Scout's skirmish ability

[Warehouse23]

One thing I've found with playing a scout, though, is that you want to focus on one combat sphere. Just as rangers really need to pick between melee and ranged combat, so do scouts. It's just not worth the prereq's to get both shot on the run and spring attack. I've moved into ranged combat (just don't have the HP for melee-- bad rolls), but I still wish I'd gone the spring attack/melee route (something about the scout begs for use of a long spear...)

 

[The Souljourner]

I have to agree that the scout is kinda sub-par. The big kick in the nuts is the fact that they can't use the skirmish ability with ranged weapons from further than 30' away. How crappy is that? 30' is practically sitting on top of the enemy when you're outside (unless you're in dense forest, in which case the opponent's getting cover and concealment ).

I don't know why they decided to make skirmish half the damage of a sneak attack. Rogues can do a full attack with twice the dice against someone they're flanking... scouts can only ever do one attack, unless you use some very esoteric rules (mounted archery and Dervish count as esoteric in my book). Does that sound like maybe the scout should be the one doing twice the dice? I mean, come on! 5d6 at 20th level? Ooh, I'm so scared of that 17.5 damage.... instead the guy could be making three more attacks (2 from BAB and 1 from rapid shot) which almost certainly do more than 17.5 each.

The scout gets some great high level abilities that somewhat mitigate this... but you'd think WoTC would put some effort into testing their main ability.

-The Souljourner

 

[TracerBullet42]

In addition, why give the Scout trapfinding if you don't give him Disable Device as a class skill.

So that you don't take that huge spiked wall trap to the chest...(Ow...it still stings a bit, Diremeade.)

If you're "scouting" ahead, wouldn't you like the ability to spot the traps? I mean, you could just walk into them, instead, like I did...

I love the Scout class. It's almost exactly how I imagine the "ranger" class ought to be. I just never got into the spell casting, animal companion having ranger. It's a cool class, don't get me wrong, but the scout just seems to fit my vision of a ranger a little better. Take the Track feat at 1st level and you're all set for a good forage into the woods.

And the Skirmish ability is a really cool idea. It did seem a bit overpowered at the inital glance, until you consider that you are, essentially, giving up full attack actions to get the skirmish bonuses.

Love the scout class...love it.

 

[Benben]

I need some input on interpreting the Scout's abilities.

Since the skirmish damage depends on the Scout moving at least 10 ft. in the round. Isn't that going to limit the Scout from getting the additional skirmish damage when taking a full attack action since he has to move more than 5 feet to get the extra damage?

If you want to maximize use of the ability then you need to look at mounted archery. The mount will move the 10' the scout needs, and the scout will have a full attack option at the ready. The disadvantage of this tactic is that you have to worry about the mount and it might not fit in the dungeon.

I'm going to really enjoy using this tactic with goblin riders on worgs on my players.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I've got a dwarven Rgr 2 that plans on picking up Scout for his next level. There is also a feat from the Minatures Handbook that gives an added +1d8 on a charge, which seems perfect for the Scout. Get a weapon with a good crit multiplier (like a Dwarven Waraxe, with Keen as soon as you can afford it), and you'll be a terror on the first round of combat.

Then run away

I'm actually using a Dwarven Urgrosh, which, when combined with the Ranger's 2-weapon style, lets me still be a considerable threat in any round I can do a full attack (no Skirmish.)

Note: Dwarves are probably a sub-par choice for Scout, because of their 20' movement. But I'm gonna have fun, anyway.

 

[IndyPendant]

I actually think the Scout is balanced pretty closely in comparison to the rogue. The skirmish ability doesn't require flat-footed, flanking, etc etc to pull off--but is balanced by the fact that it's basically limited to a single attack per round. Hit dice are d8, and they get some ranger-like abilities, as well as losing the rogue's Cha-based abilities and gaining some ranger skills. (Which could be considered a benefit because you can junk Cha then.)

The issue I have with the Scout isn't about balance; it just means that the rogue is still *required* if you need to disarm traps. And this stupid, lame, mindless, HORRIBLE rule is bypassed just by taking a single rogue level. Bam! The 19th bard/1st Rogue at least can now disarm traps etc etc just like a 20th Rogue. (Edit: Assuming of course, they pay the cc cost. I houserule bards having those skills as class skills too though--which is another debate entirely. Which is utterly, mind-numbingly STU--

Sorry. Resetting my rant.

Anyways, for the above reason, I houserule in my campaigns that bards can use those skills just as well as a rogue (assuming they take the skills of course.) So I would also houserule that the Scout has Disable Device and Open Locks as class skills.

NOT as a balance issue--but simple to give players more options when a 'thief-type' char is needed.

 

[nothing to see here]

Funny, I remember while pondering purchasing CV readubg a thread on these boards a couple of weeks ago involving an active debate about how OVER powered the scout was. With one group saying "they make rogues obselete" and another saying "they make rangers obsolete"

I'm of the belief that the scout is balanced as long (and only as long) as you adhere to all the skirmish restrictions. I do feel the scout's execessive skill points do infringe on the rogue a little bit considering they still get plenty of class abilities. (and if any class deserves comparable rogueish skill points it's probably the bard).

All in all a balanced class. Come to think of it, the twelve new WOTC core classes are by and large balanced even if other material in the Complete Series isn't.

 

[Shellman]

Why do you want to change this class, it looks good the way it is.

the trap was spotted so what is problem, just walk around it.

If everyone could walk around the trap, what's the point of the trap?

 

[Shellman]

The reason they call the ability "skirmishing" and not "move in and do lots of damage" is to suggest shoot-and-scoot tactics for the scout. Scouts are not designed to do full round attacks. They are designed to move in, lay some quick smackdown, and move out. Try outfitting your scout with some more powerful weapons (eg, adding elemental effects to weapons) if you want to make the most of single attacks. Also, scout/rogues make great combinations. Nothing like a few skirmishing dice to add to the sneak attack on a well-arranged flanking manuever.

I guess I would just have to use the Wilderness Rogue variant out of UA, then you could get better damage with the sneak attack (10d6 by 20th level) than the skirmish damage (5d6 at 20th Level).

 

[Hypersmurf]

If everyone could walk around the trap, what's the point of the trap?

Conversely, if nobody can walk around the trap, it restricts the mobility of the trap-setter and his allies.

Consider a simple trap - a concealed pit in the middle of a track in the forest. If you don't know it's there, you fall in. If you do know it's there, you walk around it. It doesn't hinder the forest-dwellers, because they know about it. It only poses a danger to people who aren't supposed to be there.

Similarly, consider a more complicated scything-blade trap. The cunning kobolds set it up to swing across the corridor at a height of four feet... head-height on the pesky dwarveses, and chest height on the nasty humans and elves, but completely harmless to kobolds. The scout might not be able to prevent it scything... but he can see the height it's set at, so he can tell everyone to duck or crawl.

-Hyp.