PDA

View Full Version : Complete Scoundrel question



Malek
2007-01-21, 09:59 AM
Question to anyone who has Complete Scoundrel already - is Expanded Ki Pool feat multipickable?

tarbrush
2007-01-21, 10:19 AM
It doesn't mention anything, so no, sorry.

Shisumo
2007-01-21, 10:30 AM
The Enduring Ki feat adds one additional use to your pool as well (in addition to the benefits listed on the thumbnail description list) - it is also not avaiable for selection multiple times, however.

Malek
2007-01-21, 10:59 AM
Aaaaw, to bad. But still 4 more uses of Ki will come handy. I need to get Complete Scoundrel soon xP

Person_Man
2007-01-21, 01:42 PM
I have it. 90% of the book is garbage, in my opinion. It really doesn't help out Ninja very much. Sorry, but they still suck.

Everyman
2007-01-22, 01:07 AM
Likewise, I am soon to get it, as I have looked through the book and thought that it was about 90% awesome.

Take our opinions with a grain of salt. P_Man and I have different views on the book, that reflects our playing styles. I'd recommend taking a quick gander through the book and what it offers before committing, especially since the PrCs and items are very much skill trick and luck feat dependant (ergo, this book isn't a "splash" book).

Indon
2007-01-22, 10:32 AM
I've a friend with the book and while I haven't seen it yet, it seems promising for my rogue/ranger/scout multiclassed guy. Something about feats to give him stacking levels for class abilities, or somesuch.

Person_Man
2007-01-22, 11:43 AM
Likewise, I am soon to get it, as I have looked through the book and thought that it was about 90% awesome.

Take our opinions with a grain of salt. P_Man and I have different views on the book, that reflects our playing styles. I'd recommend taking a quick gander through the book and what it offers before committing, especially since the PrCs and items are very much skill trick and luck feat dependant (ergo, this book isn't a "splash" book).

That's a very reasonable statement. In my opinion, there is crunch and there is fluff. Unless there's a specific alignment restriction built into the crunch, you can roleplay anything you want, regardless of your class. So I'm bothered by game mechanics (feats, classes, spells, etc) that have decent fluff but poor crunch. And I respect mechanics that let you do something new, useful, or powerful in the game without going overboard and unbalancing other game mechanics.

For example, there's a prestige class in Comp Scoundrel called the Cloaked Dancer. It revolves around dancing (duh), and gives you a few interesting spell like abilities when you dance.

I think the class is garbage, because it doesn't add anything original or useful to the pre-existing game mechanics. If one of my players asked to play this, I would suggest that they just play a Beguiler or Bard or Shadowdancer with ranks in Perform (Dance), as any of those options would be superior to a Cloaked Dancer.

If they insisted, of course I would let them. But now I have a problem as a DM, because other players in my game are playing non-retarded class combinations. These other players may not even be particularly optimized - a Cleric, a Scout, a Wizard/Alienist a Hexblade/Blackguard, etc. But they're still basically strong at their niches. And now they have to babysit a Bard/Cloaked Dancer who isn't particularly good at any anything, and who dies a lot in combat. Then the player who roleplays the Cloaked Dancer starts to feel frustrated and "picked on." And it's hard for me as DM to create encounters and situations for them to shine in, because there's nothing in particular that they do that the other classes in the game can't also do, but better and faster.

I've seen this exact pattern replay itself at least once a year in the 16 odd years I've been gaming. Player has idea. Idea is poorly executed because of bad crunch. Player gets frustrated/angry/bored. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Having said that, I completely recognize Tarkahn's point of view. Some people love Comp Scoundrel because the like the idea of Skill Tricks or Ambush feats or certain Prestige classes or whatnot. I think the ideas are nifty, but mechanically its just a headache.

Ramza00
2007-01-22, 12:26 PM
I don't have the book yet, but to address Person_Man's comments about the cloak dancer. Could spelldancer from MoF be a better fit mechanically(Yes I know its an obscure book)

Also is the malconveter any good?

Raum
2007-01-22, 12:51 PM
I have to agree with Person Man regarding the Complete Scoundrel. The best thing in the book are the bardic feats, and those should probably just be class abilities rather than feats.

For the other content, well skill tricks bother me...why couldn't a character with sufficient ranks in the skill do the trick before CS came out? None of the PrCs struck me as all that great, half are built around using skill tricks anyway. They've added another type of feat in Luck Feats...and another mechanic to worry about. And of course there are new spells. As if we needed more.

Everyman
2007-01-22, 01:45 PM
That's a very reasonable statement.
...
Having said that, I completely recognize Tarkahn's point of view. Some people love Comp Scoundrel because the like the idea of Skill Tricks or Ambush feats or certain Prestige classes or whatnot. I think the ideas are nifty, but mechanically its just a headache.

Thank you.

By the way, it's refreshing to find someone who completely disagrees with me, but can still recognize that my views are no less valid. Likewise to you.:smallsmile:

On a related tangent, I believe I figured out why I like the book so much. First, I like any supplement that gives me more material to unleash mischief with. Second, I'm a mechanic junkie (hence ever present call in my sig). If you're like me, then the book works for you. If you'd rather streamline your D&D, it probably won't offer much.

Edit: Oh, and Raum? My guess is that you could do some of those tricks prior to Complete Scoundrel. However, others are rather unique or expand on the skills. I think they just wanted to compile a list of moves for more theatrical battles and encounters.

Golthur
2007-01-22, 01:51 PM
For the other content, well skill tricks bother me...why couldn't a character with sufficient ranks in the skill do the trick before CS came out?
This is the one that sticks in my craw, so to speak. The tricks I've seen (mind you, I don't have the book), I see no reason why someone who doesn't have the trick couldn't try to do it with an appropriately-DC'd skill check. I don't think they need to regulate every use of a skill with a trick - besides, I don't want to be in the position of saying to a character "no, you can't do that, you didn't buy the trick" just so as not to invalidate someone's purchasing of the trick.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 01:55 PM
I personally see this as the difference between Comp. Scoundrel and its predecessor Completes: The previous Completes were about kicking ass, taking names, and chewing gum (and they're out of gum), while the Complete Scoundrel is all about looking damn awesome. I mean, there's a Fonz skill trick in there, where it lets you smack a lock and try to open it. How is that not "looking awesome"? Mechanically, it's suboptimal (since you're spending 2 skill points to get it and taking a -10 on your roll to do it), but in this case, it's about style instead of about slaughtering everything.

Golthur
2007-01-22, 01:58 PM
The previous Completes were about kicking ass, taking names, and chewing gum (and they're out of gum)
OT, but damn I loved that movie.

Person_Man
2007-01-22, 01:59 PM
I don't have the book yet, but to address Person_Man's comments about the cloak dancer. Could spelldancer from MoF be a better fit mechanically(Yes I know its an obscure book)

Also is the malconveter any good?

I've never seen the Spelldancer from Magic of Faerun, so I can't comment on it.

The Malconvoker is an arcane summoning class, missing caster progression on the first level. (Which right off the bat makes it a weaker caster PrC). It basically extends the duration of your Summon Monster spells, and lets you Summon things without alignment restrictions. It also helps you out when you cast Planar Binding.

For the most part, I think its a waste. Most combat lasts under 10 rounds, so by the time you qualify for the prestige class, you don't have to worry about extending Summon durations. There's enough variety on the lists that you shouldn't care about alignment restrictions. Having an easier time with Planar Binding is helpful, but very situational. Most PC's won't even bother with the hassle.

Regular Druids are the gold standard for PC's who want hoards of minions, thanks to their spontanous summoning ability. I've also seen some strong undead summoning builds come out of Libris Mortis. And there's always the much beloved Nar Demonbinder (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030502a&page=2). Malconvoker might be useful for some obscure PrC combo I'm not aware of, but on balance I think its a poor prestige class, and a perfect example of why I don't like this book.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-22, 02:08 PM
Nitpick: Malconvoker can be taken by arcane or divine casters; the sample NPC with the class is a cleric. And for divine casters, what it does is get around the absolute alignment restriction that arcane casters don't have to put up with. As a divine caster, you cannot cast spells with an alignment descriptor opposed to your or your deity's alignment. Period. The class gets around that, much like the Grey Guard gets around certain aspects of the paladin's code.

And for the record, I think that both are terrible ideas. If you don't want to deal with the Code, don't play a paladin; a class designed to let the paladin torture people (and in fact specifically gives abilities to do exactly that) completely subverts the whole point of paladinhood in the first place. And if your deity is willing to make exceptions for people with the alignment casting restrictions, why not do it for everyone?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 02:12 PM
On the other hand, there's the villianous gold that is the Mountebank/Master of Masks. One enemy, endless villainy. Your PCs could think they're trying to find three, four, ten different bad guys, when it's really just one really organized one.

Person_Man
2007-01-22, 02:22 PM
On the other hand, there's the villianous gold that is the Mountebank/Master of Masks. One enemy, endless villainy. Your PCs could think they're trying to find three, four, ten different bad guys, when it's really just one really organized one.

Yeah, both Mountebank and Master of Masks are good ideas for BBEG.

Master of Masks might even be a good idea for a 1-2 level dip for a player, depending on the build.

But Mountebank would be a horrible idea for a player. A 10 level prestige class with no caster progression that let's you teleport a lot? Seriously? So you can what, get away from danger every round because you suck so much?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 02:33 PM
Yeah, both Mountebank and Master of Masks are good ideas for BBEG.

Master of Masks might even be a good idea for a 1-2 level dip for a player, depending on the build.

But Mountebank would be a horrible idea for a player. A 10 level prestige class with no caster progression that let's you teleport a lot? Seriously? So you can what, get away from danger every round because you suck so much?

Hey, Elocator did the same thing, just psionically and cooler, and it's not bad.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-22, 02:46 PM
Yeah, both Mountebank and Master of Masks are good ideas for BBEG.

Master of Masks might even be a good idea for a 1-2 level dip for a player, depending on the build.

But Mountebank would be a horrible idea for a player. A 10 level prestige class with no caster progression that let's you teleport a lot? Seriously? So you can what, get away from danger every round because you suck so much?
If you think of everything in terms of combat. Mountebank looks like it'd be superb for an intrigue-based game as opposed to a dungeon crawl. Sure he can't kill the crap out of everything in sight, but if the idea is to infiltrate the thieves' guild so you can locate their leaders for a strike as opposed to endlessly beating up street-level minions until you're assassinated for being too annoying, it'd be hard to do better. The ability to adopt and successfully maintain a disguise its it's own niche, and one that not every campaign will require. Obviously, yours does not. Several of mine do.

Ramza00
2007-01-22, 03:20 PM
I've never seen the Spelldancer from Magic of Faerun, so I can't comment on it.

Its a 5 level full arcane spellcaster class with the pre-reqs Combat Casting, Dodge, Mobility, Endurance. It gains evasion and some unique "dances" that confuse, sleep, and enthrall the people who view them.

The best ability you get is the 1st level ability, spelldance. It allows you to "dance" and add metamagic for free if you meet a certain perform dance check (which is super-easy to do unlike the incantatrix spellcraft dc). Problem is that you must dance for each level that you increase the spell you must spend a round dancing. Thus its useless for battle, but there are no problems if you want to use persistent spell (aka cheese). You can perform these dances safely a number of times based off your class level and con modifier. Afterwards you risk the chance of taking 2 con ability damage (aka something a wand of lesser restoration can fix).

Jothki
2007-01-22, 03:28 PM
I've never seen the Spelldancer from Magic of Faerun, so I can't comment on it.

The Malconvoker is an arcane summoning class, missing caster progression on the first level. (Which right off the bat makes it a weaker caster PrC). It basically extends the duration of your Summon Monster spells, and lets you Summon things without alignment restrictions. It also helps you out when you cast Planar Binding.

For the most part, I think its a waste. Most combat lasts under 10 rounds, so by the time you qualify for the prestige class, you don't have to worry about extending Summon durations. There's enough variety on the lists that you shouldn't care about alignment restrictions. Having an easier time with Planar Binding is helpful, but very situational. Most PC's won't even bother with the hassle.

Regular Druids are the gold standard for PC's who want hoards of minions, thanks to their spontanous summoning ability. I've also seen some strong undead summoning builds come out of Libris Mortis. And there's always the much beloved Nar Demonbinder (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030502a&page=2). Malconvoker might be useful for some obscure PrC combo I'm not aware of, but on balance I think its a poor prestige class, and a perfect example of why I don't like this book.

And thus we get back to the whole 'looking awesome' thing. It's hard to impress people when your minions keep popping out of existance.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-22, 03:31 PM
I'm actually finding the book to be highly useful for exactly what I wanted in the first place- more options for a rogue character. But then again, I play primarily gestalt games. For those that have the book, try reading the mechanics while considering a gestalt game. Suddenly the myriad options look highly amusing and viable.

Raum
2007-01-22, 03:53 PM
Edit: Oh, and Raum? My guess is that you could do some of those tricks prior to Complete Scoundrel. However, others are rather unique or expand on the skills. I think they just wanted to compile a list of moves for more theatrical battles and encounters.The problem I have with skill tricks in particular (and with 3.x in general) is simply that the rules are becoming too detailed. The corollary to a skill trick (or other game mechanic) allowing you to do something is that you can't do it without the trick.

The more detailed the mechanics get, the more the game is about building a character mechanically. Guess I just miss the DM calls and more cinematic play of earlier editions. Even when some of those DM calls were off the wall. :)

@ Golthur: I agree. You've concisely stated my biggest objection to skill tricks.


Complete Scoundrel is all about looking damn awesome. I mean, there's a Fonz skill trick in there, where it lets you smack a lock and try to open it. How is that not "looking awesome"? Mechanically, it's suboptimal (since you're spending 2 skill points to get it and taking a -10 on your roll to do it), but in this case, it's about style instead of about slaughtering everything.I think you're correct, that is what the rules are trying to accomplish. My beef is that we used to do that with role playing. Why do we need to replace the role playing with mechanics?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 04:04 PM
I think you're correct, that is what the rules are trying to accomplish. My beef is that we used to do that with role playing. Why do we need to replace the role playing with mechanics?

We don't. However, there are people who role-play better when given a set of mechanics to help define what they can and can't do. Skill tricks seem to be designed towards them.

Also, the book makes frequent suggestions as to how to run a game with the new information provided in CScn but without using skill tricks, even in cases where tricks are core to the prestige class involved.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-22, 04:24 PM
I dunno, I seem to recall a distinct lack of the ability to run up friggin' walls prior to skill tricks. :smalltongue: Not to mention bash locks open with a sword pommel.

Person_Man
2007-01-22, 04:53 PM
And thus we get back to the whole 'looking awesome' thing. It's hard to impress people when your minions keep popping out of existance.

Well yeah, but try going into town with a demon following you around and see what happens. Actually, I take that back, don't. I've already had to DM the PC group that wanted to conquer the planet, and it wasn't as fun as you think it would be ;-)

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 04:55 PM
I dunno, I seem to recall a distinct lack of the ability to run up friggin' walls prior to skill tricks. :smalltongue: Not to mention bash locks open with a sword pommel.

Entirely granted. Like I said, this book is about looking awesome, not being awesome.

Person_Man
2007-01-22, 05:12 PM
Entirely granted. Like I said, this book is about looking awesome, not being awesome.

Well yes, but I think the point of the anti-Scoundrel commenters is simple: Looking awesome and being awesome aren't be mutally exclusive. The book could have written some interesting fluff, compiled and simplified all of the Skill uses (new ones are printed in pretty much every book). Provided 10ish Skill Monkey Prestige classes that do somthing new and interesting, and some feats to buff the Rogue, Scout, Bard, and Ninja (especially the Ninja, who really needs it). But they didn't. They had a bunch of awesome ideas that were poorly executed.

Sigh. Hopefully Dungeonscape (and the new Journeyman class) won't have the same problems.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 05:21 PM
What makes me really sad is the poor Spellthief got even less love than the other classes you named. Two feats out of the whole flippin' book are Spellthief oriented. Two feats, one of which isn't usable if you're not using Psionics! Meanwhile, other classes get PrCs, feats, and other nifty schwag.

Ramza00
2007-01-22, 05:24 PM
Well one of those feats more or less got rid of the spellthief.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 05:26 PM
Well one of those feats more or less got rid of the spellthief.

I KNOW. Why do you think I'm upset? Spellthief 1/Rogue 19 is now better than Spellthief 20!

Everyman
2007-01-22, 06:30 PM
Poor Spelltheif. All it ever wanted was be the best at syphoning the arcane energies of its foes to its own accord, thereby negating and using arts that require years upon years of intense study with little effort. Now, will its dream ever come true?

Admittedly, I wish I saw more spellthief love myself. It seems WotC fears the spelltheif's potential...whatever that may be.

Ryuuk
2007-01-22, 06:47 PM
So there's a feat that lets Spellthief and Rouge levels stack? I saw the Master Spellthief feat (well, the excerpt), but nothing that would turn a rouge into a better spellthief.

Matthew
2007-01-22, 06:48 PM
Bah, I was gutted that the Spell Thief was such a stupid Base Class. I was totally expecting a Beguiler and was unpleasantly surprised by the Spell Thief.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 06:56 PM
Well, the Spellthief gets every-three SA progression instead of every-two and misses out on a lot of core rogue abilities. And as a roguelike, that's a downside. But now, taking a level of Spellthief and the Master Spellthief feat lets you steal spells as well as a Spellthief, as well as with better SA and rogue skills (and more skill points!).

Ramza00
2007-01-22, 07:11 PM
I KNOW. Why do you think I'm upset? Spellthief 1/Rogue 19 is now better than Spellthief 20!
It only stacks with arcane spellcaster levels. Is a rogue an arcane spellcaster?

So unless you are playing a gestalt game, you are going to need something different than rogue.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-22, 07:16 PM
I. Um. Wha...ZOMG I R PWNT. *hangs head in shame*

Person_Man
2007-01-22, 07:24 PM
It would be simple to make the Spell Thief a good base class.

Abolish the Archivist.

Give the Spell Thief Int based spontaneously cast spells at Bard caster progression from any list (Divine or Arcane, including the more powerful Paladin, Ranger, Blackguard, and Assassin lists). 4 Skill points per level from a good list that includes Use Magic Device, 2 good saves, d6 hit points, light armor, all simple weapons.

As a standard action, can attack any spellcaster to steal any un-cast spell or spells that the target has. If they hit, they deal normal damage and steal their Spell Thief level in spell slots from the target (Fort Save = 10 + 1/2 Spell Thief level + Spell Thief's Int bonus to negate), taking from the enemy’s top level spells first. The Spell Thief can retain these slots for up to ten minutes per Spell Thief level, and can use them to spontaneously cast any spell that they know.

If the Spell Thief level is less than the opponent’s top spell levels, the Spell Thief still only gains up to their class level in spell slots, but the opponent still loses their top level spell(s). (Example: A 10th level Spell Thief hits a 20th level Wizard. The Wizard fails his Fort save. The Spell Thief gains 10 spell slot which it can use to power any spells that they know, in any combination they want, as long as they use them within the next 100 minutes. The Wizard loses 2 ninth level spell that it has memorized.)

0th level spells are powered like 1st level spells. The Spell Thief may not retain more then three times their Spell Thief level in their stolen spell bank at any time. At higher levels, you can steal Spell-Like ability uses, and eventually negate Supernatural and Extraordinary abilities as well.

Congratulations, you're now a good base class. Plenty of toolbox usefulness regardless of who you fight. But tough to abuse, since you never get access to particularly high level spells.

TimeWizard
2007-01-22, 09:04 PM
haha Spellthief, oh my that's a good one. Seriously though, this class falls into wizards ever widening crack in the floor of classes that have great concepts and poor executions.

TheOOB
2007-01-22, 09:28 PM
If you think of everything in terms of combat.

Everything in the rules is in terms of combat. As far as game mechanics go the only thing thats really important is combat, and thus every PrC should be combat capable. Remember, roleplay is completely seperate from mechanics, taking a PrC with bad combat ability isn't good roleplay, it's purposefully making yourself weaker for not valid reason.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-22, 09:40 PM
That's not entirely true. If you have good enough social skills, you could become rich and powerful without ever touching a weapon or spellbook. What's more powerful then a high level wizard? The man that controls him.

Raum
2007-01-22, 09:46 PM
It's probably more correct to replace TheOOB's use of "combat" with "encounter" but I agree with what he's saying. Classes, PrC's, feats, etc should provide mechanics. I can provide my own flavor. In most cases I prefer to do so.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-22, 09:54 PM
Everything in the rules is in terms of combat. As far as game mechanics go the only thing thats really important is combat, and thus every PrC should be combat capable. Remember, roleplay is completely seperate from mechanics, taking a PrC with bad combat ability isn't good roleplay, it's purposefully making yourself weaker for not valid reason.
And if your objective is disguise and infiltration rather than laying waste, how is a class that gives you a mechanical means of much better disguising yourself and slipping into places where you're not supposed to be an inferior choice to something that lets you blow stuff up faster? Not every adventure consists of a straightforward "kill the monsters and take their stuff" scenario, and not all the ones that don't are pure roleplay.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-22, 10:01 PM
I actually found the trapmaker prestige class to be quite lovely. My only problem is that it ended too soon and didn't have enough awesome traps for higher levels of gameplay.

Just imagine defeating a dragon by spending a night while it's asleep decking it's entire lair with traps, then waiting for it to wake up and try to leave. Hahaha, best kill ever.

Simius
2007-01-23, 03:47 AM
I agree with many of the people here that a lot of the things from Complete Scoundrel make bad PC choices (mostly the PrC's and some of the spells).
From a DM's point of view, however, I think this book is awesome. It has a lot of stuff to make any encounter more memorable for the players. Besides that, balance isn't so much of a factor when used against players. If I want my players to fight a villain who has the underpowered Cloaked Dancer PrC, I can just give him some more levels or better gear.
I found this book to be great source of inspiration for interesting encounters.