Official ICE Forums

Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Eladan on January 05, 2022, 08:14:32 AM

Title: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 05, 2022, 08:14:32 AM
I realize that this topic had some discussion under a previous thread (https://ironcrown.co.uk/ICEforums/index.php?topic=20392.0 (https://ironcrown.co.uk/ICEforums/index.php?topic=20392.0)), but I wanted to started a tangent to it under the Rolemaster branch of the forum to avoid confusion with Beta. Now that my life has completed a major time sink (graduate work), I am revisiting my project to bring old professions into RMU and have what I think may be a fresh look at healers in RM. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll call the various versions the Old Healer, the RMU Healer, and the New Healer.

There are a couple of core ideas to start with:


I'm open to comments, concerns, critiques, and recommendations. I would also move the New Healer squarely into the realm of Mentalism, freeing up the Hybrid slot for my Revised: Astrologer (https://ironcrown.co.uk/ICEforums/index.php?topic=20055.0 (https://ironcrown.co.uk/ICEforums/index.php?topic=20055.0)), but that's an OCD thing of mine...
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 05, 2022, 09:54:10 AM
I think the scaling is a good approach. We actually doubled up some flowstop/clotting spells to slip a little more utility into the lay healer lists.

Ranged healing has some interesting ramifications, e.g. enemies may have hidden healers.

Reducing the number of required spell lists to treat all conditions is good and bad. The good is the character is more versatile. The bad is that it makes different kinds of injuries functionally the same. Adding functionality to the existing lists keeps it more distinct.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: MisterK on January 05, 2022, 10:25:05 AM
Reducing the number of required spell lists to treat all conditions is good and bad. The good is the character is more versatile. The bad is that it makes different kinds of injuries functionally the same. Adding functionality to the existing lists keeps it more distinct.
I wouldn't say that - they are functionally distinct since their effect is distinct. They are only similar for healing purposes, but then again, it all depends on how much you want to emphasise the need to have a pocket healer in a group when that decision has significant side effects on the healing character - in other words, unless being a healer is as much fun as being any other class, you have a design issue. Healing is fully reactive, removes a significant part of a caster's noncombat versatility, has no offensive, defensive or utility impact in combat unless you make recovery instant (which is not the default setting), and , as with all other casters, eats up a significant part of DPs to sustain. That's a bit much for something that can only be seen as a necessary evil (as in : something you would rather do without, but can't for practical reasons).
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 05, 2022, 10:49:09 AM
I appreciate the encouragement on the scaling concept. There's some balance issues to consider in terms of how many "options" are available at each level.

Ranged healing already exists in game though, doesn't it? The Old/RMU Lay Healer and Channeling lists all have ranged healing. Those professions with more limited healing like the Monk, Paladin, etc don't really need their lists modified. I also don't necessarily see the concept of hidden healers as a bad thing. Any spellcaster sitting on the back line is likely to draw hostility, although casting from Mentalism does make it more subtle, which is something to consider...

I don't necessarily think that the compression has to trivialize the type of injuries... The scaling system can be adjusted to compress slots (and therefore lists), keeping spells to treat different ailments. Totally unthought-out example:

Bone/Cartilage Healing III (New) - Caster can apply any two of the following options to a Bone/Cartilage injury. Caster make take an option more than once. (X) indicates an option actually counts as X options for tallying purposes. Multiple spells may not be cast upon the same wound by the same caster.

It essentially combines the two spells and allows us to add spells from another list. If we want to combine Bone healing with say Muscle healing, there are now of openings available.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 05, 2022, 11:09:42 AM
@MisterK
Quote
... in other words, unless being a healer is as much fun as being any other class, you have a design issue.

I agree with this 100%. I don't mind playing utility/support characters, but I think I'm in the minority, and that seems to be the biggest issue with healing classes in general. There may be other ways to create an appeal to them, but I think this is a viable and effective way to do it. Compressing lists and offering others that create diverse roles in a group seems like a logical option in this ongoing project to revamp the old concepts into the RMU framework.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol on January 05, 2022, 12:44:23 PM
I agree with this 100%. I don't mind playing utility/support characters, but I think I'm in the minority, and that seems to be the biggest issue with healing classes in general.
Despite generally playing utility/support characters, one of my players is still very reluctant to play a Healer or even Lay Healer in RM2 because, whilst any other utility/support magic-using character may be able to do a lot of stuff (buff/debuff, minor healing, disguise, etc.) at the same time, the Healer/Lay Healer has to dedicated SIX whole spell lists on just one matter: healing.
It's especially glaring when one considers the Monk's base spell list, "Body Renewal", where the Monk (a semi-spell user of Essence!) can reattach a severed limb with only one spell whereas a Healer can do the same… using FOUR spells.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 05, 2022, 01:21:46 PM
That's why limiting the healing lists to say 3 lists, and then having 5-7 more to pick from with different specializations would be excellent. They can all be framed to model different healing archetypes. Consider the following:
There are more I'm sure, but you allow players to pick three more lists that can point their character in one of these archetypal directions, and now the profession seems much more appealing. I can live with the healing spread over 3 lists if the relative power is greater than the professional lists (Monk, Paladin, etc) but asking a profession to dedicate their entire development is perhaps a bridge too far.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol on January 05, 2022, 02:12:19 PM
Honestly, just getting rid of the RM2 "Transferring Ways" in RMSS was already a good idea, as it used to be a whole spell list with little use (in my current game, the healer is the Monk with his "Body Renewal"… with just the "spacial skills" background option, which allows him to cover 80% of what a Healer may, in just one spell list and one BGO!
Honestly, giving the Healer's spells a range, say 1 dam or so, making them instant spells, and allowing him to even do the same as the other healing lists but in a couple lists, would suddenly increase his usefulness by a large margin.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Vladimir on January 05, 2022, 04:37:54 PM
  In the current campaign a new player wanted to play a Paladin and started going over the Cleric's spell lists...I then pointed out the Paladin's lists and the GM suddenly remembered why he didn't allow Paladins -He considered the class over powered (if played right...or wrong). The Paladin is what a Healer should be, with a single comprehensive list of all-around spells instead of several lists if specific spells for specific injuries...and he could fight, using a slew of other useful spells.
  My GM seems to love allowing inexperienced players OP characters, just for the entertainment value, such as the lycanthrope who eventually got killed by the party because he didn't bother to tell the party that he had problems when the full moon was out. Unfortunately, I missed that session.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol on January 05, 2022, 06:16:50 PM
There's a reason why Eladan mentioned them. The Monk's "Body Renewal", the Paladin's "Laying on Hands" and the Arcane "Arcane Healing" are example of what the Healer's lists should have been (in better versions for the two former) instead of six spell lists…
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: EltonJ on January 05, 2022, 06:28:22 PM
There's a reason why Eladan mentioned them. The Monk's "Body Renewal", the Paladin's "Laying on Hands" and the Arcane "Arcane Healing" are example of what the Healer's lists should have been (in better versions for the two former) instead of six spell lists…

Perhaps the same for the Lay Healers?
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 05, 2022, 07:10:55 PM
@OLF
Quote
The Monk's "Body Renewal", the Paladin's "Laying on Hands" and the Arcane "Arcane Healing" are example of what the Healer's lists should have been (in better versions for the two former) instead of six spell lists…

Bingo. To be fair, I’m not sure if the answer is to condense it all into one list (like the OP semi lists) or to make sure that the effectiveness is spread out over several lists, but the point is that healing as a spell concept is problematic. It actually reminds me of the problem that Warrior Mages had in RM2 with an elemental attack list with the best spells from every Mage list.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 05, 2022, 08:36:47 PM
The semi professions pay for that versatility in that most healing is higher level for them (and self-healing in mentalism is of course only for yourself). They are undoubtedly good lists but you probably wouldn't rely on a paladin for all of your party's healing.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 05, 2022, 09:06:16 PM
@Jdale
Quote
The semi professions pay for that versatility in that most healing is higher level for them
I don't disagree, but some of these all encompassing lists basically are a time-gated way to being as good as some of the pure spell users. To my mind, even at higher levels, a semi should never be quite as good as a pure anything, whether Arms user or Pure spellcaster. Granted, a Paladin's PP costs will always be higher, but ultimately they can cure most of the same ailments at high level as a Healer who needs 3 lists (or worse, 5-6 lists in the current system) to do the same. Without trying to sound too critical, I'm just not comfortable with that form of balance.

I'm not proposing a full rewrite; it's far too late in the game to think that would be a reality. This is more a thought experiment that I'm considering for my own house rules, but I think it empowers healing classes across the board. As OLF rightly notes, the Transference list was certainly a clunky mechanic. I also don't wholly depart from the concept of a Healer who takes injuries onto himself where his healing is more effective, but I agree that ranged healing is a staple in virtually every other RPG (at least for healing centered classes), so it should be more standardized for a primary Healing class.

Aside: Is the RM Healer (not the Lay Healer) directly influenced by Stephen R. Donaldson's healers in his Thomas Covenant: The Unbeliever series? It looks like the timelines for publication sync up, in which case the concept of the Healer profession might simply be a freeze-frame of a particular time in the genre, and worth casting aside unless we really look at whether the class is worth playing.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 05, 2022, 10:25:08 PM
I'm not sure of the origin of the transference Healer. I think it also appears in Elfquest, which started in 1978. Many other examples https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EmpathicHealer (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EmpathicHealer) although I didn't check the dates on many of those -- although I'm pretty sure their example under religion predates RM. ;)   I do see, though, an example in a Star Trek episode (of all things) from 1968.

In RMU, 1 rank in each of 3 base lists will cost a pure caster 3 DP, whereas 1 rank in a base list will cost a paladin 3 DP. The pure caster will probably have 10-12 lists, while a semi will probably have 3. So allocating a single base list to healing is a big deal for a semi. And then the spell lists are really not equivalent. For example the paladin's Holy Healing has Cut Repair III at 13th level, while the closed channeling list Blood Law has it at 9th, the Lay Healer Blood Mastery list has it as 5th (Healer too but theirs works subconsciously as a bonus). The paladin never gets any Healing True spells, which means their healing of wounds always takes hours, while the channeling lists do get those spells permitting healing in rounds.

So, I don't have any concerns about the balance of the paladin list against other healing. I think the issue about making a character who heals fun to play is much more important. As I noted, we did add some utility to those lists to try to serve that purpose, but that's not the only possible approach and I don't mean to discourage creating some alternatives.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Cory Magel on January 05, 2022, 10:46:22 PM
We've had players run a Healer and they are incredibly useful.  The drawback is they tend to have virtually no real offensive ability.

They heal far better and faster.  The balance is that they have to transfer some wounds to themselves, but the benefit there is most their self healing works while unconscious.  In a game as deadly as Rolemaster that is huge.

So I'd say they are an excellent profession, it's just that most players don't like the almost entirely defensive nature of them.  We solved this with Talent Law and giving Healer characters some kind of offensive ability.  We never found it unbalancing as, if no one needed to be healed, they were merely a passable combatant and if someone did need healing they weren't contributing offensively.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: MisterK on January 06, 2022, 12:03:49 AM
We've had players run a Healer and they are incredibly useful.  The drawback is they tend to have virtually no real offensive ability.

They heal far better and faster.  The balance is that they have to transfer some wounds to themselves, but the benefit there is most their self healing works while unconscious.  In a game as deadly as Rolemaster that is huge.
The immense drawback being that they are unconscious. From a character perspective, that means you cannot heal mid-fight, it's just too dangerous for so many reasons. From a player's perspective, that means you're out of the *game* for the whole time.

I wouldn't want that for any player, even one I don't like.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Cory Magel on January 06, 2022, 12:40:05 AM
You don't have to be unconscious, but you can be.  We've had healers absorb wounds that would have dropped the melee fighters and killed them, then the Healer self healed.  Their heal spells are powerful, they'll be back up pretty quickly.
It's a powerful profession played right, you just have to LIKE being a healing focused character.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Hurin on January 06, 2022, 12:52:35 AM
Personally, I like the concept of consolidating the lists necessary to heal any injury to 3 lists, as an alternative to the core healing lists (a kind of variant or optional system if you will). I would probably (using Channeling healing lists as a guide) combine Concussion's Way with Blood Law; Bone Law and Muscle Law; and then keep Nerve & Organ Law. This frees up the healer to take other lists that give them a chance to shine offensively in combat.

I'm not quite as enthusiastic about making the healing spells ranged or instantaneous. I say that because one thing I appreciate about RM healing is that it really isn't very effective in combat. I actually like that. What that does is free up the healer to do other things in combat. If you've ever played a Cleric in DnD, you've probably felt the party pressure to spend your turn healing others rather than doing something offensive. This is a real problem in DnD. 4th Edition solved it by making healing effectively an instant ('minor') action, but 5e has gone back to the old system, and the old problem has resurfaced. 5e then compounds the problem by eliminating negative hit points, making in-battle healing extremely effective, such that close combats usually come to resemble games of whack-a -mole, where characters keep going down to 0, then up to high numbers, then back down and up and down and up again. It gets quite ridiculous. This is why Clerics can't have nice things.

Rolemaster has largely solved this problem by making healing more of a post-combat thing. It is usually better in combat to take an offensive action than to start a slow healing process on an ally that will not help in the battle. That to me is actually a very good thing.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: MisterK on January 06, 2022, 02:53:58 AM
I agree with Hurin on the non-instant effect, only if the healer can actually be reasonably effective in combat without resorting to healing spells (since they are not instant effect, they cannot be used for in-combat utility or defense). This means that healers use their healing spells during combat only in actual emergencies (to prevent someone from dying *during* combat), but beyond that are not combat healers - and, as such, must have other capabilities.

I fully support healing list consolidation (not that this is a surprise to anyone :)) for pure and hybrid healing professions.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 06, 2022, 09:27:40 AM
I think most of us agree that list consolidation is a good thing, and the real question then becomes how to do it. I've been tinkering with the scaling mechanic with some other healing spells as well (the Bone/Cartilage example above as a rudimentary example) and I think there's some potential there. I'm not as familiar with HARP but I've been told this has echoes of that system in it. This is my current big item in my resurgent "Revised Professions" project.

Jumping off of this, I think we all agree that healers having other functionality is important too. I think that the Healer and Lay Healer can combined using the above mechanics, which in turn gives them options to diversify. I'm curious what other GM's thoughts are in terms of what those functions could be. List ideas? Concepts? Perhaps scouring through the Channeling/Mentalism companions might yield some ideas rather than reinventing the wheel.

I'm honestly not sure where I fall on the non-instant and ranged effects to healing magics. RM strikes me as a game where healing is quite restrictive... how many other games, from TTRPGs to MMOs, are there healing options that are instantaneous, ranged, and can affect multiple targets? A decent amount I'd say. I personally wouldn't have an issue seeing some of those mechanics become more standardized... it might raise the appeal of the profession a bit more.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Ecthelion on January 06, 2022, 09:46:14 AM
Interesting ideas, Eladan. Some comments from my side:
-Regarding the Healer's problem that he can't act after taking wounds from other PCs: I fully agree and it's really a downside of this profession that - unless the Healer is able to instantly heal the damage - he can't act until recovered from the wounds, while the healed PC is instantly healed and can continue with the adventure. The good news is that normally a party would wait until everyone is recovered. So it's not that big an issue. One other approach I have tried with one of my last characters is to play a Wolverine-like Healer i.e. a Healer that is also good with a melee weapon and can battle in the front line. And when he gets wounded he can quickly recover using his healing spells. Of course he would also heal his comrades, just as a normal healer. That was fun. It's perhaps an idea for a new Healer variant.

-Regarding the spell scaling options: In 2011 an article of mine about using HARP's scalable spells for Rolemaster was published on The Guild Companion. You can still access the article here (https://web.archive.org/web/20191128001037/http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/jan/rmss_jahnke_scalable_spells.html). The approach here was to use scalable spells in general for every spell list and not only for healing lists. I suggested such an approach to also get used for RMU, but the preferred approach for RMU was using the old spell list system and fill the empty slots in the lists.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 06, 2022, 10:05:05 AM
@Ecthelion - Ha! I used a "multi-classed" Fighter-Healer one time as an antagonist and he made the party's life a living hell in combat... they would deliver crushing blows only for him to be up and swinging the next round. So that is certainly an archetype worth exploring. I will certainly check out the article... it seems like there are tons of solutions to some of these problems along this line of thinking.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 06, 2022, 10:11:50 AM
There are some useful and important instant healing effects: stun relief, cut relief, fatigue relief, and hit restoration. These can all make a big difference during a combat. Those handle at least half of the activity penalties that combatants incur. A spell like Living Splint (halves an injury penalty temporarily) can also help. You could also have a buff spell to boost Fortitude as a way of mitigating penalties.

I feel like the Lay Healer and Healer are very different concepts. Lay Healer basically has 5 healing lists, prosthetics is extremely niche, especially considering that Joining is only 9th level. If you focus the profession in the mentalism realm, it would not be a big jump to add spells for mental healing, communication, calming, sleep, etc -- that's still thematic but has some combat utility.

For Healer, you could build on the empathic side. For example, you could have a spell permitting a Healer to share an experience -- you gave me this injury, and now I want you to understand how it feels (and suffer the injury penalty along with me). You could have your protective/shielding spells in here, invoking divine protection since this profession has a channeling side. You could have summoning, maybe having a protective spirit to control would allow the Healer to take a more active role while they themself are healing.

For the fighting empathic healer type archetype, I suppose you could explore an empathic healing base list for a semi like a paladin. Have to balance that one carefully.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: rdanhenry on January 06, 2022, 01:06:59 PM
In RMU, it isn't hard to have Open lists in addition to your Base lists from the very start. There are a lot of defensive and battlefield control lists available to the Healer. Seemings and one of the light-based lists will give some more offensive things to do. Double-developing Base lists is 18 out of 60 DP. Add six Open lists (or 4 Open, 1 Closed) at one rank/level and that's 24 for spells. You'll want PP, so 3 DP there. You still have over 30 DP left. Double-developing your primary weapon is doable, but probably not worth the expense unless your game is very combat-centric. Single development each level is definitely doable. The Healer class racks up Body Development rapidly, too. He may be mediocre on offense, but his other abilities mean he doesn't need to hold anything back. The Healer isn't in the top-tier of combat characters, but it isn't useless by any means. And with the ability to make significant coin legitimately, probably gets a bonus weapon faster than most.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Hurin on January 06, 2022, 01:49:43 PM
There are some useful and important instant healing effects: stun relief, cut relief, fatigue relief, and hit restoration. These can all make a big difference during a combat. Those handle at least half of the activity penalties that combatants incur.

Yes, I should have been more precise: the Healing spells tend to take too long to have an effect in combat, but those ones above are useful.

One point I did want to make though is that making more healing spells instant will only help certain builds of healers -- namely, the ones that can engage in mundane combat. It won't help the spell-oriented pure casters because you can only cast one spell per round, and mundane combat skills are quite expensive for pure casters. So if all you can really do effectively is cast a spell, casting it as an instant is of less value.

A semi like a Paladin or Ranger who can fight as well as cast would get far more value out of that.

Quote
You could also have a buff spell to boost Fortitude as a way of mitigating penalties.

Already on that train for my RMU Warlord (when I finally get around to making that class).


Quote
For Healer, you could build on the empathic side... You could have summoning, maybe having a protective spirit to control would allow the Healer to take a more active role while they themself are healing.

Or a therapy dog that could also mix it up in combat. I think of a Druid with a St. Bernard!
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: B Hanson on January 06, 2022, 07:25:11 PM
I'm following along here, but just to clarify the issue for myself:

1. There are too many healing lists?
2. Casting should be quicker/instantaneous/ranged?
3. Effects should be immediate/instantaneous?
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 06, 2022, 10:05:40 PM
Regarding #1, I would say the concern is not exactly "too many healing lists available" but "filling the role of a healer requires too much of a character's development focus, limiting their ability to participate in other parts of the game." Or in simpler terms, the complaint is "healers aren't fun." Reducing the number of lists is one option to address that concern.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: EltonJ on January 07, 2022, 06:07:42 PM
Regarding #1, I would say the concern is not exactly "too many healing lists available" but "filling the role of a healer requires too much of a character's development focus, limiting their ability to participate in other parts of the game." Or in simpler terms, the complaint is "healers aren't fun." Reducing the number of lists is one option to address that concern.

Well, I always thought that the Healer is an NPC profession instead of a PC one.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 07, 2022, 06:21:56 PM
Every profession is a PC profession. I had a PC playing a scholar for while in my game. We had a Healer in our RMSS game for a while, and presently we have a channeling type healing character in each of the campaigns I am currently running.

Personally, I don't like having NPCs in the party, so if the thought is that the GM should provide an NPC healer to tag along, I don't find that a very good solution. If I wanted to do that, I would just give them a magic item with the spells and PP.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Vladimir on January 07, 2022, 06:36:24 PM
Quote
Well, I always thought that the Healer is an NPC profession instead of a PC one.
  True. At that point a PC is just another servant or faceless hireling whose purpose is only activated under specific conditions. They may as well be a cook, which is why after playing a number of classless RPGs, I find the artificial class/profession restrictions rather superfluous. You either accept the system as a conventional mechanic or you find another game. 
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 07, 2022, 10:31:19 PM
@BriH - Those are fairly succinct summary points of my perceived issues with Healers. To answer them:

I'll try to finish and submit a draft of a revised list by the end of the weekend with my new scaling mechanics.

@Hurin - Interestingly, it might be able to bypass the one-spell-per-round mechanic with another list that not every healer would take... some sort of spell augmenting list specific to healing spells perhaps? Cast a spell from this list and the next round you can cast two healing spells up to a certain level? Increases the total spell output by 50%. I know our devs might say that creates some imbalance, but it certainly could add effectiveness to the class at the cost of development points and power points. This could be a whole other discussion though... I digress...

I agree with Jdale that all professions should have some measure of appeal to be played as a PC. Admittedly the simplest solution is to take some Open lists to provide more versatility, but I like the notion of healer-specific lists that provide more flavor within the class itself.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Hurin on January 08, 2022, 12:11:48 AM

@Hurin - Interestingly, it might be able to bypass the one-spell-per-round mechanic with another list that not every healer would take... some sort of spell augmenting list specific to healing spells perhaps? Cast a spell from this list and the next round you can cast two healing spells up to a certain level? Increases the total spell output by 50%.

Sorry, I should have specified: this is a rule in RMU, and that's the system I tend to think in now. There is an option to allow players to cast more than one spell per round in RMU, but the system advises caution when considering that option and I do too, given how much stronger casters are in RMU (many more powerpoints, many more spells, less spell prep, etc.). So I don't really see the solution as being allowing more spells, since I like the 1 spell/round hard limit; and if you allow healers to cast more than 1/round, the Sorcerers and Magicians are going to want to as well.

So I personally prefer the current system, in which healers are probably going to be casting attack spells or doing other fun things during most combat rounds rather than casting Medium Cartilage Damage Relief, seeing as the latter is going to take a while to have an effect and can easily just be cast after combat.

Some fun ideas might be spells that reduce criticals by x severity by imbuing a target with supernatural robustness/healing abilities; casting a buff that turns a target into a kind of Wolverine who can regenerate hit points; and the aforementioned Warlord kind of spell that buffs the Fortitude skill.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 08, 2022, 01:16:40 AM
Ongoing regeneration helps provide more activity, since the benefit is accruing even while you are doing other things. You could have other things like that, e.g. the target's stun is removed plus the next time they are stunned during the same combat it is reduced by 1 round. Doesn't break the rule but achieves the same benefit. Contingent spells could do that too; you put a spell on the target now and when they suffer X type of wound it is mitigated.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Vladimir on January 08, 2022, 02:20:37 AM
  What I see is a need to either revise the Healer or invent another class with the following:
1) Simplified comprehensive healing, with consolidated spell lists.
2) The ability to cast regenerative spells to counter specific critical effects from bleed to organ damage.
3) In addition, have DP left over for a more rounded character, either as a spell caster with magical attack and defense capabilities or as a hybrid capable of effective combat.
4) Off the top of my head I'd call the new class/profession: a) Battle Healer or b) Combat Medic... 
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 08, 2022, 08:44:05 AM
Agreed Hurin, I’m thinking of all of this in a RMU mindset. I see your point on the spell cap limit… modifying that is a dangerous path to go down.

The notion of buff lists is exactly what I’m thinking of for Healers. While Clerics, Druids, etc all get access to the “normal” healing lists, a Healer’s list should be be more powerful (and currently are, just need compression) and should have acces to some other fun items. Regeneration, damage resistance, wound mitigation… these are all good ideas. Time to hit the drawing board!
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: MisterK on January 08, 2022, 11:22:52 AM
I'm not bothered with the 1 spell/round limit (or whatever limit RMU states): the idea of healing spells in RM is that you cast them after the action is over unless there is a real emergency (because recovery takes more time than you have). Which means that, if the healer is casting healing spells every round, the situation is FUBAR anyway and the group has more pressing problems.

Lack of impact is more of an issue - and it is even more pronounced for the Healer profession because it is a hybrid profession and, as such, does not get the benefit of extra base spell lists as opposed to pure spellcasters. Since the healing spell lists are very focused on a single activity (healing, obviously), they are not versatile. Furthermore, since healing is required only after a combat that did not go that well, the activity itself is fairly niche as well - I'm not questioning its *usefulness*, I'm questioning its pro-activeness and applicability to a variety of situations.

And that's what I would expect from a revision of the base healing lists for the Lay Healer and Healer professions - more pro-active spells and more spells that do not require a specific situation (someone being injured). I would even say that I would expect at least part of that effort to go to spells that are useful in non-combat (or non-combat recovery) situations, but are useful for other activities (travel, social interactions, subterfuge, whatever).

Having healer-oriented spells that help travel is fairly easy to think of - spells that boost stamina or stride, spells that increase recovery, spells that provide increased tolerance to adverse conditions (extremes of temperature, dehydration, reduced oxygen availability because of altitude...), just off the top of my head.
Similarly, having healer-oriented spells that help social interactions should be a shoe-in, if only because social interactions are partially dependent on appearance (healthy, well-fed, well-groomed, fresh breath, no particular body odor...) and mental state (clear minded, attentive). Sure, it's not *healing* proper, but it could be within a healer's abilities.
Add to that pro-active spells that have combat usefulness such as enhanced regeneration, nerve rewiring for increased shock resistance capability, enhanced oxygen delivery for increased muscle efficiency (once again, just off the top of my head) and you have a healer that does not have to *wait* for someone to be wounded to feel that their core lists are useful.

Aggregating the existing lists to make room for new ones is an option. Another could be to make the existing lists more compact by removing partial redundancies (for instance, do we really need a flow stop *and* a clotting spell ?) and reducing the usual RM power increase scheme (XXX spell I, XXX spell II, XXX spell III and so on ad nauseam), so that the new spells can be inserted in the slots that are freed in a thematic way.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: MisterK on January 08, 2022, 11:26:55 AM
A completely different option, that goes well with elemental magic, is to have healing spells associated with elements. In that case, purely healing profession disappear, and healing spells become part of the lists available to elementalists because of elemental affinity with heaing activity (typically water, but other elements could have their own healing affinity).
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 08, 2022, 12:00:24 PM
Those buffs with medical rationales are a cool idea, and certainly can fit within the healer concept that I see I’m my gaming world.

With realigning magical realms in my game into Spheres, where realms are really just the mechanics by which magic operates, the Healer can fit nicely into Mentalism and really is redundant with the Lay Healer. I see them merged, with Prosthetics as one of the optional Base lists if necessary. Obviously there might be room in other people’s games for two dedicated healing classes, but I prefer streamlining them.

That notion of elemental healing is a nice throwback to Elemental Companion, and certainly a great idea; it reminds me of Wheel of Time with different threads or “weaves” of magic having different effects… healing with Fire or Water are very different treatments. That was part of my rationale for realigning magic into Spheres. I think that it fundamentally changes how we have to approach healing, and perhaps magic in general though.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: rdanhenry on January 08, 2022, 12:36:00 PM
Lack of impact is more of an issue - and it is even more pronounced for the Healer profession because it is a hybrid profession and, as such, does not get the benefit of extra base spell lists as opposed to pure spellcasters.

I think you mean "because it is a hybrid profession, the Healer gets twice as many extra base lists as a pure spellcaster". Because in RMU, there are no "extra base lists" as such, but the cost of Open and Base lists is the same, so the pure caster gets effectively 10 "extra base lists", while the hybrid gets 20. The Healer has access to plenty of self-buffs through Mentalism and some decent lists in Channeling as well. They are kind of screwed on spell selection compared with the Sorcerer, in that a bunch of the Channeling lists are healing-based and hence pretty redundant. But still better off than the Mystic, whose base lists are all mash ups of Open and Closed lists from their two realms. (The Mystic, not the Healer, is the profession whose viability I am concerned with. And we got no or almost no playtest feedback on that profession.)

Quote
  I would even say that I would expect at least part of that effort to go to spells that are useful in non-combat (or non-combat recovery) situations, but are useful for other activities (travel, social interactions, subterfuge, whatever).

They have access to most of these already, and the GM should be able to take into account social factors like a magical doctor generally being seen more positively than the scruffy mercenary that is the typical "adventurer". A little free healing will win friends pretty much anywhere, no other spells needed.  And there is Sound's Way to overcome language barriers. Calm Spirits might also be counted into the "social interaction" bucket, in part. But for the rest...

Combat? -- Barrier Law (control the battlefield), Light's Way, Spell Defense, Calm Spirits (mostly to prevent combat, but some tactical options), Anticipations, Attack Avoidance, Brilliance, Damage Resistance, Seemings****, Spell Resistance, Telekinesis, Gas Manipulation, Liquid Manipulation, Speed
Travel? -- Light's Way, Lofty Movements, Purifications, Weather Ways, Creations, Locating Ways, Mounted Ways, Brilliance, Mind's Door, Movement
Subterfuge? -- Lofty Movements, Sound's Way, Cloaking, Seemings, Telekinesis, Sense Mastery, Shifting
Whatever? -- Detection Mastery, Light's Way*, Nature's Law, Weather Ways**, Locating Ways, Lore, Symbolic Ways***, Brilliance*, Delving, Detections, Gas Manipulation, Liquid Manipulation, Mind Mastery, Solid Manipulation

* Even if people don't need healing at the moment, being able to produce light without the risks of fire should always offer a chance to make a little coin.
** Another list that you can hire out or do giveaways for popularity (although you need to be better than those around you, as demand isn't as endless as for light)
*** You should probably be able to figure out how to make coin out of this list, too.
**** Probably a little creative thinking will let Seemings help out in a fair number of social interactions

This all seems more like an ideological objection to healing-centric professions than the result of actually playing one and finding it too limited (in RMU, as opposed to previous versions... in RM2, you were doing well to have all your Base lists by 3rd level). RMU casters have a lot of flexibility and can and should develop beyond their base lists (*especially* hybrids). The Healer can already buff himself quite well, if he so chooses, and being able to buff others would go against the feel of the profession. It could be more appropriate for the Lay Healer, perhaps as an alternative base list to replace Prosthetics.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 08, 2022, 01:00:53 PM
Quote
This all seems more like an ideological objection to healing-centric professions than the result of actually playing one and finding it too limited
Having not run a healing-centric PC in one of my parties, only as an occasional NPC, I won't disagree with that assessment. I will say though that the appeal of having additional Base lists specifically tailored to your character concept is appealing, and with healing spells unnecessarily taking up 5-6 spots, it perhaps steers adventurers away. Some good fixes proposed in this thread though.

Quote
[The Healer is] kind of screwed on spell selection compared with the Sorcerer, in that a bunch of the Channeling lists are healing-based and hence pretty redundant.
That's part of my issue with the Healer being tied to Channeling, in that it exacerbates one of the key issues I have with the Realms as they are currently configured, which is too much overlap in terms of spell abilities. All the more reason for a Healer to have some class-specific diversity.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: MisterK on January 08, 2022, 01:13:59 PM
To be honest, I haven't played RMU and don't plan to - either the game is moving away from my comfort zone, or I am moving away from the RM way of doing things, or both, but the number of rule points I would have to ignore, starting with the skill list, basically told me this was not the game for me anymore.

So all my comments are based on the previous editions, as well as the definite lack of healing professions in the characters that have been played in the campaigns I GMed and played in since 1986 (a grand total of one character over 9 campaigns). But there is obviously a bias in the way we play - campaigns are definitely *not* combat-intensive.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Hurin on January 08, 2022, 01:18:51 PM
... for instance, do we really need a flow stop *and* a clotting spell ?

I agree with you there; I think those two could be combined to open up more and different possibilities for a healer class. It's not that Flow Stop and Clotting are literally redundant, since a Flowstopped target can't move at all while a Clotted target can, but they are similar enough that we probably don't loose too much if we combine them.

In fact, I think you might actually be able to combine all three types of bleeding-stopping spells (Clotting, Flowstop, and Cut Repair) by making them scale for severity. You could for example have a single low level spell that heals 1 hp/round of bleeding outright, heals up to 2 with the one-hour restriction on movement, and heals up to 3 with the permanent restriction on movement (i.e. until you cast a Light Flesh Wound Relief spell). Then, a little higher up on the list, you have a spell that scales to 2 hp/round healed outright, up to 3 healed with the one-hour restriction, and up to 4 with no movement. This would reduce three types of spells to one, but retain the idea that healers gradually get better at healing more severe bleeding. It would also open up many slots on the Blood Law list for other types of spells.

As a side note, and as I noted in another thread, I'd much rather have a 'Light Flesh Wound Healing' spell at low levels in the Blood Law type lists, since casters don't have any way to heal a light flesh wound at all on that list currently (they have to wait till level 8 to get 'Medium Flesh Wound Relief').
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 08, 2022, 01:43:45 PM
Quote
As a side note, and as I noted in another thread, I'd much rather have a 'Light Flesh Wound Healing' spell at low levels in the Blood Law type lists, since casters don't have any way to heal a light flesh wound at all on that list currently (they have to wait till level 8 to get 'Medium Flesh Wound Relief')
@Hurin - Agree 100%. Your scaling mechanic is definitely a little simpler than mine, but the premise is the same. All due respect to our devs, but that's something I intend to smooth out in my game. I understand the logic behind all three versions, but the game is gritty enough without the burden of three different types of bleed recovery.

@MisterK, the more I read some of the insights you and others share here, the more I understand and to a degree share that viewpoint, but I'm committed to trying to find a happy medium to try to blend the old and the new in such a way that it finds some middle ground that appeals to my group and others as well. There is a beauty to RM/RMU in how it approaches character individualization, so I continue to plug along...

In case anyone is interested in how I've broken down the Professions into each Realm, there are some minor adjustments that might help understand my position on Healing professions. Red is under development, and purple is credit to Hurin for his lists from the Armsmaster and Warrior Mage... they are excellent!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R-O2xUHvlRKsoxLTkI-gUQtl6BVJsBWU/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R-O2xUHvlRKsoxLTkI-gUQtl6BVJsBWU/view?usp=sharing)

And also a breakdown of what lists each Sphere has access to, in order to give each profession more individual flair:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1necJVhFJWqUKFWw535Fqdu5941Ik6hJV/view?usp=sharing
 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1necJVhFJWqUKFWw535Fqdu5941Ik6hJV/view?usp=sharing)
This goes back to my feeling that one dedicated healing profession is probably enough, with others being able to dip a toe if they desire, provided the Healer has some other class-specific tricks in his bag. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse; you all are giving me a lot of inspiration for how to approach this though, so thanks.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol on January 08, 2022, 03:59:02 PM
Just a few words because some people still think people having issues with the Healer or Lay Healer is because of their passive role in combat.
This is NOT the case with my group. As I mentioned, some (well, at least two) of my players have no issues with playing a support character, with no utility in combat. Their main issue is that the Healer and Lay Healer have all of their base spell lists devoted about one single focus: healing. One of them used to play a Houri, whose spell lists may be useful in social, information gathering, infiltration, assassination, con, investigation, and more situations… though not much in combat. A Healer? Only in healing situations, and only for healing.
I'm a bit annoyed by jdale's summarising about how people not liking the Healer/Lay Healer as considering "healers aren't fun" (though I think I understand his POV), as to me it implies such people are just merely very combat-focused and unable to play any profession not combat-focused. From my experience, even as a GM, it's better (RM2-wise) for have a pure or hybrid spell caster take the Arcane list "Arcane Healing" than to devote six whole spell lists to healing. But, once again, I'm playing RM2, where the Healer has one WHOLE SPELL LIST, "Transferring Ways", that can be replaced by one single background option (and more, since the option is actually more powerful), "Spatial skills"! Hard to make the Healer popular in my group…
From what I can rdanhenry's post, mayhap the Healer could have as easily or ever more easily his spell lists than a semi (Paladin or Monk) would, so these at least wouldn't be any longer hard concurrents. But, compared to other pure or hybrid spell users who have their six base lists dedicated to different matters, he still has the short end of the stick, as he still has to devote his to the same matter.

Anyway, to add to the discussion, since the Healer is health-focused, it could be interesting to keep him in this way whilst giving him more options than pure healing by giving him injury/health buffs, such as disease protection (you may reroll or are immune against diseases for some time), poison protection, HPs buff (temporary HPs), critical resistance (temporarily lowering the levels of criticals), ignoring injury effects (such as penalty, acting even when HPs are below 0, or when an organ is destroyed), fear or lowering mind-effect protection, mind-affecting protection, which are not even "new" spell effects but exist in some spell lists in some RM version at some time. Giving him access to herb spells could work as well, though some may complain it infringes on the Animist's field of expertise (but then, as the Animist's list is a base list anyway, so, except if a group also as an Animist mayhap a less powerful version of "Herb Mastery could work?)
Analysis spells would fit him as well, allowing him to determine the health of a given target, his old injuries, current diseases, strength and weaknesses, physical and psychological.

In other words, don't make the Healer just someone that heals, and that's all, but turn him into an expert in anything body and mind health condition related matters, as well as every substance that may affect them. I mean, you know you should consult your pharmacist with unknown mushrooms, don't you? Because he knows about which one are poisonous. Because health experts supposedly know about poisonous substances and all? Well, shouldn't the medical expert that is the Healer has also have intensive knowledge about diseases, poisons, and other dangerous or lethal materials?

…of course, technically speaking, the Healers, because they know so well about how the body works, how it may be injured and how an injury may affect it, are in fact the most lethal people, for it means they know exactly where to hit, how to hit, or how to poison someone according to his body condition, but, heh. Crime novels would usually make them the best (worst?) culprits after all, as not only would they know the exact way to poison someone according to his condition (allergies, etc.), they'd also know how long it takes for the substance to be eliminated from the body, which effects could pass for "natural" causes, how to get said poison from natural sources, etc. :p
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Ecthelion on January 08, 2022, 04:19:01 PM
IMHO the healer-type professions might be a bit boring in a game where combat seldom takes place because the main focus of the profession then remains more or less useless. In more combat-heavy games - like outs - the healer professions can be fun. And there's also a lot of Open and Closed Spell Lists to use on other occasions, where healing isn't needed.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 08, 2022, 05:42:56 PM
Quote
Well, shouldn't the medical expert that is the Healer has also have intensive knowledge about diseases, poisons, and other dangerous or lethal materials?
Absolutely. I'm reminded of the scene from Terminator 2 when the T-800 is treating their injuries and tells them he has detailed files on the human anatomy (to make him a more efficient killer). Imagine being able to walk into a bar and get everyone drunk within minutes by affecting everyone's metabolism. A great non-combat possibility. Tons of additional ideas extra lists/spells here:
I like the idea of every profession have at least 9 Base lists to pick from (I'm not sure what the official ruling is but I allow characters to pick 6) in order to promote diversity within the profession. That means
Just working on the compression for the first three is turning into a project already...

Like you mention OLF, I think it's less about healing not being fun.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: B Hanson on January 08, 2022, 07:38:03 PM
At this point, it's a vague recollection, but I analyzed these issues when building BASiL. Certainly, I didn't have all the answers or all ideas, but it was based on SW centric viewpoint.

1. Magical healing EFFECTS should be immediate. That's what differentiates magic from mundane. Right?
2. RM combat systems require a detailed healing system. You can't have one without the other in real-time.
3. Channeling healing has to rely upon the host. A Cleric/Healer can't channel heal a target of another opposing god?
4. PP cost VS healing rate should be consistent. I looked into a "Group Buff" healing, but the PP vs Healing rate doesn't make sense.
5. Given that, I think that the healing spells are weak at best.
6. Peter talked about this a lot on the Rolemasterblog. He had healers in his group.
7. Healers could reverse the spell effects. That would address the healer/hurter dynamic mentioned.

Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Hurin on January 09, 2022, 11:19:49 AM
Minor idea building upon previous discussions: if healers have the best knowledge of anatomy and anatomical processes, then they might get spells that buff skills such as Subdual (they know where to hit) and perhaps even social skills (they can detect the blushing when the Thief tries to lie).
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 09, 2022, 12:21:27 PM
>1. Magical healing EFFECTS should be immediate. That's what differentiates magic from mundane. Right?

This really depends on what you want the rhythm of combat to be. That there are types of injuries that cannot be fixed during combat has real tactical consequences and makes combat more dangerous. Instant healing of everything makes it more like a simple attrition battle until one side's bag of points is empty (whether that bag is full of hit points or healer PP).

The slower healing also raises the stakes if the party must go through several battles without time for recovery. And it shifts some of the healer's job to outside the combat, giving them more time during the combat to do other things.

That there are also effects that can be healed immediately (stun, fatigue, hits) means that healing is still tactically important on the battlefield. I think it's a good balance. But, the healers also have their other spell lists and we're already playing with some buff and offense spells mixed into the healing lists (e.g. Muscle Law has Strength, Endurance, and Spasm spells that all affect muscles in different ways), so they have other things to do too.

I'm playing with a slightly different mix of spell lists but the main healer in the game we play more often does have Blood Mastery, Muscle Mastery, Bone Mastery, Nerve & Organ Mastery, Concussion Mastery, and also Life Mastery which is healing-adjacent. He also has 7 other spell lists (not all to his level, which is currently 8th). There's also an alchemist (in the potion-making sense) who is a secondary healer and a true master of the (non-magical) art of cauterization so that's an adjunct.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 09, 2022, 08:57:29 PM
Disclaimer: This is a very rough draft and first attempt at combining some of the elements of Healer spells into one list: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFuZMq7y_ieOAqnMBhnJF4GMOsqsI5gL/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFuZMq7y_ieOAqnMBhnJF4GMOsqsI5gL/view?usp=sharing)

A few notes:
Whew... this scaling mechanic preserves the idea that a Healer is more effective at healing himself, but gives him the versatility to heal others and choose whether to focus on healing more quickly at the cost of effectiveness.

Thoughts? I think may be a bit clunky, but I rather like the ability to mix and match effects, and it allows us to free up room on Surface Ways for some spells like Regeneration and other miscellaneous related spells.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 11, 2022, 01:22:02 PM
Now that I've begun to revamp the lists themselves, I'm coming across some difficulties, primarily because of some of the "healing equations." This is particularly noticeable with the spells that heal hit points. Let me elucidate...
As I mentioned before, there are essentially three levels of power with the three major magical healing classes, excluding those semis that get healing lists. Druids/Clerics/etc have access to the Law lists, which are the least powerful in terms of scaling. The Lay Healer is higher in the order with his Mastery lists, and is/should be able to heal more effectively at a lower level. Finally, the Healer is the apex medic with his Ways lists. the counterbalance to his expertise is that his spells are ranged to self, but can overcome this through Transference, gratefully revamped in RMU. Here are some comparisons:
Ok... this seems like a decent power progression and even spreads out a bit at higher levels. Once Healing versions of the spells are accessed, the recovery is reduced to hours rather than days with the Closed versions having Medium Muscle Healing at 14th level, the Lay Healer at 11th level, and the Healer at 6th level. Makes sense to me.

Bleeds and healing hit points are more complicated:
Not to nitpick, but the progression seems to be off. At low level, Channelers can heal hits as effectively as a Lay Healer, and only moderately less at 11th level. At the same time, the Healer comes out of the gates healing more effectively, but heals equal to an 11th level Lay Healer at 12th level, and still needs a 2nd spell to heal others. This formula seems problematic to me.

As I look over my incomplete sample list, and start to plan for the Surface/Blood Ways combo list, I begin to wonder:
All that being said, I still feel like the Lay Healer and Healer are somewhat redundant, hence my feeling that some new mechanics can separate the Healers from those who simply have access to the Law lists. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 11, 2022, 01:58:02 PM
The progression of scaled spells is rarely perfect, because you are trying to not only fit those scaled spells but also fit in a variety of other effects and they all end up competing for slots. It's not unusual that you have three spells that really all ought to be 3rd level and none that should be 4th or 5th, but something has to give way. I'm sure you've experienced that yourself. So the progressions on the list may not be exactly right for every effect, and I wouldn't worry about exactly matching everything.

Lay Healer should be better than channeling, simply because it is base lists vs open/closed lists. Healers are better than Lay Healers because those spells are self-only, and healing wounds is a two-step process. (On the other hand the subconscious spells are an advantage, so that's a factor too.)

Personally, I think the two professions are distinct concepts, and merging them ends up making something that is better than either -- you get the advantages of healing other people, plus the advantage of lower spell levels (equals lower PP costs), and the advantage of subconscious spells -- while losing the distinct flavors (e.g. lay healers can be secular; healers are absurdly self-sacrificing). That's a harder balancing issue than one or the other.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 11, 2022, 02:57:52 PM
I agree with that assessment, and the notion of where spells should be relative to each other is certainly a tough balancing act, aside from the added trouble of balancing them against other professions. It's less of a critique and more of an observation. That being said, I think that the use of new mechanics might be a way to offer that balance with a more formulaic method.

I fully acknowledge that some of my opinions are really tied to my own vision of the game, and while I do think that the Lay Healer and the Healer are distinct concepts, my experience with players avoiding healing professions makes me wonder if there aren't ways to simply combine the two for the purposes of streamlining and address some of the other issues that arise in terms of build diversity and class appeal.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: MisterK on January 12, 2022, 12:03:01 AM
The progression of scaled spells is rarely perfect, because you are trying to not only fit those scaled spells but also fit in a variety of other effects and they all end up competing for slots. It's not unusual that you have three spells that really all ought to be 3rd level and none that should be 4th or 5th, but something has to give way. I'm sure you've experienced that yourself. So the progressions on the list may not be exactly right for every effect, and I wouldn't worry about exactly matching everything.
That's an astute observation and one that could easily be solved (for all lists, mind you, not merely healing lists) by tranforming linear spell lists into spell trees. The effect on development would be the same (you still have to learn all spells) but each tree could have more than one spell per level slot and could develop on more than one axis. Most existing lists already have a multi-branch feel, only "linearised" because of the spell list convention.

I was actually surprised that no one decided to do it for RMU. The idea is not really new either - I think I saw a game from the 80s that included it already.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol on January 12, 2022, 04:39:51 AM
I fully acknowledge that some of my opinions are really tied to my own vision of the game, and while I do think that the Lay Healer and the Healer are distinct concepts, my experience with players avoiding healing professions makes me wonder if there aren't ways to simply combine the two for the purposes of streamlining and address some of the other issues that arise in terms of build diversity and class appeal.
IMO, just do what you feel is the correct approach: in the end, you're not writing for RMU, or any "official" work, but according to your "own vision of the game", which is the very reason why you even started all of these. Do something with what you'd feel satisfied.
Also, you're eventually writing base spell lists for pretty much a new profession, so you may as well merge the Lay Healer and Healer concepts into, as you wrote, a "stronger" version of the Lay Healer. You won't be able to satisfy everyone, anyway, so satisfy yourself first.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 12, 2022, 08:36:15 AM
@OLF - Very true. I suppose part of my seemingly unending discourse is to try to understand the motivations and thinking behind some of the concepts in RMU. I understand that it’s trying to blend old versions with a newly streamlined system, but it seems to me that some areas are deeply entrenched in some of the past mechanics that were problematic. Again, less of a critique and more of an observation; some people like the spell lists and their model of power progression. To be fair, I like using it, but tend to think that’s because it’s just what I’m comfortable with after so many years.

@MisterK - I love the spell tree idea; you actually see it a decent amount in video games, and it allows for great development concepts like blending professions or having magic based on elements or schools and having to combine them for truly powerful effects. My only issue is that if I did this for Healers, it would require essentially revamping the entire magic system too, which I’m not quite ready for… YET.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: tbigness on January 12, 2022, 06:32:44 PM
I find the Concept of HARP spells a better fix than spell slots. It allows customization and change of parameters without going overboard on cost due to spell slot allocation.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Cory Magel on January 12, 2022, 08:36:28 PM
I really like the way the HARP spell system works, however it would need the profession uniqueness (Base lists) and selection that RM has for me to want to fully utilize it.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 12, 2022, 09:21:09 PM
I spent a lot of time with the magic system in GURPS which has tree-style spell development (and some scaling) without levels, and it made me like Rolemaster's lists even more. Picking and choosing what you can do makes a focused character that can do what they think they need to do, but lists end up giving you a bunch of extra tools that you never know when they will come in handy. It feels more magical to me, that you have studied and picked up on the bits and pieces that perhaps were only noted in the margins. You're not just a person with some spells, you're actually a mage.

Scaling instead of a list also undermines the sense that every single rank will get you something new (because probably some won't).
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Hurin on January 12, 2022, 11:32:15 PM
I've read through your draft of your list, Eladan, and have a few bits of feedback.

My thinking is that if we reduce the number of injury treatment lists to three, we can group them as superficial healing (Surface Ways), tissue and bone healing (Flesh & Bone Ways), and deep injury healing (Nerve & Organ Ways).

I was thinking of grouping them according to Concussion and Blood; Muscle and Bone; Nerve and Organ. Is there a reason you grouped flesh with bone?

Quote
  • The scaling system is not yet balanced, but the theory behind it is that you first choose the damage type you want to heal, and then can add elements to the spell to empower it. Some examples - You cast Muscle Healing VIII
    • You could heal a -60 muscle injury (6 options) and reduce the recovery time from hours to rounds (2 options), on yourself, OR
    • You could heal a -40 injury (4 options) and reduce the recovery time from hours to rounds (2 options), on a target up to 50' away (2 options), OR
    • You could heal a -40 injury (2 options) on a target up to 25' feet away (1 option), and another -20 injury (1 option) on another target (2 options + extra PP) up to 50' away (2 options)
I'm trying to get the math to add up. The list says that injuries are healed in -20 increments. The first example says that to heal a -60 injury is 6 'options' though. Then the second example you give says healing a -40 injury is 2 options. Can you explain how that works? Why does healing a -60 injury cost 6 options but a -40 is only 2?

One other question: why are you assigning Roman numerals to damage types in the bottom of table x.x? If giving a symbol for damage types is necessary (and I'm not sure it is), I would probably want to use a different system for damage types than for scaling options, to prevent confusion.[/list]
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 13, 2022, 08:57:06 AM
@Jdale - I actually think that the scaling mechanic I'm trying to implement is kind of a combination of both, and like you I lean towards lists, if only because they are more familiar to me. My lists give you access to a range of spells, and then the mechanics within the spells let you tweak the effects. There is a precedent for this already with the summoning spells.

@Hurin - You actually pointed out some of my concerns with these mechanics... they can be a little convoluted. I obviously screwed up the math. Let me do another example now that I've tweaked and rebalanced it — You cast a 6th level Muscle Healing IV (down from VIII):
That seems a little more in-line with the existing power levels of the primary healing classes, rolled into one profession. I don't know how I messed up the math so badly (I teach English...), but as I said this list is really rough right now and I haven't gone through all the various levels to test comparative balance.

Quote
why are you assigning Roman numerals to damage types in the bottom of table x.x? If giving a symbol for damage types is necessary (and I'm not sure it is), I would probably want to use a different system for damage types than for scaling options, to prevent confusion
You point out an important issue here. I'd like to avoid more symbols, so I was using the Roman numerals to denote how many points each option costs, but admit it doesn't read well. Any suggestions on how to word it better would be welcome!

Quote
Is there a reason you grouped flesh with bone?
Honestly, I like the sound of "flesh and bone" and just ran with it. I also tried to group the lists into three major categories: Surface Ways (superficial healing – hits, bleeding, stun relief, regen), Flesh & Bone (moderate injuries – flesh, muscle, bone), and Nerve & Organ (deep healing – nerves, organ, skull). This lets me fill spell slots in a relatively simple progression.
You can see my rough organization of the spells of this Google Sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ANpez5slGpa_JHV6LoZAOiL1gBQm05DkLJy4Q5M4kkg/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ANpez5slGpa_JHV6LoZAOiL1gBQm05DkLJy4Q5M4kkg/edit?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 13, 2022, 11:07:42 AM
Actually I see what I did in the original model... I have tendon repair listed as a 1-point option, and muscle repair as a 2-point option. So my original math was actually right. Now I have to go back and look at the balance again. Gah!
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Ecthelion on January 13, 2022, 11:36:11 AM
I find the Concept of HARP spells a better fix than spell slots. It allows customization and change of parameters without going overboard on cost due to spell slot allocation.
I really like the way the HARP spell system works, however it would need the profession uniqueness (Base lists) and selection that RM has for me to want to fully utilize it.
In the old TGC article about scalable spells for Rolemaster (https://web.archive.org/web/20191128001037/http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/jan/rmss_jahnke_scalable_spells.html) I tried to bring this idea of scalable spells from HARP into the RM system without giving up the profession uniqueness.

...
Scaling instead of a list also undermines the sense that every single rank will get you something new (because probably some won't).
I tried to avoid this in my variant of the scalable spells for RM because I tried to create a scaling variant where the end result is close to 100% to what the spell lists without scaling do contain. In a sense it's only a condensed representation of the spell lists where the higher level variants of a spell, e.g. Healing III and Healing V, get represented via a scaling option. But, even though there might be the same or sometimes even more scaling options getting available in a level, a new ranks in a spell list might feel different.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 13, 2022, 12:01:46 PM
@Ecthelion
Quote
In the old TGC article about scalable spells for Rolemaster I tried to bring this idea of scalable spells from HARP into the RM system without giving up the profession uniqueness.
This article is fantastic. Exactly what I'm going for.

I suppose a way to simplify my "option cost" method would be to reduce effectiveness. Make tendon healing -20 increments, make muscle healing -10 increments, skull -5 increments, etc. Then everything can be worth 1 option.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 16, 2022, 08:20:12 PM
Announcement! After some serious use of spreadsheets, multiple tabs, bookmarks, and carpal tunnel, I've completed a draft of the new Revised Healer lists. Based on the conversations in this thread and my own desire to see the Healer and Lay Healer class merged, this is the first step in that direction. Here is the link to a pdf which compresses the old 5-6 core healing lists down to 3. Attachment is also coming, pending moderator approval.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/181K-lrJI1wXPHVXLZTsFeKZcTat6_J5b/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/181K-lrJI1wXPHVXLZTsFeKZcTat6_J5b/view?usp=sharing)

Some notes:
I'd welcome thoughts from the braintrust, and remember it's a rough first draft. I'm sure there's some mistakes in there.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol on January 17, 2022, 10:17:23 AM
Eladan, could you provide an actual example or two of how to read and interpret your spell lists? For instance, let's say I cast "Heal IV". What may I actually do?
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 17, 2022, 11:28:46 AM
Surface Ways (Revised) Summary
@OLF - Yup... full acknowledgment that the way it reads may be clumsy. The table on each list provides what abilities you can choose with a casting and how many points each one costs. In my examples I'll put the option costs in parentheses. Bear in mind that the base range of these spells is "self".
Let's say you cast level 5 Heal IV and have 4 points to now mix & match:
This matches up roughly to the power levels for spells as they exist now. A RMU level 7 Healer and Lay Healer can heal 25 hp. My ranging cost makes the self-healing slightly more effective (or ranged healing less effective), which I think is important.

At lower levels, the point costs keep it from being too abusive in terms of ranged or extra targets. Now let's look at level 12 Heal XI:
The power levels for the first two still match up fairly well — a RMU Healer can heal 50 hp at level, while a RMU Lay Healer can heal 50 hp at level 11. My system skews it back in favor of self-healing. It also gives the possibility of multi-target healing which is (and should be) less effective. 3 of the 11 points provided by Heal XI which could go to healing damage now go to making it affect a 2nd target, plus it has the cost of extra PP, per the option description (still debating whether this is too punitive).

Alright, now let's do a quick look at another spell set — Flowstop. For the purposes of these lists only, I've dropped the weakest version of bleed repair from these lists (Flowstop, which stops the bleeding but still needs to be healed, in favor of Clotting (takes an hour to heal) and Cut Repair (heals instantly). So the default bleed repair effects are those of Clotting, which takes 1 hour, but can be accelerated through spell options. Here we go...
You cast Flowstop III:
Again, these power levels match up fairly well, and at higher levels give the caster some flexibility to have effects that used to be attributed only to different versions of the same spell (i.e. Mass Clotting True, etc).

My versions of Regeneration and Stun Relief work under the same basic premises.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 17, 2022, 12:05:30 PM
Flesh & Bone (Revised) Summary
I went over the premise of this 2nd list earlier in the thread, but have done some rebalancing and hopefully cleared up some of the confusion in the language (or not...).
Let's try the muscles first. Bear in mind that tendons cost 1 point per -20 healing increment, while muscles cost 2 points. You cast level 6 Muscle Healing VI, giving you 6 points for optioning:
Power levels are dead-on accurate to current RMU versions — A Healer's level 6 Medium Muscle Healing has the same effect as the first example, and the Lay Healer's level 7 Light Muscle Healing as the same effects as the second. Obviously healing tendons are less costly in terms of option-points, but the power levels are relatively accurate.

What about bones? Well, it's pretty close... Lets say you cast level 9 Bone Healing VIII:
For the most part, this balances out against the current RMU versions. In the 1st example, the RMU Healer can affect ANY penalty of bone damage at level 9, so the RMU version is slightly stronger, although injuries past -60 might be quite rare making this somewhat moot. In the 2nd example, this matches exactly what a level 8 healer can do with Medium Skull Healing. In the 3rd example, my version is slightly weaker again in that an RMU Lay Healer can heal any bone damage at no accelerated recovery with Severe Bone Relief, but my Revised Healer could treat a -40 bone injury with the same spell and reduce the recovery rate to hours, so it balances out.

Where RMU system noses mine out is when it has the treat "injury incurring any penalty" language, but I actually think this is ok. It means that someone with a -100 injury might not be able to be healed to full strength right in the field, or that doing so will require a more standardized recovery time. Also, I still don't know how many injuries are inflicting above a -60/-80 penalty, which most of my spell versions can handle in some capacity. At higher levels, this isn't a factor as you can heal -120 and still have accelerated recovery of some kind. 

It's a lot to process, but I really like the versatility for this scaling-option system. I think it gives a class dedicated to healing some more distinct advantages while leaving room for other lists and areas of concentration.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 17, 2022, 01:01:22 PM
I am pretty sure you will only get penalties over -60 when the critical is also lethal. There are examples at least up to -125, but also you are very dead. So those ought to be difficult to treat.

It would be more traditional to put the scaling options in the spell description rather than using a table. For example:

1) Heal II – Heals the caster 5 concussion hits, with the caster selecting one of the following options: increase the healed amount by 5 hits, increase the range by +25' (changes the target from self to 1 target).
5) Heal IV – As Heal II, except the caster may select up to three options. A given option may be selected multiple times. The caster may spend double PP and allocate two options in order to affect an additional target.
9) Heal VII – As Heal IV, except the caster may select up to seven options.

2) Bone Healing IV – Caster can treat an injury to cartilage, and may select three of the following options: treat a bone injury rather than a cartilage injury (skull injuries cost two options), increase the range by +25' (changes the target from self to 1 target), or treat a second wound on the same target. Two options may be selected to reduce the recovery time by one step (the steps are days, hours, rounds, and instant). Two options and double PP may be expended to affect an additional target. Options may be selected multiple times.
5) Bone Healing VI – As Bone Healing IV, except the caster may select six options.

I'm not sure whether that's inherently better but I think the spell descriptions as you have them are not as clear as they need to be. Note I have the basic spell description saying what it does before it has been modified by any options.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 17, 2022, 01:13:31 PM
@Jdale – That's a good suggestion and I see your point in terms of it matching the more traditional format; it certainly reads a little more more cleanly. I originally was using that writing style. However, I think it becomes a bit more convoluted when you reach the higher level versions and there are now options for higher level spells that are listed separately from the others in the lower level versions. For the sake of having everything listed together, I figured the table might be simpler. Maybe I need to consider how to make the table more simplistic or intuitive.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 17, 2022, 01:50:53 PM
Changed the language and reorganized the tables. Maybe that helps...?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/181K-lrJI1wXPHVXLZTsFeKZcTat6_J5b/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/181K-lrJI1wXPHVXLZTsFeKZcTat6_J5b/view?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 17, 2022, 02:29:18 PM
If you keep the tables, I think the spells need to be clear that the benefit comes from the table picks. E.g.

1) Heal II – Caster heals concussion hits on himself, and may select two options from Table X.X from the Concussion or Effect sections.

A player is going to ask "how many hits does it heal before I add the options?"

2) Bone Healing IV – Caster can treat an injury to cartilage, bone, and/or the skull on himself, and may to select four options from Table X.X from the Heal Bone or Effect sections.

It says right in the description that it will heal my skull injury plus I get to pick 4 options on top of that. I know that's not the intent, but I also know a player will read it that way.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: Eladan on January 17, 2022, 03:17:31 PM
Fair enough and I do see your point about how the player could misinterpret the intent. I personally am leaning toward the tables simply for the tightness.
Quote
1) Heal II – Caster heals concussion hits on himself, and may select two options from Table X.X from the Concussion or Effect sections.

A player is going to ask "how many hits does it heal before I add the options?"

So how about:
Likewise with Bone Healing:
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: jdale on January 17, 2022, 04:01:02 PM
Yes, that's better.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol on January 17, 2022, 07:45:33 PM
It's way better.
Title: Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
Post by: pantsorama on February 16, 2022, 02:45:40 PM
I'm not sure of the origin of the transference Healer. I think it also appears in Elfquest, which started in 1978. Many other examples https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EmpathicHealer (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EmpathicHealer) although I didn't check the dates on many of those -- although I'm pretty sure their example under religion predates RM. ;)   I do see, though, an example in a Star Trek episode (of all things) from 1968.

My fave Empathic Healer is Raven from 1980 - Although Wolfman and Perez surely sourced her powers from elsewhere.  Unfortunately, she doesn't really heal anymore....