Improved Skirmish Over the Top?

[bestone]

Greater Manyshot makes precision damage apply to EVERY arrow. It's possible to abuse that feat so very badly.

I stand...corrected

and...ouch

 

[Machiavelli]

Yeah, seriously.

I was considering that feat for my Ranger, to apply Favored Enemy damage (not nearly as nasty as Sneak Attack, though more reliable) to all my Manyshot arrows, but even that just feels... dirty.

 

[airwalkrr]

Improved Skirmish really is too good IMHO. Scouts are not supposed to be damage dealers. They are supposed to be scouts. When the time comes, they do well at fighting a defensive retreat, but they are not offensive weapons and the feat seems to ignore that entirely. Would you allow a feat that gave a rogue +2d6 sneak attack at 3rd level?

 

[jasin]

I played a 5th-level rogue2/scout3 for a Red Hand of Doom campaign yesterday. With the Swift Ambusher feat, I was able to meet the requirements for Improved Skirmish. Taking it out for a test spind, at the time it seemed pretty insanely effective. I was routinely attacking with a +4d6 damage bonus.

Did the DM rule you actually had to move 20 ft. away from your starting position each round, or just 20 ft. total (so you could do 1 square left, 1 square right, 1 square left, 1 square right)?

 

[EyeontheMountain]

The thing that bothers me about Improved Skirmish is how many levels of improvement it grants. +2d6 damage and +2AC is 8 levels of improvement

Druid's animal companion fea grants +3
Practiced Spellcaster grants +4
Craven grants +4 levels (I think, I don't have the book)

Anmd so on. It is a bit too much in my opinion. +1d6 and +1AC would have been mroe balanced.

 

[Darklone]

Imp Skirmish is ok, but the combination with Greater Manyshot is broken.

 

[Felon]

Did the DM rule you actually had to move 20 ft. away from your starting position each round, or just 20 ft. total (so you could do 1 square left, 1 square right, 1 square left, 1 square right)?

Ah, yes, whether or not to obsess over the word "away" in the erraticized ability description. A rite of passage for any DM of a scout.

It really didn't come up during that game. I always tried to move more than 20 feet (I have Expeditious Dodge too heh).

 

[hong]

I would basically play it like the IH harrier: count unique squares of movement. So moving back and forth over the same squares counts as 5' regardless of how much movement you actually use up.

 

[Felon]

Improved Skirmish really is too good IMHO. Scouts are not supposed to be damage dealers. They are supposed to be scouts. When the time comes, they do well at fighting a defensive retreat, but they are not offensive weapons and the feat seems to ignore that entirely.

I have rebutt your assertion that "scouts aren't supposed damage-dealers" with a big ol' "says who?" Your assumption seems to lack a basis. The class was given a damage bonus, so apparently they are intended to do somewhat competitive damage.

I wasn't too big on Imp Skirm at first, but the more I think about it, the more I realize how lame skirmishing with ranged attacks becomes in comparison to some other archer (like a ranger) just standing still and firing off multiple shots (greater manyshot notwithstanding).

Would you allow a feat that gave a rogue +2d6 sneak attack at 3rd level?

No, because rogues don't suffer from the same problem we're discussing here. A rogue will only get more and more nasty as BAB and feats provide him with more and more attacks in a round.

 

[Felon]

I would basically play it like the IH harrier: count unique squares of movement. So moving back and forth over the same squares counts as 5' regardless of how much movement you actually use up.

Not an unreasonable method.

Of course, I'm not quite sure why there would be fuss at all about stepping back and forth. The movement requirement is more of a limitation on full-attack actions than it is a limitation on standing in relatively the same spot.