Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9257160" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I disagree with the first statement. Rules clarity is a big deal. As for skills, I do think that they should have more explanatory text, but I really like how they are accomplishing that in the UA rules, by describing the rules for actions you can take, which ability mod and skills are relevant to that action, etc. what I absolutely would hate enough that if 5e had it from day one I wouldn’t be playing it, is the “you can do exactly these things with this skill” with every skill having extensive rules around it. Tell players that acrobatics is for getting around obstacles, showing off, maneuvering around enemies, and whatever else in fairly broad terms. Please don’t bring this into the + thread about expanding and modifying exploration. I will point out that there are more rules for exploration than that. If you’re intentionally hyperbolising, that isn’t helpful. If you aren’t, another posted listed some of the rules in the game for exploration challenges or actions. They aren’t extensive, but they certainly aren’t “nothing but ask the DM”. I push back on this because having clarity about what the rules are is necessary to having the discussion laid out in the OP. It would be helpful for people who don’t want to just improvise that, but instead want players to know what is possible and what the stakes are, if the game had a system for rewarding xp for non combat challenges, rather than just “wing it”. I don’t remember any such guidance in the rules but I’d be stoked to be proven wrong. What amount of xp should finding a landmark give, and are there any other benefits like lowering navigation DCs while within X distance of the landmark?I do agree that the DMG needs an actually helpful section on each aspect of exploration and how different ways of running it can work. Colville is both overrated and also wrong about this, in that he’s being reductive to a point that just doesn’t match large swaths of player experience at the table. This is a + thread. I explicitly asked in the OP to not do exactly this. This is exactly right, IMO. Scattered rules and bad instruction.</blockquote>

Verification