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

[James Gasik]

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

I mean, I guess, but I'd rather have something I can download after purchasing a rulebook and can then use on my laptop without an active internet connection.

 

[Horwath]

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.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Stealth is ok. Surprising creatures is not.

 

[Horwath]

Or my biggest pet peeve, Saving Throws. 6 saves is completely unnecessary, some are rarely used, and it all conspires to make sure that most characters have 4 bad saves (3 if Resilient is allowed), and most likely, there's at least one of those bad saves that at higher levels you can't possibly succeed at on your own merits. I mean, at least bring back automatic save on a natural 20! Or dump the whole thing and go back to Non-Armor Defenses... (I know, I know, but a man can dream...).

Return to 3 saves would be far superior.

Fort save: str+con mod, current str and con saves.
Ref save: dex+int mod, current dex saves.
Will save: wis+cha mod, current int, wis and cha saves.

then point buy for "cheap" scores would have better saves for not having primary/secondary ability maxed out at start.
I.E. with racial +1/+1/+1 bonus you could have 16,16,16,8,8,8 and 14,14,14,12,12,12.
That would give on average +1 to each of 3 saves.

Then every class would get one save proficiency and resilient would be again more or less save valued feat as it is always taken for Con or Wis saves.

 

[James Gasik]

Return to 3 saves would be far superior.

Fort save: str+con mod, current str and con saves.
Ref save: dex+int mod, current dex saves.
Will save: wis+cha mod, current int, wis and cha saves.

then point buy for "cheap" scores would have better saves for not having primary/secondary ability maxed out at start.
I.E. with racial +1/+1/+1 bonus you could have 16,16,16,8,8,8 and 14,14,14,12,12,12.
That would give on average +1 to each of 3 saves.

Then every class would get one save proficiency and resilient would be again more or less save valued feat as it is always taken for Con or Wis saves.

Yeah, that would be acceptable, I think.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Except that making characters is the one time when you don't care about speed. You have all the time in the world to flip through the Spells chapter to read up on every cantrip. So having all the spells of the same level in one section would be convenient to be able to compare and contrast, sure... but between sessions is the one time when you don't need convenience.

It's when you are actually playing the game at the table and finding a spell block quickly to read up on it so you can know what it does right as the action calls for it... that's when your idea turns a current two-step process (finding the Spells chapter and then finding the spell alphabetically) into a three-step process (finding the Spell section of the book and then the spell level section you need and then the spell itself alphabetically). It now takes longer to do in the moment when speed is most paramount in searching for spell descriptions.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[delericho]

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.

Agreed.

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.

2nd Ed had the spells listed by level (and class, with an extra layer of pain if both Clerics and Wizards shared a spell...), and it did at least include a fix for this particular issue - there was a separate index of spells, allowing an easy alphabetic lookup.

I'm still not in favour of switching to listing spells by level, for the same reasons you gave, but at least there is a fix. Assuming you're willing to consider a WotC-produced index a fix.

 

[Bill Zebub]

“The player decides what their character thinks and does” (or whatever the precise quote is)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Absolutely the action economy.

Just bring back Standard and Minor Actions, and define "Move Action" as something you can do once per round so long as you haven't spent any of your movement yet this round. The awful kludge of dancing around whether you have actions or merely "can take" actions is just wasted space and really genuinely doesn't add anything to the game.

Make clear to people that Minor Actions just aren't always a thing. If you can use one, cool, that's a nice perk to have. There's nothing wrong with just not taking a minor action this round. (Alternative: Let "object interaction" be an option for Minor Actions, so people can potentially get two object interactions in a single round while still taking a Standard Action. That's technically an actual rules change rather than JUST a rewrite, but it's such a small thing I figure including it wouldn't violate the spirit of the request.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Hiding.

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