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.

I let everyone respec about four or five sessions in. We discuss where the game is going, where we'd all like it to go, and any changes we might want to make to accommodate that direction. If a player's character didn't click at all, then I let them change it. If it's a major change, they swap in a new character.

Like I said, I'm not trying to argue that the rules are broken. I'm just curious about how other people run their games.

I don't think the OP was suggesting FFG formally change the rules of the game though. He was just excited to talk about potential house rules that could cater it better to his situation. He might call it "broken", but I don't see a reason why something positive can't come out of it.

Back on point to the actual suggested homebrew rules... The more I think about it, the more it seems like it could make a cool wrinkle for a specialized game (and one that plays particularly well to the themes of EotE), although I'd push it a little farther (and in the process, I think make the bookkeeping a little easier). All the heroes are damaged goods, naturally proficient to varying degrees and with skill and experience in their fields, but something in their background has robbed them of their full potential. So every player starts the game by sinking all the starting XP they want into their characteristics. These are their potential characteristics. Players can then reallocate as many experience points as they want back into talents and skills. The lowered number becomes their starting characteristics, and the potential characteristics are penciled in between parentheses. These are as high as they're allowed to spend experience later in the game. Every characteristic has to be tied to a sufficient trauma that's approved by the GM, and unlocking those characteristics to spend experience on means overcoming that trauma through the course of the game.

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

FAILURE IS NOT AN IMPERFECTION!!!!!!

Quit fixating on fail=bad, succeed=good! There is not shame in failing. It no f*****g big deal. Han steps on a twig, fails his sneak roll and saves the rebellion!

And yes, I'm being a **** about it because you cant seem to get this point through thick ******* head FOR TWELVE ******* PAGES NOW! The system is fine as-is.

Argh. I'm out. I'm going over to the Halloween thread.

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

IMO, the GM is also at least partly responsible in such a case.

Basically, this game is all about a group of people getting together to interactively create fun and cool stories for a variety of characters in the Star Wars universe. Anything that gets in the way of the whole group having fun together — that is a problem.

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!

No, the system could not be perfect. Trivial things might or might not be perfect, but nothing non-trivial ever is. There’s always some sort of flaw which could be fixed if you just applied this tweak … and then another flaw and another tweak … and maybe one day you realize that you’re creating at least as many flaws as you are solving and you stop trying to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Players will always make mistakes. Maybe they make this one, or maybe they don’t.

GMs will also always make mistakes. Maybe they make this one, or maybe they don’t.

We are all imperfect sentient — and sapient — beings, after all.

Among other things, I am also a lifetime member of the Blacksmiths Guild of the Potomac. That was from a time when I had more money than sense, and I was happy to pay the lifetime fee.

But one thing they taught me is that the most important thing a Blacksmith can do is to know when to stop trying to make the piece more perfect. It’s always going to have flaws. That’s part of what makes it so unique, and so interesting — and so valuable, both from a sentimental perspective as well as a monetary one.

Good enough is good enough. Stop throwing it away in the empty chase of perfection, because you’re never going to get there.

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.

Actually real life doesn't help you here. Yes in real life you can upgrade your characteristics. However we also know that changing ones characteristics are also hard in real life. Which is actually reflected in game too. It's not an easy thing to make yourself any smarter than you truly are. A lot of people are never going to be more charismatic. Raising Brawn in real life is a real hard thing to do which requires a lot of intensive work. All of this is reflected in game by there being only one talent that lets you do it. So if you're going to use real life as your example the game is very accurate in that regard.

Also sticking with your real life consideration ...... no one in real life gets a respect or a house rule. Soooooooo the real life argument does not help you.

In real life ..... people use skills to make up for lack of being born with innate talents.

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.

You can in the game to, just it takes time, and patience, and there is no rule that will fix that for you ever.

A lack of successes on a given roll does not automatically equal failure, nor does an abundance of successes always equal the most successful outcome. A PC built around wanting to land hard hitting critical hits doesn't want an abundance of successes, they want A's and T's, to activate the crit and buff it on the same roll. No successes can mean an abundance of A's leftover which in turn allows the PC making the roll to heal Strain that had they rolled more successes they would not have been able to without the abundance of A's, and if they are down to their last Strain that's probably more important. They could provide a great deal of assistance to other party members as well in the form of Boost dice and Upgrades or defense from the enemy. In addition a single success paired with an abundance of A's could potentially activate multiple weapon effects without ever even surpassing a target's Soak, heal Strain, and boost allies all in one dice pool.

Your fixation with success speaks volumes about your lack of experience with the rules, and the fact that a great many of the skills only require a single success and some of the more positive results from the dice pools are gained via A's and T's.

You aren't fixing something that's broken. You don't even really have a good grasp of the non linear nature of the dice. Essentially what you're doing is proposing breaking something that works.

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

No, you can't.

You can't 'really' that is...

You can hone your skills sure, but talents are innate and I would argue that is what characteristics represent. You won't get more intelligent from studying. You will obtain more knowledge in the field you study. You don't get more presence than you have but you learn how to put the presence you have to work. Etc.

I could practice coordination for the rest of my life and I might become quite good, but I will never become as good a golfer as Rory Mcilroy.

I could punch bags forever and I wouldn't stand a chance against Mohammed Ali.

Of course that is not to say that you cannot further yourself by really focussing on something, by really putting all your effort in it, by real DEDICATION.

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

No, you can't.

You can't 'really' that is...

You can hone your skills sure, but talents are innate and I would argue that is what characteristics represent. You won't get more intelligent from studying. You will obtain more knowledge in the field you study. You don't get more presence than you have but you learn how to put the presence you have to work. Etc.

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.

You can in the game to, just it takes time, and patience, and there is no rule that will fix that for you ever.

A lack of successes on a given roll does not automatically equal failure, nor does an abundance of successes always equal the most successful outcome. A PC built around wanting to land hard hitting critical hits doesn't want an abundance of successes, they want A's and T's, to activate the crit and buff it on the same roll. No successes can mean an abundance of A's leftover which in turn allows the PC making the roll to heal Strain that had they rolled more successes they would not have been able to without the abundance of A's, and if they are down to their last Strain that's probably more important. They could provide a great deal of assistance to other party members as well in the form of Boost dice and Upgrades or defense from the enemy. In addition a single success paired with an abundance of A's could potentially activate multiple weapon effects without ever even surpassing a target's Soak, heal Strain, and boost allies all in one dice pool.

Your fixation with success speaks volumes about your lack of experience with the rules, and the fact that a great many of the skills only require a single success and some of the more positive results from the dice pools are gained via A's and T's.

You aren't fixing something that's broken. You don't even really have a good grasp of the non linear nature of the dice. Essentially what you're doing is proposing breaking something that works.

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.

Actually real life doesn't help you here. Yes in real life you can upgrade your characteristics. However we also know that changing ones characteristics are also hard in real life. Which is actually reflected in game too. It's not an easy thing to make yourself any smarter than you truly are. A lot of people are never going to be more charismatic. Raising Brawn in real life is a real hard thing to do which requires a lot of intensive work. All of this is reflected in game by there being only one talent that lets you do it. So if you're going to use real life as your example the game is very accurate in that regard.

Also sticking with your real life consideration ...... no one in real life gets a respect or a house rule. Soooooooo the real life argument does not help you.

In real life ..... people use skills to make up for lack of being born with innate talents.

Holy jumping jahosaphat Batman! No one understood what I meant there? Everyone just latched on to the real life example?

I was trying to point out that you can't argue using real-life examples because as you all have shown, we can come up with reasons to defend anything that way.

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.

You can in the game to, just it takes time, and patience, and there is no rule that will fix that for you ever.

A lack of successes on a given roll does not automatically equal failure, nor does an abundance of successes always equal the most successful outcome. A PC built around wanting to land hard hitting critical hits doesn't want an abundance of successes, they want A's and T's, to activate the crit and buff it on the same roll. No successes can mean an abundance of A's leftover which in turn allows the PC making the roll to heal Strain that had they rolled more successes they would not have been able to without the abundance of A's, and if they are down to their last Strain that's probably more important. They could provide a great deal of assistance to other party members as well in the form of Boost dice and Upgrades or defense from the enemy. In addition a single success paired with an abundance of A's could potentially activate multiple weapon effects without ever even surpassing a target's Soak, heal Strain, and boost allies all in one dice pool.

Your fixation with success speaks volumes about your lack of experience with the rules, and the fact that a great many of the skills only require a single success and some of the more positive results from the dice pools are gained via A's and T's.

You aren't fixing something that's broken. You don't even really have a good grasp of the non linear nature of the dice. Essentially what you're doing is proposing breaking something that works.

There is most definitely a nicer way to say that

Annnnnnnnnnd I posted math equally about advantages and triumphs...

Everyone understood what you meant there. Everyone latched unto it because it is fundamentally flawed...

In fact this whole topic is. You seem dead set on defending the undefendable, whether it is by math, real life comparison, advocating the real rules aren't "fair" but you constantly side step the fact that there is no need for this houserule and that it is defenitely not a "fix".

Would you make a houserule where chessplayers get to replace 30 to 40% of their pieces 6 turns in just because they didn't bother learning the rules? At what point in your proposed scenario is a beginner no longer a beginner? What is the benefit of going this route over just doing it right straight away?

This whole thread is beginning to feel very autistic by the way (which I do not mean as offensive).

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

FAILURE IS NOT AN IMPERFECTION!!!!!!

Quit fixating on fail=bad, succeed=good! There is not shame in failing. It no f*****g big deal. Han steps on a twig, fails his sneak roll and saves the rebellion!

And yes, I'm being a **** about it because you cant seem to get this point through thick ******* head FOR TWELVE ******* PAGES NOW! The system is fine as-is.

Argh. I'm out. I'm going over to the Halloween thread.

Alright, it doesn't bother you, specifically, if your character isn't as good at what he's made to do as others and isn't as well rounded as the jack of all trades character. He is just overall 25% less good at things (successes and advantages). He fails 25% more often then other characters and gets 25% less advantages. Sounds like the game isn't balanced to me that you can make such a character.

Some people want a balanced game. I'm suggesting it can be completely balanced.

Case in point.

I'm not the only one that agrees that EotE is great, and is much more balanced than any other RPG, but also that its not perfectly balanced, and that this change could possibly perfectly balance it.

The arguments against it are:

1) It's fine the way it is, the problem is very minimal.

The math proves that it exists. 25% difference in success rate or advantage rate is not minimal. Its minimal by DnD standards, but EotE is better than that.

2) This problem shouldn't happen, the GM or expert player will help them. It's the GM's fault if it does happen.

This is good as its step 1: admitting there is a problem. Yes the GM should stop this from happening, but there's still a problem in the game that the GM has to solve.

3) It's the player's fault for not knowing or not reading the rules entirely.

This is not the adult approach to take. It is childish and narrow minded, and lacks any empathy for others.

No, the arguments against it are:

1. If you want to play a game you got to put in a little bit of effort.

2. If you want to run a game you got to put in a little bit of effort.

No one is advocating reading the entire book before setting out to play.

But what you suggest is even weirder, what is the cut off?

"Charles, why do you have all sixes in your characteristics?"

"I skimmed through the book and saw that was the maximum you could take."

"But... No, not really. Ah, that's okay! Will fix it in 3 or 4 sessions."

To go further, given the way in which some talents work with dice pools, it's impossible to sit there and say the simple hieroglyphic probabilities on the dice mean X is not as good as Y, and this isn't balanced, blah blah blah. Certain Talents impact both the success curve, as well as, just how many are needed to be 'successful. Most skills only require 1 to 'succeed', so getting one's feather's ruffled over the fact that Bob has a 4.356% better chance of generating more successes than me is completely silly.

Smooth Talker is a prime example of an extreme 'force' multiplier talent on a given social check, for 5 xp in some trees, you increase your success rate 100% on a Triumph, Quartermaster gets you a 2nd rank for like 15 more xp and correspondingly a tripling of your successes on a Triumph. I'm sure what that does to the 5% 'I've been robbed' algebra you've posted, but for that social skill it capsizes it I'm pretty sure.

Pressure Point anyone? Add your Medicine skill ranks to damage, and it all sails though Soak like you have a lightsaber for a fist. Do the maximum number of successes matter at that point? Anyone will tear the hell out of targets with that Talent.

What is 'success' on a roll? A single damage point past Soak with a single Triumph using Improved Stunning Blow, and the opponent is Staggered. That fight is pretty close to over. Pretty successful in my mind. The point being having 15 more of something you don't need to actually win or 'succeed' is pointless math.

An advanced combat character probably has a # of Talents that burn Strain, so they're typically interested in generating A's as much, or more so than excessive successes, as the A's let them recover Strain, to buff their next attack, which will add more S's to their roll, or defend themselves and remove S's from the enemy, or both. More A's means handing themselves a Boost die on their next roll as well, which leads to even more A's, which leads to more 'success'.

Back to real life, a big strong guy with training, will always be better at hitting things than a small weak guy with similar training. They will never be balanced, they will never be equal, ever.

Again, you're proposing monkeying with something imo to alter something that doesn't need altering. You need to play the game more and worry about probabilities less.

Speaking as a designer myself, it is nearly impossible to perfectly balance any game. There are always imbalances, but as long as they are minor and essentially not a real issue - like this one - then it doesn't matter.

I often wonder why people think the developers didn't consider this when they were making the game. They obviously did, and decided in favor of good story and narrative. If you want to play a game where you can worry about being the best mathematically, go play a d20 game.

This whole thread is beginning to feel very autistic by the way (which I do not mean as offensive).

Speaking as a person who has scored on the high end of Aspergers (although I have no official diagnosis), I am still somewhat offended by your comment.

Some people want a balanced game. I'm suggesting it can be completely balanced.

No matter how much you might want an inherently balanced game, that is fundamentally impossible. Some of the skills are “better” than some of the others. Some of the attributes or talents are better than some of the others. Should we make micro-adjustments to how much they cost on this basis?

Can you mathematically calculate precisely how much better or worse they are? Not really, and even if you could, you couldn’t get everyone to agree with your assessment of how much better or worse a particular skill/talent/attribute is — not only will those numbers vary from person to person and game to game, they will vary over time with regards to the same people in the same game.

Stop trying to apply math to fix a problem that isn’t “broken”, and even if it was broken it is entirely subjective as to how broken it might be and therefore couldn’t possibly be fixed with math to begin with.

Some people want a balanced game. I'm suggesting it can be completely balanced.

At this point I can't help but think you're either pulling our legs (a polite form of the T-word), or you're so blinded by The Maths that you're taking this to a ridiculous extreme. If you enjoy The Maths, the by all means go for it, but I don't think you should fool yourself into believing you're helping anybody else.

Because this is how my conversation would go with a player:

"Hey GM, my character, in which I invested no XP at chargen into characteristics even though you told me to, seems to suck a bit compared to everybody else's character."

"Okay, let's take a look and rebuild him...better, strong, faster..."

Here's how yours apparently would go:

"Hi everybody, here are my new special rules for character creation that supersede the ones in the book. You didn't read those, but I expect you to read these."

"No."

3) It's the player's fault for not knowing or not reading the rules entirely.

This is not the adult approach to take. It is childish and narrow minded, and lacks any empathy for others.

No, it's just an acknowledgement of where the issue actually lies: with those who don't read the rules. It's not a huge sin, and is easily corrected, but that's still where the fault is.

As for "empathy", that seems ironic. We're the ones who initially advocated letting the players respec as the quickest and simplest solution.

No, the arguments against it are:

1. If you want to play a game you got to put in a little bit of effort.

2. If you want to run a game you got to put in a little bit of effort.

No one is advocating reading the entire book before setting out to play.

But what you suggest is even weirder, what is the cut off?

"Charles, why do you have all sixes in your characteristics?"

"I skimmed through the book and saw that was the maximum you could take."

"But... No, not really. Ah, that's okay! Will fix it in 3 or 4 sessions."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean

Some people want a balanced game. I'm suggesting it can be completely balanced.

At this point I can't help but think you're either pulling our legs (a polite form of the T-word), or you're so blinded by The Maths that you're taking this to a ridiculous extreme. If you enjoy The Maths, the by all means go for it, but I don't think you should fool yourself into believing you're helping anybody else.

Because this is how my conversation would go with a player:

"Hey GM, my character, in which I invested no XP at chargen into characteristics even though you told me to, seems to suck a bit compared to everybody else's character."

"Okay, let's take a look and rebuild him...better, strong, faster..."

Here's how yours apparently would go:

"Hi everybody, here are my new special rules for character creation that supersede the ones in the book. You didn't read those, but I expect you to read these."

"No."

3) It's the player's fault for not knowing or not reading the rules entirely.

This is not the adult approach to take. It is childish and narrow minded, and lacks any empathy for others.

No, it's just an acknowledgement of where the issue actually lies: with those who don't read the rules. It's not a huge sin, and is easily corrected, but that's still where the fault is.

As for "empathy", that seems ironic. We're the ones who initially advocated letting the players respec as the quickest and simplest solution.

I personally am done with the rain man thread. It's become the song that never ends.

To go further, given the way in which some talents work with dice pools, it's impossible to sit there and say the simple hieroglyphic probabilities on the dice mean X is not as good as Y, and this isn't balanced, blah blah blah. Certain Talents impact both the success curve, as well as, just how many are needed to be 'successful. Most skills only require 1 to 'succeed', so getting one's feather's ruffled over the fact that Bob has a 4.356% better chance of generating more successes than me is completely silly.

Smooth Talker is a prime example of an extreme 'force' multiplier talent on a given social check, for 5 xp in some trees, you increase your success rate 100% on a Triumph, Quartermaster gets you a 2nd rank for like 15 more xp and correspondingly a tripling of your successes on a Triumph. I'm sure what that does to the 5% 'I've been robbed' algebra you've posted, but for that social skill it capsizes it I'm pretty sure.

Pressure Point anyone? Add your Medicine skill ranks to damage, and it all sails though Soak like you have a lightsaber for a fist. Do the maximum number of successes matter at that point? Anyone will tear the hell out of targets with that Talent.

What is 'success' on a roll? A single damage point past Soak with a single Triumph using Improved Stunning Blow, and the opponent is Staggered. That fight is pretty close to over. Pretty successful in my mind. The point being having 15 more of something you don't need to actually win or 'succeed' is pointless math.

An advanced combat character probably has a # of Talents that burn Strain, so they're typically interested in generating A's as much, or more so than excessive successes, as the A's let them recover Strain, to buff their next attack, which will add more S's to their roll, or defend themselves and remove S's from the enemy, or both. More A's means handing themselves a Boost die on their next roll as well, which leads to even more A's, which leads to more 'success'.

Back to real life, a big strong guy with training, will always be better at hitting things than a small weak guy with similar training. They will never be balanced, they will never be equal, ever.

Again, you're proposing monkeying with something imo to alter something that doesn't need altering. You need to play the game more and worry about probabilities less.

Alright so I see three points made here (correct me if I'm wrong)

1) Talents change the math you did, they can make up for any perceived imbalances.

What I'm talking about is if two players go down the same specialization tree, but one puts starting points into characteristics and one puts starting points into skills, then if both starting putting xp into talents, the characteristic character will be necessarily better, because of math above, and because any advantage the talents provide, they are both getting the same ones, so the characteristic character continues to be better. Does that make sense?

2) Real life example: strong skilled guy will be better than a not as strong skilled guy. I'm okay with this happening in this game.

I have no argument against this. I guess it feels defeatist to me, just accepting that some player's characters will be better than others if they put points into characteristics at character creation, but at least it acknowledges that there can be a difference in power levels of characters.

3) I'm proposing monkeying with something that doesn't need altering

The math shows that one character can get 25% more advantages or 25% more successes if they put points into characteristics at the start. I would argue a 25% difference in character power level is worthy of thinking about ways to balance it better.

I'm trying to think of ways that some people might want to use to balance it further, but all I get in response is that I shouldn't change their beloved game in any way

No one has yet to suggest a new mechanic that might balance it (besides respecing). It doesn't matter whether it gets implemented or not, it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

I'm not the only one that agrees that EotE is great, and is much more balanced than any other RPG, but also that its not perfectly balanced, and that this change could possibly perfectly balance it.

The arguments against it are:

1) It's fine the way it is, the problem is very minimal.

The math proves that it exists. 25% difference in success rate or advantage rate is not minimal. Its minimal by DnD standards, but EotE is better than that.

2) This problem shouldn't happen, the GM or expert player will help them. It's the GM's fault if it does happen.

This is good as its step 1: admitting there is a problem. Yes the GM should stop this from happening, but there's still a problem in the game that the GM has to solve.

3) It's the player's fault for not knowing or not reading the rules entirely.

This is not the adult approach to take. It is childish and narrow minded, and lacks any empathy for others.

There is one huge flaw with your whole proposal which Whafrog has also brought up.

Your solution to this perceived problem is for the GM to introduce new rules that his players have to read separate from the core rules or explain these to their players to fix a 'problem' that can already be solved by pointing players to the existing rules and explaining them to the players. I don't see how this is a fix or solution at all since you can use the exact same process with the existing rules and not have the problem in the first place.

The ONLY benefit your rules provide is that they could be introduced after the fact and let people spend earned XP on characteristics after the start of the game. Except if the GM is willing to introduce this house rule then they are already the kind of GM that would sit down with a player that feels their character is not working as they envisioned and help them rebuild that character into something they are happy with. So again, the house rule is moot and unnecessary. If they aren't the kind of GM that would be willing to do this I would be highly surprised if they are the kind that would introduce your house rule into the mix either.

In short, the solution proposed tries to fix a perceived problem by making use of the exact same methods that could address the issue without introducing new rules into the mix at all. It is an unnecessary fix.

The rules themselves aren't the problem. They work perfectly well. The problem is people not reading and being familiar with the rules and the best way to fix that is to become familiar with the rules. The follow up to that is for the table to be focused on having fun as a group, and a good flexible GM will be willing to work with a player that wasn't familiar with the rules and finds they are suffering because of it even after the game has started and through that process the player and possibly GM become more familiar with the rules, thus addressing the problem for future games.