Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Into the Wild: New Unearthed Arcana Covers Wilderness Exploration
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7735322" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>So, I missed when the UA originally came out, so perhaps this was discussed elsewhere and I'm just missing it. </p><p></p><p>However, after reading this thread and this UA... what are people seeing in this that is leading to such a generally good response? </p><p></p><p>In terms of "things I'd like to see in the future" exploration and wilderness rules are definitely up there, but that isn't exactly what I'm seeing here. </p><p></p><p>The "rules" presented here are: </p><p>1) Choose a place to go -> Is this a step we really need to figure out, I mean, this is painfully obvious in a way</p><p>2) Roll Survival versus a DC -> Yes... this was already how it worked right? If there was going to be a roll to see if people got lost, it would be a survival roll, since survival is tracking and navigating in the wilderness. I guess having a more codified set of DC's is sort of helpful, but giving me a list of DCs a new set of rules does not make</p><p>3) Do the things in the PHB, with the added table of potentially being lost by 2d6 miles -> So... people who fail the check could get lost. Yes, this is a thing I already knew, sort of implied by the idea of failing the check involving finding the place you are going. </p><p></p><p>Then some of the rest of it is things like "You should determine what kinds of terrain are in an area" or "You should determine what kind of creatures and monsters are in the area" </p><p></p><p>Well, again, this sort of thing is a bit self-obvious isn't it? I don't think many DMs decide that there are "Dangerous and Dark woods" to the west and then never consider what it is that is inside them that makes them "dangerous" to the players.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So... where are the rule ideas here that everyone is liking? As far as I can tell, there is nothing here except a standardized DC chart and the idea of 2d6 miles of being lost. Even the idea of regional effects, while implemented in a cool way for those moon hills, isn't even something new. We've seen those sort of rules for planar locations and legendary monster effects, the hills are even explicitly connected to three different planes of existence, so a forest or set of hills without that influence wouldn't have them, and we have no idea on what kinds of regional effects would be appropriate. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I get it, if it is simply "I appreciate they are looking at rules for exploration, because that is an area under-explored by WoTC", but... couldn't we get some actual rules and guidelines?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7735322, member: 6801228"] So, I missed when the UA originally came out, so perhaps this was discussed elsewhere and I'm just missing it. However, after reading this thread and this UA... what are people seeing in this that is leading to such a generally good response? In terms of "things I'd like to see in the future" exploration and wilderness rules are definitely up there, but that isn't exactly what I'm seeing here. The "rules" presented here are: 1) Choose a place to go -> Is this a step we really need to figure out, I mean, this is painfully obvious in a way 2) Roll Survival versus a DC -> Yes... this was already how it worked right? If there was going to be a roll to see if people got lost, it would be a survival roll, since survival is tracking and navigating in the wilderness. I guess having a more codified set of DC's is sort of helpful, but giving me a list of DCs a new set of rules does not make 3) Do the things in the PHB, with the added table of potentially being lost by 2d6 miles -> So... people who fail the check could get lost. Yes, this is a thing I already knew, sort of implied by the idea of failing the check involving finding the place you are going. Then some of the rest of it is things like "You should determine what kinds of terrain are in an area" or "You should determine what kind of creatures and monsters are in the area" Well, again, this sort of thing is a bit self-obvious isn't it? I don't think many DMs decide that there are "Dangerous and Dark woods" to the west and then never consider what it is that is inside them that makes them "dangerous" to the players. So... where are the rule ideas here that everyone is liking? As far as I can tell, there is nothing here except a standardized DC chart and the idea of 2d6 miles of being lost. Even the idea of regional effects, while implemented in a cool way for those moon hills, isn't even something new. We've seen those sort of rules for planar locations and legendary monster effects, the hills are even explicitly connected to three different planes of existence, so a forest or set of hills without that influence wouldn't have them, and we have no idea on what kinds of regional effects would be appropriate. I get it, if it is simply "I appreciate they are looking at rules for exploration, because that is an area under-explored by WoTC", but... couldn't we get some actual rules and guidelines? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Into the Wild: New Unearthed Arcana Covers Wilderness Exploration
Top