D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Chaosmancer]

I guess given enough time, the ranger will eventually find it by process of elimination if they adopt a rational and systematic approach, but that's still a shot in the dark (every time). Unless the tower is magically hidden of course; then the ranger is no better than anybody else. So magic maze shenanigans still work on the ranger.

There are two ways of using google map. You can use the directions app that will tell you exactly which way to take from your starting point to your destination. Or you just use the map with your location services turned on. You'll know where you are. You won't be lost. You can even activate tracking to make sure you don't double down. But finding your destination is not guarantied. Still, it's way better than having no map at all.

I see the ranger "cannot-be-lost-by-nonmagical-means" as the google map with location services on, not as the direction map, while everyone else is stuck with a paper maps. Well, not quite, but that's a close analogy.

Great. So the only difference between a ranger walking through a forest to get somewhere they know, and a ranger walking through a forest to get somewhere they don't know is time.

 

[Nefermandias]

Yes, obviously you can combine them. That is not my point.

I asked, pages and pages ago, "what can the DM use to combat these solutions to the exploration pillar" and I have gotten three answers.

1) That isn't a solution because those aren't the rules (fairly useless quibbling overall)

2) I send monsters at them (this is combat or social, not an exploration challenge, so once the combat is over... we continue using these solutions to bypass the exploration)

3) There is a ticking clock and if take the time to do things the effective way, you all lose/die ect.


So... there seem to be no answers. Which might tie into why some people have issues with exploration... because the most common answer is more combat.

Well, Wandering Monsters aren't the only thing you can throw at the party. For instance, Exhaustion and Diseases are quite effective and scary ways to enforce consequences for exploration encounters going bad.

 

[Lanefan]

IF you can't give players benefits without penalizing them, then the game is not playable. It is just a pantomime of forever keeping them running in place.

The opposite extreme, of course, is unbridled power creep.

I get that hit points are a resource, but if your goal is just to do anything possible to make the hp number go down, no matter what I do. Then I'd rather save the hour and half of talking through every single detail of everything, take the damage and move on. My IRL gaming time is worth more than a few hitpoints I'm going to lose either way.

My goal is to make that number go down to (or below!) zero. Your goal is to prevent that happening.

Everything else is pretty much just gravy.

I respect that you are tired of the argument. I'm tired of having to specify every single thing I'm doing, in every single room, because in one of them I might decide to pick up a cursed key.

There are plenty of other ways to handle this. And yes, a quite of few of them ruin the "surprise" of the key being cursed. But, if the only challenge is that the player is unaware of the challenge, then it isn't actually challenging. It doesn't matter if they know the key is cursed if they have to interact with it to get what they want, and figuring out how to use a cursed key either without getting cursed, or dealing with the curse, is infinitely more interesting than grabbing it by accident and getting cursed.

Situation: party has beaten its way through to a treasure vault, in which is a chest. On opening the chest:

DM: You see six items in here: 1) a pair of dark-green boots; 2) a plain-looking gold ring; 3) a gleaming silver bar or rod about 2 feet long with no obvious markings; 4) a large and gently glowing orange gem; 5) a short length of silk rope, maybe 5 feet long; 6) a stoppered ceramic vial. All of these things look to be easily of high enough quality to be enchanted.

The DM's notes say the following about each item:

1) On donning boots, wearer and all worn or carried gear (incuding these boots!) instantly and permanently transforms into a large fir tree. Roots extend deep into the ground (regardless of ground material). Dexterity and movement speed become 0 and tree cannot become prone. Tree retains intelligence but cannot speak or otherwise physically communicate, though mental or psionic communication is possible. Chopping down or uprooting tree slays it; removing branches causes commensurate damage (etc. etc.)

2. On donning ring, wearer instantly gains a "hidden" wish: the next time the character speaks a sentence starting with the words "I wish" that wish will, as far as possible, come true. Once the wish is transferred (even if not yet used) the ring loses all enchantment and becomes a simple piece of jewelry worth 45 g.p.

3. Bearer gains best possible results when interacting, in a reasonable manner, with metallic Dragons. Has no effect or use otherwise.

4. On being touched to one's own forehead, gem immediately and permanently inserts itself there. Wearer gains at-will telepathic communication with any sentient creature that a) wearer has socially interacted with and b) is willing to receive such communication. If gem is removed from wearer's forehead by any means, wearer dies (no save).

5. While rope is being worn as a belt, wearer cannot be damaged by falling.

6. Vial contains a double-strength potion of healing; though all indications (smell, taste, etc.) point to it being a potion of giant strength.

Clearly here I either need some specific details as to exactly who does exactly what or there's going to potentially be some very big benefits and penalties getting tossed around by random DM fiat. So, details it is.

And, as I'm asking for details this time I need to ask for details every time so as to conceal those times when - like this - details are really important.

Maybe it is a better solution. But, that doesn't change the fact that if we are saying "by RAW, this is what happens" that saying "that's stupid and shouldn't be the rule" doesn't suddenly make it not the rules.

And sometimes it can be just as effective to look at what the rules lead to, and respond to that, than just telling everyone they should change all the rules one by one.

When the rules lead to garbage I do respond to that, by saying change the rules.

 

[Lanefan]

Then literally what is the point of asking? Does anyone ever say "No, I don't want to look closer, I'll ignore it."?

Maybe not this, but I frequently get "No, we'll examine it from back here and maybe toss a few Detect spells at it (and around the room) first."

I-as-DM can never assume what they'll do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It sounds like Bob is a DM NPC, as Bob’s player would have no way of knowing the bridge was out until he got there… unless the DM briefed Bob on the tufted grubwort bunkum before hand. If that happened from my DM I would be looking at him very oddly.

I think that little spiel is what known as a contrivance. It’s not very convincing, practical or realistic. Particularly if Bob has never been to this particular forest before… highly likely in adventuring.

Contrivance like putting in a flood so the ranger doesn't know the way, thereby finding a non-magical way to make them lost? Or by inventing other reasons the story above, which, yes, has poetic license and isn't an actual recreation of a series of play but a dramatization of it, can't happen do to the additional reasons you've just added. Yes, I see, contrivance.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure, but they may never get to use that if the rest of the party tells them after the first monster attack that they are never foraging again for fear of wandering monsters.

Hence the question. Do you actually pull the player aside when they take outlander, and explain to them that while they will succeed in foraging, you will also make sure that wandering monsters are likely to attack while they forage, and they will be automatically surprised, because they were foraging, and not looking for monsters?

I have never, in all my decades of gaming, seen the party tell someone they cannot forage because it might result in a check for wandering monsters.

They know that I roll for wandering monsters. They're adults, and don't need me to explain basic things that are blatantly obvious, like that if I roll for wandering monsters, a check might occur while they are foraging.

As an aside, they're not automatically surprised just because they were foraging.

 

[iserith]

I have never, in all my decades of gaming, seen the party tell someone they cannot forage because it might result in a check for wandering monsters.

They know that I roll for wandering monsters. They're adults, and don't need me to explain basic things that are blatantly obvious, like that if I roll for wandering monsters, a check might occur while they are foraging.

As an aside, they're not automatically surprised just because they were foraging.

Correct and just to add: Not all monsters attempt to surprise the party and not all conditions in the environment allow for it. But if they do try to attack from hiding, a character that is engaged in one of the listed activities while traveling, which includes foraging (or any other activity the DM deems at least as distracting), they don't contribute their passive Perception to noticing hidden threats. In that case, they have no chance of noticing a hidden creature and are thus automatically surprised.

Therein lay the meaningful choice: Do you want to gather food and water at the risk of being automatically surprised by certain wandering monsters? Or do you prefer to focus on staying alert to danger instead? If you really need the food and water, then it may be worth the risk, as it might also be because you already don't have a great passive Perception score and are likely to be surprised anyway. Or maybe you have the Alert feat or weapon of warning, so it's no big deal.

 

[Azzy]

I assume you are referring to this rule? "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels"

So.. what if they aren't traveling? The outlander rules don't specify you have to be traveling, so if they go to get food while not traveling, there is no monster attack, and the monster certainly can't ignore their passive perception.

Well, if they are not traveling through and are more or less settled in the area, knock yourself out.

That's a great idea. They can just do a travel montage, have all the food foraged, and no threats.

Funny though, a lot of people have talked about how skipping by doing a montage is bad... and what if they DM decides not to do a montage?

Well, it's not a bad thing if it suits your group's playstyle. Ideally, the DM and the rest of the group should be on the same page on what to expect from their play experience—with the group as a whole deciding, and that this should be discussed as a group before play. If there's a mismatch between your expectations and the rest of the group, I don't know—bear with it or play with a different group if it's too annoying to bear with.

And I wrote it that way specifically. Because who wants their ability to find shelter to let them have a place to rest for free, when instead it could be a hook for them to go on an adventure and earn that shelter... that they get for free...

Are you noticing the issue that I was highlighting?

Yes, I do. And I agree with you that the background feature should get you a place of rest for free without jumping through hoops.

 

[Azzy]

I still haven't seen someone answer the question though in the seeming reverse.

Let us say that the Ranger can never get lost, that they can always retrace their steps and get back to their starting point.

The Tower of Evil is in the Dark Forest, forests are the favored terrain. How do they NOT find the tower eventually? They can never get lost. They can never be walking in circles and have no idea. So, how do you have it so that they do not eventually find their destination?

The key word is eventualy. Bruteforcing it will get you there, but it will likely take much, much more time than if the way to the destination is known beforehand. If you want to handwave the bruteforcing instead of playing it out (like the default rules represent), that's cool (assuming your entire group is of the same mind).

 

[Hussar]

... and to be fair with @Ovinomancer, when I'm driving with the family and my wife says "we're lost, aren't we? I told you to update your google app!", replying with "I'm not lost, I know exactly how to get back home!" is usually met with... frown. Yeah, let's go with frown.

I still think that's not the definition of "lost" that is applicable in this case, but I did get lost quite a few times according to their definition.

ROTFLMAO. That wins the thread. Just cracked me up.