Topic: Changing Professions in Rolemaster (any version)

[thrud]

I'd rather say one player being able do do everything not as well as the others. Assuming only one person uses the option.
There's always a price to pay. You sacrifice peak values for versitility.

I agree that it's not great when one player take up to much space but it's not necessarily the character so much as the player at fault.
Haven't we all seen both fighters and magicians taking the lead? It's rarely the best numbers that lead.
I don't like the thought of most players being sheep without the ability to change their lot.

[Arioch]

I think you misunderstood what I meant. By "doing anything" I meant doing what the other characters in the group should be doing, according to their character concept/profession.

If a player decide to play a Fighter, it's because he want to be able to shine in combat. If he decide to play a Mage, it's because he want to cast spells. If he decide to playa thief, it's because he want to do stealthy stuff.
If a player plays a Fighter/Mage/Thief what will the others do?

[markc]

 A long while ago I played in a tourne in which I played a female D&D 3.0-3.5 thief. During a battle I stayed to protect the magic user from an onslaught of small creatures until the fighters of the group could come and mop up. You would have thought that my PC had created life or something as every player there thought it was amazing that a thief stood toe to toe with a threat. I realized that even with multi-classing most of them had never considered doing "fighter" things with out having multi-classed in a fighter profession.

 Now about balance in RM my view is again in RMSS you can learn anything as all skills and spells have a value in DP that you can spend to learn them. If the DP costs are too high then maybe you want to bend the rule that does not allow you you keep DP from one level to another to "buy" something big.
 If you are thinking about spell casting and arms then IMO the player should have played a semi from the beginning as that is what they wanted to do in the long run, the ability to do it all.
 I have had players try and argue that they wanted to take a pure arms and then a pure spell caste and maybe after that switch to a pure arcane caster. To me that is a balance issue as they are maximizing their DP costs and not playing a character but playing the numbers.

 Now I cannot say that I will never have a situation come up with a player that I might say ok you can switch but as long as I do my job as a GM and explain how each profession works in my world I think I will not find that event come up.
 If a player decides they want switch because it is no longer fun then I will probably tack on a 1 or 2 level penalty just like I do for a PC dieing as IMO it is an advantage being able to create a whole new PC from the ground up without having to deal with the danger and possibly skill requirements from leveling.

MDC 

[thrud]

Arioch> We often have pc's with overlapping skills even without multiclassing. But sure, I get your point. Please make an effort to understand my point.
A level 15 magician will still be a much better magician than a level 10 fighter/level 5 magician. Granted the multiclass will be much better with melee fighting.

Let me make one thing clear. I'm not all for multiclassing. I think it would make an interesting option if handled correctly. It's not for everyone but there might be situations where it's suitable.

markc> I agree, playing the numbers are a bad idea.

[Arioch]

Arioch> We often have pc's with overlapping skills even without multiclassing. But sure, I get your point. Please make an effort to understand my point.
A level 15 magician will still be a much better magician than a level 10 fighter/level 5 magician. Granted the multiclass will be much better with melee fighting.

And will be much better than a 15th level fighter in spell-casting, and will have much more options than both of them.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's only a matter of specialization, it's also a problem of combining different capabilites.

Let me make one thing clear. I'm not all for multiclassing. I think it would make an interesting option if handled correctly. It's not for everyone but there might be situations where it's suitable.

IMHO those situations would be covered better by other solutions (you mentioned Gifts, for example), multiclassing is just too difficult to keep under control.

[markc]

thurd,
 I hope I have not "jumped down your throat" so to speak but the handful of time I have had to deal with this issue in game has been with players that have been a problem in one way or another.
 I would like to see how someone proposed to do multi-classing that was not unbalancing. The main thing I have seen with the above proposals is the ones I like as a GM to preserve balance, I am fairly sure the players will not like. 
 I guess I would/might be OK with something like everyone has to change professions at a specific point or the idea that the PC's can spend some small amount of DP as Layman and then the rest as their natural talents kick in.

MDC 

[pastaav]

I have said it before...but I guess it does not hurt to repeat myself.

Very few here, if possibly none, is against that a group if they are so inclined might allow level 10 magician/level 5 fighter. Obviously the golden rule apply and if it increases the fun there is nothing wrong with it.

The real object of argument is instead the idea that it possible to get proper balance with such change of profession. No matter how I do the math my conclusion is that the benefit of switching professions due to diminishing returns is simply too great for it be possible to create a cost that significantly fix the big balance issues. Questions about if profession change is a good idea need to be answered since the risk is very high that the rest of the group will get less fun when the profession changer gets to both eat the cake and keep it.

If a cost must be set for profession change then it should probably be variable with the level of the character so that it cost exponentially more with increased level to change profession, but to be honest I think the fine tuning is too hard for it to be worth the effort. If the group is convinced to do profession change despite the risks then they are probably better off to sit down and negotiate in-game consequences and costs for the change. Optionally they can decide some arbitrary DP cost for the change, but it is still insignificant compared to the benefit even if it is a whole levels of DP so the real cost should be in in-game consequences.   

[thrud]

I'm in a little hurry at the moment so I'll just write a qick thought of an answer.
I agree with most of what you say and I too think that the Fighter/Magician combo is a bad mach. I don't think it realistic to jump from Fighter DP costs to Magician DP costs. It's to big of a leap.
If I had to device a way to make changing preofessions possible I'd want the pc to jump no more than one class type, i.e. non -> semi or semi -> pure and so on.
Maybe one could experiment with averaging skill costs for the professions if you think it's worth wile?
Gotta go...

[giulio.trimarco]

A "profession-path", like WarHammer FRP, could be way to "railroad" the character development.

Every profession must be held for a minimum amount of levels (7, for example) before changing to the next one.
This way a Fighter to became a magician must fallow a "path" that will gradually change his skill (costs) in a believable way.

Of course no prof-bonuses are gained.

This also allow the GM to create narrative scenarios to allow the Players to select new professions in accordance with the campaign.

[thrud]

DeathFromAbove> Yes, that is something close to my own thoughts. Maybe not "railroad" the characters through specific paths but definately restrictions.
A minimum of levels before change is fair I think be that 5, 7 or 10?
Averaging skill costs from the old and new profession would be an effective way to keep them in line.
A Fighter/Mage would have something like 5/13 for the primary weapon and 10 for spells. I don't see to many pc's spending 5 levels with those costs...
On the other hand an No-profession/Mage would be 6/13 and 3/* and a much more believable combo.
Naturally the character has to meet the requirements of the new profession statwise.
I would also propose that the player need to have a plausible reason as to why he/she wants the change and it would have to be factored into the plot, i.e. he/she would have to find a teacher/mentor. I doubt the fresh Fighter/Mage starts to develop firelaw on his own without guidience.

[giulio.trimarco]

If you create a profession-path averaging costs is not necessary, imho.

For every profession you should create a "profession exit". In other words the profession that a PC can switch to.
The new profession will also have "exits" to other professions, etc.

This way you can balance the procedure of multi-professions without tinkering the costs that is time consuming and more sensitive.

[markc]

 One thing that I just thought of, and I may have said sometime in the past 6 pages, just use training packages that provide a discount to skill cost. Now that works with RMSS/FRP but IMO you could also do something like it for RMC/2/X but if it provides spells lists to non's then IMO there should be some other balancing factors.
MDC

[thrud]

The idea of career paths is interesting but very Warhammer. How would you implement it in RM? Forced selection from a limited list doesn't really feel right.
But in a way it's just another name for the restrictions I was talking about. I just didn't want to formalize it like that.

The way I see it there's only two ways of doing it.
1. Average the skill costs
2. Allow Non's going to Semi's and Semi's going to Pure's/Hybrid's
(3. Number three is just a poor idea to begin with. Let anyone switch to anything. Not even I can find a reasonable argument for allowing this.)

To be honest I'm torn about this. I'm not really sure myself if this is a good idea? However I feel that pc's should be able to evolve somehow.
Maybe It's just old habbits playing tricks on me? Maybe you're all right? Maybe the correct thing is to play a profession that is less archtypical?
Somehow you subconsciously choose between mage, thief or fighter when you play fantasy and maybe we pick these professions just out of old habbit?
I don't know?
We've never changed professions so everything so far is just speculations? I love this thread though, it's got me thinking.

[Cormac Doyle]

if you allow switching, there is no point anyone every chosing a semi as a profession - it's cheaper and more effective to chose a pure arms user, develop hits & weapons, then chose a pure spell user and develop the spells.

Any profession can learn any skill (and any spell)

The root of the issue of switching is that people associate profession with "what I'm currently doing" ... in that case, you start as a child, then student, then ...

I've yet to see "infant", "school child" or "student" as professions.

The way RM is designed - whether you agree or not - is that the "profession" describes how easy you can learn skills. It does NOT describe what you learn or what you do on a day to day basis.

Yes - if you take that to it's ultimate conclusion, everyone should be a "layman" - but that assumes that everyone learns in the same way. I don't believe that we do.

A warrior/fighter is the most "extreme" profession - they simply are essentially incapable of learning magic.
Thieves and Rogues can learn magic reasonably well ... semi spell users are better ... pure magic users are better again

Essence spell users really cannot learn weapons effectively (but at a cost of 9, their cost is 3 time less than a fighter can learn an individual spell).

Additionally - beyond obviously different professions, many professions differ in such minor amounts, and almost solely focused on differences in spell lists, that it makes a lot of sence to introduce more generic magic using professions that can then select (and/or change) base lists from a wider list than currently available - much like has been proposed for clerics/preists in the RMSS Channeling Companionm or for Mages/Magic users in one of the Rolemaster Classic expansions ...

[markc]

 I think to put a Warhammer feel to it I would require a player to spend a specific amount of DP on thier "job" skills. So maybe in RMSS it would be about 50 DP per level. But that is just off the top of my head. But it might be an interesting idea to play with.
 I guess you could also require PC's to buy a specific number of skills in a level and that would be variable depending on the PC's profession. So for example on a sea voyage require the PC's to buy 2 ranks in shipscrew [or sailing] , at least 1 rank in swimming and 1 rank in navigation or stargazing. Or as I said before maybe just create a TP and make the PC's buy it.

MDC

[thrud]

Cormac Doyle> It depens on what restrictions you put on switching? Maybe Semi is the only way to go if you want both worlds? It all depends on the restrictions and mechanics you implement.
However you are correct about RM. Professions ARE descriptions of natural aptitudes and how easy/hard it is for characters to learn different skills.

markc> Now you're just being scary... please stop the children are crying...

Let's open another maybe a smaller can of worms?
I'm just toying with an idea here...
What's your take on baselists? Are you born to learn just a specific kind of magic? But first...

• We assume baselists are more complex spells than open and closed thus motivating specific leaning rules.
• We assume you are stuck with your realm no matter what.

Would you allow a thief to develop the magician base lists as his/her own if he/she makes a "profession change"? No change in DP costs, just a new "in game" career for the character.

[markc]

 Thurd I am going to open a new thread with your new questions to make it easier for people to respond.
MDC

[Arioch]

Thrud, have youe ever seen this article before? Maybe it's what you're looking for:

http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/1999/mar/realms.html

[giulio.trimarco]

MMM... career paths aren't rigid.

Take into account the professions from the main rulebook. They are 20 (or 19?  , it's the some). They are very finite number.

But a step back...

First we should agree on what a profession is:
1) Mind pattern?
2) Actual job?
3) Genetic disposition?
4) Name it

Second, we should agree on the mode of switch.
1) Profession (Fighter -> Mentalist)
2) Mind adaptation (Averaging skill costs)
3) Mind pattern (Career path)

Then we could refine the method and find a balance in all this.
I think that one thing to monitor (and one big issue) is the bookkeeping needed.

[markc]

 IMO the profession in RM is genetic based and not anything else. And again IMO in RMSS/FRP they handle any thing a character wants to learn there is a DP cost for it. Even for other realms spells lists. So yes a a PC can do anything if they have enough DP and if they GM changes the DP expenditure rules as some professions have a spell cost of above 100. In fact I think in Pulp Adventures in a low magic setting I think the numbers go up to 180 or so to learn a spell list.

MDC