# How many miles can one travel in a day?



## arbados (Nov 1, 2010)

I was trying to get a general idea of how many miles a medium encumbered individual could travel in one day without there being any interruptions or distractions.  Simple travel by foot.  I was trying to get an idea of the number in miles for areas such as mountains (which understandably could vary), desert, plains, forest, jungle, swamps, etc.  Also was wondering what the travel would be on horseback?

Any assistance would be great as I am needing this to format a key for  overland moevemnt on a world map.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 1, 2010)

I'd just use the basics in the PHB or DMG.  THey are good enough as it can vary a lot by circumstances and variables.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 1, 2010)

I'd wager the average person can walk a mile in an hour.  So, presuming an 8 hour rest, that's 16 hours of walk-time.  So, 16 miles.

A party, due to the nature of a group, would probably go slower, so maybe 12 miles(round down to multiples of 5 for easy math).  

Depending on the harshness of terrain, even less.  The more extreme, the shorter the distance they can travel.


----------



## Wik (Nov 1, 2010)

Well, the west coast trail is 47 miles long.  And the average time to walk it is about six to eight days - and that's assuming at least one or two days of rain.  Assuming nine hours a day of hiking, with the rest of the time spent resting, eating, or relaxing at camp for a bit, we've got approximately 8 miles a day - or about a mile an hour.  

The West coast trail, by the way, is a pretty brutal hike - it's for experienced hikers only.  Basically, you follow the westernmost edge of Canada, on my lovely little rock of Vancouver Island.  You climb over stream beds, cross ravines by way of fallen tree trunk,  and slog through the mud.

And you can go a mile an hour through that.

I know, from personal experience, that I walk about two miles an hour in normal city/trail conditions - clear, paved ground in decent weather.  But then, I'm a pretty quick walker.  A mile an hour is a pretty good indicator of speed on a trail or road.  I'd cut that in half if trailblazing is involved.


----------



## Wik (Nov 1, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I'd wager the average person can walk a mile in an hour.  So, presuming an 8 hour rest, that's 16 hours of walk-time.  So, 16 miles.
> 
> A party, due to the nature of a group, would probably go slower, so maybe 12 miles(round down to multiples of 5 for easy math).
> 
> Depending on the harshness of terrain, even less.  The more extreme, the shorter the distance they can travel.




Nobody hikes for 16 hours a day, unless they're in the military on a forced march.  Unless the PCs absolutely have to be at Mordor by friday, they're going to slow down a bit.

About ten hours a day of travel is probably enough, though it could be maybe pushed to twelve.  The other hours consist of stopping for a breath of air, setting up and breaking camp, gathering supplies for a fire, and getting food (you don't carry all your food with you!  Even these days, carrying a week's worth of food is difficult when you're walking - imagine having to carry old-school rations!)


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 1, 2010)

How many miles can one travel in a day? 

594,960 24,790 mph, approx 0.0037 percent the speed of light

15-20 is possible and even further for the very fittest walkers.  

But I think you mean D&D levels.  
IIRC, AD&D movement speed also equated to miles / day.  So 12 for humans and 6 for the small pints.   ...but this is all they do that day. Afterward they are Fatigued.

EDIT: On second thought, I think PCs could voluntarily go up to double this rate, but then they would be Fatigued.


----------



## Corathon (Nov 1, 2010)

I think that the average unburdened person walks about 3 miles an hour on a nice, flat, level surface. Assuming a reasonable travel day of 8 effective hours gives about 24 miles/day. The eight hours of travel are spread over perhaps 10-12 hours of actual time due to rest breaks, stops to eat, etc. The amount of weight carried and the roughness of the terrain could greatly reduce this, of course. 

BTW, in  AD&D Movement equated to miles per half day, so 24 miles per day at MV 12". Pretty much in line with the above.


----------



## Mercurius (Nov 1, 2010)

Corathon is right - I don't know where people are getting "one mile an hour," but that's strenuous hiking speed, not walking over relatively even ground.

Fast jog = 8+ mph
Moderate jog = 6-8 mph
Slow jog = 5-6 mph
Fast walk - 4 mph
Moderate walk - 3 mph
Slow walk ("strolling") - 1-2 mph

Ultramarathoners and Incan Chasqui runners can/could supposedly run 100 miles or more in a 24-hour period; a fantasy equivalent would be Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli going after the orcs in _The Two Towers _(and of course the orcs themselves!). But in terms of a very fit person over a sustained period of time, I think 5-10 miles in strenuous terrain, 10-20 in moderate terrain, and 20-30 miles in easy terrain. My wife and I hiked the 150-mile Annapurna circuit in 14 days of hiking (and two days of rest) and neither of us were very fit, at least at the beginning! And that is overall moderate-to-strenuous.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 2, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I'd wager the average person can walk a mile in an hour.




That's very slow.  A person in good health can do 3 or 4 miles per hour for extended periods over clear, mostly even ground.  

My wife recently did the Susan G. Komen 3-Day for the Cure, which is sixty miles in three days (20 miles a day, on average), in the 90+ degree summer heat and humidity.  This was urban hiking, with some hills, but a largely smooth surface.  There were 60+ year old women who did this - it takes a bit of training, but is quite achievable for an average person.


----------



## Troll Slayer (Nov 2, 2010)

At a brisk pace, lightly encumbered (backpack with art supplies, mp3 player and couple bottles of water) I could do a mile in about 10 minutes on sidewalks.  I used to do so pretty much every day at least twice a day for a couple of years.  Even as fit as I was back then, I would have taken a break every 3-4 miles unless pressed for time.

I think the 3 miles per hour estimate is fair were I walking at a normal casual pace or carrying more than my usual stuff.  It's probably sensible to use that as a baseline and just modify negatively by a mile or two for rough conditions.  Of course on a nice day through open flatland, you could raise it by a mile or two.


----------



## Embermage (Nov 2, 2010)

30 is the upper limit for sustained travel.  Push yourself much harder than that and you won't be able to move the next day.

Did a 30 mile march years ago in the army.  That's with a 30 lb. pack, helmet and weapon, taking a short (10-20 minute) rest every 2 hours.


----------



## cmrscorpio (Nov 2, 2010)

I agree with most of the above posters: average 1 mile/hour of walking over the course of a day over easy terrain.  Sure, the average person's walking speed over even ground is more like 3 mph, give or take.  However, that is not usually a sustained speed over the coarse of a day.  Keeping that pace for an entire day, even for someone reasonably fit and unencumbered, would be very strenuous.

And, let's face it, adventurers aren't usually known for having fancy-schmancy roads leading them where they need to go.


----------



## GreyLord (Nov 2, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I'd wager the average person can walk a mile in an hour.  So, presuming an 8 hour rest, that's 16 hours of walk-time.  So, 16 miles.
> 
> A party, due to the nature of a group, would probably go slower, so maybe 12 miles(round down to multiples of 5 for easy math).
> 
> Depending on the harshness of terrain, even less.  The more extreme, the shorter the distance they can travel.




You guys are frikken joking, are WAAAAAY out of shape!!!

In the woods, with undergrowth, it MIGHT be one mile an hour, MORE likely 2 miles an hour.

If it's relatively clear...or on a trail it's 4 miles an hour...3 miles if I'm with slowpokes.

Considering adventurers would HOPEFULLY be in better shape then I am even...I'd say at leat 40 miles a day with a 10 hour day (they want to get someplace).  However if we say they only rest for 8 hours (we can even say 12 hours so they have time to set up camp and such) that's still somewhere between 36-48 miles.

PS:  And yes, that IS sustained.  For short bursts I have friends that will run or jog and that speeds it up to 5 or 6 miles an hour (my dad is insane).  The actual runners do far more...but they aren't burdened by backpacks either when they do their little marathons).

PPS:  From the responses I take it that NONE of the responders are actually backpackers?  If I had a group that went that slow and weren't a bunch of kids...I'd never go on another backpacking trip with them...maybe a slow camping trip but not a serious hike...we'd never finish the hikes!  Much less the mountain climbing...we'd be lucky to get to the far off mount before we'd have to turn back because we ran out of time!


----------



## delericho (Nov 2, 2010)

The real-world answer is probably about 24 miles per day, assuming decent terrain and light encumberance.

The game-world answer should probably be "as far as the plot demands".

Seriously, you could probably do a lot worse than use a hex overlay, neglect to put a detailed scale on either the hexes or the map itself, and rule that the party can cover 1, 2 or 3 hexes per day (modified by terrain). It's not even as if most of your players will have the basis to understand whether your figures are right or not - the car turns what was once a day's journey into a minor inconvenience.


----------



## Someone (Nov 2, 2010)

Now that I think on it, I remember watching in TV some news about illegal mines in Congo (denouncing guerillas, human rights abuses, corruption, you name it). The point is that the porters that transported the mineral did, and I suppose continue doing, more 30 miles of mountainous jungle trek in less than two days, with loads that exceeded 100 lbs.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 2, 2010)

One mile an hour is slow, I am considered a slow walker but one mile an hour is really slow. 
I would say that off road but not too rugged terrain 3 mph and less in rugged terrain. If one has to forage they one will walk a lot more but most of that will be foraging.
FYI, old folks around here that walked cattle to the fair reckoned 4 hours walk to a Tralee about 16 miles and cows are slow.
Davout marched his corp (circa 30,000 men) from Viennia to Austerlitz in about 48 hours, that is 70 miles.
I platoon of the Irish Army marched 80 miiles in a day in the nineteen forties I remember talking to an old farmer from Cavan when I was in hopsital about it, turned out he was one of the guys that did.
So on roads experienced and fit walkers would easily do 4 mph and could push themselves to more.


----------



## Rel (Nov 2, 2010)

When I was 14 years old I hiked a portion of the Appalachian Trail.  I carried a 40 pound backpack (probably about 1/3 of my total body weight) every day.  The shortest day we did was 10 miles.  The longest was 17 miles.  That was on a trail but one that was somewhat narrow and certainly steep in many places (this is in the mountains after all).

I would imagine that hearty adults, for whom walking is their principal mode of travel, could manage 25 miles a day (to pick a nice round number) without great difficulty, even in moderate terrain.

It is probably fair to mention that, at age 14, we were only mildly concerned about being ambushed by Orcs.


----------



## cthulhudarren (Nov 2, 2010)

Recent experience with walking my dog has taught me that around 3.5 MPH is a moderate effort. This is unencumbered, not preparing for ambush, on a mostly flat path. Modify any of these parameters and difficulty would make it an enough of an effort that going faster would leave persons in some state of fatigue. 

We ought to hammer out some tables here, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that we can never agree to anything.


----------



## Filcher (Nov 2, 2010)

GreyLord said:


> You guys are frikken joking, are WAAAAAY out of shape!!!
> 
> In the woods, with undergrowth, it MIGHT be one mile an hour, MORE likely 2 miles an hour.
> 
> ...




Sure. I've done 24 miles in a day, in the Rockies, with a full backpack. But if I was carrying armor, weapons, and camping supplies that weren't made out of ultra light materials? No way. 

Let alone healing up from that arrow the orc put in me last week.


----------



## Wik (Nov 2, 2010)

Filcher said:


> Sure. I've done 24 miles in a day, in the Rockies, with a full backpack. But if I was carrying armor, weapons, and camping supplies that weren't made out of ultra light materials? No way.
> 
> Let alone healing up from that arrow the orc put in me last week.




Exactly.   Not to mention that when you're doing 24 mile a day in the Rockies, you're mostly just walking.  Unless the PCs are in a rush, are they going to be full-focused on power-walking?  Probably not - they'll have conversations, they'll stop to ask travellers for directions or news, and so on.

AS I mentioned upthread, the average time to walk the West Coast Trail is approximately seven days.  This is a trail for experienced hikers only - you're not allowed on the thing if you've never done a trail before.  It is often voted the #1 trail in the world.  It's approximately 75 miles long - meaning an experienced hiker does approximately only 10 miles a day.  I've been on similar trails on this island, and I can  tell you why - narrow trails, steep switchbacks, muddy trails, waiting out tidal zones, broken bridges, weather delays, animal encounters, and more.  

In day to day life, I would make my walk to an old job in approximately 35 minutes.  I am a super fast walker.  Google maps says this walk should take an hour, and that the total distance walked is 4.1 km.  This is all through urban terrain.

Google thinks the average person walks about 4 km an hour.  And google is never wrong.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 2, 2010)

GreyLord said:


> You guys are frikken joking, are WAAAAAY out of shape!!!
> 
> In the woods, with undergrowth, it MIGHT be one mile an hour, MORE likely 2 miles an hour.
> 
> ...



Nobody's going to be traveling 40 miles a day without the very whips of the devil on their back.


----------



## Wik (Nov 2, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Nobody's going to be traveling 40 miles a day without the very whips of the devil on their back.




Exactly.  I remember in the book band of brothers, the entire regiment did a forced march over three days, and it was something like 117 miles - a record for unit movement that still stood as of the day the book was written.  

And while individuals can (and have) gone faster, I find it improbable for a group to move 40 miles a day.  Especially because your average adventurer is lacking in a lot of the lightweight foods and supplies that backpackers have.


----------



## GreyLord (Nov 2, 2010)

Sorry to disappoint, but I've done 50 miles in a DAY, and that wasn't even a day that I went from beginning to end (that would be more of a 12 hour hike per day).  I've gone for a week hiking as well...but then, I suppose I'm more experienced then anyone here.  Wouldn't call myself an adventurer.

I HAVE done quite a bit of hiking in my younger days however...that's since died out, that stuff's for the young...but then, maybe I was in better shape then some here as well, back in my youth.

That's with ALL living supplies on my back that I'll live off of for at least a week, plus mountain climbing equipment.

I could be happy to say they could go 25 miles a day on foot.

On horse, it probably would be higher if they weren't rushing at breakneck speed (for example the Pony Express went through 4 horses, but in the time period of 24 hours I think they went about 240 miles...A DAY...they allowed 60 miles per leg of 6 hours...and then would change up horses and riders).

These slow speeds of hiking are ridiculous overall...coming from someone who's done quite a bit...IF they are going along trails which are actually quite easy hiking.

ON the otherhand, with scouts, I doubt I'd do anything over a 10 mile hike if I didn't have too.  They don't seem to go that fast or hard...but they do have fun.  10 miles could take all day.  I remember one that we were going up a trail in Utah...I think it was Zions...it was a trail going up for about a mile and they were all dying.  It was interesting...took us half a day just to hike 5 miles...and an hour to come back down the next day.  We did stop at Angels Landing...but that was to let the other boys actually catch up.

The worst was a 50 mile hike...but I wasn't over that one.  That was my dad...and he forced hiked those scouts 25 miles a day.  They were one tired bunch of kids...but did the 50 miles over a weekend.

Of course my Dad was the one who thought that we should be able to do a 5 mile hike in the scout hour...and that after all the other stuff...we did it in the last 45 minutes.  That turned out to be more of jog/run...if you think I am terrible with my estimates you should see what my dad.

If you are comparing that (younger or inexperienced hikes) to what serious hikers and serious climbers can do...your estimates of what full time adventurers (who should be used to going off on the trails and wildlands) I think your estimates are waaaay off.  Which is where the mile per hour comes from?

I don't consider myself, even when I was younger, in the shape an adventurer from an RPG would be in...so my expectations of what adventurers should be able to do is probably higher than yours.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 2, 2010)

GreyLord said:


> I don't consider myself, even when I was younger, in the shape an adventurer from an RPG would be in...so my expectations of what adventurers should be able to do is probably higher than yours.




Back to the RPG then.  If ever character in the party has a 14+ con and the endurance feat then sure.  But they don't.  We have one character with a 14, one with a 12, and the other 2 have 10's.  They are not in great shape as most of them are average or a little above.  

But It's nice to see my point in my post proven so perfectly.  It just depends on a lot of factors and situations one of those defiantly being what kind of shape the characters are in.  I don't see adventures in great shape, I see them buying horses.


----------



## Janx (Nov 2, 2010)

if you're walking to get somwhere, you should be able to go 3-4 miles an hour.  That's at most, a brisk walk.  Not power walking.  Just walking to get somewhere.

I'm not sure if some folks realize just how slow 1-2 mph is.  If I was carrying  a pack, and somebody was going that slow, I'd still be going faster.  Because barring an exceptionally heavy pack, it HURTS to move that slow.  It's easier on the body to keep it moving, and thus shifting the weight.

Not having a car when I was growing up and living in the country, I walked to plenty of places.

Going down game trails doesn't slow you down that much either (assuming you're not going slow on purpose, to be quiet or spot something).


the only peoplee going 1-2 MPH ought to be sneaking, trailblazing or in poor health.  All it takes is working legs and not being overweight.  It's not like you gotta be a pro-athlete to walk for an hour or two.

Put it this way, you're driving through BFE.  Your car runs out of gas.  There's no cell reception.  Start walking.  If you got some place to be, you'll be going 3-4 MPH, because a slower pace is ridiculous, and a faster pace is tiring.


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 3, 2010)

Historically, a _League_ was a unit of measure equal to the average distance a person or horse could walk in one hour.  In Ancient Rome it was equal to about 1.5 miles.  In medieval England/Europe and later, a league was equal to 3 miles.  I assume ancient Romans had shorter legs...

Average walking speed for an average person over even/easy terrain is 3 miles/hour, or 1 mile every 20 minutes.  A persons level of fitness determines how much cumulative time they can walk in a day.  But even a person with poor endurance can easily walk at a pace of three miles/hour...they just can't do it for as long as someone with greater endurance (unless they are significantly overweight, have an injury, are older or younger, etc. - basically not an _average_ person).


----------



## IronWolf (Nov 3, 2010)

Crothian said:


> It just depends on a lot of factors and situations one of those defiantly being what kind of shape the characters are in.




Yeah, it will certainly vary depending on character I would think.  As another person that used to backpack frequently in rather difficult terrain on many occasions I could certainly see adventurers able to cover a fair amount of distance even with decent sized packs and such.  I know I had times when I was "trail tough" and able to cover difficult terrain quite quickly - even with a pack.

But really, adventurers are likely to go the horse route as you mentioned anyways.  It just makes more sense in a lot of cases.  Travel even further distances and leave yourself fresher for those orc ambushes.


----------



## evildmguy (Nov 3, 2010)

No one has mentioned footwear.  

I spent several weekends at Ren Faires in costume with correct boots.  Not rubber bottoms but leather and no padding.  OUCH!  The first day isn't bad.  It's not until that next day that you realize how much it hurts.  Modern sneakers are awesome and they would have had nothing like it back then.  

I've also worn replica roman sandals.  Not bad for a few hours but then they start to hurt.  Barefoot felt better!  

My point is that, as many have mentioned, there are a lot of factors to this.  Take a bookworm (wizard) who doesn't walk much and then ask him to walk 30 miles in a day?  I don't think he would be happy, unless he had a fly or the like spell ready!

Healing would help with that somewhat, and go for the drama of course instead of a detail like this, but I think the movement rates in the book are good guidelines.  And the shoes good reason for horses!


----------



## delericho (Nov 3, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> My point is that, as many have mentioned, there are a lot of factors to this.  Take a bookworm (wizard) who doesn't walk much and then ask him to walk 30 miles in a day?  I don't think he would be happy, unless he had a fly or the like spell ready!




It's probably a bit of a stretch to call any adventuring wizard "a bookworm who doesn't walk much". By the time characters have a few adventures under their belts, they're really not going to fit that mould - they've been travelling around, enduring all sorts of extreme conditions for some time now!


----------



## evildmguy (Nov 3, 2010)

delericho said:


> It's probably a bit of a stretch to call any adventuring wizard "a bookworm who doesn't walk much". By the time characters have a few adventures under their belts, they're really not going to fit that mould - they've been travelling around, enduring all sorts of extreme conditions for some time now!




I'm not arguing that for the adventurers, this shouldn't be an issue.  I, as a DM, wouldn't make it an issue other than mention that they are a bit sore after a long trek or horse ride or whatever they just did that wasn't usual for them.  

I have had campaigns that took place entirely in a city.  So, for me, I can see that if those adventurers went on a wilderness hike, while they are still in shape, they are going to be stiff and sore from the exertion.  Or they only used horses to get around and the first time they have to walk, it's tough on them.  I'm not advocating a penalty or anything.  I'm merely saying that the first time they do something that is not what they normally do, it's going to be tougher than if they did it all the time.  Again, I would mention they were sore but that would be about it.  

This is a "hey, get your reality out of my gaming" moment.    That's all!


----------



## Rel (Nov 3, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> I spent several weekends at Ren Faires in costume with correct boots.  Not rubber bottoms but leather and no padding.  OUCH!  The first day isn't bad.  It's not until that next day that you realize how much it hurts.  Modern sneakers are awesome and they would have had nothing like it back then.




That's certainly true.  But don't forget that Kenyans and other native Africans are nearly always among the top contenders in major marathons and most of them spent years running completely barefoot.  Today we can't imagine having to get around in primitive (or no) footwear because we've always had it and that's what we're used to.

And hey, the Hobbits walked all the way to Mordor with no shoes on!


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 3, 2010)

Twenty miles a day was/is regarded as sustainable for military units in full kit. Faster is possible. That though is for large military units, including breaking camp and setting off in good order. Parties of adventurers I'd expect to move faster.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 3, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> No one has mentioned footwear.
> 
> I spent several weekends at Ren Faires in costume with correct boots.




I don't think that is a good comparison - your feet are soft from a lifetime being swaddled in padding.  Your feet are different from those of a person who has walked a lifetime in unpadded shoes, or barefoot.  Expecting to deal well in period footwear without conditioning is not reasonable.

Remember - humanity covered the Earth before the invention of Dr. Scholl's.

One needs to consider the pairing of footwear and walking surface, as well.  If you're walking on concrete, you probably want padding.  But then, paving is rare in pseudo-medieval societies.  Bare earth is far kinder on the feet.


----------



## evildmguy (Nov 3, 2010)

Umbran - I don't know you but I constantly see/hear Christian Kane because of your icon.  That was a trivial fact.  

With regards to footwear, I agree to some extent.  My point is that this would have existed at all times with the classes.  If a character was a noble, they would have had the best shoes and possible carried or coached everywhere.  Suddenly having to walk, no matter the shape they are in, would be tough.  Imagine the noble woman who used slippers all of the time and now has to wear boots and walk long distances.  

My bigger point is that there are all sorts of variables in this and it's tough to nail it down to how any particular individual will do.  As such, that's why I would make it situational, mention it offhand and not impose any penalties.  

As to total distance, also remember with no 'race against time' issue, why go faster than you have to?  Don't wear things out faster or tire the horse without good reason.


----------



## Rel (Nov 3, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> My bigger point is that there are all sorts of variables in this and it's tough to nail it down to how any particular individual will do.  As such, that's why I would make it situational, mention it offhand and not impose any penalties.
> 
> As to total distance, also remember with no 'race against time' issue, why go faster than you have to?  Don't wear things out faster or tire the horse without good reason.




But the point of the thread is to establish some kind of average for use in setting the scale of a map (at least I think that's the point of the thread based on the OP).  Of course there will be variables.  But I think we're trying to establish what they are varying from.

I'm by no means trying to declare my figure the correct one.  But, taking into consideration the fact that in the typical D&D world walking is how almost everybody gets almost everywhere, I'd probably say that an average person could cover 20 miles a day in fairly flat, open terrain.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 3, 2010)

GreyLord said:


> Sorry to disappoint, but I've done 50 miles in a DAY, and that wasn't even a day that I went from beginning to end (that would be more of a 12 hour hike per day).  I've gone for a week hiking as well...but then, I suppose I'm more experienced then anyone here.  Wouldn't call myself an adventurer.
> 
> I HAVE done quite a bit of hiking in my younger days however...that's since died out, that stuff's for the young...but then, maybe I was in better shape then some here as well, back in my youth.
> 
> That's with ALL living supplies on my back that I'll live off of for at least a week, plus mountain climbing equipment.




Good. Now double that weight, because your PC is not outfitted with modern lightweight hiking gear.

Now add the weight of armor, weapons, spellbooks, dungeoneering gear, and whatever loot the characters are carrying.

Now consider that the PCs are probably in unfamiliar territory and will often have to backtrack. And that the PCs need to be in condition to fight if ambushed during the night, and need to set up a camp which is defensible as well as comfortable.

Finally, recall that for every Caramon in the party, there is apt to be a Raistlin. Not every PC is an athlete in peak condition.

10 miles is low except in really rough terrain, but 40 miles is ridiculous on anything short of a Roman road.


----------



## GreyLord (Nov 3, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Good. Now double that weight, because your PC is not outfitted with modern lightweight hiking gear.
> 
> Now add the weight of armor, weapons, spellbooks, dungeoneering gear, and whatever loot the characters are carrying.
> 
> ...




You're PC's go around with 150 Lbs of gear? (75 lbs x2)

That's pretty hefty.

Granted I left a lot of it below when I started climbing, but when going into an area that was removed from civilization sometimes, I would carry EVERYTHING I would want or need.

Maybe returning with loot...but what are they carrying in that weighs so much?  According to the old encumberance rules...could Raistlin even carry 150 lbs?  I don't recall Raistlin constantly being encumbered...but maybe my memory is wrong...or I'm remembering his strength wrong.

Anyways...I admit that perhaps if the adventurers aren't experienced backpackers or travelers it could be much harder on them and they probably wouldn't handle travelling that far that quickly.

25 miles a day for at least two or three days should at least be manageable however...though perhaps after that they may be VERY tired (if judging from how scouts turn out) and not willing to do much more travelling after that.  So maybe an upper limit of how far they can travel if they aren't used to walking much?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 3, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Good. Now double that weight, because your PC is not outfitted with modern lightweight hiking gear.
> 
> Now add the weight of armor, weapons, spellbooks, dungeoneering gear, and whatever loot the characters are carrying.
> 
> ...



 Raistlin I always had problems with because it was debatable is such a person could survive travelling the winderness. The unfit wizard is something that I really cannot buy into. One cannot go tramping the countryside for weeks on end and remain unfit. For that matter the weak wizard is more of an artifact of class balance  than anything else. I have known a few physically strong college professors. 

As for the gear that a typical D&D group cart around the countryside, that also is a genre trope that i do not believe any sensible people would engage in. If they really needed all that gear they they would buy pack animals and people to guard them or invest in portable holes and other such devices.


----------



## evildmguy (Nov 4, 2010)

Rel said:


> But the point of the thread is to establish some kind of average for use in setting the scale of a map (at least I think that's the point of the thread based on the OP).  Of course there will be variables.  But I think we're trying to establish what they are varying from.
> 
> I'm by no means trying to declare my figure the correct one.  But, taking into consideration the fact that in the typical D&D world walking is how almost everybody gets almost everywhere, I'd probably say that an average person could cover 20 miles a day in fairly flat, open terrain.




I think we generally agree.  I do agree that I wasn't clear in one point.  With regards to the OP, I think this thread has established the walking numbers as the ones in the books, which is ~ 25 miles a day, modified by terrain.  I know that when most of the settings came out back in the day, there were rules on how far that was and multipliers based on terrain type.  (I always liked the clear overlays for FR and then you didn't have hexes on the maps themselves.)  

What 4E seems to have done is remove a lot of the penalties and details about this.  The group travels X miles in a day and that's all they say on it, not worrying about forced marches or the like.  I think that's a good idea and groups that want more detail can always go into it.


----------



## delericho (Nov 4, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Finally, recall that for every Caramon in the party, there is apt to be a Raistlin.




Actually, Raistlin was always very much a special case, due to the story-based conditions of his Test. If you look at his game stats, he has average Constitution and Strength.

In fact, given that he carried almost nothing (robes, spell component pouches, staff and dagger), he would have moved faster than many in the party - indeed, depending on the edition, he may well have moved faster than Cameron (who would be slowed by his armour in at least 3.x).

(This, of course, matches a very many D&D Wizards. The player _might_ choose to dump Strength slightly, but seldom below an 8 - and they'll reduce the amount they carry to compensate. The player almost certainly _won't_ choose to dump Constitution, due to the resulting loss of hit points. D&D Wizards are very seldom extremely unfit bookworms.)


----------



## delericho (Nov 4, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> As for the gear that a typical D&D group cart around the countryside, that also is a genre trope that i do not believe any sensible people would engage in. If they really needed all that gear they they would buy pack animals and people to guard them or invest in portable holes and other such devices.




I think a lot of the issue here is that D&D characters tend to accumulate gear, very rarely ever lose/sell/give away any of it, and tend to carry everything they own at all times. After all, they never know when they might be called on to engage in life-or-death combat, delve a random dungeon, or otherwise engage in extreme activity.

A more realistic approach would be for characters to regularly throw away and/or replace their mundane gear (due to it being lost, wearing out, or just being old), and to re-equip themselves on a per-expedition basis.

(One potential way of modelling this would be to use a much more punishing set of encumberance rules, coupled with allowing the party to 'buy' mundane equipment at zero cost. So, they can acquire rope, iron spikes, rations, lanterns, oil, and so on easily enough... but they can only carry a tiny number of items at a time, so they really have to choose.

That might actually make "dungeon hack" adventures more interesting, since the party have to make hard choices about what to take in to the dungeon, and then make do with whatever they've got - rather than just having the fighter carry an absurd amount of gear and/or handwaving equipment availability.)


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 4, 2010)

delericho said:


> I think a lot of the issue here is that D&D characters tend to accumulate gear, very rarely ever lose/sell/give away any of it, and tend to carry everything they own at all times. After all, they never know when they might be called on to engage in life-or-death combat, delve a random dungeon, or otherwise engage in extreme activity.
> 
> A more realistic approach would be for characters to regularly throw away and/or replace their mundane gear (due to it being lost, wearing out, or just being old), and to re-equip themselves on a per-expedition basis.
> 
> ...




Oh, I agree, totally agree but the pain of the bookkeeping to enforce that. That is why I amd other like me ignore encumbrance unless there is abuse going on. 
Maybe someday when the DM and players can register their mobile devices with the smart table and we can do RoleMaster properly


----------



## delericho (Nov 4, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Oh, I agree, totally agree but the pain of the bookkeeping to enforce that.




The problem is the D&D uses entirely the wrong scale for encumberance. Tracking things down to a tenth of a pound (or even to a single coin in some editions) is just too much detail, especially since a character's load will change frequently (every time they use an arrow in combat; every time they find treasure).

Besides, very often the character's ability to carry all that stuff would be nothing to do with their muscles' ability to shift that load, but rather down to how well it is packed. (Think about it: how many dice can you carry in your hands? How many can you carry if you put those same dice into a really big bag?)

Note: this system works particularly well with item cards, since there's then a really obvious sign of what the character is carrying.

A *very simple encumberance system* (and probably not a much less realistic system) could just allow characters to carry "ten things" (adjust number to suit), such as:

Leather Armour
Shortsword
Shortbow
Quiver of arrows (up to 20; any combination)
Potion (Cure Light Wounds)
Thieves' Tools
Rope and Grapple
Bundle of Poor Loot
Pouch of Monies

and so on.

(Of course, you'll have to make a call about what counts as one of the ten things. This probably shouldn't include worn clothing items, or the various containers a character might use. But how many coins count as a thing? Do two daggers count as two things, or just one between them? And so on.)

A *more complex system* would split items into Major items, Minor items, and Conditional items. Major items would be the big, bulky items such as a suit of armour, a weapon, rope... Minor items would be the small, light items: a coin, a potion. Conditional items would mostly be clothing items - when worn, these are considered Minor, but if the character is just carrying them, then they'd be considered Major.

Then, in addition to the limit above, characters would be further limited by their Strength: they can carry a number of Major items equal to their Strength before becoming encumbered, then a further 3 items before being heavily encumbered, and then a final 3 before reaching their maximum load.

So, our theoretical thief above would be carrying a load of 6 (armour, sword, box, quiver, rope, bundle of loot).

A *more complex still system* would replace the simple "ten items" limit with a number of 'slots' of different types. A character can carry an item if he has an appropriate slot available. Adding a pack would add a number of slots that can be used for anything.

So, our example thief:

Body: Leather armour (major)
Weapon 1: Shortsword (major)
Weapon 2: Shortbow (major)
Weapon 3: Quiver (conditional - consider minor; adds 3 "quiver" slots for arrows)
Weapon 4: Unassigned
Back: Backpack (conditional - consider minor; adds 6 "pack" slots)
Quiver 1: Arrows (up to 20; any one type; major)
Quiver 2&3: Unassigned
Pack 1: Rope & Grapple (major)
Pack 2: Potion of Cure Light Wounds (minor)
Pack 3-6: Unassigned
Left Hand: Sack (minor; adds 3 "sack" slots for treasures)
Sack 1: Bundle of Poor Loot* (major)
Sack 2-3: Unassigned
Belt Pouch: Pouch of monies (minor)
Concealed: Thieves' Tools

*About Treasure*

In the example above, I've listed "a bundle of poor loot". The idea here is that I would recommend abstracting a lot of treasures out into single items.

For example, when the party defeat a band of goblins, the DM should first present them with the list of gear the goblins have. If the PCs want to equip any of these items individually, they are free to do so. However, whatever is left is then considered to be wrapped up and turned into a single (major) item called a "bundle of XX loot". Such items cannot then be unbundled (since we're not tracking what they are individually), but can be resold at town for a fixed amount.

This saves micromanaging the details of everything a random bandit has (and especially the small amounts of coin/gold teeth/minor trinkets they might have).

You could have a "bundle of poor loot", a "bundle of average loot", a "bundle of good loot", and so on, right up to "a bundle of priceless loot". (In each case, the bundle should consist of stuff that isn't good enough for the PCs to bother using, but good enough for them to want to sell on.

Similarly, with coins, I would go with "a pile of poor coins" (mostly copper with some silver) up to "a pile of priceless coins" (mostly platinum with just a few gold). A pile is about 3,000 coins (or set accordingly), but the exact number is handwaved - it's not as if the party is going to rigorously catalogue this in the middle of the dungeon anyway, is it?

And the same can be done with gems.

The idea here is to reduce the book-keeping of mundane treasures, and avoid overloading the encumberance system with detail (while still not allowing PCs to carry absurd amounts of loot everywhere).


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 4, 2010)

I think there are too many variables in the original question to get a meaningful answer.

There's a huge difference between the maximum distance an individual can accomplish in a 24-hour period, assuming he or she can just collapse at the end and rest for a few days, versus what can be done on a day-in-day-out basis.

There's also the question of how much time must be set aside for travel overhead. Setting up and tearing down encampments, cooking, etc.--not to mention foraging--eat into the time and energy available for walking.

So, OP, are we looking for a short-burst forced march type figure, or an everyday sustained travel figure?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 4, 2010)

delericho said:


> The problem is the D&D uses entirely the wrong scale for encumberance. Tracking things down to a tenth of a pound (or even to a single coin in some editions) is just too much detail, especially since a character's load will change frequently (every time they use an arrow in combat; every time they find treasure).
> 
> snip..._ Still too much policing required for my taste_




Not only are the D&D encumbrance systems too detailed but alot of weapon and armour weight were pulled out of someones ass.

Grabbing a random PHB (3.0 it turns out) a long sword is listed at 4lbs
Bit on the heavy end I would say and a quick Google and it is and wikipedia also agrees.

That said I do like your item card idea.


----------



## cthulhudarren (Nov 4, 2010)

Okay, folks, fill in this chart IYO:

party distance/day in miles, normal encumbrance

Avg    --      Max(force march) --  terrain
----------------------------------------------
20      --       40         --             Open/trail
w1      --      w2        --              woods
r1       --       r2         --              rough/brush
h1      --       h2         --              hills
m1     --       m2          --             mountains
s1      --       s2          --             swamp


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 5, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> ...Grabbing a random PHB (3.0 it turns out) a long sword is listed at 4lbs
> Bit on the heavy end I would say and a quick Google and it is and wikipedia also agrees...




I couldn't find it in the 3.0 or 3.5 PHB (although I may have just overlooked it), but in past edition PHB's I believe the weight for weapons included things like the scabard/sheath, baldric/belts, etc.  Including this stuff may still leave the weights a little high, but considerably closer.  I think the idea wasn't so much about how much the weapon weighed when used, but how much the whole package weighed to wear or carry.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 6, 2010)

Normal healthy people walk 3 miles/hour on level terrain when unencumbered, and can do this for around 8 hours/day, or 24 miles in one day - but will likely be sore afterwards if not used to doing this.  Fit people walk at the same speed, but 10 hours/day is reasonable, or 30 miles.

Terrain can reduce speed to 2 miles an hour, 1 mile an hour, or less in extreme cases.

Americans walk less than any population in world history, making US personal experience possibly misleading except for a modern-US set campaign.

Re medium load - the WW2 German army - the Wehrmacht - reckoned their soldiers had a sustained march rate of 40 km/day, about 25 miles/day, over European terrain.  That's carrying around 60 lbs in pack, weapon et al.  I read that the US Marine corps reckon they have a sustained march rate of 10 km/day, while the US Army is not capable of sustained march.  The Wehrmacht figure is comparable to eg the ancient Roman army march rate and looks reasonable as a guide for what D&D PCs should be able to do.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 6, 2010)

Corathon said:


> I think that the average unburdened person walks about 3 miles an hour on a nice, flat, level surface. Assuming a reasonable travel day of 8 effective hours gives about 24 miles/day. The eight hours of travel are spread over perhaps 10-12 hours of actual time due to rest breaks, stops to eat, etc. The amount of weight carried and the roughness of the terrain could greatly reduce this, of course.
> 
> BTW, in  AD&D Movement equated to miles per half day, so 24 miles per day at MV 12". Pretty much in line with the above.




Yes, this is accurate.

24 miles is actually quite easy for a normally fit, unburdened person who just gets up in the morning and starts walking, I did it myself and wasn't even tired afterwards.  With a loaded backpack it's tougher, you need to be fairly fit and you'll be tired afterwards.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 6, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> As for the gear that a typical D&D group cart around the countryside, that also is a genre trope that i do not believe any sensible people would engage in. If they really needed all that gear they they would buy pack animals and people to guard them or invest in portable holes and other such devices.




During the Falklands War the British soldiers marched across the boggy island carrying 100-120 lb or so each.  The Argentines didn't think this was possible, due to having been trained by Americans.


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> I couldn't find it in the 3.0 or 3.5 PHB (although I may have just overlooked it), but in past edition PHB's I believe the weight for weapons included things like the scabard/sheath, baldric/belts, etc.  Including this stuff may still leave the weights a little high, but considerably closer.  I think the idea wasn't so much about how much the weapon weighed when used, but how much the whole package weighed to wear or carry.




I recall buying scabbards and sheaths from the 2e PHB.  It's 3e that assumed "packages" for weapons and clothing.


----------



## delericho (Nov 6, 2010)

Janx said:


> I recall buying scabbards and sheaths from the 2e PHB.  It's 3e that assumed "packages" for weapons and clothing.




It's funny - I was all set to point out that this was incorrect, but then I checked the 2nd Edition PHB. Sure enough, scabbards are listed separately. (In all the time we played 2nd edition, we never bought such things.)

In 1st Edition, 3e and 4e, scabbards and sheaths are bought in the packages.

I'm pretty sure 2nd Edition has the handwave about the encumberance of items including both their real weight and the bulk of the items (justifying the unrealistic weights of such things). The 1st Edition PHB has comments about both weight and bulk (and counts weight in coins). I don't think the 3e or 4e PHBs have this handwave.


----------



## jedijon (Nov 7, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I'd wager the average person can walk a mile in an hour.  So, presuming an 8 hour rest, that's 16 hours of walk-time.  So, 16 miles.
> 
> A party, due to the nature of a group, would probably go slower, so maybe 12 miles(round down to multiples of 5 for easy math).
> 
> Depending on the harshness of terrain, even less.  The more extreme, the shorter the distance they can travel.




I've hiked in 10 states, and almost always average 2 miles per hour when on terrain with some up/downhill (i.e. ALL places) with a variety of groups.

You're going to get blisters and tendon fatigue (joint-pain) after 5 hours of walking, and 8 will be a killer.  If you're NOT in shape, remember we're talking real world stuff here, good luck making 10 miles without feeling kicked in the everywhere.

I've had clients try to bum rides on day 2 before 24 miles were up.  Your "hardened" D&D folks aren't going further than 15 miles a day without magic.  Footwear is crappy, meal prep takes inordinately long, and supplies are ungodly heavy.  You're going to need at least 20 lbs of water a day in hot weather.

Cross country travel through uncivilized areas is no joke.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 7, 2010)

IME 2 miles/hour is pretty typical through moderately rough terrain if rest breaks are included; an easy day's hike of 10 miles takes around 5 hours including an hour for lunch and maybe 0.5 hours short rest.

"You're going to get blisters and tendon fatigue (joint-pain) after 5 hours of walking, and 8 will be a killer. If you're NOT in shape, remember we're talking real world stuff here, good luck making 10 miles without feeling kicked in the everywhere"

I guess, if by 'NOt in shape' you mean someone who never walks further than across the car park.  As a typical Londoner I'm walking around 1.5-2 miles/day on average just getting around, and a 10 mile hike over a day is no big deal.  When I was in the army reserve I was moderately fit and could do much more than that easily.

Edit:  All my experience indicates that Mentzer/BECM D&D's 24 mile hexes, based on what a light to moderately encumbered fit person could walk in a day on level terrain without forced marching, are accurate.


----------



## luckless (Nov 8, 2010)

How far you can travel in a day really depends on what you are doing, what you are traveling on, whether or not you know where you're going, what you are carrying, and of course, how good of shape you're in.

Traveling day after day after day? You are going to be hard pressed to cover much more than 20 miles a day if you have anything other to do besides walk in a straight line in open land while carrying a relatively light pack.

In very rough woods where you have to blaze your own trail, find food and water, and make yourself a secure campsite in a short northern day, and all the while taking readings for mapping or something, then you might be hard pressed to make 10, or even 5. (Remember, if you have to gather fire wood and such before dark, it can really cut into how long you can actually spend traveling. Add in a lot of other tasks you have to do, and finding time to walk a full 8 hours can get hard, especially when your nights are long.)

Modern ultra light gear, where you're packing all your food as freeze-dried, high energy food, on well traveled trails that are perfectly safe to keep your eyes 10 feet in front of you and boot along at a good clip over a weekend, and a modern LED head lamp? Sure, a human in good shape could cover 50 or more miles without hardship.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 8, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I read that the US Marine corps reckon they have a sustained march rate of 10 km/day, while the US Army is not capable of sustained march.




Check your sources. Certainly wasn't the case when I was in the army.


----------



## Forge (Nov 10, 2010)

Nijmegen is a 4 day walking event held in Europe every year with around 40,000 participants. Many military units participate and for the US its usually with a 40 pound pack and combat boots, doing  40 kilometers (25 miles) a day. 

When I was stationed in Belgium I had several friends who trained for weeks, and still said it was a hard event to finish. There are other categories that have walkers doing 50 kilometers (about 31 miles) a day. 

The web site is at: 
Vierdaagse - Home


----------



## nerfherder (Nov 10, 2010)

S'mon said:


> During the Falklands War the British soldiers marched across the boggy island carrying 100-120 lb or so each.  The Argentines didn't think this was possible, due to having been trained by Americans.




56 miles in 3 days carrying 80lb each, according to wikipedia.



			
				 Lawrence Freedman said:
			
		

> Movement would be 'under constant enemy fire from the air, in an area without cover, wood, drinking water or means of subsistence'. When his men arrived, worn out by the long trek, they would have to go into immediate action against an enemy well prepared and supported by field artillery.


----------



## Nyeshet (Nov 10, 2010)

Just yesterday I was watching a documentary that touched on this topic. They were trying to determine just how long it would have taken a stone age culture to transport obsidian from one site to another, so they had a Maasai warrior leave the obsidian site at dawn while wearing some type of pedometer to determine how long a distance he had travelled. He was to return at sunset after having walked as far as he could in the brush, based upon his own understanding of the territory. He arrived just before sunset, having walked 14.88 miles. 

Now, this was through the brush - no trails, some uphill and downhill, in light woodland / savanna - and it was a casual walk, not a forced march. Also, he was very familiar with the territory. I think this gives us an idea of an average pace in the brush for one day.


----------



## Callista (Nov 10, 2010)

Yet another personal example.
I like to walk, and my area has an extensive network of paved bike trails. From my town to the next is eight miles; and I generally make the distance in about three hours. The walk back in the evening is usually three and a half hours; so that's sixteen miles in less than eight hours. But this is on a paved, mostly level trail, with a pack weighing no more than ten pounds--not through woods or on a big incline, and not on days when it's raining, below freezing or unusually hot. I've not measured my speed when hiking off-road but I can only imagine it is a great deal slower. As for my fitness level: I probably have a somewhat above average CON score... 12 or so, maybe. I'm pretty average when it comes to physical endurance and I'm overweight, but I don't get sick very often and I do like to walk or bike relatively long distances.


----------



## freyar (Nov 10, 2010)

Haven't had time to read the whole thread, so apologies if this is not what you want or has already been provided.

As a teenager, I hiked a 75-80 mile trip in mountains over 2 weeks, though a couple of days were taken as rests from hiking, putting the average at about 8 miles a day with a 30-35 lb pack (a bit more than 1/4 of my weight at the time).  But we were usually done before a late lunch.  Some of these days had a lot of vertical change, too.

On another trip, our group got lost due to a faulty map and ended up hiking from probably 9AM to 6PM or so with only a few short breaks, again in mountains.  After we found our way back and figured out where we'd been, we guessed that our hike that day (still had a couple of miles to go the next morning) was around 20 miles, again encumbered with similar backpacks.  May have been a little more or less, though.  This hike also had a lot of up-and-down to it.

The other useful example from my own experience is once hiking with my family in the Rockies 9 miles each way to get lunch.  It wasn't too much in the way of elevation change, though, and we weren't encumbered except with water, some snacks, and probably some guide books.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 11, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> Check your sources. Certainly wasn't the case when I was in the army.




It was in an "On War" article by William S Lind a few years ago.  He was referring to assessed capacity to march with equipment, unsupported by vehicles, and fight.  It was in connection with the possibility of US forces in Iraq losing oil supply in case of a Shi'ite uprising or Iranian attack severing the supply line from the Gulf, and whether they could fight their way out without vehicle support.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 11, 2010)

S'mon said:


> It was in an "On War" article by William S Lind a few years ago.  He was referring to assessed capacity to march with equipment, unsupported by vehicles, and fight.




i know we're getting off topic here, but from first-hand experience I'd have to disagree with him. I was light infantry, and marching with all equipment and supplies, unsupported by vehicles, and fighting, was what we did.


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 11, 2010)

For an extreme example of what people are capable of, see this story. Of course, that's with all their equipment being transported for them.


----------



## luckless (Nov 11, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> For an extreme example of what people are capable of, see this story. Of course, that's with all their equipment being transported for them.




And "often running relay style", meaning most of them drove a good chuck of the trip. Without a complete data set of who ran when and how far, you can't draw many solid conclusions from that article about how far a human can be pushed over an extended period.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 12, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> i know we're getting off topic here, but from first-hand experience I'd have to disagree with him. I was light infantry, and marching with all equipment and supplies, unsupported by vehicles, and fighting, was what we did.




Yes, Lind's statement didn't distinguish between different combat elements or say what level he was talking about.  My guess would be he was referring to Divisional level; since he was talking about large-scale warfighting.  There may also have been hyperbole.  I know he claimed US light infantry wasn't really 'light' enough to act as Jaeger type forces chasing the enemy on foot over rough terrain, but I have no idea how accurate his claims are.


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 14, 2010)

Corathon said:


> I think that the average unburdened person walks about 3 miles an hour on a nice, flat, level surface. Assuming a reasonable travel day of 8 effective hours gives about 24 miles/day. The eight hours of travel are spread over perhaps 10-12 hours of actual time due to rest breaks, stops to eat, etc. The amount of weight carried and the roughness of the terrain could greatly reduce this, of course.
> 
> BTW, in AD&D Movement equated to miles per half day, so 24 miles per day at MV 12". Pretty much in line with the above.




That seems pretty fast for me. I'd allow that on a well maintained road but not for most other circumstances. Someone in shape on a good trail can do 3 to 3.5 mph but you need to take off for breaks. Then you also need to consider whether you are measuring trail miles versus two points on a map because almost nothing runs in a straight line and in moderately hilly terrain deviation from straight can be dramatic. If there are no trails, effective travel is much lower in most terrain (perhaps not on a dry lake bed ) and not just due to bushwhacking: you lose time due to backtracking, extra rests due to not just the bushwhack but the human tendancy to take too steep a path, etc.

So, in some terrain, you might spend all day going between 2 points a few miles apart and in others you could go 24 miles or more.

From my personal hiking experience, with good trials 3 mph is fine (for me, without heavy packs ) but remember to account for how the trial meanders. Off trail, it could be 2.5 mph for fairly open terrain to 2 miles per day in terrible terrain and point to point. But most times for off-trial, I'd probably figure it as 8-10 miles per day. I remember some places in the rockies where no one hiked in certain valleys because of all the deadfalls. Progress was horrible and it was better to go far around it. Most mountains, if you are off trail, you should expect a fair amount of backtracking. Flat woodland without a lot of undergrowth, you can zip along (if you don't get lost )


----------

