Hrmm, that works for my veiwpoint but to rules lawyer this I would point out the book specifies that you only have to pay the difference between what the skill is at currently... say mediocre (+0), and the rank you want to move it to... say Good (+3).  It says nothing about only being able to move it one rank at a time which would be more of a house rule not the other way around.  The book also mentions banking skill points just for this occurance in the example.  These are the cornerstones of my arguement and would like peeps to kick that shit over so I can get over it.  It really would be better for me if someone would demolish these arguements. 

Had a discussion with my GM about leveling stats because I suggested to another player that he should divid the skills into 5 groups of 5 skills each and organized them into skill groups I want most to I want least.  This becomes an idealized set of skills as in it's final incarnation, barring breaking the skill cap of +5.  I find it easier to deal with skills in this way as it lets you identify the top 5 and bottom 5 then work on sorting the final 15 into low med high. 

Anyway my GM says it's impossible to stack skills like that though as when leveling skills you need a staircase effect.  ie in order to raise a skill to 3 you need 3 skills at one, and two skills at 2 so that when your raise it to 3 the skills would look like this.

3
22
111

I say it is perfectly okay to have a skill tree that looks like this:

3
2
1

as this satisfies the supported skills structure fine.  We came the resolution that it doesn't matter as it will be forever before this actually becomes something to worry about but I'd like to make sure I'm not the one that is wrong.  So guys which is it.

First let me say:

1. It was Nicodemus (and you presumably knew that)

False, at the time of the incident i had read none of the books and it was my first time playing DFRPG.

I would also like to point out that my character wears leather gauntlets at all times as they are my Evocation Foci. However when i cited the same thing about skin contact and even referenced Thomas and his coin and how his gloves protected him he answered as follows "Thomas is a Supernatural Creature and Can't have a coin". Which may be true but he went to presume that gloves offer no protection against the coin or the Angel imprint unless they were on par with the sanctified cloth the Knights of the cross use to transport the coins.

I really appreciate the prompt feedback guys/gals. While I wasn't thrilled to take possession of the coin, I know my DM and no amount of feet stomping is going to change that. What bugs me is he threw this coin at me during RP and when I caught it his exact words "You're screwed now" and he immediately went into explaining the permanent penalties i would be taking to all social rolls, which i found a little unfair. While the benefits of using this coin are nice, my character can only be described as a lawful good paladin. He would NEVER utilize this power for anything and would sooner die before that happens.

In a recent session of DFRPG me and the Gm had a heated Debate about the semantics of what constitutes free will when picking up an order coin. My character a Warden Wizard had the coin flung at him by none other than Nicodemus himself. Does the action of Catching it without knowing what it is mean the fallen angel is now a part of me? or would i have had to make a conscious decision to take the coin in order for the fallen angel to take hold?