D&D 5E 5th Edition and The Rules

[Tony Vargas]

Most of us are old enough to remember before 3rd Edition, when there were fewer rules-as-written and the game required more DM calls. One of the things I initially LIKED about 3rd Edition was how so many rules were spelled out, removing the need for a lot of those DM calls

AD&D didn't really have fewer rules than 3e (Core, that is - obviously, 3.x eventually had many more supplements, and thus more elements requiring additional rules or varied applications of existing rules). Arguably, it had more and more varied rules, and they weren't as clear. 3e, for instance, consolidated resolution into d20 vs a DC, while in AD&D resolution mechanics included d20 roll high vs a matrix, d20 roll under a stat, d6 against a table, d6 vs d6 against a table, d% roll low, d% roll high, and so forth. That's not more rules, just more /consistent/ rules, and, functionally, /fewer/ mechanics.

The big difference that made was that the community gained this unprecedented faith in The RAW. (que choir music).

But then I remember 2nd and previous editions where there was always all that wrangling.


I'm hopeful that 5th Edition strikes a nice balance, but we'll see.

I recall quite a lot of wrangling over the RAW in 3e, as well.

5e does not seem to want to strike a balance, rather, it's declared "Rulings not Rules" philosohpy would seem to be trying to swing the pendulum all the way back to the other extreme, from 3e-style RAW uber alles, to 1e AD&D Gygaxian DM primacy. An attempt, given the quality of the rules I saw in the playtest and Basic pdf, so far, I can't say I feel that bad about (as someone about to DM HotDQ for Encounters, for instance).

 

[Werebat]

Not necessarily. The thing is, if you were talking about just a random group of players, you might well be right, but I don't play with just a random group of players - I game with specific individuals, whom I can trust not to play those sorts of games. We've had our 'optimiser' phase, and are looking for something in which we can tell stories, not some system to tinker with and abuse.

That sounds great for you and your group, then (depending of course on your definitions of "abuse", "optimization", etc).

However, most people don't play with you and your group. Also, the more a system relies on the participation of Mother Theresas in order for it to function, the less likely it will be able to function.

 

[Keldryn]

Most of us are old enough to remember before 3rd Edition, when there were fewer rules-as-written and the game required more DM calls. One of the things I initially LIKED about 3rd Edition was how so many rules were spelled out, removing the need for a lot of those DM calls, because in the past what would end up happening was a lot of wrangling with the DM and arguments over things like "I want to do a triple-backflip onto the troll's back and stab it in the back of the neck!", or even just "I try to knock the villain's sword out of his hand!"

3rd Edition ushered in rules for almost everything, and as a DM it was easy to feel good about that as you could put the kibosh on a lot of those arguments because The Rules.

This was one of many things about 3rd Edition that I thought that I wanted. Explicit rules to cover all of those situations that we used to argue about back in high school ("No, that's stupid! It should work like this..."). AD&D had a lot of rules, but somehow managed to miss many things that came up frequently.

What I eventually found is that I can't remember all of those rules in 3.x, especially those that didn't come in to play every session. Every skill seemed to have a couple of paragraphs (or more) and maybe a table that was effectively its own set of rules. A whole panel of my DM's screen was dedicated to which actions trigger AoOs... in small print that gave me a headache to read if I wasn't directly under a fluorescent light.

When I'm DMing and I don't know a rule, I generally prefer to make a ruling on the spot and a quick note to myself to look it up before the next session. If a PC's life hangs in the balance, I'll look it up on the spot. But I hate killing the pacing of the game to stop and look up something that will ultimately have little impact on the outcome of the game session. So I still end up arguing with a pedantic player because I don't want to make everyone sit and wait for a minute while I read something from the book.

The other side of the coin was that, with the spread of the internet, players could hit the optimization boards and bring in "builds" capable of breaking the generally assumed PC limits -- builds that worked because The Rules.

Thankfully, I didn't encounter too much of that in my gaming groups. I've read a lot of horror stories online though.

AD&D 1e and B(X)ECMI D&D intentionally kept a lot of the rules in the DM's books. The assumption seemed to be that only the DM really needs to know all of the rules and that the players would discover how the world works during play. There is something to be said for that approach, although I do understand the downsides.

I eventually came to understand that the arguments that we used to have about AD&D were more about our lack of maturity than issues inherent in the game itself.

The "rulings not rules" style is fantastic if you have a group that is mature enough to understand and respect the implied social contract: The players trust the DM to be fair and reasonable, and the DM trusts the players to not try to break the game or ruin it for the other participants. In high school, we weren't mature enough.

 

[Hussar]

I think the big difference here is going to be transparency. Because so much of the game is so transparent, you don't need a whole lot of rules. You can look at things and see, fairly intuitively, how it should work. This is one place where 3e started the ball rolling and 4e took it and ran with it. As the fundamentals become more transparent, it gets easier to get the group to come to consensus on issues because everyone is capable of seeing underlying assumptions.

IME, most table wrangling comes from a conflict in assumptions.

 

[delericho]

That sounds great for you and your group, then (depending of course on your definitions of "abuse", "optimization", etc).

However, most people don't play with you and your group. Also, the more a system relies on the participation of Mother Theresas in order for it to function, the less likely it will be able to function.

Sure, absolutely. It's the difference between theory and practice - for a theoretical group I'd want the system to try to help me with this; with my actual group I don't need that help. But that doesn't mean others won't.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think maybe one problem is that too often the rules of D&D bother with corner cases and exceptions. While another, more important general rule gets neglected, or the baseline rule doesn't get the design attention it deserves because the designers rely too much on "fixing" it with case-by-case rules.

Something that the 5e designers explicitly did to lessen this problem, is introducing the (dis)advantage core rule, which is supposed to provide a simple blanket for a lot of cases without having to think too much about detailed differences.

So you don't need to worry about what exactly happens if you shoot a fireball into a narrow corridor, you can just say those inside have disadvantage on ST. For anything more specific, there's always time later for an optional module.

(Unfortunately however, this gets out of hand when (dis)advantage is also used in hundreds of places to represent the benefits of spells and special abilities, and now the game is already cluttered with (dis)advantages everywhere, but this is another matter)

5e could still have been simplified further in some places. For instance, cover is quite simple, since we only get four degrees of cover: no cover, half cover, 3/4 cover and full cover. But it could have been simplified to only 3, merging half and 3/4 into "partial cover".

---

It's also important to note that there are things which get used very often and others which get used rarely. Now it's not that obvious which one of the two should get more detailed rules!

On one hand, it seems like what gets used often probably needs more rules to handle its variations, while what is rarely used can be handled quickly because it rarely important. OTOH, what is often used is often used, and this means heavy rules will slow the game down more often.

Furthermore, different gaming groups care for different things. One group may really enjoy details on grappling rules for a variety of outcomes (restraining, pinning, forced movement, mass grappling...), while another may find such complexity obnoxious and revolting.

The only way to cater equally well to both groups, is always starting with solid but simple "blanket" rules for every topic (but not every case), and then offer optional modules on top.

I think 5e has done pretty well, even tho there are a few places here and there were further simplification was at hand but missed.

 

[pemerton]

did the notes under Ranseur specifically say that the disarm mechanic contained within them could be used while wielding, say, a trident or a short sword? My guess is that they did not.

They said that a ranseur or a spetum (and only those two weapons) could disarm an opponent on a roll to hit AC 8.

Appendix R in Unearthed Arcana introduced a different disarming rule for use with knives, daggers, swords and maces (only) which allowed those weapons to disarm those weapons on a successful hit and if a save vs petrification was then failed by the wielder of the target weapon.

In the absence of any attempt to integrate or relate the two rules (and the ranseur/spetum rule is reiterated on p 27 of UA), it is left up to the table/GM to do so.

In 2e, if you decided that you were going to dive off the cliff and attempt to grab the falling MacGuffin, your table negotiated what rolls you needed to make. Assuming you had a DM that followed the "rule of cool," often times you would have a decent chance of pulling off something creative and dramatic, based off of negotiated rules. Post 3e, however, there are not only rules for most things, but skills and feats that give bonuses to these things (do you have "fly"? Well then, you can't move in the air over to the object and grab it. You don't know how...). How can a DM give you a fair chance to do something that has a specific skill or feat written into that game, which you don't have? Suddenly, the rules have become limits (thanks to the use of skills and feats to give mechanical advantages).

The 5e proficiency bonus makes this much less of a problem. A single skill covers such a wide range of actions that it is much easier to make it fit your needs, plus the absence of additional bonuses to the skill (bounded accuracy) means that "optimization" is less of a concern. 5e is going to be a lot more flexible because of this.

I think your analysis also describes the situation in 4e: broad skills, bounded accuracy (based on the DC-by-level chart), page 42, and as a result flexible interpretation of the skill rules to allow wacky stunts to be achieved.

 

[pemerton]

cover[/B] is quite simple, since we only get four degrees of cover: no cover, half cover, 3/4 cover and full cover. But it could have been simplified to only 3, merging half and 3/4 into "partial cover".

Hmm, if only there was an edition of D&D that had simplified the cover rules in this way . . . .

 

[Li Shenron]

Hmm, if only there was an edition of D&D that had simplified the cover rules in this way . . . .

Uhm, do you mean you would have liked it or not?

Note that I don't have problems myself with 2 degrees of partial cover, it's ok really... anyway it's up to the DM to say which one is to be used everytime, so someone could just always say it's Half Cover all the time.

But my idea goes something like this:

1) find the simplest possible starting rule. Actually someone might suggest to only have no cover or cover. I would pick three, so that there is a middle case where whatever covers you has a defensive effect but is not blocking your attacks and your foe's (very common case, almost a standard tactic in all real battles with ranged weapons!).

2) Expand it in plenty of vays in a module, even better if the module is made of "chunks" that aren't always interconnected. In this case, one chunk could be different degrees of cover (even just 1 point of AC apart, have a table with example), another could be about special rules for moving cover, and the last chunk is about striking cover (e.g. someone strikes the cover to tear it down and possibly also catch you behind). In this case, the module is "beefy" enough so that it offers plenty of new tactical options and combat variations, but the three chunks aren't so dependent on each other, so one group may choose to use only one or two of them.

 

[variant]

Going from 2e to 3e really was such a backward movement in terms of rules over narrative. I think I spent as much time dealing with the rules such as looking at DC charts and dismissing rules lawyering as I did actually creating a story. It felt many times as if I was playing the system and not an RPG.

There are good things that came out of 3e like the general concept of skill checks and DCs, but 3e took it way too much to an extreme. I am really glad 5e has taken a really good barebones version of it and allowed to to be used without everything that bogged down 3e and 4e.