Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ydars" data-source="post: 5411129" data-attributes="member: 62992">Scouting is dangerous and so we never solo scout; we always have at least 2 party members (Rogue and Ranger), and then it is viable, provided the rest of the party is reasonably close. You just have to have a good exit strategy; I usually have a level or two of wizard for my Rogues, so it's expeditious retreat for me at low levels and invisibility at higher levels, sometimes augmented with silence.Scouting also depends on realistic DMing; monsters in our games leave tracks or dung or other clues to their presence, as would happen if they were real, so we have a decent chance of finding some clue as to what lies ahead without landing in real trouble or getting too close.Having said that, I have lost more than one character on a scouting mission gone wrong, but since we play in a sandbox, where the encounters are not level appropriate, there is actually NO choice; if we all charge in expecting to win every encounter we would have a TPK every other session. Indeed, the point of scouting in our games is to AVOID monsters, not find them.That is probably my criticism of standard D&D/Pathfinder; the level appropriate encounter meme leads to some very odd behaviours (like no scouting) becoming a viable and even advantageous tactic, which is completely mad. If our heavily armoured characters, with 20ft moves, no hide skills and no magic were to run into a dragon's lair without knowing it and then had  to run away from a flying creature that they have no chance of fighting, they would die. We faster and stealthier types have a much better chance of finding some clue to said Dragon and allowing the 'tanks' to avoid this sort of potential carve-up.YMMV of course.</blockquote>

Verification