Skirmish.. what the?

[pawsplay]

While sneak attack is sometimes illogical, as many things are, I think it's a complete stretch to say skirmish is no more illogical than sneak attack. When someone sneak attacks, you know why they do the extra damage; they would be doing that damage all the time if they could just get in that shot. But they require a precision that means the victim must be vulnerable.

Not so with skirmish. The idea is very similar, but you don't get skirmish damage if, for instance, your foe is flat-footed. Logically, a scout should gain the damage if their foe was flat-footed or they moved, just as rogues get the damage if a foe is flat-footed or if they flank the foe. That would make a certain amount of sense. Is it balanced? Good question. On the one hand, scouts regularly get their skirmish damage every round as it is. But this would open up the possibility of more full round skirmishes.

Skirmish first appears, AFAIK, in Races of Stone, with the Cragtop Archer. It was a peculier little ability for a prestige class, as so many abilities are. It was interesting, and it was hardly prevalent enough for anyone to care. But now we have CA, with the Scout and the Highland Stalker, and you have a lot more skirmishing going on... a LOT for a scout of modest level. And I've come to the conclusion that the ability doesn't quite do what it should. It does make the scout a good mobile combatant and provide a similar damage dealing role to the rogue's, but it also causes scouts to move around like ping pong balls, and precludes the scout as an ambusher.

Having run a scout from 1st to 8th level in my current campaign, I must say I wish I'd suggested the wilderness rogue instead.

And don't get me started on non-magical freedom of movement, always active...

 

[DreamChaser]

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. . .?

Simple.

The scout fires at the location that the trained oppenent would have expected to need to protect BEFORE the scout moved.

If the opponent is a trained combatant (which in true buffy fashion, every creature in D&D is assumed to be to a greater or lesser extent) then then know (instinctively at least) where an arrow is likely to hit them when fired from 40 feet away. They also know that that location changes slightly when fired from 30 feet away (or 20 or 50) and they adjust their defenses (ie location in their space, angling related to the archer, position of weapon and shield) appropriately.

The scout then messes with them by firing someplace else.

Again...simple.

Just like it is simple how a rogue is no more able to sneak attack an oppoent who is surrounded on all sides than he is able to sneak attack an opponent who is only defending against 1 other creature (diminishing returns).

Just like how a fighter never does figure out how to fight multiple rogues (they just suck that way) and can always be flanked (there is special training in dirty fighting that they don't normally undergo).

DC

 

[pawsplay]

Simple.

The scout fires at the location that the trained oppenent would have expected to need to protect BEFORE the scout moved.
DC

So why doesn't it apply to flat-footed opponents?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It's a little easier for me to imagine because most of my Scouts have used Skirmish on charges-- either charging into melee or charging with throwing weapons. Of course, all of the Scouts I've played have either been Orcs or Thri-Kreen.

I still support the "confusion" and "momentum" explanations. You're disrupting their defenses and using the force of your movement to add to your attacks. Doesn't really work when you're falling back, but that's rare enough to be easy to overlook.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So, I'm assuming you didn't care for my suggestion earlier, then.

Actually, that was about the most logical and reasonable summary I've seen. It comes so close. . . but still I am sceptical. :\

It's no more unreasonable than D&D's approach to armour - it may be unrealistic to think of a set of chainmail as completely deflecting the impact of a single strike, but when you consider that its long-term effect is simply to cause you to take less damage than you otherwise would, the model works well enough that you can look past the specifics.

True. Personally, I use a different model for armour, including having it take damage, along with weapons and other items. It's not a perfect set of house rules - yet - but I'm happy with the way it is and the way it's been progressing.

As I said before, whenever I see what (to me) looks like a problem in an RPG, I set about understanding it, then fixing it. And besides, what else am I supposed to do at work.

I realise the things I see that way won't be considered issues for many other DMs (and players), or in some cases they'll be seen as issues not worth fussing about, but I'm. . . yeah, fussy that way. Finicky. Bloodyminded, perhaps.

 

[Grunj]

I look at it as a cinematic thing, like in the Matrix films. Our leather-clad heroes experience their best marksmanship while flying through the air. I suppose one could come up with a feat such as Defenestrated Marksman (TM) or Zero-G Slomo Sniper, but skirmish is much easier to say.

 

[Sidekick]

Heh.

I think that you’ve, like MarkB said you’ve just got to accept it as a peculiarity of the mechanics and try to see pas the battle-mat and use the ole imagination.

I mean how many people would *actually* in the same space during a battle? Not many I rekcon... but anyway I are digressing.

We’ve got a Scout archer in my group at the moment and her crab manoeuvring around the combats are very funny to watch. She moves 15 ft, fires, then moves somewhere else fires. Then geos back to her original position etc etc.

The silliest example was when they blew a hole in a wall and everyone piled in taking out some Thranist solider who were busy having their evening meal when the PCs busted into the mess hall. The scout stayed outside and just moved 10ft left then 10ft right using the gap in the wall as her shoot-through to the enemies on the inside. It was well funny

 

[Deset Gled]

So why doesn't it apply to flat-footed opponents?

Because the scout has only learned how the strike precisely when they move their body in a certain way.

Personally, I think Skirmish makes an equal amount of sense as Cleave. Most people assume that Cleave allows an extra attack because the attacker's momentum allows them to follow through with an extra attack. This explanation is very cinematic, but makes no sense when you consider that it is possible to Cleave two opponents 20' apart on opposite sides of you with a greatspear. Likewise, Skirmish makes for a cinematic "dash 'n bash", but no one explanation of it will cover all situations.

The real problem is that it is impossible to accurately model many fighting techniques and cinematic fight scenes without going into a ludicrous amount of detail. The 3.x solution to this is to make a basic mechanic that models a concept, and allow it to work all the time as long as it's not broken (remember, think options, not restrictions). This requires a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief, but no more so than a dragon or magic sword, IMO.

 

[farscapesg1]

This requires a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief, but no more so than a dragon or magic sword, IMO.

Or most of the maneuvers from Book of Nine Swords

 

[frankthedm]

Most people assume that Cleave allows an extra attack because the attacker's momentum allows them to follow through with an extra attack. This explanation is very cinematic, but makes no sense when you consider that it is possible to Cleave two opponents 20' apart on opposite sides of you with a greatspear.

Most people that dislike cleaving on an AoO view cleave as cutting through a shlub or someone wounded to cut into the actual target of the attack.

If my hunch is correct there were limitations on what weapons could 'cleave' in the playtest rules, with the last bit of evidence being that a dragon still has limitations on what [natural] weapons it can cleave with.