D&D (2024) Anyone else dislike the "keyword" style language of 5.24?

[Quickleaf]

I am in the process of writing some rules (perhaps to sell on the DM's Guild) and I am trying to use the 2024 standard wordings as a template. However I keep getting turned off by the "keyword"-style turns of phrase and longing to use the elegant natural English that I found so appealing in 5.14.

For example, where-as before failing the saving throw to the Blindness/Deafness spell would make a creature "blinded or deafened" for the duration, now it has "the Blinded or Deafened condition for the duration."

Hempen rope is the worst offender. No longer is it hempen, nor do you get 50ft of it to do with as you may, now you have "Rope" and a while you have "Rope" you can do a "Utilize" action to bind unwilling creatures as long as they have the "Grappled", "Incapacitated" or "Restrained" condition.

Every paragraph seems full of these awkward, "Titled Cased", turns of phase. For me, the elegant use of natural English was one of the best parts of 5.14 and I find myself wanting to write in that style rather than the Everything Is A Keyword Style of 5.24. As long as natural English is used in a consistent manner, it is just as water-tight as adopting a keyword style system. The new style just feels ugly to read and write with, as if every paragraph needs to call out this is a game and not an inscribing of a breathing fantasy world into written word.

I would encourage you – with your own creative works for sale – not to feel beholden to any of the WotC/Hasbro formats. There's a healthy tradition of changing up the mold when it serves the project better.

To your greater question, for all the greater clarity that's gained with a mechanistic keyword system, yes I agree there is something lost. For me, that something is a creative flow where the words inspire my imagination about how something might be used or look in play. When I encounter the mechanistic keyword bits during my brainstorming / pleasure reading, it definitely inhibits that creative flow. So there's the Reference Book vs. Inspiration Book tension.

Personally, when the authors feel they're doing me a service by telling me you can take the "Utilize" action or the "Magic" action, I feel they've lost the thread. Of course I can! You don't need to tell me that!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Thus far since the early fall of 5E24's releases there have been far less threads about Keyword usage confusing/irritating people than there were a decade ago from people confused/irritated by the Natural Language found in 5E14. So while both styles will have their detractors of course... the 'Rulebooks should feel like rule books' side has apparently gained the traction they were hoping for.

I happen to be half-and-half on the issue. On the one hand I am a fan of Capital letter usage when using a term that has a defined rule connected to it that can be looked up in the glossary if there's confusion about it (like Conditions and the like)... but on the other hand I also don't need actions spelled out for me in rulebook-tight language like @Quickleaf mentioned... 'Utilize', 'Magic', 'Search' etc. and find them easier to parse when just written in natural language. But of course I treat rulebooks as merely suggestions anyway, so it's perfectly fine that WotC doesn't write to my taste. I long ago became comfortable with how each and every book edition gets written.

 

[amethal]

5th edition's use of natural language at all costs sometimes feels like a backward step.

As a Pathfinder GM who sometimes converts 5th edition adventures to PF (1e), every time I see "Resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing weapons" I wonder why they didn't just use "DR/magic" or even "DR/magic weapons".

Although I wish PF itself was written in a more "rules friendly" format.

"You can use your claws for a number of rounds per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier. These rounds do not need to be consecutive."

They always put this at the end of the ability - I'd rather it was at the start, and said something like

Use 3 + CHA rounds/day

with CHA being shorthand for charisma modifier, like they did in the Beginner Box.

with a presumption that when an ability can be used x rounds / day then the rounds do not have to be consecutive (unless otherwise stated)

 

[Horwath]

it's a rule manual not an essay, language needs to be as mechanical and precise as possible.

 

[aco175]

I have noticed in some of the monster statblocks with things that force a saving throw it states clearly; Failure- target takes X, Success- target takes Y. It could be simpler, but it also needs to be clear for most people.

 

[Plaguescarred]

What i want most is clear rules, wether they rely on natual english or keyword, because in the end, rulebook's guidelines primary role is to help adjudicate rules. But if i have to lean toward one or another, as much as i like how more fluent english is, keyword tend to be more clear to help you make ruling.

 

[TiQuinn]

I dislike the mechanical lawyer speak, and think it’s particularly overdone in 5.5. I’d much prefer something more enjoyable to read.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I like it. It's annoying and confusing until you become well versed in all the conditions. 3.5 had lots of conditions and, after a while, you just learn the most common ones.

I just wish they'd have chosen better words. The 'invisible' condition, for example is confusing when you're talking about hiding.

'Poisoned' condition for someone who has a disease is annoying too because it adds confusion when people want to cure a disease. Does delay poison work on diseases? I haven't actually looked it up so maybe it's clear but the fact that I have to look it up slows down the game.

The various action types is a bit disjointed to me and feels restrictive but at least it's clear.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Except that doing that is almost 100% guaranteed to not happen--and, worse, two people can look at the same natural-language terms and derive different meanings that both happen to be internally consistent.

we had that thread only a few days ago debating the 'natural language' rules interaction of a pair of abilities from an eldritch knight/bladesinger multiclass, whether subbing out one of an attack action's extra attacks for a cantrip counted as 'using your action to cast a cantrip' which could be used to trigger a different ability, it was very quickly brought up that if the keyword wording of 'use your Action to take the Magic Action to cast a Cantrip' had been used there would be no debate about how the rules interaction would be resolved.

 

[TiQuinn]

we had that thread only a few days ago debating the 'natural language' rules interaction of a pair of abilities from an eldritch knight/bladesinger multiclass, whether subbing out one of an attack action's extra attacks for a cantrip counted as 'using your action to cast a cantrip' which could be used to trigger a different ability, it was very quickly brought up that if the keyword wording of 'use your Action to take the Magic Action to cast a Cantrip' had been used there would be no debate about how the rules interaction would be resolved.

Conversely all the keyword language in the world still hasn’t helped anyone understand how Hiding works in 5.5.