As The Crow Flies

[Water Bob]

Speaking over Overland Movement here.

Do you think the Terrain Adjustment accounts for non-linear travel? Or, does it just slow movement due to the actual terrain (i.e. a person can move faster on a flat trail than he can on uneven ground in the wilderness)?

Let's say the PCs have to move 100 miles through Rough Terrain. That's straight line, point-to-point, as the crow flies distance. In reality, we all know that the ground route that the PCs take will be snake-like, avoiding obstacles, going around large hills and crevices.

Should I count that as 100 miles and then apply the Terrain modifier? Or, should I count the distance as longer, to account for the longer ground route, and then apply the Rough Terrain modifier?

 

[Rechan]

Is it really so important that you have to worry about it?

 

[ValhallaGH]

I would assume that the Rough Terrain modifiers already include the inevitable twisting and backtracking common to travel in rough terrain.
I've moved through jungles. You don't move at half speed, but you cover terrain at about half speed due to the circuitous travel. On a combat patrol you move more slowly but that's a function of trying to be stealthy and attentive (generally useful in a combat zone).

However, if your PCs are covering terrain too quickly then I can see multiplying the route length and then slowing their travel time. But all that really means is that they will use more rations and have more random encounters. Unless you're playing in an apocalypse or wilderness-survival setting, that won't add anything to the campaign as a whole.
I'll be the first to admit that random encounters have given my campaigns some great stories, but they haven't contributed to the campaign as a whole. Excluding increased party XP.

 

[billd91]

Both and at the same time. It's an abstraction and could serve for either.

 

[Umbran]

Let's say the PCs have to move 100 miles through Rough Terrain. That's straight line, point-to-point, as the crow flies distance. In reality, we all know that the ground route that the PCs take will be snake-like, avoiding obstacles, going around large hills and crevices.

I think of it this way - the overland movement distance is the distance you'd measure on the scale of the hex map. The terrain modifier is then applied to include the wending and weaving you might have to do in rough terrain.

So, if you've got 20-mile hexes, and it is five hexes away, that's 100 miles, then layer on the modifiers for terrain type in each hex.

 

[howandwhy99]

Wargames were big into this. The reason most hexes were 24 or 30 miles across is they had a large number of divisors (e.g. 24 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24).

Terrain modifiers were fractions that fit those divisors (e.g 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8, etc.) And terrain had to do with slope, water, flora and non-encounter fauna, sight distances, ground conditions, and even average temperature and air quality.

It all adds up to slowing down the march. But these things can also inspire terrain challenges too (a.k.a. 4E terrain encounter). Climbing high mountains and crossing a swamp are no picnic. Now add in rock falls and swamp gas we might start asking ourselves "Is there a better way to do this?"

There's a reason we stick to roads and even grassy plains (along borders for easy navigation).

 

[LostSoul]

I always thought the terrain modifier figured in non-linear travel. Didn't they also have modifiers for trails and roads? Anyway, that's what I use - three different terrain modifiers for trail/river, road, and wilderness. (Or is it road/river? Eh, I forget.)

 

[Water Bob]

The terrain modifier is then applied to include the wending and weaving you might have to do in rough terrain.

I was thinking the same, but one thought bugs me:

Let's say the PC have to travel 10 miles, and they have road to follow--thus, no move modifier. The PCs might have to zig and zag like a snake, actually moving 15 miles, eventhough the going is easy on the trail.

If it were a flat, grassy plain, then the PCs could travel in a straight like the full 10 miles.

 

[Umbran]

Let's say the PC have to travel 10 miles, and they have road to follow--thus, no move modifier. The PCs might have to zig and zag like a snake, actually moving 15 miles, eventhough the going is easy on the trail.

I think the overland movement guidelines are not designed for situations where possible paths are very clearly laid out. This isn't for in a dungeon, but more like a terrain hex map, which doesn't keep that level of detail.

Or, you can think of it this way - the characters are moving through a hex of rough terrain. You can explain that in fluff as they have to blaze their own trail, or follow a twisty road. The mechanical result and travel time is the same.

 

[IronWolf]

Let's say the PC have to travel 10 miles, and they have road to follow--thus, no move modifier. The PCs might have to zig and zag like a snake, actually moving 15 miles, eventhough the going is easy on the trail.

If it were a flat, grassy plain, then the PCs could travel in a straight like the full 10 miles.

A lot of things in RPG games start to fail under the microscope.

Essentially, I would simply say the road lets them move faster due to a more even grade, packed surface, potentially easy access to water along the way than any overland travel - even over flat grasslands. So they get to travel at the 10 mile speed through the hex, but actually crossed 15 miles of road because they could move faster across it.