Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9232281" data-attributes="member: 23751">It's silly because you brought it here.&nbsp; If you can use options to prove less than 80, I can use options to prove 100.&nbsp; 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 usedThat wasn't the question. That was the moved goalpost.&nbsp; The question was, &quot;Are rangers mostly the same?&quot;&nbsp; The answer is yes, because you cannot assume options to be in play.No.&nbsp; That's not what I said, but is rather a Strawman of my position.&nbsp; Whether you can or cannot discuss artificers depends on the topic in question.&nbsp; If the topic was about what classes are in 5e, then I can say &quot;All the classes in the PHB.&quot;&nbsp; Or I can say, &quot;The default classes are in the PHB, but Tasha's also has an artificer class in it.&quot;&nbsp; The implication there being that the artificer is optional since all of Tasha's is optional.&nbsp; Or perhaps the topic is about artificers, which means that the entire discussion is about that option.Context matters.&nbsp; You don't get to say that because I've mentioned artificers, that I'm somehow contradicting myself.&nbsp; I'm not and have been consistent with my position that you can't assume options are in play.Exactly!&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 9232281, member: 23751"] 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 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification