D&D 5E Exploration Rules You'd Like To See

[I'm A Banana]

They've mentioned explicitly in 5e that they're looking at non-combat spells and what they can do in comparison to skills. Which, to me, seems like a good place to start.

I've also somewhat figured out something that's been bugging me about the skill checks, and that is this: they represent a lot of different possible things.

An attack roll represents an attack.

A Strength check or an Athletics check represents....possibly a lot of things.

It may be useful to think about these rolls as being as explicit as attack rolls. An attack roll represents an effort to hurt something.

Perhaps a Strength check represents an ability to move your normal speed in a day's march, but over rocks, or through raging rapids, or through tangled underbrush...a Dexterity check might represent your ability to move your normal speed in a day while sneaking. A Wisdom check might be able to represent your ability to move your normal speed while feeding yourself, and a Constitution check might represent you moving your normal daily speed while ignoring your hunger, or the weather. A Charisma check might represent your ability to move that fast while gathering information from other travelers, or talking down hostile natives. An Int check maybe represents your ability to move that fast while following a map (toward the best items, or away from the worst threats)

It's an effort not to be slowed down.

So then we can say that a given exploration challenge might be represented as the miles you cover in a day. If a normal party covers about 24 miles in open terrain, an exploration challenge is an attempt to move that far through something troublesome, or to build on that (forced march!).

The basic risks would be injury, death, and GP (in the form of rations and damaged supplies).

This might work as a basic framework for exploration...hmm...

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Um, apples and oranges?

The goal here is to make exploration interesting, expanding it beyond "make a check and win." Having an exploration resource that is expended as you make exploration checks (however that would be handled) would be one step towards introducing interesting decisions for the characters/players to make.

That turns exploration into something akin to a browser based game like "Echo Bazaar!" or "Billy vs Snakeman": Do I have the point/fuel to make a check? If yes, I make a check or checks. If no, I have to wait until I can make a check.

We actually want to increase the prevalence and use of exploration based challenges not decrease them.

And hit points - and their means of restoration - are effectively a limit on how much combat you can deal with in a given period.

Hit points, and there means of restoration, actually determine when failure (i.e. death) occurs. As long as a character can maintain at least 1 hp they can continue to fight in any number of encounters. Combat ability resources, such as combat spell slots, are an actual limit on how much combat you can engage in. It was the number and power of those resources that created what was known as the "15 minute work day."

If everybody can use their best skill all the time endlessly with no drawbacks, then exploration isn't interesting, it's just people throwing dice until they win. But if you can only make so many climb checks in a day, then you need to start thinking about whether or not it's worth it to make one in a given situation. Limitations lead to interesting decisions.

The correct types of limitations lead to interesting decisions. The incorrect types of limitations lead to no decisions being possible.

"I can make 4 Climb checks per day" is different than "I can reroll a failed Climb check up to 4 times a day." "I can make 4 Climb checks per day" makes players ask "Does climbing this help me complete the adventure or reward me?" "I can reroll a failed Climb check up to 4 times a day" makes players ask "Should I reroll this failed Climb check or save it for a later possibly more difficult or dangerous check?" The second leads more often to what are called "more interesting" choices.

Knock is a terrible spell precisely because it bypasses an "exploration challenge" without a roll. It's an auto-win. It'd be like playing a fighter that can just auto-kill things in a combat: if there's no effort required, why even mention the encounter?

The current playtest version of Knock is a single automatic check of 20 if you spend a daily resource and a round or a single automatic 15 if you spend monetary resources and take 1 minute. A Rogue can easily reach and pass those numbers with resources that they currently recover on a per round basis. If the challenge is something like "Unlock 5 DC 15 locks" the Rogue can on average complete the challenge just as or nearly as fast(the Wizard cast Knock from spell slots 5 times) or faster(the Wizard spends 5 minutes performing the Knock ritual 5 times) at lower resource cost (the Rogue used Expertise Dice which recover every round vs the Wizard used 5 spell slots or spent 125 gp).

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Negative. That is a classic extended Skill Challenge trope. I've run many just like this. The Skill Challenge I ran was 10:3 and I could map out True Grit's to 12 resolution moments or less.

Or you could divide it into several full encounters each with their own varied skill- and combat-based challenges.

What you just described amounts to distilling an adventure down to 12 rolls, which some players like the idea of while others don't.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

This is my idea of what a Cliff Climb could be mechanically:

Cliff Climb

Goal: The PCs and their gear need to get on to the top of a 30ft cliff.

Primary Task: Climb

Skill: Climb (Str or Dex)
Description: Each PC can attempt to climb the cliff.
DC: Medium. DC is increased as standard for objects and other characters carried.
Number of Checks: 1 per round until Success or Failure reached.
Success: 3 successes - The PC reaches the top of the cliff.
Failure: 4 failures - The PC falls taking damage based on number of successful checks in the attempt before failing.
Repeatable: Yes
​

Alternate Task: Levitate

Conditions: Have the ability to Levitate
Skill: By Ability
Description: PC can attempt to levitate up the cliff.
DC: Medium. DC is increased as standard for objects and other characters carried.
Number of Checks: 1 per round until Success or Failure reached.
Success: 3 successes - The PC reaches the top of the cliff.
Failure: 4 failures - The PC falls taking damage based on number of successful checks in the attempt before failing.
Repeatable: Yes
​

Alternate Task: Fly

Conditions: Have the ability to fly.
Skill: By Ability
Description: PC can attempt to fly up the cliff.
DC: Medium. DC is increased as standard for objects and other characters carried.
Number of Checks: 1 per round until Success or Failure reached.
Success: 3 successes - The PC reaches the top of the cliff.
Failure: 4 failures - The PC falls taking damage based on number of successful checks in the attempt before failing.
Repeatable: Yes
​

Optional Task: Assess Climb

Skill: Climb (Int or Wis)
Description: PC can attempt to determine a preferred path.
DC: Medium.
Number of Checks: 2 checks
Success: 2 successes - The PC determines a good path for themself to climb and gains advantage on climb checks during their attempts to Climb.
Partial Success: 1 success - The PC is unable to determine a preferred path.
Failure: 2 failures - The PC misidentifies a bad path for a good one and has disadvantage on attempts to Climb.
Repeatable: Yes, after Climb attempt. Partial Success and Failures may reattempt if corrected by an outside force.
​

Optional Task: Set Grappling Hook

Conditions: Have a Grappling Hook with 30 or more feet of rope attached. Crossbow Launch
Skill: Ranged Attack (Throwing or Crossbow)
Description: PC can attempt to set a grappling hook by throwing or firing it at the top of the cliff.
DC: Medium with range penalties.
Number of Checks: 1
Success: 1 success - The Grappling Hook properly sets and the Climb tasks DC becomes easy.
Failure: 1 failure - The Grappling Hook fails to properly set.
Repeatable: Yes
​

 

[Manbearcat]

Or you could divide it into several full encounters each with their own varied skill- and combat-based challenges.

What you just described amounts to distilling an adventure down to 12 rolls, which some players like the idea of while others don't.

Actually, that is not what I did. Further, any combat (or any other challenge) could be reduced to "distillation down to <x> number of rolls", assuming (i) there are no stakes involved, (ii) there is no dynamism of interchange between players and environment (responses such as complications, threats, and imminent danger or setbacks) and (iii) no mechanical relevance (and narrative coherency) from step A resolution to step B resolution all the way to the ultimate conclusion.

I didn't flesh out the entirety, neither mechanically or narratively, of how that Skill Challenge would work and should be framed. But I could do so easily enough. It would just be a long post. I was just using that example as a perfect illustration of a climactic (boss) challenge within the exploration pillar. Within the scope of the movie it spans no more than a few days. I've had extended Exploration Skill Challenges last longer than a week before the mechanical framework, and the associated genre-relevant narrative, dictated that the conclusion was drawn. I wasn't sure how productive that would be as we are not talking about Skill Challenges here but a different mechanical framework that is being theorized. If you think it would be helpful, I could map out exactly how True Grit's Exploration Challenge would look within the mechanical framework of a Skill Challenge.

There are plenty of minor exploration challenges that are possible within a well done Exploration Challenge mechanical framework. But if they are so minor, so small, that there are really no stakes involved, then there is little need to use a complex mechanical framework to resolve it (just as non-complex combats do not need to be tactically played out on a grid).

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Actually, that is not what I did. Further, any combat (or any other challenge) could be reduced to "distillation down to <x> number of rolls", assuming (i) there are no stakes involved, (ii) there is no dynamism of interchange between players and environment (responses such as complications, threats, and imminent danger or setbacks) and (iii) no mechanical relevance (and narrative coherency) from step A resolution to step B resolution all the way to the ultimate conclusion.

I didn't flesh out the entirety, neither mechanically or narratively, of how that Skill Challenge would work and should be framed. But I could do so easily enough. It would just be a long post. I was just using that example as a perfect illustration of a climactic (boss) challenge within the exploration pillar. Within the scope of the movie it spans no more than a few days. I've had extended Exploration Skill Challenges last longer than a week before the mechanical framework, and the associated genre-relevant narrative, dictated that the conclusion was drawn. I wasn't sure how productive that would be as we are not talking about Skill Challenges here but a different mechanical framework that is being theorized. If you think it would be helpful, I could map out exactly how True Grit's Exploration Challenge would look within the mechanical framework of a Skill Challenge.

There are plenty of minor exploration challenges that are possible within a well done Exploration Challenge mechanical framework. But if they are so minor, so small, that there are really no stakes involved, then there is little need to use a complex mechanical framework to resolve it (just as non-complex combats do not need to be tactically played out on a grid).

Okay. It seems that we are arguing cross-purposes because we are not in semantic agreement about the phrase "Skill Challenge." I'm using the phrase to mean complex and simple skill checks, and you are seem to be using it to mean the mechanical structure where success or failure of an objective is determined by a number of X successes before Y failures.

I think a freeform adventure and encounter design system based off of X successes before Y failures would be a good thing to have in 5e, but I also think that it would be good to have other design systems of varying complexity available as well.

 

[Grimmjow]

perhaps there should be guide lines on how to ignore a die roll. Once when i was playing the 3rd play test me and my friend (the only two being PCs in the group) were almost killed after clearing out a cave of goblins. When we left the cave the goblin's hobgoblin masters showed up (or at least hobgoblins sent to check on the goblins). I tried to use my diplomacy skill to talk them into letting us go and rolled a big fat 3. The DM (my brother....of course) laughed but i asked for a chance to talk with them (if i rolled to talk to them, even if my dice rolled a 3 i should still get to say what i wanted to say). I offered them some money and told them to go back to their boss and tell them that the goblins are fine and doing as they have been told. Next time hobgoblins get sent to check on the goblins, it'll be their fault that they found dead goblins and not these ones. Apparently my brother doesn't think i'm a good negotiator because he just stared at my idea. The monsters made me give them more gold but they took the idea, even though i only rolled a three. If the DMG had rules that supported (or maybe guidelines would be a better word than rules) it would make explaining how your character explores the world just as important as how well you roll you dice.

Edit: plus this would help the DM out because now the player is describing what he is doing so the DM doesn't have too.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ultimatecalibur

Now we're on the same page.

 

[Ferghis]

This is my idea of what a Cliff Climb could be mechanically:

Why couldn't those who can fly or levitate just do so until they're at the top? How do they fail?

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Why couldn't those who can fly or levitate just do so until they're at the top? How do they fail?

The idea was to have the mechanical structure to cover fliers and levitators carrying more than just themselves. Do you think a Wizard or Psion should be able to levitate a horse up a cliff as easily as he levitates himself? Do you remember the scene of Luke trying to levitate his X-wing in The Empire Strikes back? I even remember several stories where a flier is overloaded and either barely makes or fails to reach his destination.

If spells like Fly and Levitate are setup to grant a set level of auto-success (similar to Knock's DC 20 spell/DC 15 ritual) or a skill bonus (say something like Int+5 to flight/levitation checks) then you have spells/rituals granting an advantage, but not one as overwhelming as always auto-success.