28 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Your post seems to lend support to both sides of the debate (for example the bolded bit). I completely agree that it's at the GM's discretion, but then again so is using anything outside the core book, and so is the knight level rules in the core book. So it being an optional rule does not mean it's any less "RAW". The point is that using this optional rule is not "wrong" or an "invalid" way to qualify for the knight level spec as seems to be the contention of @Daeglan .

You seem to think that optional rules are RAW. They arent. They are options. That a GM may choose to allow. And the purpose of the rule is much much narrower than you think.

10 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Thenquick path to power is so a starting character can start the game with the required force rating of 2 needed to.use the jedi general as a starting character with assumption you may not has rise of the seperatists. So is a character wanted to start wirh the jedi career they need a method to get force rating 2. It also says it represents a jedi whose training was cut short. Ie a properly trained jedi goes through padawan and would be best represented using the knight level rules . Per page page 54 they can spend 2500 credits to get a lightsaber. Which is well with in starting characters fund availability. So no i am not suggesting they start with out a lightsaber.

I am not sure why you are obsessed with only using 2 specs to get a jedi. When it seems like 3 makes more sense. Padawan +Knight+saber form

Your " i.e ." statement, particularly " best " does not follow from your preceding statements without a whole lot of supposition and conjecture to back it up.

Regarding the lightsaber comments, So to be clear, your position that the intention of the quick path to power rule is for either knights and generals to start without the a lightsaber or have only 2 attributes increases with 20 xp or to spend on skills and talents and that is what training being cut short relative to knight level starting as padawan means?

If so I would direct your attention to the to knight level builds (starting in padawan and knight specs the later through the quick path to power) I've previously posted.

Before I continue, I feel that I should clearly/plainly state my position. I do not view the quick path to power and knight level rules as being mutually exclusive alternatives. According to me, the two primary use cases for "quick path to power" are

1) for GMs who are not hung up on literal interpretations of spec names, e.g. they are okay with an in universe "padawan" starting in the "knight" or "general" specializations. This means starting with species + morality xp

2) for GMs who are ok with their players starting as fully fledged jedi (in universe) knights. This means starting with the same "earned" xp (e.g. knight level xp) as characters who started in, for example the padawan.

With that plainly stated, I now continue.

I contend that relative to a knight level padawan, a knight level knight (via the quick path to power) already looks like his/her training was cut short having 1 lower attribute, 4 less wounds and only 1 more strain, fewer skills and/or talents, perhaps one extra upgrade on a force power (maybe the range upgrade on force leap/enhance) I resubmit the 2 ogg dude sheets in this

15 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

it's not +9K it's +9K OR a basic lightsaber.

Just so we're clear are you saying that your position is that the designers intent behind the quick path to power was so that players could start as an actual a jedi knight/general without a lightsaber?

and to debunk the "there is a difference in power level between knight level padawan and knight level knight with quick path to power" argument.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/94awa6ahei4x9l0/KnightLevelPadawan.pdf/file

https://www.mediafire.com/file/qhem88idepm73fb/KnightLevelKnight.pdf/file

post as evidence that a knight level knight already looks like his/her training was cut short relative to a knight level padawan.

I have no idea where you are getting me supposedly being obsessed with a jedi only having 2 specs, I've already stated that my preferred jedi build is jedi:knight/niman-disciple/padawan-survivor. However, I haven't personally seen a campaign last long enough for a player to fill out 3 specs from either side of the table, so that may be what you're picking up on.

42 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You seem to think that optional rules are RAW. They arent. They are options. That a GM may choose to allow. And the purpose of the rule is much much narrower than you think.

RAW means a rule that's written in an official product, be it optional or not. It being optional does not mean it's not RAW/officially sanctioned by the ffg game developers.

19 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Both of these sentences are extremely odd/contrary to what I would call common sense.

From a build perspective, after purchasing a few force power and a handful of upgrades each, knight level xp isn't sufficient to start as a "fully fledged knight" without also using the quick path to power rule to start in knight. I'm not saying you couldn't build an equally powerful character, they just wouldn't have the particular set/breadth of capabilities of a fully fledged jedi knight.

If a GM doesn't want his players to start as fully fledged knights, that's a perfectly legitimate position, but if they're ok with their PCs starting as fully fledged knights, why force them to start in padawan?

the problem from the build only perspective is it ties the peerless interception signature ability to the padawan spec when the knight spec is the only jedi spec that can make full use of it. That's just a mechanically very "odd" constraint for a GM who is ok with his/her players starting as "fully fledged knights."

For the record I'm using "fully fledged knight" to mean "was just knighted" not "veteran"

No one is constraining the GM or saying that other GMs should not allow the Quick Path rule in their games. What we are saying is that we, as GMs, would not allow it in games we run .

16 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It make perfect sense. Quick path to power is for making jedi general and knight characters using 1 spec and starting xp. Not for using knight level rules with the 150xp and 9k creds.

Precisely.

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

Your post seems to lend support to both sides of the debate (for example the bolded bit). I completely agree that it's at the GM's discretion, but then again so is using anything outside the core book, and so is the knight level rules in the core book. So it being an optional rule does not mean it's any less "RAW". The point is that using this optional rule is not "wrong" or an "invalid" way to qualify for the knight level spec as seems to be the contention of @Daeglan .

No one said it was “wrong” to allow it in their games. All any of us said is that we personally wouldn’t allow it. I certainly wouldn’t, specifically for the reasons I mentioned previously, and the OP’s GM doesn’t either. That choice is not wrong either. And that is because the Quick Path rule is strictly optional and at GM discretion. As for what @Daeglan said, and @Donovan Morningfire confirmed, the Quick Path rule is specifically intended for starting level characters, not Knight Level.

22 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Your " i.e ." statement, particularly " best " does not follow from your preceding statements without a whole lot of supposition and conjecture to back it up.

Regarding the lightsaber comments, So to be clear, your position that the intention of the quick path to power rule is for either knights and generals to start without the a lightsaber or have only 2 attributes increases with 20 xp or to spend on skills and talents and that is what training being cut short relative to knight level starting as padawan means?

If so I would direct your attention to the to knight level builds (starting in padawan and knight specs the later through the quick path to power) I've previously posted.

Before I continue, I feel that I should clearly/plainly state my position. I do not view the quick path to power and knight level rules as being mutually exclusive alternatives. According to me, the two primary use cases for "quick path to power" are

1) for GMs who are not hung up on literal interpretations of spec names, e.g. they are okay with an in universe "padawan" starting in the "knight" or "general" specializations. This means starting with species + morality xp

2) for GMs who are ok with their players starting as fully fledged jedi (in universe) knights. This means starting with the same "earned" xp (e.g. knight level xp) as characters who started in, for example the padawan.

With that plainly stated, I now continue.

I contend that relative to a knight level padawan, a knight level knight (via the quick path to power) already looks like his/her training was cut short having 1 lower attribute, 4 less wounds and only 1 more strain, fewer skills and/or talents, perhaps one extra upgrade on a force power (maybe the range upgrade on force leap/enhance) I resubmitted the 2 ogg dude sheets in this

post as evidence that a knight level knight already looks like his/her training was cut short relative to a knight level padawan.

I have no idea where you are getting me supposedly being obsessed with a jedi only having 2 specs, I've already stated that my preferred jedi build is jedi:knight/niman-disciple/padawan-survivor. However, I haven't personally seen a campaign last long enough for a player to fill out 3 specs from either side of the table, so that may be what you're picking up on.

Wow. That is special. My supposition is. Basically what the short path to power box says. And this game is all about choices. You can geta lightsaber if you take the all credits opti ok n morality choice.

You seem to be of the mind that the Knight level option is inherent in thenquick path to power. It is not and they wouldnt have included it except that in order to make a jedi career choice with out rise of the seperatists w pi uld have been impossible.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No one is constraining the GM or saying that other GMs should not allow the Quick Path rule in their games. What we are saying is that we, as GMs, would not allow it in games we run .

Precisely.

No one said it was “wrong” to allow it in their games. All any of us said is that we personally wouldn’t allow it. I certainly wouldn’t, specifically for the reasons I mentioned previously, and the OP’s GM doesn’t either. That choice is not wrong either. And that is because the Quick Path rule is strictly optional and at GM discretion. As for what @Daeglan said, and @Donovan Morningfire confirmed, the Quick Path rule is specifically intended for starting level characters, not Knight Level.

Both you and @Daeglan have posted that the only "correct/proper/valid" way for a jedi to reach knight was through padawan

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

Both you and @Daeglan have posted that the only "correct/proper/valid" way for a jedi to reach knight was through padawan

No i have not. I said that it is not anfully trained jedi. As the block says they are jedi who had their training cut short. It is a jedi who has been pushed out of the nest early. Not fully trained.

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

Your " i.e ." statement, particularly " best " does not follow from your preceding statements without a whole lot of supposition and conjecture to back it up.

Regarding the lightsaber comments, So to be clear, your position that the intention of the quick path to power rule is for either knights and generals to start without the a lightsaber or have only 2 attributes increases with 20 xp or to spend on skills and talents and that is what training being cut short relative to knight level starting as padawan means?

If so I would direct your attention to the to knight level builds (starting in padawan and knight specs the later through the quick path to power) I've previously posted.

Before I continue, I feel that I should clearly/plainly state my position. I do not view the quick path to power and knight level rules as being mutually exclusive alternatives. According to me, the two primary use cases for "quick path to power" are

1) for GMs who are not hung up on literal interpretations of spec names, e.g. they are okay with an in universe "padawan" starting in the "knight" or "general" specializations. This means starting with species + morality xp

2) for GMs who are ok with their players starting as fully fledged jedi (in universe) knights. This means starting with the same "earned" xp (e.g. knight level xp) as characters who started in, for example the padawan.

With that plainly stated, I now continue.

I contend that relative to a knight level padawan, a knight level knight (via the quick path to power) already looks like his/her training was cut short having 1 lower attribute, 4 less wounds and only 1 more strain, fewer skills and/or talents, perhaps one extra upgrade on a force power (maybe the range upgrade on force leap/enhance) I resubmit the 2 ogg dude sheets in this

post as evidence that a knight level knight already looks like his/her training was cut short relative to a knight level padawan.

I have no idea where you are getting me supposedly being obsessed with a jedi only having 2 specs, I've already stated that my preferred jedi build is jedi:knight/niman-disciple/padawan-survivor. However, I haven't personally seen a campaign last long enough for a player to fill out 3 specs from either side of the table, so that may be what you're picking up on.

44 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Wow. That is special . My supposition is. Basically what the short path to power box says. And this genis all about choices. You can geta lightsaber if you take the all credits opti ok n morality choice.

You seem to be of the mind that the Knight level option is inherent in thenquick path to power. It is not and they wouldnt have included it except that in order to make a jedi career choice with out rise of the seperatists w pi uld have been impossible.

So when someone traces down the logical outcomes of your statements and you don't like them, you respond by mocking/sarcasm instead of dealing with the substance of the post.

As for your "you seem to be of the mind..." comment I redirect you to the mocked post where I plainly state my position... but so you don't have to scroll up I will repeat it

Before I continue, I feel that I should clearly/plainly state my position. I do not view the quick path to power and knight level rules as being mutually exclusive alternatives. According to me, the two primary use cases for "quick path to power" are

1) for GMs who are not hung up on literal interpretations of spec names, e.g. they are okay with an in universe "padawan" starting in the "knight" or "general" specializations. This means starting with species + morality xp

2) for GMs who are ok with their players starting as fully fledged jedi (in universe) knights. This means starting with the same "earned " xp (e.g. knight level xp) as characters who started in, for example the padawan.

So them being used together is one of two primary use cases, the other is using the knight spec to represent a Padawan instead of a knight because the people at the table aren't hung up on literal interpretations of spec names

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

@Daeglan I refer you to your "only valid way is through padawan" statement

2 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Your post seems to lend support to both sides of the debate.

I wouldn't call it a debate, but rather a bunch of petty bickering. Bickering that has taken the thread way the heck off topic.

Frankly, you and Daeglan are each correct and incorrect on the matter.

3 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

I wouldn't call it a debate, but rather a bunch of petty bickering. Bickering that has taken the thread way the heck off topic.

Frankly, you and Daeglan are each correct and incorrect on the matter.

I respect your opinion just as I respect @Daeglan 's I simply take issue with exclusivity statements (I take issues with statements that amount to "my way/opinion is the only valid one")

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

Both you and @Daeglan have posted that the only "correct/proper/valid" way for a jedi to reach knight was through padawan

No, we haven't . All I have said is tha,t as a GM, I personally would not allow the use of the Quick Path to Power rule.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

No i have not. I said that it is not anfully trained jedi. As the block says they are jedi who had their training cut short. It is a jedi who has been pushed out of the nest early. Not fully trained.

On 12/20/2019 at 1:54 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Why not? simple. Becoming a full fledged Jedi knight is something a character should earn . The same with becoming a Master. That means paying their dues through the training and/or experience by working down the talent tree in order to get to that additional Force rating required to take those specs. So, if the player wanted to play the Jedi career, start out as a Padawan, as is proper for Jedi. If I were specifically doing a Knight level campaign? Sure. If the Knight Level character puts in enough of that XP into his or her first spec's talent tree to get down to the necessary Force rating talent, then sure, take the Knight spec. as a second spec.

@Tramp Graphics here's your post, your definition of "proper" is not stated as your opinion or what you would do, or even as "a" proper option. ive already quoted @Daeglan 's "the only valid" statement. After I called you on your exclusivity statement, you backed off from it, but you still made it in the first place, and it doesn't change that my subsequent posts were a response to it.

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

@Tramp Graphics here's your post, your definition of "proper" is not stated as your opinion or what you would do, or even as "a" proper option. ive already quoted @Daeglan 's "the only valid" statement. After I called you on your exclusivity statement, you backed off from it, but you still made it in the first place, and it doesn't change that my subsequent posts were a response to it.

And, that has also been explicitly state to be personal opinion . It has also been stated that that is our ruling as GM and that o ther GMs are fully within their rights to allow it if they so choose . So, no, neither @Daeglan nor I have said that the " only " way to get to the Knight spec is by taking Padawan. We have simply said that we don't allow the Quick Path to power rule because at least I feel it steeps of power gaming and that it should be earned , not handed to you for only 30 XP. That is my personal viewpoint. It is not a hard-fast ultimatum that everyone needs to follow.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And, that has also been explicitly state to be personal opinion . It has also been stated that that is our ruling as GM and that o ther GMs are fully within their rights to allow it if they so choose . So, no, neither @Daeglan nor I have said that the " only " way to get to the Knight spec is by taking Padawan. We have simply said that we don't allow the Quick Path to power rule because at least I feel it steeps of power gaming and that it should be earned , not handed to you for only 30 XP. That is my personal viewpoint. It is not a hard-fast ultimatum that everyone needs to follow.

You initially stated it as the "proper" way to do things not as your opinion. Only AFTER I called you on the exclusivity statement did you back off from it and label it post facto as your opinion. As for @Daeglan look 6 posts up from this one where I quoted him.

Maybe you don't realize that you normally speak in exclusivity statements

5 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

You initially stated it as the "proper" way to do things not as your opinion. Only AFTER I called you on the exclusivity statement did you back off from it and label it post facto as your opinion. As for @Daeglan look 6 posts up from this one where I quoted him.

Maybe you don't realize that you normally speak in exclusivity statements

No. I stated that the Quick path to power rule was not appropriate for any game I run as a GM . I have also stated multiple times that other GMs are well within their rights to allow it. And I said that right from the start. You asked why I personally would not allow the rule at any game I run, and I told you my personal reasons . Don't confuse personal reasons for absolute law that everyone should follow. I never said you had to make the same ruling at your table, I never said that every GM should restrict him/herself from allowing it. I said I wouldn't allow it as a GM in my games and why I personally wouldn't allow it.

59 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. I stated that the Quick path to power rule was not appropriate for any game I run as a GM . I have also stated multiple times that other GMs are well within their rights to allow it. And I said that right from the start. You asked why I personally would not allow the rule at any game I run, and I told you my personal reasons . Don't confuse personal reasons for absolute law that everyone should follow. I never said you had to make the same ruling at your table, I never said that every GM should restrict him/herself from allowing it. I said I wouldn't allow it as a GM in my games and why I personally wouldn't allow it.

I'll put this in terms you're familiar with "read the transcript" you called your preference "proper" more specifically "as is proper for a jedi" without saying "my opinion" or "it is a proper option" or "my personal reasons."

That is an exclusivity statement. Making exclusivity statements is your modus operandi. Maybe you don't know how to communicate without making exclusivity statements, but you only backed off of this exclusivity statement AFTER I called you on it. It's in the "transcript" read it.

If I take the padawan spec and want to get to FR2 do I need the talent above and to the left of it before I grab it?

4 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I'll put this in terms you're familiar with "read the transcript" you called your preference "proper" more specifically "as is proper for a jedi" without saying "my opinion" or "it is a proper option" or "my personal reasons."

That is an exclusivity statement. Making exclusivity statements is your modus operandi. Maybe you don't know how to communicate without making exclusivity statements, but you only backed off of this exclusivity statement AFTER I called you on it. It's in the "transcript" read it.

No, it isn't. It is my ruling at my table for when I GM, and my reasoning for it. What you do at your table when you GM is up to you, and what other GMs do at their table is up to them.

10 minutes ago, daggertx said:

If I take the padawan spec and want to get to FR2 do I need the talent above and to the left of it before I grab it?

No, you need to have one of them. That means either going QuickDraw > Well Rounded > Sense Danger > Force Rating or Quick Draw > Well Rounded > Valuable Facts > Force Rating . It's cheaper to take Sense Danger to get to Force Rating , however, so that would be my recommendation.

2 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

@Daeglan I refer you to your "only valid way is through padawan" statement

Try reading what i said again. It is not only valid way. I said to make a proper Jedi. The rule refers to this method as making a not fully trained jedi. Ie lacking the full training of a jedi.

10 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Try reading what i said again. It is not only valid way. I said to make a proper Jedi. The rule refers to this method as making a not fully trained jedi. Ie lacking the full training of a jedi.

I'm sure that many properly trained Jedi who have been padawans and knights in-universe have been Consulars and Sentinels and Guardians and whatnot in game terms without ever even touching the Jedi career specs.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn't. It is my ruling at my table for when I GM, and my reasoning for it. What you do at your table when you GM is up to you, and what other GMs do at their table is up to them.

Maybe you didn't mean to express your opinion as objective truth but you shouldn't blame others for reacting to what you actually said instead of what you meant to say. This is especially relevant when you have a history of stating your frequently fringe opinions as objective truth which would strongly color anyone's guess of what you meant to say.

This also applies to @Daeglan minus the history of frequently fringe interpretations.

5 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Maybe you didn't mean to express your opinion as objective truth but you shouldn't blame others for reacting to what you actually said instead of what you meant to say. This is especially relevant when you have a history of stating your frequently fringe opinions as objective truth which would strongly color anyone's guess of what you meant to say.

This also applies to @Daeglan minus the history of frequently fringe interpretations.

Not really. Your deciding to interpret things to include things i didnt say is on you. Ignoring important parts of the side bar we are discussing is a problem. Ignoring the change in price of a lightsaber during the hieght of the jedi order is an issue.

11 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Not really. Your deciding to interpret things to include things i didnt say is on you. Ignoring important parts of the side bar we are discussing is a problem. Ignoring the change in price of a lightsaber during the hieght of the jedi order is an issue.

Your statements are pretty clear. They amount to "you of course can do whatever you want at your table but my way is the only valid way."

How else should someone interpret

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

that's pretty explicit/clear. So is the claim that a rule in the book isn't RAW just because it's an optional rule that you don't want to use in your game.