D&D 5E Forced March question

[S'mon]

You could also look at costing HPs instead of exhaustion.

Suggest hit dice rather than hp, like 4e Healing Surge drain.

 

[Quickleaf]

It seems like this would normally be impossible. 10 miles/day through jungle - either it's a cleared path or mature rain forest, both in fairly level terrain; a lot of IRL jungle is close to impassable. 50 miles seems right out.

I think if you want to make it challenging but possible you need to set the DCs appropriately. It doesn't seem like something that would happen IMC; the PCs would need a carpet of flying or similar to get there in time.

There's some context that might illuminate why I consider 50 miles in 20 hours possible in this case. My 6th-level party is mostly PCs native to this jungle, including:

• human UA ranger (gloom stalker), with jungle favored terrain & Outlander background
• grung druid (circle of the land), who is amphibious and can climb, and has a giant lizard mount/pack animal
• lizardfolk rogue (swashbuckler) / warlock (UA raven queen), who can swim and climb & has archaeopteryx animal companion who serves as a lookout/recon
• goblin paladin (oathbreaker), who has a tireless warhorse skeleton steed
• human bard (lore), the only non-native

So there's lots of jungle-orienteering skill among this party. Though they haven't traversed this specific 50-mile stretch, they have explored the surrounding area and are very familiar with the ecology/patterns of the river they might hug for ~15 miles. They've also been doing a lot of 10 mile travel days in the jungle already and were well-prepped for the journey.

Thus, I'd compare them to professional through-hikers, like the Appalachian Trail records I mentioned earlier (Karel Sabbe averaged 53 miles per day with support, Joe McConaughy averaged 50 miles per day without support...and this was stopping to eat/sleep...for days on end).

I get that the Appalachian Trail vs. tropical jungle are dramatically different terrains, but if any group would be jungle adapted it's this one.

 

[Quickleaf]

Idea: have the players burn a HD to relieve a level of exhaustion while marching.

Suggest hit dice rather than hp, like 4e Healing Surge drain.

So, with my 6th-level party, if I were to do that gradated single Constitution save, and a PC were to get 4 levels of exhaustion, all they'd have to do is spend 4 Hit Dice to be back to fresh. Ok, no brainer.

So they'd arrive at the settlement in time to make a difference in the fight with no setback whatsoever, save needing an extra day of rest to get all their Hit Dice back after the fight.

That seems to completely dissipate the tension/risk involved in the dramatic forced march.

 

[S'mon]

That seems to completely dissipate the tension/risk involved in the dramatic forced march.

Well if it were me I doubt I'd ever allow any PCs to march 50 miles through a jungle in 20 hours. At most I might allow 18 hours march at 1.5 miles/hour = 27 miles. But if they get to treat it as clear terrain (in which case their regular march rate would be at least 20 miles/day) then double that might be doable, but with lots of Exhaustion checks, at least 10 I'd think.

 

[TallIan]

Suggest hit dice rather than hp, like 4e Healing Surge drain.

I thought about this^ but this ↓

So they'd arrive at the settlement in time to make a difference in the fight with no setback whatsoever, save needing an extra day of rest to get all their Hit Dice back after the fight.

That seems to completely dissipate the tension/risk involved in the dramatic forced march.

would be the result. Until you have to take a short rest, losing HD is not a problem

 

[Quickleaf]

I think this approach could ruin people's day because of a single bad die roll, even the party barbarian can roll a one and find himself nearly useless in combat, and just having them roll 12 CON saves won't be much fun either - that's almost a big enough number of rolls to just calculate it.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments.

I do wonder about the "single bad die roll" critique. I mean, that's always a risk in D&D isn't it? Trying to leap a chasm and failing only to fall a distance which can kill you? Failing at a check to control a demon gate and getting sucked into the Abyss? Failing a saving throw versus a medusa's petrification (yes, technically two saves)? Failing a save against a diabolical trap or a dangerous spell? D&D is full of situations where a "single bad die roll" can ruin your day.

I wonder what about my idea of a gradated Constitution save makes it any different?

You could also look at costing HPs instead of exhaustion. Getting though any kind of heavy plant growth is likely to leave you with cuts, from thorns and small branches, and bruises, from larger branches, trips and falls. eg failing the CON save costs 2d6 HP but failing by 5 or more is a level of exhaustion. This significantly changes the difficulty but still leaves a cost.

Hmm, were I to do that, would it just be one CON save, so either one exhaustion level or 2d6 damage – that seems to lack any real teeth for a 6th level party with healing resources. Druid casts healing spirit the first before the fight and everyone is back to full. Done.

If I were to alternately propose an option to "take X damage from thorns and branches instead of an Exhaustion level", that would raise the question of how to handle the druid's Land's Stride feature making her immune to damage from thorns and branches.

I think this sort of situation is best handled with less adherence to RAW. I also think that your scenario is a little too binary, they either make the impossible roll or the villagers die, so perhaps set up four levels of success:
A - they keep up with the antagonists: Either through luck, or creative expenditure of resources and save all the villagers
B - the antagonists get the drop on the party: Just because the bad guys got their fist doesn't mean everyone is dead. The village has been attacked but the villagers are pulling together some form of defense and the party arriving tips the battle in their favour. The village is saved but at a cost.
C - The antagonist beat them to the chase: The party arrives too late to do anything but save a few fleeing villagers
D - Too late: the attack is done and the party can't do anything but exact revenge.

Handle it more like a skill challenge, with the number of failures dictating when the party arrives.

So ditch the forced march rules entirely? And ditch exhaustion entirely? Make it purely narrative consequences?

I see that skill challenge – where failing to make it in time (to at least have a chance to save the settlement) despite genuinely trying – as even more unsatisfying for players than having to make a single roll that offers no rewards, only suffering. At least in the latter scenario there's a sense of buy-in: "We want to be the heroes, so we're going to push through this, no matter how much it hurts. Now let's find ways to boost our Constitution saves as best we can." Whereas in the former scenario there's the devastating possibility of: "We didn't roll high enough, so now we don't even get the chance to try to save the settlement."

I honestly don't know which is better.

Or just have the party make up to four CON saves, if they only take one (pass of fail) they get scenario D, if they take two saves, they get scenario C... This gives them some control of when they arrive and in what condition, "Well half of us failed that first save, and two failed the second one, we'll just have to slow down and hope for best." as opposed to "Well half of us failed that first save, and two failed the second one, we just gotta keep rolling."

You mean up to 4 CON saves for each PC, right? What would the DC be for these saves? Would it be the same for however many CON saves the party opts into?

I don't see my players as doing less than 3 CON saves in order to get your Scenario B. So the only real choice would be whether they'd opt for 4 or 3 CON saves. They would not accept Scenarios C and D, if they're given a choice.

 

[aco175]

I was looking at the map and wondering why they would not just take the river and boats instead of looping around. Unless there is a story reason, the rivers in the jungle are like the roads everyplace else.

I do agree that your party makeup should be given some breaks in the jungle. Can the druid turn into a bird or monkey and scout for a best route, the ranger can use favored terrain to navigate. The bard can sing their praises and worry about why he got off the boat in the first place...

 

[TallIan]

Sorry if some of my comments below sound a bit judgmental. I have never seen you DM so I can't comment. My comments are meant to be generic advice

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments.

I do wonder about the "single bad die roll" critique. I mean, that's always a risk in D&D isn't it? Trying to leap a chasm and failing only to fall a distance which can kill you? Failing at a check to control a demon gate and getting sucked into the Abyss? Failing a saving throw versus a medusa's petrification (yes, technically two saves)? Failing a save against a diabolical trap or a dangerous spell? D&D is full of situations where a "single bad die roll" can ruin your day.

I wonder what about my idea of a gradated Constitution save makes it any different?

Only if they have a choice (and not just a choice to not save the village), high risk vs high reward.

By "ruin his day" I don't mean they suffer a bad in game effect, like huge loss of HP, or being petrified for a combat, I mean ruin the players session because his character is almost useless for the whole session.

If, over the first hour, I made a string of risky moves that required a die roll that left me with 4 levels of exhaustion (either from bad luck or from improbably high DC's) I would take that in my stride (provided that I had an alternative to the risky option), it was stuff I did that didn't pay out and I would joke about it the whole evening and still have fun . eg Jump this chasm to kill the shaman rather than fight through his guards on the bridge and weather the shaman's spells. OTOH, if I turned up to a session and the DM said, roll a d20, if it's low, you have 4 levels of exhaustion, that would ruin my evening.

On a less personal level though I don't see one die roll offering any real tension. A few, with clear rewards and consequences on the other hand...

To answer your points above. Is there another way around the chasm? The adventure can continue in the Abyss. There is magic available to un-petrify the PC, or heal them from the trap/spell.

Hmm, were I to do that, would it just be one CON save, so either one exhaustion level or 2d6 damage – that seems to lack any real teeth for a 6th level party with healing resources. Druid casts healing spirit the first before the fight and everyone is back to full. Done.

Good point. I had forgotten about healing spirits insane out of combat healing potential. This idea was to allow an alternative to exhaustion if you stuck with RAW. So this would be 12 CON saves. A character with +0 to his CON would probably not make this march (RAW), he would be at 0 speed after around 10 saves* OTOH if the DC for the save against exhaustion was 5 lower he would get through with 4 levels of exhaustion and a total of 16d6 damage - not all at once. The idea here was to force the party to use resources to overcome the march rather than just hoping for a lucky die roll. So more than just a single 2nd level spell slot.

*I know this is statistically accurate, but it's close enough to demonstrate the point.

If I were to alternately propose an option to "take X damage from thorns and branches instead of an Exhaustion level", that would raise the question of how to handle the druid's Land's Stride feature making her immune to damage from thorns and branches.

Tier 2 parties do start to get a lot of resourceless ways of overcoming mundane challenges. One could argue that the Land Stride feature could offer ADV on the CON saves as the character will be having an easier time traveling. To some extent this is a case of "Lucky Druid" in the same way you could say "Lucky Fighter" when attacks miss him because of his high AC from plate mail, but the rest of the party don't have this feature so could still take damage.

So ditch the forced march rules entirely? And ditch exhaustion entirely? Make it purely narrative consequences?

Not entirely, exhaustion does sound like a good consequence of a forced march, I just think RAW (12 CON saves) is a bit restricting, 12 dice rolls are going to be quite predictable. I just think a way to minimise dice rolls and allow the party to spend other resources makes more sense.

I see that skill challenge – where failing to make it in time (to at least have a chance to save the settlement) despite genuinely trying – as even more unsatisfying for players than having to make a single roll that offers no rewards, only suffering. At least in the latter scenario there's a sense of buy-in: "We want to be the heroes, so we're going to push through this, no matter how much it hurts. Now let's find ways to boost our Constitution saves as best we can." Whereas in the former scenario there's the devastating possibility of: "We didn't roll high enough, so now we don't even get the chance to try to save the settlement."

I honestly don't know which is better.

Me neither TBH. I find that skill challenges are either done well and are exciting or not done well and are total crap - there's never any middle ground. It depends entirely on the Players and DM, some like them and are good at them, some either don't like them or are not good at them.

You mean up to 4 CON saves for each PC, right? What would the DC be for these saves? Would it be the same for however many CON saves the party opts into?

I don't see my players as doing less than 3 CON saves in order to get your Scenario B. So the only real choice would be whether they'd opt for 4 or 3 CON saves. They would not accept Scenarios C and D, if they're given a choice.

I did. I would keep the con saves close(ish) to the RAW forced march rules. So each save represents 3 hours of forced marching so one save at DC13; DC 16; DC 19 and DC 22 or maybe slightly higher, since you're rolling three saves into one.

You could have less granular levels, 6, 8 or even 12 if you want to stick with RAW. But the players get the choice with each roll if they want to risk another level of exhaustion. Just give them a progressive harder or less successful ending. Rather than simply "You turn up so worn out, the villagers have to rescue you."

You mention that the party have mounts (a few of them). That alone could give them advantage on a few saves.

 

[Quickleaf]

Sorry if some of my comments below sound a bit judgmental. I have never seen you DM so I can't comment. My comments are meant to be generic advice

No worries, I appreciate everyone's insights so far.

Only if they have a choice (and not just a choice to not save the village), high risk vs high reward.

By "ruin his day" I don't mean they suffer a bad in game effect, like huge loss of HP, or being petrified for a combat, I mean ruin the players session because his character is almost useless for the whole session.

If, over the first hour, I made a string of risky moves that required a die roll that left me with 4 levels of exhaustion (either from bad luck or from improbably high DC's) I would take that in my stride (provided that I had an alternative to the risky option), it was stuff I did that didn't pay out and I would joke about it the whole evening and still have fun . eg Jump this chasm to kill the shaman rather than fight through his guards on the bridge and weather the shaman's spells. OTOH, if I turned up to a session and the DM said, roll a d20, if it's low, you have 4 levels of exhaustion, that would ruin my evening.

On a less personal level though I don't see one die roll offering any real tension. A few, with clear rewards and consequences on the other hand...

To answer your points above. Is there another way around the chasm? The adventure can continue in the Abyss. There is magic available to un-petrify the PC, or heal them from the trap/spell.

OK, if I've understood you, it's a question of meaningful choices, and reducing the dramatic forced march to one die roll eliminates meaningful choice. That makes sense.

Good point. I had forgotten about healing spirits insane out of combat healing potential. This idea was to allow an alternative to exhaustion if you stuck with RAW. So this would be 12 CON saves. A character with +0 to his CON would probably not make this march (RAW), he would be at 0 speed after around 10 saves* OTOH if the DC for the save against exhaustion was 5 lower he would get through with 4 levels of exhaustion and a total of 16d6 damage - not all at once. The idea here was to force the party to use resources to overcome the march rather than just hoping for a lucky die roll. So more than just a single 2nd level spell slot.

Yeah, the RAW method – which would appear to be 12 escalating checks in this scenario – is also unsatisfactory. I think what you pointed out – forcing the party to use resources to overcome the march – is probably the more satisfactory way to go. And the meaningful choice comes in with which resources they opt to expend.

My only issue there is that I've used an "opt into exhaustion" mechanic in a skill challenge a few sessions back, and no one opted into exhaustion. Players, IME, avoid exhaustion like a plague, treating it as a non-choice. If I want it to be treated as a possible choice, how nasty do I have to make the alternatives?

Tier 2 parties do start to get a lot of resourceless ways of overcoming mundane challenges. One could argue that the Land Stride feature could offer ADV on the CON saves as the character will be having an easier time traveling. To some extent this is a case of "Lucky Druid" in the same way you could say "Lucky Fighter" when attacks miss him because of his high AC from plate mail, but the rest of the party don't have this feature so could still take damage.

Totally, that makes sense.

Not entirely, exhaustion does sound like a good consequence of a forced march, I just think RAW (12 CON saves) is a bit restricting, 12 dice rolls are going to be quite predictable. I just think a way to minimise dice rolls and allow the party to spend other resources makes more sense.

Right, that's why I initially brainstormed reducing it to 1 gradated check, to avoid being predictable (and the boredom of throwing 12 dice at a problem). Now, as you point out, one check doesn't offer much wiggle room for meaningful choices due to the vagaries of the d20.

Me neither TBH. I find that skill challenges are either done well and are exciting or not done well and are total crap - there's never any middle ground. It depends entirely on the Players and DM, some like them and are good at them, some either don't like them or are not good at them.

Mhmm, very true. My objection wasn't about skill challenges in and of themselves (I use them in my own way on occasion), but rather about the consequences of the skill challenge.

Maybe one option here is to turn it around and present the players with a choice:

(1) You can automatically reach the settlement in time just as the fighting has begun, but it's going to be a brutal forced march in which you'll make a DC 20 Con save, and if you fail you suffer exhaustion according to the degree of failure.

(2) You can attempt to navigate for shortcuts through the jungle in a skill challenge. You'll be able to expend other resources to avoid exhaustion, but you'll risk not reaching the settlement in time if you fail.

That's a meaningful choice, yeah?

 

[Yunru]

So, with my 6th-level party, if I were to do that gradated single Constitution save, and a PC were to get 4 levels of exhaustion, all they'd have to do is spend 4 Hit Dice to be back to fresh. Ok, no brainer.

So they'd arrive at the settlement in time to make a difference in the fight with no setback whatsoever, save needing an extra day of rest to get all their Hit Dice back after the fight.

That seems to completely dissipate the tension/risk involved in the dramatic forced march.

Have them spend dice to add the result to their checks (either before or after knowing the result, up to you)?