Rogue vs. Scout

[Storyteller01]

always prefered HoHF's Tunnel fighter for dwarves. We usually end up in some cramped quarters though.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Actually, I'm the DM - asking for one of my players. The campaign will (likely) have one Rogue

Is that necessary? If you are going to have two scouts already, all the rogue will get them is open locks a DD if I remember correctly. Wouldn't a spellcaster that can disarm traps and do other things (like blast, boost, or summon) be more useful?

two Scouts,

See above for other ideas besides two scouts. Although, with five players ahaving 2 scouts isn't a bad idea. The party is admittedly short on spellcasting. Hence, see comments on the rogue choice.

a Warlock.

This could be a fun combo. This I encourage all the way. Especially with Eldritch Spear - the incantation that increases range. The scouts will love the warlock!

Warforged fighter or something along those lines.

Given this party, have this player think long and hard about ranger headed for the possibility of bloodhound PrC. I played one of those, boy was she fun. And that character would make a great match thematically with the other characters.

In sum, as the DM I'd try and encourage the rogue to switch to a caster type. Or at the very minimum take max UMD and buy wands!

This party may lack a bit of staying power due to only one full BAB character and no casting currently. But given the scouts ability to move and do devastating damage, staying power may only come into play when they get cornered.

Have fun!

 

[Prophet2b]

Is that necessary? If you are going to have two scouts already, all the rogue will get them is open locks a DD if I remember correctly. Wouldn't a spellcaster that can disarm traps and do other things (like blast, boost, or summon) be more useful?

The Rogue is actually planning on being more on the negotiator side, like a Bard, but he really prefers not to play magical characters. I let the players all pick their own characters - I figure that if they create a unique group, then it's up to them to find unique ways of getting in and out of different situations. I'm definitely going to try to play to their strengths, though, throughout the campaign as a whole - a bit more skill and roleplaying oriented, for sure.

But I'll definitely talk to they guy playing the rogue and see what he thinks. I definitely don't want anyone's character getting left out...

Especially since his UMD won't be nearly as handy as the Warlock's.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Okay, let's look at them point-by point.

Scouts have better:
-hit dice (d8 to the rogue's d6)
-Armor class (only in turns where they skirmish, otherwise, it's equal)
-Feats (they gain four bonus feats)
-Fewer "dead" levels (levels where no new feats or special abilities are gained, though the rogue only has two... one of them IS 20th level.)
-stronger "+d6" damage ability (in terms of opportunities to use it)

Rogues have better:
-Skill sets (29 skills vs. the scouts 19)
-Special abilities are more diverse (And, in many cases, stronger.)
-Stronger "+d6" ability (in terms of damage dealt)
-Ability to use iterate "+d6" damage attacks.
-trap sense (bonuses to dealing with a major part of the game.)

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Especially since his UMD won't be nearly as handy as the Warlock's.

This is very true, and I'll confess I forgot the warlock's abilty to UMD when I posted originally. so long as the party doesn't mind spending money on some essential wands, that might be okay. Personally, with the rogue getting so many skill points, I'd still have the rogue invest in it. With no casters (unless the warforged goes ranger and then its ranger spells anyway) you might want two characters with UMD. It isn't going to hurt the rogue character, especially if they have a decent INT and CHA (from being the party face).

Regarding the rogue, the one thing that the rogue would be able to do that the scouts can't ins flank with the fighter to get sneak attack. But that often spells danger for the lightly armored rogue if he has to get in the middle of a bunch of bad guys. Against single opponents, he'd be alright for a few rounds. But the rogue will have to work to find an identity in combat - or choose to ignore it. But if you want to be a face and you don't care about combat ... dare I say bard even if the character doesn't like magical characters? [Ducks from flailing tomatoes!]

I'm merely hypothesizing here, I totally understand your desire to let the players choose. I do the same thing. But as a DM you have to be ready to deal with their choices and keep all the players interested. That might be a challenge with 2 scouts and a rogue. Of course, this also depends on the quality of players, too. And that is only something you can judge.

 

[The Grackle]

In my campaign, the scout has gained a skirmish bonus virtually every round they were within 30 feet of an opponent. In my experience, skirmish is much more reliable than sneak attack.

I agree. A tumbling scout can almost always get skirmish damage w/o suffering AoOs, and w/o feints or relying on allies. I'm still not sure about high levels (which I rarely play) when a rogue will certainly have access to greater invisibility or other tricks to ensure sneak attacks.

 

[blargney the second]

There are feats in PHB2 that let you get iterative attacks during a spring attack. Scouts just got a picker-upper.

-blarg

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I am not very familiar with the scout class, so I cannot comment specifically on how its benefits stack up. However, the game I am in does have a character with a few scout levels, so I do have some idea of how the skirmish ability works.

The first thing to note is that getting the best out of the scout class is probably more feat intensive than a Rogue. Given that you will want to keep moving, your going to want to get the Mobility and Spring Attack feats. You are nearly obligated to max out Tumble, leaving less skill points for other abilities you might want. And given the focus on mobility, your not going to watnt to take a Small character race. Granted, your not obligated to max out any particular feat set or use a perfectly optimal build, but it is something to consider.

The other thing to consider is that a Rogues sneak attack is actually not that hard to set up, and it benefits better from Multi Classing. A Rogue / Fighter using a 2 weapon fighting build with Iterative attacks will be devastating in melee combat if you can set up a flank. And since most games arent 1 on 1 games with 1 DM and 1 Player, getting flanking opportunities is not usually an issue. While a Fighter / Scout would probably not be a bad build, the emphasis on mobility means you are not going to be able to use your iterative attacks and your skirmish bonus. Also a Fighter / Rogue, can sneak attack just fine in heavy armour, but the drop in movement hinders a Fighter / Scout.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[kigmatzomat]

Any tips on how to incorporate elements into the campaign that will insure the players get their fair share in using their characters' potentials? It's definitely going to be a different kind of campaign for me...

Well, in fights I'd recommend numbers of weak foes or one really big one but avoid the 2-3 moderately tough guys. Numbers of weak foes allow plenty of flanking opportunity for the rogue playing off the warforged, the forged can slug away, the warlocks blasts will be effective and the scouts can move back and forth across the battlefield getting skirmish bonus. Singular targets can be trapped by the 'forged and rogue in a flank, letting the scouts decide on iterative attacks or skirmishing as needed. The warlock's invocations can be brought fully to bear on the single target, allowing the concentration powers to be effective.

In the storyline (Eberron?) you've got a good foundation for a former military recon group. You've got three stealthy individuals (rogues & scouts), mystical support (warlock) and a fighter that doesn't have clanky armor (I really wish armor gave a move silently penalty) get tired or sleep. Alternately, they can be trackers, bounty hunters, bodyguards, or bonded couriers. Skill selection and final character personality will be the big decision makers.

 

[TheNovaLord]

I dont think skill points are at all an issue. The fact you have 10 less skills to pick from, but the same skill points base means you are more likley to excel at what you do. The 5th level scout in our party is a tumble and jumping monster. Makes him highly mobile and he loves it when the terrain gets tricky as he can run rings around everybody. Their is also a ranger and two paladins so outdoors especially it is a highly mobile group.

As a scout as you dont need to worry about putting points in any social skills (they spend so much time alone they dont need to bathe etc) means they will have at least 8 very good skills indeed.

JohnD