Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Thot on May 04, 2023, 11:57:13 AM
-
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.
But I must say, I have trouble finding the right level for such spells, and am also looking for ideas for other spells on such a list. ChatGPT proposes something like 7th or 8th level. Does that seem about right to you? What other spells could be on such a list?
-
That would be amazingly powerful without some serious downsides. Casting a spell 1/level is trivial (and remember ritual casting).
So basically the existence of the spell means multi-professions is now a thing. Jump between professions on each level. The real trick would be semis - switch between a semi and the appropriate arms profession, and you could keep you primary skills developing well and then get cheaper secondary skills and spells on alternating levels.
So yeah; I'd make it 50th or so? And then as a GM I'd just ban it outright most likely.
-
One thing I just thought of, fast development rules would mean that a pure jumping to fighter for a level could really ramp up those weapon skills for a level or two.
Not mention moving between professions to get access to some sweat base lists.
-
I'd agree with Nash. It is extremely powerful. Looks like a level 50 spell for me.
-
ChatGPT probably means 7th or 8th level spell in D&D. Besides, I wouldn't consider it a reference for balancing game rules.
I'd go one step further than Nash : I'd remove professions entirely and make it a profession-less system. That way, you don't need the list :p
But seriously, this is pretty much against one of the core assumptions of the RM character development rules. It's your game, you do what you want with it, but I certainly wouldn't touch that with a 10' pole.
-
Even if you allow it, it feels more like a ritual than a spell.
-
I must say I don't quite see how this would be "powerful", because any character can learn any skill anyway. Access to base lists might be an issue, but even so, what good is a magician of 20th level who spent the first ten levels as a fighter? He will be outperformed by any pure magician. Even without looking at the attributes, which will not be exactly suited for such a drastic change.
And seen from an angle within a game world, well, you guys are proposing to put this on the same level as basically immortality (50th level mentalism). That seems quite over the top, doesn't it?
-
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.
In extreme cases you are allowing every character to buy every skill at 1/2. Using fast development rules, that essentially means you buy as many ranks as you want for 2 DP. That's really cheap. Adrenal defense and running for monk cost. Directed spells as a magician. etc
Let's start with a 7th level magician. Pretty standard development, make sure you have a couple of extra ranks in your base lists (to 10th, really common). Now flip to warrior monk for a single level (level 8 ); nab 16 ranks in Adrenal defence for 31 points, a smattering of combat and weapon skills. Next level, switch to Mentalist, nab self-healing up to level 18. And a couple of mentalist base lists while we are here. Maybe trundle over to fighter or a second level of warrior monk to max out your weapon skills.
At 10th level this magician has an excellent healing list (ie bypassed essence realm limitations), standard magician base lists, and a +80(ish) adrenal defense bonus, +86(ish) weapon bonus. We just built a character who:
- Magician Base to level
- Mentalism Healing
- Some development in Mentalism Open/Close & Base lists
- Adrenal Defense close to monk
- OB like warrior
Weakest area is armour... 1 more level sorts that out (magicians already have great costs for Transcendence). Lost a few ranks in PP dev and probably a few Open/Closed lists. Don't really care - the Munchkin spirit will triumph.
It may not be 50th level, to be fair, I'd probably call it 25-40th, but it breaks fundamental game balancing mechanics so you need to super careful.
-
Why not use HARP if you want profession change to be possible?
-
It's slightly less subject to abuse if you don't allow changing Realm, but only slightly.
-
I must say I don't quite see how this would be "powerful", because any character can learn any skill anyway. Access to base lists might be an issue, but even so, what good is a magician of 20th level who spent the first ten levels as a fighter? He will be outperformed by any pure magician. Even without looking at the attributes, which will not be exactly suited for such a drastic change.
That's the wrong comparison. Of course a character with 10 levels of Magician and 10 levels of Fighter is not as good at being a Magician as a character with 20 levels of Magician. The important comparison is to a profession with an equal amount of arms and essence, e.g. a warrior mage. A magician/fighter very likely will be better than a warrior mage with an equal number of total levels.
-
The manner in which I'd allow players to change their profession is making a new character.
I can really only think of one reason to change profession: Gaining the advantage of your past professions skill costs and your future professions skill costs.
If it was a spell? 50th minimum. By that point you've likely mastered most the skills you want and changing profession providing you cheaper costs won't have as much impact.
-
[...]
In extreme cases you are allowing every character to buy every skill at 1/2.
That's simply not true. Even if, for some weird reason, you'd be willing to blow a whole level on just the skills your new profession has at 1/2, all you get for that is 20 skills at +10, AND you aren't advancing in any other skills in that case.
Let's start with a 7th level magician. Pretty standard development, make sure you have a couple of extra ranks in your base lists (to 10th, really common). Now flip to warrior monk for a single level (level 8 ); nab 16 ranks in Adrenal defence for 31 points, a smattering of combat and weapon skills.
That would take 16 levels.
Next level, switch to Mentalist, nab self-healing up to level 18.
And another nine levels.
You are just doing some weird assumptions here. Is it possible you are not talking about RMU at all?
-
I think you missed part of my comment there:
"Using fast development rules, that essentially means you buy as many ranks as you want for 2 DP."
Technically it's "intense training" (pg 83, core law); not fast development; so yes, wrong name. And yes it requires the use of an optional rule[1]; but I think it's a pretty common option (and in the core book).
The assumptions I made were to ignore profession skills, knacks and stat bonuses.
[1] One piece of feedback about the character sheet I'm developing is it needs to support intense training for multiple skills, not just one.
-
He's citing the Intense Training optional rule on page 83. It's an optional rule but certainly it would compound the issues.
Still, if you don't take advantage of that, our example Fighter 10/Magician 10 could have 20 ranks in Maneuver in Armor, Body Development, Fortitude, two Combat Expertise skills, two Combat Training skills, Directed Spells, Power Development, and five base lists for 25 DP per level.
A paladin (since we don't have a core warrior mage to use as an example) with the same skills purchased 1 rank/level for 20 levels -- so, same number of ranks -- pays 40 DP per level. Over 20 levels, the multiclassed character has saved 300 DP, which is 5 full levels worth of DP, just on those skills.
The switch is less problematic, though, if you go from a more specialized profession (e.g. fighter, cleric) to a less specialized profession (e.g. paladin), and always keep your original realm(s) (including Arms). So a fighter or a cleric becoming a paladin, a mentalist becoming a mystic, but not a cleric becoming a magician or a fighter becoming a magician. In that case it's more an issue of base lists (easiest solution is you always keep your original base lists). Likewise a fighter becoming a rogue is less problematic than a fighter becoming a thief.
-
[...]
The important comparison is to a profession with an equal amount of arms and essence, e.g. a warrior mage. A magician/fighter very likely will be better than a warrior mage with an equal number of total levels.
As of now, there is no such thing as a Warrior Mage in RMU.
But for the sake of the argument, let's use a Bard or Dabbler: At level 20, that character will have an OB of something like +110 from skill ranks alone (40 ranks at a cost of 3/5, or 8 per level).
Compared to a Fighter who switched to Magician at level 10 (or vice versa) and is now level 20: 12 points per level for 2 ranks in the primary weapon as a Magician, 4 points per level for 2 ranks as a fighter. Average cost: 8 Points per level! No difference there.
Now, if the latter concentrates for ten levels on one thing and for another ten levels on the other thing, he will of course have gotten more out of his DP, but at the cost of having lower total skill ranks in any given skill, which means to have less power (though more versatility). It's nice for some character concepts, but hardly game breaking. Seriously, a pure Magician at level 20 will "break the game" more.
Still, I wouldn't want to go as far as allowing to just spend DP to switch profession, as it is a way of thinking that is learned early on one's life that would have to be changed, along with many personal interests and thus maybe even a bit of the personality. It does, however, make total sense to have some Mentalism caster develop spells for such a thing as soon as people are aware that there are different "learning types" who get certain things faster than others.
But I really don't see how such a spell would be 50th level. ChatGPT (which I, btw, asked for explanations of Rolemaster Unified concepts before, and it answered largely correctly) suggested 7th or 8th,. That seems okay, considering the power level of other closed mentalism spell lists at that level, such as teleporting 100 meters. Maybe it's harder to manipulate the mind of a subject than to break the laws of physics entirely, so 10th level? 15th if we're being restrictive?
-
I think you missed part of my comment there:
"Using fast development rules, that essentially means you buy as many ranks as you want for 2 DP."
You are right, I did. Fast development is indeed a loophole that could be closed in the spell description, such as by stating "the subject may not use 'intense training' for a number of levels equal to his current level, even if the campaign is using that optional rule".
[...]
[1] One piece of feedback about the character sheet I'm developing is it needs to support intense training for multiple skills, not just one.
IMO, intense training is a more profound breakage of the RMU core mechanics than a spell to change professions could be, so I wouldn't use it. At least not as written. That is even more true for allowing it for more than one skill per level. But that would be a whole new thread. :)
-
[...]
our example Fighter 10/Magician 10 could have 20 ranks in Maneuver in Armor, Body Development, Fortitude, two Combat Expertise skills, two Combat Training skills, Directed Spells, Power Development, and five base lists for 25 DP per level.
[...]
What would he do with the remaining 35 points per level? Is he really saving that much if you take that into account? And will he really be that better off than someone who started out as a hybrid between the two professions (such as not a Fighter/Cleric, but a Paladin)? Generally, it is better to have higher skill than to have more skills if you want to break game balance.
The switch is less problematic, though, if you go from a more specialized profession (e.g. fighter, cleric) to a less specialized profession (e.g. paladin), and always keep your original realm(s) (including Arms). So a fighter or a cleric becoming a paladin, a mentalist becoming a mystic, but not a cleric becoming a magician or a fighter becoming a magician. In that case it's more an issue of base lists (easiest solution is you always keep your original base lists). Likewise a fighter becoming a rogue is less problematic than a fighter becoming a thief.
Who is more powerful, a Magician who knows his base lists to level 20, or a Magician/Cleric who knows both professions' base lists to level 10?
-
Intense training is a more profound breakage of the RMU core mechanics than a spell to change professions could be, so I wouldn't use it, at least not as written, I believe, and much less so for more than one skill per level. But that would be a whole new thread. :)
I think the other way around...intense training is balanced even if applied to unlimited number of skills since the cost structure will punish use of the rule. Profession change on the other hand is massively abusive even without intense training. Giving access to two professions base lists is insanely powerful.
-
[...] Profession change on the other hand is massively abusive even without intense training. Giving access to two professions base lists is insanely powerful.
But you have access to all other professions' base lists anyway, albeit at higher cost?
(Though I should add that as written, this only applies to prefessions in one's own realm of power.)
-
Regarding realms of power, by the way, I would probably just state that you can only cast spells in your own realm(s) of power, which means switching from a Magician to a Cleric might be possible, but would result in loosing access to all the Essence lists one has learned. Which I suspect few people will want to do. In fact, a spell that changes a character's realm of power might be used rather as a curse.
-
But you have access to all other professions' base lists anyway, albeit at higher cost?
This is exactly why changing profession is unbalanced. You gain the cheaper skill costs of another profession.
Everyone can buy everything unless disallowed by the GM. Thus there is no reason to switch professions unless you're just looking to get cheaper skill costs.
-
[...]
This is exactly why changing profession is unbalanced. You gain the cheaper skill costs of another profession.
And loose the cheaper skill costs of your own profession, which will stop you from advancing further in a field where you're probably better at anyway (because stats).
Everyone can buy everything unless disallowed by the GM. Thus there is no reason to switch professions unless you're just looking to get cheaper skill costs.
If we were talking about simply allowing people to switch, this would hold true (because childhood and adolescence imprinting isn't easily changed, at least in humans), but we're looking at a mentalism caster who changes a person's mind with magic. Which is what they do, so it seems logical for some to try this.
So far, arguments for extremely high levels for such spells seem to stem from a purely game balance point of view. I do not agree that there is even an issue there, but within a game world, magical researches wouldn't concern themselves with game balance. So why should it be harder to change a person's learning pattern than to, for instance, teleport several hundred meters?
-
What would he do with the remaining 35 points per level? Is he really saving that much if you take that into account? And will he really be that better off than someone who started out as a hybrid between the two professions (such as not a Fighter/Cleric, but a Paladin)? Generally, it is better to have higher skill than to have more skills if you want to break game balance.
Who is more powerful, a Magician who knows his base lists to level 20, or a Magician/Cleric who knows both professions' base lists to level 10?
I would say that the versatility of having multiple lists known to lower levels (and also requiring fewer power points to use) is better for the magic using professions.
I find it fascinating that you cite ChatGPT as a reliable source and give it preference over experienced GMs and some of the actual RMU developers themselves.
Differing development costs are an absolute core mechanic in RM from all versions. Interestingly the authors of Rolemaster Companion II provided many different views of how the idea of changing (or adding) professions could work. But it's well recognized that the Companions were a giant source of imbalance for RM2. As has been said before, Rolemaster is rather unique in the fact that it already lets characters learn almost anything no matter which profession they follow. But there are things that aren't allowed, mainly centered around magic.
Hybrid spell users are given significant penalties compared to pure spell users to balance out the benefits of having access to more spell lists. Semi spell users are also given significant penalties compared to both spell users and non-spell users for as payment for their versatility. Arms users effectively have almost no access to magic through high costs and then only to lists of one realm. When you talk about switching between spell realms and/or switching between arms and spell professions, you're bypassing those penalties.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of a spell that changes someone's way of thinking, but done right, I would say the idea is definitely more of a curse than a blessing. You're altering the person's fundamental though processes.
Radically changing a way of thinking (represented by professions) should definitely have significant side-effects. Not allowing Intense Training at all would be just one. If you allow changing spell Realm, the previous realm's spells should be either unavailable or severely restricted in some way. Gaining full access to multiple sets of base spell lists is definitely unbalanced.
A cleric who becomes a magician would very likely be rejected by the patron deity and so lose access to at least the base cleric spell lists and also have severe problems casting any Channeling magic if the current realm is Essence. If the realm of magic doesn't change, then learning essence magic should be impossible or at least extremely difficult.
A Fighter who now thinks like a Sorcerer should find engaging in the traditional fighting skills more unnatural (so lose all profession bonuses and knacks) but at the same time the character doesn't have a childhood and adolescence of experience with magic, so I wouldn't give any profession bonuses or knacks for the new profession either. Similarly the Sorcerer who now thinks like a Thief is going to find using magic more difficult than before but won't have the long experience with stealth, mechanical, and combat skills which is part of what is represented by the professional skills. If I were feeling particularly generous I might allow acquiring new profession bonuses or knacks, but not both.
So if viewed as a curse to be used on someone else, making it level 10-20 might be OK depending on the negative consequences. But if intended to be beneficial and there are no negative consequences to balance the benefits, then I would definitely put it at the 50th level or even better reserved as something you could only accomplish with an obscure ritual.
-
[...]
I would say that the versatility of having multiple lists known to lower levels (and also requiring fewer power points to use) is better for the magic using professions.
Why do you believe that, say, knowing the 6th level Cleric base list spell Resurrection and the 6th level Druid base spell Underwater Breathing is better than knowing the 11th level Cleric base list spell Lifekeeping II?
I find it fascinating that you cite ChatGPT as a reliable source and give it preference over experienced GMs and some of the actual RMU developers themselves.
I don't. I was just trying to tie in here that ChatGPT apparently knows RoleMaster. :D
[...]
I'm sympathetic to the idea of a spell that changes someone's way of thinking, but done right, I would say the idea is definitely more of a curse than a blessing. You're altering the person's fundamental though processes.
[...]
Radically changing a way of thinking (represented by professions) should definitely have significant side-effects.
[...]
So if viewed as a curse to be used on someone else, making it level 10-20 might be OK depending on the negative consequences. But if intended to be beneficial and there are no negative consequences to balance the benefits, then I would definitely put it at the 50th level or even better reserved as something you could only accomplish with an obscure ritual.
Hm. A spell's intention should not influence the spell's level, in my opinion.
-
Yes, the higher level spells are good too, but Lifekeeping II is really just a longer lasting Lifekeeping I. Humans rule the planet not because we are the fastest, strongest, or even the most clever. It's because we are adaptable.
I'm not really arguing that intention matters, it's that middle part you quoted that is the core of my thoughts on this. A change that radical should have significant side-effects and many of those would be negative. That certainly seems more like a curse to me and could reasonably be a lower-level spell. If you can completely change someone's way of thinking without producing any negative side effects, that's some very powerful magic. In fact if you were to create that sort of spell, I could see two versions on the spell list. A lower level version with negative side effects and then a higher level one that eliminates them.
-
Yes, the higher level spells are good too, but Lifekeeping II is really just a longer lasting Lifekeeping I. Humans rule the planet not because we are the fastest, strongest, or even the most clever. It's because we are adaptable.
I did phrase this not as optimal as I should have. The alternatives here are really: Learn the 6th level and the 1th level Cleric base spell, or, for the same cost, instead learn the 6th level Cleric and the 6th level Druid spells. Obviously, the former is a more powerful combination.
[...] A change that radical should have significant side-effects and many of those would be negative. That certainly seems more like a curse to me and could reasonably be a lower-level spell. If you can completely change someone's way of thinking without producing any negative side effects, that's some very powerful magic.
Yes, suitable side effects would certainly make sense. Maybe even including partial amnesia or other strange things that happen to the mind with such magic.
In fact if you were to create that sort of spell, I could see two versions on the spell list. A lower level version with negative side effects and then a higher level one that eliminates them.
As well as separate spells for changing from Realm of Arms to Realm of Arms, RoA to RoC (semi), RoA to RoE (full), RoA to RoE/RoC (hybrid), and so on, with the more drastic changes requiring higher levels.
I still wonder, though, what could be other,. related spells on such a spell list?
-
But I really don't see how such a spell would be 50th level. ChatGPT (which I, btw, asked for explanations of Rolemaster Unified concepts before, and it answered largely correctly) suggested 7th or 8th,.
I think you really do have to get away from using ChatGPT as an argument. The same program answered that characters in RM rolled a d100 die whenever they were attacked and then the attack roll and defense roll were compared to give the result on the attack chart. It says things that are obviously wrong.
-
I did phrase this not as optimal as I should have. The alternatives here are really: Learn the 6th level and the 1th level Cleric base spell,
12th. I meant 12th!!
or, for the same cost, instead learn the 6th level Cleric and the 6th level Druid spells. Obviously, the former is a more powerful combination.
-
[...]
I think you really do have to get away from using ChatGPT as an argument.
[...]
Let us just agree that it's a fun anecdote that it does indeed know RM exists. :)
-
[...]
I think you really do have to get away from using ChatGPT as an argument.
[...]
Let us just agree that it's a fun anecdote that it does indeed know RM exists. :)
Wow. It's as smart as a search engine from the 90s.
-
As of now, there is no such thing as a Warrior Mage in RMU.
That's why I switched my example to paladin. There certainly will be a warrior mage in the future though.
But for the sake of the argument, let's use a Bard or Dabbler: At level 20, that character will have an OB of something like +110 from skill ranks alone (40 ranks at a cost of 3/5, or 8 per level).
Compared to a Fighter who switched to Magician at level 10 (or vice versa) and is now level 20: 12 points per level for 2 ranks in the primary weapon as a Magician, 4 points per level for 2 ranks as a fighter. Average cost: 8 Points per level! No difference there.
OB skills are an example where you do generally want to buy 2 ranks/level every level in your primary weapon -- at least up to 30 ranks (the limit for professional skill bonuses) where diminishing returns kick in. So it will make less difference. But for a semi, purchasing 1 rank/lvl of body development, power point development, spell lists, and combat/battle expertise skills is likely something you will have to do based on your limited DP pool. So taking into account those other skills, if I take my two example characters who, again, have:
Maneuver in Armor, Body Development, Fortitude, two Combat Expertise skills, two Combat Training skills, Directed Spells, Power Development, and five base lists
Purchase those skills 2 ranks/lvl while in the optimal class and 0 ranks/lvl in the other class, except now add 2 ranks/lvl in the primary weapon skill as magician. As a fighter they still spend 25 DP/lvl. As a magician, 37 DP/lvl. Over 20 levels, that's 620 DP. As a paladin, they spend 40 DP/lvl, for a total of 800 DP. So even paying for that weapon skill as a magician, the multiclassed character has still saved 180 DP, the equivalent of three full levels.
So far, arguments for extremely high levels for such spells seem to stem from a purely game balance point of view. I do not agree that there is even an issue there, but within a game world, magical researches wouldn't concern themselves with game balance. So why should it be harder to change a person's learning pattern than to, for instance, teleport several hundred meters?
The GM decides what magical research will and won't be successful. You can come up with a suitable in-game explanation for any ruling. Letting yourself get trapped by the in-game explanation without considering the bigger picture will get you into trouble.
In any case, completely redesigning someone's brain and aura while maintaining their existing knowledge, memories, and personality is several orders of magnitude more difficult than brain surgery. That does seem far more difficult to me than teleportation.
-
There certainly will be a warrior mage in the future though.
Hopefully I'll be able to help with that?
-
This is exactly why changing profession is unbalanced. You gain the cheaper skill costs of another profession.
And loose the cheaper skill costs of your own profession, which will stop you from advancing further in a field where you're probably better at anyway (because stats).
I think you just aren't thinking this through. If I take a Fighter and rank up my combat abilities fast and cheap, then switch to a pure caster and level spell abilities fast and cheap I'm going to be significantly powerful than either of those professions at an equal number of levels.
If we were talking about simply allowing people to switch, this would hold true (because childhood and adolescence imprinting isn't easily changed, at least in humans), but we're looking at a mentalism caster who changes a person's mind with magic. Which is what they do, so it seems logical for some to try this. (skipping forward) ...but within a game world, magical researches wouldn't concern themselves with game balance.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Fictional in-game characters wouldn't concern themselves with game balance? That's meaningless to this discussion. We're talking about actual real-world game balance among your players.
Why do you believe that, say, knowing the 6th level Cleric base list spell Resurrection and the 6th level Druid base spell Underwater Breathing is better than knowing the 11th level Cleric base list spell Lifekeeping II?
As he already said: Versatility. This is what makes casters generally more useful than arms users. They have far more options and multiplying cheap access to spell lists multiplies those options.
I find it fascinating that you cite ChatGPT as a reliable source and give it preference over experienced GMs and some of the actual RMU developers themselves.
I don't. I was just trying to tie in here that ChatGPT apparently knows RoleMaster. :D
I don't believe a second that ChatGPT 'knows' Rolemaster. I think it can scrape the internet for very generalized information it doesn't really understand and bullshit it's way through a topic.
-
[...]
Let us just agree that it's a fun anecdote that it does indeed know RM exists. :)
Wow. It's as smart as a search engine from the 90s.
Well, in this particual instance it means the people who made must have fed it rulebooks, and not just forum posts. I find that interesting.
-
[...]
But for a semi, purchasing 1 rank/lvl of body development, power point development, spell lists, and combat/battle expertise skills is likely something you will have to do based on your limited DP pool. So taking into account those other skills, if I take my two example characters who, again, have:
Maneuver in Armor, Body Development, Fortitude, two Combat Expertise skills, two Combat Training skills, Directed Spells, Power Development, and five base lists
Purchase those skills 2 ranks/lvl while in the optimal class and 0 ranks/lvl in the other class, except now add 2 ranks/lvl in the primary weapon skill as magician. As a fighter they still spend 25 DP/lvl. As a magician, 37 DP/lvl. Over 20 levels, that's 620 DP. As a paladin, they spend 40 DP/lvl, for a total of 800 DP. So even paying for that weapon skill as a magician, the multiclassed character has still saved 180 DP, the equivalent of three full levels.
My point stands. He will be far less powerful than had he sticked with his first profession (even without looking at stat bonuses). Yes, he will be more multi-sided in his skills, but he'd have been better off to learn his spell lists higher and just overpower anything he cannot solve with the lack of a borad skill selection.
[...]
In any case, completely redesigning someone's brain and aura while maintaining their existing knowledge, memories, and personality is several orders of magnitude more difficult than brain surgery. That does seem far more difficult to me than teleportation.
Well, I can at least theoretically find an imagination on how to do changing the way a person learns and what interests that person even without magic... but moving something without moving it? That must be magic, and thus is certainly more complicated.
-
[...]
I think you just aren't thinking this through. If I take a Fighter and rank up my combat abilities fast and cheap, then switch to a pure caster and level spell abilities fast and cheap I'm going to be significantly powerful than either of those professions at an equal number of levels.
In fact no, you won't be. You might have a broader selection of decent skills. But the pure caster will be only as good as others HALF his level. And the fighter as well, though that may not be quite as relevant.
Half his level. Half.
The alternative being just levelling the other class' easy-to-learn skills at a much slower rate (a rank every other level or so, alternating that per level between different skills) and getting a decent fraction of what such a very planned switch of profession would allow us to.
[...]
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Fictional in-game characters wouldn't concern themselves with game balance?
Yes. They have no concept of that. And the universe does not follow the rules of game balance either, unless the gods designed your fantasy world that way. But even if they did, see above: No issue.
But maybe what you are you asking is why I would want such a magic to be possible by the physical-magical laws of my game world? Because it has story potential, of course:
- Used as a curse, alsways fun. Especially with young Fighters.
- A way for players to correct their decision early in the game while not loosing that character's involvement in the campaign.
- A change of perspective, just wanting to see the world though another provession's eyes for a few months.
- A way to react to changes in the game world (such as: Magic is going away, for instance.)
As he already said: Versatility. This is what makes casters generally more useful than arms users. They have far more options and multiplying cheap access to spell lists multiplies those options.
Would you rather have high levels spells or not? A DP that buys me a low-level spell is worth less than one that buys me a high-level spell, don't you agree?
I don't believe a second that ChatGPT 'knows' Rolemaster.
This could be a separate thread. :)
-
I think you just aren't thinking this through. If I take a Fighter and rank up my combat abilities fast and cheap, then switch to a pure caster and level spell abilities fast and cheap I'm going to be significantly powerful than either of those professions at an equal number of levels.
In fact no, you won't be. You might have a broader selection of decent skills. But the pure caster will be only as good as others HALF his level. And the fighter as well, though that may not be quite as relevant.
Half his level. Half.
No, he won't be. This would only be true if skills costs were the same between the two professions.
I'm right, you aren't thinking this through. You're stuck on levels, but RM isn't really about levels, it's mainly about development points. It doesn't matter near as much what level a character is as how many skill ranks they have.
This is assuming when he would have become a 6th level pure arms user you're just continuing to progress using the 6th level Exp requirements to make it be a '1st' level pure arms user.
Let's take Bob the fighter. So let's just keep this low level and say 5th level:
As a Fighter he'll have paid 1 and 3 development points (total of 4) to get two ranks of weapon skill per level vs a cure caster 1 rank at a DP cost of 9.
- At a 5th level fighter he's paid 20 points to get 10 ranks of weapon skills vs the 5 ranks that would cost him 90 if he were a pure caster. He's paid 20DP less for twice as many ranks as a pure caster.
- If he bought spell levels he'd be pay 25 point per level for just OPEN spell lists. So as a Fighter that would cost 250 DP for 10 ranks in one spell list alone. But he's not going to do that, cause he's not an idiot.
Now he become Bob the mage at 6th level.
- He's not going to pay 9DP per weapon ranks (which he could only do once per level) cause, again he's not an idiot and has 10 ranks already, which is far better than most pure casters.
- Next, he's developing Base spell lists, more powerful than Open and Closed, for 3 ranks per level at 3 DP per rank. So we'll say he levels four Base spell lists to 15th level potentially for 180 DP. So he's paid 80 DP less for three times as many ranks in four times the spell lists.
At 10th level Bob has saved has, at minimum, twice as many weapon ranks for 28.5% the normal cost and access to six times as many, more powerful, spells for 72% the normal cost.
And we haven't even talked about Body Development, Armor skills, Combat maneuver skills, Power Point ranks, etc, etc.
If he as good at Combat as a 10th level pure arms user or at Casting as a 10th level pure caster? Nope, but he's nowhere near 'half' the character incredibly more versatile.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Fictional in-game characters wouldn't concern themselves with game balance?
Yes. They have no concept of that. And the universe does not follow the rules of game balance either, unless the gods designed your fantasy world that way. But even if they did, see above: No issue.
But you're talking about changing game system rules (and the resulting imbalances in it), not the in-game fictional world. Not at all the same thing.
I don't believe a second that ChatGPT 'knows' Rolemaster.
This could be a separate thread. :)
ChatGPT is not intelligent. It doesn't 'understand' anything. It scraps the internet for information and regurgitates that information based on perimeters you set for it.
It's like the computer 'Waston' that played Jeopardy on a bigger scale. It doens't know anything, it just searches a database for answers.
You could tell ChatGPT: 'Write me an essay on why the Easter Bunny is real' and it would.
-
My point stands. He will be far less powerful than had he sticked with his first profession (even without looking at stat bonuses). Yes, he will be more multi-sided in his skills, but he'd have been better off to learn his spell lists higher and just overpower anything he cannot solve with the lack of a borad skill selection.
I strongly disagree. The fighter-magician will be a much more powerful character than the semi. At best you are making an argument that pure casters are much more powerful than semis (indeed that they are better than all other professions), and the general trend in RM is that this is incorrect especially at high levels.
Well, I can at least theoretically find an imagination on how to do changing the way a person learns and what interests that person even without magic... but moving something without moving it? That must be magic, and thus is certainly more complicated.
Magic, in a setting where magic exists and people routinely use it, is not necessarily complicated. But as I said, you can come up with an in-game justification for anything. So you should be considering the game mechanics ramifications and let them inform your in-game narrative.
-
If you ignore game balance, a spell that outright kills someone is far lower level than calling up a massive ball of fire to chuck at them. Indeed, a number of 1st level spells would be absolutely lethal if not reined in by spell type or other limitations to prevent use as casual engines of death.
So, go ahead, make death spells first level. See how players like your world where spell levels are assigned without a thought for game balance.
-
Brain is functioning even less optimal than usual... (made a few corrections)
As a Fighter he'll have paid 1 and 3 development points (total of 4) to get two ranks of weapon skill per level vs a cure caster 1 rank at a DP cost of 9.
- At a 5th level fighter he's paid 20 points to get 10 ranks of weapon skills vs the 5 ranks that would cost him 45 if he were a pure caster. He's paid 25DP less for twice as many ranks as a pure caster.
- If he bought spell levels he'd be pay 25 point per level for just OPEN spell list. So as a Fighter that would cost 250 DP for 10 ranks in one spell list alone. But he's not going to do that, cause he's not an idiot.
Now he become Bob the mage at 6th level.
- He's not going to pay 9DP per weapon ranks (which he could only do once per level) cause, again he's not an idiot and has 10 ranks already, which is far better than most pure casters.
- Next, he's developing Base spell lists, more powerful than Open and Closed, for 3 ranks per level at 3 DP per rank. So we'll say he levels four Base spell lists to 15th level potentially for 180 DP. So he's paid 80 DP less for three times as many ranks in four times the spell lists.
At 10th level Bob has, at minimum, twice as many weapon ranks for 28.5% the normal cost of a caster and access to six times as many, more powerful, spells for 72% the normal cost of a fighter.
And we haven't even talked about Body Development, Armor skills, Combat maneuver skills, Power Point ranks, etc, etc.
Is he as good at Combat as a 10th level pure arms user or at Casting as a 10th level pure caster? Nope, but he's nowhere near 'half' the character and incredibly more versatile.
Let's do this. You want in-game reasoning? In RM your profession is your learning aptitude. You don't get your skill costs because you are a specific profession, you are that profession because of your skills costs; Your characters natural aptitudes. You can't simply 'change' your natural ability to learn. I don't get to just decide I'm a math genius halfway through my life.
If we look at it from a game system balance perspective the only reason to change profession is to get lower skill costs. Basically, you're cheating.
You can say it's allowed in your game, but your screwing up the balance between both the characters themselves and their power level compared to foes.
-
Brain is functioning even less optimal than usual... (made a few corrections)
You missed the big correction. This is an RMU thread and those costs are not RMU costs (and an RMU pure caster can double-developed weapons, though probably won't). It doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, being able to optimize DP spending by changing professions is very powerful, but the example as given is not right for the edition that the spell was proposed for.
And since Thot claims to be uninterested in game balance, the in-game reasoning you're offering is entirely right, so maybe that'll get through.
-
You missed the big correction. This is an RMU thread and those costs are not RMU costs (and an RMU pure caster can double-developed weapons, though probably won't). It doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, being able to optimize DP spending by changing professions is very powerful, but the example as given is not right for the edition that the spell was proposed for.
Yeah, I was being lazy. I know the RMSS costs off the top of my head and was too lazy to look up the RMU costs, but the comparison holds pretty true.
-
[...]
At 10th level Bob has, at minimum, twice as many weapon ranks for 28.5% the normal cost of a caster and access to six times as many, more powerful, spells for 72% the normal cost of a fighter.
And we haven't even talked about Body Development, Armor skills, Combat maneuver skills, Power Point ranks, etc, etc.
I seriously suggest you try to make a full character like that, and compare it to a single-profession character of the same level. You will be surprised.
Is he as good at Combat as a 10th level pure arms user or at Casting as a 10th level pure caster? Nope, but he's nowhere near 'half' the character and incredibly more versatile.[/size]
Compare him to a pure Bard, and you'll see the problem with your reasoning.
You can't simply 'change' your natural ability to learn.
Please remember we are talking about magic. Which supposedly is anything but simple. We are not in the "allow multiclassing already!" discussions you may have had to suffer in the past, but in one about a new metalism spell list, and trying to figure out what the power level of such spells should be compared to other spells in the game. :)
To illustrate this, let me ask a different question: Suppose one of the spells on this list would be: The caster determines a profession that he wants to use for his spell, and then, the target changes its learning costs for each skill category to the worse of his profession or the one used for the spell, until the magic is somehow countered. This would obviously be a powerful curse, but 50th level? No way.
If we look at it from a game system balance perspective the only reason to change profession is to get lower skill costs.[...]
Please accept that the reasons for why one would want to have such a spell list in one's game may be unrelated to game balance.
-
[...]
I strongly disagree. The fighter-magician will be a much more powerful character than the semi. At best you are making an argument that pure casters are much more powerful than semis (indeed that they are better than all other professions), and the general trend in RM is that this is incorrect especially at high levels.
i haven't tested this general notion with RMU yet, but in my experience with RM2 and RMFRP, casters are generally a lot more powerful than arms professions in RM. I find your remark interesting: How do you figure that a Magician of 20th level is not more powerful than two characters of tenth level, one being a Magician, and the other being a Fighter?
[...] So you should be considering the game mechanics ramifications and let them inform your in-game narrative.
I really believe you also should make a character who uses such a spell, and is designed to do so, to see that your concerns are not all that warranted.
-
[...]
At 10th level Bob has, at minimum, twice as many weapon ranks for 28.5% the normal cost of a caster and access to six times as many, more powerful, spells for 72% the normal cost of a fighter.
And we haven't even talked about Body Development, Armor skills, Combat maneuver skills, Power Point ranks, etc, etc.
I seriously suggest you try to make a full character like that, and compare it to a single-profession character of the same level. You will be surprised.
The subject of profession change is not a new idea and the math has never worked like the proponents claim. The claim is always that allowing profession change is just a minor benefit, but when you do the math it does not work as adverticed. Your claim that veterans on the forum who also are the actual designers of the game need to make more characters to understand the balance of the cost system is pure comedy.
Trying to make an argument that fighter + magician combo should not be evaluated compared to a semi spell caster, but compared to either the melee capability of the fighter or the spell casting, is weird at best. True, the spell casters are powerful in RM but that is just an argument for why any attempt to remove limitations for the spell casters is probably a bad idea. The magician has so high costs for non spell casting skills exactly to balance the power of magic and you want him to get rid of that limitation since magic users are more powerful????
Any kind professional change become a major way to cheat the cost system as soon as you hit diminishing returns. The novel thing about your proposal is that instead of the profession change being due to divine intervention or similar, you want to make it into a regular spell.
In some sense there is a system to your madness...if every character can cheat the skill cost structure no player can complain you are not fair. From another perspective I don't understand why you want to make it into a low level spell in the first place. Why don't simply allow free change of the profession if your goal is throw balance aspects through the window?
-
I seriously suggest you try to make a full character like that, and compare it to a single-profession character of the same level. You will be surprised.
I don't need to. It's simple math and I have a pretty darn good understanding of the system.
Is he as good at Combat as a 10th level pure arms user or at Casting as a 10th level pure caster? Nope, but he's nowhere near 'half' the character and incredibly more versatile.[/size]
Compare him to a pure Bard, and you'll see the problem with your reasoning.
In general, a character is a sum of it's parts and one single aspect of that character rarely causes it to be more powerful than another character. Versatility plays a significant role and this is demonstrated over the course of a game (i.e. you can't cherry pick specific situations to demonstrate it). Having cheap access to both combat related skills and a wide variety of spell related skills will create a superior character.
At low levels Pure Arms users tend to shine because they can focus on one thing more easily. At mid levels Pure Casters tend to shine because they start to have a boarder selection of spells that the they now have more power points to utilize. At high levels Semi's tend to shine because they have caught up to both the Pure's, they aren't quite as good at weapons as the Pure Arms user and they don't quite have the spell selection of a Pure Caster, but due the combination they are more versatile. Eventually they will all be powerful enough that it just won't matter, but you're talking very high levels at that point.
What you are doing is allowing a character to pick and chose from all of those things. If at level 1 we build a Fighter and select arms focused skills, then at level 2 we decide we want to be a caster and pick spell focused skills, we've just paid far less than a semi would to do the same. In addition if players can change their characters profession they could also simply start picking up base spell lists from multiple professions. You're allowing a process with a clear and obvious benefit. If you don't (and won't) see that there's no real point in discussing it.
You can't simply 'change' your natural ability to learn.
Please remember we are talking about magic. Which supposedly is anything but simple. We are not in the "allow multiclassing already!" discussions you may have had to suffer in the past, but in one about a new metalism spell list, and trying to figure out what the power level of such spells should be compared to other spells in the game. :)
No, we're not talking about multi-classing... we're talking about you making it even easier than that.
To illustrate this, let me ask a different question: Suppose one of the spells on this list would be: The caster determines a profession that he wants to use for his spell, and then, the target changes its learning costs for each skill category to the worse of his profession or the one used for the spell, until the magic is somehow countered. This would obviously be a powerful curse, but 50th level? No way.
I don't see a point to that discussion. We don't need to speculate how the spell could be used offensively if it's beneficial use to friendly characters is unbalancing.
Besides, in this case, why not just make a spell that causes a characters learning to slow (skill costs to increase) and just forget about the whole 'profession' part of it.
Although I'd suggest you not do this as you players won't exactly find your game as fun as they did before.
If we look at it from a game system balance perspective the only reason to change profession is to get lower skill costs.[...]
Please accept that the reasons for why one would want to have such a spell list in one's game may be unrelated to game balance.
I am not going to 'accept' ignoring game balance regardless of your reasoning. What you are doing will screw up game balance. Period. No real discussion needed.
If you don't care about that do whatever you want. No need to ask people here how to do it. It's your game. Do whatever you want. Make it 1st level, make it 50th.
But if you're asking us you've got your answer.
I strongly disagree. The fighter-magician will be a much more powerful character than the semi. At best you are making an argument that pure casters are much more powerful than semis (indeed that they are better than all other professions), and the general trend in RM is that this is incorrect especially at high levels.
I find your remark interesting: How do you figure that a Magician of 20th level is not more powerful than two characters of tenth level, one being a Magician, and the other being a Fighter?
Two thoughts.
First: I strongly suspect having two foes of 10th level vs a single for of 20th level is more dangerous than you seem to think, but it's not really relevant. Because...
Second: You're talking about a single character with the skills and options of both combined battling that single 20th level character.
There is a difference.
I really believe you also should make a character who uses such a spell, and is designed to do so, to see that your concerns are not all that warranted.
jdale is one of the developers of RMU. I'll eat my shorts if he doesn't understand what he's talking about better than you do.
The end point here, IMO, is what you're doing will be outbalancing. You're asking us to ignore that. If we do ignore that, then anything goes. Do whatever the heck you want.
-
I seriously suggest you try to make a full character like that, and compare it to a single-profession character of the same level. You will be surprised.
The subject of profession change is not a new idea.
[...]
I understand that a profession change is something like a hot topic for some people here, for reasons one might call historical.
And I am not there to antagonize people with strong opinions on the subject of such a spell list. I take note that several people here believe this would be undesireable. That's fine. But that wasn't exactly my question, which I tried to explain with this sentence:
Suppose one of the spells on this list would be: The caster determines a profession that he wants to use for his spell, and then, the target changes its learning costs for each skill category to the worse of his profession or the one used for the spell, until the magic is somehow countered.
This does basically the same thing as my original proposal, from a difficulty point of view: It changes the way of thinking and learning of the target. The only difference here is that no one will doubt that it is bad for the target, and not something some might fear could be exploited.
What level would you assign to this?
-
[...]
jdale is one of the developers of RMU. I'll eat my shorts if he doesn't understand what he's talking about better than you do.
[...]
I apologize. It was not my intention to insult anyone. We have a difference of opinion on the matter of balance here, but balance wasn't my question anyway.
-
[...]
I strongly disagree. The fighter-magician will be a much more powerful character than the semi. At best you are making an argument that pure casters are much more powerful than semis (indeed that they are better than all other professions), and the general trend in RM is that this is incorrect especially at high levels.
i haven't tested this general notion with RMU yet, but in my experience with RM2 and RMFRP, casters are generally a lot more powerful than arms professions in RM. I find your remark interesting: How do you figure that a Magician of 20th level is not more powerful than two characters of tenth level, one being a Magician, and the other being a Fighter?
That's a completely spurious comparison. I did the math for you, for a Magician10/Fighter10 with 40 ranks of a weapon skill -- same as a 20th level fighter (resulting in rank+prof bonus of +130 for the Magician10/Fighter10 and +140 for the semi) -- plus 20 ranks in 5 base lists. This is not a character limited to the capabilities of 10th level. Plus, their resistance rolls, spell attack levels, and leveled spell effects are based on their 20th level status. They completely invalidate the semi professions.
-
The subject of profession change is not a new idea.
[...]
I understand that a profession change is something like a hot topic for some people here, for reasons one might call historical.
It is not a hot topic at all. I am perfectly fine with profession change in HARP and many others game when the cost structure of the game was designed with that possibility in mind. The same is not true in RM when the cost differences are designed to balance profession against each other. The hot part of discussion here is on you that ignore the logically sound counter examples and claim the designers of the game does not know the rules.
And I am not there to antagonize people with strong opinions on the subject of such a spell list. I take note that several people here believe this would be undesireable. That's fine. But that wasn't exactly my question, which I tried to explain with this sentence:
Suppose one of the spells on this list would be: The caster determines a profession that he wants to use for his spell, and then, the target changes its learning costs for each skill category to the worse of his profession or the one used for the spell, until the magic is somehow countered.
This does basically the same thing as my original proposal, from a difficulty point of view: It changes the way of thinking and learning of the target. The only difference here is that no one will doubt that it is bad for the target, and not something some might fear could be exploited.
What level would you assign to this?
You are talking about a spell that basically makes a character being unable to take advantage of level up. I cannot see how to fit the effect on the lvl 1-50 scale. This is a hostile effect that I would never permit at my game table.
-
[...]
You are talking about a spell that basically makes a character being unable to take advantage of level up. I cannot see how to fit the effect on the lvl 1-50 scale. This is a hostile effect that I would never permit at my game table.
Well, they'd still be able to level their skills, just fewer of them per level.
There are plenty of hostile effects in the spell lists, some of which cause instant death. Certainly this is less powerful than that?
-
Honestly, is this even related to any spell allowing a change of profession?
The way I see it, it's merely the eternal issue about how in any version of RM, allowing multi-classes breaks the system and that the RM "professions" aren't professions as defined by the English language but rather life templates or, better, born learning predispositions.
-
Honestly, is this even related to any spell allowing a change of profession?
[...]
If I just wanted to houserule multiclassing, I'd just do that (probably requiring the switch to cost 60 or more DP, for the effort this would represent).
But this thread is about a mentalism spell list that changes the target's learning costs. For single skills, all skills, temporarily, permanently, to a new profession, to worse cost than any given profession, etc. It just seems logical and inevitable to me that some mentalism user would try something like that, and I am curious about the plausible levels such spells should have. My own assessment hasn't been completed, but "50th level" seems to be way over the top, in my opinion.
(At the time of writing the OP, it was a vague idea... other spells on such a list influencing learning costs is something that came to me while this thread ran.)
-
Note that Misfeel Calling, a spell that merely lets one *temporarily* *appear* to magical/psychic probing as a different Profession exists in the game. On various lists, this is found at levels 6, 9, 11, and 7. Given that you are talking about a "permanent" (though any PC types or equally ambitious NPCs will make changes to optimize development repeatedly) change and a real one at that, it should surely be at least three times the level, which would mean 3 x 6 = 18th level. But that's for the Essence-based Illusionist, while the 7th level version belongs to the hybrid Mystic. The lowest-level Mentalism version is 9th level, so 3 x 9 = 27, round up to 30th. Not quite 50th, but even ignoring game balance considerations and looking at the most relevant existing effect, it ought to be quite a high-level spell.
-
Note that Misfeel Calling, a spell that merely lets one *temporarily* *appear* to magical/psychic probing as a different Profession exists in the game. On various lists, this is found at levels 6, 9, 11, and 7. Given that you are talking about a "permanent" (though any PC types or equally ambitious NPCs will make changes to optimize development repeatedly) change and a real one at that, it should surely be at least three times the level, which would mean 3 x 6 = 18th level. But that's for the Essence-based Illusionist, while the 7th level version belongs to the hybrid Mystic. The lowest-level Mentalism version is 9th level, so 3 x 9 = 27, round up to 30th. Not quite 50th, but even ignoring game balance considerations and looking at the most relevant existing effect, it ought to be quite a high-level spell.
Ah, yes, that does seem a sensible comparison! Excellent suggestion, thanks!
-
I'd agree with Nash. It is extremely powerful. Looks like a level 50 spell for me.
This is exactly what I was thinking, or make it a "godlike" ability like Treasure Law did with deities casting 75th or 100th level spells for divine items.
I would probably say 7th or 100th level, that way its unobtainable by the normal player but a special or godlike power could bestow it upon them or having it in an artifact style scroll or potion.
-
There are plenty of hostile effects in the spell lists, some of which cause instant death. Certainly this is less powerful than that?
If you cursed a character of mine, causing their skills costs to increase, and I was unable to undo that curse before I leveled, you've permanently reduced the amount of skill points my character would ever get. There's a pretty darn good chance I'd just kill the character and make a new one or quit the game.
-
[...]
If you cursed a character of mine, causing their skills costs to increase, and I was unable to undo that curse before I leveled, you've permanently reduced the amount of skill points my character would ever get. There's a pretty darn good chance I'd just kill the character and make a new one or quit the game.
Ah. but all magic can be undone. It might take a level to find the caster who can help there, or a single combat to force the original caster to undo it, but it can always be done.
After all, what would be the point of malicious magic if you could not overcome it?
-
[...]
You are talking about a spell that basically makes a character being unable to take advantage of level up. I cannot see how to fit the effect on the lvl 1-50 scale. This is a hostile effect that I would never permit at my game table.
Well, they'd still be able to level their skills, just fewer of them per level.
There are plenty of hostile effects in the spell lists, some of which cause instant death. Certainly this is less powerful than that?
Every condition, including death, can be overcome with later spells. The same is not true for your curse that creates a permanent loss of one or more level ups. Not something I would like to deal with at the gaming table so please knock yourself up and see what your players are ready to accept.
How about this: Tell your magician player he must pay 15/20 dp for closed spell he want to learn and he should not be sorry because he could have gotten rid of the curse before his level up. Can you please report back here afterward if the player stayed in your gaming group or he did quit?
-
[...]
You are talking about a spell that basically makes a character being unable to take advantage of level up. I cannot see how to fit the effect on the lvl 1-50 scale. This is a hostile effect that I would never permit at my game table.
Well, they'd still be able to level their skills, just fewer of them per level.
There are plenty of hostile effects in the spell lists, some of which cause instant death. Certainly this is less powerful than that?
Every condition, including death, can be overcome with later spells. The same is not true for your curse that creates a permanent loss of one or more level ups. Not something I would like to deal with at the gaming table so please knock yourself up and see what your players are ready to accept. [...]
Splendid, that gives us even more spells for that spell list: One to counter a previous learning cost or profession change, and one to recover DP lost from previous changes!
-
I’ve watched this go back and forth and bit and I can’t for the life of me even understand the purpose of the list or spell that accompanies it. Just it’s mere existence would mean that all PCs would just default to waking a character that would attain this list and then they would be the infamous Unbermench (not the German version) but the build your own class from an 80s Dragon Magazine where they essentially allowed the class construction for AD&D to include aspects of any class.
Even then it took one issue for any GM to see that was a disaster as you had mages running around with fighter hit dice, weapons and AC, priest healing and turn undead and percentile thief skills. And since everyone opted for some fuglamation, the XP penalty was irrelevant as everyone moved at near the same snails pace.
It’s a great academic exercise but an idea doomed to failure simply because it breaks every element of the “class” system RM is built on.
You’d be better off allowing your players to use the no profession as a base and allow whatever. Spells and skills they want to “build a class”. At least that’d be internally balanced amongst the players.
-
You’d be better off allowing your players to use the no profession as a base and allow whatever. Spells and skills they want to “build a class”. At least that’d be internally balanced amongst the players.
THIS! Best suggestion ever! :)
-
It’s a great academic exercise but an idea doomed to failure simply because it breaks every element of the “class” system RM is built on.
Here, take this thing called nuclear energy and light your tavern with it! Wait, no... stop... don't build that bomb. What are you doing? This is to use for good! Dear gods, what have I done...
-
I’ve watched this go back and forth and bit and I can’t for the life of me even understand the purpose of the list or spell that accompanies it. Just it’s mere existence would mean that all PCs would just default to waking a character that would attain this list and then they would be the infamous Unbermench (not the German version) but the build your own class from an 80s Dragon Magazine where they essentially allowed the class construction for AD&D to include aspects of any class.
Even then it took one issue for any GM to see that was a disaster as you had mages running around with fighter hit dice, weapons and AC, priest healing and turn undead and percentile thief skills. And since everyone opted for some fuglamation, the XP penalty was irrelevant as everyone moved at near the same snails pace.
It’s a great academic exercise but an idea doomed to failure simply because it breaks every element of the “class” system RM is built on.
You’d be better off allowing your players to use the no profession as a base and allow whatever. Spells and skills they want to “build a class”. At least that’d be internally balanced amongst the players.
wasnt that class called the Ultimatist ?
-
A thought: Another, maybe more balanced approach might be to not just change he profession, but to also require the levelling of the whole character anew up to the current level.
-
A thought: Another, maybe more balanced approach might be to not just change he profession, but to also require the levelling of the whole character anew up to the current level.
Just a worse idea. But it seems you’re stuck heading down a path that overall makes no sense for RM. all of the PCs core competencies are built into the profession system. Changing that can’t really be offset by any fix.
The best option remain, in my mind, having all of your PCs be no profession and maybe allow each to lower a cost for 2-3 skill categories by 1-2 steps. The fix you keep looking out won’t work in actual play and doesn’t make much sense from a game world perspective. Just go full classless and the PCs can basically learn whatever they want and have a competence in what they want without the built in RM constraints.
Why wouldn’t all mages just develop the change profession list initially? It’s a silly concept that conflicts with everything RM is built on. If you make it work, good for you, I just don’t see it.
-
A thought: Another, maybe more balanced approach might be to not just change he profession, but to also require the levelling of the whole character anew up to the current level.
Just a worse idea.
You cannot know that, becuase you haven't understood it.
The fix you keep looking out won’t work in actual play
You don't even understand that it's not a "fix" for anything, but a way a game world might be. You make a lot of assumptions about my motivations, instead of following the evidence. Maybe work on that?
and doesn’t make much sense from a game world perspective.
That depends on the game world anyway, so this part of your, eh, critique is just plain wrong.
Why wouldn’t all mages just develop the change profession list initially? [...]
It wouldn't be bad if they did, if it fits the game world.
-
It wouldn't be bad if they did, if it fits the game world.
This really doesn't have anything to do with fitting into a game world. It has to do with character balance among the players. If you're unconcerned with that, then no problem. But if you are, or possibly more importantly, if your players are, it will be a problem.
-
[...]
This really doesn't have anything to do with fitting into a game world. It has to do with character balance among the players.[...]
I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?
If balance was a major concern for RM, we'd have "buy your potentials with points" in the RAW, just to give one additional example.
Nevertheless, even IF one wants to have that kind of notion of balance in the game, a spell that forces you to level anew from level 1 to the current level wouldn't break it at all. And that's without taking into account that everyone can do it, thus preserving that notion of balance.
-
I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?
Try to say to the players that healing magic is only available to your favorite player and the others must heal naturally. If your player does not complain about that then maybe changing profession is not a big deal to your players.
If balance was a major concern for RM, we'd have "buy your potentials with points" in the RAW, just to give one additional example.
One of the input from my group during the beta is that rolling for stats and buying stats does not mix due to balance issues. It is also worth to notice that in the final RAW you cannot buy potentials, but roll them normally and buy the temporary stats.
Nevertheless, even IF one wants to have that kind of notion of balance in the game, a spell that forces you to level anew from level 1 to the current level wouldn't break it at all. And that's without taking into account that everyone can do it, thus preserving that notion of balance.
Restarting from level 1 is only a issueif you switch from magic user (and not are using any of the options that remove level from spell casting). An arms user switching to be a semi or pure spell caster when they have hit diminishing returns will not really be bothered by restarting at a low level.
-
What I did when in RM2 stage was Have them keep the level and skills and start at level 1 for the new class. No restrictions were put in at the time.
Now looking at it I would have put them in Non-Professional for 1 level and then in for the new class. This started at the exp they left off as and the new profession progressed from that experience point (IE... 5th fighter to mage would be 1 level Non-professional(apprentice) and then new profession at level 7). Spell caster level would only be the mage levels of the character and this shows the learning curve through the life of a character who transitions later in their life. It also grows the new class at a slower pace due to level experience needed.
-
I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?
Try to say to the players that healing magic is only available to your favorite player
And again lots of assumptions here. Why would it only be available to one player? Why would not every player be able to receive the spell? Even if a player who has learned it refuses to cast it on other players, why would they not simply go to a commercial mage, or buy a scroll, or whatever?
I could also name tons of other spells that "change the balance", about nobody seems to complain. Revivify. The whole "Physical Enhancement" list. Just to name two examples from randomly opening my Spell Law.
[...]It is also worth to notice that in the final RAW you cannot buy potentials, but roll them normally and buy the temporary stats.
That was kind my point: This is obviously not balanced (some people roll badly, you know, so they are unbalancedly bad vs the people who rolled well), but RMU does it anyway in the RAW. So balance isn't that big of a design goal. (Of course, I let my players buy both with separate point accounts, because I actually do care for balance, or, as I would prefer to call it in English, fairness).
[...]
Restarting from level 1 is only a issueif you switch from magic user (and not are using any of the options that remove level from spell casting). An arms user switching to be a semi or pure spell caster when they have hit diminishing returns will not really be bothered by restarting at a low level.
Dude. If you let people start from level 1 in a group with level10+-Charakters, balance is obviously nothing you care about at all.
-
[...]
This really doesn't have anything to do with fitting into a game world. It has to do with character balance among the players.[...]
I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?
That makes zero sense. This statement tells me you don't understand, or are choosing to ignore, what we are talking about.
Can you explain how this correlates to imbalance?
Nevertheless, even IF one wants to have that kind of notion of balance in the game, a spell that forces you to level anew from level 1 to the current level wouldn't break it at all. And that's without taking into account that everyone can do it, thus preserving that notion of balance.
It's really very simple.
If only a portion of your players do this with their characters they will eventually have more powerful characters than those who don't.
It's fairly rare that this isn't going to cause a problem down the road.
If they are all going to do it, why bother with different skill costs among professions? Just toss the whole profession system and let people buy what they want for what they want. I mean, that is the while point of being able to develop more than one profession.
-
[...]
These statements tell me you don't understand, or are choosing to ignore, what we are talking about in terms of balance.
Allright, let us exchange definitions, to avoid misunderstandings.
Balance (or fairness) to me means the ability of every character in a group to shine in their chosen area of expertise in a similar amount as all the other player characters, if they put the same effort into making and playing their character.
What's your definition?
Nevermind that these mechanics are part of the actual rules and have been established with that is mind, can you explain how these examples correlate to imbalance?
Sure! They change the way the characters interact, especially as level progression takes place, and make some characters more powerful than others. Of course that is inherent to a game with magic, and to me that's no issue. But that's true for changing profgessions (with a good in-world explanation, such as magic) as well.
It's really simple.
If only a portion of your players do this with their characters they will eventually have more powerful characters than those who don't.
That is also true, word for word, with pure spellcasters vs semi or non-casters. Or with people using healing magic vs those who don't.
If they are all going to do it, why bother with different skill costs among professions?
[...]
For the same reason I like the way RoleMaster manages professions in the first place: Because they give structure and plausibility to the game. Just like real world people have differently wired brains to be good at learning different things, RM gives in-world reasons built into its mechanic why not everyone becomes a spellcaster despite the obvious long term advantages, or why some people fail at magic school (like Hagrid), while others excel there.
Likewise, magic that changes how the brain is wired would be an excellent expalantion why some people become spellcasters later in life, and makes clear that it costs them (money, time to learn the spell list, or contacts, or whatever) and that not everyone (especially not every NPC) in the game world will do it. It increases diversity in the game world by a lot to have this model in the game.
Compared to that, the "no profession" approach would be boring and dull in my eyes.
-
Lol
In other words you end up with “no profession” characters but you don’t want to call it that and add flavor. Gotcha. Brilliant.
It’s ultimately gonna work out about the same. Just your way will create some extra hoops.
You’re going from RM to a version of D&D where class hopping to “prestige classes” becomes the new norm. Start at fighter and max out a few weapons, buy a scroll to be a mage, get to the spells you want, hop to cleric for some healing and BAM fighter mage cleric like old D&D.
Very flavorful and glad it’s not boring, my man.
-
I see, and healing magic also is a killer for the injury system's balance, so you don't allow it, right?
Try to say to the players that healing magic is only available to your favorite player
And again lots of assumptions here. Why would it only be available to one player? Why would not every player be able to receive the spell? Even if a player who has learned it refuses to cast it on other players, why would they not simply go to a commercial mage, or buy a scroll, or whatever?
It is "available" to all players, but arms users can use it at no cost while spell users will be limited by your rule about level 1. I am not saying that you must agree with my assement about the severity of the problem, but if you cannot truely see the analogy between given magical healing to just some players and making profession change cost something for only some of your players our communication is kind of hopeless.
Bascially...
- Making profession change a spell instead of a rule option does not change balance or realism. There are plenty of games that allow multiple "professions" and none of them try to balance it calling it a spell
- Having the rule that you restart at level 1 after profession change does nothing really for increasing the balance since RM is a skillbased system. IMHO your houserule gives even worse problems than free profesion change since your "limitation" hits different character build differently.
- Profession change is not a new idea to RM users and have been tried many times before. The outcome is always what katastrophe describe as "prestige classes" become the norm.
- In earlier attempts to introduce profession change in a balanced fashion (something that always did fail) those attempts that got closest before failing, were those when you have sacrifice a certain number of DP (like a whole level( to get the profession change. Having to make the choice of sacrificying the next level up to have different costs at a future time has some teeth. It only pushes the optimum point for doing profession change to higher levels, but at least it is has positive effect on short term.
- If you want an new rule for charging a cost for profession change....you could experiment with cutting skill ranks in half. I don't recall anyone ever doing this, but I think this has potential to to make profession change possible but not run into the "prestige class" syndrome since the choice of be level 11 fighter or an level 5 fighter/mage is a tough one.
I could also name tons of other spells that "change the balance", about nobody seems to complain. Revivify. The whole "Physical Enhancement" list. Just to name two examples from randomly opening my Spell Law.
You keep using the word balance, but I don't think you know what it means. ;-)
[...]It is also worth to notice that in the final RAW you cannot buy potentials, but roll them normally and buy the temporary stats.
That was kind my point: This is obviously not balanced (some people roll badly, you know, so they are unbalancedly bad vs the people who rolled well), but RMU does it anyway in the RAW. So balance isn't that big of a design goal. (Of course, I let my players buy both with separate point accounts, because I actually do care for balance, or, as I would prefer to call it in English, fairness).
You keep using the word balance, but I don't think you know what it means. ;-)
[...]
Restarting from level 1 is only a issueif you switch from magic user (and not are using any of the options that remove level from spell casting). An arms user switching to be a semi or pure spell caster when they have hit diminishing returns will not really be bothered by restarting at a low level.
Dude. If you let people start from level 1 in a group with level10+-Charakters, balance is obviously nothing you care about at all.
If your spell really reset all skills to zero ranks your spell is really "instant death so must make a new character"...if the character keep their skills then your objection does not really make sense.
-
[...]
It is "available" to all players, but arms users can use it at no cost while spell users will be limited by your rule about level 1.
You probably misread the proposal. You immediately level up to yiur current level, starting again from level 1, was that one.
Bascially...
- Making profession change a spell instead of a rule option does not change balance or realism.
But of course it does.
For balance (or fairness(: The type of cost you add to this "rules-based" (like a full level of reorienting, or a loss of XP, or nothing at all, or whatever) change changes balance greatly vs a permanent spell, obviously. Does this need further explanation?
For "realism" (or, as I prefer to call it, plausibility): If the profession-based learning cost for skills reflects hard-wired structures in the charatcer's brain, then you could simply not change that, that is kind of the basic assumption. But magic, of course, could do such things, so in that regard it would be more "realistic", or plausible, or more consistent.
There are plenty of games that allow multiple "professions" and none of them try to balance it calling it a spell[/li][/list]
Why would that matter here?
- Having the rule that you restart at level 1 after profession change
Yes, you have misread that.
- Profession change is not a new idea to RM users and have been tried many times before. The outcome is always what katastrophe describe as "prestige classes" become the norm.
Nothing about that is a catastrophe. It would then just be like the respective game world functions. Much like it is not "unbalanced" to have flying ships in your game world.
[...]
You keep using the word balance, but I don't think you know what it means. ;-)
Hm. I doubt you could define what you mean by that word (since otherwise, this would have been the perfect opportunity), while I already did.
If your spell really reset all skills to zero ranks
We've alreasdy established that you misread that.
The proposal reads:
A thought: Another, maybe more balanced approach might be to not just change the profession, but to also require the levelling of the whole character anew up to the current level.
The last 5 words should indicate that you of course won't be set back to level1, just that you'd spend al the DP you spent on all your levels again. Was that not clear enough?[/list]
-
These statements tell me you don't understand, or are choosing to ignore, what we are talking about in terms of balance.
Allright, let us exchange definitions, to avoid misunderstandings.
Balance (or fairness) to me means the ability of every character in a group to shine in their chosen area of expertise in a similar amount as all the other player characters, if they put the same effort into making and playing their character.
What's your definition?
Pretty close. And 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. They would no longer have an 'area' of expertise. They could be experts at everything they want to be.
Nevermind that these mechanics are part of the actual rules and have been established with that is mind, can you explain how these examples correlate to imbalance?
Sure! They change the way the characters interact, especially as level progression takes place, and make some characters more powerful than others. Of course that is inherent to a game with magic, and to me that's no issue. But that's true for changing profgessions (with a good in-world explanation, such as magic) as well.
You claim healing causes imbalance. Without a form of healing, damage would not be 'balanced'. Having healing balances the damage system.
It's really simple. If only a portion of your players do this with their characters they will eventually have more powerful characters than those who don't.
That is also true, word for word, with pure spellcasters vs semi or non-casters. Or with people using healing magic vs those who don't.
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.
If they are all going to do it, why bother with different skill costs among professions?[...]
For the same reason I like the way RoleMaster manages professions in the first place: Because they give structure and plausibility to the game. Just like real world people have differently wired brains to be good at learning different things, RM gives in-world reasons built into its mechanic why not everyone becomes a spellcaster despite the obvious long term advantages, or why some people fail at magic school (like Hagrid), while others excel there.
But, again, if you allow access to multiple professions you're removing from the idea that people have differently wired brains.
Likewise, magic that changes how the brain is wired would be an excellent expalantion why some people become spellcasters later in life, and makes clear that it costs them (money, time to learn the spell list, or contacts, or whatever) and that not everyone (especially not every NPC) in the game world will do it. It increases diversity in the game world by a lot to have this model in the game.
Allowing access to multiple professions decreases diversity among the characters.
Compared to that, the "no profession" approach would be boring and dull in my eyes.
How is everyone paying the same cost for everything any different than everyone being able to pay the lowest costs for everything?
Throughout this whole multiple profession idea you're often either contradicting yourself or saying one thing is good and the other is bad when they're really the same thing. I think pastaav might be right. When you say 'balance' I'm not so sure you're actually talking about balance.
-
[...] 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.
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.
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?
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.
Original "just change the learning cost from now on" could make semi spell casters less fun on the long run, though still more versatile while levelling. Personal decision, I'd say.
The other proposal "level them from 1 anew, up to the current level, so you become a 18th level Magician where you before where an 18th level Fighter": Not at all. This is akin to just making a new character (with nonoptimal attributes, I might add), at the current level.
[...]
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.
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.
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
[...] 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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*.
-
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.
-
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 .
-
[...]
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.
-
[...]
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.
-
[...]
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.
-
[...] 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.
-
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 ?
-
On a less gut-feeling note, just try something...
MisterK makes a great point. If you dont like any of the suggestions/warnings or answers, simply try it? You will soon see the pitfalls or the majesty of your decision. I do this all the time (ESPECIALLY with the Arcane Companion lol) If someone plays a class/race or brings in a new spell list (I allow players to design them all the time). We must... MUST playtest it before making it canon. If we decide (after a fair amount of play-testing) that it is ok, we add it to our "House Rules" book. It's now 16 pages long so you can imagine that we playtest a TON before adding something.
Anyway, give it a shot! Then, come back and post what you discovered so we all can learn from this experiment. I am VERY curious about the outcome!!!
Best of luck and wishes!
-
Personally you want a character to change from a singular aspect profession that would be outclassed at high level to a profession that greater benefits with power. Without having to go through the adventure process in the new profession. taking a fighter and changing to Magician of high level will take the element of high level spells to over compensate for power that the fighter loses at the high level power level.
As far as roleplaying and continuity of the game, it may only make sense for some groups, particularly your group, but not for others as this is a part of the adventure together to achieve this level.
The excuses that no one understands this process is because you are the creator of the concept posted and have trouble with the feed back you are giving. Again this is fine but others try to reason with this, only get a brute reply on how stupid we are which again is a defensive answer to answers you did not like. Good luck with your concept as you will do what you want and we will do what we like for our groups.
-
[...]
The recent proposal is a complete change without any trace of the old profession remaining. Not multi at all.
So you basically have a completely new character with the same name. Why would you need a system mechanic to do this? If you don't want to play the profession you started as why not just toss the old one and level up to the same point with a new one?
Well, not quite, because the "new character" will still have the same stats, which are probably not ideal for the new profession, Other spells on such a list might allow for swapping stats, perhaps.
A new character means throwing away all the old character's memories, story involvements, signifcance in the campaign, interpersonal relationships within and outside of the player character group, etc. you might not want to do that.
I fail to see why you need a system mechanic to do what you're talking about. If someone finds they don't like their profession and wants to change it why wouldn't you just do it? Ditch the old build. You don't need an in-game role-played way. Just say they were that profession all along. Change then to that profession. Entirely. Stats, everything. Done. If you have a problem with the suspension of disbelief in that you probably wouldn't be playing a fantasy RPG in the first place.
You mean it is a sheer accident that all these injuries are plausible for a real-world campaign? And that these injuries were designed to be just right for whatever you mean by "balance"?
I strongly doubt that. To me, it looks as if actual real-world injuries were supposed to be modeled by this, and detailed healing magic was added to make the game more fun for those who want it.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'real world'. Fantasy RPG's aren't the real world.
Broken bones, bleeding wounds, cutoff nerves and shattered brains most definitely are part of the real world. That is why they are in the crit tables of RMU.[/quote]
And in the real world you wouldn't survive many of those things, let alone not spend months recovering, let alone, etc. In the 'real world' there are no wizards. No unicorns. No dragons.
The 'real world' isn't a concern for certain aspects of play-ability.
But you're claim is [healing magic's] existence is unbalancing and you haven't explained how.
I think it is quite obvious that the power to injur, main, or kill someone looses a lot of its impact when healing magic is there to fix it all. You don't see how that changes the balance of the game?
Changed? Yes. Unbalanced? You still haven't explained how.
The system makes getting injured less un-fun. Seems to be quote a good thing considering RM's combat system.
...because some GM's/groups may not want magical healing in a campaign isn't at all a valid reason to not include it in a system and still doesn't explain how it's, as you claim, unbalancing.
That is my point: There is no reason not to include profession-changing magic in a game just because some people may not want it in their a game, There is also no reason to not exclude it from a campaign where it doesn't fit. Just like with healing magic.
Not remotely the same thing. Professions are built so that they balance against each other. The game is designed this way. You're talking about introducing a new mechanic that allows characters to circumnavigate that balance, resulting in imbalance between the characters unless they all do it to the equal degree. You're not doing something like this with healing. Even if you did remove healing it would impact everyone equally. No imbalance between characters. Less fun for the player most likely though.
Also, you can do whatever you want in your game. No one is telling you you cannot. We are just telling you it will likely create balance issues.
[...]if everyone does that you don't have a balance issue between the player characters,
You'd still have balance issues, because some people are ust better Channeling users than others based on there Intuition stat.
You're back to talking non-sense. A Cleric is a better at being a Cleric because the character was built to be a Cleric.
If you think a Fighter being a better Fighter than a Cleric and a Cleric being a better Cleric than a Fighter is somehow unbalancing you obviously just don't get the overall idea of balance among the professions in the first place.
but you do lessen diversity, which elsewhere you claim to be trying to preserve or improve. Creating a process that gives characters equal access to the same skill costs does the opposite of that. It makes them less diverse.
This is a perfect example for why one needs to look at details when making judgement calls. Which you did not.
You are definitely the one not seeing the details of the issue here.
I suggest you actually make a full character switching back and fourth with all the skills and spells to understand what I was pointing out.
It's basic math.
No, it's not just "basic math". You'd find out if you actually tried. The complexity of RMU character creation just stops it from being "basic math".
No, not really. If I can pay for twice as many skills at ideal cost vs another player it becomes a basic math issue. I can probably buy twice as many ranks as the other character in my primary skills. If character A can by 3 ranks of one thing and 1 rank of another every level and not change, but character B can alternate those costs at will (or just get the best of both) they will progress in those things faster and that's going to become a balance issue.
Even in the less unbalancing way you could do this, just alternating between two profession costs vs just straight out getting the better cost of both...
Character A, which static profession costs, would have...
Level 1 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1
Level 2 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (6/2)
Level 3 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (9/3)
Level 4 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (12/4)
Level 5 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (15/5)
Level 6 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (18/6)
Level 7 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (21/7)
Level 8 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (24/8)
Level 9 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (27/9)
Level 10 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (30/10)
Character B, alternating between two professions costs, would have...
Level 1 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1
Level 2 - Skill A: 1 Skill B: 3 (4/4)
Level 3 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (7/5)
Level 4 - Skill A: 1 Skill B: 3 (8/8)
Level 5 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (11/9)
Level 6 - Skill A: 1 Skill B: 3 (12/12)
Level 7 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (15/13)
Level 8 - Skill A: 1 Skill B: 3 (16/16)
Level 9 - Skill A: 3 Skill B: 1 (19/17)
Level 10 - Skill A: 1 Skill B: 3 (20/20)
At 5th level the character alternating between two professions just starts to outpace the Skill total for DP cost of the other and it picks up through level 10.
The 30 vs 20 ranks has a smaller disparity (60 vs 50) than the 10 and 20 (30 vs 50) due to diminishing returns. That's not remotely balanced.
Now, if you let character B use both all the time you'd have a even bigger magnitude problem. 30/30 ranks for 60 and 60 skill vs 60 and 30 skill.
As they reach much higher levels (and most RM players don't seem to hit those levels) this slowly starts to reduce, but it's going to be a real problem.
So, yeah. It's simple math.
In the past there have been long debates about the Mage vs Fighter balance in RM, but it's not a straightforward issue.
Of course it is. But that's not a problem. As a GM i can set the conditions so that everybody gets to shine in any case.
Well, you don't really need rules for that when it comes down to it, but you're idea is making them shine less... so...
Healing magic gives a way to eliminate the idea that after every deadly fight your characters would realistically be laid up healing for months otherwise.
And there may be campaigns where that is totally unfitting. Where the cost of violence is important to be high.
And that has nothing to do with allowing players to develop multiple professions.
-
Let's just say those who answered care on a deeply emotional level against such a spell, but cannot really bring rational arguments for the level50+-claim that hold water.
Because there's no need to.
Yes there is. If any disucssion on any subject is to make any sense whatsoever, we need to establish by what method to find out the facts.
Rational arguments are useless in that kind of discussion.
We aren't trying to gather a group to play. We are trying to find out what level fits such a spell in the grand scheme of RMU's Spell Law.
People are clearly saying they won't touch your idea with a 10' pole. And nothing will change that. And they are not wrong.
They could be wrong. We'll never know if we don't have any rational measuring stick to figure it out.
On a less gut-feeling note, just try something : make the spell target=self, and ask your players if they be OK with not having the spell, knowing that some others would have it.
If they say yes, you don't have a problem with the spell.
If they say no, you do.
And with that note, you killed the whole idea behind the Healer profession. Yeah, remove Transfer Wounds from their base list and see how players find that.
The thing is, almost everyone who replied to your thread said 'no'. In other words, they would not play with you knowing that this spell exists
And this is irrelevant, because realistically, we're never going to play at the same table, and even if we did, we'd probably just use a game world without such a spell. But that doesn't help us with finding out what the level of the spell should be in comparison to all the other RMU spells.
(apparently unless it is 50th level or above, but I'm not sure it is not a placeholder for 'never').
I am actually sure that it is meant to be such a placeholder. Which makes the argument for the number even less valid.
You might not have a problem with that, but you cannot tell them that there is no problem at all. You're just saying that you don't care about their opinion.
I care about logically stringent opinions, but not about gut feelings.
Which is your right, but if you don't care, why did you ask for that opinion in the first place ?
I asked for a level for a spell. What I got was various versions of "NOOOOOOO!" (including the level50+-answer, which objectively cannot be justified in the light of so many other spells in the game). You can certainly see how that seems a bit inappropriate to the questioner.
-
[...] If you dont like any of the suggestions/warnings or answers, simply try it?
My current campaign has no use for such a spell, for the simple reason that the players are gods who create low-level avatars out of a curious predicament they find themselves in. If they want to change profession, they simply kill off the avatar and make a new one. They're then still the same character, just with different stats. (This is designed so we can try out the new system and still have a fun story, obviously.)
I have tried it (both versions) on paper, which isn't at all disastrous. I am sure the power level of the spell is way, way below 50th level, just not quite sure where exactly.
-
[...]
The excuses that no one understands this process is because you are the creator of the concept posted and have trouble with the feed back you are giving. Again this is fine but others try to reason with this, only get a brute reply on how stupid we are which again is a defensive answer to answers you did not like. [...]
I am not married to the idea of a profession-changing spell, but to my wife. At present, I even have no use for the spell in my campaign (except perhaps for some NPC's). This is all an intellectual exercise for me, mostly.
No, I am fine with negative answers, IF they are rational and logically stringent. My problem isn't that people don't like this idea, it is the reasson why they object to it and assign it a level that is not consistent with what other spells we have in RMU.
-
No, I am fine with negative answers, IF they are rational and logically stringent. My problem isn't that people don't like this idea, it is the reasson why they object to it and assign it a level that is not consistent with what other spells we have in RMU.
People don't need a reason to dislike something.
And magic in RM is not internally consistent. Most spell levels are arbitrary (and there are many discussions on this forum that illustrate that assertion), and only make any amount of sense if you accept the metagame principles (some of them not being very rational, such as 'there can be only one spell per spell level in a list' or 'if a spell is present in a Base List and an Open List, its level will be higher in the Open List than in the Base List'). They only make any amount of sense if you admit that some of the mechanical principles of the game are axioms.
And, for the vast majority of people who replied, one such axiom is 'profession-change magic is not available, because profession is a metagame constant hardwired in character creation'.
You can disagree with that, if you want.
But you cannot say they're wrong. You can only say 'fair enough, we don't play the same game', and go on with your life.
You will never get the answer you were looking for when asking the OP question, because only people who play the same game as you could provide it.
It happens all the time. No need to get defensive about it. A game system is not an objective model, it's full of biases, and, as such, essentially subjective. Trying to get objective answers is futile.
-
[...]A new character means throwing away all the old character's memories, story involvements, signifcance in the campaign, interpersonal relationships within and outside of the player character group, etc. you might not want to do that.
I fail to see why you need a system mechanic to do what you're talking about. If someone finds they don't like their profession and wants to change it why wouldn't you just do it?
Because it is nice to have in-game reasons for sudden changes in abilties. And it is fun to ponder the implications in a game world, in the next step.
And in the real world you wouldn't survive many of those things,
Yes. And in some campaigns, your character shouldn't either.
I think it is quite obvious that the power to injur, main, or kill someone looses a lot of its impact when healing magic is there to fix it all. You don't see how that changes the balance of the game?
Changed? Yes. Unbalanced? You still haven't explained how.
"My combat-avoiding skills are made worthless by your ability to just hack through all opposition and be patched up afterwards!"
The system makes getting injured less un-fun. Seems to be quite a good thing considering RM's combat system.
For some campaigns, certainly. For others, not. The balance point of a campaign is entirely different with or without healing magic. So obviously, it changes the balance of the game. That alone is no reason to object to it, but it proves a point.
...because some GM's/groups may not want magical healing in a campaign isn't at all a valid reason to not include it in a system and still doesn't explain how it's, as you claim, unbalancing.
That is my point: There is no reason not to include profession-changing magic in a game just because some people may not want it in their a game, There is also no reason to not exclude it from a campaign where it doesn't fit. Just like with healing magic.
Not remotely the same thing. Professions are built so that they balance against each other.
If they are, then that attempt has failed in every version of RM that ever existed. And in all the other class-based RPG rules systems as well. The point of professions is to make people good at different things. That is, by definition, never "balanced", unless the GM compensates for it. But if you do that, balance is far less important that you make it to be.
[...]Even if you did remove healing it would impact everyone equally. No imbalance between characters.
This either applies to profession change as well or not at all. Professions that are more likely to be on the receiving end of a blade or poiny stick will obviously benefit from healing magic far more than those that will entirely avoid that.
Also, you can do whatever you want in your game. No one is telling you you cannot. We are just telling you it will likely create balance issues.
But what bothers me is that you all fail to give a logically consistent argument about how exactly it would do that in ways that don't apply to other areas of the game (such as healing magic). You follow a gut feeling, then try to justifiy it. Not the other way round, trying to figure out how things are and then make yourself comfortable with the facts.
A Cleric is a better at being a Cleric because the character was built to be a Cleric. If you think a Fighter being a better Fighter than a Cleric and a Cleric being a better Cleric than a Fighter is somehow unbalancing
Do you agree that the Fighter-turned-Cleric will be a worse Cleric than the Cleric built to be a Cleric, and that this would be a "balance issue" between these two clerics in both versions of the spell we discuss here?
[...]
No, it's not just "basic math". You'd find out if you actually tried. The complexity of RMU character creation just stops it from being "basic math".
No, not really. If I can pay for twice as many skills at ideal cost vs another player it becomes a basic math issue.
I can probably
Probably is the problem here. Try it out. Level a full character to level 20, and make liberal use of profession change magic. It's not the issue you make it to be.
buy twice as many ranks as the other character in my primary skills.
No.
If character A can by 3 ranks
We are talking about RMU. 2 ranks per level max, unless you use an optional rule that I would suggest you don't use in a campaign with profession changing magic. All the basic math you just used for a single skill fails right there already, but even if you had used a 2-rank example: You need to make a whole character and spend all the DP each level to see the problem with your reasoning.
of one thing and 1 rank of another every level and not change, but character B can alternate those costs at will (or just get the best of both) they will progress in those things faster and that's going to become a balance issue.
Try it out. You'll be surprised.
Healing magic gives a way to eliminate the idea that after every deadly fight your characters would realistically be laid up healing for months otherwise.
And there may be campaigns where that is totally unfitting. Where the cost of violence is important to be high.
And that has nothing to do with allowing players to develop multiple professions.
It has to do with the point of balance. If you have a certasin type of magic in a game, that may very well be quite balanced to achieve one result, and inappropriaate to achieve another. This applies to everything: Healing magic, teleportation, magical herbs, whatever.
-
No, I am fine with negative answers, IF they are rational and logically stringent. My problem isn't that people don't like this idea, it is the reasson why they object to it and assign it a level that is not consistent with what other spells we have in RMU.
People don't need a reason to dislike something.
People do need a logically, system-consistent reason to give a certain level to such a spell that goes beyond disliking, if such a discussion is supposed to make any sense at all.
And magic in RM is not internally consistent.
If that is your position, then logically the answer to the original question that follows from that must be not "level 50+", but "whatever you like it to be".
My impression is, though, that the spells in RMU do follow a certain progression of power, where a profession change spell should be fit in.
[...]
And, for the vast majority of people who replied, one such axiom is 'profession-change magic is not available, because profession is a metagame constant hardwired in character creation'.
That line of reasoning does not explain how changing that "hardwired" metagame constant would at all be a problem. It's just a gut feeling, as you wrote. Not very useful for a rational discussion.
But you cannot say they're wrong.[...]
I can say that their argument is not logically consistent.
-
Thot, you got me curious. I went back into some old texts and looked for spells in the RM Companion I. I was specifically after the 50+ spells which were listed in a specific section 3.7 on extremely high-level spells.
Here is what I found:
The author notes that these should be used "featuring the handiwork of deities (or near-deities), astonishing artifacts, and/or the deadliest of enemies."
That they "...are high level and not intended for everyone to use".
This is the exact way I use these spells. Some examples:
#12 - BODY WISH - Level 75 - Caster may restore or create the entire body of a being who is dead, if the caster is able to physically touch some remnant of the target's body. Pretty fun :)
#46 - YOUTH - Level 50 - Target can remove up to 2 years from his age. If the spell fails, target is automatically killed and his total true age returns immediately. This spell can be cast multiple times however the chance of dying goes up each time.
#48 - DOOM IMPRECATION - Level 50 - Allows caster to utter a final curse at the moment of death. The scope is catastrophic: whole metropolis may be swallowed by the earth, 100's of monsters (undead, lycanthropes, etc.) might be created and released, plagues may assault a nation, etc. NOTE (and I love this!!) The GM and the greatest of deities in the world are the only limitations. :) I love how the spell is written to NOT affect the GM :D
#64 - ARTIFICIAL BODY - Level 75 - Caster may regenerate and give life to a body + use all the Lay Healer base lists - In essence, this spell makes and exact clone of the being whose body portion was used as a component. The being will be able to move and learn but does not start with any memories or abilities.
#59 - INFORMATION PROCESSING - Level 60 - (NOTE: I just threw this in for an alternate comparison on other high-level spells) - Caster can absorb and remember data 60x faster than normal. The casters memory of events will be perfect.
I think this is what many were basing their "Level 50+" recommendation on. If you look at other level 50 spells, being able to switch a class disturbs/disrupts/re-writes the very fundamental core of that character.
Do these examples help?
-
I think it is quite obvious that the power to injur, main, or kill someone looses a lot of its impact when healing magic is there to fix it all. You don't see how that changes the balance of the game?
Changed? Yes. Unbalanced? You still haven't explained how.
"My combat-avoiding skills are made worthless by your ability to just hack through all opposition and be patched up afterwards!"
You still haven't explained how this is unbalancing in RM.
The system makes getting injured less un-fun. Seems to be quite a good thing considering RM's combat system.
For some campaigns, certainly. For others, not. The balance point of a campaign is entirely different with or without healing magic. So obviously, it changes the balance of the game. That alone is no reason to object to it, but it proves a point.
Still not seeing how it's unbalancing from a system design standpoint.
Not remotely the same thing. Professions are built so that they balance against each other.
If they are, then that attempt has failed in every version of RM that ever existed. And in all the other class-based RPG rules systems as well. The point of professions is to make people good at different things. That is, by definition, never "balanced", unless the GM compensates for it. But if you do that, balance is far less important that you make it to be.
This reinforces that you do not understand the concept of balance within an overall system and, hence, why you don't understand your idea upsets that balance more than it, supposedly, 'fixes' it.
In RM certain realms of magic cannot do things the others can. Is it balancing Channeling Magic has healing, but not Essence, and that Essence has Fireballs but not Channeling? By your logic it would make both 'unbalanced' against the other when, in reality, it is one of the things that creates a balance.
You obviously don't get that. You're looking at it from a very narrow point of view focused on what you want for reasons that you can't really explain.
Also, you can do whatever you want in your game. No one is telling you you cannot. We are just telling you it will likely create balance issues.
But what bothers me is that you all fail to give a logically consistent argument about how exactly it would do that in ways that don't apply to other areas of the game (such as healing magic). You follow a gut feeling, then try to justifiy it. Not the other way round, trying to figure out how things are and then make yourself comfortable with the facts.
It's telling that what you describe is exactly what you're doing. I don't think we're failing to provide logic. I think you're failing to understand it.
A Cleric is a better at being a Cleric because the character was built to be a Cleric. If you think a Fighter being a better Fighter than a Cleric and a Cleric being a better Cleric than a Fighter is somehow unbalancing
Do you agree that the Fighter-turned-Cleric will be a worse Cleric than the Cleric built to be a Cleric, and that this would be a "balance issue" between these two clerics in both versions of the spell we discuss here?
Not only are you avoiding the question, I'm not seeing how that's actually relevant to what I said as you've change the perimeters of my statement.
Do you think that no one has played around with what you're doing? I mean, forget normal players, but the actual original designers of the system... didn't think of or experiment with this?
RM1, RM2, RMSS, RMFRP, RMU... these systems are not different enough that the this discussions changes significantly between them. From a skill development process they are pretty much the same system.
Anyhow, you're answering questions with questions, contradicting yourself, or just not answering the questions.
Whether it's willful ignorance or stubbornness, you refuse to listen to what everyone is saying.
You are free to do whatever you want, but no one here agrees with your premise or is likely to no matter how long you bang your head against the wall.
You can say 'in my game' all you want. But you're not going to convince us that it's actually some kind of 'balance' you're fixing in the existing system.
[...] Profession change on the other hand is massively abusive even without intense training. Giving access to two professions base lists is insanely powerful.
But you have access to all other professions' base lists anyway, albeit at higher cost?
(Though I should add that as written, this only applies to prefessions in one's own realm of power.)
Do you really not understand at this point that the 'albeit at a higher cost' plays a MASSIVE role in this discussion?
-
[...]
Do these examples help?
Not at all, and not only because they are for a different version of RM. Moreover, they do vastly more powerful things than simply changing a character's learning patterns (regardless of which of the two versions we compare these spells to).
-
[...]
"My combat-avoiding skills are made worthless by your ability to just hack through all opposition and be patched up afterwards!"
You still haven't explained how this is unbalancing in RM.
Balance is always relative to what kind of gameplay is desired. If all of the group wants to play with lots of combat avoidance, and one player notices that it is easier to just fight instead of talk because he'll be patched up or even resurrected afterwards, then that is unbalanced for that group.
This is btw why it's so important to clarify the premises of a campaign.
Not remotely the same thing. Professions are built so that they balance against each other.
If they are, then that attempt has failed in every version of RM that ever existed. And in all the other class-based RPG rules systems as well. The point of professions is to make people good at different things. That is, by definition, never "balanced", unless the GM compensates for it. But if you do that, balance is far less important that you make it to be.
This reinforces that you do not understand the concept of balance
So once again, I ask: Please define what you mean by balance.
within an overall system and, hence, why you don't understand your idea upsets that balance more than it, supposedly, 'fixes' it.
There is nothing to "fix". It's just a change that may be useful for some campaigns.
In RM certain realms of magic cannot do things the others can. Is it balancing Channeling Magic has healing, but not Essence, and that Essence has Fireballs but not Channeling? By your logic it would make both 'unbalanced' against the other when, in reality, it is one of the things that creates a balance.
I see it rather as defining a mago-technological framework for your campaign. The entire reason behind such differences between the realms is a game-world reason, not a game-balance reason.
You follow a gut feeling, then try to justifiy it. Not the other way round, trying to figure out how things are and then make yourself comfortable with the facts.
It's telling that what you describe is exactly what you're doing.
Please explain how you come to this conclusion.
Do you agree that the Fighter-turned-Cleric will be a worse Cleric than the Cleric built to be a Cleric, and that this would be a "balance issue" between these two clerics in both versions of the spell we discuss here?
Not only are you avoiding the question, I'm not seeing how that's actually relevant to what I said as you've change the perimeters of my statement.
If you claim that being able to change a profession makes those who use that option "better" than those who don't, isn't it kind of obvious that we need to assess if that is actually the case, which, given the stat issue, it objectively is not?
Do you think that no one has played around with what you're doing?
Yes.
RM1, RM2, RMSS, RMFRP, RMU... these systems are not different enough that the this discussions changes significantly between them. From a skill development process they are pretty much the same system.
The absence of *-costs is a pretty relevant difference in the context of our discussion.
Anyhow, you're answering questions with questions, contradicting yourself, or just not answering the questions.
I suggest you see my counterquestions as answers, if you really want to know what my reasoning is. And please, just try what I suggested: Make liberal use of profession change when levelling a 20th level character. Say, a Fighter-turned-Healer, which by your reasoning, would be totally dominating all the games. Turns out it isn't at all.
But you're not going to convince us that it's actually some kind of 'balance' you're fixing in the existing system.
I repeat: I am not trying to "fix" anything. That would require that there is one way how RM must work, wheereas we all know that this depends on the campaign being played. I am just adding an option for some campaigns and was originally asking what a plausible level would be for that spell, and then getting completely out-of-touch-with-the-rest-of-spell-law answers. THAT is the issue here.
[...] Profession change on the other hand is massively abusive even without intense training. Giving access to two professions base lists is insanely powerful.
But you have access to all other professions' base lists anyway, albeit at higher cost?
(Though I should add that as written, this only applies to prefessions in one's own realm of power.)
Do you really not understand at this point that the 'albeit at a higher cost' plays a MASSIVE role in this discussion?
Your own argument was "access" not "cost".
Isn't it amzing how in RMU, you never have enough DP, as it should be? You won't be able to buy everything you want for your fighter every level. Much less so if you switch professions and want to learn all the optimal things for THAT profession as well. And the two ranks per level limitation makes sure you can't abuse your profession's cheapest costsexcessively in a given level.
-
Lets just say that a profession is the way a person is best suited to learn skills and abilities hardwired into a person, which is the purpose of the system. Your suggesting that a spell be incorporated to change the hardwired process of the character to a different profession learning way and strip all the learned abilities and skills. After which add skills and abilities as the new profession to that level. This is a great shift in the game and as such should be considered as a high level spell as should be done by an Avatar or god like being for their purpose. The suggested level would have to be well above 20th level, more like 25th but I would agree to 50th level or higher. This would make a scholar into a Viking or vice verse.
You wanted what level we think this should be, it should be high do to the Mental/physical wiring and change. What it lacks is the worldly experience in learning the skills and abilities in the process to getting to that level, which is the main point of experience leveling. So that being said:
Should be 25th+ Level
Limited to Supernatural or god like beings to cast
May have a Mental flaw included as a result
I still have concerns that skills and spells/abilities are based on adventure experience and incite to use these are honed by use and discovery by fumbling along to make better decisions on how to use them. So for me this is a thing of experiment rather than a playable spell to be used.
-
Since all you ultimately want is a level to assign to the spell. Simple. Make it level 50 target self. Fill ranks 1-49 with blank spell slots. There. Now you have a workable spell list.
It’s now out of the hands of most PCs, unless you’re running a campaign fit for gods. No mage or pretty much anyone else except someone completely dedicated to that list under normal circumstances would bother to learn it.
Problem solved.
-
In RM certain realms of magic cannot do things the others can. Is it balancing Channeling Magic has healing, but not Essence, and that Essence has Fireballs but not Channeling? By your logic it would make both 'unbalanced' against the other when, in reality, it is one of the things that creates a balance.
The entire reason behind such differences between the realms is a game-world reason, not a game-balance reason.
I'm quite certain the people who originally designed the game would tell you otherwise.
You follow a gut feeling, then try to justifiy it. Not the other way round, trying to figure out how things are and then make yourself comfortable with the facts.
It's telling that what you describe is exactly what you're doing.
Please explain how you come to this conclusion.
By reading your posts.
Do you think that no one has played around with what you're doing?
Yes.
That reply is almost funny, but it's so utterly ignorant and stupid it's not.
You, sir, are no longer worth the time.
-
Since all you ultimately want is a level to assign to the spell. Simple. Make it level 50 target self. Fill ranks 1-49 with blank spell slots. There. Now you have a workable spell list.
Can you understand why assigning level 50 seems silly compared to other permanent personality-changing spells in the game?
[Also, during this discussion, we've seen direct and indirects suggestions for several related spells that would fit on such a lisst, so I'm not quite sure why we'd need a list with 49 blank slots.]
-
Lets just say that a profession is the way a person is best suited to learn skills and abilities hardwired into a person, which is the purpose of the system. Your suggesting that a spell be incorporated to change the hardwired process of the character to a different profession learning way and strip all the learned abilities and skills. After which add skills and abilities as the new profession to that level. This is a great shift in the game and as such should be considered as a high level spell as should be done by an Avatar or god like being for their purpose. The suggested level would have to be well above 20th level, more like 25th but I would agree to 50th level or higher. This would make a scholar into a Viking or vice verse.
The second spell suggestion, for "balance" reasons, which also would teach the character new things based on their level and new profession. This is obviously more powerful than JUST changing the profession and learning cost, while leaving everything else in place.
Trouble is, as this is supposed to be the more balanced version (which it is, as it removes the synergies between the two professions), based on "game balance", it would need to be lower in level than the simpler version. (Personally, I'd rather go with the "simulating game world" approach, than a "balance" approach, though.)
Either way, such a list could contain both spells. But the level assignment for both of them in comparison to each other may add clarity to the discussion.
Currently, and compared to all the other spells in RMU, I'd assign the "Greater Profession Change" spell, which only changes learning costs without touching existing skills, a level of 25, while "Profession Change True", which also relevels the character, a level of 30. To me, this looks in line with the other spells, others say that both should be 50+, which seems way outside the realm of all the other more disruptive spells in RMU Spell Law to me.
But even if you are of the level 50+ opinion, you will certainly agree that these two spells should be of different levels, right? So, which is whch?
I still have concerns that skills and spells/abilities are based on adventure experience and incite to use these are honed by use and discovery by fumbling along to make better decisions on how to use them. So for me this is a thing of experiment rather than a playable spell to be used.
So you would make "Greater Profession Change", in the above definition, be lower level than Profession Change True?
-
I might have missed it Thot, what are all the spells that you are comparing? Can you list them?
Where is your summary of spells with which you are deriving your analysis?
-
Currently, and compared to all the other spells in RMU, I'd assign the "Greater Profession Change" spell, which only changes learning costs without touching existing skills, a level of 25, while "Profession Change True", which also relevels the character, a level of 30.
But even if you are of the level 50+ opinion, you will certainly agree that these two spells should be of different levels, right? So, which is whch?
Plenty of us have previously suggested that your "Profession Change True" spell that nukes all skill knowledge and forces the player to relevel a new character seem utterly pointless. I cannot for my life understand why any player would be glad from being forced to do this. Just make an alternate character with the new profession and come up with an ingame solution why the new character shall replace the previous character and you are done. (As an aside, a common houserule that many of us are using is that the player character who is not played recieve half experience you can switch character at a later point at some penalty without it being.)
The important thing is that your pointless "Profession Change True" spell has negtible balance issues since you are bound by RAW rules when you relevel your character. In my game I allow redesign of assignment of ranks for previous levels provided the player can give a good answer on why they got it wrong in the first place. Having a spell that allow you rebuild character is just my houserule changed to "cast a spell to do it".
On the flipside "Greater Profession Change" that you believe is a lesser magical effect has massive balance issues. Keeping you skills but changing your costs for upcoming levels is a massive boon like we have explained to you over and over again. If both spells exist in a balanced game the "Greater Profession Change" must be massively higher level since this spell would give characters that are massively stronger.
I think your latest question that I quoted above pretty much prove you don't understand what balance means in a game (or that you writing these posts while drunk). All the answers you need already exist in the replies you have already been given.
-
[...] In my game I allow redesign of assignment of ranks for previous levels provided the player can give a good answer on why they got it wrong in the first place. Having a spell that allow you rebuild character is just my houserule changed to "cast a spell to do it".
Yes, basically. It just gives an in-game reason why and how such a thing could be happening. What level would you assign that one?
[...]If both spells exist in a balanced game the "Greater Profession Change" must be massively higher level since this spell would give characters that are massively stronger.
"Massively higher" than the other means... 5 levels? 10? 30?
And how would you justify this in terms of in-game magical world mechanics? Or don't you?
-
You cannot justify the mechanics as the this whole thing is just what is called an in game reason to change a character profession as part of a story. So why have it available to just anyone rather than a Supernatural Entity that can (Wish) the change with or without a pact for the service. That way you would not have to worry about level and have it as an in game mechanic.
If you want I can see a temporary change for a period of time to your Change Profession as version of DND Spell that changes a spell caster to a fighter for the duration, Transformation I do believe. This can be applied on the Physical Changes type list. If you want to go this route then you can create a whole list that gives temporary changes to different professions abilities in multiple realms. I would say Arcane but that does not exist yet.
-
You cannot justify the mechanics as the this whole thing is just what is called an in game reason to change a character profession as part of a story. So why have it available to just anyone rather than a Supernatural Entity
Because I may be playing in a game world where... magic is being performed by mere mortals?
-
Seriously, you all need to stop encouraging him to continue such a pointless discussion.
He either has almost no grasp of system mechanics balance or he's just trolling at this point.
-
Seriously, you all need to stop encouraging him to continue such a pointless discussion.
He either has almost no grasp of system mechanics balance or he's just trolling at this point.
Likely the latter but also “no grasp” is “no concern for”
-
It is quite disheartening to see people becoming this impolite, aggressive even, over a thought experiment in an RPG.
-
What disheartening is:
- You think ChatGPT is support of your ideas when it's quite obviously a flawed source (there really is no 'I' in 'AI' currently).
- You ignore pretty much everyone telling you what you want to do would be moderately to greatly overpowered.
- You continue to argue, with pretty much everyone again, when they all tell you the spell idea of it should be extremely high level.
- You obviously do not understand how the professions are balanced against each other in terms of capabilities and don't care to learn.
- You regularly contradict yourself (like claiming you want to make characters more diverse from each other... by giving them access to each others specialties..?).
- You obviously have no concept of how development points and skill cost/progression impact character balance and don't care to learn.
- You don't seem to understand even the most basic balancing factors throughout the system as a whole (claiming absurd things like Healing is unbalancing to Damage).
- Most ridiculous of all, you actually have the gall to think no one, not even the original system developers or designers posting here, have/has considered or tried what you're talking about since the 1980's. Apparently you think everyone here is just talking out of their rear ends like you are.
I would say, based on everything you've posted so far, that it's obvious you haven't actually tried it yourself and effectively taken advantage of the benefits it would provide, but I think there's a very high chance that you wouldn't actually realize it until maybe players using it started to see for themselves the resulting balance issue between characters.
I'm sure there's more, but the point is you're just going to ignore everything you're told, post nonsense and talk in circles until someone with a similar lack of understanding of how professions are designed ignorantly tells you you've stumbled upon some genius idea no one has thought of or tried in some forty-odd years of RM's existence. It's useless to actually try to have an intelligent conversation with you about it. Like I said, you've become a waste of time.
By all means, do whatever you want at your own table. If you and your friends are all still having fun and no one has a problem with the results, go for it. Play your own game.
But, here, on this forum, everyone is telling you your ideas are not balanced. Get over it and move on.
-
You think ChatGPT is support of your ideas when it's quite obviously a flawed source (there really is no 'I' in 'AI' currently).
Cory, I was beginning to think this after watching this discussion. :) Spot on!
-
You think ChatGPT is support of your ideas when it's quite obviously a flawed source (there really is no 'I' in 'AI' currently).
Cory, I was beginning to think this after watching this discussion. :) Spot on!
ChatGPT, and the various AI art programs, are just mimics. Granted some of them are REALLY good at it. But when it comes down to it they can only spit back out what they have been fed and if what they have been fed is garbage... they are going to spit out garbage.
-
You cannot justify the mechanics as the this whole thing is just what is called an in game reason to change a character profession as part of a story. So why have it available to just anyone rather than a Supernatural Entity
Then all the answers reside in you, as you keep coming up with excuses to anything put out there. If you want it to be common then just have a mage guild offer the service for money or a quest and be done with it. Keep it out of players hand unless you want it for role playing and you have your answer. No matter what is put in here you have a counter diction so you have the answer that no one else has and be done with it.
Because I may be playing in a game world where... magic is being performed by mere mortals?
-
[list of bullshit]
I'm sure there's more, but the point is you're just going to ignore everything you're told,
That is just objectively wrong. I replied to each and every point (in fact, multiple times) and explained why the reasoning behind the "unbalanced" claim is flawed from several different angles. But those refutations are then ignored.
Maybe stop ignoring them. Maybe try to actually understand what that guy on the internet is telling you, instead of insulting him for the laughable heresy of proposing a new mechanic in a fantasy game.
[...]
But, here, on this forum, everyone is telling you your ideas are not balanced. Get over it and move on.
Well, I have shown time and again how this is just objectively wrong from multiple angles. Discussions aren't votes. This isn't about opinions or taste, but about stringent logic and clear thinking.
And sorry, Cory, you especially are not particularly good at that, if this thread is any indication. As a result, you get into an offensive tone and mood with outright insulting vocabulary as soon as you cannot follow. Instead of a logical discussion, you just preach your beliefs and repeat them over and over again without offering any insights as to why you believe those things, other than hinting at a story like "I tried this back in RM2 and my version of it did break my campaign and made me hate myself and now I have to stop anything like that from ever happening again".
You can just stop posting in a thread you don't like, you know. And even without being aggressive, offensive or laughably inappropriately condescending. (And I hope now you know how that feels on the other side).[/list]
-
I'd quote your reply... but, as you'd say, it's a bunch of bullshit. Anyone can read the thread and see the validity of my statements.
I suggest you get over it, move on, and stop wasting everyone's time.
-
A wise person once wrote,
Seriously, you all need to stop encouraging him...
But a wiser person would have said "we all" instead.
-
So, this is a 20th level character who was born, raised and/or educated as a Fighter in his youth, and switched to being a Healer at level 10. This took two spells: One to change his realm of magic to hybrid Channeling/Mentalism, and one to actually change his profession.
- OB with main weapon (and 3 others from Melee): 104
- Hit points: 122
- 5 Combat Expertise skills (Blind Fighting, Multiple Attacks , etc.): +50
- Power Points: 104
- Knows the Healer Base lists to level 20 and 4 Open lists from Channeling and Mentalism to level 10, as well as 6 Closed lists from Channeling and
- Mentalism to level 10
And this is a 20th-level-character who just was born, raised and educated as a healer and just forced himself to ALSO learn combat-relevant skills.
- OB with main weapon (but no others): 104
- Hit points: 122
- No Combat Expertise skills
- Power Points: 134
- Knows the Healer Base lists 4 Open lists from Channeling and Mentalism to level 20, as well as 6 Closed lists from Channeling and Mentalism to level 20, and 3 more Open lists to level 18.
Finally, here's a 20th-level-character who just was born, raised and educated as a fighter and just forced himself to ALSO learn healing skills and magic.
- OB with main weapon: 134 (108 with a few others)
- Hit points: 122
- Combat Expertise skills: Multiple Attacks +10
- Power Points: 88
- Knows 4 Healer base lists to level 3 and 2 Healer Base lists to level 4 (so he spent 15 points per level on Restricted lists; there are certainly more efficient approaches).
All three of these characters have the same statistics, geared towards this hybrid role.
The Fighter-turned-Healer is more versatile in a fight than a Healer with fighter training, but has lower OB than a fighter with some magical Healing training.
I see no balance issue. Even if you find something to nitpick here and there, the possible advantages from changing professions are minor, overall.
-
This is just relearning levels in a different class also known as multi-classing or stopping one profession to start another.
The intent on the professions is to have a character with a learning process that best equates to a specific profession, IE a character can pick up stealth type skills with ease but finds magic a very difficult concept to grasp. It is easier to sneak around than fighting up front though can fight in a pinch.
What you suggest is a character that can change the mindset to a different profession. Is this change all levels or select levels and keep the rest for the former profession skills acquired to that changed level? Again you can house rule what ever you want, the talk on this thread is that you are one or a few that wants this, so do what you want and get on with it.
-
I am at a loss for words...trying to evaluate professional change spells without looking at DP spent? :o
-
Fighters can't learn Healer base lists, not even at the Restricted cost, because they aren't the right realm (and can't be, because those are hybrid lists). If a fighter wanted some magical healing ability, picking up the open channeling list Concussion's Way isn't too bad (7/10), but the closed list Blood Law would be 15/20 so that's a minimum of a quarter of your DP every level you purchase it. And it's not as good as the Healer list (for a fighter, the subconscious casting ability of the Healer lists would be pretty huge).
Whether other base lists are available as Restricted lists is a GM call. Personally, I would be hesitant especially for an Arms character. I might limit the number of lists to be taken that way, or disallow it entirely.
It's generally true that any character can max out their weapon OB ranks (although the lack of a professional skill will keep them from matching OB, and typically stats won't be as high either). For a Healer, that's 5/7, not prohibitive although it will cost you some versatility. The advantage of a Fighter is usually in their hits (but Healers are an exception there) and in the expertise skills. The Fighter is going to be able to get away with attacking while moving, with multiple attacks, heavy armor, etc etc, and they'll also be able to have more OB skills (e.g., they can also fight at range, and maybe unarmed, or get full benefit of a shield). The Healer needs to invest a lot of points in their defense (shield skill, armor), so probably in the total scheme of offensive-plus-defensive capability they are going to fall short on one side or the other. Only looking at OB overlooks that.
Pastaav's point about comparing total DP expenditure is also pretty important, since that's the measure of how much versatility you are giving up.
-
I am at a loss for words...trying to evaluate professional change spells without looking at DP spent? :o
Yeah, nevermind that he's using 20th level characters to try and imply it's not unbalanced (kinda laughable), but it just proves my point about not understanding overall DP expenditure and character versatility all over again.
-
I am at a loss for words...trying to evaluate professional change spells without looking at DP spent? :o
That is why I made three full characters, as indicated above. They all spent 60 DP per level (85 in the first two). I could upload the entire charatcer sheets (spreadhseet version), but if you don't trust my judgement, you can just as well invest 20 minutes and do it yourself to see that the supposed balance problem just doesn't exist.
-
Fighters can't learn Healer base lists, not even at the Restricted cost, because they aren't the right realm (and can't be, because those are hybrid lists).
If a magical Realm is learned and not inborn, that is true. But if your Realm is an inborn quality, then of course there could be Fighters with a hybrid Realms well, I'd say. But that, of course, depends on the game world.
If a fighter wanted some magical healing ability, picking up the open channeling list Concussion's Way isn't too bad (7/10),
Yes, or going Mentalism and use Self-Healing (with the added advantage of being able to use armor better). That's why I pointed out that there'd be more efficient ways than using the Healer base lists even if your GM allows that.
The main point in this little experiment was to show how the suppoosedly disastrous balance issues with profession changes are, in effect, really minor even when playing a level 20 character (and even more so on lower levels).
Balance between professions is achieved within a level. I agree that it would be totally unbalanced in any definition of the word if you could switch professions while doing the levelling (so, after having spent 30 DP, you'd change from Fighter to Magician), but I'd advise against such a spell anyway.
I suspect most people's objections stem from earlier versions of RM, when you had spell learning costs of 2/* and such, which would of course lead to people just learning 10 levels of a list at once and suddenly become powerful mages. And yes, if you use the optional rule of "all ranks after the first cost the second cost, but you can learn as many as you want in one level", this also breaks apart a bit. But I would advise against that anyway - after all, if wanted to do that, why would I use levels at all and not just give single-digit costs for all professions, handing out DP's directly?
-
I am at a loss for words...trying to evaluate professional change spells without looking at DP spent? :o
That is why I made three full characters, as indicated above. They all spent 60 DP per level (85 in the first two). I could upload the entire charatcer sheets (spreadhseet version), but if you don't trust my judgement, you can just as well invest 20 minutes and do it yourself to see that the supposed balance problem just doesn't exist.
The fact that you look at those 3 characters and think #1 is not significantly more powerful and flexible than #s 2 & 3 shows you really don’t grasp balance at all.
I find it odd that for your example you chose a combination that’s not exactly extremely powerful and mentalism has decent combat point breaks anyway.
Maybe your thought experiment would work better with a fighter magician. Or maybe fighter sorcerer. Or maybe fighter mentalist.
You’re stuck on this and should play it to your heart’s desire. Very few people see the need for it since this is a skills based game and characters can develop whatever they want and can find someone to train them. It being inefficient is inherent in the game design so that by 20th level everyone isn’t running around looking essentially the same - which would be the result if PCs could swap through classes when they attain certain benchmarks. Reviving what I said previously, prestige classes.
-
I am at a loss for words...trying to evaluate professional change spells without looking at DP spent? :o
That is why I made three full characters, as indicated above. They all spent 60 DP per level (85 in the first two). I could upload the entire charatcer sheets (spreadhseet version), but if you don't trust my judgement, you can just as well invest 20 minutes and do it yourself to see that the supposed balance problem just doesn't exist.
There is no point with you trying to upload character spreadsheets to prove you did not break the 60 DP per level rule when you bought different skills so you are comparing apples to oranges. Anyone of us can create one-trick pony characters, or make defective skill choices for a certain profession, none of this prove your wanted house rule is balanced.
If you want to make a valid comparison you need to buy exactly the same skills for all characters and compare how much DP each character spent. If you cannot fit the skill purchase below 60 without changing profession your profession change is so unbalancing that it takes cheating to match. If you can fit all the skills within the 60 limit but need different fractions of the available DP you have to look how large difference to determine the level of unbalance.
IMHO if you are dead set on having profession change you should look at HARP that has costs made for allowing profession change.
-
Fighters can't learn Healer base lists, not even at the Restricted cost, because they aren't the right realm (and can't be, because those are hybrid lists).
If a magical Realm is learned and not inborn, that is true. But if your Realm is an inborn quality, then of course there could be Fighters with a hybrid Realms well, I'd say. But that, of course, depends on the game world.
RAW you cannot. If you want to give some Arms characters the free benefit of access to more spell lists and a +10 RR for a second realm, I guess you can do that. I would recommend charging a DP cost for it though. The RR bonus alone is a 6 DP talent, and one that is not normally available to a character (it's a racial talent). In the earlier drafts when we had Additional Realm as a talent, it was 30 DP.
-
Fighters can't learn Healer base lists, not even at the Restricted cost, because they aren't the right realm (and can't be, because those are hybrid lists).
If a magical Realm is learned and not inborn, that is true. But if your Realm is an inborn quality, then of course there could be Fighters with a hybrid Realms well, I'd say. But that, of course, depends on the game world.
RAW you cannot. If you want to give some Arms characters the free benefit of access to more spell lists and a +10 RR for a second realm, I guess you can do that. I would recommend charging a DP cost for it though. The RR bonus alone is a 6 DP talent, and one that is not normally available to a character (it's a racial talent). In the earlier drafts when we had Additional Realm as a talent, it was 30 DP.
Hm. Or maybe one would just use the rules for creating hybrid magic user professions. So the above Fighter would not be a Fighter, but a "hybrid Channeling-Mentalism Fighter", who pays a few steps higher for some skills.
-
[...]
The fact that you look at those 3 characters and think #1 is not significantly more powerful and flexible than #s 2 & 3 shows you really don’t grasp balance at all.
Dude. If you let any of these two duel, it will not be a one-sided fight. I know, I know, I must be an idiot, you are a wise Loremaster of RM, but maybe just try it out?
I find it odd that for your example you chose a combination that’s not exactly extremely powerful and mentalism has decent combat point breaks anyway.
That is, of course, because of my sinister intention to warp the facts by forbidding everybody else to choose any other combination.
Maybe your thought experiment would work better with a fighter magician.
Maybe someone who thinks that should then try it out.
You’re stuck on this and should play it to your heart’s desire. Very few people see the need for it since this is a skills based game and characters can develop whatever they want and can find someone to train them. It being inefficient is inherent in the game design so that by 20th level everyone isn’t running around looking essentially the same - which would be the result if PCs could swap through classes when they attain certain benchmarks. Reviving what I said previously, prestige classes.
So the actual numbers don't interest you in the slightest. Okay, but then maybe just don't bother with arguing about "balance"?
-
[...]
If you want to make a valid comparison you need to buy exactly the same skills for all characters and compare how much DP each character spent.
[...]
That would be completely unrealistic use of such rules. Nobody would use a profession change spell in such a way. If you are concerned about balance, you need to show how this could be exploited. I have tried to exploit it and found no big balance issues. You are free to try the same and prove your point.
But as it stands now, you are arguing an outdated concern for an older verison of RM.
-
[...]
If you want to make a valid comparison you need to buy exactly the same skills for all characters and compare how much DP each character spent.
[...]
That would be completely unrealistic use of such rules. Nobody would use a profession change spell in such a way.
There are 8 pages of discussion with a massive number of examples how a spell that change skill cost can be abused so your objection is obviously pointless. Feel free to reread the thread if you want to understand why your idea is unbalanced since I won't repeat myself.
-
[...]
There are 8 pages of discussion with a massive number of examples how a spell that change skill cost can be abused
[...]
I have checked agin. No, there are not. There are failed attempts to somehow construe such a claim, but any closer look at these claims and preachings makes them fall apart.
It's an error derived from people not reading what RMU sais, but instead remembering what they tried out in RM2 some decades back. Not a valid argument for the current game.
You are, of course, invited to ACTUALLY prove me wrong by making such hybrid characters that are totally exploiting the huge gaps in "balance" that you believe to exist there.
But until you succeeed at that, I'll have to point out that your opinion is outdated.
-
You made a fighter/healer who is able to operate as a more than competent combatant and healer, a healer with a weapon who is a distinctly inferior combatant especially in terms of defense, and a fighter with healer lists that is unsupportable by the rules.
The fighter/healer is obviously superior in terms of abilities and story share. The synergy of massive self-healing capabilities with a main combatant role exaggerates that considerably.
-
You made a fighter/healer who is able to operate as a more than competent combatant and healer, a healer with a weapon who is a distinctly inferior combatant especially in terms of defense, and a fighter with healer lists that is unsupportable by the rules.
The fighter/healer is obviously superior in terms of abilities and story share. The synergy of massive self-healing capabilities with a main combatant role exaggerates that considerably.
But it's not a main combatant role in a level 20 campaign, but in a level 10 campaign. The figher/healer will have a much harder time getting the enemy's defenses for lack of OB, as he's missing 30 pints of OB.
-
The main combatants my current game, at level 9, have OBs of 114, 130, 145, 147. I don't think an OB lagging by 30 is disqualifying. Maybe in some circumstances they will need to focus on the mooks and not the boss, or work to get a positional advantage. The fighter/healer will be really good as a tank, anyway, since they can soak hits like nobody's business.
-
[...]
The fact that you look at those 3 characters and think #1 is not significantly more powerful and flexible than #s 2 & 3 shows you really don’t grasp balance at all.
Dude. If you let any of these two duel, it will not be a one-sided fight. I know, I know, I must be an idiot, you are a wise Loremaster of RM, but maybe just try it out?
I find it odd that for your example you chose a combination that’s not exactly extremely powerful and mentalism has decent combat point breaks anyway.
That is, of course, because of my sinister intention to warp the facts by forbidding everybody else to choose any other combination.
Maybe your thought experiment would work better with a fighter magician.
Maybe someone who thinks that should then try it out.
You’re stuck on this and should play it to your heart’s desire. Very few people see the need for it since this is a skills based game and characters can develop whatever they want and can find someone to train them. It being inefficient is inherent in the game design so that by 20th level everyone isn’t running around looking essentially the same - which would be the result if PCs could swap through classes when they attain certain benchmarks. Reviving what I said previously, prestige classes.
So the actual numbers don't interest you in the slightest. Okay, but then maybe just don't bother with arguing about "balance"?
Goodness man
Just because it’s not one sided if they duel doesn’t mean one isn’t far more powerful or flexible. Since you chose non-offensive and essentially non-buffing class spells they are essentially similar with a weapon. Hence why I suggested a fighter/magician or sorcerer since the additional offensive and defensive spells would make it more clear just how unbalanced your thought experiment is.
Nonetheless, a pure magic user with a 100 OB with a weapon is pretty difficult to attain even at 20th level, much less multiple weapons and a slew of combat maneuvers.
Moreover, your approach negates the need for semis altogether.
-
The main combatants my current game, at level 9, have OBs of 114, 130, 145, 147.
The OB was just one example. The Pure Fighter from above is better at everything fighter-related. Multi attacks, special circumstances, switching weapons, etc. If one is concerned about balance, a wide spread as you describe means the 114 OB type will have other qualities that make up for the lack in OB, which is what the Fighter-turned-Healer from above has as well. (And if you are not concerened about balance, excellent, thenm let's return to the actual question, which is the level of the spells proposed in this thread).
I don't think an OB lagging by 30 is disqualifying. Maybe in some circumstances they will need to focus on the mooks and not the boss, or work to get a positional advantage. The fighter/healer will be really good as a tank, anyway, since they can soak hits like nobody's business.
Well, the Healer with some fighter skills would do that even better.
-
[...]
Just because it’s not one sided if they duel doesn’t mean one isn’t far more powerful or flexible. [...]
Depending on the circumstances, they can be very dissimilar in power, sure. Place the Pure Fioghter in a hospital trying to save people, and he'll faiul utterly. In Combat, however, these three are somewhat equivalent, to the point that the various stats of the character are less relevant than how the characters are actually plaed. And what more balance can you want?
Hence why I suggested a fighter/magician or sorcerer since the additional offensive and defensive spells would make it more clear just how unbalanced your thought experiment is.
https://i.giphy.com/media/3o84sw9CmwYpAnRRni/giphy.webp
Nonetheless, a pure magic user with a 100 OB with a weapon is pretty difficult to attain even at 20th level, much less multiple weapons and a slew of combat maneuvers.
Yes, and a change of profession via such a spell is a way to achieve that abit more efficiently, but at the cost of never being such a good caster as the guy who did not completely refocus is learning interests.
Moreover, your approach negates the need for semis altogether.
It does not, because the semi can do what the two pure forms cannot: Level both magic and arms within the same level. This will of course be most impactful when you are playing between levelling, as opposed to creating a 20th level character from the start. But even in the latter case, the center of gravity of his efficiency in learning is different than for any "purists" that change professions every other level or so.
-
The main combatants my current game, at level 9, have OBs of 114, 130, 145, 147.
The OB was just one example. The Pure Fighter from above is better at everything fighter-related. Multi attacks, special circumstances, switching weapons, etc. If one is concerned about balance, a wide spread as you describe means the 114 OB type will have other qualities that make up for the lack in OB, which is what the Fighter-turned-Healer from above has as well. (And if you are not concerened about balance, excellent, thenm let's return to the actual question, which is the level of the spells proposed in this thread).
The thing about the expertise skills now is that you don't need to develop them forever. For example, +50 in Footwork is generally going to be plenty. +75 in Multiple Attacks gets you that second attack. So, yes, the pure fighter is going to be a better fighter, but that's not a valid comparison because the pure fighter doesn't have the magic. You should be comparing the fighter/healer to a corresponding semi profession; a semi is also going to have a very limited set of expertise skills, and I think the fighter/healer is surpassing that. The fighter/healer is also surpassing them significantly in number of spell lists. Extreme specialization will always pay off, it's the semis that are rendered irrelevant and inferior by changing professions.
-
I thought this argument was to remake the character to a different profession altogether not just some of the levels or just jump off from a specific level build to add a multi-class like DND. That changes everything and I am out for that.
-
Though he claims it is not to make multiclass characters, that is exactly what it is designed to do. We called it from the beginning and then he changed it to "same person but rebuilt from level 1 into the new class", but the reality is that is and always was a shortcut to multiclassing.
-
Though he claims it is not to make multiclass characters, that is exactly what it is designed to do. We called it from the beginning and then he changed it to "same person but rebuilt from level 1 into the new class", but the reality is that is and always was a shortcut to multiclassing.
I thought I called that on my first comment:
So basically the existence of the spell means multi-professions is now a thing.
Anyway - it's impossible to balance, as it changes DP costs, and rolemaster is balanced around DP costs. It breaks the first assumption in the way RM was designed.
-
Though he claims it is not to make multiclass characters,
Where does anyone claim that?
-
I thought this argument was to remake the character to a different profession altogether not just some of the levels or just jump off from a specific level build to add a multi-class like DND. That changes everything and I am out for that.
There are two versions of the spell discussed in this thread, one being a "change the profession at some point", and the other being "completely relevel the character".
Both are unproblematic, as anyone who ACTUALLY builds a few examples will easily see. And at this point, I am unwilling to discuss this whole subject with anyone who hasn't done so.
-
[...]
The thing about the expertise skills now is that you don't need to develop them forever. For example, +50 in Footwork is generally going to be plenty. +75 in Multiple Attacks gets you that second attack.
And having +100 AND an additional +50 in OB gets you a third.
So, yes, the pure fighter is going to be a better fighter, but that's not a valid comparison because the pure fighter doesn't have the magic. [...]
But what you said about fighter skills applies to Magic just as much: Having the tiniest amount of healing magic will go a long way for the pure Fighter, and of course he will have all kinds of magical artifacts that amount to the same thing as knowing magic intrinsically.
You should be comparing the fighter/healer to a corresponding semi profession; a semi is also going to have a very limited set of expertise skills, and I think the fighter/healer is surpassing that. The fighter/healer is also surpassing them significantly in number of spell lists. Extreme specialization will always pay off, it's the semis that are rendered irrelevant and inferior by changing professions.
Except the, say, "Combat Medic" class I just made up as a semi between a Fighter and a Healer can do BOTH magic and combat skills improvement EVERY level, instead of switching professions every other level. Depending on the type of campaign, it may take a lot of actual play time between levels, which means the profession switcher will have to a be a lot more patient AND will be especially at a disadvantage when it comes to Open lists of their realm or realms.
A Combat Medic at level 20 will know a few Open lists and his Base lists (which may be a bit smaller in scope than actual Healer lists, but still more powerful at level 20 than Healer lists at level 10) up to level 40 (though overcasting at -400 isnÄ't something I'd recommend, there are all kinds of circumstanes where that knowledge can be helpful). The profession switcher will only be able to get to level 20 at max, and if he wants to use his DP efficiently, he will only know them to level 10.
Seriously, guys. Try. It. Out.
-
Sorry this is not the story telling that I want to play or the system I want to be a part of. If you want to change your profession the it is only one way and for me a non-profession level in between with level being consecutives leveling (not going back to level 1). Honestly it is your game and like my stipulation mentioned, you can add what you want. I did not see anyone back your thoughts here, but that does not mean everybody hates the idea. It is just not my idea of play for this system.
-
Both are unproblematic, as anyone who ACTUALLY builds a few examples will easily see. And at this point, I am unwilling to discuss this whole subject with anyone who hasn't done so.
For the sake of us all, let's just assume that not a single person on the forums has.
-
[ at this point, I am unwilling to discuss this whole subject with anyone who hasn't done so.
For the sake of us all, let's just assume that not a single person on the forums has.
What is it that makes you believe you'd be forced to post doodoo in a thread that you don't like? Just don't click on the reply button, and be happy, Cory.
-
Sorry this is not the story telling that I want to play or the system I want to be a part of. [...]
Well, that's a valid reason to be against the use of something in one's own campaign, of course.
Thanks, everyone, I think I found my answer: Level 15 for "change the whole skilling" profession change, and level 25 for "from now on, learn with the cost of the new profession" profession change.