Skirmish.. what the?

[frankthedm]

Well, where does the Rogue get his SA from? (And why can't fighters, who fight for a living, emulate it?)

If it's the explanation, honestly, I find the boxing analogy more than good enough. A scout's opponent has no idea where, or when, the scout is going to be making her attack since the scout is moving around before striking. That leaves an opening for the scout to slip her blade into somewhere 'vulnerable'.

And, if the question comes up as to 'why can't a fighter do the same thing', well, same reason as why a fighter can't hit vitals like a rogue. Because.

I think these might be balanced...though maybe too easy for a Cleric rogue to get a hold of.

Combat Chirurgery
Prerequisite: Heal 5 ranks

Due to knowledge of how living creatures work, when using a suitable weapon, you can strike a vital location for more damage if your foe is unable to defend himself effectively.

Benefit: When using a light piercing or slashing weapon, you gain a sneak attack damage of 1d6. If you already had sneak attack from another source, you instead are treated as if one level higher, in one of those sources, to determine the amount of sneak attack granted.

A fighter can select Combat Chirurgery as one of his fighter bonus feats.


Greater Combat Chirurgery
Prerequisite: Heal 10 ranks

Benefit: Combat Chirurgery’s sneak attack damage increases to 2d6 or you treated as two levels higher in one clas that provides sneak attack if you already had sneak attack as a class feature.

A fighter can select Greater Combat Chirurgery as one of his fighter bonus feats.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Lots of the same replies could be made about SA, especially why a fighter (who should be very intimate with the best ways of killing someone, such as striking vital organs) doesn't have access to that ability without taking at least one level in a class that has it.

Not really (IMO). Rogues' victims must be flankedi, or flat-footed. Or both, I guess.

Some lack of awareness is required, IOW. Not the case with Scouts, AFAICS.

 

[Jhulae]

Not really (IMO). Rogues' victims must be flankedi, or flat-footed. Or both, I guess.

Some lack of awareness is required, IOW. Not the case with Scouts, AFAICS.

But, why can't a fighter hit vitals when she's flanking or catching the opponent flat footed then? The same condition applies as for the rogue. And, the fighter has been trained on how to fight and kill, and one would surmise, bring down an enemy as quickly as possible.

 

[Aus_Snow]

But, why can't a fighter hit vitals when she's flanking or catching the opponent flat footed then? The same condition applies as for the rogue. And, the fighter has been trained on how to fight and kill, and one would surmise, bring down an enemy as quickly as possible.

Which, although interesting, is a tangent.

Still, OK. I guess a Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian 'should' be able to Skirmish or SA. If you start going that way though, the whole core system inevitably falls apart.

 

[Jhulae]

Which, although interesting, is a tangent.

Still, OK. I guess a Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian 'should' be able to Skirmish or SA. If you start going that way though, the whole core system inevitably falls apart.

Exactly, which is why I don't have any problem with the scout having learned some kind of 'special' juking or feinting via the movement that other classes haven't, just like SA classes learn something 'special' that fighter type classes can't (without level dips).

 

[Aus_Snow]

Exactly, which is why I don't have any problem with the scout doing some kind of 'special' juking or feinting via the movement that other classes don't have, just like SA classes learn something 'special' that fighter type classes don't have.

That really wasn't the gist of the problem to begin with. Like I said, an interesting tangent, but yeah, that's all.

It's scenarios like the one I just posted before that drive me crazy, when I'm trying to wrap my head around this one aspect of this one ability of this one class I'd like to like.

 

[shilsen]

Still, OK. I guess a Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian 'should' be able to Skirmish or SA. If you start going that way though, the whole core system inevitably falls apart.

IMNSHO, the core system falls apart as soon as you start thinking too much about it.

I'm with Jhulae. The rogue's sneak attack ability is just as arbitrary as the scout's skirmish damage. I'm not surprised that you have more trouble wrapping your head around the latter, but I really do think that's mainly because one is just more familiar than the other.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Nah, never mind.

 

[shilsen]

However, that you "really do think (etc.)" is only an assumption. How would you know that kind of detail about the inner workings of my mind?

Human minds are pretty simple, so you don't have to know too many of them to be able to work out how most of the rest work. Which is what I keep telling my superiors back on he mother ship, but they insist I keep studying your species. Sheesh!

Could you offer an explanation for the scenario a few posts back now, with the Scout moving 10' forward in a straight line toward an opponent who is facing them (OK, in 3.5, aware of their presence, with a visual and auditory 'lock on') and who was, prior to this move, maybe 40' away, then firing a projectile weapon at said opponent (who, let's say for the purpose of this exercise, has no current distractions whatsoever) - and doing more damage simply because they moved in the stated way. . .? That would be extremely helpful.

Pretty please?

Sure. Pretty simple. The Scout does more damage because he uses the movement to throw the opponent off enough to hit him in a weak spot (I say weak spot because of the issue with skirmish attacks and creatures that can't be sneak attacked).

The logical question would be - why doesn't exactly the same thing happen when a fighter or rogue or some other class do it? The answer is because the Scout's skirmish ability indicates that it has some special training that enables it to do so.

After all, a rogue gets extra sneak attack damage when flanking an enemy when a fighter, in exactly the same situation, would not. Why? Because the rogue (via the sneak attack ability) has special training that enables it to do so.

Similarly, a fighter with Weapon Specialization does +2 damage per hit over what another fighter with exactly the same stats, level, equipment, etc. in the same situation would do. Why? Because the feat indicates the first fighter has special training that the other one doesn't.

Are all of the above somewhat arbitrary? Absolutely. But that's the nature of D&D. And the game does not model reality, so asking for realistic reasons seems a waste of time to me. We're talking about a game where a 1st lvl ranger with Rapid Shot can open two doors in the same time it takes him to fire two arrows. At 16th level, with no magic coming into play, he can fire five arrows in the same period of time, but unfortunately, his door-opening speed doesn't improve. And when he falls 200 ft, he walks away. And his barbarian buddy can kill an elephant by punching it repeatedly in the face and beat it in a wrestling match. Whereas the poor commoner who lives down the road can be killed by a housecat. And they live on the same planet as a 1000 lb creature with only a 9 ft wingspan (hippogriff) that can fly with no magical assistance.

It's a very arbitrary world, is D&D. Finding the Scout's skirmish damage problematical, while you're obviously free to do so, just seems an incredibly ... well, arbitrary choice to me.

Nah, never mind.

Whoops!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Human minds are pretty simple, so you don't have to know too many of them to be able to work out how most of the rest work. Which is what I keep telling my superiors back on he mother ship, but they insist I keep studying your species. Sheesh!

Heh, mollification successful. And yeah, I just know that was your intent.

The logical question would be - why doesn't exactly the same thing happen when a fighter or rogue or some other class do it? The answer is because the Scout's skirmish ability indicates that it has some special training that enables it to do so.

No, not "[t]he logical question", another logical question. A tangential one, in other words. Once more with feeling!

It's a very arbitrary world, is D&D. Finding the Scout's skirmish damage problematical, while you're obviously free to do so, just seems an incredibly ... well, arbitrary choice to me.

Yeah, I know D&D is arbitrary. I don't run D&D as is, not by a long shot. Not that that was made clear, perhaps. But suffice to say, when I see what looks like a problem to me, I treat it as one, and (hopefully) implement a solution ASAP.

Whoops!

Heh, it's all good. I actually am just finishing work (and hence, if this post is rather rushed-seeming. . . that's because it is!) so I thought I wouldn't bother in the end.

But thanks for replying. I disagree with some of your further assumptions, but that's cool. Disagreement is no big deal.

Cheers.