Sword Coast Legends Survey; Plus Ranger Feedback Results!

Interesting stuff on the ranger.

But a whole survey on Sword Coast Legends. Hm. I don't even know what it is, really. And said as much when I answered.

 

[Azurewraith]

If you made it a subclass of Rogue I think it would be unique enough.

But then there's those guys who would say I want ranger not a rogue.

 

[Orlax]

But then there's those guys who would say I want ranger not a rogue.

Those people are already lost. We are talking about making a scout class that is decidedly not a ranger. Attempting to please those that would complain about the base class name in any way is folly.

On a rogue it is as simple as making one of the third level abilities if you've moved more than 10 feet in a round you may add your sneak attack damage to a single attack made on your turn. And then with the other third level ability give them the ability to use some of the wilderness based toolkits such as the herbalism kit or alchemy kit. Possibly survival as well because these guys definitely need to be able to track. Later level ability give them that poultice ability from the first spell less ranger they ever put out on sage advice (maybe turned down a little from where it was in that article), that gives then some nature based out of combat healing capabilities as well as a mechanical reason to pump wisdom. Then at later levels than that put in an armor piercing ability of some kind (make it a subject of your skirmishing, like if you get your extra damage via skirmishing the next attack against that enemy before that enemy's next turn (where they notice the gap you've made in their armor and adjust their fighting style appropriately) has advantage or something like that.

 

[Azurewraith]

Those people are already lost. We are talking about making a scout class that is decidedly not a ranger. Attempting to please those that would complain about the base class name in any way is folly.

On a rogue it is as simple as making one of the third level abilities if you've moved more than 10 feet in a round you may add your sneak attack damage to a single attack made on your turn. And then with the other third level ability give them the ability to use some of the wilderness based toolkits such as the herbalism kit or alchemy kit. Possibly survival as well because these guys definitely need to be able to track. Later level ability give them that poultice ability from the first spell less ranger they ever put out on sage advice (maybe turned down a little from where it was in that article), that gives then some nature based out of combat healing capabilities as well as a mechanical reason to pump wisdom. Then at later levels than that put in an armor piercing ability of some kind (make it a subject of your skirmishing, like if you get your extra damage via skirmishing the next attack against that enemy before that enemy's next turn (where they notice the gap you've made in their armor and adjust their fighting style appropriately) has advantage or something like that.

Sounds good I did like the scout of 3.5 was a fun class

 

[Orlax]

Sounds good I did like the scout of 3.5 was a fun class

I mean you could possibly word it such that moving 10 feet gets you advantage on your next attack which implicitly means you get your sneak attack damage on the attack, but I'm just tossing out rough ideas between getting work done at the moment.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the main thing we have to accept is:

There's no way to do all the archetypes for the ranger in one single class.

They will have to be split between the ranger class. subclasses of the barbarian, fighter, and rogue, and possibly a new class as a true pet class.

 

[Azurewraith]

I think the main thing we have to accept is:

There's no way to do all the archetypes for the ranger in one single class.

They will have to be split between the ranger class. subclasses of the barbarian, fighter, and rogue, and possibly a new class as a true pet class.

Suprise 6e then? I assume is 10years or so away from playtest

 

[dmnqwk]

Of the people looking for a wilderness-style skirmisher without an animal companion, what part of Fighter isn't appealing to cover this?

Is it the ability to track while moving quicker? (Something which could easily become a feat)
Is it the Favoured Enemy Intelligence and Wisdom bonuses?
Is it the nature-based movement abilities?

I think the new Fighter has been given far more depth than previous editions and since Dex-based fighters are great you can easily re-create a stealthy fighter who only requires your DM to add Natural Tracker as a feat to give you the option!

 

[Orlax]

Of the people looking for a wilderness-style skirmisher without an animal companion, what part of Fighter isn't appealing to cover this?

Is it the ability to track while moving quicker? (Something which could easily become a feat)
Is it the Favoured Enemy Intelligence and Wisdom bonuses?
Is it the nature-based movement abilities?

I think the new Fighter has been given far more depth than previous editions and since Dex-based fighters are great you can easily re-create a stealthy fighter who only requires your DM to add Natural Tracker as a feat to give you the option!

I think it's more that the fighter is just that, a fighter, their business is fighting and when we think of the scout style character we are thinking of a character that is more skill based than fighting based. A scout isn't supposed to engage, they go forward, gather Intel, and kill while running away when they fail to go unnoticed. I'm not saying that a fighter subclass wouldn't be good for a skirmisher style character, but only if that skirmisher style is the main facet of the character and frankly that could be done with a fighting style and the three archetypes we already have, and we are looking for a little bit more meat than that I think.

 

[dmnqwk]

What rules would a scout need to justify a class or archetype? What makes it stand out in terms of a DnD adventurer, why would you need to play a scout that a Ranger or Rogue isn't already adept at doing?

I mean DnD is a group effort. While it's nice to go off on your own, you're supposed to work in a group and being a scout wherein you spend all of your time ahead of the party, couldn't you just be a Rogue who scouts, skirmishes and runs away? I guess I have a hard time seeing where a scout becomes a reason to group up as opposed to a role in your former life before you became an adventurer.

 

[PMárk]

Of the people looking for a wilderness-style skirmisher without an animal companion, what part of Fighter isn't appealing to cover this?

Is it the ability to track while moving quicker? (Something which could easily become a feat)
Is it the Favoured Enemy Intelligence and Wisdom bonuses?
Is it the nature-based movement abilities?

I think the new Fighter has been given far more depth than previous editions and since Dex-based fighters are great you can easily re-create a stealthy fighter who only requires your DM to add Natural Tracker as a feat to give you the option!

Pretty much all of this and, well, everything else that is in the core class features in the PHB. I get it, for a lot of people, proficiency in certain skills is covering the wilderness part of the class, but please understand, that to a lot of other people (including me) the extra features the ranger gets ont the top of that base is essential. It's not perfect, I could imagine stronger, or more flexible versions, but it is OK.

The fighter's theme is fighting and it allows a lot of sub-themes, like manouvers, hitting very hard, organizing the fight and so on. I think the ranger is also a fine class, which theme is (saving people) hunting things and survival with also a lot of possibble themes, like: hunting down things like no one else, scouting-skirmishing, bonding with pets, hunting related spells etc. All of them are viable approaches as subclasses in my eyes and the sum of that absolutely deserves a full class.

In one sense, everything is everything as classes are artificial. A scout is a nature rogue? Sure, and the rogue is just an urban scout. Barbarians are just rangers focusing on fighting and tapping their inner bestial self. I think everything that is nature-hunting-fighting related is fundamentaly in the ranger "familiy". However, I'm okay with some oddities, like the nature paladin, and a possible scout-rogue. Why not? Allowing interesting concepts is always better than restricting.

As a related topic: I was a litle bit disappointed, that the bladesinger became a wizard subclass, I loved the Pathfinder MAGUS and it's archetypes but hey, the BS is good after all, so it's not a tragedy.