Improved Skirmish Over the Top?

[jasin]

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).

Skirmish has a range of 30 ft. In enclosed spaces (like dungeons, which might come up often in Dungeons and Dragons), moving 20 ft. can easily take you more than 30 ft. away from the enemy. In flat open spaces... well, it make sense that a skirmisher comes into its own there.

Improved Skirmish sure seems powerful, perhaps a bit too powerful. But it might be that it's one of those things that sounds better on paper than in practice.

 

[Sithobi1]

It says 20 feet away, so I'd measure 20 feet like any other distance, from square to square. This means you actually have to move 20 feet in a single direction. No stepping back and forth.

 

[Blue]

I love the feeling on the boards for this. "If you combine skirmish with a specific feat that lets you move and get multiple attacks all the time, then Improved Skirmish is too powerful."

There are a number of ways to move and attack multiple times. Greater Multishot may be the "most accessable", instead of limited use items like spells to allow you toi pounce or what have you. So yes, if you combine the perfect combonation to allow you to get skirmish damage and multiple attacks every round, then something whihc boosts your skirmish damage is potent.

As for worry that it's 8 levels of boost - it also has additional limitations, specifically 20 feet from stating place (read the feat, it has different distance and how you measure it requirements). There are lots of circumstances where 20' of move isn't possible. Or at least, 20' of move and ending up withing 30' of your opponent (needed for ranged skirmish) or within reach (for melee) doesn't work out well. That makes it a situational feat. If your DM primarily has big outdoor encounters without difficult terrain or battlefield control spells, you'll do well with this feat.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

 

[jasin]

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.

A Zen archer should stand in one place and shoot a single arrow of death. A skirmisher should move and shoot a single arrow of death from an unexpected direction.

Doing a little dance in one play and then shooting a single arrow of death is neither here nor there. It just seems silly.

So I guess for me it mostly a visuals thing.

 

[Machiavelli]

I, personally, think that Improved Skirmish is an abusable but acceptable feat. Were I to DM a scout, I would only allow Improved Skirmish if I thought the player was not likely to try to abuse it.

In my mind, doing silly little dances to meet the prerequisites, per RAW, for a damage-dealing boost in a class built around speed and skillfulness would be an "abuse". We're trying to enjoy some epic fantasy, yes? Not to compare genital sizes by means of arithmetic. Thank you.

 

[blargney the second]

I think there's something in the errata or FAQ that states skirmish happens when you move 10' away from your starting position. No dances of ruin.

 

[Seeten]

I, personally, think that Improved Skirmish is an abusable but acceptable feat. Were I to DM a scout, I would only allow Improved Skirmish if I thought the player was not likely to try to abuse it.

In my mind, doing silly little dances to meet the prerequisites, per RAW, for a damage-dealing boost in a class built around speed and skillfulness would be an "abuse". We're trying to enjoy some epic fantasy, yes? Not to compare genital sizes by means of arithmetic. Thank you.

Wait, am I having BadWrongFun again? Damn! I hate when I have BadWrongFun.

 

[Felon]

A Zen archer should stand in one place and shoot a single arrow of death. A skirmisher should move and shoot a single arrow of death from an unexpected direction.

Doing a little dance in one play and then shooting a single arrow of death is neither here nor there. It just seems silly.

So I guess for me it mostly a visuals thing.

In my mind, doing silly little dances to meet the prerequisites, per RAW, for a damage-dealing boost in a class built around speed and skillfulness would be an "abuse". We're trying to enjoy some epic fantasy, yes? Not to compare genital sizes by means of arithmetic. Thank you.

What you guys call "a silly little dance" is pretty much what skirmishing boils down to: keeping an opponent off-balance by avoiding straight lines of attack in favor of weaving and swerving. Watching a game of basketball, one will find lots of back-and-forth is what gets past the guards, not running straight for the hoop.

And it sure as hell strikes me as odd to define not screwing oneself out of opportunities to use one's primary form of offense as "abuse".

 

[Valesin]

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?

Bad comparison: a rogue's sneak attack is easier to get than skirmish, and the rogue can get a full attack, each dealing sneak attack damage. The very mechanics of the scout make it impossible to get a full-attack action and skirmish at the same time.

 

[Sithobi1]

I'm still not seeing where you can get "20 feet away" by not moving at all...