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

[Undrave]

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

Clear and transparent rules? Like this is some kind of GAME with GAME RULES?! Are you mad? It'll break the VERSIMILITUDE!!!!1 We can't have that!

/s

 

[Guest 7034872]

Clear and transparent rules? Like this is some kind of GAME with GAME RULES?! Are you mad? It'll break the VERSIMILITUDE!!!!1 We can't have that!

/s

"First you must believe; then you can begin to understand."

also /s

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.


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!

Not when I'm the DM. So when we are at the table in the middle of the game and a player says they want to cast X spell or ask me how I'd rule on X spell, I want to be able to flip the book and read the spell as quickly as possible. And only doing two steps to find it is preferable in the moment of action than having to take the extra third.

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.

They did design it. And they did answer it in the current PHB. The rules are rather clear at a basic level (if spread out a bit when you take all potential aspects into consideration). But go back and look at all the threads about Stealth we've seen over the last 8 years-- many DMs don't care what the rules say about hiding in combat, they still don't allow it. And even the ones that do make all kinds of different rulings than what the PHB has said, because they don't like the rules in the PHB.

And WotC knows this. They've seen all the differing attitudes DMs have had about Stealth over the past 3 editions. They know perfectly well that it doesn't matter what rules they put in the book-- most DMs aren't going to run them the way they write them. So there is absolutely no reason to go into any more detail than what they've already done-- try to close up every loophole and corner case that some people get so bent out of shape over-- because most of the DMs are ignoring the whole process anyway.

It's all well and good to say "WotC should design a really good and workable system for hiding and Stealth and perception!"... but if the rules they come up with end up being a system you don't like... then you're not going to use it. And thus all that work they put into it ends up being a complete waste of time.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

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...)

well, the cleric 3/paladin 6/sorcerer 5 might count as 11th level for their spell slots, but not for what spells they can take. they can still only take up to 2nd level cleric and paladin spells and up to 3rd level sorcerer spells. plus, fighters are literally the only class in the game that get more then 2 attacks from extra attack - i don't see how you COULD reasonably use multiclass levels to get it.

 

[Undrave]

It's all well and good to say "WotC should design a really good and workable system for hiding and Stealth and perception!"... but if the rules they come up with end up being a system you don't like... then you're not going to use it. And thus all that work they put into it ends up being a complete waste of time.

... You can say that about every single rule in the book??? Yet they're still selling the book!

 

[James Gasik]

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.

You could acquire special Implements, such as a Searing Dagger, that added bonus damage to Fire spells. Wizards had subclasses based around their implement choice.

Weapons could be used as implements, adding their magical abilities (if they have them) to your spells. And in all cases, all you needed to use magic was have your implement in hand. Want to use a two handed weapon? Get the ability to use it as an implement, no need to take a hand off it to cast a spell.

 

[James Gasik]

Not when I'm the DM. So when we are at the table in the middle of the game and a player says they want to cast X spell or ask me how I'd rule on X spell, I want to be able to flip the book and read the spell as quickly as possible. And only doing two steps to find it is preferable in the moment of action than having to take the extra third.



They did design it. And they did answer it in the current PHB. The rules are rather clear at a basic level (if spread out a bit when you take all potential aspects into consideration). But go back and look at all the threads about Stealth we've seen over the last 8 years-- many DMs don't care what the rules say about hiding in combat, they still don't allow it. And even the ones that do make all kinds of different rulings than what the PHB has said, because they don't like the rules in the PHB.

And WotC knows this. They've seen all the differing attitudes DMs have had about Stealth over the past 3 editions. They know perfectly well that it doesn't matter what rules they put in the book-- most DMs aren't going to run them the way they write them. So there is absolutely no reason to go into any more detail than what they've already done-- try to close up every loophole and corner case that some people get so bent out of shape over-- because most of the DMs are ignoring the whole process anyway.

It's all well and good to say "WotC should design a really good and workable system for hiding and Stealth and perception!"... but if the rules they come up with end up being a system you don't like... then you're not going to use it. And thus all that work they put into it ends up being a complete waste of time.

Most =/= all. If I'm making a game with the idea of getting new DM's into a game, then I can't assume they know enough to make good rules or rulings. Tell them how you designed it to work first, then let them fiddle around with things.

 

[DEFCON 1]

... You can say that about every single rule in the book??? Yet they're still selling the book!

That was never the point.

The point was some people thinking that the Stealth rules should be re-written for the 2024 update in one single section because the various bits of them right now are spread out over several different chapters in the PHB and they don't go into great detail about how Stealth works as a complete system.

So my point is that while WotC certainly could do that if they felt it necessary... I've always gotten the impression that they don't think it's necessary because 9 out of 10 DMs don't use the rules they've created in the first place. So why make edits to this section of the 2024 book that ultimately no one cares about because everyone's going to end up continuing to use and play with the Stealth rules they created and like on their own?

I could certainly be wrong. And it wouldn't bother me if I was. But I was just giving my opinion on what I think WotC might do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Most =/= all. If I'm making a game with the idea of getting new DM's into a game, then I can't assume they know enough to make good rules or rulings. Tell them how you designed it to work first, then let them fiddle around with things.

I'm not sure which part you're referring to-- spell blocks printed by level, or re-writing the Stealth rules into one single section?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I'm not sure which part you're referring to-- spell blocks printed by level, or re-writing the Stealth rules into one single section?

given what he's saying i don't really know why you'd think he'd be referring to spell blocks printed by level. none of what he said makes any sense in that context.