The Scout Class: How is it in play?

[Ysgarran]

I don't see how that is lame, they are better at searching then disabling. If everyone who could search could disable, then no need to have two different skills.

Agreed, I see the Scout class as much more of an 'outdoor' class with skills that are akin to a 'Pathfinder' as opposed to the Rogue who can disable traps. In the great outdoors why disable a trap when you can just walk around it?

Ysgarran.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

... by leaving the ranger completely unaffected.

Yeah, that comment makes sense.

Well, they already ruined the ranger, may as well give another rogue some wilderness abilities while they're at it.

I guess the scout is an okay class, I'm just still pissed at the 3.5 ranger hack job.

 

[ForceUser]

Well, they already ruined the ranger, may as well give another rogue some wilderness abilities while they're at it.

I guess the scout is an okay class, I'm just still pissed at the 3.5 ranger hack job.

We use a non-lame version of the ranger developed in-house by Hjorimir, who posts on these boards. It's based upon the best bits of the 3.5 ranger, with a hefty dose of the Horizon Walker PrC. All lame bits of the 3.5 ranger, such as spells and favored enemy, aren't included.

Our ranger is firmly a warrior in concept, not a scout or wilderness rogue.

 

[Thanee]

Scouts as mounted archers works well visually, and in terms of class thematics, and it makes skirmish damage easier, since you can full attack while taking a double move with your mount.

I would actually play it, that you have to have moved 10+ ft. before you get the bonus.

I'm aware, that this is not clearly stated in the rules, it's mostly how I think it should work.

Bye
Thanee

 

[lgburton]

i'm currently playing a lvl 8 scout in one of our campaigns, and i'm finding that it's being rather difficult to get good presicion damage dealt - the problem being that the DM keeps throwing us against things that are immune to sneak attack (and therefor skirmish). this is just a dm style vs character concept problem though, so it's not really a big deal to me. the same problem could happen to a rogue just as often...

he's got the dodge/mobility/spring attack thing going on, using a bastard sword of frost, so damage output per round is fairly good, though it STILL can't keep up with a rogue or warrior.

as to the skill set, he makes a fairly useful substitute for the party rogue - and since we are playing in the kingdoms of kalamar campaign setting, i took a feat which lets two cross-class skills become class skills (open lock and disable device - go figure ).

personally, i like the class. it strikes me as a better varient class than the wilderness rogue presented in unearthed arcana.

 

[Unseenlibrarian]

I would actually play it, that you have to have moved 10+ ft. before you get the bonus.

I'm aware, that this is not clearly stated in the rules, it's mostly how I think it should work.

Bye
Thanee

I mostly base it on "Do Mounted Skirmishers make sense thematically?" And generally, I answer "Yes, given such things as mongols and light cavalry who charge up and fire a volley of arrows or slice at an advancing enemy, then retreat."

Of course, if you want a rules justification, it says in the Mounted Combat section that YOU (emphasis mine) move at its (the mount's) speed.

Edited to add: Plus, the Scout's mount is going to suck at the levels where he's dealing a lot of skirmish damage, unless he multiclasses heavily into a class that gets a mount or animal companion (Which brings the skirmish damage down anyway), or his DM allows the use of the Wild Cohort feat from the Wizards site.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I would actually play it, that you have to have moved 10+ ft. before you get the bonus.

I'm not sure what you mean here... you mean you would rule that movement on a mount wouldn't count toward making a skirmish attack? That it would have to be movement under one's own power? Not disagreeing, just wondering.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

We use a non-lame version of the ranger developed in-house by Hjorimir, who posts on these boards. It's based upon the best bits of the 3.5 ranger, with a hefty dose of the Horizon Walker PrC. All lame bits of the 3.5 ranger, such as spells and favored enemy, aren't included.

Our ranger is firmly a warrior in concept, not a scout or wilderness rogue.

That's a nice wilderness warrior, I prefer spells myself, but that's just a personal bias. I converted the 1e ranger over for my games, but in games I play in I have to play an official version, so I never get to play a ranger. Lately, I'm playing a Barbarian/Nentyar Hunter and calling him a ranger. I also like the Vigilant from R&R.

I guess I should apologize for hijacking the thread, as the scout is NOT a ranger, I just think it steps on a rangers toes - or would if there actually was a ranger class in 3.5e.

 

[Mercule]

I guess I should apologize for hijacking the thread, as the scout is NOT a ranger, I just think it steps on a rangers toes - or would if there actually was a ranger class in 3.5e.

I can agree with that. I like the scout class, but it seems like a campaign should feature one or the other, not both. Personally, I think a Ranger class should step on the Barbarian's toes more the the Scout's. Mainly, that's because I think one of the defining characteristics of Ranger is that they're tough.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Is Dual Strike not supposed to work with Spring Attack?

I don't see why not. But it still doesn't deal skirmish damage more than once for the Dual Attack