TheSagaContinues

Even if you never agree no matter how much evidence you are shown (which is looking more and more like the case)

I stepped away from this for a bit because I didn't want to just argue, but coming back and seeing this, I'm ready to argue.

So first off, let's look at your evidence. We'll start with Datapads.

Firstly, the list you posted isn't structured as an exhaustive list, it's stating what general purposes it's used for. This is the fluff part, not the actual rules. Secondly it qualifies that it can do more than what is listed in the very next Sentence. "In addition to performing basic computer functions, datapads can interface with larger computer networks directly or via comlink." The 'performing basic computer functions' is the rules part stating exactly what it can do, which is a subjective thing of whatever your group would agree qualifies as basic computer functions. So by the very wording, there is no hard limitations on what you can do. It then informs you that you can do other stuff (hook it up to a larger computer network). This is completely different from Power Gererators (don't worry, we'll get to those soon).

Next let's look at your other example or evidence, as you called it. The Bandolier. You tried to use the fact that it lists several different types of weapon ammo as an argument that it compares to the wording of the Power Generator, so let's look at the exact wording. Don't worry I'll break it down for you since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be in your repertoire. "Depending on the weapons the wearer carries, a bandolier may contain energy cells or power packs (for blasters), clips (for slugthrowers), explosive bolts (for bowcasters), magazines (for missile launchers, grenades, knives, or any number of other forms of ammunion." This seems to be as far as you've read. This section seems to give us a pretty comprehensive list of items you can use, though it does you the term 'may' when leading into those. Could be open to interpretation, but let's read the rest of the entry before making any judgments. "A bandolier has 12 slots that can each hold a single Tiny weapon (such as a grenade or a knife) or a single piece of equipment weighing up to 0.5 kg. Any item on the bandolier can be retrieved as a move action." Oh it gives us exact qualifications on what can be held by a Bandolier. So ya it makes sense that it can hold basically anything light enough to fit in one of the 12 item slots. Ok things are pretty clear but RAW here so let's move on to the big one.

And finally we are going to look at Power Generators in their entirety. You seem to think that the rules are worded in a similar manner to both Datapads and Bandoliers so let's actually check the rules and see. "A power generator is a small fusion reactor that provides continuous power for heavy weapons, vehicles, structures, and machinery." This is worded in a more definitive manner than the other two entries, but as we saw from the Bandolier, we should continue reading to see if this is closer to fluff or hard rules. "It can power anything up to a Gargantuan vehicle or structure indefinitely, a Colossal vehicle or structure for 1 day, and a vehicle or structure of Colossal (frigate) size for 1 hour. After that, it is disabled and must be repaired." Well it does sort of provide hard rules, except it has qualifiers on all of those. The first thing is it says 'anything up to a Gargantuan vehicle or structure indefinitely'. This has the anything clause that you keep harping on, but the way the previous sentence was written would imply that 'anything' should qualify the initial list. Does the rules it's presenting break that or reinforce that? It only lists things previously listed, and doesn't list all the items either. That would tell us that this is reinforcing the previous sentence's qualifiers, not using them as examples. Ergo, as written this reads as 'It can power up any Heavy Weapons, vehicles, structures or machinery up to a Gargantuan vehicle or structure indefinitely.' Sounds weird when read out loud. Repeating things in a sentence is always messy as far as the English language goes. We can see that putting the full list of qualifiers in the previous sentence makes perfect sense from a structuring standpoint. Now I know you are going to say, 'but anything means it could be anything! it could even be a boat!' Now while technically, that is a valid way of interpreting that sentence, no person looking at the sentence from an analytical view would use that reading. The only way that reading would be accepted would be if the author came out and said that that was the interpretation they were going for. Possible, but without having the author's direct confirmation, we are reading it the way it SHOULD be read, not a way it techincally COULD be read.

So we can see (hopefully you can too now) that Power Generators are not worded in the same way as Datapads or Bandoliers which both give generalized lists to give us an idea then follow up with explicit rules. Bandoliers seems like it would be be similar at first glance, but an actual breakdown shows that those aren't the same. The Bandolier's 'any item' comes with it's own qualifier that includes everything listed and then some. Now if English isn't your first language it would make perfect sense why you are struggling with this sort of situation. English is fairly dumb with how it uses things, but it does have established rules and ways of reading sentence structure that has a consistency on how to read things even if you could read things multiple ways.

And you're right, this doesn't pertain to most things in this thread. I would have MUCH rather discussed item placements and such, but when presented with minor problems with how you interpreted things you decided to argue the point quite profusely. So if you have any actual evidence as to things being different, feel free to provide it, but what you've presented so far fails to make the points you think it does. Again, if English isn't your first language, I completely understand why you think things work the way they do. You'd be wrong, but it's a very understandable wrong.

Quote from: DaSarcasticGuy on October 28, 2021, 07:58:44 pm

The books clearly WRITE exactly what CAN be used with things. It's right there in the printed text.

Correct. To quote the book, "anything."

I am also going to ask you to refrain from rehashing this same argument. If you care about the quality of the guide, the most helpful thing you can do is accept what the text says and move on.

Actually the book initially lists 4 broad category qualifiers, then states anything. Following the way sentence structure works would mean that the anything is referring to those 4 categories. Ergo, Anything that falls under the 4 listed categories.

Actually here, I'm going to give you a real world example of exactly why you wouldn't be able to hook up up other weapons while using them. Power tools. Now many people have access to a cordless powered screwdriver. They have ways of charging their batteries, but you can't hook it up to the wall or a generator to use it. They way the power packs are designed means they can't be charged while also being used. There are plenty of other wired power tools that can (or have to be) plugged in to work. The power generator in Saga would most likely work in a similar way. It would be able to charge power packs, but you couldn't plug your blaster rifle directly into it and have an unlimited supply. The blaster rifle just isn't built with that sort of use in mind. It needs a power pack, not a cord. Heavy Blaster weapons draw more power from the packs and go through them faster, so being able to hook them up to a different power source makes sense for the design so when they designed them, they built in a way for them to hook up to a power generator. Hence the books making note of that fact on heavy blaster weapons individually but not on blaster pistols, carbines or rifles (minus the one exception).

That is a direct reading of the book. I'm trying to get you to 'accept what the text says' so we can move on. Just based off of how the English language works, this is the most correct interpretation of the rules as written. Your way is a correct interpretation, but not the most correct. Which is why there is this whole debate. You failing to realize this is the reason there is backlash to you about these rules. If your guide is written based off of faulty premises then it's really hard to discuss anything before those premises are addressed. So if you are going to be adamant about using only your interpretation of the rules, despite many arguing against it, then there's nothing for us to discuss. Which would be a shame as this was a much needed but daunting project that you undertook and poured a lot of time and effort into.

Why didn't you list Dual Cannons in the Emplacement section or whatever? Is the assumption that since they are a 0 Emplacement option, everyone would have them by default? Because you mentioned other 0 Emplacement options that were very good (and this one is probably a Gold or Light Blue tier option).

Wow this layered armor thing is crazy. But just to set this straight, It is physically impossible to wear multiple armors once they get heavy enough. Basically anything with plates. While it may be possible to find a way to don that armor with help, being able to walk would be an absolute chore. That's like saying I could hold 3 Blaster Pistols in my right hand because the book doesn't explicitly state that I can't hold (and wield) that many weapons in one hand. It's common sense that you can't do that. And the book goes out of it's way to provide you with things that CAN be worn with additional armor. Where in any of the books is a rule not explicitly stated that has redundancies mentioned. Gimme 1 other example like Armor that doesn't have a rule specifying you can't do something while also having multiple options of things that allow that thing for that particular item or ability or whatever. It makes sense that you can wear a Thinsuit under other Armor. It's why they specified that you can do it that way. Which means that normally you can't do it that way (which is so blatantly obvious that they didn't mention it). You have to be incredibly obtuse to think that you could rules lawyer that into meaning that you can wear layers of armor. Layering armor isn't allowed by RAW except for those items EXPLICTLY stated to be able to. Why would you be able to do something out of the norm because there is no rule stating you can't? By that logic, I could say my character can use Psionic powers like those found in other RPGs because there is no rule stating that I can't. Psionic Powers are RAW by your definition.

Your issue is that you are trying to be the smartest person in the room so you are overthinking things and trying to be as technical as possible. This has caused you to miss the forest for the trees. If you wanted to try and get a character able to wear some armor pieces that would make sense to be able to wear together that's fine, but THAT would be the House Rule. By RAW, you can't have layers. Sorry if this came off harsh, but I'm struggling to see how you could seriously be arguing this, for this long. IF multiple armors were allowed at once, there would be MASSIVE penalties to movement and skills and stuff because wearing armor is taxing. (Seriously go try and actually wear heavier types of armor, then try and put on a jacket or something while wearing it. You'll get how incredulous your suggested reading actually is).

Wow, thanks StevenO. There's a lot there. And ya there is no way I'm going to try and make a character go to level 20 for some newbs!!! But level 12 seemed like a good end game area where they could see exactly what was going on and what the character can acomplish. Level 1 was mainly because that's where they would be starting. And for clarification, they might not necessarily be starting with these characters, they certainly can, but I was thinking they would probably act more as guides. Just wanted to have everything represented so they understand the baselines of where to go. I feel really comfortable with Jedi characters (as those are the ones I played the most) and more combat oriented characters just feel easier to make a baseline for. I really like the Wookie Scout Warrior concept you mentioned. I wouldn't go with the CT-killer for him for these basic characters, I'm not sure if any of them would be able to grasp that right away. Well, the ones who have played other RPGs would, but it's the ones who are super new that I would be wary of overloading with complexity.

One thing I've really struggled with is finding Feats for Nobles that aren't just combat related. Am I forced to have them be more combat centric? I've always assumed that the players would gravitate towards that, but was hoping there would be a more 'diplomatic' approach for players who might want to go that way. Of course this could all be a waste of time on my part, but it never hurts to be prepared. But I think I'm going to take another read through of everything you gave me. Again thanks for the massive info dump. Cheers. 

Thanks for the responses, I appreciate them. I think I'm going to go with fairytalejedi on this one. The fact that Pin is the ONLY grapple that is maintained through your opponents turn would seem to indicate that that is what they are talking about when they reference Acrobatics escaping from a Grapple. I could totally see this going either way though, so thanks again for the responses.

There are several things you can try, Going Noble 1 for Noble Fencing Style and putting a bigger emphasis on Cha will help to-hit and UtF (which means less stats to focus on). Soldier Talent: Ambush Specialist gives a +2 to hit vs 1 target. Cunning Attack Feat also has a +2 to hit if you wanted to work it in there (Works well with Combat Trickery Feat). The Force Adept Empower Weapon feat adds an addition Die of damage to up that. The Force Power Dark Rage gives a huge + to To-Hit and Damage and with the Force Tech Imp Dark Rage, negates the 'Rage' downside. It's another Power that needs Many Shades of the Force though.

Just some thoughts, I know this thread is kinda old, but you didn't have any responses.

Sorry to Necro the thread, but the link to the WotC site seems like it's no longer available. Is there a chance those Crystals survived anywhere?