RMU - How many skill ranks equate to being "good" at something?

[MurderOfCrows1972]

Up front, sorry if this has been covered, I wasn't able to find a thread that answered this to the level I wanted.

For NPCs and monsters, how many levels and skill ranks is novice, trained, expert levels of skill? How many ranks in a crafting skill would a King's blacksmith have vs. a small town smith?
Would really like to see a book of NPCs to give guidance to this.
Thanks in advance.

[Cory Magel]

Right off the cuff, I'd say small town maybe 7-8, King's blacksmith upper teens at least. But it kinda hinges on the power level of your campaign world.

[jdale]

Table 12-2 suggests that level 5 is journeyman, while lower levels are apprentices. A journeyman is capable of carrying out a trade on their own, and that's 10-12 ranks. Assuming a professional skill that's +60 to +68 plus stat bonuses, so maybe +65 to +75. For a task of medium difficulty, a +70 would mean 5% chance of failure, 25% chance of a partial success which probably means you will just take longer to complete the craft, and 70% chance of outright success. Many tasks will become easy or routine, as you have the templates and designs etc all close at hand.

It's debatable how high level normal people should be getting in your setting. Personally, I would say that as you approach level 10, these are already exceptional people whose skills really stand out. If you get much past that, you are talking about the elite, the best of the best. I might make that king's blacksmith level 10-12. Of course they will also have the very best equipment, and the very best materials, and skilled assistants, so that will also increase their effective skill.

[Spectre771]

To add to what Corey stated, it depends on the power level of your game world and, as stated in the initial post, village smithy vs. king's own blacksmith.  It's not so much "number of ranks" the professional has, but also the stat bonuses.  A PC/NPC with +35 in Strength and only 3 ranks in Smithing (ST/AG) vs. a PC/NPC with a strength bonus of 5 and nine ranks Smithing will have the same net total 50.  So which one is "better?"

I look at the skill bonus total that has already taken into account stat, level, skill, and item bonuses and the chance of breaking 100 with a single non open ended roll.  For me, initiate is under 25, a novice level is under 50, i.e. less than a 50% chance to break 100 on a roll.  Journeyman would be 50-75 - better than 50% chance to break 100.  Expert 76 to 99 - pretty darned good chance to break 100, and Master level is 100+.

I actually made a blacksmith PC using the Professional Profession from RM2.  I gave him the Prime Reqs of Strength and Reasoning.  I chose reasoning because a lot of the support skills I thought he would need used Reasoning where Strength figured mainly for Smithing and 1-H Crushing (His primary weapon is a hammer.)  His Smithing skill of 87 was pretty high for a village, yet could probably get hired fairly easily in a large city and maybe even the king's armoury.  He's level 5 and still has plenty of room for growth.

I know RMU doesn't have a companion for this yet, but RM2 has Heroes and Rogues.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/88190/rolemaster-heroes-and-rogues

I love this book.  I've used it so many times to pull quick stats for NPCs at varying levels.  It's a great collection of basic skill and levels that could easily be converted to make RMU NPC's.

[MurderOfCrows1972]

Thanks for the input. I had been using table 12-2 as a starting point but wasn't sure if that was a good start. Glad to know it is. This game has a great community!

[Cory Magel]

Right off the cuff, I'd say small town maybe 7-8, King's blacksmith upper teens at least. But it kinda hinges on the power level of your campaign world.

I should have clarified, I was talking Ranks in the skill, not level of the characters. So not too far off from what jdale posted.
Small town I'm thinking the most complex stuff that guy will probably be doing is tools and horse shoes, while a kings smith is going to be making high quality weapons and the like.

[MisterK]

In my previous campaign, I used a character creation system that removed development altogether - players merely had to state what proficiency they thought their character had in each skill (and how great they were in each stat). Since i did not plan for them to gain a level during the campaign, not having a development mechanism was not an issue. Still, I had to provide a scale, and this is what I came up with (number of ranks)
Unskilled = 0; Beginner = 1; Dilettante = 3; Trained = 6; Practiced = 10; Expert = 16; Remarkable = 21; Great = 31; Superb = 41; Brilliant = 51; Genius = 81.

Apprentices would be Trained; Journeymen would be Practiced; Anything beyond that would be some level of Master.

I didn't provide a scale for total bonus because rank and bonus are different and serve different purposes. Bonus serve in case of conflict and tension, in those edge moments where one cannot rely on training alone and has to reach for everything they have. Rank, however, determines the breadth and depth of what has been learned independently of natural affinity - something you can rely on when you have time to consider the risks and the best way to proceed.

I tend to use both in my games quite frequently - in my latest iteration, many skills only have a rank value, which determines what a character knows or can rely on. Those skills are not used confrontationally.

[Cory Magel]

I tend to use both in my games quite frequently - in my latest iteration, many skills only have a rank value, which determines what a character knows or can rely on. Those skills are not used confrontationally.

The piece of advice I've given in the past is that, in the end, if you think about it, the skill level of a character only really matters if you want the result left up to the dice (similar to 'confrontational').

Do you NOT want that blacksmith in that small two to re-shoe their horse for them?  Do you want that legendary blacksmith that they are taking a mission for to DEFINITELY be able to craft that item they want in return?  Don't trouble yourself with things that the randomization of die rolls would just create problems you don't want to worry about.

[MisterK]

I tend to use both in my games quite frequently - in my latest iteration, many skills only have a rank value, which determines what a character knows or can rely on. Those skills are not used confrontationally.

The piece of advice I've given in the past is that, in the end, if you think about it, the skill level of a character only really matters if you want the result left up to the dice (similar to 'confrontational').

Do you NOT want that blacksmith in that small two to re-shoe their horse for them?  Do you want that legendary blacksmith that they are taking a mission for to DEFINITELY be able to craft that item they want in return?  Don't trouble yourself with things that the randomization of die rolls would just create problems you don't want to worry about.

I fully agree with that. The logic basically follows a few Y/N questions:
- is the outcome a plot device ? If yes, don't bother with a roll - it's a basically a cutscene, it should go where the plot wants it to go.
- is the outcome significant ? If not, don't bother with a roll - just assign a result and a cost. Err on the side of "yes" by default.
- is the outcome well within the acting character's capabilities in a non-stressful situation ? If yes, don't bother with a roll - just let them have their cake, they've paid for it with their skill ranks
- is one outcome bland while the other opens up possibilities, options, complications ? If yes, don't bother with a roll - choose the result with the greater potential.
And the last one, which is admittedly the most subjective and contentious:
- do your players obviously fervently hope for one outcome and the other would ruin their fun ? If yes, don't bother with a roll - choose the result that make the game fun for your players.

My favourite situation is when I can replace a roll with me saying "yes, you can" and assigning a cost to that "yes" [it's basically the generalisation of the "yes, but" result] - leaving the players to decide whether they want to pay the cost or not. It is not an everyday situation, but it can work on so many levels - from choosing between paying more for a trinket or trying to go elsewhere for cheaper stuff, to choosing between saving an innocent and catching up with a fleeing criminal, to choosing between stealing the royal artifacts and going into the final battle without critical help from a neutral party.

Don't choose - let the players choose. See what the character's mettle is.

[jdale]

Regarding player actions and player objectives, I might instead ask "is this the only way they can achieve this?" Usually the answer is no, so failure just means this important thing will get more screen time, which may be a good thing. Rolling helps reinforce their belief that failure is possible, which is important too.

[Cory Magel]

Rolling helps reinforce their belief that failure is possible, which is important too.

Yeah, but you occasionally get people who think they need fully fleshed out NPC's that have to roll for everything.  It's just a wildly random example, but like I said earlier, you don't need to get that granular with REALLY mundane stuff like getting your horse re-shod or something like that.  I know there are GM's that will get that detailed cause they think it's 'immersive' or whatever, but I question if they realize they more than likely have players that don't appreciate it the same way they might.  It's, literally, the kind of thing RM sometimes get made fun over.

[jdale]

Oh, agreed about NPCs. It's the PCs that require more attention.

[EltonJ]

Rolling helps reinforce their belief that failure is possible, which is important too.

Yeah, but you occasionally get people who think they need fully fleshed out NPC's that have to roll for everything.  It's just a wildly random example, but like I said earlier, you don't need to get that granular with REALLY mundane stuff like getting your horse re-shod or something like that.  I know there are GM's that will get that detailed cause they think it's 'immersive' or whatever, but I question if they realize they more than likely have players that don't appreciate it the same way they might.  It's, literally, the kind of thing RM sometimes get made fun over.

Chartmonster, anyone?  I think to be immersive, you can skip rolling for every little skill the NPC has. Storytelling is an art, not a science.  Cory, you and I are on the same page here.

[Thot]

[...]
to be immersive, you can skip rolling for every little skill the NPC has. [...]

Well, yes, but occasionally you will need some stats about an NPC, such as their level (for a resistance roll, for instance), and if you know the guy who has been smithing his whole adult life (adult being a very generously applied term here) has 20 ranks in this primary skill, you can conclude that he will probably  be around 10th level.

[EvilWilliam]

Don't forget that a routine roll gets +30, so a skill of 70 is routinely competent, a skill of 50 (10 ranks) plus appropriate profession and stat bonus would succeed most of the time.

[Cory Magel]

Don't forget that a routine roll gets +30, so a skill of 70 is routinely competent, a skill of 50 (10 ranks) plus appropriate profession and stat bonus would succeed most of the time.

Exactly. So, if you consider, that a professional blacksmith is likely extremely focused on just that, it wouldn't really have to have very high levels at all in most mundane situations.

Granted, I'm using RMSS as the baseline for this estimate, but if you had Lifestyle or Vocational backgrounds, were a Layman with bonuses to your trade, an Everyman advantage, halfway decent relevant stats, you could hit 70 in the relevant skill pretty darn quickly.  So your small town blacksmith, who's going to be doing pretty 'routine' stuff very consistently could be like level five or even lower, and still be considered a highly competent blacksmith.  Not sure how well that actually translates over to RMU though.

[B Hanson]

https://www.rolemasterblog.com/shadow-world-economics-how-many-alchemists-can-there-be-in-kulthea/