D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Chaosmancer]

• The party is low level enough for the challenges to actually matter
  • I would say that, after level 3-4, most of the challenges can be met by magic in one way or another, rather than by cleverness and management of resources.

It's not a question of the edition of the game, this was valid from BECMI (The Isle of Dread) to 5e (Tomb of Annihilation), with all the groups/tables that I have played with. If one of the conditions above is not met, you will have trouble running exploration at your table for more than a few sessions, and even then some players will disengage and complain.

And this is a SERIOUS problem with the game. If by level 5 exploration has trouble being run, because the player's have too many solutions for the pillar to handle, then we have a massive issue with it being a pillar of play, because no other pillar suffers this.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It changes things in the same way that any hurdle changes things. Which is to say, we don't know until the players decide how they will address the hurdle and we see whether they succeed or not, as well as any consequences that arise as a result.

Maybe they decide to look for a ford downstream, and in the process run across a different adventure site/hook, which they might or might not pursue instead. Maybe they build a raft and either successfully cross the river, or they all drown. Maybe they just decide to give up and go home. Maybe they do something entirely different.

By your reasoning, pretty much every encounter that isn't a big game changer is pointless. However, I would argue that it's your reasoning that's flawed. Most combats won't stop you from achieving your goal, so does that make most combats pointless? IMO, absolutely not. They present the players with a (hopefully) fun challenge to overcome. It's a hurdle they must surpass along the way, without which victory would be meaningless. You could just "let" your players "win" without presenting them without any challenge whatsoever, but I daresay that most players would not enjoy such a game.

No, that is not my reasoning. Remember the context.

We put forth that a Ranger, due to their inability to get lost in their favored terrain, can always get from Point A to Point B.

We were rebutted by the idea "what if the river is flooded and took out the bridge? Then the Ranger can't get from A to B."

However, as you have just helped show, that is not true. Because of this right here: "Maybe they decide to look for a ford downstream, and in the process run across a different adventure site/hook, which they might or might not pursue instead."

They go downstream, they find a ford, they cross the rivere. They may find a new adventure hook, but choosing to pursue that adventure hook is a tangent. Even if they do pursue it, the Ranger is still getting the party unerringly from Point A to Point B after they are done dealing with that adventure hook.

And do you realize how easy it is to go downstream and look for a ford? It is the combat equivalent of "I draw my sword". How much of hurdle is it to end a combat by saying "I draw my sword"? And even if that led to the "enemies" of that combat offering you a quest for defeating them... that doesn't make the combat any harder.


And sure, the players might choose a more dangerous route, by building their own raft. But that's like saying that driving to work is difficult because the first thing you need to do is walk five miles down the road to ask to borrow a car, when you have a car. Looking for a place to ford is the first thing you would probably do, not cutting down trees and trying to build a raft, a process that likely takes days.

 

[Nefermandias]

And this is a SERIOUS problem with the game. If by level 5 exploration has trouble being run, because the player's have too many solutions for the pillar to handle, then we have a massive issue with it being a pillar of play, because no other pillar suffers this.

Actually, the combat pillar also suffers from this to some extent. If you stick to the CR guidelines for encounter building, it's virtually impossible to kill PCs with anything that isn't at least double Deadly after level 5.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You can attempt to poo poo these things as not to your taste but these things are exploration by dint of them being relevant outside of combat or roleplay. They have substantial rules, again they’re just not to your taste. Several of them have consequences. Falling for instance or jumping/climbing (not sure how you can say these are combat by the way when you can do them without a foe and without fighting)

There are number of elements that you claim aren’t exploration like downtime or settlement building but I’m sorry to say you are wrong. They may sometimes include other pillars like languages but all these things all involve the exploration pillar as well.

As for the skill system. It works. It may not be complicated enough for you, but it is essentially the same as 3e’s and Paizo’s skill system just with a different way of calculating the base bonus. It’s a system that has survived 17 years of robust use. You are free to dislike it but you can’t say it isn’t there or hasn’t done what it was supposed to do.

Okay, but this doesn't address nearly any of his points.

For example, how are the gods relevant outside of roleplaying?

Your say settlement building is exploration, but what rules are there for settlemenet building? I had to go to some 3pp resources to even get a basic sketched out version of settlement building that still leaves me a lot of ground to cover myself.


You mention skills exploration... but that's only partially true. Deception, Insight, Persuasion, Performance, Intimidation, all of these are the social pillar of the game, not the exploration pillar. Stealth is pretty much just a combat skill, you don't need stealth if there is no combat.

How are languages not the social part of the game, that's "talking to people" at it's most core.

Instead of just dismissing these, why not address them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

How you came to the conclusion that I rarely use exhaustion? Exhaustion is actually a very real and frequent danger in my games.

Because I've already shown how few places and challenges it actually shows up in, using the rules as written. If you have examples, feel free to elucidate, but so far I've discussed weather and forced marches to show how the exhaustion rules are rarely applying.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Huh, seems that Iserith blocked me.

Anyone else want to actually try explaining that "safe place to long rest" part of the forced march? Since I'm not going to get anything from them.

 

[Nefermandias]

Because I've already shown how few places and challenges it actually shows up in, using the rules as written. If you have examples, feel free to elucidate, but so far I've discussed weather and forced marches to show how the exhaustion rules are rarely applying.

Yes, weather, forced march and diseases are the main source of Exhaustion. I just don't get it why you're taking like it's something super rare to occur. In my current SKT campaign, Exhaustion is always a real threat, except during sessions when the party is hanging out in a civilized area.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Actually, the combat pillar also suffers from this to some extent. If you stick to the CR guidelines for encounter building, it's virtually impossible to kill PCs with anything that isn't at least double Deadly after level 5.

That depends heavily on the game.

For example, if you are running a featless game with no magic items, I am assured that the game after level 5 does not become too easy in terms of combat. And remember, that set up was the balance point for the game. If you are adding magical items and feats, then you already need to increase the challenge of the combats. The same also applies if you have more than 4 players.

Additionally, the hp of the monsters in the MM and other books is always the average. It may be that your party of level seven characters finds a group of three Armanite Demons a bit too easy with their 80 hp, but if all of them have 120 hp that is a much different fight already.

Terrain can affect a combat, giving different equipment or even feats to monsters can increase the challenge of combat.

There are a lot of dials that you could twist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, weather, forced march and diseases are the main source of Exhaustion. I just don't get it why you're taking like it's something super rare to occur. In my current SKT campaign, Exhaustion is always a real threat, except during sessions when the party is hanging out in a civilized area.

Because if you have water exhaustion from extreme heat doesn't happen.

If you have winter clothes, exhaustion from extreme cold doesn't occur.

Forced marches are odd, if you move an extra hour (for a total of 27 miles) then you might have a few people fail. Now, in your case, you have the long rest take 7 days, so removing a single point of exhaustion from that is much harder. However, in the base game you can take a long rest in 8 hours and remove that point of exhaustion.

But, either way, you do not always go on a forced march. Unless you have a strong time limit, stopping at hour 6 or 7 to rest is just as good as stopping at hour 8. And, the only reason to push past hour 8 is for this idea of needing to find a "safe place" to rest. Which hasn't been addressed.


And, again for disease, we have the issue that most Diseases in the book are caused by combat. You can homebrew diseases, but to make them a viable threat of anything with the normal long-resting rules, requires a lot of hoops to jump through, and runs some pretty serious risks if you are just having players roll vs disease for little to no reason. It becomes a random event, and not something that they are choosing to engage with as a challenge.

 

[Fanaelialae]

No, that is not my reasoning. Remember the context.

We put forth that a Ranger, due to their inability to get lost in their favored terrain, can always get from Point A to Point B.

We were rebutted by the idea "what if the river is flooded and took out the bridge? Then the Ranger can't get from A to B."

However, as you have just helped show, that is not true. Because of this right here: "Maybe they decide to look for a ford downstream, and in the process run across a different adventure site/hook, which they might or might not pursue instead."

They go downstream, they find a ford, they cross the rivere. They may find a new adventure hook, but choosing to pursue that adventure hook is a tangent. Even if they do pursue it, the Ranger is still getting the party unerringly from Point A to Point B after they are done dealing with that adventure hook.

And do you realize how easy it is to go downstream and look for a ford? It is the combat equivalent of "I draw my sword". How much of hurdle is it to end a combat by saying "I draw my sword"? And even if that led to the "enemies" of that combat offering you a quest for defeating them... that doesn't make the combat any harder.


And sure, the players might choose a more dangerous route, by building their own raft. But that's like saying that driving to work is difficult because the first thing you need to do is walk five miles down the road to ask to borrow a car, when you have a car. Looking for a place to ford is the first thing you would probably do, not cutting down trees and trying to build a raft, a process that likely takes days.

If we discard time and complications as inconsequential (which I don't agree with), then the ranger ability to avoid being lost is equally inconsequential. After all, if you become lost you can always eventually retrace your steps. Eventually, you'll get where you want to go, whether or not you have a ranger.