Topic: RMU spell: Change profession

[Dreven1]

On a less gut-feeling note, just try something...

MisterK makes a great point.  If you dont like any of the suggestions/warnings or answers, simply try it? You will soon see the pitfalls or the majesty of your decision.  I do this all the time (ESPECIALLY with the Arcane Companion lol) If someone plays a class/race or brings in a new spell list (I allow players to design them all the time).  We must... MUST playtest it before making it canon. If we decide (after a fair amount of play-testing) that it is ok, we add it to our "House Rules" book. It's now 16 pages long so you can imagine that we playtest a TON before adding something.

Anyway, give it a shot! Then, come back and post what you discovered so we all can learn from this experiment. I am VERY curious about the outcome!!!
Best of luck and wishes!

[tbigness]

Personally you want a character to change from a singular aspect profession that would be outclassed at high level to a profession that greater benefits with power. Without having to go through the adventure process in the new profession. taking a fighter and changing to Magician of high level will take the element of high level spells to over compensate for power that the fighter loses at the high level power level.

As far as roleplaying and continuity of the game, it may only make sense for some groups, particularly your group, but not for others as this is a part of the adventure together to achieve this level.

The excuses that no one understands this process is because you are the creator of the concept posted and have trouble with the feed back you are giving. Again this is fine but others try to reason with this, only get a brute reply on how stupid we are which again is a defensive answer to answers you did not like. Good luck with your concept as you will do what you want and we will do what we like for our groups.

[Cory Magel]

[...]
The recent proposal is a complete change without any trace of the old profession remaining. Not multi at all.

So you basically have a completely new character with the same name. Why would you need a system mechanic to do this? If you don't want to play the profession you started as why not just toss the old one and level up to the same point with a new one?

Well, not quite, because the "new character" will still have the same stats, which are probably not ideal for the new profession, Other spells on such a list might allow for swapping stats, perhaps.

A new character means throwing away all the old character's memories, story involvements, signifcance in the campaign, interpersonal relationships within and outside of the player character group, etc. you might not want to do that.

I fail to see why you need a system mechanic to do what you're talking about.  If someone finds they don't like their profession and wants to change it why wouldn't you just do it?  Ditch the old build.  You don't need an in-game role-played way.  Just say they were that profession all along.  Change then to that profession.  Entirely.  Stats, everything.  Done.  If you have a problem with the suspension of disbelief in that you probably wouldn't be playing a fantasy RPG in the first place.

You mean it is a sheer accident that all these injuries are plausible for a real-world campaign? And that these injuries were designed to be just right for whatever you mean by "balance"?
I strongly doubt that. To me, it looks as if actual real-world injuries were supposed to be modeled by this, and detailed healing magic was added to make the game more fun for those who want it.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'real world'. Fantasy RPG's aren't the real world.

Broken bones, bleeding wounds, cutoff nerves and shattered brains most definitely are part of the real world. That is why they are in the crit tables of RMU.[/quote]
And in the real world you wouldn't survive many of those things, let alone not spend months recovering, let alone, etc.  In the 'real world' there are no wizards. No unicorns. No dragons.
The 'real world' isn't a concern for certain aspects of play-ability.

But you're claim is [healing magic's] existence is unbalancing and you haven't explained how.

I think it is quite obvious that the power to injur, main, or kill someone looses a lot of its impact when healing magic is there to fix it all. You don't see how that changes the balance of the game?

Changed? Yes. Unbalanced? You still haven't explained how.
The system makes getting injured less un-fun. Seems to be quote a good thing considering RM's combat system.

...because some GM's/groups may not want magical healing in a campaign isn't at all a valid reason to not include it in a system and still doesn't explain how it's, as you claim, unbalancing.

That is my point: There is no reason not to include profession-changing magic in a game just because some people may not want it in their a game, There is also no reason to not exclude it from a campaign where it doesn't fit. Just like with healing magic.

Not remotely the same thing.  Professions are built so that they balance against each other.  The game is designed this way.  You're talking about introducing a new mechanic that allows characters to circumnavigate that balance, resulting in imbalance between the characters unless they all do it to the equal degree.  You're not doing something like this with healing.  Even if you did remove healing it would impact everyone equally.  No imbalance between characters.  Less fun for the player most likely though.

Also, you can do whatever you want in your game. No one is telling you you cannot. We are just telling you it will likely create balance issues.

[...]if everyone does that you don't have a balance issue between the player characters,

You'd still have balance issues, because some people are ust better Channeling users than others based on there Intuition stat.

You're back to talking non-sense.  A Cleric is a better at being a Cleric because the character was built to be a Cleric.
If you think a Fighter being a better Fighter than a Cleric and a Cleric being a better Cleric than a Fighter is somehow unbalancing you obviously just don't get the overall idea of balance among the professions in the first place.

but you do lessen diversity, which elsewhere you claim to be trying to preserve or improve. Creating a process that gives characters equal access to the same skill costs does the opposite of that. It makes them less diverse.

This is a perfect example for why one needs to look at details when making judgement calls. Which you did not.

You are definitely the one not seeing the details of the issue here.

I suggest you actually make a full character switching back and fourth with all the skills and spells to understand what I was pointing out.

It's basic math.

No, it's not just "basic math". You'd find out if you actually tried. The complexity of RMU character creation just stops it from being "basic math".

No, not really.  If I can pay for twice as many skills at ideal cost vs another player it becomes a basic math issue. I can probably buy twice as many ranks as the other character in my primary skills.  If character A can by 3 ranks of one thing and 1 rank of another every level and not change, but character B can alternate those costs at will (or just get the best of both) they will progress in those things faster and that's going to become a balance issue.

Even in the less unbalancing way you could do this, just alternating between two profession costs vs just straight out getting the better cost of both...

Character A, which static profession costs, would have...
Level 1 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1
Level 2 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (6/2)
Level 3 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (9/3)
Level 4 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (12/4)
Level 5 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (15/5)
Level 6 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (18/6)
Level 7 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (21/7)
Level 8 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (24/8)
Level 9 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (27/9)
Level 10 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (30/10)

Character B, alternating between two professions costs, would have...
Level 1 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1
Level 2 - Skill A: 1   Skill B: 3 (4/4)
Level 3 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (7/5)
Level 4 - Skill A: 1   Skill B: 3 (8/8)
Level 5 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (11/9)
Level 6 - Skill A: 1   Skill B: 3 (12/12)
Level 7 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (15/13)
Level 8 - Skill A: 1   Skill B: 3 (16/16)
Level 9 - Skill A: 3   Skill B: 1 (19/17)
Level 10 - Skill A: 1   Skill B: 3 (20/20)

At 5th level the character alternating between two professions just starts to outpace the Skill total for DP cost of the other and it picks up through level 10.
The 30 vs 20 ranks has a smaller disparity (60 vs 50) than the 10 and 20 (30 vs 50) due to diminishing returns.  That's not remotely balanced.
Now, if you let character B use both all the time you'd have a even bigger magnitude problem.  30/30 ranks for 60 and 60 skill vs 60 and 30 skill.
As they reach much higher levels (and most RM players don't seem to hit those levels) this slowly starts to reduce, but it's going to be a real problem.

So, yeah. It's simple math.

In the past there have been long debates about the Mage vs Fighter balance in RM, but it's not a straightforward issue.

Of course it is. But that's not a problem. As a GM i can set the conditions so that everybody gets to shine in any case.

Well, you don't really need rules for that when it comes down to it, but you're idea is making them shine less... so...

Healing magic gives a way to eliminate the idea that after every deadly fight your characters would realistically be laid up healing for months otherwise.

And there may be campaigns where that is totally unfitting. Where the cost of violence is important to be high.

And that has nothing to do with allowing players to develop multiple professions.

[Thot]

Let's just say those who answered care on a deeply emotional level against such a spell, but cannot really bring rational arguments for the level50+-claim that hold water.

Because there's no need to.

Yes there is. If any disucssion on any subject is to make any sense whatsoever, we need to establish by what method to find out the facts.

Rational arguments are useless in that kind of discussion. 

We aren't trying to gather a group to play. We are trying to find out what level fits such a spell in the grand scheme of RMU's Spell Law.

People are clearly saying they won't touch your idea with a 10' pole. And nothing will change that. And they are not wrong.

They could be wrong. We'll never know if we don't have any rational measuring stick to figure it out.

On a less gut-feeling note, just try something : make the spell target=self, and ask your players if they be OK with not having the spell, knowing that some others would have it.
If they say yes, you don't have a problem with the spell.
If they say no, you do.

And with that note, you killed the whole idea behind the Healer profession. Yeah, remove Transfer Wounds from their base list and see how players find that.

The thing is, almost everyone who replied to your thread said 'no'. In other words, they would not play with you knowing that this spell exists

And this is irrelevant, because realistically, we're never going to play at the same table, and even if we did, we'd probably just use a game world without such a spell. But that doesn't help us with finding out what the level of the spell should be in comparison to all the other RMU spells.

(apparently unless it is 50th level or above, but I'm not sure it is not a placeholder for 'never').

I am actually sure that it is meant to be such a placeholder. Which makes the argument for the number even less valid.

You might not have a problem with that, but you cannot tell them that there is no problem at all. You're just saying that you don't care about their opinion.

I care about logically stringent opinions, but not about gut feelings.

Which is your right, but if you don't care, why did you ask for that opinion in the first place ?

I asked for a level for a spell. What I got was various versions of "NOOOOOOO!" (including the level50+-answer, which objectively cannot be justified in the light of so many other spells in the game). You can certainly see how that seems a bit inappropriate to the questioner.

[Thot]

[...]  If you dont like any of the suggestions/warnings or answers, simply try it?

My current campaign has no use for such a spell, for the simple reason that the players are gods who create low-level avatars out of a curious predicament they find themselves in. If they want to change profession, they simply kill off the avatar and make a new one. They're then still the same character, just with different stats. (This is designed so we can try out the new system and still have a fun story, obviously.)

I have tried it (both versions) on paper, which isn't at all disastrous. I am sure the power level of the spell is way, way below 50th level, just not quite sure where exactly.

[Thot]

[...]
The excuses that no one understands this process is because you are the creator of the concept posted and have trouble with the feed back you are giving. Again this is fine but others try to reason with this, only get a brute reply on how stupid we are which again is a defensive answer to answers you did not like. [...]

I am not married to the idea of a profession-changing spell, but to my wife. At present, I even have no use for the spell in my campaign (except perhaps for some NPC's). This is all an intellectual exercise for me, mostly.

No, I am fine with negative answers, IF they are rational and logically stringent. My problem isn't that people don't like this idea, it is the reasson why they object to it and assign it a level that is not consistent with what other spells we have in RMU.

[MisterK]

No, I am fine with negative answers, IF they are rational and logically stringent. My problem isn't that people don't like this idea, it is the reasson why they object to it and assign it a level that is not consistent with what other spells we have in RMU.

People don't need a reason to dislike something.

And magic in RM is not internally consistent. Most spell levels are arbitrary (and there are many discussions on this forum that illustrate that assertion), and only make any amount of sense if you accept the metagame principles (some of them not being very rational, such as 'there can be only one spell per spell level in a list' or 'if a spell is present in a Base List and an Open List, its level will be higher in the Open List than in the Base List'). They only make any amount of sense if you admit that some of the mechanical principles of the game are axioms.

And, for the vast majority of people who replied, one such axiom is 'profession-change magic is not available, because profession is a metagame constant hardwired in character creation'.
You can disagree with that, if you want.
But you cannot say they're wrong. You can only say 'fair enough, we don't play the same game', and go on with your life.

You will never get the answer you were looking for when asking the OP question, because only people who play the same game as you could provide it.

It happens all the time. No need to get defensive about it. A game system is not an objective model, it's full of biases, and, as such, essentially subjective. Trying to get objective answers is futile.

[Thot]

[...]

A new character means throwing away all the old character's memories, story involvements, signifcance in the campaign, interpersonal relationships within and outside of the player character group, etc. you might not want to do that.

I fail to see why you need a system mechanic to do what you're talking about.  If someone finds they don't like their profession and wants to change it why wouldn't you just do it?

Because it is nice to have in-game reasons for sudden changes in abilties. And it is fun to ponder the implications in a game world, in the next step.

And in the real world you wouldn't survive many of those things,

Yes. And in some campaigns, your character shouldn't either.

I think it is quite obvious that the power to injur, main, or kill someone looses a lot of its impact when healing magic is there to fix it all. You don't see how that changes the balance of the game?

Changed? Yes. Unbalanced? You still haven't explained how.

"My combat-avoiding skills are made worthless by your ability to just hack through all opposition and be patched up afterwards!"

The system makes getting injured less un-fun. Seems to be quite a good thing considering RM's combat system.

For some campaigns, certainly. For others, not. The balance point of a campaign is entirely different with or without healing magic. So obviously, it changes the balance of the game. That alone is no reason to object to it, but it proves a point.

...because some GM's/groups may not want magical healing in a campaign isn't at all a valid reason to not include it in a system and still doesn't explain how it's, as you claim, unbalancing.

That is my point: There is no reason not to include profession-changing magic in a game just because some people may not want it in their a game, There is also no reason to not exclude it from a campaign where it doesn't fit. Just like with healing magic.

Not remotely the same thing.  Professions are built so that they balance against each other.

If they are, then that attempt has failed in every version of RM that ever existed. And in all the other class-based RPG rules systems as well. The point of professions is to make people good at different things. That is, by definition, never "balanced", unless the GM compensates for it. But if you do that, balance is far less important that you make it to be.

[...]Even if you did remove healing it would impact everyone equally.  No imbalance between characters. 

This either applies to profession change as well or not at all. Professions that are more likely to be on the receiving end of a blade or poiny stick will obviously benefit from healing magic far more than those that will entirely avoid that.

Also, you can do whatever you want in your game. No one is telling you you cannot. We are just telling you it will likely create balance issues.

But what bothers me is that you all fail to give a logically consistent argument about how exactly it would do that in ways that don't apply to other areas of the game (such as healing magic). You follow a gut feeling, then try to justifiy it. Not the other way round, trying to figure out how things are and then make yourself comfortable with the facts.

A Cleric is a better at being a Cleric because the character was built to be a Cleric. If you think a Fighter being a better Fighter than a Cleric and a Cleric being a better Cleric than a Fighter is somehow unbalancing

Do you agree that the Fighter-turned-Cleric will be a worse Cleric than the Cleric built to be a Cleric, and that this would be a "balance issue" between these two clerics in both versions of the spell we discuss here?

[...]
No, it's not just "basic math". You'd find out if you actually tried. The complexity of RMU character creation just stops it from being "basic math".

No, not really.  If I can pay for twice as many skills at ideal cost vs another player it becomes a basic math issue.

 I can probably

Probably is the problem here. Try it out. Level a full character to level 20, and make liberal use of profession change magic. It's not the issue you make it to be.

buy twice as many ranks as the other character in my primary skills.

No.

  If character A can by 3 ranks

We are talking about RMU. 2 ranks per level max, unless you use an optional rule that I would suggest you don't use in a campaign with profession changing magic. All the basic math you just used for a single skill fails right there already, but even if you had used a 2-rank example: You need to make a whole character and spend all the DP each level to see the problem with your reasoning.

of one thing and 1 rank of another every level and not change, but character B can alternate those costs at will (or just get the best of both) they will progress in those things faster and that's going to become a balance issue.

Try it out. You'll be surprised.

Healing magic gives a way to eliminate the idea that after every deadly fight your characters would realistically be laid up healing for months otherwise.

And there may be campaigns where that is totally unfitting. Where the cost of violence is important to be high.

And that has nothing to do with allowing players to develop multiple professions.

It has to do with the point of balance. If you have a certasin type of magic in a game, that may very well be quite balanced to achieve one result, and inappropriaate to achieve another. This applies to everything: Healing magic, teleportation, magical herbs, whatever.

[Thot]

No, I am fine with negative answers, IF they are rational and logically stringent. My problem isn't that people don't like this idea, it is the reasson why they object to it and assign it a level that is not consistent with what other spells we have in RMU.

People don't need a reason to dislike something.

People do need a logically, system-consistent reason to give a certain level to such a spell that goes beyond disliking, if such a discussion is supposed to make any sense at all.

And magic in RM is not internally consistent.

If that is your position, then logically the answer to the original question that follows from that must be not "level 50+", but "whatever you like it to be".

My impression is, though, that the spells in RMU do follow a certain progression of power, where a profession change spell should be fit in.

[...]
And, for the vast majority of people who replied, one such axiom is 'profession-change magic is not available, because profession is a metagame constant hardwired in character creation'.

That line of reasoning does not explain how changing that "hardwired" metagame constant would at all be a problem. It's just a gut feeling, as you wrote. Not very useful for a rational discussion.

But you cannot say they're wrong.[...]

I can say that their argument is not logically consistent.

[Dreven1]

Thot, you got me curious. I went back into some old texts and looked for spells in the RM Companion I.  I was specifically after the 50+ spells which were listed in a specific section 3.7 on extremely high-level spells.

Here is what I found:

The author notes that these should be used "featuring the handiwork of deities (or near-deities), astonishing artifacts, and/or the deadliest of enemies."
That they "...are high level and not intended for everyone to use".

This is the exact way I use these spells.  Some examples:

#12 - BODY WISH - Level 75 - Caster may restore or create the entire body of a being who is dead, if the caster is able to physically touch some remnant of the target's body. Pretty fun

#46 - YOUTH - Level 50 - Target can remove up to 2 years from his age. If the spell fails, target is automatically killed and his total true age returns immediately. This spell can be cast multiple times however the chance of dying goes up each time.

#48 - DOOM IMPRECATION - Level 50 - Allows caster to utter a final curse at the moment of death. The scope is catastrophic: whole metropolis may be swallowed by the earth, 100's of monsters (undead, lycanthropes, etc.) might be created and released, plagues may assault a nation, etc. NOTE (and I love this!!) The GM and the greatest of deities in the world are the only limitations. I love how the spell is written to NOT affect the GM

#64 - ARTIFICIAL BODY - Level 75 - Caster may regenerate and give life to a body + use all the Lay Healer base lists - In essence, this spell makes and exact clone of the being whose body portion was used as a component. The being will be able to move and learn but does not start with any memories or abilities.

#59 - INFORMATION PROCESSING - Level 60 - (NOTE: I just threw this in for an alternate comparison on other high-level spells) - Caster can absorb and remember data 60x faster than normal. The casters memory of events will be perfect.

I think this is what many were basing their "Level 50+" recommendation on.  If you look at other level 50 spells, being able to switch a class disturbs/disrupts/re-writes the very fundamental core of that character.

Do these examples help?

[Cory Magel]

I think it is quite obvious that the power to injur, main, or kill someone looses a lot of its impact when healing magic is there to fix it all. You don't see how that changes the balance of the game?

Changed? Yes. Unbalanced? You still haven't explained how.

"My combat-avoiding skills are made worthless by your ability to just hack through all opposition and be patched up afterwards!"

You still haven't explained how this is unbalancing in RM.

The system makes getting injured less un-fun. Seems to be quite a good thing considering RM's combat system.

For some campaigns, certainly. For others, not. The balance point of a campaign is entirely different with or without healing magic. So obviously, it changes the balance of the game. That alone is no reason to object to it, but it proves a point.

Still not seeing how it's unbalancing from a system design standpoint.

Not remotely the same thing.  Professions are built so that they balance against each other.

If they are, then that attempt has failed in every version of RM that ever existed. And in all the other class-based RPG rules systems as well. The point of professions is to make people good at different things. That is, by definition, never "balanced", unless the GM compensates for it. But if you do that, balance is far less important that you make it to be.

This reinforces that you do not understand the concept of balance within an overall system and, hence, why you don't understand your idea upsets that balance more than it, supposedly, 'fixes' it.

In RM certain realms of magic cannot do things the others can.  Is it balancing Channeling Magic has healing, but not Essence, and that Essence has Fireballs but not Channeling?  By your logic it would make both 'unbalanced' against the other when, in reality, it is one of the things that creates a balance.

You obviously don't get that.  You're looking at it from a very narrow point of view focused on what you want for reasons that you can't really explain.

Also, you can do whatever you want in your game. No one is telling you you cannot. We are just telling you it will likely create balance issues.

But what bothers me is that you all fail to give a logically consistent argument about how exactly it would do that in ways that don't apply to other areas of the game (such as healing magic). You follow a gut feeling, then try to justifiy it. Not the other way round, trying to figure out how things are and then make yourself comfortable with the facts.

It's telling that what you describe is exactly what you're doing.  I don't think we're failing to provide logic.  I think you're failing to understand it.

A Cleric is a better at being a Cleric because the character was built to be a Cleric. If you think a Fighter being a better Fighter than a Cleric and a Cleric being a better Cleric than a Fighter is somehow unbalancing

Do you agree that the Fighter-turned-Cleric will be a worse Cleric than the Cleric built to be a Cleric, and that this would be a "balance issue" between these two clerics in both versions of the spell we discuss here?

Not only are you avoiding the question, I'm not seeing how that's actually relevant to what I said as you've change the perimeters of my statement.

Do you think that no one has played around with what you're doing?  I mean, forget normal players, but the actual original designers of the system... didn't think of or experiment with this?
RM1, RM2, RMSS, RMFRP, RMU... these systems are not different enough that the this discussions changes significantly between them.  From a skill development process they are pretty much the same system.

Anyhow, you're answering questions with questions, contradicting yourself, or just not answering the questions.
Whether it's willful ignorance or stubbornness, you refuse to listen to what everyone is saying.

You are free to do whatever you want, but no one here agrees with your premise or is likely to no matter how long you bang your head against the wall.
You can say 'in my game' all you want.  But you're not going to convince us that it's actually some kind of 'balance' you're fixing in the existing system.

[...] Profession change on the other hand is massively abusive even without intense training. Giving access to two professions base lists is insanely powerful.

But you have access to all other professions' base lists anyway, albeit at higher cost?
(Though I should add that as written, this only applies to prefessions in one's own realm of power.)

Do you really not understand at this point that the 'albeit at a higher cost' plays a MASSIVE role in this discussion?

[Thot]

[...]
Do these examples help?

Not at all, and not only because they are for a different version of RM. Moreover, they do vastly more powerful things than simply changing a character's learning patterns (regardless of which of the two versions we compare these spells to).

[Thot]

[...]
"My combat-avoiding skills are made worthless by your ability to just hack through all opposition and be patched up afterwards!"

You still haven't explained how this is unbalancing in RM.

Balance is always relative to what kind of gameplay is desired. If all of the group wants to play with lots of combat avoidance, and one player notices that it is easier to just fight instead of talk because he'll be patched up or even resurrected afterwards, then that is unbalanced for that group.

This is btw why it's so important to clarify the premises of a campaign.

Not remotely the same thing.  Professions are built so that they balance against each other.

If they are, then that attempt has failed in every version of RM that ever existed. And in all the other class-based RPG rules systems as well. The point of professions is to make people good at different things. That is, by definition, never "balanced", unless the GM compensates for it. But if you do that, balance is far less important that you make it to be.

This reinforces that you do not understand the concept of balance

So once again, I ask: Please define what you mean by balance.

within an overall system and, hence, why you don't understand your idea upsets that balance more than it, supposedly, 'fixes' it.

There is nothing to "fix". It's just a change that may be useful for some campaigns.

In RM certain realms of magic cannot do things the others can.  Is it balancing Channeling Magic has healing, but not Essence, and that Essence has Fireballs but not Channeling?  By your logic it would make both 'unbalanced' against the other when, in reality, it is one of the things that creates a balance.

I see it rather as defining a mago-technological framework for your campaign. The entire reason behind such differences between the realms is a game-world reason, not a game-balance reason.

You follow a gut feeling, then try to justifiy it. Not the other way round, trying to figure out how things are and then make yourself comfortable with the facts.

It's telling that what you describe is exactly what you're doing. 

Please explain how you come to this conclusion.

Do you agree that the Fighter-turned-Cleric will be a worse Cleric than the Cleric built to be a Cleric, and that this would be a "balance issue" between these two clerics in both versions of the spell we discuss here?

Not only are you avoiding the question, I'm not seeing how that's actually relevant to what I said as you've change the perimeters of my statement.

If you claim that being able to change a profession makes those who use that option "better" than those who don't, isn't it kind of obvious that we need to assess if that is actually the case, which, given the stat issue, it objectively is not?

Do you think that no one has played around with what you're doing? 

Yes.

RM1, RM2, RMSS, RMFRP, RMU... these systems are not different enough that the this discussions changes significantly between them.  From a skill development process they are pretty much the same system.

The absence of *-costs is a pretty relevant difference in the context of our discussion.

Anyhow, you're answering questions with questions, contradicting yourself, or just not answering the questions.

I suggest you see my counterquestions as answers, if you really want to know what my reasoning is. And please, just try what I suggested: Make liberal use of profession change when levelling a 20th level character. Say, a Fighter-turned-Healer, which by your reasoning, would be totally dominating all the games. Turns out it isn't at all.

  But you're not going to convince us that it's actually some kind of 'balance' you're fixing in the existing system.

I repeat: I am not trying to "fix" anything. That would require that there is one way how RM must work, wheereas we all know that this depends on the campaign being played. I am just adding an option for some campaigns and was originally asking what a plausible level would be for that spell, and then getting completely out-of-touch-with-the-rest-of-spell-law answers. THAT is the issue here.

[...] Profession change on the other hand is massively abusive even without intense training. Giving access to two professions base lists is insanely powerful.

But you have access to all other professions' base lists anyway, albeit at higher cost?
(Though I should add that as written, this only applies to prefessions in one's own realm of power.)

Do you really not understand at this point that the 'albeit at a higher cost' plays a MASSIVE role in this discussion?

Your own argument was "access" not "cost".

Isn't it amzing how in RMU, you never have enough DP, as it should be? You won't be able to buy everything you want for your fighter every level. Much less so if you switch professions and want to learn all the optimal things for THAT profession as well. And the two ranks per level limitation makes sure you can't abuse your profession's cheapest costsexcessively in a given level.

[tbigness]

Lets just say that a profession is the way a person is best suited to learn skills and abilities hardwired into a person, which is the purpose of the system. Your suggesting that a spell be incorporated to change the hardwired process of the character to a different profession learning way and strip all the learned abilities and skills. After which add skills and abilities as the new profession to that level. This is a great shift in the game and as such should be considered as a high level spell as should be done by an Avatar or god like being for their purpose. The suggested level would have to be well above 20th level, more like 25th but I would agree to 50th level or higher. This would make a scholar into a Viking or vice verse.

You wanted what level we think this should be, it should be high do to the Mental/physical wiring and change. What it lacks is the worldly experience in learning the skills and abilities in the process to getting to that level, which is the main point of experience leveling. So that being said:

Should be 25th+ Level
Limited to Supernatural or god like beings to cast
May have a Mental flaw included as a result

I still have concerns that skills and spells/abilities are based on adventure experience and incite to use these are honed by use and discovery by fumbling along to make better decisions on how to use them. So for me this is a thing of experiment rather than a playable spell to be used.

[katastrophe]

Since all you ultimately want is a level to assign to the spell. Simple. Make it level 50 target self. Fill ranks 1-49 with blank spell slots. There. Now you have a workable spell list.

It’s now out of the hands of most PCs, unless you’re running a campaign fit for gods. No mage or pretty much anyone else except someone completely dedicated to that list under normal circumstances would bother to learn it.

Problem solved.

[Cory Magel]

In RM certain realms of magic cannot do things the others can.  Is it balancing Channeling Magic has healing, but not Essence, and that Essence has Fireballs but not Channeling?  By your logic it would make both 'unbalanced' against the other when, in reality, it is one of the things that creates a balance.

The entire reason behind such differences between the realms is a game-world reason, not a game-balance reason.

I'm quite certain the people who originally designed the game would tell you otherwise.

You follow a gut feeling, then try to justifiy it. Not the other way round, trying to figure out how things are and then make yourself comfortable with the facts.

It's telling that what you describe is exactly what you're doing. 

Please explain how you come to this conclusion.

By reading your posts.

Do you think that no one has played around with what you're doing? 

Yes.

That reply is almost funny, but it's so utterly ignorant and stupid it's not.

You, sir, are no longer worth the time.

[Thot]

Since all you ultimately want is a level to assign to the spell. Simple. Make it level 50 target self. Fill ranks 1-49 with blank spell slots. There. Now you have a workable spell list.

Can you understand why assigning level 50 seems silly compared to other permanent personality-changing spells in the game?

[Also, during this discussion, we've seen direct and indirects suggestions for several related spells that would fit on such a lisst, so I'm not quite sure why we'd need a list with 49 blank slots.]

[Thot]

Lets just say that a profession is the way a person is best suited to learn skills and abilities hardwired into a person, which is the purpose of the system. Your suggesting that a spell be incorporated to change the hardwired process of the character to a different profession learning way and strip all the learned abilities and skills.  After which add skills and abilities as the new profession to that level. This is a great shift in the game and as such should be considered as a high level spell as should be done by an Avatar or god like being for their purpose. The suggested level would have to be well above 20th level, more like 25th but I would agree to 50th level or higher. This would make a scholar into a Viking or vice verse.

The second spell suggestion, for "balance" reasons, which also would teach the character new things based on their level and new profession. This is obviously more powerful than JUST changing the profession and learning cost, while leaving everything else in place.

Trouble is, as this is supposed to be the more balanced version (which it is, as it removes the synergies between the two professions), based on "game balance", it would need to be lower in level than the simpler version. (Personally, I'd rather go with the "simulating game world" approach, than a "balance" approach, though.)

Either way, such a list could contain both spells. But the level assignment for both of them in comparison to each other may add clarity to the discussion.

Currently, and compared to all the other spells in RMU, I'd assign the "Greater Profession Change" spell, which only changes learning costs without touching existing skills, a level of 25, while "Profession Change True", which also relevels the character, a level of 30. To me, this looks in line with the other spells, others say that both should be 50+, which seems way outside the realm of all the other more disruptive spells in RMU Spell Law to me.

But even if you are of the level 50+ opinion, you will certainly agree that these two spells should be of different levels, right? So, which is whch?

I still have concerns that skills and spells/abilities are based on adventure experience and incite to use these are honed by use and discovery by fumbling along to make better decisions on how to use them. So for me this is a thing of experiment rather than a playable spell to be used.

So you would make "Greater Profession Change", in the above definition, be lower level than Profession Change True?

[Dreven1]

I might have missed it Thot, what are all the spells that you are comparing? Can you list them?
Where is your summary of spells with which you are deriving your analysis?

[pastaav]

Currently, and compared to all the other spells in RMU, I'd assign the "Greater Profession Change" spell, which only changes learning costs without touching existing skills, a level of 25, while "Profession Change True", which also relevels the character, a level of 30.

But even if you are of the level 50+ opinion, you will certainly agree that these two spells should be of different levels, right? So, which is whch?

Plenty of us have previously suggested that your "Profession Change True" spell that nukes all skill knowledge and forces the player to relevel a new character seem utterly pointless. I cannot for my life understand why any player would be glad from being forced to do this. Just make an alternate character with the new profession and come up with an ingame solution why the new character shall replace the previous character and you are done. (As an aside, a common houserule that many of us are using is that the player character who is not played recieve half experience you can switch character at a later point at some penalty without it being.)

The important thing is that your pointless  "Profession Change True" spell has negtible balance issues since you are bound by RAW rules when you relevel your character. In my game I allow redesign of assignment of ranks for previous levels provided the player can give a good answer on why they got it wrong in the first place. Having a spell that allow you rebuild character is just my houserule changed to "cast a spell to do it".

On the flipside "Greater Profession Change" that you believe is a lesser magical effect has massive balance issues. Keeping you skills but changing your costs for upcoming levels is a massive boon like we have explained to you over and over again. If both spells exist in a balanced game the "Greater Profession Change" must be massively higher level since this spell would give characters that are massively stronger.

I think your latest question that I quoted above pretty much prove you don't understand what balance means in a game (or that you writing these posts while drunk). All the answers you need already exist in the replies you have already been given.