The Scout Class: How is it in play?

[Gez]

I never saw a ranger with magic missile. They all wanted Alarm, invisibility, spider climb, things like that. Then again, I never played with the so called munchkins mentioned above.
Magic missile was on the list because there was no way to give rangers MU spells without it, at least without creating a new mechanic. Which would open the door for a slew of new spell lists. Even in 3e, I don't see the need for separate spell lists, other than cleric,wizard, druid, and maybe illusionist. A new supplement comes out, yet your new class can't use the fancy new spells because your order of the radiant spoon doesn't use wizard spells, he has his own spell list. Even though some of those spells fit the class thematically, you're just out of luck. That's another topic, though.

*emphatic ditto*

Arcane, divine (godly), divine (natural), and psionic. Nothing else is needed. Just four spell lists, please. And for a single spell, just one level.

 

[Desdichado]

The Scout is just another lame attempt to turn the ranger into a rogue.

That's kinda a lame comment. It would be fair to say (IMO) that the ranger was merely an attempt to create a hybrid between the old thief and fighter; why not create another step in the continuum between ranger and rogue? Besides all three classes have their signature differences--IMO they don't really step on each other's toes very much.

 

[Desdichado]

Two-weapon fighting was added because of Drizzt, who was a ranger (and a drow, which is what gave him the two-weapon fighting, but so much for that).

That myth has been repeatedly debunked; two-weapon fighting rangers were in print before Driz'zt was. Don't remember where they first showed up, though.

 

[Henry]

That myth has been repeatedly debunked; two-weapon fighting rangers were in print before Driz'zt was. Don't remember where they first showed up, though.

And for the record, two-weapon weilding no-penalty drow have been possible since Unearthed Arcana in 1985. But let's go back to the scout.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The Scout does strike me as a good attempt at a skirmish tactics archer. I've not seen one in play, but I much prefer the Black Company Campaign setting's scout, which follows similar ideas, but ties it to sneak attacking foes who have no dex or awareness of the scout, making them a VERY hit-and-run oriented class.

The WotC Scout I wouldn't imagine to be very overpowering, BECAUSE they have to move and fire, which eliminates darned near anything by Manyshot for making multiple attacks. A scout who has invested much in energy-damage weapons, however, could bite off more than a DM could chew, I imagine.

 

[William Ronald]

That myth has been repeatedly debunked; two-weapon fighting rangers were in print before Driz'zt was. Don't remember where they first showed up, though.

I recall Aragorn fighting with two burning branches when the Nazgul attacked Frodo at Weathertop.

Also, I recall a Conan story with a song about the inhabitants of Asgard (a land roughly comparable to Norway and Sweden) with the refrain "We're born with sword and axe in hand/For Men of the North are we." (Hmm, talk about a rough pregnancy.)

I have not seen the scout in action, but the class does have a few concepts behind it -- such as the person who scouts ahead on a military campaign. I have not played rangers in 3rd edition, but I don't really have a problem with them as written.

 

[Desdichado]

I recall Aragorn fighting with two burning branches when the Nazgul attacked Frodo at Weathertop.

1) The movies post-date the two-weapon ranger in D&D by many years.
2) Aragorn does no such thing in the book. He waves some branches around, but he certainly doesn't fight with them.

And even if he had, that wouldn't imply that he was especially skilled at it. Rangers don't have the free feat Weapon Focus: Improvised Weapon either.

Also, I recall a Conan story with a song about the inhabitants of Asgard (a land roughly comparable to Norway and Sweden) with the refrain "We're born with sword and axe in hand/For Men of the North are we." (Hmm, talk about a rough pregnancy.)

First of all, that's metaphorical as I'm sure you know. Second of all, those would much more likely be barbarians if translated into D&D terms anyway, not rangers.

I have not seen the scout in action, but the class does have a few concepts behind it -- such as the person who scouts ahead on a military campaign. I have not played rangers in 3rd edition, but I don't really have a problem with them as written.

Well, 3rd edition, or 3.5 edition? The ranger is the class that is probably the most changed (although the bard is close.) I've played several in both editions--I'm quite attached to my ranger archetype, and I like variations on that theme. And I have problems with both the 3e and 3.5 version of the ranger as written, although mostly its a problem of the ranger not being what I want it to be, not that it's badly written per se.

That's one of the reasons the scout class is so interesting to me. It's not the be-all end-all ranger replacement, but it's pretty darn good in a slightly different direction.

 

[Felon]

Great to see a thread hijacked into another ing pointless rangersux-Drizzt-Aragorn diatribe. I'm sure this time around it will be productive.

As for the scout, I'm playing one and I gotta say, while it's fun as hell to play a class that's actually rewarded for maneuvering around the battlefield instead of planting himself in one spot, the skirmish ability does raise a few eyebrows. It really isn't made clear how moving adds precision damage to an attack, nor is it particularly intuitive. In particular, Thanee has a good point about whether or not the scut should be required to move 10 feet before qualifying for the damage bonus.

I'd like to have been in on the design process. I wonder if the scout was intended originally to get sneak attack (or its stepchild, sudden strike), and the skirmish ability set up a condition where a target would be deprived of its Dex bonus.

 

[Klaus]

halfling scout archer + riding dog = full attack skirmishing damage.

The vagueness of the skirmish ability is precisely its strength. The reasoning can be anything the DM and the player decide upon based on the current round of combat. Maybe the foe looked the other way, maybe he turned to face where the scout *was*, instead of where he *is*, etc.

 

[Felon]

The vagueness of the skirmish ability is precisely its strength. The reasoning can be anything the DM and the player decide upon based on the current round of combat. Maybe the foe looked the other way, maybe he turned to face where the scout *was*, instead of where he *is*, etc.

Right, I usually maneuver my mini so it looks like a sneak attack. Instead of the two-step shuffle back and to the original spot, I tumble around to face the opponent's rear.

EDIT--However, this is another example of how the game is not well-served by leaving the rreasoning behind things unclear and open-ended, and then just assume everyone gets that that's intentioanl. A lot of DMs would just as soon write the idea off as ill-conceived. I miss those little "behind-the-curtain" sections the D&D books used to have.

One other really nice things about the scout: the elf's racial package compliments it very well--the weapon proficiencies in particular.

 

[Felon]

Errata for Complete Adventurer put online today. The scout will never be the same again. See this thread.