8 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

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.

Wow are you dense. Because that is not what i said or ever claimed. What I said is that the Quick path to power is not a fully trained Jedi. and is an optional rule with a very specific intent. That a GM may not allow and you should not assume the GM will allow it.

But you are so focused on using it it makes one wonder. It is probably related to your obsession with a 2 spec jedi that you seem to think you have found the ultimate way to do it. I mean I see you push it in so many threads. We get it you love using quick path to power so you can do Knight+Niman Disciple.

52 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Wow are you dense . Because that is not what i said or ever claimed. What I said is that the Quick path to power is not a fully trained Jedi. and is an optional rule with a very specific intent. That a GM may not allow and you should not assume the GM will allow it.

But you are so focused on using it it makes one wonder. It is probably related to your obsession with a 2 spec jedi that you seem to think you have found the ultimate way to do it. I mean I see you push it in so many threads. We get it you love using quick path to power so you can do Knight+Niman Disciple.

Again you resort to mocking when the facts aren't on your side. You may have meant to communicate something other than what you actually said, but you shouldn't blame others for reacting to what you actually said instead of what you intended to say. I'm tempted to report this as a code of conduct violation, but.... You know what, I'm just going to report it.

And you resort to misreading what one says and insisting that is what they meant no matter how many times they tell you otherwise. Stop telling people what they said and meant. it doesnt make your claims correct. it just makes you look like a jerk. I never said the Quick path to power rules werent valid. I just said they werent RAW and were optional. and that they create a partially trained Jedi. They even say they so right in the side bar. no amount of claiming otherwise will change that.

26 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Again you resort to mocking when the facts aren't on your side. You may have meant to communicate something other than what you actually said, but you shouldn't blame others for reacting to what you actually said instead of what you intended to say. I'm tempted to report this as a code of conduct violation, but.... You know what, I'm just going to report it.

That would because your grasp on what a person said does not match up with reality. Your have your preconceived notions of what I said. But that is not what I said or have ever said and does not match up with my repeated corrections of what you think I said. Which at this point makes you willfully ignoring what you have been told in favor of your favored misunderstanding of what you have been told. I suspect because you want to argue against what I have not said. Rather than accept what I have actually said. So yeah I am mocking you. Because that behavior deserves being mocked. When you stop fighting strawmen we might actually get somewhere.

(Hmm... how to get them to stop picking on each other? I know! I'll fly low and buzz them. Maybe my shiny new paint job will get their attention and they'll unite to yell at me instead!)

You both have points (regarding the mechanics of the situation, not each other) and you are also both wrong sometimes.

Personally, here is how I would do it: If you want to play a starting PC Jedi Knight/General, go with Short Path to Power. Not my preference, but it's there for a reason. But if you really want to play a Jedi Knight/General, why not go with Knight/Heroic-level? You get 150 bonus XP, 9,000 credits, AND I'll throw in +1 FR* so you can start as a Jedi Knight/General without having to be penalized in the Characteristic department. Then everyone starts at Heroic-level (including the Padawan player, if there is one).

*For any Padawan players, this either wouldn't apply, or would be instead of the Force Rating talent.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

That would because your grasp on what a person said does not match up with reality. Your have your preconceived notions of what I said. But that is not what I said or have ever said and does not match up with my repeated corrections of what you think I said. Which at this point makes you willfully ignoring what you have been told in favor of your favored misunderstanding of what you have been told. I suspect because you want to argue against what I have not said. Rather than accept what I have actually said. So yeah I am mocking you . Because that behavior deserves being mocked. When you stop fighting strawmen we might actually get somewhere.

Preserving a record of your confession of a code of conduct violation. The mods should be around soon enough to deal with you.

19 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.

Wrong. I specifically gave my reasons for not allowing the Short Path to Power rule in any game I GM, and further clarified that position in later posts. You are deliberately misinterpreting those statements.

14 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.

Precisely.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Wow are you dense. Because that is not what i said or ever claimed. What I said is that the Quick path to power is not a fully trained Jedi. and is an optional rule with a very specific intent. That a GM may not allow and you should not assume the GM will allow it.

But you are so focused on using it it makes one wonder. It is probably related to your obsession with a 2 spec jedi that you seem to think you have found the ultimate way to do it. I mean I see you push it in so many threads. We get it you love using quick path to power so you can do Knight+Niman Disciple.

Elias is an admitted and avowed Power Gamer . This is one of the reasons why I would never allow the Short Path to Power rule.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. I specifically gave my reasons for not allowing the Short Path to Power rule in any game I GM, and further clarified that position in later posts. You are deliberately misinterpreting those statements.

Precisely.

Elias is an admitted and avowed Power Gamer . This is one of the reasons why I would never allow the Short Path to Power rule.

Next time you mean to express your opinion as an opinion rather than objective truth, you might want to start with "in my opinion..."

Being a power gamer is less egregious than being a power player. I believe in a level playing field and everyone at the table playing by the same rules.

Not entirely relevant but you can find the distinction between a munchkin and powergamers here

https://www.enworld.org/threads/munchkins-vs-powergamers.208815/

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

Next time you mean to express your opinion as an opinion rather than objective truth, you might want to start with "in my opinion..."

So how many times does he have to tell you it is his opinion before you accept that he meant his opinion. I think we have an entire thread of him saying as such.

If a character choose the Jedi Career and is using ONLY RotS and F&D Corerulebook, then the only way to buy the Knight spec at character creation is by starting with the Padawan spec and use the Knight level option. So, it's impossible by RAW to start a character with the Jedi Career and Knight / Niman Disciple / Padawan Survivor for specialisation. But that's possible if you use CotR too and if the GM allows you the Quick Path to Power option AND the Knight Level Option.

That's pretty simple to understand that without CotR a proper Jedi must take Padawan before Knight to make the FR2 pre-requisite. And with CotR the option for +1 FR is enough to bypass the Padawan spec and to go straight to the Knight, or General, spec.

There is no reason for so much very childish behaviour and bickering.

11 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Next time you mean to express your opinion as an opinion rather than objective truth, you might want to start with "in my opinion..."

Being a power gamer is less egregious than being a power player. I believe in a level playing field and everyone at the table playing by the same rules.

Not entirely relevant but you can find the distinction between a munchkin and powergamers here

https://www.enworld.org/threads/munchkins-vs-powergamers.208815/

According to Mike Pondsmith , the creator of Cyberpunk 2020 , Power gamers are the worst kind of munchkins. Read the Cyberpunk 2020 supplement Listen up you Primitive Screwheads . There's a whole chapter specifically on how to deal with and, if necessary, get rid of power gamers from your game.

43 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

According to Mike Pondsmith , the creator of Cyberpunk 2020 , Power gamers are the worst kind of munchkins. Read the Cyberpunk 2020 supplement Listen up you Primitive Screwheads . There's a whole chapter specifically on how to deal with and, if necessary, get rid of power gamers from your game.

There's a problem with issuing purity tests you yourself can not pass.

1) I strongly suspect that Mike Pondsmith is using very different definitions of powergamer and munchkin than the definition in the linked to enworld post. Because in the context of enworld definition, the specific definition of powergamer that I freely acknowledge applies to me, a powergamer is not a munchkin at all (although munchkins can also be power gamers)

2) The kind of munchkin that calls you on the phone to harass you about a difference of opinion for about 9 months rather than agreeing to disagree is my definition of the worst kind of munchkin. I suspect that Mike Pondsmith would have had a definition similar to mine had he ever gamed with you.

2 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

There's a problem with issuing purity tests you yourself can not pass.

1) I strongly suspect that Mike Pondsmith is using very different definitions of powergamer and munchkin than the definition in the linked to enworld post. Because in the context of enworld definition, the specific definition of powergamer that I freely acknowledge applies to me, a powergamer is not a munchkin at all (although munchkins can also be power gamers)

2) The kind of munchkin that calls you on the phone to harass you about a difference of opinion for about 9 months rather than agreeing to disagree is my definition of the worst kind of munchkin. I suspect that Mike Pondsmith would have had a definition similar to mine had he ever gamed with you.

Like I said, read the book I mentioned.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Like I said, read the book I mentioned.

If you want me to read an excerpt from the book scan and email it to me, because otherwise I'm not wasting my time on it.

But to skip to the chase is Mike Pondsmith using the same or a different definition of powergamer than the one in the linked to enworld post. A significantly different definition of powergamer, one that subclasses powergamer off of munchkin does not apply to me.

In the definition I use, a munchkin amounts to an unethical rules lawyer that wants to stack the deck in his favor at the expense of everyone else at the table and will bend/break rules to do it.

2 hours ago, WolfRider said:

If a character choose the Jedi Career and is using ONLY RotS and F&D Corerulebook, then the only way to buy the Knight spec at character creation is by starting with the Padawan spec and use the Knight level option. So, it's impossible by RAW to start a character with the Jedi Career and Knight / Niman Disciple / Padawan Survivor for specialisation. But that's possible if you use CotR too and if the GM allows you the Quick Path to Power option AND the Knight Level Option.

That's pretty simple to understand that without CotR a proper Jedi must take Padawan before Knight to make the FR2 pre-requisite. And with CotR the option for +1 FR is enough to bypass the Padawan spec and to go straight to the Knight, or General, spec.

There is no reason for so much very childish behaviour and bickering.

And if you use quick path to power you end up with a less trained jedi as it says in the side bar. and the rule is Optional. a GM doesnt have to allow it.

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And if you use quick path to power you end up with a less trained jedi as it says in the side bar. and the rule is Optional. a GM doesnt have to allow it.

Exactly. I'm not very fond of allowing Quick Path to Power. But if the player can convince me I'm not totally against it. For example a good reason for a character to have it is for a youngling promoted to full Jedi Knight without spending time as Padawanand before he / she was ready to leave the the Jedi Academy because it's an emergency time. And the Clone War is full of emergency time that cause to bend or break the rules. For a character older than a youngling I won't allow it. Imo, Less trained Jedi means a Jedi that left the Academy before the normal ending of the training. Or a Jedi that was trained outside the Jedi Academy.

For me the only reason to allow Quick Path to Power to a character is for some good role playing reasons and never for optimization.

For anyone who is confused/curious by reflexive aversion to juvenile padawan starting characters, you can blame the 2005 version of Michael Trampert a.k.a. @Tramp Graphics for that, it was a truly traumatic emotionally scarring experience, involving in character berating for the crime of giving him the benefit of the doubt and playing along with the plot line he obviously wanted me to take. I would have been highly suspicious of how a GM could simultaneously be a munchkin but he managed this through a GM PC for which I played a padawan supporting character. And for 9 months he called me to harass me about it before I responded that he was a f-ing moron and quit the game because I couldn't stay in it and stay his friend. I was the only player in the game.

There's additional history since then where I learned that his bad behavior wasn't tied to a protecting the idealized star wars version of himself (said GMPC), at which point I decided to never game with him again (not as a fellow PC and not as his GM).

For as long as I've known him Tramp has presented his opinions as objective truth, which is the reason I don't guess he means something other than what he says.

I have never run a stat block with a name PC under any system, however I see nothing wrong with a character being optimized to be effective at fulfilling the concept for the character.

This post is dramatic understatement not exaggeration/melodrama.

Since then I've never played a jedi less experienced than a knight, btw Aris Renn was not a jedi, she was a force sensitive but otherwise stereotypical smuggler.

Edit: just remembered that in *1* game (a summer only campaign) I started as an about to be knighted padawan (we were all knighted before the end of the summer)

2 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

For anyone who is confused/curious by reflexive aversion to juvenile padawan starting characters, you can blame the 2005 version of Michael Trampert a.k.a. @Tramp Graphics for that, it was a truly traumatic emotionally scarring experience, involving in character berating for the crime of giving him the benefit of the doubt and playing along with the plot line he obviously wanted me to take. I would have been highly suspicious of how a GM could simultaneously be a munchkin but he managed this through a GM PC for which I played a padawan supporting character. And for 9 months he called me to harass me about it before I responded that he was a f-ing moron and quit the game because I couldn't stay in it and stay his friend. I was the only player in the game.

There's additional history since then where I learned that his bad behavior wasn't tied to a protecting the idealized star wars version of himself (said GMPC), at which point I decided to never game with him again (not as a fellow PC and not as his GM).

For as long as I've known him Tramp has presented his opinions as objective truth, which is the reason I don't guess he means something other than what he says.

I have never run a stat block with a name PC under any system, however I see nothing wrong with a character being optimized to be effective at fulfilling the concept for the character.

This post is dramatic understatement not exaggeration/melodrama.

Since then I've never played a jedi less experienced than a knight, btw Aris Renn was not a jedi, she was a force sensitive but otherwise stereotypical smuggler.

That doesnt explain your aversion to using the padawan as the opening spec for a build.

31 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

That doesnt explain your aversion to using the padawan as the opening spec for a build.

You're for some reason assuming that the padawan spec is a default I need to justify departure from. But to satisfy your curiosity, if I'm building a knight, the knight spec fits the concept better.

6 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

You're for some reason assuming that the padawan spec is a default I need to justify departure from. But to satisfy your curiosity, if I'm building a knight, the knight spec fits the concept better.

I didnt say not to use the knight spec. Why not use the knight and the padawan? Why donyou insist on using the less trained version?

The Padawan spec is the default as it doesnt require using an optional rule to make it work.

6 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

Exactly. I'm not very fond of allowing Quick Path to Power. But if the player can convince me I'm not totally against it. For example a good reason for a character to have it is for a youngling promoted to full Jedi Knight without spending time as Padawanand before he / she was ready to leave the the Jedi Academy because it's an emergency time. And the Clone War is full of emergency time that cause to bend or break the rules. For a character older than a youngling I won't allow it. Imo, Less trained Jedi means a Jedi that left the Academy before the normal ending of the training. Or a Jedi that was trained outside the Jedi Academy.

For me the only reason to allow Quick Path to Power to a character is for some good role playing reasons and never for optimization.

I agree.

8 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

You're for some reason assuming that the padawan spec is a default I need to justify departure from. But to satisfy your curiosity, if I'm building a knight, the knight spec fits the concept better.

well given that the default is Padawan then Knight. Unless your concept calls for the character to lack some training the Padawan Spec IS the default way to start in the Jedi Career. The Quick Path to power is an optional rule and thus NOT the default.

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I didnt say not to use the knight spec. Why not use the knight and the padawan? Why donyou insist on using the less trained version?

The Padawan spec is the default as it doesnt require using an optional rule to make it work.

I disagree with your premise/assumption that padawan is the default, heck I disagree with the premise that the jedi career is the default or even required at all for an in universe "jedi."

You seem to be hung up on literal interpretations when careers and specs need not be more than a collection of abilities to be taken or not depending solely on how well they help fulfill the character concept.

I disagree with the premise that starting in knight or general has to represent a less experienced jedi. Even if someone at the table is hung up on literal interpretations, the words "might" (General) and "could" (knights) preceding the less experienced flavor text phrases indicate it's not the mandatory interpretation.

Regarding being less experienced, the unique/interesting talents in padawan are themed on being an inexperienced/novice. So for someone who doesn't want a character themed as inexperienced skipping padawan is desirable.

I like padawan survivor better as a collection of abilities, they're themed as being knowledgable/experienced. But I can't start in padawan survivor because it's a universal spec. If a GM houseruled that I could start in padawan survivor in the jedi career (with the padawan class skills) I might do that but it's not RAW.

Optional rules are RAW, RAW refers to any rule written in an official book, it implies it has been sanctioned/blessed by the game developers. Being RAW in no way obligates a GM to follow a rule even if it doesn't have an "optional" label. Using an official optional rule implies no stigma.

The fighting in squads and squadrons, and phalanx, optional rules are in the clone wars books, would you object to using them as much as you seem to object to the quick path to power? Why/why not?

Basically there are no compelling reasons why a character that starts narrative themed as a knight should start in padawan. It actually seems counter to theme.

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

I disagree with your premise/assumption that padawan is the default, heck a disagree with the premise that the jedi career is the default or even required at all for an in universe "jedi."

You seem to be hung up on literal interpretations when careers and specs need not be more than a collection of abilities to be taken or not depending solely on how well they help fulfill the character concept.

I disagree with the premise that starting in knight or general has to represent a less experienced jedi. Even if someone at the table is hung up on literal interpretations, the words "might" (General) and "could" (knights) preceding the less experienced flavor text phrases indicate it's not the mandatory interpretation.

Regarding being less experienced, the unique/interesting talents in padawan are themed on being an inexperienced/novice. So for someone who doesn't want a character themed as inexperienced skipping padawan is desirable.

I like padawan survivor better as a collection of abilities, they're themed as being knowledgable/experienced. But I can't start in padawan survivor because it's a universal spec. If a GM houseruled that I could start in padawan survivor in the jedi career (with the padawan class skills) I might do that but it's not RAW.

Optional rules are RAW, RAW refers to any rule written in an official book, it implies it has been sanctioned/blessed by the game developers. Being RAW in no way obligates a GM to follow a rule even if it doesn't have an "optional" label. Using an official optional rule implies no stigma.

The fighting in squads and squadrons, and phalanx, optional rules are in the clone wars books, would you objective to using them as much as you seem to object to the quick path to power? Why/why not?

Basically there are no compelling reasons with a character that starts narrative themed as a knight should start in padawan. It actually seems counter to theme.

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.

Don't you guys think this has run its course?