Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RandomPrecision" data-source="post: 2114375" data-attributes="member: 29267">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.</blockquote>