Well, I said it before, if you weight all the skills equally and just start multiplying, you get crap results.

You weighted all the skills equally and started multiplying. Anywhere that you multiplied something by the # of skills associated with attribute will give you biased and invalid results.

I'm pretty sure though that FFG did playtest how it would go. I mean I assume they did their due diligence when designing the rules and thus weighed how the game would be affected by it, hence their eventual recommendation that you spend xp on traits during char gen. I mean I can't know for sure but it would be the logical thing to do when building your basic rules.

Or they just knew that it would be a pain in the ass to boost your attributes after the fact, having to buy your way slowly down to the bottom of a tree to get your +1.

There is that but I have faith that FFG took the time to weigh different ways of creating a character before settling on the method they have now. Most games do. It makes sense that the alpha version of the rules may have accounted for it or that they may have considered it at some point in the design.

You do know that no matter how solid your math is, it is still a matter of trying to fix a completely avoidable problem with an imbalanced houserule?

I'm sorry you feel negatively about it, but the proposed house rule has not been tested by the community yet so its imbalanced-ness can be argued either way.

Also, letting everyone respec once is a fair houserule that I think most everyone on the forum has agreed with.

The problem isn't whether it is a a "fair" house rule or not.

The OP Nore the one who then Supported that the OP was needed, was not an Issue of asking whether the House rule was fair or not..

It was stating that the GAME itself was flawed for not allowing it.

And everyone else's Point was that the House RULE it'self was not Needed, because the rules are very clear in their Guidance towards spending points on stats.

The only thing JJrodny's Math has show is exactly what has been said before...

the Difference between the skills won't be that big....Yes, the one who spent all his points in stats will Have a Higher Specialty skill with a slightly better chance of success.

But the One who didn't spend much in Stats Will have MORE skills to choose from at an effective level.

It's a trade off.

and I remain on the Side of "The House RULE is Not Needed." What is needed is people to Not assume they are smarter than the GAME and therefore don't need to READ THE RULES before making a character and Just ASSUME What the rules are.

Well, I said it before, if you weight all the skills equally and just start multiplying, you get crap results.

You weighted all the skills equally and started multiplying. Anywhere that you multiplied something by the # of skills associated with attribute will give you biased and invalid results.

I'm not sure I would argue them as crap results, but how would you weight the skills and characteristics? I'm just trying to quanitify the game.

I choose 4 skills per characteristic, as Intellect, Cunning, and Agility are all much higher (10, 5 and 7), so if I were going to maxmize the point I'm making I would choose those and instead of upgrading 16 skills (4,4,4,4) to GGG at character creation I could upgrade 26 skills (10,7,5,4) to GGG at character creation, further increasing the slant in favor of the characteristic character.

To minimize this effect I could choose the skills with the least number of skills - Willpower, Presence, Brawn, and Cunning (3,3,4,5) - only upgrading 15 skills to GGG, which would not change the result!

The only thing JJrodny's Math has show is exactly what has been said before...

the Difference between the skills won't be that big....Yes, the one who spent all his points in stats will Have a Higher Specialty skill with a slightly better chance of success.

But the One who didn't spend much in Stats Will have MORE skills to choose from at an effective level.

It's a trade off.

But the builds I've shown in the math show that's not the case...

So the bigger stronger person, or smarter person, or more charming person with equivalent training is better? I am failing to see how this differs from real life.

Yes, however in real life you can upgrade your characteristics after character creation

If you can't upgrade characteristics and if you didn't upgrade your characteristics at character creation then you will be worse in almost all of those areas. I think that's unfair and people should get a free respec or the thing I first suggested with you can only ever spend up to your species specific starting XP on characteristics throughout an adventure.

The problem isn't whether it is a a "fair" house rule or not.

The OP Nore the one who then Supported that the OP was needed, was not an Issue of asking whether the House rule was fair or not..

It was stating that the GAME itself was flawed for not allowing it.

And everyone else's Point was that the House RULE it'self was not Needed, because the rules are very clear in their Guidance towards spending points on stats.

Fair point, maybe I went about it in the wrong way, however I think I've made my point pretty well:

If you don't put starting XP into characteristics at character creation, you will be 25% less effective (dice-roll-wise, not at all roleplay-wise, that's not what I mean) than someone who does.

If you missed those few lines in the book that say to do that, then your character will be 25% less effective than a character that does.

The math shows it. Independently, choose successes or advantages, at either of them, you will be worse than a character that puts starting XP into characteristics.

I think we should fix that. It's unfair, and a free respec for players who missed that information when creating characters makes it fair.

(Or allow players to upgrade their characteristics throughout an adventure using at most their species-specific starting XP (so max of 110xp spent on characteristics for a human))

I hope that explains my position well

EDIT:

And of course ideally none of this would need to happen (everyone would put points into characteristics at character creation) as the GM and other senior players would help them.

If you don't put starting XP into characteristics at character creation, you will be 25% less effective (dice-roll-wise, not at all roleplay-wise, that's not what I mean) than someone who does.

If you missed those few lines in the book that say to do that, then your character will be 25% less effective than a character that does.

The math shows it. Independently, choose successes or advantages, at either of them, you will be worse than a character that puts starting XP into characteristics.

I don’t dispute your math. I don’t know that I understand it well enough to be qualified to do so.

I think we should fix that. It's unfair,

However, I do think you drew the wrong conclusion from your math.

The failure here is not in the system per se, the failure is in the player paying attention to those lines, and the others who should have been helping the player create the character.

and a free respec for players who missed that information when creating characters makes it fair.

IMO, a free re-spec should be available to players once they’ve had some time with their characters, regardless of why they might feel dissatisfied with the character that they currently have built.

Subject to the GM approval, of course. If someone is just trying to game the system, then they’re probably not the sort of person you want to be playing with, but you might want to give them a chance to prove whether or not they are just trying to game the system.

In other words, I think pretty much everyone deserves a second chance, and I think that second chance is a better solution to what you feel is a problem with the system than any other alternative that has been proposed.

However, I do think you drew the wrong conclusion from your math.

The failure here is not in the system per se, the failure is in the player paying attention to those lines, and the others who should have been helping the player create the character.

and a free respec for players who missed that information when creating characters makes it fair.

IMO, a free re-spec should be available to players once they’ve had some time with their characters, regardless of why they might feel dissatisfied with the character that they currently have built.

Subject to the GM approval, of course. If someone is just trying to game the system, then they’re probably not the sort of person you want to be playing with, but you might want to give them a chance to prove whether or not they are just trying to game the system.

In other words, I think pretty much everyone deserves a second chance, and I think that second chance is a better solution to what you feel is a problem with the system than any other alternative that has been proposed.

Yes! I agree! There is a problem with players not helping each other if this happens.

But - imagine with me - what if there was no way a player could make a mistake? We wouldn't need to help newbies make a character that isnt 25% less potent (in dice rolls only, not roleplaying).

That's the argument I'm making - the system could be perfect!

I'm not sure I would argue them as crap results, but how would you weight the skills and characteristics? I'm just trying to quanitify the game.

Simply put, I wouldn't weight the skills.

Period.

Full stop.

The reason for this is, in my mind, straight forward. I can practically guarantee that any weighting system will meet at least one, and possibly both, of the following criteria:

• The weighting system is too simple to be accurate.
• The weighting system is too complex to be useful.

As I've said before, assuming that every skill gets used with the exact same frequency is just this side of stupid. I hardly think that can be argued. However, accurately estimating the frequency with which every skill gets used is an exercise in futility, because those values are, in turn, dependent on too many other factors, and further interactions between those factors, to accurately quantify. A sample of these factors include:

• Intended character role
• Party composition
• GM style
• Player decision-making in-game (non-creation and non-advancement choices)
• Available/purchased equipment
• Other skills selected by the character (e.g. Ranged(Light) ain't that important if you got Ranged(heavy))

This doesn't even *touch* on talent selection and available career/specialization skils, which substantially change the choices, for good measure.

You can't simply "quantify the game" accurately, nor can you accurately "quantify the game" simply.

The very premise of what you've posted above is flawed, because it only applies to the most degenerate case of a generalist character. No-one plays this. Even taking a single step beyond this is complexity leads to quagmire of assumptions that, when taken as a whole, demonstrate the incredible weakness of the results.

tl;dr Any weighting mechanism that could even remotely accurately describe the frequencies of the skill checks would rely on a set of assumptions so tenuous it would invalidate any resultant estimates and conclusions drawn from those estimates.

This is the exact situation I described 8 pages ago.

As a post-script: A tempting alternative to assumed/expected weights would be have actual observed data from a play session. This, however, would highlight another issue: When you stratify the data by character, you would see IMMENSE heterogeneity. This demonstrates the futility of using a single set of weights to produce any estimate re: success rates, or other parameter.

Reading through the math and addressing the problem, I think there's a rather simple solution. Irrespective of initial XP spent in skills/specializations/non-stats, the player will always have an XP reservoir of their starting XP. From this reservoir XP can always be spent on stats until it has been completely emptied.

So the player can initially spend 30 XP on skills/etc at creation, earn an additional 30 XP and, instead of buying more skills/etc, they can raise a stat from 2 to 3.

This can continue until the XP spent in this fashion equals the amount of XP the player started with at character creation.

All it does is delay the allocation of XP to stats in an exactly equal fashion as done in character creation.

I would also add that the same limitations apply as in creation, e.g. no stat higher than 5.

Would that not solve the crux of the problem?

Reading through the math and addressing the problem, I think there's a rather simple solution. Irrespective of initial XP spent in skills/specializations/non-stats, the player will always have an XP reservoir of their starting XP. From this reservoir XP can always be spent on stats until it has been completely emptied.

So the player can initially spend 30 XP on skills/etc at creation, earn an additional 30 XP and, instead of buying more skills/etc, they can raise a stat from 2 to 3.

This can continue until the XP spent in this fashion equals the amount of XP the player started with at character creation.

All it does is delay the allocation of XP to stats in an exactly equal fashion as done in character creation.

I would also add that the same limitations apply as in creation, e.g. no stat higher than 5.

Would that not solve the crux of the problem?

That sounds like it's exactly what I'm talking about! Yes - it would solve the problem Thank you!

Reading through the math and addressing the problem, I think there's a rather simple solution. Irrespective of initial XP spent in skills/specializations/non-stats, the player will always have an XP reservoir of their starting XP. From this reservoir XP can always be spent on stats until it has been completely emptied.

So the player can initially spend 30 XP on skills/etc at creation, earn an additional 30 XP and, instead of buying more skills/etc, they can raise a stat from 2 to 3.

This can continue until the XP spent in this fashion equals the amount of XP the player started with at character creation.

All it does is delay the allocation of XP to stats in an exactly equal fashion as done in character creation.

I would also add that the same limitations apply as in creation, e.g. no stat higher than 5.

Would that not solve the crux of the problem?

From how I understand it, this is essentially what the OP suggested. I don't have any problem with it. I don't think it's at all necessary for my game (and it creates an added layer of bookkeeping for the GM), but it does create a balance that doesn't force characters to start the game as inexperienced but innately qualified individuals and penalize anyone who does otherwise. I think the stat differences are negligible, but there are clearly some among the stat-and-math obsessed set (some of which I know in my personal gaming experience) that could gain a level of liberation with this, a liberation that would allow them to be more creative in their character building process.

I mentioned before my idea of a Doctor character, who was adapted into the existing rules with little difficulty, but who had an organic "lock" on the characteristics he'd otherwise not have short-term access to (lower dexterity and intelligence than his background would suggest, tied to a problem with alcoholism). This rules change could create a connection between character growth and gameplay reward.

But the argument seems to have become mired in the details. There's a group that seems to take offense at the implication that the game might be broken (I don't think it is, but I don't take offense at the suggestion, and am perfectly amenable to home brew rules) and a group that is adamant that the differences are negligible (which I agree with in theory, if not ferocity).

From how I understand it, this is essentially what the OP suggested. I don't have any problem with it. I don't think it's at all necessary for my game (and it creates an added layer of bookkeeping for the GM), but it does create a balance that doesn't force characters to start the game as inexperienced but innately qualified individuals and penalize anyone who does otherwise. I think the stat differences are negligible, but there are clearly some among the stat-and-math obsessed set (some of which I know in my personal gaming experience) that could gain a level of liberation with this, a liberation that would allow them to be more creative in their character building process.

I mentioned before my idea of a Doctor character, who was adapted into the existing rules with little difficulty, but who had an organic "lock" on the characteristics he'd otherwise not have short-term access to (lower dexterity and intelligence than his background would suggest, tied to a problem with alcoholism). This rules change could create a connection between character growth and gameplay reward.

But the argument seems to have become mired in the details. There's a group that seems to take offense at the implication that the game might be broken (I don't think it is, but I don't take offense at the suggestion, and am perfectly amenable to home brew rules) and a group that is adamant that the differences are negligible (which I agree with in theory, if not ferocity).

Here, here! I agree with this! Very good summary as well!

The 'offense' taken - and I don't think it's a personal offense - is that the initial problem is due to a player/GM's failure to read the rules comprehensively. That's not a flaw of the system.

I think there's a ton of opportunities here where roleplaying could benefit, and you wouldn't penalize the player by making them work down a skill tree. A former bounty hunter who's gun hand always shakes and who questions his judgment after accidentally shooting an innocent child. A child prodigy with a huge amount of knowledge skills gained when he was younger, who's unable to properly utilize them after sinking into a life of spice-riddled hedonism. A former heavyweight pitfighter who's body has turned to flab after taking a job as a celebrity spokesman. It strikes me that the reservoir system opens up the option for two "ideal" kinds of characters.You can have your greenhorns with plenty of natural talent but meager practical experience, and you can have characters with more experience, who's innate talents have been in some way exhausted by the world around them, but who have the potential to achieve some portion of their glory days.

Again, it's not something I feel the need for in my game, but I now have half a mind to create a game about a group of lovable losers, using a specialized home brewed rules set that utilizes "locked but unlockable characteristics" in character creation.

The 'offense' taken - and I don't think it's a personal offense - is that the initial problem is due to a player/GM's failure to read the rules comprehensively. That's not a flaw of the system.

I don't think it's a personal offense either. But as someone on the outside looking in (for the most part), it seems pretty long and withdrawn on both sides with no chance of one side convincing the other that it is or isn't broken.

I'm actually very interested in having a discussion about how alterations to the character creation system, like these, could have an effect on the game.

the only area it would change the result is that those areas would have fewer yellow dice without developing the skill..

the Character that puts more Experience into skills will have more skills with yellow dice, but fewer skills with a greater number of yellow dice than the stat developed character.

the only area it would change the result is that those areas would have fewer yellow dice without developing the skill..

the Character that puts more Experience into skills will have more skills with yellow dice, but fewer skills with a greater number of yellow dice than the stat developed character.

I think the psychic effect is more important than the statistical effect (which I think is mostly negligible anyway), in that my players were immediately dumping their stats into characteristics and tweaking those characteristics around to figure out what would best work mechanically. This is more the effect of knowing that those characteristics are more or less capped than actually digging into the numbers and drawing out statistical difference. I suspect a game that didn't suggest top-loading characteristics like FFG does might draw out more relaxed and meditative character creation in players like that. I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem to me like it would do any harm to the game.

Then again, I mainly come from rules-light or rules-absent (essentially improv) games, and my experience otherwise is with White Wolf, where character creation mostly segregates your expenditures into individual categories and the growth potential is limitless, so I don't have the experience to properly speak to balance.

At My Table, If you make your character on your own but refuse to actually read the Rules, I MIGHT be willing to tell you when I review your character by asking why you did that, IF you are New to RPGs in general,

BUT if you are some one with RPG experience... I will let you suffer the consequences of your own failure to follow through and think your smarter than reading the rules.

the only area it would change the result is that those areas would have fewer yellow dice without developing the skill..

the Character that puts more Experience into skills will have more skills with yellow dice, but fewer skills with a greater number of yellow dice than the stat developed character.

I think the psychic effect is more important than the statistical effect (which I think is mostly negligible anyway), in that my players were immediately dumping their stats into characteristics and tweaking those characteristics around to figure out what would best work mechanically. This is more the effect of knowing that those characteristics are more or less capped than actually digging into the numbers and drawing out statistical difference. I suspect a game that didn't suggest top-loading characteristics like FFG does might draw out more relaxed and meditative character creation in players like that. I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem to me like it would do any harm to the game.

Then again, I mainly come from rules-light or rules-absent (essentially improv) games, and my experience otherwise is with White Wolf, where character creation mostly segregates your expenditures into individual categories and the growth potential is limitless, so I don't have the experience to properly speak to balance.

Let me be clear...

I don't think there is a problem with a GM House ruling it themselves and allowing a respec... what ever floats your boat....

I just feel it isn't necessary If People Actually READ HE RULES.

and the Original OP and another Were not talking about a House rule... They were Suggesting the Game needed to be "Fixed" with this rule... which it does not.

the only area it would change the result is that those areas would have fewer yellow dice without developing the skill..

the Character that puts more Experience into skills will have more skills with yellow dice, but fewer skills with a greater number of yellow dice than the stat developed character.

I think the psychic effect is more important than the statistical effect (which I think is mostly negligible anyway), in that my players were immediately dumping their stats into characteristics and tweaking those characteristics around to figure out what would best work mechanically. This is more the effect of knowing that those characteristics are more or less capped than actually digging into the numbers and drawing out statistical difference. I suspect a game that didn't suggest top-loading characteristics like FFG does might draw out more relaxed and meditative character creation in players like that. I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem to me like it would do any harm to the game.

Then again, I mainly come from rules-light or rules-absent (essentially improv) games, and my experience otherwise is with White Wolf, where character creation mostly segregates your expenditures into individual categories and the growth potential is limitless, so I don't have the experience to properly speak to balance.

Let me be clear...

I don't think there is a problem with a GM House ruling it themselves and allowing a respec... what ever floats your boat....

I just feel it isn't necessary If People Actually READ HE RULES.

and the Original OP and another Were not talking about a House rule... They were Suggesting the Game needed to be "Fixed" with this rule... which it does not.

I'm not going to get into the argument over whether the rules are broken or not. I don't think they are, but it's not an argument I really care to have.

I'm just saying if a player came to me with a strong concept for a character with characteristics that had locked potential, but was worried (rationally or otherwise) that shorting him/herself on characteristics would be detrimental to that character, I'd be open to waiving the rules and instituting a "reservoir" system like that suggested above. It shows a degree of foresight and interest in character development that, to me, trumps canon systems.

I also allow respecs within the first few sessions, regardless of the game and how versed the players are in the rules, because it's my feeling that the stats you put down on a sheet don't always reflect the essence of the character once you actually start playing them and realizing who they are.

the only area it would change the result is that those areas would have fewer yellow dice without developing the skill..

the Character that puts more Experience into skills will have more skills with yellow dice, but fewer skills with a greater number of yellow dice than the stat developed character.

I think the psychic effect is more important than the statistical effect (which I think is mostly negligible anyway), in that my players were immediately dumping their stats into characteristics and tweaking those characteristics around to figure out what would best work mechanically. This is more the effect of knowing that those characteristics are more or less capped than actually digging into the numbers and drawing out statistical difference. I suspect a game that didn't suggest top-loading characteristics like FFG does might draw out more relaxed and meditative character creation in players like that. I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem to me like it would do any harm to the game.

Then again, I mainly come from rules-light or rules-absent (essentially improv) games, and my experience otherwise is with White Wolf, where character creation mostly segregates your expenditures into individual categories and the growth potential is limitless, so I don't have the experience to properly speak to balance.

Let me be clear...

I don't think there is a problem with a GM House ruling it themselves and allowing a respec... what ever floats your boat....

I just feel it isn't necessary If People Actually READ HE RULES.

and the Original OP and another Were not talking about a House rule... They were Suggesting the Game needed to be "Fixed" with this rule... which it does not.

I'm not going to get into the argument over whether the rules are broken or not. I don't think they are, but it's not an argument I really care to have.

I'm just saying if a player came to me with a strong concept for a character with characteristics that had locked potential, but was worried (rationally or otherwise) that shorting him/herself on characteristics would be detrimental to that character, I'd be open to waiving the rules and instituting a "reservoir" system like that suggested above. It shows a degree of foresight and interest in character development that, to me, trumps canon systems.

I also allow respecs within the first few sessions, regardless of the game and how versed the players are in the rules, because it's my feeling that the stats you put down on a sheet don't always reflect the essence of the character once you actually start playing them and realizing who they are.

Here is the difference between what your saying and what was being suggested.

If a Player came to your (or me for that matter) with a NEW character they Just made?

Of course I would review it and if it looked Off, Of course I would ask them why they made such choices, and if they wanted, BEFORE game play started with that character, I would allow them to remake it fixing said issues.

But what is being here is a Player Making the character and playing for a few sessions, having Chosen to play the character as made, then regretting said decision and want to remake the character at that point. After experience and so forth has already been earned.

And this goes back to reading the rules and Working with your GM.

I have no pity for people who disdain reading the rules. If you bring me a character and say "This is the character I want to play" regardless of My input on issues i might see in it,

I got no pity for you.

the only area it would change the result is that those areas would have fewer yellow dice without developing the skill..

the Character that puts more Experience into skills will have more skills with yellow dice, but fewer skills with a greater number of yellow dice than the stat developed character.

I think the psychic effect is more important than the statistical effect (which I think is mostly negligible anyway), in that my players were immediately dumping their stats into characteristics and tweaking those characteristics around to figure out what would best work mechanically. This is more the effect of knowing that those characteristics are more or less capped than actually digging into the numbers and drawing out statistical difference. I suspect a game that didn't suggest top-loading characteristics like FFG does might draw out more relaxed and meditative character creation in players like that. I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem to me like it would do any harm to the game.

Then again, I mainly come from rules-light or rules-absent (essentially improv) games, and my experience otherwise is with White Wolf, where character creation mostly segregates your expenditures into individual categories and the growth potential is limitless, so I don't have the experience to properly speak to balance.

Let me be clear...

I don't think there is a problem with a GM House ruling it themselves and allowing a respec... what ever floats your boat....

I just feel it isn't necessary If People Actually READ HE RULES.

and the Original OP and another Were not talking about a House rule... They were Suggesting the Game needed to be "Fixed" with this rule... which it does not.

I'm not going to get into the argument over whether the rules are broken or not. I don't think they are, but it's not an argument I really care to have.

I'm just saying if a player came to me with a strong concept for a character with characteristics that had locked potential, but was worried (rationally or otherwise) that shorting him/herself on characteristics would be detrimental to that character, I'd be open to waiving the rules and instituting a "reservoir" system like that suggested above. It shows a degree of foresight and interest in character development that, to me, trumps canon systems.

I also allow respecs within the first few sessions, regardless of the game and how versed the players are in the rules, because it's my feeling that the stats you put down on a sheet don't always reflect the essence of the character once you actually start playing them and realizing who they are.

Here is the difference between what your saying and what was being suggested.

If a Player came to your (or me for that matter) with a NEW character they Just made?

Of course I would review it and if it looked Off, Of course I would ask them why they made such choices, and if they wanted, BEFORE game play started with that character, I would allow them to remake it fixing said issues.

But what is being here is a Player Making the character and playing for a few sessions, having Chosen to play the character as made, then regretting said decision and want to remake the character at that point. After experience and so forth has already been earned.

And this goes back to reading the rules and Working with your GM.

I have no pity for people who disdain reading the rules. If you bring me a character and say "This is the character I want to play" regardless of My input on issues i might see in it,

I got no pity for you.

I'm a writer, and I think that might influence my understanding of the situation. I imagine a character in my head, and as often or not, I'm pages into the story before I realize the voice of the character isn't the voice I pictured in my head. They've taken a life of their own, and it's a more interesting and nuanced life than what I imagined in the embryonic stages of their creation. In game terms, this might reflect a tweak to stats.

If it makes for a more interesting character, and a character that the player is more invested in, I'm all for that. My ultimate goal is for my players to have fun and to be encourage to delve into the roleplaying aspect of the game. I'll make them suffer the consequences of their characters' actions, but I'm not interested in spiting them when their ultimate intent is to make their character more interesting.

And again, What you suggest is between you and your Gm... Not a Problem with the Game itself which Requires a "FIX" in the rules to make it "Rules as Written" SO that your GM is forced to allow it.

At My own Table, We are Not so much writing a story (I happen to be a bit of a writer myself) as we are Playing a Game set to rules.

Your character isn't working out the way you wanted? Make a New character. ( at my table) ... Not Keep everything you Earned for the current Character under the Current Build and Now Change up the Games Flow by Tweaking your character to Maximize where you have gone with it.

That throws Everyone one off.... Should everyone Be able to respec to account for the changes One player wants to make that changes the make upp of the group? No.. Not opening that can of worms.... make a New character and start over....

But that is MY table. I don't Need a Paragraph in the Book saying It is or isn't that way.... I am the GM of My table and the Mediator for all the players.

You are the Mediator of your Table (if you are the GM) So you can rule Differently..... But We don't need to "Fix" the Rules of the Book to accommodate what you would allow, In order to what? Make you feel better about it, Give your arguement more wait to allow it with your GM? Nooo.. That isn't the place of the Book. That is the Call of the GM..

The Book isn't broke.... Some one Just wants an accommodation for their own reasons... that is between the player and their GM.