Talk:Spyglass Scout (3.5e Class)
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Ratings[edit]
|
Somehownotsingle likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| This class nicely fills a niche, and it has some cool abilities. |
Balance Point
This class needs one, an I'm tentatively suggesting Moderate, although Low could also be possible. Sneak Attack plus no other sources of combat damage and not a huge amount of utility and no UMD isn't exactly keeping all the greatest virtues of the rogue chassis. - TG Cid (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- -Ah, I wasn't finished, yet! Look again. I've added many abilities. Does this offset the problems you mentioned? Or does it still seem too weak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Arcanist (talk • contribs) at
- I wouldn't say it's a question of too weak or too strong; it's all relative based on the balance range you are trying to achieve. So is it Very High, even with the addition of Hide Party and the like? Probably not, especially given the number of divinations and such that can simply reveal you without effort in a Very High game with casters everywhere. But is it bad to be a Moderate level class? No, not really. If it is to get there, though, it may need a little bit of a boost. I think the meat of this class could be crunched into ten or so levels that look like so:
- Spyglass, Sneak Attack +1d6, Track, Trapfinding
- Woodland Stride, Trap Sense (scaling to equal one half of class level)
- Sneak Attack +2d6, Unentangle
- Evasion, Camouflage
- Sneak Attack +3d6, Leave No Trace
- Hide in Plain Sight
- Sneak Attack +4d6, Improved Evasion
- Calm Animals
- Sneak Attack +5d6, Swift Unentangle
- Hide Party
- I may have left some things out, but that seems like the crux of it. My primary concern is that some of the things I omitted (the +2 bonuses to skills, for example) are just weak to the point of me not even factoring them into a crunch. I would like to see more of a scouting theme in here; the spyglass is given at first level but no other part of the class really keys off it. Instead it becomes a cross between a ranger and a rogue while not really measuring up to either (which is saying something given the ranger's relative weakness when compared to casters and such.
- Eh, give them a ring of blink and they can do as well as a rogue apparently can. --Ghostwheel (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, I added UMD. Why not. I'm not clear on who qualifies for that one, but this class isn't exactly a powerhouse, so I don't see a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Arcanist (talk • contribs) at
- Then you should definitely make it High-level, and even consider VH if you give it UMD. Since the Hulking Hurler is legal on this site, anything that has full SA is at least H-level. UMD just bumps it up further by giving it access to VH-level abilities. Also, the combination of HiPS and Camouflage are VERY strong together. --Ghostwheel (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll compress this into fewer levels and we'll see how powerful it looks, then. I don't think it needs UMD, but I don't want to hinder it.
- UMD would make it solidly H, as it is basically a Rogue/Ranger cross. Pulling that makes it a harder call, but unless you have a final balance goal in mind it's probably better to create first and place it in a category later. It can always be massaged a bit anyway. It would be nice to see more spyglass related abilities though. - Tarkisflux Talk 17:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, it can use the blink trick with a ring same as the halfling hurler, which is H without using UMD at all; doesn't that make it H even without UMD? --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so. That's a pretty basic rogue build and the rogue is not considered a VH class in general (whether that particular build stretches up into high H or low VH depends on where you draw the line I guess). This isn't the place for a prolonged discussion on that though. - Tarkisflux Talk 18:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- At any rate, can we at least agree that full SA progression merits H-level? --Ghostwheel (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- On it's own? I'm not sure actually. But I'm pretty happy calling this class H.
- @The Arcanist - I like the new abilities, and the compression seems pretty solid. Cammo and HiPS are kind of close together though; a couple more levels between them wouldn't hurt. Reconnoiter could come down in level a bit maybe. And Eagle Eye is a bit weird. It references backstabs, and those aren't a term in the game anymore. I think you mean Sneak Attack. The wording could also be a bit better, since it seems to be just making people immune to sneak attacks that they're not aware of (and are denied their Dex against) if the scout is aware of the attacker. Eagle Eye should probably not affect helpless targets though, because it's weird for attacks against them to fail just because the attacker is being watched. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ha! I've been calling it "backstab" for so long that I didn't even notice what I had done!
You're right. That section does need to make more sense. I'm glad you pointed that out. I got distracted from it after I typed it up and didn't spend enough time re-reading it. I'll work on some of this.
I agree.[edit]
Good points. I do think that it might be something I could compress into fewer levels. It helps to know I'm not the only person who thinks so.
I like the +2 enhancements as little extras, just to make the class more attractive than, say, a rogue taking the track feat. But those bonuses aren't meant to be impressive, just extra.
I'll make some changes after more comments come my way. Thanks for the input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Arcanist (talk • contribs) at
Big Changes Made[edit]
OK, I like what you guys were saying, and came up with something I like better. (I ended up not keeping UMD. I'm on the fence, there.)
Let me know. Thanks for your advice.
