Legends & Lore: A Few Rules Updates

[GX.Sigma]

You seem to be conflating what was traditionally random encounter with other things like wandering monsters.

A random encounter is when you consult a table and roll to see if the party randomly encounters something. There is no limit to the number of times the party can encounter these things. In 2E you had these charts of monsters you would randomly encounter in each environment and you had example charts for dungeon random encounter tables. No where did it say you should limit the number of encounters and in fact random encounters played a huge role in keeping the five minute work day under control. They still didn't make sense though for the most part.

I've got no problem with wandering monsters. Where you have a set number of monsters that patrol the area and you can eventually kill them off. You might even use a random chart to determine when the players encounter them instead of trying to keep track of their movements in relation to the players. However those aren't random encounters in the sense that the words are used in previous editions.

Like I said there are situations where random encounters might be appropriate like a dungeon on the edge of the Shadow Fell where monsters randomly cross the border into the world the players are in. Wandering through a swamp filled with tribes of Lizard Folk might be appropriate for a random encounter chart. Moving overland across large tracts of land where you don't want to have to detail out the ecology of every living creature might also use a random encounter chart.

There are also places where it is wildly inappropriate like a small walled town or an isolated dungeon with only a few entrances. For the most part previous editions didn't make a distinction and told DMs to just make random encounter charts for everything. That really destroys believability...

Was it ever actually written that "wandering monsters" and "random encounters" are actually different things? I always thought Gygax called them wandering monsters because he had a thing about calling every NPC a monster, and then later editions called them random encounters because that's technically a more correct term for it.

 

[MarkB]

Why don't you pick all the flowers in the game of Skyrim? Well, there's a cost. Encumbrance. Time. Marginal usefulness.

Why don't you open all the trashcans in BioShock? Well, they don't have that much useful in them, and maybe you don't want to spend your time that way.

Why don't you cut all the long grass and bushes in The Legend of Zelda? Again, it doesn't give you much, and it takes a while. Generally not worth it.

Wait, you mean some people don't do those things? But they might miss a rupee!

 

[Lokiare]

Was it ever actually written that "wandering monsters" and "random encounters" are actually different things? I always thought Gygax called them wandering monsters because he had a thing about calling every NPC a monster, and then later editions called them random encounters because that's technically a more correct term for it.

I'm using the term "Wandering Monster" in the way I am because its easier than typing "Limited count patroling group of potential enemies that are randomly placed on the map"

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm using the term "Wandering Monster" in the way I am because its easier than typing "Limited count patroling group of potential enemies that are randomly placed on the map"

Why do you assume other people aren't using "random encounter" to mean that?

 

[pemerton]

I don't see a trap's attack roll as determining anything about the PC -- they've got AC which describes what they're doing. The trap's attack roll describes what the trap is doing. Which might include "getting tangled up in some spiderwebs and misfiring" (a low roll) and might include "being pointed right at your eye" (a high roll).

I'm actually even more puzzled now.

A trap doesn't move around to "point at your eye". This is purely a function of how the PC is moving (given that the trap is static in place). And if a random roll for a trap attack can represent it getting tangled in some spiderweb (which is an action for the spiders, not the trap!) then why can't an obscurement roll for a trap represent the same thing (the trap is hidden by dust, or cobwebs, or shadows)?

 

[Ichneumon]

You seem to be conflating what was traditionally random encounter with other things like wandering monsters.

A random encounter is when you consult a table and roll to see if the party randomly encounters something. There is no limit to the number of times the party can encounter these things. In 2E you had these charts of monsters you would randomly encounter in each environment and you had example charts for dungeon random encounter tables. No where did it say you should limit the number of encounters and in fact random encounters played a huge role in keeping the five minute work day under control. They still didn't make sense though for the most part.

I've got no problem with wandering monsters. Where you have a set number of monsters that patrol the area and you can eventually kill them off. You might even use a random chart to determine when the players encounter them instead of trying to keep track of their movements in relation to the players. However those aren't random encounters in the sense that the words are used in previous editions.

Like I said there are situations where random encounters might be appropriate like a dungeon on the edge of the Shadow Fell where monsters randomly cross the border into the world the players are in. Wandering through a swamp filled with tribes of Lizard Folk might be appropriate for a random encounter chart. Moving overland across large tracts of land where you don't want to have to detail out the ecology of every living creature might also use a random encounter chart.

There are also places where it is wildly inappropriate like a small walled town or an isolated dungeon with only a few entrances. For the most part previous editions didn't make a distinction and told DMs to just make random encounter charts for everything. That really destroys believability...

If 'random encounter' really means 'spout randomly determined monsters out of a little white hole' then it has zero utility. For D&D Next it's best to have one term, wandering monster(s), which refers to monsters in the area that have a random chance of being encountered. When there's no more monsters in the area, there are no more wandering monster encounters, a state easier to achieve in a closed system (a dungeon) than in an open one (the wilderness). Though if the PCs kill an apex predator or 'boss' (pit fiend, behir), there shouldn't be any more in the immediate area.

 

[the Jester]

Thorag The Barbarian: "Well we've blocked off all the exits, searched all the seven rooms of this dungeon three times over, why is this -happening?"
Lite The Cleric: "I know, I've casted every divination I can and there are no secret doors or portals or entrances here. No one has teleported in or out in years. How is this possible?"
Thorag The Barbarian: "Yeah it seems we walk around for a few minutes and we suddenly encounter 3.5 Orcs. I'm just wondering what's going on."

As has already been pointed out, this is a complete strawman. Clearing out a safe zone is a tradition that goes back well past 1e.

I've got no problem if you have patrols of monsters or wandering monsters, but that's not the same thing as random encounters.

Wait, what? Since when?

I'll happily grant that not all random encounters are wandering monsters (e.g. landslides, funny sounds, etc), but wandering monsters are indeed a type of random encounter.

But perhaps the problem here is one of definitions; it seems as though you've a nontraditional definition of wandering monsters that isn't the same one that I've been using. From the 1e DMG, pg. 230:

Wandering Monster - General term for any encounter not previously keyed by teh DM; usually refers to the periodic check for monsters in dungeons.

So that patrol of monsters certainly qualifies, and in fact, that very same book includes, in the sample dungeon section on page 94, the following chart:

WANDERING MONSTERS

Non-Crypt Areas (Generally Northern Portion of Map):

Die -- Result[/B]
1 -- 3-12 goblins (patrolling from area 7-8)
2 -- 2-5 banidts (from area 4-5)
3 -- 7-12 giant rats
4 -- 1-2 fire beetles (from area 12-13)

Crypt Areas:

Die -- Result
1 -- 1-2 ghouls (from area 24)
2 -- 1 3rd level evil cleric & 2 hobgoblins (from area 35-37)
3 -- 7-12 giant rats
4 -- 2-5 skeletons (patrolling from area 27)

I refer you to the www.angrydm.com article on encounter design. You should always need a reason for the players to engage an enemy and 'oops I just wandered in your path' gets real old real fast...

...for some playstyles. In some campaigns.

In others, "Oops, I just wandered into your path" is just fine, reinforces the verisimilitude of the milieu and is tons of fun.

Not to be repetitive, but just because you like it one way- and the Angry DM prefers a certain style of adventure design- does not make it the "right" way to do it. It may be right for you and the Angry DM, but I 100% full-on no-doubt assure you that it's not right for everyone, because it isn't right for me or my group.

I'm using the term "Wandering Monster" in the way I am because its easier than typing "Limited count patroling group of potential enemies that are randomly placed on the map"

That's fine, but you aren't using it in the traditional and understood way. It's like if I talked about enchanter specialist wizards but called them psions because it's easier than typing out enchanter specialist wizards. It muddies the discussion when we aren't using the same definitions.

 

[n00bdragon]

The bonus action limitation thing is as lulzy as it gets. First they got rid of Minor Actions because they made things too messy and the term "action economy" reeked of that awful gamist mindset the designers seem to disdain so. But now they are back under the guise of "Bonus Actions" which are exactly the same thing as Minor Actions. It's almost like 4e knew what it was doing and the "action economy" isn't something you can just ignore and pretend that up is down and 2 + 2 = 5.

 

[Mistwell]

The bonus action limitation thing is as lulzy as it gets.

The word "lulzy" is as lulzy as it gets.

 

[Lokiare]

As has already been pointed out, this is a complete strawman. Clearing out a safe zone is a tradition that goes back well past 1e.



Wait, what? Since when?

I'll happily grant that not all random encounters are wandering monsters (e.g. landslides, funny sounds, etc), but wandering monsters are indeed a type of random encounter.

But perhaps the problem here is one of definitions; it seems as though you've a nontraditional definition of wandering monsters that isn't the same one that I've been using. From the 1e DMG, pg. 230:



So that patrol of monsters certainly qualifies, and in fact, that very same book includes, in the sample dungeon section on page 94, the following chart:





...for some playstyles. In some campaigns.

In others, "Oops, I just wandered into your path" is just fine, reinforces the verisimilitude of the milieu and is tons of fun.

Not to be repetitive, but just because you like it one way- and the Angry DM prefers a certain style of adventure design- does not make it the "right" way to do it. It may be right for you and the Angry DM, but I 100% full-on no-doubt assure you that it's not right for everyone, because it isn't right for me or my group.



That's fine, but you aren't using it in the traditional and understood way. It's like if I talked about enchanter specialist wizards but called them psions because it's easier than typing out enchanter specialist wizards. It muddies the discussion when we aren't using the same definitions.

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. 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.

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...