• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E The new exploration rules, discussion

Iosue

Legend
I think they're a great first pass, though a little too complicated and a little sketchy in certain areas. I'm coming from the basis of familiarity with the rules in B/X D&D, though.
I myself prefer a Moldvay level of exploration crunch, but I do think this is another place where they are best served with dials. Some people may want that extra complexity, in different areas. I think the pace rules are a good example. As you note, there are two speeds in B/X: cautious and bat-out-of-hell. Having some intermediate steps in between can be useful in certain situations. I may hardly ever use them, but it's to have them if I want to, say, make the dungeon something of a time trial. E.g., the PCs have two hours to penetrate to the center of the dungeon and save the prince.

I agree that the current pace for the 5 minute turn is a bit too fast, but I also think B/X is a bit too slow. B/X movement (90'/turn unarmored) and DDN turns (5 minutes) sounds just about right for me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

RedFox

First Post
I myself prefer a Moldvay level of exploration crunch, but I do think this is another place where they are best served with dials. Some people may want that extra complexity, in different areas. I think the pace rules are a good example. As you note, there are two speeds in B/X: cautious and bat-out-of-hell. Having some intermediate steps in between can be useful in certain situations. I may hardly ever use them, but it's to have them if I want to, say, make the dungeon something of a time trial. E.g., the PCs have two hours to penetrate to the center of the dungeon and save the prince.

I agree that the current pace for the 5 minute turn is a bit too fast, but I also think B/X is a bit too slow. B/X movement (90'/turn unarmored) and DDN turns (5 minutes) sounds just about right for me.

Well I'm expecting that the rules will lose some complexity. I think Mearls noted that the first iteration of a new rules module is always going to be the most complex one, yes?

And I expect "dials" to hopefully be part and parcel of the package. We've supposedly still got three complexity tiers, what with the Basic, Standard, and Expert or whatever.

I more or less agree with you though. I think having the different movement rates and all that is good as an option. I'd just like it pared down a bit for the "basic" version of these rules. I don't disagree with it on principle or anything. I just feel it's a bit clunky.

And I think you may be right about the speed. It's something that needs to be tuned though to find the sweet spot, and as I noted I think it should ultimately be based on character speed to start with. Slowest member seems the most reasonable basis.

Just... generally speaking, I'd like the squares traversed to be <=20 and >=10 as a general rule. Anything too slow and the party will be inching along. Anything too fast and you're just leaping and bounding through too much of the complex at a time. Moldvay may be a tad "unrealistically" slow but it's a good speed for exploring typical dungeon maps, and I think that's what's most important.
 

Blackwarder

Adventurer
Very interesting guys, I admit that I find myself agreeing to a lot of things and disagreeing with other.

Did anyone had the chance to playtest them already?

Warder
 

Iosue

Legend
Just... generally speaking, I'd like the squares traversed to be <=20 and >=10 as a general rule. Anything too slow and the party will be inching along. Anything too fast and you're just leaping and bounding through too much of the complex at a time. Moldvay may be a tad "unrealistically" slow but it's a good speed for exploring typical dungeon maps, and I think that's what's most important.
Ah, just thought of something. Scale could be an issue here. Certainly, if dungeons are scaled 1 square = 10 feet, even the current cautious pace will shoot them through many an old dungeon. If it's 1 square = 20 feet, though, that's much more a feasible pace. And the reason they might want to make it 20 feet per square is because then you can fit all the characters in, say, a 5 square corridor (100' x 20'), and still have room for a 3e/4e mini battle. Your typical battlemat uses 1 inch squares to represent 5 feet. So if 1 square = 10 feet, that means that one map square becomes 4 squares on a battlemat. That's a tight fit! But if 1 square = 20 feet, now one map square is 16 squares on a battlemat. That's plenty of room to move!
 

Blackwarder

Adventurer
Ah, just thought of something. Scale could be an issue here. Certainly, if dungeons are scaled 1 square = 10 feet, even the current cautious pace will shoot them through many an old dungeon. If it's 1 square = 20 feet, though, that's much more a feasible pace. And the reason they might want to make it 20 feet per square is because then you can fit all the characters in, say, a 5 square corridor (100' x 20'), and still have room for a 3e/4e mini battle. Your typical battlemat uses 1 inch squares to represent 5 feet. So if 1 square = 10 feet, that means that one map square becomes 4 squares on a battlemat. That's a tight fit! But if 1 square = 20 feet, now one map square is 16 squares on a battlemat. That's plenty of room to move!

Most maps use 1 square=10 feet so changing to 20 feet would be a bit problematic.

Warder
 



Iosue

Legend
But then how could you use old adventures?

Warder
A variety of things. You could scale them down. I've been preparing an old B/X adventure that uses 1 square = 5 feet. But I plan to use my 4e dungeon tiles and tokens, and that's just too large a scale. So I've scaled it down to 1 square = 10 feet. Now it's still pretty claustrophobic, but in a good way.

Or, if they put out conversion notes, they might suggest a slower rate for older adventures.

Just spitballin' though. I do expect them to slow the pace down. It might just be something they're trying out.
 

Libramarian

Adventurer
Hokay, read the rules more thoroughly. I like the exploration rules in old D&D better, so far. They're not actually very similar.

This system is not a totally modular minigame: it interacts heavily with what you're doing with XP and whether you're exploring or just travelling (i.e. are you using these as exploration rules, or journey rules? Different types of adventures).

In early D&D, you typically want to move as quickly as possible (you don't choose your pace directly, but via the encumbrance load you choose to carry). Moving quickly means triggering fewer wandering monster checks, which is desirable because most XP comes from treasure rather than combat, and in fact in 1e not only do you have the same chance to be surprised at a slow pace, but if you do get surprised it lasts longer (slower movement=moving more clumsily).

In DDN, it's the opposite: by default there's no reason not to move as slowly as possible. Fights are the primary source of XP, so moving slowly allows you to wring more XP out of the adventure, and the fights are easier because you're less likely to be surprised (slower movement=moving more cautiously). There would need to be narratively generated time pressure to encourage a faster pace.

Basically, the choice of pace is not going to be interesting the vast majority of the time. If you're wandering around sandbox-like and using primarily monster XP, you might as well move at the slowest pace. If you're not using XP or using session XP, the choice of pace becomes kind of confused--the rules present slow movement as the smart, cautious thing to do, but it's probably better to book it and accept an increased chance of being surprised in exchange for fewer checks. At worst it's a wash. If you're using quest or narrative XP, or have a narrative reason to move fast that overrides XP concerns, then you definitely should move as fast as possible.

If you're using classic-style treasure XP, it depends how useful searching and mapmaking are. If the dungeon is old-school in its design and you're actually liable to get lost without a map or to miss something important without the automatic search checks, then maybe you'll want to slow down to moderate or cautious. Outside, it will be obvious to either move as fast as possible, or the second fastest speed to make navigation checks if you're off-road.

Also I have to agree with [MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION]'s first impression--this seems like a lot of checks to make every turn. Playtesting would be required to bear it out but it certainly seems like this would play substantially slower than 1e, and certainly Basic on a turn-by-turn basis. Maybe players will favor a faster pace simply out of real-world tedium.

All in all, I'm pretty sure I prefer the old rules where pace is normally determined by encumbrance load, and faster movement is clearly preferable--then the choice is between how quickly to get through the danger zone and how much treasure to carry with you. Less messy and a more interesting choice (assuming you enforce encumbrance).

I'm not sure exactly how stealth interfaces with surprise during exploration. That part is confusing. But that's confusing in most D&D editions. I'm glad I worked it out for my edition of choice.
 

Libramarian

Adventurer
"...the DM shifts to 1-hour exploration turns. She could have opted for a 1-day turn if the terrain was relatively safe or the characters had a trail to follow, but neither of those facts is true." Meh, I see what you're saying, but I'm still not buying it. If you determine that an area is dense with monsters, and give it a certain chance for wandering monsters, then you check against the same number regardless of how long the turns are (unless you come up with a different number for the different scales - 5% per hour equates to 40% per day or whatever). The only way this makes sense is to use 1-hour turns only for really really dangerous places, and never skip over those places with 1-day turns. When you enter the Forest of Monsters, you're in 1-hour turns until you leave. That makes sense. +/- 0 for the rules.

IMO the choice of turn length should be purely meta--it's just how much of the characters' day you want to play out and how much you want to abstract. It shouldn't be decided based on how safe the terrain is--that's what the determination of encounter chance is for.

Now, in order for the encounters to be challenging on the day scale, you need to use a more difficult, or at least more random, list of monsters, because at that time scale you have to assume that the PCs are fully rested.
 

Remove ads

Top