D&D 5E Sell me on 5th…

[Maxperson]

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.

What it means is that you can't use that character to show anything. The default rangers are all 80% the same. Optional rules can't be used, because if you can use them, then I can just say that I have a house rule that all rangers use the one subclass that I choose and they so rangers are 100% the same.

If you can invoke options that cannot be assumed to be in use, then so can I and you can see from my example there where that leads. It leads to dueling claims that are all irrelevant because they rely on things that can't be assumed.

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.

Official doesn't matter here, because the official options cannot be assumed to be in play when discussing a class like rangers as a general thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sort of implied in secondary skills in 2E if you dont use the WP/NWP system.

Not sure about 1E.

I've found advantage mechanics in 2E from 1991. It's not called by that name though.

Secondary skills were introduced in 1e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Play a 5.5 monk and ignore everything else?

It’s the only good thing I’ve seen.

I'd rather play the Level Up adept, and leave WotC's classes behind entirely.

 

[ECMO3]

What it means is that you can't use that character to show anything. The default rangers are all 80% the same. Optional rules can't be used, because if you can use them, then I can just say that I have a house rule that all rangers use the one subclass that I choose and they so rangers are 100% the same.

Optional rules absolutly can be used, they are part of the game.

Your argument rests on the premise that this "can't" be done RAW .... well it CAN be done, perhaps not at all tables but it absolutely, 100% can be done in some of them.

If you can invoke options that cannot be assumed to be in use, then so can I and you can see from my example there where that leads. It leads to dueling claims that are all irrelevant because they rely on things that can't be assumed.

Optional rules exist. Optional rules are part of 5E and RAW Rangers CAN and ARE built using optional rules. You don't need to "assume" anything, your argument rests on the idea that Rangers are ALL 80% the same in 5E and if there is one single table your argument is incorrect at then that argument is incorrect.

Stating that Rangers are 80% the same in 5E games that don't use optional rules is fundamentally a different argument than stating that Rangers are 80% the same in 5E games, because there are 5E games that use optional rules.

This thread is about 5E in totality, not about 5E only in the subset of tables that don't use optional rules.

Here are some other points to illustrate this-
1. Is it possible to play an Artificer in 5E? Artificer is an entire optional class. Does that mean it is correct to state that Artificers don't exist in 5E and people playing 5E can't play an Artificer because you can't assume it is allowed? No that is factually incorrect. Artificer is a 5E class and Artificers are played in 5E and despite being an entirely optional class.

2. The spells in TCE are all also optional. So is it correct to say these spells don't exist in 5E?

I will also note you have made posts here before about "optional" content including both Artificers and TCE spells.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, the past 2 pages have left me no doubt that 5Ed is D&D. I mean…just LOOK at those rules ARGUMENTS! Errrrr…”discussions”!

FWIW, I:

1) tend not to assume optional rules are being used.

2) would expect characters of the classes to share most features, because if they didn’t, what’s the point of considering them to be the same class?

 

[Maxperson]

Optional rules absolutly can be used, they are part of the game.

Since Rule 0 is RAW as I proved earlier in this thread, I hereby declare that rangers can only use the beastmaster subclass and no feats. So therefore, all rangers are 100% identical, per RAW.

See how silly this gets. You show how yours is very different with your optional rules and I show how they are 100% the same with mine.

Your argument rests on the premise that this "can't" be done RAW .... well it CAN be done, perhaps not at all tables but it absolutely, 100% can be done in some of them.

Which doesn't matter when talking in general terms about a class.

1. Is it possible to play an Artificer in 5E? Artificer is an entire optional class. Does that mean it is correct to state that Artificers don't exist in 5E and people playing 5E can't play an Artificer because you can't assume it is allowed? No that is factually incorrect. Artificer is a 5E class and Artificers are played in 5E and despite being an entirely optional class.

No, it means that you can't assume artificers are in play when talking about 5e classes in general.

2. The spells in TCE are all also optional. So is it correct to say these spells don't exist in 5E?

I will also note you have made posts here before about "optional" content including both Artificers and TCE spells.

And yet I never said they were default and fully understand that those can't be assumed to be in use.

Anyway, since you are using optional rules, I can invoke optional RAW myself and declare all rangers to be 100% identical.

 

[Zardnaar]

Secondary skills were introduced in 1e.

Touche o7 right you are.

 

[ECMO3]

Since Rule 0 is RAW as I proved earlier in this thread, I hereby declare that rangers can only use the beastmaster subclass and no feats. So therefore, all rangers are 100% identical, per RAW. See how silly this gets. You show how yours is very different with your optional rules and I show how they are 100% the same with mine.

Yes, this is more or less what you are saying already, and it is silly!

Which doesn't matter when talking in general terms about a class.

Absolutely it does if the question is "can you play this way"

You can caveat the answer if you want - yes you can do XXX as long as YYY rules are being used, but the answer is still YES you can.

I did as a point of fact play 5E the way I described using the PCs I mentioned. Thousands more people have done similar.

No, it means that you can't assume artificers are in play when talking about 5e classes in general.

Sure, you can't assume artificers are in play. However Artificers are a class in 5E and people do play Artificers in 5E. Those statements are 100% factually true and undeniable and no amount of assumptions are going to change that.

Saying you "can't assume artificers are in play" is fundamentally different than saying "you can't play an Artificer"

And yet I never said they were default and fully understand that those can't be assumed to be in use.

But you poosted about them, and your posts supposedly always assume there are no optional rules in play.

Instead of commenting on the relative value of the class and spells, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to say "that class and those spells are not available in 5E since you can't assume optional rules"

Anyway, since you are using optional rules, I can invoke optional RAW myself and declare all rangers to be 100% identical.

At your table sure .... but that does not mean it is that way in 5E at large.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, this is more or less what you are saying already, and it is silly!

It's silly because you brought it here. If you can use options to prove less than 80, I can use options to prove 100. That's what assuming options are in play does in a topic like this line of discussion. It renders the discussion worthless.

To have a discussion, unless it's to discuss specific options, options need to be assumed not to be used

Absolutely it does if the question is "can you play this way"

That wasn't the question. That was the moved goalpost. The question was, "Are rangers mostly the same?" The answer is yes, because you cannot assume options to be in play.

But you poosted about them, and your posts supposedly always assume there are no optional rules in play.

No. That's not what I said, but is rather a Strawman of my position. Whether you can or cannot discuss artificers depends on the topic in question. If the topic was about what classes are in 5e, then I can say "All the classes in the PHB." Or I can say, "The default classes are in the PHB, but Tasha's also has an artificer class in it." The implication there being that the artificer is optional since all of Tasha's is optional. Or perhaps the topic is about artificers, which means that the entire discussion is about that option.

Context matters. You don't get to say that because I've mentioned artificers, that I'm somehow contradicting myself. I'm not and have been consistent with my position that you can't assume options are in play.

At your table sure .... but that does not mean it is that way in 5E at large.

Exactly! Your ranger cannot be used to show that rangers are not 80% the same any more than mine can show that rangers are 100% the same. Options cannot be assumed in such a discussion.

 

[ECMO3]

It's silly because you brought it here. If you can use options to prove less than 80, I can use options to prove 100. That's what assuming options are in play does in a topic like this line of discussion. It renders the discussion worthless.

To be clear what I stated was "the Ranger I played was very different than other Rangers" you took issue with this specific statement and said that wasn't true (even though now you admit it actually was).

That wasn't the question. That was the moved goalpost. The question was, "Are rangers mostly the same?" The answer is yes, because you cannot assume options to be in play.

No it wasn't, the question you chimed in on was about a specific PC. Here is your quote:

"The ranger you cited was played different from "standard" rangers, but was still mechanically mostly the same"

You moved the goalposts once you were wrong and stated this character did not count, due to an arbitrary and seemingly selective rule about discussing optional rules. Even though this character counted enough for you to comment on originally.

Whether you can or cannot discuss artificers depends on the topic in question. If the topic was about what classes are in 5e, then I can say "All the classes in the PHB." Or I can say, "The default classes are in the PHB, but Tasha's also has an artificer class in it." The implication there being that the artificer is optional since all of Tasha's is optional. Or perhaps the topic is about artificers, which means that the entire discussion is about that option.
Context matters. You don't get to say that because I've mentioned artificers, that I'm somehow contradicting myself. I'm not and have been consistent with my position that you can't assume options are in play.

Exactly. And the context you posted on was specifically about a Ranger that used optional rules. I made a statement about a Ranger I played. You claimed that was incorrect and that it was still 80% a Ranger. That is what you replied to, that is the context we were discussing.

If your position was that it is only true in games that used optional rules or something like that then you should have said that.

Exactly! Your ranger cannot be used to show that rangers are not 80% the same any more than mine can show that rangers are 100% the same. Options cannot be assumed in such a discussion.

Yes it absolutely can.

I only need one single Ranger that is not 80% the same, being played RAW at any table, anywhere that exists, with any combination of official rules to prove that it is possible to play a Ranger that is not "80% the same".

On the other hand you would need examples of every single Ranger, played at every single 5E table to prove that all Rangers at every table are 100% the same.

You can say "Rangers that are played on tables that only allow Beast Master and have identical starting stats and only allow ASIs and PHB rules and one race are all the 100% same" but that is not what you said and that has no relevance to the original post you replied to. I would argue that also has little relevance to the larger question at hand.