Does properly exploring a hex help with Navigation?

I’m currently running Tomb for the first time and have a bit of an odd ask. I’m mainly asking this because one of my players is running a character who’s really into maps and wanting to map the island. If the party succeeds on a proper navigation check for the day and I clear one of the hexes on the map, then say they want to go back exactly the way they came. Do I still need them or their guide to roll a navigation check? Or is that only for when they move into new hexes?

And if the players characters have the map from Syndra Silvane and are trying to fill it in too, does that help them with checks at all?

How do I handle a player exploring the entire dungeon with his familiar?

My Warlock player has Pact of the Chain and likes to explore all the dungeon before going inside. The imp turns into an invisible spider and goes through the ceiling to all rooms without hard doors. In practice, this ends up becoming a 1 on 1 conversation between me and the warlock, describing each room, for about 10 minutes until all possible rooms are revealed.

To speed things up, I have the familiar roll a single Stealth check before entering and I compare that against Perception checks from Guards and Passive Perception from all other NPCs (I usually apply disadvantage to these checks, since it’s a spider and invisible). I still feel like it’s a slam of exposition that bores the other players at the table. When the party is going room by room, exposition is broken down in separate parts, and the risk engages the players. I’ve tried to ask each player to control the imp at each part of the dungeon, but players didn’t enjoy it. I also like to add important bits of information at each room (like a Guard using a secret password here, or toxic fumes there), which ends up taking even more exposition time.

One on hand, I want to reward the Warlock and his methodical exploration. On the other the other players are just standing there doing nothing while the imp explores. How can I make this part of our game enjoyable and engaging for everyone?

Exploring previously unknown area with a drone algorithm [on hold]

I’m working on a drone platform for mapping indoor environment based on depth and image proccesing.
I’m looking for an algorithm for exploring previously unknown area, something like a house with a few rooms (assuming one floor for now). Cleaning robot exploring style.

For a start, I preferred to use software package/SDK, free/open source, but payment for a good SDK is also considerable.

It can be very naive and non optimized, and can assume 2D problem if it easier.

I google it, saw a lot of academic articles but I need something more practical for a start.

Any suggestion?

Do encumbered players suffer any penalties when exploring and/or traveling?

The current 5e campaign I’m running uses the encumbrance variance rules and demands a lot of travel and resource management on the part of the players.

This brought up questions about penalties when traveling while encumbered/heavily encumbered (especially from players with lower strength scores)…

It is stated in the PHB that being encumbered reduces a player’s movement in combat while being heavily encumbered drops movement further, and negatively affects attack rolls, ability checks, as well as certain saving rolls. That is clear enough! The DMG adds:

The difference between walking speeds can be significant during combat, but during an overland journey, the difference vanishes as travelers pause to catch their breath, the faster ones wait for the slower ones, and one traveler’s quickness is matched by another traveler’s endurance.

So, it appears, according to RAW, that even a heavily encumbered party’s travel speed is not affected when exploring or traveling, nor do they suffer any other penalties associated with travel (e.g. reduced distance covered/marching time, increased risk of exhaustion, etc.). We aren’t missing anything obvious?

Exploring code objects

I am reading the book: “Obi Ike-Nwosu. Inside The Python Virtual Machine” and have reached the “Code Objects” chapter. This chapter has all code object fields printed out:

co_argcount = 1 co_cellvars = () co_code = b'|\x00d\x01\x16\x00d\x02k\x02r\x1e|\x00d\x03\x16\x00d\x02k\x02r\x1ed\ x04S\x00n,|\x00d\x01\x16\x00d\x02k\x02r0d\x05S\x00n\x1a|\x00d\x03\x16\x00d\x02k\x02r\ Bd\x06S\x00n\x08t\x00|\x00\x83\x01S\x00d\x00S\x00' co_consts = (None, 3, 0, 5, 'FizzBuzz', 'Fizz', 'Buzz') co_filename = /Users/c4obi/projects/python_source/cpython/ co_firstlineno = 6 co_flags = 67 etc... 

but there is no explanation how this can be done programatically, so I wrote my own code:

# Making the code object for 'my_add' function code_obj = compile('my_add', os.path.realpath(__file__), 'exec')  # Iterating through all instance attributes # and calling all having the 'co_' prefix for name in dir(code_obj):     if name.startswith('co_'):         co_field = getattr(code_obj, name)         print(f'{name:<20} = {co_field}') 


co_argcount          = 0 co_cellvars          = () co_code              = b'e\x00\x01\x00d\x00S\x00' co_consts            = (None,) co_filename          = /home/minimax/learning_python/oop/ co_firstlineno       = 1 co_flags             = 64 co_freevars          = () co_kwonlyargcount    = 0  co_lnotab            = b''  co_name              = <module> co_names             = ('my_add',) co_nlocals           = 0 co_stacksize         = 1  co_varnames          = () 

Question: Have I used the optimal way? How would you solve this problem?


Additional information was discovered. It seems, that my solution is wrong. I have tried another approach (using my_add.__code__) and got different code object field values, so I have asked the question on StackOverflow. Check it if you are interested.

Would it be good UX to have exploring on a left panel and property editing on the right panel?

I am working on the UX of a low-code development platform where I need to have an tree explorer and a properties panel for different items in both the explorer and the components in the middle section.

My thoughts are to go for a layout similar to Axure, Sketch and other such tools where the exploring panels would be on the left side while the property editing and configuration on the right side.

What do you think of this? Do you know of any research done on this paradigm?