D&D 5E Why are vague rules praised?

[pepticburrito]

Example: Instead of a carousing table which tells you nothing a short paragraph about what can happen during carousing (romance, arrest, etc.) and what influence that can have in the game. For example what usual punishments for unorderly conduct are, how punishment can usually be avoided, that fame makes arrest more unlikely and possible benefits of being arrested. Much better than just saying 1-10 pay a fine or get arrested.

These questions have campaign setting specific answers. In a pirate city, the punishment is a new "girlfriend". In a more respectable city, you might pay a fine. In a clearly evil city, you could be put to death. You could devote an entire chapter to the various legal systems and how they view disorderly conduct OR you can let the GM use his common sense.

The GM is telling an interactive story, not following a prescribed series of steps that get you from point A to point B.

 

[Pickles JG]

Having played since 1982 I'm am burned out with rules that have gotten more and more specific and that try to address every conceivable situation. I'm tired of being a librarian that constantly has to stop the game to look up that rarely used rule...because everyone at the table expects the GM to literally "know it all". I'm tired of having to defend my decision because it doesn't follow the letter of the rule according to the lawyer(s) in the game. I welcome 5E with open arms because it is needed to keep my love for this game alive! Hooray for "vagueness" and GM empowerment!

Meh every time I find a vague rule I have to decide what it means while if they are drafted clearly I can just read what it says.

I never used to look up the rules in 4e & I don't in 5e despite their wildly different levels of complexity. 3e was the pinnacle of rules that attempt to be comprehensive.

I am reminded of Mr Rumsfeld's comments about unknowns.

Clear rules are rules we know how to apply.
Rules that are not comprehensive are rules we know are not explicitly stated & we will have to use our judgement.
Vague rules are rules that we don't know whether we are supposed to follow the rule or what.

IME these last ones lead to disagreements more than ones that are in areas obviously not covered.

 

[aramis erak]

Something I encountered several times now is that when there is a discussion about a rule because there are multiple ways to interpret it or that it offers no help at all for the DM to adjudicate it someone comes and praises the rule as being intentionally vague so that the DM can interpret it.

My question is why? Why is it a good thing if a rule is vague or even not usable without houseruling or when the books give the DM no guideline, suggestion or other help in resolving something?

I've not found the rules vague.
I see several cases typically happening:

• Misreading and/or misremebering what's there. I've done this a couple times.
• Presuming it's the same as the playtest or some prior edition. (It often isn't)
• Intentionally misinterpreting it to make it more like either 3E or 4E

90% of the time, it seems to be "It should be doing X edition's method, but it's worded so as to not do that, but it must, so I'll claim it's vague."

case in point: Barkskin and Wildshape.
Wildshape doesn't take away your class features. Spellcasting is a class feature. Therefore, since it doesn't say otherwise, Barkskin, as a spell, is part of the druid's spellcasting feature, and thus isn't negatively affected by wildshaping. Anything else is people trying to read into it more than is there, or misreading it for some purpose. Simple, clear logic.

Likewise, Barkskin. It's clear enough for me: if your AC by other methods isn't 16+, Barkskin on you raises your AC to 16.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Rule clarity is useful in an RPG, but agreement of resolution with game fiction is even more important. Precise rules tempt players to apply them literally in situations where common sense says they should be overruled. Leaving them a bit vague encourages DMs to apply them as appropriate to the fiction. More succinctly, precise rules promote gamist play, and it seems that 5E is trying to move away from that.

 

[MoonSong]

I've not found the rules vague.
I see several cases typically happening:

• Misreading and/or misremebering what's there. I've done this a couple times.
• Presuming it's the same as the playtest or some prior edition. (It often isn't)
• Intentionally misinterpreting it to make it more like either 3E or 4E

90% of the time, it seems to be "It should be doing X edition's method, but it's worded so as to not do that, but it must, so I'll claim it's vague."

case in point: Barkskin and Wildshape.
Wildshape doesn't take away your class features. Spellcasting is a class feature. Therefore, since it doesn't say otherwise, Barkskin, as a spell, is part of the druid's spellcasting feature, and thus isn't negatively affected by wildshaping. Anything else is people trying to read into it more than is there, or misreading it for some purpose. Simple, clear logic.

Likewise, Barkskin. It's clear enough for me: if your AC by other methods isn't 16+, Barkskin on you raises your AC to 16.

Fine, then how about this? Multiclass Warlocks and Invocations that have a level as a prerrequisite. Tell me how are they clear rules? Is the level in the prerrequisite character level or warlock level? And don't tell me it is just ok to leave it open to DM judgement, this question needs an official answer at least so far as Adventurer's League. Like it there are more.

 

[guachi]

It's Warlock level. Are there any class features that aren't predicated on the class level? At all?

The big clue it's class level is that the Warlock level you get additional invocations at are 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, and 18. Warlock invocations that have level prerequisites have levels of 5, 7, 9, 12, or 15. Coincidence? I think not.

PHB164: When you gain a new level in a class, you get its features for that level. A feature for a level 5 Warlock is access to level 5 Invocations. How do we know it's a class feature for a Warlock? Because it's written in the Warlock class section.

 

[MoonSong]

It's Warlock level. Are there any class features that aren't predicated on the class level? At all?

Cantrips, cantrips scale with character level. And another counter example, cleric domains granting heavy armor say "when you get this domain at first level".

Oh, and WotC refused to give an official answer to this question too....

 

[Greg Benage]

Oh, and WotC refused to give an official answer to this question too....

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/warlock-invocation-prerequisites/

 

[painted_klown]

This thread is awesome and is getting me even more excited to jump into 5E with my other non-seasoned friends. It looks like we are not going to have an issue with trying to make the rules fall into an earlier editions rules (as we don't know them) and will give us the freedom to interpret (and therefore play) the rules in a way that best suits our group.

At the end of the day, I think that is what most groups seem to do anyway. It will be nice for all of us to dive in with no preconceived notions about how these rules "should" be interpreted, as from what I gather from this thread, they "should" be simply interpreted as your group sees fit.

I see nothing wrong with that, and feel that it will actually reduce the amount of arguments on how "it's supposed to be played" as your groups way of playing will indeed BE the way "it's supposed to be played". It may not be the exact same way the group around the block plays it, but neither group will be doing it wrong. Unless the DMs want to get into a knife fight about it, I think this will be a fun way to have the rules laid out.

I can't wait to see how our group plays, and with an inexperienced DM (presumably will be me at this point), it should make for some interesting, and possibly hilarious, gaming moments. I can't wait!

 

[aramis erak]

Cantrips, cantrips scale with character level. And another counter example, cleric domains granting heavy armor say "when you get this domain at first level".

Oh, and WotC refused to give an official answer to this question too....

Not as far as I can tell; the spell tells you when they go up. And it's not like multiclassing is a core rule. It's explicitly DM's call. If I were being literal, I'd restrict cantrip damage by the class level of the class from which it was gained. For my home game, I'll treat it the same as determining the slots available. It's also worth noting that the multiclassing rules are explicit that the spells known and knowable are separate and based upon class levels, even tho' more powerful slots are held.

Likewise, a Barbarian 5/Fighter 5 doesn't have 3 strikes per attack action; he's got two. He'll never get 4, because he'll never hit 20th level as a fighter.

5E, like 4E, is a redesign from first principles. If you're trying to use prior editions as precedent, you are doing it wrong. Forget what you know from prior editions (or the playtest of 5e, for that matter), and just read what's there, and it's reasonably clear.