Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9232461" data-attributes="member: 7030563">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).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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification