Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Malleable on July 30, 2014, 06:30:18 PM
-
So if I have Natural Physique, so Everyman for Body Development, and I take a training package providing a rank in BD, would I get the extra rank in BD?
Thanks,
Mal
-
No, everyman ranks come with purchased ranks only. Purchasing a TP is not considered purchasing a rank, at least in my games.
-
No. In RMFRP, see the last paragraph before the example on page 23. I'm not sure this is explicitly addressed in RMSS (it's not in the location that corresponds to RMFRP pg 23). Note that Restricted also does not apply in training packages; you get the listed number of ranks in the TP regardless of whether the skill is occupational, everyman, or restricted.
-
Just FYI, depending on your short vs long term outlook, I've switched Everyman to mean +1 point per rank and Occupational to mean +2 points per rank. I find that diminishing returns just hurts all that much more with them the way they are... but we tend to run up to the upper teens in levels.
-
Thanks guys.
Mal
-
Always been a bone of contention with me this particular issue. Especially since it's such an easily overlooked "rule"
Since you pay for training packages with DP (albeit at a slightly discounted rate) you are in effect still purchasing them with DP.
And talents should perhaps be applied across the board for simplicity.
Ok. RAW say otherwise. But I'm fairly sure that most RM players don't stick to ALL the rules ;)
-
Just FYI, depending on your short vs long term outlook, I've switched Everyman to mean +1 point per rank and Occupational to mean +2 points per rank. I find that diminishing returns just hurts all that much more with them the way they are... but we tend to run up to the upper teens in levels.
I think this is missing the true purpose of the classification, which is to reduce the development cost. To illustrate this I have 3 characters developing the same Crafts skill. Character A has the skill classified as Everyman. All characters are developing to skill rank 10.
Character A reaches 10 skill ranks at level 5 for a total DP cost of 20 (5 x 4)
Character B reaches 10 skill ranks at level 5 for a total DP cost of 70 (5 x 4 + 5 x 10)
Character C reaches 10 skill ranks at level 10 for a total DP cost of 40 (10 x 4)
All other things being equal, all characters are equally proficient in the crafts skill but character A gets to develop additional skills with the DP savings provided by the classification. And that in my mind is the true benefit of having the classification.
The classification are not meant to make characters better or worse then other characters, it just meant to change the development cost of a skill. As such, the diminishing returns of higher skill ranks is irrelevant.
-
Note also that TP skills cannot advance past 10 ranks by using TP's, except lifestyle skills which can advance to 15 ranks. So it is best to keep the number of ranks in a separate section or item on a spreed sheet to keep this rule in check.
MDC
-
Note also that TP skills cannot advance past 10 ranks by using TP's, except lifestyle skills which can advance to 15 ranks. So it is best to keep the number of ranks in a separate section or item on a spreed sheet to keep this rule in check.
MDC
That's how I build my spreadsheet, I have separate entry for Developed ranks, culture ranks, hobby ranks and TP ranks. It doesn't yet support the 10 ranks limit but since I generally don't allow training packages after creation it isn't a problem yet. The spreadsheet also has an entry for classification which calculates the actual total of dev ranks.
-
Just FYI, depending on your short vs long term outlook, I've switched Everyman to mean +1 point per rank and Occupational to mean +2 points per rank. I find that diminishing returns just hurts all that much more with them the way they are... but we tend to run up to the upper teens in levels.
I think this is missing the true purpose of the classification, which is to reduce the development cost. ...
... The classification are not meant to make characters better or worse then other characters, it just meant to change the development cost of a skill. As such, the diminishing returns of higher skill ranks is irrelevant.
The classification is indeed to make one character better than the other at the skill. Everyman and Occupational are directly related to a professions primary function, the thing they are supposed to be better at. They can develop twice as many ranks as others, which gives them more skill at it. That obviously leads to being better at it than other characters.
Unfortunately this leads to hitting the 'diminishing returns' wall just that much faster which has the side effect of all the other professions catching up to them in that skill in the future levels, causing them to be 'as good' as each other again. Therefore diminishing returns is by no means irrelevant.
The reason I treat them the way I do is because we play to higher levels than a lot of other RM users, which makes my treatment of them more useful in the long run.... because it lets them remain better at those skills than those who do not get that bonus.
-
So if I have Natural Physique, so Everyman for Body Development, and I take a training package providing a rank in BD, would I get the extra rank in BD?
Thanks,
Mal
I'm late as always. If I understand the question, my ruling for these has always been: TPs only give a number of ranks, regardless of whether the skill is Restricted, Normal, Everyman, or Occupational.
In other words, if the TP gives 2 ranks in BD, and BD is an Everyman skill, then you still only receive 2 ranks, NOT 4.
Of course, I may have just repeated what someone else said, but all I did was read the question and clicked "Reply". Sorry if I stepped on other's feet.
rmfr
-
And I did repeat in previous post. Sorry jdale.
After reading the thread...
Just FYI, depending on your short vs long term outlook, I've switched Everyman to mean +1 point per rank and Occupational to mean +2 points per rank. I find that diminishing returns just hurts all that much more with them the way they are... but we tend to run up to the upper teens in levels.
I think this is missing the true purpose of the classification, which is to reduce the development cost. To illustrate this I have 3 characters developing the same Crafts skill. Character A has the skill classified as Everyman. All characters are developing to skill rank 10.
Character A reaches 10 skill ranks at level 5 for a total DP cost of 20 (5 x 4)
Character B reaches 10 skill ranks at level 5 for a total DP cost of 70 (5 x 4 + 5 x 10)
Character C reaches 10 skill ranks at level 10 for a total DP cost of 40 (10 x 4)
All other things being equal, all characters are equally proficient in the crafts skill but character A gets to develop additional skills with the DP savings provided by the classification. And that in my mind is the true benefit of having the classification.
The classification are not meant to make characters better or worse then other characters, it just meant to change the development cost of a skill. As such, the diminishing returns of higher skill ranks is irrelevant.
EXACTLY. +1.
Note also that TP skills cannot advance past 10 ranks by using TP's, except lifestyle skills which can advance to 15 ranks. So it is best to keep the number of ranks in a separate section or item on a spreed sheet to keep this rule in check.
MDC
Only if using RAW. I have overruled that TPs can still give ranks, regardless of how many a character has. Using RAW, that is like saying I can learn 10 ranks in a skill by practice, but I cannot learn anymore if I actually seek out an instructor to further enhance my skill later on with a TP.
Just FYI, depending on your short vs long term outlook, I've switched Everyman to mean +1 point per rank and Occupational to mean +2 points per rank. I find that diminishing returns just hurts all that much more with them the way they are... but we tend to run up to the upper teens in levels.
But I also like this. I may combine the two.
Restricted Skill – for every two ranks developed, the character gains only one rank (round down). For example, if have one developed rank, then it counts as zero ranks. If have two developed ranks, then it counts as one rank. If have three developed ranks, then it counts as one rank. If have four developed ranks, then it counts as two ranks. Et cetera. Additionally, you receive a -1 modifier for every rank developed.
Normal Skill – for every rank developed, the character gains one rank.
Everyman Skill – for every rank developed, the character gains two ranks. Additionally, you receive a +1 modifier for every rank developed.
Occupational Skill – for every rank developed, the character gains three ranks. Additionally, you receive a +2 modifier for every rank developed.
Perhaps too overpowering? Maybe, I'll have to have it playtested.
rmfr
-
...
Perhaps too overpowering? Maybe, I'll have to have it playtested.
I think that's quite overpowering. If a skill is Occupational, a character develops 1 rank, he (she/it) gets 3 ranks and a +6 bonus. A bit much IMO.
I also have a rule that once classified a skill cannot be unclassified and classifications can be combined. Thus a skill can be both Restricted and Occupational at the same time which gives 1.5 ranks per rank developed (rounded down). This also allows classifications to be double if the race and profession provides the same classification for the same skill. So far I have not hit any cases where this as caused a problem, which may be because my players have yet to catch on to this. ;)
-
Dagohir, I think he is saying, that instead of everyman and occupational getting the extra ranksthe player instead gets a +1 or +2 bonus respectively. Or at least that is how I read his ruling. Correct me if I am wrong please. Because I like this handling of everyman and occupational skills.
-
Tulgurth is right regarding how I, personally, do it. With me Everyman means instead of getting two ranks, you get +1 per rank developed (and Occupational +2 instead of three ranks).
As I mentioned before, I do this strictly due to the diminishing returns problem (which is magnified by the official Everyman and Occupational skill rules).
-
As I stated before, I'm not really happy with the RAW regarding the handling of Everyman and Occupational skills, plus the capping of ranks gained or the exclusion of ranks gained through TP.
Cory is right that the Diminishing returns "problem" exists. I'm not sure that it does really have that much of an effect, though I like the simplicity of his solution. I feel this does little to really differentiate between characters at low levels though.
I've always considered that the more rapid acquisition of skill (via E/O definition) is due to one of two factors: increased exposure and/or extraordinary "Talent" before the character begins adventuring and that later also serves as an advantage should those skills be further developed. This is reflected in the system by the character getting more "Bang for their Buck" when selecting those skills with multiple ranks per purchase.
What I'd like to see is a method that is fluid and applicable across the board.
This could be a combined cost reduction and increased bonus effect applicable to skills.
e.g. Everyman skills simply receive a 1 point cost reduction on skills per rank developed, occupational skills 2 point reduction. If that cost is reduced to 0 as the result of that calculation then a rank is gained free of charge when the character advances a level.
Secondly, those skills also get a +1 for everyman, +2 for occupational skill for each skill acquired either with direct purchase.. or those associated with TP purchases.
However, these E/O definitions should be limited to those characters that select them as such as Talents/Background Options or that are given them as racial bonuses. Not applied as a profession bonus.
-
It might be worth pointing out the way everyman ranks was handled changed between printing runs. Original RMSS had everyman work as change of DP cost for the skill but you still got the normal number of ranks. I believe that later when RMSS was changed so that you got double ranks for everyman they did not revise the rest of books to fit the change. This might explain why the ruling from RMFRP is missing in the RMSS books and the RMSS books is silent about the matter. These where also the days when the cost formula for training packages was secret so it was a very different time indeed, not much focus put on keeping stuff consistent.
Personal opinion....now when we know how broken the cost formula for TPs are I think the sane decision is to avoid using TPs in the game. The variable discount of the TPs is horrible idea both in theory and in practice, you either end with hidden discounts given to some of the players or that character generation takes ages as everyone need to evalutate how relevant TPs perform combined with different professions. Without the TPs you get avoid the tricky rules about ranks being treated different depending on the source and get quicker generation of characters so there are small benefits of using TP except if they give TP spell lists needed for the character concept.
-
I found the 1st edition RMSS version to better reflect what everyman or occupational skill is/was supposed to mean. Everyman skill cost was 2/4 for all that got it from race , profession, or any other source while Occupational skill cost was 1/2/3. So even nomad illusionist would have riding cost 2/4.
The old mechanics did not cause these clear but inevitable TP questions.
The way Ev and Occ skills are now handled in game mechanics allows unbelievably unbalanced characters: starting ranks + TP's = 10 ranks, add master warrior friend and occupational weapon (category is EV) and one gets 19 ranks 1st lvl (+10 category ranks), 55ranks 5th level... Reasonable stats, quality weapon, add another talent and OB is around 150 at 1st level and closing to 200 at 5th level.
Arakish solution could be good game mechanics - I may test is in my next game - but it doesn't reflect what it should in culturally gained everyman or occupational skills.
-
Information: the discount in RMSS/FRP for skill DP for TP is 25% off, which is supposed to be balanced by a time requirement. Also if you take a TP more than once you only get 1/2 ranks but pay full cost DP cost.
19 ranks seems like a lot at 1st level. The most I think is 4 for App + 4 from 1st level + additional ranks fro Adolo, App and 1st level. But if you are using Talent Law then it can become very unbalanced quickly as there are quite a few talents in there that are very powerful and quickly break the rules, IMHO.
MDC
-
I'd defend the use of TP's regardless.
If a cost formulae is available and applied correctly there is no real problem with them. It just becomes a useful tool to speed the character creation process. It's the rulings limiting the maximum ranks and the application of E/O modifications that is the sticking point behind stream-lining the character creation process. It's simply an unnecessary exception.
If I would cut anything, it would be the E/O modification, as it is, altogether. However, I'd replace it with a talent purchase scheme that does something very similar.. or one that is factored into the racial build cost in a standardised fashion.
The only element I'd change about TP's (apart from the effect of E/O and rank limitations) is the randomness of the "extras". I'd rather they be included as discountable "items" for characters that purchase them (either for modifying starting equipment costs or as talent purchases representing other advantages.).
-
I just had a Fuzzy pop into my head reading the few last posts.
Problem: It is definitely too unbalancing except for power-gamers. And it would require extra bookkeeping.
But here is the thought.
Instead of getting double, triple, half number of ranks for the REO (Restricted, Everyman, Occupational) skills, why not adjust the bonus received for each rank?
Normally, my progression for skills is 0,5,3,2,1.
- For Restricted skills, this would be 0,2.5,1.5,1,0.5, rounding down fractions.
- For Everyman skills, this would be 0,10,6,4,2.
- For Occupational skills, this would be 0,15,9,6,3.
Of course any GM could seriously curtail the number of REO skills any character may have. Say, no more than 2 Occupational and no more than 4 Everyman?
As said, this could be way too unbalancing except for power-gamers. But it was a Fuzzy that jumped into my head.
rmfr
-
I like it... Brilliant. This would give the separation between just learning a skill and excelling in a skill due to strict training. An example is a fighter learning first aid vs a healer learning first aid, the healer would have an initial intense understanding of how to apply the skill even at even ranks with the fighter.
-
In the past the problem was that there was a divide in way old ICE looked at skill bonus vs skill ranks. That is to say some wanted to say skill bonus should be used as a measure of what a "persons" skill is and some said no it should be based on the number of skill ranks.
MDC
-
I have always seen the ranks as being the measure of the skill, since natural talents (stats, etc.) are not included while the skill bonus represents how good a character is at the skill including all of his natural talents. If two characters can have equal training only their natural abilities should differentiate them in skill.
Since I consider classifications as a measure of "ease of training" and not actual ability, I don't think it should affect the final bonus. It should affect how easily a skill is learned, thus reduce (or increase) development costs.
-
I am just saying, ;D [size=78%]Why should not "talents" that provide a bonus to skills represent how good a PC is at something?
For example two PC's have 1 rank in a skill, no stat bonuses; but one has a talent that provides a +10 skill bonus. So one has a skill bonus of 5 and the other 15. Does not the PC with a bonus of 15 know more?
MDC[/size]
-
Me I like to think of how much the character has learnt (relative to others), with the bonus simply being how good they are at it. The two should be quite different when game-mechanics are taken into consideration.
An everyman skill should simply be one that the character finds *easy* to learn for whatever reason. This could be both ease of picking up the nuances of the skill or simply being *better* at it than someone else with the same training.
I disagree with the onus being entirely placed upon the skill bonus. A reduction in the DP cost to learn it is thus a logical advantage. However this alone doesn't make the character better than another character it just allows them to spend that saved DP somewhere else. Thus there should be a skill bonus element to separate those who do and those that don't have the skill as an everyman. Whether this is applied simply as a set bonus at the start, or an increasing bonus per rank...or level is another matter.
In practice, the system should cope with the principle that a fighter with +50 but only 1 rank in a weapon, should not be able to achieve the same things as another character with 5 ranks in the same weapon but only a bonus of only +30. There are examples, principally languages, where this is the case, but it isn't universal.
-
If the skill ranks are the way to go then using a multiplier is the way to represent increased skill knowledge. So buy ranks use multiplier to get actual ranks then figure bonus.
It would also be good then to have talents that provide skill ranks and not bonuses to represent this facet of the game.
MDC
-
If the skill ranks are the way to go then using a multiplier is the way to represent increased skill knowledge. So buy ranks use multiplier to get actual ranks then figure bonus.
It would also be good then to have talents that provide skill ranks and not bonuses to represent this facet of the game.
MDC
There are talents that provide either increased classifications or skill/category bonuses. I think there may even be talents that do both. I would have to look.
-
Background options allow you to purchase a bonus to a category or to a bonus. But you are only allowed to purchase the once per category/skill. However, you can purchase for multiple categories/skills. As far as talents I am not sure, but nothing a little reading couldn't solve.
-
Information: the discount in RMSS/FRP for skill DP for TP is 25% off, which is supposed to be balanced by a time requirement. Also if you take a TP more than once you only get 1/2 ranks but pay full cost DP cost.
That is a houserule.
I would not say it is a bad house rule, but still a house rule. I am actually using a version of it (no rule about half ranks if you take the TP twice) to avoid the problems with the TP costs. What is problematic with such house rule is that some training packages become so expensive that is questionable if they are realistic to purchase as all. As example you can consider the TP Doctor(V) that has includes skills worth of 54 DP. With a 25% discount you end with 41 in DP cost (compared to the books listed price of 23 DP or the 29 in the official TP cost list). The solution I use when using the flat 25% discount rule is that such expensive TPs is split into different parts so you can purchase it over a couple of levels instead.
As for the background of the DP mess. The real TP "cost formula" used in the first books is actually a mixture of many different discounts that was applied ad hoc by series editor John W. Curtis III. The reason the TP cost formula was not released was simply that there was no such formula in reality. This design became really problematic when companions was to be produced by independent authors and they could not get answers about the correct way to price TPs. Shiela Mguez and others on the RM mailing list did a massive job to come up with an actual formula that approximated how John W. Curtis III had done the costing.
The process they figured out looked a bit like this. The starting discount you get is between 25% and 0% depending on how much combat skills are included in the training package (a TP with five or more combat skills would get 0% in starting discount). Furthermore the cost is based on the cost of first rank in the category, the cost of second rank or the that fact that some professions should not be able to buy a second rank at all was not considered by John W. Curtis III. Finally there was cost adjustment done based on the total price of the TP if it was deemed to be too pricey. The ad hoc part was that John W. Curtis III did not always not apply the same final cost adjustment for every TP. The Doctor TP got an larger discount than many other TPs and it was not possible to figure out any pattern of when to apply a larger discount. Most probably the decision was based on how often the skill was used in his own roleplaying group. The actual discount applied in this step is as far as I knew between 0 and 60%, but I have not checked in detail.
What Shiela did was to determine the average final discount used in John W. Curtis III TPs and use that in a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet was approximately the same costs as the previous TPs and I believe it was used by the companion authors afterwards, but ICE never got around to update the core books so these continue to ship with the ad hoc costs from John W. Curtis III. In 2007 or Rasyr as series editor used the spreadsheet to calculate the cost of all TPs (that is TPS from books that by then was in print) and uploaded both the spreadsheet for TP creation and list of revised TP costs to the Vault.
Today your choices thus are:
1) Use the TP costs listed in the books that John W. Curtis III created with ad hoc discounts that are not consistent between professions
2) Use the official costs that exist in the Vault with consistent costs, but variable discount/benefit for each profession depending on the skill cost for the second rank.
3) Create some kind of house rule about flat discounts like I and many others have done to avoid the min/max playground that the above two choices present.
As a final comment...the time limitation to acquire TPs is problematic in practice since it only applyies during actual play. If one of your players are making a replacement character since his character died then there are no good reasons he can not say his character did have the time to take any number of TPs. Using TPs in this situation makes sense since you are creating a background for the new character, but all the discounts will mean this character become stronger than a character developed during actual play. It is a matter of opinion if this is a critical issue or not, but it is clear even with fair pricing of the TPs, the existence of discounts can be problematic in some situations.
-
A) I thought Rasyr ruled that the new official formula was the one that was represented by the spreed sheet in the vault and as such that is what I try and quote to posters on the site.
1) You are right the sheet in the Vault uses 25% with a mod for each combat rank.
2) You are right that TP time cost is a problem during play and makes replacement PC's more powerful.
a) I had thought that in SM:P they ruled that if you take a TP twice you only get 1/2 ranks but after a quick search I could not find the rule. So maybe it was a House Rule I used once upon a time instead of the max 10 ranks you could learn from a TP.
MDC
-
Thanks for the history of the TP costs pastaav. Very interesting.
-
A) I thought Rasyr ruled that the new official formula was the one that was represented by the spreed sheet in the vault and as such that is what I try and quote to posters on the site.
Indeed that was his ruling, but the 25% initial discount is not the only part in the spreadsheet's formulas. If the final discount cost is above 13 the second kind of discount is also applied.