Ranger, Rogue or Scout?

[Shadowdweller]

Well, a lock is a device and by disabling the lock, you open the door.

Unless it merely jams the lock...

While we are on the subject, what are people's opinion on the age-old debate of two-weapon fighting vs. archery for a whisper gnome ranger/rogue/scout?

For Ranger/Scout: I find always find TWF to be extremely disappointing. It can be useful if one cannot afford Cleave. While the damage isn't too bad, it isn't too great either and the utility falls off dramatically when DR is thrown in. Factor in the weaknesses with respect to Skirmish, Power Attack, Disarm and you've got....meh. Although maybe it would still be decent with suitable weapons and Improved Trip.

Rogue: This is an exception. The sneak attacks can be quite potent...although if you have a decent sized party I think you'll find the number of cases where you manage to flank AND use TWF on a still-living foe to be somewhat rare. It's also generally easier to gain SA with melee weapons, which makes this route quite attractive. However, most rogues also suffer considerable risk on the front lines.

It's generally a bit more difficult to pump up archery damage than melee damage, due to bow-strength limitations and lack of ranged Power Attack. However, there are many monsters (against which) and tactical situations where you really need ranged attacks. It also allows for full attacks if you win initiative at distance...always a solid choice no matter what the class.

Overall Class Opinions:
Ranger: The high BAB makes it a fairly decent combatant with some stealth/utility thrown in. The spells are not to be underestimated, and there are some truly fantastic additions in the splatbooks. I think they're a lot of fun. HOWEVER, the Ranger cannot really function as a trapfinder and is lacking the socials skills of the Rogue. Which may or may not be at all useful in your particular campaign anyway.

Rogue: Highly versatile. That is, you can make rogues that are completely and utterly different. It's the skills that really make the rogue, and these can be either very powerful or very weak depending on the campaign. Sometimes the other party members simply will NOT sit still while one scouts, or searches every little cranny for traps, or goes out asking for information on whatever quest is being undertaken. IMO, the Rogue class really takes a pro-active player. ASK the DM if Sense Motive yields any information on the NPC. Listen at the door you've encountered in the Dungeon. See if you can bargain with the merchant for lower prices, or find a better merchant. SA adds some decent combat ability as well.

Scout: The scout has a much smaller skill list than the rogue. Many of the better/more amusing skills, such as Bluff, Disguise, or Sleight of Hand are entirely absent in exchange for which they receive the useful Survival. Not a good trade altogether IMO. While tracking seems fun (and probably has potential...particularly in uncovering the lair/treasure of wandering monsters), I could count the number of times I've actually seen it accomplish something notable...in fifteen or so years of gaming...on one hand. Instead of Sneak Attack, the scout gets faster movement, Skirmish, and some extra feats. Which tends to make them much more combat oriented. They CAN handle melee combat a little better than the Rogue. Skirmish, however, is pretty mediocre. While it seems decent at low level, by the time PCs start getting multiple attacks...it starts to become increasingly worthless: In part because it's difficult to attack more than once AND move more than 10 feet, but also because the damage scales upward so slowly. Sneak Attack, on the other hand, maintains it's potency. I personally don't ever need to play one of these guys again.