making a scoundrel

[Doresain]

my friend has plans to run a scoundrel campaign (seeing as how our last one fell through)...in the beginning i was set on being a rogue, but after reading around on crystal keep, ive come to a crossroads...im stuck somewhere between a rogue, beguiler and a specialist wizard with variant rules (either enchantment or illusion)...now the question is, which would be the most fun for a game based around trickery and deception more so than head-on combat? im completely at a loss :smallconfused:

[Talic]

For me? Diviner. :smallwink:

[Dhavaer]

The spontaneity of a beguiler might be very valuable in a scoundrel campaign.

[Doresain]

For me? Diviner. :smallwink:

diviners arent really scoundrels IMO

im looking more so for flavor than anything

[Jannex]

If it were me, I'd go for either the Rogue or the Beguiler, simply because of the skill points and skill lists. When I think "scoundrel," I think clever, resourceful, lateral-thinking. Doing the most, with the least, and having half a dozen backup plans. What would your character do to solve X problem, if stripped naked in an Antimagic Field? Or with only his first-level mundane kit? Or with a few tools and miscellaneous items he happened to scrounge up? What could he do with just his baseline magic items--or someone else's? Options and versatility are key for scoundrels, and especially options that don't come with a limited number of uses-per-day. Spells are great resources to augment those options, of course, but are probably seldom his only line of defense.

The Beguiler has a pretty good spell list, and even better, casts from the whole list spontaneously. The Rogue relies more on his wits, his skills, and his reflexes. Those extra two skill points a level translate to two more maxed-out skills, remember.

Ultimately, in terms of flavor, it comes down to this: the Beguiler relies on his ability to impose his will on others, and the Rogue manages on sheer wits and balls. Both can be a lot of fun, especially in a game like you're describing.

The Wizard you mentioned could be interesting, and of course I know how powerful Wizard spells can be... but you only get so many of them a day, and he doesn't really have the skill list to back it up, and even if Int is his primary casting stat, it's still 2+Int/level.

[Townopolis]

A beguiler can turn to imposing his will on others, but any beguiler who relies on any one tool in his toolkit deserves to have his head on a pike.

The only real difference between beguilers and rogues is that one has spells and the other has more skills and sneak attack dice. If you want to make a street smart thief, a skilled assassin, a cunning thug, or a shady fence, go rogue. If you want to make a con-man, a Loki character, a secret agent, or a thieves' guild mage, go beguiler. Beguiler's tend to have a little more 'glamour' in their lives but, well, they can prestidigitate their clothes clean.

[Jannex]

A beguiler can turn to imposing his will on others, but any beguiler who relies on any one tool in his toolkit deserves to have his head on a pike.

Precisely. This is why I advocated the suggestion of the Beguiler, and did not advocate the Wizard. I was merely trying to illustrate the difference between Beguilers and Rogues, as they can share many similarities in tactics. (*makes Will save to avoid launching into rant about how the Wizard's overreliance on magic is an example of hubristic folly...*)

[greenknight]

Beguiler is probably your best choice. Or if you want something a bit different, you could try a Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric) of Boccob. That gives you lots of skill points, and the Trickery Domain (which gives you Bluff, Disguise and Hide as class skills). Then you could take Human Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm#humanParagon) (as a human) to add Move Silently as a class skill. If your DM allows it, you could also start as a kobold and use this Web Enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) to get the Trickery and Kobold Domains (Kobold gives you trapfinding, disable device and search as class skills).

If none of that appeals, you could always try Artificer (Eberron Campaign Setting). They get a reasonable number of skill points (with Int as their most important stat mechanically), some good skills (not hide, move silently, spot or listen unfortunately, so they aren't so good for actual stealth) and can find and disable traps as a Rogue (search is one of their class skills).

[OneWinged4ngel]

my friend has plans to run a scoundrel campaign (seeing as how our last one fell through)...in the beginning i was set on being a rogue, but after reading around on crystal keep, ive come to a crossroads...im stuck somewhere between a rogue, beguiler and a specialist wizard with variant rules (either enchantment or illusion)...now the question is, which would be the most fun for a game based around trickery and deception more so than head-on combat? im completely at a loss :smallconfused:

Heck, I like 'em all. Rogue, Beguiler, Wizard, Factotum, Unseen Seer, Cleric, Bard, Swordsage, Artificer, Lurk... all make fantastic scoundrels.

As for Beguiler and Specialist Wizard...

Unseen Seer / Arcane Trickster is pretty sweet, and you get the advantage of the full wizard spell list (minus one school... pick either Evocation, Enchantment, or Necromancy) as opposed to the Beguiler, and you get more of a focus in Divination, which is plenty useful to scoundrels. Beguilers pretty much stick to their enchantment and illusion, get some cool tricks, and pretty much the most skill points of anyone (Rogues don't prioritize Int first, after all), but be careful about running up against foes immune to mind-affecting effects.


im looking more so for flavor than anything

Classes don't have flavor. They are purely mechanical constructs. Your character has flavor. A diviner can be a scoundrel just as much as an Unseen Seer can (heck, Unseen Seers are divination specialists).


The spontaneity of a beguiler might be very valuable in a scoundrel campaign.

Wizards can cast spontaneously, and they can cast more types of spells spontaneously than a Beguiler can. A diviner, for example, can take the Spontaneous Divination feature from Complete Champion. Bam, casts divination spells spontaneously. Or you could take the Alacritous Cogitation feat (Complete Mage, I believe), and cast anything spontaneously. Or heck, even with a core wizard, you can effectively cast out-of-combat spells spontaneously with empty slots.

[Talic]

diviners arent really scoundrels IMO

im looking more so for flavor than anything

ANYTHING can be a scoundrel. Scoundrel isn't a ruleset or a set of abilities. It's a way of playing.

Imagine the gambling fiascos if someone found out that while it wasn't rigged beforehand, it WAS known.

And what's the perfect counter to lies? Someone who ferrets the truth out of thin air. It's a game of spy vs counterspy, with abilities well matched to counter the others.

Oh, and with that 1 barred school thing, there's nothing that says that diviners can't get a healthy number of enchantment, illusion, and transmutation spells that make scoundreling so much more fun. Heck, I've run diviners with greater spell focus in Conjuration before. Fun times, fun times.

[Emperor Demonking]

I agree with the other two posters above me.

Depending on what the others are playing an illusionist might be good fun, if you do you might want to commit a cardinal sin and get roge for move silently.

[brant167]

Well it would really depend on your character concept. A example would be if you want to go art thief, I would say, go wizard and fabricate replicas of priceless paintings and sell those paintings to warring countries.
:smalltongue:
A Beguiler would make a excellent con-artist of the type, with his natural "charms."
While a rogue would open up the door for you to be a assassin, james bond type, or even a Maguiver type.

[bugsysservant]

Go rogue or beguiler, while flavor is a versatile mindset that can be applied to any class, they lend themselves best to it by virtue of their skills. 'Course if Complete Scoundrel has taught us one thing, its that the best scoundrels are half orc pimps. :smallwink:

[goat]

Does a pimp-cane count as a club or a light mace?

[Egill]

I agree with the other posters, the fluff for classes in the PHB simply suggests some of the common themes, cliches or tropes related to that class. Any of the class mechanics could favor a scoundrel if they chose their abilities and usages wisely.

If you know that your campaign will involve a lot of intrigue, this would be a wonderful opportunity to play a diviner to the fullest. Not just "Oh, I specialized in divination because I only lose one spell school."

And if you are interested in mechanics, there are a lot of neat options for diviners. SRD: domain wizard: divination, options for divination spec. Complete Mage: Some neat feats for diviners. Complete Divine: Spontaneous Divination. Races of Stone: the dream dwarf race gains a +1 CL on divination spells when touching the earth, also some /day divinations granted by race.

If you normally play more traditional dungeon crawl, hack-em-slash-ems, this is a unique opportunity to try out a diviner to its full potential.

[Egill]

Does a pimp-cane count as a club or a light mace?

I would say club for a normal wooden cane. If it is steel-shod, then probably light mace. It should probably be steel-shod with either a dagger or short sword hidden inside.

[Egill]

New feat idea:

Pimp Limp:
Prerequisites: Weapon focus (dagger) or weapon focus (club, pimp cane)

As a result of a run-in with deadbeat clientèle or as a cultural affectation, you walk with an exaggerated, dramatic limp.

Special: Your movement speed is reduced. If you base speed was 30, it is reduced to 20. If you base speed was 20, it is reduced to 15. Your run speed is reduced to 2x your base speed. However, due to the dramatic and intimidating nature of your pimp limp, you gain a +2 to intimidate checks and a +2 to bluff checks. Furthermore, you gain a +2 bonus to feinting checks in combat when you use your pimp cane or dagger.

[SoD]

You clearly know about editing your posts, and double posts are, generally, frowned upon. Just a friendly word. And yes, I can see a diviner not being paticularly scoundrelly. Then again, they can be very scoundrelly if played right.

[BardicDuelist]

Factotum: Charlatian acting to be somthing that he is not (going Chameleon), and "Saint" like master of disguise.

Beguiler: Quick speaking conman who can back those cons up with magic.

Rogue: Master infiltrator who specializes in getting in and out of wherever he is, the world's best grease man. Excellent asassin, if you want to go that way.

Ninja: Assassin. That's about all you can do with the class features.

Bard: Could pull off either of the first two, and is a rockstar who everyone wants around (and will let into their castle to entertain for the night).

[Frosty]

Beguiler's tend to have a little more 'glamour' in their lives but, well, they can prestidigitate their clothes clean.

Actually, I do not beguilers have Prestidigitation on their spell list.

[Nermy]

For something really unique you could play a Paladin (of Freedom) of Olidammara (or equivelant campaign setting deity).

Nothing says scoundrel like the champion of the deity of rogues.

[OneWinged4ngel]

And if you are interested in mechanics, there are a lot of neat options for diviners. SRD: domain wizard: divination, options for divination spec. Complete Mage: Some neat feats for diviners. Complete Divine: Spontaneous Divination. Races of Stone: the dream dwarf race gains a +1 CL on divination spells when touching the earth, also some /day divinations granted by race. Don't forget the quintessential scoundrel diviner PrC, the Unseen Seer. And that'll get you +3 CL to divination spells, access to divination spells from ANY spell-list (I recommend Hunter's Eye from PHB II to enhance your sneak attack) among other cool divination-y things!


they lend themselves best to it by virtue of their skills.

Not really. Wizard (particularly with Unseen Seer and / or Arcane Trickster), Cleric, Factotum, Artificer, Lurk, Swordsage, Bard, and more can be just as skillful as a Rogue or Beguiler, if not moreso in some cases.

[OneWinged4ngel]

((Gorram Double Posts! Yaaargh!))

[Kioran]

Of course, if you want lots of worldly skill and have a good array (or one mainly consisting of 14s, with little strengths or weaknesses), go Ronk (Rogue+Monk with Ascetic Rogue).

With this, you can either a) Play a Monk that loses almost nothing but gains Sneak Attack (Rogue 1/Monk 19) and Trapfinding. Best combined with Able Learner for ready access to Rogue skills.
b) A Rogue with some very neat unarmed tricks and good defenses (I´d do Rogue 1/Monk 4/Rogue 15)

Both are quite easy builds with some moderate, nice power, but not over the top. I guess you could easily outperform them with the beguiler and such, but still, the amount of non-magical athletics and stunts you can pull-off is nice for such a simple build. Well, unless you like poring over your build and optimzing in your free time. Then nevermind, as you are liable to find a stringer combination.

[Jannex]

Not really. Wizard (particularly with Unseen Seer and / or Arcane Trickster), Cleric, Factotum, Artificer, Lurk, Swordsage, Bard, and more can be just as skillful as a Rogue or Beguiler, if not moreso in some cases.

For 6+Int classes like Bard, Swordsage, and Ranger, I'll certainly agree with that. But for Wizards, Clerics, and the like, it would have to be a very specific build, and without some serious sourcebook-fu would, I think, have a hard time keeping up with the 8- and 6+Int'ers in the skill department. At first level, a Wizard will manage 2+4(Int)+1 if human, or 2+5(Int) with a race with a +2 racial bonus to Intelligence, x4 for first level of course. A Rogue with halfway-decent rolls will be getting at least 10 or 11 (x4 for first level). That's three or four extra skills maxed out, and the Rogue has a much wider skill list and doesn't need to keep on top of things like Concentration or Spellcraft. In most cases the Cleric is going to have an even harder time than the Wizard, as (unless he has a rather unusual build) he doesn't prioritize Intelligence, and his skill list is similarly lacking--though admittedly, domains can help to mitigate the latter issue. PrCs that get a more generous number of skill points per level can help as well, though since the character has had to take a number of levels in a 2+Int class to qualify, he's still behind the curve in that regard. True, not all skills need to be maxed out to be effective, but there are plenty of skills for which there is no ceiling, and others that start out requiring high DCs, which get even higher as you try to do more difficult things (Open Lock, Disable Device, and UMD come to mind).

Of course, Wizards, Clerics, and their ilk have spells that render many skills entirely moot, but I see that as rather a separate topic, particularly since I envision the "scoundrel" archetype as being able to manage well in a disadvantaged situation with little in the way of resources (a la MacGyver).

You may, however, have some specific optimization routes in mind, and since I am not as familiar with some of the sourcebooks as you likely are, it's possible that I've underestimated the ability of Wizards and Clerics to be skillmonkeys.

[OneWinged4ngel]

For 6+Int classes like Bard, Swordsage, and Ranger, I'll certainly agree with that. But for Wizards, Clerics, and the like, it would have to be a very specific build No, it doesn't. Especially not for the Cleric. He can just decide one day that he prepares all the necessary spells which allow him to outperform the rogue at various skills.
and without some serious sourcebook-fu would, I think, have a hard time keeping up with the 8- and 6+Int'ers in the skill department. At first level, a Wizard will manage 2+4(Int)+1 if human, or 2+5(Int) with a race with a +2 racial bonus to Intelligence, x4 for first level of course. A Rogue with halfway-decent rolls will be getting at least 10 or 11 (x4 for first level). There is a common logical flaw in the thinking of many players. They think there's actually some meaningful difference based on segregation of mechanical categories. This is why, for example, some will tell you that a Kelvezu is the best option for a polymorphin' sneak attacker since it gets +8d6 sneak attack, although other options are often obviously going to get a higher total by virtue of gaining more attacks. It doesn't matter whether you're getting the +12 to skill points from ranks or an immediate action second level spell. It doesn't matter whether you're getting the ability to scale sheer walls from 20 ranks in Climb or just plain Spider Climb or an Up The Walls feat. What actually matters is that you're able to do it. Practical optimization measures capabilities, not numbers. There are other ways to fill the skillful role than a high number of skill points per level. In the end, it doesn't matter where an ability came from, it just matters that you can get the job done.


Of course, Wizards, Clerics, and their ilk have spells that render many skills entirely moot, but I see that as rather a separate topic, particularly since I envision the "scoundrel" archetype as being able to manage well in a disadvantaged situation with little in the way of resources [quote](a la MacGyver). You realize that the entire concept of wizards is a bad running MacGuyver gag, right? That's why you build an archaic TV by rigging up an archaic battery to a "specially treated" mirror, or blow talc all over the place to see invisibility, or throw a pie at someone for Hideous Laughter, and similar things. No one's more MacGuyver-y than a wizard in a game where the ridiculous material component rules are actually enforced. Try reading them and see how they're actually all lame jokes.

Anyways, the Rogue is using the same resources a Cleric is: those from his class features. So, you really have no point.


You may, however, have some specific optimization routes in mind, and since I am not as familiar with some of the sourcebooks as you likely are, it's possible that I've underestimated the ability of Wizards and Clerics to be skillmonkeys.

Well, there's the obvious route of spells which give you the capability of accomplishing the tasks that skill points do (or which even buff your skill modifiers directly), but there's also options like "Cloistered Cleric with the Kobold domain" for 6+int skill points and Trapfinding. Or "Wizard into Unseen Seer / Arcane Trickster" for varying amounts of skill points through the build (often around 4-6 + int).

Oh yeah, and don't forget (as this is very important for casters or manifesters of any stripe who have access to Obtain Familiar or Psicrystal Affinity who have any decent amount of skill points): Psicrystals and Familiars mimic your skill ranks. This means that you either get a +2 to all your skills from a free aid another, and/or you get two tries, and you get an extra scout, or you get a talking familiar to use diplomacy or UMD. Basically, two skill monkeys for the price of one. They also share your buffs, and can thus benefit from anything you do to enhance your own skillfulness.

[Jannex]

Ah. It seems we've experienced something of a miscommunication. I had thought that, when you used the word "skillful," you were talking about skills. Instead, it appears that you were referring to "spells that render skill points largely, if not entirely, moot," which, as I pointed out in my last post, I consider a separate topic. Ah well. Moving on.


No, it doesn't. Especially not for the Cleric. He can just decide one day that he prepares all the necessary spells which allow him to outperform the rogue at various skills. There is a common logical flaw in the thinking of many players. They think there's actually some meaningful difference based on segregation of mechanical categories. This is why, for example, some will tell you that a Kelvezu is the best option for a polymorphin' sneak attacker since it gets +8d6 sneak attack, although other options are often obviously going to get a higher total by virtue of gaining more attacks. It doesn't matter whether you're getting the +12 to skill points from ranks or an immediate action second level spell. It doesn't matter whether you're getting the ability to scale sheer walls from 20 ranks in Climb or just plain Spider Climb or an Up The Walls feat. What actually matters is that you're able to do it. Practical optimization measures capabilities, not numbers. There are other ways to fill the skillful role than a high number of skill points per level. In the end, it doesn't matter where an ability came from, it just matters that you can get the job done.

Sometimes it does matter, though. As I said in my first post on the thread, I see "scoundrels" as characters that can come up with workable plans in most, if not all, circumstances--including bound and naked in the middle of an Antimagic Field, if need be. You might argue that any decently-played Wizard will never find himself in such a situation, but I've been on the receiving end of DM Fiat enough times to know that any character's best-laid plans and precautions won't always prevent him from ending up in a compromising position. Besides which, the archetypal scoundrel is always getting himself into--and back out of--such situations. Consider James Bond, strapped to a table with a buzz-saw creeping ever closer to his groin. The image of MacGyver that I had been trying to evoke earlier (despite whatever amusing nods to him there may be in the Wizard spell list) is that of being stripped of all his equipment, and then putting together a trap using two paper clips and a piece of string.



Anyways, the Rogue is using the same resources a Cleric is: those from his class features.

I was using the word "resources" a bit more specifically here; the physical items available to him at any given moment. Tools, kits, spell component pouches, paper clips and bits of string. My point (which I really did have, I promise you) was that, when he finds himself in a disadvantaged situation, either because he's been kept on the run for two days straight with no sleep, or because he's been stripped of his gear, or gotten into whatever other sort of trouble that might interfere with his ability to prepare for trouble in advance, a scoundrel can improvise with whatever he happens to find in his environment and use his wits (and his Skills, which never run out or need to be recharged) to get himself out of trouble. Perhaps you have a different concept of what it means to be a scoundrel? We could be coming at this topic from completely different contexts.


So, you really have no point.

And here I'd been so careful to keep a polite tone. Was this statement really necessary? Was there really no other way of expressing your opinion that I was missing your intention? Had I offended you in some way?


Well, there's the obvious route of spells which give you the capability of accomplishing the tasks that skill points do (or which even buff your skill modifiers directly),

Yes, there is, though I had already addressed this and mentioned that I considered it a separate issue.


but there's also options like "Cloistered Cleric with the Kobold domain" for 6+int skill points and Trapfinding. Or "Wizard into Unseen Seer / Arcane Trickster" for varying amounts of skill points through the build (often around 4-6 + int).

That's reasonable. I would readily agree that a Cloistered Cleric, with 6+Int skill points, can do the skillmonkey thing fairly well, though again the skill list is a factor (and one that is mitigated through domains). And I agree that PrCs with higher skills/level can go a long way toward accomplishing the same thing, though as I said, making up for those first few levels before the PrC can be a bit rocky.


Oh yeah, and don't forget: PSICRYSTALS AND FAMILIARS MIMIC YOUR SKILL RANKS. This means that you either get a +2 to all your skills from a free aid another, and/or you get two tries, and you get an extra scout, or you get a talking familiar to use diplomacy or UMD...

That's a reasonable point as well, and at least helps Wizard-type characters that are trying to go the skillful route. I imagine that it can be a bit situational at times, but every +2 helps.

[Doresain]

the only problem i have with the diviner and flavor is that i noticed that it always leads down the road of optimization...i try to avoid such things like the plague...

id play an artificer if i wasnt so burned out on them...ive played an artificer the last 3 games ive been in...

and thanks to you, my fellow playgrounders, ive managed to narrow it down to either rogue or beguiler (though the paladin of freedom of olidammra would be interesting)

[ZekeArgo]

Honestly? I'd play a cleric with the trickery domain who just carries one holy symbol of every deity in the campaign setting. One day he's a devout worshiper of Kord, the next Wee Jas, six hours later hes preaching about the mysteries of Hextor... rinse and repeat ;)

[valadil]

Having DMed such a game, I'd say the most important thing you can do is make your character unique. The arcane trickster and hand xbow wielding ninja in my party were each unique. The other three all blended together as they used two weapon fighting to get lots and lots of sneak attack damage. You may even want to talk to the other players before committing to anything.

[Talic]

I was using the word "resources" a bit more specifically here; the physical items available to him at any given moment. Tools, kits, spell component pouches, paper clips and bits of string. My point (which I really did have, I promise you) was that, when he finds himself in a disadvantaged situation, either because he's been kept on the run for two days straight with no sleep, or because he's been stripped of his gear, or gotten into whatever other sort of trouble that might interfere with his ability to prepare for trouble in advance, a scoundrel can improvise with whatever he happens to find in his environment and use his wits (and his Skills, which never run out or need to be recharged) to get himself out of trouble. Perhaps you have a different concept of what it means to be a scoundrel? We could be coming at this topic from completely different contexts.

Yes, I personally am coming at it from the outlook as someone who is outside/above the law, getting by on his wits and abilities.

You're looking at it as someone who is outside/above the law, getting by on his wits and physical abilities.

If the DM wants to mess you up, he's going to. If he'd do that to a mage, there's nothing saying he can't incorporate some form of poison that lowers your effective stats to 1. I mean, if we're gonna nerf something, let's really throw the rogue in a room of undead.

It's one thing to be a scoundrel. It's another to be an extremely self sufficient scoundrel. Bear in mind that while the non-magical scoundrel has less reliance on areas which support magic (antimagic is pretty rare, in any case), his other abilities are less flexible and limited. A caster bypassing a jump check with levitation is a part of the class, yeah, but a very small part of the whole. There's still the diplomacy/bluff check (charm person), the Disable lock check (knock), the Disable trap check (Disintigrate), the Disguise check (alter self), the move silently check (sleep)... In fact, there's only a couple checks that are hard to duplicate...

Uh oh...
I think I just failed a spot check.

[OneWinged4ngel]

In fact, there's only a couple checks that are hard to duplicate...

Uh oh...
I think I just failed a spot check.

How is Spot hard to duplicate? Guys with magic have divination. They spot things no Rogue will NEVER spot.

[Talic]

How is Spot hard to duplicate? Guys with magic have divination. They spot things no Rogue will EVER spot.

They need to know what they're looking for usually. Most divinations won't find a rogue hiding with a Hide check of 32, unless they're specifically looking for a person, and usually a specific person.

If you made the diviner a Necropolitan, you could take the Sense Life feat, which would be kinda fun. Ah, Necropolitan... Three different flavors of zombie.

[OneWinged4ngel]

They need to know what they're looking for usually. Most divinations won't find a rogue hiding with a Hide check of 32, unless they're specifically looking for a person, and usually a specific person.

Uhm...What game are you playing? :smalleek: This simply isn't true.

Whether it's blindsight, true sight, tremorsense, the whole line of Detect Stuff spells, a hawk familiar (+18 spot is going to be the best in the party for a while. And by the time it's no longer good... you can make it significantly better), spot buffs, Spot as a class skill, summoned creatures with high spot or special detection abilities, going all out with bloody Foresight, or whatever else you feel like, there are many ways to win your spot check as a diviner, and more ways than some random guy with a high Spot is going to have at his fingertips. And if you somehow can't, you can always fireball the damn place and smoke the bastard out.

[Talic]

Uhm...What game are you playing? :smalleek: This simply isn't true.

Whether it's blindsight, true sight, tremorsense, the whole line of Detect Stuff spells, a hawk familiar (+18 spot is going to be the best in the party for a while. And by the time it's no longer good... you can make it significantly better), spot buffs, Spot as a class skill, summoned creatures with high spot or special detection abilities, going all out with bloody Foresight, or whatever else you feel like, there are many ways to win your spot check as a diviner, and more ways than some random guy with a high Spot is going to have at his fingertips. And if you somehow can't, you can always fireball the damn place and smoke the bastard out.

True sight lets you see all things as they really are. It penetrates any and every magical form of disguise. But it does nothing for mundane. A nonmagical disguise check will foil it, as will a hide check. The detect spells, again, you have to know what you're looking for, and you have to concentrate on it. Blindsight and tremorsense, if I recall, are only given in very very limited ranges via spell. Even Fireball, you don't have enough of to just throw down every hallway... I mean, heck, you're not a sorceror.

The hawk's a good one, though. But from level 10-16, the diviner is going to pull second seat to someone with really sharp eyes.

[OneWinged4ngel]

Even Fireball, you don't have enough of to just throw down every hallway... Try telling that to some players *mumble grumble.*


The hawk's a good one, though. But from level 10-16, the diviner is going to pull second seat to someone with really sharp eyes.

I still have no idea why you think that. There's no reason they can't have a fantastic spot skill to match any Rogue if you thought that spells wouldn't do it for ya. Honestly, I'd rather get a Raven and share my UMD and maxxed out Spot with, getting an extra caster to go along with my extra set of eyes with max ranks that gives me aid another bonuses. The hawk is only really good at low levels.

[Talic]

Try telling that to some players *mumble grumble.*



I still have no idea why you think that. There's no reason they can't have a fantastic spot skill to match any Rogue if you thought that spells wouldn't do it for ya.

I'm just used to seeing the Level 13 Ranger with a +27 spot. He gets to reactively spot pretty much for anything important. The mage, with spells, has to know to look for something.

And sadly, at the moment, I'm playing no game. I need a new one.

[OneWinged4ngel]

I'm just used to seeing the Level 13 Ranger with a +27 spot. He gets to reactively spot pretty much for anything important. The mage, with spells, has to know to look for something.

And sadly, at the moment, I'm playing no game. I need a new one.

Level 13, hmmm? Well, that gives you 16 from ranks, and unless you're spending feats or something, that's about it besides item bonuses and spell buffs. Why do you think a Diviner can't do this? Or exceed this?

Do you think you can't get Spot as a class skill? Because it's really easy, and even NORMAL for many scoundrel mage builds, such as Unseen Seer or Beguiler, to get it.

You also seem to think that Spot works over any distance, unlike spells. This isn't true. Spot takes penalties based on distance.

You also seem to have ignored some of the options I proposed...

[Talic]

Level 13, hmmm? Well, that gives you 16 from ranks, and unless you're spending feats or something, that's about it besides item bonuses and spell buffs. Why do you think a Diviner can't do this? Or exceed this?

Do you think you can't get Spot as a class skill? Because it's really easy to, and even NORMAL for most scoundrel mage builds, such as Unseen Seer or Beguiler.

You also seem to think that Spot works over any distance, unlike spells. This isn't true. Spot takes penalties based on distance.

You also seem to have ignored some of the options I proposed...

Wisdom modifier. Generally less of a dump stat for rangers and skill-monkey rogues. +4 base wisdom, +2 to spot from wisdom buff item (he wanted to focus on the magic aspect of ranger), Skill focus +3, Elf +2 Spot. Most int based casters aren't gonna put a whole lot of effort into wisdom. That one was going to take the feat to allow spot checks against AC to do touch attacks in place of melee attacks. He was a greatsword wielding ranger with armor spikes and TWF / Power attack build. It was unusual, but hey, very little snuck up on the group.

As for some of the other options..

Summoned creatures are too temporary for constant use, just as the fireball is, and are best saved for when you know something's there, wisdom isn't generally a strong stat for diviners, weakening the class skill option somewhat.

Foresight left out because I listed level 10-16. Foresight is attained at level 17.

[OneWinged4ngel]

Wisdom modifier. Generally less of a dump stat for rangers and skill-monkey rogues. +4 base wisdom, +2 to spot from wisdom buff item (he wanted to focus on the magic aspect of ranger), Skill focus +3, Elf +2 Spot. Most int based casters aren't gonna put a whole lot of effort into wisdom. That one was going to take the feat to allow spot checks against AC to do touch attacks in place of melee attacks. He was a greatsword wielding ranger with armor spikes and TWF / Power attack build. It was unusual, but hey, very little snuck up on the group.

Funny how you mentioned absolutely nothing that wasn't just as easily attainable by a Diviner. And rangers will rarely raise wisdom above 14, and rogues are often lower. So... yeah, that's not much of an argument at all.

Seriously, man. Skill Focus? Elf? +2 wisdom item? You think these are benefits of RANGERS and ROGUES?

Diviners actually have abilities from their CLASS FEATURES to enhance their spotting. Yeeeesh.

[Talic]

Funny how you mentioned absolutely nothing that wasn't just as easily attainable by a Diviner. And rangers will rarely raise wisdom above 14, and rogues are often lower. So... yeah, that's not much of an argument at all.

However, it'll detract from the diviner's other abilities. That high wisdom contributed directly to an ability that allowed him to hit dragons on AC 4-8. The goal was power attacking for max on AC 30 creatures and hitting twice, so it powered his character, and also boosted his survival/detection skills in the process. Not just attainable, but it actually makes a bit of sense.

Now, diviner wizard shooting for a 22 wisdom? Not as sensical.

[OneWinged4ngel]

However, it'll detract from the diviner's other abilities. That high wisdom contributed directly to an ability that allowed him to hit dragons on AC 4-8. The goal was power attacking for max on AC 30 creatures and hitting twice, so it powered his character, and also boosted his survival/detection skills in the process. Not just attainable, but it actually makes a bit of sense.

Now, diviner wizard shooting for a 22 wisdom? Not as sensical.

You think expecting a Ranger to have 22 wisdom, and claiming that, unlike a diviner, it doesn't detract from his abilities in any way, is "sensical?" (That's not a word, by the way. It's SENSIBLE)

And by the way, if all he invests in is this ability to use touch attacks and spot? He's a one trick pony, and since he's level 13, he's probably well-known that even if the dragon somehow was completely stupid for a dragon he may have heard of him, and more likely would know of him anyways... and of course would use Scintillating Scales, sprinkle a few spices, and promptly eat the "wise" ranger.

And, unless you're going with some absurd 60 point buy or "just got lucky rolls" (yeah, we believe you) then investing an 18 in Wisdom is going to mean he's losing out on his Constitution, Strength, and Dexterity. His investment in a wisdom item is money that didn't go elsewhere. His investment in Skill Focus is... well, it's ****in' skill focus. It sucks. His being an elf... means his Con is even worse for wear.

The reality is, absolutely everything you mentioned could be attained just as easily by a Wizard, with the possible exception that a Wizard would probably be smart enough not to spend all his attribute points on Wisdom. And that's only a measly +6 (when you spent a bunch of gold on it and invested a big danged 18 in it at the expense of other traits in a class that is actually more MAD than the wizard!)

Yeah, real "sensical."

[Frosty]

I tend to agree that a 22 Wis Ranger with skill Focus in Spot is pretty suboptimal.

[goat]

A 22 wis archery ranger with zen archery would work. Second dexterity for defence, don't bother with strength, con int or charisma as long as they're above 10. Maybe bump strength a bit for a composite bow.

Focus on being a stealthy, ranged character, spot and shoot them before they even know you're there.

You won't be all powerful, but you won't be entirely useless either. Fits the archetype pretty well too.

[Person_Man]

If I want to play someone manipulative, I like to have telepathy. Makes social encounters much more fun, and you can often use it as blindsense as well. 1 level of Mindbender or Demonbinder (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070430a&page=3) will give it to you, as will various spells and psionic powers.

You can use Alter Self and/or Polymorph (via Wizard, Hexblade, etc) or Metamorphosis to pull of any disguise you want.

You can get Hide in Plain Site via Warlock (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57352), Assassin, Psychic Assassin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723d), or a variety of other means.

Can you be more specific about what you're looking for?

[Frosty]

A 22 wis archery ranger with zen archery would work. Second dexterity for defence, don't bother with strength, con int or charisma as long as they're above 10. Maybe bump strength a bit for a composite bow.

Focus on being a stealthy, ranged character, spot and shoot them before they even know you're there.

You won't be all powerful, but you won't be entirely useless either. Fits the archetype pretty well too.

so now you're in light armor and you have only mediocre dex? Eh...

[Nermy]

so now you're in light armor and you have only mediocre dex? Eh...

A Monk's Belt solves that problem.

[OneWinged4ngel]

A 22 wis archery ranger with zen archery would work. Second dexterity for defence, don't bother with strength, con int or charisma as long as they're above 10. Maybe bump strength a bit for a composite bow.

Focus on being a stealthy, ranged character, spot and shoot them before they even know you're there.

You won't be all powerful, but you won't be entirely useless either. Fits the archetype pretty well too.

The guy's build was for Spot-based power attacks, not archery. He further was suggesting that Rogues, too, would be building up their wisdom far more than diviners of any stripe.

[Frosty]

There are some pretty cheap items that can boost Spot. People really should invest in those.

[OneWinged4ngel]

There are some pretty cheap items that can boost Spot. People really should invest in those.

Far, far cheaper than investing in a +4 Wis item, as Talic suggested.

[Frosty]

a +5 spot item is only 2500 gold. Much cheaper than a +4 wis item.

[OneWinged4ngel]

a +5 spot item is only 2500 gold. Much cheaper than a +4 wis item.

In fact, spending the same amount of gold on a +spot item as a +4 wis item would provide more of a benefit than 22 Wisdom. Making the Ranger lose to the diviner for the diviner giving LESS investment.

[Talic]

You think expecting a Ranger to have 22 wisdom, and claiming that, unlike a diviner, it doesn't detract from his abilities in any way, is "sensical?" (That's not a word, by the way. It's SENSIBLE)

And by the way, if all he invests in is this ability to use touch attacks and spot? He's a one trick pony, and since he's level 13, he's probably well-known that even if the dragon somehow was completely stupid for a dragon he may have heard of him, and more likely would know of him anyways... and of course would use Scintillating Scales, sprinkle a few spices, and promptly eat the "wise" ranger.

And, unless you're going with some absurd 60 point buy or "just got lucky rolls" (yeah, we believe you) then investing an 18 in Wisdom is going to mean he's losing out on his Constitution, Strength, and Dexterity. His investment in a wisdom item is money that didn't go elsewhere. His investment in Skill Focus is... well, it's ****in' skill focus. It sucks. His being an elf... means his Con is even worse for wear.

The reality is, absolutely everything you mentioned could be attained just as easily by a Wizard, with the possible exception that a Wizard would probably be smart enough not to spend all his attribute points on Wisdom. And that's only a measly +6 (when you spent a bunch of gold on it and invested a big danged 18 in it at the expense of other traits in a class that is actually more MAD than the wizard!)

Yeah, real "sensical."

First, can the attitude. I'm quite familiar with my word terminology, and it was used in an attempt to be a bit light. Even so, the word was derived from "nonsensical", which IS a word. Now that grammar lesson's over, can we check the internet ridicule at the door? It really just makes everyone look like a petty idiot, and I'm not in the mood to look like a petty idiot today.

While yes, it's POSSIBLE to put a high wisdom for an arcane caster, it fuels no class abilities, and no worthwhile feats, so, pretty much, makes little to no sense.

However, if you've got a decently high stat anyway, I can fully see the high spot build, when coupled with a feat, that allowed for hitting high AC creatures (note: Dragon was an EXAMPLE, not the be all, end all only possible option... Try cracking open Core rulebook 3 and telling me how many things in it have an AC of 25 or higher, primarily from natural armor and armor bonuses... I hear it's more than a couple.) with high power hits.

While it may not be fully optimized for a little timmy power build, it IS an interesting character concept, and oddly enough, it actually works for a lot of creatures in the CR 10-15 range, and doesn't really detract from the class abilities. Much like many builds, it relies on power attack for the bulk of its damage, rather than high strength, which seemed to work ok against most of the run of the mill high AC beasties.

As for the investment of the 18, his str was a 14, which, the 4 point overall drop meant a loss of +2 to hit, and +3 to damage on the build. This was traded for an ability that'll, against most hard to hit creatures, mean effectively a +15-20 to hit. With a 13 point power attack, that equates to a +2-7 to hit, minimum, with a +26 to damage, for a net overall change of +0-5, and +24 to damage. Not bad if your campaign focuses on things that have a relatively low touch AC.

But yeah, there's only one way to design a character, I guess, right?

Though the Spot bonus item is certainly a better investment for the check, if all you're looking for is spot, and have no interest in survival, listen, or will saves. I'll certainly pass that on to the player.

While I did say it's more feasible for a skill rogue to invest in wisdom for the several wisdom based skills on the list, I did by no means say that's a universal thing. It's a case by case. However, I can't think of a single decent reason to put a high stat into wisdom for an arcane diviner. Not one. I don't see any decent class skills, or any alternate uses for any skills they could attain that would be in any way remotely helpful. If you'd care to enlighten me as to any real reason to invest that much in spot, any great uses that the ranger, rogue, barbarian, or what have you can't fulfill just as easily while synergizing with other abilities that they can actually use?

[Frosty]

As a side discussion, how useful is spot really for non-ranged characters? Rogues need Search to find traps, not Spot. I guess Encounter Distance uses spot, but I haven't seen it used at all but that could just be my DM because he doesn't do random encounters.

[Doresain]

spot is useful against all those critters that like to sneak up on you...a lesson i learned from playing one of the most terrible arena matches on NWN

[Frosty]

Isn't Move Silently opposed by Listen and not Spot?

[Doresain]

well in NWN, you make both your listen and spot check simultaneously against their move silently and hide...all i know is that it was good to have a non-magical ability that allowed you to catch stealthy opponents