FWIW sentinel:racer/hot-shot/padawan makes a pretty good force sensitive but otherwise stereotypical typical smuggler (as a Collection of abilities, not being an actual padawan)

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I like how you seem to think I said that the Padawan Spec is the default to make a Jedi. I did not. I said the Padawan is the default starting place for the Jedi Career.

As to your sillyness about the Padawan being inexperience that is foolish If someone has advanced to the Knight spec they are not inexperienced. And in fact if they started in the Padawan spec they can do more than someone using the quick path to power optional rule and thus someone using that rule is less trained. And you keep house ruling stuff to try and win your argument.

You seem to mistake me acting the Quick path to power is an optional rule and should not be considered or assumed to be available for not liking the rule. I see the rule as for creating a less trained jedi as the optional rule says. And they dont have to start in Padawan. They could start in ANY spec. But if you want to be in the Jedi Career your options are Padawan. Or using an optional rule. But the optional rule would not be the default. the Default would be the Padawan Spec.

Whenever I make a long well thought out clear post that you don't have a logical counter to, you respond with hostility and mocking. Tone the hostility down 10 notches or so. Stop to listen and truly consider what other people have to say, you might learn something.

If you don't have something against the quick path to powe rule, why have you spent 4 pages of posts arguing against it, for some reason it seems very important issue to you. And whether or not you meant to, you've made very clear explicit statements like "The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career" at the very least it was a terrible choice of words on your part. You're not saying you meant something else you're claiming to not have said what you explicity said. And after objecting to me responding to what you said but claim not to say you keep repeating similar statements.

You have repeatedly said that quick path to power is not RAW because it's an optional rule, so why the heck are you getting upset about me directly addressing that? Just chill, and consider what other people have to say. I've spelled out a definition of RAW that you seem to object to, but haven't given a different definition. So what exactly do you mean by "it's not RAW" what meaning are you imbuing the word RAW with? You're obviously trying to communicate something because you keep repeating it.

Anyway that you're making the bolded claim above very much seems like you're not aware of the talents that are actually in the padawan spec.

Padawan talents themed as being an inexperienced novice

Adaptable

Something to prove

Sincerest flattery

Beginner's luck

Learning opportunity

You don't get to untake talents to free up xp when you take another spec. And even if you can avoid taking the talents, a tree that has that many counter to theme (high xp) talents doesn't help you fulfill a concept.

A tree with that many counter to theme high xp talents should not be considered the default place to start. The most appropriate to concept tree is the logical place to start...

It just occurred to me that we are using slightly different definitions of "default"... I'm using default to mean the natural or logical choice, you seem to be using it to mean avoids the use of optional rules.

You also seem to be munging those two definitions, you seem to be assuming that "avoiding the use of optional rules" is the natural or logical choice even when it's counter to character concept, but maybe that's because you're not aware of the talents in the padawan spec.

29 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Whenever I make a long well thought out clear post that you don't have a logical counter to, you respond with hostility and mocking. Tone the hostility down 10 notches or so. Stop to listen and truly consider what other people have to say, you might learn something.

If you don't have something against the quick path to powe rule, why have you spent 4 pages of posts arguing against it, for some reason it seems very important issue to you. And whether or not you meant to, you've made very clear explicit statements like "The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career" at the very least it was a terrible choice of words on your part. You're not saying you meant something else you're claiming to not have said what you explicity said. And after objecting to me responding to what you said but claim not to say you keep repeating similar statements.

You have repeatedly said that quick path to power is not RAW because it's an optional rule, so why the heck are you getting upset about me directly addressing that? Just chill, and consider what other people have to say. I've spelled out a definition of RAW that you seem to object to, but haven't given a different definition. So what exactly do you mean by "it's not RAW" what meaning are you imbuing the word RAW with? You're obviously trying to communicate something because you keep repeating it.

Anyway that you're making the bolded claim above very much seems like you're not aware of the talents that are actually in the padawan spec.

Padawan talents themed as being an inexperienced novice

Adaptable

Something to prove

Sincerest flattery

Beginner's luck

Learning opportunity

You don't get to untake talents to free up xp when you take another spec. And even if you can avoid taking the talents, a tree that has that many counter to theme (high xp) talents doesn't help you fulfill a concept.

A tree with that many counter to theme high xp talents should not be considered the default place to start. The most appropriate to concept tree is the logical place to start...

It just occurred to me that we are using slightly different definitions of "default"... I'm using default to mean the natural or logical choice, you seem to be using it to mean avoids the use of optional rules.

You also seem to be munging those two definitions, you seem to be assuming that "avoiding the use of optional rules" is the natural or logical choice even when it's counter to character concept, but maybe that's because you're not aware of the talents in the padawan spec.

And yet you missed my point. Good job. Now go look at what i said again and consider that just because a character has the talents you listed does not mean they are inexperienced. In fact if they have them and also have talents from the Knight tree they have more skill than if they just have the knight tree. You act like a character cant have more than one tree in a career or that they are defined by a single spec. Which is just silly. And yes i am mocking your weird hang up about the padawan tree because it is weird. And i am aware of the talents in the spec. Because i use them. I dont have a weird hang up about them. Basically you act like someone who can do multiplication is more skilled than someone who can do multiplication and addition because being able to do addition is less advanced.

And no i dont assume one should avoid using optional rules. Instead i dont assume the GM is going to use them unless they say they are. So the default would in fact be to not use the optional rule unless the GM gives the go ahead. You seem to assume that one is using the optional rule unless the gm says no.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

And yet you missed my point. Good job. Now go look at what i said again and consider that just because a character has the talents you listed does not mean they are inexperienced. In fact if they have them and also have talents from the Knight tree they have more skill than if they just have the knight tree. You act like a character cant have more than one tree in a career or that they are defined by a single spec. Which is just silly. And yes i am mocking your weird hang up about the padawan tree because it is weird. And i am aware of the talents in the spec. Because i use them. I dont have a weird hang up about them. Basically you act like someone who can do multiplication is more skilled than someone who can do multiplication and addition because being able to do addition is less advanced.

And no i dont assume one should avoid using optional rules. Instead i dont assume the GM is going to use them unless they say they are. So the default would in fact be to not use the optional rule unless the GM gives the go ahead. You seem to assume that one is using the optional rule unless the gm says no.

You seem young, inexperienced, and to be honest very immature. You're probably in high school because you should have learned the concept of "opportunity cost" economics 101 course (first year of undergrad). It's a pretty basic concept that you seem unable to grasp. IF they come for free, more talents and skills are of course better from a numerical perspective. From a concept perspective, they can still be detrimental. So apparently in addition to not grasping the concept of opportunity cost you're also more interested in numerics than character concept. But the point is they don't come for free (which can make them bad from a numerical perspective too), because what did you give up to get talents that are counter theme/concept?

I'll explain it to you simply, if you're going to get knight either way then the comparison is between padawan and whatever else you would have spent the xp on, for example niman-disciple or padawan-survivor both of which fit the experienced knight theme far better than padawan. And since I've yet to personally see any campaign last long enough to fill out 3 specs that would mean giving up niman-disciple and/or padawan-survivor to get padawan. If padawan is counter theme that's not a good trade.

Here's another illustration of opportunity cost. If you have 10 dollars in your wallet and you spend it on a burger fries and soda then you can't spend that to put gas in your car, or for bus fare, so you may end up walking home. That makes the cost of the burger, fries, and drink walking home.

It's been my experience that most GMs will work with a player to help them fulfill their character concept. Especially if there isn't a significant powe difference and there's not much difference in power level between a knight level padawan and a knight level knight.

52 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

You seem young, inexperienced, and to be honest very immature. You're probably in high school because you should have learned the concept of "opportunity cost" economics 101 course (first year of undergrad). It's a pretty basic concept that you seem unable to grasp. IF they come for free, more talents and skills are of course better from a numerical perspective. From a concept perspective, they can still be detrimental. So apparently in addition to not grasping the concept of opportunity cost you're also more interested in numerics than character concept. But the point is they don't come for free (which can make them bad from a numerical perspective too), because what did you give up to get talents that are counter theme/concept?

I'll explain it to you simply, if you're going to get knight either way then the comparison is between padawan and whatever else you would have spent the xp on, for example niman-disciple or padawan-survivor both of which fit the experienced knight theme far better than padawan. And since I've yet to personally see any campaign last long enough to fill out 3 specs that would mean giving up niman-disciple and/or padawan-survivor to get padawan. If padawan is counter theme that's not a good trade.

Here's another illustration of opportunity cost. If you have 10 dollars in your wallet and you spend it on a burger fries and soda then you can't spend that to put gas in your car, or for bus fare, so you may end up walking home. That makes the cost of the burger, fries, and drink walking home.

It's been my experience that most GMs will work with a player to help them fulfill their character concept. Especially if there isn't a significant powe difference and there's not much difference in power level between a knight level padawan and a knight level knight.

And here you go again with your assumption that using an optional rule is the default. It would not be. That is not to say your choice is wrong. It isn't. It just is not the default. And i am not young. I am just able to grasp the default would not be the the using an optional rule. The mistake you are making is thinking your way is the only way. It isnt. And it would be the default way. It is a valid way. It just isnt the default. You are just mad because we keep rightfully pointing out.your method is not the default or necessarily available.

Stop acting like your way it the only way.

37 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And here you go again with your assumption that using an optional rule is the default. It would not be. That is not to say your choice is wrong. It isn't. It just is not the default. And i am not young. I am just able to grasp the default would not be the the using an optional rule. The mistake you are making is thinking your way is the only way. It isnt. And it would be the default way. It is a valid way. It just isnt the default. You are just mad because we keep rightfully pointing out.your method is not the default or necessarily available.

Stop acting like your way it the only way.

First of all, my patience surpasses your immaturity. You have not been able to anger me. My patience usually surpasses @Tramp Graphics stubbornness. You are not a challenge.

Second. I'm not the one who has made exclusivity statements, I'm the one who has been contesting your and @Tramp Graphics exclusivity statements. On page 1 I said " While star ting as a padawan/teenager is A valid place to start a jedi's story, it is not the only valid place to s tart their story"

whereas on page 2 you said "The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career"

falsely accusing others of your own misdeeds doesn't win debates it just reveals your own immaturity, particularly when there is a written record of who said what.

if you really aren't young, then you don't have an excuse for your immaturity, inexperience, or failure to grasp basic concepts. Seriously, you should have taken the youth excuse, because I would have given you the benefit of the doubt that you'd eventually outgrow your current state.

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

First of all, my patience surpasses your immaturity. You have not been able to anger me. My patience usually surpasses @Tramp Graphics stubbornness. You are not a challenge.

Second. I'm not the one who has made exclusivity statements, I'm the one who has been contesting your and @Tramp Graphics exclusivity statements. On page 1 I said " While star ting as a padawan/teenager is A valid place to start a jedi's story, it is not the only valid place to s tart their story"

whereas on page 2 you said "The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career"

falsely accusing others of your own misdeeds doesn't win debates it just reveals your own immaturity, particularly when there is a written record of who said what.

if you really aren't young, then you don't have an excuse for your immaturity, inexperience, or failure to grasp basic concepts. Seriously, you should have taken the youth excuse, because I would have given you the benefit of the doubt that you'd eventually outgrow your current state.

Neither did I. You just wont except that you are taking statements that are not exclusive as exclusive. That is on you. I said the default way to use the Jedi Career is to start in Padawan. AS that is the only way to do it with out using an Optional Rule the GM MAY not allow. There is no other way to make a character using the Jedi Career with out using the it. That does not mean your way is not fine IF the GM allows it. But that is an important If. And not all of them allow it. We dont have any other specs in the Jedi Career that dont have a force rating requirement.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Neither did I. You just wont except that you are taking statements that are not exclusive as exclusive. That is on you. I said the default way to use the Jedi Career is to start in Padawan. AS that is the only way to do it with out using an Optional Rule the GM MAY not allow. There is no other way to make a character using the Jedi Career with out using the it. That does not mean your way is not fine IF the GM allows it. But that is an important If. And not all of them allow it. We dont have any other specs in the Jedi Career that dont have a force rating requirement.

Read the transcript, you literally said "The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career" verbatim word for word (I just bolded only valid). The words valid and default have very different meaning. And it's really hard to get more exclusive than "only valid." But even if you didn't mean to make an exclusivity statement, falsely accusing someone else of your own accidental mistake discredits your own claims.

No I did not. You took it that way. But that does not mean that I said it is the only way.

On 12/21/2019 at 5:09 AM, Daeglan said:

The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career. Yes there is an optional rule. But it is an opt ill onal rule that you need to clear with the GM first. And until the gm says go for.it advice should start with RAW

32 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Notice how that is not exclusive. As I mention the optional rule is an option IF the gm allows it. Padawan is the only way to use the Jedi Career with out using a rule the GM may not allow.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Notice how that is not exclusive. As I mention the optional rule is an option IF the gm allows it. Padawan is the only way to use the Jedi Career with out using a rule the GM may not allow.

Jedi is a career the GM may not allow at all.

But when you say "X is the only valid way to get Y", that means there are no other valid ways to get Y, that X is exclusively the only valid way to gey Y.

36 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Jedi is a career the GM may not allow at all.

But when you say "X is the only valid way to get Y", that means there are no other valid ways to get Y, that X is exclusively the only valid way to gey Y.

Well except I didnt say that. I said x is the only way to do y with out gm approval of an optional rule. If you can point to another spec in the Jedi Career that doesnt have a force rating requirement?

Dagger, I doubt you are coming back to this thread since the arrogant stubborn ones won’t stop derailing. If you are, did you feel you got decent answers? Would you like some more suggestions?

I am here enjoying the show.

Not really, but after the 1st session I am retooling and going to try the Padawan spec. After a while I think I will figure out the direction I want to go based on what happens and the parties needs. I still plan to dual wield sabers.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Well except I didnt say that. I said x is the only way to do y with out gm approval of an optional rule. If you can point to another spec in the Jedi Career that doesnt have a force rating requirement?

Verbatim you said

" The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career"

This clearly communicates that the quick path to power optional rule is not valid because it's not the only valid way according to you.

If you say that you didn't mean to make an exclusivity statement, that it was just an accidental and very poor choice of words, that could be believable.

But to say that you didn't make an exclusivity statement when it's incontrovertible that you did, seriously decreases the credibility of anything else you might say.

Here's a maturity lesson for you, There's no shame or stigma in admitting you made a mistake/were wrong. Taking responsibility for mistakes actually builds trust. But refusing to own up to your mistakes, makes you look irresponsible and dishonest.

39 minutes ago, OtterJethro said:

Dagger, I doubt you are coming back to this thread since the arrogant stubborn ones won’t stop derailing. If you are, did you feel you got decent answers? Would you like some more suggestions?

I'm much more patient than stubborn. Thinking that I could educate @Daegalen and impart wisdom through logical arguments may qualify as arrogance on my part. Point is my ego was not on the line and I felt no need to respond in kind to @Daeglan 's hostility/mockery. So patience and either confidence or possibly arrogance describes me.

40 minutes ago, daggertx said:

I am here enjoying the show.

Not really, but after the 1st session I am retooling and going to try the Padawan spec. After a while I think I will figure out the direction I want to go based on what happens and the parties needs. I still plan to dual wield sabers.

Glad I could help entertain you, I'll be here all week, tips are appreciated. 😁

42 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Verbatim you said

" The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career"

This clearly communicates that the quick path to power optional rule is not valid because it's not the only valid way according to you.

If you say that you didn't mean to make an exclusivity statement, that it was just an accidental and very poor choice of words, that could be believable.

But to say that you didn't make an exclusivity statement when it's incontrovertible that you did, seriously decreases the credibility of anything else you might say.

Here's a maturity lesson for you, There's no shame or stigma in admitting you made a mistake/were wrong. Taking responsibility for mistakes actually builds trust. But refusing to own up to your mistakes, makes you look irresponsible and dishonest.

Way to leave out the next part of the sentence because it counters your claim. Let me know when you are going to actually read everything i actually said. Which is a large part of why you are getting mocked. When you read only half of what a.person says and then claim they only said the part you quote. Ignoring the part you dont like doesnt make you mature.

9 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Way to leave out the next part of the sentence because it counters your claim. Let me know when you are going to actually read everything i actually said. Which is a large part of why you are getting mocked. When you read only half of what a.person says and then claim they only said the part you quote. Ignoring the part you dont like doesnt make you mature.

Go ahead, quote me saying that was " everything " you said or that you only said that sentence. Go on do it.

I know you can't because I didn't say it was everything you said.

When there is a written transcript that clearly debunks your false accusations, you seriously damage your credibility, you show yourself to be dishonest. And did think I wouldn't call you on outright lie like this?

I actually did read everything you wrote in this thread, your assumption that I did not is baseless and foolish. I only quoted the relevant part.

The rest of it wasn't relevant to the point because you did not say anything like "actually there is an optional that is also valid"

I will now quote the whole post, because it is now relevant to backing up my claim and debunking yours

" The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career. Yes there is an optional rule. But it is an opt ill onal rule that you need to clear with the GM first. And until the gm says go for.it advice should start with RAW"

So no where in that post do you state that the optional rule is also valid , however you are clearly claiming that the optional rule is not RAW.

Moreover you have repeatedly claimed the quick path to power isn't RAW throughout this thread which is clearly a false claim because

RAW refers to any rule written in an official book. It implies the rule has been sanctioned/blessed by the game developers. GMs are not obligated to use a rule just because it is RAW.

You have clearly imbued "RAW" with some other meaning, and I've already asked you, nicely at that, to provide the definition of RAW that you are using, but you haven't.

I think that you are habitually and intentionally loose with language, and you get upset when someone calls you on what you actually wrote because you want the freedom to post facto change/reinterpret your message by dramatically redefining the meaning of words.

A lot of criminals would like the same freedom to get around "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Unfortunately for you, although words can have multiple meanings, there is a limit to how far a sentence/paragraph can be reinterpreted. You have very clearly made an exclusivity claim.

15 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Go ahead, quote me saying that was " everything " you said or that you only said that sentence. Go on do it.

I know you can't because I didn't say it was everything you said.

When there is a written transcript that clearly debunks your false accusations, you seriously damage your credibility, you show yourself to be dishonest. And did think I wouldn't call you on outright lie like this?

I actually did read everything you wrote in this thread, your assumption that I did not is baseless and foolish. I only quoted the relevant part.

The rest of it wasn't relevant to the point because you did not say anything like "actually there is an optional that is also valid"

I will now quote the whole post, because it is now relevant to backing up my claim and debunking yours

" The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career. Yes there is an optional rule. But it is an opt ill onal rule that you need to clear with the GM first. And until the gm says go for.it advice should start with RAW"

So no where in that post do you state that the optional rule is also valid , however you are clearly claiming that the optional rule is not RAW.

Moreover you have repeatedly claimed the quick path to power isn't RAW throughout this thread which is clearly a false claim because

RAW refers to any rule written in an official book. It implies the rule has been sanctioned/blessed by the game developers. GMs are not obligated to use a rule just because it is RAW.

You have clearly imbued "RAW" with some other meaning, and I've already asked you, nicely at that, to provide the definition of RAW that you are using, but you haven't.

I think that you are habitually and intentionally loose with language, and you get upset when someone calls you on what you actually wrote because you want the freedom to post facto change/reinterpret your message by dramatically redefining the meaning of words.

A lot of criminals would like the same freedom to get around "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Unfortunately for you, although words can have multiple meanings, there is a limit to how far a sentence/paragraph can be reinterpreted. You have very clearly made an exclusivity claim.

Well except you didnt. You keep claiming i only said you can use the Padawan spec to start the Jedi Career. Which i didnt say. What i said was it is the only way without using an optional rule. Can you show me a different spec that doesnt have a force rating requirement? Can you show me a way tk do it with out an optional rule. The key part you are still ignoring is what you want nk is an optional rule. Show me a way to do it with out an optional rule. You cant because there isnt one.

17 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Well except you didnt. You keep claiming i only said you can use the Padawan spec to start the Jedi Career. Which i didnt say. What i said was it is the only way without using an optional rule. Can you show me a different spec that doesnt have a force rating requirement? Can you show me a way tk do it with out an optional rule. The key part you are still ignoring is what you want nk is an optional rule. Show me a way to do it with out an optional rule. You cant because there isnt one.

All rules are optional.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Well except you didnt. You keep claiming i only said you can use the Padawan spec to start the Jedi Career. Which i didnt say. What i said was it is the only way without using an optional rule. Can you show me a different spec that doesnt have a force rating requirement? Can you show me a way tk do it with out an optional rule. The key part you are still ignoring is what you want nk is an optional rule. Show me a way to do it with out an optional rule. You cant because there isnt one.

Exception I didn't what?

Ok liar quote me claiming that you only said people can use the padawan spec to start the jedi Career.

Go on quote me.

The thing is you can't because I didn't

I keep claiming that you said " The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career." Because that's what you verbatim said.

Now you aren't even being consistent with the reinterpretation of your own statement.

you reinterpret you saying your own statement to mean padawan is just the default and there is another valid option, but you reinterpret me quoting your statement to mean there is no other option at all. You can't have it both ways.

The thing is however you reinterpret your own statement, you are the one who said it and I've only quoted you saying it.

So whatever the statement I quoted you saying means, you are the only person responsible/guilty for saying it.

BTW If you're wondering what changed in how I approached this debate between up to yesterday and today, I was previously giving you the tolerance and leeway I would give a child. I am now treating you as an immature and dishonest adult because you claimed not to be young.

25 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Exception I didn't what?

Ok liar quote me claiming that you only said people can use the padawan spec to start the jedi Career.

Go on quote me.

The thing is you can't because I didn't

I keep claiming that you said " The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career." Because that's what you verbatim said.

Now you aren't even being consistent with the reinterpretation of your own statement.

you reinterpret you saying your own statement to mean padawan is just the default and there is another valid option, but you reinterpret me quoting your statement to mean there is no other option at all. You can't have it both ways.

The thing is however you reinterpret your own statement, you are the one who said it and I've only quoted you saying it.

So whatever the statement I quoted you saying means, you are the only person responsible/guilty for saying it.

BTW If you're wondering what changed in how I approached this debate between up to yesterday and today, I was previously giving you the tolerance and leeway I would give a child. I am now treating you as an immature and dishonest adult because you claimed not to be young.

There you go ignoring the second half of that sentence. Again