Sure, I'll respond
I wanted to touch on a few of the trade offs and restraints listed above. I think they've gotten glossed over or ignored for large chunks of the thread.
Time. Time has to matter for exploration to matter. Period. If you refuse to make time matter, then exploration is going to suck. "In a dungeon environment, the adventurers' movement happens on a scale of minutes. It takes them about a minute to creep down a long hallway, another minute to check for traps on the door at the end of the hall, and a good ten minutes to search the chamber beyond for anything interesting or valuable." PHB, p181. Why does that matter? Because the DM should be making wandering monster checks (DMG, p85-7). The dungeon isn't a static place with sectioned off and sealed rooms of monsters standing around waiting for the PCs to bust in an murder them. It's the equivalent to a village or town, but with monsters. They need to sleep, ingest, and excrete. Unless they're particularly nasty creatures, those three activities aren't going to happen in the same place. So they're going to be moving around. Unless they're particularly stupid creatures, they're going to have patrols.
The DMG suggests checking at a variety of intervals: one hour, four hours, eight hours, once during the day, once at night. But it also suggests checking when the PCs stop to rest, the PCs go on a long journey, and when the PCs draw attention to themselves. It's only an 18+/d20, so it's not that bad...15% chance. Something like a dungeon should be on the hour (or more frequently). It's a place filled with nasties. Not every wandering monster will necessarily attack on sight, but they could. So sure, you can creep down a hallway stealthily (moving 200ft/min) or you can run down the hallway, making a lot of noise with your metal armor and bags of metal coins clanking against each other (draw attention to themselves, wandering monster check; moving 400ft/min). If you go stealthily, you're eating up time moving slowly which will eventually add up and trigger more wandering monster checks than a party moving at a regular pace (moving 300ft/min). Any combat you have is sure to make a lot of noise (triggering a wandering monster check). Risk-reward. You move slow to possibly avoid detection now (reward), but you're making more wandering monster checks (risk). You move fast to get through the dangerous dungeon quicker (reward), but you're making a lot of noise and drawing a lot of attention (risk, wandering monster checks).
So, there are a few things going on here. First, the way you are using "time matters" is slightly different than others. You seem to be looking at it solely as a wandering monster check "Oh, it has been an hour, roll for monsters." many people have been using it in regards to a time limit. And, I'm sorry, it is impractical to make every single session of every single game face a time limit. Sometimes, there is no time limit, no matter how hard you try. Additionally, Time limits themselves are not challenging. All they do is force behavior, force rushing, to avoid a penalty.
But, secondly, the thing I've said over and over and over. Wandering Monsters are a combat challenge. Maybe a social challenge, but they aren't exploration CHALLENGE. The best you can do is say that because of exploration you get a wandering monster, but that does not make the monster itself an exploration challenge. Also, you speak about dungeons, you say they aren't a static place and that's correct. They also aren't unlimited. If you decide that your dungeon has six rooms with monsters in them, and you clear three rooms and have two big fights in the halls with wandering monsters... then there is only one room with any monsters left. And if we explore and draw them to us, well great, then they are fighting us in the halls and not in the room they fortified.
Unless your wandering monsters spawn out of thin air, eventually you run out of monsters. And once you have no monsters, there is no wandering monster check, so is your exploration challenge now trivial? Sure, the PCs fought a lot, but I've seen PCs chew through combats with ease if the dice are on their side.
Also, you speak of trade-offs and time, but you don't seem to consider the full scale. You said that a dungeon should make a check for wandering monsters every hour. I've pulled out my copy of Princes of the Apocalypse and opened it to the Weeping Colussus map. This is a big set-piece fight for this adventure. Tracing a line through all the rooms I count 1,030 ft of travel, including backtracing and going to every nook. At 200 ft/minute... that is a little over 5 minutes to stealthily go through the entire thing. I would need to travel the entire map TWELVE TIMES to trigger a single wandering monster check. Which, begs the question, how big do you expect dungeons to be? Because to trigger two wandering monster checks while moving stealthily the party needs to travel 24,000 ft. And at 15% per check, there isn't much chance of that causing a monster either.
Now, sure, you can start upping the time. But, like you said, the DMG recommends once per hour as the fastest time. And at some point in speeding up the clock, you are eventually saying "I want X random encounters, so I need the clock to strike Y times" and at that point it isn't so random anymore.
Looking at all this then, there is no meaningful trade-off. Running quickly leads to more checks, but offers nothing beyond speed. Moving normally offers nothing. Moving slowly leads to more checks, but also allows stealth which means you can start combat with advantage. Ending fights quicker and more safely. Potentially even wandering monster fights caused by your stealth, because if you are stealthy you are stealthy, wandering monsters don't automatically spot you. Considering the massive benefit of going slowly, and the speed at which you can do so, there is no reason not to do it. Especially since at the scale it ends up mattering you are more looking at exploring an entire city, which means so many monsters that stealth is the way to go anyways.
Resources, weight, coins, conversion rates, carrying capacity, and encumbrance. They're all related. Tracking gold, food, water, weight, and other resources has to matter for exploration to matter. If you really want these to matter, use the variant encumbrance rules. Again, this is tied back to time. You carry more, you move slower, you trigger more wandering monster checks. Unless a character takes their coins to a banker (or similar), don't let them convert the denominations. Carrying 50 copper pieces is one pound of weight; carrying 50 silver pieces is one pound of weight; carrying 50 gold pieces is one pound of weight. It's a distinction that makes a difference. Sure, you found a pile of coins...but do you have anything to carry it in? Your backpack? Cool. What of the equipment already in your backpack are you going to dump out to fit the coins? Did you buy a sack in town? No, because you couldn't afford one. Yes, you absolutely can try to pick up that chest of coins. The chest weighs 25 lbs...and the coins inside weigh 300 lbs. What's your strength again? How much of your gear or the coins do you want to dump to carry the chest or are you and someone else going to share the load and move slower? Risks and rewards. Enforce activities while traveling. Characters either pay attention (get to add their passive perception to the pool) or they get to do something else. Excepting the ranger, of course. As mentioned, the non-ranger outlander can only forage (reward) by opting to not pay attention (risk).
I didn't end up posting this to this thread, before, but in a previous discussion about Encumbrance, I did some math. This is the issue I find with worrying about "supplies". Now, I will grant this is normal encumbrance not variant encumbrance, but I shouldn't need to use a variant rule to make this matter right?
Four man party from classic DnD artwork. Human Cleric, Halfling Thief, Dwarf Fighter, Elf Wizard. Standard arrays give us strength scores of 16 (dwarf), 14 (human), 10 (halfling) and 8 (wizard).
Group's total carrying capacity is 720 lbs. Their max drag is 1,440.
Cleric starting gear: 105.3 (including two sets of vestaments, two holy symbols, ect, because I just copied what was gained)
Copying fighter gear for 111.7 (subtracting food and water to be added in later)
Rogue starting gear: 66.8 (duplicate tools, crowbar, and such from background kept in)
Wizard starting gear: 24.325
So, 308.125 lbs of 720, with duplicated gear I have used up 42.79% of the party's encumbrance. This includes multiple torches, a lantern, and 100 ft of rope. I'll add to this a grappling hook, sledgehammer, climber's kit, shovel, and a dozen healing potions which brings us up to 345.125lbs. 47.93%
Now, I admit, this is where we get into trouble. A weeks worth of food for 4 people is 28 lbs, easy enough, but a week's worth of water is 280 lbs (two waterskins a day, for seven days). That brings us up to 653.125. Nearly matching our encumbrance. It leaves us with only 66.875 lbs... or enough to carry 3, 343 gold pieces. Along with the duplicated gear.
Now, you are going to rightly point out that if I was using the variant Encumberace, then once we hit 480 lbs or so, the party would all lose 10 ft of movement per turn. This likely means we double our time when moving stealthily, and it may effect combat.
Except... We don't really need a week's worth of water in the dungeon, in fact we likely used a few days of water to get here, and we can just bury the rest, along with the food and supplies we don't really need. Considering that 3 days of water is 120 lbs that is rather significant. Also taking out the duplicate gear, and by level 1 with no magic items and using no magical abilities, I've likely cut us down to maybe being enumbered. We then clear the dungeon, collect loot on our way out instead of as we go and... where is the issue here? Where is the challenge?
Oh, is it going to be that you give out all treasure in copper and silver, so the player's can't possible carry it all? You can, but I find that to be a rather mean-spirited thing to do, tease your players with "if only you didn't need water to live, you could be so much wealthier". Of course, this just leads to using things like Create Water every day instead of carrying it. Or buying a mule to carry a barrel of water. But all of this is just logistics. I've done all of this calculating while sitting around at home. The players can just have a spread sheet and be prepared to shuffle things around and accept that no matter how much gold you put in front of them, they can only walk out with 2,500 gold as their reward. And man is that boring, knowing exactly how much gold you are going to leave with, because you only have room to carry that much when you arrive at the dungeon. None of it is a challenge. It is just some simple accounting
Outlander. They auto succeed while foraging...but they have to risk being surprised by any wandering monsters. One full surprise round against you in combat is a big deal...and depending on initiative, it might be two rounds of enemy actions before you get to act. Someone will inevitably say "but the alert feat". 1) Feats are optional. 2) If you're using feats, then so what? A player picked +5 initiative and not being surprised instead of something else. That's a trade off they chose to make. Considering some of the other feats out there, I'm glad you picked alert instead of something else. Besides, the rest of the party probably doesn't have the alert feat.
See, this is one of those scenarios that I just have to wonder about. Let us go with exactly the worst case you just described. The party is traveling, the Outlander is foraging, and everyone else is keeping watch. The Monster attacks, most everyone isn't surprised, because they saw it coming, but the Outlander is. They lose their first turn. They also roll low initiative, and the monster will act twice. Who does the monster attack? Well, "it depends" right? How smart is the monster, who is the outlander, ect ect. An intelligent monster might attack the wizard first. A dumb monster will attack the least armored target, like the wizard. So, if the outlander is a fighter, then they aren't under any threat. If they were a fighter with a low wisdom and likely wouldn't have spotted the monster and been caught in the surprise round anyways... then we've literally lost nothing.
Additionally, we've taken on this phrasing and view of the outlander that they "auto succeed while foraging" but we haven't really examined what that means, have we? Because the rules leave out a fairly big detail. How long does it take to forage? Let's say it takes 2 hours minimum of travel. So, that means for two wandering monster checks you might at risk, but after that you aren't. That's 75% of the time. Or, once you forage can you not stop until the journey is done? Because this, along with the issue of a low wisdom Outlander, makes a big difference. If foraging only takes an hour or two, it is far less risky.
Also, these other actions while traveling are pretty... singular. Tracking, preventing the group from getting lost which is separate from drawing a map which helps them get one course if they are lost. And let's check these rules real fast.
Navigating is a survival check. +5 to the check if moving at a slow and stealthy pace (So, easier to not get lost, harder to be found, seriously, slow pace is full of so many benefits). If you have an accurate map (which will not be the one you are making) or can see the sun or can see the stars you get advantage. Let's assume a normal +2 wisdom with no proficiency. We move slowly and we can see the sun. Everyone likes forest travel, and it is one of the hardest at a DC 15. With a +7 and advantage, we need an 8 or higher, which finding a chart online looks like an 88% success rate.
And if you do get lost? 1d6 hours of wandering before getting back on track... which doesn't mention anything about you mapping the area. So, does mapping do nothing or is it automatic advantage for the navigator? And this is as hard as the checks get. Jungle, swamp, open sea with no land in sight and overcast skies to obscure the sun and stars. All DC 15. And a 14 wisdom isn't unlikely. So, the party generally has an 88% chance of never getting lost, if we use these rules.
Ranger. On 1/8 (2/8 at 6th, 3/8 at 10th) of terrain types they: cannot get lost, aren't slowed by difficult terrain, double forage, and always pays attention. Okay so, one of the 13 classes in the game (trade off) gets those abilities. Okay. So what? Their party cannot get lost. Okay, cool. That's not a big deal. They aren't slowed. Okay, so they get there faster. So what? They double forage? Great. Either food goes to waste, is used to mess with monsters, or is used to keep the retainers, hirelings, or horses and pack animals alive. Mules are medium-sized creatures so need one pound of food and one gallon of water per day to survive. Horses are large-sized creatures so need four pounds of food and four gallons of water per day to survive.
See, and your response here is somewhat telling. Not getting lost isn't a big deal? Going faster isn't a big deal? Double their supply of food isn't a big deal?
So, if that's all true, how is getting lost, needing to track food supplies, and time limits all a big deal? These are things I just spent a lot of time discussing because you've said they are important, but now ignoring them isn't important?
Also, what hirelings, retainers and pack animals? Most groups don't have those. Maybe mule to carry the water barrel like I mentioned, but no horses. You've just handwaved a whole bunch of rules that counter the things you claim are important to consider.
Leomund's Tiny Hut. It takes 11 minutes to cast as a ritual. The DMG suggests making a wandering monster check when the PCs stop to rest. It also suggests various other times, once an hour, once every four or once every eight hours. That's anywhere from two to nine wandering monster checks per long rest, depending on circumstances. Nine might make sense in a dungeon but two or three would make more sense in the wilderness. But depending on how close you are to a settlement, it could be more. There might be nasties waiting for the PCs when they wake. Depending on who or what is encountered, that could be quite bad news. Unless it's intentionally hidden or tucked away, it's clearly visible. A monster (that might have friends) now knows exactly where the PCs will be for the next eight hours. So you cannot be attacked while you're resting, but you might attract attention overnight. Sure, I'll take that.
And if the PCs known they are going to swarmed by monsters that decided to ambush the magic bubble if it ever disappeared (and you know, the PCs would never try to intentionally hide their campsite in addition to casting the spell) then they are going to respond appropriately.
Also, curious counterpoint, what happens if the PCs
don't use the Tiny Hut?
Then they have two to nine wandering monster checks and the nasties attack them directly while they are sleeping unless their camp is intentionally hidden or tucked away, while the majority of the PCs would be out of armor, surprised due to being asleep and still low on hp and resources from needing the long rest. Then, you would likely say that the battle and clean-up interrupted their rest and they'll need to restart the eight hours and possible two to nine wandering monster checks, with the nasties attacking them directly...
So, if you had to pick between knowing you might be ambushed, planning for when that ambush will happen, and being fully prepared for it, while getting a full night's rest. OR, being potentially ambushed multiple times and being attacked while you were vulnerable which would you take?
Because, I'm sure you aren't suggesting that a DM should intentionally roll wandering encounters differently for a party who is using a spell ability than for one who isn't, right? Trying to punish them for playing smart in a way that you might not like. Because it seems to me that if you are playing it straight and the same way each time, that the Hut is still far far superior to not using the hut.
Light cantrip. No weight or expense of torches, oil, lanterns, or candles...but your light is a beacon for anything even vaguely nearby. Sure, I'll take that. Thank you for the gift.
Dancing lights cantrip. No weight or expense of torches, oil, lanterns, or candles...but it's dim light so disadvantage on perception checks...and it's a beacon for anything even vaguely nearby. Sure, I'll take that. Thank you for the gift.
Ah yes, because torches, lanterns and candles don't give off light that is a beacon for anything even vaguely nearby. Oh...wait... they do. Because they also give off bright light. Well, a torch you can use your action to snuff out and then toss aside because you can't relight it. And the light cantrip is an action to turn off as well...
I'm sorry, how are torches and lanterns better than the Light Cantrip? It seems to me that they are literally the exact same in every meaningful way. Except one saves you a handful of pounds.
The trouble comes in when the players refuse to accept the trade off or the risks. Or somehow mistakes the DM treating the world as a living, breathing place for the DM being a jerk. Complaining about the DM ever using color for example. Or complaining about the DM ever having environments that are anything more interesting than static Indiana Jones style flat maps to red line travel across. If you refuse to accept the risks, you give up the rewards. I'd suggest that someone who wants to play a risk-free adventure game doesn't actually want to play an adventure game. If the DM removes all the risks, keeps all the rewards, refuses to acknowledge much less use the inherent trade offs presented in the game, and skips over huge swathes of the exploration pillar...it's not a shock that their players think the exploration pillar sucks. But that's certainly not a fault of the game itself.
Except, as I've shown... these trade-offs barely exist. I can acknowledge every rule and every trade off as written, and 90% of the time, they amount to nothing. All you've shown is increases in combat and led me to pointing out that even getting lost is nearly impossible without a ranger.
