How to scout effectively in 5e?

[Kvess]

I noticed that my thread about out of combat abilities spiralled into an argument about whether or not scouting was effective in 5e.

In one of the first games I ran, a level 3 rogue snuck into a Zhentarim stronghold on her own, failed a stealth check, stumbled into a wounded assassin, and froze behind a conspicuous minor illusion she created in the middle of the hallway. The assassin attacked. She did not survive that encounter. They were new players and I was new to being a DM. If I was in the same situation now, I would have supplied more ‘are you sure you want to do that’s and maybe would have held the character hostage to find out who she was working for before dispatching her.

How do you scout in 5e? Is it a job that is better left to familiars, or is it possible for rogues and other characters to case a joint safely? if so, what precautions should you take? How far away should the party be? How do you signal them for help? How should the DM work with the party to give them a fair shot at succeeding?

[RSP]

First, I dislike scouting as a general practice: it takes away from the group playing, while one player solos and explores.

However, there are times in a campaign when it’s necessary, though the perils mentioned are a risk that comes with being the scout.

Magic can help: I had a Warlock with Scrying that was able to effectively scout certain areas when needed. Likewise, Familiars can help take the pressure off having to split the party while getting the info needed.

If a PC needs to go for scouting, the less intrusive, the better; as there certainly are dangers when you get too far from the group, or get yourself trapped or cutoff from fleeing.

[Tanarii]

If you're the DM:
- decide how far apart scouts have to be to count as a separate party. IMO based on real world distances for sound traveling and encounter starting distances, this should be about 60ft.
- now decide how far the scout has to be from the enemy to start making Stealth checks. Again, based on real world distances and encounter distances, this should be at 60ft. If successful, they should be able to get to 30ft (surprise starting distance) if they choose without issue.

Basically, that has a failed stealth check start with the scout at 60ft from the enemy, with the party only 60ft behind them. If they want to push for an ambush, the scouts can start 30ft away with the party 60ft behind them. Or they can double back and the entire party move up to 60ft.

It helps if the scout and party both have the Message cantrip for communications.

The main advantage here is you aren't splitting the party more than 2 rounds of movement or 1 if they Dash, and also you aren't running a separate mini-game for the scout(s) alone. The entire party is effectively involved / in range at all times.

[Keravath]

There are two aspects to scouting -
1) The benefits and detriments to the players
2) The benefits and impacts on the characters

--

1) From a player perspective, scouting is usually not much fun for anyone except the character who is scouting unless the DM and players find a way to make it a group activity. If the DM can hand wave the communication through the use of the message cantrip, telepathy or similar abilities, or another way that keeps the party in touch with the scout (either the character or a familiar) then all the party members can hear and contribute to what is going on which generally results in a better experience for everyone. If a character is off on their own scouting and there is no way to communicate then the other players are sitting around doing nothing until the scout reports back.

2) From a character perspective, scouting is dangerous. The odds of encountering a situation that the scout can't handle are much higher. Even a rogue with expertise will fail a stealth check from time to time and if there is nothing to hide behind then a stealth check is irrelevant - you can't hide if you can be seen. Stealth is not invisibility.

However, there are times when the party wants to know more about a situation before deciding how to engage with it. Whether it is knowing how many opponents there are, what kinds of opponents, where the opponents are located, how many are sleeping, how many reinforcements there might be, how many rooms/doors/corridors - all of these can contribute to coming up with a successful plan for dealing with an encounter.

Players/characters often want that information and scouting is the only way to get it.

Familiars are the first and easiest approach, especially the invisible warlock familiars. Next in line is the quiet owl or possibly a bat in complete darkness - or another small animal that won't be noticed. However, mundane familiars can be seen and may be eaten by other creatures so they may not last long.

The next best option is an invisible rogue. Invisibility lasts an hour as long as the caster maintains concentration and being invisible lets the rogue make a stealth check anywhere. This is less reliable at higher levels when creatures might see invisible, have truesight, blindsight or tremorsense - but hopefully the party has some idea of the creatures they are scouting. The party should probably be at least 60' and more likely 120'+ away to avoid being within range of visibility and alerting creatures to their presence. With cunning action, a rogue can dash to get away and will typically move faster than many opponents meaning they are more likely to make it back to the party if they are discovered.

The next best scout is likely a monk due to their higher movement rate and ability to use ki for bonus action dash or dodge. If the monk picks up expertise in stealth through a feat or multiclass they should be as good as the rogue.

The more characters that scout the more likely the group is to be noticed since it will probably come down to a group stealth check at some point and the chances of 50% succeeding depends on how many of them are proficient with stealth to start with and not wearing noisy armor.

---

Finally, in the OP example, I think that they handled it fine.

Characters/players should learn that some things they choose to do are dangerous and have consequences. A DM who doesn't enforce consequences at least some of the time, will often run into the superhero issue where the characters start taking bigger and bigger chances because they never seem to fail (because the DM is preventing it). Sometimes DMs allow this to happen because they don't want the characters to die no matter what, other times it is due to "rule of cool" ... "wow that was really cool" .. however, the one time flip from the chandelier onto the back of the bad guy stabbing them with a dagger gets a bit old when the next time they do a double back flip, bounce off two walls to avoid falling damage (acrobatics check), land behind the bad guy, hamstring them so they fall prone etc ... very cinematic but unless this is the kind of game you want to run then these actions need a chance of failure and when the character tries something really improbable where failure would mean death of the character the DM is often stuck with the track record of lenient rulings to deal with :) .. so setting the right tone early in the campaign can be useful :)

[Man_Over_Game]

Tanarii gave some really solid advice, but another solution is just to make failure less of a big deal.

If you want players to take risks, they have to be willing to fail. Players become more boring when they realize that risks are never worth it. 5e isn't the kind of game that naturally makes this easy, so it really just boils down with the DM and how they run it.

It shouldn't be "Are you sure you want to do that", but instead "You hear a noise from around the corner, what do you do?"

Create artificial space between player decisions and consequences for those decisions so that players can adapt around their mishaps. AKA telegraph more and delay punishments to create extra time.

There's good reason why developers are introducing more and more telegraphing into games: It’s because it’s fun.

Unfortunately, telegraphing is hard when everything is “After saying what you’re doing, roll a 1d20 to immediately fail or succeed”. So focus on that and your players will appreciate you more.

[Sigreid]

In my experience, the most important thing for the party scout to remember is that if they get caught, your course of action should be to run and not fight. Escape, return to your party who should be ready to intercept your pursuers.

[BoutsofInsanity]

You have to have a DM who doesn't suck. That's really what scouting means.

Your DM has to understand how group stealth checks work - Which is a rule in the PHB.

Your DM has to understand Passive Perception, advantage, and that failing a single stealth roll doesn't automatically mean that your spotted. It means you make noise, knock over something. Etc. You still have an opportunity to react and move to a new position. It's not a one and done kind of deal when the player's are scouting out.

Your DM has to understand the terrain that the enemies are in, and that there might be a way to approach and set ambushes in the wilderness.

Your DM has to understand the difference between wilderness scouting and infiltrating a building. Scouting really depends on the Dungeon Master. Is it theater of the mind or do they have a grid laid out, with terrain so that the rogue can take advantage of the terrain and hide?

Lastly, understanding that Stealth rolls are only called for when the enemy has a chance of noticing something. Not at the start of stealth. The player takes an action to stealth and then is now hidden. It's only during the play that a roll is required when something happens that might require a roll.

[Jophiel]

Tanarii gave some really solid advice, but another solution is just to make failure less of a big deal.
This is my approach. There's a spectrum of possible consequences between "in and out like a ghost" and bringing the whole castle down on you. Maybe a failed stealth roll means you made a noise but have a chance to hide as the guards approach to check it out. Maybe now they lock stuff up or increase the patrols. Failing a roll might basically mean you can't scout any deeper or gain more information but doesn't immediately mean you're arrested or suffering an arrow through the skull.

Aside from the "boring for everyone else" aspect, the biggest push back to scouting is that one bad roll is going to ruin everything (and likely make the scout feel bad). But if you can mitigate that, then the scout gets to feel more useful and the party benefits from the information even if they didn't learn everything possible.

[Sorinth]

Like everything else it comes down to how the DM chooses to run the game. With some DMs stealth and as a result scouting just isn't viable because of how they interpret the stealth rules.

Since you were the DM in this case some tips,
* Since most enemies wouldn't be stealthing in their base the scouting player should generally detect the enemies through passive perception. Just giving the player that 1 free turn to do something is a big help. Something like "You hear footsteps approching whoever it is is seconds from rounding the corner and seeing you, what do you do?". Guards will also often be talking to each other to pass the time, you can see shadows passing by from the other side of the dorrway, etc.... In most cases it shouldn't be hard to give the player a bit more agency and less surprise.
* As you mentioned, it's a good practice to take spies alive to try and get info out of them.
* Use advantage/disadvantage when possible, if a player wants to take a quick peak around the corner maybe give them advantage on the stealth check and disadvantage on any perception checks.
* With new players, or players not familiar with the class you should feel free to either narrate or suggest things. So for example the player says they want to peak around the corner you can describe it/or ask them if they wanted to use their dagger as a mirror to look around said corner.

For players when I play we tend to not have the scout(s) get too far ahead if for no other reason then it's boring for the rest of the table to have 1 person scouting while everyone else sits around doing nothing. But if you do want to scout solo as a player it's important to have an exit plan, preferably one that involves teleportation like Misty Step.

EDIT: And as others have said, a failed stealth roll doesn't have to mean they saw you, just that they saw/heard something. Having guards just become suspicious an start to investigate is generally a good idea.

[Segev]

Shadow monks, with ability to be proficient in Stealth and to cast pass without trace, are very good scouts, and also can make the party competent at stealth if needs be.

The Soul Knife Rogue has a BEAUTIFUL scouting ability: psychic whispers. This lets him communicate back to the party in real time what he's seeing, and call for help, etc.

Familiars are okay for scouting, best sent WITH the scout while the master stays with the rest of the party. The telepathic connection serves a similar purpose to psychic whispers, especially if the actual scout with the high perception can effectively communicate what to send back to the familiar's master.

[Trask]

Since it can be so DM dependent, I advise DMs to just be forthcoming with advice. Straight up tell players what kind of scouting methods would be most effective (in general, no need to give them all the answers).

If you think scouting should be done with the scout taking point 60 ft up the dungeon hallway, then tell them "this is how most scouts do things", or if it would be better for someone to go in and poke around then report back outside, then tell them that's how most scouting is done. Players arent real military scouts so they can often freeze when trying to employ strategy that goes beyond the game rules and into theoreticals, they just don't know.

You can help them by gamifying it, making the penalties of failure not catastrophic, or just giving them advice.

I had a DM once do it by having me roll a stealth check and on a success he let me glance at the dungeon map for 3 seconds. So I had an idea of the layout, but by no means perfect knowledge.

[nickl_2000]

A familiar is the most effective way to scout. A rat isn't conspicuous and a rat sticking to the walls and hiding is perfectly normal behavior. Very few people would think twice about it, especially in a dungeon. My party was investigating a Wererat nest and I had a rat familiar. He was able to walk around the entire place seeing and hearing everything without fail and no checks needed :)

Not only that, but if it gets killed you can just get a new one for a little gold.

[Eldariel]

The next best option is an invisible rogue. Invisibility lasts an hour as long as the caster maintains concentration and being invisible lets the rogue make a stealth check anywhere. This is less reliable at higher levels when creatures might see invisible, have truesight, blindsight or tremorsense - but hopefully the party has some idea of the creatures they are scouting. The party should probably be at least 60' and more likely 120'+ away to avoid being within range of visibility and alerting creatures to their presence. With cunning action, a rogue can dash to get away and will typically move faster than many opponents meaning they are more likely to make it back to the party if they are discovered.

The next best scout is likely a monk due to their higher movement rate and ability to use ki for bonus action dash or dodge. If the monk picks up expertise in stealth through a feat or multiclass they should be as good as the rogue.

Eh, the best "scouting character" (i.e. a character who actually enters the location to scout) is probably the Druid. This is because scouting generally comes down to five things:
1) Entering scouting area
2) Staying undetected
3) Transmitting findings (can be after 5 too of course)
4) Escaping if caught
5) Exiting scouting area

And Druid is uniquely suited to handle those, especially if bestown Invisibility. Pass without Trace is a flat bonus, it doesn't fail (well, from level 3 anyways). And it lasts an hour. Druid has Wildshape to assume inconspicuous forms and to enter from the tiniest of openings (given how many rats a pseudo-medieval world has, even if someone does hear a rat Druid moving somewhere inside the walls, chances of them actually taking note are pretty marginal).

Now, Druid is fairly poor at #3 (lacks easy access to telepathy) and isn't as good as Wizard at #1 and #5 (due to no Misty Step equivalent to get through small keyholes, openings, etc.) but Druid is so darn good at staying undetected and due to Wildshape, pretty darn good at both of those points too. Especially with two uses of Wildshape, Longstrider, etc.

[Gignere]

Just cast arcane eye. No need to take any risk.

[MrCharlie]

Use magic. Invisibility, arcane eye, scrying, clairvoyance, and disposable minions are all excellent ways to scout. Outside of familiars several other summons can also scout, and are intelligent enough to communicate what they find, so it's not a warlock/wizard exclusive tactic.

Trying to scout as a non-magical character, even one exceptionally good at stealth, is extremely hard due to the stealth rules limiting where you can hide. It's also unnecessarily dangerous.

I'll also lump Druid in with that, by the way, because while they can wild shape into an insect and scout, the life of an insect is not pleasant or long lasting, and they are generally at least as ill-suited as the Rogue to escaping when caught. That leaves situations where they wild-shape into a bird or other animal which can actually survive walking about, and familiars or summons are superior in those situations.

[elyktsorb]

Well, Druid. Between being able to shapeshift into any unassuming creature for the area + having Pass Without Trace, makes them effectively the best at scouting in most situations. If the Druid is allowed to use Tasha's they can even summon Familiars which is just icing on top of that. Druid's can basically stealth anywhere once they reach 3rd.

Any Druid + any Stealth proficient character. Need to be Stealthy but need X character to be doing the scouting for Y reason? Have the Druid become tiny creature, put them in the pack of X character, X character gains the benefit of Pass Without Trace.

If you want the end all of stealthy characters, just run a Druid/Rogue.

Invisibility

Rogues that have Stealth proficiency (or even Expertise) and are high enough level to have Reliable Talent.

Illusions can be useful, usually dependent on how useful your DM allows illusions to be.

[MaxWilson]

The Soul Knife Rogue has a BEAUTIFUL scouting ability: psychic whispers. This lets him communicate back to the party in real time what he's seeing, and call for help, etc.

Here's a fun lifehack: say you've got a spellcaster scout like a Rogue 2/Bladesinger X or a Lore Bard or a Druid, and you want him to be able to communicate with the party to tell them to come forward, or send help, or run away, based on what he sees while scouting. Spellcasters make good scouts because if discovered they can e.g. emergency Dimension Door to safety, but let's say you're too far away for a Message cantrip (or can't afford the cantrip slot) and you don't want to burn a Sending spell known + slot on a mundane message like, "All clear, proceed to the next building".

Instead you can create coded symbols with Prestidigitation where the party can see them, and then when you want to send a signal, you use your action to erase the corresponding mark.

If the party sees the "all clear" mark disappear, they know you're saying it's all clear.

Prestidigitation is a fun spell to know anyway for comfort reasons (clean dishes, cool pillows on a hot night, etc.) but it's nice to get some actual survival benefits out of it too.

You can do the same thing with Mold Earth, Control Flames, etc.

@OP you generally want to have a tactical retreat capability built into a scout (Shadow Monk teleport, Rogue Cunning Action Dash or Hide, spellcaster Dimension Door, etc.) but as Trask mentions it's equally important to talk to your DM about what game structure (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures) he's going to use to resolve scouting. Is he going to use the regular old dungeon crawl game structure, room-by-room? It's very realistic but risks boring the other players, especially if the scout(s) is (are) doing a recon-in-force to kill monsters where possible, via kiting. This is a case where the DM should consider in earnest doing what the Alexandrian gives as an example in the linked article:


One of the most overlooked aspects in the design and play of traditional roleplaying games is the underlying game structure. Or, to put it another way, there are two questions which every game designer and GM must ask themselves:

(1) What do the characters do?

(2) How do the players do it?

These questions might seem deceptively simple, but the answers are complex. And getting the right answers is absolutely critical to having a successful gaming session.

Some of you may already be challenging this. “How difficult can it be? The players tell me what their characters are doing and then we resolve it. What could be easier?”

To demonstrate the oversight taking place here, let me give you a quick example of play:


Player: I want to explore the dungeon.

GM: Okay, make a Dungeoneering check.

Player: I succeed.

GM: Okay, you kill a tribe of goblins and emerge with 546 gp in loot.

Is there anything wrong with that? Not necessarily. But it’s certainly a very different game structure than the traditional D&D dungeoncrawl.

That is, a DM may want to simplify scouting down to a couple of rolls (e.g. a percentile roll on a table and a single Stealth roll) and then jump ahead to the result, whether that's giving the player information about what they found, or being stuck in a room waiting for a given monster to go away (or choosing to fight that monster), or getting detected by a monster and reverting to dungeon crawling procedures in medias res ("you're here on the map and three ogres have spotted you, what do you do?").

This minimizes the amount of time the other players have to sit around waiting while you ponder which door to go through next, etc.


Now, Druid is fairly poor at #3 (lacks easy access to telepathy) and isn't as good as Wizard at #1 and #5 (due to no Misty Step equivalent to get through small keyholes, openings, etc.) but Druid is so darn good at staying undetected and due to Wildshape, pretty darn good at both of those points too. Especially with two uses of Wildshape, Longstrider, etc.

Druid can and should use cantrips like Mold Earth for the above-mentioned long range communication lifehack.

[Eldariel]

Druid can and should use cantrips like Mold Earth for the above-mentioned long range communication lifehack.

Yeah, it works but it's not very detailed. Can't give exact tactical information on target numbers, types, locations, abilities, etc. Though definitely far better than nothing. Definitely not "non-caster poor" but "fairly poor". Also, Fey-Touched is of course a great feat on Druids anyways (Command + Conjure Animals goes extremely well together) and that's one good way to access Misty Step which further expands upon a Druid's options in this regard. Then again, with Tasha's they just have "Summon Expendable Familiar" on a keypress so all of that is largely still moot.

[Selrahc]

Long drawn out scouting scenes don't involve the rest of the group, and when they go wrong, they often draw the focus of the whole session into clearing up a mess. Unless there is a really good reason to go more in depth, I would suggest ambiguating the process. Have the player doing the scouting describe their approach, and have them describe what kind of info they're looking for. Then do a stealth roll and a perception roll*. If they fail the stealth roll then the enemies are alerted to something going on. If they fail the perception roll they get misleading or incomplete information. Maybe do the rolls in secret if you think your group is helped by that kind of thing. If they hit on both, give them what they were asking for. If they got a natural 20, hey maybe they stole a purse of coins or something too! No risk of capture or death. And the player and the whole group still gets mechanically rewarded for their good scouting abilities.

There sometimes is a reason to make this scouting process a spotlight scene, and play it out in full detail. I would just say that in my experience it's more the exception than the rule.


*Potentially substitute other skills, or give advantage depending on approach and use of tools. E.G. Deception for a more social approach. Advantage because your cousin works in the docks and left a door open for you. Advantage because you shapeshifted into a rat and are really tiny.

[LudicSavant]

How do you scout in 5e? Is it a job that is better left to familiars, or is it possible for rogues and other characters to case a joint safely? if so, what precautions should you take? How far away should the party be? How do you signal them for help? How should the DM work with the party to give them a fair shot at succeeding?

This is kinda like asking “how do you combat in 5e?” There’s not just one way to do it, nor should you do it the same way from situation to situation.

[Kane0]

Either use remote-sensory magic to do it safely or have a chump willing to risk themselves to do it manually.

If you're going into hostile territory on your own relying on staying unobserved in order to obtain information and get out again alive, then you're the chump.

Take note not to call your familiar a chump where/when it can hear you, it tends to impact their morale.

[MaxWilson]

Either use remote-sensory magic to do it safely or have a chump willing to risk themselves to do it manually.

If you're going into hostile territory on your own relying on staying unobserved in order to obtain information and get out again alive, then you're the chump.

Take note not to call your familiar a chump where/when it can hear you, it tends to impact their morale.

Also, to be fair, playing the chump is a lot more fun than playing the guy waiting for the chump to finish doing his thing and bring you the treasure.

What's good for the PC != what's good for the player.

[LudicSavant]

So as I said above, there’s a lot of ways to scout and I do it differently depending on the situation. But generally speaking...

I rarely split the party. Either I scout remotely with spells or minions, or I’m scouting with my party within engagement range (though that engagement range can be rather far — they might have Phantom Steeds or Pegasi or teleportation or whatever, and they’ll be keeping in contact via telepathy or other methods). Or the party is just scouting all together (Pass Without Trace etc).

Scouting — provided you do so with a suitably safe methodology —is very worthwhile. Winning the information war confers a huge advantage for players who know what to do with said information. Even just knowing whether or not an encounter is likely to start in the next few minutes is valuable info that enables pre-casting.

[Tanarii]

My basic assumption is that a PC party is either a small reconnaissance element, or a seek and destroy party. The majority of time, this is pretty close. Or at least close enough to make a basic working model from.

So when I hear Scout(s), I'm really thinking Point Man. Which is why my assumption is they rules are really written (pending DM judgement) to allow a guy a few rounds of movement out in front, but you can all still play together and be involved as players.

That and the fact that 60ft is the average starting encounter distance with no surprise, as well as the real world distance that a shout sounds roughly like a whisper.

[Segev]

Either use remote-sensory magic to do it safely or have a chump willing to risk themselves to do it manually.

If you're going into hostile territory on your own relying on staying unobserved in order to obtain information and get out again alive, then you're the chump.

Take note not to call your familiar a chump where/when it can hear you, it tends to impact their morale.

To be fair, the familiar's escape plan if caught is, "Die, then wait for the boss to spend 10 gp in material components and an hour and ten minutes on summoning me again."

My own monk/rogue who does scouting very well does rely on not being seen, but he's also INCREDIBLY effective in close combat and very slippery and hard to hold onto. And recently got Shadow Monk 6, so can probably bwip out unless he's foolishly walked into bright light.

[Gignere]

To be fair, the familiar's escape plan if caught is, "Die, then wait for the boss to spend 10 gp in material components and an hour and ten minutes on summoning me again."

My own monk/rogue who does scouting very well does rely on not being seen, but he's also INCREDIBLY effective in close combat and very slippery and hard to hold onto. And recently got Shadow Monk 6, so can probably bwip out unless he's foolishly walked into bright light.

Or just dismiss it with an action and resummon if you win initiative.

[Kvess]

This is kinda like asking “how do you combat in 5e?” There’s not just one way to do it, nor should you do it the same way from situation to situation.

Combat’s very well-defined in 5e. Each class has many abilities and spells that directly impact combat, and they say exactly how they are used. The rules for stealth are a bit broader and less well understood, and will vary more table-to-table.

[Cicciograna]

I have something to say that is sort of a tangent on the matter of scouting, and leans more into the dynamics of a group of players.

I'm reading a lot of people that say that "scouting is bad because it is detrimental to group play and instead focuses only on one player".

My goodness, is it really that important that everybody is always stimulated all the time, at the same time? I keep reading this argument, and I wonder what kind of attention span the players that make it really have. We are not talking about a single player continuously hogging the spotlight all the time, every time: we are talking about a specific situation in which the talents of one particular player, who probably devolved resources and character creation, can and should shine to improve the sorts of the entire group. I never see this argument posed when it comes to social interactions, for example: if I decided to play a shy character with a Charisma penalty, I am implicitly accepting that during social interactions I'm going to take a back seat...and that is okay. I don't have to always be the protagonist.

Likewise, if I am wearing a full suit of armor and every time I move I announce my position to the full world, I am accepting that the nimble Rogue go scouting ahead of me, blending with the shadows in a way I can't do. Dunno, maybe it's just my perception of the matter, but it seems that people sometimes are just unwilling to do this, unwilling to accept that hey, nobody can do everything, and when I can't do something it's probably just a good idea to sit one out.
And I'll tell you what: sometimes it's even enjoyable to sit out, to just see how the story develops without having an active hand in it. IT's great to see how the Rogue decides to handle the scouting situation, what they will do if they risk being spotted, and how to, eventually, react if they do.

Let me conclude saying that in my currently group I play with a couple of players that are the direct opposite of this. They can NEVER be in the backseat, no matter what is happening, they HAVE to be there, they HAVE to be the protagonists, no matter what the game situation, stealth, social interaction, research of topics, combat, you name it, you have it. Let me tell you: it is EXHAUSTING, because yes, they DO try to hog the spotlight to themselves - even when it would be time for other players to rightfully shine.

[LudicSavant]

Combat’s very well-defined in 5e. Each class has many abilities and spells that directly impact combat, and they say exactly how they are used. The rules for stealth are a bit broader and less well understood, and will vary more table-to-table.

None of which would change what I said in the quote.

[RSP]

My goodness, is it really that important that everybody is always stimulated all the time, at the same time? I keep reading this argument, and I wonder what kind of attention span the players that make it really have. We are not talking about a single player continuously hogging the spotlight all the time, every time: we are talking about a specific situation in which the talents of one particular player, who probably devolved resources and character creation, can and should shine to improve the sorts of the entire group. I never see this argument posed when it comes to social interactions, for example: if I decided to play a shy character with a Charisma penalty, I am implicitly accepting that during social interactions I'm going to take a back seat...and that is okay. I don't have to always be the protagonist.


Needing to scout a room one time isn’t a big deal. “I’m the scout, who will always be scouting” is.

The second continually gives a solo to one Player, while everyone else does nothing. This is a problem as I don’t want my 3 hours of play being an hour and a half of the scout getting solos.

Moreover, outside of reliable telepathy (Rary’s usually), all meaningful decisions about how to proceed are then either made by the scout, or made for them by the enemies (in the case of them being noticed). Obviously, if discovered and combat breaks out, that’s even more problematic as that eats up more time only one player is involved. Either the other PCs are near enough to notice the combat but then their participation for 3 rounds is “I dash”, which isn’t great fun; or they’re unaware of the commotion and are doing nothing while the scout navigates the situation.

I’ve just found that the “scout” character concept tends to not be a fun one to play with, for these reasons. You may enjoy watching someone else play D&D, but I prefer to participate.

[Cheesegear]

If I was in the same situation now, I would have supplied more ‘are you sure you want to do that’s'

I wouldn't. My players know the risks. Wandering off on your own almost always means death. If it doesn't...It means there was nothing there and scouting was pointless 'cause you could've walked in with three torches lit and the Cleric with a Light spell up and nothing would've happened.


How do you scout in 5e?

You capture enemy combatants in early areas/rooms alive, and you interrogate them as to who, where, and how many.
Charm spells are obviously fantastic. Telepathic abilities are good, too.
Disguise Kits, having insignias, and learning pass phrases, is the very best way to scout.


Is it a job that is better left to familiars

Familiars are, more or less, expendable, especially at higher levels. Warlocks even have access Invisible ones.


or is it possible for rogues and other characters to case a joint safely?

If a Tier 2 character has a +10 to Stealth (e.g; Pass Without Trace), or more, they should be okay. Most creatures don't have a decent passive Perception, and it gets even worse in Dim Light (e.g; Using Darkvision exclusively, to see). However once you have hostiles with Blindsight with a decent range (e.g; Dragons), you can no longer stealth at all safely.


if so, what precautions should you take?

Always know the way out.
A character that can't Bonus Action Disengage, has no business 'scouting' on their own.
A character that can't escape a Grapple, has no business 'scouting' on their own.


How far away should the party be?

Depends how many, and how strong, the hostiles being scouted are.


How do you signal them for help?

Telepathically.


How should the DM work with the party to give them a fair shot at succeeding?

Have them roll a Stealth check vs. the hostiles' passive Perception.
If they fail once, they make a noise and **** up. Someone spots a dark shape on the walls. Suspicious. Initiative might already be rolled by this point.
If they fail again using their Bonus/Action(s) to Hide, they're likely dead unless the party can help. The player is now rolling against active Perception, and torches get lit for light sources and the alarm is raised for everyone to be on alert. At the very least, there should be animals (e.g; Dogs) that are now rolling Advantage on their active Perception checks.

That's a fair shot, because it's what's in the rules.

If that doesn't sound like a 'fair shot', or very safe, that's probably why people consider scouting to not be useful or good. :smallwink:

[LudicSavant]

Needing to scout a room one time isn’t a big deal. “I’m the scout, who will always be scouting” is.

The second continually gives a solo to one Player, while everyone else does nothing. This is a problem as I don’t want my 3 hours of play being an hour and a half of the scout getting solos.

Moreover, outside of reliable telepathy (Rary’s usually), all meaningful decisions about how to proceed are then either made by the scout, or made for them by the enemies (in the case of them being noticed). Obviously, if discovered and combat breaks out, that’s even more problematic as that eats up more time only one player is involved. Either the other PCs are near enough to notice the combat but then their participation for 3 rounds is “I dash”, which isn’t great fun; or they’re unaware of the commotion and are doing nothing while the scout navigates the situation.

I’ve just found that the “scout” character concept tends to not be a fun one to play with, for these reasons. You may enjoy watching someone else play D&D, but I prefer to participate.

Alternate take: I think the problem here isn't so much "I'm the scout, who will always be scouting," as it is "I'm the scout who sucks at scouting."

No way to coordinate with the party remotely? No way for the party to assist or evac for three entire rounds if discovered? Is their archetype "the scout who is always scouting" or is it "the corpse the DM is too merciful to kill off?"

Like tanking, I suspect scouting is one of those things that people often do poorly, but scrape by just via sheer weight of DM mercy (in the case of poorly-done tanks, the DM mercy often takes the form of the enemies deciding not to ignore a target they obviously should, and/or using attacks that the tank is resilient to while eschewing attacks they're not, like avoiding charming the Barbarian who dumped Wisdom. Or just setting the general difficulty low enough that tactics don't matter).

[Cheesegear]

Like tanking, I suspect scouting is one of those things that people often do poorly, but scrape by just via sheer weight of DM mercy

Can confirm - both examples.
My players often get salty when my encounters with groups of Humanoids come with one or more animals with proficiency in, and advantage to Perception checks.

'You're right, I guess three Scouts with a Mastiff doesn't make sense. I'll change my encounter because Scouts don't know that ambushing is a thing that exists and they just forgot their hunting dog for no reason.'

'You're right. This wealthy townhouse aristocrat doesn't have a pair of rat-catching cats. Let me change the house real quick.'

[Demonslayer666]

I noticed that my thread about out of combat abilities spiralled into an argument about whether or not scouting was effective in 5e.

In one of the first games I ran, a level 3 rogue snuck into a Zhentarim stronghold on her own, failed a stealth check, stumbled into a wounded assassin, and froze behind a conspicuous minor illusion she created in the middle of the hallway. The assassin attacked. She did not survive that encounter. They were new players and I was new to being a DM. If I was in the same situation now, I would have supplied more ‘are you sure you want to do that’s and maybe would have held the character hostage to find out who she was working for before dispatching her.

How do you scout in 5e? Is it a job that is better left to familiars, or is it possible for rogues and other characters to case a joint safely? if so, what precautions should you take? How far away should the party be? How do you signal them for help? How should the DM work with the party to give them a fair shot at succeeding?

In a typical dungeon crawl, scouting should be far enough away that the rest of the party does not alert the enemy, and close enough that the party can help when the scout gets in trouble (one round away).

Splitting the party is highly discouraged in my game, especially solo rogue adventures. The game is for everyone at the table, not one. Scouting alone is not wise, as the challenge level is geared towards the whole party. This is made clear in my session 0.


Special situations will allow for scouting solo, but those would likely be easy and an auto-success.

[RSP]

Alternate take: I think the problem here isn't so much "I'm the scout, who will always be scouting," as it is "I'm the scout who sucks at scouting."


Depends. Most of the times I’ve seen “the Scout” character, it’s a rogue during dungeon crawls who wants to explore ahead and use their Expertise Stealth.

In those situations, it’s just dependent on what your exploring as to what will be encountered. And Expertise Stealth could be enough to get through, at least earlier on in a campaign.

If it’s something like scouting a fort or home or settlement, yeah, I’d expect more proficient countermeasures. However, those situations tend to be story driven and a group event (at least in planning). If we have to get into the noble’s estate while they’re out, the group will be involved with going in, not just one Player.

[noob]

Step 1 of scouting: Take a red hat with a feather and put it on top of your head.
Step 2 of scouting: Take some bells and jingle them constantly.
Step 3 of scouting: Stay clustered in the middle of the party and throw alchemist fire at everything that is flammable from far.(possibly with the catapult cantrip if you have the magic initiate feat)
Step 4 resulting from scouting: Do not advance in a forest until all the trees are burnt, do not advance in the dungeon until you collapsed it and so on.
With this scouting method you will attract all the opponents without taking the risk of splitting from the party thus solving the scouting problem.

[LudicSavant]

Can confirm - both examples.

Mhm.


Depends. Most of the times I’ve seen “the Scout” character, it’s a rogue during dungeon crawls who wants to explore ahead and use their Expertise Stealth.

The thing about that is that being a Rogue with Expertise doesn't automatically stop you from being bad at scouting, any more than being a Barbarian automatically stops you from being bad at tanking (such as people making toothless turtles with glaring weaknesses like dumped Wisdom).

[jjordan]

First, the nature of the game is that you are always one roll away from catastrophic failure. Scouting is pretty much a wasted effort, particularly if there is any sort of time crunch, because it just increases the chances of conflict and doesn't typically provide players with any sort of measurable benefit. If there's a 30%+ chance you'll be detected in the scout then why not just rush in with all your force and take advantage of your ability to go nova on the bad guys? If there's a time limit then scouting is generally a waste of your time resource because you probably won't be able to make any sort of meaningful adjustment to your resources/tactics in the limited time you have.

Second, reward good preparation on the part of the players. Anything they can do to reduce the number of rolls they have to make or increase their rolls should be noted and rewarded in one fashion or another. Scouting is hard work done slowly. If people aren't doing it slowly and with lots of prep then they are doing it wrong and failure is pretty much pre-ordained.

Third, appreciate the nature of scouting. Guards get bored. Maintaining a bunch of people on guard duty is fairly difficult. Keeping them motivated and actually observant is harder. In most cases DCs are going to be fairly low (not that that will help with a natural 1). And scouting isn't slipping in to the enemy camp and walking around, in most cases. It's more like sitting very still in a hidden spot and watching for hours or days at a time. Most scouting is best handled as abstract tasks (sort of like crafting) rather than detailed roleplay. You can always 'zoom in' on the action if something goes really wrong (or right), but you're better off speeding up play by having the characters approach the scout as a more abstract task and giving them one or two pieces of information based on how well they roll and making failure more of lack of information reward than a 'you've been detected and now have to fight a meeting engagement!' result.

[MaxWilson]

First, the nature of the game is that you are always one roll away from catastrophic failure. Scouting is pretty much a wasted effort, particularly if there is any sort of time crunch, because it just increases the chances of conflict and doesn't typically provide players with any sort of measurable benefit. If there's a 30%+ chance you'll be detected in the scout then why not just rush in with all your force and take advantage of your ability to go nova on the bad guys?

Generally speaking (and speaking as a DM), most PCs will have trouble breaking contact when detected by a superior force, so getting detected by a superior force risks TPK as faster PCs are loathe to abandon slower PCs. Having just one or two high-mobility scouts can avoid this issue. (If the other PCs have set up a hardened defensive position, then pursuing enemies may not even still be a superior force by the time they reach that position.)

Once you know the scouting results, who and where and how many with what capabilities, you can start to devise a plan to divide the enemy in detail or accumulate advantages like cover, surprise, pit traps, and preplaced spells like Snare, Glyph of Warding, Druid's Grove and Symbol.

In a game where the bad guys never constitute a superior force (zero possibility of encounters over Deadly threshold or vs. monsters that punch above their weight class), this dynamic of course will never be a factor and scouting will be relatively pointless.


And scouting isn't slipping in to the enemy camp and walking around, in most cases. It's more like sitting very still in a hidden spot and watching for hours or days at a time. Most scouting is best handled as abstract tasks (sort of like crafting) rather than detailed roleplay. You can always 'zoom in' on the action if something goes really wrong (or right), but you're better off speeding up play by having the characters approach the scout as a more abstract task and giving them one or two pieces of information based on how well they roll and making failure more of lack of information reward than a 'you've been detected and now have to fight a meeting engagement!' result.

This makes me think I'd enjoy having you as a player. The approach you describe here would get good results (sitting still and watching from afar for a long time).

At the same time, slipping in and walking around is more feasible in a fantasy world than real life. Skulker/Invisibility/Disguise Self can potentially do quite a lot, and can give you information you wouldn't get from far away, like internal layouts.

[KorvinStarmast]

Here is my perfect scout.
A bard.
Has Shadowfell Brand Tattoo
Has expertise in Stealth
Has this short sword/rapier: Weapon of Warning
Has Misty Step. (later in life has Dimension Door)
Has Expertise in Perception.
Alert Feat

When we add it all up:
Darkvision; Sneaky; advantage on initiative (when needed) advantage on stealth checks, not likely to be surprised; can't be abused by invisible enemies, and misty step/DD to GTFO when the stumble upon things with a really bad perception roll. (If there's a way to get advantage on perception, IIRC Enhance Ability can do that, this is the super scout. (The tatto is actually an insurance policy, since it allows a once per day 'half damage' if you screw up and take a lot of damage from a trap, dragon, etc).

At higher levels had True Seeing.

My bard has almost all of that (has DD, not Misty Step). I gave the weapon of warning to our sorc/lock so that his initiative is more awesome; him getting to cast a control spell first trumps my desire to be the sneakiest bard in the north country. All I need is the Alert feat.

Holy crap, this thread gave me an idea: enhance ability up casts to boost party initiative. Gotta go and look that up.
hehehe, yes, I get idea, haha!


Cat’s Grace. The target has advantage on Dexterity Checks. It also doesn’t take damage from Falling 20 feet or less if it isn’t Incapacitated.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd Level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 2nd. Upcast to fifth; good for an hour; have it up as we enter really dangerous place. first fight we all have advantage on initiative. Will discuss with my party, this might be the better idea I've been looking for. (I am the support caster for our party ...)

[MaxWilson]

Here is my perfect scout.
A bard.
Has Shadowfell Brand Tattoo
Has expertise in Stealth
Has this short sword/rapier: Weapon of Warning
Has Misty Step. (later in life has Dimension Door)
Has Expertise in Perception.
Alert Feat

Make it an Aarakocra too for fast flying (better than winged tiefling for slow flying).

[Stryyke]

1) From a player perspective, scouting is usually not much fun for anyone except the character who is scouting unless the DM and players find a way to make it a group activity. If the DM can hand wave the communication through the use of the message cantrip, telepathy or similar abilities, or another way that keeps the party in touch with the scout (either the character or a familiar) then all the party members can hear and contribute to what is going on which generally results in a better experience for everyone. If a character is off on their own scouting and there is no way to communicate then the other players are sitting around doing nothing until the scout reports back.



I think this is the best way of dealing with the downsides of scouting. It gives the scout the intense "behind enemy lines" feel, that makes scouting fun, while still including the rest of the group. Perhaps an item that allows anyone who touches it to telepathically communicate for an hour, but only works once/day.

As for the other part of the op's issue, I very much prefer there to be real consequences. If there aren't consequences, players will just do stupid stuff all the time.

[MaxWilson]

I think this is the best way of dealing with the downsides of scouting. It gives the scout the intense "behind enemy lines" feel, that makes scouting fun, while still including the rest of the group. Perhaps an item that allows anyone who touches it to telepathically communicate for an hour, but only works once/day.

As for the other part of the op's issue, I very much prefer there to be real consequences. If there aren't consequences, players will just do stupid stuff all the time.

Even long-range telepathic communication doesn't help unless the players are all very comfortable with cooperation. Some players are very reluctant to even suggest to other player characters what actions to take, so they'd still wind up sitting around doing nothing until the scouting mission finishes.

This does tangentially lead to another solution, which is "do the scouting mission ahead of time in a separate game session with fewer players."

[Stryyke]

Even long-range telepathic communication doesn't help unless the players are all very comfortable with cooperation. Some players are very reluctant to even suggest to other player characters what actions to take, so they'd still wind up sitting around doing nothing until the scouting mission finishes.

This does tangentially lead to another solution, which is "do the scouting mission ahead of time in a separate game session with fewer players."

I'm really tempted to agree to this, but I don't think I do in the end. I've tried, and seen, systems like this in action; and they work well. But they do have one major drawback; if the guy doing the stealth mission wants to go back and report to the party, it's very cumbersome to do so. Scheduling a 10 minute RP session is more aggravating than helpful. If you aren't going to do at least 30 minutes, it's not really worth scheduling it. But that means that the player really can't just go, peek, and report back.

Also, I don't really like how it promotes separation of party members. Maybe after a group has been together for a year or so, it would be ok. Once the group dynamic is pretty much set. But it's not helping the group to act as a unit, if one guy is having whole extra sessions to himself during the week.

[MaxWilson]

I'm really tempted to agree to this, but I don't think I do in the end. I've tried, and seen, systems like this in action; and they work well. But they do have one major drawback; if the guy doing the stealth mission wants to go back and report to the party, it's very cumbersome to do so. Scheduling a 10 minute RP session is more aggravating than helpful. If you aren't going to do at least 30 minutes, it's not really worth scheduling it. But that means that the player really can't just go, peek, and report back.

Also, I don't really like how it promotes separation of party members. Maybe after a group has been together for a year or so, it would be ok. Once the group dynamic is pretty much set. But it's not helping the group to act as a unit, if one guy is having whole extra sessions to himself during the week.

I agree with the first paragraph--don't even try it unless the scout is very serious about scouting and intends to take a long time. If he just wants 10 minutes, do that during a regular game session. But if a Shadow Monk wants to pre-scout the whole Ruined Temple of Buakbuak as thoroughly as possible, at night, killing whatever can be safely kited to death and taking notes on the rest... that can't happen in ten minutes.

I'm generally a fan of splitting the party for reasons (see https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/35847/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-big-hero-6-and-splitting-the-party and https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/33791/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-pacing-part-5-advanced-techniques) although I'm still improving my technique for doing so smoothly. But having one or two PC scout for a long time isn't an interesting party split, in the sense that there's nothing interesting to cut back and forth between, unless you make something interesting happen like a wandering monster run into the waiting PCs.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of the separate session technique either, so I don't necessarily disagree with your second paragraph. But I don't exactly agree with it either. Having alone time to strengthen individual identities isn't bad for group cohesion IME or IMO.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

If you're the DM:
- decide how far apart scouts have to be to count as a separate party. IMO based on real world distances for sound traveling and encounter starting distances, this should be about 60ft.
- now decide how far the scout has to be from the enemy to start making Stealth checks. Again, based on real world distances and encounter distances, this should be at 60ft. If successful, they should be able to get to 30ft (surprise starting distance) if they choose without issue.

Basically, that has a failed stealth check start with the scout at 60ft from the enemy, with the party only 60ft behind them. If they want to push for an ambush, the scouts can start 30ft away with the party 60ft behind them. Or they can double back and the entire party move up to 60ft.

It helps if the scout and party both have the Message cantrip for communications.

The main advantage here is you aren't splitting the party more than 2 rounds of movement or 1 if they Dash, and also you aren't running a separate mini-game for the scout(s) alone. The entire party is effectively involved / in range at all times.

I know I'm not the first to support this, but it's bang on. The party is within sight of the character even in the dark (or at least hearing if they are around a corner). Also some kind of telepathic communication allows me to tell the scouting player what is happening in the presence of the other characters and speed things along. In my games scouting is absolutely necessary or the party will blunder into things they have no business fighting.

[Reach Weapon]

How do you scout in 5e?

Clearly, this is dependent on the play group's beliefs, sense of fun, and their arbiter of mechanics (the DM).

Still, I have some thoughts. The first being that "scouting" is one of those words that can encompass a lot and mean different things to different players.


And scouting isn't slipping in to the enemy camp and walking around, in most cases. It's more like sitting very still in a hidden spot and watching for hours or days at a time. Most scouting is best handled as abstract tasks (sort of like crafting) rather than detailed roleplay. You can always 'zoom in' on the action if something goes really wrong (or right), but you're better off speeding up play by having the characters approach the scout as a more abstract task and giving them one or two pieces of information based on how well they roll and making failure more of lack of information reward than a 'you've been detected and now have to fight a meeting engagement!' result.

When the stakes or narrative call for it, these sorts of preparation montages are great, and tend to be a huge exception to the rule against splitting the party. Of course, other members would usually have their own check-ins, interacting with the locals and off duty guards, investigating records and lore, or whatever else they can think of to improve their knowledge and odds.


My basic assumption is that a PC party is either a small reconnaissance element, or a seek and destroy party. The majority of time, this is pretty close. Or at least close enough to make a basic working model from.

So when I hear Scout(s), I'm really thinking Point Man.


Likewise, if I am wearing a full suit of armor and every time I move I announce my position to the full world, I am accepting that the nimble Rogue go scouting ahead of me, blending with the shadows in a way I can't do. Dunno, maybe it's just my perception of the matter, but it seems that people sometimes are just unwilling to do this, unwilling to accept that hey, nobody can do everything, and when I can't do something it's probably just a good idea to sit one out.

I was drawn to this part, as I think this puts "scouting" in the larger contexts of party composition, playstyles, character design and marching order. Some of why I advocate for session zero and group check ins is that there should be some player consensus on how the party operates, including elements like how much darkness, stealth and separation they want to utilize.

I tend to end up with less static marching order, as securing the retreat, scouting and sealing forks, and clearing obstacles usually results in a relatively consistent main element, with satellites changing off between point, flank and drag, even with a party as small as 3-5 characters. Good resource management sometimes means delegating tasks to less optimal characters, so the party can keep rolling along.


Just cast arcane eye. No need to take any risk.

In a world of familiars and other magic, they should be expected, detected, and countered (as appropriate) and resulting interactions should be reasonably consequential. It might be appropriate for there to be clues as to when these "safe" methods are more likely to increase the difficulty for the party one way or the other.

[Eldariel]

In a world of familiars and other magic, they should be expected, detected, and countered (as appropriate) and resulting interactions should be reasonably consequential. It might be appropriate for there to be clues as to when these "safe" methods are more likely to increase the difficulty for the party one way or the other.

The power of those abilities is that it is usually not feasible to prepare for them on a longterm basis. Familiars exist, but just like in the medieval times exterminating all the rats was practically impossible, so too is it in D&D. Simply too efficient a species. Thus, if there is 99% chance of a given rat noise being a natural rat and 1% chance of it being a familiar (being generous here), you are not going to be able to pay attention to every rat noise you encounter all day long, all life long.

It might be feasible in the short term if you are on alert for some reason...but it is also a powerful diversion tactic for the scout since all it takes is some rat noises to direct the defenders' attention away momentarily IF they do check every rat noise out. More reasonable though is that they just leave such things to passive defenses like housecats and poison traps and accept the 1% damage from familiar scouting unless something else alerts them to it.


Similarly, Arcane Eye and its ilk are invisible or even more undetectable. In this edition without permanency, reliably and consistently detecting them is going to take a Diviner 10 or 24ish castings of See Invisible per day or similar amounts of resources, none of which is feasible for most forces. Magic items (which tend to be very rare for invisibility detection) are the most realistic option, but those are rare indeed too.

So while magical scouting exists and is a known entity, dealing with it is still too many resources for most parties to be able to manage it. And even if they do, its failure case is basically that "enemy knows they are being scouted on", which, depending on the situation, might not even bring them any new information or at best, gives them a vague warning that something might possibly happen soon (of course it places the enemy on alert for some time, which might or might not matter depending again on party schedule and the exact timing).


In short, scouting-wise the resource efficiency of magic in 5e definitely favours the aggressor (Find Familiar at 1st level ritual has no NEARLY as potent defensive spell for a similar amount of resources as the most obvious example).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The power of those abilities is that it is usually not feasible to prepare for them on a longterm basis. Familiars exist, but just like in the medieval times exterminating all the rats was practically impossible, so too is it in D&D. Simply too efficient a species. Thus, if there is 99% chance of a given rat noise being a natural rat and 1% chance of it being a familiar (being generous here), you are not going to be able to pay attention to every rat noise you encounter all day long, all life long.

It might be feasible in the short term if you are on alert for some reason...but it is also a powerful diversion tactic for the scout since all it takes is some rat noises to direct the defenders' attention away momentarily IF they do check every rat noise out. More reasonable though is that they just leave such things to passive defenses like housecats and poison traps and accept the 1% damage from familiar scouting unless something else alerts them to it.


Similarly, Arcane Eye and its ilk are invisible or even more undetectable. In this edition without permanency, reliably and consistently detecting them is going to take a Diviner 10 or 24ish castings of See Invisible per day or similar amounts of resources, none of which is feasible for most forces. Magic items (which tend to be very rare for invisibility detection) are the most realistic option, but those are rare indeed too.

So while magical scouting exists and is a known entity, dealing with it is still too many resources for most parties to be able to manage it. And even if they do, its failure case is basically that "enemy knows they are being scouted on", which, depending on the situation, might not even bring them any new information or at best, gives them a vague warning that something might possibly happen soon (of course it places the enemy on alert for some time, which might or might not matter depending again on party schedule and the exact timing).


In short, scouting-wise the resource efficiency of magic in 5e definitely favours the aggressor (Find Familiar at 1st level ritual has no NEARLY as potent defensive spell for a similar amount of resources as the most obvious example).

While I don't disagree with anything that's being said here it could be argued that noticing a rat, bat, or whatever would raise the alert level of opponents, at least resulting in rolled perception checks rather than passive ones. That alone would be one rationalle for using a more effective scout (rogue) than a less effective one like a familiar.

[Doug Lampert]

All IMAO:

Combat as Sport, which seems to be what 5th is designed for, with encounters that are no worse than "deadly" (may briefly put down one PC) and that don't use oddities like intellect devourers, your party is in NO REAL DANGER if they just all kick in the door together.

So if scouting carries any real risk at all, it simply is not worth it. You're taking some risk, when just not bothering eliminates that risk.

For scouting to be worthwhile it requires that there be a real chance that "we stay together and kick in the door" will end with the DM saying, "Well, you are all dead, come up with new characters for next week and we'll start a new campaign. Hope none of you were too attached to your characters" (or alternately with the next session starting with the survivors in a not easy to escape jail with their gear lost and gone forever or something).

But there needs to be a real chance of failure if NOT scouting and a real cost to failing and a situation where scouting can help for scouting to be worthwhile.

Scouting is important to exactly the extent that tilting the battlefield your direction and knowing what you are up against is important to surviving. It's inherently risking the scout for greater safety for the group (and in D&D land where there are HP and resurrection spells, reduced risk to the group may also make the scout safer in the long run). But without significant risk to the entire group just going in together, why should anyone scout?

Once you've established the baseline, that there is a real risk to NOT scouting, then you can worry about all the stuff with group checks and 60' intervals and telegraphing and consequences short of death (which are all good, but they don't matter till there is a positive reason to scout, and that comes from kick in the door being risky AND there being something you can do to reduce the risk if you know in advance what the situation is).

[Tanarii]

Even in a king in the door CaW game, doing so means giving up ambushing. Unless your entire group is capable of ambushing.

E.g. there may be times when it's worth starting with your stealthy PCs 30ft from the enemy and your non-stealthy guys 90ft away with a chance of surprised enemies, as opposed to everyone 60ft away and 100% chance of not surprised enemies

[Person_Man]

From a metagame perspective, I would add that its a good idea to use an variety of different scouting methods, and to try and do what fits the specific situation you’re in best. I don’t know any DMs who would begrudge the players for sending their familiar or Druid or scrying or whatever to scout ahead, or the party face using a disguise and Skills to talk their way in and gather intel. But if they use the same method over and over again, you can be assured that within 2-3 game sessions there will be an encounter that specifically thwarts whatever method the players are using to scout.

Scouting/Skills that require actual roleplaying tend to be protected from this problem, as they tend to be the most interesting and fun. Whereas scry and die tactics can be used maybe once or twice before the DM gets sick of it and makes every subsequent dungeon magically protected.

[DwarfFighter]

I feel the main issue here is that the Hiding and Searching rules are a bit too vague for me to let the players feel that they have reliable framework for covert action.

I've worked out some more extensive homebrew:

Basically, you can hide if nobody can see you (Heavily Obscured), no roll required, and move around while you stick to cover or are at least Lightly Obscured. When you or your enemy move close we compare passive Stealth and Perception.

You need to roll Stealth if you want to do action stuff without being revealed. At the DM's discretion some actions will reveal you outright, like attacks and spells, others are without risk, like Hiding (again) or the Ready action. Compare roll to Passive Perception of those that can potentially discover you, and make a Perception check for anyone that are directly affected by your actions.

If you want to find a hiding enemy, you use sight, hearing, scent or touch and make a Perception roll vs. passive Stealth

There's more to it, but the main idea here is to rely more on the passive skill scores and environment effects when the characters are doing innocuous stuff like moving into position, and calling for rolls when the characters want to take action.

[Segev]

The more...removed...your scouting, the more I tend to find that in actual play a well-planned dungeon will not necessarily thwart it, but leave you with limited information.

As an example, in Tomb of Annihilation, the PCs frequently sent their wizard's familiar ahead to scout. This got them a lot of layout intel, but it also meant that they got "all clear" reports on corridors that were actually trapped...but the familiar weighed less than the 20 lbs. necessary to trigger them.

This is a small example. The familiar also wasn't very good at lockpicking. So any locked doors were obstacles.

[Reach Weapon]

The power of those abilities is that it is usually not feasible to prepare for them on a longterm basis.

Let me start by saying that players should, by and large, get to play with all their toys.

Still, using Arcane Eye as an example, most anyone could complicate it's usage with agricultural netting and perimeter sweeps given the physical limitations of the spell. Further, some enterprising antagonists could train any number of creatures with blindsight to physically restrain the orb; I'm pretty sure darkvision could give the caster a clear view of an alimentary tract.

Some of the more interesting game challenges are when useful and reliable features get countered.

[Gignere]

Let me start by saying that players should, by and large, get to play with all their toys.

Still, using Arcane Eye as an example, most anyone could complicate it's usage with agricultural netting and perimeter sweeps given the physical limitations of the spell. Further, some enterprising antagonists could train any number of creatures with blindsight to physically restrain the orb; I'm pretty sure darkvision could give the caster a clear view of an alimentary tract.

Some of the more interesting game challenges are when useful and reliable features get countered.

This is all kinds of house rules against the arcane eye. The RAW just say a solid barrier can block it. Not sure a net counts, also it can fit through openings as small as one inch in diameter. It is invisible and since it isn’t a creature not sure how even creatures with blindsight can detect or even restrain it.

[Segev]

This is all kinds of house rules against the arcane eye. The RAW just say a solid barrier can block it. Not sure a net counts, also it can fit through openings as small as one inch in diameter. It is invisible and since it isn’t a creature not sure how even creatures with blindsight can detect or even restrain it.

Unless I missed something, blindsight can see non-creatures. AS for restraining it, that's going to be a DM ruling, because the rules don't specifically cover it. We know creatures can pick up and manipulate objects. There are no rules for, e.g. catching a thrown ball, but the DM could come up with something. Similarly, the DM can come up with something, here, if he wishes.

[noob]

The more...removed...your scouting, the more I tend to find that in actual play a well-planned dungeon will not necessarily thwart it, but leave you with limited information.

As an example, in Tomb of Annihilation, the PCs frequently sent their wizard's familiar ahead to scout. This got them a lot of layout intel, but it also meant that they got "all clear" reports on corridors that were actually trapped...but the familiar weighed less than the 20 lbs. necessary to trigger them.

This is a small example. The familiar also wasn't very good at lockpicking. So any locked doors were obstacles.

Those are insufficiently paranoid characters.
But sufficiently paranoid characters do not go in a place called "tomb of annihilation" unless they need to stop acearak from destroying the world right now.

[Reach Weapon]

This is all kinds of house rules against the arcane eye. The RAW just say a solid barrier can block it. Not sure a net counts, also it can fit through openings as small as one inch in diameter. It is invisible and since it isn’t a creature not sure how even creatures with blindsight can detect or even restrain it.

The whole point of netting is that it is a solid barrier against anything larger than it's webbing, and there is plenty with holes smaller than an inch.

Also, all the descriptions of blindsight I've seen include being able to detect the environment as well. It's not like bats trip over every chair in a dark room.

As you noted yourself, Arcane Eye can not pass through solids without a hole about an inch in diameter. You can argue by what mechanics the orb can get boxed in, not that it can't be trapped.

Lastly, there are mechanics by opposing forces can know enough about the spell's capabilities, including how close the caster needs to be get the the orb in place.

[Gignere]

The whole point of netting is that it is a solid barrier against anything larger than it's webbing, and there is plenty with holes smaller than an inch.

Also, all the descriptions of blindsight I've seen include being able to detect the environment as well. It's not like bats trip over every chair in a dark room.

As you noted yourself, Arcane Eye can not pass through solids without a hole about an inch in diameter. You can argue by what mechanics the orb can get boxed in, not that it can't be trapped.

Lastly, there are mechanics by opposing forces can know enough about the spell's capabilities, including how close the caster needs to be get the the orb in place.

But it’s an invisible orb of magic. Nowhere does it even imply it have substance. Don’t say if it has no substance it should go through something smaller than 1 inch in diameter, but this is magic and it is stopped by whatever the rules say it is stopped.

Just saying the arcane eye has enough substance to be netted or even grappled or detected by blindsight is house rules already. Nothing in the RAW gives guidance on how it interacts with blind sight. Blindsight can’t see magical forces by RAW.

[Reach Weapon]

But it’s an invisible orb of magic. Nowhere does it even imply it have substance. Don’t say if it has no substance it should go through something smaller than 1 inch in diameter, but this is magic and it is stopped by whatever the rules say it is stopped.

Just saying the arcane eye has enough substance to be netted or even grappled or detected by blindsight is house rules already. Nothing in the RAW gives guidance on how it interacts with blind sight. Blindsight can’t see magical forces by RAW.

You're conflating a couple tactics, hanging agricultural netting is the more thematic and realistic "just slap closed doors everywhere". As for the rest, we could do a deep-dive parsing of each of the relevant writings, but I think my larger point about how opponents will actually try to oppose the characters is more universally applicable.

[Gignere]

You're conflating a couple tactics, hanging agricultural netting is the more thematic and realistic "just slap closed doors everywhere". As for the rest, we could do a deep-dive parsing of each of the relevant writings, but I think my larger point about how opponents will actually try to oppose the characters is more universally applicable.

No it isn’t it’s just your house rules on how arcane eye can be stopped. I am ok with that but that’s not going to be every DMs go to on how their world evolves to stop arcane eye.

Edit: some appropriate RAW counter measures would be doors with less than 1 inch diameter openings. Nondetection might be cast 24 7 at certain places or at least as a glyph.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: some appropriate RAW counter measures would be doors with less than 1 inch diameter openings.

In other words, every door ever.

[Reach Weapon]

No it isn’t it’s just your house rules on how arcane eye can be stopped. I am ok with that but that’s not going to be every DMs go to on how their world evolves to stop arcane eye.

People can certainly do whatever they want at their tables, but I might appreciate further explanation as to why you're slapping what appears to be a pejorative use of "house rules" on what I believe is a pretty strict reading of the spell.

Are you okay with the write up on D&D Beyond? In what way is a fine enough net not a "solid barrier" that "blocks the eye's movement" lacking "an opening as small as 1 inch in diameter"?

[Gignere]

People can certainly do whatever they want at their tables, but I might appreciate further explanation as to why you're slapping what appears to be a pejorative use of "house rules" on what I believe is a pretty strict reading of the spell.

Are you okay with the write up on D&D Beyond? In what way is a fine enough net not a "solid barrier" that "blocks the eye's movement" lacking "an opening as small as 1 inch in diameter"?

What if a DM defines a solid barrier as one that can stop a fireball? Does your net stop a fireball? Not saying I do that but it’s very common to define solid barrier as one that blocks LoS and/or LoE.

[Reach Weapon]

What if a DM defines a solid barrier as one that can stop a fireball? Does your net stop a fireball? Not saying I do that but it’s very common to define solid barrier as one that blocks LoS and/or LoE.

Then Lewis Carroll gets whatever is both suitably Lewis Carrollinian and board appropriate?

I mean, I think that's sort of like knowing Project Image uses the word "intangible" and Programmed Illusion uses "imperceptible" (and the BoVD uses the word "ineffable") but somehow Arcane Eye's "invisible" has some sort of Humpty Dumptian malleability.

ETA: Is the definition your question is premised on that plates of glass or sufficiently roiling waterfalls are "solid barriers" but the bars of a jail or portcullis are not?

[Segev]

It can't go through barriers without at least a 1 inch diameter hole.

If you can enclose it in barriers that lack such holes, it can't move out of the enclosure.

Whether you can trap it in this fashion will require DM adjudication, since it lacks stats required to determine if you can grapple it or hit it.

Blindsight that works to see invisible things will see it. It is invisible.