What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Psyren]

Which begs the question, if Rogues are so good, why are they rolling? Isn't the point, if the task is easy enough, you shouldn't be rolling? It seems to me, Expertise should just grant you success with that skill outside of extraordinary situations. What situations? Well, the ones the DM is making up on the fly anyway. Those don't matter, right? Expertise would still grant double PB for opposed checks. But against a static DC, it should not require a roll. Easy pease, makes Rogues (and Bards to a lesser extent) proper skill monkeys - at least for the skills they're really good at.

You can do that if you want. Make the rogue not have to roll for some things, or for other things, modulate the effects of their roll.

Here's the rub. Feelings. Some folks feel the skill module is just dandy. Others feel it's hot garbage. Feelings get in the way of forensic analysis.

Feeling is a major point of game design. (You know, fun? That thing?)

Because there's absolutely nothing to suggest that skill checks are as finely tuned as to then have something like +3 to your check mean anything.

The majority of games are under level 10. Most rogues will never benefit from reliable talent. Most rogues' entire skill benefit is "+2 or +3 to four different skills." If the fudge factor of different DM's DC settings is at least +/-3 (which I think there is strong reason to think it's at least that) and none of the DMs are wrong in making the DC whatever it is they made it... Well that's the entire skill benefit of rogue, getting taken up by white noise.

If skills are just vibes from the DM, it makes no sense to have a class ability be "small numerical bonus to skill checks."

Except Rogues aren't playing the game solo. Even if skills are "vibes", rogues still get more and higher bonuses to them, which makes them feel (there's that word again) different in play.

[Skrum]

Except Rogues aren't playing the game solo. Even if skills are "vibes", rogues still get more and higher bonuses to them, which makes them feel (there's that word again) different in play.

Oh they feel different alright. Like other classes have real abilities, and they have pretend ones.

[Psyren]

Oh they feel different alright. Like other classes have real abilities, and they have pretend ones.

Mm. Your game design credentials are showing.

[Skrum]

Mm. Your game design credentials are showing.

Not sure what this means.

I just don't get what the current version of skills are supposed to be doing. They're one-off rolls with a binary outcome that either 1) determines WAY too much and feels crummy because it's just a single roll and thus dumb luck (I personally shy away from putting too much weight on out of combat skill checks for exactly this reason), or 2) they're essentially afterthoughts; little "oh yeah, let's roll a die like it actually matters." When it comes to shaping the narrative, the players just playing their characters and making decisions is very impactful. But that's not skill checks, that's just...playing your character. What is the correct time to be using skill checks? How much weight are they supposed to have? How do they always feel so dissatisfying, despite having played in literally hundreds of games with many different DM's. They're just not fun - too mechanical (and random) to be considered narrative tools, and too vague and simplistic to be tactically fun.

[Psyren]

Not sure what this means.

I just don't get what the current version of skills are supposed to be doing. They're one-off rolls with a binary outcome that either 1) determines WAY too much and feels crummy because it's just a single roll and thus dumb luck (I personally shy away from putting too much weight on out of combat skill checks for exactly this reason), or 2) they're essentially afterthoughts; little "oh yeah, let's roll a die like it actually matters." When it comes to shaping the narrative, the players just playing their characters and making decisions is very impactful. But that's not skill checks, that's just...playing your character. What is the correct time to be using skill checks? How much weight are they supposed to have? How do they always feel so dissatisfying, despite having played in literally hundreds of games with many different DM's. They're just not fun - too mechanical (and random) to be considered narrative tools, and too vague and simplistic to be tactically fun.

1) "Rogues have pretend features" - about the only one I'd say qualifies for this is Thieves' Cant, and that's not the only one they get at that level so it's fine.
2) "Skills have a binary outcome" - false, PHB 174 / DMG 242.
3) "What is the correct time to be using skill checks" - DMG 237.
4) "How much weight are they supposed to have?" - also DMG 237.
5) "They're just not fun" - Rogues' popularity belies that assertion.
6) "They feel so dissatisfying" - I can't argue with your personal preference, all I can do is point out that you're clearly in the minority.

[Skrum]

1) "Rogues have pretend features" - about the only one I'd say qualifies for this is Thieves' Cant, and that's not the only one they get at that level so it's fine.
2) "Skills have a binary outcome" - false, PHB 174 / DMG 242.
3) "What is the correct time to be using skill checks" - DMG 237.
4) "How much weight are they supposed to have?" - also DMG 237.
5) "They're just not fun" - Rogues' popularity belies that assertion.
6) "They feel so dissatisfying" - I can't argue with your personal preference, all I can do is point out that you're clearly in the minority.

Rogues can be fun, even if I think they're underpowered. In this case, I was referring to skills. Skills in combat, like athletics or...yeah, mostly athletics. That's fine. Skills out of combat though? Nah. They've got no sauce.

[Psyren]

In this case, I was referring to skills.

So was I - #s 2-4.

[Tendril]

6) "They feel so dissatisfying" - I can't argue with your personal preference, all I can do is point out that you're clearly in the minority.

I don't suppose you can back up this statement with any stats? People finding the 5e skill system unsatisfying seems to be quite a common opinion in my experience.

[Kane0]

Yeah hang around long enough and you'll see a lot of topics repeat.

[Psyren]

I don't suppose you can back up this statement with any stats? People finding the 5e skill system unsatisfying seems to be quite a common opinion in my experience.

I was talking about rogues, and I did provide stats in that post.

[Skrum]

I was talking about rogues, and I did provide stats in that post.

Ok so in the context of my post, you're refuting me saying that skills are dissatisfying by bringing up that rogues are popular? And that follows because rogues are the skill class?

There's a LOT of inference being made there that I strongly disagree with.

[Tendril]

I was talking about rogues, and I did provide stats in that post.

...While responding to a post Skrum made about skills.

That said, regarding rogues, the stats you linked do not show a majority of players are satisfied with the rogue, or anything near that. They show that roughly 10% of characters made on DNDBeyond are rogues. That means it's popular, but doesn't show whether people are satisfied with the class, especially when considering the other 90% of players. So, again, do you have stats that back up your claim, or is it just conjecture?

[Blatant Beast]

What is the knight's attitude towards the PCs? Is the knight under orders for no one to see the king? The DM chooses the why the knight is there. Let's say the knight has no particular emotion to the PCs, so indifferent. The knight is allowed his own judgment of letting people pass, so he needs to be convinced but no harm or foul if people are allowed to pass or not. The DC is 10. If the knight is the paladin's drinking buddy (friendly) DC is 0, they go right in. If the PCs are on probation of breaking the law the knight doesn't like them, the DC is 20. If the King said no visitors unless it's an emergency, indifferent knight DC is 20, drinking buddy knight DC is 10, hates you knight is DC Never, go away, or he'll arrest you. All of this thanks to a small DC table on the bottom left corner of page 245 of the DMG.

This is called Roleplaying. Of course the choice of character for the NPC impacts the challenge.
It strikes me as a very selfish ask, for the whole world to stop roleplaying, and avoid the variance that arrives from choice, to satisfy your own particular desire to have the same DCs, all the time across games with different DMs, and if you only play with a single DM, tying their hands to a formula.

I find it ironic that the same people who object to the idea of the rogue having a bad reputation are the same people that are resistant to any type of rule that would potentially improve rogues' performance at the average table and thus reputation.

The truth value of this statement is less than 100%. You and I have had agreement on the Rogue assessment overall, and yet we politely disagree on skills. Alas, Irony, was hoisted on it's own petard.

Rogues can be fun, even if I think they're underpowered. In this case, I was referring to skills. Skills in combat, like athletics or...yeah, mostly athletics. That's fine. Skills out of combat though? Nah. They've got no sauce.

Umm Skrum, remember in this thread https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...e-no-mechanics, the Playgrounder schm0 made an excellent list of the 5e books, and the chapters that had Exploration rules?

A lot of the rules dealing with Overland Travel, expressly require Survival Checks. The Downtime Activities section of Xanathar's Guide to Everything reference Ability Checks with Skills, in most cases. A PC that is a member of a Fraternal Organization, (aka a Thieves Guild), might ask the organization to dig up some dirt on a foe. A DM might require an Ability check with a skill to determine how successful those efforts were.

If skills have no sauce in your game outside of combat, it is because you are not making an effort to create sauce.

A common occurrence/trope on this board is people make unfounded and/or factually incorrect statements about 5e, as a means of trying to prove the games underlying assumptions are 'broken' or incomplete, when it seems in reality, they just do not like the game.

It is ok to not like a particular game. I like Warhammer Fantasy as a notion, but I wont play the latest version of that RPG because the combat rules have a single crucial element that is a major pain to track.

In general, it is not ok, for people, to repeatedly repeat or make factually incorrect statements, in my opinion. Why do people keep doing this?

[Skrum]

This is called Roleplaying. Of course the choice of character for the NPC impacts the challenge.
It strikes me as a very selfish ask, for the whole world to stop roleplaying, and avoid the variance that arrives from choice, to satisfy your own particular desire to have the same DCs, all the time across games with different DMs, and if you only play with a single DM, tying their hands to a formula.


The truth value of this statement is less than 100%. You and I have had agreement on the Rogue assessment overall, and yet we politely disagree on skills. Alas, Irony, was hoisted on it's own petard.



Umm Skrum, remember in this thread https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...e-no-mechanics, the Playgrounder schm0 made an excellent list of the 5e books, and the chapters that had Exploration rules?

A lot of the rules dealing with Overland Travel, expressly require Survival Checks. The Downtime Activities section of Xanathar's Guide to Everything reference Ability Checks with Skills, in most cases. A PC that is a member of a Fraternal Organization, (aka a Thieves Guild), might ask the organization to dig up some dirt on a foe. A DM might require an Ability check with a skill to determine how successful those efforts were.

If skills have no sauce in your game outside of combat, it is because you are not making an effort to create sauce.

A common occurrence/trope on this board is people make unfounded and factually incorrect statements about 5e, as a means of trying to prove the games underlying assumptions are 'broken' or incomplete, when it seems in reality, they just do not like the game.

It is ok to not like a particular game. I like Warhammer Fantasy as a notion, but I wont play the latest version of that RPG because the combat rules have a single crucial element that is a major pain to track.

In general, it is not ok, for people, to repeatedly repeat or make factually incorrect statements, in my opinion. Why do people keep doing this?

The information gathering check is a great example of what I'm talking about - potentially days or then weeks of effort is decided with a single roll, and even if the character making the check has a +11, well there's a very present chance they roll like a 3. Now what.

Granted, it is the DMs job to make sure NOT to create choke points that require the players to make a particular roll or find a particular thing. But even so - how is this roll supposed to be fun, exciting; anything but "time to flip a coin to see what happens next."

[KorvinStarmast]

My overall thoughts is while there are infinite possibilities, the ways the DMG could be improved for all of our benefit is also infinite. But that does assume guidance and tools can be useful.

My pet peeve was that for beginning DMs "here is how you run a session" and "here is how you run a combat" and "here is how you run a social encounter" and "here is an example of an exploration encounter" are missing, whereas they are/were in previous DMGs/published material. (See Original Basic and In Search of the Unknown).

They show that roughly 10% of characters made on DNDBeyond are rogues.

Well let's see. There are 12 PC classes, 13 if you include artificer, (14 if you include bloodhunter which IIRC can be found on DDB). It appearst that about 1 in 10 chose a rogue. 1/12 would be about 8.5 %, so Rogue is doing fine by that metric.

This is called Roleplaying. Of course the choice of character for the NPC impacts the challenge.

It strikes me as a very selfish ask, for the whole world to stop roleplaying, and avoid the variance that arrives from choice, to satisfy your own particular desire to have the same DCs, all the time across games with different DMs, and if you only play with a single DM, tying their hands to a formula.

A CRPG can offer that, however.

Umm Skrum, remember in this thread https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...e-no-mechanics, the Playgrounder schm0 made an excellent list of the 5e books, and the chapters that had Exploration rules?

RTM is a thing that sometimes isn't done

In general, it is not ok, for people, to repeatedly repeat or make factually incorrect statements, in my opinion. Why do people keep doing this?

Sometimes, the rules are unclear, but that doesn't explain all of it.

The information gathering check is a great example of what I'm talking about - potentially days or then weeks of effort is decided with a single roll, and even if the character making the check has a +11, well there's a very present chance they roll like a 3. Now what.

Granted, it is the DMs job to make sure NOT to create choke points that require the players to make a particular roll or find a particular thing. But even so - how is this roll supposed to be fun, exciting; anything but "time to flip a coin to see what happens next."

Your complaint is noted and rejected. In our first campaign, with Phoenix Phyre DMing, we had a week or so of down time in the capital city of a region. My bard engaged in carousing (per xanathar's) at the middle level (not with nobles, she could not afford it) and made two contacts. This created some fun all by itself. Who were they? I made a couple of suggestions to Phoenix for world building purposes, he edited that and presto: I had one lady friend now who was a noble with connections, and a man who ran a shipping / transporting business as a contact. Over the next dozen or so sessions, these contacts helped us in a variety of ways, to include getting a concert set up for my bard to make money and get the queen on the invite list. And with the queen coming, all of a sudden the gate receipts/take went waaay up.
Fun? You bet. And all because I went out carousing for a week in Crisial City.

[Psyren]

The information gathering check is a great example of what I'm talking about - potentially days or then weeks of effort is decided with a single roll, and even if the character making the check has a +11, well there's a very present chance they roll like a 3. Now what.

Gosh, if only some class somewhere had an ability that made rolling a 3 impossible. I would consider that to be a decent class feature. Maybe we'll get that one day.

...While responding to a post Skrum made about skills.

...which was in response to a post accusing rogues of having "pretend abilities."

It helps when you're following a whole conversation rather than elbowing your way into one soundbite.

They show that roughly 10% of characters made on DNDBeyond are rogues. That means it's popular, but doesn't show whether people are satisfied with the class, especially when considering the other 90% of players.

Unless you're trying to claim those stats are predominantly brand new players, that means rogues remain the #2 class even after considering people who've tried them before or have tried other classes. Somehow I doubt that.

[Blatant Beast]

The information gathering check is a great example of what I'm talking about - potentially days or then weeks of effort is decided with a single roll, and even if the character making the check has a +11, well there's a very present chance they roll like a 3. Now what.

Granted, it is the DMs job to make sure NOT to create choke points that require the players to make a particular roll or find a particular thing. But even so - how is this roll supposed to be fun, exciting; anything but "time to flip a coin to see what happens next."

It depends upon the context. The players might have spent "on screen" game time actually forging a relationship with the Fraternal Order, in which case, I could see being able to use that investment of time and energy to do something for you, being satisfying.

If the player rolls low, then perhaps, the group needs to break in someplace to gather the information they wanted. If the player rolls high, they can skip that step.

I have a Fighter, that often times, can only miss if I roll a 1 on the die twenty. Sometimes I miss...it happens. Is a +14 modifier to Hit, "just flipping a coin"? Legendary Resistance takes away a coin flip, and a DM may not describe a LR usage as anything other than a Saving Throw success, to leave players in the dark. A +11 modifier being added to the chance of success, is one hell of a rigged coin toss.

The other issue is that Downtime activities, as XGE states, are intended to be done, off-screen, out of session. You can still roll for them in-session, if you want to, but the rolls are not meant to be a high drama point.

"Consider handling downtime away from the game
table. For example, you could have the players pick their
downtime activities at the end of a session, and then
communicate about them by email or text, until you next
see them in person."

[Tendril]

Well let's see. There are 12 PC classes, 13 if you include artificer, (14 if you include bloodhunter which IIRC can be found on DDB). It appearst that about 1 in 10 chose a rogue. 1/12 would be about 8.5 %, so Rogue is doing fine by that metric.

Unless you're trying to claim those stats are predominantly brand new players, that means rogues remain the #2 class even after considering people who've tried them before or have tried other classes. Somehow I doubt that.

As I said, I agree the stats show rogues are popular. I was disagreeing with the notion that this proves anything about what the majority of players think about the class. The majority of characters made are not rogues, does that mean the majority of players dislike rogues? Probably not.

It helps when you're following a whole conversation rather than elbowing your way into one soundbite.

It was such a juicy soundbite though!

But seriously, are you then saying that people find skills satisfying because rogues are popular? That might be true, but I think it's fair to say there could be more to it that that.

[GooeyChewie]

The information gathering check is a great example of what I'm talking about - potentially days or then weeks of effort is decided with a single roll, and even if the character making the check has a +11, well there's a very present chance they roll like a 3. Now what.

Granted, it is the DMs job to make sure NOT to create choke points that require the players to make a particular roll or find a particular thing. But even so - how is this roll supposed to be fun, exciting; anything but "time to flip a coin to see what happens next."

You said it yourself. It’s the DM’s job not to do stuff like that. Any aspect of the rules will sound unfun, unexciting and like a coin flip if you assume the DM presents it that way.

For the gather information check, you are right that it should not be a choke point. The DM should not set up situations where failing a die roll results in the campaign being unable to progress. But ability checks don’t have to be a matter of “you failed so you get nothing.” Suppose there is some critical information the party needs in order to advance, perhaps the location of the bad guy’s stronghold. The DM could have it be that the Guild will uncover that information regardless of your roll, but a successful roll reveals more information. Perhaps a success means the Guild also go ahold of a rough map of the stronghold. Perhaps a better success (degrees of success is RAW, albeit an optional one) means they also located a secret entrance and marked it on the map. Perhaps an even better roll, a roll that realistically would require Expertise, would even result in finding out the schedule for the changing of the guards. Now this ability check has not determined whether the campaign can succeed, but can influence how the players choose to proceed.

[Sorinth]

The information gathering check is a great example of what I'm talking about - potentially days or then weeks of effort is decided with a single roll, and even if the character making the check has a +11, well there's a very present chance they roll like a 3. Now what.

Granted, it is the DMs job to make sure NOT to create choke points that require the players to make a particular roll or find a particular thing. But even so - how is this roll supposed to be fun, exciting; anything but "time to flip a coin to see what happens next."

Now what is answered in the PHB or DMG how to resolve ability checks, namely failure is "makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM".

So spending weeks trying to gather information about a secret location and the player rolls a 3 and fails, they don't find the exact location but instead acquire the services of a guide but as a setback a rival from a PCs backstory gets wind of their location and sets up an ambush.

[Darth Credence]

Now what is answered in the PHB or DMG how to resolve ability checks, namely failure is "makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM".

So spending weeks trying to gather information about a secret location and the player rolls a 3 and fails, they don't find the exact location but instead acquire the services of a guide but as a setback a rival from a PCs backstory gets wind of their location and sets up an ambush.

Yes! There are a heck of a lot of things that can be done when one fails a check. What you have listed is great. Getting incorrect information, whether through just bad research or enemy action is one I have used. Failures can be plot hooks!

[lesser_minion]

A common occurrence/trope on this board is people make unfounded and/or factually incorrect statements about 5e, as a means of trying to prove the games underlying assumptions are 'broken' or incomplete, when it seems in reality, they just do not like the game.

Stop looking for excuses to dismiss other people out of hand.

People who care enough about a product to give constructive feedback on how it might be improved are not haters. They are among the best fans any designer could possibly hope for.

[Just to Browse]

Stop looking for excuses to dismiss other people out of hand.

People who care enough about a product to give constructive feedback on how it might be improved are not haters. They are among the best fans any designer could possibly hope for.

Low key if someone is gonna call out that sweeping statement, I think they should also call out similar sweeping statements like the one from Skrum, which Beast even quoted. I don't think either is a fair representation of the group that's being described.

Now what is answered in the PHB or DMG how to resolve ability checks, namely failure is "makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM".

So spending weeks trying to gather information about a secret location and the player rolls a 3 and fails, they don't find the exact location but instead acquire the services of a guide but as a setback a rival from a PCs backstory gets wind of their location and sets up an ambush.

I don't think that's actually the general suggestion, nor is there much effort put into helping DMs adjudicate something like that. I think it shows up in a couple places across the rules, but e.g. the biggest effort is put in "Success at a Cost" under "Resolution and Consequences", which includes a couple guidelines, roughly 4 examples, and the suggestion that partial success only work on successes of 0-2 beyond the threshold. The more relevant bit is "Degrees of Failure", which offer 2 examples showing how failure by <5 can mean retaining the status quo (notably not "progress combined with a setback"). XGTE (not the DMG!) has some rules about downtime activities which end up fairly vague but boil down to rolling to achieve stuff and separately rolling for setbacks.

The rules are frankly all over the place. IMO it would be hard to fault a DM if they adjudicated the scenario Skrum described, even if they read the whole DMG. It's a scenario that other games like Blades and Apocalypse World insure against thanks to deeply-embedded rules infrastructure, which most editions of D&D don't have.

[Psyren]

But seriously, are you then saying that people find skills satisfying because rogues are popular? That might be true, but I think it's fair to say there could be more to it that that.

I'm saying that it's trivial to make skill checks matter, and therefore class abilities that make skill checks more consistent also matter.

Now what is answered in the PHB or DMG how to resolve ability checks, namely failure is "makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM".

So spending weeks trying to gather information about a secret location and the player rolls a 3 and fails, they don't find the exact location but instead acquire the services of a guide but as a setback a rival from a PCs backstory gets wind of their location and sets up an ambush.

^ Case in point. It's not hard.

[Sorinth]

I don't think that's actually the general suggestion, nor is there much effort put into helping DMs adjudicate something like that. I think it shows up in a couple places across the rules, but e.g. the biggest effort is put in "Success at a Cost" under "Resolution and Consequences", which includes a couple guidelines, roughly 4 examples, and the suggestion that partial success only work on successes of 0-2 beyond the threshold. The more relevant bit is "Degrees of Failure", which offer 2 examples showing how failure by <5 can mean retaining the status quo (notably not "progress combined with a setback"). XGTE (not the DMG!) has some rules about downtime activities which end up fairly vague but boil down to rolling to achieve stuff and separately rolling for setbacks.

The rules are frankly all over the place. IMO it would be hard to fault a DM if they adjudicated the scenario Skrum described, even if they read the whole DMG. It's a scenario that other games like Blades and Apocalypse World insure against thanks to deeply-embedded rules infrastructure, which most editions of D&D don't have.

It's a direct quote from the PHB where it describes what an ability checks is and how it work. So yes it's actually a general suggestion, if people missed it because of information overload of reading all the books sure that happens and maybe the books could do a better job of highlighting options so first time GMs better understand how to handle things. But since this is a recurring theme in these threads with the same posters making the same complaints it's pretty clear that they are intentionally ignoring it and so it doesn't matter if the books provided better/clearer advice, they know very well the advice is there and addresses their issue and choose not to use it because it doesn't fit their personal definition of what failing a die roll should mean.

[lesser_minion]

Low key if someone is gonna call out that sweeping statement, I think they should also call out similar sweeping statements like the one from Skrum, which Beast even quoted. I don't think either is a fair representation of the group that's being described.

I don't agree with what Skrum said, but it wasn't gatekeeping either.

[Just to Browse]

I don't agree with what Skrum said, but it wasn't gatekeeping either.

Fair enough.

It's a direct quote from the PHB where it describes what an ability checks is and how it work. So yes it's actually a general suggestion, if people missed it because of information overload of reading all the books sure that happens and maybe the books could do a better job of highlighting options so first time GMs better understand how to handle things. But since this is a recurring theme in these threads with the same posters making the same complaints it's pretty clear that they are intentionally ignoring it and so it doesn't matter if the books provided better/clearer advice, they know very well the advice is there and addresses their issue and choose not to use it because it doesn't fit their personal definition of what failing a die roll should mean.

It's a description of a thing a DM can do, there's no guidelines for when the DM should vs shouldn't, and nothing on how or the degree to which it happens. The quote is:

If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success -- the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback.

That's a possible outcome alluded to in a section buried deep within an overview, it's not particularly backed up by anything else. Does it exist somewhere? Sure. Is it definitive enough to consider Skrum's example "answered"? I very much doubt it.

[Psyren]

I don't agree with what Skrum said, but it wasn't gatekeeping either.

But it was sweeping.

It's a description of a thing a DM can do, there's no guidelines for when, or how, or the degree to which it happens. The quote is:


That's a possible outcome alluded to in a section buried deep within an overview, it's not particularly backed up by anything else. Does it exist somewhere? Sure. Is it definitive enough to consider Skrum's example "answered"? I very much doubt it.

It is answered. Not liking the answer isn't the same as not getting one.

[Blatant Beast]

Stop looking for excuses to dismiss other people out of hand.

People who care enough about a product to give constructive feedback on how it might be improved are not haters. They are among the best fans any designer could possibly hope for.

I am not, nor have I, looked for reasons to dismiss people out of hand.
Indeed, Skrum and Pex are both very clear on their positions, and when I have referenced their or other's positions, I often explicitly ask that the person correct me if I summarized anything incorrectly.

There just happens to be things we disagree on. There are also things we agree on.

Right now there is a thread here in the Playground called: "Exploration and social - the two pillars that have no mechanics"

Now, patently, the entire notion that Exploration and Social pillars have no mechanics is a false notion. Yet, time after time, notions like that are expressed...especially when hyperbole comes into play.

I can understand people feeling like those two pillars do not have rules, but that is not factual.
It is fine to express your feelings, but I think it is a non-controversial statement to say that how one feels is not always based on facts.

Since the Rules as Written overwhelmingly document that indeed there are mechanics for the Social and Exploration pillars, why can't we as a board simply agree that the assertion that the Exploration and Social Pillars do not have mechanics is a false assertion, because it is.

Now the assertion that 5e lacks Social and Exploration mechanics that feels satisfying for a particular person, or for some people, is not a false statement.

I might not feel the same way, I might even voice that in a post, but I am not, and have not dismissed someone for precisely expressing their feelings.

[lesser_minion]

I am not, nor have I, looked for reasons to dismiss people out of hand.

Your post sounded a bit like gatekeeping, but if that's not what you meant, then that's fair enough and I apologise.