Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
Certain parts of the game are much more DM-dependent than other parts. That is why we're hearing this complaint about the rogue, but not about (e.g.) the barbarian or the cleric.
Except we kind of do. Few Barbarians are mentioned in discussions about the Social Pillar, except with regard to their ineptitude at it. Similarly for Clerics in discussions about stealth and scouting (outside a couple of domain options), or the exploration pillar as a whole.

The whole "GM dependent" argument suggests to me that, perhaps, there's less at fault with the Rogue Class so much as there is how games are being run. I'll compare it to the Long Rest vs. Short Rest argument; in a game with no short rests, Warlocks and Monks are severely underpowered compared to what should be expected. If a majority of players run 5-min adventuring days that's a player problem, rather than those Classes being weak.

"I only value X, so things that do Y are weak" should not apply if Y is an expected part of the game. That a large number of players aren't utilising Y might colour common perception, but actually only means those players are missing an aspect of the game from their play experience. Compare it to a statement like "Ancient Red Dragons aren't enough of a threat because we don't use Legendary or Lair Actions". Those Legendary and Lair Actions are there for the express purpose of making ancient dragons more challenging foes; if you're not using them, that's a you problem. Same goes for the Rogue; if you're not including terrain, distance and other interactive elements to your combats, as well as minimising non-combat encounters and removing consequence from rests, then of course your perception of the Rogue will be lacking because, arguably, your campaign/game style is lacking in aspects the game rules expect you to engage with.