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

[Shardstone]

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 they 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?

I'm not convinced that stealth is that controversial.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Perception I think ought to be renamed detection or sensory or something, with more emphasis on that you’re not physically ‘searching’ for something you’re ‘sensing’ it, this better differentiations it from investigation where you’re more looking for physical traces of things.
I feel like multiclass spell progression rules could be clearer and while I haven’t seen them personally I think I’ve heard grumbling around about the rules for crafting homebrew magic items.
Also I agree with what I’ve seen said upthread about:
-spell descriptions sorted alphabetically by level (just add an alphabetical list of every spell name with their respective level too and it’s best of both sides)
-free hands, somantic and material components with casting focuses or component pouches
-exploration rules

 

[Undrave]

Spell description section being separated by spell level then by alphabetical order.

AUGH yes! I've been saying that since day one!

Also, each spell needs a reminder of which class can learn it, AND the spell list should include a marker for rituals.

4. Druids and metal armour. Seriously, this is so dumb.

Yes! Either you get rid of it, or you don't give them proficiency and let them take it, or you outright give them a proper penalty when they wear metal armor. None of that confusing BS about 'will not'. That's not how you write a PC facing rule! So dumb!

Again, no thanks. Now you'd have to remember what level the spell is you are looking up before then finding it alphabetically. That'll be even worse.

Sure, the cantrip and 1st level section would be probably fine more or less... but if you told me "Go find the spell block for Mirage Arcane", I'd never be able to do it. I'd have to go to the spell list first, find out its level, and then go find the block alphabetically. And even then I'd have to spend time flipping through the entire chapter just to find the "7th Level" section before finally looking for the spell alphabetically.

People keep complaining that the Index sucks because some entries just redirect you to other entries so you have to now take an extra step in getting to where you want to go... this now turns finding spells into the exact same thing.

Don't you organize your spell by level on your character sheet? Also, maybe there is too many spells in this game and too many spell slots per class.

It would be easier for making characters.

I can read through cantrips and not jump around the book,
then I can read 1st level spells,
then 2nd level spells,
then 3rd level
then...

just add all classes that can use the spell under spells name.

Exactly! When making a character or levelling them up, it's a huuuuge pain to go back and forth between the list and your spells and then compare multiple spells. It's easy to write quite reminder for your spells so you rarely need to check the rulebook, but building your character? Total pain.

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.

They're game designers, they should DESIGN their game instead of being all wishy washy and just basically dumping all the work on hapless DMs. Can a Rogue hide during combat or not? It's a simple Y/N question, and the answer impact the perceived strength of the class and the ease of the use of Sneak Attack. What is the INTENTION here? It SHOULD be answered by the DESIGNERS and then if the DM wants to disregard it? It's their prerogative to weaken or buff a class.

Like, to me, Sneak Attack should be occurring EVERY turn, because it's how the Rogue keeps up with the others damage wise, and it pushes the Rogue to act, well, like a rogue. Why else would it proc if you're just attacking a dude next to your allies? Advantage itself can be harder but you don't need it for Sneak Attack. Some DMs seem to think it should be difficult to get Sneak Attack and that it is a 'bonus' the Rogue gets instead of a baseline level of damage (probably thinking of the 2e thieves too much). Knowing which one was the expectation of the designer would be very useful.

A bit off topic but: It really annoys, and baffles, me that, somehow, transparent game design is seen as a BAD thing?! Augh. DM-ing is a form of game designing, SHARE your damn design notes with the DMs, WOTC, they're your fellow designers! And DMs should really stop being so obsessed with their own immersion, you're already BEHIND the curtain directing the play: stop complaining that you can see the stage hands!

 

[Undrave]

-free hands, somantic and material components with casting focuses or component pouches

Material components are real flavourful, but I feel like they should just be for rituals (and give us more rituals so component gathering for the different ones become important). Just make Implements a proper thing again for the other spells, since that's what most people use anyway (who would take the time to fiddle around for bat guano or whatever during a fight when they could just swing a wand around, anyway?).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I feel like multiclass spell progression rules could be clearer

I have a qustion that I have never understood since the playtest... if I play a cleric 3/paliden 6/sorcerer 5 I count as 11th level on the multi class chart so my spell slots keep up... BUT
If I play a Fighter 7/ Ranger 5 the extra attacks don't stack. Is there a reason that 2 combat classes don't stack to get the fighters 3rd attack? (mmy personal thought is it is the only reason to keep being a fighter but if we let spell casters dip...)

 

[Cruentus]

They're game designers, they should DESIGN their game instead of being all wishy washy and just basically dumping all the work on hapless DMs. Can a Rogue hide during combat or not? It's a simple Y/N question, and the answer impact the perceived strength of the class and the ease of the use of Sneak Attack. What is the INTENTION here? It SHOULD be answered by the DESIGNERS and then if the DM wants to disregard it? It's their prerogative to weaken or buff a class.

Like, to me, Sneak Attack should be occurring EVERY turn, because it's how the Rogue keeps up with the others damage wise, and it pushes the Rogue to act, well, like a rogue. Why else would it proc if you're just attacking a dude next to your allies? Advantage itself can be harder but you don't need it for Sneak Attack. Some DMs seem to think it should be difficult to get Sneak Attack and that it is a 'bonus' the Rogue gets instead of a baseline level of damage (probably thinking of the 2e thieves too much). Knowing which one was the expectation of the designer would be very useful.

I agree with your position about them just designing the game they want to design.

With re: to Sneak Attack, then just bake it into the Rogue's damage if that's the actual intent. "Rogues, when they attack in melee, roll additional damage dice on a successful hit." Done. None of this "Is the Rogue hidden?" "Do I have advantage." etc., especially if IT DOESN'T MATTER. Simplify. Same with Smite and Paladins. If they "need Smite to keep up with others" just have it be extra damage, every strike. Don't have it be an extra ability. You can fluff it however you want, its just mechanics for mechanics sake otherwise.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Material components are real flavourful, but I feel like they should just be for rituals (and give us more rituals so component gathering for the different ones become important). Just make Implements a proper thing again for the other spells, since that's what most people use anyway (who would take the time to fiddle around for bat guano or whatever during a fight when they could just swing a wand around, anyway?).

5e is my first edition, what were and how did implements work? They sound like alternative spell focii?

I think spellcasting should just rely on a focus as standard except for priced/rare ingredients or in cases like rituals, but then turn material components into the spellcaster’s counterpart to the martial’s improvised weapons, you cut down on having unique components for everything and then make just one or two types of component that each corresponds to an energy type or spell school, like, lost your spell foci or had it taken by guards? Well don’t worry you found some bat guano in your cell that can be used to cast any spell that deals fire damage, or this crystal shard from the broken window will let you cast an illusion spell and an abjuration spell with this iron nail pried out the stonework.

 

[Undrave]

I agree with your position about them just designing the game they want to design.

With re: to Sneak Attack, then just bake it into the Rogue's damage if that's the actual intent. "Rogues, when they attack in melee, roll additional damage dice on a successful hit." Done. None of this "Is the Rogue hidden?" "Do I have advantage." etc., especially if IT DOESN'T MATTER. Simplify. Same with Smite and Paladins. If they "need Smite to keep up with others" just have it be extra damage, every strike. Don't have it be an extra ability. You can fluff it however you want, its just mechanics for mechanics sake otherwise.

In the case I can see it being used to enforce a certain gameplay for the Rogue. A Rogue isn't a Fighter, so it shouldn't fight like one. By forcing them to sneak around, or seek advantage, or simply to gang up on someone, it enforce a specific play style that matches the flavour of the Rogue.

As for the Paladin, the balancing act of using spells or smites is part of what people like about it.

5e is my first edition, what were and how did implements work? They sound like alternative spell focii?

I think spellcasting should just rely on a focus as standard except for priced/rare ingredients or in cases like rituals, but then turn material components into the spellcaster’s counterpart to the martial’s improvised weapons, you cut down on having unique components for everything and then make just one or two types of component that each corresponds to an energy type or spell school, like, lost your spell foci or had it taken by guards? Well don’t worry you found some bat guano in your cell that can be used to cast any spell that deals fire damage, or this crystal shard from the broken window will let you cast an illusion spell and an abjuration spell with this iron nail pried out the stonework.

In 4e, an Implement was essentially like a Weapon for spell caster. If you wanted to improve your to-hit chance (everything in 4e was an Attack Roll against a Defense) or damage, you could seek out a +X implement, or just get ones with fun ability. Certain Tome Implement carried extra spells for you. Certain classes even had their own 'fighting styles' that worked with different implement types with powers sometimes granting a bonus depending on that style.

For exemple: A Wizard who mastered the Staff gains a +1 bonus to AC and can, once per encounter, gain a bonus to AC equal to their CON (like a mini Shield Spell). This was a Wizard who was more comfortable using close range spells than other Wizards. A Wand master Wizard on the other hand could apply their DEX to one attack roll per encounter. This was a Wizard who liked single target spells. Stuff like that.

They were not necessary to use your powers, but they could make them better.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I speak write only as someone who came to 5e straight from 1e with many years' hiatus between: the section I would want in an updated PHB is one that explicitly addresses the concept of "action economy," including clear descriptions of what that term means in the first place, how actions vs. bonus actions vs. reactions vs. free actions vs. movement all break down (and what the limitations are on each), and what options players have in combat for deferring their actions until someone else goes/something fancy happens to trigger their desired combo.

All the information I just mentioned is dealt with in the current PHB: no question about it. But I speak from direct experience of (1) watching the other guys in my group deal with this stuff, and (2) dealing with it myself when first getting back into the game, and I can report that this stuff is not immediately clear to the less-than-obsessive players and DMs. In our first two or three campaigns in 2018-19, we unwittingly broke more rules on this than we followed and for the most part we thought we were being scrupulous.

Therefore, I think an actual section devoted specifically to action economy and how to manage it as a player under RAW would be helpful to newer players and DMs.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Therefore, I think an actual section devoted specifically to action economy and how to manage it as a player under RAW would be helpful to newer players and DMs.

I would love 1 chapter the whole thing writen in a straight forward "This is how this works" instead of hiding thing in fluff and flower text