Topic: RMU spell: Change profession

[tbigness]

I don't see the point in a spell list to change professions. If someone does not like what they are playing then change out the character.

If someone wants to be diverse between professions then they can be schizophrenic and have two character sheets or more based on the dominant personality at the time....

[katastrophe]

The spell still makes no sense. Now, if i understand correctly, it will allow Mage X who is 12th level to switch to Fighter X at 12th. He will forget all the magery spells and knowledge skills he acquired and will be Mr. Expert swordsman. That’s even worse. Surely that’s not what was intended because that’s just silly. 

And if the intent is to actually get the benefit of the lower skills costs for both professions they in reality it’s multiclassing. Just instead of doing it concurrently it’s in a consecutive manner.

In any event, the game’s not really designed for that. The no profession suggestion remains the best option to simulate this approach and remain relatively balanced against characters built on a single profession structure.

At the end of the day though, as long as you and your players like it, that’s all that matters.

[Dreven1]

And if the intent is to actually get the benefit of the lower skills costs for both professions they in reality it’s multiclassing. Just instead of doing it concurrently it’s in a consecutive manner.

In any event, the game’s not really designed for that. The no profession suggestion remains the best option to simulate this approach and remain relatively balanced against characters built on a single profession structure.

Yup, the No Profession is exactly what we use if someone wants to be a Jack of all Trades, Master of None.

[cdcooley]

Jack of all Trades, Master of None isn't really the goal here. But I think the consensus is that it would be the ultimate effect. The original question was really just about what level a spell to make a change should be. The consensus on that was 50+ and debate quickly turned to whether it was a good idea or not. Thinking about it more, the closest existing spell would be "Thought Steal" which is a level 30 spell and does far less than this proposed spell.

[Cory Magel]

[...] allowing multiple professions lessens the possibility of every character shining in their chosen area of expertise... because allowing access to more than one professions costs gives them more then one area of expertise.

This reads to me as if you were confusing changing a profession with multiclassing.

Explain how you believe they are different in the context of Rolemaster system mechanics.

You claim healing causes imbalance.  Without a form of healing, damage would not be 'balanced'.  Having healing balances the damage system.

The number if hitpoints you have are obviously far less relevant if you can turn power points into hitpoints at any time, thus changing the balance of body development skill. That should be obvious.

Firstly, the system is designed with healing in mind. Both already exist within the mechanics of the system. So the body development skills should effectively already be balanced against healing capabilities.

That aside, do you think a game where the characters can't be healed by any form of magic is somehow more balanced?

At the core, your statement indicates that your idea of balance has some unspoken assumptions built into it that you haven't articulated yet. What are they?

Too long of an explanation for something I'm not at all convinced you'd understand based on everything you've posted.

Regardless of how they balance against each other (which is often very dependent on how a group players)... you want to make someone both. So even less balanced unless everyone does it.

That depends on which proposal you are talking about.

You believe that allowing players to utilize more than one professions skill costs will somehow 'fix' the idea that Arms Users and Spell Users are not balanced. Regardless of if they are or not, allowing them to utilize both merely creates more imbalance unless every player does it with their character, which then seems to make characters less diverse, when you claim to be trying to make them move diverse.

[...]
But, again, if you allow access to multiple professions you're removing from the idea that people have differently wired brains.

And again you seem to be confusing "changing your profession" with multiclassing.

And again explain how these would differ within Rolemaster system mechanics.

How is everyone paying the same cost for everything any different than everyone being able to pay the lowest costs for everything?
[...]

Your simplification of "changing learning costs" to "everybody will always pay the lowest cost for what they want to learn" is just not doing the complexitiy of the issue justice. You'll still have to make your choices within one level. That means your new "Fighter turned Magician" won't learn any new melee skills this level if they care for DP point efficiency (and if they don't, then what's the point of the whole excercise?). And if he changes back to Fighter next level, his Magician levelling suffers.

Simple. Every other level or so I do one, then the other.

In RMU, you'll buy only one rank per level if you want to be point efficient. So "always paying the lowest cost" only works if you want to be very diverse with lots of skills that cost 1/2 or something like that, and for which you're willing to learn only one rank per level. If you want to learn anything else, you'll pay higher costs, making your claim "always pay the lowest cost" false.

Using only one of many really obvious examples I can go from learning one spell for a high cost to learning three spells at a low cost.  Likewise I could go from learning only a single weapon rank at a high cost to learning two weapon ranks at a cost that, combined, is still cheaper.

[Wolfwood]

I am contemplating a spell list for RMU (probably closed Mentalism) that should contain a spell which allows to permanently change the brain of a subject such that their profession is adjusted, such as from a Fighter to a Thief, or a Paladin to a Cleric, or even from a Rogue to a Sorcerer.

Depends on what you mean by that. Essentially, changing a personality so much would be the same as remaking the character from the beginning with the new profession's cost (assuming they create a new history for their character - basically switch positions with themselves from another reality)... Or they might lose their ability to access the skills - even memories - that they had with the previous brain-setup, because they are now too different and would have to start from the beginning but still be 18 years old (or whatever age they were when they were stupid enough to reset their brain).

If you simply mean something akin to the D&D approach, then I'd just suggest using the old rules for multiprofessions.

The balancing factors between professions is skill cost.  This allows you to bypass it.  Rolemasters unique (rare at least) is everyone can develop any skill.

Well, "the other" D100 systems, Runequest and the BRP system in general, does it better: you learn what you practice.

[Thot]

I don't see the point in a spell list to change professions. If someone does not like what they are playing then change out the character.
[...]

Uh... Roleplaying? Continuity of story?

[Thot]

The spell still makes no sense. Now, if i understand correctly, it will allow Mage X who is 12th level to switch to Fighter X at 12th. He will forget all the magery spells and knowledge skills he acquired and will be Mr. Expert swordsman. That’s even worse. Surely that’s not what was intended because that’s just silly. 

Isn't it for the character (or caster) in question tpo decide if it is "silly"?

And if the intent is to actually get the benefit of the lower skills costs for both professions

Why would that be the intent of this version of the spell? That assumption doesn't make any sense? This version of the spell wouldn't allow that anyway.

[MisterK]

I don't see the point in a spell list to change professions. If someone does not like what they are playing then change out the character.
[...]

Uh... Roleplaying? Continuity of story?

That's a perfectly valid reason to authorise evolution of a character's affinity with skill domains. However, there are other ways to do it that are probably less disruptive. The previous editions of RM (especially RM2, I believe) had rules to change professions. I won't say I'm positive they were thoroughly playtested, but they might be a starting point that does not involve the kind of magic you propose.

But in the end, I'm a bit surprised that you are still arguing. I think it is clear that the general opinion is that this is not really compatible with Rolemaster as most people use it. I think it is also clear that you can do it anyway - there's no RM Thought Police, no one will stop you. You just won't get any support from most of the forum users. Is it that important ?

[Thot]

Jack of all Trades, Master of None isn't really the goal here.

Thank you for pointing this out.

But I think the consensus is that it would be the ultimate effect. The original question was really just about what level a spell to make a change should be. The consensus on that was 50+

There was a majority vote, not a consensus. The level of 50+ was assigned because people want it to be inaccssible, not because it would necessarily be such a powerful thing to have.

the closest existing spell would be "Thought Steal" which is a level 30 spell and does far less than this proposed spell.
[...]

If you argue by sheer physical force, any 10th-ish level teleportation spell is a lot more powerful. Spells that magically teach you a language for a given time are not only changing learning patterns, but actually teaching things, though with a limited duration. Nerve Healing spells (level 16+) do far greater things than just reconnect synapses, they actually create new ones, and lots of them. The Enlarge spells do more powerful things at 14+. And so on.

There really aren't any arguments for a level 50 (or even higher than that) designation. I mean, is profession change really comparable in power to healing ALL concussion hits in 50 or more people? Or permanently controlling a total of 50 levels of animals? Or creating a 25 kilogramm animal out of nothing?

[Thot]

Explain how you believe they are different in the context of Rolemaster system mechanics.

The original proposal is a spell that makes a one-way change. So not "mult-", but rather "re-".

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

Firstly, the system is designed with healing in mind.

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.

Both already exist within the mechanics of the system.

The system in its current iteration is young and will inevitably be expaneded upon as time passes. Earlier editions had spells  that permantly change our species, which is certainly a more drastic change than with profession.

That aside, do you think a game where the characters can't be healed by any form of magic is somehow more balanced?

Yes, for certain types of games. Frodo Baggings being wounded at the Weathertop and never fully recovering, being weakened and taking a long time to recover comes to mind. Powerful healing magic can just remove such injury (yes, even from Morgul blades) entirely, which may be unwanted in some campaigns.

Too long of an explanation for something I'm not at all convinced you'd understand

Dude. If you want to come across as a self-important knowitall who doesn't understand what he is thinking and feeling, this is the way.

You believe that allowing players to utilize more than one professions skill costs will somehow 'fix' the idea that Arms Users and Spell Users are not balanced.

I do not. I find it puzzling how you could come to such a conclusion.

Your simplification of "changing learning costs" to "everybody will always pay the lowest cost for what they want to learn" is just not doing the complexity of the issue justice. [...]

Simple. Every other level or so I do one, then the other.

So you are talking about the original spell proposal then.

In order to exploit this as you propose, you'll have to:

• Choose an "optimal" profession for each skill category you wish to level. So melee, you always  learn  at 1/2, but when you take a level of fighter for that, you learn 2 ranks in lots and lots and lots of melee skills, because for most other skills, there is another profession that does it cheaper.
• Switch professions often, basically before each level gain.
• Be happy with effectively being master of nothing, easily beaten in each field by a person with a more focused training of even a few levels below yours.

Using only one of many really obvious examples I can go from learning one spell for a high cost to learning three spells at a low cost.
[...]

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.

[Thot]

That's a perfectly valid reason to authorise evolution of a character's affinity with skill domains. However, there are other ways to do it that are probably less disruptive.

There are also other ways to heal than immediately transferring a wound from one character to another that are far less disruptive, but RMU does it anyway. But disruptive isn't good: it's interesting in a story and a game.

But in the end, I'm a bit surprised that you are still arguing.
[...]

Arguing? We are discussing. The way I see it, some arguments that were brought up do not really hold water. And sometimes I am in the mood to point that out.

[MisterK]

There really aren't any arguments for a level 50 (or even higher than that) designation. I mean, is profession change really comparable in power to healing ALL concussion hits in 50 or more people? Or permanently controlling a total of 50 levels of animals? Or creating a 25 kilogramm animal out of nothing?

It's not *comparable*, it's arguably much more disruptive because it goes against one of the core principles of the game system - that people are shaped by an unchanging predefinition of what they can learn easily and what they have trouble learning (the profession). RM character development is based on this principle and on the discrete  improvement 'chunk' principle that is level-based development.

The examples of high-level magic that you cite do not challenge the metagame core principles. The spell you propose does. I think that's why people don't want to consider it. RM provides a measure of flexibility at a cost (you can learn what you are not gifted for, but it costs you more), but what the character *is* is unchanging. I believe it's the reason why all options to change professions were never really integrated in the core rules: they change a core tenet of the game, and the other core systems are not necessarily meant to cope with it. I would not be surprised if the game designers back then had said something like "it sounds interesting, but we can't fully grasp the side effects on the other systems, so we'll keep it on the sidelines".

It has nothing to do with genre, or setting, or believability, or power. It has everything to do, as far as I can understand, with the gut feeling that *you are not playing the same game*.

[Cory Magel]

Explain how you believe they are different in the context of Rolemaster system mechanics.

The original proposal is a spell that makes a one-way change. So not "mult-", but rather "re-".
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? You don't need a set of rules to do that. You just need a GM that gives a crap about if you're having fun or not.

Firstly, the system is designed with healing in mind.

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.

That aside, it wouldn't be very fun if you couldn't heal your characters. So, yeah, it's there to make the game more fun. Fun is the absolute first factor in gaming. It's why we are doing it.
But you're claim is it's existence is unbalancing and you haven't explained how. It seems like you're just throwing out poorly thought out examples to see what sticks to the wall.

That aside, do you think a game where the characters can't be healed by any form of magic is somehow more balanced?

Yes, for certain types of games. Frodo Baggings being wounded at the Weathertop and never fully recovering, being weakened and taking a long time to recover comes to mind. Powerful healing magic can just remove such injury (yes, even from Morgul blades) entirely, which may be unwanted in some campaigns.

Firstly, there is most definitely magical healing in LotR.
Second, 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.

Too long of an explanation for something I'm not at all convinced you'd understand

Dude. If you want to come across as a self-important knowitall who doesn't understand what he is thinking and feeling, this is the way.

It's not that I know it all, but rather that it seems your definition of 'balance' isn't the same as everyone else's.  I can't really explain it to you if you don't follow the same idea of what balance is.

You believe that allowing players to utilize more than one professions skill costs will somehow 'fix' the idea that Arms Users and Spell Users are not balanced.

I do not. I find it puzzling how you could come to such a conclusion.

By reading your comments. You said Arms Users and Spellcasters are unbalanced and implied that allowing them to develop more than one profession would fix that. Or were you just using the excuse that you feel they are not balanced to implement something that can create more imbalance? As I said before, if everyone does that you don't have a balance issue between the player characters, 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.

Using only one of many really obvious examples I can go from learning one spell for a high cost to learning three spells at a low cost.

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. I'd suggest to you that you do this over a spread of levels so that you start to realize once you hit the somewhere around 7th level or so (give or take) the character using two different professions skill costs is going to have a noticeable advantage. Much of the reason for this is the diminishing returns you start to get for your DP.

In the past there have been long debates about the Mage vs Fighter balance in RM, but it's not a straightforward issue. Versatility is a significant factor and play-style sometimes even bigger. For example, if you have GM that allows the spellcasters to rest and get all their power points back after every major combat then the spell casters will be much more powerful in comparison to the arms users. At lower levels arms users tend to have the advantage of focusing on a single offensive skill, but once you start hitting around 4th-5th level the spell caster starts to build up a much broader selection of options. Give a character both of those (good arms and spell skill costs), give it several levels, consider how diminishing returns makes the characters DP expenditures much more efficient, and it's pretty obvious there's an advantage there.

There are also other ways to heal than immediately transferring a wound from one character to another that are far less disruptive, but RMU does it anyway. But disruptive isn't good: it's interesting in a story and a game.

How, in terms of actual real world game play time (how long you're literally sitting around the game table), does magical healing differ from 'natural' healing (i.e. you sit around for six week while your broken arm heals)?  It doesn't.  It's an entirely in-world mechanic.

How, in the average game world of a medieval fantasy setting, are you going to heal organ damage? You pretty much aren't.
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.

Rolemaster is known for being deadly. The magical healing system balances that deadliness.
The idea that healing unbalances damage is complete nonsense.

[cdcooley]

But I think the consensus is that it would be the ultimate effect. The original question was really just about what level a spell to make a change should be. The consensus on that was 50+

There was a majority vote, not a consensus. The level of 50+ was assigned because people want it to be inaccssible, not because it would necessarily be such a powerful thing to have.

the closest existing spell would be "Thought Steal" which is a level 30 spell and does far less than this proposed spell.
[...]

If you argue by sheer physical force, any 10th-ish level teleportation spell is a lot more powerful. Spells that magically teach you a language for a given time are not only changing learning patterns, but actually teaching things, though with a limited duration. Nerve Healing spells (level 16+) do far greater things than just reconnect synapses, they actually create new ones, and lots of them. The Enlarge spells do more powerful things at 14+. And so on.

There really aren't any arguments for a level 50 (or even higher than that) designation. I mean, is profession change really comparable in power to healing ALL concussion hits in 50 or more people? Or permanently controlling a total of 50 levels of animals? Or creating a 25 kilogramm animal out of nothing?

Yes, consensus is not a simple majority vote, but it also does not require unanimity (despite some dictionaries linking that as a synonym). Almost everyone has responded that the spell shouldn't even exist, but if it does it should be level 50 or higher in recognition of how truly powerful and world-changing it would be. I'm one of the few who said I could see a version with a lower level requirement, but only with massive penalties making it effectively a curse. The only response suggesting a lower level seems to be from an AI bot you had asked before coming here because even you realized it's suggestion was probably too low.

Changes to the mind and changes to the body are very different things. Teleportation isn't remotely equivalent, that's just moving to a new location quickly. Nerve Healing (and healing in general) is about restoring what was, not changing to something new. And your other examples such as enlarge, language learning, etc. are not permanent. They temporarily add something you didn't have before, but again they aren't making the same sort of change as permanently altering they way a character thinks about the world.

You disagree with the group consensus but that doesn't change the fact that a consensus has been reached. You asked a question, you got answers you didn't like, you've argued your case, and the group has continued to disagree. At this point, you have your answer from the group so now it's your choice what to do with it .

[Thot]

[...]
It's not *comparable*, it's arguably much more disruptive

More disruptive than masses of soldiers being killed by 50 times of casting the Dragon's Fire spells? Please.

because it goes against one of the core principles of the game system - that people are shaped by an unchanging predefinition

It doesn't at all go against those principles, any more than healing magic goes against the principles of RoleMaster's fabulous injury mechanics.

[...]
The examples of high-level magic that you cite do not challenge the metagame core principles.

They do in the same way: Not at all, unless you don't want them in your game. Look at the 50th level spells on the Healer base lists - I mean, you would call death a core principle of the game, right? Profession change is silly unimportant compared to that.

[...] RM provides a measure of flexibility at a cost (you can learn what you are not gifted for, but it costs you more), but what the character *is* is unchanging.

The core of the notion of magic is that it can do things that can normally not be done.

[...]
It has nothing to do with genre, or setting, or believability, or power. It has everything to do, as far as I can understand, with the gut feeling that *you are not playing the same game*.

Yes, that makes sense, given the way this discussion has been going.

[MisterK]

[...]
The examples of high-level magic that you cite do not challenge the metagame core principles.

They do in the same way: Not at all, unless you don't want them in your game. Look at the 50th level spells on the Healer base lists - I mean, you would call death a core principle of the game, right? Profession change is silly unimportant compared to that.

Death certainly is not a core principle of any game where there is resurrection magic available *in the core rules*. It's something that happens and can be remedied in some ways. The game *assumes* that some form of resurrection is available since it explicitly includes it.
The game does not assume that some form of class change is available, since it does not include one and defines class as an core concept of a character.

Do I agree with that framework ? Not necessarily. I especially don't agree with the way it's presented - calling those "professions" is just asking people to believe that they are things you can learn, while the RM class mechanics are in fact hardwired affinities.

[...] RM provides a measure of flexibility at a cost (you can learn what you are not gifted for, but it costs you more), but what the character *is* is unchanging.

The core of the notion of magic is that it can do things that can normally not be done.

Not anything. *some* things. You mix the *world* principles (which are necessarily group-specific) with the *game* principles, which are system-specific. If you select a game system that includes principles that are not the principles of the setting you are using, you are highjacking it. Good for you, but don't expect people to agree with you.

[...]
It has nothing to do with genre, or setting, or believability, or power. It has everything to do, as far as I can understand, with the gut feeling that *you are not playing the same game*.

Yes, that makes sense, given the way this discussion has been going.

See above. Most people here are playing Rolemaster as per the core principles of the system dictate (as much as they understand them, since these are not always explicit). You want to break one of those because it suits your game setting. You are playing a different game that just happens to use some of the same mechanics.

I would love to tweak the system to reach a point where a character's development costs depend on their previous developments - the more they've focused on a skill, the cheaper that skill becomes, and the less they've developed one, the more expensive it becomes (probably by skill domains and not by specific skills). It makes sense to me because neither body nor mind are completely hardwired. But I would not call it RM anymore, because it wouldn't be.

[Thot]

[...]
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.

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.

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?

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.

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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

That aside, it wouldn't be very fun if you couldn't heal your characters.

That does actually depend on the type of play. A standard fantasy campaign, yes, I agree. But some campaigns might actually be more fun without healing magic.

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?

[...] Frodo Baggings being wounded at the Weathertop and never fully recovering, being weakened and taking a long time to recover comes to mind. Powerful healing magic can just remove such injury (yes, even from Morgul blades) entirely, which may be unwanted in some campaigns.

Firstly, there is most definitely magical healing in LotR.

Yes, but in no way comparable in power level to what RoleMaster offers. Otherwise the above example wouldn't exist in the fiction.

Second, 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.

You believe that allowing players to utilize more than one professions skill costs will somehow 'fix' the idea that Arms Users and Spell Users are not balanced.

I do not. I find it puzzling how you could come to such a conclusion.

By reading your comments. You said Arms Users and Spellcasters are unbalanced

That's commonly known. OF COURSE a 50th level Magician will be superior in firepower to a 50th level Fighter. I have never seen anyone claim otherwise. Do you?

and implied that allowing them to develop more than one profession would fix that.

No, not at all. I merely point out that "balancing" is obviously a very brittle argument for or against anything in RoleMaster, because just like any Fantasy system involving magic, havong magic is just more powerful than not having magic. But I don't see it as a problem.

[...]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.

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.

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".

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.

[...]
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.

[Thot]

[...] Almost everyone has responded that the spell shouldn't even exist, but if it does it should be level 50 or higher in recognition of how truly powerful and world-changing it would be.

And failed to provide any reasoning for this other than obscure references to a badly defined term called "balance" and gut feelings.

[...]
Changes to the mind and changes to the body are very different things. Teleportation isn't remotely equivalent, that's just moving to a new location quickly.

Changing the mind is physically possible, teleportation is not. So from that angle, teleportation is a lot more powerful. In terms of combat impact, the very same applies; there, Teleportation is vastly more useful there than a profession change.

Nerve Healing (and healing in general) is about restoring what was, not changing to something new. And your other examples such as enlarge, language learning, etc. are not permanent. They temporarily add something you didn't have before, but again they aren't making the same sort of change as permanently altering they way a character thinks about the world.

Trait Subversion True
Mistaken Identity True

All of the Mind Disease list.

Shall I go on?

You disagree with the group consensus but that doesn't change the fact that a consensus has been reached.
[...]

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.

[MisterK]

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.

Rational arguments are useless in that kind of discussion. People are clearly saying they won't touch your idea with a 10' pole. And nothing will change that. And they are not wrong.

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.

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

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.

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