D&D 5E Simple rules for sea travel (feedback wanted)

[xoth.publishing]

When I tried to make ship rules, one thing I ended up doing was adding the character level of the officer to a lot of checks.

This ensures that high-level PCs are useless just because they lack skills. And a level 10 barbarian can help a lot as a gunnery officer, even if they don't know guns.

Adding levels to checks is generally not done in 5E, and it breaks Bounded Accuracy. Also, any chance to actually use skills is good.

Do consider week-long long rests, and only long rests when it is safe. Any kind of extended travel campaign instantly becomes better if you do it.

It does mean you have to adapt threats. With week long rests, the power of a PC party isn't nearly as high as with nightly ones, because retreat and regroup to do a long rest means "surrender" when you give the opposing side a full weak off.

Only long rests when it is safe is part of this rule. Week-long long rests could be used if you opt for more "realism".

I'd do two things.

First, I'd add in some "supplies" and "crew", "morale" and "speed" stats for my ship. And have most events consume supplies, lose crew, gain/lose morale, reduce/increase speed.

The destination is "distance" units away, where a "typical" day you move "speed".

Next, get a HUGE table of random ocean events. Most of them are innocuous. Like 100+.

This is too complicated for what I'm trying to do here.

Also, consider having checks be triggered by events, instead of "everyone does a check, then we determine events".

Like, you don't make a captain check until there is a potential mutiny. It makes the check have higher stakes. The officer checks act sort of like saving throws, instead of busy-rolls.

I like that it would raise stakes to roll the checks after the event, and reduce busy-rolls. However, with the way I've set up the events table, you always want to roll the checks to see if you can improve the result to get a benefit (in the 16-20 range), so I don't see how the number of rolls could be reduced. But switching around the order of the rolls (event, then checks) would probably be an improvement, yes.

 

[xoth.publishing]

Then I would suggest a homebrew that gives some benefits of long rests but not the others. The problem is RAW going days without long rests will cause multiple levels of exhaustion and will kill the characters in a week or so at sea.

You seem to refer to the rule on page 78 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything, "Going without a long rest". Note that this actually refers to going without sleep for extended periods. I wouldn't impose exhaustion on a character that sleeps normally every day (as you would when aboard a ship), even if they are denied the benefits of a long rest (hit point recovery, Hit Dice recovery, spell recovery, exhaustion reduction, etc).

 

[NotAYakk]

Adding levels to checks is generally not done in 5E, and it breaks Bounded Accuracy. Also, any chance to actually use skills is good.

I said why I did it -- so that any PC who takes the officers job of commanding the cannons has use -- but it is just an option.

In my case, the officers check/10 gave a bonus to the crew check. You'd roll (skill check) + (character level), divide by 10, and apply that to the crew check.

Crew in turn has a proficiency (2-6 depending on how elite) and morale (from 0 up to proficiency) bonus. Having an untrained crew really sucked. Broken morale really sucked.

Professional officers would auto-add +1 to +3 without a roll. (with +3 being "best officer corps in the entire world, and best ship"). So slotting in a (heroic) PC for an officer's job was worth it, regardless of the PC's skill levels.

This was a design goal; it isn't really needed.

Only long rests when it is safe is part of this rule. Week-long long rests could be used if you opt for more "realism".

I like that it would raise stakes to roll the checks after the event, and reduce busy-rolls. However, with the way I've set up the events table, you always want to roll the checks to see if you can improve the result to get a benefit (in the 16-20 range), so I don't see how the number of rolls could be reduced. But switching around the order of the rolls (event, then checks) would probably be an improvement, yes.

My point is don't make a multiple PCs make checks that adds +1/-1 to another roll every day.

(a) roll for an event on a table.
(b) have that event produce higher stakes checks.

So if you roll a mutiny? Only the captain would make a check.

Storm? Only the navigator.

Etc.

The single high-stakes check made would decide which of 2 outcomes would occur. The single event roll determines what single check to ask for.

When you make a good check on "strong blow", you ... reduce travel time. When you make a bad check on "strong blow" you ... increase travel time. (Maybe that isn't high stakes enough: maybe it should be "reduce travel time" vs "become shipwrecked")

The goal is to make each roll have more impact. Your system results in 4 rolls by 3 different people to produce 1 result, which is sometimes "nothing happens".

I'm suggesting 1 roll by you (determine the event, if any), then 1 roll by 1 PC (determine the result of event).

And, rather than 1/4 of your table be "nothing", roll for how many days between events and roll for the event that happens. This also reduces the number of "roll and nothing happens".

Like, 1d4 determines how many days pass, and 1d20 determines what challenge happens after that many days pass.

You then call for the check the challenge asks for -- usually 1 officer PC making 1 roll -- and see the result.

Under that system, each and every roll moves towards something happening. The d4 and the d20 you roll can happen in parallel. There is no "d20 11 nothing happens, d20 13nothing happens, d20 12 nothing happens, d20 12nothing happens, d20 14 nothing happens" possible. And in your case, "Ok, captain roll, navigator roll, you roll as well, and I roll... nothing happened. Next day, repeat... nothing happens. And again... nothing happens".

There is "d4 3 d20 11 - after 3 days at sea, X happens. PC Y make a Z check."

An attempt to provide a bounded number of rolls per unit of narrative produced!

 

[xoth.publishing]

The goal is to make each roll have more impact. Your system results in 4 rolls by 3 different people to produce 1 result, which is sometimes "nothing happens".

I'm suggesting 1 roll by you (determine the event, if any), then 1 roll by 1 PC (determine the result of event).

And, rather than 1/4 of your table be "nothing", roll for how many days between events and roll for the event that happens. This also reduces the number of "roll and nothing happens".

Like, 1d4 determines how many days pass, and 1d20 determines what challenge happens after that many days pass.

You then call for the check the challenge asks for -- usually 1 officer PC making 1 roll -- and see the result.

Under that system, each and every roll moves towards something happening. The d4 and the d20 you roll can happen in parallel. There is no "d20 11 nothing happens, d20 13nothing happens, d20 12 nothing happens, d20 12nothing happens, d20 14 nothing happens" possible. And in your case, "Ok, captain roll, navigator roll, you roll as well, and I roll... nothing happened. Next day, repeat... nothing happens. And again... nothing happens".

There is "d4 3 d20 11 - after 3 days at sea, X happens. PC Y make a Z check."

An attempt to provide a bounded number of rolls per unit of narrative produced!

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I agree that your suggestion creates a more streamlined system.

However, my design goals also include a) make this mini-game engaging and activating for players, and b) since players like to roll dice, then let them roll! Instead of me as the GM rolling for the events (and how the GM would typically roll for random encounters if using "normal" travel rules), I plan to give the whole travel rules to the PCs and let them dice it out themselves. I believe this makes them much more engaged than me sitting behind my GM screen, occasionally asking one of them to roll a skill check, while the others zone out.

 

[Simonb1]

Another suggestion on crew, list a minimum full crew and a skeleton crew. If you are below the minimum crew, you are at disadvantage. If you are below the skeleton crew you have severe problems.
I would allow the ship to do one thing at a time while under crewed but not fight effectively, I mean below skeleton crew.

 

[xoth.publishing]

Another suggestion on crew, list a minimum full crew and a skeleton crew. If you are below the minimum crew, you are at disadvantage. If you are below the skeleton crew you have severe problems.

I like that suggestion!

I would allow the ship to do one thing at a time while under crewed but not fight effectively, I mean below skeleton crew.

What do you mean by "one thing at a time", what kind of "thing" ?

 

[Clint_L]

Looking at the rules from your stated design intent, as a sort of side game, I think you may wish to adjust your numbers to allow for level scaling. As written, they make sea travel of any significant length very challenging and potentially impossible unless the party are high level, wealthy, and in command of the ship, with good skill checks in the three relevant categories (high persuasion/intimidation is likely, medium survival is likely, proficiency with navigator's tools is unlikely, in my experience).

Scenario 1 (worst case scenario): low level party (1-4) wants to take a nine day voyage (e.g. the voyage in the free WotC adventure "Frozen Sick"). They acquire passage on a ship. Thus, each daily check is made by the ship's captain, navigator, and quartermaster with +0 proficiency, resulting in a net average of -.75 to the D20 roll; we'll call it -1. So each day there is 55% chance of something bad happening, a 20% chance of something good. And at these levels the bad stuff does a high amount of damage, costs substantial GP, adds travel time, kills crew, or some combination thereof, with a 2.5% chance of the ship being outright sunk each day (technically, slightly less than 2% because we rounded that -.75 modifier). The added travel time adds a cascading effect, particularly combined with the no long rests rule. As a result, a low level party completing a nine day voyage as passengers is almost impossible.

Note: if you assume a +5 proficiency for each of those NPCs they will average a +.75%, call it +1, to the daily check, making the voyage significantly safer, though still probably lethal at these levels.

Scenario 2 (best case scenario): high level, wealthy party in command of the ship, with plenty of wealth. Fully rested at start of voyage. Let's assume they average +2 to the daily roll, pushing the worst results off the table and making beneficial results more likely. So now there is a 40% chance of something bad happening and a 35% chance of something good, including a 15% chance of attaining a long rest (so they should get one on this nine day voyage). Here the balance works out much better - there will be attrition over time, but the voyage is doable. There are still several results that lose crew and only one that adds a single crew member, so very long voyages (say, months) would eventually wipe out the entire crew, but I doubt you have those sorts of voyages in mind for your campaign.

Conclusion: these do not work as universal rules for sea travel but if intended as rules for a fairly high level party in command of the ship (which is what I assume is your goal), then they should get the job done as intended.

Edit: Hmmm...thinking about that conclusion further. For the high level party, the only risk is eventually running out of crew. Does the party need a crew at all? If not, then my conclusion is wrong: the high level party is likely at no risk and should be able to complete any voyage without any cost. They will get a long rest about every 6.5 days and can therefore shrug off the nominal damage. In fact, if the voyage is long enough they will make a slight profit off the flotsam.

 

[xoth.publishing]

Thanks for the detailed feedback! This is exactly why I wanted to pick your collective brains

resulting in a net average of -.75 to the DC 20 roll

The DC is 15, not 20... not sure if it was a typo on your part, or if that would change the calculation?

the high level party is likely at no risk and should be able to complete any voyage without any cost. They will get a long rest about every 6.5 days and can therefore shrug off the nominal damage. In fact, if the voyage is long enough they will make a slight profit off the flotsam.

So the long rest on a 20 is probably too generous then. Perhaps it can be fixed by making it similar to the "1" result: If you get a 20, roll again and on a 1-15 everybody gets a single Hit Dice back, and only on a roll of 16-20 there is possible with a long rest. That should bring some risk back, yes?

 

[Clint_L]

Thanks for the detailed feedback! This is exactly why I wanted to pick your collective brains



The DC is 15, not 20... not sure if it was a typo on your part, or if that would change the calculation?

Oops, yeah typo - meant to write D20 roll. Doesn't effect the calculation; I was assuming the DC15.

So the long rest on a 20 is probably too generous then. Perhaps it can be fixed by making it similar to the "1" result: If you get a 20, roll again and on a 1-15 everybody gets a single Hit Dice back, and only on a roll of 16-20 there is possible with a long rest. That should bring some risk back, yes?

The math gets way more complicated with the high level party, but basically they will each average about 1.5 HP damage per day, so I would adjust your numbers accordingly (the projected damage for the low level party is roughly 4.5 HP damage/day). Edit: you probably want to invert those numbers.

 

[xoth.publishing]

Looking at the rules from your stated design intent, as a sort of side game, I think you may wish to adjust your numbers to allow for level scaling.

It's not a design goal that the sea voyage should have the same difficulty / danger regardless of level. In other words, given the same environment, it's okay if the voyage is easier when you are higher level. (In 5E, a lock doesn't get a higher DC to pick just because you are higher level.)

That said, based on your feedback, I'm thinking of the following tweaks:

• If the PCs are just passengers on the ship (as opposed to being the vessel owners/commanders), let's assume the ship's crew are quite competent and have a +5 bonus to the daily checks (+2 proficiency bonus, +3 ability bonus).
• The GM can adjust the DC of the daily check from the default of 15 and down towards 10 (for "calm" environments suitable for low-level characters) and up to 20 or more (for "difficult" or "severe" environments where high-level characters might venture).
• The "20" result on the daily table is changed to: roll again, on a 1-15 all PCs get a single Hit Dice back, and on a 16-20 it is possible to take a long rest.

I realize voyages will still be dangerous for low-level characters, but that's also a goal of this mini-game: to simulate that it's a dangerous world "out there in the wilderness"; if you are not ready for it, then perhaps stay in a safe haven and do some local adventuring there and level up. Obviously this works best for a "points of light" type campaign.

I'll be playtesting this with some mid-level characters soon... should be interesting!