What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Just to Browse]

RE: Dr. Samurai, #809

You're not saying "that's not true", you're saying "you're putting words in my mouth" [insert receipts]. Okay I finally think I see what's happening here: What I'm doing (like, actually doing) is writing a dozen variations on what I consider to be the same thing. Since we're bringing receipts, is the first post where you bring up a rebuttal based on arguments I haven't made, and I let you know I never held that position. Subsequently there have been a lot of "it seems" and "I think" statements that also assume / infer / state / [pick a verb here that won't get me yelled at] things about me and my table, and so I've stated that same position in different ways. Sometimes that's "you've invented a position for me to hold" (p27), sometimes that's literally, word-for-word "None of these things are true" (p25).

All I've done is take the same idea "[not true thing] is not true" and messed with the verbiage because copy/pasting is kind of boring. Apparently you think some subset of these are fine, and others are strawman accusations. But I can assure you, with every fiber of my begin, every neuron active in my brain, every metaphorical board in the thesean ship that composes me, JTB, I consider all of these statements the same, and none of them are strawman accusations. I will gladly stop using whatever subset of those you deem strawman accusations, and I've suggested an idea (see "Stop saying "I never said that" / you're being uncharitable again" (p27)) for me to write instead. Let me know what you'd rather have me type there, and by god I will type like the wind!

I can't ever try to understand JTB without JTB accusing me of a fallacy. Hopefully this is addressed above, but also if you'd like to see an example of you asking me for clarification and me providing it, check out "JTB, explain this quote about being forced to do stuff." (p27). That also includes a joke about some strawman complaint... but that was a joke about a thing you said, not an actual "stop strawmanning me" bit.

It's jarring and rude to do the bolded header thing. Personally I think the overlapping multiquote thing is jarring and rude, especially when one of the multi-quote replies is (1) directed to people who I don't know exist (2) directly under a quote from me while (3) referring to a group that implies I am a member (4) the person who writes it thinks I'm disingenuous when I interpret it as directed towards me! That's happened in this thread, maybe twice? three times? but I mostly do my usual of mentioning it & moving on; if that's also what you're doing here, please understand that I hear you, but I cannot change because this is how I maintain my sanity on the internet.

You wrote an inaccurate header with an exclamation point, JTB. Already addressed, see "JTB, your bold summaries are rude / uncharitable / bad representations." (p27). Let me know if there are inaccurate comments or exclamation points; I'll remove them.

Gauntlet pt 2419441: Nuke didn't take damage from the golem. Yes, that one enemy specifically rolled low. Golems don't have an auto-hit feature, and DMs (usually) don't pre-roll attacks to determine strategy. I'm not sure what the implication here is.

There was no pressure at all from the golem. Most of the reason Nuke got attacked (and hit!) by other enemies in that fight was because he couldn't kite. The reason he had to cast animate objects at all is due in significant part to him not being able to kite. The golem's presence at the end of a hallway discouraged infinite kiting down that hallway. That is simply a thing that it did. I'm not sure how to make this more true aside from telling you that you should try kiting down a hall past a slow enemy, because it becomes clear why that's a bad idea reaaaall quick.

Nuke won the day easily. Nuke spent 3rd and 5th level spells, and then lost ~20 HP (20~30% of his total iirc) from enemies who could easily walk up to him because he couldn't kite. The Warrior lost ~30 HP and the Expert lost ~20 HP for similar reasons. These expenditures were low because of some lucky rolls (including from the golem, but also a few misses and low damage rolls from the veterans), but also because Nuke played pretty optimally. And of course the result was incredibly consequential, because it forced Nuke into a final fight with the mind flayer without any 5th-level slots, so he didn't have enough damaging spells to get through the final enemies before he perished. I have no idea, literally no idea at all, how a person experienced with D&D could watch that fight and think it was a curbstomp.

But why place a defender at the end of the hallway? My guess is to prevent kiting down the hall. But thankfully initial positioning isn't determined by the DM, so this has nothing to do with vibing or whatever. See "It's weird that the golem was placed on the far edge of the map." (p27)

There's no reason for the golem to engage in tactical play like that. It's frankly trivial to justify this. Off the top of my head: The mind flayer has instructed it to deal maximum damage at the expense of its life, and it's smart enough to know what dodging is.

Nuke only died later because enemies could harm him. Enemies harmed him in this fight. They harmed him quite a bit, and forced him to burn spell slots! This is just, like, verifiably true.

RE: Why won't you move on? See this is why I bold topics. "Why won't you move on?" isn't a conversation about why you think there's some strawman thing. I wrote it because you said "you're not taking the opportunity to move on.", and I explained why it seemed like I wasn't moving on (the answer is, I was! you just kept bringing up the strawman thing so I kept answering it!). Since you understand I'm gonna move on after this, I am hoping against all hope that you won't do any other talking about how I think you're a strawman or whatever.

Why mention that comment from Ludic where he asks you to be respectful? That's easy, thanks for asking. This isn't a defense of anything, just a reminder that certain behaviors, potentially considered "wrong in their accusations", "doubling down", "frustrating", "uncharitable", "rude", and "jarring" are not exclusive to my posts. It's just reminder that we should treat others with the respect we want. All the untangling in the world isn't going to be helpful if every serving comes with a side of snippy comments and [Small Amused]s!