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

[chaochou]

A couple more thoughts.

Firstly, I think skills either have to be more granular, or broad skills have to combine in interesting ways.

For example, sneaking through woodland can either be its own thing (say 'hunting') or you could have a mechanic where a skill is capped by another skill. So sneaking in woodland is Sneak, but capped by Nature.

You could have a mechanic where a skill is enhanced (or not) by another skill - although I think advantage manages this quite well. So you could risk throwing a stone with a thrown weapon skill to distract a guard to get advantage on sneak (or disadvantage if you fail and simply put him on alert).

If you combine those mechanics... Well, a ranger trying to sneak past a goblin lookout is likely to have the sneak and nature to do it. Whereas an urban rogue is more likely to need to risk the distraction. Those differences are what create characters, for me.

Second, I think it's important that the rules emphasise interesting consequences for failure. Failing forward. This was supposed to be a property of skill challenges. So a failed sneak past the goblin doesn't necessarily proceed inevitably into 'raised alarm and combat'.

Whether its SCs or something else, once GMs are empowered to interpret rolls broadly rather than narrowly, and in interesting ways rather than predictable ones, players are more free to explore and take risks - less constrained by not having the exact skills for the situation. If that failed sneak roll might mean tumbing into an old mineshaft the cleric is more likely to try it. Failure is great - a new thing to explore.

 

[jrowland]

There is another aspect to Exploration beyond the "skill challenge", and that is the Star Trek model of Boldly going where no one has gone before.

Exploring the setting is another way to explore. What are the cultures, races, politics, etc. What sorts of peoples/creature live over the mountains? What is inside that ruined castle? Whats behind the giant door with the forbiddance spell cast on it? What are the intrigues of Menzoboranzan, etc.

Exploration, in a classic D&D sense, is sprawling labyrinth dungeons as opposed to 3-encounter Delve format set-pieces.

I think 5E will go the way of simple ability checks adjucated by the DM...I think exploration will be "supported" by stepping back on the crunch and offering guidance on the narrative. I could be wrong, of course. But foraging for food will be a wis check if you are into that sort of thing and thats about all we'll hear.

While "cool" (I use quotes, because I am old school...anything D&D is defined as not cool) the stuff discussed by KM and others is not something I think we'll see in Core nor as a module...perhaps near the mid to end of 5E lifecycle a "Wilderness survival guide" will appear, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Balesir]

"Supplies" could be more specific, but lets just put it in GP terms. 5 gp buys you "daily supplies," which include clothes, tents, bedrolls, tinder, firewood, food, drink, cloaks, whatever repairs you need done, etc. Each "Daily Supply" has some sort of encumbrance rating so that maybe an average character can only carry 1-5 Daily Supplies on them at any one time (encouraging the use of donkeyhorses and draft animals and hirelings! Perhaps your Encumbrance threshold is 1 + STR bonus?). Optionally, you could drill down to more detail, but it isn't necessary: "Daily Supply" carries all your abstract food, drink, and camping needs.

I really like the ideas here - especially the 1+StrBonus for encumbrance. Daily supplies has been done (4E Dark Sun - I use it more widely that DS, though!), but encumbrance is long overdue an overhaul to make it something you don't just want to handwave with a HHH as soon as possible...

So on a well-trod path, the party moves 24 miles in a day, and spends 5 gp per character on upkeep (gotta buy it before you set out, obvs), as a baseline

Here, though, I think you're missing out another area that can be simplified. The whole "miles per day" thing is traditional, but for streamlined play there are other options that I like better. The way that some strategy games handle this is to divide the map into "areas" that take one "turn" (8 game hours?) to cross in any direction. The shape of the area is a function of the terrain: for example, a n area with a major road in it would be long and thin - if you traverse it along the road, you travel a long way in a single turn, but if you cross it from side to side it doesn't help you much (other than maybe letting you know where you are). Likewise, hill ridges are a bit longer along the ridgeline so that crossing from one side to the other is slower than running along the tops (or even along the lower slopes on either side).

Some sorts of terrain have particular effects, too. Plains, for example, might allow mounted parties to move two areas per turn, rather than one. Thick woods or jungle might require a skill roll to move out of. Rivers might be impassable unless you have (or build) a boat - but they are long and thin, so if you do have a boat they allow fast movement.

Lots of things are easy to set up in a clear, simple and unambiguous way with this sort of system. Pinch-points/bottlenecks, trade routes, defensive vulnerabilities, trackless wastes. I really think a roleplaying system that uses this sort of idea is a missing opportunity, to date.

The interesting part comes when the DM rolls for a "random encounter" (or just picks one they had pre-planned). The exact method of generating these is open to a lot of flexibility (how many times do you roll? How random is it? What % is dangerous, what % is just annoying? do you even bother to roll "peaceful" encounters?), but the idea would be that whenever you move through difficult or dangerous territory, there's a chance of getting involved in something dangerous or difficult. It might be a raging river, it might be a bridge out, it might be angry orcs, it might be a ruined temple to Asmodeus, it might be an eerie song drifting through the twilight forest...whatever.

I have been thinking for a while around this in 4E. I think what would really be neat is some sort of system for combining a skill challenge-type-thing with an encounter. Maybe a combat or physical challenge (climb the waterfall, etc.) that a skill challenge can avoid, and either way the characters get 50% (or whatever) XP. If you avoid the fight - good for you, you got "free" xp! If you didn't - oh, well, a (probably fairly easy) fight and resource loss for not much gain. Maybe time to spruce up those skills?

I think the "area" movement methodology I outlined above might help, here, too. It makes the wilderness a bit more like "dungeon rooms" from the DM perspective. Maybe the road between here and Suzail is the quickest way, but if the Bad Guy is going to lay an ambush to stop us, which area will that be in? Meanwhile, all the off-piste woodland areas, as well as being small (= slow going), have a 1/6 chance of one of those 50% XP SC-to-avoid encounters...

In each of those encounters, there's at least a chance of getting a Complication. A complication might be an injury (head wound! broken leg! disease!),

In the context of DDN (or even 4E, for that matter), I think there's scope for a really nice "gritty statuses" module, there.

or it could be a loss of resources (Your pack mule gets swept away in the rapids! All the days of supply you have on that critter are gone!), or both.

I think this can work pretty well with 4E's concepts of "hazardous terrain" that makes attacks against creatures passing through and "hireling minions" where the pack mule might be a minion that is "dead" (i.e. swept away) on a hit.

For example, sneaking through woodland can either be its own thing (say 'hunting') or you could have a mechanic where a skill is capped by another skill. So sneaking in woodland is Sneak, but capped by Nature.

Funnily enough, I was thinking the other day about how "skill" is often manifest in "perception" - basically, someone trained and experienced in a skill will "see" a situation or problem very much differently than someone without the skill. I was thinking that this should be a specific benefit of having training in a skill (as opposed to just having a big bonus). Uses for this might be giving players whose characters are trained information on the DCs involved, for example.

I think a similar thing might apply here, since the difference between being stealthy in nature and being stealthy in town revolves largely around seeing the environment in a way that makes it clear what elements are your friends and which your foes as you try to sneak. Maybe just say that characters who lack training in the appropriate environment take a penalty to sneak - or suffer disadvantage, perhaps? That way, the urban thief will still want the distraction in the woods in order to cancel out the disadvantage they are already suffering.

I think 5E will go the way of simple ability checks adjucated by the DM...I think exploration will be "supported" by stepping back on the crunch and offering guidance on the narrative. I could be wrong, of course. But foraging for food will be a wis check if you are into that sort of thing and thats about all we'll hear.

That may be so, but we can dream, can't we?

Besides - if WotC don't do it, perhaps somebody will - there seems to be some interest, after all.

 

[Zustiur]

A complication might be an injury (head wound! broken leg! disease!)

I like where you're going with this method in general, and am taking notes. The quoted text is the one bit I have an issue with.
Head Wound and Broken Leg both say 'Hit Point loss' to me. DnD has never modeled specific injury, and I don't think this is a good time or place to introduce it.
That said, I would happily include 'hobbled' and similar conditions which reduce your daily travel rate.

I love the supplies idea by the way. Even without an overhaul of encumbrance, "1 day's supplies" with a suitable weight is a very useful tool. Its initial characteristics could be worked out based on real-world equivalents, then rolled back into a simple in-game construct. e.g. weight = 4 pints water + 2-3 lbs food + tinder + whatever other perishable/consumable stuff you may need in a day.

Work that out, and then roll it backwards.
Consumable Supplies (1 day) 1 GP, 8 lbs.
"Consumable supplies consist of enough dried foods, water, bread, cheese, .... .... to last an average person one day. It does not include non-consumable things such as pots, pans, blankets etc"

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think 5E will go the way of simple ability checks adjucated by the DM

I think that'll be the default. It's the easiest and least hassle. I think it their promise of modularity is delivered on though, it won't be the only way.

The way that some strategy games handle this is to divide the map into "areas" that take one "turn" (8 game hours?) to cross in any direction.

That's specifically why I chose "1 day's march," actually! An 8 hour march could be thought of as "1 hex" or somesuch, and you can give distances in "days," and place inns on well-traveled roads within days of each other...get a real sense of your world.

Personally, I wouldn't bother accounting for the exact mileage, but it's there to point out what the literal distance would be. And terrains and direction of travel can and should affect what rate the party travels.

What I think is an interesting feature is that this makes that travel rate relevant: the more days you spend out in the wilderness, the more likely something is going to happen to you that you can't fix. Do you want to take the road and risk the bandits, or do you want to go around, spend an extra day, and risk whatever's hiding in the woods?

It's also interesting because, presumably, NPC's would have to deal with similar restrictions. It really gives weight to why the world would be "points of light in the darkness:" the darkness will kill you.

Head Wound and Broken Leg both say 'Hit Point loss' to me. DnD has never modeled specific injury, and I don't think this is a good time or place to introduce it.

Yeah, I get that. What we run up against is the "mostly non-physical HPs" of 4e and what so far we've seen of them in 5e. By the book in 5e, you don't even take much of a wound until the hit that drops you to 0 hp. And we also run up against how HP is healed with a rest of 1 night -- a severe wound probably shouldn't go away that fast! It also makes these things ignorable: "Oh, 10 damage. I sleep. Fixed."

I think there's a bit of a way we can still use HP: if wounds reduce your maximum HP, it keeps you "weak" (it's like you always have 10 damage!), and it provides for dying at 0 hp (if your maximum HP is reduced to 0...), while even controlling for the "cleric heals everything" problem (cure light wounds can't heal you above your max!). And it's something that can go away slowly.

So a reduction in maximum HP, plus maybe some ongoing condition (a leg wound reduces your speed, an arm wound gives you penalties on attacks, etc.) might work OK. Keeps the "these injuries are from my HP pool" feel without encountering the "I sleep it off/Bill the cleric casts a spell" easy fix.

Consumable Supplies (1 day) 1 GP, 8 lbs.
"Consumable supplies consist of enough dried foods, water, bread, cheese, .... .... to last an average person one day. It does not include non-consumable things such as pots, pans, blankets etc"

Yeah! The reason I included things like tents and blankets and shoes in the supplies above is to help model equipment damage, wear and tear, and the cost of upkeep, without getting overly specific about it. It also lets me include some exposure / damaged equipment problems in the complications column: "Your tent blew away in the wind! You lose 1d4 days of supplies." or "Your boots sprung a leak and now you've got a foot fungus. You move at half speed!"

 

[Ferghis]

Consumable Supplies (1 day) 1 GP, 8 lbs.
"Consumable supplies consist of enough dried foods, water, bread, cheese, .... .... to last an average person one day. It does not include non-consumable things such as pots, pans, blankets etc"

Yeah! The reason I included things like tents and blankets and shoes in the supplies above is to help model equipment damage, wear and tear, and the cost of upkeep, without getting overly specific about it. It also lets me include some exposure / damaged equipment problems in the complications column: "Your tent blew away in the wind! You lose 1d4 days of supplies." or "Your boots sprung a leak and now you've got a foot fungus. You move at half speed!"

I love this idea, and I loathe to admit that I'm with Kamikaze Midget (that's quite a troubling moniker you have there). I would include more types of items in the "supplies" and allow the party to use up supplies to keep them going. It might also include hunting and fishing supplies, tools to patch shoes and tents, whetstones to sharpen weapons, and so on. Successful checks minimize use of supplies. Failures can wipe out a lot of supplies. A good ranger should be able to adequately estimate the amount of supplies necessary for any given journey. This would become a sort of long-term HP pool for the party.

My question becomes, when it runs out, what penalties apply? I imagine when you're out of supplies, most skill checks are at a penalty. You're not maintaining equipment, so perhaps armor protects a bit less, and weapons take a -1 to damage. Ritual components start to expire. Travel speed decreases. Not to mention starvation and dehydration.

 

[GnomeWorks]

While I like the "supplies/day" concept, it feels insufficiently granular.

I would like some kind of attempt to distinguish between things like food and repair supplies. You can gather more food, but you can't necessarily manufacture new iron nails out on the road. Representing both of those concepts with one overarching number seems to ignore that separation.

I could see supplies being divided into a few subgroups, with perhaps a mechanic or two to distinguish them. Food and water, for instance, can spoil or go bad - perhaps there's a chance every now and then for 1d4 days' worth of food supplies to go bad. Repair supplies don't go bad, but you can't readily gather them out in the wilderness, so if you run out, you're out.

This kind of starts undoing the simplicity and elegance of the "supplies/day" concept, but I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of simplicity for significantly more granularity and higher points of contact with what's going on in-game.

 

[Balesir]

I love this idea, and I loathe to admit that I'm with Kamikaze Midget (that's quite a troubling moniker you have there).

Now you just need a T-shirt

I would include more types of items in the "supplies" and allow the party to use up supplies to keep them going. It might also include hunting and fishing supplies, tools to patch shoes and tents, whetstones to sharpen weapons, and so on. Successful checks minimize use of supplies. Failures can wipe out a lot of supplies. A good ranger should be able to adequately estimate the amount of supplies necessary for any given journey.

Hmm - maybe some "easy mode" supplies can just be used automatically, while some need a success on a skill (or just training and a roll to see how many can be used?) but weigh less and cost less?

With the map divided into areas, you can hand out "poetic maps" that just show the landscape willy-nilly, but those who actually know the territory get the area boundaries drawn on. That should enable ranger players to make the relevant risk-cost-benefit decisions for themselves, maybe.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think combat in D&D is pure genius. Despite its inherent simplicity, or maybe thanks to, combat is fun, engaging and exciting. -And has been so for forty years.

A good skill challenge could very well follow the same formula. But instead of reducing a monster to 0 hp you try to rack up a preset number of progress points.

A challenge is of course risky and does something bad to those who participate until resolved. A snow storm might inflict 1d3 points of frostbite until weathered. A villain might travel to the next village and carry out a dastardly deed.

Now, what can we use to gain those progression points? In combat we use weapons. Naturally we should use tools in a skill challenge. Since a lot of situations call for no tool at all we need to back up the system with something else. I suggest level, gold and/or class abilities. (Rangers could be good at surving storms for instance.) Also we have an inbuilt DM in the game that can make a call, if given a graspable scale.

So in essence we could describe the snow storm above thusly:

Snow storm. 40 pp. Everybody takes 1d3 points of frost damage every round. A common blanket could be used for 1d3 points of progress, or a put down tauntaun could be used for 1d12 points.

Villain inciting rebellion. 100 pp. Each round one more village joins the villain's cause.

If the PCs try to chase down the villain before he can rally the villagers to his cause they need to track him, talk to witnesses, think hard about where he is heading next, and whatnot.

Its worth noting that spells can be used in combat to kill monsters and they can be used in challenges in the same way as tools.

Virtually any situation (or monster) can be assigned a number that must be whittled away or piled up to represent something happening.

We all know in our bones that a club does 1d6 damage. Basically a hammer makes 1d6 points of wooden structure. If a raft requires 25 points we can easily appreciate how much work building a raft is.

Enough rambling. I just like to point out that hit points has served us well and could be put to good use in the skills department too.

 

[I'm A Banana]

While I like the "supplies/day" concept, it feels insufficiently granular.

I would like some kind of attempt to distinguish between things like food and repair supplies. You can gather more food, but you can't necessarily manufacture new iron nails out on the road. Representing both of those concepts with one overarching number seems to ignore that separation.

I can understand that. For myself, I was thinking that while you might not be able to scrounge iron nails out of the wilderness, a druid or ranger or rogue might be able to "jury-rig" some natural elements to make do. So your boots might spring a leak, but then the ranger kills and skins a few rabbits and peels some bark makes some makeshift slippers out of the hides. Your cart might collapse, but some strong vine and some melted beeswax might keep it together until you get to town. And once you're back in town, the price for your next "daily supply" package takes that into account (part of the 5 gp is getting rid of those gross rabbit-things and getting yourself some new shoes!).

What might work is maybe a dial you can turn: as a PC, you can buy a "Complete Supplies (1 day)" for 5 gp that is everything, or a "Food & Drink" supply that's 3 gp and a "Tools & Goods" supply that's 2 gp (or whatever) and call it good. It might be a little tricky to get the encumbrance right to accommodate the scale, but I think it's doable.

Or you can turn that dial even further and go back to specific items and poundage, if you want, too.

My question becomes, when it runs out, what penalties apply?

That could be its own complication:

Starvation, Dehydration, and Exposure
When you run out of supplies, you suffer from this complication. It is a combination of running out of food, running out of water, and being exposed to the environment.
Initial Effect: Your maximum HP decreases by 2d6 each time you take an extended rest, and you have disadvantage on all d20 rolls.
Stave It Off DC 13: You do not lose HP for this day, but you retain this complication. For every 5 points you beat this DC by, you can protect one extra person.
Recovery DC 16: Remove this complication, and restore any lost points of max HP this complication removed.

...or something.

I imagine other complications being like:

Grievous Wound
When you are knocked to 0 hp in combat, take a crit, or when you suffer some physical disaster, you may gain this complication. It represents some severe wound in you, such as a broken leg, a shattered arm, or a deep, gangrenous gouge. You can acquire this complication more than once, and its effects stack.
Initial Effect: Your maximum HP is reduced by 1d12. Each time you take an extended rest with this complication, your maximum HP is reduced by 3. You have disadvantage on all Dexterity and Strength checks (including attack rolls). You move at half speed.
Recover DC 14: Remove this complication, and remove all caps it has put on your maximum HP.

Hypothetically, you could drill down and separate out those effects, if you want more specificity (ie: Starvation is different than Thirst is different than Exposure; each limb could have its own Grievous Wound, etc.).

Another random off-the-cuff example:

Virulent Disease
When you are exposed to toxins, bitten by plague-ridden creatures, or eating bad meat, or not cleaning your wounds properly, you may get this complication.
Initial Effect: Your maximum HP is reduced by 1d4, and you have disadvantage on all d20 rolls. Each time you take an extended rest with this complication, your maximum HP is reduced by an additional 1d4, and each ally resting with you must make a Constitution save or gain this complication, too.
Stave It Off DC 13: You do not lose maximum HP during this extended rest. You still have this complication, and its other effects still happen.
Recover DC 15: Remove this complication, and remove all caps it has put on your maximum HP.