The question I have on this topic is if you have already spent XP on a non-class skill... say you are a Bounty Hunter Assassin and bought 2 ranks in Ranged (Light) but then get Gageteer as a new specialization. do I get the 10 extra XP I spent on Ranged (light) back?

That was answered "No" in an episode of Order 66.

So it becomes a penalty to take a specialization after taking some of it's class skills? that doesn't seem right.

There's no penalty involved there. It costs a certain amount to buy into your Nth specialization. That amount never changes. Imagine the paperwork involved in tracking how much you spent for each rank of every skill, and determining how much each specialization would 'refund'. Not a big deal if you buy into the spec early, but what if you're 400 XP into a game. Do you just suddenly get 3 new specializations for 'free' because you've bought some skill upgrades in the past?

You gained something for the skill points you spent. Improved capability in a non-career skill. The fact that you've just made it a career skill doesn't mean you didn't get the benefit of having those ranks *before* they were career skills. Had you bought into the spec *before* putting the ranks into the skills, you wouldn't have been able to make use of that improved capability yet.

The question I have on this topic is if you have already spent XP on a non-class skill... say you are a Bounty Hunter Assassin and bought 2 ranks in Ranged (Light) but then get Gageteer as a new specialization. do I get the 10 extra XP I spent on Ranged (light) back?

That was answered "No" in an episode of Order 66.

So it becomes a penalty to take a specialization after taking some of it's class skills? that doesn't seem right.

It's not a penalty! It's a bonus! Now that you took the new spec, your skill ranks are 5XP cheaper then they were before!

-EF

I'll be honest, I do prefer the "cleaness" of the order you buy things in not mattering. Mostly because I don't like player's having to think really far ahead in what they are buying to eek the most out of their xp. It feels less organic.

And I don't think it would be that much of an issue personally. I mean, count up how many noncareer skill ranks you have in the specialization you are considering and multiply by five and subtract that from the cost. Even the CHEAPEST specialization would require at least 4 ranks in those skills to get it for free. Unless your characters spend a ton of xp on noncareer skills all in one grouping, I doubt that it would do much.

As a house rule I don't think it would be an issue really. (It does make humans a bit better, due to starting with 2 ranks in 2 different noncareer skills, giving them a good jump on a possible second specialization, and any species that gives a rank to a skill that won't be in that characters career skill list in the beginning but is on a specializaion they are interested in as well).

I'll be honest, I do prefer the "cleaness" of the order you buy things in not mattering. Mostly because I don't like player's having to think really far ahead in what they are buying to eek the most out of their xp. It feels less organic.

And I don't think it would be that much of an issue personally. I mean, count up how many noncareer skill ranks you have in the specialization you are considering and multiply by five and subtract that from the cost.

But what happens when you take another specialization beyond that? You've already 'gotten credit' for some skill ranks you bought, but which skills, and how many/which ranks? You *lose* cleanness in an XP based system when you have to keep track of *when* you spent the XP.

I'll be honest, I do prefer the "cleaness" of the order you buy things in not mattering. Mostly because I don't like player's having to think really far ahead in what they are buying to eek the most out of their xp. It feels less organic.

And I don't think it would be that much of an issue personally. I mean, count up how many noncareer skill ranks you have in the specialization you are considering and multiply by five and subtract that from the cost.

But what happens when you take another specialization beyond that? You've already 'gotten credit' for some skill ranks you bought, but which skills, and how many/which ranks? You *lose* cleanness in an XP based system when you have to keep track of *when* you spent the XP.

Uh, if you've already gotten the discount, they are now career skills since you bought a specialization that has them. You don't have to track it because once you marked it as a career skill when you added the specialization you got a discount on you've already tracked it.

If anything, doing it this way requires you to track when you bought things LESS, because you can recalculate your total xp spent without having to think "did I buy that rank of gunnery before or after I bought the Mercenary Soldier specialization"

The only thing you would have to absolutely keep track of is doubling up of starting career/specialization/species points that let you start with 2 in a skill before spending any XP, as that can effect your total xp spent. (also on the off chance that you've spent more extra xp in noncareer skill ranks in a specialization than would be required to buy the specialization, but I think that is much rarer than people think. 4 ranks would be required for your FIRST secondary specialization, even if it was in the same career, and its 2 additional ranks per each one after, plus 2 more ranks if its out of career.)

I'll be honest, I do prefer the "cleaness" of the order you buy things in not mattering. Mostly because I don't like player's having to think really far ahead in what they are buying to eek the most out of their xp. It feels less organic.

Then make sure your players know not to do that. It sounds like your players are min/maxing everything at character creation and that isn't what this game is about. Its a major pet peeve for me when a player tries to eek out every advantage and not play it like an RPG of growth and discovery. There are plenty of games that let you do that. This isn't one of them.

If you want this to be super organic, give him a discount in the cost to "unlock" the specialization in which he has been buying non-career ranks. Same example first in RP form and then technical/character modification form:

RP: A doctor has been traveling with a group for several months and has scraped by in a number of fire fights. He's patched up wounded while dodging blaster fire. He's picked up a little knowledge but still struggles to hit the broad side of a moisture evaporator. He decides that an extra gun might help shorten the fire fight thereby reducing the patching up he has to do. He starts waking up early to practice shooting at the range. He gets some training from the group's mercenary soldier. He spends months working on it. Over time, he's more confident with his shooting and he can help take out an opponent or two before he has to see to a comrade. When he's done, he can go back to blasting for the cause.

Technical: A player makes a Colonist: Doctor. He spends most of his points in areas like medicine, cool, knowledge, etc. He contributes to battles by patching people up and making blind shots from behind a barrel, hoping he doesn't hurt someone in his group. He decides he wants to be more effective in combat so, after an adventure, he buys a rank in Ranged Light. He's a little better. A couple sessions later, he buys another rank. He's more effective but still focusing on medical endeavors. A couple sessions later, he decides to spend a chunk of XP on buying into the Scoundrel tree. There's some cross over skills and, most importantly, he can start buying Ranged Light for cheaper. As a reward for organically growing his character, because he has 2 ranks in Ranged Light, you discount the unlock cost (20 XP in this case) to 10 XP. There's his tax back but it makes sense why he isn't paying it and you aren't having to do a bunch of math. It doesn't always have to be exactly what he paid but 10 XP off when its clear the character has been growing in this direction is a good reward for good RP.

I'll be honest, I do prefer the "cleaness" of the order you buy things in not mattering. Mostly because I don't like player's having to think really far ahead in what they are buying to eek the most out of their xp. It feels less organic.

If you want this to be super organic, give him a discount in the cost to "unlock" the specialization in which he has been buying non-career ranks. Same example first in RP form and then technical/character modification form:

You mean the exact thing I suggested directly afterwords that you cut out of the post you quoted?

Also you know what my pet peeve is: "If you care about the mechanics and getting the most out of your xp, you don't understand the point of the game." Spending more XP in the long run because of the order you buy things doesn't make anyone a better roleplayer and doesn't make the game inherently better. It doesn't necessarly make it worse either. Its preference. I suggested a preference towards having order not matter to cost, and suggested a houserule that was pretty much exactly what you stated. I don't get your issue.

This forum has a real issue with deriding anyone who suggests a house rule that isn't in line with their "personal" opinion of how the game should be run. Usually it starts with something like "well it sounds like your players are minmaxers" or "if they understood the game" or "its a narrative game it doesn't need rules".

I'll be honest, I do prefer the "cleaness" of the order you buy things in not mattering. Mostly because I don't like player's having to think really far ahead in what they are buying to eek the most out of their xp. It feels less organic.

If you want this to be super organic, give him a discount in the cost to "unlock" the specialization in which he has been buying non-career ranks. Same example first in RP form and then technical/character modification form:

You mean the exact thing I suggested directly afterwords that you cut out of the post you quoted?

Also you know what my pet peeve is: "If you care about the mechanics and getting the most out of your xp, you don't understand the point of the game." Spending more XP in the long run because of the order you buy things doesn't make anyone a better roleplayer and doesn't make the game inherently better. It doesn't necessarly make it worse either. Its preference. I suggested a preference towards having order not matter to cost, and suggested a houserule that was pretty much exactly what you stated. I don't get your issue.

This forum has a real issue with deriding anyone who suggests a house rule that isn't in line with their "personal" opinion of how the game should be run. Usually it starts with something like "well it sounds like your players are minmaxers" or "if they understood the game" or "its a narrative game it doesn't need rules".

That's not exactly what I said. Mine doesn't involve math.

My issue is that you don't need to house rule it. You're adding unneeded complexity to an already well designed system. There's a point to the tax. You are gaining a benefit outside of your career. Just because you train into that career months down the line doesn't mean you should get that XP back. You were using the skill the entire time. If I spend four weeks learning to code HTML then quit my non-web designer job and become a web deisgner, I don't get the money back I spent on an HTML class. Before you say "this isn't real life" I'm aware of that, but the example holds true. A PC doesn't get the time back he spent training that skill just because he picked up a few jobs that need it.

No one said it doesn't need rules, but the looser a rules system is, the more necessary they are. If your players want to min/max, knock yourself out. Its your game. I don't think it should be played that way. Its not a competitive game. Even calling it a "game" feels like a stretch. Its collaborative story-telling with dice.

You're welcome to disapprove of my opinion just like I'm welcome to tell you that there's no need to house rule it.

No one said it doesn't need rules, but the looser a rules system is, the more necessary they are. If your players want to min/max, knock yourself out. Its your game. I don't think it should be played that way.

This is the bull I'm talking about. Just because I find it simpler that total xp spent stays the same no matter which direction you buy things in, does not mean that I'm a minmaxer who is playing competitively. I find that personally, for my group, it opens up people to NOT think about what they are buying from a mechanics standpoint and just buy things that make sense in character, because from a mechanics standpoint it would no longer MATTER whether you bought the specialization first or not. It also let's me recheck total xp spent with a simple spreadsheet without needing to track what order they bought things in.

Its absolute, 100% elitist bull to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you on how the game runs of being a minmaxer. Its a way to knock down anyone who disagrees with you with insults rather than talking about the actual thing they are discussing. Its a way to set yourself up as discussing from a perspective of being the purer player.

No one said it doesn't need rules, but the looser a rules system is, the more necessary they are. If your players want to min/max, knock yourself out. Its your game. I don't think it should be played that way.

This is the bull I'm talking about. Just because I find it simpler that total xp spent stays the same no matter which direction you buy things in, does not mean that I'm a minmaxer who is playing competitively. I find that personally, for my group, it opens up people to NOT think about what they are buying from a mechanics standpoint and just buy things that make sense in character, because from a mechanics standpoint it would no longer MATTER whether you bought the specialization first or not. It also let's me recheck total xp spent with a simple spreadsheet without needing to track what order they bought things in.

Its absolute, 100% elitist bull to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you on how the game runs of being a minmaxer. Its a way to knock down anyone who disagrees with you with insults rather than talking about the actual thing they are discussing. Its a way to set yourself up as discussing from a perspective of being the purer player.

1) Calm down. You are obviously associating the term "min/max" with some horrible offensive term. There is a time and a place for it, as I've said before. I've played games that require it to win. Several guys in my group are that style of gamer. Nine games out of ten I have people eeking every last ounce of power out of their plays. I see EotE as that one out of ten game where I can tell my players to not do that.

I'm implying min/max, not because of how you want to track XP, but because it appears that way to me when a player is looking MONTHS down the road at how his XP is spent and tracking the most efficient way to do it instead of wondering what his character is going to be doing tomorrow. If you want to add that level of complexity because it encourages your players to not min/max then go for it. Anything to keep people focused on the growth and role play instead of gaming the system.

2) I don't automatically assume you're min/maxing because I disagree with you. I explain above why I thought that was the case (incidentally not accusing you at all of doing that, but rather implying your players do). It seems as though you agree that your players have that inclination, hence the desire for the house rule. I think the actions of your players is a min/max tendency - not your desire to refund XP because they bought into a specialization and made something a career skill. If you need to cut that off at the pass somehow, go for it. I said this in a BGG post I made earlier today: if I have to house rule a game to enjoy it, I just won't play it. I use house rules to fix something broken in either my players or the game in a game I already enjoy.

3) Calm down.

No one said it doesn't need rules, but the looser a rules system is, the more necessary they are. If your players want to min/max, knock yourself out. Its your game. I don't think it should be played that way.

This is the bull I'm talking about. Just because I find it simpler that total xp spent stays the same no matter which direction you buy things in, does not mean that I'm a minmaxer who is playing competitively. I find that personally, for my group, it opens up people to NOT think about what they are buying from a mechanics standpoint and just buy things that make sense in character, because from a mechanics standpoint it would no longer MATTER whether you bought the specialization first or not. It also let's me recheck total xp spent with a simple spreadsheet without needing to track what order they bought things in.

Its absolute, 100% elitist bull to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you on how the game runs of being a minmaxer. Its a way to knock down anyone who disagrees with you with insults rather than talking about the actual thing they are discussing. Its a way to set yourself up as discussing from a perspective of being the purer player.

1) Calm down. You are obviously associating the term "min/max" with some horrible offensive term. There is a time and a place for it, as I've said before. I've played games that require it to win. Several guys in my group are that style of gamer. Nine games out of ten I have people eeking every last ounce of power out of their plays. I see EotE as that one out of ten game where I can tell my players to not do that.

I'm implying min/max, not because of how you want to track XP, but because it appears that way to me when a player is looking MONTHS down the road at how his XP is spent and tracking the most efficient way to do it instead of wondering what his character is going to be doing tomorrow. If you want to add that level of complexity because it encourages your players to not min/max then go for it. Anything to keep people focused on the growth and role play instead of gaming the system.

2) I don't automatically assume you're min/maxing because I disagree with you. I explain above why I thought that was the case (incidentally not accusing you at all of doing that, but rather implying your players do). It seems as though you agree that your players have that inclination, hence the desire for the house rule. I think the actions of your players is a min/max tendency - not your desire to refund XP because they bought into a specialization and made something a career skill. If you need to cut that off at the pass somehow, go for it. I said this in a BGG post I made earlier today: if I have to house rule a game to enjoy it, I just won't play it. I use house rules to fix something broken in either my players or the game in a game I already enjoy.

3) Calm down.

No one said it doesn't need rules, but the looser a rules system is, the more necessary they are. If your players want to min/max, knock yourself out. Its your game. I don't think it should be played that way.

This is the bull I'm talking about. Just because I find it simpler that total xp spent stays the same no matter which direction you buy things in, does not mean that I'm a minmaxer who is playing competitively. I find that personally, for my group, it opens up people to NOT think about what they are buying from a mechanics standpoint and just buy things that make sense in character, because from a mechanics standpoint it would no longer MATTER whether you bought the specialization first or not. It also let's me recheck total xp spent with a simple spreadsheet without needing to track what order they bought things in.

Its absolute, 100% elitist bull to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you on how the game runs of being a minmaxer. Its a way to knock down anyone who disagrees with you with insults rather than talking about the actual thing they are discussing. Its a way to set yourself up as discussing from a perspective of being the purer player.

1) Calm down. You are obviously associating the term "min/max" with some horrible offensive term. There is a time and a place for it, as I've said before. I've played games that require it to win. Several guys in my group are that style of gamer. Nine games out of ten I have people eeking every last ounce of power out of their plays. I see EotE as that one out of ten game where I can tell my players to not do that.

I'm implying min/max, not because of how you want to track XP, but because it appears that way to me when a player is looking MONTHS down the road at how his XP is spent and tracking the most efficient way to do it instead of wondering what his character is going to be doing tomorrow. If you want to add that level of complexity because it encourages your players to not min/max then go for it. Anything to keep people focused on the growth and role play instead of gaming the system.

2) I don't automatically assume you're min/maxing because I disagree with you. I explain above why I thought that was the case (incidentally not accusing you at all of doing that, but rather implying your players do). It seems as though you agree that your players have that inclination, hence the desire for the house rule. I think the actions of your players is a min/max tendency - not your desire to refund XP because they bought into a specialization and made something a career skill. If you need to cut that off at the pass somehow, go for it. I said this in a BGG post I made earlier today: if I have to house rule a game to enjoy it, I just won't play it. I use house rules to fix something broken in either my players or the game in a game I already enjoy.

3) Calm down.

Beginning and ending your post with "Calm down." is presumptuous and belittling. You are attempting to make your argument look better by trying to discredit him. This, f course, feeds back into why he's upset with you in the first place. Are you intentionally trying to bait him?

Please explain in more detail how I am attempting to "discredit" him because that's not happening at all. He does in fact need to calm down because he's throwing around a lot of unnecessary language and vitriol over what appears to be a misunderstanding. If you want to discuss belittling others, let's talk about you feeling the need to list the people you ignore in your forum signature.

No one said it doesn't need rules, but the looser a rules system is, the more necessary they are. If your players want to min/max, knock yourself out. Its your game. I don't think it should be played that way.

This is the bull I'm talking about. Just because I find it simpler that total xp spent stays the same no matter which direction you buy things in, does not mean that I'm a minmaxer who is playing competitively. I find that personally, for my group, it opens up people to NOT think about what they are buying from a mechanics standpoint and just buy things that make sense in character, because from a mechanics standpoint it would no longer MATTER whether you bought the specialization first or not. It also let's me recheck total xp spent with a simple spreadsheet without needing to track what order they bought things in.

Its absolute, 100% elitist bull to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you on how the game runs of being a minmaxer. Its a way to knock down anyone who disagrees with you with insults rather than talking about the actual thing they are discussing. Its a way to set yourself up as discussing from a perspective of being the purer player.

1) Calm down. You are obviously associating the term "min/max" with some horrible offensive term. There is a time and a place for it, as I've said before. I've played games that require it to win. Several guys in my group are that style of gamer. Nine games out of ten I have people eeking every last ounce of power out of their plays. I see EotE as that one out of ten game where I can tell my players to not do that.

I'm implying min/max, not because of how you want to track XP, but because it appears that way to me when a player is looking MONTHS down the road at how his XP is spent and tracking the most efficient way to do it instead of wondering what his character is going to be doing tomorrow. If you want to add that level of complexity because it encourages your players to not min/max then go for it. Anything to keep people focused on the growth and role play instead of gaming the system.

2) I don't automatically assume you're min/maxing because I disagree with you. I explain above why I thought that was the case (incidentally not accusing you at all of doing that, but rather implying your players do). It seems as though you agree that your players have that inclination, hence the desire for the house rule. I think the actions of your players is a min/max tendency - not your desire to refund XP because they bought into a specialization and made something a career skill. If you need to cut that off at the pass somehow, go for it. I said this in a BGG post I made earlier today: if I have to house rule a game to enjoy it, I just won't play it. I use house rules to fix something broken in either my players or the game in a game I already enjoy.

3) Calm down.

Beginning and ending your post with "Calm down." is presumptuous and belittling. You are attempting to make your argument look better by trying to discredit him. This, f course, feeds back into why he's upset with you in the first place. Are you intentionally trying to bait him?

Please explain in more detail how I am attempting to "discredit" him because that's not happening at all. He does in fact need to calm down because he's throwing around a lot of unnecessary language and vitriol over what appears to be a misunderstanding. If you want to discuss belittling others, let's talk about you feeling the need to list the people you ignore in your forum signature.

My issue with this RAW is it encourages you to spend XP in a specific order, which may not be how you see your character developing. Studying a skill some, and then later deciding to commit yourself to the specialization seems like a reasonable roleplaying path, but this system (slightly) discourages it. As of now my doctor has picked up the piloting specialization, but with no ranks in piloting yet. I have developed an in-game reasoning for this, but it seems more logical to do it the other way (skills then specialization). You may call this min/maxing, but it is what the system encourages. If there were a good reason for preferring this order it would be fine, but I just don't see the reasoning.

I like the HTML analogy above, but I think it works both ways. If I learn HTML during my baking career, that should make it all the easier (fewer XP) to enter the web-development field. Giving a "refund" on the extra skill XP seems entirely reasonable.

I also think the order of spending XP is somewhat of an abstraction. It would seem developing a specialization as a pilot would require gaining ranks in piloting simultaneously, if not before.

I also have a distaste for the history dependent builds (like Savage Worlds), where two characters can have all the same qualities, except one is slightly ahead because of the order things were taken. This easy discount rule (if I am not mistaken, suggested by both main adversaries in this thread) seems entirely reasonable.

The problem with the discount is that you can have a discount that is higher than the cost of the new spec. It's not hard, just buy 5 total ranks of soon-to-be-career skills, and that gives you a 25xp discount for a 20xp spec. You still have a discrepancy between two characters who took different paths, and end up doing a bunch of extra tracking for the same result.

A better way to solve this would be to change the nature of career vs non-career skills. For example, all skills cost the same, but non-career skills can only be raised to 2. Simple, no fuss.

The problem with the discount is that you can have a discount that is higher than the cost of the new spec. It's not hard, just buy 5 total ranks of soon-to-be-career skills, and that gives you a 25xp discount for a 20xp spec. You still have a discrepancy between two characters who took different paths, and end up doing a bunch of extra tracking for the same result.

A better way to solve this would be to change the nature of career vs non-career skills. For example, all skills cost the same, but non-career skills can only be raised to 2. Simple, no fuss.

5 ranks in noncareer skills would be the minimum possible to go over the cost, and that is if it was a specialization inside your career. That would cost at minimum (not counting human or other species that ups a skill you needed) 55 xp (10 per rank 1 in 4 different skills, 15 for rank 2 in one). I'd consider this much more of an edge case really.

If you are spending 55 xp into the exact 4 skills needed for a specialization that was

A. Inside your career

B. Not overlapping any existing career skills

C. Fits your character well enough that you spent them out of career

I can't figure out why you weren't already looking at the specialization after your 4th skill raise.

The XP numbers spent inflate from here. In the edge case that that happened, hell, I'd just give them 5 extra xp, it doesn't hurt anything. (and if you say "But you are giving them 5 xp for free" not really, they are getting 5 xp at the cost of their next specialization tree costing 10 extra xp).

Capping the skills at 2 is actually more restrictive though. What if a character just wants 3 ranks in a noncareer skill? Having to buy into a specialization tree just for that seems odd.

Basically, I think the discount also works in my head from a story standpoint. You don't just poof magically learn a new specialization and then everything else is easier, you work hard at the skills necessary for the specialization, and boom, you hit an epiphany and gain access to the tree.

I can't figure out why you weren't already looking at the specialization after your 4th skill raise.

...

Capping the skills at 2 is actually more restrictive though. What if a character just wants 3 ranks in a noncareer skill? Having to buy into a specialization tree just for that seems odd.

Either it's obvious that someone investing deeply into skills will buy into the spec, or it's an oddity. You can't argue it both ways.

But hey if you want to make your game more complex, when there are simpler and cleaner alternatives out there, it's your table.

I can't figure out why you weren't already looking at the specialization after your 4th skill raise.

...

Capping the skills at 2 is actually more restrictive though. What if a character just wants 3 ranks in a noncareer skill? Having to buy into a specialization tree just for that seems odd.

Either it's obvious that someone investing deeply into skills will buy into the spec, or it's an oddity. You can't argue it both ways.

But hey if you want to make your game more complex, when there are simpler and cleaner alternatives out there, it's your table.

Buying more than 4 ranks in noncareer skills into a specialization inside your career when you have only one specialization isn't equivalent to wanting 3 ranks in say, Ranged (Light) while being Technician (Mechanic, Outlaw Tech).

3 Ranks in Ranged (Light) means you spent 15 extra xp total into something you wanted, and you would have had to spend at least 40 xp to get another tree.

5 Ranks in noncareer skills is at least 25 extra xp, and it only becomes an issue if its A. In your career, and B. you have only your initial specialization, and C. You are suddenly thinking of taking the tree after your fifth rank purchase and somehow weren't thinking of it when you bought your fourth.

The two are not a similar level of investment, or similar situations.

Also going with the discount doesn't restrict what can be made, you can make any character you can make without the house rule, while the restriction of maxing out at 2 does.

I wouldn't refund the xp just on the basis that you aren't just buying into the specialization for it's skills but also to accesss to it's talents, regardless if you plan on getting them or not.

I wouldn't refund the xp just on the basis that you aren't just buying into the specialization for it's skills but also to accesss to it's talents, regardless if you plan on getting them or not.

Plus the fact that, at the time of buying the skills, if they're out of class, they're out of class. You don't suddenly get the time spent practising back once you take another spec.

If you buy the skills before the spec, no, you don't get the XP back. Yes, that means you can be penalised for buying things in a certain order. However, there's so little difference, does it really matter? You got the utility out of the skills when you had them prior to getting the spec, that's worth the extra XP (since you'd have had to have done without the extra Prof dice from having the skill if you'd just waited to get the spec before getting the skill).

I wouldn't refund the xp just on the basis that you aren't just buying into the specialization for it's skills but also to accesss to it's talents, regardless if you plan on getting them or not.

Plus the fact that, at the time of buying the skills, if they're out of class, they're out of class. You don't suddenly get the time spent practising back once you take another spec.

That isn't the logic of my house rule it all. The logic of it isn't that you get the time back you put into the skill, its that if you spend a bunch of time learning to pilot a ship and to use shipbased weapons, you will have an easier time picking up the pilot spec than if you are going in without a clue.

Its letting practicing non-career skills lay the groundwork for learning a specialization they apply to, not magically regaining time you spent on the skills in the first place.

Ok but what about the player that increases a couple of his non-career skills but doesn't buy a new spec. Why is he being penalised for adding flavour to his character but choosing not to go completely against his core concept?

This rule is akin to a player hedging his bets and saving up on XP (as it will be refunded) for the point he might want to take a new specialisation. He would actually be better off saving the XP and then buying the specialisation out right if he thinks that he might want to get lots of ranks in those skills.

Ok but what about the player that increases a couple of his non-career skills but doesn't buy a new spec. Why is he being penalised for adding flavour to his character but choosing not to go completely against his core concept?

This rule is akin to a player hedging his bets and saving up on XP (as it will be refunded) for the point he might want to take a new specialisation. He would actually be better off saving the XP and then buying the specialisation out right if he thinks that he might want to get lots of ranks in those skills.

How is he being penalized? Also, how is buying another spec going against your core concept? If anything not multi specing is self penalizing for flavor, which is perfectly OK but the player should realize what they are doing before making that choice. Several specializations have similar function AND none of them have to be taken literally. A colonist doctor who has made a life long dedication to healing and serving others has many flavor reasons to dip into: both other colonist trees for the extra knowledge and skills, including 2 possible ranks of well rounded which gives access to another 4 total skills; any of the three technician trees, computer use in a futuristic medical field can be highly helpful not to mention the ability to modify/build/invent new medical tech of his own.

AND the player might, I don't know, evolve and grow which might mean they suddenly have a desire to learn piloting. Just buying into the skill doesn't make them a pilot just as merely buying a rank in melee doesn't make you a vibrosword expert.

AND the player might, I don't know, evolve and grow which might mean they suddenly have a desire to learn piloting. Just buying into the skill doesn't make them a pilot just as merely buying a rank in melee doesn't make you a vibrosword expert.

This is one of the most important things to keep in mind: just because, from a technical standpoint, you decide one day to buy the skill and it takes 5 seconds to doesn't mean your character spent those 5s gaining those skills or considering his interest. At its best, its a process that your character grows into regardless of how long it takes to buy the spec or skills.

I'll be honest, I do prefer the "cleaness" of the order you buy things in not mattering. Mostly because I don't like player's having to think really far ahead in what they are buying to eek the most out of their xp. It feels less organic.

And I don't think it would be that much of an issue personally. I mean, count up how many noncareer skill ranks you have in the specialization you are considering and multiply by five and subtract that from the cost.

But what happens when you take another specialization beyond that? You've already 'gotten credit' for some skill ranks you bought, but which skills, and how many/which ranks? You *lose* cleanness in an XP based system when you have to keep track of *when* you spent the XP.

Uh, if you've already gotten the discount, they are now career skills since you bought a specialization that has them. You don't have to track it because once you marked it as a career skill when you added the specialization you got a discount on you've already tracked it.

If anything, doing it this way requires you to track when you bought things LESS, because you can recalculate your total xp spent without having to think "did I buy that rank of gunnery before or after I bought the Mercenary Soldier specialization"

The only thing you would have to absolutely keep track of is doubling up of starting career/specialization/species points that let you start with 2 in a skill before spending any XP, as that can effect your total xp spent. (also on the off chance that you've spent more extra xp in noncareer skill ranks in a specialization than would be required to buy the specialization, but I think that is much rarer than people think. 4 ranks would be required for your FIRST secondary specialization, even if it was in the same career, and its 2 additional ranks per each one after, plus 2 more ranks if its out of career.)

Doc, the Weasel pointed out exactly what I was referring to, and you blew it off as an edge case. But the thing is, you've created that edge case in the first place, and then are claiming that the edge case doesn't matter. You've gone from no need to track, to needing to track, and needing to track which ranks have already been 'credited' by the resulting discount(s).

If you want to buy skills as cheaply as possible, never buy ranks in a non-career skill without first buying into a specialization that adds it to your list. That's pretty simple. Unless you're not going to do 4 or more total ranks in skills that are covered by that new spec, it's more expensive to go that route.

Would you argue that a PC should get part of the career buy-in cost back when they don't buy 4 ranks of skills that are made career skills by the addition of that spec, and they never buy a talent from it? If not, then you're 'penalizing' that PC, by your logic.

As for the claim that what I'm saying 'adds complexity and tracking'...

How does tracking which non-career skills you've bought into, and when, so that you can calculate how much of a 'discount' you get on a new spec purchase involve less tracking than simply spending the points, according to the cost when you spent them?

One involves spending the XP on whatever skills you want, then later recalculating costs after the fact (potentially multiple times), and remembering which non-spec skills you took as your Human species bonus. The other only involves spending the XP on whatever skills you want.

You're adding the complexity and the need to track when purchases were made, and claiming that it reduces complexity and the need to track that information somehow, when by RAW, you don't need to track that *at all*.