Complete Adventurer Erratta Posted--ATTENTION ALL SCOUTS!!!

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Me, too. And didn't some WotC staffer go on record, full-bore, saying the omission of Disable Device was intentional?

Same thing happened with the Halfling Outrider's BAB omission.

On the other hand, the Scout's lack of Disable Device actually made sense to me.

 

[moritheil]

Me, too. And didn't some WotC staffer go on record, full-bore, saying the omission of Disable Device was intentional?

I think this was one step too far ... the scout clearly infringes on rogue territory now.

I don't really understand what's wrong with this. (I don't play a scout, but there's one in a game I play in, and he uses this tactic. He's anything but overwhelming in combat.)

It seems to me that the point of the 10-foot move thing was to ensure the scout wouldn't get a full attack. The "5-foot shuffle" ensures that just fine. Is there some balance reason for this change that I'm missing?

I don't think it's a balance issue so much as a cognitive dissonance issue. People are accustomed to thinking that the increased damage is the result of additional momentum used to drive the attack home, and that the 10' or more of movement is a "running start." Again, I don't see this explicitly in the rules, but it's a very easy way to rationalize it, and it is violated by the "five foot shuffle" you speak of.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

People are accustomed to thinking that the increased damage is the result of additional momentum used to drive the attack home, and that the 10' or more of movement is a "running start."

Except when the scout moves 10 feet away from the target ...

I always thought the idea was just that the scout was good at battles involving high mobility (i.e., skirmishes). If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with the 5-foot shuffle, balance-wise or conceptually.

IMO, this is just a change for the sake of making a change.

 

[Felon]

Me, too. And didn't some WotC staffer go on record, full-bore, saying the omission of Disable Device was intentional? I think this was one step too far ... the scout clearly infringes on rogue territory now.

A lot of folks think there's some unwritten law that errate can only account for typos and accidental omissions. It can also include "hey, now that this thing's being played on a much wider scale than we could ever playtest it, an issue that we thought was minor turned out to be not-so-minor and we're fixing it".

Yes, you can argue that it "makes sense" to leave Disable Device off the scout's class skill list because in the woods you can walk around a trap instead of fiddling with it blah blah blah, but anyone who does so is putting form ahead of function--in fact, they're outright sacrificing function for form, which is generally a bad move. If the class can find traps, then clearly the intent should be to supplant the rogue as the party trapfinder, and it shouldn't be half-assed at doing so (although trap sense still makes the rogue the optimal trapfinder).

The comparison to the halfling outrider incident is appropriate. They initially thought something was OK, and when it became apparent it wasn't, they fixed it and got lambasted for the deplorable crime of inconsistency.

I don't think it's a balance issue so much as a cognitive dissonance issue. People are accustomed to thinking that the increased damage is the result of additional momentum used to drive the attack home, and that the 10' or more of movement is a "running start." Again, I don't see this explicitly in the rules, but it's a very easy way to rationalize it, and it is violated by the "five foot shuffle" you speak of.

The damage is precision damage--it doesn't work against non-critable creatures, for instance--so, no it's not extra momentum. The erratic movement allows the scout to catch his opponents with their guard down.

This is one of those "ivory tower" issues, to use a Monteism. They gave the mechanics for the ability, and didn't bother to explain the idea behind it. Think of skirmish like this: initially, they wanted the scout to have Sneak Attack/Sudden Strike, and the Skirmish ability augmented it by being something along the lines of a mobile feint; it negated a foe's Dex bonus to AC whenever the scout moved 10 feet. That turned out to be awkward, and instead they simplified it by just incorporating the bonus damage directly into the skirmish ability.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If the class can find traps, then clearly the intent should be to supplant the rogue as the party trapfinder

You lost me. How does that conclusion clearly follow from your premise?

 

[Felon]

You lost me. How does that conclusion clearly follow from your premise?

Because it's pointless for them to have the ability otherwise, and almost a little sadistic to set a scout up in the position of fulfilling the rogue's role in the party without actually being capable of doing so. True, it is possible to purchase cross-class ranks in Disable Device, but look at the numbers; trap DC's are very high relative to the levels at which traps are actually considered to pose significant dangers (10th or less). Consider that a 1st-level spell trap has a DD DC of 26. The net effect is that by the time someone buys enough cross-class ranks in Disable Device to have even a 50/50 chance of disarming a given trap, that trap is probably a joke.

 

[FireLance]

If the class can find traps, then clearly the intent should be to supplant the rogue as the party trapfinder, and it shouldn't be half-assed at doing so.

Well, I thought that scouts not having Disable Device was a neat idea because it allowed for a different type of challenge - how to circumvent or minimize the effects of a trap without necessarily disarming it. Previously, a party would only face this kind of issue if they had a cleric that consistently walked around with find traps active.

 

[Thanee]

A lot of folks think there's some unwritten law that errate can only account for typos and accidental omissions. It can also include "hey, now that this thing's being played on a much wider scale than we could ever playtest it, an issue that we thought was minor turned out to be not-so-minor and we're fixing it".

No, the errata can, of course, also *change* things, when it becomes apparent, that a change is needed, i.e. when the original rule does not work as intended, or is too powerful in combination with something else, which had not been considered at the time, etc.

Yes, you can argue that it "makes sense" to leave Disable Device off the scout's class skill list because in the woods you can walk around a trap instead of fiddling with it blah blah blah, but anyone who does so is putting form ahead of function--in fact, they're outright sacrificing function for form, which is generally a bad move. If the class can find traps, then clearly the intent should be to supplant the rogue as the party trapfinder, and it shouldn't be half-assed at doing so (although trap sense still makes the rogue the optimal trapfinder).

Trapfinding and the mechanical and obscure knowledge needed to understand and sabotage their mechanisms are two very different things. I really liked the original design decision and intent.

The comparison to the halfling outrider incident is appropriate. They initially thought something was OK, and when it became apparent it wasn't, they fixed it and got lambasted for the deplorable crime of inconsistency.

It's probably more like the 'public pressure', since so many have wondered how the trapfinding ability makes sense without Disable Device as well, they chose to go the path of the least resistance by simply adding the class skill, moving away from the original intent somewhat.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felon]

Well, I thought that scouts not having Disable Device was a neat idea because it allowed for a different type of challenge - how to circumvent or minimize the effects of a trap without necessarily disarming it. Previously, a party would only face this kind of issue if they had a cleric that consistently walked around with find traps active.

On paper, I agree it's a neat idea--there is an entire section in the PHB on disabling traps withouth the Disable Device skill. But it's often unused and I can tell you from playing a scout that a DM often does not want to get into the nitty-gritty mechanical details of how a trap works. And with spell traps, there are no real details--it either will go off or it won't.

In playing a scout, I routinely found the trap, then just had the barbarian smash the door or the chest, which he was inclined to do anyway. Which kinda makes the finding pointless. Or I'd try something clever to get around the trap (like using a hatchet on the side of a chest to circumvent the trap in the lock) only to have the poison gas come jetting out anyway.

Like it or not, many folks are conditioned to think Disable Device is necessary for disarming a trap.

Trapfinding and the mechanical and obscure knowledge needed to understand and sabotage their mechanisms are two very different things. I really liked the original design decision and intent.

Again, that's an arguement of form over function--some notion of what's practical at some conceptual level, versus what's actually practical for the purpose of the game.

It's probably more like the 'public pressure', since so many have wondered how the trapfinding ability makes sense without Disable Device as well, they chose to go the path of the least resistance by simply adding the class skill, moving away from the original intent somewhat.

Well, they shoudl listen to feedback. And the feedback had some darn good arguements for including Disable Device as a class skill for any class that has the Trapfinding ability. Sometimes the path of least resistance/convulution is the right one to take.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

It seems to me that the point of the 10-foot move thing was to ensure the scout wouldn't get a full attack. The "5-foot shuffle" ensures that just fine. Is there some balance reason for this change that I'm missing?

Wouldn't this 5-attack-5 require the shot on the run feat anyway? Given the cost, I don't see the problem.

With regard to Disable Device, I too remember that being an intentional choice on the designers' part, and not one to which I objected.