log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E The Scout Rogue - how did it work out?


log in or register to remove this ad

Why not just use the Outlander background? Seems like it would bridge the gap well?
Because of the "if you don't already have it." regarding nature and survival. If you take it with your background you lose one to two skill proficiencies by RAW. Although you could just read it as. You gain them if you don't already have them... Otherwise just take a different one or two.
 

cbwjm

Hero
Level 1-2 in 5e are... training wheels. Nothing wrong in starting at level 3 if everyone knows the rules. I perfectly know what you mean though, and it's a problem with several classes. Eldritch knight, I'm looking at you....
I'm assuming that new fighting styles for cantrips will show up in Tasha's. That will go a long way to fixing the eldritch knight issue I think since the biggest issue for me is that knowing that's what I'll be but I can't start with magic.

Otherwise I would allow some class abilities to be sealed around with a subclass if that locked things in.
 
Last edited:

Horwath

Hero
Agreed. Nevertheless, one does not suddenly become an expert in something. In D&D, we have three levels of training, non-proficient, proficient, and expert. How would one go from being a non-proficient computer programmer to an expert programmer without first becoming a proficient one?
So what?

in 3.5E you could burn more than 10 skill points in a skill that you had 0 level before.

What about Lore Bard, you could also get skill+expertise at level 3 without having any before.
 


I worry most about the survivalist ability:

Survivalist
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in the Nature and Survival skills if you don't already have it. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies.​

I feel like it punishes players who take Nature and Survival as skills at first level or suddenly grants them expertise at 3rd.
Just let them pick 2 different skills at 3rd level so it's a wash.
 

What I wouldn't accept would be: "Yesterday, I found his spell book in my uncles attic. Now today I'm a wizard."
Do not watch the Star Wars movies...you won't be able to suspend disbelief. 😀

My advice is don't let your personal aesthetic get in the way of fun.
A magic tome that whispers secrets that only it's bonded owner can hear, and allows it owner to cast magic without help from divinities, mystical ancestries, or powerful magical patrons.... Is still mechanically a spellbook. It just has more evocative story elements, but no extra mechanical hassles.

A rules light system, gives room for any story to be strong. A rules heavy system, only allows certain stories to be told.

Which are also propositions I would reject
So most of your 11+ group don't read English, and you only translate options that you find meet your personal criteria.....isn't that a bit authoritarian for a collaborative game?
 


Do not watch the Star Wars movies...you won't be able to suspend disbelief. 😀
Star wars doesn't have spell books. Being in jedi is something inborn as grows steadily over time. It doesn't necessary require long ours of study to awaken (level 1 in said class), though it might require long hours of study to master (i.e. more than one class level). My example referenced wizards and spellbooks, not jedi.

My advice is don't let your personal aesthetic get in the way of fun.
My own personal aesthetic is paramount. It is the fun. I play for the world-building aspect more than anything else.

So most of your 11+ group don't read English, and you only translate options that you find meet your personal criteria.....isn't that a bit authoritarian for a collaborative game?
It's only authoritarian if I force players to join my table and chain them in my basement. Otherwise, it's simply the way my game/my world is. Why can't you play a glamour bard? Because they're obnoxious. (Though I'm open to being convinced otherwise.) Why can't you play a dwarf? Actually, if you ask, you can. My general guideline is "human only," but I'm open to exceptions. 8 humans, a minotaur fighter, and a pixie wild magic sorcerer sounds like a fun party - but I'm not a fan of Mos Eisley, where everyone's a monster.

As for options, I have a player handout that summarizes the options I allow in the game. I'm also open to other suggestions, so long as they fit the themes and logic of the world. (I've had someone play a flying sentient dollhouse before - that was fun. It also made sense in the contest of that game.)

If that feels authoritarian, that's fine. Then I'm authoritarian. If the game wasn't fun, my players would have quit. I'm also very specific about the potential players I choose to invite. Some might call that gatekeeping. If so, I'm a gatekeeper. I simply find it prudent.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I'm assuming that new fighting styles for cantrips will show up in Tasha's. That will go a long way to fixing the eldritch knight issue I think since the biggest issue for me is that knowing that's what I'll be but I can't start with magic.

Otherwise I would allow some class abilities to be sealed around with a subclass if that locked things in.
Personally, I would never waste a fighting style for cantrips, especially when I would get them at level 3 anyway.

FWIW, to make up for Paladins and Rangers not getting spells until level 2, we house-ruled they get cleric and druid cantrips (respectively) as well. It makes no sense to me the two subclasses (EK and AT) get cantrips, but the two half-caster classes don't... :cautious:
 

Horwath

Hero
Personally, I would never waste a fighting style for cantrips, especially when I would get them at level 3 anyway.

FWIW, to make up for Paladins and Rangers not getting spells until level 2, we house-ruled they get cleric and druid cantrips (respectively) as well. It makes no sense to me the two subclasses (EK and AT) get cantrips, but the two half-caster classes don't... :cautious:
yeah, 2 cantrips(3 at level 8, 4 at level 20) for Paladin and Ranger is a good house rule.

Problem with cantrips and fighting styles is that 2 cantrips is to weak for a fighting style(maybe 3 would be good), Magic initiate feat is on a weak side for a full feat(3 cantrips maybe?) and UA feat that gives fighting styles is also too weak for a full feat, half feats is just right for a style.
 

FrozenNorth

Adventurer
I'm assuming that new fighting styles for cantrips will show up in Tasha's. That will go a long way to fixing the eldritch knight issue I think since the biggest issue for me is that knowing that's what I'll be but I can't start with magic.
Honestly, if I’m going Eldritch Knight, I’d probably either go Human + Mage Initiate, or take a race that gave spells (ie High Elf or Tiefling).
 

I've gone ahead and just added this to my house rule document:

Scout. The Survivalist ability now reads, “When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in the Nature, Perception, and Survival skills if you don't already have it. If you already had proficiency any of those skills, it instead gains expertise, which doubles your proficiency bonus for any check that uses that skill.

Would you consider that a fair trade?
Ya. Infact, I argue that ANY background that offers a duplicate skill via race/class/background, ends up doing that or doubling your proficiency bonus for that skill. That way it's not a skill waste on doubling it up.
 




dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I'm a bit disappointed how few people reported actual play experience... :/
Well, unless you have specific questions about it, I can't tell you much more.

I loved it, it is my favorite rogue subclass, skirmisher has been great and i love having the speed boost. I only got to level 12, so didn't get to have fun with ambush master, but for a rogue gaining advantage on initiative and advantage on your target for your allies is a nice treat. It makes hitting the solo BBEG really important on the first round I would think.

If you are considering it, I would recommend it.
 

yeah, 2 cantrips(3 at level 8, 4 at level 20) for Paladin and Ranger is a good house rule.

Problem with cantrips and fighting styles is that 2 cantrips is to weak for a fighting style(maybe 3 would be good), Magic initiate feat is on a weak side for a full feat(3 cantrips maybe?) and UA feat that gives fighting styles is also too weak for a full feat, half feats is just right for a style.
Magic initiate is one of the most taken feats in our games. Because the right level 1 spell and two cantrips is amazing in some camapigns.
 

Laurefindel

Adventurer
Acquiring magical power overnight, because magic, is one thing. Going against the normal order of things is the very definition of « magic ».

going from someone who can’t tell a rose from a dandelion to an expert in the field of fauna and flora overnight is another level of suspension of disbelieve (exaggerated for emphasis).

taking the outlander (or another nature-theme background) is either a happy coincidence or shows deliberate (mechanical) planning from level 1, which contrast with most (but not all) subclasses in 5e where the subclass « branches out » from the main class rather than turn it around.

Anyway, all that to say that this bothers me too, just not as much as @WayOfTheFourElements.

as for the OP, I’ve played a scout/gloom stalker multiclass in a 1-shot with 10th level pre-generated characters, so I feel that my experience will be of little help.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Magic initiate is one of the most taken feats in our games. Because the right level 1 spell and two cantrips is amazing in some camapigns.
It is interesting how different D&D games/ experiences are! I've only seen it taken once in over 20 PCs...

But it is like other feats or the perception discussion earlier--some tables just see more use of some things. Like GWM and SS, they are hardly never taken at our table, but I know other groups see them all the time.

All I can say is "great game, D&D is." :)
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top