Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Edymnion 02-07-07, 08:08 PM	Okay, I have Complete Scoundral on loan, and I've been reading through it. And really, is this what the Complete line has come down to? I mean, PHB2 had better character fluff help, the PrC just aren't that interesting, entirely too much reliance on a gimmick like luck rolls, and the ambush feats are just freaking pathetic. Trading in +5d6 sneak attack to confuse a target for ONE lousy round, and they get a save at such a laughably low DC that it would be pure luck that it actually works? The Skill Tricks are generally pretty good, but there's some stinkers in there too. Give an ally a free spot check for something that you've already seen? Last time I checked, making a spot check was a free action, as is pointing and saying "Look over there". Hence, you can give all of your allies a free spot check without having to spend skillpoints on it. Or "Listen to This" is already covered by Autohypnosis which lets you perfectly memorize pretty much anything you want, and remember it permanently, instead of just remembering a sound well enough to repeat it to others within a short time frame. The spells are rather lacking as well. Catapult? Its Launch Bolt from Magic of Faerun with a tweak (a bad tweak, I might add). Evacuation Rune? Maybe its just the video game player in me, but "Warp to the Dungeon's Entrance" is still pretty weak for a D&D game, where you could just Teleport there, or anywhere else you wanted pretty easily. Fatal Flame? Whoopee, somebody invented Corpse Explosion from Diablo II! Equipment is where I expected this book to shine, but its rather iffy as well. A false bottom in a freaking barrel costs 50 gp? Or a hollow book 5 gp? An entire gold to sew a freaking pocket inside of your cloak? Thats more than the cloak itself! Rules for hidden blades, here we go! No wait, the only rules here are "-2 to hit", with no advantages. Wow, you've got a knife in your armor, that counts as a dagger, that you attack with like a dagger, that does the same damage as a dagger, but you're at -2 to hit with it. What? It doesn't even give you anything like a guarenteed sneak attack with the thing. The alchemical items are nice at least, even if the prices are a little odd. 15 gp for an aspirin? The living items are a bit more interesting, although they get rather silly. Whoo hoo, its a rust monster on a stick! Of all things, the book's only real saving grace are the premade adventure stuff, and anybody thats been around me for a while knows that I generally consider premade adventure material to be next to worthless, which says something about this book. Overall though? This book just seems utterly worthless. Its not going to find a place on my shelf unless I stumble across it in the mark down bin at my used book shop for under $10. To make a Comic Guy quip, "Worst Book Ever." Even Races of Destiny had more usable stuff than this thing!
OneWinged4ngel 02-07-07, 08:12 PM	It seems like every new book is just getting more filler than the last. What's the world come to when you have to pay 30 dollars for 2 or 3 pages of useful material (or ERRATA)? Well, I know that I'm not wasting my money on that stuff...
ZombieDragon 02-07-07, 08:20 PM	I shall put this one on the big maybe not pile of acquisitions. And I thought complete Psionics was the worst. Wizards keeps throwing us a few gems amongst the rough. (sarcasm) Can't wait for 4.0 it will probably be written in l33t (end sarcasm)
Pallin Rahl 02-07-07, 08:37 PM	Eh... it's certainly not the best book around, but hardly the worst or most-useless. There is some worthwhile stuff in there. For instance: I have a strange feeling that every character I make from now on will end up buying a Rod of Ropes. ;)
gmhack 02-07-07, 08:42 PM	I really dont see where you guys are getting all this hate. I personally think that complete scoundrel is one of the best complete books ever (easily 1000 better than complete mage). I have only had it a week and my players are making great use of almost all the stuff inside. Definately a must have book.
Edymnion 02-07-07, 08:43 PM	There is some worthwhile stuff in there.But then there is the rust monster on a stick. An honest to god RUST MONSTER ON A STICK! If I had a player bring this idea to me, I would have beaten him about the head and shoulders with his own PHB for being an idiot!
ZombieDragon 02-07-07, 08:49 PM	An honest to god RUST MONSTER ON A STICK! Say whaaaaaaaa ? That's hammergun time cheese.
Silverthumb128 02-07-07, 08:50 PM	If there's anything I dislike about this book(I've skimmed, admittedly), its the Ninja/Fighter & Swashbuckler/Fighter feats. Other classes stacking with Fighter levels means there's no going back: They'll never make any effort, in 3/3.5 to make Fighter a decent enough option to play throughout. Basically, though, I hate all of the "X class and Y class stack for blah blah" feats. But having skimmed it, yeah, this book does seem kinda lame. The skill tricks seem like they could be a cool idea, but at the same time, they seem like something that could have just been churned out in half an hour. "Feats that give bonuses to skills? Do go on!"
Edymnion 02-07-07, 09:03 PM	Say whaaaaaaaa ? That's hammergun time cheese.Basically, the book says that Rust Monster larva have the full rusting powers of an adult rust monster. So, you stick it in a little glass tube with one open end, and a handle on the other, and run around poking the larva's head on locks and armor so it can rust holes in them for you. Its a rust monster. On a stick. I mean, it smacks of a couple of the writers getting together for a few beers, and betting each other that they could get the stupidest, most outlandish thing they could think of into a book. I hope RMoaS guy won, because if that was the SECOND stupidest idea, I don't wanna see the first.
PiedmonSama 02-07-07, 09:03 PM	I was dissapointed with the new equipment, which was actually why I bought the book. But, unlike you, I liked some of the new PrCs. The Grey Guard and Master of Masks both look fun to play.
Silverthumb128 02-07-07, 09:28 PM	I mean, it smacks of a couple of the writers getting together for a few beers, and betting each other that they could get the stupidest, most outlandish thing they could think of into a book. That's the saddest thing I can imagine: Two drunk guys making bets on what they can/can't get into a published fantasy gaming book.
Ogre4Hire 02-07-07, 11:00 PM	I mean, it smacks of a couple of the writers getting together for a few beers, and betting each other that they could get the stupidest, most outlandish thing they could think of into a book. I hope RMoaS guy won, because if that was the SECOND stupidest idea, I don't wanna see the first. That's the saddest thing I can imagine: Two drunk guys making bets on what they can/can't get into a published fantasy gaming book. I think the the Book of Erotic Fantasy already accomplished that:rolleyes:
Tyler Do'Urden 02-07-07, 11:10 PM	I think the the Book of Erotic Fantasy already accomplished that That's not core. Yet.
TheChilliGod 02-08-07, 12:16 AM	I, for one, think that Complete Scoundrel is the most awesome supplement ever released yet. Note: I said most awesome. Not most balanced or informative or essential. Admittedly, I've only just got it, and I haven't finished thoroughly reading it yet. But, from what I've read so far, I'm liking it. Maybe this is because I'm still an immature idiot what hasn't even played D&D for more than 3 years and puts his faith in the power of the 'awesome.' Maybe, in that light of people like me, WotC designed Complete Scoundrel with us younger people in mind, those that are only recently really getting into the game. Maybe their next book - Magic Item Compendium, perhaps - is going to be more focused at those D&D players what have been playing since the 70's but, for now, it's our turn. (If that's the case, then I would understand Edy's gripe, considering what it says just under his username) Maybe this is because I look past the ridiculousness of any mechanics, and appreciate what is actually being presented to us in a larger scale and/or at a roleplaying angle. Grey Guard gives us better reason to play paladins without that restricting CoC (something that prevents many DM's from even allowing paladins in the game). Skill Tricks allow us to do stuff I only thought possible in 3rd-party books. And Head Shot, though it appears ineffective, can really be quite awesome if you do manage to pull it off with a ranged weapon (Seen the Pure Pwnage webshow?). The "Rust Monster on a Stick" may just be designed as a useful way to use the power of rust, rather than something the designers made when drunk. And so on. Maybe what really needs to happen is for people to actually look at what is being presented them on the larger scale, what the designers are really trying to pull off. Instead of ranting on about how the most recent book sucks like a newborn baby, maybe they should get up and either ban that particular item/feat/skill, adjust it so that works for them, or to write off the entire sourcebook as a learning experience and get on with something else. Maybe we all just need to be a little bit immature to play what can be considered a mature game. Maybe, when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade instead of complaining about how they're lemons. Has anyone guessed that I am sick and tired of people complaining about the books they bought, yet?
scienceman47 02-08-07, 12:32 AM	The alchemical items (the games I play in use alchemical items all the time) are top notch. Nothing silly, most useful. The rod of ropes is good, I love skill tricks, and the rust monster wand isnt all that bad (its too delicate to use in battle, so just metal stuff OOC). The evil outsider summoning PrC finally allows me to summon evil outsiders in a game I play. The feats are so-so to not all that good. The flavor stuff in the beginning is for new players. Fresh from whatever fantasy movie they just saw or fantasy book they just read, this stuff will bring em into the game. This is essential, new players are the lifeblood. I was satisfied, if not wowed.
Someone 02-08-07, 01:07 AM	Rust monster on a stick? Is that like a ratflail or something? Obviously, they never heard of the gauntlet of rust. I don't think its quite the "get drunk and bet what they can get published", I think its more like "the pet project that one designer thinks is the greatest thing since sliced bread and always end up in anything the said designer works on". I'm looking at you, warlock. Also, I think the designers forget that a normal PC will only get 7 feats over the course of a rather expansive career. So if the new feat "trees" are about 3 long (like power attack/ cleave/ great cleave), an adventurer will likely only be able to get 2 trees. Fewer if they pick up some of the stand alone feats.
Silverthumb128 02-08-07, 02:02 AM	I think the the Book of Erotic Fantasy already accomplished that:rolleyes: There was one thing I got out of that book that most people are completely unaware of(not surprising, nobody of sound mind would touch that book): the Armor special ability "Confidence." +2 Charisma, and you add your Charisma modifier to Will saves, +1 bonus. Superb for Bards and Sorcerors(Twilight Mithral Chain Mail-wearing Sorcerors).
Hakar_Kerarmor 02-08-07, 04:30 AM	I was going to browse through it in the shop, but couldn't get myself to continue past the table of contents. I seemed like the same old "classes/prc/feats/spells/equipment" stuff we've seen so often before already.
Caliborn 02-08-07, 08:05 AM	This book is on my "jot down the interesting parts in the bookstore" list.
Anaxander 02-08-07, 08:32 AM	Last time I checked, making a spot check was a free action, as is pointing and saying "Look over there". Hence, you can give all of your allies a free spot check without having to spend skillpoints on it. Actively making a spot or a listen check is a move action, in fact.
Edymnion 02-08-07, 08:32 AM	I was going to browse through it in the shop, but couldn't get myself to continue past the table of contents. I seemed like the same old "classes/prc/feats/spells/equipment" stuff we've seen so often before already.It is. There is nothing new or ground breaking here. It expands on the luck stuff a lot, and introduces skill tricks (spend a couple skill points to buy a trick to do things like dodging blows in melee because you have a high Escape Artist check), some of which are pretty nice, the rest are so so, and some are just redundant/unneeded. The PrC are totally lackluster. One of the best is the Gray Guard, like already said, and its really nothing but a non-Lawful Stupid Paladin. If memory serves (I'ma way from my copy atm), there is 3-4 differant PrC that are litterally nothing but "Trick PrC". Typically 3 levels long that let you use skill tricks without having to spend the skillpoints on them, but only knowing a small subset. Seriously, the mechanics of several of them almost seem to be copy/pastes with a flavor change. "Filler" is what this book is. There's nothing that is must have, its page after page after page of blah filler, with only the alchemical items really standing out as being worth adding to the game (and even then the pricing seems off).
R99 02-08-07, 08:48 AM	Rust monster on a stick? Is that like a ratflail or something? Now in all fairness the ratflail is actually achievable. I havn't got complete scoundrel but whilst we're on the subject of bad books did anyone else notice that the feats in complete adventurer pracically encourage power gaming? Devoted Performer feat lets Paladin and bard levels stack for smite evil/bardic music times per day (WTF?!?) does anyone else notice an LG class being combined with an 'any non lawful' class? And the rest of the feats were'nt much of an improvement.
Stormonu 02-08-07, 08:59 AM	Thank goodness - other people who weren't dazzled by the skill tricks. I was beginning to think I was the only one who got this book, looked at it and said "what a pile." Evacuation Rune? Maybe its just the video game player in me, but "Warp to the Dungeon's Entrance" is still pretty weak for a D&D game, where you could just Teleport there, or anywhere else you wanted pretty easily. Actually, it reminds me of the old Word of Recall from 1E/2E. Equipment is where I expected this book to shine, but its rather iffy as well. A false bottom in a freaking barrel costs 50 gp? Or a hollow book 5 gp? An entire gold to sew a freaking pocket inside of your cloak? Thats more than the cloak itself! Rules for hidden blades, here we go! No wait, the only rules here are "-2 to hit", with no advantages. Wow, you've got a knife in your armor, that counts as a dagger, that you attack with like a dagger, that does the same damage as a dagger, but you're at -2 to hit with it. What? It doesn't even give you anything like a guarenteed sneak attack with the thing. Yeah, I was pretty disappointed with that section too. To much emphasis on "hide it items" - and crossbow bayonets? Puh-lease. The one picture looks like someone strapped a short sword on the front of the darn thing, and I always thought affixing bayonets interfered with shooting...
RavingDork 02-08-07, 10:14 AM	I'm a big fan and supporter of this book. I have several players in my group who play rogue (or rogue-like) PCs. They absolutely love the options in this book. No, it's not the best book around, than again, did anyone expect a COMPLETE book to be the best to begin with? Certainly not. On another note, has anyone noticed that the COMPLETE books lately seem to be used almost exclusively for introducing new (untested?) mechanics? :confused: COMPLETE MAGE = dual school spells, reserve feats, polymorph subschool, etc. COMPLETE SCOUNDREL = ambush feats, luck feats, skill tricks, etc.
RobbyPants 02-08-07, 10:26 AM	The Skill Tricks are generally pretty good, but there's some stinkers in there too. Give an ally a free spot check for something that you've already seen? Last time I checked, making a spot check was a free action, as is pointing and saying "Look over there". Hence, you can give all of your allies a free spot check without having to spend skillpoints on it. I could be wrong, but my understanding that a Spot check in combat is a move action. There's a feat in Complete Adventurer called Quick Reconeture (or something like that) that allows you to make a Spot or Listen check as a free action (and I think you get some other bonus). Still, I do agree with you that this seems pretty weak. I think you having already spotted it gives them a bonus (+2 or +4) on the roll anyway. Yeah, this isn't the first bad review I've read on the Complete Scoundrel. I haven't heard much good about it yet.
okaynowa 02-08-07, 11:12 AM	I will say that having paged through the book while it was on loan from a friend, I now plan to buy it. I would buy it for the Master of Masks prestige class alone, even though the Master of Masks is basically available for free on the website as an excerpt. The Master of Masks is perhaps a little on the weak side, and oddly bland in description for something based on dramatic masks, but I love it just the same. I'm planning to create an entire culture to support its existence in my Eberron campaign. (Talentan changelings, for any who wonder-- mixing a little bit of halfling mask-weaver and Valenar spirit veil traditions.) Rename the masks, describe them as more setting-specific icons, and it'll be perfect. Or at least incredibly neat.
hedgeknight 02-08-07, 12:45 PM	This book is on my "jot down the interesting parts in the bookstore" list. Damn straight! Or better yet, hope that one of the saps who bought it turns it into a pdf to share with the rest of us. :shifty: I've already copied the free pics from the Wizards Art Gallery to use in my campaign. -g-
Solik 02-08-07, 12:59 PM	I'm a big fan of this one. Skill Tricks are a fantastic mechanic. No, not all of them are the best, but there are plenty that are good, and I hope Wizards continues supporting this mechanic in future splats. The hidden weapons are great. Yes, you're at a disadvantage if you use them in regular combat, but that's not what they're for. They're for having weapons on you without having to hide them with Sleight of Hand. And there are other feats and abilities that allow you to get bonuses of various kinds when you make a surprise attack with a weapon that was previously hidden; I see no reason that these can't qualify. The PrC list is small. Wizards appears to be toning down how many of those they are spitting out. But the ones that are there are good. We now have an option other than Dervish for dancer characters. I wish it was taken to 10 levels. Players who want to focus on skill tricks can do so very effectively with the PrCs for those (gaining the ability to use them more than once per encounter, for instance). The luck class (and luck feats) are absolutely hilarious; I'd love to play a character built around that concept. Master of Masks is interesting, and uses a new Perform skill, which is good. The equipment ranges. As others have said, the Rod of Ropes is fantastic. And while the "rust monster on a stick" sounds pretty silly, when you think about it... in a world with such creatures, wouldn't someone have really figured out to do that? And the feats are fantastic. Ambush feats are take-or-leave, but luck feats are cool, and the multi-class feats are awesome. The Swashbuckler / Rogue feat really stands out for making a dex fighter shine. And Deadly Defense is very, very nice.
green_yawgmoth 02-08-07, 01:31 PM	Has anyone guessed that I am sick and tired of people complaining about the books they bought, yet?How dare people voice their opinions! They should all be happy that WotC allows us to buy the horse puckey the designers turn in to the publishers on crumpled napkins at all. :rolleyes: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
TheChilliGod 02-08-07, 01:48 PM	How dare people voice their opinions! They should all be happy that WotC allows us to buy the horse puckey the designers turn in to the publishers on crumpled napkins at all. :rolleyes: So, we have someone criticizing someone criticizing someone criticizing a book, while simultaneously criticizing said book, while simultaneously being quite hypocritical about his criticisms? After all, my opinion about the opinion of others is only my opinion, and if your opinion is that people shouldn't be allowed to opinionate their opinions, then isn't your opinion quite contradictory to itself? Just my opinion. ... I think I just invented a new lingo. I'll call it "Sparrowese."
Pandaemoni 02-08-07, 01:52 PM	I'd say that if you do not like the concept of the skill tricks, then the book is pretty much not a good buy. I do like the Spellwarped Sniper PrC, but that's me. If you *do* like the skill tricks, then Complete Scoundrel being the only one that has them, it's obviously a must have. The Luck feats are okay...thought imo not enough to buy the book by themselves, and I do agree that the Ambush feats are so underpowered that I can't see many players bothering with them (absent houserules).
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-08-07, 02:00 PM	I love the book. That is all. No, that's not all! Rust Monster on a Stick? Yeah, that would measure really high on the awesomeness scale (about 10^34 KiloWins). It's just awesome.
Drohem 02-08-07, 02:14 PM	So, we have someone criticizing someone criticizing someone criticizing a book, while simultaneously criticizing said book, while simultaneously being quite hypocritical about his criticisms? After all, my opinion about the opinion of others is only my opinion, and if your opinion is that people shouldn't be allowed to opinionate their opinions, then isn't your opinion quite contradictory to itself? Just my opinion. ... I think I just invented a new lingo. I'll call it "Sparrowese." "Truly you have dizzing intellect." The Dread Pirate Roberts:)
YamiSouru 02-08-07, 03:06 PM	I for one am a supporter of this book. My reasons are simple, because it gives options for charactors who fight dirty, who fight indirectly, are lucky as the nine hells, and are all in all SCOUNDRELS. for an example lets look at the aforementioned rust monster on a stick. This item could reffectively remove the need of a dedicated lock picker as all you would have to do is let the little guy eat the lock, or if you need to have rusty eat the doors hinges. Now lets go into something im sure most people havnt imagened doing. As a rogue sneak up on the bbeg and use the trick that allows you to damage an opponent without him noticeing your there, then attempt a slight of hand check to put rusty in the bbeg's full plate. now as the fight goes on the rust monster is going to eat the bbegs armor from the inside out. Like i said before this book is for those who fight dirty. Now for tricks. Ok some of the tricks are terrible however some are very usefull. Now lets assume our dareing scoundrel from the above situation has managed to atract the attention of another bbeg who love to use charge attacks. the bbeg charges the young rogue but he doesnt roll out of the way, no he runs into a corner of the room, uses the trick to get a boost to his climb rate of ohh lets say 5 feet for this example, and then uses the trick that lets him jump off the walls as if he made a running start. by this point depending on how the rogue did this the charger would have hit the wall and should be stunned at least, and now the rogue is in a position to sneak attack the charger, however lets be a real scoundrel and have our rogue give up 5d6 of his sneak attack to confuse this bbeg, this gives the rogue enough time to either run away, or call for back up, or just keepp confuse strikeing him. as the book says. "Fair fights are for suckers."
Edymnion 02-08-07, 07:14 PM	I have several players in my group who play rogue (or rogue-like) PCs. They absolutely love the options in this book.I'm an oldschool Rogue player (back when they were still called a Thief). I'm currently playing... well not a rogue, but a Fighter/Urban Ranger that I play as a rogue (little 'r' there, generic, not the class). I didn't find anything for him to use in this book. I didn't find anything that made me go "Oh, I gotta stat up something to use this!". I'm a big Rogue fan, and I still found this book useless.The hidden weapons are great. Yes, you're at a disadvantage if you use them in regular combat, but that's not what they're for. They're for having weapons on you without having to hide them with Sleight of Hand.Except that most characters that will be using them typically already have ranks in Sleight of Hand. And given the abysmally low Search DC to find these things, even one or two ranks in SoH and Taking 10 on the check would be more effective. When the DC is so low that an untrained character Taking 10 is only marginally worse off than the item, its just not worth it. And its not like you can improve the DC, as they are built in, you can't hide them any better than they already are. Sure, for a lvl 1 character with no dex and no skill points, they're not bad. But many if not most "Scoundrals" are going to have the skills needed to simply outstrip that DC without even trying. This item could reffectively remove the need of a dedicated lock pickerSame as the hidden blades, but even worse. Most rogue players already complain (and rightfully so) that its not worth taking ranks in Open Lock if there's a wizard in the party, because of the Knock spell. Yeah, you gotta love that there is an item in the book aimed at Rogues, that makes one of their signature skills completely obsolete.
Ramses III 02-08-07, 10:42 PM	Ok the rust monster on a stick is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Ok, third dumbest after Pun-Pun and the War Hulking Hurler. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of WotC actually publishing. There, it's fixed.
ravenshrike 02-08-07, 10:58 PM	You can take 20 on sleight of hand checks if you do it when nobody who might tell is around.
ravenshrike 02-08-07, 11:00 PM	Yeah, you gotta love that there is an item in the book aimed at Rogues, that makes one of their signature skills completely obsolete. Considering the damned skill should have been folded into DD for 3.5, with the caveat that opening locks used your Dex modifier, this really isn't that big a deal. If you can disable a trap, you can open a lock. If you can disable a magic trap, you can open a magic lock.
NobodyRemembersThis 02-09-07, 01:09 AM	I'm with Edy on this one. Honestly, a lot of the stuff that gets tossed around on the forums here is better than that book. Hey, that's an idea. Why not have WotC hold an authorized competion to create PrC's, spells, alchemical equipment, weapons, armor, nonmagical equipment, magical equipment, etc.? They take the top 5 and publish it as a new d20 book? I guarantee it would be better than the last couple of books.
Anaxander 02-09-07, 02:49 AM	I'm with Edy on this one. Honestly, a lot of the stuff that gets tossed around on the forums here is better than that book. Hey, that's an idea. Why not have WotC hold an authorized competion to create PrC's, spells, alchemical equipment, weapons, armor, nonmagical equipment, magical equipment, etc.? They take the top 5 and publish it as a new d20 book? I guarantee it would be better than the last couple of books. The problem for me is discerning between people who don't like the book because, well, they don't like it, and people who don't like it because it obviously sucks. For instance, you seem to think that the last couple of books weren't very good, while I find Complete Mage & PH2 for example two of the best books they ever made. Until now I had only heard rather positive reviews of the book, and I was planning to buy it. When I compare Solik's appreciation with that of Edymnion it seems more a matter of taste than a (more or less objective) diagnosis of a bad product (like complete psionics or cityscape, where the general consensus is negative).
Stormonu 02-09-07, 03:53 AM	for an example lets look at the aforementioned rust monster on a stick. This item could reffectively remove the need of a dedicated lock picker as all you would have to do is let the little guy eat the lock, or if you need to have rusty eat the doors hinges. Now lets go into something im sure most people havnt imagened doing. As a rogue sneak up on the bbeg and use the trick that allows you to damage an opponent without him noticeing your there, then attempt a slight of hand check to put rusty in the bbeg's full plate. now as the fight goes on the rust monster is going to eat the bbegs armor from the inside out. Like i said before this book is for those who fight dirty. Yawn. Or I could take a bunch of hot coals and dump it down the BBEG back for more effect. The "Rust Monster on a Stick" is a stupid idea that will come back to haunt the player in about 2 sessions time (when the annoyed DM has the BBEG sunder the rod and suddenly some PC gets covered in rust monster grubs and loses their +2 Full Plate...). And I'd like to see what the DC would be for someone slip one of those rods into a BBEG full plate without it being noticed. Now for tricks. Ok some of the tricks are terrible however some are very usefull. Now lets assume our dareing scoundrel from the above situation has managed to atract the attention of another bbeg who love to use charge attacks. the bbeg charges the young rogue but he doesnt roll out of the way, no he runs into a corner of the room, uses the trick to get a boost to his climb rate of ohh lets say 5 feet for this example, and then uses the trick that lets him jump off the walls as if he made a running start. by this point depending on how the rogue did this the charger would have hit the wall and should be stunned at least, and now the rogue is in a position to sneak attack the charger, however lets be a real scoundrel and have our rogue give up 5d6 of his sneak attack to confuse this bbeg, this gives the rogue enough time to either run away, or call for back up, or just keepp confuse strikeing him. Double Yawn. How about the rogue uses a ready Tumble action to dive past the BBEG and let him slam into the wall? Then I can use that 5d6 sneak attack you gave up to kill him (or if I want to be kind, a sap)? Didn't even need a skill trick for that, or a pathetic ambush feat.
Archangel62 02-09-07, 08:28 AM	I liked some of the ambush feats, others sucked but some were pretty decent. Skill tricks were nice, but yeah, they probably should have been built into the mechanics in the first place. The prestige classes were pretty fun but my real favorite were the feats that let you combine swashbuckler with rogue and gain mutual benefits as well as combining ranger and scout.
nastynate 02-09-07, 09:35 AM	I have to agree that Complete Scoundrel was...underwhelming. Yes, there are a handful of useful tricks, a couple good feats (although the luck and ambush feats are pretty lame), and a few PrCs that are ok, but otherwise the book doesn't have much that impressed me. It certainly wasn't as bad as Complete Psionic (which had a similar amount of useful mechanics, but was also riddled with terrible errors, bad flavor, and horrendous and uneeded nerfs), but it didn't measure up to some of the previous gems in the complete series. -peace-
RavingDork 02-09-07, 10:48 AM	the luck and ambush feats are pretty lame I thought the Luck feats were an awesome new mechanic. With a single feat I can transform the natural 1 on my attack roll to a natural 20? How awesome is that? That's a free hit and a potential critical when it would have missed completely! I agree that the Ambush feats are kind of aweful though.
Edymnion 02-09-07, 04:56 PM	For instance, you seem to think that the last couple of books weren't very good, while I find Complete Mage & PH2 for example two of the best books they ever made.I still reserve that title for the Draconomicon, personally, but PHB2 was an exceptionally good book, this is true. I thought the Luck feats were an awesome new mechanic. With a single feat I can transform the natural 1 on my attack roll to a natural 20? How awesome is that? That's a free hit and a potential critical when it would have missed completely!So, you spend one of (typically) only 7 feats to get a bonus that only occurs on 5% of rolls. While its nice to avoid that natural 1 from time to time, mechanically, you're far better off with something like Weapon Focus.
razorboy 02-09-07, 05:05 PM	I am personally enjoying the book very much. Skill tricks alone is worth the purchase, I'm currently working out something similar for the fighters (replacing awkward and costly Tactics Feats and Weapon Style feats for instance). The Luck feats aren't all great (I don't think one feat giving one luck reroll per day is enough personally) but there are some good ones. While I agree wholeheartedly that sewing a false pocked on your cloak or other equipment/modifying costs shouldn't be as expensive (heck I can do it, and I got zero sewing skills) there are some neat equipment entries (I love the panic buttons). The sneak attack feats (reduce your sneak attack to do blah blah blah) are great although the DC of those feats should definitely scale. I guess if I had to explain how I see Complete Scoundrel to someone (like my DM, or my players), I see it as a book of ideas and concepts - there's a lot of extra stuff and mechanics in this book, it just needs a bit of work to adapt it to my game. That said, the part of the book that I hated the most has to be the bit on the Indeps as it goes (so it seems to me anyhow) almost completely against the grain of the Faction as portrayed in Planescape setting.
Kapalen 02-09-07, 05:18 PM	So, we have someone criticizing someone criticizing someone criticizing a book, while simultaneously criticizing said book, while simultaneously being quite hypocritical about his criticisms? After all, my opinion about the opinion of others is only my opinion, and if your opinion is that people shouldn't be allowed to opinionate their opinions, then isn't your opinion quite contradictory to itself? Just my opinion. ... I think I just invented a new lingo. I'll call it "Sparrowese." I don't find it contradictory. At no point did he tell you to keep your opinion to yourself, which is what you're doing. He simply said he doesn't like your opinion, and quite satirically told you so. I suppose if it's your opinion that others should be silent in their opinions it's only natural you be upset at someone voicing an opinion. Opinions are after all, by virtue of their existence, skewed.
Mitchell 02-10-07, 01:05 AM	That's not core. Yet. (In reference to the "Book of Erotic Fantasy") There are three core books. DMG, PHB, and MM. Nothing else is core. Obviously if you plan on using psionics then the XPH is quite handy to have, but psionics isn't core either, despite what some pro-psi people may say (and I consider myself to be pro-psi, just not to the degreee that a blurb on the back of CP makes me believe that psionics is core). Anyway, the Complete Scoundrel is no more core than any of the other complete books, which is to say not at all.
Stormonu 02-10-07, 01:22 AM	Some of the skill tricks seem like they were written for suckers. Clever Improviser: So I spend 2 skill points to avoid a -2 penalty for not having lock picks? Maybe if I spent those 2 points on Open Lock in first place, I wouldn't be in this mess. Point It Out: So I spend 2 skill points to give someone ELSE a +2 bonus to spot? Why am I spending MY points to make their checks better? Maybe they shouldn't have played a half-orc. Opening Tap: Complete Adventurer p102, 2nd column "Open Locks". Save yourself 2 skill points. Better yet, buy some acid and pour it in the lock. Then it doesn't matter what you have in the score, that lock's gonna open.
Deekin 02-10-07, 01:45 AM	No, Comp Psi is the worst book ever.
khyron1144 02-10-07, 02:17 AM	I think the the Book of Erotic Fantasy already accomplished that:rolleyes: Why does everybody everywhere knock Book of Erotic Fantasy? I never read it, so I will reserve judgment and say it could be as horrid as most say. I will commend them for actually tackling the subject of sex in D&D though. It looks like a subject Wizards' doesn't touch with a ten foot pole. Even the mature line (two whole books) glosses it over. I will also reserve judgment on Complete Scoundrel. I gave it a fairly-detailed-sit-down-in-one-of-the-cumfy-chairs-at-Barnes & Noble-and-flip-pages-for-ten-minutes skim. It's not at the top of my must buy pile, but I may have seen an idea or two to steal.
Squirrelloid 02-10-07, 02:59 AM	So, you spend one of (typically) only 7 feats to get a bonus that only occurs on 5% of rolls. While its nice to avoid that natural 1 from time to time, mechanically, you're far better off with something like Weapon Focus. You know, for a respectable opinion on Complete Scoundrel (which I am also totally unimpressed with), you're dead wrong here. Weapon Focus also only matters on 5% of rolls. (Its a +1 bonus, so 1 number in 20 that would miss now hits every time you make an attack roll - with that weapon). Actually, its slightly worse than that, because natural 1s still miss with it, even if a 2 would hit without it. And if you need a natural 20 to hit with it, you still need a natural 20 without it. So it loses based on end-conditions. Furthermore, WF is worse because it applies with only one weapon, and only on attack rolls. Now, if you need weapon focus as a pre-req, ok. But then you're taking it because its a pre-req, not because of some other utility. I mean, I'm not going to say that luck feat is good, but it *is* strictly better than WF. Just more proof that WF is a really craptastic feat. Edit: Correction, this feat is actually useful if it can be used on any d20 roll. Avoid auto-failing a save at high levels? Hell yeah. Its a great defensive measure for one of the few unavoidable holes in a well-built high-level caster's armor.
NineInchNall 02-10-07, 11:37 AM	You know, for a respectable opinion on Complete Scoundrel (which I am also totally unimpressed with), you're dead wrong here. Weapon Focus also only matters on 5% of rolls. (Its a +1 bonus, so 1 number in 20 that would miss now hits every time you make an attack roll - with that weapon). Even Weapon Focus is better, though, as it is essentially a +2 to damage. (You can afford to Power Attack that extra amount.) Further, depending on the situation, Weapon Focus can double one's chance to hit or bring one's miss chance down to 5% for the battle. But seriously, when we start having to get into a statistical comparison between a new feat and Weapon Focus, it should be clear the new feat is far from good.
Edymnion 02-10-07, 02:22 PM	You know, for a respectable opinion on Complete Scoundrel (which I am also totally unimpressed with), you're dead wrong here.Okay, lets do the math! Average damage for a 1d6 x2 weapon against AC 10 with no bonuses1 * 0: Natural 1 is always an auto miss, no damage dealt. 8 * 0: 2-9 are not enough to hit AC 10, and do no damage. 10 * 3.5: 10-19 hit, and do normal damage, which for 1d6 averages out to 3.5 1 * X: On a natural 20, you crit, see below for math on determining average critical damage. X = 9(3.5) + 11(7) / 20 = 5.425 On a 1-9 on your crit confirm, you miss the AC 10, and do non-critical damage. On a 10-20, you confirm the crit for x2 damage. Add them together, and divide by 20, and you will get average damage per critical. So, to set up our formula for average damage per swing, it is: 1(0) + 8(0) + 10(3.5) + 1(5.425) = 40.425 / 20 = 2.02125Hence, the average unmodified damage per swing is 2.02125. Repeat that for Weapon Focus:1 * 0: Natural 1 is always an auto miss, no damage dealt. 7 * 0: 2-8 are not enough to hit AC 10, and do no damage. 11 * 3.5: 9-19 hit, and do normal damage, which for 1d6 averages out to 3.5 1 * X: On a natural 20, you crit, see below for math on determining average natural 20 damage. X = 8(3.5) + 12(7)= 112 / 20 = 5.6 On a 1-8 on your crit confirm, you miss the AC 10, and do non-critical damage. On a 9-20, you confirm the crit for x2 damage. Add them together, and divide by 20, and you will get average damage per critical. So, to set up our formula for average damage per swing, it is: 1(0) + 7(0) + 11(3.5) + 1(5.6) = 44.1 / 20 =2.205 Hence, average damage per swing with Weapon Focus is 2.205 Repeat again for Better Lucky than Good:0 * 0: You don't get a natural 1, so you don't auto miss 8 * 0: 2-9 are not enough to hit AC 10, and do no damage. 10 * 3.5: 10-19 hit, and do normal damage, which for 1d6 averages out to 3.5 2 * X: On a natural 1 or a natural 20, you crit, see below for math on determining average critical damage. X = 9(3.5) + 11(7) / 20 = 5.425 On a 1-9 on your crit confirm, you miss the AC 10, and do non-critical damage. On a 10-20, you confirm the crit for x2 damage. Add them together, and divide by 20, and you will get average damage per critical. So, to set up our formula for average damage per swing, it is: 0(0) + 8(0) + 10(3.5) + 2(5.425) = 45.85 / 20 = 2.2925Hence, the average damage per swing for BLtG is 2.2925. Now, obviously 2.2925 > 2.205, right? Lets look at that again. BLtG gives you roughly 3.8% more damage per swing than WF. However, it has the prereqs of being lvl 6, and two other feats, where WF can be taken at lvl 1 by any of the combat classes, and lvl 3 by any class at all, without having to spend any other feats to get it. And given that you only get 1 luck reroll per day, and you will have a minimum of 3 differant ways of spending that 1 roll per day by the time you get BLtG, you will either run the very real risk of having already spent that luck reroll before you get to the point you need to use BLtG, or that you have intentionally not been using the other two feats, which makes them wasted feats for the purposes of this discussion. Also, since you only get one use of this per day in combat, and that there are supposed to be 4 combats per day, with the average combat lasting about 5 rounds, a rogue with 3 attacks per round is going to be making 60 attack rolls per day, on average. That means they will, on average, roll 3 natural 1's. BLtG will only help you with one of them, meaning that, on average, its only good 33% of the time. So, BLtG gives you 3.8% better damage per swing, 33% of the time, which means you really only get a 1.254% increase in overall damage per day over Weapon Focus. So, you end up spending 3 feats for a 1.254% increase in damage as compared to WF, two of which are totally wasted (else you decrease the average damage increase even further), and end up waiting 3 to 5 levels. I don't know about you, but in my book, that sucks. Weapon Focus is 98.746% as effective as BGtL, has nowhere near the massive prereqs, and is effective 100% of the time. While I approve of WotC not contributing to power creep, they overdid it in the other direction this time. This stuff is so weak that there is no real reason to take it over Core, and ample reasons not to.
memorax 02-10-07, 02:46 PM	double post.
memorax 02-10-07, 02:50 PM	I looked through this at the local bookstore and agree that's it's one of the worst books ever. First place though is reserved for CP. I understand the need to balance things in thde books except they are imo going overboard. As Edymnion pointed out: "Trading in +5d6 sneak attack to confuse a target for ONE lousy round, and they get a save at such a laughably low DC that it would be pure luck that it actually works?" No one I game would take a feat that gives you this. Not unless they were half dead, comatose and drunk. Last it seems to me at least that they are running out of ideas on feats prestige classes and equipment. Why buy any of the new items in the book if they a) cost to much and b) are easy to detect. It should be one or the other not both. Add another one to the buy only in the used bin.
katarl 02-10-07, 03:57 PM	As stereotypically geeky and fan boyish as it is, i've got to agree with the comic book guy. I didn't expect CS to be quite as bad, and useless as it has been to me, i felt it was just one uninspired idea after another. Complete Mage may have been worthwhile to a wizard character, but CS is not the kind of thing that you'd keep on hand to write up your han solo wannabe character. Horribly disappointed and kicking myself that i didn't *read* it before purchasing. Of course, all this talk about the product lines getting worse isn't worth anything if you complain and keep on buying this stuff. If there isn't a better line next year, i'll vote with my wallet and switch to besm or amber.
High Octane 02-10-07, 04:12 PM	"Truly you have dizzing intellect." The Dread Pirate Roberts:) We have GOT to get those two pirates together. Anyway, Edy, what the HELL do you want from a supplement exactly? Top criticism is that "Its just another group of items/prcs/feats/spells list, yet this is ignoring 2 new types of feats, an entire new feat tree, and an ENTIRELY new set of optional rules. Skill Tricks. Your complaint about the "lackluster" PrCs is founded in reality, however I think there are a couple of decent ones such as the Grey Guard, and the rest are meant as support for the new Luck feat trees and Skill Trick system. One of the top complaints people tend to throw at Wizards is that they never pony up support for any new system they create. Well Complete Scoundrel went that extra mile and decided to have PrCs and items to support their new material. The "this is just new feats and items" arguement is in my opinion false. 70-80% of the material is meant to support the luck and skill trick systems added to the game. As for the complaint of the cost of adding a pocket to the cloak? Well maybe something that provides a benefit should have a cost that actually means something to an adventurer. So tell me, what DID you want from this book?
High Octane 02-10-07, 04:15 PM	Okay, lets do the math! Average damage for a 1d6 x2 weapon against AC 10 with no bonuses1 * 0: Natural 1 is always an auto miss, no damage dealt. 8 * 0: 2-9 are not enough to hit AC 10, and do no damage. 10 * 3.5: 10-19 hit, and do normal damage, which for 1d6 averages out to 3.5 1 * X: On a natural 20, you crit, see below for math on determining average critical damage. X = 9(3.5) + 11(7) / 20 = 5.425 On a 1-9 on your crit confirm, you miss the AC 10, and do non-critical damage. On a 10-20, you confirm the crit for x2 damage. Add them together, and divide by 20, and you will get average damage per critical. So, to set up our formula for average damage per swing, it is: 1(0) + 8(0) + 10(3.5) + 1(5.425) = 40.425 / 20 = 2.02125Hence, the average unmodified damage per swing is 2.02125. Repeat that for Weapon Focus:1 * 0: Natural 1 is always an auto miss, no damage dealt. 7 * 0: 2-8 are not enough to hit AC 10, and do no damage. 11 * 3.5: 9-19 hit, and do normal damage, which for 1d6 averages out to 3.5 1 * X: On a natural 20, you crit, see below for math on determining average natural 20 damage. X = 8(3.5) + 12(7)= 112 / 20 = 5.6 On a 1-8 on your crit confirm, you miss the AC 10, and do non-critical damage. On a 9-20, you confirm the crit for x2 damage. Add them together, and divide by 20, and you will get average damage per critical. So, to set up our formula for average damage per swing, it is: 1(0) + 7(0) + 11(3.5) + 1(5.6) = 44.1 / 20 =2.205 Hence, average damage per swing with Weapon Focus is 2.205 Repeat again for Better Lucky than Good:0 * 0: You don't get a natural 1, so you don't auto miss 8 * 0: 2-9 are not enough to hit AC 10, and do no damage. 10 * 3.5: 10-19 hit, and do normal damage, which for 1d6 averages out to 3.5 2 * X: On a natural 1 or a natural 20, you crit, see below for math on determining average critical damage. X = 9(3.5) + 11(7) / 20 = 5.425 On a 1-9 on your crit confirm, you miss the AC 10, and do non-critical damage. On a 10-20, you confirm the crit for x2 damage. Add them together, and divide by 20, and you will get average damage per critical. So, to set up our formula for average damage per swing, it is: 0(0) + 8(0) + 10(3.5) + 2(5.425) = 45.85 / 20 = 2.2925Hence, the average damage per swing for BLtG is 2.2925. Now, obviously 2.2925 > 2.205, right? Lets look at that again. BLtG gives you roughly 3.8% more damage per swing than WF. However, it has the prereqs of being lvl 6, and two other feats, where WF can be taken at lvl 1 by any of the combat classes, and lvl 3 by any class at all, without having to spend any other feats to get it. And given that you only get 1 luck reroll per day, and you will have a minimum of 3 differant ways of spending that 1 roll per day by the time you get BLtG, you will either run the very real risk of having already spent that luck reroll before you get to the point you need to use BLtG, or that you have intentionally not been using the other two feats, which makes them wasted feats for the purposes of this discussion. Also, since you only get one use of this per day in combat, and that there are supposed to be 4 combats per day, with the average combat lasting about 5 rounds, a rogue with 3 attacks per round is going to be making 60 attack rolls per day, on average. That means they will, on average, roll 3 natural 1's. BLtG will only help you with one of them, meaning that, on average, its only good 33% of the time. So, BLtG gives you 3.8% better damage per swing, 33% of the time, which means you really only get a 1.254% increase in overall damage per day over Weapon Focus. So, you end up spending 3 feats for a 1.254% increase in damage as compared to WF, two of which are totally wasted (else you decrease the average damage increase even further), and end up waiting 3 to 5 levels. I don't know about you, but in my book, that sucks. Weapon Focus is 98.746% as effective as BGtL, has nowhere near the massive prereqs, and is effective 100% of the time. While I approve of WotC not contributing to power creep, they overdid it in the other direction this time. This stuff is so weak that there is no real reason to take it over Core, and ample reasons not to. Maybe......rogues use.....more than one....type of weapon..... and the better lucky than good feat..... applies to all of them..... Yep.
CaoSlayer 02-10-07, 04:47 PM	ummm, I see the turn 1 into natural 20 as a way better that improved critical when used with a 20 x3 or x4 weapon, his means that you can now get a critical hit in a roll of 1 or 20, so the weapon becomes the equivalent of a 19-20/x3 weapon BUT also is a weapon focus because gives you the chance to hit with a 1. This feat is weapon focus AND improved critical in one.
kelvinaw273 02-10-07, 08:39 PM	I really hope that WotC take note of this ... I thought PHB II contained a lot of unnecessary filler, but this takes the buiscuit. There are some problems, though, that WotC face: 1) they need to keep selling us stuff to make a profit and keep the game alive# 2) There are only so many rules, classes and feats that can be added to the game before it becomes unmanageable. So what can they do but churn out stuff with more and more filler? Well here is a radical suggestion: Save rule supplements for when you have something that really justifies them. What we want and need is campaign material, good adventures, interesting NPCs, settings! But there lies the problem: that stuff can only be sold to the DM, not the players ... and there are so many more players than DMs, they are the bigger market. So they have to sell stuff that appeals to players, and that means stuff that makes their characters better and that means feats and PrCs and spells .... The only thing I can think of is to release Player's Guides to settings ...
DIESCUMDIE 02-10-07, 10:36 PM	Smart people who can tell the difference between a feat that makes your character be good at what he's supposed to be good at, and feats that exist in an as if world full of people saying wizards are balanced and barbarians are broken that achieve nothing more than giving you something to bore the other players talking about until you finally realise it sucks - are saying this book is not hot. I value their opinion. But I'm going to get the book anyway as making up my own skill tricks will allow me insert house rules into my game without the players getting all aghast. Low profile This skill trick costs two skill points from hide. A character must beat your disguise, or bluff with a gather information, decipher script or sense motive check before they may target you with any divination spells or teleport to within 50ft of you (unless they are already within 50ft of you).If they attempt to teleport to within 50ft of you, you turn out to be somewhere else 100ft away. This bonus is lost if you do anything that dramatically makes you stand out. Self improvement This skill trick costs two skill points from heal. With your dm's approval you may select a characterful but lame feat. Your dm should only let you choose feats such as Brachiaton that truly suck.
Particle_Man 02-10-07, 10:55 PM	The Skill Tricks are generally pretty good, but there's some stinkers in there too. Give an ally a free spot check for something that you've already seen? Last time I checked, making a spot check was a free action, as is pointing and saying "Look over there". Hence, you can give all of your allies a free spot check without having to spend skillpoints on it. Fred and George are the party's scouts. Goblin Rogues wait to ambush them. Fred makes his spot roll vs. their Hide and George does not. Thus George gets no action during the surprise round. But wait! Fred has "Point it Out". George gets a *second* Spot check, and with a bonus at that. George's second Spot check beats the Goblins' Hide. George can now act during the surprise round. Btw, I thought the "Grey Guard" makes the perfect Paladin route for followers of St. Cuthbert.
Edymnion 02-10-07, 11:11 PM	So tell me, what DID you want from this book?I wanted a book that would actually be useful for building roguish characters with. I wanted a book that actually used what we had, expanded on it, and improved on whats come before. I didn't want an entire freaking book designed to do nothing but pimp luck rerolls and skill tricks. But I guess that after they got through reprinting the 3.0 splatbook material the first time around, they rather ran out of ideas.Maybe......rogues use.....more than one....type of weapon..... and the better lucky than good feat..... applies to all of them..... Yep.Nope. Seriously, when was the last time you saw somebody actively use more than one or two types of weapon consistantly? And even for dual weilders with two seperate weapons, you can easily just take Weapon Focus for all of them for the same price you pay for BGtL. Honestly, show me a character that routinely uses a wide array of weapons in D&D. Even the golfbag DR system still ends up with people carrying around essentially the same weapon in differant materials. The most I ever really see is someone carrying daggers for emergency backup weapons, or picking up bludgeoning weapons when they know they're going up against undead (which BGtL is almost useless against, as you can't crit the undead, constructs, and a whole host of enemy types). So yeah, lets throw that into the logic as well. Anything immune to critical hits is pretty much immune to BGtL, except for the auto-hit. Is the feat useless? No, its not. But the use it does have is horrendously underpowered for how steep it's prereqs are. Its not quite as bad as "Trade 5d6 damage to confuse a creature for one round, DC 15 negates" (which generally means anything that would stand any real threat of failing the save would likely have died outright from the +5d6 damage), but when it is sub-part to Weapon Focus for the majority of real use, and its got such steep prereqs, its not a good idea to take the feat, from a mechanical standpoint. IMO, my original comment stands. BLtG sucks, and you are almost always better off just taking Weapon Focus instead.
Kojiro James 02-10-07, 11:21 PM	OBJECTION! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=1729640)
Kresalak 02-10-07, 11:28 PM	The review of the book on the Gaming Den declares the book so lackluster that it cannot even inspire hatred.
khyron1144 02-10-07, 11:28 PM	Honestly, show me a character that routinely uses a wide array of weapons in D&D. Even the golfbag DR system still ends up with people carrying around essentially the same weapon in differant materials. It's not really a wide-variety, but I did create a weapon-throwing archer fighter character who used javelins, throwing axes, and daggers. Javelins might be considered primary weapon, because he took Weapon Focus: Javelin. The rest just sort of benefitted from his high Dex and Point Blank Shot and other feats. Like I said before, I'll reserve judgemnt on Complete Scoundrel until I win the state lottery and clean out the local game stores, picking up Complete Scoundrel along with other likely 20th choice books.
Edymnion 02-11-07, 02:31 PM	OBJECTION! (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=1729640)I was referring to CS being the worst of the Complete line, not the worst 3e book ever published. ;)
Edymnion 02-21-07, 12:16 PM	:bump:
Pallin Rahl 02-21-07, 01:23 PM	IMO, my original comment stands. BLtG sucks, and you are almost always better off just taking Weapon Focus instead. Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive. One could, if they so desire, take both. Saying one feat is a better choice is all well and good... but that doesn't wholly invalidate the usefulness (or flavor) of another feat in and of itself (when taking one does not preclude taking the other). I'm not going to weigh in on either side of the Weapon Focus vs BLtG discussion, but let's keep some perspective here. Look, everyone's entitled to their own opinion on the book... personally I'd put it on the "handful of cool stuff along with a fair amount of 'meh' stuff" ...certainly not "great", but certainly not "the worst yet". Overall mediocre is probably more accurate.
ArcTan 02-21-07, 01:47 PM	The Skill Tricks are generally pretty good, but there's some stinkers in there too. Give an ally a free spot check for something that you've already seen? Last time I checked, making a spot check was a free action, as is pointing and saying "Look over there". When was the last time you checked the SRD? Trying to Spot something you failed to Spot reactively is a *move* action. (I.e. the DM gives you a free "Roll a Spot check" the first time a hidden or distant enemy comes into view. Then you have to use a move action to say "I roll a Spot check" again.) Or "Listen to This" is already covered by Autohypnosis which lets you perfectly memorize pretty much anything you want, and remember it permanently, instead of just remembering a sound well enough to repeat it to others within a short time frame. Yes, except none of the core PHB races have Autohypnosis as a class skill. Also, as I read the skill description, it lets you memorize *images* perfectly, but doesn't actually say anything about sound. I might say that memorizing the *text* of a conversation counts as the "memorizing text" option, but it doesn't mean you'd be able to replicate abstract sound or tone of voice. The spells are rather lacking as well. Catapult? Its Launch Bolt from Magic of Faerun with a tweak (a bad tweak, I might add). Evacuation Rune? Maybe its just the video game player in me, but "Warp to the Dungeon's Entrance" is still pretty weak for a D&D game, where you could just Teleport there, or anywhere else you wanted pretty easily. Fatal Flame? Whoopee, somebody invented Corpse Explosion from Diablo II! [quote]Rules for hidden blades, here we go! No wait, the only rules here are "-2 to hit", with no advantages. Wow, you've got a knife in your armor, that counts as a dagger, that you attack with like a dagger, that does the same damage as a dagger, but you're at -2 to hit with it. What? It doesn't even give you anything like a guarenteed sneak attack with the thing. Yes -- it's supposed to be for "scoundrel"-type campaigns where you regularly get frisked for weapons or forced to disarm yourself. The living items are a bit more interesting, although they get rather silly. Whoo hoo, its a rust monster on a stick! It may sound silly, but given that this is a living thing with a near-magical ability to destroy metal that can't be easily replicated by a spell or other technology (rusting grasp is far less potent than an actual rust monster), using rust monsters as weapons makes a lot more sense than not doing so. I'm not disagreeing with all of your points, but it sounds like you're going on a typical Edymnion "This book is totally worthless" cascade here.
Edymnion 02-21-07, 07:23 PM	Yes, except none of the core PHB races have Autohypnosis as a class skill. Also, as I read the skill description, it lets you memorize *images* perfectly, but doesn't actually say anything about sound. I might say that memorizing the *text* of a conversation counts as the "memorizing text" option, but it doesn't mean you'd be able to replicate abstract sound or tone of voice.It basically is a skill based edictic memory, you can use it to memorize anything.Yes -- it's supposed to be for "scoundrel"-type campaigns where you regularly get frisked for weapons or forced to disarm yourself.Except, as I've already pointed out, the DC to find the "hidden" weapon is actually *LOWER* than what any self respecting rogue could get by simply taking 10. And has been pointed out that you can Take 20 on hiding something in your clothes, even a lvl 1 commoner could hide a knife on himself that would be harder to find than these things. Given that *ANY* character could take 20 hiding a weapon on themselves, there is absolutely no reason why these things should have such an abysmally low DC while still giving you such a noticeable penalty to your attack.I'm not disagreeing with all of your points, but it sounds like you're going on a typical Edymnion "This book is totally worthless" cascade here.Yup, because I don't sit here and try to find reasons why WotC is God's Gift to Gamers. If I think a book is good, I'll tell people that. If I think a book is bad, I'll tell people that. If I think a book is a complete piece of crap that should never have been printed, I'll say that too. I'm not going to go out of my way to find some tiny redeeming little something to try and boost the sales of a book that I think deserves to collect dust on the shelf. Page for page, Complete Scoundral is the worst of the Complete books, no question about that. I honestly do not think there is anything in this book, even when combined, makes it worth the cover price. Buy it at a used book store for $10, and you might get your money's worth out of it. At full cover price, its just not worth it. And just for the record, since you bring it up, stop and think how many books I outright call worthless. Really, count them. Now compare that to how many books WotC has printed. Yeah, I thought so.
Always-Late 02-21-07, 07:27 PM	Except, as I've already pointed out, the DC to find the "hidden" weapon is actually *LOWER* than what any self respecting rogue could get by simply taking 10. And has been pointed out that you can Take 20 on hiding something in your clothes, even a lvl 1 commoner could hide a knife on himself that would be harder to find than these things.I don't think you can take 20 any more than you can take 20 on Hide.
Needle 02-22-07, 01:34 AM	But then there is the rust monster on a stick. An honest to god RUST MONSTER ON A STICK! If I had a player bring this idea to me, I would have beaten him about the head and shoulders with his own PHB for being an idiot! hahaha, i think they must have been reading these boards, because i recall another poster posting a joke idea for a 'rustmonster on a stick' here a while back before this books release.
KurenaiYami 02-22-07, 03:14 AM	hahaha, i think they must have been reading these boards, because i recall another poster posting a joke idea for a 'rustmonster on a stick' here a while back before this books release. Yeah, it popped up every now and again. Now it's not so much humorous as it is sad.
Kresalak 02-22-07, 07:31 AM	Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive. One could, if they so desire, take both. Saying one feat is a better choice is all well and good... but that doesn't wholly invalidate the usefulness (or flavor) of another feat in and of itself (when taking one does not preclude taking the other). I'm not going to weigh in on either side of the Weapon Focus vs BLtG discussion, but let's keep some perspective here. Taking two horrible feats doesn't make them good-it makes you suck twice as hard, because you've now wasted two out of seven feat slots on things that aren't even statistically noticeable 95% of the time. So congratulations, you've just used 28.5% of your feats to get a bonus on 5% of attack rolls and, once per day, a single roll that you have a 5% chance of making. Do you think this is a good deal?
TheYeti1775 02-22-07, 10:15 AM	Your complaint about the "lackluster" PrCs is founded in reality, however I think there are a couple of decent ones such as the Grey Guard, and the rest are meant as support for the new Luck feat trees and Skill Trick system. I like the concept of the Grey Guard. It works well in the campaign I play in. We use Dawnforge (www.fantasyflightgames) for our campaign setting. The Trueborn are the 'noble fighters' and lean heavy to the Lawful Good side of things. So as a PrC they fit well into that society, it was one of the better parts of the book for me. Didn't fit any of my characters, but it did intrigue the DM when I showed him. Yeti
Rogue Shadows 02-22-07, 03:44 PM	Honestly, show me a character that routinely uses a wide array of weapons in D&D. Even the golfbag DR system still ends up with people carrying around essentially the same weapon in differant materials. I'm playing with someone who's character uses a scimitar, spiked chain, lance, and longbow, and switches between them extremely regularly. Also, he fights from horseback.
Grand Theft Otto 02-26-07, 12:32 PM	I snagged this book over the weekend, and just have to say... Catapult. Can anyone think of a use for this piece of crap spell? Wow, I can use a 2nd level spell to throw a throwing weapon! Sort of like taking a standard action to throw it, except it doesnt use a spell slot. The flavor text should have read "Catapult - for when you're too stupid to use Scorching Ray."
ArcTan 02-26-07, 04:51 PM	It basically is a skill based edictic memory, you can use it to memorize anything. That's your interpretation of the flavor, not what the skill actually says it can do. Also, again, Listen is a class skill for way more classes than Autohypnosis is. Except, as I've already pointed out, the DC to find the "hidden" weapon is actually *LOWER* than what any self respecting rogue could get by simply taking 10. And has been pointed out that you can Take 20 on hiding something in your clothes, even a lvl 1 commoner could hide a knife on himself that would be harder to find than these things. Given that *ANY* character could take 20 hiding a weapon on themselves, there is absolutely no reason why these things should have such an abysmally low DC while still giving you such a noticeable penalty to your attack. Not everyone has Sleight of Hand as a class skill, and SoH is Trained Only. And where the hell does it say SoH is a Take 20-able skill? That doesn't make any more sense than taking 20 on Forgery to make the best possible Forgery, or taking 20 on Disguise to make the best possible Disguise, so that every level 1 Commoner can have a Disguise check of 20 if they have an hour to get dressed in the morning. You can only Take 20 on skills with *no penalties for failure*, which Sleight of Hand is not. The fact that the penalty for failure doesn't occur until you're searched doesn't change this. Your Sleight of Hand check includes the knowledge that a sleight is a failed sleight -- a low check indicates you're not fully aware of how your sleight is imperfect so you don't correct it. Yup, because I don't sit here and try to find reasons why WotC is God's Gift to Gamers. If I think a book is good, I'll tell people that. If I think a book is bad, I'll tell people that. If I think a book is a complete piece of crap that should never have been printed, I'll say that too. I'm not going to go out of my way to find some tiny redeeming little something to try and boost the sales of a book that I think deserves to collect dust on the shelf. Page for page, Complete Scoundral is the worst of the Complete books, no question about that. I honestly do not think there is anything in this book, even when combined, makes it worth the cover price. Buy it at a used book store for $10, and you might get your money's worth out of it. At full cover price, its just not worth it. And just for the record, since you bring it up, stop and think how many books I outright call worthless. Really, count them. Now compare that to how many books WotC has printed. Yeah, I thought so. The ratio's much closer when you only count the ones you choose to bring up on the boards.
Jaen 04-12-07, 12:51 AM	Well, granted I am not as experienced in the game as most people I would agree that most of what COmplete Scoundrel has is pretty much not worth the time. However I am currently playing a Factotum that is tending towards a rogue-ish style character and the luck style feats I think complement the Factotum rather well. I am an adventurer a pure adventurer and I survive on my wits alone... and my lucky as heck rolling. :D But really in the campaign I play that is rather dungeon heavy the luck feats are powerful enough to consider putting at least two feats into. That's how I see it at least.
Silverthumb128 04-12-07, 02:07 AM	Yeah, it popped up every now and again. Now it's not so much humorous as it is sad. I might have a cow if the next book has sword-chucks, or a rat-flail.
KurenaiYami 04-12-07, 02:36 AM	I might have a cow if the next book has sword-chucks, or a rat-flail. Yeah, but those two things would be awesome.
graddlin 04-12-07, 04:44 AM	But then there is the rust monster on a stick. An honest to god RUST MONSTER ON A STICK! If I had a player bring this idea to me, I would have beaten him about the head and shoulders with his own PHB for being an idiot! Yup, I think that just about does it for me. I think I'll save the $36 or so and purchase a nice block of imported Italian cheese,...and crackers.:D