| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1TomCostaMar 20, 2015 3:47:58 | I've always felt this was sort of missing from the game until 3.5E launched the scout class. In any case, I tried to find a quick and dirty way of achieving similar ends and here it is. Not my most imaginative effort, but I think it should work.... Comments welcome.
The Scout Quick Build Hit Points Proficiencies Saving Throws: Dexterity, Intelligence Equipment
Natural Explorer Sneak Attack Cunning Action Vigilance Hit and Run Ability Score Improvement Uncanny Dodge Fast Movement Camouflage Bushwacker Master Scout Land’s Stride Mobility Vanish Blind Sense Evasion Ambusher Elusive Deadly Accuracy
|
| #2ZardnaarMar 20, 2015 4:12:59 | Rogue + outlander background? |
| #3Farmer42Mar 20, 2015 8:49:44 |
|
| #4cowleymenMar 20, 2015 9:22:55 | Ive got to agree with the outlander bit. Not to mention a fatal flaw, at the moment your missing subclasses as well, even if you only got the one built in right now. |
| #5ChrisCarlsonMar 20, 2015 9:36:34 | You can have a whole team of "scouts" as a PC group, each bringing different things to the table (i.e., different classes but all with scout-y backgrounds). And that's somethings I really like about 5e characters.
Likewise, a band of thieves. Or a warband. Or any number of other thematic choices.
You don't need a scout class, IMO. A "traditional" strictly martial scout could be a fighter. A rogue. A barbarian. Even stop after just the 1st level of ranger if you don't want spells. Or a combination of any/all of those. Or anything else that you want your "scout" to be. |
| #6arnwolf666Mar 20, 2015 16:23:18 | Why can't people just take Stealth, Survival, and tracking and say they are a scout. Don't really need a complex archetype or class to be a scout. |
| #7TomCostaMar 20, 2015 19:35:52 | You certainly can do all of that with the outlander background, but then only the magical ranger has the natural terrain and camouflage bonuses. And frankly the ranger lacks some of the skirmishing-like bonuses of a rogue. On the flipside, the rogue gets various thieving and criminal bonuses (such as knowledge of thieves' cant) that are not necessarily the right vibe for a wilderness scout. |
| #8Tony_VargasMar 20, 2015 20:21:19 | The DM can tweak things like that pretty easily. OK, you're a Rogue, and you took outlander - would you like to trade your theify stuff for wildernes stuff?
I also have to comment the 'whole team of scouts,' because it's one of the things I love about 5e is the everything old is new again bit. There were some kits in 2e that were similar accross a number of classes. There were backgrounds and themes in 4e, too. And PrCs, feats - all kinds of customization in 3.x, of course. So it is nice that 5e backgrounds can help you build a party around a common theme - even if you might still need to wedge a cleric or bard or something else with cure wounds into your 'soldiers' theme or whatever - it's nice that it didn't get rid of something we've been able to do, one way or another, since c1990.
Of course, backgrounds in 5e have a little more impact than a lot of 2e kits did, and take less system mastery to apply than 3e. So that's not to damn with faint praise or anything. It's just an example of how 5e took something that was good in some prior editions, put a little spin on it, and delivered.
|
| (Reply to #7)arnwolf666 |
|
| #10GlassHeelPrinceMar 21, 2015 0:08:49 | I've always wanted to try this class concept. |
| #11DiffanMar 21, 2015 0:59:44 | Tom, I think you did a pretty good job of blending two classes into one. By being specific you eliminated the need to have sub paths, putting more emphasis on customization within Background and Feats (not a terrible idea) and a straightforward approach to class design. I'd consider playing this class. |
| (Reply to #6)Diffan |
|
| #13TomCostaMar 26, 2015 18:22:09 | Thanks for the comments. I agree that one of the great things about 5E is some of the versatility that backgrounds and the archetypes offer. In fact, I think the archetypes are a more perfect version of substitution levels from 3.5 E and Pathfinder's similar mechanic. That said, there are still a number of character concepts that I don't think quite work with the existing rules such as the alchemist, scout, and shaman. Certainly you could create some facsimile of those classes, but I don't think any combinations we could make with the current rules would quite capture them. Frankly, I was surprised how well 5E does capture so many of the possible concepts. As such I thought the spell-less ranger/scout didn't really have a good place. That is, a scout that is as good as a ranger at being a wilderness guy without the spells. In the end my version is about 50% rogue, 25% ranger, and 25% other.
I did think about creating archetypes, but didn't quite get there. I thought about more of a military skirmisher versus a trapper, but haven't developed it further. I certainly don't see that as a fatal flaw. A fatal flaw would be if the class just didn't work or was completey unbalanced. And as far as the, heh the DM can just let you swap some stuff for other stuff, I'd argue that's just what I did. As I noted at the beginning, it wasn't my most imaginative effort, but I think it came out relatively balanced and achieves its objectives. But to each his own. |
| #14cassi_brazucaMar 26, 2015 20:05:31 |
|
| #15UngeheuerLichMar 27, 2015 6:53:51 | My take on the "scout" would be following:
Outlander background rogue class
changes (like proposed in the DMG) lvl 1: proficiency in the trapmaker tools instead of thief´s tools lvl 2: Druidic instead of thiefs´ cant. OR: a special sign and whistle language that allows scouts to communicate with each other lvl 3: scout archetype
subclass abilities: lvl 3: - favoured terrain (like the ranger feature) - proficiency in the longbow - mobile sneak attack: if you used cunning action with disengage or dash, and you moved at least 15 ft before the attack,
lvl 9: - second favoured terrain - pass without trace
lvl 13 - camouflage/hide in plain sight
lvl 17 - something that allows you to do double damage at the first turn of the combat. Maybe something like the ranger´s volley allowing sneak attack - fourth favored terrain |
| #16TomCostaMar 27, 2015 10:47:57 | ULich, those are good ideas and I think another way to approach the scout that could work well. |
| #17Pompadour64Mar 27, 2015 11:27:57 | Invisible familiars are my favorite scouts |
| #18TomCostaMar 28, 2015 19:19:07 | I made a number of edits based on comments and some new ideas....
The Scout
Quick Build Hit Points
Proficiencies Saving Throws: Dexterity, Intelligence
Equipment
Natural Explorer
Scout Signaling
Sneak Attack
Cunning Action
Vigilance
Hit and Run
Ability Score Improvement
Uncanny Dodge
Bushwhacker
Master Scout
Trap Breaker
Mobile Sneak Attack
Land’s Stride
Camouflage
Fortitude
Trackless Step
Blind Sense
Evasion
Ambusher
Elusive
Deadly Accuracy
Tools |
| #19DanyBallonMar 27, 2015 16:42:20 | Instead of creating a new base class, I would just go with a roguish archetype:
Any force on the move, whether it's an army or an adventuring group, needs information about what's ahead, what's behind and, more important, time to prepare for battle. A scout can navigate difficult terrain at good speed and she specialized in seeing her foe before the opponent ever detect her presence. In a dungeon or in the wild a scout is only seen when she wants to be.
3rd level - Natural explorer (as per the ranger ability PHB p.91) you choose an additional terrain at 13th level. Add dungeon to the list of favored terrain - Alert: when in it's favored terrain, the scout has +5 to Wisdom (Perception) ability checks, and add half is proficiency bonus to Initiative. 9th level - Fast movement (as per the barbarian ability PHB p.49) 13th level - Land stride (as per the ranger ability PHB p.92) 17th level - Vanish (as per the ranger ability PHB p.92) when hiding this way, the scout becomes invisble until he attacks or cast a spell.
|
| #20TomCostaMar 28, 2015 19:32:50 | First, thanks for all the comments. I appreciate them.
I will reiterate that I don't think the existing rules allow for a nonmagic version of the ranger with similar wilderness skills. They do allow for amazing variety and for everyone to have scout like abilities, which is one the best innovations of 5E. That said, probably the best you could do is take 1 level or ranger and multiclass as a fighter or rogue with the outlander background, but that comes with class features that are not in line with the theme and still leaves you somewhat substandard compared to the ranger, which isn't what I'm looking for. You can go the route of creating a simple archetype, but that leaves you waiting until 3rd level to gain your respective class features and stills leaves you with features that don't jell with the concept. FInally, you could go the route of making some minor tweaks to a classes skill choices and such with the addition of a new archetype, but if I'm going that far, why not go the extra step (which wasn't much as I've already noted this isn't my imaginiative effort since I'm essentially poaching 50% from the rogue and another 25% from the ranger).
Also, by making my own class, I can more easily avoid some of the weird combinations that I noticed in my original write up and in some of the suggestions. For example, how do favored terrain (which already doubles your proficiency bonus for all Intelligence and Wisdom skill checks in your terrain) and expertise stack, if at all? Cunning action and fast movement may prove challenging when it comes to combining them. Cunning action makes Vanish dramatically less useful.
Additional comments welcome. |
| #21Dougan_AxehammerMar 28, 2015 20:37:24 | In 3.5e, didn't the scout's "sneak attack" ability require a move of 10' or more. I also remember being able to use a javelin or a weapon with reach as a class proficiency. (I don't remember, and my books are currently boxed up and buried under other books, so I don't have the reference. |
| #22TomCostaMar 29, 2015 7:55:01 | Yes, in 3.5E, they had the skirmish ability which required some movement. I didn't convert that for a few reasons, first it seemed unnecessary to limit the sneak attack for balance reasons since it wasn't like I was giving them something else instead and frankly to me, the sneak attack works well with a class that ambushes and uses other skirmish tactics. That said, it did stick in my head so when ULich suggested somethign similar I did add in Mobile Sneak Attack.
I'm not sure I see someone specializing in sneaking carrying a larger weapon for practical reasons. In 3.5 E they were profiecient with simple weapons, plus the handaxe, throwing axes, short sword and short bow, so not much change.
That said, I didn't want a direct conversion because while I thought the 3.5E scout filled a necessary niche, there were some challenges with it in that almost all of its abilities were along the lines of "+X to some roll," which doesn't convert as well in 5E and lacks a bit of fluff-like panache (even if some of my panache is just in the class feature title). For example, they got Battle Fortitude which granted them a bonus to Fort saves and initiative as long they weren't in medium or heavier armor. A weird way of giving them 3/4 Fort save that was oddly impacted by heavy armor. |