# 5.5e - What ONE section of the rules would you rewrite for clarity?



## Stalker0 (Jul 17, 2022)

Though 5e uses natural language....some language is more natural than others We all have sections of the rules that are reasonably clear, but then there are other sections so vague that you just want to toss the rules in a fireplace!

So if there was ONE (and just one so to make the choice interesting) section in the any of the core books you could rewrite for better clarity in the next edition, what would it be?

And a reminder, the goal here is not to rewrite the rules to really change them necessarily, to buff or nerf them....its really just about making the designer's intent clearer.


*For me the section would be the stealth rules*. Stealth is such a core part of the standard dnd experience (both for rogues sneaking past guards, and parties being ambushed by sneaky monsters), and it is an INCREDIBLY powerful ability. But the rules are not great, there is lots of vague language, there are lots of very common stealth scenarios really not covered in the rules...its a bit of a mess. That would be my number 1 section to just rewrite with a lot more explicit language.

So what is yours?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 17, 2022)

Grappling.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 17, 2022)

These ones www.levelup5e.com


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 17, 2022)

Morrus said:


> These ones www.levelup5e.com



that's a BIT more than one section sir


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Jul 17, 2022)

Bonus actions, especially the bonus action spell rules.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 17, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> that's a BIT more than one section sir



I dunno - were it up to me I'd rewrite everything between the endpapers of each book, wherein would appear a very different game than current 5e.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Jul 17, 2022)

Spell components. Shortest answer is to move the sentence about using a hand holding a focus or material component being also used to perform somatic components to the paragraph on somatic components so that you just need a hand on a focus or a free hand and a component pouch.

The long answer I'd _really_ like to see is for each class to get their own rules about components distinctive to the class- although they can be similar.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Jul 17, 2022)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Bonus actions, especially the bonus action spell rules.



After thinking a bit more, I have to change my mind. The one section of the PHB I want to see completely rewritten is the _index_.


----------



## Alby87 (Jul 17, 2022)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> After thinking a bit more, I have to change my mind. The one section of the PHB I want to see completely rewritten is the _index_.



You can not rewrite what was not written 

Seriuosly, I'm in for indexes. As I said, a nice and clear table before feats, spells, monsters and treasure. An index table at the beginning of every section with one sentence resume of everything the game as to offer to quickly navigate between them. 3.5 had them, Pathfinder has them... why 5e doesn't have them?


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Jul 17, 2022)

Alby87 said:


> You can not rewrite what was not written



But there is an index in the PHB, it's just complete rubbish! It has a lot of relevant entries, but instead of directing the reader to the relevant page, they usually refer to a different entry in the index, which again refers to another entry. So you need to look through 2-3 pages before you find the root entry that actually directs you to the page with the info you want.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jul 17, 2022)

The first line of several powers/spells.   Why?  They don't match the actual mechanics, and it's a rather frequent problem:  A serious problem with 5e:  the first sentences.


----------



## Alby87 (Jul 17, 2022)

Ancalagon said:


> The first line of several powers/spells.   Why?  They don't match the actual mechanics, and it's a rather frequent problem:  A serious problem with 5e:  the first sentences.



I'm always on the verge on asking the community to help to create such indexes. Something that after is completed one can compile in a nice PDF and print and put inside the books. I just don't know which technology to use. A Google Sheet would be perfect, but I fear spammers and "funny" people. A Wiki would be an extensive tool for this, and so on...


----------



## DND_Reborn (Jul 17, 2022)

Hmm... If not Steatlh, then it's counterpart -- Perception. The whole Perception/Investigation thing is _really_ annoying. Which is used for what?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Jul 18, 2022)

The exploration/travel rules.

 Well, it's not really as section as of now. Its more of a bunch of rules spread across two 320 pages books!  

So, create an Exploration section with all the pertinent rules.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jul 18, 2022)

Put the section on player character races in proper alphabetical order.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jul 18, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> Hmm... If not Steatlh, then it's counterpart -- Perception. The whole Perception/Investigation thing is _really_ annoying. Which is used for what?



honestly, i think you could easily fix this by just changing investigation to deduction. boom. now perception is for finding things, and investigation (now deduction) is for figuring out what they mean. doesn't conflict with insight either, because that's specifically for reading people.

anyway, as for my section, i don't know if i'd pick crafting, magic item prices, or starting/expected wealth at higher levels. i mean, a5e has me covered for all three, but if wizards is gonna make 5.5 they might as well take their own go at each.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 18, 2022)

vincegetorix said:


> The exploration/travel rules.
> 
> Well, it's not really as section as of now. Its more of a bunch of rules spread across two 320 pages books!
> 
> So, create an Exploration section with all the pertinent rules.



Seconded!


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 18, 2022)

Can the DMG be considered a "section"?



.................
_A few players wanted._


----------



## delericho (Jul 18, 2022)

If it has to be only one, then monster creation.

But that's not enough.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 18, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> Hmm... If not Steatlh, then it's counterpart -- Perception. The whole Perception/Investigation thing is _really_ annoying. Which is used for what?



yeah,
4E did something good, getting rid of Search(Investigation) and having all in Perception.

That should be for 5.5E


----------



## Horwath (Jul 18, 2022)

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


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Jul 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


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



ok this is actually a fantastic one i'm legitimately mad i didn't think of this


----------



## James Gasik (Jul 18, 2022)

Most of page 397 comes to mind.  Or how Hit Dice work for healing, I'd love to bring back surge healing from 4e.  

Or Interacting with Objects, that really could use some clarity (as well as the funky implement rules mentioned upthread, as the really annoy me).

Or...Darkvision, since people can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that it's really a terrible ability- make it actual darkvision so they have something to complain about, lol!

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...).


----------



## Immoralkickass (Jul 18, 2022)

1. Whether an ability is magical or not (like the ol 'is Dragon's breath magical?') Sage Advice. When i ask a Y/N question, i expect to get a Y/N answer. I don't want to go through a massive checklist and get a 'maybe, ask your DM' nonsense.

2. If we are talking about clarity, so many things should be spelled out explicitly, but none more so than the difference between melee weapon attack, melee spell attack, attack with a weapon and natural weapons/unarmed strike.

3. Outright say that they hate TWF. 'Hello, we realise that we have put a lot of abilities and even some magic items to activate as a Bonus Action, so we will have TWF use the same Bonus Action, because naughty word you. TWF sucks and is not cool. Oh, and the feat support is total ass too.'

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


----------



## Horwath (Jul 18, 2022)

Immoralkickass said:


> 1. Whether an ability is magical or not (like the ol 'is Dragon's breath magical?') Sage Advice. When i ask a Y/N question, i expect to get a Y/N answer. I don't want to go through a massive checklist and get a 'maybe, ask your DM' nonsense.



yes please


Immoralkickass said:


> 2. If we are talking about clarity, so many things should be spelled out explicitly, but none more so than the difference between melee weapon attack, melee spell attack, attack with a weapon and natural weapons/unarmed strike.



this is a clusterfrakk, I agree


Immoralkickass said:


> 3. Outright say that they hate TWF. 'Hello, we realise that we have put a lot of abilities and even some magic items to activate as a Bonus Action, so we will have TWF use the same Bonus Action, because naughty word you. TWF sucks and is not cool. Oh, and the feat support is total ass too.'



If you want TWF, buy yourself double-blade scimitar from Eberron and if you want to be dex fighter take Revenant blade feat. 
Yeah, technically it's not TWF, but it works.


Immoralkickass said:


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



No,
we want our MacGyvering with ironwood, duskwood, dragon hide, bone, silkweave or living metal armors
/sarcasm off


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


> yeah,
> 4E did something good, getting rid of Search(Investigation) and having all in Perception.
> 
> That should be for 5.5E



Ick!  Goodness no.  Perception is already too powerful and useful as it is.... this just turns it back into the uberskill that surpasses every other skill on the skill list for usefulness and how often checks get made.  Never again for me!

For me the answer was simple and something I've done ever since 5E got released-- Perception is for finding living beings that can move around and hide, and Investigation is for finding objects that don't move and have been concealed by someone else.  Just doing that simple split made neither skill too overpowered, gave Investigation something actually concrete to use it on (rather than it being merely a supplement to help boost and cover for _players_ who just can't figure something out), and kept Elven Clerics (et. al.) from being the defacto trapfinders in the party.


----------



## James Gasik (Jul 18, 2022)

See I look at it differently.  Every character should be good at noticing things, because adventuring is a career that can quickly lead to death if you don't.

Having people with a reason to invest in Wisdom be slightly better at noticing things is fine, it's a reward for a Wisdom focus.  And Wisdom is a good ability to have, since failed Wisdom saves tend to be very bad news, usually resulting in you losing the ability to actually play the game!

But when *one class* has an Intelligence focus, and the ability score does so little for other classes, it feels like you've just made a Wizard with Investigation proficiency vital to success in the game!

So either make Intelligence a better ability score for everyone, make more classes that want it, or ditch Investigation entirely, thanks.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


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



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.


----------



## James Gasik (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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.



How about a digital printing of the rulebooks with embedded hyperlinks for easier searching?  That really shouldn't take a big company too long to do.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

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


----------



## James Gasik (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

Stealth is ok. Surprising creatures is not.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 18, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


> 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.
> ...



Yeah, that would be acceptable, I think.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


> 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,
> ...



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 (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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.


DEFCON 1 said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

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


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Jul 18, 2022)

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 (Jul 18, 2022)

Hiding.

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


----------



## Shardstone (Jul 18, 2022)

EXPLORATION!!

So, I just got purchased the Wilderness DM Screen + kit by a friend as a gift. IT IS AMAZING. So, first off, I've DM'd this edition since 2015. I've published for it multiple times. Considered myself having mastered it.

Then why hadn't I heard about the JOURNEY CYCLE? The fact there's an 8-step, simple, streamlined procedure for exploration built into D&D? How come I didn't know about wilderness and dungeon turns except from OSR or one off mentions in the books? The reason being: exploration is not well described in D&D! But the system they have for it is actually pretty good and fun!!

The wilderness kit even had food and supply trackers, easy ways to handle food/supply, etc etc, that was pretty low paperwork. If I had known about the Journey Cycle before, I would have used it a lot more in my games! And also the dungeon exploraiton stuff on the dungeon DM screen! 

There's not even subclasses etc that deals with this stuff outside of ranger, which is really weird. Its like they were too lazy to collect it all in one place in the book, then too lazy to actually go and support it in their later books and character options. Rewrite exploration, put it all in one place, and 5.5E instantly becomes a very good game again to me.


----------



## James Gasik (Jul 18, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


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



They wouldn't be Stealth rules if you could find them!


----------



## Blue (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


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



Sure, as long as they make D&D Beyond or minimal cost.

Some publishers give you the PDF for free if you buy the hardcover.  Because layout and editing and everything are already done, it's just a touch of links.

DnDBeyond recods everythign for character builder and such.  That has real costs, so they properly charge for it.

But an expensive solution that delivers things we're not asking for does not replace a free/trivial cost solution.


----------



## Blue (Jul 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


> yeah,
> 4E did something good, getting rid of Search(Investigation) and having all in Perception.
> 
> That should be for 5.5E



As long as they then break up Perception, as it's already the most taken skill.  It's like saying "let's move some things from other ability scores to DEX to simplify".


----------



## billd91 (Jul 18, 2022)

ReadyButNot said:


> ok this is actually a fantastic one i'm legitimately mad i didn't think of this



It's been done. 1e/2e organized them by class and level. But whether or not it's a good thing to do so depends on how you're accessing the information. 
1e/2e's organization was great when building your character or working over their prepared spells. It was terrible for looking up spells while playing because some spells were on multiple lists, but printed in full only once so you might have to do a lot of page flipping and cross references. A single alphabetical list of spells in 3e/5e was better for the DM to do a quicker lookup at game time because you didn't need to know off the cuff what the spell level was.

5e, at least, is the first version of D&D that would enable a classless organization of spells by level because it's the first edition that really sets spells to the same level for all casters who have access to it (and it's about time). So 5e does have that going for it.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 18, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> See I look at it differently.  Every character should be good at noticing things, because adventuring is a career that can quickly lead to death if you don't.
> 
> Having people with a reason to invest in Wisdom be slightly better at noticing things is fine, it's a reward for a Wisdom focus.  And Wisdom is a good ability to have, since failed Wisdom saves tend to be very bad news, usually resulting in you losing the ability to actually play the game!
> 
> ...



Every character should have the potential to notice threats, but maybe not find things that are hard to find. That's why I *like* pushing that over to investigation.
And I think looking at it as a problem when one class has an intelligence focus meaning the wizard should be the one doing the searching is the wrong approach. Emphasizing the importance of investigation is ample reason to reconsider reflexively dumping intelligence. 
For similar reasons, I prefer strengthening the impact of 6 saving throws rather than lessening them. Every dump in favor of a boost, when building a PC, should have a perceived cost.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

Until otherwise noted from WotC that they have decided to change policy... always assume there will never be PDFs of any official D&D book.  _Especially now_ that D&DB is owned by WotC.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

To actually answer the question...

From what I can recall over these past 8 years... the section that has had not only the most threads made about the rules here on EN World, but also the most threads arguing about the rules... is Stealth.  So I think that would be the one that could probably most use it.

_HOWEVER_... I actually think what WotC would be better off doing first if this was the case... would be to poll as many people as possible and ask them flat-out "If we write up a tight-knit rules system for Stealth, would you actually use it?  Or would you continue to run Stealth the way that YOU prefer and think it should be run?"

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.


----------



## Shardstone (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> To actually answer the question...
> 
> From what I can recall over these past 8 years... the section that has had not only the most threads made about the rules here on EN World, but also the most threads arguing about the rules... is Stealth.  So I think that would be the one that could probably most use it.
> 
> ...



Do they need to make a tightknit system? Can't they just clarify stealth and put it in one section? I don't' see a lot of people asking for a crazy stealth system, just a clear, concise description of how it works.

EDIT: Just because it might be difficult to make something pleasing btw doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Defeatist attitudes have no place in the most well-to-do TTRPG publisher on the planet. They have the money to create the resources to try everything to see what actually does and does not work.


----------



## James Gasik (Jul 18, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Every character should have the potential to notice threats, but maybe not find things that are hard to find. That's why I *like* pushing that over to investigation.
> And I think looking at it as a problem when one class has an intelligence focus meaning the wizard should be the one doing the searching is the wrong approach. Emphasizing the importance of investigation is ample reason to reconsider reflexively dumping intelligence.
> For similar reasons, I prefer strengthening the impact of 6 saving throws rather than lessening them. Every dump in favor of a boost, when building a PC, should have a perceived cost.



I'm not even talking about dumping Intelligence, but more, rewarding someone for taking it more than a few points on a skill check.

There's a huge difference between "this ability score gives me power from my class *and *ability checks" and "this ability score gives me a bonus on ability checks".  Your Cleric, you can count on having a Wisdom in excess of 12-14.  That makes them decent at Perception, better if they have proficiency.  Who can you count on having an Int in excess of 12-14?  

Sure, maybe you want to play a smart character as your concept.  But the system doesn't rewards you very much for that choice, in the same way it does with most other ability scores.

For example, let's say you have two characters.  One wants to be a perceptive and strong-willed Fighter.  The other wishes to be a tactical genius Fighter.  Our first character has a Wisdom of 15, the other Intelligence of 15.  One of these two options is better than the other.

So you get a situation where Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Rangers are generally good at Perception, and Wizards are generally good at Investigation.  Seems like a disparity to me!


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 18, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Stealth is ok. Surprising creatures is not.




Really? Mind if I ask why you don't like having the PCs surprise the enemy?

I've GMed something like 75% of my gaming career and I must say I find it fun and cool when the PCs outsmart my baddies and get the drop on them. Or indeed when my players outsmart me.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 18, 2022)

billd91 said:


> 5e, at least, is the first version of D&D that would enable a classless organization of spells by level because it's the first edition that really sets spells to the same level for all casters who have access to it (and it's about time). So 5e does have that going for it.



I actually very much like that in AD&D a spell can have different levels depending on the class. OTOH, organizing spells alphabetically it much more convenient. In Hyperborea (an AD&D derived game), the spells are alphabetical and, for each one, the level for each class that can cast it is listed (of course there's also a listing for each class).


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

Shardstone said:


> Do they need to make a tightknit system? Can't they just clarify stealth and put it in one section? I don't' see a lot of people asking for a crazy stealth system, just a clear, concise description of how it works.
> 
> EDIT: Just because it might be difficult to make something pleasing btw doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Defeatist attitudes have no place in the most well-to-do TTRPG publisher on the planet. They have the money to create the resources to try everything to see what actually does and does not work.



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 the 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?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> So you get a situation where Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Rangers are generally good at Perception, and Wizards are generally good at Investigation.  Seems like a disparity to me!



That's why in my house rules searching for traps is INT (Investigation), because now the Rogue also wants high INT.  Of course a number of Rogue subclasses want high INT anyway-- AT, Inquisitive, Mastermind-- this now inspires the others to go higher INT as well.

And quite honestly... if we are looking at the Core Four at a minimum for "Which class should have the easiest time finding traps?"... Rogue obviously would be #1.  After that, I just feel like Wizards really should be #2 if for no other reason that a lot of traps are magical in nature and thus Wizards would be the ones best-suited to notice them and figure them out.  So putting trapfinding under INT (Investigation) just makes all the more sense.

And after all... that's why Clerics, Druids, and Rangers have a spell to do for them (_Find Traps_).  Cause they shouldn't be very good at finding them on their own.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 18, 2022)

I also use investigation for traps. Perception is already incredibly useful as it is.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 18, 2022)

DrunkonDuty said:


> Really? Mind if I ask why you don't like having the PCs surprise the enemy?
> 
> I've GMed something like 75% of my gaming career and I must say I find it fun and cool when the PCs outsmart my baddies and get the drop on them. Or indeed when my players outsmart me.



No. Surprising is ok, but I don´t like the rules.
We were asked, what should be different. I´d like the first round of combat to play differently.

Maybe I´d like the first turn of combat start with a surprise round, which only allows for a single action or move. A won initiative with surprise on top seems a bit too much for my tastes.

The playtest had a simple +20 to initiative on surprise, which was also ok.

My favourite however would be using all different kinds of modifiers for the first round of combat:

Surprised might be disadvantage on initiative. Using a ranged weapon might give advantage. And so on. Maybe +/- x modifiers.
I was tempted to use the modifiers in the DMG for round by round initative, but only for the first round and then cyclical initiative as normal.

I also don´t like the alert feat, and how you can´t be surprised, but maybe don´t even notice a threat.

But then, in most cases it works and my solutions are also wonky, so I stick to the normal rule and since we don´t have a character with alert anymore, most of my problems went away. I just like someone who gets paid for it to provide me rules I like more.

I generally think, stealth however has exactly as much rules as I need for theater of the mind. I think any rules that take the battlefield into account by default are a no go and usually cause more discussion than leaving it open to the DM. I would not mind some more defined stealth rules in the optional grid combat in the DMG.
But when we are at it, I´d think passive perception or passive checks as hey are used should go the way of the dodo. For all reactive actions, I´d like saving throws to be used. For passive perception, I´d probably stick to a class based value that might be modified by wisdom, but does not have to.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 18, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Stealth is ok. Surprising creatures is not.



why not?

edit: nwm


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 18, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> I also use investigation for traps. Perception is already incredibly useful as it is.



someone way back said use perception for passive and investigation for active   we tried it but we REALLY use them so interchangably now. I can't tell you how many times I have said "Give me a perception or investigation check" 

the funny part is one DM/Player in our group always does the same with acrobatics/athletics and gets mad when the rest of us disagree and keep those two skill far apart.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 18, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. Surprising is ok, but I don´t like the rules.
> We were asked, what should be different. I´d like the first round of combat to play differently.
> 
> Maybe I´d like the first turn of combat start with a surprise round, which only allows for a single action or move. A won initiative with surprise on top seems a bit too much for my tastes.



I had an encounter that REALLY stands out a few years ago (man time flys) when we had 3 stealth based characters 'get the drop' on a group of my Hobgoblin soldiers... we all rolled initiative (I don't remember the exact numbers now) the PCs all got higher then the enemies... so 4 PCs acted, 1 got an extra attack from dread ambusher, and 1 got to action surge and 1 got to assassinate crit.  then all 4 PCs went again... then in theory the Hobgoblins could go... I did declare a few death spasms.

edit: now that was a really cool moment, and that is why I still remember it and we still talk about it... BUT it also lead to us having this realization that the opposite could have happened. if 3 hobgoblins had gotten 2 full rounds I would have killed or at least KOed half my party.  And that WASN'T the game with the 2 NPC and PC assassines constantly trying to one up each other... cause in that one it almost always was more fairly spread. That first time all the enemies rolled low sent a chilling realization up our spines.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> someone way back said use perception for passive and investigation for active   we tried it but we REALLY use them so interchangably now. I can't tell you how many times I have said "Give me a perception or investigation check"
> 
> the funny part is one DM/Player in our group always does the same with acrobatics/athletics and gets mad when the rest of us disagree and keep those two skill far apart.



Yep... and that's why I used the Variant Ability Score variant for skills too... it allowed me to ditch Acrobatics as a skill entirely.  Instead players make STR (Athletics) checks for swimming, climbing, swinging etc, and DEX (Athletics) for balancing, tumbling, and short-distance climbing.

Plus it allows me to use WIS for passive perceptions/investigations and INT for active perceptions/investigations as necessary too.


----------



## Shardstone (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

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 (Jul 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


> 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.


Immoralkickass said:


> 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!



DEFCON 1 said:


> 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.



Horwath said:


> 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,
> ...



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.



DEFCON 1 said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> -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 (Jul 18, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

Undrave said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

Undrave said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

Cruentus said:


> 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. 


CreamCloud0 said:


> 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.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 18, 2022)

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 (Jul 18, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> 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


----------



## Undrave (Jul 18, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> 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


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 18, 2022)

Undrave said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

Undrave said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Jul 18, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Jul 18, 2022)

Undrave said:


> ... 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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.


----------



## ART! (Jul 18, 2022)

In my experience the character classes as presented in the PHB are intimidating for new players. They're front-loaded with a cluster of stuff about HP/Hit Dice, proficiencies, and equipment, and then a big table. And that before we even get to the pages of features. I honestly don't know what the solution is, but like I say, I've seen new players knock their heads up against that over and over.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 18, 2022)

ReadyButNot said:


> 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.



 The quote of mine they posted included both.  So I was just looking to confirm which one they were talking about.


----------



## Jer (Jul 18, 2022)

ART! said:


> In my experience the character classes as presented in the PHB are intimidating for new players.



Agreed.  That's why the Starter Set and the Essentials Kit are IMO a better, more manageable introduction to the game for new players than throwing a PHB at them right off the bat.

Giving the PHB to a new D&D player isn't as bad as handing over the Rifts Ultimate Edition to a player new to Rifts, but it isn't as unlike that feeling as it probably should be.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jul 18, 2022)

ART! said:


> In my experience the character classes as presented in the PHB are intimidating for new players. They're front-loaded with a cluster of stuff about HP/Hit Dice, proficiencies, and equipment, and then a big table. And that before we even get to the pages of features. I honestly don't know what the solution is, but like I say, I've seen new players knock their heads up against that over and over.



Use the Dungeon Crawl Classics character generation method! The level zero characters are easier to make.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 18, 2022)

ART! said:


> In my experience the character classes as presented in the PHB are intimidating for new players. They're front-loaded with a cluster of stuff about HP/Hit Dice, proficiencies, and equipment, and then a big table. And that before we even get to the pages of features. I honestly don't know what the solution is, but like I say, I've seen new players knock their heads up against that over and over.



Solution is only one.

Learn2Play.

It is only little hard for spellcasters as they need to prepare up to 6 spells at 1st level and need to know what to do.

Also give option to (new)players to rework some parts of their characters after every session if they feel that they have made bad choice in character creation.
I.E. adjusting ability scores, skills, tools, feats,

There is much to learn so don't write their characters in stone.

Treat every session as a new game of complicated board game. 
Every game played you learn more and you adjust your play accordingly.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. Surprising is ok, but I don´t like the rules.
> We were asked, what should be different. I´d like the first round of combat to play differently.
> 
> Maybe I´d like the first turn of combat start with a surprise round, which only allows for a single action or move. A won initiative with surprise on top seems a bit too much for my tastes.
> ...



Ah! Got it. Sorry, I misunderstood.


----------



## James Gasik (Jul 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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?



Sorry, just your theory about why the Stealth rules are the way that they are, because most DM's don't use them.  To my mind that would only make sense if you think about experienced DM's.  New DM's really do need more guidance than "just do whatever you think is best"- I know this because of the many times I've had new DM's come to me asking for advice the books don't give them (and should!).


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Sorry, just your theory about why the Stealth rules are the way that they are, because most DM's don't use them.  To my mind that would only make sense if you think about experienced DM's.  New DM's really do need more guidance than "just do whatever you think is best"- I know this because of the many times I've had new DM's come to me asking for advice the books don't give them (and should!).



Well, they might be able to get away with it this time around.  Last time, there was absolutely no way that 5e was going to be written clearly and concisely with new players in mind.  Not after the roasting WotC got over the 4e books.  It was 100% back to AD&D style mixed bag books with flavor and mechanics all jumbled together so it was an interesting, rather than useful, read.

This time?  Enough time has past and they've certainly built up a fair bank of good will, that they might be able to be somewhat less opaque in the books and start being clear about intent without people losing their poop that they are dictating playstyles and whatnot.

One can always hope anyway.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 19, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Well, they might be able to get away with it this time around.  Last time, there was absolutely no way that 5e was going to be written clearly and concisely with new players in mind.  Not after the roasting WotC got over the 4e books.  It was 100% back to AD&D style mixed bag books with flavor and mechanics all jumbled together so it was an interesting, rather than useful, read.
> 
> This time?  Enough time has past and they've certainly built up a fair bank of good will, that they might be able to be somewhat less opaque in the books and start being clear about intent without people losing their poop that they are dictating playstyles and whatnot.
> 
> One can always hope anyway.



I hope... but I fear they will still be skitish and we will have to wait for a full 6e in the years to come... but god I hope so


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 19, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Sorry, just your theory about why the Stealth rules are the way that they are, because most DM's don't use them.  To my mind that would only make sense if you think about experienced DM's.  New DM's really do need more guidance than "just do whatever you think is best"- I know this because of the many times I've had new DM's come to me asking for advice the books don't give them (and should!).



Sure.  Could they be clearer?  Of course.  I don't think anyone would try and argue that otherwise-- many different parts of the whole package that may or may not come up are found in different section of the book, there's no doubt about that.  And you could absolutely edit the book so that the whole process of DEX (Stealth) checks and WIS (Perception) checks and Passive Perception and Cover and Concealment and Lightly/Heavily Obscured and acting against Unseen creatures, and the Hide action are all in one place.  The positive of this is that all the rules for Stealth and Hiding are much easier and quicker to reference.  The negative though is that you're probably going to end up just duplicating all this info elsewhere because you're still going to want to put Stealth and Perception in the Ability Score section, you're still going to want to indicate in the Environment section what all the different environments do in terms of Cover and Concealment and Obscurity, and so forth.

So the question then becomes does WotC think the benefit of having a "Hiding Ruleset" in one small package outweigh having to duplicate the same information in different sections of the book?  That I can't really say.  All I can do is speculate... and my impression would be they'd rather save the space and wordcount by not duplicating info, and just put it on all the players (new and old) to actually go through the effort to read the entirety of the book.  Cause if you do that you _will_ get all the information you need to run Hiding in a general way... you just won't get hyperspecific rules that close every potential loophole that comes out of the narrative, nor the information in one easy reference section.

Whether that's good or bad overall, who's to say?


----------



## James Gasik (Jul 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Sure.  Could they be clearer?  Of course.  I don't think anyone would try and argue that otherwise-- many different parts of the whole package that may or may not come up are found in different section of the book, there's no doubt about that.  And you could absolutely edit the book so that the whole process of DEX (Stealth) checks and WIS (Perception) checks and Passive Perception and Cover and Concealment and Lightly/Heavily Obscured and acting against Unseen creatures, and the Hide action are all in one place.  The positive of this is that all the rules for Stealth and Hiding are much easier and quicker to reference.  The negative though is that you're probably going to end up just duplicating all this info elsewhere because you're still going to want to put Stealth and Perception in the Ability Score section, you're still going to want to indicate in the Environment section what all the different environments do in terms of Cover and Concealment and Obscurity, and so forth.
> 
> So the question then becomes does WotC think the benefit of having a "Hiding Ruleset" in one small package outweigh having to duplicate the same information in different sections of the book?  That I can't really say.  All I can do is speculate... and my impression would be they'd rather save the space and wordcount by not duplicating info, and just put it on all the players (new and old) to actually go through the effort to read the entirety of the book.  Cause if you do that you _will_ get all the information you need to run Hiding in a general way... you just won't get hyperspecific rules that close every potential loophole that comes out of the narrative, nor the information in one easy reference section.
> 
> Whether that's good or bad overall, who's to say?



I guess it depends on the observer of the phenomenon. Some feel this is fine, some feel it could be better, and others think it's a travesty.  I'm not at "travesty-level" but man do I wish more care was put into the way these books were written.  Even from a business standpoint, making a more user friendly rules interface just makes sense.

Of course, I was reminded by a friend that this is the internet age, so a new DM has a plethora of Tik Tok shorts and You Tube videos to watch to see how other people rule these things- and of course, this includes the acclaimed Matt Mercer, who many new DM's idolize.

So even if it annoys me, apparently WotC developers are either very very smart, or very very lucky.


----------



## bedir than (Jul 19, 2022)

The Folk Hero.
I'd eliminate it.

Heroic stories are told at the table, not before first level


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 19, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I guess it depends on the observer of the phenomenon. Some feel this is fine, some feel it could be better, and others think it's a travesty.  I'm not at "travesty-level" but man do I wish more care was put into the way these books were written.  Even from a business standpoint, making a more user friendly rules interface just makes sense.



It's the eternal balancing act.   Novel for entertaining reading on one end, and textbook for absolutely clarity on the other.  And we've seen all the editions of D&D fall upon that spectrum in various spots.  And anyone's personal best-case placement for a book will be dependant on what their own needs are.  As you say, "it depends on the observer of the phenomenon".


----------



## ART! (Jul 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> It's the eternal balancing act.   Novel for entertaining reading on one end, and textbook for absolutely clarity on the other.  And we've seen all the editions of D&D fall upon that spectrum in various spots.  And anyone's personal best-case placement for a book will be dependant on what their own needs are.  As you say, "it depends on the observer of the phenomenon".



I'd be delighted with rulebooks laid out with the mechanics-focused stuff as the main text, and however much flavor, setting, and the like in sidebars.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 19, 2022)

ART! said:


> I'd be delighted with rulebooks laid out with the mechanics-focused stuff as the main text, and however much flavor, setting, and the like in sidebars.



Ugh!  Yuck!  I'm the exact opposite.


----------



## wicked cool (Jul 19, 2022)

rogue sneak attack, stealth crits for rogues. i think some of the information for characters should be in the character sections instead of spread out all over the place . Maybe a footnote or page reference in these sections (see page #)


----------



## tetrasodium (Jul 19, 2022)

I've thought about this since the thread was new & there have been a lot of great suggestions of areas that are just reprehensible in their wording but think I have it narrowed down to one section.  That section has the hubris of also being an entire chapter.

*Chapter 1: Step by Step Character Creation.*
It starts on page nine, your character your backstory your background your choice your this your that. It's not until step six on page 15 that the existence of the rest of the party & a need to work with them is even mentioned, by that point the rules have pushed the prior five steps as things to do in isolation to build a completed character without discussion between players or really even the gm. If I as the GM tell my players to work together I need to break all of that before they can start.

For comparison here's how prior editions did it.  The 4e race class & role/character role sections of character creation on page 14 & 15 talk about finding out what the group has & considering the value of filling a niche the group needs. The relevant 3.5 section on 3.5phb6 starts with these words "_Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules. You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group"_. The 2e player's handbook leans more towards play what you roll with a different set of attribute bonuses but has too many references to "other players" to focus on a single "aha!" moment.

I can run a session zero & talk with players all I want, but the rules don't suggest areas the players should consider discussing together or even hint that they should.  As a GM I'm burned out on having to shatter a wotc PHB reinforced illusion of the group/team game known as d&d being a solo game where the other players are just sidekicks.  Each player comes to the table with The Main Character & it's up to the gm to figure out how to assemble the results into an unwillingly cohesive group.   As the GM I need to shatter that illusion before I can even start teaching players one by one what the PHB should teach them about working with other players.  This section is responsible for much of the uphill slog & sets the tone for all manner of rules sections that just entrench _*My*_MainCharacter+those sidekick players mentality in players.


----------

