D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Lanefan]

Again, we're discussing what the rules ACTUALLY say, not what we wish they said. Since 3e, wizards have always gotten free spells in their spellbooks that they can choose.

I didn't say the mistake started with 5e...

More generally, when something's broken (in this case, exploration gets too easily negated) it's often informative to dig in and find out some root causes; which surprisingly often rest in some restriction from older editions having been removed or nerfed in newer. Two perfect examples are the spells Teleport and Polymorph (Other): they were fine in 1e when the caster (and-or target) had to weight he benefits against the risks, but once 3e removed the risks both became broken as hell.

Here, the root cause has two parts: one, the existence of certain spells, as you've pointed out, which has always been an issue; and two, the ease with which those spells can be acquired, which hasn't.

There is a pretty wide excluded middle here. I mean, people are expressing surprise that a player might spend that 3 sp and buy a second waterskin.

While doing so might be wise, I can't recall ever seeing a character do this. (though we list waterskin and wineskin separately, and many have both, so functionally the same I suppose)

Like I said, if your method of making exploration interesting and engaging is to start counting waterskins in a game where Create Water is a cantrip, then, maybe, just maybe that's not a good direction to go in?

This very neatly raises two big issues at once.

First - and probably beyond the scope of this discussion - the more I see of 5e cantrips the more I'm concluding that they are, in general, way overpowered for simple throwaway spells.

Second, 5e is way too nice to its characters' equipment. I mean, seriously: I could fireball your PC into the middle of next Tuesday, leaving it no more than a smoking pile of ash and charred bones on the floor, yet by RAW the waterskin on your belt would still be in perfect condition, as would be the belt; because 5e - and, I believe, 4e - doesn't force carried or worn items to make saves when their owner fails one. Which, in the fiction, is ludicrous.

It's hard to enforce equipment attrition when the system assumes by default that such cannot happen even in extreme circumstances such as being repeatedly fireballed.

 

[Lanefan]

It's assumed you've been researching the spells between levels; the spells don't just magically (hah!) appear in your spellbook one day. Therefore, the spells shouldn't be random.

Ah, sorry; I keep forgetting that not everyone uses training rules. I do, and always will (regardless of edition).

The randomness in free spells comes from those being the spells your trainer happens to teach you during training.

 

[Faolyn]

Ah, sorry; I keep forgetting that not everyone uses training rules. I do, and always will (regardless of edition).

The randomness in free spells comes from those being the spells your trainer happens to teach you during training.

Makes sense in that context.

 

[iserith]

Second, 5e is way too nice to its characters' equipment. I mean, seriously: I could fireball your PC into the middle of next Tuesday, leaving it no more than a smoking pile of ash and charred bones on the floor, yet by RAW the waterskin on your belt would still be in perfect condition, as would be the belt; because 5e - and, I believe, 4e - doesn't force carried or worn items to make saves when their owner fails one. Which, in the fiction, is ludicrous.

It's hard to enforce equipment attrition when the system assumes by default that such cannot happen even in extreme circumstances such as being repeatedly fireballed.

I think you have to consider the much narrower focus of the original game though. It really was a game about what you can carry into and out of a dungeon while weighing the risks of how deep you go. To that end, having spells and effects that destroy equipment makes a lot of sense because it puts at risk limited resources that are important to surviving the dungeon.

In D&D 5e, the game isn't focused on just that one thing. So it would make very little sense to have a fireball that always has a chance to blow up people's stuff because it wouldn't be a good fit for the subset of games where equipment isn't as important. For many groups in my experience, they pick their adventuring gear and much of it rarely sees use. It's not important to whatever it is they are spending the most time on (sitting around the tavern, shopping, interviewing quirky, cagey NPCs, for example).

If one is running a D&D 5e adventure or campaign that is focused on the classic town-to-dungeon experience, however, the DM can include monsters that destroy or degrade equipment (oozes, rust monsters, for example), traps and hazards that do the same, and simply have monsters and NPCs target objects. For instance, I mentioned having monsters attack the PCs' lantern upthread. Further, for any given ability check, a DM might say a failed check results in achieving the goal, but at the cost of a piece of equipment ("progress combined with a setback") if it follows logically.

 

[Aldarc]

I'll add one more to that: A lot of people play RPGs a certain way, game to game, rarely changing. That's particularly true of D&D in my experience. Lots of people I know tried to run each edition the same to varying levels of success. So when they encounter certain rules, those rules "suck" because while it may fit perfectly well with the game system if the game is played according to the way that game is pushing play, it doesn't work well with how they're choosing to play the game. Rather than examine how they are designing and running or playing games, they point to the rules as the problem.

Having run afoul of this in my own games when converting from 3e to 4e, I took a different approach: I design my adventures and games according to what the rules say. And voila everything works. My exploration pillar is based around what is in the 5e PHB and DMG, so I have no issues. (One more caveat: Just because the adventure or campaign works well when designed with the rules in mind, doesn't mean it is necessarily a fun game experience for all players. Some folks have a visceral reaction to resource tracking during travel, for example. No rule is likely to change that.)

I'm not terribly surprised by that though considering that 5e D&D was deliberately designed as an omni-edition meant to bring back fans from pre-4e editions. So is what you are describing a flaw or an intentional feature?

 

[Hussar]

They don't consult each other about every little thing. If they see anything out of the ordinary, they'll let you know. For now, though, they're in investigation mode and you can be sure they won't be expending resources unnecessarily.

If you want to ask them anything or relay information, you're free to do so. You know the rogue and the barbarian are more impulsive, though. Not disruptive, but they like making progress more than spending precious game time having too many meetings.

Nope.

 

[Asisreo]

Nope.

Its an exploration challenge. If your druid doesn't have an instant answer then the exploration pillar hardly gets trivialized.

This isn't a "jump over a wall," "open the door," or "bypass a security system" type of challenge. It challenges you on how, exactly, you'll handle a real and genuine exploration scenario in D&D.

 

[Hussar]

Its an exploration challenge. If your druid doesn't have an instant answer then the exploration pillar hardly gets trivialized.

This isn't a "jump over a wall," "open the door," or "bypass a security system" type of challenge. It challenges you on how, exactly, you'll handle a real and genuine exploration scenario in D&D.

Nope.

D&D isn't a solo game. That a single character doesn't have 100% of the answers proves nothing.

So, nope.

 

[Asisreo]

Nope.

D&D isn't a solo game. That a single character doesn't have 100% of the answers proves nothing.

So, nope.

You're not in charge of the other characters, but you can still give suggestions. If that isn't a genuine D&D experience as a player, then I'm sorry but I don't know what is.

I've never had a party that liked having one person boss them around, though.

 

[Hussar]

You're not in charge of the other characters, but you can still give suggestions. If that isn't a genuine D&D experience as a player, then I'm sorry but I don't know what is.

I've never had a party that liked having one person boss them around, though.

I'm sorry, but, I do not believe you will discuss this in good faith. I have presented my point of view as well as I could. I have zero interest in white room theory crafting. I showed, using your example, that the group that you chose, could easily have all the elements to completely bypass any challenge in your example with minimal use of resources. The criticism that it was a choice between this or "one less bless" is completely unfounded since, in your example, the cleric has the tools AND bless without any problem.

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.

Why are you insisting that the druid, of all characters, be the one to solo this room without any input from the rest of the group? But, instead you are going down the route of "one person boss them around". Has nothing to do with that. I play D&D as a team. Which means that everyone brings something to the table that other characters don't. You want a fantastic scout? My Moon Druid is the best that there is. You want something read? Well, that's more the wizard's wheelhouse.

So, again. Nope. I'm not interested in this particular rabbit hole. You are proving exactly nothing with this example and have, instead, provided me with a perfect example of how a group, with minimal expenditure of resources, can bypass every single exploration challenge you put before this hypothetical group.