Topic: RMU spell: Change profession

[Thot]

[...]
You are talking about a spell that basically makes a character being unable to take advantage of level up. I cannot see how to fit the effect on the lvl 1-50 scale. This is a hostile effect that I would never permit at my game table.

Well, they'd still be able to level their skills, just fewer of them per level.

There are plenty of hostile effects in the spell lists, some of which cause instant death. Certainly this is less powerful than that?

Every condition, including death, can be overcome with later spells. The same is not true for your curse that creates a permanent loss of one or more level ups. Not something I would like to deal with at the gaming table so please knock yourself up and see what your players are ready to accept. [...]

Splendid, that gives us even more spells for that spell list: One to counter a previous learning cost or profession change, and one to recover DP lost from previous changes!

[katastrophe]

I’ve watched this go back and forth and bit and I can’t for the life of me even understand the purpose of the list or spell that accompanies it. Just it’s mere existence would mean that all PCs would just default to waking a character that would attain this list and then they would be the infamous Unbermench (not the German version) but the build your own class from an 80s Dragon Magazine where they essentially allowed the class construction for AD&D to include aspects of any class.

Even then it took one issue for any GM to see that was a disaster as you had mages running around with fighter hit dice, weapons and AC, priest healing and turn undead and percentile thief skills. And since everyone opted for some fuglamation, the XP penalty was irrelevant as everyone moved at near the same snails pace.

It’s a great academic exercise but an idea doomed to failure simply because it breaks every element of the “class” system RM is built on.

You’d be better off allowing your players to use the no profession as a base and allow whatever. Spells and skills they want to “build a class”. At least that’d be internally balanced amongst the players.

[Dreven1]

You’d be better off allowing your players to use the no profession as a base and allow whatever. Spells and skills they want to “build a class”. At least that’d be internally balanced amongst the players.

THIS! Best suggestion ever!

[Cory Magel]

It’s a great academic exercise but an idea doomed to failure simply because it breaks every element of the “class” system RM is built on.

Here, take this thing called nuclear energy and light your tavern with it!  Wait, no... stop... don't build that bomb. What are you doing? This is to use for good! Dear gods, what have I done...

[terefang]

I’ve watched this go back and forth and bit and I can’t for the life of me even understand the purpose of the list or spell that accompanies it. Just it’s mere existence would mean that all PCs would just default to waking a character that would attain this list and then they would be the infamous Unbermench (not the German version) but the build your own class from an 80s Dragon Magazine where they essentially allowed the class construction for AD&D to include aspects of any class.

Even then it took one issue for any GM to see that was a disaster as you had mages running around with fighter hit dice, weapons and AC, priest healing and turn undead and percentile thief skills. And since everyone opted for some fuglamation, the XP penalty was irrelevant as everyone moved at near the same snails pace.

It’s a great academic exercise but an idea doomed to failure simply because it breaks every element of the “class” system RM is built on.

You’d be better off allowing your players to use the no profession as a base and allow whatever. Spells and skills they want to “build a class”. At least that’d be internally balanced amongst the players.

wasnt that class called the Ultimatist ?

[Thot]

A thought: Another, maybe more balanced approach might be to not just change he profession, but to also require the levelling of the whole character anew up to the current level.

[katastrophe]

A thought: Another, maybe more balanced approach might be to not just change he profession, but to also require the levelling of the whole character anew up to the current level.

Just a worse idea. But it seems you’re stuck heading down a path that overall makes no sense for RM. all of the PCs core competencies are built into the profession system. Changing that can’t really be offset by any fix.

The best option remain, in my mind, having all of your PCs be no profession and maybe allow each to lower a cost for 2-3 skill categories by 1-2 steps. The fix you keep looking out won’t work in actual play and doesn’t make much sense from a game world perspective. Just go full classless and the PCs can basically learn whatever they want and have a competence in what they want without the built in RM constraints.

Why wouldn’t all mages just develop the change profession list initially? It’s a silly concept that conflicts with everything RM is built on. If you make it work, good for you, I just don’t see it.

[Thot]

A thought: Another, maybe more balanced approach might be to not just change he profession, but to also require the levelling of the whole character anew up to the current level.

Just a worse idea.

You cannot know that, becuase you haven't understood it.

The fix you keep looking out won’t work in actual play

You don't even understand that it's not a "fix" for anything, but a way a game world might be. You make a lot of assumptions about my motivations, instead of following the evidence. Maybe work on that?

and doesn’t make much sense from a game world perspective.

That depends on the game world anyway, so this part of your, eh, critique is just plain wrong.

Why wouldn’t all mages just develop the change profession list initially? [...]

It wouldn't be bad if they did, if it fits the game world.

[Cory Magel]

It wouldn't be bad if they did, if it fits the game world.

This really doesn't have anything to do with fitting into a game world.  It has to do with character balance among the players.  If you're unconcerned with that, then no problem.  But if you are, or possibly more importantly, if your players are, it will be a problem.

[Thot]

[...]
This really doesn't have anything to do with fitting into a game world.  It has to do with character balance among the players.[...]

I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?

If balance was a major concern for RM, we'd have "buy your potentials with points" in the RAW, just to give one additional example.

Nevertheless, even IF one wants to have that kind of notion of balance in the game, a spell that forces you to level anew from level 1 to the current level wouldn't break it at all. And that's without taking into account that everyone can do it, thus preserving that notion of balance.

[pastaav]

I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?

Try to say to the players that healing magic is only available to your favorite player and the others must heal naturally. If your player does not complain about that then maybe changing profession is not a big deal to your players.

If balance was a major concern for RM, we'd have "buy your potentials with points" in the RAW, just to give one additional example.

One of the input from my group during the beta is that rolling for stats and buying stats does not mix due to balance issues. It is also worth to notice that in the final RAW you cannot buy potentials, but roll them normally and buy the temporary stats.

Nevertheless, even IF one wants to have that kind of notion of balance in the game, a spell that forces you to level anew from level 1 to the current level wouldn't break it at all. And that's without taking into account that everyone can do it, thus preserving that notion of balance.

Restarting from level 1 is only a issueif you switch from magic user (and not are using any of the options that remove level from spell casting). An arms user switching to be a semi or pure spell caster when they have hit diminishing returns will not really be bothered by restarting at a low level.

[tbigness]

What I did when in RM2 stage was Have them keep the level and skills and start at level 1 for the new class. No restrictions were put in at the time.

Now looking at it I would have put them in Non-Professional for 1 level and then in for the new class. This started at the exp they left off as and the new profession progressed from that experience point (IE... 5th fighter to mage would be 1 level Non-professional(apprentice) and then new profession at level 7). Spell caster level would only be the mage levels of the character and this shows the learning curve through the life of a character who transitions later in their life. It also grows the new class at a slower pace due to level experience needed.

[Thot]

I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?

Try to say to the players that healing magic is only available to your favorite player

And again lots of assumptions here. Why would it only be available to one player? Why would not every player be able to receive the spell? Even if a player who has learned it refuses to cast it on other players, why would they not simply go to a commercial mage, or buy a scroll, or whatever?

I could also name tons of other spells that "change the balance", about nobody seems to complain. Revivify. The whole "Physical Enhancement" list. Just to name two examples from randomly opening my Spell Law.

[...]It is also worth to notice that in the final RAW you cannot buy potentials, but roll them normally and buy the temporary stats.

That was kind my point: This is obviously not balanced (some people roll badly, you know, so they are unbalancedly bad vs the people who rolled well), but RMU does it anyway in the RAW. So balance isn't that big of a design goal. (Of course, I let my players buy both with separate point accounts, because I actually do care for balance, or, as I would prefer to call it in English, fairness).

[...]
Restarting from level 1 is only a issueif you switch from magic user (and not are using any of the options that remove level from spell casting). An arms user switching to be a semi or pure spell caster when they have hit diminishing returns will not really be bothered by restarting at a low level.

Dude. If you let people start from level 1 in a group with level10+-Charakters, balance is obviously nothing you care about at all.

[Cory Magel]

[...]
This really doesn't have anything to do with fitting into a game world.  It has to do with character balance among the players.[...]

I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?

That makes zero sense. This statement tells me you don't understand, or are choosing to ignore, what we are talking about.
Can you explain how this correlates to imbalance?

Nevertheless, even IF one wants to have that kind of notion of balance in the game, a spell that forces you to level anew from level 1 to the current level wouldn't break it at all. And that's without taking into account that everyone can do it, thus preserving that notion of balance.

It's really very simple.

If only a portion of your players do this with their characters they will eventually have more powerful characters than those who don't.
It's fairly rare that this isn't going to cause a problem down the road.

If they are all going to do it, why bother with different skill costs among professions? Just toss the whole profession system and let people buy what they want for what they want. I mean, that is the while point of being able to develop more than one profession.

[Thot]

[...]
These statements tell me you don't understand, or are choosing to ignore, what we are talking about in terms of balance.

Allright, let us exchange definitions, to avoid misunderstandings.

Balance (or fairness) to me means the ability of every character in a group to shine in their chosen area of expertise in a similar amount as all the other player characters, if they put the same effort into making and playing their character.

What's your definition?

Nevermind that these mechanics are part of the actual rules and have been established with that is mind, can you explain how these examples correlate to imbalance?

Sure! They change the way the characters interact, especially as level progression takes place, and make some characters more powerful than others. Of course that is inherent to a game with magic, and to me that's no issue. But that's true for changing profgessions (with a good in-world explanation, such as magic) as well.

It's really simple.
If only a portion of your players do this with their characters they will eventually have more powerful characters than those who don't.

That is also true, word for word, with pure spellcasters vs semi or non-casters. Or with people using healing magic vs those who don't.

If they are all going to do it, why bother with different skill costs among professions?
[...]

For the same reason I like the way RoleMaster manages professions in the first place: Because they give structure and plausibility to the game. Just like real world  people have differently wired brains to be good at learning different things, RM gives in-world reasons built into its mechanic why not everyone becomes a spellcaster despite the obvious long term advantages, or why some people fail at magic school (like Hagrid), while others excel there.

Likewise, magic that changes how the brain is wired would be an excellent expalantion why some people become spellcasters later in life, and makes clear that it costs them (money, time to learn the spell list, or contacts, or whatever) and that not everyone (especially not every NPC) in the game world will do it. It increases diversity in the game world by a lot to have this model in the game.

Compared to that, the "no profession" approach would be boring and dull in my eyes.

[katastrophe]

Lol

In other words you end up with “no profession” characters but you don’t want to call it that and add flavor. Gotcha. Brilliant.

It’s ultimately gonna work out about the same. Just your way will create some extra hoops.

You’re going from RM to a version of D&D where class hopping to “prestige classes” becomes the new norm. Start at fighter and max out a few weapons, buy a scroll to be a mage, get to the spells you want, hop to cleric for some healing and BAM fighter mage cleric like old D&D.

Very flavorful and glad it’s not boring, my man.

[pastaav]

I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?

Try to say to the players that healing magic is only available to your favorite player

And again lots of assumptions here. Why would it only be available to one player? Why would not every player be able to receive the spell? Even if a player who has learned it refuses to cast it on other players, why would they not simply go to a commercial mage, or buy a scroll, or whatever?

It is "available" to all players, but arms users can use it at no cost while spell users will be limited by your rule about level 1. I am not saying that you must agree with my assement about the severity of the problem, but if you cannot truely see the analogy between given magical healing to just some players and making profession change cost something for only some of your players our communication is kind of hopeless.

Bascially...

• Making profession change a spell instead of a rule option does not change balance or realism. There are plenty of games that allow multiple "professions" and none of them try to balance it calling it a spell
• Having the rule that you restart at level 1 after profession change does nothing really for increasing the balance since RM is a skillbased system. IMHO your houserule gives even worse problems than free profesion change since your "limitation" hits different character build differently.
• Profession change is not a new idea to RM users and have been tried many times before. The outcome is always what katastrophe describe as "prestige classes" become the norm.
• In earlier attempts to introduce profession change in a balanced fashion (something that always did fail) those attempts that got closest before failing, were those when you have sacrifice a certain number of DP (like a whole level( to get the profession change. Having to make the choice of sacrificying the next level up to have different costs at a future time has some teeth. It only pushes the optimum point for doing profession change to higher levels, but at least it is has positive effect on short term.
• If you want an new rule for charging a cost for profession change....you could experiment with cutting skill ranks in half. I don't recall anyone ever doing this, but I think this has potential to to make profession change possible but not run into the "prestige class" syndrome since the choice of be level 11 fighter or an level 5 fighter/mage is a tough one.

I could also name tons of other spells that "change the balance", about nobody seems to complain. Revivify. The whole "Physical Enhancement" list. Just to name two examples from randomly opening my Spell Law.

You keep using the word balance, but I don't think you know what it means. ;-)

[...]It is also worth to notice that in the final RAW you cannot buy potentials, but roll them normally and buy the temporary stats.

That was kind my point: This is obviously not balanced (some people roll badly, you know, so they are unbalancedly bad vs the people who rolled well), but RMU does it anyway in the RAW. So balance isn't that big of a design goal. (Of course, I let my players buy both with separate point accounts, because I actually do care for balance, or, as I would prefer to call it in English, fairness).

You keep using the word balance, but I don't think you know what it means. ;-)

[...]
Restarting from level 1 is only a issueif you switch from magic user (and not are using any of the options that remove level from spell casting). An arms user switching to be a semi or pure spell caster when they have hit diminishing returns will not really be bothered by restarting at a low level.

Dude. If you let people start from level 1 in a group with level10+-Charakters, balance is obviously nothing you care about at all.

If your spell really reset all skills to zero ranks your spell is really "instant death so must make a new character"...if the character keep their skills then your objection does not really make sense. 

[Thot]

[...]
It is "available" to all players, but arms users can use it at no cost while spell users will be limited by your rule about level 1.

You probably misread the proposal. You immediately level up to yiur current level, starting again from level 1, was that one.

Bascially...

• Making profession change a spell instead of a rule option does not change balance or realism.
  

But of course it does.

For balance (or fairness(: The type of cost you add to this "rules-based" (like a full level of reorienting, or a loss of XP, or nothing at all, or whatever) change changes balance greatly vs a permanent spell, obviously. Does this need further explanation?

For "realism" (or, as I prefer to call it, plausibility): If the profession-based learning cost for skills reflects hard-wired structures in the charatcer's brain, then you could simply not change that, that is kind of the basic assumption. But magic, of course, could do such things, so in that regard it would be more "realistic", or plausible, or more consistent.

There are plenty of games that allow multiple "professions" and none of them try to balance it calling it a spell[/li][/list]

Why would that matter here?

• Having the rule that you restart at level 1 after profession change
  

Yes, you have misread that.

• Profession change is not a new idea to RM users and have been tried many times before. The outcome is always what katastrophe describe as "prestige classes" become the norm.

Nothing about that is a catastrophe. It would then just be like the respective game world functions. Much like it is not "unbalanced" to have flying ships in your game world.

[...]
You keep using the word balance, but I don't think you know what it means. ;-)

Hm. I doubt you could define what you mean by that word (since otherwise, this would have been the perfect opportunity), while I already did.

If your spell really reset all skills to zero ranks

We've alreasdy established that you misread that.

The proposal reads:

A thought: Another, maybe more balanced approach might be to not just change the profession, but to also require the levelling of the whole character anew up to the current level.

The last 5 words should indicate that you of course won't be set back to level1, just that you'd spend al the DP you spent on all your levels again. Was that not clear enough?[/list]

[Cory Magel]

These statements tell me you don't understand, or are choosing to ignore, what we are talking about in terms of balance.

Allright, let us exchange definitions, to avoid misunderstandings.

Balance (or fairness) to me means the ability of every character in a group to shine in their chosen area of expertise in a similar amount as all the other player characters, if they put the same effort into making and playing their character.

What's your definition?

Pretty close. And allowing multiple professions lessens the possibility of every character shining in their chosen area of expertise... because allowing access to more than one professions costs gives them more then one area of expertise. They would no longer have an 'area' of expertise. They could be experts at everything they want to be.

Nevermind that these mechanics are part of the actual rules and have been established with that is mind, can you explain how these examples correlate to imbalance?

Sure! They change the way the characters interact, especially as level progression takes place, and make some characters more powerful than others. Of course that is inherent to a game with magic, and to me that's no issue. But that's true for changing profgessions (with a good in-world explanation, such as magic) as well.

You claim healing causes imbalance.  Without a form of healing, damage would not be 'balanced'.  Having healing balances the damage system.

It's really simple. If only a portion of your players do this with their characters they will eventually have more powerful characters than those who don't.

That is also true, word for word, with pure spellcasters vs semi or non-casters. Or with people using healing magic vs those who don't.

Regardless of how they balance against each other (which is often very dependent on how a group players)... you want to make someone both. So even less balanced unless everyone does it.

If they are all going to do it, why bother with different skill costs among professions?[...]

For the same reason I like the way RoleMaster manages professions in the first place: Because they give structure and plausibility to the game. Just like real world  people have differently wired brains to be good at learning different things, RM gives in-world reasons built into its mechanic why not everyone becomes a spellcaster despite the obvious long term advantages, or why some people fail at magic school (like Hagrid), while others excel there.

But, again, if you allow access to multiple professions you're removing from the idea that people have differently wired brains.

Likewise, magic that changes how the brain is wired would be an excellent expalantion why some people become spellcasters later in life, and makes clear that it costs them (money, time to learn the spell list, or contacts, or whatever) and that not everyone (especially not every NPC) in the game world will do it. It increases diversity in the game world by a lot to have this model in the game.

Allowing access to multiple professions decreases diversity among the characters.

Compared to that, the "no profession" approach would be boring and dull in my eyes.

How is everyone paying the same cost for everything any different than everyone being able to pay the lowest costs for everything?

Throughout this whole multiple profession idea you're often either contradicting yourself or saying one thing is good and the other is bad when they're really the same thing.  I think pastaav might be right.  When you say 'balance' I'm not so sure you're actually talking about balance.

[Thot]

[...] allowing multiple professions lessens the possibility of every character shining in their chosen area of expertise... because allowing access to more than one professions costs gives them more then one area of expertise.

This reads to me as if you were confusing changing a profession with multiclassing.

You claim healing causes imbalance.  Without a form of healing, damage would not be 'balanced'.  Having healing balances the damage system.

The number if hitpoints you have are obviously far less relevant if you can turn power points into hitpoints at any time, thus changing the balance of body development skill. That should be obvious.

At the core, your statement indicates that your idea of balance has some unspoken assumptions built into it that you haven't articulated yet. What are they?

Regardless of how they balance against each other (which is often very dependent on how a group players)... you want to make someone both. So even less balanced unless everyone does it.

That depends on which proposal you are talking about.

Original "just change the learning cost from now on" could make semi spell casters less fun on the long run, though still more versatile while levelling. Personal decision, I'd say.
The other proposal "level them from 1 anew, up to the current level, so you become a 18th level Magician where you before where an 18th level Fighter": Not at all. This is akin to just making a new character (with nonoptimal attributes, I might add), at the current level.

[...]
But, again, if you allow access to multiple professions you're removing from the idea that people have differently wired brains.

And again you seem to be confusing "changing your profession" with multiclassing.

How is everyone paying the same cost for everything any different than everyone being able to pay the lowest costs for everything?
[...]

Your simplification of "changing learning costs" to "everybody will always pay the lowest cost for what they want to learn" is just not doing the complexitiy of the issue justice. You'll still have to make your choices within one level. That means your new "Fighter turned Magician" won't learn any new melee skills this level if they care for DP point efficiency (and if they don't, then what's the point of the whole excercise?). And if he changes back to Fighter next level, his Magician levelling suffers.

In RMU, you'll buy only one rank per level if you want to be point efficient. So "always paying the lowest cost" only works if you want to be very diverse with lots of skills that cost 1/2 or something like that, and for which you're willing to learn only one rank per level. If you want to learn anything else, you'll pay higher costs, making your claim "always pay the lowest cost" false.