D&D 5E Sell me on 5th…

[ECMO3]

Sure, but I don't count optional rules when discussing broad game differences since they cant be counted on to be in any given game. Plus, those really don't have anything to do with the class.

So you don't consider rules which add variation to classes and then use that to prop up your argument that there is no variation between classes? This sounds like a strawman to me.

Also as a point of fact ASIs and feats are class mechanics as it is the class chassis and level that provides them. If you are playing with feats then feats are just as much part of the "Ranger class" as spells are.

 

[Maxperson]

I consider pretty much all rules optional, so I start with the assumption all tables are different

All rules are optional in the sense that the DM can add, remove or change any of them. The major difference, though, is that core rules have to be opted out of. They are assumed to be in place unless the DM says differently. Rules labeled optional are assumed not to be in place unless the DM says otherwise.

In general game discussions optional rules have to be assumed not to be there, because that is how they are used.

Also, I came into this conversation in the middle and I shouldn’t have - sorry!

No worries. It's okay to enter wherever the conversation is. That's how forums work!

Edit: so if there is an optional rule for a rule that means the default is optional too.

That's not the case. Default is assumed to be in place unless the DM says otherwise. It doesn't become an optional rule that has to be opted into like optional rules.

 

[Maxperson]

So you don't consider rules which add variation to classes and then use that to prop up your argument that there is no variation between classes? This sounds like a strawman to me.

It can't be a strawman. Look up strawman to see what that fallacy is.

Optional rules cannot be assumed to be in play.

Also as a point of fact ASIs and feats are class mechanics as it is the class chassis and level that provides them. If you are playing with feats then feats are just as much part of the "Ranger class" as spells are.

ASIs are assumed to be in play. Feats are not.

 

[ECMO3]

Right. 20ish% different due to subclass. Just like every other ranger subclass. All rangers will be 80ish% the same and the subclass will vary it a bit.

And that is the 20% I use.

Not used still =/= not available to you. Your personal choices don't change the 80ish% number. It can't.

I didn't say they were not available, I said they were not how it played.

And yet you could have walked around just casting lots of spells like very other wizard.

Right, but the subclass abilities afforded a different kind of play. You are stating that subclasses only change the way a character can be played a little bit. That is not true.

Your personal choices affected how you PLAYED the wizard, but did not make it very different from every other wizard mechanically.

Yes it was very different mechanically, specifically in damage reduction, extra attack and extremely high AC which no other Wizards (or other characters for that matter) have.

You can't do what I did with a bladesinger with any other Wizard ... even though 80% of the mechanics are the same.

 

[Maxperson]

And that is the 20% I use.

Okay. That still doesn't alter the fact that your ranger is mechanically 80% the same as every other ranger. Lack of use of a mechanic doesn't remove it from your character.

I didn't say they were not available, I said they were not how it played.

Then it seems like you agree with me that your ranger was mechanically 80% the same as every other ranger, but how you PLAYED it was different.

Right, but the subclass abilities afforded a different kind of play. You are stating that subclasses only change the way a character can be played a little bit. That is not true.

The subclass options are 20%. That can change the feel of the character significantly, but not the mechanics of the character significantly. Mechanically you remain 80% the same as every other ranger.

 

[ECMO3]

Optional rules cannot be assumed to be in play.

And they can't be assumed not to be in play. Further you are arguing about actual characters I played and are stating they are "80% the same" .... well the characters I played had a ton of optional rules.

If you are not using optional rules at all then the Ranger I was playing was NOT 80% a Ranger. She had very few basic "non-optional" Ranger abilities.

She did not have Natural explorer, she did not have Favored enemy, she did not have Primevil awareness, she did not have hide in plain sight and her fighting style was an optional fighting style

So if this is your position, that we are not including "optional features" then YOU ARE FLAT WRONG that my Ranger was 80% a Ranger, just factually incorrect, because my Ranger had almost none of the non-optional Ranger class features!

She had extra attack, Land's Stride and Vanish and that is it. She had none of your other "Ranger mechanics" .... so yeah she is more like 60% subclass and more than that when you consider how powerful the "non-optional" class features she had vs the subclass features.

ASIs are assumed to be in play. Feats are not.

Well they were in play in the characters I am talking about. So time to fess up and admit you are wrong about my Bladesinger and my Ranger.

 

[Maxperson]

And they can't be assumed not to be in play.

They must be assumed not to be in play when discussing the rules. Discussions can't progress otherwise. You'll end up making arguments that simply do not apply since people you are talking to don't have the book or don't use the rule.

Further you are arguing about actual characters I played and are stating they are "80% the same" .... well the characters I played had a ton of optional rules.

If you are not using optional rules at all then the Ranger I was playing was NOT 80% a Ranger. She had very few basic "non-optional" Ranger abilities.

Then it's not an applicable character for a general discussion about rangers.

Well they were in play in the characters I am talking about. So time to fess up and admit you are wrong about my Bladesinger and my Ranger.

Fine. Your non-applicable characters were different.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

That's not the case. Default is assumed to be in place unless the DM says otherwise. It doesn't become an optional rule that has to be opted into like optional rules.

I disagree. This is not a linguistic argument, it is a how people play argument.

 

[ECMO3]

Then it's not an applicable character for a general discussion about rangers.
Fine. Your non-applicable characters were different.

The Ranger character I played, using entirely official WOTC content, was not "80% Ranger" and played a lot different than a default Ranger.

I don't understand what applicable/non-applicable even means in this discussion. I played a RAW Ranger in a real game. That character was had the Ranger class. That character did not play like a standard Ranger.

The official rules of the game offeroptions to build a Ranger that did not play like a default Ranger. I made such a build and played such a character. Perhaps this is not allowed at some tables, but it is allowed in D&D in general using RAW, so it can be done RAW.

That is all you have to say!

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’ve been playing since ‘77, and I’ve gotten to try most of the D&D stereotypes across the various editions. My fave so far has been 3.X, because of the flexibility.

As 3.5Ed ran its course, I started playing odder and odder characters, built using unusual classes & races. I haven’t gotten to play everything I wanted in that edition, and still design PCs with that ruleset. As time passed the more exotic they got.

I didn’t like 4Ed as much, but- again- had more PC concepts on paper than I ever got to play. I really liked that version of the Warlock, and some of the other options appealed to me on their own merits, inspiring different character concepts from 3.X.

But what I saw from the 5Ed playtest reports kinda left me cold. And many of the subsequent threads here over the years haven’t much moved me. However, a close friend is thinking about getting into 5Ed, and I’m wondering if I’m not giving the system a fair shake.

So, I’m looking for an overview of the races & classes available for PCs, to see if any of my unplayed characters would be supported by the latest edition, or if there are new esoteric options that might inspire me to create new heroes.

Wat’cha got?

Play a 5.5 monk and ignore everything else?

It’s the only good thing I’ve seen.