• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Deep Dive: D&D NEXT Exploration

mapAndCompass.jpg

My personal preferred style of D&D is pretty heavy on exploration. To me, D&D is about braving the unknown, confronting the wild, monster-filled world, and engaging with it. It is the different lands, different peoples, different ideas that make D&D interesting to me. I don’t play D&D for the encounters or the stories or the characters per se, I play D&D for the sense of discovery and surprise that comes with the new and the unexpected. I’ve got a unique cocktail of emotional goals I seek when I play, but those certainly rank near the top for me. I play and DM D&D like a mad scientist: a bit of ingredient X, a bit of ingredient Y, and smash them together. No, I don’t know how it’s going to turn out, and I love it that way.

When I am a player, this is demonstrated largely via characters who are either decidedly unusual (a rapping dwarf bard, a ditzy hamadryad swordmage, a mul bladesinger in Dark Sun), or highly archetypal (a gnomish artificer belonging to House Sivis in Eberron, an emotionless thri-kreen ranger in Dark Sun). When I am a DM, this is demonstrated by extensively using rules for exploration.

In fact, I’d say that when I DM, a lot of my “encounters” are mere set dressing for the location the characters happen to be blazing a trail through. Fight, talk, avoid, I don’t care – just engage it, somehow. My MacGuffins are destination-centered, and gameplay is largely about making it “there and back again.”

So you can imagine how eagerly I was anticipating D&D 5e’s exploration rules. Now that we’ve gotten a taste of them, I think it’s about time I really sink my teeth into these things. If you’d like to read along, you can find the playtest packet here. I’m judging this as a playtest, which means with an eye towards improving it. I’m going to be very specific as I go, as well.

THE EXPLORATION TURN
The big thing that the playtest rules bring to 5e is a codified “turn” that helps define what a party can do while exploring, making exploration into part of the gameplay. This is awesome for me: exploration rules are things I want to interact with.

The turn functions a lot like a combat round with two-sided initiative: each PC takes an action, and then the “enemies” take an action (represented here by a roll for a random encounter). The game goes into some detail about the things the PC’s can do on their turns, but everything opposing them is boiled down to a random encounter roll. I think there’s room for some more variety there, personally, but the turn itself helps give DMs a way to codify what the players do and what the environment does in a way that isn’t just “make it up,” but that also doesn’t need to be overly specific. A lot of different things could go into a player’s turn; a lot of different things could go into the “environment’s” turn.

One thing that instantly comes out at me is the possibility to swap around what the environment does and what the players do. What if you roll for an encounter before the party describes their actions? Then, you can have the actions specifically counter certain things for certain encounters.

But I’m getting a little ahead of myself here.

THE TURN DURATION
The current playtest divides exploration into three different levels of focus: 5 minute (dungeon), hourly (wilderness), and daily (long-distance).

They come right out and say the rules are a little too “abstract” for dungeon exploration, but they’re not very clear on why that is – what important bit of dungeon exploration are we giving up in exchange for this abstraction? To help modularity, I need to know the trade-offs: what happens if I decide to use these rules for all of my dungeon exploration needs? A quick look at the “tasks” reveals that they think that 5 minutes is too short for “navigating,” but what if navigation provided some guidance on the endless litany of “Which direction do I take at this two-way intersection?” questions? Might not work quite the same, but a dungeon navigator could easily provide some hint as to which direction leads to what down the road.

The timescale chosen modifies far you move in a turn. Doing a bit of calculation reveals that a moderate pace over a 5-minute turn covers 15 move actions for your typical human, or, to put it in terms a grid can understand, 90 squares. A cautious pace reduces that by (about) half, while a fast pace bumps it up to double and a rushed pace quadruples your basic rate. The numbers run a bit different for 1-hour and 1-day durations, but the baseline for that is a normal party moving at a rate of one mile an hour, or ten miles per day.

The down side to hurrying is expressed in a “Readiness DC” that goes up the faster you go. You’re supposed to use this DC for “several circumstances,” defined later as pretty much surprise, and getting lost. The readiness DC is an interesting concept, and seems to play well, but it’s not used very often.

One potentially interesting area that the rules don’t go into is the idea of a chase scene, or an extended overland chase – a readiness DC and a rate of movement give some elements that were lacking in most previous editions where overland movement was largely at one basic pace.

EXPLORATION TASKS
The meat of these rules is taken up with “tasks” that party members can perform during a turn – essentially, a bucket of actions not unlike your combat actions (“attack, move, cast a spell,” vs. “navigate, sneak, search”). Each task involves some die roll that the character can succeed or fail at, and some fairly obvious consequences for success and failure. The tasks are basically broken down into “avoiding bad things” and sneaking, but I imagine this could be well expanded.

A bit of an outlier here is the “mapmaking” task, which seems ill-defined mechanically. It’s apparently different from navigation, but it also involves no check, and offers no clear benefit other than “now you have a map.” It’d be nice to add something concrete to mapmaking, such as allowing the party to move through mapped areas with no risk of getting lost.

These exploration tasks seem like they’d be pretty easy to expand upon, such as including a “forage” check to gather food, or a “scouting” check to learn about the path ahead.

WANDERING MONSTERS
Essentially, 5e throws a random chance (from 10% to 50%) at the end of each turn that there’s an encounter, and this is what takes up the enemy’s turn in an exploration round.

There’s a bit of a conceptual problem, here, in that the wandering monster is not something that a party would want to avoid all the time. Monsters are worth XP in 5e, so defeating monsters is the goal of the game as it is written (though it certainly might not be each individual DM’s goal). Still, daily attrition means that at some point, these things will be not worth the risk. This is perhaps a mitigating factor: a hypothetical XP-maximizing party would go fast when they’ve already had a few fights in a day, but they’d go slow otherwise.

Of course, at the daily pace, you’re down to a chance of one encounter per day at most, meaning there’s no reason to -fear or avoid wandering monsters at that pace – slow and steady nets the best XP there.

The play example makes it clear that not all encounters with wandering monsters are meant to be explicitly aggressive (the blood hawk serves as a scout that sets up a future ambush, not an encounter in and of itself), but anything that ups the encounter rate is going to up the XP rate and so level up the characters faster.

It’s at times like this that alternate XP schemes (quest XP, XP for gold, etc.) become important. In fact, if you use these exploration rules, you’d be well advised to at least not award XP for random encounters. You could still use XP as a guideline to build the encounters, or gauge their difficulty, but monsters being “worth” that XP might inflate a party using this module well ahead of a pace a particular adventure has in mind for them.

GETTING LOST
The other element of exploration in 5e is that you could get lost. In fact, as written, if you go as fast as you can, and you’re not on a road, you’re guaranteed to get lost (your Navigation check is 0). Which is kind of an interesting rules interaction: as long as you’re rushing heedlessly through the underbrush, you can’t know where you’re going. Once you’re done rushing, you can maybe take stock of your location and find out where to go from here.

Personally, as soon as any rule starts talking about “degrees,” I kind of tune out, so there’s a little too much granularity in the rules for this as it sits for me (Roll 1d6 and travel to a random adjacent hex instead?).

WHAT’S MISSING
So, that’s the rules as they stand. A decent first effort, I think. The tasks are a solid contribution, the turn is a very good framing mechanic, the timescale difference is a clever parsing of the different needs of exploration, and the “readiness DC” something that shows promise (but isn’t much executed on here).

However, wandering monsters interact with the daily recharge rate and the XP rules pretty violently. There’s no pressure from encounters at a daily pace as long as a long rest recovers all your HP, and there’s a high score to be had there if you award XP for monsters defeated.

Crucially, there’s nothing about events during travel aside from wandering monsters. While wandering monsters are a pretty key component of the kind of exploration I like, just as important are NPC’s, interesting events, traps, treasure, special sites, etc. There should be some more diversity in what the “enemy’s turn” generates here. Cultists and blood hawks and gnolls, sure, but where’s the random magical lake in the woods, or the random peddler along the road? To a certain degree, information on how to create a random encounter table, and a Monster Manual that contains more than just fights, can go a long way to solving this.

Also of note is the fact that being encumbered or otherwise slowed (with heavy armor, or with halflings in the party) does nothing to affect your speed, even on a 5-minute level. This seems to erase one of the interesting choices that a PC must make, between taking everything that’s not nailed down, and traveling fast enough to survive. (As an aside, any encumbrance rule that relies on me counting poundage is doomed to failure at my table, WotC).

Finally, there’s not much info about starvation, thirst, exposure, or other weather hazards. I imagine these would be their own modules, but they’re also part and parcel of that “enemy’s turn” during exploration I was referring to, and would also likely be affected by the pace and timescale of the exploration. I’m not convinced they’re independent modules any more than “wandering monsters” is independent.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I’m curious about what you like or dislike about the exploration rules in 5e as shown so far. Agree with me? Think I’m insane? Want to see some chase rules and some weather rules? What about the rogue – the “exploration master” in this scenario? Let me know in the comments!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm very interested in where you can go with these rules -- adapting them to specific situations.

For example:

Tracking/Evading Pursuit (1 hour turns)

Modify the Navigate task just a little to make it a check made to track the quarry. Fail the check and you lose the trail. IF the quarry is aware of the pursuit, there could be a new task for them to conceal their tracks -- maybe an stealth(using INT not dex?) check used to oppose the check made to track the quarry.

Exploring a City (1 hour turns)

No reason why an urban setting can't also use these rules. It would help to have a clear sense of what the PCs are looking for in the city -- and there might be some interesting new tasks.
Shop -
Sell Goods -
Carouse -


There's a lot more -- I'm looking forward to playing with these rules.

-rg
 

I'm a big fan of exploration as well...I'm interested that there seems to be more attention to what's usually been considered exclusively the realm of the GM and subjectivity there.

Definitely seems like it needs more development, but it's a promising start.

Thanks for calling attention to this facet of D&D Next.
 

I'm very interested in where you can go with these rules -- adapting them to specific situations.

For example:

Tracking/Evading Pursuit (1 hour turns)

Modify the Navigate task just a little to make it a check made to track the quarry. Fail the check and you lose the trail. IF the quarry is aware of the pursuit, there could be a new task for them to conceal their tracks -- maybe an stealth(using INT not dex?) check used to oppose the check made to track the quarry.

Exploring a City (1 hour turns)

No reason why an urban setting can't also use these rules. It would help to have a clear sense of what the PCs are looking for in the city -- and there might be some interesting new tasks.
Shop -
Sell Goods -
Carouse -


There's a lot more -- I'm looking forward to playing with these rules.

-rg

I agree. I can think of a few ways to subvert these rules for world-building purposes, particularly by filling a random encounter table completely with a list of landmarks and geographic features, then going through your "map" in advance to flesh it out in a similar manner to how the 2E Worldbuilder's and Dungeonbuilder's Guidebooks worked.

I'm also envisioning situations with a more active "environment" turn such as if the PCs are maneuvering around in an area where a pair of opposing armies are about to duke it out or if they are in a race against other groups of adventurers to retrieve the MacGuffin.
 

To me, the really clever part of the rules is the Readiness DC. I like this design element so much I hope it spreads...in two ways:

1) The idea of readiness is really useful in adventure design, but the playtest-packet adventures don't use it--or at least I haven't spotted the places where they have. (I've only skimmed them--my own "reading readiness" wasn't that high!) That's where I think the system will blossom--the interesting bits aren't going to be in the rulebook, but in the adventures.

2) There's nothing about readiness that's baked into the crust of 5e. It's a straightforward "port" into 4e or Pathfinder, and it takes only a little more work to get it work with the vintage rulesets.

--Dave.
blog: nnnooner.blogspot.com
twitter: davidnoonan
 

Crucially, there’s nothing about events during travel aside from wandering monsters. While wandering monsters are a pretty key component of the kind of exploration I like, just as important are NPC’s, interesting events, traps, treasure, special sites, etc. There should be some more diversity in what the “enemy’s turn” generates here. Cultists and blood hawks and gnolls, sure, but where’s the random magical lake in the woods, or the random peddler along the road? To a certain degree, information on how to create a random encounter table, and a Monster Manual that contains more than just fights, can go a long way to solving this.

I've played since AD&D so this doesn't seem like a big issue. I mean you as the DM have the choice to insert anything that makes sense to you in to the world, but a random table might mean an oasis would appear in the middle of a forest and though you can make that work it would still be a bit clunky.

Additionally I know that random tables were generally targeted to environments, but were always difficult to use in those in between lands. For an example of that, a forest that buts up against foothills.

I have always been of the idea that if the DM wants something fantastic to be in the middle of an area there should be some understanding that it is coming or it should make sense why you suddenly happened upon it when no one else has.

A magical lake in the foothills should be rumored about in the surrounding towns/villages, or should be defended to keep out people who do not work the local lands giving back to the environment that has blessed those people who live in the area. A random element like this should only happen in areas that no one has ever been to before, and even then it should impact the environment around it. In such a way that it should be fantastic and even a surprise to the players but makes sense of why dinosaurs still roam this land or why there are so many elementals in a particular area, or whatever make sense to the DM for his world.

I doubt that a book could be written to cover all the possibilities and simple rules definitely would not cut it.

But hey I'm an grandpa now, so ignore me if you wish, I'll still game and enjoy myself greatly.
 

DaddyDM said:
I mean you as the DM have the choice to insert anything that makes sense to you in to the world, but a random table might mean an oasis would appear in the middle of a forest and though you can make that work it would still be a bit clunky.

Well, the rules would still be modular and opt-in, so if you rolled an oasis in the middle of a forest and didn't want one, no one would make you use it. ;) But if it gave you an idea for an interesting scene (perhaps "oasis" in a forest context is a large clearing with a lake in it and a little town!), you could go with it.

The key part to me is that exploration is not just punctuated by monsters, but also by events, sites, non-hostile NPC's, interesting things that the PC's may or may not interact with at their option, and, generally, interesting things. A wandering monster is one of those interesting things, but an old ruin or a small village or a secret door or a trap or a stream -- those are also part of those interesting things.

I noted that a good MM might be part of the solution, and it could be. If wandering monsters include, I dunno, Zaratans and Nymphs and a wild animal or two, then clearly not every encounter must be of the "FIGHT!" type.

DaddyDM said:
A magical lake in the foothills should be rumored about in the surrounding towns/villages, or should be defended to keep out people who do not work the local lands giving back to the environment that has blessed those people who live in the area. A random element like this should only happen in areas that no one has ever been to before, and even then it should impact the environment around it. In such a way that it should be fantastic and even a surprise to the players but makes sense of why dinosaurs still roam this land or why there are so many elementals in a particular area, or whatever make sense to the DM for his world.

I think this is partially about making the right encounter tables (ie: why stick a dinosaur on it if you don't want dinosaurs in your world?). Which is something the rules don't currently go into, but something that they probably should go into, or give a few examples of.

But for me, my D&D worlds are typically not of the "we've fully explored this region" type, so surprises while traveling are half the fun of exploration!

DaddyDM said:
I doubt that a book could be written to cover all the possibilities and simple rules definitely would not cut it.

Well, it's not quite so binary. A few examples would go a long way toward making it possible to roll-your-own, and not take up that much space.
 

I like the idea of an urban timescale; maybe 15 minutes?
I agree with most of the points you raise. I don't do "degrees"; too fiddly. I like the idea of a turn; it's flexible and can be scaled to different lengths of time.
Overall, a good start, definitely something to expand upon.
 

Do you think there's a need for different distances traveled based on different speeds? Maybe not within a party of PCs on foot, with speeds varying from 20' to 30'; but what about when the travelers are mounted? Do they just use a faster pace on the chart?

-rg
 

Radiating Gnome said:
Do you think there's a need for different distances traveled based on different speeds? Maybe not within a party of PCs on foot, with speeds varying from 20' to 30'; but what about when the travelers are mounted? Do they just use a faster pace on the chart?

I think there is a need. From dwarves and halflings to encumbrance and mounts and rangers, I think varying the distance you can cover in an over-land journey is key.

The choice of pace might help set this up. IE: "When encumbered, you cannot move more than a Cautious pace," or "If a creature with Slow Speed is in the party, you cover ground as if going one pace slower" or "While a ranger with the Trailblazer ability travels with you, you can travel at a faster pace without a bump in your Readiness DC"

Or whatever. The thing is, fast and slow party members should affect the speed of exploration, too.
 

Into the Woods

Related Articles

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top