That looks good except - travel paces are far too fast for anything except possibly a ranger traveling alone. The best estimates we have for realistic travel in a mideveal world are actually from the western wagon trains. From St. Louis to either California or Oregon by the trails used is roughly 2000 miles which they did in roughly 210 days (April through September) giving an average speed of 9.5 mpd. Records show that about the fastest they went was 15 mpd and sometimes they didn’t even make a quarter of a mile. Now that is a party of wagons pulled by oxen and mules. Mule trains and camel caravans etc) are somewhat faster but 30 mpd fast pace even for a single ranger on horseback with a pack horse is crazy fast. I haven’t read the whole thing ( I will later after finishing today’s honeydo list) but does it take weather into account anywhere? That and terrain are the actually the biggest roadblocks to overland travel.
I know I had talked to Optimus about this a while ago, but if anyone is interested I have put together some basic ideas of what "terrain stat blocks" might look like. Its still very rough around the edges, but I am hoping to improve upon it and really flesh it out to make "populating hexes" across a map easier to do on the fly
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
That looks good except - travel paces are far too fast for anything except possibly a ranger traveling alone. The best estimates we have for realistic travel in a mideveal world are actually from the western wagon trains. From St. Louis to either California or Oregon by the trails used is roughly 2000 miles which they did in roughly 210 days (April through September) giving an average speed of 9.5 mpd. Records show that about the fastest they went was 15 mpd and sometimes they didn’t even make a quarter of a mile. Now that is a party of wagons pulled by oxen and mules. Mule trains and camel caravans etc) are somewhat faster but 30 mpd fast pace even for a single ranger on horseback with a pack horse is crazy fast. I haven’t read the whole thing ( I will later after finishing today’s honeydo list) but does it take weather into account anywhere? That and terrain are the actually the biggest roadblocks to overland travel.
Roman legionnaires were expected to travel upwards of 20 miles in a day, with all their gear, and they had to specially train for it. I'd estimate that 10-15 miles per day is fairly reasonably for most people, which is about what I pulled at Philmont.
It's also true that D&D isn't realistic and, in fact, does not care about realism. When engaging in long-distance travel like that, especially on foot, you stop by midday. With the sun beating overhead, you'd just tire yourself out. Instead, you start before the sun is up. So if sunrise is 7 am, and you break by noon, then you're only getting in maybe five hours per day. That's nominally 15 miles on flat ground, assuming an 18-20 minute mile. And every 1,000 feet in elevation increase adds roughly 30 minutes to the travel time.
Instead, the game assumes a 20-minute mile and 8 hours of travel...because reasons.
That looks good except - travel paces are far too fast for anything except possibly a ranger traveling alone. The best estimates we have for realistic travel in a mideveal world are actually from the western wagon trains. From St. Louis to either California or Oregon by the trails used is roughly 2000 miles which they did in roughly 210 days (April through September) giving an average speed of 9.5 mpd. Records show that about the fastest they went was 15 mpd and sometimes they didn’t even make a quarter of a mile. Now that is a party of wagons pulled by oxen and mules. Mule trains and camel caravans etc) are somewhat faster but 30 mpd fast pace even for a single ranger on horseback with a pack horse is crazy fast. I haven’t read the whole thing ( I will later after finishing today’s honeydo list) but does it take weather into account anywhere? That and terrain are the actually the biggest roadblocks to overland travel.
Roman legionnaires were expected to travel upwards of 20 miles in a day, with all their gear, and they had to specially train for it. I'd estimate that 10-15 miles per day is fairly reasonably for most people, which is about what I pulled at Philmont.
It's also true that D&D isn't realistic and, in fact, does not care about realism. When engaging in long-distance travel like that, especially on foot, you stop by midday. With the sun beating overhead, you'd just tire yourself out. Instead, you start before the sun is up. So if sunrise is 7 am, and you break by noon, then you're only getting in maybe five hours per day. That's nominally 15 miles on flat ground, assuming an 18-20 minute mile. And every 1,000 feet in elevation increase adds roughly 30 minutes to the travel time.
Instead, the game assumes a 20-minute mile and 8 hours of travel...because reasons.
In the real world, a horse can walk 50 miles in a day, just walking. In practice it's going to be more like 40 miles in slightly rough landscape. Half that in mountainous terrain. The Pony Express typically covered 100 miles in a day but they swapped horses every 10-15 miles to keep running fresh ones.
A wagon train is made up of people of all ages, pulling heavy loads, with slow but steady beasts of burden. It's not going to go very fast.
An army on the march has to maintain some order, have decent roads, and bring their supply train. We can continue using more modern American analogies, since the varied terrain and relative lack of sophisticated roads might make it more applicable than even ancient times in Europe. During the Revolutionary War, an army would usually March 10-15 miles a day. 20 would be pushing it. Cavalry or skirmishes on their own could move faster.
A normal person can also hike about 10-15 miles a day comfortably, carrying some level of gear, over uneven trails. Or walk twice that on open roads without carrying much.
There are all of the other factors too, like weather and elevation.
So really the question comes down to how you're traveling in DnD. If you're moving with a caravan of merchants or riding in an ox cart, then a wagon train's 10 miles a day is probably reasonable. If you're moving with an army, then 15 miles a day is fair. If you're all riding horses, 50 miles or more is possible.
But most of the time, you're just 3-5 people carrying backpacks through wilderness. We have to assume that most adventurers are pretty athletic and well suited for this, more than the average townsfolk. More than even most of us. That's part of the 'heroic' experience. How many miles did Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli cover tracking the hobbits? Traveling 4 hours in the morning, and 4 in the evening, at a 20 minute mile isn't unreasonable for adventures.
So really the basic DnD travel speeds are pretty decent. They're simple and cover most of what you need. They might err on the high end of estimates, but that's okay. They're calculated based on the 30 feet movement speed. That's why you move 300 feet in a minute at normal pace. That's 18,000 feet an hour, which is about 3.4 miles, but they round it down to 3 to make it easier and account for breaks. 3 miles an hour equals 24 in an 8 hour day. Doing the math based on the game stats means you can apply it to any creature's movement speed.
It's not perfect, but it's good enough for most games. And it's pretty close to realistic, even if it doesn't have to be. The DM is making up how big and difficult the world is anyway, so it's all relative. You can always make a hex equal more miles if it's really necessary to slow the characters down. Or fewer miles to speed them up.
Roman legionaries also built and traveled on paved roads as much as possible. I’m fine with a 9-11 mpd average travel rate for wagons and 14-16 mpd for animal trains and small mounted groups. While I understand why the danger is separate from the terrain in the travel guide I think it should be included as a modifier to both the terrain die and the DC. Events also need to include weather events (thunderstorms, floods, dust storms etc) otherwise it’s quite nice.
That looks good except - travel paces are far too fast for anything except possibly a ranger traveling alone. The best estimates we have for realistic travel in a mideveal world are actually from the western wagon trains.
Not really, we have quite a bit of information about medieval and ancient armies, and it's also known that for organizational reasons smaller groups are generally somewhat faster. The PHB rates (which that document just copies) are reasonable for movement on roads, though they generally underrate terrain, a lot of terrains are far worse than double cost.
I know I had talked to Optimus about this a while ago, but if anyone is interested I have put together some basic ideas of what "terrain stat blocks" might look like. Its still very rough around the edges, but I am hoping to improve upon it and really flesh it out to make "populating hexes" across a map easier to do on the fly
Yeah these were looking VERY good! I highly suggest them.
So really the question comes down to how you're traveling in DnD. If you're moving with a caravan of merchants or riding in an ox cart, then a wagon train's 10 miles a day is probably reasonable. If you're moving with an army, then 15 miles a day is fair. If you're all riding horses, 50 miles or more is possible.
But most of the time, you're just 3-5 people carrying backpacks through wilderness. We have to assume that most adventurers are pretty athletic and well suited for this, more than the average townsfolk. More than even most of us. That's part of the 'heroic' experience. How many miles did Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli cover tracking the hobbits?
I basically agree 100% with your post Steg, but I'll toss in my little Tolkien nerd knowledge here. It was a lot.
"Forty leagues and five have you come...ere the fourth day has ended."
A league is 3 statute miles. So that's 135 miles through trackless hilly terrain. On foot. With stuff.
That looks good except - travel paces are far too fast for anything except possibly a ranger traveling alone. The best estimates we have for realistic travel in a mideveal world are actually from the western wagon trains. From St. Louis to either California or Oregon by the trails used is roughly 2000 miles which they did in roughly 210 days (April through September) giving an average speed of 9.5 mpd. Records show that about the fastest they went was 15 mpd and sometimes they didn’t even make a quarter of a mile. Now that is a party of wagons pulled by oxen and mules. Mule trains and camel caravans etc) are somewhat faster but 30 mpd fast pace even for a single ranger on horseback with a pack horse is crazy fast. I haven’t read the whole thing ( I will later after finishing today’s honeydo list) but does it take weather into account anywhere? That and terrain are the actually the biggest roadblocks to overland travel.
Roman legionnaires were expected to travel upwards of 20 miles in a day, with all their gear, and they had to specially train for it. I'd estimate that 10-15 miles per day is fairly reasonably for most people, which is about what I pulled at Philmont.
It's also true that D&D isn't realistic and, in fact, does not care about realism. When engaging in long-distance travel like that, especially on foot, you stop by midday. With the sun beating overhead, you'd just tire yourself out. Instead, you start before the sun is up. So if sunrise is 7 am, and you break by noon, then you're only getting in maybe five hours per day. That's nominally 15 miles on flat ground, assuming an 18-20 minute mile. And every 1,000 feet in elevation increase adds roughly 30 minutes to the travel time.
Instead, the game assumes a 20-minute mile and 8 hours of travel...because reasons.
The numbers for the Oregon/California trail vary widely based on route and even year. Mainly because the first few years they had no real "roads" or routes and in later years they had long stretches of "toll roads" that gave significant time advantages to later travelers. Some accounts I've read had their daily goal closer to 30 miles a day. One key factor that often determined whether or not they got close to that goal was the ability of their scouts or trail guides, who would ride ahead and find the best route. In the desert stretches, the party would often camp several days at a good watering hole while the scout went out looking for the next good watering hole. Then they'd make a run for that next hole, trying to get there as fast as possible before their water rations ran out.
So it would make sense that, even if it wasn't a roll, a ranger could help the party travel farther in a day by helping them find shortcuts or avoid bad stretches of trail. Or, if it were a roll (and they failed) it could end up with a wagon wheel stuck in the mud on a stretch of trail they should have avoided. And survival rolls wouldn't just be about finding herbs for healing if the party is traveling in an arid region where water is in short supply. If you want to play on the Grimdark side, consider the Meeks Cutoff Party or Donner Party story arcs as the result of a single failed survival roll.
It's clear that travel is important to the ranger identity. Weather you want simple or complex travel and/or exploration, ranger needs to interact with it in a "expert" manner. And if all the abilities are reduced to skills it won't be enough IMO.
Difficult terrain ignoring options alone at least seem better mechanically than the movement boost that other classes and ranger spells can Replicate.
Just getting back to this thread. It’s not just travel, it’s overland non road travel and survival - true exploration. Basically my complaint is fairly simple - the 1D&D ranger should be obviously better in a non road based exploration/overland travel scenario than a scout rogue, and they are not (bless you declare that the spells make them better by default). So the question is how do you redo the ranger so it is better simply on a skill basis? Things like the PHB ranger’s 2x food and water, stealth at normal pace, able to forage and scout, etc all gave the PHB ranger things they were better at than the scout rogue. Now they are gone, and the scout rogue is objectively equal in nature and survival (and probably stealth) skills plus they have 3 other expertises compared to the ranger’s 1 AND at higher level they get reliable talent.
Just getting back to this thread. It’s not just travel, it’s overland non road travel and survival - true exploration. Basically my complaint is fairly simple - the 1D&D ranger should be obviously better in a non road based exploration/overland travel scenario than a scout rogue
Why? The scout rogue is pretty much 'non-magical ranger'. If the scout rogue was obviously superior in non-wilderness play that would be true, but they really aren't. Sure, the rogue has more expertise slots, but the ranger is significantly better in combat and has spells.
Just getting back to this thread. It’s not just travel, it’s overland non road travel and survival - true exploration. Basically my complaint is fairly simple - the 1D&D ranger should be obviously better in a non road based exploration/overland travel scenario than a scout rogue
Why? The scout rogue is pretty much 'non-magical ranger'. If the scout rogue was obviously superior in non-wilderness play that would be true, but they really aren't. Sure, the rogue has more expertise slots, but the ranger is significantly better in combat and has spells.
I agree with this. As much as I love the Ranger, there is room for more than one way to play the fantasy. Scout Rogues are very cool. They deal with the challenges of the wilderness through cunning and mundane skill mastery. Rangers are also skilled, but enhance that with combat prowess and magic. I'm pretty happy if both versions can reach the same ends equally well using different means. The Scout is a great way of exploring the fantasy without the magic. That's even more appealing to some people.
Then why not eliminate the ranger and for those that want spell use just scout rogue/Druid at that point the only thing the ranger still has is the second attack at L5. And given the bonus attack from light weapons and d the dual wielding and weapon training feat along with the rogues backstab feature do you really need it?
Right now, as I see it, the 1dnd ranger at L10 is inferior across the board to a L5 scout 1dnd rogue/5e Druid L5. It should be at least equal and actually superior in some ways or why even have it?
Because it's a different way to live a similar fantasy, with enough distinctions to make it worthwhile. It's okay if both ways are good at accomplishing the fantasy, as long as they are distinct. And they are.
A level 10 ranger will have more HP, more expertise, and access to better combat abilities than a rogue5/druid5. They will be better at some things and worse at others. And that's okay.
I have no idea how the rogue will change, or what the druid will look like in the future. All I know is that we playtested all of these classes through level 5. And the ranger felt amazing. He was the star of the party, useful in far more situations, and an absolute beast in combat. While the rogue was a complete dud, who only got marginally good when he picked the Skulker feat at 4th level. And that was only enough to make him barely decent in combat. The ranger still outclassed him in everything from scouting, to utility, to raw damage and survivability.
And we built the ranger just using the suggestions in the UA, to see if it played the way they thought it should. It was in no way optimized. We made the rogue as good as we could possibly concieve with the rules and he still bombed. I don't know if anyone else playtested any of these classes, but if they did and they have a different impression, I'd genuinely love to hear about it.
Right now, as I see it, the 1dnd ranger at L10 is inferior across the board to a L5 scout 1dnd rogue/5e Druid L5. It should be at least equal and actually superior in some ways or why even have it?
It is superior in some ways. In particular, it's a lot better in combat (more hit points, higher damage, better weapon and armor proficiencies) and has access to spells that substantially improve out of combat performance, such as goodberry and pass without trace.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes this is very good start!
That looks good except - travel paces are far too fast for anything except possibly a ranger traveling alone. The best estimates we have for realistic travel in a mideveal world are actually from the western wagon trains. From St. Louis to either California or Oregon by the trails used is roughly 2000 miles which they did in roughly 210 days (April through September) giving an average speed of 9.5 mpd. Records show that about the fastest they went was 15 mpd and sometimes they didn’t even make a quarter of a mile.
Now that is a party of wagons pulled by oxen and mules. Mule trains and camel caravans etc) are somewhat faster but 30 mpd fast pace even for a single ranger on horseback with a pack horse is crazy fast.
I haven’t read the whole thing ( I will later after finishing today’s honeydo list) but does it take weather into account anywhere? That and terrain are the actually the biggest roadblocks to overland travel.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I know I had talked to Optimus about this a while ago, but if anyone is interested I have put together some basic ideas of what "terrain stat blocks" might look like. Its still very rough around the edges, but I am hoping to improve upon it and really flesh it out to make "populating hexes" across a map easier to do on the fly
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Roman legionnaires were expected to travel upwards of 20 miles in a day, with all their gear, and they had to specially train for it. I'd estimate that 10-15 miles per day is fairly reasonably for most people, which is about what I pulled at Philmont.
It's also true that D&D isn't realistic and, in fact, does not care about realism. When engaging in long-distance travel like that, especially on foot, you stop by midday. With the sun beating overhead, you'd just tire yourself out. Instead, you start before the sun is up. So if sunrise is 7 am, and you break by noon, then you're only getting in maybe five hours per day. That's nominally 15 miles on flat ground, assuming an 18-20 minute mile. And every 1,000 feet in elevation increase adds roughly 30 minutes to the travel time.
Instead, the game assumes a 20-minute mile and 8 hours of travel...because reasons.
In the real world, a horse can walk 50 miles in a day, just walking. In practice it's going to be more like 40 miles in slightly rough landscape. Half that in mountainous terrain. The Pony Express typically covered 100 miles in a day but they swapped horses every 10-15 miles to keep running fresh ones.
A wagon train is made up of people of all ages, pulling heavy loads, with slow but steady beasts of burden. It's not going to go very fast.
An army on the march has to maintain some order, have decent roads, and bring their supply train. We can continue using more modern American analogies, since the varied terrain and relative lack of sophisticated roads might make it more applicable than even ancient times in Europe. During the Revolutionary War, an army would usually March 10-15 miles a day. 20 would be pushing it. Cavalry or skirmishes on their own could move faster.
A normal person can also hike about 10-15 miles a day comfortably, carrying some level of gear, over uneven trails. Or walk twice that on open roads without carrying much.
There are all of the other factors too, like weather and elevation.
So really the question comes down to how you're traveling in DnD. If you're moving with a caravan of merchants or riding in an ox cart, then a wagon train's 10 miles a day is probably reasonable. If you're moving with an army, then 15 miles a day is fair. If you're all riding horses, 50 miles or more is possible.
But most of the time, you're just 3-5 people carrying backpacks through wilderness. We have to assume that most adventurers are pretty athletic and well suited for this, more than the average townsfolk. More than even most of us. That's part of the 'heroic' experience. How many miles did Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli cover tracking the hobbits? Traveling 4 hours in the morning, and 4 in the evening, at a 20 minute mile isn't unreasonable for adventures.
So really the basic DnD travel speeds are pretty decent. They're simple and cover most of what you need. They might err on the high end of estimates, but that's okay. They're calculated based on the 30 feet movement speed. That's why you move 300 feet in a minute at normal pace. That's 18,000 feet an hour, which is about 3.4 miles, but they round it down to 3 to make it easier and account for breaks. 3 miles an hour equals 24 in an 8 hour day. Doing the math based on the game stats means you can apply it to any creature's movement speed.
It's not perfect, but it's good enough for most games. And it's pretty close to realistic, even if it doesn't have to be. The DM is making up how big and difficult the world is anyway, so it's all relative. You can always make a hex equal more miles if it's really necessary to slow the characters down. Or fewer miles to speed them up.
Roman legionaries also built and traveled on paved roads as much as possible. I’m fine with a 9-11 mpd average travel rate for wagons and 14-16 mpd for animal trains and small mounted groups.
While I understand why the danger is separate from the terrain in the travel guide I think it should be included as a modifier to both the terrain die and the DC. Events also need to include weather events (thunderstorms, floods, dust storms etc) otherwise it’s quite nice.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Not really, we have quite a bit of information about medieval and ancient armies, and it's also known that for organizational reasons smaller groups are generally somewhat faster. The PHB rates (which that document just copies) are reasonable for movement on roads, though they generally underrate terrain, a lot of terrains are far worse than double cost.
That was my point - for roads it’s fine for e pploration/off-road/overland it’s not.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yeah these were looking VERY good! I highly suggest them.
I basically agree 100% with your post Steg, but I'll toss in my little Tolkien nerd knowledge here. It was a lot.
"Forty leagues and five have you come...ere the fourth day has ended."
A league is 3 statute miles. So that's 135 miles through trackless hilly terrain. On foot. With stuff.
It *is* supposed to have been a heroic feat.
Haha, awesome! Thanks for the extra bit of knowledge there, I love it. Even travel is part of the heroic experience.
The numbers for the Oregon/California trail vary widely based on route and even year. Mainly because the first few years they had no real "roads" or routes and in later years they had long stretches of "toll roads" that gave significant time advantages to later travelers. Some accounts I've read had their daily goal closer to 30 miles a day. One key factor that often determined whether or not they got close to that goal was the ability of their scouts or trail guides, who would ride ahead and find the best route. In the desert stretches, the party would often camp several days at a good watering hole while the scout went out looking for the next good watering hole. Then they'd make a run for that next hole, trying to get there as fast as possible before their water rations ran out.
So it would make sense that, even if it wasn't a roll, a ranger could help the party travel farther in a day by helping them find shortcuts or avoid bad stretches of trail. Or, if it were a roll (and they failed) it could end up with a wagon wheel stuck in the mud on a stretch of trail they should have avoided. And survival rolls wouldn't just be about finding herbs for healing if the party is traveling in an arid region where water is in short supply. If you want to play on the Grimdark side, consider the Meeks Cutoff Party or Donner Party story arcs as the result of a single failed survival roll.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
It's clear that travel is important to the ranger identity. Weather you want simple or complex travel and/or exploration, ranger needs to interact with it in a "expert" manner. And if all the abilities are reduced to skills it won't be enough IMO.
Difficult terrain ignoring options alone at least seem better mechanically than the movement boost that other classes and ranger spells can Replicate.
Just getting back to this thread. It’s not just travel, it’s overland non road travel and survival - true exploration. Basically my complaint is fairly simple - the 1D&D ranger should be obviously better in a non road based exploration/overland travel scenario than a scout rogue, and they are not (bless you declare that the spells make them better by default). So the question is how do you redo the ranger so it is better simply on a skill basis? Things like the PHB ranger’s 2x food and water, stealth at normal pace, able to forage and scout, etc all gave the PHB ranger things they were better at than the scout rogue. Now they are gone, and the scout rogue is objectively equal in nature and survival (and probably stealth) skills plus they have 3 other expertises compared to the ranger’s 1 AND at higher level they get reliable talent.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Why? The scout rogue is pretty much 'non-magical ranger'. If the scout rogue was obviously superior in non-wilderness play that would be true, but they really aren't. Sure, the rogue has more expertise slots, but the ranger is significantly better in combat and has spells.
I agree with this. As much as I love the Ranger, there is room for more than one way to play the fantasy. Scout Rogues are very cool. They deal with the challenges of the wilderness through cunning and mundane skill mastery. Rangers are also skilled, but enhance that with combat prowess and magic. I'm pretty happy if both versions can reach the same ends equally well using different means. The Scout is a great way of exploring the fantasy without the magic. That's even more appealing to some people.
Then why not eliminate the ranger and for those that want spell use just scout rogue/Druid at that point the only thing the ranger still has is the second attack at L5. And given the bonus attack from light weapons and d the dual wielding and weapon training feat along with the rogues backstab feature do you really need it?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Right now, as I see it, the 1dnd ranger at L10 is inferior across the board to a L5 scout 1dnd rogue/5e Druid L5. It should be at least equal and actually superior in some ways or why even have it?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Because it's a different way to live a similar fantasy, with enough distinctions to make it worthwhile. It's okay if both ways are good at accomplishing the fantasy, as long as they are distinct. And they are.
A level 10 ranger will have more HP, more expertise, and access to better combat abilities than a rogue5/druid5. They will be better at some things and worse at others. And that's okay.
I have no idea how the rogue will change, or what the druid will look like in the future. All I know is that we playtested all of these classes through level 5. And the ranger felt amazing. He was the star of the party, useful in far more situations, and an absolute beast in combat. While the rogue was a complete dud, who only got marginally good when he picked the Skulker feat at 4th level. And that was only enough to make him barely decent in combat. The ranger still outclassed him in everything from scouting, to utility, to raw damage and survivability.
And we built the ranger just using the suggestions in the UA, to see if it played the way they thought it should. It was in no way optimized. We made the rogue as good as we could possibly concieve with the rules and he still bombed. I don't know if anyone else playtested any of these classes, but if they did and they have a different impression, I'd genuinely love to hear about it.
It is superior in some ways. In particular, it's a lot better in combat (more hit points, higher damage, better weapon and armor proficiencies) and has access to spells that substantially improve out of combat performance, such as goodberry and pass without trace.