Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7851879" data-attributes="member: 996">No, popular demonstrates popularity.&nbsp; Satisfaction demonstrates satisfaction (but, not-at-all-seriously, is that just people who play rogues, because, then it's kinda self-fulfilling, or also people who don't, in which case they may feel satisfied with the rogue because it doesn't give their favorite class much competition?).The rogue could be popular because it's archetype is popular, or because of the tradition of the Big 4.&nbsp; The Rogue, and even Thief were popular choices, back in the day, when they were demonstrably terrible, and stayed popular when they were completely different, mechanically, but better-balanced and re-focused on a combat role.&nbsp;&nbsp; So it's not an unwarranted supposition.&nbsp; Neither is it unwarranted to speculate it's popular because it holds up in play, for whatever reasons apply at a given table.&nbsp; Just neither (nor many other possible reasons) are proved.&nbsp; Only popularity is demonstrated.The more relevant available evidence is the rogue class, right in the PH, which is not, by the numbers, with SA &amp; Cunning Action helping it out in combat, and Expertise and Dependable Talent helping out of combat, woefully behind in any pillar.&nbsp; It's not Tier 1, but it's not a Champion or Berserker out of it's depth the moment you drop out of initiative.&nbsp;Capp is saying woefully behind in games that use feats.&nbsp; Feats are optional.&nbsp; That's not woefully behind in the standard game - no feats/MCs, 6-8 encounters/day - and what's the version of the game it's the top priority to balance?&nbsp; The standard game.So you can count me out of whining about the rogue being inadequate, I'm too busy whining about the fighter, among other things, relative to the Rogue, with all his enviable multi-pillar adequacy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7851879, member: 996"] No, popular demonstrates popularity. Satisfaction demonstrates satisfaction (but, not-at-all-seriously, is that just people who play rogues, because, then it's kinda self-fulfilling, or also people who don't, in which case they may feel satisfied with the rogue because it doesn't give their favorite class much competition?). The rogue could be popular because it's archetype is popular, or because of the tradition of the Big 4. The Rogue, and even Thief were popular choices, back in the day, when they were demonstrably terrible, and stayed popular when they were completely different, mechanically, but better-balanced and re-focused on a combat role. So it's not an unwarranted supposition. Neither is it unwarranted to speculate it's popular because it holds up in play, for whatever reasons apply at a given table. Just neither (nor many other possible reasons) are proved. Only popularity is demonstrated. The more relevant available evidence is the rogue class, right in the PH, which is not, by the numbers, with SA & Cunning Action helping it out in combat, and Expertise and Dependable Talent helping out of combat, [I]woefully[/I] behind in any pillar. It's not Tier 1, but it's not a Champion or Berserker out of it's depth the moment you drop out of initiative. Capp is saying [I]woefully behind in games that use feats[/I]. Feats are optional. That's not woefully behind in the standard game - no feats/MCs, 6-8 encounters/day - and what's the version of the game it's the top priority to balance? The standard game. So you can count me out of whining about the rogue being inadequate, I'm too busy whining about the fighter, among other things, [I]relative to the Rogue, with all his enviable multi-pillar adequacy[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification