D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Mort]

No. The ranger has resolved the challenge full stop. There is no further challenge. They’ve arrived at the ritual. Now we start a new challenge.

It’s not that every challenge has to be difficult. It’s that the presence of the ranger lets the party ignore the challenge entirely.

As already pointed out, that's not really accurate.

The ranger makes sure the party doesn't get lost and the ranger (under some circumstances) allows the group to move faster. Basically, the ranger makes travel easier - he doesn't make it automatically successful.

And if the group encounters obstacles along the way? They're still obstacles that will present a challenge.

This is something you do not see in either of the other two pillars.

Hogwash, you absolutely see it.

In the social pillar:

A bard will CRUSH social situations - especially, say, an eloquence bard.

Or how about a warlock with Mask of Many faces and the actor feat? He will completely trivialize otherwise difficult social interactions.

In the combat pillar:

A sleep can win many low level encounters. A hypnotic pattern can completely shut down an otherwise deadly encounter (saw this happen in a Gen Con Game -the bard completely shut down what should have been a deadly fire giant encounter with one spell).

Edit: And on the nonmagic front - A properly built fighter or barbarian can punch way above their paygrade on encounters - happens all the time that a threat the GM thought would be difficult goes down fast or (with the Barbarian) can't take him down before going down easy.

Can the GM challenge these PCs and their groups? Absolutely, just like a GM can challenge a group in the exploration pillar even if the have "short cuts."

 

[Hussar]

As already pointed out, that's not really accurate.

The ranger makes sure the party doesn't get lost and the ranger (under some circumstances) allows the group to move faster. Basically, the ranger makes travel easier - he doesn't make it automatically successful.

And if the group encounters obstacles along the way? They're still obstacles that will present a challenge.



Hogwash, you absolutely see it.

In the social pillar:

A bard will CRUSH social situations - especially, say, an eloquence bard.

Or how about a warlock with Mask of Many faces and the actor feat? He will completely trivialize otherwise difficult social interactions.

Note the differences here. You had to pick very specific classes and feats (an optional rule that cannot be assumed) and a non-core class to do this. A bog standard bard with no feats isn't particularly any better at social encounters than anyone else.

In the combat pillar:

A sleep can win many low level encounters. A hypnotic pattern can completely shut down an otherwise deadly encounter (saw this happen in a Gen Con Game -the bard completely shut down what should have been a deadly fire giant encounter with one spell).

Again, context. Sleep and Hypnotic Pattern are both non-renewable resources. You have a limited number of them. All the way through, we've been VERY careful to talk about stuff that costs the party absolutely nothing to bypass exploration challenges. And, there's a bit of confirmation bias going on here. Yup, that one time you remember hypnotic pattern really crushing the encounter, but, just as often, Hypnotic Pattern might have zero effect.

Edit: And on the nonmagic front - A properly built fighter or barbarian can punch way above their paygrade on encounters - happens all the time that a threat the GM thought would be difficult goes down fast or (with the Barbarian) can't take him down before going down easy.

Can the GM challenge these PCs and their groups? Absolutely, just like a GM can challenge a group in the exploration pillar even if the have "short cuts."

Again, "properly built" is considerably different from "Out of the Box" character. No one in this thread is talking about someone going out of their way to break the system. These are bog standard, straight out of the box characters. Heck, we haven't even added in feats to the mix AFAIK.

 

[iserith]

Oh, no! Exploration is ruined because a navigating ranger doesn't have to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to avoid getting lost while moving to a hex that contains their favored terrain!

 

[Aldarc]

Free form in character rp with no mechanics is just improv acting. Fun but not a game. There’s a reason this sort of thing was abandoned in DnD twenty years ago.

You cannot claim that Snakes and Ladders is an excellent strategy game for the same reason. If the game has no mechanics governing something then that game is useless at that thing.

What on earth are you talking about?! Snakes and Ladders is the GREATEST TTRPG of all time! There is not a single mechanic that constrains my freeform RP at all! That makes it WAY BETTER than D&D, especially 1E D&D, for roleplaying!

 

[Hussar]

I already explained that. But here goes:

One, the official rule is that both skills are used: Perception to find the door, Investigation to figure out how to open it.

Two, because neither I (who said Investigation) nor the other person (who said Perception) really care. We weren't quoting the official rule; we were showing what the section on skills said and how the skill descriptions indicated that the skills we chose could be used to find secret doors. Again, you failed to acknowledge the existence of an actual rule involving finding secret doors. You're quick to "gotcha" people but very slow at admitting when you're wrong.

And the answers we gave weren't contradictory, just different. It'd be like if the question were "how do you inflict damage" and one of us said "use your action to make an attack roll" and the other person said "use your action to do something that makes the other person have to save or take damage." Two different methods, both perfectly within the rules, not at all contradictory.

Yes, they are contradictory. Because they are different answers for doing the exact same thing. How do you inflict damage can be answered in a hundred different ways because there are a hundred different, rules defined, ways to inflict damage. Your answers actually conflict because if I sit at your table, I roll one skill, if I sit at the other table, I roll another skill, and there is no way for me to know which skill will be used beforehand. It seemed a pretty simple question actually. How do you find a secret door? Apparently, in the well defined ruleset of exploration, you either roll perception or investigation, and it's up to your DM to tell you which one it will be.

I don't fail to acknowledge the existence of the rules. My point is, the rules are actually contradictory. I can't know, as a player, before sitting down at your table and asking, what rule will be used. This is most certainly NOT true in Combat. How do I inflict damage in combat? Well, here are fifteen different ways you might do that, depending on what your character is. At no point does it say, "Ask your DM".

Aaand you still didn't answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer either of my questions. I feel that if our positions were reversed, you'd be quick to point that out, perhaps with a condescending "ROTFLOL you can't even answer a simple question!!1!" as is your wont. And so I shall ask them again. Perhaps this time you'll actually answer them.

1. If you have a party that includes a ranger, and you come across a flood, does the DM say "nope, no matter what you do, you can't cross"? Do you try to come up with other solutions and the DM refuses to allow them to work? If so, why do you think that's a problem with the rules and not with the DM? Have you spoken to the DM about this behavior? Have you considered getting a different DM, since this one seems antagonistic?

To be honest, it's a fast moving thread and I didn't see your questions. But, remember, the flood is YOUR side's reason why the ranger's powers are not working. That wasn't my example. The flood only came into being when the DM realized that the ranger was bypassing the challenge. And, yup, I speak to the DM about this behavior. And I'm told that nope, it's not "railroading". It's a "natural consequence" of the setting and how dare I question the DM this way.

2. Why do you claim that nobody has come up with exploration rules for D&D in 40 years? There are exploration rules in the 5e DMG and in several other books for this edition, there have been exploration rules in every other edition of D&D, there are probably hundreds of websites with information on exploration in D&D or interesting encounters (many of which are non-combat) or things to find while exploring, and lots of 3pp books, such as Level Up, being produced by this very site, and AiME, which I know you know about. Wouldn't it be more logical to say that you simply haven't researched them?

Because I don't claim this? Again, you aren't bothering to read what I write, so, why do you keep replying to me?

My point is that exploration in 5e is made trivially easy by the presence of a number of very common class elements. That there are people who write about exploration challenges doesn't surprise me. Lots of DM's think that sudden floods are a "challenge" too.

Like I said to Lanefan. This thread gets extended ad nauseum because every time any criticism is brought up, it's automatically passed off as bad DMing or appeals to authority. At no point can we actually get to the point of discussing possible solutions because I have to constantly waste my time trying to run at this wall of trying to convince people that the problem exists in the first place.

I mean, good grief, I POSTED my solution to the problem. Dice pools and mechanical frameworks based on character stats that leverage class and character abilities in order to overcome challenges. I immediately get told to sit down and shut up. Instead of spending all this time trying to tell me why the issues I'm having don't exist, why not take a stab at trying to resolve the problems?

 

[Aldarc]

Like I said to Lanefan. This thread gets extended ad nauseum because every time any criticism is brought up, it's automatically passed off as bad DMing or appeals to authority. At no point can we actually get to the point of discussing possible solutions because I have to constantly waste my time trying to run at this wall of trying to convince people that the problem exists in the first place.

I mean, good grief, I POSTED my solution to the problem. Dice pools and mechanical frameworks based on character stats that leverage class and character abilities in order to overcome challenges. I immediately get told to sit down and shut up. Instead of spending all this time trying to tell me why the issues I'm having don't exist, why not take a stab at trying to resolve the problems?

"There is no problem with the exploration pillar in Ba Sing Se."

 

[TheSword]

If the solution to doing basic, perfectly understandable exploration things is to go buy 3pp products, then it's pretty fair to say that 5e does not support exploration quite as much as you are claiming.

And note, YOU brought up building a home in the first place as something that 5e has rules for.

The 3pp rules I purchased are for kingdom building, mass combat, strongholds, enchanted intelligent forests and Greek Odyssian knock off worlds. Hardly basics.

Perhaps you can explain what basics aren’t covered?

Yes, they are contradictory. Because they are different answers for doing the exact same thing. How do you inflict damage can be answered in a hundred different ways because there are a hundred different, rules defined, ways to inflict damage. Your answers actually conflict because if I sit at your table, I roll one skill, if I sit at the other table, I roll another skill, and there is no way for me to know which skill will be used beforehand. It seemed a pretty simple question actually. How do you find a secret door? Apparently, in the well defined ruleset of exploration, you either roll perception or investigation, and it's up to your DM to tell you which one it will be.

There is a difference between spotting the secret door because you notice the outline of the door or the imperceptible flow of air from behind it (Perception) and discovering it because you deduce its location because of clues (investigation). Both may be valid for some doors, only one for others. Some secret doors may not be detectable at all… it’s going to depend on the door!

I don't fail to acknowledge the existence of the rules. My point is, the rules are actually contradictory. I can't know, as a player, before sitting down at your table and asking, what rule will be used. This is most certainly NOT true in Combat. How do I inflict damage in combat? Well, here are fifteen different ways you might do that, depending on what your character is. At no point does it say, "Ask your DM".

The DM isn’t required to agree in advance which kinds of doors he is going to put into the game depending on your character.

There are lots of ways in which you might want to cause damage in combat and need to ask your DM? I want to shove the foes into the open fireplace - how much damage does it do? I want to slice through the rope holding up the chandelier - how much damage does it do and can they try to leap out of the way? I want to use the grease spell at the top of a staircase, will they fall? How far do their fall? How much damage will they take? What if it’s a spiral staircase? These adjudication are great because they allow the game to move away from board game into roleplay game.

 

[Aldarc]

The 3pp rules I purchased are for kingdom building, mass combat, strongholds, enchanted intelligent forests and Greek Odyssian knock off worlds. Hardly basics.

Perhaps you can explain what basics aren’t covered?

If I may clarify Hussar's point here: I think that Hussar does not believe that 3pp counts as active support by WotC. It is technically "unofficial" and not "out of the box" play that comes with either the starting books (i.e., PHB, DMG, or MM) or even the WotC line-up of products. This is to say, that there would be no need for these 3pp if these rules were part of the core books.

I'm not suggesting here that these should all be core (e.g., rules for enchanted intelligent forests), and I'm not sure if I would necessarily include "Greek Odyssian knock off worlds" as an issue of rules, as it seems more a matter of setting. But whatever.

However, keep in mind that some of what you are talking about are the basics of the game or even once were. It was assumed, for example, that you would build a kingdom as part of your high level character in earlier editions of D&D. This is why Matt Colville even wrote Strongholds & Followers. Also, in the standard Player's Handbook for Forbidden Lands, for example, I also get separate chapters with rules for Strongholds (and Hirelings/Followers) and Journeys.

 

[Hussar]

There are lots of ways in which you might want to cause damage in combat and need to ask your DM? I want to shove the foes into the open fireplace - how much damage does it do? I want to slice through the rope holding up the chandelier - how much damage does it do and can they try to leap out of the way? I want to use the grease spell at the top of a staircase, will they fall? How far do their fall? How much damage will they take? What if it’s a spiral staircase? These adjudication are great because they allow the game to move away from board game into roleplay game.

Yeah, this is just pointless. Constant gainsaying and obviously arguing for the sake of arguing is fun and all, but, I'm just not interested.

I have stated, categorically, that I have problems with exploration pillar challenges. I have stated pretty clearly why I have these issues - that character resources are such that most challenges aren't challenges at all and are trivialized by the massive number of options that the characters have. I have stated how I would resolve this issue.

I really don't have much more to add at this point. You refused to even discuss my possible solution, and have simply gone into "there's no problem here" mode to reply to everything. I simply don't know how to even approach this anymore since it's pretty hard to have a conversation when one side absolutely refuses to accept the basic premise of the discussion.

I really have to wonder what your purpose was here @TheSword. @Faolyn as well. You have done nothing to add to the conversation, other than repeatedly claim that none of the issues raised are actually issues. I mean, good grief, YOU claimed that there were rules for building businesses and now you're insisting that I show you where the rules are. I'm tired of the goalposts on rollerskates.

 

[Aldarc]

I have been mulling about whether the whole idea of three pillars (i.e., combat, exploration, and social) is even the best way to think about the game. Because it seems to me like it would almost be better to think of the game in terms of phases or units of focus: e.g., encounters, journeys, downtime, etc. An encounter could have social or exploration aspects, but it could also break down into combat. A dungeon room with a trap could be an "encounter," which itself leads to potentially another "encounter," which may involve NPCs (i.e., social or combat). I'm just not sure that this whole "three pillars of the game" is really all that helpful of a divide.