[Complete Scoundrel] Improved Skirmish feat...

[drexes]

All power creep bitterness aside, I think the scout is a lot of fun, I started one when they first came out as a scout/fighter with a level of barbarian to boot. He's a melee scout using the spring attack trick now and while he's not the most dangerous combatant I've ever played or seen, he's no slouch. I disagree with the above post that the fighter and wizard have become obsolete with the duskblade, nor has the ranger been ousted by the scout. My feelings have always been that there has never been any need for game balance between character classes for the most part so long as each class has things it does well, while it still has a need to be in a diverse party so that its weaknesses are hard to exploit, after all thats why we travel in packs, safety in numbers. There was never balance between the classes a low level wizard is way too weak and a high level wizard is far and away the strongest member of a party, but really that all on paper. The play's the thing. I've seen too many "uber" characters who couldn't survive an intro encounter because the player was obsessed with the strength of their character on paper and didn't notice that everyone has a weakness, even if it's simply dice. And I've seen supposedly pathetic characters become the real power of a party because of the creativity of the player overshadowed some bad stats and lack of equipment.

But here's what I think is really important, and in my experience it's true, if players play the concepts of their characters and not the paper of them then balance will take care of itself. As a DM it's important to reward, through experience points, equipment, and unique opportunity those players who dedicate themselves to the style of play that is good for your group, and encourage players to remain a cohesive group. That doesn't have the slightest thing to do with intra-party strife by the way, I encourage that whenever possible, I mean discouraging intra-group strife by making a group filled with guys with similar play styles. Purist roleplayers and rollplayers don't play well together usually.

Well eneough rambling...sorry about that guys... got off on a tangent, couldn't find an exit ramp...

Drexes

 

[green slime]

True drexes, the problem is really a problem of different play styles and/or player expectations.

 

[Beckett]

ah, yes, i see it now, a pattern as clear as day

All d20 books must contain feats that escalate in power, to be great improvements over those currently existing

each book shall contain newer, stronger races, classes and feat, so players have no choice but to buy into this wealth of power

why be a mage or a warrior now? it is clear thou should be a duskblade... why be a rogue or a ranger? a scout is the way to go now

yes....yes....more books.....more power........ less money

just 5 more book releases and i should be near invincible!!!!

Oh, bologna.

Sure, feats have been ramped up. They can't all match the power of a +2 to two skills feat.

But the new classes are head and shoulders above the old? No (not getting into it about the Bo9S classes here). Duskblades are pretty awesome fighter/mages, but that D8 is putting them further and futher behind the fighter in HP. Plus, the duskblade's main attack, his channeling, is a standard action for most of his career. Meanwhile, the fighter is making 2 or 3 attacks with plenty of bonuses that don't run out. A glance at the duskblade spell list reveals a number of holes in area effect and utility spells. Just as I wouldn't want the only arcane caster in the party of be a Warmage, I don't see duskblade usurping the wizard's role.

Scouts are nifty skill monkeys with a great hit and run attack. But, even with an extra 2D6 from improved skirmish, they're still going to be trailing the rogue in extra damage dice. The movement requirement means the scout is only getting one skirmish attack in a round, and once he's delivered that, he might not be in a position to do it again. A rogue, on the other hand, can get into flank and sneak attack with every single attack.

The new books add more options and some nifty abilities, but by no means are they making the core obsolete.

 

[Darklone]

Scout is ok as long as you don't allow Greater Manyshot and Imp Skirmish.

 

[airwalkrr]

I would like to thank the OP for making me aware of this feat so that I can restrict it from my campaign.

 

[Victim]

In the hands of scout builds that are actually decent (greater manyshot, dervish), this feat is too much. Otherwise, it's probably not enough.

 

[Felix]

I would think that a +1d6 +1 AC would be pretty neat for a feat; as +2d6 and +2 AC, why would a Scout not take this feat?

 

[The Grackle]

I wasn't aware anyone tried to actually use skirmish with a melee weapon. All the scout builds I have ever seen are archers.

I play a barb/scout/fighter who only fights melee. I think scout archers are cheesy. Skirmish damage should have been restricted to melee or thrown weapons.

Compared with damage I get off 2H PA/leap attack, the skirmish damage is almost for flavor. Skirmish damage lags behind Sneak Attack damage quite a bit, so I don't think the feat's toooo over the top. Though it is a Must Have.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I would think that a +1d6 +1 AC would be pretty neat for a feat; as +2d6 and +2 AC, why would a Scout not take this feat?

Yep, it is a no brainer for a 6th elvel feat in a scout build,. Ad this to the multiclass feat where a ranger/scout levels stack for both favored enemy and skirmish, and I can see a very very scary skirmish archer coming up, espeically adding in +4 or +6 for favored enemy.

Plus isn't there a feat that allows more power attack against favored enemies. Add 3 levels of peerless archer to that and the damage would be incredible.

 

[IanB]

Scouts are not especially broken as written. I'm not sure if this feat will overpower them or not.

In your typical cramped dungeon surroundings with 10' corridors, etc., having to move 20 feet away from your starting position to get the bonus may not always be possible, at least.