D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[iserith]

Indeed. But that one-third can add up over time...

Fair enough; but in a small party of, say, four characters you're either in the front rank or the back rank, assuming typical two-wide marching. Also, in some editions being surprised can get you killed outright before you know what hit you; thus it's important not to be surprised (which is why I say auto-surprise is a bit harsh).

How bad being surprised is has a lot of factors that go into it that can't really be accounted for without the context. Ultimately it's up to the player to weigh the risks at that moment: Is it more important to you to have a chance to avoid being surprised or to find secret doors (or find traps or draw a map)? Choose wisely.

 

[Faolyn]

Why would the druid be dealing with writing on a desk or searching a rug? That's not what the druid is there for. If needed, the druid can bypass the stone door. The wizard can read anything written on the desk as well as either Mage Hand or Unseen servant to move stuff around to look under it or whatnot.

Because the only way to get into the room was for the druid without setting off alarms or tipping off the guards is to wildshape into a spider or mouse and creep in. And you don't want to set off alarms or tip off the guards because this room is in a city, not a dungeon, and belongs to someone who is more potentially more powerful than you are, either level-wise or socially, and messing with this person would expletive-deleted the group.

Because the druid got separated from the rest of the party (deliberately or accidentally) and stumbled upon the room.

Because there is no wizard in the party

Because the wizard doesn't know unseen servant or mage hand.

Because the druid isn't a typical Outlander-style druid, but picked a different background and backstory so having them search a room makes sense.

Because the druid is a druid/rogue. (Scout rogue, perhaps. Or a ocean-based druid + swashbuckler rogue.)

Because the wizard's answer to everything, including "what would you like for dinner," is fireball.

Because the druid is skilled in Perception and Investigation and the wizard isn't.

There are legitimately dozens of reasons why the druid would be the one searching the room alone and not a wizard, or even a rogue.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, last time.

I will not engage with this.

Is that clear enough?

I'm rather tired of wading through mountains of bad faith arguments like "Oh, villages can't sell food" and other ridiculous crap like that. Hell, even in this example, NONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID, @Faolyn ARE PART OF THE EXAMPLE. The other four characters ARE IN THE ROOM.

So, keep moving those goalposts.

 

[Faolyn]

Ok, last time.

I will not engage with this.

Is that clear enough?

I'm rather tired of wading through mountains of bad faith arguments like "Oh, villages can't sell food" and other ridiculous crap like that. Hell, even in this example, NONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID, @Faolyn ARE PART OF THE EXAMPLE. The other four characters ARE IN THE ROOM.

So, keep moving those goalposts.

You have a very bad habit of either misunderstanding what people are writing or making strawmen out of it. I never said "villages can't sell food." I said "how many villages have 300 pounds of rations to sell to adventurers?"

The other four characters are in the room? So what? There are a multitude of reasons why the druid could be the one doing the investigation instead of the wizard, not the least of which is that there's no reason to pigeonhole what people do solely because of their class when it comes to things like searching a room (which isn't a class-based skill--and if it were, it'd be a rogue thing, not a wizard thing).

So far, all of your arguments seem to center on the idea that all adventuring parties work in the exact same way, and that all gaming worlds are built exactly the same with the same expectations. That all wizards are going to be using magic to trip traps from afar, for instance, that all druids are always going to stick with the party, that all spellcasters will use their spells to overcome challenges that can be accomplished through mundane means, or that all party members do everything together and never have individual goals or simply go off on their own for a brief time. You don't seem to get that this might be the case in your games, maybe in all of your games, but not in everyone's.

 

[iserith]

So far, all of your arguments seem to center on the idea that all adventuring parties work in the exact same way, and that all gaming worlds are built exactly the same with the same expectations. That all wizards are going to be using magic to trip traps from afar, for instance, that all druids are always going to stick with the party, that all spellcasters will use their spells to overcome challenges that can be accomplished through mundane means, or that all party members do everything together and never have individual goals or simply go off on their own for a brief time. You don't seem to get that this might be the case in your games, maybe in all of your games, but not in everyone's.

There's a little exercise my Discord and I sometimes do where we look at someone's complaint or objection about the game and brainstorm what conditions in that person's game experience must be true for that complaint or objection to make sense. It's interesting because what it often reveals is that person complaint or objection is actually rooted in how they run the game or some other factor, not the way the rules actually work when an adventure is designed and run based on them. Which is fine - change the rules or don't use them if you prefer to run it that way. Sometimes it reveals that their assertion is just an attempt to win an argument rather than an earnest attempt at understanding. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it's a bit difficult to swallow - given knowledge about how the rules related to the exploration pillar work, and how adventures designed with them in mind play out - that the objections offered are anything more than a self-indictment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Put another way, exploration sets up a dramatic question and an encounter (combat or social) answers it one way or another. Though sometimes the dramatic question is “can the party make it across death valley before succumbing?” so that could be an extended exploration encounter

Just getting to this.

But, sure, you could phrase it this way. But, think about how that interacts. Two pillars are "answers" to the question. One pillar is the question.

That may help explain why people have a much harder time figuring out what to do with exploration, because at the end of the day, it seems like the point of exploration is to get to either combat or social encounters that resolve the issue.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For reference, the rogue was going to try picking the lock to the iron door. Likely to succeed.

The cleric was going to read the notes. He would have noticed a small wooden lever on the desk. He would inform everyone that the notes talks about a forbidden ritual involving human sacrifices to become a lich.

The wizard would pull every book from the bookshelf with mage hand and read through them. They're all research textbooks but one of them is connected to a mechanism that makes an audible click, but doesn't make any apparent changes.

The barbarian would have peeked through the door and relayed that its a dark room with a strange orb in the center atop a pedestal and several corpses in the room.

So this is a team effort. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt so you, as an actual player, wouldn't be railroaded as any of these actions can be replaced by investigating the red carpet.

There's communication, but as I said, its investigation mode and there isn't anything to discuss since the basis of the room is shared with everyone already.

Not to jump in here but... what was the purpose of the challenge then?

I don't really consider it a challenge to read notes on a table that are clearly visible., Looking through a bookshelf to see what is on it isn't a challenge. Looking through a door and seeing obvious things on the other side isn't a challenge.

Even the rogue picking the lock. If they failed... so what? They have plenty of time to try again. Or, if you won't allow that, then the door could be destroyed by the Barbarian or the any of the casters.

You presented a room with doors, and yes there were actions the PCs could take to learn more information, but nothing that would require any sort of real challenge. So, how does this help demonstrate anything about challenging the players?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I see where you are going but I have to disagree with your conclusion. Time pressure in exploration can indeed lead to a wandering monster. However, to then say that introducing a wandering monster is solving the exploration pillar "problems" with the combat pillar is presuming quite a bit, IMO. The players can choose many different courses of action when presented with a wandering monster - courses of action which may or may not flow into the other pillars of play. While some of the party is searching for traps and secret doors and/or figuring out how to disarm/activate the same, others might be watching out for trouble. If the PCs on watch perceive a wandering monster approaching they can alert the others. Sure everyone can drop everything they're doing and engage solely in the combat pillar. Or a few of the PCs could attempt to parley with said monster while the others continue to search/disarm/activate (social and exploration pillars). Or a few of the PCs could hold back the wandering monster at a pinch point while the others figure out the secret door escape route (combat and exploration pillars). Or the players could funnel (with force and/or communication) said monster towards the trap they discovered (exploration plus combat and/or social pillars) Or all the PCs could fall back to a room they passed on the way (exploration). Even if those on watch didn't notice the wandering monster until it was upon them, these options are all still viable outcomes.

All that said, the wandering monster is only one possible outcome of taking too much time. Environmental effects, timed traps, NPCs off-camera making progress in a ritual or moving captives elsewhere, etc. all could be part of the consequences for the party taking too much time. In addition to the "ticking clock", exploration offers plenty of "tools" to ratchet up difficulty: exhaustion; difficult terrain; obstacles; traps; illusions; puzzles; anything, really, that can impose conditions or drain resources.

If you are meaning that exploration often can lead to engagement with one or both of the other pillars of play, then I would agree with that conclusion.

I see where you're going here, but this has a strange presupposition -- that only one or two characters are actually engaged in exploration -- the others are doing things that aren't advancing the exploration, like keeping watch, or fighting off the monster, or talking the NPC down, or whatever, while just a few deal with exploration. I find this a rather typical approach to 5e exploration -- only one or a few PCs really matter at a time.

There's almost no way to build exploration that engages everyone at the same time and still balances a fail condition so that the play can move forward. I mean, I can think of a few things that might, like group moves, but these are very rare in published materials and I have no idea how often they're used in wider play. I use them, fairly often, but then I've made an effort to build challenges that require the entire party tries to do a thing together, so it fits. I mean, who has the entire party search for traps and calls for a group move to resolve it? I've done this, in the wilderness but not in a dungeon, with a "the trap is where it is when it's invoked" kind of trap, so the group move worked well. If you have a detailed map, or a dungeon, where it's clear PC1 will step where the trap is, the group move doesn't make sense, but this then reinforces my point about only one or a few PCs are ever really involved in most 5e exploration challenges.

 

[Hussar]

You have a very bad habit of either misunderstanding what people are writing or making strawmen out of it. I never said "villages can't sell food." I said "how many villages have 300 pounds of rations to sell to adventurers?"

How many villages have 300 pounds of rations? I dunno, but, considering the party now has a MONTH to find out, I'm pretty sure they can restock. Or, I dunno, go to two villages? Wow, that's just such a major issue. Or, just spit balling here, spend a bit of time making their own rations before setting out? Or any number of other perfectly reasonable, easily done things?

But, I'm sure the goalposts are now going to zoom over there.

No, I'm not misunderstanding anything here. The "debunking" that has gone on in this thread has been pretty much entirely bad faith arguments based on the idea that the players are completely incapable of coming up with incredibly simple solutions. It's "Oh, well, if you use this, you are sinking all these resources" while ignoring the fact that the resource cost is trivial.

Yeah, it's time to step away from this. This is going to turn into another Halfling thread. Just not worth my time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

First, I think one has to recognize that there are a lot of traps that an unseen servant will not be able to help with, in particular complex or magical ones or anything triggered by weight or force greater than it can produce. Can you even see the parts of the trap the unseen servant needs to interact with from your position and are those things within 60 feet of you? Do you know how the trap works so you can tell it what to do? So this isn't a tool that's going to work in all or perhaps even most cases, depending on the content the DM is presenting. In the abstract, wow, unseen servant is a great trap springer! In reality, it's not the cost-free victory it's made out to be, unless the DM's exploration challenges are about an inch deep.

Well, let's dig into this. The spell specifies that the servant "can perform simple tasks than a human servant can perform". So, what kind of complex trap are you talking about that I need to see the parts of? Most traps have three types of triggers. Pressure Plates, trip wires, some sort of lever or magic.

And any trip wire is easily taken care of. Pressure plates would have to be able to take more than 60 lbs of force, which is a lot. I don't need to know how the trap works to trigger it this way, just like you never needed to know what a trap did to trigger it with a ten foot pole.

Levers? Well, the unseen servant can certainly pull levers. So, if I'm let's say 30 ft back outside of the room and pull a random lever, how many actually dangerous things can happen to me? There are very few things that would be dangerous to the person pulling the lever, that would be dangerous to people who are 30 or more feet away.

But, there is still magic. Well, how is it a magical trap? Does it trigger if a creature gets into the area? Then the Unseen Servant triggers it. They have enough qualities to count as a creature. They don't trigger it? Then if I can see the trap, they can begin messing with it. Maybe they can, or maybe they can't do enough to it to disarm it, but at a certain point of the trap being unable to be seen and unable to be interacted with, there isn't much more that the rogue would have been able to do differently except get caught in the trap.

Next, setting off the trap isn't always desirable either. It may keep the PCs safe (then again, it might not depending on the area it affects), but what else might be negatively impacted by the trap going off that is important to the PCs? What if that pressure plate causes a huge block to drop down from the ceiling, destroying the unseen servant, and blocking further passage? Oops.

Then it is better that it happened to the unseen servant than the rogue. And if the passage is completely cut off and there is nothing we can do... then we leave the dungeon and go looking for something else.

The problem with your example is though... no DM would do that, well, I guess Gygax and some hardcore 1e DMs might, but what you have described is a single point of failure for the entire dungeon. What would you do if you set that trap up, and the rogue rolled a 1? Kill the rogue, and lock the dungeon forever, making the entire journey a waste of time?

You should never put a trap in you aren't willing to have go off, and something that destroys the Unseen servant but doesn't hurt a party member is a win, because that trap going off and killing or harming a party member is far far worse.

And if it is meant to destroy the thing the PCs are there to get... well, first of all, then the trap is usually obviously telegraphed, because the entire goal is to avoid setting off the trap in the first place. And then we still have a formless, flying invisible force that can interact with anything we need to interact with, making the entire endeavor far safer than having the rogue try and reach whatever it is we need to reach.

Finally, the position I have taken is not that spells or the like don't help with the exploration challenges in some cases, only that rarely are they "free." They come with risks and trade-offs just like anything else - same as combat or social interaction options - particularly if the DM has created urgency via countdowns or random encounters based on time or noise. It's here where meaningful choices are provided to the players: Do I cast this unseen servant spell and risk a wandering monster check? Do I set off the trap with the unseen servant and create a bunch of noise? Is setting off the trap actually going to help us here? And so on.

But wandering monsters aren't an exploration challenge. What you are saying, in effect, is "do I solve the exploration challenge, by creating a combat challenge". And, at some point, you run out of monsters. Or, you run out of logical places for the monsters to come from. If we've cleared an entire floor of the dungeon then retreat to a room and lock it to summon the servant... where is this monster coming from? From down the stairs? Okay, good, then we killed it now instead of dealing with it later.

And the opportunity cost of knowing Unseen Servant is far far lower than the opportunity cost of the rogue's life. So, it is certainly worth having.

Which leaves us... countdowns. Which sure, countdowns are great ways to counteract what I'm talking about. But that isn't providing a challenge Unseen Servant and these other spells can't overcome, that is forcing the players to act inefficiently because they don't have the time to be safe. But not only is it nearly impossible to have a countdown for every single exploration, but it again is just tilting away from the exploration pillar and having us deal with a different aspect of the game instead.