Complete Adventurer (merged)

[zoroaster100]

What is the explanation or justification given for extra skirmish damage for the scout class? Is it just like sneak attack damage except it applies when the movement condition is met? Does it affect undead, constructs and plants? Do they give a flavor explanation as to why a scout does more damage when the scout moves the required amount before attacking? Is the skirmish damage ability equal in power to sneak attack damage or is it more or less powerful? Also, does the scout have d8 or d6 hit dice?

 

[Remathilis]

Sadly, I don't have the book near me, so I can't comment on a flavor reason for skirmish. I vaguely recall it having something to do with being trained to make attack on the move, but I'm not 100%.

Scouts have d6 HD. IMHO, if you want a non-spellcasting ranger variant thats more on movement and skill than old-school track and twf favored foes, this is your godsend. This class can set back the ever-popular ranger/rogue (wilder-ninja) build by taking some of the best of each and mixing so as not to defeat the rogues greatest abilities (mostly trap stuff and UCD) or the unique ranger stuff (FE, spells, combat paths).

 

[Tessarael]

What is the explanation or justification given for extra skirmish damage for the scout class? Is it just like sneak attack damage except it applies when the movement condition is met? Does it affect undead, constructs and plants? Do they give a flavor explanation as to why a scout does more damage when the scout moves the required amount before attacking? Is the skirmish damage ability equal in power to sneak attack damage or is it more or less powerful? Also, does the scout have d8 or d6 hit dice?

The explanation is "A scout relies on mobility to deal extra damage and improve her defense." Seems like fluff to me.

It is identical to sneak attack damage, but requires that the Scout have moved 10' in the round. As a result, it does not affect creatures that are not vulnerable to critical hits.

I would say that it is less powerful. They get +5d6 skirmish damage in 20 levels, and we know it is weaker than sneak attack because of the movement requirement. The Scout also gets +5 AC in 20 levels with that skirmish stuff, if they move at least 10' in the round.

The Scout has d8 HD.

I think the Scout and Ninja base classes are poorly constructed. There was a reason why Sneak Attack was made usable more often in 3E, now these classes go back towards making it more difficult, without sufficient compensation in my mind. I think you'd be better off taking Rogue levels instead of levels in Scout or Ninja - maybe mix in some Ranger levels for Scout equivalent, and Sorcerer for Wizard equivalent (to emulate Swift Invisibility and stuff like that).

Then again, I've had that problem with most of the Complete Blah books. The base classes are generally worse than those presented in the PHB or Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. Unfettered is the sort of class I'd like to see, rather than Scout.

 

[Tessarael]

To put it differently: there are already strong motivations for a Rogue to attack from being invisible or hidden, and for a Rogue to not go toe-to-toe in combat. I don't see any need to force those options to be the only good options for a Rogue-type character by reducing the situations in which a Scout or Ninja can use their sneak attack-type of ability.

 

[zoroaster100]

O.k., one of you said d6 and the other said d8 for the Scout. Did the book list a different HD type in the chart and in the text by any chance.

As to the skirmish damage, do you mean that the movement requirement is on top of the regular restrictions for sneak attack (flat-footed or flanking)? I thought the movement restriction was instead of the sneak attack restrictions rather than in addition to them.

The other stuff in the book seems intersting, but I was wondering if the Scout class would be a good alternative for a new player I have that wants to play a good archer character with trapfinding and more skills than a fighter. I was going to suggest a ranger with one level of rogue, but maybe the Scout is another alternative?

 

[Tessarael]

O.k., one of you said d6 and the other said d8 for the Scout.

As to the skirmish damage, do you mean that the movement requirement is on top of the regular restrictions for sneak attack (flat-footed or flanking)? I thought the movement restriction was instead of the sneak attack restrictions rather than in addition to them.

The other stuff in the book seems intersting, but I was wondering if the Scout class would be a good alternative for a new player I have that wants to play a good archer character with trapfinding and more skills than a fighter. I was going to suggest a ranger with one level of rogue, but maybe the Scout is another alternative?

I have the book in front of me. Scouts have d8 HD. Ninja and Spellthief have d6 HD.

You are correct. The movement restriction of at least 10' movement in a round is instead of flanking or that your opponent be flat-footed. Hmmm, that might well make Skirmish better than Sneak Attack, if you put together a build with Spring Attack for example.

Scouts do not get Disable Device as a class skill. As a result, I would be inclined to take some levels of Rogue anyway. If you're not focused on wilderness stuff, then Scout might make more sense than Ranger, providing you don't mind BAB 3/4 instead of BAB 1/1. Actually, I'm now thinking that Scout is comparable to Rogue and perhaps better than Ranger (but lower BAB, so depends on your focus).

 

[Taren Seeker]

Wow never noticed that Scout doesn't have Disable. That MUST be a typo. They have the Trapfinding ability and the flavor text states that they are just as good as rogues at dealing with traps. The Trapfinding ability also mentions that Scouts can use Disable Device.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Does the Master of Many forms get more uses of wildshape per day, or just better forms?

 

[Tessarael]

Does the Master of Many forms get more uses of wildshape per day?

One additional use per level in Master of Many Forms (listed at the end of the section on Improved Wild Shape).

Wow never noticed that Scout doesn't have Disable. That MUST be a typo. They have the Trapfinding ability and the flavor text states that they are just as good as rogues at dealing with traps. The Trapfinding ability also mentions that Scouts can use Disable Device.

I'm not sure. It would make sense for them to have Disable Device. Then again, maybe it is intended that a Rogue be better in that regard, and that the Scout has to put in cross-class ranks.

With a few other typos and minor errors in the book, it makes me wonder whether this is an error or intentional. I think as a DM, it would be entirely reasonable to make Disable Device a class skill for Scout, especially if there is no Rogue in the party.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, I read the FAQ, but from a technical aspect I think it's dubious, as it is not in line with the way D&D rules operate. The rules under attack actions are used for all attacks. Were I to follow the logic the FAQ follows, I would have no formalized means how to resolve a manyshot. The FAQ even admits that there is no formal action type called attack actions. It does state the intent is that they not work together; the proper thing to do would be to state as much in the feat description.

The FAQ answer was written by Skip Williams.

The Manyshot feat was written by Andy Collins; when he was queried on the SotR question in his pre-Sage days, he stated that he had deliberately phrased it as "standard action" and not as "attack action" to prevent the combination with SotR.

The Attack action is a standard action that allows you to make a single attack. The Full Attack action is a full round action that allows you to make one or more attacks. The Charge action is a full round action that allows you to make a single melee attack following a move.

If you have a feat that requires the Attack action or Full Attack action - like Combat Expertise - you can't use it if you Charge, even though when you charge, you make an attack. Because that attack does not result from an Attack action or Full Attack action; it results from the Charge action. Thus, you are not taking 'the Attack action or the Full Attack action', and are not eligible to use Combat Expertise.

In the same way, Dual Strike allows you to take a standard action to attack with both weapons. It does not allow you to take the Attack action to attack with both weapons.

Spring Attack requires you to use the Attack action with a melee weapon. If you use the Dual Strike standard action to attack with both weapons, you are not using the Attack action with a melee weapon, and thus cannot use Spring Attack.

-Hyp.