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

[Shardstone]

EXPLORATION!!

So, I just got purchased the Wilderness DM Screen + kit by a friend as a gift. IT IS AMAZING. So, first off, I've DM'd this edition since 2015. I've published for it multiple times. Considered myself having mastered it.

Then why hadn't I heard about the JOURNEY CYCLE? The fact there's an 8-step, simple, streamlined procedure for exploration built into D&D? How come I didn't know about wilderness and dungeon turns except from OSR or one off mentions in the books? The reason being: exploration is not well described in D&D! But the system they have for it is actually pretty good and fun!!

The wilderness kit even had food and supply trackers, easy ways to handle food/supply, etc etc, that was pretty low paperwork. If I had known about the Journey Cycle before, I would have used it a lot more in my games! And also the dungeon exploraiton stuff on the dungeon DM screen!

There's not even subclasses etc that deals with this stuff outside of ranger, which is really weird. Its like they were too lazy to collect it all in one place in the book, then too lazy to actually go and support it in their later books and character options. Rewrite exploration, put it all in one place, and 5.5E instantly becomes a very good game again to me.

 

[James Gasik]

Hiding.

Having a single section in one place would be already an improvement.

They wouldn't be Stealth rules if you could find them!

 

[Blue]

I believe that's called D&D Beyond and it works well.

Sure, as long as they make D&D Beyond or minimal cost.

Some publishers give you the PDF for free if you buy the hardcover. Because layout and editing and everything are already done, it's just a touch of links.

DnDBeyond recods everythign for character builder and such. That has real costs, so they properly charge for it.

But an expensive solution that delivers things we're not asking for does not replace a free/trivial cost solution.

 

[Blue]

yeah,
4E did something good, getting rid of Search(Investigation) and having all in Perception.

That should be for 5.5E

As long as they then break up Perception, as it's already the most taken skill. It's like saying "let's move some things from other ability scores to DEX to simplify".

 

[billd91]

ok this is actually a fantastic one i'm legitimately mad i didn't think of this

It's been done. 1e/2e organized them by class and level. But whether or not it's a good thing to do so depends on how you're accessing the information.
1e/2e's organization was great when building your character or working over their prepared spells. It was terrible for looking up spells while playing because some spells were on multiple lists, but printed in full only once so you might have to do a lot of page flipping and cross references. A single alphabetical list of spells in 3e/5e was better for the DM to do a quicker lookup at game time because you didn't need to know off the cuff what the spell level was.

5e, at least, is the first version of D&D that would enable a classless organization of spells by level because it's the first edition that really sets spells to the same level for all casters who have access to it (and it's about time). So 5e does have that going for it.

 

[billd91]

See I look at it differently. Every character should be good at noticing things, because adventuring is a career that can quickly lead to death if you don't.

Having people with a reason to invest in Wisdom be slightly better at noticing things is fine, it's a reward for a Wisdom focus. And Wisdom is a good ability to have, since failed Wisdom saves tend to be very bad news, usually resulting in you losing the ability to actually play the game!

But when one class has an Intelligence focus, and the ability score does so little for other classes, it feels like you've just made a Wizard with Investigation proficiency vital to success in the game!

So either make Intelligence a better ability score for everyone, make more classes that want it, or ditch Investigation entirely, thanks.

Every character should have the potential to notice threats, but maybe not find things that are hard to find. That's why I like pushing that over to investigation.
And I think looking at it as a problem when one class has an intelligence focus meaning the wizard should be the one doing the searching is the wrong approach. Emphasizing the importance of investigation is ample reason to reconsider reflexively dumping intelligence.
For similar reasons, I prefer strengthening the impact of 6 saving throws rather than lessening them. Every dump in favor of a boost, when building a PC, should have a perceived cost.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Until otherwise noted from WotC that they have decided to change policy... always assume there will never be PDFs of any official D&D book. Especially now that D&DB is owned by WotC.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To actually answer the question...

From what I can recall over these past 8 years... the section that has had not only the most threads made about the rules here on EN World, but also the most threads arguing about the rules... is Stealth. So I think that would be the one that could probably most use it.

HOWEVER... I actually think what WotC would be better off doing first if this was the case... would be to poll as many people as possible and ask them flat-out "If we write up a tight-knit rules system for Stealth, would you actually use it? Or would you continue to run Stealth the way that YOU prefer and think it should be run?"

Because the thing is... I have always believed (and have gotten hints of confirmation from Jeremy et. al. over the years)... that the reason the Stealth rules were so wishy-washy and basic was because they knew in their heart-of-hearts that nobody would ever agree on how/where/why/when Stealth should work-- especially within combat. And you can go searching through all the threads here on the boards where you'll find people who won't let PCs hide in combat at all, along with people who make hiding during combat a piece of cake. And never the twain shall meet.

And thus coming up with one cohesive Stealth ruleset might very well get shat upon by 95% of the DMs reading it, because it won't work the way they think Stealth should work. So there ends up being no point in trying to even bother. DMs are all about getting rulesets squared away so that you can "play RAW"... just so long as that RAW is the way THEY want to play it. And thus one Stealth Ruleset To Rule Them All might not end up being what most people actually want, so better to double-check via a poll before they even try.

 

[Shardstone]

To actually answer the question...

From what I can recall over these past 8 years... the section that has had not only the most threads made about the rules here on EN World, but also the most threads arguing about the rules... is Stealth. So I think that would be the one that could probably most use it.

HOWEVER... I actually think what WotC would be better off doing first if this was the case... would be to poll as many people as possible and ask them flat-out "If we write up a tight-knit rules system for Stealth, would you actually use it? Or would you continue to run Stealth the way that YOU prefer and think it should be run?"

Because the thing is... I have always believed (and have gotten hints of confirmation from Jeremy et. al. over the years)... that the reason the Stealth rules were so wishy-washy and basic was because they knew in their heart-of-hearts that nobody would ever agree on how/where/why/when Stealth should work-- especially within combat. And you can go searching through all the threads here on the boards where you'll find people who won't let PCs hide in combat at all, along with people who make hiding during combat a piece of cake. And never the twain shall meet.

And thus coming up with one cohesive Stealth ruleset might very well get shat upon by 95% of the DMs reading it, because it won't work the way they think Stealth should work. So there ends up being no point in trying to even bother. DMs are all about getting rulesets squared away so that you can "play RAW"... just so long as that RAW is the way THEY want to play it. And thus one Stealth Ruleset To Rule Them All won't end up being what most people actually want.

Do they need to make a tightknit system? Can't they just clarify stealth and put it in one section? I don't' see a lot of people asking for a crazy stealth system, just a clear, concise description of how it works.

EDIT: Just because it might be difficult to make something pleasing btw doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Defeatist attitudes have no place in the most well-to-do TTRPG publisher on the planet. They have the money to create the resources to try everything to see what actually does and does not work.

 

[James Gasik]

Every character should have the potential to notice threats, but maybe not find things that are hard to find. That's why I like pushing that over to investigation.
And I think looking at it as a problem when one class has an intelligence focus meaning the wizard should be the one doing the searching is the wrong approach. Emphasizing the importance of investigation is ample reason to reconsider reflexively dumping intelligence.
For similar reasons, I prefer strengthening the impact of 6 saving throws rather than lessening them. Every dump in favor of a boost, when building a PC, should have a perceived cost.

I'm not even talking about dumping Intelligence, but more, rewarding someone for taking it more than a few points on a skill check.

There's a huge difference between "this ability score gives me power from my class and ability checks" and "this ability score gives me a bonus on ability checks". Your Cleric, you can count on having a Wisdom in excess of 12-14. That makes them decent at Perception, better if they have proficiency. Who can you count on having an Int in excess of 12-14?

Sure, maybe you want to play a smart character as your concept. But the system doesn't rewards you very much for that choice, in the same way it does with most other ability scores.

For example, let's say you have two characters. One wants to be a perceptive and strong-willed Fighter. The other wishes to be a tactical genius Fighter. Our first character has a Wisdom of 15, the other Intelligence of 15. One of these two options is better than the other.

So you get a situation where Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Rangers are generally good at Perception, and Wizards are generally good at Investigation. Seems like a disparity to me!