Scout missing disable device in skill list?

[Len]

The scout can do some rogue things, but not all. Just like a ranger can do some fighter things buy not all, and a (UA) wizard can do some cleric things, but not all.

Except that it does explicitly say "The scout also excels in a dungeon environment, and she can find and disable traps as well as any rogue." Which cannot be true if disable device is cross-class. So there's a mistake, either in the skill list or in the description of the class.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

I'm sure it's just a typo. They probably meant to say "The scout also excels in a dungeon environment, and she can find and disable traps, as well as any rogue."

Meaning, of course, that scouts can find and disable traps, and find and disable any rogue that they might happen to run across, as well.



--
they really should have disable device, imo
ryan

 

[Tellerve]

Well, I agree that the text makes it clear that they should have disable device, "she can find and disable traps as well as any rogue." That's pretty clear, but later they say how they are good at going ahead and finding the traps and don't remention the disable.

All in all after talking with a friend of mine, maybe it isn't such a bad thing they don't have disable as a class skill. He is convincing me that the class is overpowered with using the skirmish ability. *shrugs* I dunno, I still really like the feel of the class myself.

In any case, it certainly should be something they errata because it isn't 100% clear where they were going.

Tellerve

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

From the perspective of someone who has not read the flavor text, a scout class that is skilled at detecting traps but not disarming them seems perfectly reasonable.

As a practical matter, using appropriate precautions, simply jumping on a CR equivalent trap is not very risky.

 

[Cyronax]

The class may or may not be overpowered. I will probably playtest it soon when one of my player's characters takes levels in it. I noticed the lack of Disable Device (and Open Lock, which I think accompanies that skill as a matter of practicality). I don't know the intent of the authors......it could go either way in my opinion.

So my fix will be to replace Trapfinding, with Trap Sense; +1 at 4th level and an additional +1 increase at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th.

Is that even more over the top......I don't know? I'm also wondering if a d8 is a bit too high for a class with 8+ in skill points. A d6 for HD with 8+ for skils, or a d8 with 6+ for skills.

Opinions?

C.I.D.

 

[Felix]

Is that even more over the top......I don't know? I'm also wondering if a d8 is a bit too high for a class with 8+ in skill points. A d6 for HD with 8+ for skils, or a d8 with 6+ for skills.

Compare to Rogue:

8+INT skill points... same, but Rogue has "better" class skill list.
3/4 BAB... same.
Favored Reflex... same.
d6 v d8 HD... Balance to the Scout.
Sneak Attack v Skirmish... Balance to the Rogue.

And I'd say the balance goes to the rogue because Skirmish restrains the Scout to 1 attack per round with extra damage. That isn't felt so much when the BABs are low, but as soon as iterative attacks roll around Sneak Attacks happen that much more often.

Of course there will be a discussion on how Skirmish measures up to Sneak Attack, but it is in my opinion weighted towards the Rogue, and so it makes sense that the Scout would have d8 HD.

For Cyronax only:

Spoiler

Mark, you rarely ever look at a new class and don't have an initial reaction of wary overpowered-fearing playtesting, unless it is balanced... when that happens you add Fortitude to the favored saves. *cough*hexblade*cough*

 

[Cyronax]

The true danger lies from a high level druid/scout with the lion's pounce feat........

Aside from that uber (but not broken) combo, I'd say the scout is fairly balanced. The disable device question is the most glaring error/unclear aspect of the class.

Skirmish vs. Sneak Attack wasn't where my beef was at all. Nor was it the hit dice. I think a scout should have a d8, but I based on Felix's analysis I'm not convinced about the 8+ skill points. Rogue's should always have the best class skills. In my opinion, the scout's current selection (with the Trap Sense fix for Trapfinding) really captures the everready, always alert scout to a tee, but they receive too many skill points relative to all the other stuff they get.

As a side note, the scout almost could be considered 'more ranger than ranger,' and our concept of the true ranger (a la the Strider/Aragorn type) could really be a PrC a la Unearthed Arcana. The old concept of a ranger as a woodsman hero isn't captured by a broad base class like it was in 1e and 2e IMO.

On another side note, I'm surprised a feat like Run wasn't added into the scout's bonus feat list when agile feats like Dodge, Mobility, are Spring Attack are.

C.I.D.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Well, I agree that the text makes it clear that they should have disable device, "she can find and disable traps as well as any rogue." That's pretty clear, but later they say how they are good at going ahead and finding the traps and don't remention the disable.

Yeah, and in the Drunken Master description in Complete Warrior, they say, "Most Drunken Masters are Monks," when, according to the prerequisite (specifically, the fact that Flurry of Blows is a requirement), ALL Drunken Masters are Monks. In fact, the description goes on to mention a "Barbarian from the North who became a superb drunken master" which, by the rules, can't happen (since Barbarians can't be Lawful, and Monks have to be lawful, and you have to have at least one level of Monk to get Flurry of Blows). But oh well. Who cares about editing and proofreading when you charge $40 a book?

 

[FireLance]

Yeah, and in the Drunken Master description in Complete Warrior, they say, "Most Drunken Masters are Monks," when, according to the prerequisite (specifically, the fact that Flurry of Blows is a requirement), ALL Drunken Masters are Monks. In fact, the description goes on to mention a "Barbarian from the North who became a superb drunken master" which, by the rules, can't happen (since Barbarians can't be Lawful, and Monks have to be lawful, and you have to have at least one level of Monk to get Flurry of Blows). But oh well. Who cares about editing and proofreading when you charge $40 a book?

While I agree that flavor text should be more carefully written to mesh with the rules text, a barbarian (a less civilized person, or simply the Chinese snobbish attitude to anyone who isn't Chinese) need not be a Barbarian (a D&D class that has the ability to rage). Even so, there is nothing to prevent a Barbarian from becoming lawful, losing the ability to rage, gaining a level of Monk and then taking the Drunken Master PrC. You wouldn't find a lot of min-maxed characters like that, but real life is seldom min-maxed. Or maybe the player persuaded his DM to allow an Ascetic Berserker feat (monk levels stack with barbarian levels to determine the effect of your rage, barbarian levels stack with monk levels to determine your unarmed strike damage, may multiclass freely between monk and barbarian, may rage even though you're lawful).

 

[UltimaGabe]

While I agree that flavor text should be more carefully written to mesh with the rules text, a barbarian (a less civilized person, or simply the Chinese snobbish attitude to anyone who isn't Chinese) need not be a Barbarian (a D&D class that has the ability to rage).

Well, considering it directly refers to a character class in the first half of the sentence (mentioning that most Drunken Masters are Monks), I'd be inclined to assume they were talking about the character class Barbarian as well. Unless, of course, "Monk" just means a person from a monastery (as opposed to a class)- in which case "Barbarian" would just mean a less civilized person. But that's stretching it a bit.

Anyway, the flavor text really isn't what bothers me- it's the Flurry of Blows requirement. The flavor text is a direct carry-over from Sword & Fist- but in 3e, in Sword & Fist, "Flurry of Blows" wasn't a requirement at all (simply the Evasion class ability, and some skill ranks). Thus, in 3e, it was quite possible for a Barbarian to take the Prestige Class (assuming he multiclassed with Rogue first). In fact, right before Complete Warrior came out, I had made a Barbarian who was about to take Drunken Master- since, heck, in the description, it specifically mentioned one! Then, Complete Warrior came out, and they had added in the Flurry of Blows requirement (which I don't even understand to begin with, since the class is no more Flurry-oriented than it was before), barring my character from becoming one, even though it fit his character concept better than anything in the game. So they upped the prerequisites, requiring you to be a monk first (and if there's one thing I detest, it's Prestige Classes that require you to be a certain class or alignment), but they still left in the flavor text.