8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

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

This is you perhaps deliberately misinterpreting my statement and a strawman argument. People grow out of newb-ness/they learn from mistakes/they get more proficient. I love the scar talent mechanic as a means of showing history... yeah it's plainly obvious that you were once a relative newb that got schooled by a more experienced opponent, but by getting schooled you gained expert ou experience/learned a lesson. I've started an RCR d20 jedi character (a game without scar talents) with a cybernetic forearm just for that kind of history. But you don't get to out grow/untake newb themed talents.

And regarding you perhaps deliberately misinterpreting my statements

49 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

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?

Just because you irrationally trigger off of my statements as if I were pushing a preference does not mean I was pushing a preference. You have misinterpreted my statements by viewing them through the biased lens of your own issues/hangups with the quick path to power rule.

Again I have thanked you for expressing your opinion on this rule and i have politely addressed your jabs with well reasoned responses, but if you just want to argue, please exit the thread so that others who want to have a civil discussion instead of argue can have that civil discussion.

7 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

This is you perhaps deliberately misinterpreting my statement and a strawman argument. People grow out of newb-ness/they learn from mistakes/they get more proficient. I love the scar talent mechanic as a means of showing history... yeah it's plainly obvious that you were once a relative newb that got schooled by a more experienced opponent, but by getting schooled you gained expert ou experience/learned a lesson. I've started an RCR d20 jedi character (a game without scar talents) with a cybernetic forearm just for that kind of history. But you don't get to out grow/untake newb themed talents.

And regarding you perhaps deliberately misinterpreting my statements

Just because you irrationally trigger off of my statements as if I were pushing a preference does not mean I was pushing a preference. You have misinterpreted my statements by viewing them through the biased lens of your own issues/hangups with the quick path to power rule.

Again I have thanked you for expressing your opinion on this rule and i have politely addressed your jabs with well reasoned responses, but if you just want to argue, please exit the thread so that others who want to have a civil discussion instead of argue can have that civil discussion.

No you really havent. You repeat the same statements over and over again. Which in no way addresses the attitude you have about a bunch of really good talents. Because you have decided your character cant be a newb. Ever. Of course the only talents you need to buy are quick draw. Something every jedi seems to have. Sense danger or valuable facts. All very useful talents. A couple ranks of reflect and parry. Some grit and toughness. And shocker talent trees also show a history. And your responses are not really well reasoned. They are the same ramblings you have been pushing for a long time. Seems more like you are trying to get us to endorse your thinking.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No you really havent. You repeat the same statements over and over again. Which in no way addresses the attitude you have about a bunch of really good talents. Because you have decided your character cant be a newb. Ever. Of course the only talents you need to buy are quick draw. Something every jedi seems to have. Sense danger or valuable facts. All very useful talents. A couple ranks of reflect and parry. Some grit and toughness. And shocker talent trees also show a history. And your responses are not really well reasoned. They are the same ramblings you have been pushing for a long time. Seems more like you are trying to get us to endorse your thinking.

I can't help that you fail to see/understand reason, and misinterpret other people's statements because of your own biases. Even pointing them out to you in simple terms doesn't seem to help. Your issues are your problems. If all you're going to do is try to start an argument, please exit the thread so that people who want to have a civil discussion instead of argue can have that civil discussion.

8 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I can't help that you fail to see/understand reason, and misinterpret other people's statements because of your own biases. Even pointing them out to you in simple terms doesn't seem to help. Your issues are your problems. If all you're going to do is try to start an argument, please exit the thread so that people who want to have a civil discussion instead of argue can have that civil discussion.

It is your attitude. You want all the cool stuff of the Jedi Career with out making the minimum investment to have it. You can dress it all up in your flowery words. But it is clear that is what you want.

@Daeglan Dude. Is it necessary to carry on with this vendetta of yours? Or whatever you want to call this futile attempt of yours to change/raise someone you cannot change?

11 hours 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.

That is fair and your own prerogative to do that. I specifically didn't get the Knight/Niman Disciple aspect. That to me just shows a Jedi applying their teaching into a more specific area and focus.

As for starting Knight and gaining Padawan, I would allow Padawan Survivor since that is more about surviving in a post-order 66 world.

That being said, while I would discourage buying Padawan after jumping to Knight...I would not be against it as it can be justified. Almost anything can be justified even if it is contrived.

As @Daeglan pointed out (although I will say while I respect Daeglan, his...zealousness in this topic has come off very aggressive and rude) you don't forget the basics in a particular job. However, as you progress you learn shortcuts. Sometimes these shortcuts end up not working in specific situations or over time flaws in those shortcuts arrise and you need to go 'back to basics'. In my job this happens a few times. There are a lot of things I can do that weren't part of my training because I've learnt on the fly that this solution works. Why do 1+1=2 when you know what 2 is already and can start from there?

However, sometimes those solutions don't work and I need to go right back to the fundamentals. That's when I pull out my training document and go back to what I was taught back then.

You could even argue Yoda might have done this when he became the Padawan of Qui-Gon's spirit. His GM had him start as Knight, he quickly rose to Master, purchased some other trees like Ataru Striker etc..then saw how useful some of the Padawan abilities were and purchased Padawan later into the game.

I could easily see a Jedi doing this. They know what they're doing, they don't need those Padawan basics...until they realise they do and again go back to basics.

On 6/2/2020 at 7:19 AM, Daeglan said:

It is your attitude. You want all the cool stuff of the Jedi Career with out making the minimum investment to have it. You can dress it all up in your flowery words. But it is clear that is what you want.

For someone who acuses others of "pushing" their views, you seem rather insistent that it is wrong to use the RAW "quick path to power" optional rule. You are projecting your own tendencies onto others. I am not like you; I don't push my views on others.

What I want out of this thread is to better understand the opinions of other GMs particularly those that dislike the quick path to power rule, whether it is a hard no for them, or whether they would consider it under certain circumstances/conditions The reason I asked about conditional acceptance it it reveals the reasons/the why behind their thinking/opinions.

As for what I've learned about your thinking...

You've made it clear that quick path to power is a hard no for you and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong because they disagree with you. You're reasoning on this issue appears incredibly inconsistent. You seem to agree with me that the padawan spec has useful talents, and someone who skips it is missing out. It's unclear whether you agree that this results in a less powerful build because you've made inconsistent statements going both ways about it. You seem to not comprehend that someone would deliberately choose a less powerful build to have a character that fulfills their concept better sooner, and you seem insistent that no one be "allowed" to skip padawan to get a game mechanically weaker character that does fulfill their concept better. As if you had any say in a game that doesn't involve you.

You seem to consider knight/heroic level play "good"/RAW while the the quick path to power is "bad"/not RAW although they are both allowed options with identical status under RAW. The difference is that you like one and the other is wrong because you don't like it, and anyone who liked it or wants to get the opinion of other GMs is pushing their views/has an ulterior motive of trying to get something for themself in a game that doesn't involve you or likely any other people involved in the conversation.

So yes you've made your position abundantly clear. Thank you for informing me of your opinion. Now that you have, and I have acknowledged that I in detail understand your position, can you please not continue to try to start an argument, I still want to understand the why/reasons OTHER GMs have for their opinion about the quick path to power rule. There are people here who want to have a civil discussion on that rather than argue, so if your reason for continued "participation" is to argue, please exit the thread. Once again thank you for your participation up to this point.

2 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

For someone who acuses others of "pushing" their views, you seem rather insistent that it is wrong to use the RAW "quick path to power" optional rule. You are projecting your own tendencies onto others. I am not like you; I don't push my views on others.

What I want out of this thread is to better understand the opinions of other GMs particularly those that dislike the quick path to power rule, whether it is a hard no for them, or whether they would consider it under certain circumstances/conditions The reason I asked about conditional acceptance it it reveals the reasons/the why behind their thinking/opinions.

As for what I've learned about your thinking...

You've made it clear that quick path to power is a hard no for you and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong because they disagree with you. You're reasoning on this issue appears incredibly inconsistent. You eem to agree with me that the padawan spec has useful talents, and someone who skips it is missing out. It's unclear whether you agree that this results in a less powerful build because you've made inconsistent statements going both ways about it. You seem to not comprehend that someone would deliberately choose a less powerful build to have a character that fulfills their concept better sooner, and you seem insistent that no one be "allowed" to skip padawan to get a game mechanically weaker character that does fulfill their concept better. As if you had any say in a game that doesn't involve you.

You seem to consider knight/heroic level play "good"/RAW while the the quick path to power is "bad"/not RAW although they are both allowed options with identical status under RAW. The difference is that you like one and the other is wrong because you don't like it, and anyone who liked it or wants to get the opinion of other GMs is pushing their views/has an ulterior motive of trying to get something for themself in a game that doesn't involve you or likely any other people involved in the conversation.

So yes you've made your position abundantly clear. Thank you for informing me of your opinion. Now that you have, and I have acknowledged that I in detail understand your position, can you please not continue to start an argument, I still want to understand the why/reasons OTHER GMs have for their opinion about the quick path to power rule. There are people here who want to have a civil discussion on that rather than argue, so if your reason for continued "participation" is to argue, please exit the thread. Once again thank you for your participation up to this point.

I dont agree it results in a less powerful build. Just an incomplete one.

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I dont agree it results in a less powerful build. Just an incomplete one.

Then i don't think you've done the math/cost-to-benefit analysis, I'll sketch it out for you

By starting in padawan, spending 105 xp gets you effectively 2 dedications and into knight, when in a tree where dedication is a straight shot to the bottom you get 1 dedication for 75 xp. Each additional spec also costs 10 xp more so the jedi starting padawan is ahead on power until 5 specs after knight, which is effectively never. But what about early in the game? After 40 xp into the game the character starting in padawan is ahead of the jedi in terms of power, it's not completely unarguable but I'd say that the padawan is ahead for the first 40 xp as well because you don't need anything special to use an attribute increase and you need force powers or force talents to make use of a force rating. But since you like knight/heroic level play you'd start past the point where it was arguable that the knight was ahead of the padawan. And yes with the 40 xp sliding window of investing xp into force power and upgrades there might be brief periods along the where the jedi starting knight with quick path to power can barely pull off a force power the jedi starting padawan barely couldn't, but depending on timeline the jedi starting padawan is one or 2 dedications ahead of the jedi starting knight which still tips in the jedi starting as padawan's favor. Yes power depends on how you spend your xp and one person could choose to build a weak padawan to go up against a strongly built knight starting with quick path to power, but that's a strawman argument because you're comparing sub optimal to optimal it's apples to oranges and the difference is due to build choices rather than the quick path to power.

However, if the GM allows the quick path to power knight to loop back around to padawan for the quick force rating, that completely changes/reverses the power (im)balance, and I generally disallow that (I made an exception one time for a newb player... he'd asked for help building for a movie like jedi and I'd recommended he started knight and go padawan survivor and he wanted to switch out padawan survivor for padawan... I knew he wasn't trying to game the system because he didn't know the system well enough to try to game it, also the game started at 900 earned xp and I figured that it wouldn't make much of a difference at that point... I could tell the difference in actual play though so I wouldn't allow it again, that's why my cut point is where it is).

I acknowledge that you maybe unconvinced by the math/reasoning I outlined above and you think I've outsmarted/tricked myself by it. If so you're entitled to that opinion, but maybe you now understand why I think the way I do even though you don't agree with me. My word is not law and my opinion is not infallible, but I am logically self consistent.

Sorry I wanted to read through what people had already put properly but...the arguement put me off...**sigh**

Errr the Jedi career, for me, is very broad and powerful. I would much, much prefer it to be a universal spec of some kind that requires a strong narrative reasoning to be purchased and, as a general, avoid impliemnting it otherwise due to how easy it is to rapidly gain abilities/competence.

Unsure what else was asked now the back and forth wore me out.

To answer the OP, if a player has concept for his / her character to start with the quick path to power then I don't see why I couldn't allow it. I'm convinced that players should play the character they wish and not the character the GM wants them to play.

5 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Then i don't think you've done the math/cost-to-benefit analysis, I'll sketch it out for you

By starting in padawan, spending 105 xp gets you effectively 2 dedications and into knight, when in a tree where dedication is a straight shot to the bottom you get 1 dedication for 75 xp. Each additional spec also costs 10 xp more so the jedi starting padawan is ahead on power until 5 specs after knight, which is effectively never. But what about early in the game? After 40 xp into the game the character starting in padawan is ahead of the jedi in terms of power, it's not completely unarguable but I'd say that the padawan is ahead for the first 40 xp as well because you don't need anything special to use an attribute increase and you need force powers or force talents to make use of a force rating. But since you like knight/heroic level play you'd start past the point where it was arguable that the knight was ahead of the padawan. And yes with the 40 xp sliding window of investing xp into force power and upgrades there might be brief periods along the where the jedi starting knight with quick path to power can barely pull off a force power the jedi starting padawan barely couldn't, but depending on timeline the jedi starting padawan is one or 2 dedications ahead of the jedi starting knight which still tips in the jedi starting as padawan's favor. Yes power depends on how you spend your xp and one person could choose to build a weak padawan to go up against a strongly built knight starting with quick path to power, but that's a strawman argument because you're comparing sub optimal to optimal it's apples to oranges and the difference is due to build choices rather than the quick path to power.

However, if the GM allows the quick path to power knight to loop back around to padawan for the quick force rating, that completely changes/reverses the power (im)balance, and I generally disallow that (I made an exception one time for a newb player... he'd asked for help building for a movie like jedi and I'd recommended he started knight and go padawan survivor and he wanted to switch out padawan survivor for padawan... I knew he wasn't trying to game the system because he didn't know the system well enough to try to game it, also the game started at 900 earned xp and I figured that it wouldn't make much of a difference at that point... I could tell the difference in actual play though so I wouldn't allow it again, that's why my cut point is where it is).

I acknowledge that you maybe unconvinced by the math/reasoning I outlined above and you think I've outsmarted/tricked myself by it. If so you're entitled to that opinion, but maybe you now understand why I think the way I do even though you don't agree with me. My word is not law and my opinion is not infallible, but I am logically self consistent.

The reason I am unconvinced by your reasoning is that is straight up min max bs.

I dont care about being efficient. But jeez you so super focused on min maxing you think skipping a tree to do a different kind of min maxing makes a less powerful character. It doesn't. it just means you choose a different thing to min max on.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

The reason I am unconvinced by your reasoning is that is straight up min max bs.

I dont care about being efficient. But jeez you so super focused on min maxing you think skipping a tree to do a different kind of min maxing makes a less powerful character. It doesn't. it just means you choose a different thing to min max on.

I've had formal training in and advanced the state of the art of optimization during my career.

Min max is a particular optimization strategy where you've maximized a few things to the point of being god like in them at the cost of being piss poor in almost everything else. If (note the conditional statement) I were to optimize for power, my preferred optimization strategy would be to max mean (get the highest average capabilities, few to no weaknesses, while being good [not best] at many things, this would be the character in the party who is second best at "everything" and can "hang with" the member of the party who is best at anything).

However neither of those optimization strategies had anything to do with my previous post. Starting padawan instead of knight effectively gets you 2 dedications for cheap. As I did not specify which attribute(s) they should go to I neither min maxed nor max meaned. The key point is that Generic capability that could be applied to * any * objective function is gained by starting padawan instead of knight.

I do commend you for knowing that optimization targets an objective function/chosen goal though, there are a number of forum members who don't understand that, trampgraphics being chief among them.

Just because I can quantify the "power" of different build choices in terms of xp (a cost to benefit analysis where benefit is defined in terms of power or whatever else the objective function is), does not mean I choose the more "powerful" option.

Personally, I optimize to be effective at fulfilling my character concept as soon as possible,whether that means being more or less "powerful." So yes "quick path to power" can help fulfill a character concept more quickly and in that sense let's me make a more optimized character. However, it doesn't let me make a more powerful character (unless circling back around to padawan for a cheap force rating is allowed, but that's not something I allow as GM).

Btw what about my post was "bs"? What aspects of my logic/math do you think were in error, or was simply being capable of doing a cost to benefit analysis at all what made it "BS" in your opinion?

9 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I've had formal training in and advanced the state of the art of optimization during my career.

Min max is a particular optimization strategy where you've maximized a few things to the point of being god like in them at the cost of being piss poor in almost everything else. If (note the conditional statement) I were to optimize for power, my preferred optimization strategy would be to max mean (get the highest average capabilities, few to no weaknesses, while being good [not best] at many things, this would be the character in the party who is second best at "everything" and can "hang with" the member of the party who is best at anything).

However neither of those optimization strategies had anything to do with my previous post. Starting padawan instead of knight effectively gets you 2 dedications for cheap. As I did not specify which attribute(s) they should go to I neither min maxed nor max meaned. The key point is that Generic capability that could be applied to * any * objective function is gained by starting padawan instead of knight.

I do commend you for knowing that optimization targets an objective function/chosen goal though, there are a number of forum members who don't understand that, trampgraphics being chief among them.

Just because I can quantify the "power" of different build choices in terms of xp (a cost to benefit analysis where benefit is defined in terms of power or whatever else the objective function is), does not mean I choose the more "powerful" option.

Personally, I optimize to be effective at fulfilling my character concept as soon as possible,whether that means being more or less "powerful." So yes "quick path to power" can help fulfill a character concept more quickly and in that sense let's me make a more optimized character. However, it doesn't let me make a more powerful character (unless circling back around to padawan for a cheap force rating is allowed, but that's not something I allow as GM).

Btw what about my post was "bs"? What aspects of my logic/math do you think were in error, or was simply being capable of doing a cost to benefit analysis at all what made it "BS" in your opinion?

It is the going for saying it is less powerful when it really is not. choosing a different optimization and saying it is less powerful is BS. you act like you must fill out a tree if you take it you do not.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

It is the going for saying it is less powerful when it really is not. choosing a different optimization and saying it is less powerful is BS. you act like you must fill out a tree if you take it you do not.

Now you're arguing against stuff I didn't say and claiming I said it... I never said/recommended tr aking the whole tree just a straight down the right side to the dedication, and beyond that the jedi starting padawan is s effectively ahead one dedication 40 xp into the the tree (didn't loose a starting attribute boost to get the fr2). And you're right that jedi starting knight can optimize for something else better than the jedi starting padawan, but it won't be "power."

You guys. Please.

48 minutes ago, Jegergryte said:

You guys. Please.

I actually thought that things had calmed down, and we were having a meaningful exchange of ideas at this point. I wouldn't classify the current state of things as an argument.

At this point I suspect that we mainly disagree about terminology, I'm being precise in my language and I think he's being loose with his.

Daeglan may be a bit abrasive about how he goes about saying it, but he's got a very valid point.

Time and time and time again, not only with this system but with Saga Edition and even OCR/RCR, I've seen Elias blather on about "efficiency" and what is ultimately min-maxing his various character builds. I've seen it with his various "I want to be Jason Bourne right out the gate with starting XP!" efforts (all while he ignores that Bourne is most certainly NOT a starting-tier player-character in anything outside of most superhero RPGs), and this latest bit about "am I a munchkin for using Quick Path to Power and then doubling right back into Padawan?" is more of the same. More likely than not, if he brought those sorts of antics to any RPG that I was running, he'd very soon find himself looking for a different group to game with.

I don't agree with that mindset at all, and in fact hold a very low opinion of those gamers who see that as the only way to play this or any other RPG. I'm not against optimization (I myself do it to make a PC that's effective at what they're supposed to be good at), but it's the end-all or be-all that Elias is apparently obsessed with, repeating the same few justifications ad nauseum.

I think it's worth noting that the devs themselves have weighed in that while it's rules legal to use the Quick Path to Power to start at Force Rating 2 and then dive right back into Padawan for a fairly cheap boost to Force Rating 3, it is not what that sidebar was intended for, and that doing so is abusing the spirit of the rule as it was intended (that being to allow PCs to begin in either the Knight or General specialization rather than being forcibly shoe-horned into Padawan as their starting specialization).

Regarding said rule of Quick Path to Power, I'm fine with it being used for its intended purpose, that of a player having the option to enter play as a Jedi that's not in the Padawan specialization by default. Then again, most campaigns that I've run and played in with this system have long since moved away from the "raw newb" as the PCs start with additional earned XP and credits (25XP/+1K credits for "rookies" or Heroic Level for more capable adventurers) that a RAW starting character wouldn't have, thus accounting for the PCs either having a bit of experience under their belt prior to answering the call to adventure, or just simply being very gifted.

23 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Daeglan may be a bit abrasive about how he goes about saying it, but he's got a very valid point.

Time and time and time again, not only with this system but with Saga Edition and even OCR/RCR, I've seen Elias blather on about "efficiency" and what is ultimately min-maxing his various character builds. I've seen it with his various "I want to be Jason Bourne right out the gate with starting XP!" efforts (all while he ignores that Bourne is most certainly NOT a starting-tier player-character in anything outside of most superhero RPGs), and this latest bit about "am I a munchkin for using Quick Path to Power and then doubling right back into Padawan?" is more of the same. More likely than not, if he brought those sorts of antics to any RPG that I was running, he'd very soon find himself looking for a different group to game with.

I don't agree with that mindset at all, and in fact hold a very low opinion of those gamers who see that as the only way to play this or any other RPG. I'm not against optimization (I myself do it to make a PC that's effective at what they're supposed to be good at), but it's the end-all or be-all that Elias is apparently obsessed with, repeating the same few justifications ad nauseum.

I think it's worth noting that the devs themselves have weighed in that while it's rules legal to use the Quick Path to Power to start at Force Rating 2 and then dive right back into Padawan for a fairly cheap boost to Force Rating 3, it is not what that sidebar was intended for, and that doing so is abusing the spirit of the rule as it was intended (that being to allow PCs to begin in either the Knight or General specialization rather than being forcibly shoe-horned into Padawan as their starting specialization).

Regarding said rule of Quick Path to Power, I'm fine with it being used for its intended purpose, that of a player having the option to enter play as a Jedi that's not in the Padawan specialization by default . Then again, most campaigns that I've run and played in with this system have long since moved away from the "raw newb" as the PCs start with additional earned XP and credits (25XP/+1K credits for "rookies" or Heroic Level for more capable adventurers) that a RAW starting character wouldn't have, thus accounting for the PCs either having a bit of experience under their belt prior to answering the call to adventure, or just simply being very gifted.

Donovan. You have greatly mischaracterized me in many ways with this post

1) I never tried to make Jason Bourne with starting xp, the point was to have done it with about 600-700 earned xp

2) I have said repeatedly in this and other threads that starting as knight and looping back around to padawan is my cut point, what I don't allow

3) while I do talk about efficiency/optimization, I don't think I've ever min/maxed a character under any star wars system, I've historically prefered broadly capable characters to those that are god like in a few areas and piss poor in everything else. But I suspect you intentionally used min/max loosely as a derogatory slur.

4) I suspect that if I multiplied the number of justifications I used by 10 you would still accuse me of insincere motivations, but the truth is just as simple as I like characters who are effective at fulfilling my concept of them or to put it in your words " effective at what they're supposed to be good at"

5) we share the same position on the bolded parts above although you apparently think I don't share that view.

5 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Donovan. You have greatly mischaracterizes me in many ways

1) I never tried to make Jaden Bourne with starting xp, the point was to have done it with about 600-700 earned xp

2) I have said repeatedly in this and other threads that starting as knight and looping back around to padawan is my cut point what I don't allow

3) while I do talk about efficiency/optimization, I don't think I've ever min/maxed a character under any star wars system, I prefer broadly capable characters to those that are god like in a few areas and piss poor in everything else. But I suspect you intentionally used min/max loosely as a derogatory slur.

4) we share the same position on the bolded parts above although you apparently think I don't share that view.

Just because you call it something else does not mean it is not min max

5 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Just because you call it something else does not mean it is not min max

And by the same token, just because you call something min max doesn't mean it is.

How about this for a compromise: The Force Rating talent in the Padawan tree doesn't give a bonus to Force Rating if you use Quick Path to Power.

Still costs the XP, but that's what you pay for the convenience of QPtP.

23 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Just because you call it something else does not mean it is not min max

Min max means "minimize everything you don't care about so you can put all your resources into being awesome at the few things you do care about." Min maxing is over specialization, the proverbial one trick pony. I've never done that because I've historically preferred broadly capable characters, as I mentioned to you the character in the party who is second best at everything. Wile that is optimization, it's not min maxing/over specialization. I believe you and dono are using "min maxing" loosely as a derogatory slur you apply to anyone you think has paid too much attention to build optimization at the expense of character concept, which again is not me because I optimize in support of my concept not to it's detriment. Roleplaying comes first for me.

40 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Min max means "minimize everything you don't care about so you can put all your resources into being awesome at the few things you do care about." Min maxing is over specialization, the proverbial one trick pony. I've never done that because I've historically preferred broadly capable characters, as I mentioned to you the character in the party who is second best at everything. Wile that is optimization, it's not min maxing/over specialization. I believe you and dono are using "min maxing" loosely as a derogatory slur you apply to anyone you think has paid too much attention to build optimization at the expense of character concept, which again is not me because I optimize in support of my concept not to it's detriment. Roleplaying comes first for me.

It has EVERYTHING to do with your attitude about it.

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It has EVERYTHING to do with your attitude about it.

Before you accuse others of having an attitude, look in the mirror first, because you're projecting. You have made unprovoked and unsubstantiated personal attacks against me for the duration of this thread. I have repeatedly thanked you for expressing your opinion and asked you to please stop trying to start an argument. I confirmed that I understood your position by explaining it back to you an the only subtle correction/clarification you made was a point i previously said was unclear because you had made apparently mixed statements about. I took the time to understand your position you you did not explicitly spell out and instead communicated through insults, I articulately and precisely spelled out and explained the reasons behind my position. I commended/congratulated you for making a few astute comments. I came out and said my position was just opinion and that I could be wrong/could have outsmarted myself with my own logic. You have tried to force your view on others, I have not, but you accused me of your own behavior.

One of the two of us has displayed an "attitude" in this thread, but it was not me. Unless you meant my attitude was gracious and yours was hostile, but I don't think that's what you meant.

If you would care to support why you think I secretly have an attitude that is explicitly counter to everything I have said in this thread, I am willing to listen. But before you do, I ask you to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are again merely accusing me of what you would do if our positions were reversed.

This board needs new mods...