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

[DrunkonDuty]

Stealth is ok. Surprising creatures is not.

Really? Mind if I ask why you don't like having the PCs surprise the enemy?

I've GMed something like 75% of my gaming career and I must say I find it fun and cool when the PCs outsmart my baddies and get the drop on them. Or indeed when my players outsmart me.

 

[Nikosandros]

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.

I actually very much like that in AD&D a spell can have different levels depending on the class. OTOH, organizing spells alphabetically it much more convenient. In Hyperborea (an AD&D derived game), the spells are alphabetical and, for each one, the level for each class that can cast it is listed (of course there's also a listing for each class).

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I guess it comes down to how much re-writing of the books they plan on doing? If they were planning on a full re-write, then sure I guess you could take all the bits you find in the sections on the Dexterity ability score, the Stealth skill, the Perception skill, Cover/Concealment, Obscurement etc. and put them into one complete place... but if the rules don't change at all, really all it's doing is just makes it easier for people to argue about them. All the bits and pieces on a single page to reference as to why the other person is wrong in their interpretation, rather than referencing four or five pages, LOL.

So I guess really that's my point-- yes bits and pieces of the rules are found in different sections of the book... but if 19 out of every 20 DMs are going to ignore what the book says anyway and just run Stealth the way they want it to go, does a re-org/re-write really become necessary? Can't everyone else just read the sections like we have all done this entire time and come to their own conclusions? If the books are not getting full re-writes and re-edits, I don't see why they might bother?

 

[DEFCON 1]

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!

That's why in my house rules searching for traps is INT (Investigation), because now the Rogue also wants high INT. Of course a number of Rogue subclasses want high INT anyway-- AT, Inquisitive, Mastermind-- this now inspires the others to go higher INT as well.

And quite honestly... if we are looking at the Core Four at a minimum for "Which class should have the easiest time finding traps?"... Rogue obviously would be #1. After that, I just feel like Wizards really should be #2 if for no other reason that a lot of traps are magical in nature and thus Wizards would be the ones best-suited to notice them and figure them out. So putting trapfinding under INT (Investigation) just makes all the more sense.

And after all... that's why Clerics, Druids, and Rangers have a spell to do for them (Find Traps). Cause they shouldn't be very good at finding them on their own.

 

[Nikosandros]

I also use investigation for traps. Perception is already incredibly useful as it is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Really? Mind if I ask why you don't like having the PCs surprise the enemy?

I've GMed something like 75% of my gaming career and I must say I find it fun and cool when the PCs outsmart my baddies and get the drop on them. Or indeed when my players outsmart me.

No. Surprising is ok, but I don´t like the rules.
We were asked, what should be different. I´d like the first round of combat to play differently.

Maybe I´d like the first turn of combat start with a surprise round, which only allows for a single action or move. A won initiative with surprise on top seems a bit too much for my tastes.

The playtest had a simple +20 to initiative on surprise, which was also ok.

My favourite however would be using all different kinds of modifiers for the first round of combat:

Surprised might be disadvantage on initiative. Using a ranged weapon might give advantage. And so on. Maybe +/- x modifiers.
I was tempted to use the modifiers in the DMG for round by round initative, but only for the first round and then cyclical initiative as normal.

I also don´t like the alert feat, and how you can´t be surprised, but maybe don´t even notice a threat.

But then, in most cases it works and my solutions are also wonky, so I stick to the normal rule and since we don´t have a character with alert anymore, most of my problems went away. I just like someone who gets paid for it to provide me rules I like more.

I generally think, stealth however has exactly as much rules as I need for theater of the mind. I think any rules that take the battlefield into account by default are a no go and usually cause more discussion than leaving it open to the DM. I would not mind some more defined stealth rules in the optional grid combat in the DMG.
But when we are at it, I´d think passive perception or passive checks as hey are used should go the way of the dodo. For all reactive actions, I´d like saving throws to be used. For passive perception, I´d probably stick to a class based value that might be modified by wisdom, but does not have to.

 

[Horwath]

Stealth is ok. Surprising creatures is not.

why not?

edit: nwm

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I also use investigation for traps. Perception is already incredibly useful as it is.

someone way back said use perception for passive and investigation for active we tried it but we REALLY use them so interchangably now. I can't tell you how many times I have said "Give me a perception or investigation check"

the funny part is one DM/Player in our group always does the same with acrobatics/athletics and gets mad when the rest of us disagree and keep those two skill far apart.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No. Surprising is ok, but I don´t like the rules.
We were asked, what should be different. I´d like the first round of combat to play differently.

Maybe I´d like the first turn of combat start with a surprise round, which only allows for a single action or move. A won initiative with surprise on top seems a bit too much for my tastes.

I had an encounter that REALLY stands out a few years ago (man time flys) when we had 3 stealth based characters 'get the drop' on a group of my Hobgoblin soldiers... we all rolled initiative (I don't remember the exact numbers now) the PCs all got higher then the enemies... so 4 PCs acted, 1 got an extra attack from dread ambusher, and 1 got to action surge and 1 got to assassinate crit. then all 4 PCs went again... then in theory the Hobgoblins could go... I did declare a few death spasms.

edit: now that was a really cool moment, and that is why I still remember it and we still talk about it... BUT it also lead to us having this realization that the opposite could have happened. if 3 hobgoblins had gotten 2 full rounds I would have killed or at least KOed half my party. And that WASN'T the game with the 2 NPC and PC assassines constantly trying to one up each other... cause in that one it almost always was more fairly spread. That first time all the enemies rolled low sent a chilling realization up our spines.

 

[DEFCON 1]

someone way back said use perception for passive and investigation for active we tried it but we REALLY use them so interchangably now. I can't tell you how many times I have said "Give me a perception or investigation check"

the funny part is one DM/Player in our group always does the same with acrobatics/athletics and gets mad when the rest of us disagree and keep those two skill far apart.

Yep... and that's why I used the Variant Ability Score variant for skills too... it allowed me to ditch Acrobatics as a skill entirely. Instead players make STR (Athletics) checks for swimming, climbing, swinging etc, and DEX (Athletics) for balancing, tumbling, and short-distance climbing.

Plus it allows me to use WIS for passive perceptions/investigations and INT for active perceptions/investigations as necessary too.