48 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.

No Keith. That is not what he said. He said that unless the GM allows the Short Path to Power rule , which is explicitly an OPTIONAL rule which requires GM approval, then Padawan is the only option for a starting spec when taking the Jedi career.

20 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

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

Actually that's the whole sentence. There are other sentences in the paragraph, though.

In the other sentences in the paragraph you do not say anything to the effect of "actually the optional rule is valid too" but you do falsely claim it's not RAW, which only intensifies the exclusivity of the statement. The paragraph as a whole is more damaging to your case than just that one sentence, but it is the only sentence I need to quote to make the point.

You are the only person responsible for what you said. And you have made very strong exclusivity statements. Me quoting you does not me responsible for what you said.

Another thing you fail to take into account with starting with Padawan , Keith, is that you only need a small handful of the talents in it in order to get to the Force Rating talent in the tree, at a XP cost of at most 45 XP. To get the Force Rating you only need: QuickDraw>Well Rounded>Sense Danger>Force Rating or Quick Draw>Well Rounded>Valuable Facts>Force Rating. You don’t need to take any more talents from that spec in order to qualify for Knight . So all those other talents you’re complaining about not being conducive to your “concept” are irrelevant anyway because you don’t need to take them to qualify for Knight . You only need four talents from Padawan to qualify for Knight .

Further, your whole “economics of concept” reeks of power gaming. Do you really think all of the talents my F&D conversion of Korath are “necessary” for the character? No. They were necessary in order to get the the talents that are important to the concept. If you want perfect “economy of concept” when it comes to talents, play Genesis . This system was pretty much designed to prevent such “economy of concept” power gaming.

On 12/20/2019 at 9:09 PM, 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

@Tramp Graphics The above is exactly what he said.

I don't know why that you keep insisting that he didn't say it.

However I know that you meant

"That's not what he meant and I'm going to blame anyone who accurately reads his words as having misread it instead of blaming him for misspeaking/miswriting"

However to break it down for you

In the first sentence he says padawan is the only valid way

In no other sentences does he say "actually the optional rule is valid too"

In the last sentence he clearly and falsely communicates the claim that the quick path to power rule is not RAW

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

He is clearly imbuing RAW with some other meaning but he has declined to provide the definition he was using.

The point is he's not even being consistent with how he's interpreting his own sentence.

He now claims that when he said it, it meant that only valid way means "the default way but there's another valid way" but when I quote saying it it means "the only way period".

Whatever he claims the sentence means would be much more believable if it picked a single definition and stuck with it.

10 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

@Tramp Graphics The above is exactly what he said.

I don't know why that you keep insisting that he didn't say it.

However I know that you meant

"That's not what he meant and I'm going to blame anyone who accurately reads his words as having misread it instead of blaming him for misspeaking/miswriting"

However to break it down for you

In the first sentence he says padawan is the only valid way

In no other sentences does he say "actually the optional rule is valid too"

In the last sentence he clearly and falsely communicates the claim that the quick path to power rule is not RAW

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

He is clearly imbuing RAW with some other meaning but he has declined to provide the definition he was using.

The point is he's not even being consistent with how he's interpreting his own sentence.

He now claims that when he said it, it meant that only valid way means "the default way but there's another valid way" but when I quote saying it it means "the only way period".

Whatever he claims the sentence means would be much more believable if it picked a single definition and stuck with it.

And there you quote me withoutnconprehending the rest. Ignoring everything after the sentence you are fixated o the doesnt make you right.

16 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Another thing you fail to take into account with starting with Padawan , Keith, is that you only need a small handful of the talents in it in order to get to the Force Rating talent in the tree, at a XP cost of at most 45 XP. To get the Force Rating you only need: QuickDraw>Well Rounded>Sense Danger>Force Rating or Quick Draw>Well Rounded>Valuable Facts>Force Rating. You don’t need to take any more talents from that spec in order to qualify for Knight . So all those other talents you’re complaining about not being conducive to your “concept” are irrelevant anyway because you don’t need to take them to qualify for Knight . You only need four talents from Padawan to qualify for Knight .

Further, your whole “economics of concept” reeks of power gaming. Do you really think all of the talents my F&D conversion of Korath are “necessary” for the character? No. They were necessary in order to get the the talents that are important to the concept. If you want perfect “economy of concept” when it comes to talents, play Genesis . This system was pretty much designed to prevent such “economy of concept” power gaming.

check your math on the xp cost, there'd be another 20 xp for taking the knight spec, and another +10 xp per spec after that, niman-disciple and padawan-survivor in this instance, so the total cost is a minimum of 80 xp, but none of that is starting xp. To be clear that's the cost of the DELAY OF CONCEPT not the xp saved by starting as knight.

The cost of the quick path to power is 30 STARTING xp, it means not raising an attribute from 2 to 3 so it's an anti-dedication talent. The cost to replace the starting xp attribute increase via a dedication is a minimum of 100 xp (buying straight down a column) worth of talents probably more (assuming a concept driven choice of specs rather than simply a straight shot to dedication) plus the cost of another spec so assuming knight/niman-disciple/padawan survivor the cost of a 4th spec would be a minimum of 40 xp, probably 50 xp. That 140+ earned xp is the real cost in earned xp of starting as knight compared to the only 80 xp cost to delay the concept.

What that means is I'm willing to pay a permanent cost of at least (and probably a lot more than) 140+-80=60+ xp to start the knight level game with a character that is a much better fit to the concept. Realistically speaking, the campaign would probably end before I could make up the difference in cost to get the attribute increase so I'd neither be able to pay the 60+ cost delta nor be able to make up for the missing attribute, but I'd get a character that fits the concept reasonably well from day one.

You are missing the point, which I already plainly spelled out

"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 ."

Are you seriously holding up Korath's build as how everyone should build characters? He didn't even evolve organically evolve in this system. You "formulaicly" converted him from multiple very different systems, primarily d6. Beyond that you didn't use a fixed xp limit in your formulaic conversion so you got everything else along the way to the talents that were necessary to the concept for free. If there was an economy of concept way to build Korath, he would have several hundred less xp. That means you were powergaming when you converted Korath because there wasn't an xp efficient way to get the important talents. However the salient point is that Korath is in no way representative of a character originating in the ffg starwars rpg.

moreover that's a strawman argument, I don't think that all the talents any ffg swrpg character takes are necessary for a concept. But most of them should at least be beneficial.

Furthermore, even the proposed jedi:knight/niman-disciple/padawan-survivor build takes talents that aren't conducive to concept, for example the center of being an improved center of being talents in niman-disciple that you have to get to the force rating talent. So like I said that's a strawman argument.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And there you quote me withoutnconprehending the rest. Ignoring everything after the sentence you are fixated o the doesnt make you right.

So you're saying I ignored the other sentences? I'll bold my sentences that address them

15 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

@Tramp Graphics The above is exactly what he said.

I don't know why that you keep insisting that he didn't say it.

However I know that you meant

"That's not what he meant and I'm going to blame anyone who accurately reads his words as having misread it instead of blaming him for misspeaking/miswriting"

However to break it down for you

In the first sentence he says padawan is the only valid way

In no other sentences does he say "actually the optional rule is valid too"

In the last sentence he clearly and falsely communicates the claim that the quick path to power rule is not RAW

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

He is clearly imbuing RAW with some other meaning but he has declined to provide the definition he was using.

The point is he's not even being consistent with how he's interpreting his own sentence.

He now claims that when he said it, it meant that only valid way means "the default way but there's another valid way" but when I quote saying it it means "the only way period".

Whatever he claims the sentence means would be much more believable if it picked a single definition and stuck with it.

So no I am not ignoring the other sentences.

You can't win this debate, the facts aren't on your side, and even together you and Tramp aren't a challenge for me.

27 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

@Tramp Graphics The above is exactly what he said.

I don't know why that you keep insisting that he didn't say it.

However I know that you meant

"That's not what he meant and I'm going to blame anyone who accurately reads his words as having misread it instead of blaming him for misspeaking/miswriting"

However to break it down for you

In the first sentence he says padawan is the only valid way

In no other sentences does he say "actually the optional rule is valid too"

In the last sentence he clearly and falsely communicates the claim that the quick path to power rule is not RAW

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

He is clearly imbuing RAW with some other meaning but he has declined to provide the definition he was using.

The point is he's not even being consistent with how he's interpreting his own sentence.

He now claims that when he said it, it meant that only valid way means "the default way but there's another valid way" but when I quote saying it it means "the only way period".

Whatever he claims the sentence means would be much more believable if it picked a single definition and stuck with it.

27 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

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

You keep ignoring this. Because you would have to admit i said there is other valid ways if you get gm approval.

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

You keep ignoring this. Because you would have to admit i said there is other valid ways if you get gm approval.

Really? because I can't find the word " valid " anywhere in this quote

" 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"

Butt maybe I missed it, go ahead and bold the word " valid " in that quote for me. The thing is you can't because you didn't say ithere were other " valid " ways. But in the previous unquoted sentence you expliciy declare everything but padawan to be not valid , and you don't explicitly counter your previous explicit declaration of invalidity in the quoted section. In fact in the quoted text you attempt to back up the claim of invalidity by falsely communicating that quick path to power rule isn't RAW.

Those are your words.

46 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Really? because I can't find the word " valid " anywhere in this quote

" 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"

Butt maybe I missed it, go ahead and bold the word " valid " in that quote for me. The thing is you can't because you didn't say ithere were other " valid " ways. But in the previous unquoted sentence you expliciy declare everything but padawan to be not valid , and you don't explicitly counter your previous explicit declaration of invalidity in the quoted section. In fact in the quoted text you attempt to back up the claim of invalidity by falsely communicating that quick path to power rule isn't RAW.

Those are your words.

Maybe learn to read. Because it looks like you cant read.

Because i said it requires gm permission. If you have gm permision to use the rule you canbuse it.

=w= I honestly don't get you folks sometimes. So I'm going to sort this mess out so we can actually bet back to the *actual topic*

Path to power is optional; the GM choses whether any rule is implemented or not.Path to power exists as a route to bypass the need for Padawan if you brought that source book, but hadn't brought the one prior. Alternatively, if you want the players to start off as basic Jedi Knights with Knight level you consider that rule as a way of keeping the book keeping super minimal for a stronger opening campaign. That is the unambiguous, spirit of that rule and as an statement shouldn't be anything radical. The GM can chose to either use the rule or not and while the player might raise the rule at the end of the day it is only up for the GM to decide what the rules of engagement are. Again, what I am saying shouldn't be new to any of you. The GM might use Padawans, use path to power, or otherwise insist that the character must take a tree in F&D first before they can become a Jedi Knight. If I was a hypothetical game master, I would be empowered to pick any of those three options and have each of them be equally valid depending on the type of game we wanted to run.

The answer is simply yes. Any of those three answers work depending on the table you play at and the social contract being formed. This isn't new or radical advice, this is the power and responsibility that all game masters have had since the first roleplaying game had started when men played hypothetical games of war centuries ago to develop their generals.

The GM being the individual running the game, is the rules arbiter and the world which all the sessions take place in. In a sense they are playing the role of both the Judge and play every single piece on the table that isn't the PC's or any NPC's they lend to the players. While the game encourages cooperative narration, at the end of the day it is the role of the Game Master to determine what they are and aren't interested in having at the table. I for one require characters to have an express background to use supplementary material; only a gunsmith should craft guns, only armourer's can craft armour and so fourth. I've set the terms and conditions of using the rules, stating clearly what I will use/won't use. If I'm open to using material that links into a particular character background or a campaign theme then I'll consider it. If it's raised as a question around session time, I'll consider it. If it's raised during session, then unless it is something super critical to the situation which current rules don't resolve, then I might consider it or make a snap judgment, move the scene along then examine that material after the session has concluded. Nothing kills a campaign more then having to regularly digging through additional information just to make an arbitrary call. As a GM I should be empowered to make a decision that suits the game we want to run and move on. After all, I'm here to write books, not read them while everyone is waiting for me to narrate the next chapter.

It's page 6 of a frankly nonsense argument now that is an issue that stems from a game that doesn't even exist anywhere but a hypothetical imagination, while this new person just wanted some advice on their character build. They might even feel intimidated because of the argument you folks started in his thread. Get your acts together and move on. This rubbish banter has run it's course.

46 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Maybe learn to read. Because it looks like you cant read.

Because i said it requires gm permission. If you have gm permision to use the rule you canbuse it.

Check yourself in the mirror, the word of the day is valid

I've bolded and underlined it to help you identify the word.

Where did I say you didn't mention ways to get into knight that according to you are not valid ? Go on quote me.

What you specifically did say was that padawan was the only valid way . What you most certainly did NOT say was there was another valid way besides padawan to get to knight.

You also falsely claimed that the path to power rule was not RAW.

Man up. Take responsibility for what you said, even if it was only a very poor choice of words on your part.

15 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Check yourself in the mirror, the word of the day is valid

I've bolded and underlined it to help you identify the word.

Where did I say you didn't mention ways to get into knight that according to you are not valid ? Go on quote me.

What you specifically did say was that padawan was the only valid way . What you most certainly did NOT say was there was another valid way besides padawan to get to knight.

Maybe try reading my next sentance where you need gm permision to use it. Get it through your thick head that if the gm allows it you can use it. But only if they say you can.

16 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Maybe trying reading my next sentanc3 where you need gm permision to use it. Get it through your thick head that if the gm allows it you can use it. But only if they say you can.

For someone accusing others of having a thick head, you seem unable to grasp that you can do anything that the GM gives you permission to do. That's a complete non statement about valid ity.

However, you've explicitly said that padawan was the only valid way. And you've falsely claimed that the only other option wasn't RAW.

27 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

For someone accusing others of having a thick head, you seem unable to grasp that you can do anything that the GM gives you permission to do. That's a complete non statement about valid ity.

However, you've explicitly said that padawan was the only valid way. And you've falsely claimed that the only other option wasn't RAW.

Thus proving my point about your thick head.

I said only valid way with out gm allowing a optional rule.

36 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Thus proving my point about your thick head.

I said only valid way with out gm allowing a optional rule.

This guy with the "thick head" can read, write, grasp basic concepts, use self consistent definitions, tell the truth, and take responsibility for his own words and actions. That may seem like a very low bar but you have extreme trouble with the whole list so I won't raise the bar until you manage to get over that low hurdle

No you said verbatim " The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career . "

There's no parenthetical "with out gm allowing optional rule" statement between " only valid way" and "to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career . "

If what you falsely claim to have said is what you meant to say then it shows just how difficult reading and writing basic English is for you. Your other posts show that you can't even manage consistently interpret what you yourself wrote.

Btw you didn't even use the word "without" in the post in question.

6 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

This guy with the "thick head" can read, write, grasp basic concepts, use self consistent definitions, tell the truth, and take responsibility for his own words and actions. That may seem like a very low bar but you have extreme trouble with the whole list so I won't raise the bar until you manage to get over that low hurdle

No you said verbatim " The padawan is the only valid way to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career . "

There's no parenthetical "with out gm allowing optional rule" statement between " only valid way" and "to.get to the knight spec in the jedi career . "

If what you falsely claim to have said is what you meant to say then it shows just how difficult reading and writing basic English is for you. Your other posts show that you can't even manage consistently interpret what you yourself wrote.

Ok so tell what other spec would allow you to use the jedi career with out using the optional rule. You got one? If not my statement is correct.

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Ok so tell what other spec would allow you to use the jedi career with out using the optional rule. You got one? If not my statement is correct.

Really because I can't seem to find the word "without" in

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

maybe you can bold it so this guy with the thick head can find it. If you can't your statement is wrong and you lose the debate.

to be clear, your claim that it being the only valid way is what's wrong.

37 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Really because I can't seem to find the word "without" in

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

maybe you can bold it so this guy with the thick head can find it. If you can't your statement is wrong and you lose the debate.

to be clear, your claim that it being the only valid way is what's wrong.

There you go ignoring the very next statement proving you have a thicker skull than Tramp.

44 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

There you go ignoring the very next statement proving you have a thicker skull than Tramp.

First off I quoted your whole post and didn't ignore anything.

And since you couldn't bold the word without you just lost the debate.

Let the thick dense guy explain the word " without " to you, it's what's called a conjunction, it connects clauses in this case in a conditional manner.

You lost because you did not condition your " the only valid way " sentence on the next statement.

Without that conditioning, the next statement is a complete non statement about validity.

It's pretty basic english that you haven't managed to grasp.

It must be really embarrassing for the thick dense guy to have totally schooled you and about basic English no less.

11 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

First off I quoted your whole post and didn't ignore anything.

And since you couldn't bold the word without you just lost the debate.

Let the thick dense guy explain the word " without " to you, it's what's called a conjunction, it connects clauses in this case in a conditional manner.

You lost because you did not condition your " the only valid way " sentence on the next statement.

Without that conditioning, the next statement is a complete non statement about validity.

It's pretty basic english that you haven't managed to grasp.

It must be really embarrassing for the thick dense guy to have totally schooled you and about basic English no less.

No you lost when you got so hung up you refuse to acknowledge the condition in the next statement. My statement is accurate. In order for it to not be accurate you need to point me to another sspec that does not have a force rating requirement.

Optional rules are not a part of the base game. They are only included if the group decides to. So unless the group decides to include it it is not included. No amount of whining on your part about your personal hang up on that rule is going.to change that. The only valid way to start the Jedi career is the padawan spec. If the gm allows the optional rule you can bypass that. But it is an optional rule and thus not valid in the base game.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

No you lost when you got so hung up you refuse to acknowledge the condition in the next statement. My statement is accurate. In order for it to not be accurate you need to point me to another sspec that does not have a force rating requirement.

Optional rules are not a part of the base game. They are only included if the group decides to. So unless the group decides to include it it is not included. No amount of whining on your part about your personal hang up on that rule is going.to change that. The only valid way to start the Jedi career is the padawan spec. If the gm allows the optional rule you can bypass that. But it is an optional rule and thus not valid in the base game.

The problem is you didn't condition validity.

go on quote yourself and bold the words that condition validity on the availability of an optional rule.

The thing is you only used the word valid in the first sentence. So you're out of luck.

You also didn't qualify your exclusivity statement with "in the base game" in the post in question. Retconing your post to be more reasonable just now doesn't clear you of making an exclusivity statement in the first place.

And really, whether you're guilty of making the exclusivity statement is all we've been debating for quite some time now. You lost all other points on the merits quite a while back.

So if I'm dense what does that make you? A black hole? Maybe the reason why your ideas can still escape is that they lack substance.

Seriously, you weren't even a challenge.

7 hours ago, LordBritish said:

I honestly don't get you folks sometimes. So I'm going to sort this mess out so we can actually bet back to the *actual topic*

Good luck, mate. Once they bust out the rulers and start measuring, getting them to zip back up is an exercise in futility.

Your big problem is you clearly recognize your own words as an exclusivity statement when I quote them back to you

On 12/24/2019 at 3:32 PM, EliasWindrider said:

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).

On 12/24/2019 at 3:35 PM, Daeglan said:

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

Unfortunately for you that's an exact quote. It was exactly what you said, in your own words.

You as your own juror convicted yourself of making an exclusivity statement when you thought you were judging me.

So if you really didn't intend to make an exclusivity statement, you used an absolutely terrible choice of words and made an exclusivity statement by accident.

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

Your big problem is you clearly recognize your own words as an exclusivity statement when I quote them back to you

Unfortunately for you that's an exact quote. It was exactly what you said, in your own words.

You as your own juror convicted yourself of making an exclusivity statement when you thought you were judging me.

So if you really didn't intend to make an exclusivity statement, you used an absolutely terrible choice of words and made an exclusivity statement by accident.

Get over yourself. Learn to read.