scouts and skirmishing

[Drowbane]

Rogue | Warlock is a much better Gestalt anyways

 

[Voadam]

Hi guys, I'm back after the vacation where I ran this pick up game twice.

Having read everything in this thread I still don't buy the movement creates opportunity as the opponent is caught off guard argument. It breaks down completely when the opponent is helpless, under a hold person, caught asleep, etc. Under the mechanic, the opponent is irrelevant, they just need vitals the scout can get to. The reasoning offered only makes the scout as good as he is against a helpless opponent. That does not correspond to the mechanic.

It became moot anyway as the PC chose to go with warlock/favored soul to gain some healing and more of a world cosmology hook for his character to play off of.

In the end it came down to I don't like the mechanic, there are alternatives, so I did not add it to my game.

As far as Patryn, Storm Raven, and SBMC, you are entitled to your opinions that my decisions on what to include into my game for aesthetic and descriptive reasons as well as what makes sense to me are "crappy" but I disagree whole-heartedly. I think they make my games better. And I do it all the time. I not only do it when a mechanic does not make sense to me, but also when I just don't like how things work. For instance divine spell prep having access to all spells annoys me in both a game world and game play sense. So for the campaign I threw out core rangers, druids, clerics and paladins, replacing them with spontaneous casting variants from UA and spell less versions from CW. Funny enough, my players respect the fact that as DM running the game I decide what rules to use. They can make suggestions and requests but the decisions on rules and the world rests with the DM who provides the players with their options. They decide whether they want to play then make a character that fits the world I run. It works out nicely.

 

[Synthetik Fish]

Hi guys, I'm back after the vacation where I ran this pick up game twice.

Having read everything in this thread I still don't buy the movement creates opportunity as the opponent is caught off guard argument. It breaks down completely when the opponent is helpless, under a hold person, caught asleep, etc. Under the mechanic, the opponent is irrelevant, they just need vitals the scout can get to. The reasoning offered only makes the scout as good as he is against a helpless opponent. That does not correspond to the mechanic.

It became moot anyway as the PC chose to go with warlock/favored soul to gain some healing and more of a world cosmology hook for his character to play off of.

In the end it came down to I don't like the mechanic, there are alternatives, so I did not add it to my game.

As far as Patryn, Storm Raven, and SBMC, you are entitled to your opinions that my decisions on what to include into my game for aesthetic and descriptive reasons as well as what makes sense to me are "crappy" but I disagree whole-heartedly. I think they make my games better. And I do it all the time. I not only do it when a mechanic does not make sense to me, but also when I just don't like how things work. For instance divine spell prep having access to all spells annoys me in both a game world and game play sense. So for the campaign I threw out core rangers, druids, clerics and paladins, replacing them with spontaneous casting variants from UA and spell less versions from CW. Funny enough, my players respect the fact that as DM running the game I decide what rules to use. They can make suggestions and requests but the decisions on rules and the world rests with the DM who provides the players with their options. They decide whether they want to play then make a character that fits the world I run. It works out nicely.

Sounds like you like taking out a lot of material because it doesn't make sense to you. That's fair enough. Also, I'd say that a lot of the un-official D&D stuff can be pretty un-balanced anyways. In the end though, I'd say that even if it DOESNT MAKE SENSE, as long as it's balanced it should be allowed. Sure, he's gettign a couple extra dice to a ranged attack when he moves. BUT<<< he always has to move when he does this, and also he's only getting one attack.

Tell me, do you make any special rules and GIVE players extra stuff if it makes sense to you? Or do you just take it away?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your reasoning remains crappy on this score, Dress it up all you want, but a failure of your imagination isn't a very good reason to prohibit a character.

Attempting to hold together a cohesive vision that makes sense to you is not a failure of your imagination. Setting limits on what is allowed in your game is not a failure of your imagination. Coming online and asking others if they can help you find a way to let the player do what he wants while holding together a cohesive vision that makes sense to you (go back to the original few posts, folks, because that's the basic content of them) is not only not a failure of your imagination, but it is evidence of being a good DM.



RC

 

[mikebr99]

Attempting to hold together a cohesive vision that makes sense to you is not a failure of your imagination. Setting limits on what is allowed in your game is not a failure of your imagination. Coming online and asking others if they can help you find a way to let the player do what he wants while holding together a cohesive vision that makes sense to you (go back to the original few posts, folks, because that's the basic content of them) is not only not a failure of your imagination, but it is evidence of being a good DM.



RC

Canadians... peacekeepers to the core!



Mike

 

[Synthetik Fish]

Attempting to hold together a cohesive vision that makes sense to you is not a failure of your imagination. Setting limits on what is allowed in your game is not a failure of your imagination. Coming online and asking others if they can help you find a way to let the player do what he wants while holding together a cohesive vision that makes sense to you (go back to the original few posts, folks, because that's the basic content of them) is not only not a failure of your imagination, but it is evidence of being a good DM.



RC

To be honest, it seemed more like you were ALREADY set against using the character/class, and came online more for justification than anything else. IMHO.

I agree with not allowing stuff that is unbalancing, or overly powerful... but if it doesn't make a difference sometimes you just have to say screw it and allow it, for role-playing purposes if nothing else (I'm big on role-playing and incorporating my character's abilities into his personalities as much as possible.)

 

[Storm Raven]

Attempting to hold together a cohesive vision that makes sense to you is not a failure of your imagination. Setting limits on what is allowed in your game is not a failure of your imagination. Coming online and asking others if they can help you find a way to let the player do what he wants while holding together a cohesive vision that makes sense to you (go back to the original few posts, folks, because that's the basic content of them) is not only not a failure of your imagination, but it is evidence of being a good DM.

Go reread his justifications. These weren't them. His problem was simply a failure of imagination, even after ideas had been given to him, he was still "unable to wrap his head around" a relatively simple concept.

 

[Voadam]

Tell me, do you make any special rules and GIVE players extra stuff if it makes sense to you? Or do you just take it away?

Sure.

All skills are class skills. Fighters can be good at diplomacy or knowledge or whatever. Paladins can be good at spotting danger. Rogues can be good at camping and hunting. Barbarian vikings can be masters of profession sailor. Whatever works for the character concept.

Also trapfinding, everybody can detect any traps with a sufficient search check, Rogue trapfinding means they detect traps like elves detect secret doors (picked up from everquest rpg rogues).

And note, he is playing a warlock and a favored soul. I don't own Complete Arcane or Complete Divine. Both classes I only added in because of his requests for them and I liked the class concepts and mechanics after reviewing them. In declining to add scouts I wasn't taking anything away, I just wasn't adding that new class into the game.

 

[Voadam]

Go reread his justifications. These weren't them. His problem was simply a failure of imagination, even after ideas had been given to him, he was still "unable to wrap his head around" a relatively simple concept.

I think you have it backwards. My imagination quickly comes up with lots of situations where all the justifications become nonsensical and do not match the mechanic.

Take your suggested reason

He's not "better" his opponents are just less prepared for his attacks.

Now take a target who is paralyzed. He cannot prepare for the attack. So the scout attacks him and can reach his vitals. No extra damage. The scout has to move before he can hit the paralyzed guy's vitals and do extra damage by catching the paralyzed victim unprepared.

So when the scout moves the paralyzed guy is less prepared, so the scout does extra damage. However if the scout does not move, the paralyzed guy is more prepared and the scout therefore can not hit his vitals?

Now, am I imaginative in coming up with this scenario where your explanation becomes nonsensical, or am I failing to grasp a relatively simple concept?

 

[werk]

Now take a target who is paralyzed. He cannot prepare for the attack. So the scout attacks him and can reach his vitals. No extra damage.

Oh, so the problem is that you think skirmish is sneak attack. It is not. It has nothing to do with soft spots or vital areas or any of that rogue stuff. This is a NEW CLASS not a rogue played differently, despite what the familiar mechanics may lead you to believe.