Gonna play a scout. I can hear the other players whining already...

[Yeoman]

The only way I can think of to take advantage of the skirmish ability multiple times in one round is through the greater manyshot feat. Still even at 20th the scout is only looking at Bow Damage + 5d6 on each shot, versus the rogue with the same feat (or using rapid shot on a full action) to do Bow Damage + 10d6 on each shot.

And what is the big deal with the scout not having disable device as a class skill? Once he finds a trap, couldn't you just try to avoid the triggering effect? (like a pressure plate, tripwire, deadfall or the like) If it is really a problem either buy the skill cross class, or multiclass into something that has it as a class skill.

 

[Saeviomagy]

He can Tumble for a flank, but that puts him within full attack range of 1 to 3 Frost Giants.

Melee is not the best tactic for frost giants for ANY class.

 

[Macbeth]

Disclaimer: My Scout experiences come from a game with more of an emphasis on playing what you want then playing a min-maxed character.

Playing Ranger 1/Scout 4 is great fun. As strong as a rogue? Possibly. Not stronger, I'd say, but then again my DM (BardStephenFox) has made all skills class skills, so theres no clear 'skill guy' nitche based on anything but number of skill points.

The class is great when you don't have much in the way of melee combatants. In our game, I can only rely on having one other character in melee at any given time (the martial artist). The other characters (Favored Soul, Druid, Shaman, Archery-Focus Ranger, and character who deals damage with magic who's class I don't know) eneter melee only intermitently, sitting back for ranged attacks or spells. Meanwhile, my spiked china wielding scout hops around the battlefield, getting skirmishing every round, but rarely getting flanking.

Basically, the scout is a rogue who can work solo. The AC bonus helps make up for the lower damage output (in a rather large battle we had last session, even the +1 bonus was a great help).

I don't think it completely replaces the rogue or ranger, but it can help fill those nitches, and it's great for a party where a rogue might not get flanking all that often. I guess balance is in the eye of the beholder, but I fell the class is well balanced. My scout won't steal the show in combat, but he can hold his own, and the hit die and AC bonus keep him in the battle longer then a rogue would.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

He can Tumble for a flank, but that puts him within full attack range of 1 to 3 Frost Giants.

Melee is not the best tactic for frost giants for ANY class.

Nonetheless, once you hit ~10th level melee gets very, very dangerous -- too dangerous for typical single-classed Rogue builds.

My point is the Scout is not going to outshine the Rogue at anything the Rogue class is actually good at. The Scout can never hold a candle to a Rogue who can pull off TWF Sneak Attacking, nor a Rogue who specializes in ranged attacks. There is a gap between those two classic Rogue niches and the Scout fits in nicely without stepping on toes.

 

[BSF]

Disclaimer: My Scout experiences come from a game with more of an emphasis on playing what you want then playing a min-maxed character.

We haven't seen enough combat yet to get a real strong feel for how it will play out. But the little experience we have, and my gut feeling, seem to point toward the Scout filling a nice niche. But my focus is on having the players having fun and Macbeth seems to like some of the options the Scout brings to the game. So it is all cool.

Meanwhile, my spiked china wielding scout hops around the battlefield, getting flanking every round, but rarely getting flanking.

I think Macbeth meant his scout gets skirmish every round and the group mindset is one where he would rarely get flanking if he played a rogue.

Interesting group psychology, but we won't get into that. The Druid is about to get Wildshape and the player has traditionally played melee mongers. I am very curious if he will use wild shape to get back into a melee role since that is what he is comfortable with. If he does, it will free the Scout up to really help support the front lines instead of being the front line. I am going to be real interested in watching how the scout develops in the game here. However, I still think the group is going to miss having a true rogue. The scout won't overshadow that area too much.

 

[Kaffis]

As is mounted combat. And, if your DM is kind and house rules it, Improved Manyshot.

 

[Macbeth]

I think Macbeth meant his scout gets skirmish every round and the group mindset is one where he would rarely get flanking if he played a rogue.

Skirmishing, Flanking, same difference... But I really did mean skirmishing. Edited my post to correct that.

 

[RandomPrecision]

Well, it's pretty split which is better in the areas it's designed for: rogue or scout, so I'd assume they're probably pretty balanced.

I don't think scouts should have disable device. That's not what they were designed for. I believe scouts can still be stealthy, which is important for both classes. Disarming traps or sabotaging other devices is much more rogue-like. Scouts seem to be more of a reconnaissance-based class - they don't have the disarming/sabotage abilities or the sneak attacks, but they can scope out any enemy, and if they encounter any small resistance (sentries and whatnot), they can use their skirmish ability.

I think they both have their place, but either one can suffice to fill that role in the party. It almost seems to me that the scout is the more 'natural' version of the rogue, sort of like the ranger (and the barbarian, for that matter) is the 'natural' version of the fighter, or the druid to the cleric. I've thought about having an adventure where the party has urban and natural characters that are controlled independently, but their actions affect each other. The urban party would have paladins (maybe), fighters, rogues, clerics, and wizards, but the more natural party would probably have a ranger (maybe), barbarian, scout, druid, and sorcerer, or something along those lines.

 

[pogre]

Hey Im new here, but I just started playing a scout character and I find as far as combat (my scout anyway) best serves dealing extra damage to the creatures the fighters are tangling with. Moving around the battlefield doing an extra 3d8 + 3d6 (long bow, electric +1d6 +2d6 skirmish and a +2d8 order of the bow) really helps everyone take down their opponents faster. I find that this is what the scout is best at, as a support character.

Very interesting. Similar to the role the ranger fills in my campaign.

PS - Welcome to the boards!

 

[Shellman]

My opinion,

Take a multi-class Rogue/ Ranger and you'll have a better scout at higher levels, or consider multi-class Rogue/ Scout. Getting all that bonus skirmish damage or sneak attack damage, would come in pretty handy.

I think there is also a Woodland Rogue variant out of UA or something that is worth looking at too. But all that said, I'm not real big on the Scout class as it stands by itself. Just my opinion.