Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chief_Librarian 09-07-04, 11:29 PM	For an upcoming campaign one of my players wanted to use the variant rules for Rogues out of Unearthed Arcana the wilderness rogue and the variant that loses the Sneak Attack ability but gains the fighter bonus feat progression. Some of my players have stated that this is "too good" of a class and I was looking for a couple of opinions. I had posted it on my DnD LiveJournal, here is the link: Scout (Variant Rogue) (http://www.livejournal.com/community/eringlae_crier/9399.html#cutid1)
Old_One 09-08-04, 06:13 AM	It is too good of a class, see you took avay the sneak atack but gave it all the bonus feats from raeanger and than some, then gave the choice of any ranger or rogue special ability and it stll hets the 8x int skils/level. The d6 is a good start but you should limit the bonus feat list a lot, and take some uncany dodge and trap sense, than you would be getting closer to a balanced class
Mac Awol 09-08-04, 07:25 AM	Yeah, it is to good for a class, but if you did a little mixing with the ranger's combat style, the figther's bonus feats (perhaps even a list of feats with a more scout-like feel, like; Alertness, Athletic, Animal Affinity, Endurance, Improved Initiative, Martial Weapon Proficiency, Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Precise Shot, Shot on the Run, Improved Precise Shot, Rapid Reload, Self-Sufficient, Stealthy, Toughness, Two-Weapon Defense, Track), and rogue's sneak attack. Like this: use the Rogue Variant: Wilderness Rogue, replace the sneak attack at the 1st level with a the ranger's Combat Style, and at the 9th level with a ranger's Improved Combat Style, and again at the 17th level with Combat Style Mastery, and at the following levels with a fighter's bonus feat; 5th, and 13th. The Scout would get some feats, that the Wilderness Rogue doesn't get, but he would still keep some of the Sneak Attack, both to keep class-balance and to represent his proficiency with setting up ambushes.
Fiendish Banana Golem 09-08-04, 02:06 PM	I've got a weird opinion on this-now, mind you, I haven't seen either one in action, and I'm sure both can be min-maxed nicely. I think both the Fighter with Sneak Attack and Rogue with Fighter Bonus Feats are balanced. A Fighter, with full armor, d10s, and few skills gets more milage out of Bonus Feats then a Rogue does-that's what the character is good for. A Rogue with d6s and light armor needs the edge of Sneak Attack to maintain combat parity-they're a specialist. The feats available to them won't allow them to maintain that "specialist" edge nearly as well. As well, the Rogue naturally gets more milage out of sneak attack dice then a Fighter does-it's intended to be used with a lightly armored, highly mobile attacker.
Mac Awol 09-08-04, 04:06 PM	I've got a weird opinion on this-now, mind you, I haven't seen either one in action, and I'm sure both can be min-maxed nicely.. Neither have I for that matter, but... A Fighter, with full armor, d10s, and few skills gets more milage out of Bonus Feats then a Rogue does-that's what the character is good for. A Rogue with d6s and light armor needs the edge of Sneak Attack to maintain combat parity-they're a specialist. The feats available to them won't allow them to maintain that "specialist" edge nearly as well. And that is exactly why I would allow a variant, like the one I suggested, with some sneak attack and some bonus feats, especially Ranger Combat Styles, since if the player want to forego his major force, the sneak attack, to take some seemingly stronger feats instead, for more "class-flavor". The player would be satisfied, and DM wouldn't have to worry about another badly hidden attempt, by a player, at creating yet another power class. Actually I would be tempted to make a scout, since the class has the intended "flavor", yet is far enough from ranger, fighter, and rogue, kinda like the Swashbuckler and Samurai is far enough from the fighter and paladin.