D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[iserith]

I was about to say that “surely, there must be a middle ground”, but I’m forced to admit that it is a very narrow middle ground, if there is any.

that’s my beef with the exploration pilar and ranger abilities; exploration is not developed enough in 5e to allow the ranger to be better than anyone else because it feels like it’s an all or nothing situation. Either the ranger makes exploration moot (and the player doesn’t get to enjoy their character‘s ability) or the player feels singularly challenged (and doesn’t get to enjoy their character‘s abilities).

ok, that’s a bit of an hyperbole. But you get my drift.

The ranger makes "exploration moot" only if you define "exploration" as "some chance of getting lost in 37.5% of available terrains." Which is kind of a weird way of thinking about it, no?

 

[Hussar]

Your DM doesn't use a weather table?

That said, sometimes placing an adventure in a harsh environment (arctic, desert, jungle, etc.) can act as a good change of scenery while also forcing at least a modicum of adaptation from the PCs.

Which is fine. I've got no problems with that. But, again, that's not quite what was being said. If the point is - "Well, sometimes there might be circumstances in the game where the ranger isn't pressing the "I Win" button" - then sure. I can't argue against that. That's just true. But, that still means that there are several times where the Ranger just turns to the DM and says, "Ok, we're there now." because his abilities bypass the exploration challenge.

Sure, if we have a ranger whose favored terrain is forests and the entire campaign is set on Athas, well, then, fair enough. That ranger isn't really playing to the strengths of the character. But, as was mentioned earlier, we really should be applying the "reasonable person" standard. Most campaigns are not set in the arctic or in the desert (not saying that NONE are, just that those tend to be an exception rather than the rule). And, while a random weather table might result in torrential rains that wash out the bridge - I'm going to call shenanigans on the DM who does that twice. I live in Japan. Believe me when I say I know a LOT about heavy rains and bridges washing out. But, funnily enough, I can find about half a dozen bridges within an hour's drive of here that are centuries old. It's not like bridges get washed out every time it rains heavily.

I agree that using harsh environments can be fun. But, again, we slap into the magic solution problem. A druid with Produce Flame or Create Bonfire makes cold pretty much a non-issue. Never minding something like Leomund's Hut which makes riding out storms and the like pretty easy. Again, there are a lot of resources that a group can pretty easily have that will make a lot of these things non-issues.

 

[Hussar]

I was about to say that “surely, there must be a middle ground”, but I’m forced to admit that it is a very narrow middle ground, if there is any.

that’s my beef with the exploration pilar and ranger abilities; exploration is not developed enough in 5e to allow the ranger to be better than anyone else because it feels like it’s an all or nothing situation. Either the ranger makes exploration moot (and the player doesn’t get to enjoy their character‘s ability) or the player feels singularly challenged (and doesn’t get to enjoy their character‘s abilities).

ok, that’s a bit of an hyperbole. But you get my drift.

To be honest, I think there are two issues.

1. The skill/power system in D&D is very binary. You either succeed or you don't. And, if you can present a plausible idea to your DM, you just succeed. Social interaction generally isn't like this because there's usually a lot of back and forth. You talk to the NPC, the NPC talks back, you reply, so on and so forth and the dice and mechanics don't really determine your final success. I can use Persuasion to make the NPC be more open to talking to me, but, a successful Persuasion check doesn't really mean that the NPC will do what I want. And, nor does a failed check mean that I automatically get refused either. Combat certainly isn't like this at all. Combat is almost 100% governed by the mechanics.

But Exploration tends to be very binary. Either I found the secret door/trap/whatever or I didn't. And, 5e takes it even further by telling the DM to simply allow success or force failure without relying on the dice. Did I open that lock? Well, if I don't have a time pressure, then, yup, I open it. Every time. There's no check needed. Rogue Player just says, I unlock the door, and, unless there is some reason that you have to hurry up, you don't even roll. The rogue just unlocks the door. It's the ultimate extension of the Take 20 rule from 3e.

2. The second issue is that there is so little guidance in the DMG or in gaming advice on how to handle the capabilities of the PC's. We've seen it in this thread. Many of the posters here have basically gone the route of throwing up endless road blocks in the way of the players until the players fall in line. Heck, some even claim that using basic character abilities (and, yes, I count 1st level rituals and cantrips to be basic character abilities) is not in line with the table social contract. To me, that's just bonkers. And, then you've got the endless "Well, this won't work because (insert interpretation that isn't really in line with the whole "reasonable observer" standard)." You want to use an unseen servant? Ok, we'll make you touch every single flagstone as a separate object, and monkey's paw everything you say. It's extremely heavy handed and frankly, a very poor example of how the game should be run.

 

[TheSword]

But, let's be honest here. The only reason the DM is doing this is to screw over the party. The party has an ability that bypasses the DM's precious adventure, so, the DM railroads them back into the adventure by placing impenetrable roadblocks in the way until the party gets back on track.

IOW, this is probably the worst form of DMing anyone can do.

What on earth are you talking about Hussar. It was claimed that a ranger 100% reaches their destination inevitably. I merely said that there are lots of things that might stop that being ineveitable. You’re making this very DM adversarial.

Perhaps it isn’t how you play but in my games the roadblocks are the adventure. They are the interesting parts… describing the weather and the surroundings are all very well and good but the meat of the game happens when the PCs come up against something outside the normal… action of some kind. To put it another way: life is the journey not the destination.

That’s not railroading, it’s deciding that things are happening in your world that the PCs will get to interact with. Some will harm them, some with reward them, some will foreshadow later events.

If your wilderness challenge is travel from A to B through the forest and make a series of rolls to avoid getting lost… then yes the ranger wins that challenge. You wrote a crappy challenge though, for all the reasons already given.

The ranger ability doesn’t prevent events happening or automatically overcome obstacles. If your wilderness adventure doesn’t include them then don’t complain about the ranger being too powerful. However it may certainly speed up the travel and if you use random encounters dramatically reduce the number of optional risks the players face in the journey.

I think it’s worth knowing that the rangers ability not to get lost is only one of many abilities they have. The ranger is also much better at searching for tracks - revealing info about the potential foes in the forest too don’t forget.

 

[Lanefan]

Which is fine. I've got no problems with that. But, again, that's not quite what was being said. If the point is - "Well, sometimes there might be circumstances in the game where the ranger isn't pressing the "I Win" button" - then sure. I can't argue against that. That's just true. But, that still means that there are several times where the Ranger just turns to the DM and says, "Ok, we're there now." because his abilities bypass the exploration challenge.

And as long as it's only some of the time, that's not a big deal. Same idea as a Fighter one-shotting some opponent or other with a major crit-hit - sometimes things like that just happen.

Sure, if we have a ranger whose favored terrain is forests and the entire campaign is set on Athas, well, then, fair enough. That ranger isn't really playing to the strengths of the character. But, as was mentioned earlier, we really should be applying the "reasonable person" standard. Most campaigns are not set in the arctic or in the desert (not saying that NONE are, just that those tend to be an exception rather than the rule). And, while a random weather table might result in torrential rains that wash out the bridge - I'm going to call shenanigans on the DM who does that twice. I live in Japan. Believe me when I say I know a LOT about heavy rains and bridges washing out. But, funnily enough, I can find about half a dozen bridges within an hour's drive of here that are centuries old. It's not like bridges get washed out every time it rains heavily.

Indeed. That said, the way to make heavy rain a challenge isn't to wash out the bridges*, it's to ask the players-as-characters whether they really want to travel today and risk getting all their not-necessarily-waterproof gear soaking wet; or whether they'll just stay put for the day unless it eases off sooner.

And if they decide to stay put a day that means the rest of the world has an extra day to do whatever it's doing.

* - assuming they're travelling in an area that even has bridges; if they're in wild lands a few days of decent rain (even if not falling directly on the PCs!) can, for example, make normally-simple fords anything but; leading either to delay or to greater risk in crossing.

I agree that using harsh environments can be fun. But, again, we slap into the magic solution problem. A druid with Produce Flame or Create Bonfire makes cold pretty much a non-issue. Never minding something like Leomund's Hut which makes riding out storms and the like pretty easy. Again, there are a lot of resources that a group can pretty easily have that will make a lot of these things non-issues.

True, though the fact that Produce Flame is specifically noted as not harming the caster or equipment makes me wonder if its flame produces all that much heat until-unless thrown. The write-up - surprise, surprise - is unclear. And even if it did, it'd only warm the caster.

The 5e version of Leo's Hut is a mess.

 

[Fanaelialae]

And, yet, funnily enough, these things ONLY happen when the DM wants the players to do something. And, also, funnily enough, it's ALWAYS "rainy season" whenever we're travelling.

Sounds like maybe you might want to have a talk with your DM(s), because that's not how things work in my group.

Bad DMing is bad DMing, but it's certainly not the only reason inconveniences can happen. I'm sorry that you're having issues with your DM(s), but that doesn't mean that those issues are the standard. It just means that your DM(s) are choosing to engage with bad railroading techniques.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, Wandering Monsters aren't the only thing you can throw at the party. For instance, Exhaustion and Diseases are quite effective and scary ways to enforce consequences for exploration encounters going bad.

Okay, how would you implement those? Because the ways to do it via the current rules are fairly anemic. Also, how do you have the disease last more than a day or two when you have a cleric in the party?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The opposite extreme, of course, is unbridled power creep.

Sure, but you said there is no benefit without a penalty. That is an extreme position.

My goal is to make that number go down to (or below!) zero. Your goal is to prevent that happening.

Everything else is pretty much just gravy.

when I DM the goal is not for me to drop the hp number to zero. I want to challenge them, of course, that is part of the goal of running the game. However, challenging them is not the same as defeating them. And I don't see the value in approaching the game with the mindset of defeating the players. IF that's all I'm supposed to do, it is child's play.

Situation: party has beaten its way through to a treasure vault, in which is a chest. On opening the chest:

DM: You see six items in here: 1) a pair of dark-green boots; 2) a plain-looking gold ring; 3) a gleaming silver bar or rod about 2 feet long with no obvious markings; 4) a large and gently glowing orange gem; 5) a short length of silk rope, maybe 5 feet long; 6) a stoppered ceramic vial. All of these things look to be easily of high enough quality to be enchanted.

The DM's notes say the following about each item:

1) On donning boots, wearer and all worn or carried gear (incuding these boots!) instantly and permanently transforms into a large fir tree. Roots extend deep into the ground (regardless of ground material). Dexterity and movement speed become 0 and tree cannot become prone. Tree retains intelligence but cannot speak or otherwise physically communicate, though mental or psionic communication is possible. Chopping down or uprooting tree slays it; removing branches causes commensurate damage (etc. etc.)

2. On donning ring, wearer instantly gains a "hidden" wish: the next time the character speaks a sentence starting with the words "I wish" that wish will, as far as possible, come true. Once the wish is transferred (even if not yet used) the ring loses all enchantment and becomes a simple piece of jewelry worth 45 g.p.

3. Bearer gains best possible results when interacting, in a reasonable manner, with metallic Dragons. Has no effect or use otherwise.

4. On being touched to one's own forehead, gem immediately and permanently inserts itself there. Wearer gains at-will telepathic communication with any sentient creature that a) wearer has socially interacted with and b) is willing to receive such communication. If gem is removed from wearer's forehead by any means, wearer dies (no save).

5. While rope is being worn as a belt, wearer cannot be damaged by falling.

6. Vial contains a double-strength potion of healing; though all indications (smell, taste, etc.) point to it being a potion of giant strength.

Clearly here I either need some specific details as to exactly who does exactly what or there's going to potentially be some very big benefits and penalties getting tossed around by random DM fiat. So, details it is.

And, as I'm asking for details this time I need to ask for details every time so as to conceal those times when - like this - details are really important.

So, picking up none of these items is harmful. And basically any group I am running with has the Identify ritual ready to go to tell us all of this information. That's what Identify does. You can also identify what a magic item does during a short rest (we sometimes roll arcana).

Therefore the party will ditch the boots. They are utterly worthless and actively harmful. Maybe they keep them if they think they can use them as a deathtrap for someone they don't like.

The rod they keep in a backpack and probably forget about, unless there are metallic dragons they need to talk to.

The Gem is interesting. Someone is probably willing to take the risk, though we are going to ask how easy it is to remove. You personally won't tell us, but the asking is to measure the risk. If this ends up being "you die if hit with a critical hit" that is very different than "someone has to pin you, and forcibly rip it out of your skull" in terms of the risk associated with it.

Someone would then wear the rope. And they would probably end up saving the ring for a useful wish.

The vial is weird though. And leads me to my question... what's the point of some of this?

Why have a potion that seems like giant strength but is actually a decent healing potion? The healing is a fine reward, and this runs the risk of them drinking it at full health, expecting a strength boost and instead wasting it because they were full health. It seems like an item literally designed to be wasted because the players are being deceived. What is the actual goal with that?


The boots are even worse, if you don't allow identify or anyway to figure out what they do. Because a player who puts them on to find out what they do dies. And, acting with no knowledge and being forced to guess, while guessing can get you killed, isn't a fun game. You might as well roll a die everytime someone declares an action, and kill them on a 1, because that is the same amount of control the players have.

Maybe not this, but I frequently get "No, we'll examine it from back here and maybe toss a few Detect spells at it (and around the room) first."

I-as-DM can never assume what they'll do.

This doesn't surprise me given your list of magical items. Since looking at it could be an instant death sentence in your games.

Personally, I've found that since I don't arbitrarily kill PCs with no warning, they tend not to act like every single item they interact with could be instant death. And when it would be... I pretty much just tell them how deadly the item is. (And some of them still touch it, but I told them, so there aren't any hard feelings)

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have never, in all my decades of gaming, seen the party tell someone they cannot forage because it might result in a check for wandering monsters.

They know that I roll for wandering monsters. They're adults, and don't need me to explain basic things that are blatantly obvious, like that if I roll for wandering monsters, a check might occur while they are foraging.

Why does being adults matter? Do you only play with the same six people every single time? There are no new players who might show up at your table and not know? Because while you may think it is blatantly obvious, it isn't.

As an aside, they're not automatically surprised just because they were foraging.

The example was being surprised by a landshark, but I suppose that's fair that they might not be ambushed. Still, it seems strange that the first response was "but you will automatically be surprised by a wandering monster because you weren't keeping an eye out".

 

[TheSword]

Okay, how would you implement those? Because the ways to do it via the current rules are fairly anemic. Also, how do you have the disease last more than a day or two when you have a cleric in the party?

Let me put it another way. If you don’t use diseases because your party has a cleric, you’re removing the cleric’s chance to use their abilities.

Disease can be portrayed by symptoms that build into mechanical effects. The cleric then prays for restoration. You’re consuming resources and players feels like they avoided something unpleasant through the intervention from another player. The player still gets the creeping unease that the fever they’re feeling could be something worse.

The biggest issue for exploration is that by having one or two encounters per day combat, exploration or otherwise you’re breaking the expectations for a typical adventuring day. Allowing all resources to be thrown at those few incidents. Filling a day with dozens of things feels either tedious and means every journey takes a long time.

My preferred solution is the way AIME dealt with it. You can’t get the benefit of a long rest sleeping out on the road, it just isn’t safe or restful enough. You need a place of safety to regain spells and class abilties etc. An inn, an abandoned shrine to a good god, or a cabin in the woods. Finding these locations can make a Rangers abilities shine too.