D&D 5E (2014) The new exploration rules, discussion

[GX.Sigma]

choosing how often to roll for random encounters is just another DM's choice.

Yeah, but the point of having rules for it is so the DM doesn't have to choose on the fly.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah, but the point of having rules for it is so the DM doesn't have to choose on the fly.

Indeed. These rules are suggesting a setup, but the idea is that the DM calibrates this as she wishes and the let the dice roll. Using these rules but ignoring the result means I should have not wasted time with them in the first place.

For instance, if today I bring the PCs into the local woods searching for the hidden entrance of a dungeon, I'm probably choosing 1 hour for turns. Let's say I want the forest only moderately dangerous, and give a 10% chance of monster encounter every turn.

Tomorrow I take them to a trip across the kingdom, and go for 1 day per turn. They'll pass through forested areas but also villages, roads and generally civilized lands with no monsters. I decide that a 50% chance of monster encounter per turn is fine, which may give an average number of encounters per day roughly close to passing a few hours into woods of the previous type.

But ultimately those % are still up to me, I can change them every time even for metagaming reasons, like just wanting to have more/less combats in tonight's game.

If you are looking for creating consistency in those encounters rates as you switch from 1 hour to 1 day setup for other reasons, you might have to do some calculations to get matching averages. Maybe someone can have fun with that, but I just don't think consistency is a most important goal of these rules. At least the way I see it, there is no fundamental reason why two forests should have the same average encounter rate, and not even the same forest on two different days (especially after a party of PC has passed by, and killed half of those monsters).

 

[GX.Sigma]

Update: The "Examples of Play" do a better job explaining the rules than the rules do.

Insights:

• If you fail your "being able to do two jobs" check, you fail at both your jobs. +1 for the rules.
• The person keeping watch is the only person who makes a check to detect monsters. Good, because my head would explode otherwise. +1 for the rules.
• PC's checks are made at the start of the turn, then "locked in" for later reference during the turn. Okay, this makes more sense. +1 for the rules.
• "The five cultists fail the check, so she is hidden from all of them at the start of the fight." Wait, what? It says "the check," which implies they collectively rolled once. Does group perception even exist in this ruleset? +? for the rules?
• "The party is carrying a light source...the cultists can't be surprised..." Wait, then how is she hidden? Actually, the rules for stealth do not say you need concealment. This example seems to back that up. So you can sneak through a bare dungeon corridor and be completely hidden from all the monsters with darkvision as long as you're quiet enough? -1 for the rules.
• "...the DM shifts to 1-hour exploration turns. She could have opted for a 1-day turn if the terrain was relatively safe or the characters had a trail to follow, but neither of those facts is true." Meh, I see what you're saying, but I'm still not buying it. If you determine that an area is dense with monsters, and give it a certain chance for wandering monsters, then you check against the same number regardless of how long the turns are (unless you come up with a different number for the different scales - 5% per hour equates to 40% per day or whatever). The only way this makes sense is to use 1-hour turns only for really really dangerous places, and never skip over those places with 1-day turns. When you enter the Forest of Monsters, you're in 1-hour turns until you leave. That makes sense. +/- 0 for the rules.

I'm actually getting over my first impression and starting to like these rules. The minuses that still remain are:

• Stealth unclear/broken
• No rules for parties of different speeds (mounts/vehicles/flight)
• No rules for how different terrain affects movement
• Making checks for large numbers of creatures at once still needs to be addressed

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, so far (after admittedly only dabbling in the rest of it) the exploration rules are the only thing where I've got something nice to say. So ...

It's a pretty decent first stab at having a meaningful action economy for exploration that covers a great deal of what AD&D 1E did in a much less confusing manner. They do need that discussion about setting the odds for wandering monsters, but the framework is certainly solid. If the DM wants to just make it up as he goes and call for rolls, he won't use this--but then that DM doesn't need it and should ignore it, as he is running a different game that doesn't care about a meaningful action economy--or perhaps a more rigorous one where time is managed some other way.

I do think this belonged in the How to Play section instead of DM guidelines. Part of what makes it meaningful is that the players have a few concrete decisions they can make. They should know what the options are. It's also helpful that the decisions are two-tiered: A. Pace--which is set for the whole party, and then B. Individual actions within that pace.

Finally, some of the actions have a nice, light touch that seems entirely appropriate for the scale of those rules. Mapping is mostly abstract (with presumably the DM handing out more info on request if you map well, not so much otherwise), but then has the concrete tie that the character doing the mapping can't have a weapon in his hands. The whole map it out yourself concreteness is replaced with an abstraction, but not merely replaced because of the hands.

 

[the Jester]

I like the looks of them and am looking forward to playtesting them.

I have no problem with the party being able to veer in directions that don't perfectly match up with the map, and in fact, getting lost ought to mystify you as to where exactly you are and what direction, exactly, you are traveling in. But then, I also have no problem with 45 degree (or 30 degree, or 60 degree, or 113.257 degree or whatever) turns on a square map. The lines on the map do not dictate every path in the world, nor should they IMHO.

 

[Blackwarder]

ermm....no, it doesn't...okay, well it doesn't in reverse...so to speak. With a hex map, you'd want 60 degree increments. You have 6 hexes around the one you occupy, 45 degree increments makes for 8 directions....

If you start your "0" direction straight into the next hex, your "2" direction will point directly in between two hexes.
View attachment 56821

...just saying.

You are absolutely correct, I don't know why I kept imagining octagons...

Warder

 

[Blackwarder]

I think it's safe to say that it's a good first try and that the rules are still a bit rough around the edges.

Two things that I'm missing are encumbrance, weather conditions and food and water considerations, I also think that dungeon exploration and wilderness exploration should be in two separate subsections of exploration.

If you playtest those, let us know what you think. And if you got some constructive suggestions write them down and I'll add them to the OP so we will have an easy to read list.

Warder

 

[Plaguescarred]

Many of the rolls already happen during exploration phase. When a PC is searching or sneaking and when a DM look for wandering encounters, checks are usually made etc.. but its the first attempt to organize it in a structured fashion. I like the concept, but i think it could be simplified.

 

[Blackwarder]

Many of the rolls already happen during exploration phase. When a PC is searching or sneaking and when a DM look for wandering encounters, checks are usually made etc.. but its the first attempt to organize it in a structured fashion. I like the concept, but i think it could be simplified.

In what way?

Warder

 

[Plaguescarred]

By reducing dice rolling and multitasking impact for exemple