D&D 5E The new exploration rules, discussion

[Nemesis Destiny]

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.

Unless of course the DM says extended rests (or whatever they're calling them) only happen in "safe" places like settlements or whathaveyou. I see it as one of the pacing dials that can be tweaked.

On that kind of scale, a weeklong journey would generate up to 7 encounter opportunities (not all of which need to be ones with violent, resource-depleting solutions). Not too out of line from an adventuring day done in a 1-hour scale.

It makes sense to me, and hopefully they will be more explicit about labeling the dial part of extended rests than they were in 4e.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm thinking of adapting the exploration rules for my 4e game tonight...I won't use the actually physical distances or exact turn lengths, but more the spirit of the rules. It's a mega-dungeon, so turns would probably be 10 to 30 minutes or so. I'll also key the % chance of wandering monsters/traps to the speed the PCs are moving at, rather than the population density of the dungeon.

The situation is party is going to be pursued by a kobold horde, and want to avoid fighting since they have some weak NPCs they've rescued and they're conserving resources for an impending dragon fight. So the slower they move the more likely (and stronger) the kobold horde gets, while the faster they move the less likely (and weaker) the kobold horde gets.

In addition to the exploration tasks of keeping watch, map-making, searching, and sneaking, I'm going to add "trapping" (as in dropping treasure or caltrops to hinder the kobold horde) and "ritual casting" as two explicit options.

Will report back how it goes...

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm not in the playtest, so I can't comment on specific rules, but Im' REALLY excited to hear about this. I've been wanting to see rules like these in D&D for a long time.

 

[RedFox]

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).

A good assessment overall and I agree with your conclusion.

 

[Quickleaf]

I just tested a variant of these exploration rules in my 4e game tonight.

Overall, worked pretty well to capture the dilemma facing the PCs, just enough choice and detail without getting bogged down in dice rolls. The party was/is being pursued by a kobold horde, so they chose to move at a "Fast" pace to delay encountering the horde (and hopefully mitigate the horde's size/strength). I ended up making one roll for monster/trap per area (i.e. 2 sets of rolls total, since the PCs explored two areas). When they encountered a random black pudding, they choose to run from it. Then they triggered a ceiling-mounted bear trap. The biggest feedback the players gave was that it was hard to come to a consensus on what pace to pick, and ended up resorting to voting on it...but that's less a criticism of the playtest rules, and more a reflection on the difficulties facing any adventuring party

I've attached a .pdf of what I handed the players.

Notably, the things I changed from the playtest packet included...
* a driving force to give the PCs a reason to move fast (the kobold horde hunting them)
* risk of random traps
* more "exploration tasks" (which never came into play)

 

[Blackwarder]

I just tested a variant of these exploration rules in my 4e game tonight.

Overall, worked pretty well to capture the dilemma facing the PCs, just enough choice and detail without getting bogged down in dice rolls. The party was/is being pursued by a kobold horde, so they chose to move at a "Fast" pace to delay encountering the horde (and hopefully mitigate the horde's size/strength). I ended up making one roll for monster/trap per area (i.e. 2 sets of rolls total, since the PCs explored two areas). When they encountered a random black pudding, they choose to run from it. Then they triggered a ceiling-mounted bear trap. The biggest feedback the players gave was that it was hard to come to a consensus on what pace to pick, and ended up resorting to voting on it...but that's less a criticism of the playtest rules, and more a reflection on the difficulties facing any adventuring party

I've attached a .pdf of what I handed the players.

Notably, the things I changed from the playtest packet included...
* a driving force to give the PCs a reason to move fast (the kobold horde hunting them)
* risk of random traps
* more "exploration tasks" (which never came into play)

I need to spread the love so i can't XP you but very nice.

Warder

 

[Bluenose]

I just tested a variant of these exploration rules in my 4e game tonight.

Overall, worked pretty well to capture the dilemma facing the PCs, just enough choice and detail without getting bogged down in dice rolls. The party was/is being pursued by a kobold horde, so they chose to move at a "Fast" pace to delay encountering the horde (and hopefully mitigate the horde's size/strength). I ended up making one roll for monster/trap per area (i.e. 2 sets of rolls total, since the PCs explored two areas). When they encountered a random black pudding, they choose to run from it. Then they triggered a ceiling-mounted bear trap. The biggest feedback the players gave was that it was hard to come to a consensus on what pace to pick, and ended up resorting to voting on it...but that's less a criticism of the playtest rules, and more a reflection on the difficulties facing any adventuring party

I've attached a .pdf of what I handed the players.

Notably, the things I changed from the playtest packet included...
* a driving force to give the PCs a reason to move fast (the kobold horde hunting them)
* risk of random traps
* more "exploration tasks" (which never came into play)

That's a nice set up. Did you consider applying other consequences for moving faster than normal? Make a Saving Throw or lose a hewaling surge, say. Or benefits for slower movement, such as regaining a lost one.

 

[Li Shenron]

* a driving force to give the PCs a reason to move fast (the kobold horde hunting them)
* risk of random traps
* more "exploration tasks" (which never came into play)

I think these should definitely be mentioned in the book.

The adventure's plot or current circumstances are probably the main reason for a party to choose a faster pace, this is why in a purely sandbox at a time when there is not plot going on, it will be natural to expect the party to move as slow as possible.

Traps should definitely be in, but just like monsters, the DM has her final say on the %. The DM doesn't have, of course, to put traps in a place where they don't fit, and neither monsters.

We also need more exploration tasks, and useful spells should also be one of them! Ideally, I would like a good list of at least 8-10 typical tasks, so that the classic 4-PC party has to make a choice on which task to cover and which to take a risk and ignore (or use the multitasking rules with their chance of failure). Otherwise with 5 tasks defined only, the party will just normally cover them all.

 

[Balesir]

I need to spread the love so i can't XP you but very nice.

Covered - although, of course, I snagged the pdf as I did so, too!

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION]
Yeah, I agree a longer list of exploration tasks would be nice. I do wonder about ow specific/circumstantial they should get though. For example, "Shepherding" might be a useful task when traveling with squishy NPCs, but that's not always the case.