Quick question: Do Prestige Classes count for Multiclassing XP penalties?
I'm assuming that they don't count towards such penalties, but I don't remember if that is just a house rule or actually the official rule.
I couldn't find a reference in the DMG or PHB to clarify when I quickly flipped through.
From the SRD
"Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing."
Is that from the official SRD, Jeremy? I know it's not in the rule books - it was accidentally cut out from the DMG during the upgrade from 3.0 to 3.5. And I couldn't find it in the downloaded copy I have of the official SRD. This is in the FAQ, though, just in case that bit of text isn't in the official SRD:
In the previous version of the D&D game, having levels in a prestige class never caused you to pay the experience penalty for being a multiclass character without uneven class levels. (The prestige class levels didn’t count when checking to see if you had a penalty.) The section on prestige classes in the new Dungeon Master’s Guide no longer mentions that you don’t suffer an experience penalty for having levels in a prestige class. Is this a change or an error?It’s an error. Having levels in a prestige class won’t give you an experience penalty.
Of course, even though it's an error, nothing has ever been placed in the DMG errata about it.
Thanks guys,
I guess if it got cut accidently from the 3.0 to 3.5 DMGs, that is why I remembered the rule, but couldn't find it last night.
Is that from the official SRD, Jeremy?
there's an unofficial one?
Its from the Hypertext SRD d20 site http://www.d20srd.org/, as are all my quotes from the SRD. In fact I use that site for rule callings more often then I use the books. Its kept up to date and has all the errata for the core books. Its only failing is of course that it can only use open content and so much of what I use in my campaign is not open content thus forcing me back to the books.
In fact when I think of how I would like to see the game evolve (into an online subscriber based system) its a site like the Hypertext D20 site that makes me believe that such a system is both possible and actually an improvement.
Ah, but you see... that is an "unofficial" SRD. For example, the rule you quoted isn't in the one on WotC's site. For that matter, neither is the errata.
Ah, but you see... that is an "unofficial" SRD. For example, the rule you quoted isn't in the one on WotC's site. For that matter, neither is the errata.
OK you got me - its unofficial as it incorporates the errata and pertinent material from the FAQ in a timely manner.
However you just kind of made my larger point - The Hypertext D20 SRD is the place to go for your rule calls. It's the rules - with the latest patch!
Sadly, I think they do count when figuring xp penalties.
This is not an authoritative answer, but it came up in the Living Greyhawk campaign when 3.5 came out. The campaign staff specifically house-ruled that PrCs don't affect xp penalties in LG, and their language implied that the change from 3.0 to 3.5 was deliberate.
IMC we don't count a PrC when determining xp penalties -- and I think the rule change (assuming it was deliberate) was one of their more ill-considered calls. In fact, I think it would be very difficult to take a PrC and avoid the xp penalty.
Jack
Jack - read the FAQ ruling I posted earlier. LG needed to use a house rule to make the change because it was never actually released in the errata for the DMG.
Jack - read the FAQ ruling I posted earlier. LG needed to use a house rule to make the change because it was never actually released in the errata for the DMG.
Thanks. I thought WotC had deliberately made a really bad decision.
I feel a bit dumb for missing your post earlier (and in such a short thread!) :/
No problems. I'm used to people not paying attention to me. :D
I want the penalties to apply just because the PC get so overused in my group. IMHO the race PCs would be a second favored class (arcane archer for elf, any for human, etc.) Everyone else who wants to munchkin gets to pay though I would probably drop it to 5%.
I've never had any problems with the CORE prestige classes (although I have a rule about no ex-paladin blackguards), but you have to be careful with the additional source material. I forget which book it was (complete adventurer? warrior? song & silence?) but it introduces a new ability that allows extra damage from an archer provided they make a ten-foot movement before each shot. We're talking, like, additional d6's. One class had a damage progression for this ability identical to the rogue's sneak attack (1d6 extra every other level), but all he had to do was make a 10ft. movement before shooting- no catching the guy off-guard, no flanking, nothing. It was ridiculous, and I disallowed it. The player couldn't understand why.
That said, I think PC's are an important part of the game, and if used right, can be the subject of many great adventures. The thing to keep in mind is that the core classes are really, actually, quite powerful, and in only a few situations have my players not regretted taking their prestige class at later levels.
Essentially, taking a prestige class needs to mark a fundamental change in the player's playstyle and character direction. Having an adventure to take the class is a good idea. Having more adventures to keep the class is also a good idea. Classes that conceivably require tasks of the character- Dwarven Defenders and Blackguards are two great examples- should require something of the character. Hell, ESPECIALLY blackguard. If your player wants to play the evilest of the evil, put him in a situation where he'll have to stop chuckling about how he totally stole that peasant's gold and make him make serious moral decisions. And for God's sake, put him in a situation where being evil is the least-profitable route, and see what he thinks of his alignment then.
Sorry, ranted. :-P
I've never had any problems with the CORE prestige classes (although I have a rule about no ex-paladin blackguards), but you have to be careful with the additional source material. I forget which book it was (complete adventurer? warrior? song & silence?) but it introduces a new ability that allows extra damage from an archer provided they make a ten-foot movement before each shot. We're talking, like, additional d6's. One class had a damage progression for this ability identical to the rogue's sneak attack (1d6 extra every other level), but all he had to do was make a 10ft. movement before shooting- no catching the guy off-guard, no flanking, nothing. It was ridiculous, and I disallowed it. The player couldn't understand why.
Wait wait wait...
You think the scout class (note, it's a base class not a prestige class) is overpowered, because they have an ability that grants bonus damage that can never be used in a full attack?
Just... Wow...
Another reason I got rid of Prestige Classes ... most are too overpowered.
Just to throw in my 2 cents, I think a good one out of three, and perhaps more, prestige classes are balanced (gut impression -- no supporting evidence here). I also think the principle of the PrC is good. At the same time, things have gone way overboard.
Part of the genius (and I mean that seriously) of d20 D&D is the flexibility players now have in building characters. Characters can create virtually any character concept they wish with the choices available in classes, skills, feats, and spells (while still maintaining play balance).
Despite this, many nowadays think that every character concept needs its own Prc (or even base class). I've said it before -- someone who can't make an interesting, playable character using only the Players Handbook can't make an interesting, playable character. No number of supplements are going to help that player, and some of the choices available to him (or her) might very well hurt the game (for other players and the DM).
But what can we expect? WotC needs to sell new books to stay in business, and new books will necessarily have new classes and prestige classes -- but we don't have to use them.
I'm fortunate. My players (an older group, most with spouses and children) haven't the slightest interest in prestige classes, and almost none in multiclassing. Yes, I'm implying more mature players will often exhibit less interest in increasingly off-the-wall supplemental material.
We need a PrC non-proliferation agreement :(
Just say no to silly (prestige) classes!
Jack
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've never had any problems with the CORE prestige classes (although I have a rule about no ex-paladin blackguards), but you have to be careful with the additional source material. I forget which book it was (complete adventurer? warrior? song & silence?) but it introduces a new ability that allows extra damage from an archer provided they make a ten-foot movement before each shot. We're talking, like, additional d6's. One class had a damage progression for this ability identical to the rogue's sneak attack (1d6 extra every other level), but all he had to do was make a 10ft. movement before shooting- no catching the guy off-guard, no flanking, nothing. It was ridiculous, and I disallowed it. The player couldn't understand why.
That said, I think PC's are an important part of the game, and if used right, can be the subject of many great adventures. The thing to keep in mind is that the core classes are really, actually, quite powerful, and in only a few situations have my players not regretted taking their prestige class at later levels.
Essentially, taking a prestige class needs to mark a fundamental change in the player's playstyle and character direction. Having an adventure to take the class is a good idea. Having more adventures to keep the class is also a good idea. Classes that conceivably require tasks of the character- Dwarven Defenders and Blackguards are two great examples- should require something of the character. Hell, ESPECIALLY blackguard. If your player wants to play the evilest of the evil, put him in a situation where he'll have to stop chuckling about how he totally stole that peasant's gold and make him make serious moral decisions. And for God's sake, put him in a situation where being evil is the least-profitable route, and see what he thinks of his alignment then.
Sorry, ranted. :-P
Wow. That's the most arbitrary unreasoned uninformed unplaytested thing I've read in a while. I'm not saying all prestige classes are perfect, but the blackguard/paladin thing is particularly bizzarre. The paladin loses a whole host of abilities with an alignment change, and the whole point of the blackguard is to make the fallen paladin archtype into a viable character by reloading some of those lost abilities. And, barring that Leap feat (can't remember the name) in Complete Adventurer, the scout is a pretty weak class. Saying "OMG! it does lots of d6 damage" completely misses so many aspects of the way things actually play on the table, it hurts my teeth to even think about it.
Chris is correct. Those blurbs are meant to override stuff like this:
Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.
Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.
If a prestige class doesn't include the sort of note you mention, a character cannot return to the base class (if it was pally or monk) when they complete the Prestige Class.
edit: bah! you posted while I was typing. Damn my slow copy/paste skillz!!!1!1!!!!1!!one!1!!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I've never had any problems with the CORE prestige classes ...but it introduces a new ability that allows extra damage from an archer provided they make a ten-foot movement before each shot. We're talking, like, additional d6's. One class had a damage progression for this ability identical to the rogue's sneak attack (1d6 extra every other level), but all he had to do was make a 10ft. movement before shooting- no catching the guy off-guard, no flanking, nothing. It was ridiculous, and I disallowed it...
You're thinking of the scout's Skirmish ability. First of all, Scout is a core class, not a PrC. Secondly, this ability can never be used in conjunction with a full attack, therefore you get ONE SHOT with those extra d6s added PER ROUND. The rogue, on the other hand, can get in and flank an opponent, have two-weapon fighting (and even improved and greater two-weapon fighting) and add their disgusting amount of sneak attack damage onto EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR 2-6 ATTACKS!!! Sure, they have to catch them off guard or flank them... but that's not such a difficult task for a rogue to pull off. Plus, rogues get 10d6 SA at level 20. The scout adds... 5d6? 8d6? I'm not sure... but I don't think its quite equal at 20th level.
On the other hand, if you're playing with some non-standard rules (like the Dragonstar campaign setting stuff), you'll find nasty things like 'Improved Shot On the Run' which allows you to take a full attack action and still move your base speed in a straight line. Combine *THAT* with a Scout, and you've got some serious harm. Of course, in Dragonstar, there are fully-automatic weapons that deal 3d8 damage per hit anyway so its hardly a balance issue at that point.
(Despite being hideously overpowered, I really enjoy Dragonstar.)
Okay, I decided to give the book took another look- the PrC in question was actually the Highland Stalker. I figured out what it was that bothered me about it- see how the PrC has a progression each level on their Skirmish ability? The player had tried to sell me that those changes were cumulative. Naturally, a level 20 +9d6, +6 AC skirmish ability was not something I was pleased with, especially over a 10-level area.
While I sincerely, absolutely apologize for railing against Skirmish now that I know its limits, I'd like to point out that there's no rule saying you can't take a full attack action. Any haste effects or anything else which allows you to take an action before a full attack will allow you the same possibilities afforded to a rogue. In fact, the ability specifically states that the effect is applied to ALL attacks taken by the character. In an epic level game, over a long enough timeline, scouts will pass up rogues in usefulness. Of course, in an epic level game, over a long enough timeline, a lot of things will go wrong...
As for "how things actually play out on the table", how it plays out when two players have the same central ability only one is much, much easier to use is, the other one doesn't do much.
As to the blackguard paladin... I... uh... okay, man, you really got me here. :( I was very, very, very wrong. Sorry.
I do still stick to my initial point, though, that banning all PrC's is overkill, but you have to be careful with non-core source material. And that if a player signs up for responsibilities through his PrC, you should hold him to those responsibilities.
While I sincerely, absolutely apologize for railing against Skirmish now that I know its limits, I'd like to point out that there's no rule saying you can't take a full attack action. Any haste effects or anything else which allows you to take an action before a full attack will allow you the same possibilities afforded to a rogue. In fact, the ability specifically states that the effect is applied to ALL attacks taken by the character. In an epic level game, over a long enough timeline, scouts will pass up rogues in usefulness. Of course, in an epic level game, over a long enough timeline, a lot of things will go wrong...
Haste won't help a scout with his skirmish ability. Haste (in 3.5) grants you one extra attack when you make a full attack. Because you need to move at least 10' to add skirmish damage, you can never take a full attack. (well, that's not true; there are ways to do it, but they're obscure) That's the balancing factor of skirmish - you give up making a full attack in order get bonus damage.
As for "how things actually play out on the table", how it plays out when two players have the same central ability only one is much, much easier to use is, the other one doesn't do much.
I'd suggest (politely of course ;) ) that you re-evaluate. Keep in mind the limitations of skirmish and (assuming flanking is as simple as usual) you'll find that the rogue likely deals more damage in the long run.
I do still stick to my initial point, though, that banning all PrC's is overkill, but you have to be careful with non-core source material. And that if a player signs up for responsibilities through his PrC, you should hold him to those responsibilities.
Yep - absolutely agree on all of this!
Cheers!
--John
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Okay, I decided to give the book took another look- the PrC in question was actually the Highland Stalker. I figured out what it was that bothered me about it- see how the PrC has a progression each level on their Skirmish ability? The player had tried to sell me that those changes were cumulative. Naturally, a level 20 +9d6, +6 AC skirmish ability was not something I was pleased with, especially over a 10-level area.
The changes are most likely cumulative. As with all prestige classes that grant core abilities you are giving up something in exchange for those abilities. That's not per se overpowered, you need to weigh the cost of what you are giving up against the benefit of what you are receiving.
While I sincerely, absolutely apologize for railing against Skirmish now that I know its limits, I'd like to point out that there's no rule saying you can't take a full attack action. Any haste effects or anything else which allows you to take an action before a full attack will allow you the same possibilities afforded to a rogue. In fact, the ability specifically states that the effect is applied to ALL attacks taken by the character. In an epic level game, over a long enough timeline, scouts will pass up rogues in usefulness. Of course, in an epic level game, over a long enough timeline, a lot of things will go wrong...
If you want to list the number of ways in which the character can actually get a full attack plus a move, I'd be interested in hearing about it. The only ability I can think of that does that is pounce, which is possessed by lions and some other monsters. Haste certainly doesn't do that. Talking about epic games borders on irrelevant since the vast majority of play occurs at the sub-20 (and most likely, sub-10) levels.
As for "how things actually play out on the table", how it plays out when two players have the same central ability only one is much, much easier to use is, the other one doesn't do much.
Except the way you are characterizing how the ability works and the frequency with which it will be triggered is incorrect. Thus, I direct you to the table, where you will see what your analysis (such as it is) is failing to reveal. To be blunt: your post demonstrates a severe insufficiency in knowledge of the rules, so much so that your judgments regarding the power level of abilities is completely inaccurate
As to the blackguard paladin... I... uh... okay, man, you really got me here. :( I was very, very, very wrong. Sorry.
No worries, and I apologize for the bluntness. Unsupported assertions are my bane. Sit down with the rules, think about the costs of the abilities, and if you're not sure, give it a spin at the table.
1. The ability text is very clear on the fact that the Highland Stalker's Skirmish numbers aren't cumulative, so there's no worries here.
2. If they were cumulative, it would be quite possible for a scout/stalker to have a higher skirmish damage than a party rogue has sneak attack. The scout would go into the class at level 7 with 2d6 damage (the rogue gets 4d6 at level 7) and they'd end at 17 with 11d6 damage (the rogue gets 9d6 at level 17).
3. Using manyshot, a scout/stalker could have as many attacks in a single action as a rogue has in his entire round. The stalker has a fighter's base attack bonus progression, so even after the negs, the staker's bonus would be comparable to a rogue's attack bonuses, especially since all attacks are at the stalker's highest bonus + negs, where a rogue has -5 to each successive attack. Since flanking isn't required, the stalker can use ranged attacks consistently and still receive the bonus, provided they stay within 30 feet of the target.
Basically, if the skirmish ability were cumulative on this class, it'd be like having sneak attack, except you get to move between full attacks, get more damage, an AC bonus, and your first attack is at a neg and your second attack is at a bonus. Also, you get fun class skills like Camoflauge. Oh, and you don't have to flank anyone, just move.
Which, of course, is why the class is entirely reasonable, because they aren't cumulative, which is why I was very, very wrong about this class. However. Acting like 9d6 damage worth of easier-to-use sneak attack damage is no big thang and definitely wouldn't give the rogue an inferiority complex is just silly. DM's aren't allowed to pre-empt player abilities, and neither should other players.
3. Using manyshot, a scout/stalker could have as many attacks in a single action as a rogue has in his entire round. The stalker has a fighter's base attack bonus progression, so even after the negs, the staker's bonus would be comparable to a rogue's attack bonuses, especially since all attacks are at the stalker's highest bonus + negs, where a rogue has -5 to each successive attack. Since flanking isn't required, the stalker can use ranged attacks consistently and still receive the bonus, provided they stay within 30 feet of the target.
When using Manyshot, precision damage (sneak attack, skirmish, etc) only applies to the first arrow in the volley. So even if the Highland Stalker can launch 20 arrows in a hail of Manyshot goodness, only one of those gets his skirmish damage.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
3. Using manyshot, a scout/stalker could have as many attacks in a single action as a rogue has in his entire round. The stalker has a fighter's base attack bonus progression, so even after the negs, the staker's bonus would be comparable to a rogue's attack bonuses, especially since all attacks are at the stalker's highest bonus + negs, where a rogue has -5 to each successive attack. Since flanking isn't required, the stalker can use ranged attacks consistently and still receive the bonus, provided they stay within 30 feet of the target.
Zherog's already pointed it out, but again, the rules do not say what you think they say. The scout would get that bonus on the first shot and that's it.
Basically, if the skirmish ability were cumulative on this class, it'd be like having sneak attack, except you get to move between full attacks, get more damage, an AC bonus, and your first attack is at a neg and your second attack is at a bonus. Also, you get fun class skills like Camoflauge. Oh, and you don't have to flank anyone, just move.
Yeah, except the instances in which you can move and make a full attack are extremely limited. If you want to play the what-if game, then I submit that a four armed rogue with permanent invisibility is way better than a scout because all his attacks get sneak attack damage. Even if manyshot were to do what you think it does (which it doesn't), a rogue at the level when the scout could access that feat will also have easy access to invisibility, feinting, and other methods to ensure he gets a sneak attack on every single attack.
Which, of course, is why the class is entirely reasonable, because they aren't cumulative, which is why I was very, very wrong about this class. However. Acting like 9d6 damage worth of easier-to-use sneak attack damage is no big thang and definitely wouldn't give the rogue an inferiority complex is just silly. DM's aren't allowed to pre-empt player abilities, and neither should other players.
If that's what we were talking about, it would be unreasonable. You're pretending like the rogue is a straight out of the box short sword wielding dufus who gets limited attacks per turn and comparing him with a tricked out scout that somehow manages to exploit a loophole to trigger his ability each turn. Try comparing apples to apples, say a tricked out rogue designed to exploit his sneak attack triggers and compare it against your tricked out rogue.
Here's the argument you're making: the barbarian is way better than the fighter because he rages, thereby getting +2 to hit and damage and +2 hps per level! Plus, the barbarian suffers no negatives from the ability. You're comparing one ability in a vacuum and not acknowledging all the costs of using said ability.
Again, you don't know the rules well enough to make your arguments. Try playtesting. The other players are not pre-empting each other, you are pre-empting them through lack of understanding of how the game actually plays.
Zherog's already pointed it out, but again, the rules do not say what you think they say. The scout would get that bonus on the first shot and that's it.
My bad. Greater Manyshot. He'd have to wait until level 9.
Yeah, except the instances in which you can move and make a full attack are extremely limited. If you want to play the what-if game, then I submit that a four armed rogue with permanent invisibility is way better than a scout because all his attacks get sneak attack damage.
Yes, I can see how a four-armed rogue with permanent invisibility is no more ridiculous than an archer who moves ten feet every turn. I'm not sure what players you have, but with mine, you have the kind who use the bow as a secondary weapon and the type who use it as a primary weapon. The primary-weapon ones tend to spend a lot of time taking five- and ten-foot moves to get out of AOO range before taking their shot. They rarely have difficulty doing this, since they keep their range of engagement at about, well, 30 feet. Again, I'm not sure where you stumbled upon this idea that a 30 foot radius provides no room to move around without getting AOO'd, or whatever is causing you to say that on the table players won't move 10 feet often, even if it gets them an extra 10d6 damage, but even in a dungeon, it's plenty of room for them to be able to.
Even if manyshot were to do what you think it does (which it doesn't), a rogue at the level when the scout could access that feat will also have easy access to invisibility, feinting, and other methods to ensure he gets a sneak attack on every single attack.
Of course, 10 feet of movement is beyond most players' grasp, but impenetrable invisibility is pouring from fountains over here. If invisibility were as easy to use as that, sneak attack wouldn't matter anyhow and feint requires a whole bundle of feats to be useful and then also negates full round attack. Again, moving ten feet is the easier option when compared with most things, especially considering that most rogues have to TUMBLE ten feet just to get off a sneak attack in the best of times.
If that's what we were talking about, it would be unreasonable. You're pretending like the rogue is a straight out of the box short sword wielding dufus who gets limited attacks per turn and comparing him with a tricked out scout that somehow manages to exploit a loophole to trigger his ability each turn. Try comparing apples to apples, say a tricked out rogue designed to exploit his sneak attack triggers and compare it against your tricked out rogue.
The only thing that comes to mind a Tumble-heavy elf with a longsword and shortsword and all his feats poured into dual wield. That same elf with a nice bow, though, could get similar bonuses with multiple shots, and any time the rogue has to jump over a dude to get a shot, the stalker pulls ahead. Add in the fact that he's getting more sneak attack damage to begin with and those AC bonuses and they're comparable at worst. Add that to the fact that you look at the Scout & Stalker and there's a whole other CLASS in there. One with nice saves, great BAB progression, high-level ranger abilities, and in the Scout's case, a few bonus feats, and it's a little concerning.
Here's the argument you're making: the barbarian is way better than the fighter because he rages, thereby getting +2 to hit and damage and +2 hps per level! Plus, the barbarian suffers no negatives from the ability. You're comparing one ability in a vacuum and not acknowledging all the costs of using said ability.
You have this thing for strawmen and it's concerning. Here's what I'm saying: if the fighter didn't get any bonus feats and instead got rage without the HP bonus along with some nice charisma-based skills and the barbarian got to hide in any terrain, the barbarian would be way better than the fighter.
Again, you don't know the rules well enough to make your arguments. Try playtesting. The other players are not pre-empting each other, you are pre-empting them through lack of understanding of how the game actually plays.
I clearly don't know them as well as many, but I do know that saying, "That class would be perfectly fine if you tripled the damage that special ability does from what it is now!" is ridiculous. As I stated in my last post, there's nothing wrong with the Highland Stalker, but if the ability were cumulative, there would be. I don't know if you just really have a thing for +d6 abilities or a thing against people who are nervous around them, or you really think the class is underpowered as written, or if you're trying to save face from earlier saying that the class was probably cumulative and that was awesome, but it's a little out of hand now that we've gotten to the point of saying "Well, if rangers are just moving 10 feet willy-nilly, why not throw some four-armed rogues in the mix?"
As it is, the posts are getting longer and they really aren't going anywhere, so I'm going to go ahead and say that you're right about most everything in this thread. Topping a perfectly fine prestige class off with an additional +4 AC and +6d6 damage on an ability that can be unlocked 1/turn on a good day, though? Not so much.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not sure where I expected things to go after I apologized, I sort of expected a "Boy, you sure were really wrong, let's get some pizza." sort of response. As it is, the posts are getting longer and they really aren't going anywhere, so I'm going to go ahead and say that you're right about most everything in this thread. Topping a perfectly fine prestige class off with an additional +4 AC and +6d6 damage on an ability that can be unlocked 1/turn on a good day, though? Not so much.
Honestly, despite the hell I've given, I'd get pizza with you any time. You've been one of the best sports arguing with me ever. I still think you're crazy about your analysis of the scouts ability, but I have a good friend that I've gamed with since we were 12 and he is exactly the same way. The guy is irrationale to a fault, and I can go blue in the face trying to convince him that it's sunny outside when he swears it's raining.
But, if you ever have a player that wants to run a scout though, let em give it a try out of the book and see how it turns out. If he upstages the rogue at every turn, for gods sake post here and tell us all about it.
Best regards,
Sebastian
P.S. And no need to apologize in the first place.
Indeed- same to you. I've been known to alienate people when I argue, so it's good to see this isn't gonna be one of those.