Best (and worse) new base classes from WotC

[Saeviomagy]

Played or seen played: Artificer(level 8), spirit shaman(level 2), swashbuckler(level 9), scout (level 2).

The scout is great. Yes it steps on the toes of the rogue, but so does... a second rogue in the party. Honestly - it's not a fault with the class.

Artificer rocks. Although I've found that I'm constantly short of enough cash to actually spend the craft reserve, which sucks a bit. The ability to have ANY spell up to 4th level on hand is quite powerful - a lot of difficult problems just go away. There are also some problems introduced by the various armour and weapon abilities that are undervalued because normally you wouldn't use them often: bane is the leader of these, but there's a fair few others (like etherealness or undead commanding armour).

Swashbuckler is ok. Not a powerhouse fighter by a long shot, but a good alternative for someone who doesn't want the traditional high-strength combatant.

Spirit shaman is great too. The ability to pick a couple of spells of each level and then cast spontaeneously is quite useful, but not overly powerful. I haven't made use of the spirit-based powers yet, but I can imagine that they will be a lot of use against those creatures. I especially like the broad and interesting range of things considered to be spirits, unlike, for instance, the clerics extremely restricted "anti-undead" angle.
I think perhaps that the druid spell list was not the best choice for the class - the spirit shaman lacks a lot of the nature-based class abilities that druid spells make use of. Speficially magic fang is all-but useless to a spirit shaman, and most of the "improve an animal" or "control an animal" spells don't make much sense. Similarly, many spells from the cleric list would make perfect sense - speak with dead as a prime example. And personally I think the more classes that have access to powerful restorative and curative spells, the better off the poor cleric is - he can avoid having to play bandaid all day.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Every time I read it ... I dunno. You find that shapeable 1-per-round Sneak Attacks as a ranged touch aren't that powerful?

Meh. They're only sneak attacks if someone multi-classes. And then, sure, it's only a touch attack, but the "roguelock" is sacrificing iterative attacks in exchange for one that's more likely to hit.

And as far as shapeable... If it's a cone or the like, it no longer requires a to-hit roll, and is then no longer a sneak attack.

 

[Grimstaff]

Uh - that's not a loophole. That's how the class is meant to be played.

Look at it this way: the scout is giving up its multiple attacks to make one attack with slightly higher damage.

I could do a lot more damage if I was playing a flanking rogue. At 10th level, the rogue gets two attacks at +5d6 damage. The scout gets one attack at +3d6 damage. The comparison gets worse as the levels get higher. Against that, the scout is better defensively than the rogue.

Tumble also works for the scout, as do ranged weapons.

Cheers!

Thats great and all, but it seems to me that the "spirit" of the skirmish damage has more to do with surprise and tactical advantage than with how many times a PC can move back and forth across the map-board. It doesn't make sense "real-world" unlike the rogues sneak attack. It would be more balanced and realistic if skirmish was: a)replaced by sneak attack, b) only effective for the first round of combat (foe is off-balance), or c) only effective while the scout is ahead on initiative, which would give a defender a chance to delay his way out of getting tagged again and again.

Seriously, picture yourself fighting this guy 1 on 1. He runs up, hits you for an extra 2d6 and runs back 10 feet. Then he runs up, hits you for an extra 2d6, and runs away again. Then he runs up, etc, etc, etc. Any moron would be able to take advantage of this predictability, and it seems to me skirmish damage should come from being UN-predictable.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I meant Sneak Attack in that the damage progression exactly maps to the Rogue's sneak attack progression.

Which seems like it would sort of jank with the Rogue a bit. The rogue is spending feats like Rapid Shot and TWF in order to get multiple attacks in a round with Sneak Attack Damage added to them, including putting himself into harm's way or attacking at range with a ranged weapon with little chance to repeat that damage in later rounds of the same combat ... while the Warlock does the SAME amount of damage with a ranged touch attack, every round, while flying or merely staying in the background. He can't get that damage multiple times per round at first, but he can later toss out shapes that tag multiple targets, effectively increasing his damage output per round.

There's no sense in multiclassing Rogue and Warlock since you get the same damage progression. You'd only take rogue for more skill points. If you could multi and then slip into Assassin somehow you could eek out, I think, one more d6 ... but why.

I dunno. I have to see if losing multiple attacks per round is worth every-round effect, ranged touch, additional effects, and the ability to place feats elsewhere.

--fje

 

[Mouseferatu]

Ah, I see what you meant.

To that, I can only reiterate that I've seen it in play, and it really doesn't overshadow anyone. The rogue can, indeed, dish out more damage once he gets iterative attacks. But more to the point, neither sneak attack for rogues, nor eldritch blast for warlocks, is meant to be the core precept of the class. Comparing damage output, even if it favors the warlock--and it doesn't always, IME--isn't really a good measuring stick for those two.

 

[Laman Stahros]

Seriously, picture yourself fighting this guy 1 on 1. He runs up, hits you for an extra 2d6 and runs back 10 feet. Then he runs up, hits you for an extra 2d6, and runs away again. Then he runs up, etc, etc, etc. Any moron would be able to take advantage of this predictability, and it seems to me skirmish damage should come from being UN-predictable.

The scout in my campaign does more of a run up, hit, run away (not back), rinse and repeat. He is constantly hitting from different angles and directions, thus setting up the skirmish damage.

If the player is doing the back and forth routine, well, that is just poor playing and can be solved by talking to him. YMMV.

 

[MerricB]

Seriously, picture yourself fighting this guy 1 on 1. He runs up, hits you for an extra 2d6 and runs back 10 feet. Then he runs up, hits you for an extra 2d6, and runs away again. Then he runs up, etc, etc, etc. Any moron would be able to take advantage of this predictability, and it seems to me skirmish damage should come from being UN-predictable.

He runs up, hits me, runs back.

I then charge him and hit him with a big double-handed power attack.

He looks at the lack of space separating us...

Alternatively:
He runs up, hits me, runs back.
I aim my bow and shoot him three times.

Alternatively:
He runs up... and I hit him with an Improved Trip that I'd readied. He falls prone and can't retreat.

Any enemy dumb enough to let the scout dominate in 1 on 1 combat is ineffective.

In any case, in every battle I've seen the scout at work in, the scout hasn't been alone. The fighters of the group are getting the bulk of the attention of the enemy, and the scout runs in and back at those that have been engaged by the fighters.

Cheers!

 

[tetsujin28]

Uh - that's not a loophole. That's how the class is meant to be played.

Look at it this way: the scout is giving up its multiple attacks to make one attack with slightly higher damage.

I could do a lot more damage if I was playing a flanking rogue. At 10th level, the rogue gets two attacks at +5d6 damage. The scout gets one attack at +3d6 damage. The comparison gets worse as the levels get higher. Against that, the scout is better defensively than the rogue.

Tumble also works for the scout, as do ranged weapons.

Cheers!

Yep. We've done a level-by-level comparison of the Scout vs. Rogue, and the Rogue will do more way more damage, and in more situations. The Scout's big thing is...well...being a scout. The skirmish damage is really nice, but in a dungeon it can be nearly impossible to use -- we went through an entire sesssion where the Scout never got to skirmish, but the Rogue did six sneak attacks.

In any case, in every battle I've seen the scout at work in, the scout hasn't been alone. The fighters of the group are getting the bulk of the attention of the enemy, and the scout runs in and back at those that have been engaged by the fighters.

Exactly. The scout is a lot like the harrier in Iron Heroes. If he has back-up, he can be awesome. One-on-one, he needs to retreat and plunk from a distance.

 

[moritheil]

They don't have teleport, just dimension door (at about one tenth the usual range, too). And the eldritch blast does about half the damage that an average wizard's spell would do at the same level, and only to a single target. With an attack roll. Really, they look neat on paper, but I can't see them being in any way overpowered in practice.

--Impeesa--

If your DM is the sort that relies on multiple encounters with individually weak enemies to sap your group of magical power, I can easily see why he or she would consider a warlock "overpowered." It's all a question of what goes on.

 

[Impeesa]

If your DM is the sort that relies on multiple encounters with individually weak enemies to sap your group of magical power, I can easily see why he or she would consider a warlock "overpowered." It's all a question of what goes on.

Don't think of them as magical power. Really, when it comes to the blasting, they're more like weak archers.

--Impeesa--