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

[Iku Rex]

I think they're trying to clarify that when you do "double damage" you're actually increasing the multiplier by one. So if you are also doubling damage for some other reason you do triple the original, not quadruple.

If you're talking about for some other reason doubling damage from your use of the Power Attack feat (as opposed to double damage from, say, a critical hit) you'll get triple damage from your use of the Power Attack feat. But as far as I'm concerned changing the wording used in every other rule in favor of "+100%" is only going to cause unnecessary confusion.

And since they failed to remove the third sentence the feat is still extremely attractive to two-handed weapon wielders.

 

[Caliban]

I think they're trying to clarify that when you do "double damage" you're actually increasing the multiplier by one. So if you are also doubling damage for some other reason you do triple the original, not quadruple. In D&D:

X * 2 * 2 = 3X

With the errata, you now effectively deal 4x your attack penalty from power attack when using Leap Attack, depending how you define "normal bonus damage from the use of power attack".

 

[Bront]

Pout, they Erratta'd Natural Bond to only apply to one animal companion.

 

[Thanee]

With the errata, you now effectively deal 4x your attack penalty from power attack when using Leap Attack, depending how you define "normal bonus damage from the use of power attack".

That would be my impression as well...

Normal damage bonus (1H) = +1 per -1 ~+100%~> +2 per -1
Normal damage bonus (2H) = +2 per -1 ~+100%~> +4 per -1

I wonder, if that is what they intended!? Probably not...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Iku Rex]

With the errata, you now effectively deal 4x your attack penalty from power attack when using Leap Attack, depending how you define "normal bonus damage from the use of power attack".

Uh, no.

You deal 2x the attack penalty with a one-handed weapon and 6x your attack penalty with a two-handed weapon (third sentence).

 

[Bront]

That would be my impression as well...

Normal damage bonus (1H) = +1 per -1 ~+100%~> +2 per -1
Normal damage bonus (2H) = +2 per -1 ~+100%~> +4 per -1

I wonder, if that is what they intended!? Probably not...

Bye
Thanee

Why not? It's only one attack, you drop your AC to make it, you need to make a jump check of 10 (20 if you don't have a 20' head start), and you can't do it each round to the same target without provoking an attack of oppertunity in most cases. Doesn't seem too bad, and we are talking a feat.

 

[Bront]

Uh, no.

You deal 2x the attack penalty with a one-handed weapon and 6x your attack penalty with a two-handed weapon (third sentence).

Doh, didn't see the 3rd sentance.

3rd sentance reads:

If you use this weapon with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from power attack.

So, it's x2 or x3 instead of x1 or x2.

Um, why is this even erattaed? Seems like nothing changed.

 

[Thanee]

So what we have now is...

If you cover at least 10 feet of horizontal distance with your jump, and you end your jump in a square from which you threaten your target, you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat.
If you use this weapon with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from power attack.

So you triple the extra damage from power attack, which is +2 per -1 normally, so +6 per -1 as Iku Rex says?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felon]

No, in the face of such a trap, a party laments its choice of scout over rogue, just as, in the case of a group starving in the wilderness, the party laments its choice of a rogue over a scout.

Heh. You have to come up with a better scenario than starvation to make that an equal comarison. Players can expect to encounter traps far more often than they can expect to run out of food (and have nothing they can do about it). Heck, it only takes a DC 10 Survival check to live off the land, so most folks can take 10.

I've already explained the problem with the logic you're espousing above. If you have counter-arguements to refute them with, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise it sounds you just want to hold fast with refuting the logic simply because you're too intellectually invested in your current position to give it up.

I always saw the scout as a 'pathfinder' kind of class and function.
The scout was someone who would recon the area ahead marking the traps for others to avoid, it didn't strike me as a class that was a path clearer. With such an emphasis on mobility it struck me as perfectly reasonable that the scout would not want to stop (i.e. not use their mobility) and spend the time to disable trap.

As I have said, that is a form-over-function point of view. In practice, most traps are not designed to be something you can simply ignore. They're obstacles that you have to deal with.

 

[Sir Brennen]

As I said, that is a form-over-function point of view. In practice, most traps are often not designed to be something you can simply ignore. They're obstacles that you have to deal with.

I tend to agree. Many people have argued that the Scout is meant to "find a way around" traps he finds. Well, there is no "Avoid Trap" skill. Without DD, it's up to the party as a whole to find a way around the trap, not just the Scout. And this will probably mean expenditure of party resources - HP, spells, special abilities or item charges. Using DD is free (if it succeeds.) This impact on party resources can have a trickle effect on the rest of the adventure, and the DM should adjust things accordingly.

Also, DD is simply not a skill where it's really effective to use cross-class. It's like having a couple ranks in Demolitions

As mentioned, adding DD as one of the available options for the Scout doesn't mean they're going to replace the rogue. I'm currently playing a Scout, and if there was a rogue in the party that was maxing out his DD skill, well, there are plenty of other skills for me to sink my points into instead. I'm already trying to avoid spreading myself too thin as it is