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.

He's being 'penalized' in exactly the same way the character who doesn't get a discount on the new spec was being 'penalized'. Either not at all (my argument), or by having to pay full price for something based on the cost when he purchased it (the 'get a discount on a later purchase based on when I bought something else' argument).

Take three identical starting PCs, Aurek, Besh, and Cresh.

Each spends XP on 2 ranks in the same non-career skills.

Each now earns 20 XP.

Aurek *doesn't* buy into a new specialization. He has earned 20 XP.

Besh buys into a new, specialization for 20 XP (according to the standard rules). He has earned 20 XP.

Cresh buys into a new, specialization for 20 XP, and gets a 'refund' of 10 XP. He has somehow earned 30 XP (20 earned, plus the 10 refunded).

Either Cresh is being given a *bonus*, or Aurek and Besh are being 'penalized'.

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*.

Actually, you missed the point I made. I made the point its an edge case and it IS an edge case, a very very edge case, and as I said: In that very edge case, hell I'll go ahead and throw them the extra 5 xp from getting a 25 xp discount on a 20 xp specialization buy. 1. its not likely to happen that often, 2. it doesn't matter, because had he bought them in a different order it would have cost him the same thing. 3. It lets the house rule run easier. 4. there is no way to abuse it, "Oh man, look at that he just suddenly gained 20 xp for taking a specialization where he had spent 100 xp in skills!" Uh, yeah, so he bought rank 2 in 4 different skills before buying the specialization... Had he not done that he would have had the same amount of xp...

There is also no reason to track human skills, I already said that yes, humans would get a slight boost into getting a secondary specialization. So there is no reason to track it

The only thing I would bother tracking is if you had doubled up on any skills at creation from either career/specializaion free points or , but that has nothing to do with the specializations discount and more to do with the fact that I LIKE BEING ABLE TO CHECK THE XP SPENT AGAINST TOTAL SPENT. There are only two things that prevent you from being able to calculate from total xp spent 1. double up from creation, 2. buying non-career skills before buying a specialization they are in.

So by the way I prefer tracking xp (by total, using an excel sheet), my house rule actually DOES make it simpler. For me. Because of the way I track things.

I don't give a **** if you do it another way. I'm throwing a house rule out there for people who want to do it differently. It doesn't break anything. Depending on how you track xp in your game it doesn't even make it more complex.

If you think that I'm adding a bunch of tracking you are WRONG because you are making assumptions I flat out already said were wrong.

Discount on specialization = number of currently non-career skills ranks inside that specialization x 5, discount can cause a net gain.

There is no tracking necessary to make that work. None. zilch, nada, NOTHING. The only reason I mentioned tracking was to keep up with total xp spent, which I personally like being able to do regardless of house rules, and if you want to be able to do that you have to track more if you aren't using the house rule.

And a lot of this to me is because I think: Buying skills => Buying Spec makes more sense thematically than Buying Spec => Buying Skills.

If you don't, fine, do it by the book. I'm not saying that the book is wrong, I'm saying I DON'T LIKE IT THE WAY THE BOOK IS WRITTEN PERSONALLY AND ITS MY DAMNED GAME I'M RUNNING. I posted it because someone else expressed an interest in doing it another way as well.

This is getting unnecessarily aggressive.

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.

Just for clarity, my point was in response to the proposed house rule not against RAW as I don't see the current XP costs to be a problem. I was trying to demonstrate that by introducing the house rule you end up with a knock-on effect of other people feeling penalised because the guy that bought a new spec suddenly gets a shed load of previously spent XP back.

People keep thinking of it like the cost of skills are retroactively changing when you buy the spec. They aren't. The cost of the SPEC is changing. Just like when you buy a spec the cost of any specs afterwards changes.

Whether the player that bought two ranks of non-career skills buys into that spec, the spec STILL got cheaper. He's gaining the benefit, he just isn't buying it. And there can be plenty of reasons not to:

A. He doesn't have enough ranks to make it free, at which point it would just be buying a spec that he may never buy talents or more skill ranks in which would then cost him to gain nothing.

B. He has an eye on another spec, and adding an unrelated spec that he does get discounts on will make his new spec cost more.

The effect of the house rule I made is two-fold:

1. It makes order of purchase unimportant in the long run, freeing people to have to plan less for their character's future growth.

2. It encourages skill purchase before spec purchase. To me personally, this feels more organic. "I have interest in learning the pilot spec, so I'm going to practice piloting".

Now, some think now there is no reason to buy spec first, but there still is! If you need the talents faster than the skills you are still faster to buy the spec directly.

Personally I wouldn't want one of my players buying into a spec just for the skills especially since most skills appear in multiple specs. You would be buying into the spec for the talents AND the skills.

Personally I wouldn't want one of my players buying into a spec just for the skills especially since most skills appear in multiple specs. You would be buying into the spec for the talents AND the skills.

Even with the discount, its not a good idea to buy a spec unless you want the talents related, even if you could pick it up for free. Remember there is another cost besides straight xp for picking up a spec: All additional specs cost 10 more XP.

This is getting unnecessarily aggressive.

Apologies. I'm typing with a burnt hand which is probably causing me to be more on edge. Of course I probably shouldn't be typing at all, but I can't figure out how to stop...

Personally I wouldn't want one of my players buying into a spec just for the skills especially since most skills appear in multiple specs. You would be buying into the spec for the talents AND the skills.

Even with the discount, its not a good idea to buy a spec unless you want the talents related, even if you could pick it up for free. Remember there is another cost besides straight xp for picking up a spec: All additional specs cost 10 more XP.

But that 10xp doesn't really matter as you could have just picked up a new spec for free so you are at least 20xp ahead of the game? All you would then need to do to get a discount is to see what new career skills are in a prospective spec and then start buying ranks in them. So you could end up with another free spec?

But that 10xp doesn't really matter as you could have just picked up a new spec for free so you are at least 20xp ahead of the game? All you would then need to do to get a discount is to see what new career skills are in a prospective spec and then start buying ranks in them. So you could end up with another free spec?

... And?

You would end up in the same spot you would have had you bought the spec first. They aren't for "free". You don't gain anything that you wouldn't have gained by just buying it in a different order. It doesn't put you ahead of the game at all. The only thing it does is let you pick up skills before picking up the spec without costing yourself xp in the long run.

Ok, I'm going to run down an example, though I shouldn't because my hand is currently scorched and I'm supposed to be resting it. Using the house rules I'm going to create two characters, Aurek and Besh. Both are Smuggler (Scoundrels) both are interested in picking up some ranks in piloting skills, the pilot tree, and at least one rank in Skilled Jockey (man that -1 handling on the ship is annoying. Both already have ranks in Pilot (Space) and since its already a class skill it doesn't give them any help Aurek is going to buy skill ranks and take the discount, Besh is going to buy the spec first. I'll show that BOTH OF THEM have advantages.

First Session: +15 XP

Aurek: Buys one rank in astrogation (5 xp remaining)

Besh: Buys nothing (15xp remaining)

At this point Aurek is one rank in Astrogation head. Very little in all honesty.

Second Session +15 XP

Aurek buys one rank in gunnery and one rank in piloting (planetary) (0xp remaining)

Besh buys the Pilot spec, a rank in skilled jockey, and one rank in astrogation (0xp remaining)

At this point Aurek has one rank in gunnery and one rank in piloting (planetery) over Besh. But Besh has a rank in skilled jockey.

Third Session +15 XP

Aurek buys one rank in Astrogation, then takes the pilot tree for free (4 ranks in noncareer skills within the specialization -20xp) (0xp remaining)

Besh buys one rank in gunnery and one rank in piloting (planetary) (5 xp remaining)

At this point Aurek has an extra point in Astrogation, but Besh still has the skilled jockey rank over Aurek.

Fourth Session +15 XP

Aurek buys the skilled jockey talent and another rank of gunnery (0 XP remaining)

Besh buys one rank of gunnery and one rank of astrogation (0 XP remaining)

Both characters now have the same thing. And neither had a REAL advantage over the other. Yes, Aurek had some skills earlier, but Besh had the edge over him in getting the talent earlier. Its a choice. Which do you want more at the moment, the talent or the skills. And had more talents been included, it would have swung more towards each having different things at different times. And if I hadn't been picking lowest hanging fruit on skills it could have been more stark. What if they had no interest in buying Astrogation up, maybe someone else was availiable for that in the group. Nowhere did Aurek somehow get AHEAD in XP. He ended up with the same things, with the same amount of XP awarded.

Compare this to the standard rule. Aurek would ALWAYS be behind if he chose the direction he did. There is no "choice" mechanically. Buying the spec first is the only logical choice.

But that 10xp doesn't really matter as you could have just picked up a new spec for free so you are at least 20xp ahead of the game? All you would then need to do to get a discount is to see what new career skills are in a prospective spec and then start buying ranks in them. So you could end up with another free spec?

... And?

You would end up in the same spot you would have had you bought the spec first. They aren't for "free". You don't gain anything that you wouldn't have gained by just buying it in a different order. It doesn't put you ahead of the game at all. The only thing it does is let you pick up skills before picking up the spec without costing yourself xp in the long run.

Ok, I'm going to run down an example, though I shouldn't because my hand is currently scorched and I'm supposed to be resting it. Using the house rules I'm going to create two characters, Aurek and Besh. Both are Smuggler (Scoundrels) both are interested in picking up some ranks in piloting skills, the pilot tree, and at least one rank in Skilled Jockey (man that -1 handling on the ship is annoying. Both already have ranks in Pilot (Space) and since its already a class skill it doesn't give them any help Aurek is going to buy skill ranks and take the discount, Besh is going to buy the spec first. I'll show that BOTH OF THEM have advantages.

First Session: +15 XP

Aurek: Buys one rank in astrogation (5 xp remaining)

Besh: Buys nothing (15xp remaining)

At this point Aurek is one rank in Astrogation head. Very little in all honesty.

Second Session +15 XP

Aurek buys one rank in gunnery and one rank in piloting (planetary) (0xp remaining)

Besh buys the Pilot spec, a rank in skilled jockey, and one rank in astrogation (0xp remaining)

At this point Aurek has one rank in gunnery and one rank in piloting (planetery) over Besh. But Besh has a rank in skilled jockey.

Third Session +15 XP

Aurek buys one rank in Astrogation, then takes the pilot tree for free (4 ranks in noncareer skills within the specialization -20xp) (0xp remaining)

Besh buys one rank in gunnery and one rank in piloting (planetary) (5 xp remaining)

At this point Aurek has an extra point in Astrogation, but Besh still has the skilled jockey rank over Aurek.

Fourth Session +15 XP

Aurek buys the skilled jockey talent and another rank of gunnery (0 XP remaining)

Besh buys one rank of gunnery and one rank of astrogation (0 XP remaining)

Both characters now have the same thing. And neither had a REAL advantage over the other. Yes, Aurek had some skills earlier, but Besh had the edge over him in getting the talent earlier. Its a choice. Which do you want more at the moment, the talent or the skills. And had more talents been included, it would have swung more towards each having different things at different times. And if I hadn't been picking lowest hanging fruit on skills it could have been more stark. What if they had no interest in buying Astrogation up, maybe someone else was availiable for that in the group. Nowhere did Aurek somehow get AHEAD in XP. He ended up with the same things, with the same amount of XP awarded.

Compare this to the standard rule. Aurek would ALWAYS be behind if he chose the direction he did. There is no "choice" mechanically. Buying the spec first is the only logical choice.

Aurek wasn't 'behind' Besh when he had those extra skill ranks for a few sessions. *THAT* is the benefit to buying ranks in a non-career skill, even if you later buy into a specialization that would make them career skills.

The player makes the comparison between an immediate benefit (the skill rank *now*), or a longer term benefit (the skill ranks *cheaper* in the future). Depending on their desires, either of those is a valid choice. If you 'refund' the skill points or 'discount' the specializations, you're giving an additional benefit to the version where you *already* got the immediate benefit, and *not* providing a corresponding benefit to the version where you *didn't* get the immediate benefit.

Buying the spec first is only the logical choice if you know (or are pretty sure) you're going to put 4 ranks into non-career skills covered by that specialization. If you don't think you are, or aren't sure, it is every bit as logical to buy the skill ranks you need *without* first spending those 20 XP.

Again, RAW has the scenario balanced as 'Benefit Now' vs. 'Benefit Later'. You have it balanced as 'Benefit Now *AND* Later' vs. 'Benefit Later'. You may as well just drop the extra cost for non-career skills if you want that effect. It has the same end result, without adding any of the tracking you keep taking about (and then claiming doesn't need to happen).

Again, RAW has the scenario balanced as 'Benefit Now' vs. 'Benefit Later'. You have it balanced as 'Benefit Now *AND* Later' vs. 'Benefit Later'. You may as well just drop the extra cost for non-career skills if you want that effect. It has the same end result, without adding any of the tracking you keep taking about (and then claiming doesn't need to happen).

You need to actually read what I'm typing please.

1. Both had benefits. Besh had access to talents faster, Aurek had access to skills faster, all without costing themselves in the long run. The idea that Aurek gets all the benefits with my house rule is absolutely wrong. You could actually just read my last post were I absolutely SHOWED it.

2. Specialization cost = 10 x number of specializations you would have after taking it - (5 * ranks in currently non-career skills listed on nonspecializations) + 10 if out of career, total can result in a net gain requires NO TRACKING NONE, ABSOLUTELY NONE, STOP MAKING THAT UP, I HAVE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN IT REQUIRES NO TRACKING AND YOU ARE EITHER NOT READING, NOT UNDERSTANDING, OR STRAIGHT UP LYING. Here I'm either having to assume you either aren't reading, are stupid, or are actively malicious. None of these are flattering to you. So Stop.

3. Uh, no, just because you can later pick up a specialization for reduced cost because of your extra expenditure, doesn't mean that it is always the right choice to, so leaving the current non-career cost is fine. There are times you will want to buy points in non-career skills in skills you have no interest in taking a specialization to match, and despite what people are thinking, the discount never makes a specialization "free". The only way to assume that is to know EXACTLY how many specializations you plan on taking, and making sure you take more skill ranks in those skills to not only reduce the cost to zero, but to also give you +10 x the number of other specializations you will EVER TAKE.

I realize I come off agitated. There is good reason I'm agitated. Why? Because you are actively saying things I've already shown are wrong. Yes, I'm getting hostile. Why? Because you are acting smug as all hell about something when you are either not reading what I'm writing or you are actively being malicious towards me.

I swear some people on this board have an attitude of "the game is perfect as is, no table should ever have house rules, because the rules are perfection!"

Ok, here's another angle, what if one character buys a new spec that only has skills that he currently has as career skills? Would he then get a discount? Why should this spec not get a discount if he already has ranks in all the skills (some careers/specs double up so this could happen)?

There is also the issue with the order that specs are taken, eg; taking doctor as your third spec would cost more than taking doctor as your second spec, regardless of when you bought ranks in the non-career skill of medicine. So the discount is effectively worth less later.

Why not just make all skills career skills from the get go, this would mean that you only need to buy specs to get the talents, keeping the cost the same for everyone?

On the other hand to all of this, if you and your group are happy with this house rule (and I see absolutely no reason a player would be unhappy with this!), its your game and you know what works and what doesn't, so just go ahead and have fun buddy!

Ok, here's another angle, what if one character buys a new spec that only has skills that he currently has as career skills? Would he then get a discount? Why should this spec not get a discount if he already has ranks in all the skills (some careers/specs double up so this could happen)?

No, he wouldn't. It is possibly an odd thing to rationalize, but no more odd to rationalize than the RAW where buying a specialization and possibly talents into something you have no skills in at all is more efficient.

There is also the issue with the order that specs are taken, eg; taking doctor as your third spec would cost more than taking doctor as your second spec, regardless of when you bought ranks in the non-career skill of medicine. So the discount is effectively worth less later.

This is no different from RAW. Yes the third spec costs more than the second spec. That happens whether you have the house rule or not. The discount is not worth less, the spec just costs more. If you have 3 noncareer ranks in medicine, and you want the doctor specialization, that is a 15 xp discount whether the specialization costs you 20 or 100 due to other factors that 15 xp discount is still a 15 xp discount.

Why not just make all skills career skills from the get go, this would mean that you only need to buy specs to get the talents, keeping the cost the same for everyone?

Because there is still good reasons to not buy a spec, even if you could get it for free. You stil have to consider the added cost of 10xp added to every additional spec you want. Also, it slows down the purchase of non-career skills until you get the specialization, making buying the specialization FIRST to get talents earlier still a very valid choice.

On the other hand to all of this, if you and your group are happy with this house rule (and I see absolutely no reason a player would be unhappy with this!), its your game and you know what works and what doesn't, so just go ahead and have fun buddy!

Thank you.

But that 10xp doesn't really matter as you could have just picked up a new spec for free so you are at least 20xp ahead of the game? All you would then need to do to get a discount is to see what new career skills are in a prospective spec and then start buying ranks in them. So you could end up with another free spec?

... And?

You would end up in the same spot you would have had you bought the spec first. They aren't for "free". You don't gain anything that you wouldn't have gained by just buying it in a different order. It doesn't put you ahead of the game at all. The only thing it does is let you pick up skills before picking up the spec without costing yourself xp in the long run.

But you're *not* in the same spot, except when you only view the results through the lens of the final snapshot. You're in a *similar* spot, but not the same spot, and it's those differences that people are trying to point out to you.

In point of fact, the character who took ranks in the non-career skills *before* buying into the spec did gain something over the character who bought into the spec before buying those skill ranks. He gained the benefit of those ranks earlier in his career. That is the benefit to buying a rank (or a few ranks) in non-career skills before buying the specialization. Your proposed house rule *retains* that benefit, but then *strips* the benefit of the cost savings which you get by buying into the spec before buying those skill ranks.

So, in the guise of 'not penalizing' one route, you are *adding* a penalty to the other route. That's what we're pointing out.

Well, that and your obsession with discussing what you need to track to do this, and how you track it in an excel spreadsheet, while claiming there is nothing to track. (Before you go all shrill on me again, go back and search for the words 'track' and 'tracking' in your own posts. You'll see the back-to-back statements you made talking about what and how you track what is necessary to calculate your proposed discount, right next to the ones about how there is nothing to track.)

I actually understand where you're coming from. Saga Edition was *very* 'retroactive-friendly', but that worked because nothing past initial attribute construction actually had a point cost. You gained access to things through open 'slots' which could fit a feat, or a talent. Point-buy systems, are innately *not* 'retroactive-friendly', because the order in which things are purchased can effect the net cost of those things. This is especially true where one of the balance factors is limiting access to certain things based on other things by way of cost, which is something that EotE does, and which you're trying to both *keep* and *eliminate* at the same time.

Regardless, I'm done in this conversation, because it's clear (despite your protestations) that you're both uninterested in the feedback to your proposed house rule, and taking said feedback as a personal attack.

I actually understand where you're coming from. Saga Edition was *very* 'retroactive-friendly', but that worked because nothing past initial attribute construction actually had a point cost. You gained access to things through open 'slots' which could fit a feat, or a talent. Point-buy systems, are innately *not* 'retroactive-friendly', because the order in which things are purchased can effect the net cost of those things. This is especially true where one of the balance factors is limiting access to certain things based on other things by way of cost, which is something that EotE does, and which you're trying to both *keep* and *eliminate* at the same time.

I think that's been one of the bigger hurdles for folks coming over from Saga Edition, which as you said is very retro-active friendly by design (something Rodney Thompson admitted more than once during his Order 66 podcast appearances). I've got a couple friends that had some issues with this, again being used to Saga Edition (which for one was the first RPG she'd ever played).

But seeing as how Saga Edition only had so many "open slots" for a PC to work with, it kinda had to be retro-active friendly; the only thing missing was rules to "re-train" ala D&D4e, and that was something a lot of GMs (self included) made use of as a house rule, particularly when Saga Edition books were still being produced to account for new material.

With point-buy systems being far more open-ended by their very nature, a retroactive quality simply isn't needed, One, it would need to be tracked (when did I buy those ranks in that skill again?), but the overall "benefit" really isn't worth the hassle unless the PC has bought a lot of ranks in non-career skills, in which case the GM should have suggested that they just buy the career to start with.

Regardless, I'm done in this conversation, because it's clear (despite your protestations) that you're both uninterested in the feedback to your proposed house rule, and taking said feedback as a personal attack.

And its clear you have no intention of actually reading the posts I make. The tracking had to do with how I personally track experience in my game, It has NOTHING to do with the proposed house rule, other than from the specific way I track experience it actually does make one less thing to track. Tracking of total xp is something I DO ANYWAY, whether its RAW OR HOUSERULED, becuase I PREFER IT. The only reason tracking was brought up was because its something I DO. Its not something the house rule makes NECESSARY.

Nothing in the house rule itself requires you to track anything, and if it does, how about you tell me what it requires you to track, instead of just saying "It requires you to track something" ACTUALLY SPELL OUT WHAT IT REQUIRES YOU TO TRACK. Tell me in what situation you would be required to track anything with the rule of:

Specialization cost = 10 * total number of specializations you would have after purchase - (5 * ranks in currently non-career skills in specialization) + 10 if out of career, this can result in a net gain of experience.

Tell me, EXACTLY in what situation where this would require tracking. Not some vague "it would require tracking" name the situation, and explain it. Because the reason I'm taking it as an attack is that you are making me repeat myself over and over and over again on the same things to tell you that it ISN'T TRUE, yet you insist it is without backing it up AT ALL.

You do not, ever ever have to track anything with this house rule. Nothing. Nada, Zip. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about this: PROVE ME WRONG. Stop just saying NUHUH NUHUH, NUHUH, NUHUH, and actually show a situation where I'm wrong. It should be easy right? For me to prove myself right, I would have to show every possible situation under the sun, for you to prove me wrong, all you have to do is show ONE instance where I'm wrong.

Until someone actually comes up with a SINGLE example that shows me wrong about having to track anything with the house rule AS I HAVE IT WRITTEN ABOVE, I refuse to respond to further accusations that my house rule requires any tracking at all, because it doesn't and all you are doing is showing your own ignorance of either what I'm posting or of the ability to do math.

I'm not reacting hostile to my house rule being criticized, I'm reacting hostile to my house rule being criticized for things that AREN'T TRUE, REPEATEDLY, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO ACTUALLY BACK IT UP. Bring the damned evidence. If you think it requires tracking, SHOW THE SITUATION WHERE IT DOES.

As to your other point: I suppose you missed the whole part of the analysis where with the discount house rule, people who go skills first do get the benefit of skills earlier, but people who buy the specs first have the benefit of buying talents earlier. Talents can be very big deals. In some cases much more so than a single skill upgrade (which you will notice is the most Besh was ever really behind Aurek in my example post). Both approaches with the house rule have advantages.

On the other side, without the house rule, there is VERY LITTLE advantage of buying skills in a specialization you are interested in before the specialization. Yes, you get the advantage of a few upgraded dice a session or two early, but compare in my example how little time it takes Besh to catch up on the skills, all while getting a key talent earlier.

I do not see why so many people have an aversion to multiple paths to the same destination requiring the same amount of total XP.

Would a human get back points for the two non-career skills gained from his species when he takes a specialization that includes them? Would other species get back points for their species-gained skill? Of so, it makes humans even more attractive. If not, then you do need to track which skills gained free ranks.

Would a human get back points for the two non-career skills gained from his species when he takes a specialization that includes them? Would other species get back points for their species-gained skill? Of so, it makes humans even more attractive. If not, then you do need to track which skills gained free ranks.

I said in an earlier post that this would make humans a bit more attractive, it would also make a species that gains a bonus in an outside skill you might want to later pick up in a specialization more attractive. That was in an aside and not something that was repeated, so I don't blame you for missing me saying that.

I admit that if you consider those two things as detrimental consequences, it is a flaw, but I don't personally find it concerning at my table.

So no, I wouldn't bother tracking it.

Every house rule will have consequences, and I'm not against talking about those consequences. I just want to discuss consequences that actually happen. This is one that is true, and something that anyone considering the house rule should think about, but I consider it acceptable for me personally.

Would a human get back points for the two non-career skills gained from his species when he takes a specialization that includes them? Would other species get back points for their species-gained skill? Of so, it makes humans even more attractive. If not, then you do need to track which skills gained free ranks.

Sam Stewart answered a related question:

Of course, if you don't like the answer, do it however you want.

Sam Stewart answered a related question:

Q: If I buy a rank in a non-career skill and it later becomes a career skill, do I get refunded the additional "out of career" cost I paid when I purchased that rank?

A: No, you do not get a refund. You are better off buying the specialization first and then putting ranks into its skills afterward.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/87276-some-rules-questions-answered-by-sam-stewart/

Of course, if you don't like the answer, do it however you want.

Or you could read the thread and actually understand that we are discussing a proposed house rule and actually do understand what the rules as written say.

EDIT: Or not.

EDIT: Or I could simply not feed a troll.

... I would love to know how expecting someone to read at minimum the last page of a thread before posting in it constitutes being a troll.

I think your bar for accusing someone of being a troll is monumentally small if that's the case.

You swooped in, read one post out of context and then posted something that makes no sense in context because you didn't bother to even read the two posts on either side of it.

Of course, if you don't like the answer, do it however you want.

Which is what he's doing. He'd already admitted it was a house rule for his group from the get-go, so on that respect Sam's answer doesn't really mean much other than to reinforce that what he's doing is a house rule.

I agree with most other folks that it sounds like too much work tracking things for too little benefit, but if he's happy with the work involved and the group likes it, more power to them.

I agree with most other folks that it sounds like too much work tracking things for too little benefit, but if he's happy with the work involved and the group likes it, more power to them.

Please tell me what I'm having to track extra.

I've made huge points about this already. If there is added tracking, list ONE situation with added tracking. ONE. All it takes for you to be right is to actually have ONE case.

I'm getting irritated in this thread because everyone keeps saying "you will have to do x" over and over and over again, and providing ZERO examples of why I would have to do x. I'm tired of restating the same thing 80 times.

Provide ONE example of a situation where I would have to track anything.