Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Estlor" data-source="post: 2027407" data-attributes="member: 7261">Wow, you just repeated the Bard complaints ad nauseum.  And considering people don't accuse Bards of power creep, that's a pretty GOOD argument for the Scout being fine as written. That's the thing - classes like the rogue and the bard (and to an extent the fighter) are VERY flexible.  You don't have the luxury of building them however you want when you join a party, you build them to fit the needs of a party on the whole.  Would you build a sneaky bard in a party with a rogue?  No, just like you wouldn't build a healing bard with a cleric or a "blasting" bard with a wizard or sorcerer.  If you have a scout in the party, you build your fighter as something other than an archer and your rogue as more than a trapfinding disarmer.  If you try to fill the niche of a class with a generalist class, you're going to lose EVERY TIME.  However, the balancing strength of the generalist class IS it's ability to be general.  You have the opportunity to say, "So what, Mr. Scout.  Can you use any magic item you find?  Can you talk someone out of killing you?  Let's see you take advantage of flanking." Building a "scout" rogue with a scout in the party is just irresponsible character development, IMHO.</blockquote>