Unearthed Arcana New Year Unearthed Arcana Brings Back Those Old 2E Kits

The scout fighter looks like yet another take at a ranger, but one I'm personally more likely to use. For the Cavalier I might want some more feature related to social interaction, not just the horse part and a proficiency. Something along the lines of what the Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight got in SCAG or a new use of superiority dice.

The bard colleges seem nice, but "Tumble" might have a bit too many benefits compared to Rogue Cunning Action.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

My biggest problem with the Scout is really the skills.
- A Fighter starts with 2 skills at character creation.
- A Ranger starts with 3 (or is it 4, don't have my books in front of me).

So the Fighter (Scout) would end up with more skills than the Ranger. That just seems wrong to me.
Clearly this needs to be limited to just one new skill from the list at 3rd level. (And of course proficiency in cartographers' tools.)

You know, I love the Scout but I agree with this. And it helps even out the amount of stuff they get at 3rd level

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why the hell is he scout a subclass of the fighter? It even gains a ranger feature. The scout has always been more of a ranger than most other specs. You can even play the ranger very well as a scout and always could. The fighter has never been build around skills, now he gains s.dice to 'imitate' skills. I hate that. Make the scout a subclass of the ranger as it is supposed to be! I don't care if it has been this way in 2e. This is 5e and we should have learned a thing or two during the years.

Why wouldn't it be? After all... the Ranger was originally a sub-class of the Fighter. Do we question why a *spellcaster* is a sub-class of the Fighter? Nope. There's no reason why there shouldn't be. And by the same token we don't question why there is a now weapon-using melee sub-class of the Wizard.

Now if your real point is that you think the Scout is really just a non-spell-using Ranger, and that the Ranger should have a sub-class that doesn't use spells... then okay. I can certainly understand that desire. But then again... we've already received a non-spell-using Ranger Variant in Unearthed Arcana, so there's no reason to make another one. And as a matter of fact, that Ranger Variant just pulls out spellcasting and replaces it with Battlemaster maneuvers and dice, so the Scout is basically a re-working of that but just coming from the Fighter chassis this time. Funnily enough-- the exact same pairing between class chassis like we got with the EK and Bladesinger.

- The Eldritch Knight is a Fighter subclass that has aspects of Wizard
- The Bladesinger is a Wizard subclass that has aspects of Fighter

- The Scout is a Fighter subclass that has aspects of Ranger
- The Spell-less Ranger is a class variant has aspects of Fighter

So you can reach a similar characterization in both cases, each just coming from a different class direction. Seems to me they are just giving us many options to choose from to get to where we want to go... which I do not see as a bad thing at all.

 

[Kalshane]

Agreed. I was using the Fighter subclasses as those were the most blatant examples, but Sword Bard is almost as bad. If in my mind I can't see the difference between a Valor Bard or a Sword Bard, then the subclass could use some work to make it stand out more. Or, those options could better be written as something else other than a subclass.

Jester, for example, immediately strikes me as different enough to be worth of it's own distinction...after that, it's a matter of adding whatever mechanics best encapsulate that "feel". Sword Bard has different mechanics but the same flavor as Valor Bard. Cavalier and Scout have different flavors but the same mechanics as Battlemaster.

One thing I hadn't considered at first about making the new Fighter abilites maneuvers? That would allow others to take them via feat. I don't think anyone would be happy there...Fighters would lose the one cool thing their subclass gives them, and everyone else would be spending double the "feat tax" to take that plus Mounted Combat (for example). As written they look like maneuvers, and wouldn't be bad ones to have in the general pile. But for strong concepts like Scout and Cavalier they'd probably be best served with their own abilities.

Of all these, I do think Sword Bard worries me the most. In 3rd Ed, instead of just Rogues for example, we had every manner of thief, cutpurse, bandit, robber, treasure hunter, and highwayman. Same with most other classes. Without strong concepts to differentiate them, they all come across as multiple ways to model the same thing. Leads to a more clunky system at best, or possible abuse at worst depending on what and how these things stack.

The difference is, in my mind, the Valor Bard is still about inspiring his allies in battle. While he is more combat-focused than a Lore Bard, he's still rallying his team.

The Blade, on the other hand, much like the kit it is based on, is about enhancing his own ability in combat opposed to his allies. He's less warrior-poet and more Mad Martigan, using his bravado and showmanship to pump himself up and discourage his enemies.

 

[steeldragons]

Why the hell is he scout a subclass of the fighter? It even gains a ranger feature. The scout has always been more of a ranger than most other specs. You can even play the ranger very well as a scout and always could. The fighter has never been build around skills, now he gains s.dice to 'imitate' skills. I hate that. Make the scout a subclass of the ranger as it is supposed to be! I don't care if it has been this way in 2e. This is 5e and we should have learned a thing or two during the years.

The piggy back a bit on what [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION] said, my own hypothesis would be that they went with the Scout as Fighter because it is intended to be the "spell-less ranger" and since the Ranger base class (as presented in the PHB) gains spells at 2nd level but doesn't choose subclass until 3rd, you couldn't do a "spell-less Scout ranger" because by 3rd level, spells are already in the ranger's picture. So, to go with an existing non-caster base, they chose Fighter. I, personally, probably would have gone Rogue and added minor Fighter stuff and minor Ranger stuff...but that's me.

If that makes sense...it works in my head but not sure if I'm explaining it clearly.

 

[Greg Benage]

My biggest problem with the Scout is really the skills.
- A Fighter starts with 2 skills at character creation.
- A Ranger starts with 3 (or is it 4, don't have my books in front of me).

So the Fighter (Scout) would end up with more skills than the Ranger. That just seems wrong to me.
Clearly this needs to be limited to just one new skill from the list at 3rd level. (And of course proficiency in cartographers' tools.)

Scout is a skill-based ranger, the Ranger is a spell-based ranger. Seems fine to me.

 

[Istbor]

I think it was mentioned upthread. That perhaps the Battle Master is what 5e originally intended to be the fighter. The other sub-classes were tacked on later when they received more feedback during the play test. I certainly remember when fights had superiority dice and you picked what type of fighter you were going to be.

I personally am excited about the cavalier. Though I can certainly see where others are getting disparaged.

 

[Yaarel]

The 5e ‘Scout’ that is a Fighter archetype seems to reconstruct the 1e ‘Ranger’ that was a Fighter archetype.

In 1e, the Ranger spells were too little, too late. Campaigns rarely reached level 12 because of the instability of the gaming system at high levels. I agree with those the ‘feel’ of a 1e Ranger is a spell-less Ranger.

The Scout continues the best aspects of the nonmagical Ranger tradition.

The fact many of the old 2e ‘kits’ work well as 5e archetypes, is a testimony to the elegance of the 5e class design. The same simple format is able to express well a diversity of concepts.

 

[Yaarel]

The 5e ‘Scout’ that is a Fighter archetype seems to model the 1e ‘Ranger’ that was a Fighter subclass.

In 1e, the Ranger spell list was too little, too late. Campaigns rarely reached level 12 because of the instability of the gaming system at higher levels. I agree with those that say the overall ‘feel’ of the 1e Ranger is a nonmagical Ranger.

So, this new Scout archetype continues the best features of the nonmagical Ranger tradition.

The fact that many of the old 2e ‘kits’ work well as 5e archetypes, is a testimony to the elegance of the 5e class design. The same simple format is able to express well a diversity of concepts.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And here I am thinking that the scout should be a subclass of rogue.

Well, you're in luck! The Scout is also a kit in the Complete Thief's Handbook, so if Mike decides to make some subclasses based upon kits in that book, maybe he'll make a Scout Rogue too!

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Why thieves' tools? There aren't going to be a lot of locks to pick while wondering about in the "dangerous regions"? Shouldn't that be cartographers' tools?

Also the choice of three skills seems a bit powerful. For a single class fighter maybe not so much, but with a multi-class rogue you are looking at 4 from Rogue + 2 from Background + 1 (generally) from race + 3 more from the Scout path, that is a total of 10 skills! Less if you choose fighter first. Maybe that really isn't over powered, but it does seem like a bit much.

Well, my guess is that thieves tools would help in the Scout not just placing, detecting and avoiding traps, but also deactivating them. At least that is why i would give it. Also, if you look at the 1E Ranger, they were the special forces of DnD back then. Aside from sneaking around, i would also assume they would break in enemy installations and either gather intel or perform assassinations. This would make the thieving tools proficiency a highly "in character" trait.

As for the number of skills....... i'm not yet sure. This needs to be play tested. Would 2-3 extra skill proficiencies be OP? Especially with a standard array build? I honestly don't know. If you take into account that as a scout you will miss on the BM's maneuvers, that you will spend most of your time in light or medium armor and finally that you would have to spread out your stats a bit more then other classes (unless you play a pure Dex build, but then why go scout if you can go rogue), these extra skills bight be a balance point. Then again, as i said, this needs testing. Does anyone of you run a campaign with the new scout?

And here I am thinking that the scout should be a subclass of rogue.

And for some reason, i always imagined the rogue as a warrior sub type. The wandering mercenary warrior type, as skilled in surviving in urban and wilderness areas as he is in fighting. With a d10 hit die to boot. I'm probably influenced by Morrowind.