The Traps Beginners should be warned of

[RetroGamer24]

If you have access to a spell or ability that allows for scouting with minimal investment why not use it?  Using either model for how guards move and such still means there is a chance to be seen.  Also consider some form of remote viewing that can be set up around a secure area.  Having someone "sneak" in can be tricky depending on the level of security.  Where as a bird or some form of remote viewing is more secure.

[Kajhera]

I don't think we can warn people about traps by qualifying it entirely by campaign. This definition is not satisfying to me. We should warn people about traps, in where they think they can do something, and where it might (often) fail through no fault of theirs.

So Scouting as in sending someone off on their own is a trap, because it's easy for it to fail and eviscerate a character. If you are careful to negate this trap, by stated means, then you might be able to make it an effective choice. However, as seen in the real-world example of the barbarian, going into it with little to no idea what you're doing can be purely and completely a Bad Move.

My first/last point might be more something to warn the DM about. (From that perspective, epic spells are a trap, because they give nigh- or completely limitless ultimate cosmic power by the power of friendship and/or necromancy.)

[TSS]

One of the reasons why scouting is a trap isn't just the danger to the lone guy. It's that once the enemies know there are hostiles about they will raise the alert. Buffs get cast, preparations get made, enemies get active.

Using a non PC solves the first problem but not the second. You simply don't want to risk making contact until you are ready.

It's easy to dismiss that but when something doesn't work 80-90% of the time when the DM is being nice that doesn't mean that when it doesn't work the DM is being mean. It means that it is a trap. Otherwise it'd work more often in typical situations and in many cases would still work at least somewhat well even if the enemies were actively attempting to counter it.

Is a caster stopped by a target with high saves and touch AC? No, not completely. Despite them being built to take on casters.

Yet so many things can do nothing to stop scouting and still have it be stopped.

[Kajhera]

... I'm pretty sure TSS's argument amounts to 'splitting the party is a dumb idea because it gets the scout killed'.

"There are, but those aren't going to kill the scrier. They'll just use a few wand or belt charges."
"Scrying does not involve sending someone off ahead and does not result in one or more people getting killed even if it does backfire. At least not directly."

-- The problem here is the scout getting killed easily if the scouting goes wrong. Which TSS would say is quite likely to happen. You know what happened last time I sent a small bird to scout (as a binder)? It was struck by lightning whenever it got 3 feet from me. This isn't, per se, common, but being a bird doesn't make you immune to encounters.

-- My observation is if the scout doesn't need the party to not get killed by encounters, there's not a ton stopping him from soloing them and marginalizing the party. (Wouldn't be the first time, with a druid.)

And it only took him a couple pages to explain his position.  That's not really a failure on the rest of us.  And your DM doesn't like scouting either?  That's fine, but don't pretend that there are rules that say that lightning will strike every party everywhere. 

And "getting close enough to get a visual and getting away" =/= "soloing the encounter".

But those issues are kind of beside the point.  The initial statement was that scouting was a trap - and since scouting means "gathering information about an area", it's not, and it's misinformation to say that it is.  Apparently though, it's ok to make up new definitions for words and then claim you were right all along   That's irritating, yes, but notice I didn't argue the point - until your nonsense cropped up at least - I'll be damned if I'll have my words twisted because someone cba to open a dictionary.

... Okay, I have no idea what you're having a problem with me about. Since you said scouting is gathering information about an area and I qualified your position (if you are 'everyone else') as it being useful to have information I think I'm within the general area?

I've had personal experience with a 'scout' character going on to become 'solo the encounters' character. It was a failing, of mine, as DM. Hence, warning about it as the other side of the trap, the too-powerful (not not-powerful-enough) side.

As for the getting struck by lightning it's because the particular encounter consisted of hags and some sort of stone they had which I was a fool and looted from somewhere, not so much because my DM hates scouting. Still, birds are not immune to encounters.

[RetroGamer24]

D&D is about resource management.  Your spells, gear, abilities, fellow adventurers are all resources.  The wiser you spend/use these the better you are.  Like in Starcraft II where counters are accessable and skill matters a lot.  In D&D it is to think, plan, prepare.  Having Meepo the kolbold scout scuttling around has more of a chance to foul up (die rolls etc).  Where scrying, charm person, other methods have less of a chance to foul up.

[Kajhera]

D&D is about resource management.  Your spells, gear, abilities, fellow adventurers are all resources.  The wiser you spend/use these the better you are.  Like in Starcraft II where counters are accessable and skill matters a lot.  In D&D it is to think, plan, prepare.  Having Meepo the kolbold scout scuttling around has more of a chance to foul up (die rolls etc).  Where scrying, charm person, other methods have less of a chance to foul up.

Charm person would be a pretty entertaining way to scout.

[RetroGamer24]

I am also having an idea like Shadowrun™.  A team heads to B&E an Ares compound.  Yes Ares is more for mundane security but they are not dumb to forgo magical.  A team of experienced runners will know to use all methods because of not they are fragged.  D&D is the same, to me, a group of experienced adventures use all the methods to gain info but since D&D is primarily High Fantasy, magic is King to just about anything.  So sending in Meepo the Kolbold squish to scout is not optimal where scry is.

[Mooncrow]

... Okay, I have no idea what you're having a problem with me about. Since you said scouting is gathering information about an area and I qualified your position (if you are 'everyone else') as it being useful to have information I think I'm within the general area?

I've had personal experience with a 'scout' character going on to become 'solo the encounters' character. It was a failing, of mine, as DM.

As for the getting struck by lightning it's because the particular encounter consisted of hags and some sort of stone they had, not so much because my DM hates scouting. Still, birds are not immune to encounters.

Because your summary was a gross twisting of the arguments involved.  I mean, I'm the first person to say that mundane scouting is pretty much always a trap, and that in the vast majority of cases scrying is the way to go - unless you have a druid in bird form who can take a quick peek   (heck, knowing the lightning strike range is fairly useful by itself )   That said, in practice I agree that splitting the party is usually not a good idea - but my complaints against it are time based, not imaginary rules based.

But in any case, one of the points I was trying to make (and yes, this is my bad for not linking the thought in the original scouting post) is that it's important to keep in mind that the "how" you do something is far less important than "what" you want to do.  So, mundane scouting is a trap, but you have a player that wants to be the guy that checks ahead - divination spec Wizard, or Unseen Seer, or if you have a crazy edge case like I was talking about earlier, then you can get even more specialized. 

There's too much of people getting hung up on what they think is in a concept as opposed to what actually is (also a lot of people not knowing the rules, but that's another discussion) just as being a sneaky assassin type =/= rogue, or unarmed fighting =/= monk.  It's fine to point out the actual traps, but it's just as much of a mistake to throw away good concepts as it is to allow bad ones. 

So yeah, "scouting is a trap" - no way, totally wrong.  "Some methods of scouting, including X, Y, and Z are traps" - sure, I can in theory get behind that. 

[dman11235]

It's easy to dismiss that but when something doesn't work 80-90% of the time...

Conversely, just because something doesn't work 10-20% of the time doesn't mean it never works.  And really, a lot of what you have a problem with are things that only work 95% of the time in a campaign designed for their power level, because in campaigns designed to foil them they don't work 80% of the time.

[RetroGamer24]

@dman (aka Pythagorias man)

Personally I would rather have the more reliable thing then the thing that doesn't work 3/4 of the time.  Call me what you will but 80-90% chance of failing is a bit to high for my liking.

[Kajhera]

... Okay, I have no idea what you're having a problem with me about. Since you said scouting is gathering information about an area and I qualified your position (if you are 'everyone else') as it being useful to have information I think I'm within the general area?

I've had personal experience with a 'scout' character going on to become 'solo the encounters' character. It was a failing, of mine, as DM.

As for the getting struck by lightning it's because the particular encounter consisted of hags and some sort of stone they had, not so much because my DM hates scouting. Still, birds are not immune to encounters.

Because your summary was a gross twisting of the arguments involved.  I mean, I'm the first person to say that mundane scouting is pretty much always a trap, and that in the vast majority of cases scrying is the way to go - unless you have a druid in bird form who can take a quick peek   (heck, knowing the lightning strike range is fairly useful by itself )   That said, in practice I agree that splitting the party is usually not a good idea - but my complaints against it are time based, not imaginary rules based.

I fail to see how I twisted them... was one of TSS's points not that splitting the party is bad and was one of the points of - you'll do I suppose - not that gathering information is useful, and doable?

But in any case, one of the points I was trying to make (and yes, this is my bad for not linking the thought in the original scouting post) is that it's important to keep in mind that the "how" you do something is far less important than "what" you want to do.  So, mundane scouting is a trap, but you have a player that wants to be the guy that checks ahead - divination spec Wizard, or Unseen Seer, or if you have a crazy edge case like I was talking about earlier, then you can get even more specialized.

Sounds like a productive way to suggest non-trap alternatives.

There's too much of people getting hung up on what they think is in a concept as opposed to what actually is (also a lot of people not knowing the rules, but that's another discussion) just as being a sneaky assassin type =/= rogue, or unarmed fighting =/= monk.  It's fine to point out the actual traps, but it's just as much of a mistake to throw away good concepts as it is to allow bad ones. 

Could that be a trap too? Dismissing a concept because there is a trap option for it?

So yeah, "scouting is a trap" - no way, totally wrong.  "Some methods of scouting, including X, Y, and Z are traps" - sure, I can in theory get behind that.

I did, actually look in the dictionary, and one of the definitions of 'scout' (as a noun) implies splitting up from a larger group. Not all of them, but enough to see where someone might see that word and take it in a different way than you did.

I think fewer people are arguing with you than you think.

[Unbeliever]

I feel like all this was adequately covered in the first couple of posts re:  scouting.  To wit: 

• It can be really useful, but you need a way to exploit the informational advantage.  I suggested buffs as the obvious one.
• You need a "get out of jail free" card on those occasions where it goes wrong.  A simple good initiative and a teleport is probably sufficient.  Pack a wand of celerity if you're really paranoid. 
  
  If you're a dedicated scouter, these are actually vanishingly rare.  Set aside CR 19+ monsters for a second.  It's not hard to sneak past the vast vast majority of monsters from CR 5-15 if you have committed any reasonable amount of resources to it.  Very few creatures are blessed with an epic Abominations bonkers blindsight, and even with the hit die imbalance between PCs and monsters, maximizing skills is not hard at all.  It's like charopp 101.  So, let's not pretend otherwise, please.
• You need a DM that is congenial to the idea.  As noted in a post several pages ago, there are reasons why a DM might not be.  If so, then surely there are ways that she could counter it.  But, that's not the default state, i.e., stock monsters, although anytime anyone wants to prove something in this thread it seems they just go to an encounter tailored against a particular tactic.

[dman11235]

You know what, you're right!  Something that doesn't work 75% of the time is not something I would like to use!  Now, go read the rest of what I wrote.  Some things, such as Sneak Attack, mundane scouting, heck, even the lowly Monk, are successful 95-100% of the time in campaigns designed for that power level.  These things also fail more (up to 95-100% of the time) in campaigns designed specifically to foil them, or campaigns designed to require tier 1 power and versatility.  However, you cannot claim that because these things fail in campaigns not designed with them in mind that they fail in all campaigns.  The mere fact that they don't fail in at least one campaign proves that premise false.

[RetroGamer24]

Dman you are right.  Something that works 10-20 % of the time is not bad..it is just not worth considering, imo.  Why?  Well the chance is too big of it failing then a more sure thing.  Also agreed that a campaign designed to fit said low chance rate is up to the DM and players the system they are using is not.  If you are comfy swinging through the air with the greatest of ease on a rickiet trapeeze then by all means more power to you.

Unbeliever:  It isn't hard to sneak past in those CR ranges..it is difficult to.  Take a deer.  Why do hunters use long range weapons on them?  Because an animal has finer senses then a human.  Now add in fantastical races, magic, other oddities (and there is a lot of me) and you get dead levels.

Addition:

We have to remember one additional thing.  All encounters are ment for a group of people, this goes back to splitting but not my point, so say a lion is ment to have four people of the equivilant levels to be a challenge.  One person going ahead is the risk factor and weakens the main core group.  This is ment to be a team game not solo, usually.  Just what I am seeing ya know.

YMMV depending on a lot but as the system seems designed the less personal ways to scout is better.

[RetroGamer24]

Change of trap.  Grappling, trap or no?  I don't mean Reaping Mauler just grappling in general.

[Mooncrow]

Change of trap.  Grappling, trap or no?  I don't mean Reaping Mauler just grappling in general.

For players, very much a trap.  You want to make sure you have a counter for it, because certain enemies can wreck you if you don't; but the counters for it are easy to get.  (one reason why it's terrible for players)

[RetroGamer24]

Awesome!!  I am just going to ask for specific reason why.  Another real world example.  Same group with one new player.  Said player made a cleric to Kord.  Sounds fair right.  Well this cleric wore no armor, instead was greased up with "special oil", had like strength and good for domains, and loved to rassle enemies down.  DM had a hoot with this and was quite mind bleach for most of us. 

[wotmaniac]

Change of trap.  Grappling, trap or no?  I don't mean Reaping Mauler just grappling in general.

On its face?  It depends on the level of the game.  Low-level, quite viable.  However, once Freedom of Movement and Gargantuan+ creatures come on line, it starts to slide towards "trap" status.
Some might also consider it a trap in how tedious it can be (the rules are fairly straight forward and the individual steps are simple, but sheer volume of specific circumstances will force even veteran grapplers  to have to keep the rule book open).

There are ways to make it viable at high levels, but that generally requires you to be either very specialized or reliant on other characters who would best be served doing other things.

verdict: trap.

[Mooncrow]

I should say, since I got after other people for doing this, that doing the grappling yourself is a trap - it's fine to do with spells/pets/etc. 

It's a trap because it requires a massive resource investment to make it work well, and it can be negated pretty easily with a simple freedom of movement spell. 

Massive resource hog?  Check
Narrow application? Check
Trap? Check

If you need specifics on what it takes to do well, I can point you to sirpercival's guide.

[RetroGamer24]

Awesome all thanks.

HEwwo I is a n00b to D&D.  My big brudder says rolling dice for stats is better den point buy?  Is dice for stats a trap or no?

(I know the correct answer but this is a common question and many older players abide by die rolling)