D&D 5E [+]Exploration Falls Short For Many Groups, Let’s Talk About It

[doctorbadwolf]

D&D 5e has a exploration game.
The problem is it is all DM facing so player have no direction on how to use it..
D&D has a history of either giving too little guidance or telling you what to do. Almost nothing in between.

5e's Nature

vs
3e's Knowledge Nature

vs
4e's nature




Guess which edition likely had more players roll unprompted Nature checks.
Ten bucks it's the "monster fighter board game" edition.

Dude don’t edition war bait please. It’s very easy to talk about how 4e did it right without the snark. I am not making a big ask in making this a + thread. It’s a very very very small ask.

Yes 4e did a great job of giving example actions you can take with each skill, and explaining what each skill is for and what training in it represents. I think combined with the UA description of actions with resolution processes, like the Influence Action and Search Action, we would have a great skills chapter that wouldn’t slow down freeformers and would enhance the game for everyone else.

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree with the first statement. Rules clarity is a big deal.
As for skills, I do think that they should have more explanatory text, but I really like how they are accomplishing that in the UA rules, by describing the rules for actions you can take, which ability mod and skills are relevant to that action, etc.
what I absolutely would hate enough that if 5e had it from day one I wouldn’t be playing it, is the “you can do exactly these things with this skill” with every skill having extensive rules around it. Tell players that acrobatics is for getting around obstacles, showing off, maneuvering around enemies, and whatever else in fairly broad terms.

Rules clarity is a big deal but it isn't the problem.
Because the DM can use the 5e rules, the a5e rules, or their own rules to adjudicate an action.
The problem is players don't know what to do when exploring so it's all up to the DM to suggest almost every element in order for a player to snatch something.

Harvesting poisons is in the DMG. No mention in the PHB. So players never do it unless the DM tells them or another player who had a DM who told tell them.
The PHB don't even tell you that you can forage for food. Only that the ranger automatically succeeds at it by X amount in their fav terrain.

The exploration pillar is almost completely reactive and not informative in 5e.
You can't say "You are in a forest, what do you do?" to a new player. And as anew DM, you have little guides of what the player could do, how to challenge them, and where the challenges are in the DMG

Survival​

The DM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to survival in harsh environments. Some of the actions you are good at if you are proficient with the Survival skill are:

• Avoid natural hazards like quicksand and thin ice
• Follow tracks that were made recently
• Forage for food and drink
• Guide a group through dangerous terrains like frozen wastlelands or ash-covered demonic layers
• Hunt wild game for profitable meat, furs, skins, and other valuable materials
• Harvest poisons from slain monsters and animals
• Harvest healing plants in lust forests and jungles
• Identify signs of nearby dangerous threats like owlbears, malicious fey, or violent orc tribes
• Identify the pitfalls of difficult natural travel such as avalanches, forest fires, and river rapids
• Locate safe places to shelter in the wild
• Predict the weather
• Recall the hunting tactics of common enemies in an environment
• Set up camp without the proper equipment

Player: Wait wait. I have survival. Does this lake ice look safe enough to cross?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I disagree with the first statement. Rules clarity is a big deal.
As for skills, I do think that they should have more explanatory text, but I really like how they are accomplishing that in the UA rules, by describing the rules for actions you can take, which ability mod and skills are relevant to that action, etc.

First off, I agree that what we have seen in the UA with respect to ability checks and what they can be used for is a big improvement and gives me hope that it will be easier for both players and DM's to apply the ability and proficiency system to more and varied situations going forward.

...

It would be helpful for people who don’t want to just improvise that, but instead want players to know what is possible and what the stakes are, if the game had a system for rewarding xp for non combat challenges, rather than just “wing it”. I don’t remember any such guidance in the rules but I’d be stoked to be proven wrong. What amount of xp should finding a landmark give, and are there any other benefits like lowering navigation DCs while within X distance of the landmark?

XP rewards are fine in home brewed games but I think they are an issue with written adventures, particularly the adventure path type. It is my experience that with experienced players a party a level below the recommended level can comfortably complete many of WoTCs adventures. At least the ones I have run. I would like to see the DMG discuss alternative rewards to XP for overcoming challenges. Like boons, permanent or temporary.

I do agree that the DMG needs an actually helpful section on each aspect of exploration and how different ways of running it can work.

Colville is both overrated and also wrong about this, in that he’s being reductive to a point that just doesn’t match large swaths of player experience at the table.

This is a + thread. I explicitly asked in the OP to not do exactly this.

This is exactly right, IMO. Scattered rules and bad instruction.

Scattered rules is a bane of 5e, not just in exploration. Lack of explanation and poor procedures. I think that the game would benefit from some kind of extended ability challenge system. Not as tightly defined and as rigid 4e skill challenge where one had to achieve X successes before Y failures and put the players on the spot to narrate they actions. Something I noticed that players struggled with not being used to it from 3.x
Something that encourages the treatment of failure as a new obstacle to overcome.

 

[el-remmen]

3 successes: You get there in one smooth set of moves, completely bypassing difficult terrain and maybe get a little extra distance or not have to use any extra action economy when you normally would to get there

2 successes: You get there but it costs your BA and you take a little damage from recklessly throwing your body at stone obstacles.

1: you get no more than a strict reading of your abilities would allow. Choose to ignore some of the difficult terrain, climb and jump quickly, or spend the turn making a perception check to map a route and get advantage next turn.

0: You simply fail

Something vaguely like that. I’m failing a bit at conjuring a better hypothetical.

I’ve never felt I needed special rules for exploration or travel aside from what already exists (though i do wish 5e had more granular rules for overland difficult terrain) but I do occasionally use skill challenge type approaches to some obstacles and hazards, so I do like the approach quoted above (or some version of it)

It also depends on your group. I’ve had players where we spent multiple sessions traveling through the wilderness to get from place to place discovering stuff and dealing with hazards along the way. My current in-person group prefers some quick narration broken up by encounters and challenges but usually taking up part of a session at most.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Rules clarity is a big deal but it isn't the problem.
Because the DM can use the 5e rules, the a5e rules, or their own rules to adjudicate an action.
The problem is players don't know what to do when exploring so it's all up to the DM to suggest almost every element in order for a player to snatch something.

That is exactly an issue of rules clarity.

Harvesting poisons is in the DMG. No mention in the PHB. So players never do it unless the DM tells them or another player who had a DM who told tell them.
The PHB don't even tell you that you can forage for food. Only that the ranger automatically succeeds at it by X amount in their fav terrain.

Rules clarity issue.

The exploration pillar is almost completely reactive and not informative in 5e.
You can't say "You are in a forest, what do you do?" to a new player. And as anew DM, you have little guides of what the player could do, how to challenge them, and where the challenges are in the DMG

Sure you can. I would say you should. There should be more to fall back on and more rules clarity for the players, but the new player has not read the PHB, anyway.

“What do you do?” Is the pillar of introducing people to D&D.

Survival​

The DM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to survival in harsh environments. Some of the actions you are good at if you are proficient with the Survival skill are:

• Avoid natural hazards like quicksand and thin ice
• Follow tracks that were made recently
• Forage for food and drink
• Guide a group through dangerous terrains like frozen wastlelands or ash-covered demonic layers
• Hunt wild game for profitable meat, furs, skins, and other valuable materials
• Harvest poisons from slain monsters and animals
• Harvest healing plants in lust forests and jungles
• Identify signs of nearby dangerous threats like owlbears, malicious fey, or violent orc tribes
• Identify the pitfalls of difficult natural travel such as avalanches, forest fires, and river rapids
• Locate safe places to shelter in the wild
• Predict the weather
• Recall the hunting tactics of common enemies in an environment
• Set up camp without the proper equipment

Player: Wait wait. I have survival. Does this lake ice look safe enough to cross?

Yes, as I’ve said, clearer rules and especially better explained skills would improve the game.

First off, I agree that what we have seen in the UA with respect to ability checks and what they can be used for is a big improvement and gives me hope that it will be easier for both players and DM's to apply the ability and proficiency system to more and varied situations going forward.


XP rewards are fine in home brewed games but I think they are an issue with written adventures, particularly the adventure path type. It is my experience that with experienced players a party a level below the recommended level can comfortably complete many of WoTCs adventures. At least the ones I have run. I would like to see the DMG discuss alternative rewards to XP for overcoming challenges. Like boons, permanent or temporary.

Xp should always be presented alongside other options to reward players, absolutely.

Scattered rules is a bane of 5e, not just in exploration.

Yep. Been saying for years that unclear rules and lack of good guidance is the biggest weakness in 5e.

Lack of explanation and poor procedures. I think that the game would benefit from some kind of extended ability challenge system. Not as tightly defined and as rigid 4e skill challenge where one had to achieve X successes before Y failures and put the players on the spot to narrate they actions. Something I noticed that players struggled with not being used to it from 3.x
Something that encourages the treatment of failure as a new obstacle to overcome.

I agree, and I think that a success ladder (ie catastrophic failure, simple failure, success with complications, total success) based on number of successes would work great.

It also already exists in the Xanathar’s downtime activities. I think the Heist one, or maybe gambling and/or buying and selling stuff tasks?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’ve never felt I needed special rules for exploration or travel aside from what already exists (though i do wish 5e had more granular rules for overland difficult terrain) but I do occasionally use skill challenge type approaches to some obstacles and hazards, so I do like the approach quoted above (or some version of it)

It also depends on your group. I’ve had players where we spent multiple sessions traveling through the wilderness to get from place to place discovering stuff and dealing with hazards along the way. My current in-person group prefers some quick narration broken up by encounters and challenges but usually taking up part of a session at most.

Yeah hopefully I will get time today or tomorrow to lay out the journey system my group came up with for ship travel and I adapted to regular travel. It hits a middle ground I really like.

 

[el-remmen]

Yeah hopefully I will get time today or tomorrow to lay out the journey system my group came up with for ship travel and I adapted to regular travel. It hits a middle ground I really like.

I’ve been using a modified version of what is presented in Cubicle 7’s Uncharted Journeys.

 

[Minigiant]

Dude don’t edition war bait please. It’s very easy to talk about how 4e did it right without the snark. I am not making a big ask in making this a + thread. It’s a very very very small ask.

I wasn't trying to edition war but stress the issues with 4e's very terrible layout causing people to miss that it's better base exploration skill rules that avoided all these problems.

Hopping over one pit just to jump into another.

That is exactly an issue of rules clarity.

Rules clarity issue.

It's not really a rules clarity issue. It's a game explanation issue.
It's more the rulebook is missing pages that is unclear.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

...

I agree, and I think that a success ladder (ie catastrophic failure, simple failure, success with complications, total success) based on number of successes would work great.

It also already exists in the Xanathar’s downtime activities. I think the Heist one, or maybe gambling and/or buying and selling stuff tasks?

I would agree that success ladder use should be a thing going forward.
"You attempt to pick the lock on the dungeon door: Catastrophic failure - The lock is rusted shut but you can chisel the frame out of the wall with the prybar and a hammer from your thieves tools. It will take an hour and be somewhat noisy. lesser failure, yeah, the lock is sized but you have spotted where the deadbolt is and can jemmy it out in 10 minutes, it could be noisy. And so on."

 

[Minigiant]

It also depends on your group. I’ve had players where we spent multiple sessions traveling through the wilderness to get from place to place discovering stuff and dealing with hazards along the way. My current in-person group prefers some quick narration broken up by encounters and challenges but usually taking up part of a session at most.

That's why describing what the challenges are is so important.

If the player wants to use a greatsword, the PHB still provides the rules for greatswords for them to not by.And the DM can learn that and not provide magic greatswords but magic greataxes.

Exploration should be the same. However there is a contingent who doesn't what players to even know option because they might do things the DM didn't prompt or players looking at their sheeet.