Topic: Maximum Number of Spell Lists

[Elrich Maltah]

I've seen some previous discussions here that talked about the maximum number of spells a caster could learn in a level, typically based on the number of DPs available for pick rolls. However, I've never found any mention here or in the books about the maximum number of spell lists a caster can learn spells from over the course of a career. My GM uses the following guidelines:

Pure Spell Users: Level + 3 lists
Hybrid/Archmage Spell Users: Level + 2 lists
Semi-Spell Users: Level + 1 lists
Non-Spell Users: Level + 0 lists

This seems reasonable, bearing in mind that casters who keep up to the limit will likely lack many high-level spells in a given list because DPs aren't infinite, but I'm curious if it's a completely homebrew idea or if it's based on a published rule somewhere.

[Hurin]

Sounds like a homebrew rule to me. I've never limited the number of lists casters could learn, and never had any problems with that.

[Vladimir]

This seems reasonable, bearing in mind that casters who keep up to the limit will likely lack many high-level spells in a given list because DPs aren't infinite, but I'm curious if it's a completely homebrew idea or if it's based on a published rule somewhere.

  DPs aren't infinite...that's a significant limitation right there.

[EltonJ]

Sounds like a homebrew rule to me. I've never limited the number of lists casters could learn, and never had any problems with that.

I agree, it must be homebrewed.

[Spectre771]

I believe there is a restriction of two spell lists per level (RM2), but no maximum to the total number of spell lists to learn.  Purchase 20 ranks in the first spell list for guaranteed success, then up to 19 ranks in a 2nd list each level, but that method makes for worse than a glass cannon... maybe a wet-paper cannon?

[MisterK]

I believe there is a restriction of two spell lists per level (RM2), but no maximum to the total number of spell lists to learn.  Purchase 20 ranks in the first spell list for guaranteed success, then up to 19 ranks in a 2nd list each level, but that method makes for worse than a glass cannon... maybe a wet-paper cannon?

I'm not even sure about that - as far as I remember, the only restriction was that you had to purchase 20 ranks in a list before being able to buy ranks in a second (because the stat bonus applied to the list acquisition roll), but I don't remember there being an upper limit of 2 per level (in any case, you needed to have at least 41 DPs to buy a rank in the third one, which was possible but required very good stats to all five DP stats.

The provision to buy more than one list is in RM2 ChL&CL p50, and I don't see any explicit limit. The rule is provided for characters who want to develop a second spell list, but there is no "it is not possible to buy more than two lists in a single level" or similar sentence.

The example that follows states that "20 points is usually 2/3 or more of the total development points available to a character for a given level", which explains why the rule was not extended - except having more than 40 DPs *is* technically possible.

[jdale]

I might speculate that the house rule was intended to even out the luck factor, since in principle if you are lucky you could learn two spell list picks every level, while an unlucky character might even gain fewer than one list per level. (RMSS/RMFRP's per-rank spell development removed that luck factor in a more straightforward way.)

At higher levels, a limit might affect whether you can develop many lists to level 5 or 10 vs having to focus on a smaller number of lists and developing them to a higher level, since getting access to the higher level spells requires picking the same spell list a second time.

[Majyk]

House rule.

That said, my own is spend as many DP in as many lists as you wanna and add you Magic Realm Stat plus whatever Base Spells level bonus one gets from a Profession.

I want a bunch of access to Utility spells in my games and if you cheat the odds with a single rank of development and miss the chance at a list, well, that was a choice you made, heh.

It happened to me for a 2nd level Sorcerer PC test character with a 30ish% chance in Base lists, and a 15ish% chance in Channeling lists…I couldn’t believe it for being statistically improbable on something like 10+ lists.

[PiXeL01]

I use the rules which allow characters to develop as many lists per level as they want.

Your use all your points for the level then rolls for each list you developed (rank bonus + stat bonus).

I like casters have lots of spells as PowerPoints are few anyhow even if you calculate using base PowerPoints.

[terefang]

the house rule from Majyk is really biased towards quadratic casters,
eg. higher stats get you more DP, high stats let you spend less DP to gain Spell Lists.

in my opinion this discussion needs to be moved to the point of user(player) experience.

the spell pick rules of RM, tried to bring over the AD&D 1st edition (1981) feel of "Chance to Know Each Listed Spell" mechanics.

do you still really want that?

or should the knowledge of spells be based directly on skill rank. (ie. RoCo3 Individual Spell Development)

if you switch to the later system the question of list limits changes from "how many lists" to "to which level".

the need to buy each level and not shortcut based on "sheer luck" levels the field.

you can get diversity by sacrificing depth.

[Elrich Maltah]

Thanks for that perspective, terefang. My GM does use a modified version of the individual spell development rules. That's mostly why I asked the question in the first place (but forgot to mention that part). The number of lists some players in our group have is expanded, but they do sacrifice depth, at least at lower levels so far.

[terefang]

but that is only natural

[Elrich Maltah]

I've seen some previous discussions here that talked about the maximum number of spells a caster could learn in a level, typically based on the number of DPs available for pick rolls. However, I've never found any mention here or in the books about the maximum number of spell lists a caster can learn spells from over the course of a career. My GM uses the following guidelines:

Pure Spell Users: Level + 3 lists
Hybrid/Archmage Spell Users: Level + 2 lists
Semi-Spell Users: Level + 1 lists
Non-Spell Users: Level + 0 lists

This seems reasonable, bearing in mind that casters who keep up to the limit will likely lack many high-level spells in a given list because DPs aren't infinite, but I'm curious if it's a completely homebrew idea or if it's based on a published rule somewhere.

It appears that this is not, in fact, entirely a house rule, but is taken directly from the RAW, that I didn't notice until just now:

RMC3 4.5, "Individual Spell Development" bullet point 3:
"At 1st level, a pure or hybrid spell user may select spells from up to 4 different lists; a semi-user from 2, and a non-user from only one. At each later character level, the character may select from one additional new list."

The only modification my GM made was to make hybrid spell users and Archmages get a starting amount of 3 lists at first level. Otherwise, it's straight from the book.

[intothatdarkness]

If you want to get really technical, it is still a house rule of a sort...the companions tended to be compilations of house rules from a variety of sources. They were intended to be optional. I don't really consider anything that's not in the core RM stuff (Spell Law, Arms Law, Character Law) to be RAW in the traditional sense.

Some companions were better than others, at least in my view. My favorite remains RoCo I.

[Majyk]

Confirmed RoCoIII Individual Spell picking was optional and as said above collected from someone else’s house rule.

Still, it does answer where it came from, as you say which also adds further proof that no two RM games are GMd the same way because of it!
(A blessing and a curse some say, heh.)

Nice sleuthing.

[terefang]

even a bad RoCo rule can be a blueprint for a good house-rule

[EltonJ]

Confirmed RoCoIII Individual Spell picking was optional and as said above collected from someone else’s house rule.

Still, it does answer where it came from, as you say which also adds further proof that no two RM games are GMd the same way because of it!
(A blessing and a curse some say, heh.)

Nice sleuthing.

Nice, I have RoCoIII.  It's my favorite Rolemaster Companion for RM2/RMC. I liked it because of the Noble Warrior profession.

Nice sleuthing indeed.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

"For any house rule a GM uses, especially for so long he doesn't recall whence he got it, there's probably in some RM2 companion or module a matching optional rue."