D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Chaosmancer]

I’m sorry Ovinomancer you are demonstrating a lack of experience here. A dead end can be a river that you though you could ford but turns out you can’t. Or it could be a slope that you thought you could navigate that you can’t with the equipment you have, or a bridge that’s not where the map suggests it should be. I’m speaking from experience here. I knew my exact location in relation to my map in all three cases. All three cases involved back tracking and plotting another route.

Lost is when you don’t know where you are, or don’t know which direction to travel that’s it. It’s no more complicated than that.

Not getting lost doesn’t bestow you with supernatural knowledge and foresight of things you couldn’t know until you get there.

Going to jump in here. So, I run into a dead-end... I turn around and take a new route.

Unless you are forcing a ticking clock, or having us stop and fight 8 encounters for every day of travel, plus more for "wandering monsters" then... what are the consequences of a dead-end?

And, let's take another question. You know you want to go to the Tower of Evil in the Dark Woods. But you don't know where in the Dark Woods it is? Then... the party just wanders randomly until they find it right? What else are they supposed to do? I can't roll anything to find it, this is a massive forest that covers miles. Do I take the left trail ro the right trail? Doesn't matter, I have no idea so I might as well flip a coin for all the difference it makes


So, again... what are the consequences and challenges of finding something that you have no idea where it is at?

 

[Chaosmancer]

It can do it everything a human servant can do… except demonstrate independent thought or initiative… it’s mindless.

If you’ve never been inside the kitchen and don’t know for sure the dishes are there no, I wouldn’t let it.

You do you though hon!
I’ve given my explanation about spells not being able to work through total cover. Good luck convincing your DM

I look forward to the next time someone in your party tries to use wall of force for battlefield control and gets a nasty surprise from your DM

We have literally had this conversation before. Like the DM trying to prevent us from using Misty Step through a Wall of Force. He didn't like that a 2nd level spell beat a 5th level spell, but the rules don't say that a Wall of Force stops teleportation. And since you can see through it...

And I don't need it to demonstrate independent thought, or initiative. I need it to mindlessly follow instructions. Something it is literally designed to do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You said combat doesn't have a ticking clock. It does. Everything is measured in turns with discrete actions and, if you aren't successful, then the monsters eventually take away your hit points and you die.

That isn't a ticking clock. By a ticking clock you are talking about time. Yes, the turns are measured in discrete actions, but you can't say whether the fight is over in 4 turns, 9 turns, or 27 turns.

With no definitive end point, there is no ticking clock.

A wandering monster is a wandering monster - what happens when it shows up depends. But wandering monster or random encounter checks are absolutely a ticking clock in that they occur at regular intervals determined by the DM. They create a sense of urgency, as the DMG states. Typically, my dungeons have these at every 10, 30, or 60 minute interval, plus every time the PCs make noise.

And a monster isn't an exploration challenge. It is either a social challenge or a combat challenge. No matter what intervals you set to spawn them, the exploration isn't over and the players don't lose if a monster shows up. And no matter how much urgency being constantly attacked causes, it is still never an exploration challenge. It is a combat challenge.

A pane of glass is total cover because it is a physical obstacle that is between the caster and where the unseen servant would otherwise appear. Someone quoted the appropriate rules clarifications upthread.

No, because line of effect isn't a thing in 5e. I've looked.

If you're allowing it to be cast through glass and counting it as a creature, again, we're back to a DM handwaving all the difficulty away by making unseen servant more effective than seems to be intended. Hardly the fault of the rules or exploration pillar here.

Or they are interpreting the rules as written... and it turns out there are no rules written for magical traps that detect creatures, or specifically defining what a creature is.

Let's not. Discussing examples with you has not been very productive.

Well, you didn't seem to understand the question, so I felt like an example would help.

Again, it's not clear why you're trying to saying this about combat and exploration. But you can very easily have a ticking clock in your games. If you choose not to, that's on you. Your exploration challenges may be less difficult as a result.

Because fighting a monster is a combat pillar challenge, not an exploration challenge. I keep repeating it, so I don't know why you keep saying it isn't clear.

Fighting a monster, is a combat challenge. Not an Exploration Challenge.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's complete nonsense.

If we establish that every X period of time we roll for wandering monsters, and foraging takes X amount of time, then there's no punishment if the DM rolls for a wandering monster. Taking the time to forage in exchange for a wandering monster check is a tradeoff, a risk vs reward choice. There's nothing about the background that says that nothing bad can possibly happen while foraging (if it did, you should just choose to never stop foraging, and nothing bad will ever happen, EVER).

And did you establish the rules for foraging and wandering monsters before they took their background? Why would they bother taking it if it means more fights instead of just spending more money so that they don't have to deal with it.

Sure, if the DM specifically throws monsters at the foraging PC to punish them for foraging, that's bad. However, I doubt anyone has ever done that.

I don't doubt it. In fact, the sure number of times on these forums anything that has involved any time at all has been met with "but wandering monsters" I'd say it is likely to have happened.

 

[Ristamar]

Line of Effect isn't a thing. So, what exactly would be preventing it? There are no rules that state what happens when you try and cast a spell through a clear and transparent surface. I've checked, multiple times.

Targets​

A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

A Clear Path to the Target​

To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.

If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.

The rules don't explicitly call it "line of effect", but it's explained in the same terms. Transparency would only factor into the degree of obscurity (or lack thereof), not cover.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Following @Chaosmancer ’s assertion that unseen servants are creatures…

OH MY deep breath

I NEVER MADE THAT ASSERTION. I SAID A DM COULD MAKE THAT CALL!

Have I said it big and loud enough now that people can stop telling me what I said? I never said it was, I said that a DM could rule that way. Just because I acknowledge DMs can make a ruling doesn't mean that I am making the assertion that that is the one true way.

… I’m gonna have invisible stalkers be unseen servants that got so sick of their masters asking them to push every brick in the dungeon that they turn murderous and attempt to kill the summoner!

Ha ha, you so funny.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The rules don't explicitly call it "line of effect", but it's explained in the same terms. Transparency would only factor into the degree of obscurity (or lack thereof), not cover.

And what am I targeting by "The servant springs into existence in an unoccupied space on the ground within range"

The closest you can get is that I'm targeting a space... but the servant is appearing, that isn't "targeting" really. I mean, you don't even need to see the space.

 

[iserith]

That isn't a ticking clock. By a ticking clock you are talking about time. Yes, the turns are measured in discrete actions, but you can't say whether the fight is over in 4 turns, 9 turns, or 27 turns.

With no definitive end point, there is no ticking clock.

If you can't see how combat is a countdown, a clock ticking to someone's doom - the PCs' or the monsters' - I don't think there's ever going to be any agreement about what time pressure is in D&D. It's the most clear example there can be in my view.

And a monster isn't an exploration challenge. It is either a social challenge or a combat challenge. No matter what intervals you set to spawn them, the exploration isn't over and the players don't lose if a monster shows up. And no matter how much urgency being constantly attacked causes, it is still never an exploration challenge. It is a combat challenge.

As I've explained many times already and won't do again, the threat of wandering monsters creates urgency and makes exploration challenges more difficult by making decisions harder. It doesn't matter if at some point there is a combat before, during, or after the exploration challenge. This is irrelevant.

No, because line of effect isn't a thing in 5e. I've looked.

It's in the Spellcasting chapter. You can't cast through total cover and a closed window is total cover. This is further clarified by the game designers. Google it.

Or they are interpreting the rules as written... and it turns out there are no rules written for magical traps that detect creatures, or specifically defining what a creature is.

If the DM is interpreting it as "rules as written," (which is practically pointless in a game context, only in discussing what the words on the page are), any interpretation that makes challenges easier is still on the DM who is the one doing the interpreting! If you're pointing at the rules, three fingers are pointing back at you.

Well, you didn't seem to understand the question, so I felt like an example would help.

Examples never help in these discussions because the goal isn't actually to create understanding. It's to defend a position in a discussion where neither side has an incentive to change their mind.

Because fighting a monster is a combat pillar challenge, not an exploration challenge. I keep repeating it, so I don't know why you keep saying it isn't clear.

Fighting a monster, is a combat challenge. Not an Exploration Challenge.

Yes, you keep saying this as if it matters. But it doesn't. What I don't understand is why you keep saying it.

 

[Lanefan]

"You took a background thinking you could live off the land? Hah, you fool, didn't you realize that not spending money on rations and mounts and hirelings and wagons means that you've decided you want to be ambushed every single time by monsters who immediately get a surprise attack!"

Yeah, no punishments going on here. Just the DM deciding after character creation that a player choosing to use their background ability to bypass a need for food is a choice that leads to monster attacks. Just like when the Acolyte uses their ability to find shelter it turns out that the church can't possibly spare anything, unless they are willing to fight these monsters for them...

No benefit without penalty.

Simple design philosophy. Works well. Keeps the game playable.

 

[Lanefan]

The correct choice is to be a professional wrestler.

Which means all you truly know how to do well is fall short distances without injury, as everything else is fake.