Legends & Lore: A Few Rules Updates

[Mistwell]

Sure and now that we are done critiquing each others grammar and word usage, how about we talk about the actual issue.

Many people, like me, don't like the idea of an infinite number of random monsters wandering around with no rhyme or reason.

That's not how wandering monsters work. Did you never play any TSR-era version of the game, or any TSR-era module?

Others like it so it should be an option, but they should explain that it might come off as unrealistic and not make a lot of sense if you have an unlimited number of random monsters coming out of nowhere. That way DMs can still use it and even know its pitfalls.

No really, your understanding of how it works if flawed, and it's entirely realistic. Indeed, in my opinion it's far more realistic than static monsters that do not wander.

Then they can put in a section about the chance of a party coming across a patrol based on density of patrols and size of the patrolled area, and explain how to make it realistic...

That's how it's done. It's a finite list, they belong in that area, the odds of encountering them on patrol are given for that area, etc..

See, it's not infinite, except for Jester's unique "trap" sort of concept (which was never used, to my knowledge, in any module for D&D ever), It's a finite list, that are part of that particular dungeon or region of wilderness or urban area. Those are the creatures you might find wandering around, and if they happen to not be wandering they can be found at a particular location. Wandering monsters are not actually infinite, they don't just pop into existence, they're a set part of an environment that is emulating the fact that guards and such move around rather than always staying in one place.

 

[thewok]

The weird feeling is due to the characters being passive, while the "environment" (or long dead trap builder ) is active.

"Passive" is actually not a great term for it. Perception itself is somewhat passive anyway. More active examinations would be Search. Think of the Passive Perception as the baseline. Then, monsters and traps will roll against that DC in order to determine if they've hidden (or were hidden, in the case of traps) well enough.

In my games, passive perception is the "Always on until you tell me otherwise" stat. Players can, of course, decide to make more active Perception checks (say, by looking more closely at those flowers to see if they're poisonous, looking up to see if Darkmantles are above them, trying to see if that chest has a strange sheen to it that might be a mimic's "glue," etc.), but they run the risk of focusing on the wrong thing at an inopportune time (i.e. failing their roll).

Re: Speed changes, I'm all for them. Speed is pretty much just combat speed, anyway. As I said on the WotC forum, when combats last a very short amount of time (usually less than 30 seconds, almost always less than a minute), then it makes sense that a Small race can keep stride with a Medium race. In fact, we already have this phenomenon with a creature's space, as both Small and Medium take up a five-foot square in combat. The Medium guy might move less to cover all the angles, but that also means that the Small race has to be able to move quickly around in that fighting area. When speed really matters is when moving overland, or in sprinting. Generally, a Medium race should carry a higher multiplier for running than a Small race has. A gnome could keep pace with a half-orc in combat, but over an entire day, the gnome's not going to be able to keep up that speed.

 

[Rygar]

No she walks faster then anyone else in my family, she runs regularly witch means we need to yell fir her to stop and wait. She is faster then me even though i have longer legs... what part of thi sdo you not get?


When all else is equal size matters, so all you need to say is all else isnt equual....

The part where you accurately describe what she's doing as "Running" or what you're doing as walking very slowly. This is just math. If it takes you X steps to reach point p, and it takes her 2X steps to reach point p because her stride is shorter, then her velocity to reach point p at the same time or earlier than you has to be substantially higher than her standard velocity. When each of you are taking steps at the same rate per second, you will arrive at point p before she does, because she is slower.

We should be able to put this in a calculus equation and take the first and second derivatives if you'd like. All we need is the length of your legs and hers to figure out what the difference in X is.

Since we can easily define it in a equation, it's pretty much inarguable that smaller creatures move slower than larger creatures, and the only way for them to arrive at the same point at the same moment in time is for the smaller creature to increase it's velocity.

 

[SkidAce]

Bleh. Not for me. Things roll when they do something not when they just sit there takin' up space.

First house rule territory! Not that I'm that surprised. D&D hasn't ever done stealth/perception/vision/surprise in a satisfying way for me.

Look at it like the stealthiness of the trap was established (i.e. rolled) when it was constructed/built. The

 

[Lokiare]

That's not how wandering monsters work. Did you never play any TSR-era version of the game, or any TSR-era module?



No really, your understanding of how it works if flawed, and it's entirely realistic. Indeed, in my opinion it's far more realistic than static monsters that do not wander.



That's how it's done. It's a finite list, they belong in that area, the odds of encountering them on patrol are given for that area, etc..

See, it's not infinite, except for Jester's unique "trap" sort of concept (which was never used, to my knowledge, in any module for D&D ever), It's a finite list, that are part of that particular dungeon or region of wilderness or urban area. Those are the creatures you might find wandering around, and if they happen to not be wandering they can be found at a particular location. Wandering monsters are not actually infinite, they don't just pop into existence, they're a set part of an environment that is emulating the fact that guards and such move around rather than always staying in one place.

Even if they were presented that way in 1E in 2E and beyond they were not, even throughout the 5E packets they are presented as 'infinite' spawn randomness. My understanding is fine. I started playing in early 2E, so you'll have to forgive me not knowing 1E rules.

There is nothing realistic about an infinite number of monsters inhabiting an area and never dwindling in numbers.

They do appear to just pop into existence especially if you've already cleared a dungeon (minus a room or two) and are on your way out. Even if you haven't cleared a dungeon out, you start to wonder how 342 goblins or kobolds manage to live in such a cramped space, they must sleep in stacks, and woe to the character that finds their restroom.

What got me was you would end up with weird monsters like cave fishers that are only dangerous when they set an ambush being encountered in a long hallway with no nooks and crannies to hide in, or you would encounter some sky worshiping clerics deep underground. The randomness meant you would get something weird that didn't make sense like drow running around on the surface with all their gear burning up in the sun (they did that in early editions).

If you use the finite lists of 1E then its not so bad, but the infinite lists of 2E, 3E and 5E then you end up with an unrealistic grind fest. That was one of the major faults of previous editions they ended up being very grindy because not only were monsters just a varying list of stats and a sack of hp, they usually didn't have anything interesting to do except 'attack, attack, attack'. 5E is following in these footsteps with few unique monsters. Throw in infinite random encounters and you end up with a really grindy game that some don't find entertaining.

In 4E you had 'wandering monsters', but you had a very finite list and they were doled out based on a tight xp budget and they followed patrol patterns.

Now if you want random encounters I have no problem with them being included as long as they tell everyone the pitfalls of them and when they might come off as unrealistic or immersion breaking...

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Even if they were presented that way in 1E in 2E and beyond they were not, even throughout the 5E packets they are presented as 'infinite' spawn randomness. My understanding is fine. I started playing in early 2E, so you'll have to forgive me not knowing 1E rules.

There is nothing realistic about an infinite number of monsters inhabiting an area and never dwindling in numbers.

They do appear to just pop into existence especially if you've already cleared a dungeon (minus a room or two) and are on your way out. Even if you haven't cleared a dungeon out, you start to wonder how 342 goblins or kobolds manage to live in such a cramped space, they must sleep in stacks, and woe to the character that finds their restroom.

What got me was you would end up with weird monsters like cave fishers that are only dangerous when they set an ambush being encountered in a long hallway with no nooks and crannies to hide in, or you would encounter some sky worshiping clerics deep underground. The randomness meant you would get something weird that didn't make sense like drow running around on the surface with all their gear burning up in the sun (they did that in early editions).

If you use the finite lists of 1E then its not so bad, but the infinite lists of 2E, 3E and 5E then you end up with an unrealistic grind fest. That was one of the major faults of previous editions they ended up being very grindy because not only were monsters just a varying list of stats and a sack of hp, they usually didn't have anything interesting to do except 'attack, attack, attack'. 5E is following in these footsteps with few unique monsters. Throw in infinite random encounters and you end up with a really grindy game that some don't find entertaining.

In 4E you had 'wandering monsters', but you had a very finite list and they were doled out based on a tight xp budget and they followed patrol patterns.

Now if you want random encounters I have no problem with them being included as long as they tell everyone the pitfalls of them and when they might come off as unrealistic or immersion breaking...

This is a very selective interpretation of the wandering monster mechanic. I've been gaming since 1980 and even as a kid I was under no illusion as to what it was: a convenient randomizer for the DM to mix things up on occasion, and not a precise simulation of the environment (more like a whiff or hint). Wandering monster tables are just a tool, and all they need to explain are that as a tool the DM can make use of them as he sees fit, and to not misinterpret them as modeling some reality in the game outside of "these creatures are indigenous to the region and might wander by." As a DM I've used WM tables to spur creativity....and rarely encountered a table that was designed in a manner illogical to the module, unless there was an intent to it. So why would sky priests be underground, as an example? Maybe they're looking for the relic of the sky god stolen by monsters....and need to recruit some PCs. Instant encounter + scenario idea from a single roll!

One could just as easily argue the 4E's WM tables were precise mechanical constructs, and that healthy adventurers could count the number of monsters they encountered at odd locations, having divined that there was some cosmic formula which dictated they could only run into so many beasts in a given region before there were none left. Or that the static locations in modules are anathema, for no creatures just hang around, waiting to get ganked....but we don't argue these points because they are nonsensical; these are all just excellent scenario tools for the DM to use to make great games and provide the illusion of a world....and I happen to think 4E did great at that, as did all prior editions of D&D, just in slightly different ways.

 

[Ichneumon]

Even if they were presented that way in 1E in 2E and beyond they were not, even throughout the 5E packets they are presented as 'infinite' spawn randomness. My understanding is fine. I started playing in early 2E, so you'll have to forgive me not knowing 1E rules.

There is nothing realistic about an infinite number of monsters inhabiting an area and never dwindling in numbers.

They do appear to just pop into existence especially if you've already cleared a dungeon (minus a room or two) and are on your way out. Even if you haven't cleared a dungeon out, you start to wonder how 342 goblins or kobolds manage to live in such a cramped space, they must sleep in stacks, and woe to the character that finds their restroom.

What got me was you would end up with weird monsters like cave fishers that are only dangerous when they set an ambush being encountered in a long hallway with no nooks and crannies to hide in, or you would encounter some sky worshiping clerics deep underground. The randomness meant you would get something weird that didn't make sense like drow running around on the surface with all their gear burning up in the sun (they did that in early editions).

If you use the finite lists of 1E then its not so bad, but the infinite lists of 2E, 3E and 5E then you end up with an unrealistic grind fest. That was one of the major faults of previous editions they ended up being very grindy because not only were monsters just a varying list of stats and a sack of hp, they usually didn't have anything interesting to do except 'attack, attack, attack'. 5E is following in these footsteps with few unique monsters. Throw in infinite random encounters and you end up with a really grindy game that some don't find entertaining.

In 4E you had 'wandering monsters', but you had a very finite list and they were doled out based on a tight xp budget and they followed patrol patterns.

Now if you want random encounters I have no problem with them being included as long as they tell everyone the pitfalls of them and when they might come off as unrealistic or immersion breaking...

The DM Guidelines pdf in the last packet referred to the chance of encountering wandering monsters, and how to resolve encounters with them. That's it. Nothing to suggest "infinite spawn randomness" unless you want to twist the intent of what's there. Simply put, if any DM doesn't have the presence of mind to reduce or eliminate the chance of random encounters in an area that the PCs have thoroughly cleaned out, they weren't the target audience for the playtest packet. In the released versions of 5e, a rule along the lines of "A cleared area has no wandering monster checks for X amount of time" should take care of business.

There's two DM styles being highlighted here: one where the wandering monsters are part of the DM's budget and he/she knows exactly how many there will be. The other is where the number of wandering monsters that will show up is variable; the DM doesn't know till the dice are rolled. Either style is fine, and 'variable' doesn't mean "keep them coming forever, well past the point of credulity.".

 

[Scorpio616]

We're looking at giving all the standard player character races a speed of 30 feet, and allowing characters with sufficient Strength scores to ignore the speed penalties for heavy armor. We think these ideas make sense for a few different reasons.

Sounds like something that should have been playtested a while ago if it was going to be in print by summer.

That said, the speed penalty has been a BIG issue in my group. Tactical level, many deaths happen by an inch or two and those who GM generally are not going to give the party more time to save the day just because someone CHOSE to play a slower than average race.

Whenever the party moves at a slow pace, everyone in the group makes Dexterity (Stealth) checks to hide,

AUUURGH! Do the dozen kobolds have to make 12 hide roles?! Anyone who's rolled dice should be able see how bad a whole party rolling nerfs stealth! Even if the whole party is good at stealth, the bell curve is going to get someone noticed!

 

[Ichneumon]

AUUURGH! Do the dozen kobolds have to make 12 hide roles?! Anyone who's rolled dice should be able see how bad a whole party rolling nerfs stealth! Even if the whole party is good at stealth, the bell curve is going to get someone noticed!

If they're using some form of group skill check mechanic, such as 4e's "only half need to make it", then it isn't so bad. It's important to remember that we haven't been shown all of the new exploration ruleset.

 

[the Jester]

Sure and now that we are done critiquing each others grammar and word usage, how about we talk about the actual issue.

Many people, like me, don't like the idea of an infinite number of random monsters wandering around with no rhyme or reason.

Well, I thought we were talking about the issue. The reason the words you're using matter is because you're not using them to mean the same thing that most people in the D&D community mean, at least in talking about wandering monsters vis-a-vis random encounters. That makes it hard to come to an understanding.

Onward! I'll repeat something I said in the post you quoted: the "infinite number of random monsters wandering around with no rhyme or reason" is a total strawman. That is not how they've traditionally been employed; in fact, I even quoted from a pretty damn definitive source, the 1e DMG, to give you a specific and concrete example. Nor has the "no rhyme or reason" thing typically been the case, though I'll grant that less well-designed dungeons sometimes do use them this way; but I've also seen poorly-designed dungeons that mishandle just about everything an adventure could contain, from denying player agency to horribly unbalanced treasure, but those are- I think, and I could be wrong- exceptions rather than the rule.

See, it's not infinite, except for Jester's unique "trap" sort of concept (which was never used, to my knowledge, in any module for D&D ever),

If you're referring to my referencing landslides and spooky noises, actually, they are both specific examples from 1e modules.

The landslide appears as a random wilderness encounter in S4, in the wilderness exploration section of the dungeon. The spooky noises appear in L1, and I think they are in the dungeon level of Bone Hill itself but would have to go back and find it to be absolutely certain.

Even if they were presented that way in 1E in 2E and beyond they were not, even throughout the 5E packets they are presented as 'infinite' spawn randomness.

That's certainly not my reading of them, but I'll admit that I may have skimmed the section in question. Still, I'd bet a dollar that you will find nothing suggesting such a thing in the 5e playtest rules.

As to other editions- no. No, they are not presented as infinite spawn randomness, at least not outside the context of a randomized or huge environment.

Monsters Encountered
In a sprawling, random dungeon, you can simply use the random dungeon encounter tables... In a smaller or special dungeon, make your own random encounter tables.

The entries on a customized wandering monster table can indicate individual monsters or groups of monsters rather than kind of monsters. For example, the entry "Large monstrous scorpion" could mean a particular scorpion that lives in this dungeon rather than a random scorpion from an idefinitely large population of similar scorpions.

Even 4e, which comes much closer to endorsing your endless random hordes, says this:

You can choose monsters at random, but you can create more interesting and flavorful encounters by working with a theme, such as aberrant monsters or evil cultists.

In addition, as you yourself noted, 4e adventures tend to use random encounters as patrols or the like and in limited number. So I just don't think your assertion of how random encounters work stands.

There is nothing realistic about an infinite number of monsters inhabiting an area and never dwindling in numbers.

Your REPEATED assertion.

They do appear to just pop into existence especially if you've already cleared a dungeon (minus a room or two) and are on your way out. Even if you haven't cleared a dungeon out, you start to wonder how 342 goblins or kobolds manage to live in such a cramped space, they must sleep in stacks, and woe to the character that finds their restroom.

Several people have addressed this, including me. Again, to repeat what I posted above, clearing a safe zone is a long-standing D&D tradition. It goes way back. Even so, certain random encounters, such as bugs, rats, etc, make sense even in many cleared zones.

What got me was you would end up with weird monsters like cave fishers that are only dangerous when they set an ambush being encountered in a long hallway with no nooks and crannies to hide in, or you would encounter some sky worshiping clerics deep underground. The randomness meant you would get something weird that didn't make sense like drow running around on the surface with all their gear burning up in the sun (they did that in early editions).

Those sound like some great examples of misusing random encounters to the extent that I have to question what sort of dm wouldn't adjust the results on the fly. Did you make them up, or are they examples from modules, Dungeon adventures or something else that was published?

Now if you want random encounters I have no problem with them being included as long as they tell everyone the pitfalls of them and when they might come off as unrealistic or immersion breaking...

I have nothing against a discussion about how to use them- which every edition has had (although in fairness, I didn't bother to look in 2e, since you were talking post-2e).