By coincidence I just wrote a post on this topic yesterday. (
http://the-gneech.dreamwidth.org/2662914.html for those interested.) My main problem with the Journey rules as written is how crunchy they are... rolls to modify rolls on top of other rolls.
Since things like the mood of the journey (as determined by the Embarkation Roll) are not something that will always be a factor, I am exploring the idea of simply adding them to my already-existing random encounter tables, which I generally check in 4-hour increments during overland travel. Thus, instead of "4d4 orcs" a random encounter might be "your group has gotten bogged down from encountering several frustrating dead-end canyons, causing you to lose an hour's progress."
I do think it's neat that the Journey rules basically treat an overland trip as a giant sort of meta-dungeon (hence only getting short rests unless you happen upon a great camping/stopping spot). Conceptually that's just cool.
-The Gneech
Yeah, the Journey Rules and a few others use some odd dice math, although it's been a while since I looked at "The One Ring" so they might have been ported from there. Because the mechanics are a bit non-standard, it wasn't entirely clear to me what they were accomplishing at first. You kind of have to work through the whole process to follow their math.
They also pretty much require the DM to create new tables of options for each journey, or they will end up all feeling the same. I get that it's sort of the point - each Journey is unique and should be tailored for that particular Journey, but that puts a lot of pressure on the DM. If it were me, I might replace just the events that were used with a new one, leaving the unused ones for future Journeys and save a little work.
What it essentially boils down to is that it
is just a more complex random encounter table, but where there are good and bad results, and whether something is good or bad is partially dependent upon the planning, skills, the results of the prior "phase" of the adventure, and the luck of the die.
It's sort of the travel montage approach with teeth - that the way the Journey progresses has an impact on what happens in the next "phase" of the game. And ultimately, I think that's the real benefit of their rules - that the Journey has an impact on what follows.
So overall I think the concept has merit, but could potentially have been built more closely around 5e mechanics.
Looking at the Embarkation roll I noted in my original post (thanks for bringing that over [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]) is a d12 + the Guide's Survival proficiency bonus and 1/2 of their Wisdom bonus, minus the Peril Rating. A higher roll is better.
This could have been a simple Survival skill check, with each result assigned a DC, and a penalty due to the Peril Rating. Much less math for the same result. Furthermore, if it's just a skill check, then you don't really need to assign a role. The assumption being the one with the highest survival skill is the one making the check. This would apply to the other roles (which come into play in some of the results on the Journey rolls).
In addition, I'm not entirely clear on the math of this check. Normally your Survival proficiency bonus would include your Wisdom modifier. Does that mean it includes 1 1/2 times your Wisdom bonus? With a maximum Peril Rating of 5, that means that at 1st level you could conceivably have somebody with a +2 proficiency bonus +5 Wisdom bonus (maybe another +2 Wisdom bonus) and a maximum -5 Peril (not likely at first level). So that's a minimum of either a +2 or +4 to your Embarkation Roll, meaning that you cannot roll a 1 or 2 (which have entries on their table).
If the math is Proficiency bonus only, plus 1/2 of your Wisdom bonus, then you would have a +4, and conceivably have a -1 penalty to the roll with a Peril Rating of 5. This appears to be what they intend. If so, by 10th level you have a +4 proficiency, and a +2 (half) Wisdom bonus, or a +6. Again, with a -5 Peril rating you can get a 1. By 17th level, you have a potential for +9, so you can't get anything less than a 4. While this would be when you're traveling into the most dangerous scenarios. This is assuming you don't have a way to gain expertise in Survival. Of course, the Scholar can get that at 2nd level.
In which case (assuming a 20 Wisdom):
1st level: +2 proficiency, +2 expertise, +2 Wisdom for +6, Peril -5, minimum roll 1 (one point of shadow corruption and other bad stuff)
10th level: +4 +4 +2 -5 = minimum roll 5 (one extra level of exhaustion)
17th level: +6 +6 +2 -5 = minimum roll 9 (All terrain is one grade easier - no negative effect at all).
So my approach would be entirely different:
Ilbranteloth's 5e Version of Embarkation Roll
You (most likely the character with the highest score, possibly with help granting advantage) would make a Survival check against the Peril Rating (the usual DC table, the five steps from Easy to Nearly Impossible).
Success: Advantage on your Embarkation roll.
Failure: Standard Embarkation roll (1d12).
Failure by 5 or more: Disadvantage on your Embarkation roll.
Simple, and uses existing 5e mechanics. I might also expand the Embarkation table to 20 entries and just use a d20 instead of a d12, but it's really not that important.
You also wouldn't need to assign roles. I get that they are trying to add some flavor by assigning roles, but it seems like a pretty hefty restriction in light of the "anybody can try anything" approach of 5e and I think it's really kind of unnecessary.
Other Journey Rules
They reverse the process for the Journey events. Now a lower roll is better, and easy terrain gives you a -1 (bonus) on the roll, and daunting terrain is a +2 penalty (I do like having more than just normal and difficult terrain, a la AD&D). Strangely, an 10 on the Embarkation table (Hidden from the Shadow) gives you a +1 to rolls on the Journey Events table, and a 12 (From Auspicious Beginnings) gives you a +2. In both cases they imply this is a benefit. I think they got confused by their own math and the lower is better organization is a mistake.
The Arrival table once again assumes higher is better. Not all results have numerical bonuses, but since you have multiple encounters the overall result will probably skew towards no final modifier. But in the spirit of 5e, I'd probably replace those modifiers with advantage/disadvantage on the next roll. In most cases you'll probably cancel out either. But if you have a good roll on the Embarkation table, then you're more likely to roll higher on the Journey Event table with advantage, giving you a higher likelihood of a good result for the Arrival table. Numerical modifiers (+1 here, +2 there, -1 there), will have less of an impact on the later results, though.
So reverse the order of the Journey Events table, and anyplace where it gives a bonus for the next roll, give advantage, and a penalty disadvantage. If the first encounter grants advantage, and the second cancels it, then it's a fresh start for the third one, which can grant advantage or disadvantage.
Overall I still highly recommend checking it out. The rules work as is, but might not scale as well at higher levels, based on the math like that above. But like 5e itself, it's easy to modify.
Find a store that carries it and skim through a bit. If you're looking for alternate resting rules in particular, and overland travel, there's a lot here. I suspect that those that like to tweak (like me) will use it more as inspiration for a simplified system. The other thing it does really, really well is maintain the feel of Middle Earth through the ruleset. If you want a (very) low magic world, under the shadow of a great evil, and dark ages technology (no plate armor, for example), it would be a piece of cake to use this without running it as Middle Earth.
They just released their first adventure for it (that comes with the DM screen), and I'll probably pick it up. I'd like to see their full implementation of the system in a scenario to see how it works. I might even run it at the local game store, I like the way it holds together that much.
