D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[ECMO3]

You can but you explicitly said nartials have that option.

They don't.

Having conversation about optional rules is fine but you were claiming an absolute.

They do, it says so in Tasha's.

Also pay attention to the wording, it does not say "have a conversation with your DM". It says "with your DMs approval". Two very different things and the latter is used all over the 5E books for all sorts of things commonly considered RAW.

You also did not answer my questions:

Is multiclassing RAW?

Is the Wish spell RAW?

Is applying your racial bonuses wherever you want them RAW?

If I say players can play Variant Humans or Goliaths or Half-Orcs is that not RAW, since those races are only available with the DMs approval?

 

[ezo]

I think part of the issue with this conversation is the difference between what is "core" and what is "optional".

To clarify, everything WotC publishes is RAW. Everything. Now, we all know some of the "RAW" stuff is subject to interpretation and "rulings over rules", but it is all still RAW, however you interpret it.

The distinction is Tasha's is optional and not core (being just the rules in the core books: PHB, DMG, MM). IF you choose to allow changing subclasses from Tasha's:, it is done when you would gain a new subclass feature, such as a Fighter at 7th level. That is RAW, but still optional.

A DM allowing it, but changing it so you change whenever you leveled up instead of waiting for a new subclass feature, would not be using this rule RAW, but housing ruling it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think part of the issue with this conversation is the difference between what is "core" and what is "optional".

To clarify, everything WotC publishes is RAW. Everything. Now, we all know some of the "RAW" stuff is subject to interpretation and "rulings over rules", but it is all still RAW, however you interpret it.

The distinction is Tasha's is optional and not core (being just the rules in the core books: PHB, DMG, MM). IF you choose to allow changing subclasses from Tasha's:, it is done when you would gain a new subclass feature, such as a Fighter at 7th level. That is RAW, but still optional.

A DM allowing it, but changing it so you change whenever you leveled up instead of waiting for a new subclass feature, would not be using this rule RAW, but housing ruling it.

1. If you use this option, explicitly presented as option - this is the RAW way to do it
VS
2. By RAW this is an option you should have available to you

*Note: feats and multiclassing are technically 1. However, they are so prevalent that discussions on character building are more accurate when assuming them than when not. This is not the case for most of Tasha's explicitly optional content.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think part of the issue with this conversation is the difference between what is "core" and what is "optional".

To clarify, everything WotC publishes is RAW. Everything. Now, we all know some of the "RAW" stuff is subject to interpretation and "rulings over rules", but it is all still RAW, however you interpret it.

The distinction is Tasha's is optional and not core (being just the rules in the core books: PHB, DMG, MM). IF you choose to allow changing subclasses from Tasha's:, it is done when you would gain a new subclass feature, such as a Fighter at 7th level. That is RAW, but still optional.

A DM allowing it, but changing it so you change whenever you leveled up instead of waiting for a new subclass feature, would not be using this rule RAW, but housing ruling it.

RAW is usually non optional stiff. Technically fears fall into this.

Tashas is specifically optional and it's not core as well.

You were arguing fighters have this option. They do not they may subject to DM approval.

 

[ezo]

RAW is usually non optional stiff. Technically fears fall into this.

RAW is anything published by WotC. Those are the Rules As Written by the official publisher of the game. (I suppose anything WotC sanctions would be RAW as well...).

Tashas is specifically optional and it's not core as well.

The material in Tasha's is RAW, despite being entirely optional. It is still official RAW, just not core.

And I even clarified Tasha's being optional and not core in my post. Did you read it carefully?

You were arguing fighters have this option. They do not they may subject to DM approval.

Now I know you're confused. I wasn't arguing anything... @ECMO3 was.

 

[Zardnaar]

They do, it says so in Tasha's.

Also pay attention to the wording, it does not say "have a conversation with your DM". It says "with your DMs approval". Two very different things and the latter is used all over the 5E books for all sorts of things commonly considered RAW.

You also did not answer my questions:

Is multiclassing RAW?

Is the Wish spell RAW?

Is applying your racial bonuses wherever you want them RAW?

If I say players can play Variant Humans or Goliaths or Half-Orcs is that not RAW, since those races are only available with the DMs approval?

Very nit picky. RAW is usually used in the context that regardless of one's opinions that's what the rules are. DM can change it but if so they need to communicate that to players imho.

You can't count on optional rules being used and ask the DM and subject to DM approval are much the same thing.

Unless DM has said otherwise you can't count on fighters being allowed to change subclasses.

No DM I know of has a list covering every optional rule in the game. You're probably safe assuming multiclassing and feats are being used but even that's not absolute. DM should probably indicate they're not being used.

Tashas is explicitly optional the whole book. Personally I would nly claim they're RAW in the context of optional rules conversation or the DM has indicated they're being used.

Otherwise they're purely hypothetical.

 

[Minigiant]

Typically what I've heard or seen is "core" material is typically assumed and it is considered good practice to tell players about changes to "core" before even Session Zero.

Like the Tasha rule to swap subclasses is not assumed. You can't count on the DM allowing it.

But if the DM allows it, it is assumed that you can swap from a Champion to a Eldritch Knight as EK is core unless DM banned EKs at Session Zero.

 

[ECMO3]

Very nit picky.

Says the person who resorted to pointing out a rule was optional.

RAW is usually used in the context that regardless of one's opinions that's what the rules are. DM can change it but if so they need to communicate that to players imho.

Variant humans are optional. All races except the common races in the PHB are optional.

Yet I see all kinds of threads on this discussing RAW as it pertains to them.

No DM I know of has a list covering every optional rule in the game. You're probably safe assuming multiclassing and feats are being used but even that's not absolute. DM should probably indicate they're not being used.

Sure. But I can say "Play a Variant human and take the GWM feat to boost damage (2 optional rules in one statement)" or I can say "Play a Mountain Dwarf and put your +2 bonuses in Charisma and Dexterity" and I don't get someone jumping down my throat about it being "optional".

As a point of fact fighters can change subclass. If that is not allowed at your table, fine. Just like I guess you don't allow Variant Humans or floating racial bonuses. That is your table (and others I am sute) it is not allowed at though. It is still an option available to Fighters (and all classes) in the 5E game.

My initial statement was a reply to a post that said "Fighters make 1 single subclass choice"

I corrected that post and stated Fighters can change subclass, pointing out when and the book and page number that afforded that option. What I said is a 100% RAW, factually true statement. It may not be allowed at your table, but it is allowed at some, and it is RAW.

You can't count on optional rules being used and ask the DM and subject to DM approval are much the same thing.
Unless DM has said otherwise you can't count on fighters being allowed to change subclasses.

You can't count on them not being used either. Whether it is used at a specific table or not though, it is available in the official WOTC 5E game, hence Fighters can change subclass.

No DM I know of has a list covering every optional rule in the game. You're probably safe assuming multiclassing and feats are being used but even that's not absolute. DM should probably indicate they're not being used.

Wait a minute. When it comes to RAW Feats and multiclassing is no different than changing subclass.

Your original post on this thread mentioned a ton of optional content, including Echo Knights, Rune Knights, Purple Dragons, Feats and Bladesinger. None of that was caveated as optional and it was presented with the idea that it was part of the 5E game.

Otherwise they're purely hypothetical.

This entire thread is hypothetical with the few exceptions of actual anecdotes and examples from play I posted.

Disclaimer: Others may have posted some examples from play too, if so I just missed them

 

[Zardnaar]

Says the person who resorted to pointing out a rule was optional.



Variant humans are optional. All races except the common races in the PHB are optional.

Yet I see all kinds of threads on this discussing RAW as it pertains to them.




Sure. But I can say "Play a Variant human and take the GWM feat to boost damage (2 optional rules in one statement)" or I can say "Play a Mountain Dwarf and put your +2 bonuses in Charisma and Dexterity" and I don't get someone jumping down my throat about it being "optional".

As a point of fact fighters can change subclass. If that is not allowed at your table, fine. Just like I guess you don't allow Variant Humans or floating racial bonuses. That is your table (and others I am sute) it is not allowed at though. It is still an option available to Fighters (and all classes) in the 5E game.

My initial statement was a reply to a post that said "Fighters make 1 single subclass choice"

I corrected that post and stated Fighters can change subclass, pointing out when and the book and page number that afforded that option. What I said is a 100% RAW, factually true statement. It may not be allowed at your table, but it is allowed at some, and it is RAW.



You can't count on them not being used either. Whether it is used at a specific table or not though, it is available in the official WOTC 5E game, hence Fighters can change subclass.



Wait a minute. When it comes to RAW Feats and multiclassing is no different than changing subclass.

Your original post on this thread mentioned a ton of optional content, including Echo Knights, Rune Knights, Purple Dragons, Feats and Bladesinger. None of that was caveated as optional and it was presented with the idea that it was part of the 5E game.



This entire thread is hypothetical with the few exceptions of actual anecdotes and examples from play I posted.

Disclaimer: Others may have posted some examples from play too, if so I just missed them

I'm talking about those optional rules in tge context of them being potentially available.

I'm not claiming they're RAW as I don't regard optional rules as RAW except when the DM gas indicated they're available.

And no fighters can't swap sub classes. They may be able to subject to thr individual DM.

 

[ECMO3]

And no fighters can't swap sub classes. They may be able to subject to thr individual DM.

Then clearly fighters can't be Rune Knights, since that is optional and in Tashas. They may be able to subject to their individual DM.

But your original post talks about RK's as if they are fighters in 5E .... just like my post talks about fighters switching subclasses in 5E as if that is something they can do in 5E.

Can fighters be Rune Knights in 5E?
Can fighters switch subclasses in 5E?

Do you not see this is the same thing, using an optional rule? Do you not see the double standard here?