This is going to be technical and only of interest to those doing a lot of customization of ERA professions.
In the provided examples,
ERA\RMC\Configuration\Professions\Magician.prof.xml
and
...\Fighter.prof.xml
spell costs are defined as
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" categoryName="Spell List Acquisition" cost="1/*"/>
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" cost="2/2/2-2/2/2-2/2/2-2/2/2-6/6/6" categoryName="Own Realm Closed Lists" />
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" cost="2/2/2-2/2/2-2/2/2-2/2/2-4/4/4" categoryName="Own Realm Open Lists"/>
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" cost="2/2/2" categoryName="Own Realm Own Base Lists" />
and
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" categoryName="Spell List Acquisition" cost="20"/>
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" cost="20-40-60-80-100" categoryName="Own Realm Open Lists" />
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" cost="40-80-120-160-200" categoryName="Own Realm Closed Lists"/>
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" cost="20" categoryName="Own Realm Own Base Lists" />
respectively.
Now I am not particularly familiar with RMSS/RMFRP, but these skill costs look more like the values for these versions of RM rather than RMC, at least for the magician, because the patterning of "2/2/2" matches those versions' individual spell picks rather than the RMC's 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' portions approach.
Based on RMC Spell Law, Table 03-03, p.24, I would have thought that the values should instead for the magician be
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" categoryName="Spell List Acquisition" cost="1/*"/>
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" categoryName="Own Realm Open Lists" cost="1/*-1/*-1/*-1/*-2/*"/>
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" categoryName="Own Realm Closed Lists" cost="1/*-1/*-1/*-1/*-3/*"/>
<SkillCategoryCost groupName="Spells" categoryName="Own Realm Own Base Lists" cost="1/*"/>
The fighter values seem to be consistent with Table 03-03.
Well, in my custom professions, I defined the spell costs for pure spell users as above with "1/*" rather than "2/2/2", but I am getting an error on "level up" with non-base spell lists. I think it is because I used the "1/*" rather than the triplet of values.
So I have three questions, that others may be interested in:
- What are the allowable patterns in the spell costs?
- When do I need to specify the five values pattern "x-x-x-x-x", (corresponding to the five portions) versus just a single cost of "x"?
- Does it really matter anyway, because I manage my spell list acquisition manually?