Because they have a partial attempt at grasping at half-hearted implementation of something they could have done right (twice), but missed on.

Several GMs have tried at various times to point out that if you can triple in a skill, it's basically a core skill for your profession [Harness Power for spellcasters, traps & locks for Rogues, and so on]; you will be masters of it. If you can double in it, then you can be a solid professional in it. If you can only single it at most, you will be at best a rank amateur.

I tried to have them explore this territory more closely in the deICE and again in the GS4 conversion, and they did not, either time. I think doing so would have settled the "just how much of what skills do the GMs think we have, anyhow?" question once and for all.

The most recent time I rehashed this looks like it was back in July of '09.

---

By: KRAKII
Re: Higher CS
In: 7/28/2009
At: 8:34:59 AM
##: 8788

Re-visiting this issue briefly because I was reminded of something else last night when I was leafing through "Creatures & Treasures" volumes 1, 2, and 3. (I admit, mostly I was reading the "Most Potent"-and "Artifact"-level goodies. :)

And that was the whole "multi-train in a skill" issue. The final thing that I would've done in the game redesign--either one of them! [deICE, GS4 conversion]--would be to, once and for all, decide what the deal is with multi-train capability. Romulus, way back when, was talking to Sorcerers about things like Mana Share or Aimed Spells and how the assumption was that if you could double-train in it, then it was part of the profession design that you should be training (at least single) in it.
Except no-one had ever TOLD any of the players about that.

So I would have done two things:
1) Clearly delineate what's what with multi-training.
"If you can triple in it, then the assumption is that you will be singled in it; you may commonly double in it; you might (by choosing to specialize) triple in it. This is a core capability of your profession, and you will be assumed to be a mutant beyond the pale of intended design if you do not at least single in it."
"If you can double in it, then the assumption is that you will dabble in it [.5x or more]; you may commonly single in it; you might double in it."
"If you can only single in it, then the assumption is that your profession doesn't care diddly about the skill; you might dabble in it [anything up to 1x] but will never be any damn good at it."

.

2) Resolve the whole issue of singled being pretty darn good. (Krakii was rolled up with the premise that from levels 30 through 40 she would be exactly as good with her weapons as a Fighter of the same level... and 30+ level fighters were as common as the proverbial virgin with a bag of gold crossing the Empire and arriving with both.)
If you can triple in a skill, then your ranks are on a 6/5/4/3/2/1 progression.
If you can double in a skill, your ranks follow the 5/4/3/2/1 progression that we know.
If you can only single in a skill, your ranks are on a 4/3/2/1 progression.

Forty ranks would be worth 180 skill, or 140 skill, or 100 skill. (Same number of ranks; different skill amount.)

Whereas three people who "max trained" at the same level might have 150 ranks, 100 ranks, and 50 ranks. Their skill values would be 300, 200, and 110. [I threw a bit of a bone to the single-trainers.] By golly, but doesn't that look damn nearly like 3x, 2x, and 1x?!? For, respectively, "triple" and "double" and "single"? Well, damn.

The biggest reason to do this would be combat. The problem that GemStone has always had is that they did not truly implement RoleMaster combat training, wherein you trained in specific weapons (or for boltcasters, specific Directed Spells [your skill for "lightning bolt" might be very different from your skill for "fireball"]) rather than in types of weapons; the cost was assigned by type ["all 1HEdged weapons cost this much"] and then you trained in specifics ["I learn dagger and short sword and longsword and falchion, one rank each."].

This meant that Semi professions started out as good as a Fighter with their weapons, and then got spell-goodies on top. Pure CASTING professions could get to be as good as a Fighter with their weapons, plus defenses, plus disablers; Krakii was one, for crying out loud.
What it should have been was "Fighters start out damn good... and then the rest of y'all are playing catch-up", rather than "by golly, we better implement CMans so that Fighters actually have something."

Imagine if the skill costs were such that Fighters commonly singled in all weapons and often doubled in several [or just doubled in one or two], and Semis very rarely were any more than Singled. Fighters would have the highest Weapon capabilities, and Semis would be using their magics to "catch up"...
...kind of like how it should have been. :)

Something to keep in mind is that it should be extremely easy to code and takes nothing away from anyone, it only adds options. You could maximize AS, but realistically that cost would heavy penalize you in other areas. For some professions such as warriors, this would mean they could exceed caster classes easily in combat roles. It would also work the same way for casters. Players could gain more utility if they wanted, at the cost of a reduction to hunting skill. I believe this would create much more diversity and prevent professions from being basically cookie cutter replicas of each other.