Scouts Supplement

Creating game materials? Monsters, spells, classes, adventures? This is the place!
daryen
Posts: 523
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:25 pm

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by daryen »

Outta curiosity, was anything more done with Scouts? Or is the current version now considered the "current and accurate" version?

Just want to check before I update my Compendium.

Thanks!
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 3613
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by Dimirag »

The current version (r4) is far from "accurate", Solo presented a suggested r5 here
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/m.serena_dimirag/
daryen
Posts: 523
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:25 pm

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by daryen »

Sure, but until it makes it to the Downloads page, r5 isn't "official", which is what I am asking about.

So, what I am gathering is that r4 is still the official version, and r5 is still being worked with no time table or urgency. (Which is fine and not that big of a deal.) In that case, I need to just stick with r4 until a later release is made "official".
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by Solomoriah »

Eh. "Official" means basically nothing in the Old School. But the fact that people continue to give it some value is why I don't put certain things on the Downloads page, ever... you're actually making my argument for me.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 3613
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by Dimirag »

R4 is the actual but troublesome
R5 is the intended actualization but waiting some more reviews (Solo, considering some of the people giving their thoughts decided to move on on the sub-class I said replace r4 with r5, I think it will be some time until its reviewed again).
None are "oficial" (same with other materials), BFRPG does not have or divides into official and unofficial, just core rules and everything else is optional, regardless where it is stored...
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: 12451
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by Solomoriah »

Things on the Downloads page have a way of acquiring an "official" patina, I'm afraid, dimirag. This is why I'm so careful what I put there.

I'll take on revising the R5 myself soon, and get it uploaded. But I'm in the middle of a major work project which is making me even slower than usual.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
daryen
Posts: 523
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:25 pm

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by daryen »

To be clear, "official" doesn't mean you have to use it, or it has to be used in a certain way. What it means is that it is a common foundation so that everyone can speak in the same terms. So, for example, saying "I allow scouts, but with this house rule," we still need to know what "allow scouts" means.

And no hurry. It's just that discussion stopped with no real resolution, so I wanted to check on where things are.
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 3613
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by Dimirag »

Solomoriah wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 6:59 pm Things on the Downloads page have a way of acquiring an "official" patina, I'm afraid, dimirag. This is why I'm so careful what I put there.
I am aware of that and the work you go trying to avoid people putting some supplements above others and trying to erase the concept of "official material" from newcomers and people outside the forum.
daryen wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 8:28 pm To be clear, "official" doesn't mean you have to use it, or it has to be used in a certain way.
But for some people it seems to mean "better and above any other option" or "the only material Solo gave its thumbs ups"
daryen wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 8:28 pm What it means is that it is a common foundation so that everyone can speak in the same terms. So, for example, saying "I allow scouts, but with this house rule," we still need to know what "allow scouts" means.
You can use other terms just as "I allow Scouts from the Download page", or just point which Scout (if more than one are offered) which is better IMO than codifying classes by "official status".

Sometimes it feels like this
Agh, showcase.jpg
Agh, showcase.jpg (89.8 KiB) Viewed 3091 times
Things to consider from r5:
Solomoriah wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:39 am Seven, I'm liking your comments, especially this one:
Seven wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:24 amCould have some ability to spot outdoor traps, like pits and snares.
SPOTTING traps is different (better) than just detecting them on a search. But it shouldn't be too easy, and the mechanic has to be quick since the GM is expected to roll it (obviously).

Now to puzzle out how...
How about using the rules for traps from elves something like:
A Scout is so observant that one has a 1 on 1d6 chance to find a hidden trap in the outdoors with a cursory look.

Initial % chances: As they are now, a Thief is either equal or better at scouting, thieves do not receive a penalty to their skill when in the open.
A: Should the Scout have higher values when on the wilderness and suffer a penalty on other places (like a Ranger)
B: Should be assume that Thieves suffer a penalty when in the wilderness?
C: Should the Scout have much higher skills but usable only on the wilderness?
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
cbarchuk
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by cbarchuk »

I definitely don't like the idea of an optional class implying a core class should be penalized in someway. I think that can cause a lot of problems in my opinion. Whenever you start creating subclasses of subclasses the niche that class is trying to fill becomes more and more narrow.

The Complete Thief's Handbook from 2e is a good source to get inspiration from.
  • It lists the main skills of a Scout as Hiding, Move Silently, Hear Noise, and possibly Climbing.
  • When in the wilderness the Scout gains a +10% bonus to Hiding & Move Silently.
  • Scouts surprise opponents on a 3 in 6 chance while in the wilderness.
  • Due to their wilderness expertise they suffer a -5% penalty on all thief skills while in an urban area.
It then lists of course various background skills that would most likely compliment a Scout along with some racial bonuses. Very simple. I really like the whole Kits approach.

So take the Thief class and give it a few bonuses while in the wilderness and some penalties while in the city and...voila...you got yourself a Scout. Keep it simple.

Mechanical differences to the Thief are minor with the major changes coming from how you roleplay the character which in my view is how it should be.
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 3613
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Scouts Supplement

Post by Dimirag »

I agree that the Thief should not be penalized, but some people said the Thief should be better at the city (which means either a bonus or penalty), so I put the option to not leave out any opinion
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: Ahrefs [Bot] and 47 guests