D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Mort]

Ranger abilities: You're not slowed down by terrain and can never get lost, if I recall correctly. And some other stuff.
It's not like you have an ability to get past an obstacle quickly, but instead you never encounter the obstacle at all.

The trick is to make the terrain itself interesting in some way. If the PCs need something from it or learn something from it or simply be intrigued by it, skipping then becomes much less an option.

And if the terrain is not interesting - then that's the problem and it's better off being skipped.

Everyone would know that a thief ability that makes any door the party encounters already unlocked is stupid.

Only if locked doors are interesting. Having the rogue constantly roll to open doors and then have nothing interesting happen as a result - I'd say that's worse than having the doors be unlocked.

Heck the Rogue's 11th level ability essentially means that any "normal" door is no longer an obstacle - a great signal to the DM to step up the types of challenges encountered.

 

[Yora]

Only if locked doors are interesting. Having the rogue constantly roll to open doors and then have nothing interesting happen as a result - I'd say that's worse than having the doors be unlocked.

Exactly! That' why exploration in 3rd to 5th edition doesn't work. There is no pressure in exploration. Skills related to exploration are something you just do, but that don't actually change anything, and consequently get ignored eventually.
That's the main thrust of this article and the others in the series.

 

[Nefermandias]

Exactly! That' why exploration in 3rd to 5th edition doesn't work. There is no pressure in exploration. Skills related to exploration are something you just do, but that don't actually change anything, and consequently get ignored eventually.
That's the main thrust of this article and the others in the series.

Exploration in 3rd AND 5th editions you mean...

4e had a pretty robust exploration framework in the form of Skill Challenges, Rituals, Martial Practices and a plethora of examples of fantastic terrain and effects. Also, Healing Surges made it easy for the DM to apply meaningful consequences to player's actions and failures.

 

[mrpopstar]

4th Edition skill challenges are way overrated.

 

[Nefermandias]

4th Edition skill challenges are way overrated.

I agree. The implementation was far from flawless, but the concept is really good. The way it was deployed in many games I've been part of made exploration a really enjoyable experience.

 

[iserith]

Ranger abilities: You're not slowed down by terrain and can never get lost, if I recall correctly. And some other stuff.
It's not like you have an ability to get past an obstacle quickly, but instead you never encounter the obstacle at all.
Everyone would know that a thief ability that makes any door the party encounters already unlocked is stupid.

As for the ranger abilities, that only applies to the ranger's favored terrain, 3 out of 8 at most. Outside of this terrain, they still have the issue of difficult terrain and can get lost. Further, even when in favored terrain, the ranger still needs to navigate so that they don't get lost, which means the ranger can't do some other task while traveling other than keep watch for danger - can't track, map, or forage. So in my forest/swamp hexcrawl, the ranger in the group has Swamp favored terrain. It's great when they're in the swamp, but not great when they are in the forest. And even when in the swamp, if they prioritize not getting lost, someone else has to track, map, or forage.

I'm not sure what you mean by the thief ability you reference.

 

[Lanefan]

I gotta agree with @Faolyn , those are not examples of role-playing. A player may be using that as an excuse, but that is not role-playing.

Just because a role isn't being played in a manner you approve of doesn't give you the right to say it's not role-playing.

"I heal the monsters during the combat because I'm a pacifist". If this PC has any prior in-play history of being a pacifist then this is a completely justifiable action; and IMO better role-playing than it'd be for the pacifist PC to conventionally help his allies kill the monsters. The PC is putting his own skin on the line to stand up for his beliefs.

 

[Lanefan]

Though then you have to define at what point a hex counts as explored. Even 1-mile hexes are huge areas.

Have the xp awards be variable depending on degree of exploration and-or the difficulty in so doing.

Difficulty example, fully exploring a hex on the Saskatchewan prairie can be done with the aid of a single Levitate spell, as from even just a few tens of feet off the ground you can see the whole bloody thing! But a hex in high mountains could take weeks, even months, to fully explore.

And a simplistic gradated-award system could go something like:

5 xp - "touch": you pass straight through or over the hex in question without stopping.
20 xp - "basic": you pay enough attention to a hex to note its most salient features, or stop there (e.g. camp overnight), or otherwise do enough to gain a cursory knowledge of it.
100 xp - "solid": you spend several days there, or undertake an adventure there, and come to know quite a bit about the immediate area though it may still have secrets.
250 xp - "deep": you explore a hex well enough to know pretty much everything about it, or you live there for at least a year, or similar.

 

[Faolyn]

Just because a role isn't being played in a manner you approve of doesn't give you the right to say it's not role-playing.

"I heal the monsters during the combat because I'm a pacifist". If this PC has any prior in-play history of being a pacifist then this is a completely justifiable action; and IMO better role-playing than it'd be for the pacifist PC to conventionally help his allies kill the monsters. The PC is putting his own skin on the line to stand up for his beliefs.

If. That's the keyword here. But since it also appears that one PC is attacking another PC "to be funny," or because they seem to decide that another PC is a doppelganger, despite lack of evidence, then I'm going to assume that the cleric is just messing around here.

 

[Lanefan]

If. That's the keyword here. But since it also appears that one PC is attacking another PC "to be funny," or because they seem to decide that another PC is a doppelganger, despite lack of evidence, then I'm going to assume that the cleric is just messing around here.

Absent context, it's harder to say. If the "to be funny" character has a history of being, in effect, chaotic silly; and a track record of doing unexpected and not-always-safe things, then fine. I've had many of these characters in my games. If it's done out of the blue, however, then up goes the storm-warnng flag.

The doppelganger example is - or could be - an interesting one; in that the "lack of evidence" could come from there being no evidence to be had (i.e. the character's not a doppelganger and never was) or it could come from the observing character simply being obtuse. Again, context would be useful here.

My original and underlying point remains, however: for those who say this isn't roleplaying, sorry - it is.