter already has full proficiency, because both are in the Greater Blades category and very close in the way they are used. If the weapon is from a different category, the Fighter still has other options. Fighter can use the (now core) similar skills rule, meaning he can wield the new weapon with as little as a -25 penalty, if the weapons are judged to have a similar skillset. And if all else fails, the Fighter can also take a level to familiarize himself with the new weapon by buying multiple ranks at level up (and for a Fighter, this will be relatively cheap), which is also now a core rule.
To address the issue of the Fighter vs. the Thief at a Subterfuge skill: By tying the professional bonus to the actual number of ranks developed, RMU allows the Thief to be better at a skill like this, which is associated specifically with his class, but how much better will vary considerably depending on how much the Thief has trained in the skill. At low levels and low skill ranks, the difference will be less than at high levels and skill ranks. Personally, I like this better than previous flat level bonus or up-front bonus systems, where there was no inherent link at all between professional bonus and the actual number of ranks developed.
-
See, this is exactly what I think should really happen. You're talking about an 'Absurd' maneuver. If everyone eventually became as good as everyone else at everything, but even bother with professions?
Because what is important is the journey, not the destination ?
That's not a serious answer.
How about this then: Should a Thief be able to equal a fighter in raw melee power? It's the same question.
-
Because what is important is the journey, not the destination ?
That's not a serious answer.
How about this then: Should a Thief be able to equal a fighter in raw melee power? It's the same question.
Ultimately, I can't see why not.
Thus my answer.
The thief can equal a fighter in raw melee power. But they might have to sacrifice much more to get to that point (in terms of development costs) and it might take more time. But in the end, the only thing that should matter is how much effort you did put in your learning (skill ranks) and how much natural talent you have (stat bonus). I could do without profession bonus altogether in RM by slightly altering the development costs and including talents that provide individual skill bonuses to provide a finer granularity for natural talent.
I mean, if I want to make sure a thief is less capable than a fighter in raw melee power, I go with a much more class-centric system, and we all know what name immediately comes to mind for those.
-
How about this then: Should a Thief be able to equal a fighter in raw melee power? It's the same question.
With the same physical build, why not?
While I prefer skill based gaming systems I still have a problem with games based on classes and professions. Skills are learned and developed through time and training. Class/Profession is an artificial concept that gives benefits and limits based on a label.
-
Rolemaster has always assumed that different professions have different aptitudes (i.e. skill costs, but also everyman/occupational skill classifications in RMSS) and potential (i.e. profession and level bonuses). Personally, I find that useful for ensuring that different characters have a niche in the party, that there will be some activities they can be best at so they get some spotlight time.
Is it strictly necessary? As long as that niche depends on multiple skills it will usually work out without the bonuses. For example, a semi can often match a fighter for number of ranks in their weapon skill, but a fighter's prowess should also depend on their body development, their combat maneuvers/style, their maneuvering in armor (or adrenal defense), their stunned maneuvering/fortitude, etc. You'll just get less separation and that might require a little more work for the GM to give everyone attention if, for example, the fighter is just as good at stalking as the thief while the thief is only best at less-often used skills like lockpicking.
-
Is it strictly necessary?
I'd say "No."
Some players may need defined roles in a party, I've gamed for years with classless RPGs and experienced parties would delegate duties during character generation through consensus. One would volunteer to be the primary healer while another would be the secondary; One would be the spokesman and there'd be no defined leader.
With my current RM group, nobody ever wants to be a healer so we usually hire a NPC. We have ab Arcanist in the group but his real strength is having a study and workshop, not running around with the party. We also have an Animist who would also contribute more if he had a lab to make the potions that boost the group. The Paladin has been the main fighter and after weeks of gaming has yet to use any of his healing abilities. Of five party members, only my Rogue has any communications skills that have been crucial in the game.
We got rid of a player who played the game do do things his wife didn't let him do, such as get drunk and start fights. The rest of the party members who gamed with him in other RPGs said he always played the same, drunken hooligan character, and was usually carried by the other party members because he didn't contribute other to entertain himself. In almost 50 years of gaming, I've only seen two players ejected from my party, so this is significant.
I believe players should create and play the character they want to play. Most of what a character wants is race based. Our group would have a term "a Karl character" which is a two-dimensional, usually a fighter, type of character even an idiot could play, as its only role in the game was fighting. Karl would negotiate with the GM to trade away beginning language skills just to boost his combat value, and was happy to use simple sign language while playing ("yes", "no" and a variety of obscene gestures), which was often hilarious.
I will add one thing after reading all the literature by R.E. Howard: Conan the Barbarian was a Thief.
-
Guess I just don't get why someone would bother using professions if they think they should all be able to perform each others primary skills to the same level. I mean, it's the entire point of professions. Just make them all Laymen and give them a fixed number of dev points.
-
Didn't we have (very) long ago a discussion about whether everyone should just be "No profession" and be done with it? I kinda recall such a thing...
-
My personal opinion on RM professions is that the name is misleading - profession is supposed to be something you can change according to your tastes or circumstances. RM professions are more similar to natural aptitude - a character, regardless of what they actually learn or practice at any given time (acquisition of skill ranks), find it easier to learn or practice some things than others (development costs, skill bonuses, talents...).
A robust multiclassing system would have made things different, but RM has trouble with those because of diminishing return for skills.
As it is, all this discussion is only about one thing : does natural aptitude only indicate the ease with which you can learn something, or does it also indicate your ultimate capability ceiling ?
My opinion is that it is only the former. Thus, development costs are the only necessary indicators.
Cory thinks otherwise. I don't think they're wrong, I just think I'm not wrong either (and it is possible because we don't play together) :p
-
I don't hate level bonuses. That's simply because the only games I'm GMing now is Shadowrun and Pathfinder. (surprise!)
I'm not running a Rolemaster game now, so I can't say anything about level bonuses. I will say this . . . I'm not a fan of multi-classing in Pathfinder. When they devised multi-classing in D&D 3e, it kinda makes sense. Although, since Shadowrun is a classless RPG, I've seen just about everything you make in Shadowrun. One of my players is playing a combat medic (and that isn't at all listed in the archetypes).
-
It's been interesting reading the responses here. I don't hate level bonuses, and have used the to create subtle distinctions within professions. Priestesses of the water goddess get a bonus for swimming. Paladins of the goddess of magic get a bonus for item skills. I offset these from other level bonuses.
My players' characters are only now hitting 11th level, so the level bonuses have been small additions to character skills. That may cover a number of the sins I see people laying at their feet, above. They are the reason, though, that the fighter is now able to grab whatever weapon falls into her hands and use it with some positive bonus - nothing like her weapons of choice, but not a net -25.
On the tangent of professions, multiclassing, or whatever. At the outset of a character's career, maybe they're choosing a "calling" based on their aptitudes. Later, when they've done it for years, they have developed muscle memory, mental models, or whatever their line of work depends on, that will give them advantages over someone new to the field when they face a challenge that's in their wheelhouse. Always leave room for the gifted outside/novice, though.
-
My personal opinion on RM professions is that the name is misleading - profession is supposed to be something you can change according to your tastes or circumstances. RM professions are more similar to natural aptitude - a character, regardless of what they actually learn or practice at any given time (acquisition of skill ranks), find it easier to learn or practice some things than others (development costs, skill bonuses, talents...).
I think that's true. I still often use the word 'class', which is probably more accurate.
As it is, all this discussion is only about one thing : does natural aptitude only indicate the ease with which you can learn something, or does it also indicate your ultimate capability ceiling ?
Well put.
My opinion is that it is only the former. Thus, development costs are the only necessary indicators.
In RMU, you can make it either. By default, profession tends to indicate natural ceiling for some skills, since you can only take a 'professional bonus' in some skills, and the list is determined by your profession. However, you could easily do away with the list, at which point profession would tend to indicate just natural aptitude.
In RM2 (and I am guessing RMSS), profession indicates natural ceiling. That's the main problem I had with that: it limits some professions to be second tier without any real hope of redemption.
-
The level bonus breaks down, IMO, in the non-combat skills. That thief at 20th level has +60 to subterfuge skills, plus likely a +70 for skill rank of just 20, and another +10 to +30 for stats, so even at +140, they will succeed at an absurd maneuver 2/3 of the time, while a fighter for example, has 30 ranks, and +20 for stats, will succeed at same absurd maneuver only 1/3 of the time, despite developing it more. I don't have a problem with a thief being better at the same rank but that much of a difference I think is too much.
I mean, professions are supposed to represent your 'inherent' predisposition towards things, aren't they (which I've never been a fan of but hey ho)? That being the case I don't see the issue that the rogue/thief is just always better than the warrior or mage at their special task, despite spending the same amount of time focused on the skill.
-
I will add one thing after reading all the literature by R.E. Howard: Conan the Barbarian was a Thief.
Nawww...definitely a Rogue.
-
In RM2 (and I am guessing RMSS), profession indicates natural ceiling. That's the main problem I had with that: it limits some professions to be second tier without any real hope of redemption.
How exactly does RMU avoid this? It would seem if you put a level mod in a skill you will always make people who didn't choose that second teir.
-
>How exactly does RMU avoid this? It would seem if you put a level mod in a skill you will always make people who didn't choose that second teir.
People with a professional bonus will have an inherent advantage (assuming they develop the skill). The bonus is +1/rank, with a cap of +30, and you can start with a +5 knack. So the magnitude of that advantage will never be more than +35, and will be smaller at lower levels. It's an advantage for sure, but a smaller one than is possible in RM2 (up to +3/lvl, capped at +60 except unlimited for fighters).
Also, you have some choice in how to allocate those bonuses. You pick 10 out of a list of 15 possible skills for the +1/rank bonus, and only two of those skills for the +5 knack.
-
Yes, and one further thing to note, in addition to what JDale said, is that there will be no difference in the natural ceiling if both classes have the skill on the Professional skill list and choose it as one of their 10 Professional Skills.
E.g. Thief, Rogue, and Fighter all have melee weapons on their list, so the Thief and Rogue can equal the Fighter in melee weapon skill, but only at a higher cost in time/development points: 3/level for the Fighter, 4/level for the Rogue, and 6/level for the Thief.
There are some skills where the Fighter can't quite match the Thief -- Subterfuge skills, for example -- because the Fighter can't take these as a Professional Skill. So perhaps I should have said that RMU reduces rather than eliminates the discrepancy in some cases. Even in those cases, though, as JDale notes, the discrepancy is generally less than in previous editions; and it will be even less if the Fighter buys more ranks than the Thief (especially since the curve of rank bonuses is flatter in RMU at 5/3/2/1 rather than 5/2/1/0.5).
-
I will add one thing after reading all the literature by R.E. Howard: Conan the Barbarian was a Thief.
Nawww...definitely a Rogue.
I was going to say the same thing, but Vladimir sounded like he was ready to die on that hill, so I refrained :)
-
>How exactly does RMU avoid this? It would seem if you put a level mod in a skill you will always make people who didn't choose that second teir.
People with a professional bonus will have an inherent advantage (assuming they develop the skill). The bonus is +1/rank, with a cap of +30, and you can start with a +5 knack. So the magnitude of that advantage will never be more than +35, and will be smaller at lower levels. It's an advantage for sure, but a smaller one than is possible in RM2 (up to +3/lvl, capped at +60 except unlimited for fighters).
Also, you have some choice in how to allocate those bonuses. You pick 10 out of a list of 15 possible skills for the +1/rank bonus, and only two of those skills for the +5 knack.
The still leaves the issue of never really being able to catch up if you don't build the skill from day 1, which I mentioned previously. Yes, similar skills help cover that gap, but picking up a new field late in your career, even one thematically related to your profession, you are stuck as a beginner with little "holistic" benefit from your profession. So never put ranks in a new weapon skill, just keep pumping your higher "similar" skill seems to be the better strategy.
-
I mean, professions are supposed to represent your 'inherent' predisposition towards things, aren't they (which I've never been a fan of but hey ho)? That being the case I don't see the issue that the rogue/thief is just always better than the warrior or mage at their special task, despite spending the same amount of time focused on the skill.
It's a bit like saying if everyone just tried hard enough they could be the next Mozart, or Einstein, or any number of people that were obviously simply more talented than most in their specific ways isn't it? heh
-
The still leaves the issue of never really being able to catch up if you don't build the skill from day 1
That's a different problem, that doesn't really have anything to do with level bonuses, and has existed in every version.
RMU addresses it with an intense training optional rule (you are permitted under some circumstances to develop more than two ranks per level, although never to the point of having more than two ranks per level total), and by removing the need for combat maneuvers/styles to match your OB (e.g. unlike two-weapon fighting in previous editions).
-
The still leaves the issue of never really being able to catch up if you don't build the skill from day 1
That's a different problem, that doesn't really have anything to do with level bonuses, and has existed in every version.
No, it does have everything to do with level bonuses and is, in fact, fixed by RM2/RMC level bonuses. A 20th level fighter picks up a new weapon and, thanks to their +60 level bonus, they are immediately at least reasonably able to use it. They aren't as good with it as a warrior who has specialised in it since level 1, but they are no slouch either. A few levels of development and they will eclipse other, casual users, quite easily. A 20th level thief starts getting involved in an aspect of subterfuge they never really practised but thanks to their super-human knowledge of skullduggery, they again, jump ahead. A magician with decades of magical experience starts learning some new magical skill that falls within their realm of learning and they are able to put all their past experience to use and boom, they again, don't start out as a neophyte and easily catch up with the casual user. No other edition of RM has really handled that kind of holistic skill improvement as well as RM2.
Now, rapid development does sound like a good mechanic.
-
The still leaves the issue of never really being able to catch up if you don't build the skill from day 1
That's a different problem, that doesn't really have anything to do with level bonuses, and has existed in every version.
No, it does have everything to do with level bonuses and is, in fact, fixed by RM2/RMC level bonuses. A 20th level fighter picks up a new weapon and, thanks to their +60 level bonus, they are immediately at least reasonably able to use it. They aren't as good with it as a warrior who has specialised in it since level 1, but they are no slouch either. A few levels of development and they will eclipse other, casual users, quite easily. A 20th level thief starts getting involved in an aspect of subterfuge they never really practised but thanks to their super-human knowledge of skullduggery, they again, jump ahead. A magician with decades of magical experience starts learning some new magical skill that falls within their realm of learning and they are able to put all their past experience to use and boom, they again, don't start out as a neophyte and easily catch up with the casual user. No other edition of RM has really handled that kind of holistic skill improvement as well as RM2.
It would seem that, in such cases, the level bonus should apply in an inverse proportion of the number of ranks developed - not as a fixed or increasing bonus, but as a front-loaded portion of the skill bonus the character would eventually get when they eventually develop the skill ranks.
And that I can get behind. I wouldn't know how to make it work with the existing systems, but the idea of having a +50 if you don't have any skill ranks developed (because f familiarity), but this bonus shrinking away as you develop skill ranks (and, as such, acquire actual knowledge that supersedes familiarity) seems valid.
It is a bit similar to the RM2 similar skill rule, in a way.
-
No, it does have everything to do with level bonuses and is, in fact, fixed by RM2/RMC level bonuses. A 20th level fighter picks up a new weapon and, thanks to their +60 level bonus, they are immediately at least reasonably able to use it. They aren't as good with it as a warrior who has specialised in it since level 1, but they are no slouch either. A few levels of development and they will eclipse other, casual users, quite easily. A 20th level thief starts getting involved in an aspect of subterfuge they never really practised but thanks to their super-human knowledge of skullduggery, they again, jump ahead. A magician with decades of magical experience starts learning some new magical skill that falls within their realm of learning and they are able to put all their past experience to use and boom, they again, don't start out as a neophyte and easily catch up with the casual user. No other edition of RM has really handled that kind of holistic skill improvement as well as RM2.
Now, rapid development does sound like a good mechanic.
Ok, let's take a look at 20th level fighters in all three versions. I'll also do 10th level for comparison. I'm going to ignore stat bonuses since they will be the same for trained and untrained skills, so just looking at rank bonuses and profession bonuses. There are also some details about ranks from 0 level, adolescence, culture, etc but for simplicity I'm going to ignore that too.
RM2
In RM2, 20 ranks at 10th level gives you a rank bonus of +70. The level bonus gives you +30. So that's a total of +100. If we imagine a fighter with a sword who picks up a dagger for the first time, they have a rank bonus of -25 for a total of +5; effectively you are at a penalty of -95. If you had just two ranks (one level's development), you'd have a bonus of +40 (effectively you are lagging by 60).
40 ranks at 20th level gives you a rank bonus of +85, with a level bonus of +70, for a total of +155. With that dagger and no ranks, you're at +45. With two ranks, you'd be at +80.
RMSS
In RMSS, we can assume the 10th level fighter has 20 ranks in the category (e.g. 1H Edged) and 20 in the skill (e.g. broadsword). That yields a rank bonus of +50 +30 = +80. Fighters also get a profession bonus of +20, so that's +100 (same as RM2).
If this fighter picks up a dagger for the first time, their category ranks apply (+30) but not the skill ranks (-15), so they are at +35. If they had just two ranks in dagger, they'd have +6 +30 = +36, plus the profession bonus, for +56.
So, in RMSS, if you switch to a similar weapon, untrained you are in a much better place than the RM2 fighter (+35 vs +5). With two ranks, the RMSS fighter still has the advantage (+56 vs +40).
However RMSS is less forgiving for a major change. If the fighter picks up a mace, their category ranks don't apply anymore, so now they are at -10. With two ranks in the skill and category (one level of development), they are only up to +30. So RMSS fighters are more flexible within a category, and less flexible outside of one.
How about 20th level? 40 ranks gets you +35 (that's the maximum for the category) +65 = +100, +20 professional bonus = +120. At this point the huge unlimited bonus for the RM2 fighter means their bonus in a trained weapon is quite a bit higher.
Switching to that dagger, the 20th level RMSS fighter is now at +35 -15 +20 = +40. With two ranks, +35 +6 +20 = +61. These bonuses are lower than the 20th level RM2 fighter, but the starting bonus was lower in RMSS too. If you consider how much worse off the RMSS fighter is compared to an equal level foe with their best weapon, the RMSS fighter with no ranks is lagging by 80 (i.e. as if they were fighting with a -80 penalty), and with two ranks by 59. The 20th level RM2 fighter was lagging by 110, and with two ranks by 75. So, the RM2 fighter is suffering a greater effective penalty for switching to this similar weapon.
However if he picks up a mace, that 20th level fighter is now at -10 (effective penalty of -130) and after two ranks +30 (effective penalty of -90). So with a very different weapon, the RMSS fighter is worse off.
RMU
In RMU, at 10th level 20 ranks in a regular skill gets you +100; as a fighter you would almost certainly have a +5 knack on top of that for +105. If you switch from a broadsword to a dagger, your skill is still +105. So within the same category of weapons, you are far better off than either the RM2 or RMSS fighter.
If the RMU fighter switches to a mace, you can keep using your Melee: Blades skill, but with a similarity penalty of -50. That puts you at +55. Not only are you better off than a RM2 or RMSS fighter with no skill in their weapon, you are even better off than one who has put one level of development into the new weapon skill.
At 20th level, you start with +140. That comes in between RM2 and RMSS. As before, you can switch to a weapon in the same group at no penalty. Switching to that mace, you are now at +90. Again, you are better off than a 20th level RM2 or RMSS fighter who has put one level of development into the skill.