Page 2 of 7

Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:10 pm
by Hywaywolf
I don't see where a ranger would get experience in locksmithing, but I can see them being able to set, find and/or remove wilderness style traps like the ones set by Rambo (first movie) or Arnold Schwarzenegger in Predator.

Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:25 pm
by Joe the Rat
Seconded - I can easily see a Scout knowing the ins and out of snares, punjis, deadfalls, and so on. I could go either way on the snare-setting side (it's a practical skill, but there may be an ethos issue). the -20 'urban' trap penalty works nicely for dungeon and treasure traps (having a sense of where to look, or what might be trapped, but with some unfamiliar mechanisms and signs to deal with), and they could not attempt to set a more mechanical trap.

The penalties also offset some of the other advantages over 'vanilla' thieves, so the common XP works out nicely.

I appreciate the name change here as well. You could build an entire Wilderness Defense organization out of Scouts and Rangers (and Druids, depending on how you look at it).

Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:19 pm
by crazycrypt
The idea for a scout was to be adept at scouting out caves and dungeons as a ranger is much better suited for the wilderness. In other words, scouts are intended to be more well rounded at being able to scout all types of areas and structures, while a ranger is best suited for wilderness. I did, however, consider long and hard about the open locks ability. I am not so sure it should be in there either, but I wasn't so sure that it shouldn't be. Maybe instead issue a penalty for the open locks ability, maybe say "Scouts can open locks as thieves three levels lower," or something like that. As for remove traps, my take is that scouts should be able to detect traps as they are made for scouting out areas, but not necessarily be able to remove them. What good would a scout be if they were unable to detect traps. I'm not sure if there is a way to separate the ability out or not, but I definitely see a need for at least finding traps. Maybe give them the ability to find traps as a thief but remove them as a thief three levels lower?

These two abilities were the same two abilities I debated over when making the class. I took them out and put them back in several times before the submitting this draft.

Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:53 am
by jackel
I haven't read this yet still proofing BF2. But thought I'd look at this thread. Anyways, I could the open locks in that you send a scout to an enemies sttronghold to retrive intel, where he might have to open locks. I've always though the ranger as more of a tracker type (bounty hunter/ lone wolf type). A Scout as more of find me a way to the enemies stronghold bypassing their army. Yes kinda like a scout, but also a scout would want to disguise him or herself to maybe find out what the emeny is planning. the most logical place to store that info is a locked box.Just my 3 cents worth.

Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:38 pm
by celtchief
For my two cents, I think this class is a little overpowered to get the thief XP progression. It gets nearly all the thief abilities, plus tracking, and plus some combat bonuses, which easily compensate for backstab, and most important, 1d6 HP, which is what an elven fighter gets.

So, my suggestion, for what it is worth, is kill some of the thief abilites, mainly open locks and disarm traps, unless maybe they are outdoor traps. The other idea is pump up the Xp to the straight fighters list, 2K.

That said, I like the idea of scout, or light ranger, or whatever you call it.


Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:28 pm
by Solomoriah
I agree, the cleric progression would be better. Jason felt that they weren't really better than thieves, so he set it down, but I think they are (better hit dice trumps other considerations IMO).

I have to admit, I'm confused by Jason's commentary on how he sees the class. I see it this way: The Scout is to the Ranger as the Thief is to the Fighter. That means that Scouts, like Rangers, are outdoorsy. His commentary about them being dungeoneers thus confuses me.

Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:50 pm
by crazycrypt
I have no problem with cleric progression, as you know I had it that way to begin with and then changed it as I could not make up my mind which one it should be.

I guess to me a scout is someone that will scout out any area, forest, cave, dungeon, castle, ect, where a ranger is more outdoorsy. A ranger, to me, is also someone who is generally working for the king, baron, ect keeping monsters and enemies of the land at bay meaning they spend the majority of their time in the forest, where a scout works for whoever is willing to pay them to scout out an area or lead a party into an area and thus spends as much time in the forest as they do in other types or areas.

Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:10 pm
by Hywaywolf
crazycrypt wrote: thus spends as much time in the forest as they do in other types or areas.
I understand where you are coming from with this, but the reality of this statement is that the scout would spend 50% less time in the wilderness than a Ranger and 50% less time in a dungeon than a stereotypical thief. So they wouldn't be a specialist at either task.

Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:24 pm
by SmootRK
Did this class offering get any more development or playtesting? The idea is good, but somewhere I think the class concept got confused and tries to be too much.

My own inclination is to make this a Thief, only tailored for the outdoors instead of dungeon/urban. For me this means:

All abilities equal to Thief of appropriate level, except as noted for the penalties:
drop Open Locks - not an outdoorsy thing
mod. Remove (& Find) Traps to outdoor traps, snares, pitfalls, etc. with -20% penalty if used in for other sorts of "normal" traps.
drop Pick Pocket - not really as useful in outdoors
mod. Move Silently to outdoors in natural terrains with -20% penalty if used indoors/urban/dungeon environs.
Climb Walls - same, perhaps include details of using proper climbing gear for true mountaineering, forest canopy, etc.
mod. Hide to outdoors/natural environs with -20% penalty if used indoors/urban/dungeon environs.
Listen - same... pretty universal

For the lost abilities of Pick Pockets and Open Locks, I would give the Tracking ability, and the increased HD to d6 (a toughness thing)... combined with the above (outdoors) limitations placed on the other abilities, this seems about balanced. They can function pretty much as thief if indoors/dungeoneering, just not quite as good.

The Sneak Attack ability does not seem a good fit, so I would perhaps use the same bonus structure but have the attack called a Sniper Attack, that can only be performed using a missile weapon against a short range target... to me this reflects a hunter's tactic. Still have to be stealthy, still have to not be seen by target, etc. just using missile weapon instead.

And that is about it.
So, recapping the differences from what is printed in this supplement. No OL, penalities for most abilities in non-wilderness environs, remove all the bow and buckler stuff, add back in a stealth attack (but as Snipe). Given the changes I suggest (all as give and take balancing), then I can envision these at the standard Thief experience progression.

Re: Scouts Supplement

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:12 pm
by Solomoriah
Sneak Attack is, IMO, an excellent fit. I'm agreeable to most of your other suggestions. I'll probably take a look at it soon... Scout is one I'd like to leave in if at all possible.