Complete Adventurer Erratta Posted--ATTENTION ALL SCOUTS!!!
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
Zandel
First Post
The 5' shuffle never sat well with me but the errata has just turned it into a 10' shuffle.
It doesn't say that you have to end your movement 10' away just that you have to move 10' away. So you can move 10' away then 10' back again and get Skirmish damage.
The mounted combat bit is just stupid. If they're worried about mounted ranges full-attacks they should add that skirmish damage is only added to ONE SINGLE attack per round. So only one attack in a full-attack if you somehow move the min 10' and can still Full-Attack...
How about a ranged scout with a ring of feather falling thet jumped off a cliff? They can get full-Attack + skirmish damage at range with the errata ruling.
It doesn't say that you have to end your movement 10' away just that you have to move 10' away. So you can move 10' away then 10' back again and get Skirmish damage.
The mounted combat bit is just stupid. If they're worried about mounted ranges full-attacks they should add that skirmish damage is only added to ONE SINGLE attack per round. So only one attack in a full-attack if you somehow move the min 10' and can still Full-Attack...
How about a ranged scout with a ring of feather falling thet jumped off a cliff? They can get full-Attack + skirmish damage at range with the errata ruling.
dvvega
Explorer
Well after reading everyone's opinions on the Scout update, here are mine 
1. I disagree with the addition of the Disable Device ability as a class skill.
Why? Because a Scout is a ... well a scout. They're supposed to go ahead of the party, checking out the terrain, making notes of enemy positions, being able to note where all traps are (they get Search as a class skill), and report back to the party. Of course party here could be army, unit, what have you.
The Scout could of course then note all trap locations for the sapper/Rogue/trap guy to go around and disable them, or he could devise a better route to avoid the traps, and the enemy watch posts.
If the Scout was doubling as a Rogue for a group, then he would be cross-classing into a skill that he normally didn't use for his job function. Which is 100% how I read the class originally.
2. The mounted part of the Skirmish ability I agree with, however the ability should be renamed in some way, or described better.
Many military campaigns involved mounted skirmishers who would ride in on their horses and attack the flanks, causing disarray and then they would ride off. They would cause a panic, possibly turn part of the army away to face them, and thus enable the main force to attack from a stronger position. They are obviously using some verison of the Skirmish ability.
However, the Scout is not someone trained like this. It is obvious (well to me anyway) from the class description, and all of their abilities that they're supposed to be a median between Ranger and Rogue. However as someone has stated it may perhaps have been a Sneak Attack with Feint thing that was simplified into Skirmish.
3. The 10' clarification.
I agree that the 10' movement must be away from your starting position. It is pretty much a "sneak around to the unprotected flank and attack" ability. Just bouncing into the same square does not give this impression. The Fighter that is bearing down on you, with shield held in front, bastard sword raised high, is not going to suddenly be exposed if you move 10' by going 5' forward, 5' back. He doesn't have to change his defensive position in any major way. Neither would he change it much if you moved side to side.
As for the Leap Attack Thing ...
I think that the +100% is meant to be an easier way of saying x2 and if you are using a two-handed weapon with Power Attack it is x3. And we will see a further erratta in the coming months that rewords it again. However for now, with +100%, the Reckless/Powerful Charging Leap Attacker is going to become popular.
Because if you just add +100% you run the risk of them rolling maximum damage on a weapon (let us say 1d10 -> 10). With the x2 meaning you roll twice you're less likely to see a 20 damage rolled. With +100% you're going to get maximum damage a little more often (twice as often).
D
1. I disagree with the addition of the Disable Device ability as a class skill.
Why? Because a Scout is a ... well a scout. They're supposed to go ahead of the party, checking out the terrain, making notes of enemy positions, being able to note where all traps are (they get Search as a class skill), and report back to the party. Of course party here could be army, unit, what have you.
The Scout could of course then note all trap locations for the sapper/Rogue/trap guy to go around and disable them, or he could devise a better route to avoid the traps, and the enemy watch posts.
If the Scout was doubling as a Rogue for a group, then he would be cross-classing into a skill that he normally didn't use for his job function. Which is 100% how I read the class originally.
2. The mounted part of the Skirmish ability I agree with, however the ability should be renamed in some way, or described better.
Many military campaigns involved mounted skirmishers who would ride in on their horses and attack the flanks, causing disarray and then they would ride off. They would cause a panic, possibly turn part of the army away to face them, and thus enable the main force to attack from a stronger position. They are obviously using some verison of the Skirmish ability.
However, the Scout is not someone trained like this. It is obvious (well to me anyway) from the class description, and all of their abilities that they're supposed to be a median between Ranger and Rogue. However as someone has stated it may perhaps have been a Sneak Attack with Feint thing that was simplified into Skirmish.
3. The 10' clarification.
I agree that the 10' movement must be away from your starting position. It is pretty much a "sneak around to the unprotected flank and attack" ability. Just bouncing into the same square does not give this impression. The Fighter that is bearing down on you, with shield held in front, bastard sword raised high, is not going to suddenly be exposed if you move 10' by going 5' forward, 5' back. He doesn't have to change his defensive position in any major way. Neither would he change it much if you moved side to side.
As for the Leap Attack Thing ...
I think that the +100% is meant to be an easier way of saying x2 and if you are using a two-handed weapon with Power Attack it is x3. And we will see a further erratta in the coming months that rewords it again. However for now, with +100%, the Reckless/Powerful Charging Leap Attacker is going to become popular.
Because if you just add +100% you run the risk of them rolling maximum damage on a weapon (let us say 1d10 -> 10). With the x2 meaning you roll twice you're less likely to see a 20 damage rolled. With +100% you're going to get maximum damage a little more often (twice as often).
D
Last edited:
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
dvvega said:
Ten times as often.
Chance of a 20 on 2d10: 1 in 100.
Chance of a 20 on 1d10 x 2: 1 in 10.
-Hyp.
(I'm not going to give a detailed reply to Delemental and Patryn of Elvenshae. If they can't see the glaring absurdity of their claims nothing I can say will help them.)
Moving on, I think I've solved the mystery (as far as I am concerned) with a little help from the Compete Warrior errata.
(The original text says to add +3/+4 damage for every -1 penalty if you're wielding a two-handed weapon.)
Notice the exact same wording.
So, I'm thinking that the changes were made to clarify how Leap Attack stacks (or not) with the Frenzied Berserker's Supreme/Improved Power Attack abilities. The "+100%" stuff isn't necessary - the point is that both abilities multiply the same value ("the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat") triggering DnD multiplication rules.
The feat is supposed to work the same as Supreme Power Attack, only they forgot to remove the third sentence. :\
Moving on, I think I've solved the mystery (as far as I am concerned) with a little help from the Compete Warrior errata.
Complete Warrior errata said:
(The original text says to add +3/+4 damage for every -1 penalty if you're wielding a two-handed weapon.)
Complete Adventurer errata said:
Notice the exact same wording.
So, I'm thinking that the changes were made to clarify how Leap Attack stacks (or not) with the Frenzied Berserker's Supreme/Improved Power Attack abilities. The "+100%" stuff isn't necessary - the point is that both abilities multiply the same value ("the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat") triggering DnD multiplication rules.
The feat is supposed to work the same as Supreme Power Attack, only they forgot to remove the third sentence. :\
dvvega said:Well after reading everyone's opinions on the Scout update, here are mine
1. I disagree with the addition of the Disable Device ability as a class skill. Why? Because a Scout is a ... well a scout. They're supposed to go ahead of the party, checking out the terrain, making notes of enemy positions, being able to note where all traps are (they get Search as a class skill), and report back to the party. Of course party here could be army, unit, what have you. The Scout could of course then note all trap locations for the sapper/Rogue/trap guy to go around and disable them, or he could devise a better route to avoid the traps, and the enemy watch posts. If the Scout was doubling as a Rogue for a group, then he would be cross-classing into a skill that he normally didn't use for his job function. Which is 100% how I read the class originally.
Y'know, this limited interpretation of the scout's role in the party is becoming increasingly more obtuse. If you have read all the preceding posts as you claim, you must know that you're just regurgitating a rationale that's been espoused several times already, and that said rationale has been debunked each time.
Seriously, when someone explains in simple terms how a position is utterly impractical, do you really think the thing to do is dig in your heels all the harder? If you had a pragmatic counter-arguement, then that'd be ever so great. But that's not what's happening, we're just going in circles as people refuse to acknowledge that form sometimes has to yield to functionality.
It occurs to me that some iconoclast could easily rant that giving a rogue Disable Device as a class skill is inappropriate as well. After all, the rogue is not some fellow running around dungeons avoiding bombs and acid-filled pits. Why, he's clearly even less dungeon-oriented than the scout. Dungeons are typically in the wilderness after all. The rogue is an urban character--a pickpocket, a con man, a second-story man. Why would a pickpocket or a con man know how to disarm a bomb? Oh sure, maybe he could find one, but then he would just carry the bomb around until he found someone with sufficient skill to disarm it (which would be nobody, because we'll have rationalized our way into nodoby having sufficient skill). Heck, even a burglar doesn't encounter that many acid-filled pits while he's rifling through your sock drawer!
Conversely, it's just as easy to rationalize that a scout would attempt to eliminate traps so that his unit could move through the area without worrying about missing the sticky note saying "Cyanide dart trap! Nasty! --> ".
Last edited:
