So if a player wants to use quick path to power (e.g. they don't like the "newb" narrative theme of a bunch of padawan talents and don't want to pay an extra 10 xp per spec they actually want.... I'm personally in this group) I'm cool with that so i'd generally say "ok but you aren't going to loop back around for the cheap force rating from padawan" (I have allowed that once under extenuating circumstances, won't be repeating it)

But I know there are GMs who take issue with short path to power for a perceived power gaming issue

(which I don't get because from an open ended advancement, mid to long term view starting padawan, making a beeline to force rating and going knight, is more powerful, but it delays the character concept)

So if you are one of those GMs, and

1) your player was going to take force adherant universal spec (which isn't force sensitive and doesn't get a force rating) as their second spec (because it fit character concept), would you then allow them to use the quick path to power to "balance out" the "lost" force rating from the force adherant?

2) what if they want their second spec to be padawan survivor (which has a "savvy"/knowledgeable/not a "newb" theme), would you allow them to use quick path to power to start knight?

3) what about the jedi:knight/niman-disciple combo?

Point is they aren't short cutting to master, by starting knight via quick path to power?

How bout not assigning newb to the tree and just use the tree. The narrative is in your head.

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

How bout not assigning newb to the tree and just use the tree. The narrative is in your head.

It's got talents called

Beginner's luck

Learning opportunity

Sincerest flattery (imitation is the sincerest flattery)

Adaptable (this o could be interpreted either way)

Something to prove

So no it's not in my head, it's in the tree.

Now that that's out of the way maybe you can return the courtesy of actually answering my questions?

9 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

It's got talents called

Beginner's luck

Learning opportunity

Sincerest flattery (imitation is the sincerest flattery)

Adaptable (this o could be interpreted either way)⁸

Something to prove

So no it's not in my head, it's in the tree.

Now that that's out of the way maybe you can return the courtesy of actually answering my questions?

So you no longer know how to add 1+1? Because i still know the basic stuff i learned. So why wouldnt a jedi still know the basics?

Also it is not like you have to buy the whole tree

50 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

So you no longer know how to add 1+1? Because i still know the basic stuff i learned. So why wouldnt a jedi still know the basics?

You seem to have forgotten what I wrote in my post because I already addressed your question

13 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Also it is not like you have to buy the whole tree

11 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

So if a player wants to use quick path to power (e.g. they don't like the "newb" narrative theme of a bunch of padawan talents and don't want to pay an extra 10 xp per spec they actually want .... I'm personally in this group) I'm cool with that so i'd generally say "ok but you aren't going to loop back around for the cheap force rating from padawan" (I have allowed that once under extenuating circumstances, won't be repeating it)

But I know there are GMs who take issue with short path to power for a perceived power gaming issue

(which I don't get because from an open ended advancement, mid to long term view starting padawan, making a beeline to force rating and going knight, is more powerful, but it delays the character concept)

So if you are one of those GMs, and

1) your player was going to take force adherant universal spec (which isn't force sensitive and doesn't get a force rating) as their second spec (because it fit character concept), would you then allow them to use the quick path to power to "balance out" the "lost" force rating from the force adherant?

2) what if they want their second spec to be padawan survivor (which has a "savvy"/knowledgeable/not a "newb" theme), would you allow them to use quick path to power to start knight?

3) what about the jedi:knight/niman-disciple combo?

Point is they aren't short cutting to master, by starting knight via quick path to power?

The point is, I'm willing to make a LESS POWERFUL CHARACTER if it let's me play my concept sooner.

Beyond that, if I don't take whole tree I'm not really getting anything I'm not also going to get out of knight or by another method, I just get more of the same. And thus the padawan is just a waste of xp and more importantly time.

There is and adage that justice delayed is justice denied, this isn't about justice but otherwise goes along the same lines, I am 44, I have 2 kids, I don't have a lot of time to game... when I was younger my gaming was constrained by money not time, now time is the far scarcer resource.

I don't want to waste the little time I have to game on playing something other than my character concept.

Admittedly during the era of Corona virus i have slightly more time to post.

Now that I've twice given you the courtesy of answering your questions, can you do me the same courtesy of answering my questions in the original post? But if you have some hang up about the quick path to power rule and you just want to argue rather than have a civil discussion, then kindly find someone else to argue with about something else. Because I would rather not waste my time arguing with you.

5 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

You seem to have forgotten what I wrote in my post because I already addressed your question

The point is, I'm willing to make a LESS POWERFUL CHARACTER if it let's me play my concept sooner.

Beyond that, if I don't take whole tree I'm not really getting anything I'm not also going to get out of knight or by another method, I just get more of the same. And thus the padawan is just a waste of xp and more importantly time.

There is and adage that justice delayed is justice denied, this isn't about justice but otherwise goes along the same lines, I am 44, I have 2 kids, I don't have a lot of time to game... when I was younger my gaming was constrained by money not time, now time is the far scarcer resource.

I don't want to waste the little time I have to game on playing something other than my character concept.

Admittedly during the era of Corona virus i have slightly more time to post.

Now that I've twice given you the courtesy of answering your questions, can you do me the same courtesy of answering my questions in the original post? But if you have some hang up about the quick path to power rule and you just want to argue rather than have a civil discussion, then kindly find someone else to argue with about something else. Because I would rather not waste my time arguing with you.

The answer to the question is you have a needless hang up and I cant help you with your needless hang up.

Honestly, I'm just not that big a fan of the Jedi career. I'd just as soon have my players select normal FaD careers that give them a bit more individuality. Possibly throw in a Jedi spec for free at some point as appropriate (of course, making it equitable for all of the players) or just allowing them to buy in, but although they do have good stuff in them, I find them a bit less interesting and more blah. I certainly wouldn't require them for the character to be narratively X.

In applicable eras,* I'd probably make the Jedi career a "universal" career. If the character starts in Jedi, they can pick a second career to get the discount in (i.e. Sentinel). If they pick a regular career, they can still pick up the Jedi career's specs without paying the out-of-career tax.

I generally start my games at Heroic-Level, which is enough that a player could start in a regular career, beeline it for Force Rating, and then go for Knight/General. (Call it 100 XP for Force Rating, then 20 XP for Knight/General, leaving you with 30 XP for further talents and Skills. If Knight/General is given for free, then 50 XP)

*This means that while I don't particularly care about the name of the tree in most cases as far as narrative goes, for it to be considered universally available the character should be in a (fairly) traditional Jedi setting.

11 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The answer to the question is you have a needless hang up and I cant help you with your needless hang up.

You're projecting, look hard in the mirror before accusing others of your own character flaws; you've said nothing in this thread that wasn't a personal attack against me so this topic obviously touches a nerve for you. If you can't be civil please exit the thread. I've given you the courtesy of well reasoned polite responses, so this topic obviously doesn't touch a nerve with me.

Also look hard at what other people have to say and at least TRY to comprehend it. My problem is I don't have time to waste on not playing my character concept. Maybe you treat characters as nothing more than a collection of stats, but not everyone does. I want to play characters that are effective AT FULFILLING MY CONCEPT and acknowledge that this roughly equates to the general definition of power gaming, however, whenever I have to choose between power and concept I choose concept every time.

Moreover, my three questions are enumerated in the original post and in the span of 4 posts you have not addressed any of them.

23 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Honestly, I'm just not that big a fan of the Jedi career. I'd just as soon have my players select normal FaD careers that give them a bit more individuality. Possibly throw in a Jedi spec for free at some point as appropriate (of course, making it equitable for all of the players) or just allowing them to buy in, but although they do have good stuff in them, I find them a bit less interesting and more blah. I certainly wouldn't require them for the character to be narratively X.

In applicable eras,* I'd probably make the Jedi career a "universal" career. If the character starts in Jedi, they can pick a second career to get the discount in (i.e. Sentinel). If they pick a regular career, they can still pick up the Jedi career's specs without paying the out-of-career tax.

I generally start my games at Heroic-Level, which is enough that a player could start in a regular career, beeline it for Force Rating, and then go for Knight/General. (Call it 100 XP for Force Rating, then 20 XP for Knight/General, leaving you with 30 XP for further talents and Skills. If Knight/General is given for free, then 50 XP)

*This means that while I don't particularly care about the name of the tree in most cases as far as narrative goes, for it to be considered universally available the character should be in a (fairly) traditional Jedi setting .

A traditional jedi setting was the supposition. I find the night to be a good base layer, that is easily tailored to a more interesting concept with the addition of a second spec, whereas it takes several more colorful specs to reach the same point, particularly if not all of the color falls within the lines of the concept.

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

A traditional jedi setting was the supposition. I find the night to be a good base layer, that is easily tailored to a more interesting concept with the addition of a second spec, whereas it takes several more colorful specs to reach the same point, particularly if not all of the color falls within the lines of the concept.

I wasn't applying that to you, that was just qualifying my opinion.

23 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

You're projecting, look hard in the mirror before accusing others of your own character flaws; you've said nothing in this thread that wasn't a personal attack against me so this topic obviously touches a nerve for you. If you can't be civil please exit the thread. I've given you the courtesy of well reasoned polite responses, so this topic obviously doesn't touch a nerve with me.

Also look hard at what other people have to say and at least TRY to comprehend it. My problem is I don't have time to waste on not playing my character concept. Maybe you treat characters as nothing more than a collection of stats, but not everyone does. I want to play characters that are effective AT FULFILLING MY CONCEPT and acknowledge that this roughly equates to the general definition of power gaming, however, whenever I have to choose between power and concept I choose concept every time.

Moreover, my three questions are enumerated in the original post and in the span of 4 posts you have not addressed any of them.

Then USE Knight level or heroic level if time is an issue. I almost never start at base level in a game.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Then USE Knight level or heroic level if time is an issue. I almost never start at base level in a game.

Your opinion has been noted, thank you for your participation.

14 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Your opinion has been noted, thank you for your participation.

You keep trying to justify what you want to do. I dont know why. It is not like we can stop you. Why do we need to endorse what you want to do?

On 6/1/2020 at 4:15 AM, EliasWindrider said:

So if a player wants to use quick path to power (e.g. they don't like the "newb" narrative theme of a bunch of padawan talents and don't want to pay an extra 10 xp per spec they actually want.... I'm personally in this group) I'm cool with that so i'd generally say "ok but you aren't going to loop back around for the cheap force rating from padawan" (I have allowed that once under extenuating circumstances, won't be repeating it)

But I know there are GMs who take issue with short path to power for a perceived power gaming issue

(which I don't get because from an open ended advancement, mid to long term view starting padawan, making a beeline to force rating and going knight, is more powerful, but it delays the character concept)

So if you are one of those GMs, and

1) your player was going to take force adherant universal spec (which isn't force sensitive and doesn't get a force rating) as their second spec (because it fit character concept), would you then allow them to use the quick path to power to "balance out" the "lost" force rating from the force adherant?

2) what if they want their second spec to be padawan survivor (which has a "savvy"/knowledgeable/not a "newb" theme), would you allow them to use quick path to power to start knight?

3) what about the jedi:knight/niman-disciple combo?

Point is they aren't short cutting to master, by starting knight via quick path to power?

If I understand you correctly. I don't see any issues here. If I chose to use short path to power in my game, that's a character creation choice (which the sidebar on page 17 in CotR also calls out: 30xp from starting experience). That's when it's an option - and an option I'd personally use for short stories and one-shots. Although, if I chose to use it for a "proper" campaign, I probably wouldn't limit the later choices of the players by preventing them to take the padawan spec (or any other spec). Although, I most likely wouldn't use short path to power for anything but a weekend one-shot.

1) No. They're not losing anything by choosing a different tree they want, that happens to not include a FR talent. It's a choice they make, and an informed one. So, I wouldn't allow that. Also, short path to power is using starting experience points.

2) If I understand you correctly, see above. Sure. If the game I run allows short path to power, then I would allow them to choose later specialisations as fitting their character.

3) See above.

I'm a big fan of xp and specialisations also representing the past of characters - particularly if they play older characters, that is a character with a past and previous experience that a starting character cannot represent. Short path to power is, as I see it, put in the game to enable a player to start as a knight for short games using CotR, not for games where for instance RotS is available, and it is not an optimal solution or option in any way. However it also serves to allow a player to start as a very strong force user ( simba, chosen one, chosimba , whatevz) from the get-go, at the cost of starting experience. I think this is key, as it affects starting characteristics more than anything, and as such is somewhat balancing. It is still not the most elegant addition to the game.

Quote

1) your player was going to take force adherant universal spec (which isn't force sensitive and doesn't get a force rating) as their second spec (because it fit character concept), would you then allow them to use the quick path to power to "balance out" the "lost" force rating from the force adherant?

No, but I'd allow them to swap out a 25 XP talent from Force Adherent for a Force Rating.

Quote

2) what if they want their second spec to be padawan survivor (which has a "savvy"/knowledgeable/not a "newb" theme), would you allow them to use quick path to power to start knight?

If you're on just starting XP, you're a newb, regardles of the theme of your specs. If you're not on just starting XP, you don't need quick path.

And no. Strength in the Force is not linked to "newbness" or lack thereoff.

Quote

3) what about the jedi:knight/niman-disciple combo?

I'm not seeing the reasoning here. Allowing the Knight spec at character creation is specifically the only thing quick path is allowed for by RAW (maybe General too, not 100% sure). Niman Disciple doesn't change that.

5 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Allowing the Knight spec at character creation is specifically the only thing quick path is allowed for by RAW (maybe General too, not 100% sure). Niman Disciple doesn't change that.

General is called out in CotR as an option yes.

6 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

No, but I'd allow them to swap out a 25 XP talent from Force Adherent for a Force Rating.

I'd be open to consider this too.

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

You keep trying to justify what you want to do. I dont know why. It is not like we can stop you. Why do we need to endorse what you want to do?

Why do you think I'm trying to justify "what I want to do" instead of the plainly stated request for other people's opinions? The topic does seem to touch a nerve for you, though. Why are you needlessly trying to start an argument about this?

12 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Why do you think I'm trying to justify "what I want to do" instead of the plainly stated request for other people's opinions? The topic does seem to touch a nerve for you, though. Why are you needlessly trying to start an argument about this?

Because you keep pushing for quick path to power use. Over and over and over again. Trying to get the very people who dont generally like quick path to power to sign off on this. We get it you like the shortcut. No one here is stopping you from using it.

1) Perhaps, I'd be open to the idea but would take some convincing since it was the players choice to do this and essentially a player is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

2) I mean...according to certain interpretations (and some game developer discussions) there is intention in the Dawn of Rebellion book to allow players to start with a career of their choice, but with a universal spec instead of one of the specs from that career. Why can't that be used as an option?

3) What about it? I don't understand the context.

Personally here's my take on the whole "Quick Path to Power": FFG wanted a way for someone who just has Collapse of the Republic to not be screwed by an unusable Jedi career because they don't have Rise of the Separatists.

As for the 'newbness' of the the padawan career. Aren't starting characters supposed to be 'newbs' in their own way. They are starting characters. Even Revan starts off as a newb in KOTOR yet has a big backstory.

The names of talents in the Padawan tree are just that, names. They could have been named something different and no one would have batted and eyelid. If a player came to me with a problem over a tree due to the names of the talents, I would look them squarely in the eye, put a hand on their shoulder and say..."It's a name...get over it."

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Because you keep pushing for quick path to power use. Over and over and over again. Trying to get the very people who dont generally like quick path to power to sign off on this. We get it you like the shortcut. No one here is stopping you from using it.

I don't know what your issue with me or the rule is.

I am not pushing my preference for this rule now nor have I ever, but you started with personal attacks against me shortly after the first time I *mentioned* it in any post, and I did argue back against your unprovoked personal attacks against me.

For some reason I don't understand you trigger of someone even mentioning this rule, but I am asking you to please stop trying to start an argument with me over this.

You've stated your opinion, I acknowledged/noted and thanked you for it but you keep trying to argue. If all you're going to do in this thread is continue to try to start an argument, then I'm asking you to please exit the thread so people who want to have a civil discussion rather than an argument can have that civil discussion.

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

I don't know what your issue with me or the rule is.

I am not pushing my preference for this rule now nor have I ever, but you started with personal attacks against me shortly after the first time I *mentioned* it in any post, and I did argue back against your unprovoked personal attacks against me.

For some reason I don't understand you trigger of someone even mentioning this rule, but I am asking you to please stop trying to start an argument with me over this.

You've stated your opinion, I acknowledged/noted and thanked you for it but you keep trying to argue. If all you're going to do in this thread is continue to try to start an argument, then I'm asking you to please exit the thread so people who want to have a civil discussion rather than an argument can have that civil discussion.

I have watched you repeatedly push it. So yes you do. And as Ebak said why are you so hung up on the names of the talents. Yes they come across something you learned early. Why is that so terrible? Why are you so hung up on padawans having talents that fit things they learn early on in their career? Do you forget the foundation of your career?

@Daeglan , you've made your point (such as it is), and you've been a jerk about it. Can you just stop now?

2 hours ago, Ebak said:

1) Perhaps, I'd be open to the idea but would take some convincing since it was the players choice to do this and essentially a player is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

2) I mean...according to certain interpretations (and some game developer discussions) there is intention in the Dawn of Rebellion book to allow players to start with a career of their choice, but with a universal spec instead of one of the specs from that career. Why can't that be used as an option?

3) What about it? I don't understand the context.

Personally here's my take on the whole "Quick Path to Power": FFG wanted a way for someone who just has Collapse of the Republic to not be screwed by an unusable Jedi career because they don't have Rise of the Separatists.

As for the 'newbness' of the the padawan career. Aren't starting characters supposed to be 'newbs' in their own way. They are starting characters. Even Revan starts off as a newb in KOTOR yet has a big backstory.

The names of talents in the Padawan tree are just that, names. They could have been named something different and no one would have batted and eyelid. If a player came to me with a problem over a tree due to the names of the talents, I would look them squarely in the eye, put a hand on their shoulder and say..."It's a name...get over it."

Regarding the context of 1) 2) 3) I started with the most restrictive/limited case and got increasingly liberal/permissive as a way to judge where other GMs drew the line. My line is generalized you only get to start in knight if you're not going to take padawan. If someone wants to start in knight and then loop.back to padawan, then they want to start in knight to game the system not for character concept reasons. That's my cut point.

The problem with starting as padawan survivor is it has no bonus career skill but I've said before that if it got the career skill from padawan that would be my preference.

The reason the names matter is narrative flavor/theme. It is the narrative flavor/theme of the padawan spec I object to. While they are admittedly powerful I choose concept over power every time I have to choose between them.

15 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Regarding the context of 1) 2) 3) I started with the most restrictive/limited case and got increasingly liberal/permissive as a way to judge where other GMs drew the line. My line is generalized you only get to start in knight if you're not going to take padawan. If someone wants to start in knight and then loop.back to padawan, then they want to start in knight to game the system not for character concept reasons. That's my cut point.

The problem with starting as padawan survivor is it has no bonus career skill but I've said before that if it got the career skill from padawan that would be my preference.

The reason the names matter is narrative flavor/theme. It is the narrative flavor/theme of the padawan spec I object to. While they are admittedly powerful I choose concept over power every time I have to choose between them.

So you think characters should appear fully formed and have no history.