Scouting: Idiots Splitting Up or Valid Tactic?

[roguerouge]

Do you have your parties scout? How far ahead? How? As an independent party or within range of the others? What kinds of information are they likely to get? How likely should disaster befall them?

Okay, so one party I'm in has a scout, a rogue and an urban ranger. The question is whether scouting missions are an idiotic split of the party or a reasonable use of party resources. Our DM's a good one, so there's no worries of bias there.

Basically, I'm looking for good tactics in scouting.

 

[Umbran]

The answer depends upon the in-game situation. I don't believe there is a solid answer for everyone.

In the real world, when an army expects that it is far away from the enemy, scouts are sent out a large distance from the main body. When there's evidence that the enemy is near, the scouts are usually drawn in. It is understood that scouting is risky business, and that risk is managed against the gains as best as possible.

So, the answer is - scouting is stupid when it is likely the scouts will have to deal with the enemy without backup and/or it is unlikely they'll be able to bring back useful information. Scouting is smart when the scouts can manage how they contact the enemy, and bring back useful information.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I say it depends on the circumstances.

If your heading into a area where stealth is required and your not sure what lays ahead then scouting is definitely valid. Or if you wanted to set a trap and have better coordination then yeah scouting is quite good.

If your worried about having traps sprung on you, or are in narrow dungeons (assuming you are looking for traps anyways ) then would say it isn't as good since a scout could be more easily cut-off in narrow dungeons.

 

[Darkwolf71]

A scout by definition should be somewhat 'split' from the party. I would say at least 1 full round ahead of the rest of the party. In close quarters that means a double move away. If room allows, you open that gap as much as is reasonable. (Not nessiccarilly a full run action away, but maybe 3x movement.)

Otherwise he isn't scouting, he's peeking around the corners first. Anyone can do that job. If you have such an RBDM that 60' qualifies as a 'party split', well sucks to be you.

Now scouting missions, as in check out the enemy camp before a full on assault, well those are different. Obviously you take your rogues and rangers for full infiltration. Mages can be of great use if they have fly/invis available. Even tank types who are willing to temporarily trade in their full plate for leather can be usefull to guard the 'escape route'. The key is, 'If things go bad, get out'. Preferably while the chaos of a waking camp can cover your retreat.

 

[Huw]

In my experience playing and DMing, it is best to scout solo. I've seen parties do spectacularly well with decent scouting, and the times it's gone wrong and the scout needs rescuing have provided some great playing moments. As a DM, I've also launched scouts on the PCes. A few failed spot checks and my saying "nothing happens" does wonders for player paranoia

 

[Contrarian]

You know where most PC parties go wrong with scouting? They're scouting without a plan. The thief/ranger/whatever is a couple of rounds of movement ahead of the party, encounters something, and then makes a split-second decision that screws things up, and everybody gets annoyed.

Players need to come to a consensus before sending out a scout -- what the scout does if he encounters an unavoidable fight, what he should do if he encounters an avoidable fight, and exactly what the plan is if the scout calls for help. There's less grief if everybody's following the plan.

 

[Stalker0]

The classic use of a scout is ahead for an advancing army. The big thing about open spaces is that we can see a distance much further than anyone can attack us. So if the scout sees an enemy force, he normally has plenty of time to ride away.

But in a dungeon setting I would think the preferred method is to stay together as close as possible for protection.


I would be very interested to hear how people with special forces training handle this. Obviously modern forces attempt to have as much intel as possible before going on a mission. However, when going through a deep jungle or a city (which is somewhat close approximation of the dungeon setting) do they use scouts or do teams stick together?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think the lack of silent instantaneous communication* dooms scouting. Also, sometimes your opponent has great senses. I saw a rogue get killed and eaten by a dire tiger that way. (Yeah, the party did catch and kill it, but too late for the rogue. I swear 3.x rogues die like flies in my campaigns, even though it's rarely due to scouting or traps.)

Shapeshifting is great, as opponents rarely notice an oddly-behaving squirrel, unless it does something obvious like not get scared if someone rushes at it.

I don't think a whole lot of thought went into scouting in the rules. There's no recommendations for scouting distance, for instance, suggesting no standard distance was playtested in the rules.

Animal scouts never work. Even if you can Speak with Animals, how valuable is a scout with Int 2 going to be?

*There are ways around that, of course.

Obviously modern forces attempt to have as much intel as possible before going on a mission. However, when going through a deep jungle or a city (which is somewhat close approximation of the dungeon setting) do they use scouts or do teams stick together?

IIRC only large forces have independent scouts (and these scouts might move in small groups). A fire team of four soldiers won't have a scout. They might put the youngest (and hopefully clear-eyed) soldier in front without heavy equipment and call him a "scout". Since the other guys have roles (commander, grenadier, machine gunner, radio packer...) none of them can handle the job.

I think in the Middle Ages scouts were often just guys on horseback. They didn't care too much about stealth, figuring they could use speed to avoid the enemy. (Of course, their very presence was something of a warning.) It's also so easy it put my "assassin" character in an Exalted campaign to hard work. He swore he would kill anyone who could be a scout in an enemy city, which meant he had to kill anyone who could use a telescope and ride a horse. That was ... a lot of people.

*Modern day Special Forces wouldn't talk on a radio when plotting an ambush. Instead, the scout(s) would just tap their radio a pre-determined number of times when they see baddies. (Okay, I got this from fiction. But I think this makes sense.) Incidentally, a typical Special Forces "A-Team" consists of 10-12 troops (depending on which sources you believe).

 

[Thunderfoot]

Psi - That's why it is always good to have a mage, bard, sorcerer in the party memorize several 1-level Message spells. Instant commos and a rogue, scout, ranger is suddenly a VERY effective scout.

But you don't want to waste those slots? - That's what Scribe was made for.

Roguerouge
Seriously, like all things scouting is great if it works and sucks eggs if it fails. At its best, you have a detailed layout of enemy positions, troop strength, arms, equipment and possible plans or movements. When it is at its worst, you have a rogue/scout/ranger caught with their butt hanging out, overrun by enemies and the party too far out of range to get there in time.

Like all things, there is no patent answer here, there is a definite maybe, with strong undercurrents of possibility mixed with doubt. It might work, yeah; it might not, boo. The question is, is it worth the risk. If the mission is sufficiently grandiose, then the answer is always yes; a single death might be the thing that saves the day. (Military speak is very rarely tidy when you speak of loss of life) If the pay off is too great for the risk, go in guns blazin' and hope for the best, it can't be any worse than what you were planning in the first place.

Wish I could be more helpful, but unfortunately - this is the BEST answer I could come up with. Is it worth it? It depends and that really is the question and the answer.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

SCouting is invaluable. Fore-warned is fore-armed and all that. Obviously you want the scouts to avoid clashing with the enemy: knowing when to retreat is an essential scout skill. By preference they do not alert the enemy to their presesnce. This is not always possible of course. Generally, if a scout is seen they should turn and run.

I mostly DM. I pay little attention to the concept of "level appropriate encounters." I go for more realistic ones. My players know this and are fairly careful about what they do. Scouting is an essential survival skill for them. Lets them know what they are about to get themselves into. And avoid it if they so wish.

In games where things are always roughly the right CR and the combats are basically the two groups lining up in a tight space and thumping one another (a common occurence in DnD) then splitting the party is asking for trouble. If you split the party there you're basically setting yourself up to be killed off piece meal. But that's different to scouting.