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

[Warbringer]

Do you remember the scene of Luke trying to levitate his X-wing .....

Do or do not. There is no try.

Couldn't resist ..

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I think this is part of what 5e plans to set up with talks about how what a skill check can do and what a spell can do are being compared. It'll be really useful for exploration rules if magic doesn't necessarily invalidate them.

 

[Derren]

People talk about how specific spells solve specific situation but imo you all forget that there is more to exploration than crossing chasms on a more basic level.
Interestingly older editions already had rules for those basic exploration challenges, but they were ignored by most people.

What I am talking about is food&water (granted, also solved by spells in previous editions and rather easy skill checks), other supplies (arrows, spell components), encumbrance, weather, fatigue, difficult terrain and exposure.

3E for example had rules for most, if not all of that. But how many people actually used them instead of ignoring them? Yet those things are what makes exploration challenging and not scaling a cliff which happens once a year at best.
And if those things are not ignored then I am ok with spells solving some of those issues automatically if there is no separation between utility and combat spells. Because then the players have to decide how many of their limited spell slots they devote to solve the problems they face during exploration and how many they safe for other things and instead use more mudane means.

I would want that those things are the primary challenges of exploration and not having a cliff or ravine every 10 miles.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

People talk about how specific spells solve specific situation but imo you all forget that there is more to exploration than crossing chasms on a more basic level.
Interestingly older editions already had rules for those basic exploration challenges, but they were ignored by most people.

What I am talking about is food&water (granted, also solved by spells in previous editions and rather easy skill checks), other supplies (arrows, spell components), encumbrance, weather, fatigue, difficult terrain and exposure.

Many groups (but not all) did not track food, water, arrows, spell components and other supplies because they found tracking them annoying and fiddly and that they got in the way of the fun parts of D&D. Many DM just handwaved them away in order to get to the dungeon or combat faster.

1e, 2e and 3e were pretty good about having rules for encumbrance, weather, fatigue, difficult terrain and exposure, but they had poor to nonexistent structure for those rules. They had rules for getting lost and storms, but no rules for relative difficulty which make using them and properly rewarding players difficult.

3E for example had rules for most, if not all of that. But how many people actually used them instead of ignoring them? Yet those things are what makes exploration challenging and not scaling a cliff which happens once a year at best.

How many times a year do parties fight Ancient Red Dragons or Demon Lords? Cliff Climbs and Ravine Crossings are the exploration equivalent of those iconic encounters.

And if those things are not ignored then I am ok with spells solving some of those issues automatically if there is no separation between utility and combat spells. Because then the players have to decide how many of their limited spell slots they devote to solve the problems they face during exploration and how many they safe for other things and instead use more mudane means.

Ratio between the frequency of appearance of the problem that the spell solves and the availability of that spell is actually where that problem lies not in the lack of use of those problems. The Knock spell was problematic because of easy access to scrolls(75 to 150 gp per lock bypassed) and wands(45 to 90 gp per lock bypassed; bought in 50 use sets).

I would want that those things are the primary challenges of exploration and not having a cliff or ravine every 10 miles.

Those rules are great for an overland trek, but less useful for city, dungeon, or building exploration.The rules need to be able to cover overland, city, dungeon and room level exploration.

 

[Derren]

Many groups (but not all) did not track food, water, arrows, spell components and other supplies because they found tracking them annoying and fiddly and that they got in the way of the fun parts of D&D. Many DM just handwaved them away in order to get to the dungeon or combat faster.

Which is rather perplexing.
People ignored exploration in the past but now want more exploration content?

How many times a year do parties fight Ancient Red Dragons or Demon Lords? Cliff Climbs and Ravine Crossings are the exploration equivalent of those iconic encounters.

And like ancient dragons such things only make up a tiny bit of the content of a typical campaign. But imo exploration should not follow an encounter design like combat. Exploration on its most basic level is getting from A to B and you do not know exactly where (or what) B is and how the way there looks like. The dangers you face during exploration need to be constant (see above) and not limited to an encounter with a defined start and finish.

Ratio between the frequency of appearance of the problem that the spell solves and the availability of that spell is actually where that problem lies not in the lack of use of those problems. The Knock spell was problematic because of easy access to scrolls(75 to 150 gp per lock bypassed) and wands(45 to 90 gp per lock bypassed; bought in 50 use sets).

So the wizard spending actual resources on something is worse than a thief rolling a skill check?
Just stop with the MMO design where gold is available in unlimited quantities for miscellaneous spending and you are guaranteed to get equipment upgrades and apply some basic economy where PCs cant instantly buy everything everywhere and the wizard blowing money to open locks actually becomes a strategic decision.

Those rules are great for an overland trek, but less useful for city, dungeon, or building exploration.The rules need to be able to cover overland, city, dungeon and room level exploration.

In all of those environments you have the same problems. How to find shelter, how to find food and water, how to carry around your possessions safely, how to deal with the locals, etc.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Which is rather perplexing.
People ignored exploration in the past but now want more exploration content?

They want a different type of exploration content. They don't want to track food, drink, arrows and spell components; they want to climb mighty cliffs, cross raging rivers, find secret passages in ancient ruins, uncover hidden treasure rooms, infiltrate the royal palace, rappel into the volcanic lair of an ancient red dragon and thousands of other amazing things.

And like ancient dragons such things only make up a tiny bit of the content of a typical campaign. But imo exploration should not follow an encounter design like combat. Exploration on its most basic level is getting from A to B and you do not know exactly where (or what) B is and how the way there looks like. The dangers you face during exploration need to be constant (see above) and not limited to an encounter with a defined start and finish.

What you are describing is traveling and not all dangers need to be constant while you are doing that. The dangers and obstacles when crossing open plains are different from those of crossing a swamp which are different from those encountered when climbing over a mountain.

So the wizard spending actual resources on something is worse than a thief rolling a skill check?

It depends on how much those resources the wizard spent were worth, and the fact that cheap resources can often make whole classes worthless. In 3.X a 5th level Wizard could craft a Wand of Knock for 2,250 gold(easily covered by a 5th level character's assumed wealth by level of 10,500 gp, and easily split amongst a party of 5) and 180 xp(easily recoup by the way the xp system worked). That right there could potentially cover one of a Rogue's primary duties for an entire campaign.

Just stop with the MMO design where gold is available in unlimited quantities for miscellaneous spending and you are guaranteed to get equipment upgrades and apply some basic economy where PCs cant instantly buy everything everywhere and the wizard blowing money to open locks actually becomes a strategic decision.

Actually I'm bringing up problems others had with 3.X, and that many do not want to see return.

In all of those environments you have the same problems. How to find shelter, how to find food and water, how to carry around your possessions safely, how to deal with the locals, etc.

Not really. Dealing with locals is more Social or Combat pillar than Exploration, you may already have shelter, food and a water supply if you are exploring a city you already reside in, food and water might only become a factor in exploring dungeons if the time spent exploring becomes overly extensive, and food, water and shelter shouldn't even be a factor when exploring a room.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Derren

What you are talking about are a collection of disconnected resources (that require granular tracking) that function as an element of attrition and "challenge PCs ability to adventure/explore". You are not talking about an "exploration challenge mechanical framework". Creating a unified ruleset that easily captures the ablation of those resources would be helpful to an "Exploration Challenge Mechanical Framework" as it can be synced. However, as they are, their disconnectedness, their lack of unification of mechanics (and thus easy, seemless handling that doesn't stunt the flow of play) and their lack of syncing with a larger * "Exploration Challenge Mechanical Framework" means (for many) they are little more than a sailing ship without a mast, adrift at sea and no port in a storm.

* "Exploration Challenge Mechanical Framework"

- which clearly outlines stakes
- contains a clearly dileneated track toward the resolution of the challenge
- potentially contains a unified resource (like HPs or HDs or Healing Surges) ablation
- conditions for success/failure/complication
- and mechanical consequences for each.

If you're not interested in this sort of thing, great. No problem. You need not use the module. But what KM is proposing in the lead post is such a mechanical framework. Many would appreciate it and use it as it scratches a particular itch (one that either you may not have or you sufficiently scratch it through other means).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

During my brief tenure as a DM for 4E, I tried a couple of alternative skill challenge frameworks:

The Markov Chain (or disease track)

The skill challenge has a goal that must be reached in a certain number of steps. Imagine a staircase: a success advances the group up one step towards the goal, a narrow failure leaves them on the same step and a bad failure pushes them back down again. The challenge might go on indefinitely, so it can be worth introducing a limit on how many total checks can be made before your progress is assessed. It's possible to have 'save steps' at which your progress cannot get any worse, 'hazard steps' which trigger a combat or other complication upon reaching them, indeed the path can even split into separate staircases, requiring the party to decide which way they ought to channel their resources.
A simple example might be obtaining permission to speak with the king. Let's say there are four steps, and the party starts at step two: they are in the capital city. To advance to the next step, they have to decide how they might find a contact who could arrange for them to speak with the king, a noble or magistrate for instance. A success or use of some background ability reveals this contact, so they reach step three, a slight failure and they have wasted time/resources or annoyed a noble, a bad failure and they are thrown out of the city on some minor charge. Step three to four is likely doing a favour for this contact - the DM could get very creative here, as it might involve a fight or payment or subquest. Should they succeed, they reach the king, should the horrible failure occur then that particular contact can no longer help them, or doesn't want to.
These challenges play out ad-hoc, in that the nature of each step changes as the players determine the fiction, though they can be run strictly according to the DM's wishes, such that links between steps can only be traversed with particular skills or on the performance of particular subquests.

The Clock is Ticking

This isn't that far different from the above or the classic skill challenge. I use this when there are multiple things that need to be achieved in parallel, particularly as it involves the whole party working together. There are a number of tasks, each one requiring a number of successes to complete, and a total number of available rounds (not combat-length rounds) to achieve as much as possible. On a player's turn they pick a task, suggest something that might help to achieve that task and spend a resource or make a check. I would generally disallow the use of the same skill twice on a given task, even for different players, and sometimes once a player was locked into a task it had to be seen through to the end. If you've played the boardgame 'Shadows Over Camelot' it was a bit like that - multiple tasks, players throwing things at them, bad stuff trying to stop them.
A simple example might be a town fire: there are babies to be rescued, important buildings to save from the fire, looting to be had (if you want) and so on.
Again, these were adjudicated fairly ad-hoc, with only the tasks decided in advance, but you could codify them very stricly as a DM if you desired.

Now, I think these frameworks are quite broad, but they don't really suit the Oregon Trail style that I think the OP was looking for. That's achievable, provided you have rules for hazards, weather systems and so on - I think the Markov Chain style can be suited to this, with major landmarks representing locked-in steps, weather, terrain and skills determining progress, time and rations as your resources. Bear in mind that ultimately, the only long-term resources you can hit a party with as punishment are XP (which you can reduce based on time taken to complete a task), time (which is only relevant if the story says so) and physical possessions, such as GP. HP, HD, spells, they can all be recovered with time, which again, is only sometimes relevant.

Also be wary, the mention of how cool a Rogue ought to be at getting around combats to achieve goals: combats involve the whole party, for the most part, even Rogues. Rogues sneaking off and thieving involves nobody else, indeed it often can't involve anyone else due to the nature of the task, and it's difficult to balance Rogue time with rest of the party time unless what they achieve is only part of a bigger scheme.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Many groups (but not all) did not track food, water, arrows, spell components and other supplies because they found tracking them annoying and fiddly and that they got in the way of the fun parts of D&D. Many DM just handwaved them away in order to get to the dungeon or combat faster.

1e, 2e and 3e were pretty good about having rules for encumbrance, weather, fatigue, difficult terrain and exposure, but they had poor to nonexistent structure for those rules. They had rules for getting lost and storms, but no rules for relative difficulty which make using them and properly rewarding players difficult.

I think that better rules can go a long way toward helping this. It's something I think a lot of people avoided because the rules were too fiddly (EVERY POUND OF ENCUMBRANCE, EVERY MEAL OF RATIONS, EVERY ARROW, EVERY BOOT!), rather than out of a lack of interest.

If we can gently abstract some of that to a level that is more focused on the fun part of the exploration (namely, the thrill of discovery and the risk of death), I think we might see a lot of people using those rules.

 

[chaochou]

If we can gently abstract some of that to a level that is more focused on the fun part of the exploration (namely, the thrill of discovery and the risk of death), I think we might see a lot of people using those rules.

Here's a very Herowars way of running what it calls an 'extended conflict':

Frame the goals of the group and the obstacle stopping them. Nominate a leader from the group to pick a primary skill to defeat the obstacle. Give the group poker chips equal to that skill.

Give the obstacle a difficulty (and this many chips) and some skills. These skills can be abstract.

Each 'round' one member of the group can say what they are doing to try to achieve their goal. They bid a number of their groups chips to do that. If they do something very safe its a small bid. If they do something risky its a large bid. Roll off against each other using an appropriate skill on either side. Winner loses chips equal to the bid.

Then the obstacle gets to do something, bid chips and theres another roll off. Group and obstacle alternate until someone runs out of chips.

So the party wants to get from A to B across 50 miles of rough terrain. The rough terrain can have Difficulty 12 and Skills like: Deprive People of Food 12, Cause Exhaustion 9, Pack of Wolves 7, Go Round in Circles 10, Dense Fog 6.

Admittedly, getting from A to B isn't very interesting. There's not much at stake. But if you have stakes like 'Get from A to B before the Coronation', now you've got an abstract conflict system which tells you how that succeeds or fails.

Note that the pack of wolves don't fight the party in combat rounds. You don't drop down into combat. The GM can say 'You're stalked by wolves' and bid 2 or 'You're attacked by wolves' and bid 6. Either way it's a simple roll between Pack of Wolves (+7) vs a player skill (say to hit +9) to produce an outcome.

What I don't know in this method is how D&D magic fits in (magic in HW being very different). I suspect at low levels it would be fine, but higher up the power of D&D spells to simply rewrite the situation becomes too powerful to cope with, even in an abstract way.