D&D (2024) 5.5e - What ONE section of the rules would you rewrite for clarity?

[James Gasik]

Sure. Could they be clearer? Of course. I don't think anyone would try and argue that otherwise-- many different parts of the whole package that may or may not come up are found in different section of the book, there's no doubt about that. And you could absolutely edit the book so that the whole process of DEX (Stealth) checks and WIS (Perception) checks and Passive Perception and Cover and Concealment and Lightly/Heavily Obscured and acting against Unseen creatures, and the Hide action are all in one place. The positive of this is that all the rules for Stealth and Hiding are much easier and quicker to reference. The negative though is that you're probably going to end up just duplicating all this info elsewhere because you're still going to want to put Stealth and Perception in the Ability Score section, you're still going to want to indicate in the Environment section what all the different environments do in terms of Cover and Concealment and Obscurity, and so forth.

So the question then becomes does WotC think the benefit of having a "Hiding Ruleset" in one small package outweigh having to duplicate the same information in different sections of the book? That I can't really say. All I can do is speculate... and my impression would be they'd rather save the space and wordcount by not duplicating info, and just put it on all the players (new and old) to actually go through the effort to read the entirety of the book. Cause if you do that you will get all the information you need to run Hiding in a general way... you just won't get hyperspecific rules that close every potential loophole that comes out of the narrative, nor the information in one easy reference section.

Whether that's good or bad overall, who's to say?

I guess it depends on the observer of the phenomenon. Some feel this is fine, some feel it could be better, and others think it's a travesty. I'm not at "travesty-level" but man do I wish more care was put into the way these books were written. Even from a business standpoint, making a more user friendly rules interface just makes sense.

Of course, I was reminded by a friend that this is the internet age, so a new DM has a plethora of Tik Tok shorts and You Tube videos to watch to see how other people rule these things- and of course, this includes the acclaimed Matt Mercer, who many new DM's idolize.

So even if it annoys me, apparently WotC developers are either very very smart, or very very lucky.

 

[bedir than]

The Folk Hero.
I'd eliminate it.

Heroic stories are told at the table, not before first level

 

[DEFCON 1]

I guess it depends on the observer of the phenomenon. Some feel this is fine, some feel it could be better, and others think it's a travesty. I'm not at "travesty-level" but man do I wish more care was put into the way these books were written. Even from a business standpoint, making a more user friendly rules interface just makes sense.

It's the eternal balancing act. Novel for entertaining reading on one end, and textbook for absolutely clarity on the other. And we've seen all the editions of D&D fall upon that spectrum in various spots. And anyone's personal best-case placement for a book will be dependant on what their own needs are. As you say, "it depends on the observer of the phenomenon".

 

[ART!]

It's the eternal balancing act. Novel for entertaining reading on one end, and textbook for absolutely clarity on the other. And we've seen all the editions of D&D fall upon that spectrum in various spots. And anyone's personal best-case placement for a book will be dependant on what their own needs are. As you say, "it depends on the observer of the phenomenon".

I'd be delighted with rulebooks laid out with the mechanics-focused stuff as the main text, and however much flavor, setting, and the like in sidebars.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd be delighted with rulebooks laid out with the mechanics-focused stuff as the main text, and however much flavor, setting, and the like in sidebars.

Ugh! Yuck! I'm the exact opposite.

 

[wicked cool]

rogue sneak attack, stealth crits for rogues. i think some of the information for characters should be in the character sections instead of spread out all over the place . Maybe a footnote or page reference in these sections (see page #)

 

[tetrasodium]

I've thought about this since the thread was new & there have been a lot of great suggestions of areas that are just reprehensible in their wording but think I have it narrowed down to one section. That section has the hubris of also being an entire chapter.

Chapter 1: Step by Step Character Creation.
It starts on page nine, your character your backstory your background your choice your this your that. It's not until step six on page 15 that the existence of the rest of the party & a need to work with them is even mentioned, by that point the rules have pushed the prior five steps as things to do in isolation to build a completed character without discussion between players or really even the gm. If I as the GM tell my players to work together I need to break all of that before they can start.

For comparison here's how prior editions did it. The 4e race class & role/character role sections of character creation on page 14 & 15 talk about finding out what the group has & considering the value of filling a niche the group needs. The relevant 3.5 section on 3.5phb6 starts with these words "Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules. You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group". The 2e player's handbook leans more towards play what you roll with a different set of attribute bonuses but has too many references to "other players" to focus on a single "aha!" moment.

I can run a session zero & talk with players all I want, but the rules don't suggest areas the players should consider discussing together or even hint that they should. As a GM I'm burned out on having to shatter a wotc PHB reinforced illusion of the group/team game known as d&d being a solo game where the other players are just sidekicks. Each player comes to the table with The Main Character & it's up to the gm to figure out how to assemble the results into an unwillingly cohesive group. As the GM I need to shatter that illusion before I can even start teaching players one by one what the PHB should teach them about working with other players. This section is responsible for much of the uphill slog & sets the tone for all manner of rules sections that just entrench MyMainCharacter+those sidekick players mentality in players.