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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9373862" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Because these are different situations. Monks were bad in 2014. Oh sure, you could run up and flurry four times for four stunning strikes and people called it good, but I watched multiple people analyzing the Monk and every single one of them came back with the same results. It was a garbage execution of the monk. It wasn't "okay" it was bad. Many of those same people, doing those same analysis's looked at the Fighter and the Barbarian, and universally agreed that if you weren't in combat, those two classes could barely contribute anything. They had abysmal out-of-combat utility, to the point where I saw multiple players who would shut down and tune out if they were playing one of those classes, and we were not in combat. These were consistent, long-running, well-established problems. The 2014 Rogue was good. I've often considered it incredibly well-designed, and it took years for the limits of the skill system to tarnish the class for me down from being one of the best, to being just very good. The 2024 Rogue is inarguably STRONGER than the 2014 rogue. In every way. It isn't a brute force improvement, but with Weapon Mastery and Cunning Strikes, Rogues are better than ever in combat, and their skill abilities like Reliable Talent are coming online earlier. Additionally, aspects of the skill system are being refined and improved, increasing the rogue's viability with those skills. And your argument is two-fold, first that the Rogue is "unremarkable". You don't say it is bad, you say it has nothing to offer that another class cannot also offer... which is kind of true for all classes. If you break every class down into specific abilities, there is nothing they can do that some other class cannot also do. Secondly, your entire argument rests, not that Rogues have always needed a buff, but that their buff is needed specifically because other classes received a buff. Which is a poor argument, because it simply leads to the slippery slope of always buffing the weakest class. You can argue that the FIghter does more damage than the Rogue... but neither the fighter nor the rogue's raw DPR numbers have actually changed. The Fighter ALWAYS did more damage than the Rogue. Monk is more mobile than the Rogue? Well, Monks are often sold as a mobility option, and the biggest critique of the Monk was that they had to pay to do what the Rogue could do for free. We have simply put the monk mobility where it should have always been, not created a problem for the Rogue we need to fix, because the Rogue mobility has actually INCREASED, just not as dramatically as the Monks.I have often complained that the Barbarian is too weak, because it lacks skills and its damage output is middling. Oh, sure, GWM+PAM+Reckless technically is a very high DPR build, but it is a high DPR build for everyone and that is mathematical averages. The Barbarian's actually damage numbers fall behind the Paladin or the Fighter after level 11. Monks were often too weak to deal serious damage, and too vulnerable to stay in melee where they needed to be, forcing them to spend resources to retreat and deal less damage. Their best tactical plan was always "run to the back line where hopefully there is an isolated, weak, ranged attacker and the melee brutes can't reach me in time to save that target" Which was really no more effective than an Archer Fighter hitting the same enemy without risking juking through a melee. As for what rogues can do, skills are still a thing they have. And if you want to declare that the Skill System sucks and doesn't accomplish anything... then who cares if the Barbarian and the Fighter are better at that sucky system that doesn't do anything? They are also a high mobility option. Yes, Monks are also a high mobility option, but Fighters are also a highly effective tank with their abilities, self-healing and AC and that doesn't put them in conflict with the Barbarian, and you've likely argued the Barbarian DPR is good, yet that doesn't interfere with the Fighter either. But if you truly want a combat option that no other class can quite match, I'd look to status effects and control. Combine Slow with Trip and a 5th level rogue can knock an opponent prone, and reduce them to effectively moving 10 ft on their turn. Every turn, without resources, by sacrificing ~3.5 DPR (not accounting for accuracy which makes this less). With Hide, Disengage, Withdraw, Dash, and Steady Aim the Rogue will be usually attacking at Advantage (like a barbarian) but will be hard to hit or target, and the few times they can be targeted will be Uncanny Dodged. Sure, you are going to claim Monk's do it better than the rogue, but the Rogue is doing just as good or better than the Barbarian and Fighter. It is simply logic. Every time I argued for the Ranger, Sorcerer, Monk, Fighter, or Barbarian to have their weaknesses shored up, it was the same response I got. "You cannot focus on improving weak classes, because then there will be a new weakest class that will need improved and you will just be constantly improving everyone's power" This is not true, and this is why I am stating what I am saying. Rogues already got a buff, a sizeable buff. But now that Monk's no longer suck and Fighters have some skill utility, now Rogues need even more? No. Maybe after a decade of playtesting we will all be disgusted by the Rogue, but I doubt it. Rogues were good before, they got better, I see no reason that any party I've been the rogue on or have seen a rogue in would suddenly no longer have a rogue because they are underperforming. They won't underperform. They are fine.</blockquote>

Verification