Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: dutch206 on January 21, 2009, 03:06:27 PM
-
This is a question that has been bugging me for a couple of days now. What happens if a character (by choice or not) is no longer able to pursue his chosen profession?
Take, for example, the fictional character "Brother Cadfael" invented by Ellis Peters. Cadfael was a warrior who came home from the Crusades, set down his sword and became a cloistered priest. In Rolemaster terms, how would you account for this?
Or, take for example, a priest who has been excommunicated for some reason. He decides to abandon the priesthood (rather than atone for his sins) and decides to become a Bard. (Since most priests sing hymns in church services, this isn't as far-fetched as it seems.) Once again, how do you account for these changes in Rolemaster?
This has really been bugging me, and I would love to hear some ideas.
-
One of the things I've considered recently is the balance between RM professions. What determines skill cost development? What inherent qualities define a profession? I think these and other questions have never been clearly laid out, and are thus part of the profession dilemma.
For example, I've taken quite a shine to the Combat Companion, particularly the variable cost-for-effort method of the combat styles. Using that system, I began to revise the list of skills and costs for the allowable professions in my campaign. That revision made me take a closer look at the Warrior Monk, and realize that the primary characteristic of that profession is the reduced costs for the adrenal moves, particularly adrenal defense. It might even be said that without that significant advantage, there is little reason, from a pure mechanics perspective, to choose that profession. The way that factor is incorporated into the combat styles, this advantage is greatly diminished.
To the point: I think this could be approached one of two ways.
Option 1: (The easy way) The profession defines the "mindset" of the character. It structures the way he thinks, and cannot be changed. The RM professions are really more of a "thought template", and group people generally into these categories. After all, a "fighter" profession can learn subterfuge skills, he just may not have as much of an aptitude for them as a "thief" profession. Even if that fighter spent all his time theiving and sneaking, he would never find it as easy to learn as his friend the thief.
For your above example, this would mean that the warrior set aside his blade, but did not find it suddenly easier to learn the ways of academia. He would have always approached his studies from a warrior's perspective, finding the learning as arduous as any other soldier. Yet, if he were forced to pick up his blade again, he would find that he relearned his skills as rapidly as he once did. His body might need conditioning once again, but he would find it easy to revert to the drills and exercises of his former profession.
Option 2: (The hard way) The character actually changes professions, and thus changes the way he thinks about the different skills. The warrior casts off the ways of his old life, and with meditation and discipline, no longer thinks as a warrior, but as a scholar. He may have to work to learn the basics of his new life, but because he has fully committed to this new path, he is no worse off than any other acolyte. He learns fully as easy as they do, and if you were to require him to hone his skills as a warrior, he would find it difficult to place himself back in that frame of mind.
To make this second option work, I would want to define a true "empty vessel" template for the professions. The No Profession profession is not that empty vessel; it is an average of abilities, attempting to walk a middle ground, but still playable. The empty vessel would be unplayable - it would represent a ground zero worst case for all skills, and then would be buildable into the various professions. Say, if you had 100 points of some kind of system to spend on refining the skill costs for a particular professsion, the empty vessel could then be shaped to become a fighter, a thief, a druid, a bard, whatever. By purchasing groups of skill reductions, you could shape a profession. This would include things like a spell-users list pick advantages, and even a fighter's professional level bonus advantage.
This is something I would love to see laid out and clearly defined, as I think having the ability to "build" professions consistently would be of value to many a GM. I think such an effort might require a re-evaluation of the core professions, and a few might even be slightly tweaked to make a more consistent program, but it's something I'd love to see. This is what I though of when I ran into my concern over the Warrior Monk and the CC, and why I led with that thought.
For me then, using such a system, the warrior-turned-scholar would give up chunks of his past life/profession, and build a new one to represent his newly chosen field. This shouldn't be a min/maxing power game exercise, but one carefully considered by the GM.
My thoughts on the subject, anyway.
-
IMO it is a lot more of a problem in RM2/C than in RMSS/FRP as in RMSS/FRP all professions can buy all skills or even spell lists. Tey just cost mroe fot those profesions that do not have them as there normal skill set.
Also I think of professions as more of a genetic disposition towords specific skills.
If you wanted you could IMO design some talents that would change some of the skill costs but you would have to be carfule of the min-max'ers. Or you might just have them not gain a level or two and then switch professions.
MDC
-
We have the character run one more level buying things at the price of their original profession. But what they buy is the determining factor to wheather they are changng classes or not. So of courst the warrior learning to be a Preist will basicaly waste a level in DP getting the new mind set for their new life.
Then they get 2 levels worth of skills as No Porfession. Generaly these are played through.
This represents the actual transition of mind set to the new carrier.
In their 4th level after commiting to their "new" path they get the regular costs for their new profession.
Its kinda harsh, but getting a whole new occupation and changing your afinities (i.e. easy stuff costs less) is a harsh attempt. They also never lose any of their old skills. ;D
-
Fornitus,
I like the way you have attacked the problem as it provides a means to "switch" professions but at a cost that people really have to think about it.
Also I guess in RMSS/FRP the layman profession is the best if a player thinks he is going to try more than 1 profession. Or maybe all the players start as a "layman" and then pay some talent points or background options to change to another more focused profession.
MDC
-
Maybe this will help:
http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/1999/mar/realms.html
-
Or (if your players do not want to role-play the extra levels) you can make them make a one-time DP payment of whatever amount you choose (I would suggest it be an amount they can deal with in one level and still have a little bit left over) then, change the skill costs and professional bonuses, but leave all the skill ranks they have purchased so far.
Now, they use whatever remains of their DPs, and all future DPs, to purchase the skills at the new costs.
If you do not want to totally get rid of the professional bonuses, just halve each (round down, as for everything else in RM) for both professions (old and new) and apply them.
-
I wouldn't allow changing Professions at all, short of some unusual magic. Cadfael was probably a Layman/No Profession to begin with, but even assuming he was a Fighter, he'd simply need to buy different skills upon changing his career path. No longer buying combat-related skills would leave plenty of DPs free.
I can see a Cleric becoming a musician, but that's a far stretch from musician to a Bard. I suppose if he were stripped of all his Channeling spell lists and any Channeling skill and spent a decade or so in intensive training, it is just conceivable that he could switch from a Pure Channeler to a Semi of the Mentalist realm. If using a version of Rolemaster than requires a character to develop PPs as a skill, I'd make him start over when switching realms.
-
This is an interesting topic and the mechanics of changing profession is probably much easier a question to solve than whether or not to allow it?
First and foremost, what is a profession to you?
I'll give a few thoughts of my own to start things off.
1. All PC's are adventurers so the profession is really a natural predisposition of the character.
2. A profession is a profession is a profession.
3. A profession is just a profession but your first career changes you to the core and you will always carry that mindset with you through life.
Ok, let's take a look at things...
3. IMO this is just boring and rigid thinking.
2. If this is your view on things then changing professions should be allowed.
1. Looking at profession in this manner makes changing professions kind of impossible.
Personally I like the idea of beeing able to change profession but be ware of min/max players. It's tempting to start off as a warrior or thief and then change to a magician of some sort after a few levels.
So, how do you do it?
Fornitus had an idea and that should work?
An other variant could be averaging the cost between the old profession and the new one for a level or two? Or as may levels as you feel are proper?
The change itself shouldn't be to hard to figure out.
-
thurd,
I think the problem comes about when a GM decides to try and recreate a PC. Or a player comes to you as a GM and says I really want to redistribute my DP for last level can I? IMO you have to keep a good track of DP's, Stats, skill costs and ranks spent per level and there is another problem with Training Packages if you are using RMSS/FRP.
Also is HARP when a player wants to change professions then they have to spend some DP and have some other limitations. So it balances out in the end. Other wise like you say the min-maxer's will kill the game. But I try and keep an open mind about things as I know there are a lot of different types of games out there. So give it a shot. Or run a couple test games and see hot it works. Or even have some of you players create higher level PC's and see how the skills, spells and other stuff come out.
MDC
-
This is a question that has been bugging me for a couple of days now. What happens if a character (by choice or not) is no longer able to pursue his chosen profession?
We first have to define what is a profession, as some have done above. The term "profession" was AFAIK chosen by the RM designers to avoid the term "class" used by another well-known FRP system. But that this term "profession" was selected does not mean that it should be used in the same way as the common term profession. It's not a job a character does. IMO it does define the predisposition of a character towards different skills. Just as the film character Forrest Gump was easily able to pick up any skill involving movement and agility, a Fighter will be able to easily learn weapon skills. And in a similar way both have a hard time learning academic skills. With that view a character is always able to pursue his "profession" even though his job might have changed.
But there are two problems(*1) I see with this approach when actually doing RPGing:
a) The given RM professions are quite extreme concerning the differences in skill costs. E.g. if a player selects the Fighter profession his costs for magic skills are so prohibitive that by almost no means he could ever become an even average magic user. This choice of greatly differing skill costs probably was made deliberately, so that in play you could easily see the difference between a Fighter and a Magician. But when it comes to career changes it means that a career from a very different part of the profession list (e.g. magic vs. combat) can hardly be pursued. If you chose the No Profession/Layman profession for all characters then such a change would be much easier - and probably all characters would look very much alike...
b) The RM profession also limits access to Spell Lists. We probably don't want free access for any profession to any Spell List, but having Spell Lists be reserved according to the initial class/profession change OTOH makes it difficult to later switch to a new career.
*1: The term "problem" here is a bit misleading. It's more a design choice and perhaps also balancing of the different profession comes into play. It gets only problematic in the context of changing the class/profession.
Take, for example, the fictional character "Brother Cadfael" invented by Ellis Peters. Cadfael was a warrior who came home from the Crusades, set down his sword and became a cloistered priest. In Rolemaster terms, how would you account for this?
He starts developing different skills, lore skills and languages perhaps, during his next level advancements.
Or, take for example, a priest who has been excommunicated for some reason. He decides to abandon the priesthood (rather than atone for his sins) and decides to become a Bard. (Since most priests sing hymns in church services, this isn't as far-fetched as it seems.) Once again, how do you account for these changes in Rolemaster?
The Priest/Cleric start developing Play Instrument, Singing and similar skills during his next levels.
-
Personally I like the idea of beeing able to change profession but be ware of min/max players. It's tempting to start off as a warrior or thief and then change to a magician of some sort after a few levels.
Yes, I would also like to see the possibility to later make larger changes to a character. This involves real access to skills that he otherwise could hardly learn and also access to spells he could not learn in earlier levels. But I think it is quite hard to solve the balancing issues involved.
-
Working within the rules as such and assuming we use the term profession to describe a characters natural predisposition to skills.
Maybe a system for tweeking skillcosts would be better than actually changing professions?
One could say that working within a given career will give you a discount when buing skills typical fo that career? Naturally all PC's are adventurers so this will not matter a whole lot during play.
One could develp more in depth rules for teaching?
Perhaps one could invent a system for interest controlled tweeking? The player can modify a number of skill costs according to the characters current focus?
The fighter really wants to learn magic and changes his focus. He goes out, buys a dress and start wearing a pointy hat... Start reading books in different topics, studies magic and so forth. He would then be able to adjust the skill costs somewhat to fit his new career? I would suggest that the GM put a lot of restrictions on the players so they don't go around shifting focus each and every level but at the same time it should be doable.
Just a some ideas to toy with...
-
Skill groups could have a base cost and a "counter group".
Example:
I pay for Adrenal Moves a cost, selected from a list of 3 or 4 possibility.
Now, based on the selected cost I need to redistribute on 1 or 2 skill groups a costs (clearly identified).
This way a table could be created that allow a personalization of the PC profession, but could be worked out to be balanced.
-
Interesting discussion. I'm going to sit here and listen for a while. ;D
-
I am currently working on something where part of the cost of skills is due to an inherent template and part is due to a professional focus. Template + focus determines skill costs. Template can't be changed normally but focus can. Template effects cost more than focus, but focus determines which skills can gain more than 1 rank/level.
-
We have the character run one more level buying things at the price of their original profession. But what they buy is the determining factor to wheather they are changng classes or not. So of courst the warrior learning to be a Preist will basicaly waste a level in DP getting the new mind set for their new life.
Then they get 2 levels worth of skills as No Porfession. Generaly these are played through.
This represents the actual transition of mind set to the new carrier.
In their 4th level after commiting to their "new" path they get the regular costs for their new profession.
Its kinda harsh, but getting a whole new occupation and changing your afinities (i.e. easy stuff costs less) is a harsh attempt. They also never lose any of their old skills. ;D
I really like the proposal and am giving you an idea point for it. Myself, the ability to change profession was at the core of a big dilemna when learning to play Rolemaster. Basically, I couldn't get over the fact you were stuck with a template all your life. Nothing about powergaming, I'm entirely happy I don't have to think about whether its worth my time more to invest in a new profession this level or to stick with mine, but I just feel that PCs as any person evolves over time, and its possible to make a life changing decision. Most of my PCs never had to even think about it. I've ran many characters and there's only one character for which changing professions is relevant. I've played it for 5 years and the issue hasn't come up, and likely won't for several more years, but it was still at the core of the concept. As it was my first RM character, it was important for me to be able to conceptualize it in RM terms, because the character is a magician who thought "eventually I'll be an arcanist". I don't buy the fact you can achieve anything through buying ranks alone, especially "other base" lists. My GM ruled that, when you master your profession, you can enter a profession so long as you match the professional qualifier, leaving your old profession behind. He set an arbitrary threshold of level 50 where you could transition. Harsh, but at least I can conceptualize it, so its better than nothing. I think your proposal has merit too, if only for the possibility to do so without getting to insanely high level (which often only an elf played by a human with too much spare time can contemplate). It remains suitably hard to switch so that the only reason to do so would be to switch as part of a storyline, but allows to do it at any level.
-
I am currently working on something where part of the cost of skills is due to an inherent template and part is due to a professional focus. Template + focus determines skill costs. Template can't be changed normally but focus can. Template effects cost more than focus, but focus determines which skills can gain more than 1 rank/level.
Interesting. Keep us updated :)
-
I don't allow profession changes. Ecthelion, the definition of RM's profession isn't IYO, I believe that is actually the way it is defined, period. I warn my players of this. And nothing ever happens to them which causes them to completely redirect their *skill focus*, which is why they picked that profession in the first place. Then again, unlike some lucky folks on this board, I play about once a month for 4 hours, and my games rarely go past 1.5 yrs, so I don't have players reaching lvl 20 and the like.
-
Hmmm... reading this, I think that yes there should be some provision for changing the course of your life, as in RL obviously many have. That being said, I consider a change from Fighter to Magician more than a little extreme. I think a Fighter who tried would end up actually achieving something along the lines of a Warrior Mage.
Does that mean I think it should be impossible for someone to be a Fighter when they are a teenager and a Magician when they are old? No it does not. It means I think such a change involves at least two steps instead of one. After all, much of RM, in any version, already involves hybrids of two or more major concepts.
-
You can study physics as late into life as you like, but to be a real physicist, you need to get their early. Even life-long career physicists are all but washed-up by thirty. Different types of abilities are available at different stages of life. It is entirely possible that linking to a source of magical power can only be done in one's youth. I'm not saying that this is the only way to go, but unless you assume that casting a spell is no more than following a recipe, then there's no reason to assume you could ever hope to change your spell list access.
-
GrumpyOldFart> The easy way of solving this is averageing the two professions skill costs for a number of levels.
rdanhenry> Everyone can learn spell lists, it just cost more for some professions.
-
GrumpyOldFart> The easy way of solving this is averageing the two professions skill costs for a number of levels.
rdanhenry> Everyone can learn spell lists, it just cost more for some professions.
In RM2/C spell lists are tied to professions so everyone can not learn lists unless you use some optional rules in one of the RCO's. The option to open up lists to every profession may be in the RMC SL but I am not sure but I do remember seeing it in one of the RCO's before seeing it in RMSS/FRP.
MDC
-
GrumpyOldFart> The easy way of solving this is averageing the two professions skill costs for a number of levels.
Depending on which RM system you're talking about, that can be a lot of information tracking. Fine and good, no one says changing classes has to be easy. But if you'd rather be able to just refer a player to costs that are already written down on a table somewhere...let's see...
You're a fighter, circumstances dictate that you learn to be a magician. You spend a level buying magician skills at fighter DP costs, and the next level your costs change to Warrior Mage/Elemental Warrior/Whatever.
You can stop there if you like, but if circumstances require that you go all the way to magician, you spend another 2 levels getting magician skills at Warrior Mage DP prices. And then, you get magician DP costs.
Let's hope you can stop there, because if you have to become an Arcanist you have 2 more steps to go yet. From pure to hybrid caster will cost you 3 levels and hyrbid to arcane will cost you 4.
-
So far we have seen occupation, career, mindset, natural predisposition, even genetic disposition.
Mindset, perhaps, but I do not agree with any of the other descriptions of a RM profession.
To me, professions are not an attempt to be realistic about careers or predispositions.
Professions are first and foremost foundations of and catalysts for a great fantasy setting.
Professions bring archetypes into the game, and serve as inspiration for the players.
Hence a profession can be a chosen path, an idea, a hope of excellence, or the notion of fulfillment of purpose.
I would not allow a player to change his character's profession, even if the character's chosen path could realistically be strayed from.
I feel that for the sake of the game, the player should be committed to his choice.
-
Well I will try again as a misit key lost my last post. But that was a good thing as it gave me an idea.
1) Use RMSS/FRP training packages that provide a discount for skills focused on. I think the DP adjusted cost is 75% or 80% but I am away from my books right now.
2A) Or you can use your own special TP idea and adjust the DP cost by whatever you feel approperate. Or maybe a sliding scale DP cost that adjusts for the amount of time spent focused on the area of interest.
Example: if a fighter spends 3 months trying to learn a spell TP it costs 30 DP nut if they spend 6 months it only costs 20 DP.
2B) The problem with the above is IMO you have to create a framwork to determine the difficulty of the package for the learner. Then you have to define a sliding scale for the discount based on package difficulty and time spent trying to learn the skills.
3) Or you can just give the player a rank or two if you feel they have spent enought time trying to learn something.
MDC
-
I wasn't trying for realistic. I was trying for something that a) makes it possible to change class, b) makes it pretty simple for the GM to explain and rule on, and c) requires enough attention and investment from the player that it won't be something they do lightly. If a GM wants to encourage it or discourage it he can alter the times and conditions to make it more or less of a pain.
-
Hmmm... reading this, I think that yes there should be some provision for changing the course of your life, as in RL obviously many have.
True, but RM isn't the real world, and in RM profession determine what are you character's aptitudes, what he'll learn easily and what not. You cannot change those aptitudes and imho it's better to leave it as it is, as is one of the core assumptions of the system and it would be extremely difficult to change how professions work and keep the game balanced...
Your fighter wants to learn magic? Fine, take a lifestyle TP and start developing ranks in TP's spells.
-
rdanhenry> Everyone can learn spell lists, it just cost more for some professions.
Right, Rolemaster (in SS/FRP forms) allows anyone to learn any skill without any hard limits -- which is already more lenient than the real world.
But you have to choose a realm when you start the game, even if you are a Thief. You start the game with a specific relationship to magic.
-
I wasn't trying for realistic. I was trying for something that a) makes it possible to change class, b) makes it pretty simple for the GM to explain and rule on, and c) requires enough attention and investment from the player that it won't be something they do lightly. If a GM wants to encourage it or discourage it he can alter the times and conditions to make it more or less of a pain.
I couldn't have said it better myself. You summed up my feelings pretty well there. ;D
Realism is all well and good but it's a fantasy game and the main point is having fun.
-
Actually I am wondering if you are not chasing a Illusion...what kind of game balance are you after really if you even consider profession change in the first place?
If we take a very good example from this thread...Forrest Gump the archtypical Fighter. He is great at fighting, athletic skills and easily masters a number of non academic occupations. What exactly would you say mr Gump should do if he wanted to change from his current profession Fighter because he has taken new occupation?
Will he really become smart and academic suited because he decide to apply to the university?
Or is it really that the player choose an armsuser exactly over an semi spellcaster because he wanted to neglect the option of academia to be the perfect fighter?
If you want a balanced game then the proper answer to "I want to change my profession" is "just buy the skills, you chose your costs and must stick with them".
If the GM and player want mr Gump to become a magician anyway they can say that he woke up one day and realised he is the grand son of the legendary archmage and have been suffering from a curse/blessing imposed by the archmage that made him inclined to learn non magic skills until the time was right.
If the rest of the group need to calmed about this cheating of the system the GM can decide the player must sacrifice some arbitrary number of DP...but really the price charged will not make things fair but just make the players content.
For HARP with weak archtypes (all skills cost about the same no matter what) the change of skill costs from one profession to another is not a big deal. For RMFRP the character can access another professions base list at a reasonable price. HARP does not have the option to make reasonable differences in pricing and must impose a an extra DP tax to get the cost for access to other base spells reasonable.
I think it is a mistake to think that any "switch profession" DP-cost will make change of profession costs in RM fair compared to the gain given from raising the cost of skills suffering from diminishing returns to lower the cost of your current focus...
-
pastaav> You touch on several important issues here. Let's start with the intelligence part first. You don't get any smarter or stronger just because you feel like changing profession. The typical fighter will not be able to fill the prime requisits for a pure magic user profession and that pretty much disqualifies him right away.
On the other hand, if your stats are good enough you qualify and may proceed.
About balance and fairness. You will become more powerful than the npc's and monsters of the same level. Not really a big problem in my book. It's fair when you allow all players the same choice. Realistically though I don't see the Archmage changing profession and living out his golden years as a Barbarian. So yes it will be more beneficial for characters starting out as non's and switching to magic using professions. But they'll still be playing catch with the pures and they will always be one step behind in their magic.
-
If just want to make a profession for a computer game have the PC's start at what ever profession they want. Then design a "god" template and gradually work the PC's DP's costs to fit that template.
MDC
-
About balance and fairness. You will become more powerful than the npc's and monsters of the same level. Not really a big problem in my book. It's fair when you allow all players the same choice. Realistically though I don't see the Archmage changing profession and living out his golden years as a Barbarian. So yes it will be more beneficial for characters starting out as non's and switching to magic using professions. But they'll still be playing catch with the pures and they will always be one step behind in their magic.
You might as well give the same skill costs to all characters and drop professions altogether...
-
I'm just arguing the opinion that allowing characters to change profession could enhance the expeience for some groups.
Personally we've never had an issue with this. No PC's have ever changed profession within our current group and so far no one's voiced any interest in doing so either. I personally have no interest in changing my profession.
I have played in games (not RM) where warriors have become proficient magicians and it's been good fun.
I have played in games (not RM) where skill costs have been the same for all professions and it's worked just fine.
Now, I love RMC just the way it is and I have no personal need for the profession change but there's no harm in keeping an open mind.
-
I think that switching profession is not only too radical, but even unrealistic, to some extent.
What can be allowed is to change some "costs", following some "ad-hoc" rules, during the life of a character.
This is, to me, very plausible.
-
I'm just arguing the opinion that allowing characters to change profession could enhance the expeience for some groups.
Yeah, and I replied that imho it would be easier to completely drop professions than making up rules that allows profession-switching ;)
Edit: better explain ;D
To make profession-switching possible you have to think about a lot of things, like the open/closed/base list classification, think about rules about changing realm, to prevent someone to keep going from one profession to another and so on...
Using the same costs for all characters imho would prevent many of these problems.
-
Changing realm is a different issues, imho.
In addition changing profession could not be possible, but leaving the possibility of altering "some" of the costs of skills, is a step to personalization.
-
Why all this Fighter to Magician talk? Any decent powergamer would prefer Warrior Monk to Magician!
-
if you are going to do this IMO you should start by listing all the RM[ C/X/2/SS/FRP] skill costs. And then once you have the list adverage the skills cost and see what the closest RM skill DP that comes up from your math.
Another way to go is to let the player of the GM pick a # of specific skills or skill areas that get modified by the profession change. Also IN RM2/C/X you might want to change the level bonuses do to profession change.
MDC
-
Finally (as all in a game) is dependant about the GM or group view, so if you want to allow it, allow it (the objective is enjoy the game so adapt it as you wise), so I think the question is search for a balanced rule to allow this.
My opinion or rule could be something like:
- To change profession, character sacrifice 1 entire level. Sacrifice is that character spends all the DPs in changing profession, but its level is added. So a level 9 character can sacrifice its level 10 for change profession, and it will be now a level 10 character of the new profession, but with the current skills (as it can't develop any with the 'change' level).
- For magic, the change is gradual, so you need pass through semi-spell user if want to change from non-spell user to pure-or-hybrid-spell user, or viceversa. That semi-spell user IS NOT able to learn spells until it changes totally to the pure-or-hybrid-spell user profession.
See that you can change to semi-spell user in 1 step always, so a change fighter-ranger can be made with 1 sacrifice level.
That virtual semi-spell profession has bonuses based on averages of the 2 involved, but always inside the +50 limit (so a fighter-magician will have +10 to weapons).
For skill costs, you can use other semi-spell users as templates, so if you are changing from fighter to cleric, you can use the paladin costs. It s not 100% precise but it saves too much work and is very valid.
This is an important rule for avoid the case of a fighter that changes to lay-healer, learn the interested lists (powerfull as it is a pure-spell user) and changes again to fighter with relative low cost. With this rule, this change will take 4 levels instead 2, and 2 of them the character develops skills as semi-spell user (more expensive) and can't develop spells (as you need a pure-spell user knowledge).
-
Have you decided anything?
Or has anyone provided you with and idea on how to accomplish profession changing?
MDC
-
In my game I decided to allow slight changes, they do not change profession but add. I use RM2.
So that does not mean a fighter becoming a mage, it's a fighter that learns magic after a long time and effor and can become a warrior mage. This is discussed with me and based on background.
The way I use is to make the average of the costs, the character keeps the bonus levels until that level as "special bonus" and I allow them to redistribute +8 bonuses per level starting as if was level 1.
It's almost impossible to do it while playing, so a player can retire his character for 1-2 years of playing time and come back as something new.
E.g. Vlad is a 6th level thief that is stucked in an isolated island for two years after a shipwreck, he knows some tribesmen and lives with them for a long time. The player decides to become a ranger, so he will be a ranger/thief and after that time he's a 7th level ranger/thief with costs that are the average.
-
Yes, multiclassing is of course an option. Perhaps the word multiclass is misleading but I can see your version working. That way you never really become "a new person", you always keep some of the old you.
I would propose making some changes though. Averaging the spell cost for a Fighter/Magician would make it 10 but I would change it to 4/* to be on par with other semis...
-
It's what I do, if a fighter wants to learn magic it would take a long long time but he would end as warrior/mage with costs similar to warrior mage from RC2, the lists would be different and he should be far better in arms than in magic.
E.g. A Warrior/Mage could have a cost for spell lists of 6/* and arms cost of 2/7 for first 3 groups and 5 for the other groups.
-
House rule here...to change your learning aptitude template (not called profession) you pay all available DP upon reaching a new level and gain nothing, next level you advance as a layman, then again you pay all available DP earned upon reaching the next level and gain nothing, you are now free to choose the learning aptitude template of your choice.
Bob
-
I always used an house rule for it.
I will copy/paste what I said on it on another topic some time ago...
[...] we always adopted some sort of flexibility to allow some tasty story-driven switches like the one I said above. [...] So we had Fighters turned Noble Warrios, or Paladins, or Thieves turned Dabblers, and even a Warrior Monk turned Witch Hunter.
The base mechanic is simple: you only let the character switch sideways "one step" of profession aptitude. I'd try to be more clear: a non-spell user focused on fighting may become a semi spell user combat profession (such as Fighter or Rogue to Paladin or Warrior Mage or Armsmaster); a non-spell user subterfuge profession may turn to a spell-using semi-subterfuge profession (Thief or Rogue to Dabbler or Magent or Mythic), and an outdoor profession can also turn to semi (Outrider to Ranger). Non-spell using "scholar" professions may become semi or pure spell users. A pure spell user can sometimes become hybrid.
This obviously only if it's a story-driven switch, and only if the original character's realm match with the new profession, and, most of all, only under SEVERE control by the GM (me ;D).
This said, this swith isn't that difficult to implement in game rules. Simply switch one profession to another, maybe with minor tweakings (like custom base lists, restricted access to spells, and the like). We always liked it this way and never had any problem.
-
Page 10-11 in Rolemaster Companion II has some suggestions on how to handle characters changing professions.
I do not have time to explain any of it at the moment. If anyone has RoCo II, please feel free to explain :), otherwise I will get to this later tonight (CET).
-
Would be cool to know how RM2 handles it, as there's not much about it in RMSS/FRP...
-
I will explain the different options available in RoCo II for characters that wants to change their professions:
0. Should only be allowed if the character already has a 90 score in all of the new profession's primary stats.
1. Average the skill costs between the new professions.
2. Gradually average in the new profession's cost to the old profession's cost.
3. Separate multiple professions. For example Fighter 5/Alchemist 5. Various options on how to split experience points and development points are available under this option, too many to list here.
4. Keep 1 set of XP, and split them between all the character's profession. When enough XP is reached in a profession, that profession advances a level.
5. Keep only 1 set of XP. When a new level is reached (the Fighter 5/Alchemist 5 would be considered level 10 for example), development points are split between the character's professions.
6. Freeze the old profession.
7. Freeze the old profession, but start developing it again at a later time. My note: why did this option exist?
8. The old prefession decreases in experience as the new profession advances in level. My note: interesting option, but time consuming to handle.
9. Only allow the addition of a new profession when the character reaches a certain level in his or her old profession.
-
We do allow changes in professions, after consulting with the GM.
No cost, no negative side effect. (Well, we do keep track of levels as "spell caster" and use that as level in spell law)
Unbalanced? Sure.
Easy to abuse? Heck yes.
We handle those problems in group. As long as the group is ok with it it's not a problem. No one is really using it for min-maxing, but for instance we use the mechanism to create paladins. You start out as a fighter or rogue, and through play you find religion... The GM will throw a few nasty tests your way, and if successful you can start buying as a Paladin instead.
This gives better paladins, but we are ok with that.
For us, Archmage is not so much a profession as a title - You need to master lists in all three realms, and then, perhaps, will you gain access to Arcane lists.
-
Balanced and bulletproof aren't always needed as long as you have fun. :)
Somethng that I think everyone is forgetting, previous levels matter for magic users as well.
So, we have a level 10 fighter who want to convert to Archmage... Cool, let him.
The other Archmage in the group already have a gazillion more spell lists. The new convert might be better with a sword but he'll always be second best when it comes down to magic.
-
In our group we approach it differently.
For us it is story driven, you cannot change classes whilst actively "adventring", however, the characters can have several years between adventures and within reason the GM allows us to re-design our characters. But the change has to be story driven, I did a simple change from Rogue to Barbarian with one of my characters since I felt the Barbarian profession suited him better in the way he was playing out. One of the other guys went from Ranger to Paladin, because his character had more of a Paladin feel.
When you think about it, in real life many people will have many different jobs that require totally different skill sets. A plumber can go to University for a few years and become a doctor. Is he a worse doctor than the person who started uni straight after school? Of course not. He's just older.
-
When you think about it, in real life many people will have many different jobs that require totally different skill sets. A plumber can go to University for a few years and become a doctor. Is he a worse doctor than the person who started uni straight after school? Of course not. He's just older.
Don't mix up the RM term "profession" with its meaning in real life. The Rolemaster meaning of "profession" is not job but rather it refers to the aptitudes of a character. So the 'characters' in your above example might in RM terms both be e.g. a Healer, but the first one developed his healing skills from the start, while the other, the plumber, developed some craft skills during his early levels. But both pick up healing skills easily and therefore can become good doctors.
Of course RM is quite extreme with many of its aptitudes. E.g. a Fighter must be a person absolutely untalented for anything magical while a Magician for some reason is almost unable to pick up a weapon. In the real world we are probably much more flexible and can pick up most skills more or less quickly. Especially for the extreme professions a switch in the skills to be learned is often only theoretically possible (e.g. the switch from Fighter to Paladin, which the Fighter's costly magical skills more or less prevent, at least if the Paladin is to learn spells).
In an FRP game we often desire the PCs for form a group and then it is quite nice to have different specialists come together. A group of PCs where everyone, at least at some later level, has picked up the most important skills to a level of reasonable competency is probably less interesting than one where you need e.g. a dedicated Healer, a Thief and a Fighter to solve the adventures - at least IMHO.
Still many see the need for being able to change professions and perhaps a next RM revision will add the required flexibility in this area.
-
Right RM profession is not jobs but genetic aptitude's, IMO.
In may game most of the people are laymen from RMSS/FRP [50%] and the other 50% are from the other professions. So if you are a layman in RMSS you have decent skill cost for a lot of things. Now from RM2 you almost have to be a spell casting profession to get spells but later editions [RoCo's] may have provided a complete skill cost list like in RMSS so you could spend your DP to get other professions niche abilities.
MDC
-
I never equated Professions as an inherent quality of a person. I understand the aptitude idea but to my mind that comes down to training.
In your example it would mean that people are pre-determined from birth to be a certain "profession" but that doesn't wash as that would mean that if our plumber had a son, that child would be shoehorned into being a plumber.
Hmm, it seems to be comming down to the old nature vs nurture arguement.
-
Skarsgard;
Just because you parents do something it does not mean you are going to do it. Also people can do anything if most people are Laymen as they all have the some cost for skills. So IMO you cannot use the nurture vs nature argument in a word in which 50% or more are all Laymen as "professions" are the minority.
MDC
-
MDC
Ahhh, I see the issue I am having. In our current gaming world most of the NPC's are "professions" for example, we are playing a neolithic culture where most of the people are Barbarians, Rogues, Thieves, Fighters and Laymen (with semi-spell and pure-spell being rarer).
If however you have a distribution of 50% Laymen then I guess it is different.
-
MDC
Ahhh, I see the issue I am having. In our current gaming world most of the NPC's are "professions" for example, we are playing a neolithic culture where most of the people are Barbarians, Rogues, Thieves, Fighters and Laymen (with semi-spell and pure-spell being rarer).
If however you have a distribution of 50% Laymen then I guess it is different.
You can even make a case for the % to be higher than 50%. I have thought about having PC's pay Talent Points [TP] to take a profession besides Laymen. Also I have heard of games that require PC's to play a Layman. If every one is layman then the players can go anyway they want as in RMSS spell lists and psionics from Space Master are not required to have a specific profession like in RMC/2/X. Some like that fact and some like the RMC/2/X method but IMO the RMSS/FRP way makes more sense to me but again others views may differ.
MDC
-
MDC
Ahhh, I see the issue I am having. In our current gaming world most of the NPC's are "professions" for example, we are playing a neolithic culture where most of the people are Barbarians, Rogues, Thieves, Fighters and Laymen (with semi-spell and pure-spell being rarer).
If however you have a distribution of 50% Laymen then I guess it is different.
You can even make a case for the % to be higher than 50%. I have thought about having PC's pay Talent Points [TP] to take a profession besides Laymen. Also I have heard of games that require PC's to play a Layman. If every one is layman then the players can go anyway they want as in RMSS spell lists and psionics from Space Master are not required to have a specific profession like in RMC/2/X. Some like that fact and some like the RMC/2/X method but IMO the RMSS/FRP way makes more sense to me but again others views may differ.
MDC
Sorry for the thread hijack. That's an interesting idea and I might put it to my GM to try sometime.
-
Profession change have never really been an issue for me or my group.
But imagine if you allow the change. Just toying with an idea here...
How about starting everyone off as No-profession profession? And then allow the change when the players are starting to get to know their characters?
This way you could make the change "in game" and have the pc's search for a master to teach them the "secrets". Have them go through different initiation rites/tests to prove themselves worthy and so on. Maybe they have to complete a quest before the master deems the pc worthy?
Or you can allow some to have a profession early? Maybe they were apprenticed as a child? Maybe they were raised byt the church? Anyway it could add some flavor to the game. Just an idea...
-
thurd;
I have heard someone here on the forums talk about doing this and I think it was yammahopper. IMO yes you can do it you just have to keep good records to make sure everything jives. Or you can just have the GM keep the official record and prevent problems before they start. IMO I would have 1 set of sheets for the layman period and another for when and if they decide on a profession. But if you do this this locks you into the idea that "professions" are jobs and not genetic dispositions.
Another way is to roll randomly for your profession and then try and find out what it is but trying lots of jobs. Or maybe you could do a mini-apprentice camp where PC's spend 3-6 months doing each of magic, "fighter" and stealth to see what thier PC is good at. This would also give the players a good set of adventuring skills as well as 1 or more spell lists each.
[A side note I also have all PC's and NPC's have at least 1 rank in PPD and MPD so everyone has power points as well as mind points from the get go. This makes it easier if you consider worshipers channeling thier power to thier deities.]
Also average people in my game are 3rd to 7th or 8th level. This can take some getting used to for players as they are not the kings of the hill as they are in other games. I tend to start the PC's off at 3rd to 5th which is the lower end of the range for average.
MDC
-
I think the number of Layman/no profession people is proportional to what kind of society we are speaking about. Modern society with close to perfect health care would make Layman's easily be around 90% of the population. Change this to fantasy setting with loads of dangers around and from time to time harsh conditions like famine and a large number of Layman people will die off because they did not have the needed edge.
-
I think the number of Layman/no profession people is proportional to what kind of society we are speaking about. Modern society with close to perfect health care would make Layman's easily be around 90% of the population. Change this to fantasy setting with loads of dangers around and from time to time harsh conditions like famine and a large number of Layman people will die off because they did not have the needed edge.
I agree until you get a large enough population to allow for more people to move away from combat-survival to then have large numbers of laymen. IMO every culture may experience this state at different times depending on many factors.
MDC
-
As a "profession" reflects the training instilled on a person then the numbers of certain types of classes will vary on society.
In line with the OP's question, this would allow people to "retrain" over a suitable period of time (this depends largely on how much "free time" a character will have in their day to day life). Generally, this should be handled out of game. It would be nigh on impossible to become a Sorcerer whilst actively adventuring as a Fighter, simply due to the fact you have no time to do it.
-
As a "profession" reflects the training instilled on a person then the numbers of certain types of classes will vary on society.
This is where I disagree. The RM approach is that a profession reflects the aptitudes that the character gained during childhood and perhaps his youth. Therefore the profession cannot be changed.
-
As a "profession" reflects the training instilled on a person then the numbers of certain types of classes will vary on society.
This is where I disagree. The RM approach is that a profession reflects the aptitudes that the character gained during childhood and perhaps his youth. Therefore the profession cannot be changed.
I agree. Most of the Training Packages are more akin to what we typically think of as a job/profession than the actual Professions are. Perhaps Profession was a poor word choice (though I have no problem with it) but in RM it means apptitude. If you want a job, take a TP (and being a mom's a full-time job! ;)).
jolt
-
Quote from rulebook, emphasis mine.
A characters profession reflects the fact that early training and apprenticeship have a molded his thought patterns.
I agree with most of what you guys have said.
But....
In our group we feel this allows people to be retrained and that is the way we play it. It gives the OP another option.
-
If Profession is determined by culture, the most primitive groups will be almost all Laymen/No Profession, with an Animist or Shaman or the like as the rare exception. You have to advance to agricultural surpluses before anyone can afford to specialize as a Fighter. Survival is largely *not* about combat until people make it so. It is about finding food, water, shelter, and - in the longer term of survival of your line, rather than individually - mates.
In a world where magic worked, the healing specialists would be viable early Professions.
The more advanced the culture became, the more specialized and esoteric Professions would become available and the larger the portion of the population that could actually develop the skills characteristic of those Professions.
If one assume Professions are innate, then it really won't change that much over time, you'll just have different mismatches of talent to actual development. Like real people, they'll often be doing that for which they are not best suited by nature.
-
I know that I could be killed by many of you... but here it is an idea (perhaps someone else has already thinked about this):
Basics: I've borrowed some concepts from D&D 3.x :D (now you can kill me...)
1) Every profession will have a separete level count
2) The overall level will be based on the sum of the level of every profession. So the XP needed to advance a level will be based on the overall level. Ex. 3rd Fighter + 2nd Ranger = 5th Level character (I know, the example wasn't needed :'()
3) Since in RM the profession is a mind set and not a "work", some limitation can be imposed to the chioces of the player: for example to switch from the realms of Arms to a Pure Spell user, the PC must pass through a Semi-Spell user of the appropriate realm. To swtich from a Arms Realm to a Hybrid, you must do: Arms -> Semi -> Pure -> Hybrid. At least 3 level must be done. This step is optional and to GM discretion.
4) If step three isn't used an "XP Price" can be enforced. An XP price equal to XPs necessary to rise one or two level could be requested. Once the PC has accumulated such amount (that can't be used to rise in level, of course) he will be allowed to change profession.
The only drowback I see, in general, to changing profession in RM, is the bookkeeping needed.
-
giulio.trimarco>It's already been done. Look at the famous characters from MERP. There are three books with just famous people... MERP although a game of it's own was often played usng RM rules and Middle earth setting. (Back in the old days)
There are suggestions found in various companions as well although I can't remeber exactly where?
It's been fairly frequently discussed here on this bord as well so it shouldn't be to hard to find some old disussions as well.
The official view is that the professions are archtypes that cannot be changed. (There are no official rules explaining how to change professions either.)
There is anoher view however and the followers like to think of professions as "jobs" or mindsets that can be retrained or changed.
Personally I see nothing wrong with either view. The first view is a lite stiff and boring to me but it's never posed any real problems. Most of the time people aren't very interested in changing professions...
I really don't think there will be much problems with allowing profession changes. It will be different for sure but as long as every one are treated equally there should be no problems.
Some will voice the opinon that everyone will start as figheter or thief and then change to some magic profession. I don't know about that? You'll never be as good at your new profession as one that's dedicated his/her entire life to it. Sure there will be differences in OB and some other skills but I don't think it'll break the game.
Mostly it's just a question of personal taste. Pick your flavour and run with it. As long as everyone is in on it you'll have fun.
-
Ahhh... I've changed to my REAL name ;D
So, Thrud, I really think as you do.
Changing professio ins't great fun, really.
-
I know that I could be killed by many of you... but here it is an idea (perhaps someone else has already thinked about this):
I usually don't kill others for offering an idea ;).
The only drowback I see, in general, to changing profession in RM, is the bookkeeping needed.
There is more: It offers room for abuse. E.g. if I play a Thief and I'd like to use Adrenal Defense I can simply develop a few levels as a Warrior Monk to develop my AD skill to 10 ranks or so. I can even continue to develop my Subterfuge skills, though at a reduced rate. Or if I play a Ranger I could spend a few levels to learn my favourite Paladin spells. How to avoid such abuse and retain the good balancing, which RMC, RMSS and RMFRP IMHO have, can be quite important depending on the group. There might be a munchkin in everyone... ::)
-
Ecthelion> What level do you usually run your campaigns at?
I think the views might differ somewhat depending on the powerlevel of the game. At the moment we're att lv 7 and I've never been above 10th level myself.
Taking 5 levels as a warrior monk doesn't seam quite that simple to me.
-
Ecthelion> What level do you usually run your campaigns at?
I think the views might differ somewhat depending on the powerlevel of the game. At the moment we're att lv 7 and I've never been above 10th level myself.
Taking 5 levels as a warrior monk doesn't seam quite that simple to me.
Think of what your character would be in 7 levels if you could change profession each time you gained a level.
An example:
- you start at first level as a mystic, which gives a nice selection of lists and decent subterfuge abilities
- at second level you become a warrior monk,pumping up you DB with Adrenal Defense, gaining some HPs and martial skills, putting other ranks in stealth
- then maybe another mystic level
- then a thief level or two to pump you stealth (in which you're aided by all your mystic spells) and put ranks in ambush
- then another warrior monk level
So you have a PC with high DB, nice OB, spells, high stealth, etc... Compared to characters of your same level which didn't change profession you'll be much more powerful.
Basics: I've borrowed some concepts from D&D 3.x :D (now you can kill me...)
And this should have made you think twice before borrowing those concepts: third edition forums are full of discussions on how to build nearly unstoppable characters by combining different classes and talents... Multiclassing is one of the most unbalancing feature of that edition of d&d.
-
This isn't exactly changing professions... I guess I don't like the idea. As already stated, ICA it's a carryover from another game.
But I was thinking of allowing the cost of skills/cats to be bought down with Background Options.
You still can't get more skills than the game allows; 1-3 ranks.
It would allow easier progression, not faster.
A Magician has 20 for Weapon#2. Use 1 BO and buy that down to 9 for Weapon#2.
MAC allows Training Packages to be purchased at 1/2 cost with 1 BO...
If a Fighter had Amateur Mage TP, they wouldn't be a Mage....but then they could use 1BO for reducing PP Dev. Just reduce it to the next comparable level. You would never get down to 4! But from 20-30 (?) to 15-12 is still a big help.
I like the idea of Professions as genetic ability/Fates/Gods etc....
Or no Professions at all. Mwaaahahah!!!
-
Read Order Of The Stick comic! This is an ongoing joke of another game..
"I've taken 2 lvls of bard for the charisma bonus, one lvl of mage for better magic item use and a lvl of paladin to get the church discount on raise dead"
Your game is your fun! But I don't want to see RM turn into this.
Heck, that game was looking more like RM in malleability; now it's just silly... :P
-
Arioch> That is of course taking it to the extreme. Why does everything have to be black or white?
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the pc's change profession with each and every level. Once or maybe twice in a lifetime on the other hand might still work?
It's the job of the GM to deal with munchkins.
GM always have a Veto.
Nothing happens without the GM's consent.
-
Arioch> That is of course taking it to the extreme. Why does everything have to be black or white?
Because extreme examples help understanding what are the consequences of a rule change on the long term.
Once or maybe twice in a lifetime on the other hand might still work?
No, IMHO it would still be unbalancing. Maybe not as much as changing profession each other level, but still unbalancing.
It's the job of the GM to deal with munchkins.
GM always have a Veto.
Nothing happens without the GM's consent.
This is why as a GM I would not permit a similar rule ;)
-
Ecthelion> What level do you usually run your campaigns at?
I think the views might differ somewhat depending on the powerlevel of the game. At the moment we're att lv 7 and I've never been above 10th level myself.
We usually play up to 15th level and then put our characters to rest and start new ones.
Taking 5 levels as a warrior monk doesn't seam quite that simple to me.
Then take the other example. Or an Illusionist who spends two levels as a Magician to gain access to the Firebolt. Arioch also gave a nice example for abusing such the rule.
-
I don't really think this is a discussion that anyone can win.
Sure it would be easy to abuse this kind of thing if you're into that kind of gaming. I have no trouble seeing that.
I'm not saying it is for everyone and there is no need to make i possible with an official ruling.
All I'm really saying is that it could possibly be fun and it doesn't necessarily mean the game will be broken.
It's ultimately up to the GM to make it work and the right group would sure help as well.
-
Basics: I've borrowed some concepts from D&D 3.x :D (now you can kill me...)
And this should have made you think twice before borrowing those concepts: third edition forums are full of discussions on how to build nearly unstoppable characters by combining different classes and talents... Multiclassing is one of the most unbalancing feature of that edition of d&d.
Was a joke... ::)
About the level "cap"... I was planning of some PCs up to 100th level.
Since the skill progression nearly stop, after a point, I don't see the problem.
The only issue is for spell caster. But with a GM eye on the spell available/castable, it's not such an issue.
-
All I'm really saying is that it could possibly be fun and it doesn't necessarily mean the game will be broken.
Sure, it could be fun once in a while. Would I suggest to do it? No, it's a lot of extra work for the GM and I don't think it's worth it.
About the level "cap"... I was planning of some PCs up to 100th level.
Since the skill progression nearly stop, after a point, I don't see the problem.
At high levels it will be a lot worse: imagine a 30th level sorceror, 30th level warrior monk, 30th level thief...
-
I think I should state again the the answers for RMC/2/X are different than in RMSS/FRP.
RMSS/FRP; Each profession has a cost for every skill and spell list. So changing profession would IMO allow a player to change his DP cost for skills and that is all.
RMC/2/X; In this system you have to be a spell casting profession to take a specific spell list. I have also seen house rules that also restrict some skills to some professions so this might be another case in which a profession change might be needed.
MDC
PS: I do not see professions as a "mind set" but that is just MHO.
-
Warrior Monk to get practical max Adrenal Defense and plenty of Body Development. Then become Pure Spell User. Magician, maybe. Or Sorcerer. That's if you want to be a "bullet-proofed glass cannon you can't actually hit". Become a Healer and you'll be the most unkillable thing short of a Black Reaver. "Missed me. Missed me. Missed me. Missed me. Missed me. Oh, you cut off my ear, I'll have to grow it back. Missed me...."
I think this is the most abusive combination. You get one of the most powerful defenses in the game (and pick up some other useful skills while you're at it), then get powerful spell use without the balancing "few hits and low DB" of the usual Pure (or Hybrid).
I would only allow changing Professions at the level of divine intervention or the like (powerful artifact, experiments by god-like aliens, etc.) Changing your skill with something often merely requires dedicated effort. Changing your aptitude for a skill is not so easily done.
-
Taking ideas from novels does not always work; I know...
With that in mind, in the Joel Rosenburg (?) Guardians of the Flame series, a high level mage trades his magic/class to pay for a friends resurrection. This guy then uses his "player knowledge" to bring modern engineering to the campaign non-make-believe/real game world.
This is the only example I can remember.
No, wait.... In the Belgariad series, Polgara the Sorceress "thinks" her powers were stripped, but it is only a self-imposed time to whine...
-
For those who don't know, the "Guardians of the Flame" novels were about a group of college gamers who get transported to a fantasy world becoming the characters they played in the game (all part of a plot by their wicked GM who was actually an extremely powerful wizard from the other world).
jolt
-
rdanhenry,
a combination like this will take ages to create, unless the GM will hand 250000 XP every session...
-
RMSS/FRP; Each profession has a cost for every skill and spell list. So changing profession would IMO allow a player to change his DP cost for skills and that is all.
PS: I do not see professions as a "mind set" but that is just MHO.
I don't know RMC/RM2 very well so I can only comment on RMSS/FRP. RMSS/FRP also has professional bonuses. Do these change at all? Personally I would go with your statement above and just say that they do not get the new professional bonuses - that is the downfall, so to speak.
-
Personally I would go with your statement above and just say that they do not get the new professional bonuses - that is the downfall, so to speak.
I would agree; especially since SS/FRP bonuses are front-loaded.
jolt
-
RandalThor and Jolt;
Yes the profession bonuses have no way to change in the official rules. But I can see a GM allowing the profession change to only include the change in bonuses and keeping the skill costs of the first profession. But then again I do not see the need to change professions in RMSS/FRP that others do.
MDC
-
But I can see a GM allowing the profession change to only include the change in bonuses and keeping the skill costs of the first profession.
That would strike me as a highly odd way of doing it (or maybe I'm just not understanding you). For example, I'm a Fighter who wants to become a Monk. I get the Monk's upfront bonuses but still have to purchase skills at the Fighter cost, correct? That might not be an issue for the MA skills but spell lists would be prohibitively expensive I think (even if the fighter is already the correct realm). I'm also not sure how you would determine the costs of base lists for a Fighter.
But then again I do not see the need to change professions in RMSS/FRP that others do.
I agree. I was simply addressing the specific point.
jolt
-
I think that "needs" are based on "tastes".
So, for someone chaning profession could be a "needed" option.
Also I think that changing profession isn't a good deal in RM, but the world is a big place...
-
But I can see a GM allowing the profession change to only include the change in bonuses and keeping the skill costs of the first profession.
That would strike me as a highly odd way of doing it (or maybe I'm just not understanding you). For example, I'm a Fighter who wants to become a Monk. I get the Monk's upfront bonuses but still have to purchase skills at the Fighter cost, correct? That might not be an issue for the MA skills but spell lists would be prohibitively expensive I think (even if the fighter is already the correct realm). I'm also not sure how you would determine the costs of base lists for a Fighter.
jolt
I agree but IMO again I do not see that changing the DP cost of a PC is representative of the shift in the persons energy into a different area. ie fighter now focuses on monk IMO the shift of the bonuses might be better then changing all the DP cost. The shift in the bonuses leaves is less of a problem for accounting and the GM just might say ok you have spent X amount of time training as a monk now your category bonuses can shift.
Again I must note that that is for RMSS/FRP and not RMC/2/X.
MDC
-
Hey look... a can of worms. The lid is missing, looks like someone opened it already... (I kid, I kid...)
This has never been an issue in our games because if someone becomes overly tired of a specific character we just have them create a new one that is slightly lower in 'level' than the current one. It's only happened two times since we started playing Rolemaster. Most of our take on it is: You can because whatever you want and develop whatever skills you want (with, fairly obvious, restrictions such as Priestly magic and such) you just get to pay the cost that your current profession demands. That is, after all, one of the things we love about RM. You can buy whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.
We once had a player who thought, now that he'd become a (X) level warrior who was seeing a lot of diminishing returns, that he should be able to change professions, keep all the skills he developed at warrior costs, and now start to develop a magician using magician skill costs, yet continue to use all the skills he'd gained as a warrior without limitation or penalty. We all told him he was smoking crack.
If a player seriously wanted to CHANGE their profession the first thing I would make clear is that, for almost all circumstances... they would basically have a level 1 (whatever) character and start developing that characters skills from there. They would retain their physical stats (i.e. concussion hits, resistance rolls, etc) but any actual skills would be as if starting fresh. If they happen to develop the exact same weapon they are now learning a new 'style' of that weapons use and have to start from scratch. If they use any skills from the old profession they gain no experience in the new one and all experience for that particular event (fight, whatever) goes towards the old profession.
-
At first I wasn't going to reply but here we go anyway...
Cory Magel> That's harsh...
Instead of looking at each and every reply on why professionchanges are evil I'd like to switch viewpoint a little.
This is kind of hard to describe and I hope you understand what I'm after.
Why are you opposed to the changing of professions?
You can say it's unbalancing but is this really why? There are unbalancing factors all over the place? Real life isn't fair. Fairness is unrealistic.
Is it because you really believe in the archtypes? Allowing the change doesn't fit your view of the world?
Is it because other players would object? If the pc's are more powerful you just chuck a couple of extra monsters at them...
So, what is the real reason?
-
Thrud, that does sound harsh for RM. That is exactly how, IIRCAITID, 1st Ed AD&D operated...
If this is old hat-- just scroll down a bit.
Changing Classes was a big thing back then! The entire world-view centered around your class. Each class had different XP requirements, armor/weapon restrictions, building and zoning laws were even based on class. "You're a Magic User so you have to build a Tower. She is a Thief (at Name Level (each level had a title until you achieved the level name of your class ~9th or 10th; kinda-sorta...) so she must build a Thieves Guild...
But Larry the Fighter Lord can build a Castle and gather free followers! (until it sinks into the swamp..)
Joe the Cleric could get peoples in his steeples by just handing out chick-tracks because he's "of level."
Heck, most every weapon and type of armor was usable only to specific classes.
This was the real fashion police!
All of this was for "playability", "game balance" and "the numbers game". It worked for a while, then people started using better ideas/different rules.
IMO, the endpoint of this is what Corey Magel describes to a "T"!! I wouldn't have fun playing with guys like that either. Consider it like this....(with apologies to Darth and Droids.)
R2D2 is a Character in an RPG. Using a system of character build points he is able to max out certain stats and by taking certain flaws, he can get more character build points. OK?
R2D2's player looks over his character sheet... "Hhmmm. Average stats, no real skills, kinda weak. Sigh, oh I know!
Let's take MUTE, CRIPPLE/LAME, DIMINUTIVE STATURE, MONOCULAR VISION, NO TACTILE SENSE, WEAK STRENGTH, LITTLE TO NO MANIPULATIVE DEXTERITY, HEAVY FRAME, CAN'T USE WEAPONS and...............CRANKY!!!!!
WOW!! Now I have 10 times the build points you guys do! I spend them on....repair any starship in the universe, hack computer networks up to moon sized space stations, astrogate through hyperspace. Well, guys I've maxed out in all tech skills in the book and I can build something called an x-wing from scrap lying around the apartment. NOW, let's play!"
GM: "Pushing your way into the spaceport bar, the owner barks and points to a sign-NO DROIDS ALLOWED!
I guess you'll have to wait outside."
A Talent/Flaw system could get outta hand. Character build points could get outta hand. You can always MIN/MAX to a certain degree. And yes, the GM can have total control over blah, blah.....
Dual-classing was unusually hard back then. You started as a 1st lvl "New Class" same hits and stats. Now you had to become higher level than your old class (with the restrictions Corey mentioned). If you were able to do this (it wasn't that hard if you started early), the first class was forever frozen, but now you could use the abilities of the old class and progress in the new one.
But that old game needed it. Mage's couldn't even touch swords, let alone armor. Thieves couldn't use shields and Clerics would never think of drawing blood with a blade-but smashing to a bloody pulp was acceptable. IMO, RM has enough malleability that it's just never been an issue for me.
-
Real life isn't fair.
Real life is also boring, this is why I play RPGs.
Fairiness is unrealistic, but it's fun. It's fun becasue it assures that everyone at the table will be doing something, instead of watching a single uber-character taking care of everything.
-
providence13> Thanks for the history lecture, I actually didn't know that. We've never had any issues either.
Arioch> So, that's basically it? You're affraid of a pc becoming to powerful? What if everyone are given the same possibilities to change if they felt like it? Maybe they change, maybe they don't? If they don't it's a conscious decision to stay with the original class because they want to.
My experience is that you'll have dominant players that run the game regardless of character. Sometimes by force, sometimes by wit.
There are no rules for changing profession so every GM can do as he wishes. He/she can impose any restrictions they feel like.
Why assume that something like that will automatically break the game?
If we're talking realism and logical reasoning. Why not have everyone play no-profession preofession? Everyone's an adventurer. The figher and the mage do the same thing, killing monsters and hoarding treasures.
No sorry, not even I believe in that one. People have different aptitudes shaped by social and economical backgrounds. I feel the archtypes in RM are actually a good way to go. However there is one thing missing and I think that's the reason we're having this discussion.
Some people feel they should be able to evolve but the the professions are very rigid and does not reflect interests of the character in present time.
Most likely some of the problem stems from the professions having very strict archtypes with very large differences.
The new Gift rules made available through EA's actually adress this however inadvertantly. They make it possible to change costs and baselists.
But I stray from my own question.
What is the real fear?
I think it's a little trivial to be afraid of one player being the only resourceful person in the group.
-
Arioch> So, that's basically it? You're affraid of a pc becoming to powerful?
Not exactly, I'm afraid that a single player will monopolize the fun at the table, ruining everyone else fun. Allowing multi-classing in RM imho will increase the chances that this happens, so I'm strongly against it.
But I stray from my own question.
What is the real fear?
I think it's a little trivial to be afraid of one player being the only resourceful person in the group.
It's not "being the only resourceful person in the group", it's "being the only person in the group who can do anything, better than anyone else, making all other people in the party useless sidekicks".
-
I'd rather say one player being able do do everything not as well as the others. Assuming only one person uses the option.
There's always a price to pay. You sacrifice peak values for versitility.
I agree that it's not great when one player take up to much space but it's not necessarily the character so much as the player at fault.
Haven't we all seen both fighters and magicians taking the lead? It's rarely the best numbers that lead.
I don't like the thought of most players being sheep without the ability to change their lot.
-
I think you misunderstood what I meant. By "doing anything" I meant doing what the other characters in the group should be doing, according to their character concept/profession.
If a player decide to play a Fighter, it's because he want to be able to shine in combat. If he decide to play a Mage, it's because he want to cast spells. If he decide to playa thief, it's because he want to do stealthy stuff.
If a player plays a Fighter/Mage/Thief what will the others do?
-
A long while ago I played in a tourne in which I played a female D&D 3.0-3.5 thief. During a battle I stayed to protect the magic user from an onslaught of small creatures until the fighters of the group could come and mop up. You would have thought that my PC had created life or something as every player there thought it was amazing that a thief stood toe to toe with a threat. I realized that even with multi-classing most of them had never considered doing "fighter" things with out having multi-classed in a fighter profession.
Now about balance in RM my view is again in RMSS you can learn anything as all skills and spells have a value in DP that you can spend to learn them. If the DP costs are too high then maybe you want to bend the rule that does not allow you you keep DP from one level to another to "buy" something big.
If you are thinking about spell casting and arms then IMO the player should have played a semi from the beginning as that is what they wanted to do in the long run, the ability to do it all.
I have had players try and argue that they wanted to take a pure arms and then a pure spell caste and maybe after that switch to a pure arcane caster. To me that is a balance issue as they are maximizing their DP costs and not playing a character but playing the numbers.
Now I cannot say that I will never have a situation come up with a player that I might say ok you can switch but as long as I do my job as a GM and explain how each profession works in my world I think I will not find that event come up.
If a player decides they want switch because it is no longer fun then I will probably tack on a 1 or 2 level penalty just like I do for a PC dieing as IMO it is an advantage being able to create a whole new PC from the ground up without having to deal with the danger and possibly skill requirements from leveling.
MDC
-
Arioch> We often have pc's with overlapping skills even without multiclassing. But sure, I get your point. Please make an effort to understand my point.
A level 15 magician will still be a much better magician than a level 10 fighter/level 5 magician. Granted the multiclass will be much better with melee fighting.
Let me make one thing clear. I'm not all for multiclassing. I think it would make an interesting option if handled correctly. It's not for everyone but there might be situations where it's suitable.
markc> I agree, playing the numbers are a bad idea.
-
Arioch> We often have pc's with overlapping skills even without multiclassing. But sure, I get your point. Please make an effort to understand my point.
A level 15 magician will still be a much better magician than a level 10 fighter/level 5 magician. Granted the multiclass will be much better with melee fighting.
And will be much better than a 15th level fighter in spell-casting, and will have much more options than both of them.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's only a matter of specialization, it's also a problem of combining different capabilites.
Let me make one thing clear. I'm not all for multiclassing. I think it would make an interesting option if handled correctly. It's not for everyone but there might be situations where it's suitable.
IMHO those situations would be covered better by other solutions (you mentioned Gifts, for example), multiclassing is just too difficult to keep under control.
-
thurd,
I hope I have not "jumped down your throat" so to speak but the handful of time I have had to deal with this issue in game has been with players that have been a problem in one way or another.
I would like to see how someone proposed to do multi-classing that was not unbalancing. The main thing I have seen with the above proposals is the ones I like as a GM to preserve balance, I am fairly sure the players will not like.
I guess I would/might be OK with something like everyone has to change professions at a specific point or the idea that the PC's can spend some small amount of DP as Layman and then the rest as their natural talents kick in.
MDC
-
I have said it before...but I guess it does not hurt to repeat myself.
Very few here, if possibly none, is against that a group if they are so inclined might allow level 10 magician/level 5 fighter. Obviously the golden rule apply and if it increases the fun there is nothing wrong with it.
The real object of argument is instead the idea that it possible to get proper balance with such change of profession. No matter how I do the math my conclusion is that the benefit of switching professions due to diminishing returns is simply too great for it be possible to create a cost that significantly fix the big balance issues. Questions about if profession change is a good idea need to be answered since the risk is very high that the rest of the group will get less fun when the profession changer gets to both eat the cake and keep it.
If a cost must be set for profession change then it should probably be variable with the level of the character so that it cost exponentially more with increased level to change profession, but to be honest I think the fine tuning is too hard for it to be worth the effort. If the group is convinced to do profession change despite the risks then they are probably better off to sit down and negotiate in-game consequences and costs for the change. Optionally they can decide some arbitrary DP cost for the change, but it is still insignificant compared to the benefit even if it is a whole levels of DP so the real cost should be in in-game consequences.
-
I'm in a little hurry at the moment so I'll just write a qick thought of an answer.
I agree with most of what you say and I too think that the Fighter/Magician combo is a bad mach. I don't think it realistic to jump from Fighter DP costs to Magician DP costs. It's to big of a leap.
If I had to device a way to make changing preofessions possible I'd want the pc to jump no more than one class type, i.e. non -> semi or semi -> pure and so on.
Maybe one could experiment with averaging skill costs for the professions if you think it's worth wile?
Gotta go...
-
A "profession-path", like WarHammer FRP, could be way to "railroad" the character development.
Every profession must be held for a minimum amount of levels (7, for example) before changing to the next one.
This way a Fighter to became a magician must fallow a "path" that will gradually change his skill (costs) in a believable way.
Of course no prof-bonuses are gained.
This also allow the GM to create narrative scenarios to allow the Players to select new professions in accordance with the campaign.
-
DeathFromAbove> Yes, that is something close to my own thoughts. Maybe not "railroad" the characters through specific paths but definately restrictions.
A minimum of levels before change is fair I think be that 5, 7 or 10?
Averaging skill costs from the old and new profession would be an effective way to keep them in line.
A Fighter/Mage would have something like 5/13 for the primary weapon and 10 for spells. I don't see to many pc's spending 5 levels with those costs...
On the other hand an No-profession/Mage would be 6/13 and 3/* and a much more believable combo.
Naturally the character has to meet the requirements of the new profession statwise.
I would also propose that the player need to have a plausible reason as to why he/she wants the change and it would have to be factored into the plot, i.e. he/she would have to find a teacher/mentor. I doubt the fresh Fighter/Mage starts to develop firelaw on his own without guidience.
-
If you create a profession-path averaging costs is not necessary, imho.
For every profession you should create a "profession exit". In other words the profession that a PC can switch to.
The new profession will also have "exits" to other professions, etc.
This way you can balance the procedure of multi-professions without tinkering the costs that is time consuming and more sensitive.
-
One thing that I just thought of, and I may have said sometime in the past 6 pages, just use training packages that provide a discount to skill cost. Now that works with RMSS/FRP but IMO you could also do something like it for RMC/2/X but if it provides spells lists to non's then IMO there should be some other balancing factors.
MDC
-
The idea of career paths is interesting but very Warhammer. How would you implement it in RM? Forced selection from a limited list doesn't really feel right.
But in a way it's just another name for the restrictions I was talking about. I just didn't want to formalize it like that.
The way I see it there's only two ways of doing it.
1. Average the skill costs
2. Allow Non's going to Semi's and Semi's going to Pure's/Hybrid's
(3. Number three is just a poor idea to begin with. Let anyone switch to anything. Not even I can find a reasonable argument for allowing this.)
To be honest I'm torn about this. I'm not really sure myself if this is a good idea? However I feel that pc's should be able to evolve somehow.
Maybe It's just old habbits playing tricks on me? Maybe you're all right? Maybe the correct thing is to play a profession that is less archtypical?
Somehow you subconsciously choose between mage, thief or fighter when you play fantasy and maybe we pick these professions just out of old habbit?
I don't know?
We've never changed professions so everything so far is just speculations? I love this thread though, it's got me thinking.
-
if you allow switching, there is no point anyone every chosing a semi as a profession - it's cheaper and more effective to chose a pure arms user, develop hits & weapons, then chose a pure spell user and develop the spells.
Any profession can learn any skill (and any spell)
The root of the issue of switching is that people associate profession with "what I'm currently doing" ... in that case, you start as a child, then student, then ...
I've yet to see "infant", "school child" or "student" as professions.
The way RM is designed - whether you agree or not - is that the "profession" describes how easy you can learn skills. It does NOT describe what you learn or what you do on a day to day basis.
Yes - if you take that to it's ultimate conclusion, everyone should be a "layman" - but that assumes that everyone learns in the same way. I don't believe that we do.
A warrior/fighter is the most "extreme" profession - they simply are essentially incapable of learning magic.
Thieves and Rogues can learn magic reasonably well ... semi spell users are better ... pure magic users are better again
Essence spell users really cannot learn weapons effectively (but at a cost of 9, their cost is 3 time less than a fighter can learn an individual spell).
Additionally - beyond obviously different professions, many professions differ in such minor amounts, and almost solely focused on differences in spell lists, that it makes a lot of sence to introduce more generic magic using professions that can then select (and/or change) base lists from a wider list than currently available - much like has been proposed for clerics/preists in the RMSS Channeling Companionm or for Mages/Magic users in one of the Rolemaster Classic expansions ...
-
I think to put a Warhammer feel to it I would require a player to spend a specific amount of DP on thier "job" skills. So maybe in RMSS it would be about 50 DP per level. But that is just off the top of my head. But it might be an interesting idea to play with.
I guess you could also require PC's to buy a specific number of skills in a level and that would be variable depending on the PC's profession. So for example on a sea voyage require the PC's to buy 2 ranks in shipscrew [or sailing] , at least 1 rank in swimming and 1 rank in navigation or stargazing. Or as I said before maybe just create a TP and make the PC's buy it.
MDC
-
Cormac Doyle> It depens on what restrictions you put on switching? Maybe Semi is the only way to go if you want both worlds? It all depends on the restrictions and mechanics you implement.
However you are correct about RM. Professions ARE descriptions of natural aptitudes and how easy/hard it is for characters to learn different skills.
markc> Now you're just being scary... please stop the children are crying...
Let's open another maybe a smaller can of worms?
I'm just toying with an idea here...
What's your take on baselists? Are you born to learn just a specific kind of magic? But first...
- We assume baselists are more complex spells than open and closed thus motivating specific leaning rules.
- We assume you are stuck with your realm no matter what.
Would you allow a thief to develop the magician base lists as his/her own if he/she makes a "profession change"? No change in DP costs, just a new "in game" career for the character.
-
Thurd I am going to open a new thread with your new questions to make it easier for people to respond.
MDC
-
Thrud, have youe ever seen this article before? Maybe it's what you're looking for:
http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/1999/mar/realms.html (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/1999/mar/realms.html)
-
MMM... career paths aren't rigid.
Take into account the professions from the main rulebook. They are 20 (or 19? ???, it's the some). They are very finite number.
But a step back...
First we should agree on what a profession is:
1) Mind pattern?
2) Actual job?
3) Genetic disposition?
4) Name it
Second, we should agree on the mode of switch.
1) Profession (Fighter -> Mentalist)
2) Mind adaptation (Averaging skill costs)
3) Mind pattern (Career path)
Then we could refine the method and find a balance in all this.
I think that one thing to monitor (and one big issue) is the bookkeeping needed.
-
IMO the profession in RM is genetic based and not anything else. And again IMO in RMSS/FRP they handle any thing a character wants to learn there is a DP cost for it. Even for other realms spells lists. So yes a a PC can do anything if they have enough DP and if they GM changes the DP expenditure rules as some professions have a spell cost of above 100. In fact I think in Pulp Adventures in a low magic setting I think the numbers go up to 180 or so to learn a spell list.
MDC
-
Arioch> Yes, that article has a lot of nice ideas and I would love to se an equivalent for RMC. In a way it would definitively put an end to a gazillion different professions with idividual DP costs and emphasize on the "profession" being a natural disposition, not just a job. Me like it very much.
It wold also make it so much easier to add new professions since you only have define the realm and the professional base lists. Yes... very good indeed.
DeathFromAbove>
3. Genetic disposition with cultural heritage and social upbringing. It is the RM way...
1. Big No-No, Anyone can choose any realm.
2. Averaging costs, I can see this working. I'm not sure it's needed but It would probably work.
3. Career path, hmmm... No, I don't like it. It's nothing wrong with the idea but it leaves a sour tast in my mouth.
-
Arioch> Yes, that article has a lot of nice ideas and I would love to se an equivalent for RMC. In a way it would definitively put an end to a gazillion different professions with idividual DP costs and emphasize on the "profession" being a natural disposition, not just a job. Me like it very much.
It wold also make it so much easier to add new professions since you only have define the realm and the professional base lists. Yes... very good indeed.
Me too, I hope that in a future version of RM we'll have something similar instead of rigid professions...
-
I don't know if it has already been mentioned but maybe you could try to look at the rules 5.3 rolemaster companion V?
These rules present a method for designing cost individually for each character based on background and disposition. I tried using them once but my players all objected so I left it at that.
Hope you can use it.
-
Could Stats provide incremental skill costs?
Then you would have no professions. I know, it sounds scary to me too..
If you have a high Con and SD, then it's easier to by Body Dev.. If it is low, cause you put all of the points in Re and Me, the cost is higher and you can't advance as much per level. But with points in Mage-type stuff, it's easier to by PP Dev and Lores... Come to think of it, the game is sorta like this already. ;)
We would still need a Realm for the character (if you use realms..), 'still need race adolescence, hobbies; nothing else would really change...would it? Training packages could be based on stats... or better yet skills! You have this many of this Category and this many of that Cat so this package is cheaper for you.(?)
So, instead of building within the boundaries of a Profession, you could build towards the idea of a profession.
OK. This was off the cuff/not well thought out. Now call me crazy! :P
-
Now that will generate some serious book keeping.
-
I am not a fan of games that base skill cost an stats. In RM you get a bonus to the skill based on high stats and that seems close to RL to me. I do not think you can say that since a person has a high con they would make a good long distance runner or a long distance swimmer.
So to me stats allow you to do something better and not learn something easier.
MDC
-
Could Stats provide incremental skill costs?
Then you would have no professions. I know, it sounds scary to me too..
<snip>
OK. This was off the cuff/not well thought out. Now call me crazy! :P
Actually, that is not bad and something I have looked into, just not with RM. Having the attributes determine what you are good (and not just with their bonuses) is a good idea and would go further as an explaination as to why someone is better suited to do certain jobs. Combine that with some skill-based talents - like you have a knack in learning and/or performing a specific skill or skill set - and you have a better way of determining someones "profession" than a level/class system. (IMO)
-
Just another thought,
could you pick some categories that your character does well in?
This could be like the Own Base lists for spell casters..
Even if you don't have good stats, you could pick a specific skill or category in which you choose to excel.
Everyone gets 100 DP/lvl (not based on stats) but you buy skills based on stats and the "Own Base" Cat(s) that you chose. You could also purchase different rates (of skill development) with DP/Background Options to determine what the "Own/Other, etc. Base Cats are.
Perhaps something in an Excel Spreadsheet...haha ;D
Also, I like to use linear stat gain progression; but if you don't, just don't change stats every level. Maybe only change with age/maturation. Just a thought.
-
From what I have seen in other games PC's will generally pick the combat categories or the ones that they would use the most.
MDC
-
I totally agree with you, MDC.
And in a way, that's what all the Professions do already.
What are a Fighters strengths; a Magicians; a Thiefs?
"You have a +50 spread to apply to the skills/cats of your choice." Wouldn't be a huge game upset...
Or, if Profession is centered around Realm;
Totally fictional :"If you pick Essence Dev (?) as a Open Realm Base Category, then you will pay the most for Armor skills as those two are fairly opposed. If you pick Essence Dev, Armor skills and Transcend, then you won't be able to do anything except cast spells in armor 'cause you won't have anything left." Or something like that..
It could be similar to the point spread for stats; 90+(stat-90)^2; diminishing returns on certain skills/cats if you picked certain, I dare say opposed skills/cats....
Again I think it's kinda wacky too.... But I'm intrigued by the idea; that's all. ;)
-
In answer to the original post,
IMO if a deity finds favor in a person, it wouldn't be a stretch to change their further progression on some skills or even give a rank or so, in a new skill. This may not be the progression of a Cleric/Priest, but it would be better than what they had.
-
In answer to the original post,
IMO if a deity finds favor in a person, it wouldn't be a stretch to change their further progression on some skills or even give a rank or so, in a new skill. This may not be the progression of a Cleric/Priest, but it would be better than what they had.
Since what gods can and cant do is not expressed in the rules and is free for a GM to do with as he pleases then it is simply up to the GM.
As to your pick and chose what you want to design your profession; when you pick something to be good at I would think the game designers also made some stuff harder as well. A simple profession creation system should take this into account.
I do not remember who at ICE I think it was Hieke that Rasyr said has read the game design book that says "Do not take away from the players". IMO design your own profession IMO would go against that rule. But maybe times will change and players will not have a problem with that. Or maybe I have simply extended the rule to character creation by mistake, when it applies to after PC's have been created only.
MDC
-
Cory Magel> That's harsh...
Well (and this is NOT direct at anyone on this thread let alone the entire forums), the only reasons I see to change profession are...
A) You're tired of your character.
B) You're seeing diminishing returns and just want to pay less for skills.
Reply to A) Make a new character. (we even let you start a character 1-4 levels [roll a 4 sider] below the one you retire).
Reply to B) Tough.
Now THAT'S harsh. ;D
Why are you opposed to the changing of professions?
There are a few reasons, but they all come down to this: The player suddenly has the ability to develop a set skills at far lower costs then they previously did.
Why on earth wouldn't I start off as a Fighter, gain enough levels to pump up a couple weapons, my endurance points, etc (basically become a pretty decent fighter) then switch to a pure caster of some type? Anyone who thinks this should be allowed simply does not understand game mechanic balancing (or just doesn't care, in which case why even have rules?).
You can say it's unbalancing but is this really why? There are unbalancing factors all over the place? Real life isn't fair. Fairness is unrealistic.
As others have mentioned, we don't game to experience the realistic unfairness of life. Cheat at Monopoly with your friends then try to justify it to them by saying life isn't fair. I think that will almost always go over like a lead balloon.
Is it because you really believe in the archtypes? Allowing the change doesn't fit your view of the world?
Well, the destruction of purpose of archtypes is one of the side effects (and one of the few reasons I elude to at the start of my answer in this post), but I believe far less important than simple balance. It has nothing to do with my view of the 'world' because in RM anyone can do anything... they just have to pay for it. By allowing casual profession changes without harsh penalties or controls they effectively no longer have to 'pay for it'. (Yes, I realize they ARE paying for the skills, but going from paying 25-50 DP for a spell list level to only 3 DP is completely out of whack and would utterly destroy character balance).
One of the other reasons ties into archtype, and is a tabletop philosophical discussion we've had before. We play to have fun as a group of friends. This almost always takes the form of a group of adventures (Players) against the world (GM). This almost always needs to have some level of accomplishment to be fun for most players (and if we don't have a balanced game it's really not very fun for most people). This almost always involves the need for teamwork among players. If you can essentially develop whatever skills you want cheaply and quickly there is a problem with balance among the players unless they ALL do it. If they all do it there is a problem with balance in the game, so you unless you just want them to amass huge amounts of power quickly and steam roll everything in the game you really just end up with an 'arms race' in your campaign.
You also start to see a problem where all the characters can do everything they want (fight, fly, throw firebolts, heal, etc, etc) which undermines the need for teamwork... which is part of the very reason archtypes exist. So, I know it sounds to some like a 'the sky is falling' statement, but even if someone doesn't realize it allowing easy change of profession pretty much destroys the entire idea of why many of us play RPG's. It's one of those things that you have to be able to see the bigger picture to really get your head around. You have to REALLY ask yourself WHY you're playing and then you have to think about how the basic foundation of the game system accomplishes that.
Much of it is intertwined. Archtypes exist to encourage teamwork and to balance the game. Without teamwork and without balance, why are you playing a RPG with a handful of friends around a table? Why not go buy the latest computer game, jump online and immediately find a hack to make your characters all powerful?
Is it because other players would object? If the pc's are more powerful you just chuck a couple of extra monsters at them...
It is because if you only have a limited number of players do it they would become far more power than those who did not, which would lead to everyone doing it, which undermines the entire reason for much of the system mechanics.
So, what is the real reason?
It lets you have everything... and in the end that makes the game boring.
-
Fully agreed, Cory.
-
A funny side effect of this discussion has occured.
We've never had anyone change profession so this is mostly theoretical on my behalf. Even though I've argued for changes I doubt we'll ever do it ourselves unless there are some very strange cirkumstances.
No, this discussion made me realise I'll never play a non-magicuser unless the setting is without magic. Mostly because I like options. I'll gladly pay a few extra DP's for the chance to learn some magic later on. And furthermore if I were to play a fighter up to level 10 when I realise I'm growing bored with bashing trolls over the head and there is not much else to do. Forget about magic, there might be some skills as a leader or something? That would suck bigtime, having a PC whom you really like and realising you're at a dead-end.
Today I can't really find any good reasons why one should allow changing professions but it's been a good discussion.
In the end it's more important to have the players choosing professions carefully to avoid issues later on.
My new favourite profession is probably the no-profession profession.
I guess those who would like to try should give it a go and see how it works out? If for no other reason than curiosity they can always tell us about the experiment later on?
-
No, this discussion made me realise I'll never play a non-magicuser unless the setting is without magic.
Actually, there are really no reasons to play a non magic user in RM, unless the setting is without magic. For everything that a non-user can do, there's a user that can do it better, and then some. ;D
-
One of the balance issues I see in RM is that warrior/skill type characters see diminishing returns on the investment they put into their strengths whereas spell-users see increasing return. There just isn't anything comparable in the warrior/skill character to compare with level 25 and 50 spells (apart from Thor saying, "Here brave warrior, take Mjolnir; you can use it far better than I.")
jolt
-
IMO I think the MAC and RMC: CC make the arms vs spell user debate a little more even. But those are not in the core rules either.
I also think that arms users are very important in keeping the spell users alive to make it to higher levels. A semi could do it but again IMO pure arms just do it so much better.
MDC
-
Probably the most enjoyable character I ever played in Rolemaster was an RMSS Rogue. We played until level 14 if I remember correctly and I slowly developed many skills, so that I was quite diversified. Had a very good Rune Reading skill (this is a big customized system in our games) and a handful of open mentalism spell lists within the 1-6th level range (Spell Resistance, Damage Resistance, Brilliance, Attack Avoidance and took Cloaking up to 10th). He was good with a 2H Sword, Rapier/Whip Combo, Crossbow, Quarterstaff, an excellent gymnast/acrobat, was a pretty darn good thief and had a pretty good amount of 'low magic' talents. It took several levels to be as good as most the characters in the group, but in the end his versatility surpassed all of them in my opinion.
Now, aside from that, I have always played a Semi-Spell User.
-
While I agree with Cory about a need for the PCs to be fairly balanced (so that one doesn't get the whole fun while another feels useless), I think it's more something up to the GM that to the rules themselves. My problem is: world building. What I like most in RM2 is that the rules don't put the created characters as some invincible heroes when compared to normal people, so you can create every NPC the way you create the PCs (e.g. using the exact same rules). This is great when compared to, for instance, AD&D where everyone save the PCs and main NPCs are Fighters level 1.
When, as a GM, I build my world, I appreciate being able to create characters who are inherently more powerful or less powerful than your average person, because of his profession : a Merchant isn't, adventure-speaking, balanced with a Fighter, and what about the only rumoured to exist Death Mage that it is said that even apprentices are deadly?
While I feel that balance between PCs is good for team-work, I also feel that general balance in professions in the rules is detrimental to the game. The GM should just keep in mind the professions' power level, so that PCs can balance their characters.
...may be a whole new topic, though.
-
Good points on power level...
If a character wanted to change professions, I would ask myself, "have I done everything I could so that this character was needed/interested in the world/game?"
The "worldbuilding" point is a good one. I have actually asked players, "Are you having fun with your character?"
Kind of like "what do you want for your birthday?" This doesn't change the profession, but lets me know where they think their character/involvement with the world is lacking (for them).
Again, doesn't answer the main topic. I guess it's my way of avoiding it. ;)