Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 3197908" data-attributes="member: 15538">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...</blockquote>

Verification