D&D (2024) Rogue Playtest Discussion

[Mistwell]

. You're right that it doesn't make you any more correct than me. And I'm aware that it is a common viewpoint. So if you don't think that it made your opinion more valid, why was it important to mention? At least to me, you didn't make it clear of your intention.

Because you were suggesting I (and others) didn't understand and that you were objectively correct and there could be no debate about it. You even called someone a liar for not agreeing with you, after you arbitrarily listed quantities (but not qualities) of plusses and minuses and came out with a positive number for your arbitrary count of buffs and nerfs. If I am not alone in my opinion that your perspective is not well shared that doesn't in itself make my opinion correct but it does suggest you're also not objectively correct with no debate around the topic, right?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Because you were suggesting I (and others) didn't understand and that you were objectively correct and there could be no debate about it.

Note the "probably" in my "Rogues have probably gotten buffed overall" statement. I didn't say it was 100% objectively true that my current view of the rogue is correct. It's uncertain how the Rogue will turn out in the long run. But the class got a bunch of buffs. That's objectively true. Their power has been significantly increased in a lot of ways. Whether or not the buffs increase their power to make up for the reaction/booming blade Sneak Attack and Hand Crossbows is undetermined and dependent on a lot of factors. A lot of the buffs weren't as situational.

You even called someone a liar for not agreeing with you

They were not saying that rogues got buffed/nerfed overall. They said that Rogues got nerfed with no buffs at all. Which is flat-out untrue. And I didn't accuse them of lying, I said that their post was either a lie or they somehow missed a lot in the Rogue document.

, after you arbitrarily listed quantities (but not qualities) of plusses and minuses and came out with a positive number for your arbitrary count of buffs and nerfs. If I am not alone in my opinion that your perspective is not well shared that doesn't in itself make my opinion correct but it does suggest you're also not objectively correct with no debate around the topic, right?

I was trying to give a complete and objective account of all of the changes to the Rogue and measuring out how significant all of them were. I was trying to objectively measure the quantity and quality of all of the buffs. That's why I mentioned the number of buffs were higher than the number of nerfs and commented on most of the nerfs/buffs to explain how useful/detrimental the change is.

And, no, other people agreeing with you does not somehow suggest that my view is any less likely to be correct. That is an appeal to popularity fallacy. There are a lot of topics that have quite a few people agreeing with the objectively incorrect view. The only thing you not being alone in your opinion suggests is that other people agree with you. Not the likelihood you are of being correct.

 

[Mistwell]

And, no, other people agreeing with you does not somehow suggest that my view is any less likely to be correct. That is an appeal to popularity fallacy. There are a lot of topics that have quite a few people agreeing with the objectively incorrect view. The only thing you not being alone in your opinion suggests is that other people agree with you. Not the likelihood you are of being correct.

That part I highlighted? When I say you're not having this discussion in good faith, this is what I mean. I didn't say or imply what you just claimed. I made it super clear that wasn't what I was claiming. You knew I had made that clear, repeated it back to me, and then once again lied about my position.

We're done. But don't complain I was somehow unfair to you. I was very fair for quite some time and gave you lots of opportunities to stop behaving that way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I didn't say he represents the majority of players in general, I said this video (which is not just him) outlines a lot of the issues others are highlighting right now with this class. I think it's worth watching, even if you disagree, just to see what some think are the issues here in a way which is well articulated.

I have seen it and they said nothing I did not see myself. I stand by my assessment.
It is good to shutdown "loopholes" (as Chris called it) and instead buff the class, so it does not need such things.

Improving two weapon fighting is a start (although I now can't see why any rogue would not want to dual wield... I rather liked the balance). Lets see how one handed amd two handed weapon fighting gets buffed.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You knew I had made that clear

It was not clear to me. I am honestly still confused by what you were saying. But if you want to be done and think I'm engaging in bad faith, feel free to do so. I apologize if there was any miscommunication or misunderstanding on my part.

 

[Staffan]

I never play a rogue, but what I notice about my friend that does?

One attack per round isn't as cool as the many attacks a fighter gets. I get sneak attack does more damage, but something feels off there in combat. They obviously matter for locks and traps and stuff.....but they seem lesser in combat to me (unlike spellcasters).

A thought about how to make rogues more fun in combat: give them some debuffs along the lines of maneuvers, but flavored as dirty tricks. Possibly with some additional options by subclass (e.g. arcane trickster does something magic-based, thief does something sneaky, and assassin uses poisons)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Nothing like watching people go back and forth accusing others of doing the things that they themselves are also doing. Why can't we all just get along?

But more seriously: I agree that the new rogue is slightly buffed from the 2014 rogue, assuming that they will fix being able to sneak attack on a readied action (I'm less concerned with opportunity attacks, but I'd be okay if they fixed that too).

I heartily disagree that it's at all fair to claim that they are nerfed, and then discount all the buffs that are 1) at higher levels; or 2) also apply to other classes. You can say you don't like it, but you can't claim it's nerfed. You have to compare the 2014 Rogue to the UA Rogue directly.

I mean, you can claim nerf if you like, I guess, but you're not making a fair or logical argument. You're making one based on how you feel about the changes, not about what they are. It seems to me that a lot of complaining has its start (don't get me wrong - it's fine to complain - it's fine to not like the UA!) in incomplete understanding of the changes.

Like the idea that not being able to take expertise in Thieves' Tools. You are absolutely fair to not like it! But it's NOT a nerf! For example: Let's say you have a Level 3 DEX 16 rogue with TT expertise picking a lock. The "old" way would have you rolling 1d20+7 to pick the lock. The "new" way, you'd take expertise in Sleight-of-Hand instead (not because you're somehow differently skilled, but because that IS the new way the game models the ability to pick locks!) and you'd roll 2d20(High)+7. That's a buff.

You can prefer the old way all you like, of course! But it's still a buff.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I heartily disagree that it's at all fair to claim that they are nerfed, and then discount all the buffs that are 1) at higher levels;

If you mean discount in the ignore sense, then sure, you can't leave Subtle Strikes off the list of buffs.

But I do think you can discount it in the sense of not weighting it heavily when the vast overwhelming majority of rogues are losing a level 3 ability, and the vast overwhelming majority will never get a level 13 ability. If Steady Aim ends up removed, and Subtle Strikes stays where it is, then that is a net nerf to the rogue population.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If you mean discount in the ignore sense, then sure, you can't leave Subtle Strikes off the list of buffs.

But I do think you can discount it in the sense of not weighting it heavily when the vast overwhelming majority of rogues are losing a level 3 ability, and the vast overwhelming majority will never get a level 13 ability. If Steady Aim ends up removed, and Subtle Strikes stays where it is, then that is a net nerf to the rogue population.

Well, you weigh it where you do - when comparing the 2014 Rogue's higher levels to the UA Rogue's higher levels.

Steady Aim is an optional rule from Tasha's. I don't think it will be "removed", nor yet do I think it will be "added". It will remain what it is: An optional rule from Tasha's. Use it if you like. It has nothing to do with whether a 2014 Rogue is more or less buffnerfed than a UA one.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, you weigh it where you do - when comparing the 2014 Rogue's higher levels to the UA Rogue's higher levels.

Steady Aim is an optional rule from Tasha's. I don't think it will be "removed", nor yet do I think it will be "added". It will remain what it is: An optional rule from Tasha's. Use it if you like. It has nothing to do with whether a 2014 Rogue is more or less buffnerfed than a UA one.

I don't think I agree with that. It won't be 2024 PHB + Tasha's/Zanathar's/Etc. I think the assumption is that One D&D will supercede all previous sources, and as of this latest iteration, there's no Steady Aim.