D&D 5E [+]Exploration Falls Short For Many Groups, Let’s Talk About It

[Minigiant]

Except that yes there is. The DM just has to make it up. The spell comprehend languages very specifically doesn't decode secret messages in a cypher.

"This spell doesn't decode secret messages in a text or a glyph, such as an arcane sigil, that isn't part of a written language."

Natural language doesn't come into being with cyphers being needed, but an artificially created one used by the BBEG and his lieutenants would. The PHB also does in fact have secret languages that can only be understood by those who speak it. Thieves' Cant(PHB page 96). Unlike the secret druidic language which explicitly says that it can be understood by magic, there is no such provision in Thieves' Cant.

The DMG also mentions creating new languages(including secret languages) on page 20, Dark Speech in the Book of Vile Darkness, and mentions languages so alien that they threaten to break a character's mind on page 263.

But those aren't languages. Those are cyphers. Thieves Can't is a cypher of another spoken language.

Which is the issue ..

does anyone else think that comprehend languages is too powerful/useful for being a first level spell? given that it manages to obviliate a large section of a kind of obstacle, is it a convenience that we've just come to expect having?

...of why there is 1 page of languages, 1 spell that defeats them all, and less in the DMG to how to defeat the spell with no real examples.

And that's as much as I can say on this in a + thread.

 

[Maxperson]

But those aren't languages. Those are cyphers. Thieves Can't is a cypher of another spoken language.

Thieves' Cant is a language. It does exactly what a language does. It conveys meaning through spoken word. It's just a language that is mixed into other languages. A metalanguage as it were. It ALSO has secret signs which are called out later, which would be the cypher.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You absolutely could run Combat this same way, with only a few checks rather than this combat mini-game we have. And many RPGs do that, because they aren't "monster fighting games" like D&D essentially is (because the biggest mechanical ruleset in the D&D game is the monster combat fighting system.) But I am suggesting that creating a Exploration mini-game like we have for Combat will not accomplish things the way people think they want... because the narrative and description and coming up with ideas and solutions are what make Exploration what it is (and the Social pillar what it is for that matter.)

You may decry this as "collaborative storytelling"... but I believe that's exactly what RPGs are. It's why D&D is not entirely a board game made up of nothing but mechanical mini-games. Combat? Absolutely a board game mini-game. But as soon as you turn Exploration and Social into mechanical mini-games too... all of D&D just becomes going from one mini-game to another... the DM lining them up, the players playing them, and then they all moving on to the next one. Leaving character and story and imagination and ideas completely behind.

If some people want to play Exploration the same way they play Combat, more power to them. Personally I think they would be missing out entirely on what makes an RPG an RPG, but hey, whatever floats their boat. But I'm suggesting that narration, description, and ideas with a few checks sprinkled in here and there to determine whether those ideas were good makes the game so much more interesting than just playing those mini-games over and over again.

So the "G" in RPG should only live in combat? I'm sorry but I want more G than that. And that desire does NOT mean that I am abandoning character and story and imagination and ideas. Frankly, suggesting that it does is a bit insulting to those who don't see RPGs as primary an exercise in collaborative storytelling.

 

[TheSword]

These lead to the death spiral situation, where characters are so depleted by earlier encounters that the next one becomes impossible to survive. This works in "roguelike" games, where it's expected that the PCs will die multiple times before succeeding, and this was the way early D&D usually worked, but it's not good in the modern narrative-driven game.

[+] Of course, there is no reason why players should have to play a modern narrative-driven game.

It depends. Not all injuries need turn into a death spiral. There needs to be a happy medium between that and the zero impact that damage currently has.

You could have that sprained ankle reduce movement by -10 ft for instance from a lingering injury. Or damage on melee attacks be reduced by. Don’t make a PC more vulnerable but reduce their effectiveness in some ways.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's just the mistake of pulling Thieves' Cant from the annals of time.

Earth was different back then. It can't handle the current oxygen mixture.

 

[Minigiant]

Thieves' Cant is a language. It does exactly what a language does. It conveys meaning through spoken word. It's just a language that is mixed into other languages. A metalanguage as it were. It ALSO has secret signs which are called out later, which would be the cypher.

"Thieves' Cant
During your rogue training you learned thieves' cant, a secret mix of dialect, jargon, and code that allows you to hide messages in seemingly normal conversation"

It's a cipher and dialect, not a language. That's how it functions.

 

[Epic Meepo]

If some people want to play Exploration the same way they play Combat, more power to them. Personally I think they would be missing out entirely on what makes an RPG an RPG, but hey, whatever floats their boat. But I'm suggesting that narration, description, and ideas with a few checks sprinkled in here and there to determine whether those ideas were good makes the game so much more interesting than just playing those mini-games over and over again.

I would contend that both narrative scenarios and mini-games should play a role in exploration.

Narrative scenarios based on DM adjudication are great ways for PCs to explore discrete parts of the world they can interact with over short time scales. Traps and hazards can be resolved in terms of a few step-by-step actions and reactions (and possibly some die rolls) that combine to describe everything that happens during the encounter.

For example, I would say encountering a river and finding a way to cross it is a good example of something that can be handled without resorting to a mini-game. The DM can describe the river and its surroundings, the players can make a few choices about their surroundings, and the results of those choices can be quickly adjudicated.

On the other hand, mini-games are much better at representing in-depth exploration that occurs over long periods of time. It would be extremely tedious for players to recount the step-by-step actions they take during an exploration-based activity that spans multiple hours and hundreds of discreet interactions with the environment.

As an example, if the players are surveying a river delta to find locations where panning for gold might be profitable, I would much prefer to have a mini-game in place. Narratively describing all of the individual locations and activities that would meaningfully impact that endeavor would be tedious and time consuming.

 

[Maxperson]

"Thieves' Cant
During your rogue training you learned thieves' cant, a secret mix of dialect, jargon, and code that allows you to hide messages in seemingly normal conversation"

It's a cipher and dialect, not a language. That's how it functions.

You are wrong. It functions as communication via spoken word. In common usage that is a language. If it describes a language, it doesn't need to say the word language in order to be one.

The Cypher is the written part described later on.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It depends. Not all injuries need turn into a death spiral. There needs to be a happy medium between that and the zero impact that damage currently has.

If it has some impact on the next fight, the next fight is going to be harder. And the next one harder still, since more resources will need to spent to defeat the harder battle. Eventually you will reach the point that the fight becomes impossible. Death spiral is will always happen eventually.

You could have that sprained ankle reduce movement by -10 ft for instance from a lingering injury.

So they cannot run away from a monster, so they die.

Or damage on melee attacks be reduced by.

So the monster takes one more round to die. And the party dies.

Don’t make a PC more vulnerable but reduce their effectiveness in some ways.

Anything that reduces effectiveness means the subsequent battle is going to consume more resources. If, due to simple bad luck, an early fight leads to a permanent injury, the party won't survive the final challenge. Or the difficulty was set so low that there was never any real challenge in the first place.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it has some impact on the next fight, the next fight is going to be harder. And the next one harder still, since more resources will need to spent to defeat the harder battle. Eventually you will reach the point that the fight becomes impossible. Death spiral is will always happen eventually.

So they cannot run away from a monster, so they die.

So the monster takes one more round to die. And the party dies.

Anything that reduces effectiveness means the subsequent battle is going to consume more resources. If, due to simple bad luck, an early fight leads to a permanent injury, the party won't survive the final challenge. Or the difficulty was set so low that there was never any real challenge in the first place.

Death spirals are underrated. Maybe if you're suffering from lingering injuries that make you less effective in combat, you should...stop engaging in unnecessary combat until you can have that seen to?

I know, sounds crazy. No one would do that in they were playing their PCs realistically.