D&D (2024) Anyone else dislike the "keyword" style language of 5.24?

[FitzTheRuke]

Keywords are great. They should be used to lower word counts in rules' wordings, not extend them.

Saying "You are Blinded and Deafened" is using keywords correctly (in particular if you are capitalizing the words).

Saying "You have the Blinded and Deafened conditions" is just being needlessly verbose with your rules.

 

[Retros_x]

if every paragraph needs to call out this is a game and not an inscribing of a breathing fantasy world into written word.

You are right with that, but isnt that the point of rules? To not get lost in immersive text about a breathing fantasy world, but codified rulesystem? The rest is in fluff texts and boxed texts and should be seperated. After all its a reference book, not a fantasy novel.

I have to say though, the keyword syntax in 2024 5e is half-baked. The idea is good but the execution lacks IMO. Its inconsistent and sometimes just plainly confusing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

we had that thread only a few days ago debating the 'natural language' rules interaction of a pair of abilities from an eldritch knight/bladesinger multiclass, whether subbing out one of an attack action's extra attacks for a cantrip counted as 'using your action to cast a cantrip' which could be used to trigger a different ability, it was very quickly brought up that if the keyword wording of 'use your Action to take the Magic Action to cast a Cantrip' had been used there would be no debate about how the rules interaction would be resolved.

Yep.

Going for 100% natural language simply doesn't work as advertised. It will generate conflicts of meaning, because people use the same words to mean different things IRL. It's an unfortunately common form of miscommunication, and is why nearly every professional field develops a jargon. Jargon feels unnatural because you have to learn it. Once you have learned it, as long as it isn't poorly-constructed (which it certainly can be!), the unnatural-ness tends to fade.

But note that I said "100% natural language." Good jargon should avoid the unnatural when feasible--when doing so doesn't hurt other things more. A great example of where 4e dropped the ball on this is "burst" vs "blast". The words are too similar, starting and ending with the same consonants and being words that are too similar in natural meaning. I have never fully settled the difference in my head; I have to look it up every other time. (If you care, "burst" is out from the origin in all directions, "blast" is to one side of the origin.) If I were to rewrite 4e, I would change one of them to something else, even though I know, from having looked into it myself, that there aren't a lot of good options. (I prefer "gyre" myself, as it implies the "all around"-ness while being extremely different from "blast".)

Writers should use the most natural-sounding language they can that is still compatible with a high standard of clarity. Both overuse and flawed use of keywords is completely possible, they are not a perfect anodyne to all issues. But having keywords, generally speaking, is better for the in-play experience than totally avoiding them. Totally avoiding them will almost surely make the rules-text read better, as a pure prose artifact with no gameplay value, but again that's arguing that the game should look great no matter what effect that has on actually playing it...which I see as a deeply flawed premise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To say that 2014 didn't use keywords is inaccurate. It used keywords, and defined terms as necessary, but didn't feel the need to define terms that didn't need to be defined. There isn't any meaningful difference between "melee weapon" in 2014 5e and "Melee weapon" in 2024 5e. (Or at least shouldn't be, but editing issues ahoy.)

Oh, don't even get started on the mess that is stuff relating to those terms.

Remember that a melee attack, a melee weapon attack, a weapon attack, and an Attack are four completely different things.

("A melee attack" is a single instance of making an attack roll specifically as a melee thing, regardless of why you're making it, e.g. some spells have melee spell attacks. A melee weapon attack is a single instance of striking an opponent with a weapon, regardless of what the weapon is for normally. A weapon attack is any attack, ranged or melee or spell, that uses a weapon. An Attack is the use of the Attack action, which may involve up to five attacks, presuming a dual-wielding 20th level Fighter with the Nick mastery.)

5.0 has a vestigial keyword system, and it uses that system very clumsily in several places. 5.5 has an aggressively-pushed keyword system, and it uses that system very clumsily in several places.

 

[Quickleaf]

I agree with the problems of heavy natural language, especially verbose natural language.

However, counterpoint: Abstraction of pure mechanics to the deficit of narrative explanation creates a huge stumbling block of interpretation, aka "WTF is this actually doing in the game story?" I saw this infiltrate from 4e into 5e and even more so into 5.5e.

Both extremes - heavy natural language & abstracted pure mechanics - lead to issues of clarity.

For example, ancient green dragon 2024 has "Corrosive Miasma"...or maybe its Noxious Miasma in the finished version... basically an area effect sphere dealing poison damage and reducing AC... Try narrating that without describing the Poison as Acid. Try narrating how it reduces the AC of the wizard without armor. Try explaining to the players that their PCs AREN'T Poisoned, just taking poison damage and reduced AC...from a cloud of poison gas...maybe it's a cloud of poison gas actually I don't know because the effect doesn't say. That's the problem with taking mechanistic abstraction too far IMO – you end up back in the morass of unclarity.

 

[CreamCloud0]

For example, ancient green dragon 2024 has "Corrosive Miasma"...or maybe its Noxious Miasma in the finished version... basically an area effect sphere dealing poison damage and reducing AC... Try narrating that without describing the Poison as Acid. Try narrating how it reduces the AC of the wizard without armor. That's the problem with taking mechanistic abstraction too far IMO – you end up back in the morass of unclarity.

"the airborne poisons are brought into your lungs and seep into your blood weakening you, your body feels heavy and your mind is awash from the toxins, the smell burning your nose makes you constantly want to gag, your reactions slow and vision blurs, you don't notice all the dangers until too late, you finish casting your protective wards too slowly with numb hands, you could better block and dodge these attacks if only it weren't for the sickness holding you back, weighing you down"

 

[kigmatzomat]

I'll give a perfect example of my own because it was really glaring when the late 2014-era books started using it: going from "is blinded/knocked prone/etc." to "has the Blinded/Prone/etc. condition". The former makes clear that the condition is the result of the triggering effect, whereas the latter sounds passive and uncorrelated. Even if it used "receives the condition", that would sound better.

• "I'm not blind, I can see my nose and hands just find. There's just an illusion of absolute blackness a foot away from me in all directions."
• "I lay down down for cover from snipers, no one knocked me prone, so no advantage on melee attacks"
• "I'm not poisoned, they injected venom/anesthesia."

Keywords are jargon and jargon is, in context, clarifying and often succinct. Sometimes it's poorly adopted, like poison/disease and invisible/hidden.

I do miss concise jargon in statblocks.( "Fireball 150ft range, 20ft radius 8d6 fire damage (Dex:18 Save for half). Detonates early if it hits a solid object.") In theory the use of the Capitalization eliminates the need for the "Condition" tag, but English itself, with "capitalize the first word in a sentence" defeats that. And I am guessing they don't want to rely on font tricks (bold, iltalic).

Not sure the "has the Condition..." actually saves words or works in as many scenarios.

 

[MothMayI]

Oh, don't even get started on the mess that is stuff relating to those terms.

Remember that a melee attack, a melee weapon attack, a weapon attack, and an Attack are four completely different things.

("A melee attack" is a single instance of making an attack roll specifically as a melee thing, regardless of why you're making it, e.g. some spells have melee spell attacks. A melee weapon attack is a single instance of striking an opponent with a weapon, regardless of what the weapon is for normally. A weapon attack is any attack, ranged or melee or spell, that uses a weapon. An Attack is the use of the Attack action, which may involve up to five attacks, presuming a dual-wielding 20th level Fighter with the Nick mastery.)

5.0 has a vestigial keyword system, and it uses that system very clumsily in several places. 5.5 has an aggressively-pushed keyword system, and it uses that system very clumsily in several places.

Your assessment here is very incorrect—factually so in several places. "Attacks" in 5e are quite simple once a basic definition is established, and each type of attack builds on that definition with each word meaning exactly what it means.

An attack is anything that involves an attack roll. It is either a melee or ranged attack, which dictates how it interacts with distance between creatures. It is either a weapon or spell attack, which dictates the ability score used. Different features can affect attacks in general or specific types of attacks.

In 2024 5e, if you hit someone in melee with a bow, that is an attack with a ranged weapon. If you throw a dagger? Attack with a melee weapon. 2024 5e uses language that limits the rules' ability to interact with specific circumstances (and enables exploits that weren't previously possible in 2014 5e).

 

[Xeviat]

I'm not sure if keywords were the problem, but the 2024 rules aren't written efficiently. There are chunks where 20 words are used when 10 would sound better. Next time I find an example, I'll post it.

 

[Azzy]

Keywords are great. They should be used to lower word counts in rules' wordings, not extend them.

Saying "You are Blinded and Deafened" is using keywords correctly (in particular if you are capitalizing the words).

Saying "You have the Blinded and Deafened conditions" is just being needlessly verbose with your rules.

I agree with all of this.