The standard DMG rule for wandering monsters is 18+ on a d20. Thus, if you're checking once per hour, at a fast pace (4 mph) you have a 1.875% chance per mile, at a normal pace 2.5% per mile, at a slow pace 3.75% per mile. Meaning moving cautiously is more dangerous than moving swiftly (possibly made up for by stealth).
That seems wrong to me, so I was thinking to have a fast pace change the roll to 17+, a slow pace change the roll to 19+. Does that seem fair?
While I'm at it, are there any good rules for figuring out who spots who first (or if they both just pass by each other) in overland movement?
Isn’t it just that moving slower means you’re out there longer, so there’s more chance you’ll bump into something?
I could see if you mean being surprised by a monster, then slower should be less likely to be surprised, but it seems reasonable that slower has more chance to encounter a thing.
I can see it making sense for the chance for an encounter going up if a Party is travelling slowly, but not stealthily. Think about how much riskier it would be to travel in a large lumbering ox cart vs. a group of swift horses.
Moving slowly is not the same as moving cautiously. It's not "moving cautiously is more dangerous than moving swiftly", it's "moving slowly is more dangerous than moving swiftly"
The increased chance of an encounter while moving slowly can be offset by use of Stealth: the Party and the encounter would still potentially collide, but the Party has a greater chance of not being detected while detecting their counterpart, so they have the option of controlling if/how the encounter unfolds.
Travelling cautiously and slowly would increase the chances of a potential encounter, but raise the probability that you can control, or avoid it.
As for who spots who - Perception vs. Stealth works. Both sides rolls Perception, with the DC being the passive Stealth score of the other to detect the other side. You could default to passive Perception if you don't want to tip your hand to the Players that there's a possible encounter afoot, or you don't want to bother rolling for whoever is making up your potential encounter. You could make it a group check amongst all your Players, or just take the roll of whoever is on watch at the time. If one side, or the other is being actively stealthy, give them advantage on the roll, or shift the passive DC by 5.
If both sides spot each other, then the encounter happens at a suitably large distance. If one side spots the other, but is not spotted in kind, if gives them a great advantage in controlling the situation. If neither side notices the other, the encounter just doesn't happen as both sides wander away oblivious that anyone was there.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
encountering something does not automatically mean head on / roll initiative. A stealthy but slow moving party can encounter some feral beasts but get around them completely without having to deal with them, or they can ambush the ambushers.
A reckless group of fast travelling adventurers can stumble head on into the problem on the road before they even realize what is going on.
encountering something does not automatically mean head on / roll initiative. A stealthy but slow moving party can encounter some feral beasts but get around them completely without having to deal with them, or they can ambush the ambushers.
A reckless group of fast travelling adventurers can stumble head on into the problem on the road before they even realize what is going on.
Well, that was my theory for modifying encounter odds -- an assumption that people by default try to avoid trouble, and even without stealth rolls you're being a bit more cautious.
OK - I can see it, if you're trying to collapse encounter probability and stealth all into one roll.
That eliminates the nuance of a high stealth Party vs. a low stealth Party, and makes a single Elven rider on horseback have an equal chance for an encounter with a tinker travelling by oxcart covered in the pots and pans of his wares - but it makes the mechanic a whole lot simpler, and simpler is better unless the complexity gives you something back for the added effort.
This does - however - take the choice out of the Party's hands. Rather than giving the Party a potential encounter which they can pursue or avoid as they choose, the one-roll approach simply eliminates the possibility of the encounter. Again - that may-or-may-not be a bad thing, depending on the game pacing you're trying to set, and how dangerous you want the tone to be for wilderness travel.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The standard DMG rule for wandering monsters is 18+ on a d20. Thus, if you're checking once per hour, at a fast pace (4 mph) you have a 1.875% chance per mile, at a normal pace 2.5% per mile, at a slow pace 3.75% per mile. Meaning moving cautiously is more dangerous than moving swiftly (possibly made up for by stealth).
That seems wrong to me, so I was thinking to have a fast pace change the roll to 17+, a slow pace change the roll to 19+. Does that seem fair?
While I'm at it, are there any good rules for figuring out who spots who first (or if they both just pass by each other) in overland movement?
Isn’t it just that moving slower means you’re out there longer, so there’s more chance you’ll bump into something?
I could see if you mean being surprised by a monster, then slower should be less likely to be surprised, but it seems reasonable that slower has more chance to encounter a thing.
I can see it making sense for the chance for an encounter going up if a Party is travelling slowly, but not stealthily. Think about how much riskier it would be to travel in a large lumbering ox cart vs. a group of swift horses.
Moving slowly is not the same as moving cautiously. It's not "moving cautiously is more dangerous than moving swiftly", it's "moving slowly is more dangerous than moving swiftly"
The increased chance of an encounter while moving slowly can be offset by use of Stealth: the Party and the encounter would still potentially collide, but the Party has a greater chance of not being detected while detecting their counterpart, so they have the option of controlling if/how the encounter unfolds.
Travelling cautiously and slowly would increase the chances of a potential encounter, but raise the probability that you can control, or avoid it.
As for who spots who - Perception vs. Stealth works. Both sides rolls Perception, with the DC being the passive Stealth score of the other to detect the other side. You could default to passive Perception if you don't want to tip your hand to the Players that there's a possible encounter afoot, or you don't want to bother rolling for whoever is making up your potential encounter. You could make it a group check amongst all your Players, or just take the roll of whoever is on watch at the time. If one side, or the other is being actively stealthy, give them advantage on the roll, or shift the passive DC by 5.
If both sides spot each other, then the encounter happens at a suitably large distance. If one side spots the other, but is not spotted in kind, if gives them a great advantage in controlling the situation. If neither side notices the other, the encounter just doesn't happen as both sides wander away oblivious that anyone was there.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I agree with Vedexent,
encountering something does not automatically mean head on / roll initiative. A stealthy but slow moving party can encounter some feral beasts but get around them completely without having to deal with them, or they can ambush the ambushers.
A reckless group of fast travelling adventurers can stumble head on into the problem on the road before they even realize what is going on.
Well, that was my theory for modifying encounter odds -- an assumption that people by default try to avoid trouble, and even without stealth rolls you're being a bit more cautious.
OK - I can see it, if you're trying to collapse encounter probability and stealth all into one roll.
That eliminates the nuance of a high stealth Party vs. a low stealth Party, and makes a single Elven rider on horseback have an equal chance for an encounter with a tinker travelling by oxcart covered in the pots and pans of his wares - but it makes the mechanic a whole lot simpler, and simpler is better unless the complexity gives you something back for the added effort.
This does - however - take the choice out of the Party's hands. Rather than giving the Party a potential encounter which they can pursue or avoid as they choose, the one-roll approach simply eliminates the possibility of the encounter. Again - that may-or-may-not be a bad thing, depending on the game pacing you're trying to set, and how dangerous you want the tone to be for wilderness travel.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.