D&D 5E The new exploration rules, discussion

[Blackwarder]

I don't think that having too many tasks is a good thing, when it comes to wilderness tasks I think that all we need are TOR like tasks (guide, scout, lookout and huntsman) with a few additions like sneaking etc. I want the speed of the PC to be determined by their gear and I want them to be able to plan ahead.

And I want to have a hazard mechanic built into the system.

Warder

 

[Libramarian]

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.

True, you could do that.

 

[KidSnide]

This version of the exploration rules are too complicated, but they are an excellent start. Giving different exploration "roles" (i.e. tasks) to different PCs and having individual players roll the dice for their aspect of exploration is an excellent idea. The tactical choices involved in assigning tasks would be too much if PCs re-assign roles every round, but -- as a practical matter -- the party will divide up the tasks once and everyone will almost always do the same thing.

More specific criticisms:

-- The "multiple tasks" rule is too complicated. It would be much easier if attempting two tasks simply gave you disadvantage. All you need is a chart like this:

Pace Tasks
Rushed No tasks
Fast Disadvantage
Moderate Normal
Cautious Advantage

...where PCs can only attempt two tasks at a Moderate or Cautious pace. This would also increase the difference between a Rushed and Fast pace, which are a little too similar right now.

-- The rules work fine for a 4-5 person party, but they start to break down with a small party (or if a lone PC gets isolated). What happens if nobody tries to navigate? Does the party/character automatically get lost? A rogue or ranger exploring by herself should be able to use stealth (to avoid encounters) without getting lost or running into every trap in the wilderness. Maybe navigation should be something that one leader gets to do for free instead of being a task?

-- The rules for sneaking should note the difference between an entire group sneaking vs. a single character stealthily scouting ahead. Presumably, a stealthy scout should have a chance to notice obvious hazards and warn the rest of the party before they bumble into them.

-- These are supposed to be guidelines for new DMs, so there should be a discussion of how encounters change when organized NPCs spot the PCs. For example, once the PCs are detected, lone monsters might become less common while organize patrols could be more common, and monsters may gather into a war party or barricade themselves in defensive positions.

-KS

 

[the Jester]

We playtested these rules last night, and both I and the players enjoyed them a great deal.

The party got pretty badly lost- as of the end of last night's playtest session, they got lost (using daily turns) on day 2 of their 20-day journey and kept failing navigation checks on day 3 and 4, which is where we ended- this despite needing a DC 5 to make their navigation checks (2nd slowest pace of travel gave base DC 5, mapmaking reduced this to 0, forest terrain increased to 5 again). They found adventures that weren't quite what the dragon-with-kidnapped-princess that they were after as a result.

Anyhow, the exploration rules were a lot of fun for everyone. I give them 4/5 stars so far.

 

[Blackwarder]

We playtested these rules last night, and both I and the players enjoyed them a great deal.

The party got pretty badly lost- as of the end of last night's playtest session, they got lost (using daily turns) on day 2 of their 20-day journey and kept failing navigation checks on day 3 and 4, which is where we ended- this despite needing a DC 5 to make their navigation checks (2nd slowest pace of travel gave base DC 5, mapmaking reduced this to 0, forest terrain increased to 5 again). They found adventures that weren't quite what the dragon-with-kidnapped-princess that they were after as a result.

Anyhow, the exploration rules were a lot of fun for everyone. I give them 4/5 stars so far.

Could you give us a bit of background? How many dice rolls, how the players reacted what happened, that sort of thing.

Warder

 

[the Jester]

Could you give us a bit of background? How many dice rolls, how the players reacted what happened, that sort of thing.

Warder

We used day long turns. There were only two pcs last night, so while one navigated, the other did cartography, searched and/or kept watch, depending on the day (there were several attempts at doubling down on tasks that almost all failed- that player had crap dice luck last night). The players had a blast; we were all laughing our butts off after day 3 of being lost.

The had one encounter with a wandering monster (an ogre attracted by their cook fire) and another encounter when the pc searching found an old ruin- they went into a cave behind a waterfall and had an encounter with 10 skeletons and a wraith (the pcs were level 7, so while this encounter was hard for them, it rated as easy by the encounter building guidelines).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I disagree that encumbrance should replace the pace choice. Instead, encumbrance should supplement that choice by affecting it. Namely, if encumbrance slows down the party's rate of speed, then their encumbered speed becomes the base speed from which they pick to move faster or slower. Thus, the choices multiply even more. Instead of drop the treasure and move fast or keep the treasure and move slow, it becomes more complicated. Drop the treasure and move normally which is now a pretty good clip? Keep the treasure but move recklessly to compensate and hope for the best? And so on.

Premature collapsing of choices has been the problem in D&D design from the get go. I'd prefer they avoid that as much as possible.

 

[ExploderWizard]

After giving the exploration rules a good read through, they appear to be rather clunky to manage. Not only that but the interactions of all the exploration tasks with the chosen pace seems to be confusing for the designers.

We are told in an example of 1 hour play that our brave adventurers have chosen a travel pace of fast to travel through the woods. The PCs begin by declaring thier exploration tasks and the turn begins. The rogue takes point and chooses sneaking. The warrior chooses to keep watch, the cleric is navigating and the wizard chooses to map. Ok we are all set go.........

....Hold on. WTF is this? It states clearly in the exploration task descriptions that sneaking can only be done if the pace chosen is moderate or cautious. The same applies to keeping watch. Likewise mapping may only be done at these paces.

So 3 out of the 4 characters could not, by the rules, engage in the tasks they did per the example of play. This is sloppy as hell. If WOTC can't keep all of this straight why should you try to?

This didn't require any playtesting to figure out, its just simple reading comprehension.

 

[Iosue]

(Not to mention it uses the objectively inferior 5-mile hex and the debatably inferior half-mile subhex.)

I was paging through my copy of the Cook/Marsh Expert and noticed they used the 6-mile hex. I kinda felt like you do when you realize your parents weren't as stupid as you thought they were when you were 17.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

On this: keep in mind that in B/X you check for WM once every 2 turns at 1/6 chance. In DDN you check every turn at 3/10 chance (middle monster density setting).

In terms of expected wandering monsters per 100ft, the rate in DDN at the Cautious and Moderate paces actually looks very similar to B/X. Let's see:

DDN Cautious is 30% per 200ft, or 0.150/100ft
DDN Moderate is 30% per 450ft, or 0.066/100ft

B/X 60' is 1/6 per 120ft, or 0.139/100ft
B/X 120' is 1/6 per 240ft, or 0.069/100ft

Yup. That's no accident. DDN characters travel farther per turn, but wandering monsters are checked for more often and at a higher chance, so it balances out.

If you were to decrease the distance travelled per 5 minute/dungeon turn, you should also decrease the chance of WM, if you want to maintain the same incidence of WM in terms of dungeon area. I like their approach because it's easier to remember to check for WM once per turn instead of every second turn. Also it's less whiffy to roll when you have a 30% chance instead of 17%.

The relevant factor in terms of handling time is number of "squares" per turn. Double the scale from 10ft/square to 20ft, and it's close to B/X in that regard as well. 20ft is too big for a standard corridor though.