scouts and skirmishing

[Voadam]

a player in my game wants to play a scout in my new campaign. I just got a look at his copy of the complete adventurer and wanted to see if I understand the skirmish ability right and its basic tactics. Any time the character moves at least 10 feet and attacks he gets skirmish damage added on. It doesn't say it must be in a straight line so he can move back five feet (drawing an AoO) and then back into range and get skirmish damage, correct? the AoO for skirmish damage seems OK and the ability also encourages charging into combat or spring attack tactics, both of which are fine by me.

 

[Thanee]

Check the errata (or was it the FAQ?), it clarifies this to some degree and changes it a bit.

Bye
Thanee

 

[shilsen]

Check the errata (or was it the FAQ?), it clarifies this to some degree and changes it a bit.

Bye
Thanee

Errata. No going back to the same square, IIRC.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Errata. No going back to the same square, IIRC.

Page 12: Skirmish (class feature)
The second sentence of the skirmish class feature
should read as follows (new text indicated in red): She
deals an extra 1d6 points of damage on all attacks she
makes during any round in which she moves at least 10
feet away from where she was at the start of her turn.
The extra damage applies only to attacks made after the
scout has moved at least 10 feet. The skirmish ability
cannot be used while mounted.

-Hyp.

 

[Shellman]

IMO,

Spring Attack is a must for the Scout. Also disable device is now a class skill for the scout per the errata.

 

[Voadam]

The player pointed out his tactic was for his gestalt warlock to move around 10 feet and get the skirmish damage on his eldritch blasts.

I had this image of it working like Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York and was surprised that it says any attack without any qualifiers like "melee".

I couldn't wrap my head around any descriptive concept for skirmish working with ranged attacks so he's switching to hexblade.

He suggested it was because the scout "catches them off guard" when he moves, but an archer being better when he fires on the run just seems too counter to my experiences for it to jibe for me.

Any other descriptive explanations for skirmish that would make it make descriptive sense for ranged attacks?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I couldn't wrap my head around any descriptive concept for skirmish working with ranged attacks so he's switching to hexblade.

...

Any other descriptive explanations for skirmish that would make it make descriptive sense for ranged attacks?

1. Bad on you. That's a pretty crappy reason to make him change his class.

2. Ever watched Last of the Mohicans? What about The Patriot? Watch them if you haven't.

 

[Voadam]

1. Bad on you. That's a pretty crappy reason to make him change his class.

2. Ever watched Last of the Mohicans? What about The Patriot? Watch them if you haven't.

1. No new material is automatically allowed in my game without my approval. The new class I have not seen before from a book I do not own has features that don't make sense to me and will only trip me up as I think about it and try to describe it in use so I did not add it to the classes that can be used in my game. Tell me why you think that is a crappy reason and not an eminently reasonable position to take in deciding what new rules material to allow into the game I am running so that I am comfortable running it?

2. No, no, and unlikely. Do the musket shots get more accurate if they are shooting while running? Being good at shooting on the run is different than being better while shooting on the run.

 

[Storm Raven]

1. No new material is automatically allowed in my game without my approval. The new class I have not seen before from a book I do not own has features that don't make sense to me and will only trip me up as I think about it and try to describe it in use so I did not add it to the classes that can be used in my game. Tell me why you think that is a crappy reason and not an eminently reasonable position to take in deciding what new rules material to allow into the game I am running so that I am comfortable running it?

Because you are making a rules decision based upon the fact that you cannot describe what is going on, not because there is some flaws in the rules. That's a crappy reason.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The new class I have not seen before from a book I do not own has features that don't make sense to me and will only trip me up as I think about it and try to describe it in use so I did not add it to the classes that can be used in my game.

I'm sorry - it seemed to me like you'd already just about decided to add it to your game, and then decided that, since you couldn't come up with a good description, you'd ban it and make him take another variant class.

Did you ever consider, perchance, letting the player describe things?

Tell me why you think that is a crappy reason and not an eminently reasonable position to take in deciding what new rules material to allow into the game I am running so that I am comfortable running it?

Because, "I'm having trouble describing your character" is a crappy reason. It's his character.

"I don't like the mechanics, and they have proven to be unbalanced in play testing," is a good reason.

2. No, no, and unlikely. Do the musket shots get more accurate if they are shooting while running? Being good at shooting on the run is different than being better while shooting on the run.

No, but the essence of skirmish warfare is hit and move, hit and move. I fire once from over here, run over there, and shoot you again. You're never entirely sure where my next shot is coming from, and so you react to it less well than you would have, otherwise.

And, besides, the archer isn't shooting on the run. He's moving from point to point, firing at each.

If he wants to shoot on the run, he needs to take another feat to do so.