# [Complete Scoundrel] Improved Skirmish feat...



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 24, 2007)

I don’t have Complete Scoundrel yet, but I was able to take a look at my friend’s copy the other night, and I was looking through the feats.  I am a little confused on how exactly Improved Skirmish works.  I don’t have the book, so I can’t really quote the wording.  Hopefully someone with the book can take a look and give them their impression.  But how does Improved Skirmish work exactly?  How much is added to Skirmish.  It says (paraphrasing since I don’t have the actual wording) an additional 2d6 but I think it is really an additional 1d6.  Here are a few possible way I think it could work based on the wording of the feat.

Oh, also wanted to mention that the feat has the “Normal” section where it explains how normal skirmish works.  Does the feat “override this” or is it in addition to this?  See example 3.

Assume an appropriate level Scout that does 3d6 damage via (normal) skirmish.

1) If you move 10 feet, you deal 3d6 skirmish.  If you move 20 feet, you deal 4d6 skirmish.
2) If you move 10 feet, you deal 3d6 skirmish.  If you move 20 feet, you deal 5d6 skirmish.
3) If you move 10 feet, you deal no skirmish damage.  If you move 20 feet, you deal 5d6 skirmish. --  This is because Improved Skirmish overrides the rules for “normal” skirmish and they no longer apply or come into effect.
4) Some other option I have not considered.


----------



## drexes (Jan 24, 2007)

I'm going to have to throw my flag here, as I don't see the ambiguity at all. The following is barely paraphrased to avoid copyright infringement as it were...

If you move at least twenty feet before you attack you get an extra +2d6 skirmish damage and a +2 to AC.

Normally the scout only has to move 10 feet to skirmish so he has to move an extra 10 feet before Improved Skirmish applies.

Here's what would then happen if character had the requisite +2d6/+1 AC skirmish to get the feat and he skirmished and also had this feat.

If he moved only 10 feet before attacking he would get his normal +2d6/+1 AC
If he moved 20 feet before attacking his skirmish bonus would increase to +4d6/+3 AC

Nowhere in the feat does it mention anything about having the normal skirmish rules no longer apply, though it does mention the difference in movement between 10 and 20 feet in the 'Normal' section.

I hope this helps and just as a side, I've been wrong before, but I've read this over and that's how I see it.

Drexes


----------



## VonRichthofen (Jan 24, 2007)

2 is correct, plain and simple. No room for interpretations.


----------



## airwalkrr (Jan 24, 2007)

Damn! I had no idea there were such awesome feats in Complete Scoundrel. Do they have a feat that grants +2d6 sneak attack too? I mean, seriously, this feat is a no-brainer for any scout.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 24, 2007)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Damn! I had no idea there were such awesome feats in Complete Scoundrel. Do they have a feat that grants +2d6 sneak attack too? I mean, seriously, this feat is a no-brainer for any scout.




No joke. My wife's archer scout was bad enough as is dealing the extra skirmish damage every round. Tack on another 2d6!


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Jan 24, 2007)

Yeah, it is a bit much, but also note that it says you have to be 20 feeet 'away from where you started the turn' so no moving in a circle around the enemy to get the extra damage. Not much of a limitation, it shold have been 1d6 and +1 ac.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 24, 2007)

Is there a limit how often this feat can be taken ?


----------



## Felon (Jan 24, 2007)

EyeontheMountain said:
			
		

> Yeah, it is a bit much, but also note that it says you have to be 20 feeet 'away from where you started the turn' so no moving in a circle around the enemy to get the extra damage.




Don't be so quick to jump on the semantical ramifications of using the word "away". If you'll note the "Normal" secion of the feet, "away" is also used to describe how skirmish normally works.

Regardless, the feat is indeed over the top. Bear in mind that a scout gets 40 feet of movement, so 20 feet can be accomplished even while moving at half speed (e.g. tumbling). And at 6th level, the scout ignores movement penalties for difficult terrain.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 25, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Don't be so quick to jump on the semantical ramifications of using the word "away". If you'll note the "Normal" secion of the feet, "away" is also used to describe how skirmish normally works.




Post-errata, that _is_ how Skirmish normally works.

You can't move five feet south, five feet north, end up where you started, and claim Skirmish damage for moving ten feet... because you haven't been ten feet from your original position.

_*Page 12: Skirmish (class feature)*
The second sentence of the skirmish class feature
should read as follows (new text indicated in bold): She
deals an extra 1d6 points of damage on all attacks she
makes during any round in which she moves at least 10
feet *away from where she was at the start of her turn.
The extra damage applies only to attacks made after the
scout has moved at least 10 feet. The skirmish ability
cannot be used while mounted.*_

If you have a longsword, say, and you are in melee with an orc, you can get your normal Skirmish damage with only ten feet of movement - if you're south of the orc, you can move to a position northeast of the orc, say, and you're still close enough to hit him, but ten feet from where you started.

If you want Improved Skirmish damage, however, you'll have to move at least _thirty_ feet... twenty feet from where you started to trigger the ability, then at least ten feet back to get back into melee range of the orc...

-Hyp.


----------



## Felon (Jan 25, 2007)

Oddlyn enough, the Complete Scoundrel's reprinting of the skirmish ability doesn't reflect the errata, leaving out that magical word "away", which will no doubt lend itself to creating questions about this for some time to come.

Alll-in-all, sounds like a very archer-friendly feat. Or, if you have Tumble down solid, that works too.


----------



## Felix (Jan 25, 2007)

Hyp said:
			
		

> If you want Improved Skirmish damage, however, you'll have to move at least thirty feet... twenty feet from where you started to trigger the ability, then at least ten feet back to get back into melee range of the orc...



This will be easier for scouts that use longspears.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 25, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> This will be easier for scouts that use longspears.




Right, which is why I specified a longsword in the thirty-foot example 

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 25, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Oddlyn enough, the Complete Scoundrel's reprinting of the skirmish ability doesn't reflect the errata, leaving out that magical word "away", which will no doubt lend itself to creating questions about this for some time to come.




Well, not necessarily.

The last sentence of the Skirmish erratum could be construed to apply to the Complete Scoundrel version as well:
_This update should be made *wherever the skirmish ability description is presented* (see also pages 31, 56, and 177)._

If the Skirmish ability description is presented in Complete Scoundrel, this update should be made, right?  

-Hyp.


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Jan 25, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Is there a limit how often this feat can be taken ?





Of course not. You can take it with as many different characters as you like.

Waht?


----------



## airwalkrr (Jan 25, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you want Improved Skirmish damage, however, you'll have to move at least _thirty_ feet... twenty feet from where you started to trigger the ability, then at least ten feet back to get back into melee range of the orc...
> 
> -Hyp.




I wasn't aware anyone tried to actually use skirmish with a melee weapon. All the scout builds I have ever seen are archers.


----------



## Beckett (Jan 25, 2007)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware anyone tried to actually use skirmish with a melee weapon. All the scout builds I have ever seen are archers.




Scout/Dervish.

We also grandfathered in a mounted combat character.  Rideby attack + skirmish worked very well.

The other scouts I've seen tended to open up fights with a charge, and looked forward to grabbing spring attack later on.


----------



## VonRichthofen (Jan 25, 2007)

Beckett said:
			
		

> Scout/Dervish.
> 
> We also grandfathered in a mounted combat character.  Rideby attack + skirmish worked very well.




Too bad it doesn't work while mounted.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 25, 2007)

VonRichthofen said:
			
		

> Too bad it doesn't work while mounted.




But it did, until the erratum.  A DM might permit a mounted scout character created while it was legal to retain the ability after the rules were changed - a 'grandfather' clause.

Hence, "We also grandfathered"...

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Jan 25, 2007)

ah, yes, i see it now, a pattern as clear as day

All d20 books must contain feats that escalate in power, to be great improvements over those currently existing

each book shall contain newer, stronger races, classes and feat, so players have no choice but to buy into this wealth of power

why be a mage or a warrior now? it is clear thou should be a duskblade... why be a rogue or a ranger? a scout is the way to go now

yes....yes....more books.....more power........   less money 

just 5 more book releases and i should be near invincible!!!!


----------



## green slime (Jan 25, 2007)

The day is long past when cute little baby DnD 3.5 was merely power-creeping across the adventure carpet. Its all grown up. Welcome to the world of Power Sprinting!


----------



## drexes (Jan 25, 2007)

All power creep bitterness aside, I think the scout is a lot of fun, I started one when they first came out as a scout/fighter with a level of barbarian to boot. He's a melee scout using the spring attack trick now and while he's not the most dangerous combatant I've ever played or seen, he's no slouch. I disagree with the above post that the fighter and wizard have become obsolete with the duskblade, nor has the ranger been ousted by the scout. My feelings have always been that there has never been any need for game balance between character classes for the most part so long as each class has things it does well, while it still has a need to be in a diverse party so that its weaknesses are hard to exploit, after all thats why we travel in packs, safety in numbers. There was never balance between the classes a low level wizard is way too weak and a high level wizard is far and away the strongest member of a party, but really that all on paper. The play's the thing. I've seen too many "uber" characters who couldn't survive an intro encounter because the player was obsessed with the strength of their character on paper and didn't notice that everyone has a weakness, even if it's simply dice. And I've seen supposedly pathetic characters become the real power of a party because of the creativity of the player overshadowed some bad stats and lack of equipment. 

But here's what I think is really important, and in my experience it's true, if players play the concepts of their characters and not the paper of them then balance will take care of itself. As a DM it's important to reward, through experience points, equipment, and unique opportunity those players who dedicate themselves to the style of play that is good for your group, and encourage players to remain a cohesive group. That doesn't have the slightest thing to do with intra-party strife by the way, I encourage that whenever possible, I mean discouraging intra-group strife by making a group filled with guys with similar play styles. Purist roleplayers and rollplayers don't play well together usually.

Well eneough rambling...sorry about that guys... got off on a tangent, couldn't find an exit ramp...

Drexes


----------



## green slime (Jan 25, 2007)

True drexes, the problem is really a problem of different play styles and/or player expectations.


----------



## Beckett (Jan 25, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> ah, yes, i see it now, a pattern as clear as day
> 
> All d20 books must contain feats that escalate in power, to be great improvements over those currently existing
> 
> ...




Oh, bologna.

Sure, feats have been ramped up.  They can't all match the power of a +2 to two skills feat.  

But the new classes are head and shoulders above the old?  No (not getting into it about the Bo9S classes here).  Duskblades are pretty awesome fighter/mages, but that D8 is putting them further and futher behind the fighter in HP.  Plus, the duskblade's main attack, his channeling, is a standard action for most of his career.  Meanwhile, the fighter is making 2 or 3 attacks with plenty of bonuses that don't run out.  A glance at the duskblade spell list reveals a number of holes in area effect and utility spells.  Just as I wouldn't want the only arcane caster in the party of be a Warmage, I don't see duskblade usurping the wizard's role.

Scouts are nifty skill monkeys with a great hit and run attack. But, even with an extra 2D6 from improved skirmish, they're still going to be trailing the rogue in extra damage dice.  The movement requirement means the scout is only getting one skirmish attack in a round, and once he's delivered that, he might not be in a position to do it again.  A rogue, on the other hand, can get into flank and sneak attack with every single attack.

The new books add more options and some nifty abilities, but by no means are they making the core obsolete.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 25, 2007)

Scout is ok as long as you don't allow Greater Manyshot and Imp Skirmish.


----------



## airwalkrr (Jan 25, 2007)

I would like to thank the OP for making me aware of this feat so that I can restrict it from my campaign.


----------



## Victim (Jan 25, 2007)

In the hands of scout builds that are actually decent (greater manyshot, dervish), this feat is too much.  Otherwise, it's probably not enough.


----------



## Felix (Jan 25, 2007)

I would think that a +1d6 +1 AC would be pretty neat for a feat; as +2d6 and +2 AC, why would a Scout not take this feat?


----------



## The Grackle (Jan 25, 2007)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware anyone tried to actually use skirmish with a melee weapon. All the scout builds I have ever seen are archers.




I play a barb/scout/fighter who only fights melee. I think scout archers are cheesy. Skirmish damage should have been restricted to melee or thrown weapons.  

Compared with damage I get off 2H PA/leap attack, the skirmish damage is almost for flavor.  Skirmish damage lags behind Sneak Attack damage quite a bit, so I don't think the feat's toooo over the top. Though it is a Must Have.


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Jan 26, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> I would think that a +1d6 +1 AC would be pretty neat for a feat; as +2d6 and +2 AC, why would a Scout not take this feat?




Yep, it is a no brainer for a 6th elvel feat in a scout build,. Ad this to the multiclass feat where a ranger/scout levels stack for both favored enemy and skirmish, and I can see a very very scary skirmish archer coming up, espeically adding in +4 or +6 for favored enemy.

Plus isn't there a feat that allows more power attack against favored enemies. Add 3 levels of peerless archer to that and the damage would be incredible.


----------



## IanB (Jan 26, 2007)

Scouts are not especially broken as written. I'm not sure if this feat will overpower them or not.

In your typical cramped dungeon surroundings with 10' corridors, etc., having to move 20 feet away from your starting position to get the bonus may not always be possible, at least.


----------



## Felon (Jan 26, 2007)

There probably are plenty of situations when 20 feet of movement is simply not idea.

However, the issue I expect to see is that the bonus to damage and AC is so appealing that scout players will constantly try to avail themselves of it at every opportunity, even to the point that they sit and try to finagle it constantly, well past the point where they should realize it's not gonna happen this time.

Honestly, the feat should have had some prereqs that would have made a player work for its benefits.


----------



## BadMojo (Jan 26, 2007)

Beckett said:
			
		

> A rogue, on the other hand, can get into flank and sneak attack with every single attack.




I agree.  I never really saw the Scout as overpowered and I certainly don't think Improved Skirmish is enough to change that.  I think it's a great class, but you'll still be doing more damage with a rogue built for two-weapon fighting using only core feats and a decent rank in the Tumble skill.

I also don't think that the fact it's a no-brainer for scout archers makes Improved Skirmish a bad thing.  Power Attack is a no-brainer for two-handed weapon fighters, Improved Initiative is probably taken by almost every rogue in existence, and is there a ranged weapon wield out there who doesn't take Point Blank Shot, at least as a prerequisite?


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Jan 26, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> I agree.  I never really saw the Scout as overpowered and I certainly don't think Improved Skirmish is enough to change that.  I think it's a great class, but you'll still be doing more damage with a rogue built for two-weapon fighting using only core feats and a decent rank in the Tumble skill.
> 
> I also don't think that the fact it's a no-brainer for scout archers makes Improved Skirmish a bad thing.  Power Attack is a no-brainer for two-handed weapon fighters, Improved Initiative is probably taken by almost every rogue in existence, and is there a ranged weapon wield out there who doesn't take Point Blank Shot, at least as a prerequisite?




Well I agree with Power attack but I don't think the others are really no-brainers. Natural Spell is an excelelnt example of a no-brainer, where if you don't take it people might wonder if you know how to make a character well. I don't like feats like that. 

Point Blank shot is not a no brainer if iti s a prerequisite. Noone would tkae it otherwsie, I am sure.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 26, 2007)

EyeontheMountain said:
			
		

> Well I agree with Power attack but I don't think the others are really no-brainers. Natural Spell is an excelelnt example of a no-brainer, where if you don't take it people might wonder if you know how to make a character well. I don't like feats like that.
> 
> Point Blank shot is not a no brainer if iti s a prerequisite. Noone would tkae it otherwsie, I am sure.



I don't agree about PBS. It's one of the best archery feats out there.


----------



## airwalkrr (Jan 26, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> I don't agree about PBS. It's one of the best archery feats out there.




Yes. PBS is much better than crappy archery feats like Weapon Focus (bow) or Mounted Archery. PBS is for power-gamers. That +1 to hit and damage can really break the game. Let me tell you.









Oh, if you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.

The ONLY good reason to take this feat is as a prerequisite.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 26, 2007)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Yes. PBS is much better than crappy archery feats like Weapon Focus (bow) or Mounted Archery. PBS is for power-gamers. That +1 to hit and damage can really break the game. Let me tell you.




A feat doesn't have to "break the game" in order to be good.  I'd much rather have a feat that deals +1 to hit AND damage, than one that just does "to hit".  It also applies to a variety of ranged attacks (slings, bows, xbows, thrown weapons, etc.) where as Weapon Focus applies to only a specific weapon.

If you are making an dedicated Archer, it would be silly NOT to take PBS.  Especially since it is a prereq for most archery feats.






			
				airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Oh, if you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.




Now you tell me!



			
				airwalkrr said:
			
		

> The ONLY good reason to take this feat is as a prerequisite.




I disagree.  But the fact that it IS a prereq for most of the archery feats out there kinda makes it hard NOT to pick up.


----------



## Harm (Jan 26, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I disagree.  But the fact that it IS a prereq for most of the archery feats out there kinda makes it hard NOT to pick up.




  From all of airwalkrr's posts it's apparant that all the NPCs in his campaign have single digit ACs and boosting your too hit is useless.  For the rest of us that play in campaigns where all the oponents aren't punching dummies that +1 can take you from a 20% hit to a 25% hit and be boosting your damage by as much as 25%.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 26, 2007)

Harm said:
			
		

> From all of airwalkrr's posts it's apparant that all the NPCs in his campaign have single digit ACs and boosting your too hit is useless.




No, boosting your attack roll is useless because combat never happens.

The bards Fascinate everyone before it gets that far.

-Hyp.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 26, 2007)

Nowadays you simply have to play a ranger with the bow feats and you can avoid to take PBS.

Yet every char I've seen took it nonetheless.


----------



## Felix (Jan 27, 2007)

Hyp said:
			
		

> The bards Fascinate everyone before it gets that far.



Well, the first four encounters, anyway. Bards will eventually run out of bardic music uses.

Unless they take that over-powered Extra Bardic Music feat.


----------

