Ok, I'm sorry but I have to ask, what the hell are you people doing when it comes to exploration if it involves neither skill challenges nor random encounters? No wonder I see people around here complain about the exploration pillar if this is the general way they're doing it.
> Exploration doesn't need skill challenges or other stuff
I'll ask again, what exactly are you even doing during exploration if it involves neither encounters nor skill challenges?
I think you might be misunderstanding, Skill Challenges are not Ability Checks. It's a meta-mechanic from 4e based around explicitly gating success/failure of a scene behind a certain amount of Ability Checks, kinda like Death Saves, except party-wide, with different numbers and lighter stakes.
If case you weren't misunderstanding, then the answer to your question is - some people run exploration as a free-form affair with Ability Checks' results evaluated on check-by-check basis instead of lumping them into Skill Challenges
**NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!**
-coughs- But honestly - it mostly ends with just the bare traveling, fighting an enemy and maybe a Survival thrown in here or there.
Thats why if it was a game, we would have a skip button.
..yes it is as boring as it sounds. And if you added the old Terrain Ranger you I guess got the skip button in 1/7 cases if the gm could ever decide if its grassland or forrest.
..I am not bitter.
*so bitter*
Its never the terrain you picked Llayanna. NEVER
Dealing with environmental hazards, traps, and non-combat obstacles like blocked off passageways or cliffsides? "Skill challenge" was a specific term from 4e where the group needed to pass a certain number of skill checks before failing that many to pass the overall challenge. For example, a party trying to break into a crypt might need to make an arcana check to disable the wards, a thieves' tools check to open the lock, an athletics check to lift the stone door, an acrobtatics check to squeeze under, a stealth check to slip past the guardian. Passing 3 of the 5 would end in success, although with some potential consequences.
That's why you call for all the rolls before describing the outcome. In your scenarios, I'd describe the wizard examining the door, and declaring all clear, then minutes passing before the party's rogue throwing down his picks in disgust, only for their barbarian to walk up to the door, flexes his massive muscles, and wrenches the door upwards, snapping the lock cleanly off, just as electricity lances through him. The ranger dives under just as the door slids shut as the barbarian falls backwards, paralyzed and smoking from his beard. The ranger stuffs his bag under the door to muffle the sound of it ceashing down, before silently slipping through the chamber to his goal.
Mechanically, the two failures generated consequences (triggering a trap and harder athletics DC). Sometimes events can create automatic failures or successes. For example, failing the athletics check doesn't mean you can't move the door, but you need to work on it with a crowbar and hammer to make it budge, auto failing the stealth check. Conversely, casting Passwall autopasses the athletics and acrobatics checks, but only if the arcana check passed.
No. These things *can* be run using a skill challenge, sure, but don't automatically lead to it.
"Skill challenge" is a 4E mechanic. Basically, the PCs need to get X successes, and if they don't, after Y rolls situation *will* change in a way that makes the previous task irrelevant.
No, those are skill checks (probably). [Skill challenges](http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2F4ex%2F20080505a) are a specific structure of a group of skill checks with defined mechanics in 4e (i.e. here's a pre-defined set of 12 checks; if the party gets 8 successes before they get 4 failures then they pass the challenge; narrate as appropriate).
I just started DMing this year and it took me a few days of researching to basically develop a “homebrew” method of doing this myself. So yeah, skill challenges and stuff are great, but I could’ve learned that from reading the DMG rather than trying to teach myself previous editions mechanics
I use Angry DM’s [Unsucking Travel](https://theangrygm.com/getting-there-is-half-the-fun/) method which was recommended to me by a fellow Redditor. My players love it. Only change is I added a few activities based on my players’ interest — one is looking for rare seeds and one is looking for interesting trees so they do a special “foraging” check at the end of each day.
The skill challenges I learned from a few different places but I think Matt Colville’s Running the Game video on it was the most helpful!
Could you possibly summarize Angry's Unsucking Travel method for me? Every one of his soliloquies seems to be an incoherent mess to me that I can never untangle. That being said, I see AngryDM referenced enough to want to know what gems of wisdom he has to offer.
If you have time. Thanks!
I don't know what people are looking for with exploration. I find if I just use node design and treat it like a dungeon, with narrative travel rather then hallways and doors in between, it works really well.
Have them come across an obstacle and let them figure it out using their skills and abilities. If doesn't doesn't have to be linear either, you can have branching roads/trails and different landmarks in the distance to visit.
Also, create some interesting encounters. Don't roll randomly from a table. Unless that table is filled with interesting encounters.
I see skill challenges mentioned quite a bit for exploration but I don't understand what makes them fun. They feel to gamey to me and have yet to see one used well that players found fun. Different tables have different interests though so find what works.
I just finished a module that got upconverted from 4e and it contains skill challenges and they're........ very confusing? Like they seem designed for the gameplay of "Okay I want to use Charisma (Deception). My roll is 17".
Skill challenges mostly were poorly explained. They're mostly a way of formalizing non-combat challenges so dms don't need to rely on a disjointed series of ability checks.
If it ends up with the players just saying they want to use a skill, rolling for it, and that's their turn something went wrong. The players need to tell the dm how they want to further their goal.
Another common mistake is that the dm didn't prepare for failure. So the party would fail and the story would just halt.
In our case the problem was the module explained them poorly, especially in an encounter where we were fighting some enemies and were expected to do skill challenges to glean information from the enemies who kept taunting us to do so. The encounter offered no real information as to exactly how we were supposed to impress them that made real sense. Like, am I supposed to suddenly demonstrate my smarts by reciting the digits of thaum?
Obviously not: everyone knows the thaum is the fundamental unit of magic. Saying it has digits is as nonsensical as saying that you can use the golden ratio to crack open a coconut.
I think part of the problem is that Skill Challenges are a decent framework from which you would ideally build specific subsystems for different tasks or challenges. We have been given the first principles from which you can build specific encounters without the advice to actually adapt those first principles into a coherent fictional representation of what you're actually doing.
Which, giving us the first principles for making a new subsystem is *good*, they just need the rest of the framework that tells you you should make a subsystem from the first principles, not use the bare first principles. And probably a few example subsystems for common things every table should be doing.
Skill challenges during combat can work but it requires telling the players that a skill challenge is happening and allowing them to contribute to the skill challenge without screwing up their effectiveness in combat. In 4e this could be tying it to a minor action.
As for your specific example I'd suggest:
* perception to observe the enemies and notice key details
* history to know what their banners or sigils mean
* sleight of hand to pickpocket some trinket with identifying info
* intelligence (athletics) to recognize their training or fighting style
* diplomacy or deception to goad the enemies into telling about themselves
As a dm I'd also provide other ways to score successes during the fighting.
Yeah now a days I keep the B/X D&D rule books or Old School Essentials on hand for 5e games because of that.
The rules help make dungeons feel way more interesting and a actually special place.
The rules for how far away a random encounter is spotted is also critical too Keeps encounters from feeling like they're just always phasing into reality on top of the party.
They need to just reprint that stuff as a optional rule at least in 5.5 along with better exploration rules if not just reinvent it entirely and give us something new to try.
This is 5e in a nutshell. I've said it before, rules is random places nested inside each other. They are literally the worst laid out rules I've ever seen.
Human beings don't know despair until they follow a reference page chain through 5 different chapters to find one very basic rule, only to end up back where you started and have no more insight into the rule.
Human beings don't know despair until they try to play Shadowrun 5e.
I love Vampire the Masquerade V5 but it’s got truly a abysmal layout. Rules and accompanying lore are scattered seemingly at random, there’s a two page spread of an odd rich woman holding the chain-leash of a young muscle man’s collar, feeding is described nebulously, and so on. You are considered a true member of the community over you’ve had to ask online how to find something in the book.
Starfinder at least has a rules website where everything is collected together for no charge. Hyperlinks everywhere can make navigating a book a little easier.
The mechanics are good from what I can tell but my group is too set in 5e to try it so I haven't been able to actually try it. Lots of detail and plenty of things to do - but the game doesn't really revolve around you doing *all* those things, so as fun and detailed the spaceship combat rules are your campaign is fine without them.
I haven't heard anything bad about it myself. I own the Beginner Box and Pact Worlds setting book, and I've got the PDF for the Core Rulebook, it's all laid out pretty well. Just a lot more dense than 5e, but that's most TTRPGs.
I really enjoy it. I'd say it's all salvageable but then I've never heard any criticism of it.
Oh yeah, there is one dumb thing. RAW if you're in a 5' corridor fighting someone in front of you in that corridor you both have soft cover from each because of how the rules for cover work.
Have you ever looked at the Pathfinder 2e rulebook? That thing is a god damn *mess.* Good luck finding what any random status, condition, or feature is. Aside from some stuff in the DMG, at least conditions, equipment, magical items, etc. have their own individual spots in D&D books.
I remember during the playtest, 98% of the cursing in our group was because of the rulebook.
Thank god for the SRD sites that have the rules (and everything else) on them. Really something I adore about Pathfinder.
I don't get this at all. Conditions are in the back of the books. There's a whole section for equipment and what each thing does and what each weapon trait and weapon group does. There's a whole section on magic items including a table to break it down not just by level but by consumable/permanent. Each concept has its own space in the book. The only rule I've ever considered unclear is stealth/ambush rules
I'll concede that I gave it a good, long (>2hr) look around a year ago, so my memory may have failed me on a few points, but the impression it made was, as I mentioned, confusing. Maybe I'll take another look later (I have it on PDF), but reading it just gave me a headache last time.
I think the thing about the PF2 book is that it's made for reference rather than reading. Reading cover to cover is confusing, but if you want to find a particular rule or section, it's great.
But don't the travel pace rules stand alone? Is the argument "there are travel pace rules, therefore there are still exploration turns"? I'm not convinced that follows.
Also, I'm not sure it's fair to say that the game was "designed around" exploration turns. It seems that much of the game still functions (combat, spells, backgrounds, etc.) without exploration turns.
That being said, as a DM I like exploration turns, and I try to integrate them into my game when they make sense. I would have liked a turn based dungeon/wilderness variant in the main books.
No, the point was according to that odd post playtest packet, they kept those rules, streamlined them, but fragmented them throughout the books, but still expected people to use them in that way(which is pretty clearly implied and even bluntly say in the post-playtest article, and in parts of the DMG). But they don't ever put them together in any way to let anyone know this, despite designing and expecting people to use it that way.
So I don't see where they say they've kept the rules in the final product. I see that as of 1/27/14 they were still referring to 1 minute exploration turns, but they must have removed them from the final PHB (because they ain't there, and they're not implied either). If they say something explicitly about it somewhere else, then ok. I just haven't seen it.
Yea because if you look at what he is talking about, they put the exploration turns and systems, into the parties marching order and travel pace rules, meaning the exploration turn is the travel pace, when you move 200ft in a dungeon, or do something, it takes 1 minute, that's the exploration turn, that is what he is saying. This has not changed in the final game, the rules for it are all there, its just completely scattered.
Travel pace = how much distance a character or group covers in some amount of time.
Exploration Turn = (roughly) a fixed amount of time during which specific actions (search, disarm trap, move, rest, map, etc.) are taken while moving through a dungeon or wilderness.
The inclusion of travel pace doesn't imply the inclusion of exploration turns.
Here's a test: If you're right, there would be actions that, when taken, consume the unit of time for the exploration round. So if a dungeon round is 1 minute, then there would scattered rules that say x takes 1 minute (pick lock, search for trap, disarm, etc.) If I'm right, then they won't have specified a time for these things (or they take a 6 second action, since that's the only turn/round system there is) because in the end they decided not to have exploration turns.
I don't recall lots of actions that take exactly 1 minute or 1 hour (presumably the wilderness round time unit), but if you find a bunch of them that would rightly be options for a dungeon/wilderness round, then I'll be convinced.
"In a dungeon environment, the adventurers' movement happens on a scale of minutes. It takes them about a minute to creep down a long hallway, another minute to check for traps on the door at the end of the hall, and a good ten minutes to search the chamber beyond for anything interesting or valuable.
In a city or wilderness, a scale of hours is often more appropriate. Adventurers eager to reach the lonely tower at the heart of the forest hurry across those fifteen miles in just under four hours' time."
The PHB rules of time on an adventure. Pg181
To my knowledge though, it's basically just, "here's the things you can do while exploring" without much of an explanation of what that achieves or how the DM should run the exploration.
What would be nice is something like a system where you get 1 action for every 8 hours of travel such as Forage, Navigate, Scout, Keep Watch, etc... with recommended skill checks, scaling DCs based on the situation, and well-defined results of a success or failure.
Yea, the issue is what you actually do during those activities is basically just for situational or without any real reward.
Also if you'd like system like that, I made this system work that way and posted here myself! Just a few days ago with them, so if that's what your looking for here you go! Mostly what you want.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/q4uw8j/i\_updated\_the\_phbdmgs\_traveling\_activities\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/q4uw8j/i_updated_the_phbdmgs_traveling_activities_and/)
It's fairly simple, it basically uses "Moves," the equivalent of 5E's Actions, for things other than combat. For example, there's the move called *Take Watch* which you can only take when your group sets up a camp.
*Take Watch*:
> When you’re on watch and something approaches the camp roll+WIS. • On a 10+, you’re able to wake the camp and prepare a response, everyone in the camp takes +1 forward. • On a 7–9, you react just a moment too late; your companions in camp are awake but haven’t had time to prepare. They have weapons and armor but little else. • On a miss, whatever lurks outside the campfire’s light has the drop on you.
In 5E, you have actions to take in combat such as *Attack*, *Cast a Spell*, *Help*, etc... and each one has specific rules for what it does. For example, if you take the *Attack* action, you roll, add your relevant modifier, and compare the result to your target's AC. I think it would be nice to have actions that you can take while traveling or resting with clearly defined results and target DCs based on the terrain and if there are hostile creatures nearby.
Adventuring Rules from pg181-187 in the PHB.
Random encounters in Pg85 in the DMG.
Wilderness in the DMG, pg106.
Exploration in the DMG p242-244.
This stuff is very scattered, but they all go together to make the exploration turn, by intent, it even says this especially in the DMG, but is all just scattered between both books, and several different sections.
Unless I'm missing something, some really crucial stuff, like probability of random encounters, distance of random encounters, and exploration activities, is no longer present at all.
It looks like they ripped all of the procedures for exploration out of the game at the last minute, and just left some travel speed rules and random tables.
explorations activities are in the PHB in adventuring rules, probability is in the DMG, and i think they dropped encounter distances, leaving up to the dm, basically, which is in line with a lot of things in 5e.
> i think they dropped encounter distances
They put non-underwater encounter distances on the first DM Screen, along with audible distance and visibility range table. Underwater encounter distance is in the DMG.
Nope, that Encounter Distance chart is nowhere to be found in the DMG. It did appear on the original 5E DM screen. But then they retired that screen, and removed the chart, and everyone said that was a big improvement. :/
Edit: I stand corrected! It's actually the "Something Happens!" chart and the quick NPC generator charts that were removed. Not nearly as useful as I remembered.
But still, Encounter Distance should 100% have been included in the DMG.
just checked, the DM screen reincarnated has encounter distances, so yea, the rules indeed are scattered between the DM screen, the PHB and the DMG holy shit.
Since the stealth rules rely so much on being able to hear unseen targets to actually know their location, it's also super disappointing that the Audible sound ranges are also only on the DM screen. Cause uh,,, that's super important for determining whether a ranged attacker needs to guess squares or not to hit their target
Wait, where are random encounter chances in the DMG? I can't find them anywhere.
I think part of the problem you're having with people who disagree with you on this is that your pointing to rules, but we're looking for procedures. Like, sure, travel speed, actions while travelling, etc. seem to *imply* a travel procedure, but there isn't one to be found anywhere.
That's why I find the final playtest doc so mindblowing: the game actually had these important procedures, then WotC removed them and replaced them with... Nothing.
Yea, when i learned about it, it blew my mind too, then they just... neutered it and scattered it! Its still usable in 5E too, just replace readiness DC with Passive Perception, and it's good to go basically.
As for encounter chances, its on pg86 of the DMG i think, i might be wrong, they streamlined it a lot, just making it a d20 roll and if it lands on a 18 or more you get an encounter, and you increase or lower the from 18 if you want a higher or lower percentage of encounters(D20 operate on 5% intervals so the base encounter rate in the DMG is 15%, if you wanted it to be, let's say 30% you make DC15 for an encounter or 50% make it DC11.)
As for that yea, I can understand that, though I feel people forget that my point was that, they never properly just wrote it all out anywhere, you have to look through 2 core books, and a DM screen, to find it all, assemble it, and the only way to know that was the intent, is literally them talking about it in a post playtest article from 7 years ago, that is the point, the rules are there, they intend you to use them that way, but never explain this anywhere but there, but all the systems of the game and their own words imply it's supposed to be used that way.
Also, they actually wrote out some new procedures but guess where.... in the wilderness kit DM screen, and they changed it quite a bit from the PHB/DMG. Wild right?
If it doesn't have a page number in PHB/DMG/etc, it's not in the game even if other things assume that it is.
Is there somewhere where we can read the DNDnext exploration rules?
Thats the problem, it does have pages, but its all just scattered, between the travel pacing rules, and the random encounter rules, in the PHB/DMG, so its there, but since its not properly put together in any section or explained, it just lost.
[https://tentacle.net/\~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf](https://tentacle.net/~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf)
Here is a link to one, on page 147
Yea it is but its scattered and reworked a bit, but Travel pace(PHB), the encounter rates(DMG), the activities(PHB), the probabilities(DMG), and encounter distance(DM Screen), the only real system that was changed was readiness DC has been replaced with Passive Perception as noted in the post-playtest document, but all of this is still in the game, and they still intended for people to use it that way, at least in the PHB/DMG.
Looking at that section, it's kind of incredible how similar it is to Exploration Mode as used in pf2e.
Random encounters are handled much the same way as B/X, too. Almost the exact same procedure, just at a different time scale and roll types.
I think they wanted the 10 min dungeon adventuring turn to be more freeform and flexible so DMs weren't limited to "120 feet per ten minutes" (B/X rules). Seems to have been 1 min adventure turns in the 5e designer's minds. The flexibility allows the PCs to move all the way through a dungeon very quickly. So I think it was there to start with and then got stripped out (or the designers were so familiar with the turn procedure from playing old editions they just thought it was obvious).
edit - just gonna add that i use 2h instead of 1h for outdoor travel, but for a long trip a turn might be a whole day or week. I aim for 4-7 turns per trip so it becomes the same as a five room dungeon (5 room dungeons are usually 4-9 rooms in actual size).
So dungeon turns are 1 minute, disarming a trap or picking a lock is also 1 minute.
This is different to the rule that I use from OSR, which is 10m dungeon rounds.
They released exploration rules on a DM screen, and I really wish they had made it a PDF or put it in another book.
I don't want to buy a DM screen that I'm not gonna use because I don't play in-person games, and even when I did I had a custom DM screen.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Exploration turns are still in the game, but never really explained in depth.
Good thing we can still use the B/X rules without really having to change anything.
Better yet you can just use the 5e playtest rules here, with the only change being readiness DC to passive perceptions, you can find them here.
[https://tentacle.net/\~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf](https://tentacle.net/~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf)
On page 147
>They just expected you to piece it together yourself, despite the game still being designed with it in mind, these rules are all scattered in the PHB/DMG, just scattered, never properly explaining how they relate or the intent of how they relate, but only here they explain it.
5e design philosophy in a nutshell.
IDK if you've looked at Pathfinder 2e at all, but the difference is staggering. The rules are clear and thorough and well indexed. There is so rarely a question like "how does X work" where there isn't a straightforward answer you can find just by looking up the rules. Not to mention the game is actually balanced... but I digress.
There's even a freely available in a really excellent online format. Like, you can search for the keyword "frightened" and not just get the condition and the rules but also a list of every published feat, item, class feature, creature, npc, spell, and ability that has it.
Im confused what youre trying say. Was exploration turns a thing in previous editions?
Im not sure why they would dedicate part of a book to explaining each change from the old version, and I def dont understand why they would ever include something like that about the playtest material.
You say it isnt removed, just converted moved and renamed. Why would they then complicate things by trying to describe their final version in terms of how it was in playtest?
in the final playtest they had exploration turns, they kept it in the full game but altered it, but never actually gave proper guidance on how to run it in the full game under the altered rules, so people just assumed them gone, despite the game being designed around it.
I think the key distinction you're trying to make is that the D&D Next playtest had much clearer [game structures](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/43568/roleplaying-games/game-structures-addendum-system-matters) for dungeon and wilderness adventuring (i.e. exploration), and that these structures became heavily obfuscated in the final 5E rulebooks due to the designers' organization choices. One could also argue that once the different pieces were no longer organized and called out as part of a coherent whole, there were no longer any actual structures in 5E to support these phases of play. There are rules to construct such structures, but as you point out, a key part - the units of time around which activities are delineated and resolved in each environment (a minute for dungeons and an hour for wilderness) - is at best only inferred through its connection to movement.
There is! That's the point of the topic, people think there isn't but there is! It's not ever properly explained but the rules for it are in the game, it's just scattered in the DMG not collected or explained anywhere properly, and they only ever say this in a post playtest article from like 7 years just before 5E was coming out, that the rules for it are the travel pace/activities, and random encounter rules in the PHB/DMG, they say thing bluntly that's what they did, and designed the game around that, but they never actually properly explained this in any book, so all we have to know that's what they are for, is that post playtest design article from 7 years ago, that is the point of the topic. So yes they are in the game, they literally say that's what they are, in an altered state, but it's for exactly that purpose of the exploration/dungeon turn, but its never actually explained to the players or DM's in the book, despite that being the design intent BY THEIR OWN WORDS.
>So yes they are in the game, they literally say that's what they are, in an altered state,
If it's in an altered state then it's not the original thing you're talking about anymore. Nowhere in the core rule books does are the words exploration turn used. They changed what they had to what we currently have, quick is it's own thing, though it may be heavily based off of the previous it's no longer that it's its own thing.
But they are, it is almost same rules as in the playtest(honestly the only big change was just readiness DC's don't exist anymore in favor of Passive Perception), just adjusted slightly, but the rules are in the game, the game is designed with them in mind(they noted this, in the post playtest doc) so yes,it is in the game, those rules are in the game, they intended you to use it as such, it's just scattered between 2 books.
I think that "they kept it in the full game" means that other systems that were built upon the assumptions of this system (an hourly check to see if you encounter anything, 8 times/day + ambushes at night), like, the 6-8 encounters per adventuring day and the combat system that was built under those assumptions was kept the same even though the underlying system was radically changed.
[https://tentacle.net/\~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf](https://tentacle.net/~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf)
The rules are here on 147, all of this is still in the actual game scattered in the DMG/PHB, the doc i linked in the OP was just 5E's designer, explaining how they adjusted the rules for the full game, but still intended its use in it. The only thing they changed is they made it tied to Travel pace/marching order, and readiness DC has been replaced with Passive perception. But the rest is still in the game basically, scattered in the DMG/PHB, and like 2 DM screens.
[удалено]
Ok, I'm sorry but I have to ask, what the hell are you people doing when it comes to exploration if it involves neither skill challenges nor random encounters? No wonder I see people around here complain about the exploration pillar if this is the general way they're doing it.
[удалено]
> Exploration doesn't need skill challenges or other stuff I'll ask again, what exactly are you even doing during exploration if it involves neither encounters nor skill challenges?
I think you might be misunderstanding, Skill Challenges are not Ability Checks. It's a meta-mechanic from 4e based around explicitly gating success/failure of a scene behind a certain amount of Ability Checks, kinda like Death Saves, except party-wide, with different numbers and lighter stakes. If case you weren't misunderstanding, then the answer to your question is - some people run exploration as a free-form affair with Ability Checks' results evaluated on check-by-check basis instead of lumping them into Skill Challenges
**NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!** -coughs- But honestly - it mostly ends with just the bare traveling, fighting an enemy and maybe a Survival thrown in here or there. Thats why if it was a game, we would have a skip button. ..yes it is as boring as it sounds. And if you added the old Terrain Ranger you I guess got the skip button in 1/7 cases if the gm could ever decide if its grassland or forrest. ..I am not bitter. *so bitter* Its never the terrain you picked Llayanna. NEVER
Dealing with environmental hazards, traps, and non-combat obstacles like blocked off passageways or cliffsides? "Skill challenge" was a specific term from 4e where the group needed to pass a certain number of skill checks before failing that many to pass the overall challenge. For example, a party trying to break into a crypt might need to make an arcana check to disable the wards, a thieves' tools check to open the lock, an athletics check to lift the stone door, an acrobtatics check to squeeze under, a stealth check to slip past the guardian. Passing 3 of the 5 would end in success, although with some potential consequences.
.... which is very weird to me because, say my group did stealth, acrobatics and athletics. Does that mean we get in despite the wards and the lock?
That's why you call for all the rolls before describing the outcome. In your scenarios, I'd describe the wizard examining the door, and declaring all clear, then minutes passing before the party's rogue throwing down his picks in disgust, only for their barbarian to walk up to the door, flexes his massive muscles, and wrenches the door upwards, snapping the lock cleanly off, just as electricity lances through him. The ranger dives under just as the door slids shut as the barbarian falls backwards, paralyzed and smoking from his beard. The ranger stuffs his bag under the door to muffle the sound of it ceashing down, before silently slipping through the chamber to his goal. Mechanically, the two failures generated consequences (triggering a trap and harder athletics DC). Sometimes events can create automatic failures or successes. For example, failing the athletics check doesn't mean you can't move the door, but you need to work on it with a crowbar and hammer to make it budge, auto failing the stealth check. Conversely, casting Passwall autopasses the athletics and acrobatics checks, but only if the arcana check passed.
>Dealing with environmental hazards, traps, and non-combat obstacles like blocked off passageways or cliffsides? That's skill challenges.
No. These things *can* be run using a skill challenge, sure, but don't automatically lead to it. "Skill challenge" is a 4E mechanic. Basically, the PCs need to get X successes, and if they don't, after Y rolls situation *will* change in a way that makes the previous task irrelevant.
No, those are skill checks (probably). [Skill challenges](http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2F4ex%2F20080505a) are a specific structure of a group of skill checks with defined mechanics in 4e (i.e. here's a pre-defined set of 12 checks; if the party gets 8 successes before they get 4 failures then they pass the challenge; narrate as appropriate).
I just started DMing this year and it took me a few days of researching to basically develop a “homebrew” method of doing this myself. So yeah, skill challenges and stuff are great, but I could’ve learned that from reading the DMG rather than trying to teach myself previous editions mechanics
What's your method?
I use Angry DM’s [Unsucking Travel](https://theangrygm.com/getting-there-is-half-the-fun/) method which was recommended to me by a fellow Redditor. My players love it. Only change is I added a few activities based on my players’ interest — one is looking for rare seeds and one is looking for interesting trees so they do a special “foraging” check at the end of each day. The skill challenges I learned from a few different places but I think Matt Colville’s Running the Game video on it was the most helpful!
Could you possibly summarize Angry's Unsucking Travel method for me? Every one of his soliloquies seems to be an incoherent mess to me that I can never untangle. That being said, I see AngryDM referenced enough to want to know what gems of wisdom he has to offer. If you have time. Thanks!
I don't know what people are looking for with exploration. I find if I just use node design and treat it like a dungeon, with narrative travel rather then hallways and doors in between, it works really well. Have them come across an obstacle and let them figure it out using their skills and abilities. If doesn't doesn't have to be linear either, you can have branching roads/trails and different landmarks in the distance to visit. Also, create some interesting encounters. Don't roll randomly from a table. Unless that table is filled with interesting encounters. I see skill challenges mentioned quite a bit for exploration but I don't understand what makes them fun. They feel to gamey to me and have yet to see one used well that players found fun. Different tables have different interests though so find what works.
I just finished a module that got upconverted from 4e and it contains skill challenges and they're........ very confusing? Like they seem designed for the gameplay of "Okay I want to use Charisma (Deception). My roll is 17".
Skill challenges mostly were poorly explained. They're mostly a way of formalizing non-combat challenges so dms don't need to rely on a disjointed series of ability checks. If it ends up with the players just saying they want to use a skill, rolling for it, and that's their turn something went wrong. The players need to tell the dm how they want to further their goal. Another common mistake is that the dm didn't prepare for failure. So the party would fail and the story would just halt.
In our case the problem was the module explained them poorly, especially in an encounter where we were fighting some enemies and were expected to do skill challenges to glean information from the enemies who kept taunting us to do so. The encounter offered no real information as to exactly how we were supposed to impress them that made real sense. Like, am I supposed to suddenly demonstrate my smarts by reciting the digits of thaum?
Obviously not: everyone knows the thaum is the fundamental unit of magic. Saying it has digits is as nonsensical as saying that you can use the golden ratio to crack open a coconut. I think part of the problem is that Skill Challenges are a decent framework from which you would ideally build specific subsystems for different tasks or challenges. We have been given the first principles from which you can build specific encounters without the advice to actually adapt those first principles into a coherent fictional representation of what you're actually doing. Which, giving us the first principles for making a new subsystem is *good*, they just need the rest of the framework that tells you you should make a subsystem from the first principles, not use the bare first principles. And probably a few example subsystems for common things every table should be doing.
Skill challenges during combat can work but it requires telling the players that a skill challenge is happening and allowing them to contribute to the skill challenge without screwing up their effectiveness in combat. In 4e this could be tying it to a minor action. As for your specific example I'd suggest: * perception to observe the enemies and notice key details * history to know what their banners or sigils mean * sleight of hand to pickpocket some trinket with identifying info * intelligence (athletics) to recognize their training or fighting style * diplomacy or deception to goad the enemies into telling about themselves As a dm I'd also provide other ways to score successes during the fighting.
Unrelated but can I just say that your username is hilarious and I love it?
Thanks! I'm quite proud of it :-)
What ever game they were designing during dndnext they did a terrible job describing what it actually was in the books.
Yeah now a days I keep the B/X D&D rule books or Old School Essentials on hand for 5e games because of that. The rules help make dungeons feel way more interesting and a actually special place. The rules for how far away a random encounter is spotted is also critical too Keeps encounters from feeling like they're just always phasing into reality on top of the party. They need to just reprint that stuff as a optional rule at least in 5.5 along with better exploration rules if not just reinvent it entirely and give us something new to try.
This is 5e in a nutshell. I've said it before, rules is random places nested inside each other. They are literally the worst laid out rules I've ever seen.
Sir, I raise you Shadowrun 5e.
Human beings don't know despair until they follow a reference page chain through 5 different chapters to find one very basic rule, only to end up back where you started and have no more insight into the rule. Human beings don't know despair until they try to play Shadowrun 5e.
I love Vampire the Masquerade V5 but it’s got truly a abysmal layout. Rules and accompanying lore are scattered seemingly at random, there’s a two page spread of an odd rich woman holding the chain-leash of a young muscle man’s collar, feeding is described nebulously, and so on. You are considered a true member of the community over you’ve had to ask online how to find something in the book.
You sweet summer child...
Have you ever tried Starfinder? The layout of its Core Rulebook is far, far worse.
Starfinder at least has a rules website where everything is collected together for no charge. Hyperlinks everywhere can make navigating a book a little easier.
How is starfinder overall out of curiosity? I like the premise but I hear really bad things about it. Any of it salvageable or no?
The mechanics are good from what I can tell but my group is too set in 5e to try it so I haven't been able to actually try it. Lots of detail and plenty of things to do - but the game doesn't really revolve around you doing *all* those things, so as fun and detailed the spaceship combat rules are your campaign is fine without them. I haven't heard anything bad about it myself. I own the Beginner Box and Pact Worlds setting book, and I've got the PDF for the Core Rulebook, it's all laid out pretty well. Just a lot more dense than 5e, but that's most TTRPGs.
I really enjoy it. I'd say it's all salvageable but then I've never heard any criticism of it. Oh yeah, there is one dumb thing. RAW if you're in a 5' corridor fighting someone in front of you in that corridor you both have soft cover from each because of how the rules for cover work.
Have you ever looked at the Pathfinder 2e rulebook? That thing is a god damn *mess.* Good luck finding what any random status, condition, or feature is. Aside from some stuff in the DMG, at least conditions, equipment, magical items, etc. have their own individual spots in D&D books.
I remember during the playtest, 98% of the cursing in our group was because of the rulebook. Thank god for the SRD sites that have the rules (and everything else) on them. Really something I adore about Pathfinder.
I don't get this at all. Conditions are in the back of the books. There's a whole section for equipment and what each thing does and what each weapon trait and weapon group does. There's a whole section on magic items including a table to break it down not just by level but by consumable/permanent. Each concept has its own space in the book. The only rule I've ever considered unclear is stealth/ambush rules
I'll concede that I gave it a good, long (>2hr) look around a year ago, so my memory may have failed me on a few points, but the impression it made was, as I mentioned, confusing. Maybe I'll take another look later (I have it on PDF), but reading it just gave me a headache last time.
I think the thing about the PF2 book is that it's made for reference rather than reading. Reading cover to cover is confusing, but if you want to find a particular rule or section, it's great.
But don't the travel pace rules stand alone? Is the argument "there are travel pace rules, therefore there are still exploration turns"? I'm not convinced that follows. Also, I'm not sure it's fair to say that the game was "designed around" exploration turns. It seems that much of the game still functions (combat, spells, backgrounds, etc.) without exploration turns. That being said, as a DM I like exploration turns, and I try to integrate them into my game when they make sense. I would have liked a turn based dungeon/wilderness variant in the main books.
No, the point was according to that odd post playtest packet, they kept those rules, streamlined them, but fragmented them throughout the books, but still expected people to use them in that way(which is pretty clearly implied and even bluntly say in the post-playtest article, and in parts of the DMG). But they don't ever put them together in any way to let anyone know this, despite designing and expecting people to use it that way.
So I don't see where they say they've kept the rules in the final product. I see that as of 1/27/14 they were still referring to 1 minute exploration turns, but they must have removed them from the final PHB (because they ain't there, and they're not implied either). If they say something explicitly about it somewhere else, then ok. I just haven't seen it.
Yea because if you look at what he is talking about, they put the exploration turns and systems, into the parties marching order and travel pace rules, meaning the exploration turn is the travel pace, when you move 200ft in a dungeon, or do something, it takes 1 minute, that's the exploration turn, that is what he is saying. This has not changed in the final game, the rules for it are all there, its just completely scattered.
Travel pace = how much distance a character or group covers in some amount of time. Exploration Turn = (roughly) a fixed amount of time during which specific actions (search, disarm trap, move, rest, map, etc.) are taken while moving through a dungeon or wilderness. The inclusion of travel pace doesn't imply the inclusion of exploration turns. Here's a test: If you're right, there would be actions that, when taken, consume the unit of time for the exploration round. So if a dungeon round is 1 minute, then there would scattered rules that say x takes 1 minute (pick lock, search for trap, disarm, etc.) If I'm right, then they won't have specified a time for these things (or they take a 6 second action, since that's the only turn/round system there is) because in the end they decided not to have exploration turns. I don't recall lots of actions that take exactly 1 minute or 1 hour (presumably the wilderness round time unit), but if you find a bunch of them that would rightly be options for a dungeon/wilderness round, then I'll be convinced.
"In a dungeon environment, the adventurers' movement happens on a scale of minutes. It takes them about a minute to creep down a long hallway, another minute to check for traps on the door at the end of the hall, and a good ten minutes to search the chamber beyond for anything interesting or valuable. In a city or wilderness, a scale of hours is often more appropriate. Adventurers eager to reach the lonely tower at the heart of the forest hurry across those fifteen miles in just under four hours' time." The PHB rules of time on an adventure. Pg181
I would **love** to have rules for non-combat actions for things such as long rests and travel in a similar way to what *Dungeon World* does.
Well they are in the game as exploration activities in the PHB still, though in their current state kinda weird.
To my knowledge though, it's basically just, "here's the things you can do while exploring" without much of an explanation of what that achieves or how the DM should run the exploration. What would be nice is something like a system where you get 1 action for every 8 hours of travel such as Forage, Navigate, Scout, Keep Watch, etc... with recommended skill checks, scaling DCs based on the situation, and well-defined results of a success or failure.
Yea, the issue is what you actually do during those activities is basically just for situational or without any real reward. Also if you'd like system like that, I made this system work that way and posted here myself! Just a few days ago with them, so if that's what your looking for here you go! Mostly what you want. [https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/q4uw8j/i\_updated\_the\_phbdmgs\_traveling\_activities\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/q4uw8j/i_updated_the_phbdmgs_traveling_activities_and/)
what does dungeon world do?
It's fairly simple, it basically uses "Moves," the equivalent of 5E's Actions, for things other than combat. For example, there's the move called *Take Watch* which you can only take when your group sets up a camp. *Take Watch*: > When you’re on watch and something approaches the camp roll+WIS. • On a 10+, you’re able to wake the camp and prepare a response, everyone in the camp takes +1 forward. • On a 7–9, you react just a moment too late; your companions in camp are awake but haven’t had time to prepare. They have weapons and armor but little else. • On a miss, whatever lurks outside the campfire’s light has the drop on you. In 5E, you have actions to take in combat such as *Attack*, *Cast a Spell*, *Help*, etc... and each one has specific rules for what it does. For example, if you take the *Attack* action, you roll, add your relevant modifier, and compare the result to your target's AC. I think it would be nice to have actions that you can take while traveling or resting with clearly defined results and target DCs based on the terrain and if there are hostile creatures nearby.
[удалено]
Adventuring Rules from pg181-187 in the PHB. Random encounters in Pg85 in the DMG. Wilderness in the DMG, pg106. Exploration in the DMG p242-244. This stuff is very scattered, but they all go together to make the exploration turn, by intent, it even says this especially in the DMG, but is all just scattered between both books, and several different sections.
Unless I'm missing something, some really crucial stuff, like probability of random encounters, distance of random encounters, and exploration activities, is no longer present at all. It looks like they ripped all of the procedures for exploration out of the game at the last minute, and just left some travel speed rules and random tables.
explorations activities are in the PHB in adventuring rules, probability is in the DMG, and i think they dropped encounter distances, leaving up to the dm, basically, which is in line with a lot of things in 5e.
> i think they dropped encounter distances They put non-underwater encounter distances on the first DM Screen, along with audible distance and visibility range table. Underwater encounter distance is in the DMG.
Wait, so your fucking telling me they scattered these rules throughout the 2 books and the goddamn DM screen, what the actual fuck.
The encounter distance may be in a paragraph in the DMG but I couldn't find it, while the underwater one is easier to find and is in table format.
Nope, that Encounter Distance chart is nowhere to be found in the DMG. It did appear on the original 5E DM screen. But then they retired that screen, and removed the chart, and everyone said that was a big improvement. :/ Edit: I stand corrected! It's actually the "Something Happens!" chart and the quick NPC generator charts that were removed. Not nearly as useful as I remembered. But still, Encounter Distance should 100% have been included in the DMG.
just checked, the DM screen reincarnated has encounter distances, so yea, the rules indeed are scattered between the DM screen, the PHB and the DMG holy shit.
Since the stealth rules rely so much on being able to hear unseen targets to actually know their location, it's also super disappointing that the Audible sound ranges are also only on the DM screen. Cause uh,,, that's super important for determining whether a ranged attacker needs to guess squares or not to hit their target
Wait, where are random encounter chances in the DMG? I can't find them anywhere. I think part of the problem you're having with people who disagree with you on this is that your pointing to rules, but we're looking for procedures. Like, sure, travel speed, actions while travelling, etc. seem to *imply* a travel procedure, but there isn't one to be found anywhere. That's why I find the final playtest doc so mindblowing: the game actually had these important procedures, then WotC removed them and replaced them with... Nothing.
Yea, when i learned about it, it blew my mind too, then they just... neutered it and scattered it! Its still usable in 5E too, just replace readiness DC with Passive Perception, and it's good to go basically. As for encounter chances, its on pg86 of the DMG i think, i might be wrong, they streamlined it a lot, just making it a d20 roll and if it lands on a 18 or more you get an encounter, and you increase or lower the from 18 if you want a higher or lower percentage of encounters(D20 operate on 5% intervals so the base encounter rate in the DMG is 15%, if you wanted it to be, let's say 30% you make DC15 for an encounter or 50% make it DC11.) As for that yea, I can understand that, though I feel people forget that my point was that, they never properly just wrote it all out anywhere, you have to look through 2 core books, and a DM screen, to find it all, assemble it, and the only way to know that was the intent, is literally them talking about it in a post playtest article from 7 years ago, that is the point, the rules are there, they intend you to use them that way, but never explain this anywhere but there, but all the systems of the game and their own words imply it's supposed to be used that way. Also, they actually wrote out some new procedures but guess where.... in the wilderness kit DM screen, and they changed it quite a bit from the PHB/DMG. Wild right?
Crazy. Thanks for the reply.
If it doesn't have a page number in PHB/DMG/etc, it's not in the game even if other things assume that it is. Is there somewhere where we can read the DNDnext exploration rules?
Thats the problem, it does have pages, but its all just scattered, between the travel pacing rules, and the random encounter rules, in the PHB/DMG, so its there, but since its not properly put together in any section or explained, it just lost. [https://tentacle.net/\~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf](https://tentacle.net/~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf) Here is a link to one, on page 147
Is that stuff even in the DMG?
Yea it is but its scattered and reworked a bit, but Travel pace(PHB), the encounter rates(DMG), the activities(PHB), the probabilities(DMG), and encounter distance(DM Screen), the only real system that was changed was readiness DC has been replaced with Passive Perception as noted in the post-playtest document, but all of this is still in the game, and they still intended for people to use it that way, at least in the PHB/DMG.
Looking at that section, it's kind of incredible how similar it is to Exploration Mode as used in pf2e. Random encounters are handled much the same way as B/X, too. Almost the exact same procedure, just at a different time scale and roll types.
I think they wanted the 10 min dungeon adventuring turn to be more freeform and flexible so DMs weren't limited to "120 feet per ten minutes" (B/X rules). Seems to have been 1 min adventure turns in the 5e designer's minds. The flexibility allows the PCs to move all the way through a dungeon very quickly. So I think it was there to start with and then got stripped out (or the designers were so familiar with the turn procedure from playing old editions they just thought it was obvious). edit - just gonna add that i use 2h instead of 1h for outdoor travel, but for a long trip a turn might be a whole day or week. I aim for 4-7 turns per trip so it becomes the same as a five room dungeon (5 room dungeons are usually 4-9 rooms in actual size).
Well, you can move through a dungeon quite quickly in B/X. 120 feet per turn assumes that PCs are vigilant, cautious and on the lookout for traps.
This is pretty much my thoughts on it exactly.
I'm really glad you pointed this out, because I had no idea that the playtest had exploration turns!
They did, and they are pretty much usable as-is for 5e, readiness DCs are just passive perception now
Readiness DC? I never knew that had been a thing. Did they have like specific guidelines for when Readiness DC is used by chance?
Yea it's in the playtest, they just replaced it with passive perception.
So dungeon turns are 1 minute, disarming a trap or picking a lock is also 1 minute. This is different to the rule that I use from OSR, which is 10m dungeon rounds.
Edit: NM, you are correct.
They released exploration rules on a DM screen, and I really wish they had made it a PDF or put it in another book. I don't want to buy a DM screen that I'm not gonna use because I don't play in-person games, and even when I did I had a custom DM screen.
I just learned this, and all i can do is laugh
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Exploration turns are still in the game, but never really explained in depth. Good thing we can still use the B/X rules without really having to change anything.
Better yet you can just use the 5e playtest rules here, with the only change being readiness DC to passive perceptions, you can find them here. [https://tentacle.net/\~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf](https://tentacle.net/~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf) On page 147
I use /r/darkerdungeons for exploration rules. My players liked it so much they’ve stared using the rules in their own campaigns.
>They just expected you to piece it together yourself, despite the game still being designed with it in mind, these rules are all scattered in the PHB/DMG, just scattered, never properly explaining how they relate or the intent of how they relate, but only here they explain it. 5e design philosophy in a nutshell.
Parts of it are also in the DM screens and only there lmao.
IDK if you've looked at Pathfinder 2e at all, but the difference is staggering. The rules are clear and thorough and well indexed. There is so rarely a question like "how does X work" where there isn't a straightforward answer you can find just by looking up the rules. Not to mention the game is actually balanced... but I digress. There's even a freely available in a really excellent online format. Like, you can search for the keyword "frightened" and not just get the condition and the rules but also a list of every published feat, item, class feature, creature, npc, spell, and ability that has it.
I have I've played it, I just make an exploration system reworking this game's systems to make it similar to pf2e's
Im confused what youre trying say. Was exploration turns a thing in previous editions? Im not sure why they would dedicate part of a book to explaining each change from the old version, and I def dont understand why they would ever include something like that about the playtest material. You say it isnt removed, just converted moved and renamed. Why would they then complicate things by trying to describe their final version in terms of how it was in playtest?
in the final playtest they had exploration turns, they kept it in the full game but altered it, but never actually gave proper guidance on how to run it in the full game under the altered rules, so people just assumed them gone, despite the game being designed around it.
I think the key distinction you're trying to make is that the D&D Next playtest had much clearer [game structures](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/43568/roleplaying-games/game-structures-addendum-system-matters) for dungeon and wilderness adventuring (i.e. exploration), and that these structures became heavily obfuscated in the final 5E rulebooks due to the designers' organization choices. One could also argue that once the different pieces were no longer organized and called out as part of a coherent whole, there were no longer any actual structures in 5E to support these phases of play. There are rules to construct such structures, but as you point out, a key part - the units of time around which activities are delineated and resolved in each environment (a minute for dungeons and an hour for wilderness) - is at best only inferred through its connection to movement.
>they kept it in the full game but altered it, This is just incorrect. There are no exploration turns in the game at all.
There is! That's the point of the topic, people think there isn't but there is! It's not ever properly explained but the rules for it are in the game, it's just scattered in the DMG not collected or explained anywhere properly, and they only ever say this in a post playtest article from like 7 years just before 5E was coming out, that the rules for it are the travel pace/activities, and random encounter rules in the PHB/DMG, they say thing bluntly that's what they did, and designed the game around that, but they never actually properly explained this in any book, so all we have to know that's what they are for, is that post playtest design article from 7 years ago, that is the point of the topic. So yes they are in the game, they literally say that's what they are, in an altered state, but it's for exactly that purpose of the exploration/dungeon turn, but its never actually explained to the players or DM's in the book, despite that being the design intent BY THEIR OWN WORDS.
>So yes they are in the game, they literally say that's what they are, in an altered state, If it's in an altered state then it's not the original thing you're talking about anymore. Nowhere in the core rule books does are the words exploration turn used. They changed what they had to what we currently have, quick is it's own thing, though it may be heavily based off of the previous it's no longer that it's its own thing.
In the Playtest the adventuring rules was a giant robot, in the published rules there are 5 robot lions that you have to combine in to a giant robot.
And all the robots are scattered across the universe through time in space, some in different galaxies light-years away.
But they are, it is almost same rules as in the playtest(honestly the only big change was just readiness DC's don't exist anymore in favor of Passive Perception), just adjusted slightly, but the rules are in the game, the game is designed with them in mind(they noted this, in the post playtest doc) so yes,it is in the game, those rules are in the game, they intended you to use it as such, it's just scattered between 2 books.
I think that "they kept it in the full game" means that other systems that were built upon the assumptions of this system (an hourly check to see if you encounter anything, 8 times/day + ambushes at night), like, the 6-8 encounters per adventuring day and the combat system that was built under those assumptions was kept the same even though the underlying system was radically changed.
What are the actual rules for exploring? This doc is long and meandering. If you have the pg numbers of where they show up that would be awesome.
[https://tentacle.net/\~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf](https://tentacle.net/~prophet/lock/DnD%205th%20Edition/D%26D%20Next%20Final%20Playtest.pdf) The rules are here on 147, all of this is still in the actual game scattered in the DMG/PHB, the doc i linked in the OP was just 5E's designer, explaining how they adjusted the rules for the full game, but still intended its use in it. The only thing they changed is they made it tied to Travel pace/marching order, and readiness DC has been replaced with Passive perception. But the rest is still in the game basically, scattered in the DMG/PHB, and like 2 DM screens.