[3.5] Silent Hunter? (ranger/rogue build)

[Dusk Eclipse]

Would a feat similar to swift hunter (CSco), that instead of stacking scout and ranger levels for the purpose of skiricmish and FE, stacks rogue and ranger levels frot he purpose of SA and FE be too powerful?

I am asking cause I want to ask my DM if he would allow it, and I like to have some kind of aeguments for my case.

Also, assuming it is allowed, how does this build looks like
ECL 6
Human
Ranger 1 FE (Arcanists)Track, Exotic weapon Proficiency (Switchblades*) Weapon Finesse
Rogue 1
Rogue 2 Craven
Rogue3 ACF Penetrating Strike
Ranger2 TWF
ranger 3 Silent Hunter
Animal Companion:No idea.... getting a fleshraker next level though

Relevant Houseruls: Rangers get Animal companion at level 1 and have druids progression.
Once a class skill, always a class skill for either cost or max ranks cap

So what do you think about the feat and/or the build?

Edit:
*Switchblade
The Switchblade by arguskos

Spoiler

Show

Not a traditional version of the weapon, the switchblade is in actuality a well balanced dagger with a finger loop at the guard between the hilt and blade. This loop permits the wielder to perform a spinning action with the weapon, granting the free use of the Quick Draw feat, for the switchblade only. The switchblade is a light exotic weapon, dealing 1d6 slashing or piercing damage, with a critical range of 19-20/x2.
Price: 20 gp

[PId6]

Switchblade isn't really worth the feat, but you can use it if it fits your character concept.

The proposed feat would be pretty powerful, better than Swift Hunter and Daring Outlaw since Sneak Attack is more powerful than Skirmish and Ranger is much better than Swashbuckler. Still, I wouldn't call it overpowered; it's just really good.

A way to balance it in line with the other two feats may be some combination of another feat tax, using partial ranger level to determine SA (3/4 ranger level or ranger level - 4 or something), not allowing FE to ignore SA immunity (like it does with Skirmish), or something along those lines.

It's not strictly necessary to nerf it, since non-casters need nice things and the combination still probably falls within T3, but it would be a lot better than both of the previous feats, and would be pretty much an auto-select for most rogues.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Hmmm so if I just let the stacking aspect of the feats, and forget about bypasing immunities (I've got penetraing strike for that in either case). Would that be more balanced?

And while not indispensable for the concept, switchblades just make for a great image, at least in my mind.

What could be a good animal companion till I get my fleshraker? I was thinking on a hawk just to have a scout/ flying companion since the game will be airship heavy from what the DM has told me so far

[PId6]

Hmmm so if I just let the stacking aspect of the feats, and forget about bypasing immunities (I've got penetraing strike for that in either case). Would that be more balanced?

Depends on what you're balancing against. If you want to balance it against Swift Hunter/Daring Outlaw, let's compare:

Swift Hunter: Scout 4/Ranger 16 with Improved Skirmish. You get 16 levels of ranger spellcasting and animal companion, 7d6/+7 Skirmish (a bit harder to use well than Sneak Attack), a total of 2 bonus feats (3 combat style, 1 scout, -2 Swift Hunter + Improved Skirmish), favored enemy to ignore immunities, mostly 6+Int skill points, and nearly full BAB.

Daring Outlaw: Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16 with Craven. You get 10d6+20 Sneak Attack, Penetrating Strike, Insightful Strike, some minor class features and bonuses from Swashbuckler, a net of -1 feats (+Weapon Finesse, -Daring Outlaw and Craven), mostly 4+Int skill points and nearly full BAB. Overall worse than Swift Hunter, but a bit stronger in combat.

Silent Hunter: Rogue 4/Ranger 16 with Craven. You get 10d6+20 Sneak Attack, Penetrating Strike, 16 levels of ranger spellcasting and animal companion, a total of 1 bonus feat (3 combat style, -Silent Hunter and Craven), mostly 6+Int skill points, and nearly full BAB.

You're getting the best parts of both Swift Hunter and Daring Outlaw, namely Sneak Attack + ranger stuff (animal companion, skill points, spellcasting). It's balanced enough that I'd allow it, but it is more powerful than the other two feats. If your group is full of high T3s and T2s, this should fit right in. If it has a bunch of T4s or lower, this might be a bit overpowering. Overall, I'd say it's alright to allow.

For animal companion, a Riding Dog isn't bad for a flanking buddy, but it's going to be pretty vulnerable until you get more ranger levels in. If you've other melees in the party to help with flanking, then just get the hawk for survivability and scouting.

[Thespianus]

It would be a very strong feat, indeed.

Remember that the Ranger/Rogue doesn't get "10D6+20" in sneak attack-damage, he gets something like 16D6+20 from Hunter's Eye and "free" TWF-chain. It makes for a lot of extra damage out of the box, compared to the Daring Outlaw-version.

I'm no good with Swift Hunters, so maybe this feat is closer to the advantages of the Swift Hunter...

Then again, it's still probably T3, even with a Mystic Ranger, so no biggie. It will make the Fighter cry, though. ;)

[PId6]

Remember that the Ranger/Rogue doesn't get "10D6+20" in sneak attack-damage, he gets something like 16D6+20 from Hunter's Eye and "free" TWF-chain. It makes for a lot of extra damage out of the box, compared to the Daring Outlaw-version.

Hunter's Eye isn't nearly as good for rangers as it is for Unseen Seers. He has few slots, can't Persist it, and his low CL means that it'll add 3d6 or 4d6 at best, and only for 1 round. Mystic Ranger does it a bit better, but still can't Persist it which is where the real power lies.

[Thespianus]

Hunter's Eye isn't nearly as good for rangers as it is for Unseen Seers. He has few slots, can't Persist it, and his low CL means that it'll add 3d6 or 4d6 at best, and only for 1 round. Mystic Ranger does it a bit better, but still can't Persist it which is where the real power lies.

I forgot about the low caster levels of (normal) Rangers. My bad.

Persist is ofcourse the ultimate way to use Hunter's Eye, but even with Extend Spell, a Mystic Ranger gets some good mileage out of .... Wait?! Does the Mystic Ranger also suffer from the CasterLevel = 1/2 Ranger Levels? That's really no fun, in that case. :(

[nedz]

Persist is ofcourse the ultimate way to use Hunter's Eye, but even with Extend Spell, a Mystic Ranger gets some good mileage out of .... Wait?! Does the Mystic Ranger also suffer from the CasterLevel = 1/2 Ranger Levels? That's really no fun, in that case. :(

I believe so, but this is why Rangers take Practiced Spellcaster

[Thespianus]

I believe so, but this is why Rangers take Practiced Spellcaster

Yeah, but still. With 4 levels of Rogue, you end up with a caster level of 12 even with Practiced Spellcaster at level 20. Not very impressive, even if it nets you 4D6 extra sneak attack damage from Hunter's Eye.

I ask everyone to ignore everything I've said in this thread.

[Dusk Eclipse]

hmmm well, I think I'll have to tone it down... I am the only optimizer on my group (and a pretty bad one even on my best days).... well, depending on the other player's build... I might have to tone it down.

[PId6]

hmmm well, I think I'll have to tone it down... I am the only optimizer on my group (and a pretty bad one even on my best days).... well, depending on the other player's build... I might have to tone it down.

If you want to tone it down, just use half ranger level to determine Sneak Attack damage. You'll deal less damage, but you'll have the same versatility and options as before (animal companion, skills, spells). Damage is what low-op groups notice most anyhow, so just going light on that might work. Depending on the situation, you can also choose not to take Craven instead. That'll reduce your damage even more.

[Math_Mage]

hmmm well, I think I'll have to tone it down... I am the only optimizer on my group (and a pretty bad one even on my best days).... well, depending on the other player's build... I might have to tone it down.

If you're the only optimizer in your group, I don't see why you feel the need to play ranger-rogue with a homebrew feat instead of ranger-scout with Swift Hunter. I can't imagine the concept suffering much.

[lsfreak]

Erm... are people forgetting about Swift Ambusher? Scout and rogue stacking. Scout3/rouge17 nets you +9d6sneak, +5d6/+5 skirmish, and unlike the others, nets you 3 of the rogue's special abilities + Savvy Rogue to support it.

[Math_Mage]

Erm... are people forgetting about Swift Ambusher? Scout and rogue stacking. Scout3/rouge17 nets you +9d6sneak, +5d6/+5 skirmish, and unlike the others, nets you 3 of the rogue's special abilities + Savvy Rogue to support it.

All of this <<< Ranger's animal companion with houseruled Druid progression. Can't drop Ranger. Plus, it's a significant build shift that may induce a significant shift in character concept.

[lsfreak]

All of this <<< Ranger's animal companion with houseruled Druid progression. Can't drop Ranger. Plus, it's a significant build shift that may induce a significant shift in character concept.

Ah, I missed that. In that case, rogue/ranger is far better than rogue/scout for comparison. But it's not *that* far off of swift hunter. Perhaps switch it to rogue levels count as ranger for animal progression and FA, with needing ranger3 or 4 to enter - that'll drop down to a d6 hit dice, lose spells, a dice or two of SA, and ranger's (albeit limited) HipS in favor of better skills and a rogue's special abilities.

[Coidzor]

If you're the only optimizer in your group, I don't see why you feel the need to play ranger-rogue with a homebrew feat instead of ranger-scout with Swift Hunter. I can't imagine the concept suffering much.

Well, skirmish and scout don't really have as much dirty deeds feel to 'em. That's about the main thing I can think of offhand. The other is the whole having to move around like a jittery churchmouse.