Scouts Supplement

Creating game materials? Monsters, spells, classes, adventures? This is the place!
Post Reply
User avatar
chiisu81
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:05 pm

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:21 am

r4 with track changes enabled uploaded here.
Attachments
BF-Scouts-Supplement-r4.odt
(38.11 KiB) Downloaded 148 times
Seven
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:17 am

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:59 am

I think the hit bonus and increased rate of fire with the bow should be identified as a form of Weapon Specialization, to be used only if the GM allows that option.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Wed Jul 22, 2020 12:04 pm

Scouts always get that feature; specialization is part of a different supplement, and this is expressly not a case of weapon specialization. So no, it doesn't get changed here.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2727
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:32 pm

I think the bow specialization should be treated the same as with the new Rangers supplement...
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:36 pm

Okay, so now I'm playtesting this one in my online group and I'm not liking it.

Strength as a requisite doesn't make sense to me. I'm leaning toward minimum 9 Wis and Dex.

I don't like the "light weapons dual wielded" feature set. Scouts should be able to use all weapons, just as with the Thief, as far as I'm concerned, and I'd like to keep two weapon combat (my preferred wording over "dual wield") as a Combat Options feature. But it does seem they should get something nice to replace Backstab.

The bow bonus is okay, but I'm leaning toward +1 at lower levels, rising to +2 around 5th or 7th level maybe.

Hmm... how would a double damage feature for bow attacks against unsuspecting opponents be? Comparable to Sneak Attack/Backstab but with the bow.

Suggestions are invited. Now is the time.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
daryen
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:25 pm

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Wed Mar 24, 2021 1:40 pm

Just spitballing here, but ...

Should this be "demoted" to Showcase? I assume not, but have to ask.

I have to honestly say that I am not a big fan of the scout. It shares so much space with the Ranger that they trip over each other pretty badly. And since Ranger is the classic, it wins hands down. I think it should lose its wilderness focus (as that's the Ranger's thing) and double-down on the sneaky fighter thing. Make it an outright Fighter/Thief hybrid.

So, all of their abilities work anywhere and all references to wilderness specialization are removed.

I am also inclined to actually drop the bow bonuses (but not proficiency) and stick with dual-wielding. Though, if so, the dual-wielding rules need help. But, since they don't use shields, dual-wielding is quite useful. Plus, it helps move away from the Ranger overlap.

They also need access to medium (but not large) weapons. Armor restrictions are good, though.

I would also be highly inclined to use fighter experience and attack bonus (with thief saves). Give them more punch, but counter that benefit with the harder experience chart.

Anyway, that is all probably too many changes, but you asked for thoughts and those changes would make the class more interesting to me.
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2727
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pm

I think it should lose its wilderness focus (as that's the Ranger's thing) and double-down on the sneaky fighter thing. Make it an outright Fighter/Thief hybrid.
I disagree with this. Scouts should be to thieves what rangers are to fighters.

Scouts and Rangers are close by the ambient they work in.
Part of the troubles with this class is that it emulates a character from a specific book, and thus it does not tries to with with other classes.

Scouts can hide and move silently like Thieves and Rangers, but they also get a +2 surprise bonus, isn't this bonus to much?

I would try to veer it more towards the thieves and less towards the fighter.

The Thieving Skills should have their values reworked, some are the same as Thieves and Rangers
- Move Silently: Same as Thieves and Rangers.
- Hide: Same as Thieves and Rangers.
- Listen: Same as Thieves, should be higher, "scouting" relies a lot on the sense I believe.
- Tracking: Same as Ranger.
The Scout has 175 "skill points" vs the Thieves' 220pts.

Requirement: Dex 9. Wis 11 (like a Ranger) can be added, maybe another requirement to equal the Ranger, or increase the minimum Dex.

Weapon and Armor access: Same as thieves, if they focus on a weapon or combat style it should earn some benefits there unless the class concept calls for a reduction in weapon training.

Two Weapon Combat should remain as an optional rule, but the Scout could have some bonus here, like a reduced base penalty (like the Advanced Ranger) so even if TWC is allowed to other classes the Scout still will have a benefit.

Bow specialization should be removed (and let specialization only for Fighters and as options for sub-fighters) and replaced with a slower bonus (otherwise due to XP earned the Scout will be better at shooting bows).

Tracking: Should the Scout track? Maybe they are more on the side of espionage and infiltration...

The class needs something more than a couple of combat options and an increased HD to both compensate and differentiate from the Ranger and Thief class.

I would give it some Scouting Skills or Scouting Bonuses to:
-Finding Secret Doors.
-Avoiding Becoming Lost.
-Detect Poison? As in poisoned food/weapons due to their honed senses.
-Ability to move at higher speed than non-scouts on rough terrains.
-Ability to force march (some options):
-- At 75% extra speed
-- At more consecutive days without suffering damage.
-- Suffering only half damage (rounded down, minimum 0)
-- Can roll the saving throw more times after failed.
-- Saving throw bonus to avoid damage.
-Can do a Fighting Withdrawal at 75% movement, or moves as normal but canceling the +2 attack bonus on his opponent (Scouts are trained to enter a place, evaluate, and get out, fighting is a waste of time).
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:17 pm

Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmScouts should be to thieves what rangers are to fighters.
Dimirag, as is often the case you and I are on the same page. The ranger is often little more than the "fighter who can track" and I believe there's room for a "thief who can track" as well. A little overlap isn't a bad thing.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmPart of the troubles with this class is that it emulates a character from a specific book, and thus it does not tries to with with other classes.
I didn't know that. Can you tell me what book Jason was looking at?
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmScouts can hide and move silently like Thieves and Rangers, but they also get a +2 surprise bonus, isn't this bonus to much?
Maybe. The main issue is that it's explicit; while I'd give a surprise bonus to the Thief if one moved silently and/or hid in shadows, I don't have that as an explicit rule in the Core.

... but it's only +1. Normal characters achieve surprise on 1-2 on 1d6, while the Scout is listed as 1-3 on 1d6. Given the limitation that the Scout must be more or less alone to do this, I'm going to leave it in there.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmThe Thieving Skills should have their values reworked, some are the same as Thieves and Rangers
- Move Silently: Same as Thieves and Rangers.
- Hide: Same as Thieves and Rangers.
These seem reasonable to me.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pm- Listen: Same as Thieves, should be higher, "scouting" relies a lot on the sense I believe.
I disagree here. The Thief has just as strong a reason to be a good listener (not getting caught and possibly incarcerated or executed is a pretty strong reason).
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pm- Tracking: Same as Ranger.
Again, seems reasonable to me.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmThe Scout has 175 "skill points" vs the Thieves' 220pts.
True, mainly due to the more limited number of abilities.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmRequirement: Dex 9. Wis 11 (like a Ranger) can be added, maybe another requirement to equal the Ranger, or increase the minimum Dex.
Actually I'm planning to drop these to WIS 9, DEX 9. I really don't get the STR minimum.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmWeapon and Armor access: Same as thieves, if they focus on a weapon or combat style it should earn some benefits there unless the class concept calls for a reduction in weapon training.
I'm good with making them identical to thieves in this area.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmTwo Weapon Combat should remain as an optional rule, but the Scout could have some bonus here, like a reduced base penalty (like the Advanced Ranger) so even if TWC is allowed to other classes the Scout still will have a benefit.
I'm just not in favor of this. I really don't like it at all. I prefer to keep this kind of thing in Combat Options for balance reasons.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmBow specialization should be removed (and let specialization only for Fighters and as options for sub-fighters) and replaced with a slower bonus (otherwise due to XP earned the Scout will be better at shooting bows).
I don't like it as it is, it's true. I'm reworking it to grant benefits at various levels instead of getting the full hit up front.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmThe class needs something more than a couple of combat options and an increased HD to both compensate and differentiate from the Ranger and Thief class.
Um... why? The bigger hit die is significant enough IMO to account for the higher XP table. Changing out the percentile skills weakens them a bit compared to the thief, so yeah, compensation I suppose, especially with sneak attack/backstab removed. However, I'm hopeful my revised bow abilities will be adequate compensation for the latter.

At this point the class is a bit too strong to suit me, and also a bit too weirdly specific. I'm good with potentially nerfing it too much in R5 and then building it back up if needed.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pmI would give it some Scouting Skills or Scouting Bonuses to:
-Finding Secret Doors.
No, not messing with this ability.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pm-Avoiding Becoming Lost.
Interesting. How would that work?
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pm-Detect Poison? As in poisoned food/weapons due to their honed senses.
Not sure this fits the concept all that well.
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pm-Ability to move at higher speed than non-scouts on rough terrains.
-Ability to force march (some options):
-- At 75% extra speed
-- At more consecutive days without suffering damage.
-- Suffering only half damage (rounded down, minimum 0)
-- Can roll the saving throw more times after failed.
-- Saving throw bonus to avoid damage.
I like the premise (making them faster in the wilderness) but not the method. I'd prefer to give a flat bonus, probably 1/3 since the movement rates are laid out that way. In fact, I'm doing just that right now...
Dimirag wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pm-Can do a Fighting Withdrawal at 75% movement, or moves as normal but canceling the +2 attack bonus on his opponent (Scouts are trained to enter a place, evaluate, and get out, fighting is a waste of time).
Interesting, but I'm not doing this just yet.

I'm going to upload my provisional R5 here for you guys to review, but I'm going to hold off putting it on the Downloads page. Honestly, putting it there in the first place was probably a mistake, but rather than demote it I want to fix it.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:18 pm

Here's the provisional R5 I was talking about. Everyone please take a look and post comments here.
Attachments
BF-Scouts-Supplement-r5.pdf
(207.85 KiB) Downloaded 15 times
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2727
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:18 pm

Solomoriah wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:17 pm A little overlap isn't a bad thing.
I don't mind overlaps, but it looked that Rangers and Scouts had more in common than in differences.
I didn't know that. Can you tell me what book Jason was looking at?
Quote from Crazycrypt/Jason "My version was based off of the book series "The Ranger's Apprentice" by John Flanagan"
These seem reasonable to me.
I'm not saying they are unreasonable, but do to the similitude with the Rangers, maybe reworking the values may help to separate them further.
I disagree here. The Thief has just as strong a reason to be a good listener (not getting caught and possibly incarcerated or executed is a pretty strong reason).
I agree with you, but I thought Scouts could benefit from some improvement in some skills, and Listening felt like the core skill to improve.
Again, seems reasonable to me.
Again, just to make them different than Rangers in the same area.
True, mainly due to the more limited number of abilities.
Exactly, just pointing it out on the open as a way of final balancing.
I really don't get the STR minimum.
Me neither, fighting its not the class primarily function, I could see Constitution as a third requirement.
I don't like it as it is, it's true. I'm reworking it to grant benefits at various levels instead of getting the full hit up front.
I like your take, its more original than giving them a bonus with a slower level increment.
Um... why? The bigger hit die is significant enough IMO to account for the higher XP table. Changing out the percentile skills weakens them a bit compared to the thief, so yeah, compensation I suppose, especially with sneak attack/backstab removed. However, I'm hopeful my revised bow abilities will be adequate compensation for the latter.
The way the class was presented, seemed to me like it did not offered to much variation from a thief or a Ranger once the TWC and bow specialization where removed, specially with some skills having the same chances that those classes, and others being lower, a terrain specialized thief could have more chances on that terrain, but having much less on others.
Interesting. How would that work?
The GM must make a successful saving hrow for characters to not become lost in trackless places.
Maybe if the Scout is leading the party the roll is with a bonus, and if the Scout is alone the bonus may be higher.
Such bonus may be a flat one or a level based one.
I like the premise (making them faster in the wilderness) but not the method. I'd prefer to give a flat bonus, probably 1/3 since the movement rates are laid out that way. In fact, I'm doing just that right now...
I wasn't set on any specific method, hence the different approaches, a flat value is a good and easy option.

Reviewing Scouts R5: I like it...
Using backstab at a delayed but improved effect its a good call.
Canceling the distance penalty is a nice way of giving a conditional bonus.
I like the way you resolved the wilderness movement.
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests