Of course it's a debate. I agree for this version of the playtest doc only they're using the old crit rule. That does not however in any way say that's the rule they're going with even next playtest doc, much less in two years. It's my opinion, which is not a statement of fact, that they're going with the "crits only include weapon damage" version in the final version for 2024 based on what Crawford has said in videos. You are free to disagree but you're not free to tell me there is only one opinion allowed in this topic.
Okay. But I'm not interested in debating a hypothetical scenario where they change the crit rules again. I never said that they were going to keep the crit rules the same as they are in this document, I just said that in this document, Rogues still get critical hits and we should discuss the current version of the class with those rules in mind. Unless you can see the future, assuming that the rules are going to change again back the the previous UA's version is bad form in this discussion.
Yes Pack Tactics is better than Steady Aim and if the Rogue got Pact Tactics at level 3, or even level 6, I'd be thrilled. But getting it at level 13 I really don't care a lot. And I am assuming Steady Aim, along with all of Tasha's, is going away in terms of the optional rules because I believe they were intended as patches to the old rules in the first place. I think part of the point of One D&D is to adopt the patches which they thought worked as the main rules. But again, I could be wrong. Let's see what they say about Tasha's and how it could work with the new rules.
They've mentioned other content from Tasha's in the UA (the Artificer), so I really don't see any reason to assume that Steady Aim won't be allowed. That might change, but we don't know, so I don't think that it's worth assuming in this discussion. You know what happens when you "assume".
D&D Beyond data showed that NINTEY PERCENT of players don't get beyond 10th level. Which means even if you think that stat is off by a lot, it's still an overwhelming majority who don't play at 13th level.
90% of character made on the site. The amount of characters made on the site and the amount of characters that actually participate in campaigns are vastly different issues, and we don't have stats for the second issue (WotC might from their surveys, but we don't).
And are you suggesting that a buff shouldn't be considered a buff because it's granted past level 10? Because, in that case, we can give all level 17 Wizards
Power Word Kill as a cantrip. That's not a significant buff! No one gets that high level anyway! That absolutely would not be worth considering in a discussion of if the OneD&D Wizard is buffed compared to the 2014 Wizard because 90+% of characters made on D&D Beyond are not anywhere near that level!
See the absurdity of your claim? A buff is a buff. Pack Tactics is good, especially for Rogues. I don't care if you don't get to that level, some people do, and it's buffing those Rogues quite a bit.
No now you get expertise in Sleight of Hand if you had proficiency in Sleight of Hand, not Thieves Tools. You no longer can get expertise in Thieves Tools.
Again, incorrect. Sleight of Hands is the skill used in Thieves' Tools ability checks now. If you have expertise in Sleight of Hands, that applies to ability checks you make with Thieves' Tools. This is made clear in the "Sleight of Hand" feature for the Thief subclass (where it connects the Sleight of Hand skill with using Thieves' Tools) and the Tool Proficiency section of the Rules Glossary (where it mentions how all tool checks are now based off of certain skills and how if you have proficiency in both the skill and tool, you get advantage on the check).
Again, this is a misreading of the document. I suggest reading through it another time a bit closer. It's pretty easy to miss, but Tools are based off of Skills now, and if you have expertise in that skill, you have expertise in checks made for that tool.
Rogues got "At 1st level, choose two of your skill proficiencies, or one of your skill proficiencies and your proficiency with thieves’ tools."
That's the PHB version of the feature. Go read the Unearthed Arcana version. It's different.
I didn't think you showed it in that post. What you showed is similar to the original 3e reaction to Monks - counting individual abilities as opposed to overall impact. I think their overall effectiveness goes down.
I didn't just compare the amount of nerfs to the amount of buffs. I noted the quality of them. Most of the nerfs were minor and most of the buffs were minor. But there were more major buffs than major nerfs.
And that is so far the general consensus of reviewers of this document - which doesn't make that position correct but it does suggest I am not alone in thinking they're taking a loss on this one.
So, you just made an
Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, but also admitted your fallacy. A group of a lot of people can be wrong. A group of a lot of people can miss minor details. I doubt that most people that read the document noticed the major Tool change. You obviously missed it. Most people probably missed the Whip proficiency, too. I noticed quite a few people on Reddit that didn't notice the change to Dual Wielding because it was hidden in the Light Property in the glossary. Most people probably failed to take into consideration the level 1 feat when comparing the old rogue to the new rogue. This is a complicated issue. There's a lot of small moving parts that add up. I think that it is easily possible for the majority/popular opinion here to be egregiously incorrect.
I am in no way going to count anything which all classes get as a buff for this class. The measurement is relative to those other classes. If all classes get a level 1 feat, then no class is being buffed by getting a level 1 feat. That's a net neutral gain - they got what everyone got by default, not an increase.
No, what this discussion should be about is if the Rogue got stronger or weaker compared to the old Rogue. Not what the other classes are doing. That's not important here. Did the Rogue get an extra feat? Yes, they did. So that's worth counting. Did they get skill/tool buffs? Yes, they did, so that's worth counting. Did they get Dual Wielding buffs? Yes, they did, so that's worth counting.
This discussion is about if the Rogue is better or worse than the 2014 version. Not about if a Ranger that takes Thieves' Tools and Sleight of Hand from their background and chooses Expertise for Sleight of Hand can also be really good at picking locks. The fact that they can do that doesn't make the Rogue weaker and it doesn't somehow make the buff not a buff anymore.
If you never knew a Rogue to ready an action to get an attack which resulted in a sneak attack, I don't know what to tell yah. It's not that uncommon.
My parties' Rogues have never really had to do that. Or, if they did, something went wrong (the monster died from another factor or did something unexpected).