I'm not familiar with the 'scout' color. Is that kind of a mottled green?
Perhaps he's talking about make-up? Scout might be that dull black stuff that commandos and scouts use on their faces as opposed to the stuff that women (and actors) use.
*shrug*
;)
|
Hey, Fakey, I think somebody is trying to tease you !!
Personnaly, I do prefer Baden Powell to Staline...
Your true question is a tricky question : I don't think they have exactly the same role (aside from finding / disabling traps).
The scout may be sneaky, indeed, but in a fight, he is better (with bow or melee), with more HP, a few bonus feats...
I tell you, a ranger (bow type) / scout totally rocks : I am playing one in SCAP (scout 6 / ranger 3), and I am going to take a few levels in Order of the bow initiate PrC...
But the rogue is not for a fair fight : once he has sneaked his way behind, his sneak damage maybe be very valuable (except vs undeads / constructs / ooze).
It also depends on the role you assign...
I guess a "diplomatic" rogue will be great (bluff / intimidate / gather info / sense motive...), while a "diplomatic" scout is not that good !!
my 2 coppers !
|
Heathy is a git. I think Beguiler is a neater choice than either of the others. Heathy shall be fonged until rouge colored paste seeps from his shattered frame. The beguiler has a cool and sneaky/manipulative spell list that he can use any spell from if he can cast that level of spell. Heathy deserves to be branded with an "R" and forced to wear make-up. Fantastic list of class skills(including all the rogue's)with 6+int skill points per level, armored mage (light), cloaked casting, d6 hps....they are pretty cool! I forgot that Heathy already wears make-up. The only major drawback is a bad BAB progression. Heathy is an egg-sucking dog.
I am very proud of myself for keeping this post on-topic!
FH (Heathy wears my underwear)
|
|
Oh, man, I meant, "rogue."
I can't figure out witch one I like better.
I definitely prefer my witches to wear rouge.
8-)
ps. I'm trying* to prevent myself from making a snarky comment about grocers' apostrophes. (Not from Heathansson's comment, BTW.)
* Looks like I failed that WILL check; no Cleric me. Though, to be fair, that was a sort of meta-comment. Which makes this a meta-meta-comment. A (doubly) self-referential meta-meta-comment, at that.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I was going to write something snarky about how I liked the rogue because the scout sucks, but I haven't actually played the scout, just read it, so I guess I can't really say it sucks. On paper, it sure appears to suck. Trading a full attack for some extra d6's? No thanks, not worth it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I was going to write something snarky about how I liked the rogue because the scout sucks, but I haven't actually played the scout, just read it, so I guess I can't really say it sucks. On paper, it sure appears to suck. Trading a full attack for some extra d6's? No thanks, not worth it.
I agree with you here... to a certain point. Not only does the Scout get extra damage, he also gets an AC bonus based on his movement as well. Combine this with decent gear and a high Dex modifier (which any archer should have) and you have a fairly elusive target.
Now, in a typical D&D scenario, trading the extra attacks for a little more damage doesn't seem worth it. However, imagine the scout is, you know, SCOUTING up ahead of the rest of the group and he happens to get spotted by a couple of orcs. He's dodging side to side, diving and rolling through bushes, and making precision shots at these orcs who are all having the time of their life trying to hit his high AC.
The scout shines in the absence of the rest of the party. As a group member, yeah, he sucks a little.
Rogue. Hands down.
I'm not convinced on scouts, though some people seem to love them. Rogues are just so open you can play one in any group, and any environment. Role wise they can be a thief, spy, cat burglar, hamburglar, and con man.
So open and so fun.
For flavor, I prefer the scout. A rogue is a better 'jack-of-all trades,' but the scout does better in melee combat. Rogues' poor combat abilities have always been a bit of a turn-off for me, so I think the scout provides a much-needed combat multiplier for an adventuring party. If you take a few levels in the Dread Commando PrC, then you have a character that can move fast and silent in armor, fight capably, and still has skill points to burn. Can you do the same with a rogue? Maybe, with a human and/or a careful build, but the skirmish vs. sneak attack still favors the scout, I think.
I've played in a couple campaigns where we've already had a rogue in the party, but took the Leadership feat and took a Scout as a cohort.
The Scouts have really added an extra dimension to the party--the rogue hasn't had to take point as often, so some of those precious HP haven't been wasted. Plus, the quick-strike features have softened up some foes sufficiently that the party hasn't fared as badly as we would have without the character.
Straight vs however? Hmmmm..... I'm not sure I have a preference; it depends upon what abilities the party needs and what you're willing to give up.
I was going to write something snarky about how I liked the rogue because the scout sucks, but I haven't actually played the scout, just read it, so I guess I can't really say it sucks. On paper, it sure appears to suck. Trading a full attack for some extra d6's? No thanks, not worth it.
One of my players plays one - when he is onstage you might well have the opportunity to to hear him say "CHEESE! ... er, I mean CHARGE!".
It depends on the type of character you want to play. For versatility, the Rogue wins easily; for a "hit-and-run" character, the Scout wins easily (go for both Shot on the Run and Spring Attack and add Skirmish bonuses to both).
PrCs add another layer of complexity; depending on which books are in use and (again) what type of character you want to develop, there are quite a few choices.
Personally, I say scout.
I've always played as an archer and though both classes work well as such, I like the feel of the scout more. The fast movement and skirmish ability being the best points.
-Kurocyn
Rogue. I will always support core classes over supplemental ones if there is a contest.
The rogue is far more archetypical than the scout, and thus I am leading with the assumption that we are comparing them at filling the "stealthy" niche within the party. Rogue. No question in my mind.
Further, while I support supplemental classes that do something unique and carve out their own niche, if any overlaps with a core class [i]and[i/] does better in that core class's niche than the core class in question, I will denounce the supplement as unbalanced. That's just my "world view" when it comes to gaming.
Core classes should reign supreme.
Scout is a great class for flavor, and the one Scout PC I have had the pleasure of DM'ing (in STAP) has been a valuable if hyperactive addition to the party, which suits the style of the player very well. He is planning on taking Horizon Walker levels at some point which I think will flesh out the progression nicely, although at the cost of some of the Scout's niftier class abilities, which he doesn't get until high levels. He is working the "shot on the run" tree, so I think he is maximizing the scout's potential, and currently has the highest AC of anyone in the party and decent saves to boot.
That being said, Rogue has always been one of my favorite classes in D&D from first edition Thief onward. It is not replaced in any way by the Scout or even the Beguiler, which is also a pretty spiffy class. Rogues can still fill a variety of roles in the party and their versatility and almost constant stream of class abilities makes them superbly customizable and adaptable. I would have to vote for the Rogue if forced, but I am interested in playing a Scout a few times before making the final judgment.
Rogue. I will always support core classes over supplemental ones if there is a contest...
...Core classes should reign supreme.
I second that :)
I second that :)Rogue. I will always support core classes over supplemental ones if there is a contest...
...Core classes should reign supreme.
I third that motion.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I was going to write something snarky about how I liked the rogue because the scout sucks, but I haven't actually played the scout, just read it, so I guess I can't really say it sucks. On paper, it sure appears to suck. Trading a full attack for some extra d6's? No thanks, not worth it.One of my players plays one - when he is onstage you might well have the opportunity to to hear him say "CHEESE! ... er, I mean CHARGE!".
So is your experience that the scout is cheesy? Please, do tell. I'd be really interested in hearing your experience, the scout is one of the classes that I am tempted to write off.
As for the whole core classes should be better argument, on the one hand, I'm inclined to agree. The problem is that the core classes do cover all the bases (well, except for the hole where a fighter/arcane user should go and maybe the warlock) and that forces the supplement classes to dig into some weird specialty. If they don't do that specialty better than the core classes, there's no point in publishing them. If they do the speciality better than the core classes, and that specialty is the main focus of the core class (e.g. the warmage for those that dislike that class), they tread on the need to play the core class in that specialty or at all. The problem with the supplement base classes is that there are too few innovative classes (e.g. the warlock) that avoid the core classes altogether and carve their own niche.
In Sebastian's ideal 4e, the rogue class would be akin to the monk, allowing you to choose modules for the class rather than a fixed list of abilities. That way, you could forgo sneak attack to take skirmish, and yet still be a rogue.
Rogues for flavor.
If you want a rogue that can skirmish then take the feats for it. Spring attack your target with a sneak attack and end your movement behind cover to continue sneaking. Rinse and repeat. If you want more "flavor" pick up a level of ranger or barbarian to expand you list of useful abilities and combat prowess. A core class character, especially a rogue, can do any job better than a scout because the core classes have more customization opportunities.
Viva la PHB!
So is your experience that the scout is cheesy? Please, do tell. I'd be really interested in hearing your experience, the scout is one of the classes that I am tempted to write off.
Well I don't have the character in front of me so I am probably missing a bit of the optimization but the gist goes as follows.
First off its not a straight up scout but a scout/fighter. The point of the fighter is undoubtably to get some extra hps and BAB but mainly its for feats. This is a feat intensive build.
The point behind the scout is the benifits to speed, the massive number of skill points and the skirmish attack bonus. Things like evasion are just icing on the cake.
Some of the key feats are power attack, spring attack and leap attack- especially leap attack.
The idea behind this build is to be able to combo leap attacks phenominal damage potential with a character that is mobile enough that it can charge 1st round using the leap attack. Run back and fourth on the second round embedding an attack (using spring attack) into a normal attack with the skirmish bonus to make the attack respectable then run off after the attack has been completed. On round 3 the character charges again using leap attack.
The scout has the points to get tumble very high very fast and the real goal is to get tumble to +14 - once its here your immune to attacks of opportunity. A very high jump also allows the character to more easily find an angle from which it can later charge without teh other players getting in the way, plus a Jump of +9 is required to get leap attack.
My player uses a Glaive as you want a two handed reach weapon for this build. Reach means you spend less time having to tumble, which means less time paying twice the cost to move a space.
So the characters initial charge would look something like:
d10(glaive)+2d6(scout)+7(20 str using two handed weapon)+(5*2(two handed Power attack))*2(leap))
or 6+7+7+(5*2*2)
= 6+7+7+20
= 40 points of damage.
Not bad for an 7th level character. I might be missing some of the finer points - I'll audit my players build and figure out how he gets his damage up. I have 40 as an average but I've certianly seen 47 point attacks.
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong - the scout cannot take the place of a rogue as a trap-finder/disabler as the don't have Disable Device or Open Locks as a class skill. Is this right?
Open locks is not a scout class skill.
However, disable device was an error, and it was corrected in the CAd errata : since the scout may find traps, it was strange he could not disable them !!!As I wrote before, I am currently playing SCAP with a scout 6 / ranger 3.
The whole thing when I joined this campaign (I joined the group at 7th level), as the DM told me, was to create a "rogue type" PC, able to find & remove traps...
Being a long time DM (& previously player), I did not want to play the straight roguish guy, and went for the scout, to give it a try. I knew sneak attack was more powerful, however, you may skirmish even when your enemy is not flat footed.
My built-idea was :
- having lots of HP,
- being able to take the place of a rogue,
- be very good as a fight-support PC (i.e., being a solid archer type fighter).
The rules of my DM were :
- 78 points to put in the 6 characteristics as wanted (i.e. between 30 points-buy & 48 points-buy, depending on how you put your 78 points)
So I went for a human CG thetyrian scout 4 / ranger 3 character(beginning at 7th level was easier to figure how I could build my PC).
He goes like this (at 9th level, i.e. with the 4th & 8th levels point added) :
Str 14 (16 with +2 gloves) / Dex 18 (began at 16) / Con 18 / Int 12 / Wis 10 / Cha 8
(that was the equivalent of a 38 points-buy).
My feats are :
- heroes' luck (+1 luck to saves & AC, human 1st),
- point blank shot (1st level)
- weapon focus (longbow) (3rd level)
- track (bonus ranger 1st)
- endurance (bonus ranger 2nd)
- rapid shot (bonus ranger 3rd)
- precise shot (bonus scout 4th)
- improved toughness (6th level)
- iron will (9th level)
One of my next choices will be "improved critical (longbow)" or other archery feats, and I will take 2 to 4 Order of the bow initiate PrC levels, and probably at least 1 other ranger levl.
and my best & highest skills are :
- listen, spot, search, disable device
- tumble, move silently, hide
At 9th level, I have the highest HP total in my group, good saves (ref. +13 / fort +11 / will +6 before magic), initiative +5, and I can be very dangerous with my magical bow (one of the last sessions, buffed by the cleric, I did around 80 HP damage without skirmishing / critical -> good rolls attack & damage with rapid shots !! And we do not play munchkin PCs, but I know our PCs are more powerful than the average).
After having tried it, I can say that a scout / ranger is a strong building and has a flavour that is very different from a fighter / rogue : I try to harass or get past my enemies (thanks to tumble-fleet of foot and battle fortitude-skirmish abilities), and not to sneak behind them...
|
...
So the characters initial charge would look something like:d10(glaive)+2d6(scout)+7(20 str using two handed weapon)+(5*2(two handed Power attack))*2(leap))
or 6+7+7+(5*2*2)
= 6+7+7+20
= 40 points of damage.
Actually, if I am reading Leap Attack right, you would triple the damage with a two-handed weapon -- not that it makes things better.
I feel like the biggest issue is with the Leap Attack feat, which I have heard there are a lot of issues with which has little to do with the scout class. An additional 2d6 points of damage is pretty minor, especially at the cost of your extra attacks.
Also, I just took a good look at the Leap Attack feat -- it reads "...you can double the extra damage dealt by your use of the Power Attack feat. If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damge from Power Attack." I really think that the writers meant for the damage from a leap attack should be a total of 3 times the amount you take from your to hit -- or (in your example) to be 3*5 instead of 2*5*3. Still pretty powerful, but half of what he is running it at.
I also think that it is funny that he is tumbling with a glaive -- there should be a penalty for that...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Actually, if I am reading Leap Attack right, you would triple the damage with a two-handed weapon -- not that it makes things better.I feel like the biggest issue is with the Leap Attack feat, which I have heard there are a lot of issues with which has little to do with the scout class...
I too have heard lots of things about this feat and its tendency to be overpowered. Where is this feat found?
God, I hate Leap Attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
God, I hate Leap Attack.
Honestly, seeing how Moff described it, it doesn't really seem all that awful. I mean, two-handed weapons double the bonus from power attack anyway. Leap Attack can only be used during a charge (right?) so only when you are charging you get to add the power attack bonus on to the attack again.
So, 5 points of PA on a longsword = +5 dmg. With Leap Attack = +10 dmg.
5 points of PA on a greataxe = +10 dmg. With Leap Attack = +15 dmg.
Not so bad. Of course, when you get people who will chuck 8-10 points into their power attacks on a regular basis, it can get pretty obscene but, that's what Power Attack is there for.
2h weapon with 10 points of PA = 20 dmg. With Leap Attack = +30 dmg.
Still doesn't seem so bad to me since it can only be done during a charge. Now, if you can use it when you AREN'T charging, then it might be a little broken.
Leap attack *blech*
Still doesn't seem so bad to me since it can only be done during a charge. Now, if you can use it when you AREN'T charging, then it might be a little broken.
I'm pretty sure the reason it was brought up was because a scouts melee routine ideally is charge after charge since they are required to use 10ft of movement to activate their skirmish ability.
That and power attack is already one of the most powerful feats, giving it additional power creates a scenario where every fighter with 2 handed weapons are more dominating then they already are.
Besides, who needs a full attack when the first charge kills your target and (great cleave) everything else within 5ft.
|
|
Honestly, seeing how Moff described it, it doesn't really seem all that awful. I mean, two-handed weapons double the bonus from power attack anyway. Leap Attack can only be used during a charge (right?) so only when you are charging you get to add the power attack bonus on to the attack again.
So, 5 points of PA on a longsword = +5 dmg. With Leap Attack = +10 dmg.
5 points of PA on a greataxe = +10 dmg. With Leap Attack = +15 dmg.
I think that most people read it as 3 times the already doubled damage used with a two-handed weapon (and that is how it appears to read).
So I think that many people read it as ...
5 points of PA on a longsword = +5 dmg. With Leap Attack = +10 dmg.
5 points of PA on a greataxe = +10 dmg. With Leap Attack = +30 dmg.
This is NOT how I would interpret it, nor would I allow this in my game. (A crit with a greataxe should not ever give the wielder +90 points of damage before magic, axe damage, backstab, etc. with only a 5 point sacrifice to your to hit.)
Much prefer Rogue to scout!
If I must pick, I pick Rogue.
But casting out a little farther afield, I would say that the Bandit class by Dungeon columnist Wolfgang Baur in "the Book of Roguish Luck" (Malhavoc Press, c. 2005) is the best wilderness-type rogue I've seen in a while.
Actually, if I am reading Leap Attack right, you would triple the damage with a two-handed weapon -- not that it makes things better.I feel like the biggest issue is with the Leap Attack feat, which I have heard there are a lot of issues with which has little to do with the scout class. An additional 2d6 points of damage is pretty minor, especially at the cost of your extra attacks.
Also, I just took a good look at the Leap Attack feat -- it reads "...you can double the extra damage dealt by your use of the Power Attack feat. If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damge from Power Attack." I really think that the writers meant for the damage from a leap attack should be a total of 3 times the amount you take from your to hit -- or (in your example) to be 3*5 instead of 2*5*3. Still pretty powerful, but half of what he is running it at.
I also think that it is funny that he is tumbling with a glaive -- there should be a penalty for that...
I'm not really sure how my player works it out - I have emailed him and insisted he send me the break down. That said I know that Leap Attack has an errata for it. It now increases the damage from the power attack by 100% - which essentially boils down to doubling it.
As to tumbling with a Glaive - It probably makes an excellent Pole Vault. Tumble does not really specify exactly what moves one is doing to get around just that your using some gymnastics to get through the space. Anyway Glaive is a pretty interesting choice for a weapon. Lots of things I'd like to punish this player for but having him choose Glaive over the more popular Spiked Chain is not one of them.
As to tumbling with a Glaive - It probably makes an excellent Pole Vault. Tumble does not really specify exactly what moves one is doing to get around just that your using some gymnastics to get through the space.
Again, as I just posted on another thread, that's the great thing about the dice in this game. They represent all the different options and possibilities that could occur, so that the players and DM don't have to think about it. Otherwise, the game would work on the basis of determining each and every variable affecting the character (wind speed, amount of sleep last night, is there a puddle under his feet, is the character hungry, what's his emotional state, is the weapon metal or wood, is he swinging in an overhead chop or a sideways cut, how much does the thing weigh, etc., etc., etc.) and then adding them all up to determine success or failure. Blech.
Instead, we use the dice and a constant, and then explain why what happened, happened, as we see fit. Tumbling with a glaive? Sure, pole vaulting, why not?
I have to admit, I've never played a scout, and until recently- I haven't played a rogue either...
But, since in this campaign I just made a new 4th level character for was only allowing core classes (with plenty of room for multiclassing)
But, to clarify, I was going for a peasant style wilderness warrior, basically I ended up with a highwayman, sneaky bastard style character.
I started my build with a human Rogue, naturally...why not? Best skill points in the game- until the scout showed up. But, more importantly, he has all the skills I need to be sneaky as CLASS skills.
My next logical step was to go Ranger- for two ranks this time instead of an earlier tactic to just dip in it one rank, hardly a unique build, rogue ranger, eventually get point blank shot and you've got a bow sneak attack that is sniper devastating with a composite longbow (keep that in mind, it adds to the build). You REALLY can't argue with a favored enemy bonus (human), Track as a bonus feat- perfect for wilderness survival, and a combat style that gives you ANOTHER bonus feat.
However, let me go over the stats I rolled, and frankly, got lucky with. (True, I rolled 5d6, but they came out perfect for the character.) 14 str, 18 dex (perfect for longbow mastery and better ac bonus for the lightly armored roguish type character), 15 Con (good +2 hp, but also the option of putting an ability point there for another hp), 18 wis (great for tracking, right?), and 12 cha.
But wait, what was the advantage of putting the second 18 in wisdom and not strength or even Con?
That's where the 4th level comes in...
Monk. (yes, Lawful Neutral makes for an odd roguish type, but when it's survival of the fittest in a war torn land swarmed with refugees and a native army that'd soon kill you as recruit you...)
But not just any monk, for those unfamiliar with Unearthed arcana or the special Dragon issue, I went with Sleeping Tiger, the best fighting style for a monk build that favors "strike first" tactics and being able to hide better than anyone. (bonus to hide, you're FORCED to take Weapon Finesse and Power attack)
But yes, that 18 in wisdom gives me an AC of 18! and weapon finesse makes up for a less than badass strength score and my sacrificed BAB progression, but wait there's more...
For weapons, I went monk and ranger +2 comp longbow, kukri (favorable crit range), kama (for tripping and favorable damage), sai (for disarming).
For my remaining choices, I chose Combat Expertise (hello extra ac as an alternate to Power attack) as my remaining feat and the Two-weapon fighting style
In retrospect, I could use all of the monk weapons (apparently with the exception of the kukri) with flurry of blows anyway, so maybe two weapon fighting isn't such a great thing (though even with rapid shot being better, skipping point blank doesn't help that much with archery feats)...but what I do get is an extra attack. Yes, three attacks at 4th level off of flurry of blows at a pretty decent attack bonus,.
The character practically could have come up with the sleeping tiger style himself, but we assume that he had some training with a monk, where he learned the style that he's now attempting to master (the fighting styles are something you buy into for 6 levels for a special ability, that in the case of sleeping tiger translates into an extra 1d6 against flat footed opponents.)
with a FRIGHTENING move silently and Hide for his level, my wilderness build benefits from having NO armor, and a light load soon enough he'll be able to move 40 feet, like the scout, but will actually be able to move 50 feet by the time the 6 ranks in Sleeping Tiger are finished and he'll probably go back to rogue (with an XP penalty) for the Evasion and back to Ranger for the favorable everything else but saves. But, for the record, my saves are better than a 4th level scout's with the same stats (who would benefit from a similar build, but not quite as much with the 18 in wisdom), the attack bonus is comparable, but BETTER against humans(favored enemy) my minimum damage is higher with a +3 (+5 against humans) for everything but the character's sling (+3 against humans), even if you assume the scout CAN use a composite shortbow they don't get the favored enemy bonus...ever. Sneak attack is better for the first strike approach than skirmish...for one you can snipe, another my character can move in and go hand to hand damn near commando style...if he takes improved trip, improved disarm he'll be an equalizing machine with 1d8 unarmed damage mixed with the sai/kama combo. And I'm considering going the Dodge tree route, but the thing this build does lack...is feats.
That is where the scout seems to shine, at least on paper, favorable skills and feats. Until I found out that Disable Device was a class skill the scout wasn't doing better than my build on skills (even with 8 more skill points) due to the more favorable class skills of the rogue/ranger build.
I could have avoided the monk level, but considering the character would, at best, been able to acquire and effectively use leather armor (not even studded leather), and at the cost of dumping a few pounds of his gear...yeah.
Even with the scout build, the AC was 2 points lower, or 1 point with that -1 armor check across the board for his major skills, and with the samge gear, different weapons sure, but the same gear basically, was over the light weight.
Essentially, there's not much (aside from the crazy special abilities that a scout gets) that a rogue, maybe rogue/ranger/monk, couldn't do better.
Seriously, the scout gets Uncanny Dodge...so yes that is something my character doesn't have, AND evasion (something my character doesn't have YET.)
Don't even get me started on the 30ft blindsense and eventual blindsight.
NO core class or race gets that kind of treatment.
I've generally liked the rogue builds that have played with my characters, but really they're best to be flexible, a bard can be a better pickpocket, a monk can be a better tumbler (well, almost), and a ranger is going to be a better ranged weapon fighter...but sneak attack sneak attack sneak attack...bluff.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thanks for the info - I'll have to give the class a spin. Like I said, I dismissed it as entirely ineffectual. However, it does sound like it's Leap Attack more than the scout class that is doing the heavy lifting.
Also, how does this strategy bear out at higher levels when the additional attacks are more significant?
In addition, isn't the natural counter to this build an increase in the number of opponents?
Okay, who can point out the MAJOR problem with this concept? Show of hands?I started my build with a human Rogue, naturally... ...You REALLY can't argue with a favored enemy bonus (human)...
Monk. (yes, Lawful Neutral makes for an odd roguish type...
I know, I know...but in the core rules, I've found nothing that says "No, you can't pick the same race and not be evil." Besides, if my DM allows it, I don't see a problem. I'm pretty damn sure that in 3.5 it is just a unsaid rule that Humans can't hunt their own. hell, I could have done the build with a half-elf and no one would think twice, but aside from the lack of a feat and extra skill points, the half-elf bit wouldn't fit with the character or the background as set up by the DM for the campaign in his HOMEBREW, where under the CIRCUMSTANCES, I don't see a problem with being lawful neutral, ie not good or evil and not chaotic or just true neutral...
If YOU have a problem with human's favoring themselves as favored enemies, you don't know much about human culture, besides instituting that as a "rule" just rules out misanthropists and bounty hunters, specifically prestige classes like Bloodhound and Justicar for humans in a human heavy setting.
Sure, the last ranger I took that had favored enemy human was an elf, and sure I kept forgetting I had the bonus, but he could damn well be good and he lives with humans, so it doesn't make quite that much sense to let a roguish, even though he is lawful neutral, highwayman not have favored enemy human in an area that, guess what, is pretty much ONLY inhabited by humans and rather normal animals. So, again, I'll just refer to my DM on this matter, in which he supports my build.
But, seriously, produce a single core, SRD, 3.5 rule that states "No Human Ranger may take Humanoid (Human) as his Favored enemy, ever..."
Maybe then, I'll show it to him and consider shifting my favored enemy into something less misanthropic, like Animals...(I'd go with another humanoid race if my ranger had likely encountered anyway other than the slim possibility of elves or gnomes)
EDIT: http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-545566.html
Oh yeah, I played 2e as well, but I'm most familiar with the easier to swallow 3.5 core.
Okay, who can point out the MAJOR problem with this concept? Show of hands?I started my build with a human Rogue, naturally... ...You REALLY can't argue with a favored enemy bonus (human)...
Monk. (yes, Lawful Neutral makes for an odd roguish type...
You know what? I started to reply in favour of this point, when, just for the heck of it, I looked it up, and guess what...
In 3.0, the favoured enemy section specifically states that you cannot take your own race as favoured enemy unless you are evil; however, it is NOT in the 3.5 PHB... Is this a misprint, or are you now allowed to choose your own race (assuming a proper reason if you don't want to be evil)?