Anyone else spend today unsubscribing from rules and mechanics threads that were going in circles and may have even gone off topic because of poorly written rules that can be interpreted in more than one way and/or don't make sense? I did.

Things like: How fog can be too thick to see into, but you can see things on the opposite side of it just fine. How you can use a shield as a weapon and shield at the same time to benefit from dual wielding and a shield at the same time. How number of free hands and needed item interactions are different depending on which spellcasting focus you use. Whether or not running away in fear or controlling a mount is "willing" movement to trigger booming blade damage. Freaking invisibility, darkness, unseen attackers/targets, and hiding interactions. (Don't debate any of these here, find their respective threads). And that is just from the last few days.

Since the devs didn't bother to make clear rules with consistent wording that can't be interpreted into something illogical or munchkin, I think they should get to work on a new core rule book that corrects the mistake of not thinking like a player. It should have clear and consistent language, including definitions for frequently used terms (did you know natural weapon and weapon attack don't have definitions in the rules?), and just more in general. I don't think it has to be as in depth as the Mtg rules, but if we could get at least a quarter the detail of the first 6 mtg rule sections, we would have a much cleaner game experience.

And while I'm ranting, if the SAC is not going to call itself an official rules resource, how about a document that does? As is, the SAC is occasionally helpful for helping DMs decide what the half written rules should mean (I say occasionally, because there are way more unclear rules than there are advices), but it is useless for telling a player what the rules are.

Agree? Disagree? Comments?

I agree.  There are so many things that could use clearer rules language.  Kind of a 5.5 approach that doesn't really change much but resolves some of the common issues.

I don't think you need a 5th edition 5.5, but it has been five years since the original editions have come out.  New copies of the PHB/DMG do get updated with errata that is officially recognized but who wants to buy a new book, right?

RAW/RAI arguments are always going to exist.  Players are always going to feel that the thing they want to do is something and my argument as a DM is always followed with this: If your player can do it so can my NPCs.  Sometimes this makes total sense, sometimes this is complete and utter nonsense.  

As a DM and a player, these conversations about what can happen should be had at the table. The rules are absolutely clear enough for a base stance and if you have a group that is going to spend 8 hours arguing over rules mechanics, you don't have a group.  You have a debate table.  I say this as the person in the group who 1000% argues rules.  

Your argument is disingenuous though.  You aren't happy with the state of current rulings so you want something completely new.  The whole point of 5th edition was to be more accessible to new players, and leaving rules up to the interpretation of the DM is part of that.  If you want hardcore rules mechanics, go back to AD&D 2nd.  Or worse yet, original D&D.  

I would love to see updated monster manuals, spell books and magic item guides to incorporate all currently released content, that is just me.  

One thing the PHB and to a lesser extent the DMG have surprised me with in 5e is how badly written they both are. There are so many ambiguous sentences. I don't mean places where they have left the decision up to the DM. I mean places where they have written down how a thing works and it can be taken more than one way.

I am getting ready (in < 2 weeks finally!) to start playing in an online group with some people who have not played before. One is a former work-friend of mine who is now in another part of the state. She called me up at one point and we were talking about rules and she was highly confused about several things and I realized... damn, there is some basic stuff that they just do not explain more or less at all in the rules.

Take something simple like Ability Scores and their Modifiers. This is basic. But the concept is not explained well. In the Index of PHB, Ability Score Modifiers are shown as being mentioned only 3 times. These are:

Page 7: "These ability scores, and the ability modifiers derived from them, are the basis of almost every d20 roll that a player makes..."

Page 13: "After assigning your ability scores, determine your ability score modifiers using the Ability Scores and Modifiers Table. To determine an ability modifier without consulting the table, subtract 10 from the ability score and then divide the result by 2 (round down). Write the modifier next to each of your ability scores."

Page 173: "Each ability score has a modifier, derived from the score and ranging from -5... to +10... The Ability Scores and Modifiers table notes the ability modifiers..."

Notice what's missing here? These entries don't tell you what the ability modifiers do! That little nugget is listed under the Ability Checks section, where finally, they tell you that you add the modifier to your 1d20 roll.

But this new player had missed that little tidbit there, which is just hanging out without a bold face or italic or anything in the middle of a paragraph and not listed in the index. So after reading the 3 entries from the index referring to "ability modifiers," she had no idea what they did. She had assumed that when you got a 16 STR, say, and a +3 modifier, it made your STR 19. And I couldn't say she was crazy for thinking that, because the explanation of what the modifier does isn't in the same place as listing what the modifier is.

There are tons of other places where this kind of awful organization and terrible writing are the case, but this is the first example that pops into my mind. I mean really, they bothered, in two places (p. 13 and 173) to print the table and also, right there where they had printed the table and you therefore would not need this information, to explain how to hand calculate a modifier if you don't happen to be able to look over to the next column and see what they are. Because obviously it makes sense to put the calculation for how to work without the table in case you can't find the table, on the page where you find the table. But nowhere in that spam could they be bothered to explain what that +1 or +3 or -4 bonus/malus actually mean in game.

This sort of obfuscatory writing is littered all over the core books, especially in critical sections like spell effects and monster abilities. If this was meant to be "user friendly" for newbie players, IMO, it fails miserably. I mean what more basic element of a character is there than its Abilities, and they couldn't even explain that in a friendly way.

The saddest part about this topic is the fact that 5e is the cleanest rules set D&D has ever had. You think 5e is bad, you don’t even want to know how bad it was in the ‘90s.

Quote from IamSposta >>

The saddest part about this topic is the fact that 5e is the cleanest rules set D&D has ever had. You think 5e is bad, you don’t even want to know how bad it was in the ‘90s.

 Ah ha! The ol' Back in My Day (tm) argument lol.  Just because things have been worse, it does not mean things can't still be better :)

To be clear, I started with 1st edition sooooo many years ago and yes, this edition is much easier to pick up and play than any before it.

the books are fine 5e was designed to bring back DM Fiat to get away from the rules lawyer number crunchiness of prior editions.  

I think things are pretty great as they are.  I disagree with a couple of rules, so change them as I see fit which 5E gives me the power to easily do so.  No need for PHB/DMG 2.0 in my opinion.  Additional sourcebooks and adventure modules are all I would like to see for the foreseeable future.

The issue with "5e was designed around DM fiat and DMs being the master of their game, we don't need cleaner/clearer rules!" is twofold.

1.) Adventurer's League.  Wizard's Official Sanctioned Best/Only Way To Play D&D(TM) makes it excrutiatingly clear that rules are to be followed to the absolute letter and that the DM has absolutely no room whatsoever for any sort of 'fiat' or master of their game.  They are not the Game Master, they are the Game Runner.  There's a book or a document somewhere with an adventure listed on it, and the DM's job is to execute that document like a piece of code running on a processor.  No deviation.  No on-the-spot rulings.  No zip-all.  

If Wizards is going to take this ultra-strict, I AM THE LAW-style approach to D&D?  They need the sort of systematic, mechanistic ruleset that can be run like a piece of code.

2.) DMing sucks.  It's a huge chore, a giant time sink, and extremely difficult to just pick up and do, due in large part to the fact that the 5e DMG is a flaming disaster of poorly written, poorly laid out, badly designed garbage.  It does not explain how to run games, it just vomits up a ton of words that are vaguely related to running games without telling a prospective new DM anything about actually running a successful game of D&D.  Especially since every third line in the DMG is "if this doesn't feel like something you want to do, don't do it."  I run a biweekly game for my group, and I neither own nor feel any need to own the DMG.  Only the PHB and other player resources, occasionally poking at my buddy's copy of the DMG on the very rare occasion where I need to reference a table that isn't in the PHB. 

I learned to DM from Angry GM and watching a thousand hours of Matt Mercer doing his game, and while that works for me it also involves knowing that the DMG is a dumpster fire that is best ignored until and unless you have a specific need for a particular table.  At no point is that acceptable for "The Core DM Rulebook."  It needs to be burned down and redone from scratch, because it's thoroughly awful.

Quote from 1stsonofkrynn >>

the books are fine 5e was designed to bring back DM Fiat to get away from the rules lawyer number crunchiness of prior editions.  

 It is one thing to leave things to DMs, they can put that in the book (they do sometimes). The problem is even where they are trying to say what the rules are that DMs should follow (unless specifically house ruled) are so vague or incomplete that it can be interpreted different way. If 2 different DMs are both playing with no house rules, the rules should be the same, but they may not be because of interpretation and that is a problem.

My 2¢: New books... not exactly. Reorganized content in the books for new-player clarity? Probably.

For existing D&D players in my experience, they seem to get a handle on the books fairly simply. It seems to me that WotC's intent was to have existing players grab new players more easily. Nothing wrong with that. More $$$ for them, more players for us.

While that's great and all, I find that some new players do not have someone to help them through the spaghetti bowl cross-referencing necessary in the books and DDB helps a lot but is more of a good companion than a total replacement in my view.

That stated, the free core stuff at WotC's site is far less confusing in the same way that it is also far less informative. I would recommend taking a core rules first-look before tackling the books, but if a new player could just do that with the books right from the start, that would be better in my opinion. For now, there is the alternative.

As for rules confusion, there are some things that one should consider as no-brainers. RAW can create scenarios that make no sense. It is my opinion that they're not there to define no-brainer situations. It does leave some interpretation to the participants as to what RAW redefines in the campaign setting and what is a simple no-brainer.

To pull up something from one of the official WotC Sources, it specifies that the DM adjudicates the rules and has the final say on how they work. If that is an unbreakable rule, then a rulesmonger player has no authority.

Even that rule can lead to the madness of paradoxes if one takes it too far down the twisting road. Can the rule about breaking/bending rules be broken/bent? Is the DM the only person who can rule that breaking/bending that rule is allowed? Once broken/bent, has the DM relinquished all control to the inmates of the asylum? This is a case where no-brainer answers should stop all that confusing mess early in its tracks.

RAW vs. RAI. The Source I mentioned obviously favors RAI, but by its own definition, someone can interpret RAW to be the RAI. If a group favors RAW, then RAW it is and the consequences are upon them.

RAW is fun to consider in my opinion but can create scenarios that are nonsense. If navigating nonsense for game strategy is fine, then RAW is also fine. Where peering through and beyond something that blocks/disadvantages sight of all things within it, RAW could allow it by interpretation, but it makes no sense. The rules shouldn't need to specify a no-brainer, but some people like to game on leveraging to the letter of every rule written.

No change to the books will fix that. Given how many possibilities there can be in D&D, no ruleset will cover everything and cannot cover every possible exception. That's also just madness. Some things just have to be left to the participants, and participants will disagree. Whoever is the assigned adjudicator should adjudicate.

That's no fault of the books in that situation. That's all on the players.

The saddest part about this topic is the fact that 5e is the cleanest rules set D&D has ever had. You think 5e is bad, you don’t even want to know how bad it was in the ‘90s.

I started playing in 1982. I haven't read the old PHB in a long time (1st edition). However, that said, the fact that the writing of previous editions sucked worse (and I am not agreeing they did, but merely stipulating it as a point of discussion) is not an argument in favor of the current edition being just fine and not needing a writing overhaul. It needs one. Badly.

DMing sucks.  It's a huge chore, a giant time sink, and extremely difficult to just pick up and do, due in large part to the fact that the 5e DMG is a flaming disaster of poorly written, poorly laid out, badly designed garbage.  It does not explain how to run games, it just vomits up a ton of words that are vaguely related to running games without telling a prospective new DM anything about actually running a successful game of D&D.  Especially since every third line in the DMG is "if this doesn't feel like something you want to do, don't do it." 

It's worse than that... DMing can suck, or be rewarding. But it is absolutely miserable when you have players arguing rules with you all the time. And the vague, confusing, obfuscatory manner in which many entries in the core rules (especially spells, for crying out loud) are written guarantees there will be rules arguments and disagreements in almost every game session. Now yes, I know, as good players we are not supposed to argue, and I personally don't, as a general proposition (at least, not since I've become a grown up). But not all players are like me, and if the player and the DM have wildly different interpretations of how a spell or an effect should work, it is very common for this to turn into an argument or at least a protracted discussion. Which will bog the game down and drag the adventure to a grinding halt.

And that's a best-case scenario. Heaven forfend having an actual rules lawyer in your group. Any time there is a confusing or ambiguous line in the PHB or DMG, you're going to have an entire evening shot to pieces over it.

The core books can go one of two ways on this. They can detail almost nothing, explicitly leaving it all up to the DM (a la Champions Special Effects), or they can get right down into the weeds and describe and explain everything in crystal clear detail. The problem with 5e (and maybe earlier editions were worse, honestly it doesn't matter to me) is that they tried to split the baby, and ended up with something that may be relatively easy to 'get into' but is a breeding ground for rules arguments.

DMing can suck, but if you really hate it that much, don't do it, or have your players keep track of some things that you normally do.

I agree, I almost never have to use the DMG, but it can be useful, I think the main problem is that most of the stuff inside is entirely situational. A bunch of the tables inside don't have any significance to most games, like how different governments work, what it is like in Gehanna, adding on extra ability scores, and the magic items. You have a giant list of magic items so that you can use them if you need to, but you will only ever use a fraction of the ones contained inside, and some of them suck because of the way 5e is designed.

The Player's Handbook is also not that useful besides the spells and character building rules. All the other stuff I know, and never have to use again. Resistances, Immunity, and Vulnerability rules are contained within, but you will only ever have to look at it once. Other things, like improvising ability checks, and other options, will likely never be used. It is worse for the DMG, and I don't think the PHB needs reprinting besides a few phrases that are said weirdly, like Held actions, and so on.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

The issue with "5e was designed around DM fiat and DMs being the master of their game, we don't need cleaner/clearer rules!" is twofold.

1.) Adventurer's League.  Wizard's Official Sanctioned Best/Only Way To Play D&D(TM) makes it excrutiatingly clear that rules are to be followed to the absolute letter and that the DM has absolutely no room whatsoever for any sort of 'fiat' or master of their game.  They are not the Game Master, they are the Game Runner.  There's a book or a document somewhere with an adventure listed on it, and the DM's job is to execute that document like a piece of code running on a processor.  No deviation.  No on-the-spot rulings.  No zip-all.  

If Wizards is going to take this ultra-strict, I AM THE LAW-style approach to D&D?  They need the sort of systematic, mechanistic ruleset that can be run like a piece of code.

2.) DMing sucks.  It's a huge chore, a giant time sink, and extremely difficult to just pick up and do, due in large part to the fact that the 5e DMG is a flaming disaster of poorly written, poorly laid out, badly designed garbage.  It does not explain how to run games, it just vomits up a ton of words that are vaguely related to running games without telling a prospective new DM anything about actually running a successful game of D&D.  Especially since every third line in the DMG is "if this doesn't feel like something you want to do, don't do it."  I run a biweekly game for my group, and I neither own nor feel any need to own the DMG.  Only the PHB and other player resources, occasionally poking at my buddy's copy of the DMG on the very rare occasion where I need to reference a table that isn't in the PHB. 

I learned to DM from Angry GM and watching a thousand hours of Matt Mercer doing his game, and while that works for me it also involves knowing that the DMG is a dumpster fire that is best ignored until and unless you have a specific need for a particular table.  At no point is that acceptable for "The Core DM Rulebook."  It needs to be burned down and redone from scratch, because it's thoroughly awful.

 AL is a completely different issue.  We are talking about 5e as a whole.  There have never been rules in DND like you describe every rule is to serve as a guideline for the DM.  Its been this way since 1st ed.  IIRC this was actually in the 1st DMG in the very beginning of the book.  

5e is by far the easiest edition to run as a DM and this is coming from someone who began playing with 2nd ed.  The rules are so streamlined that I almost never even need to look something up vs pathfinder/3.5 where nearly every session on multiple occassions we would need to look things up.  

If you want to play a game where all rules are set in stone there is already a great medium for that....its called video games

I voted "yes", with DxJxC.

I can appreciate the freedom and less-rules the designers were going for, but at the same time, it's frustrating when rules (like stealth, obscurity, vision, perception) throw out little ultimatums, without any clear examples. And when we seek clarity (like in these boards), basically, we're just getting opinions/interpretations, which only confuse more. Tighten it up!

Nah. The books read just fine. No need to do a 2.0. 

Now, the style of game, rules, etc. may not be to your liking. But that's hardly a call to have to books redone. Because, it seems to me from being in forums for many years that one person's cleaned up, clear text is another's " flaming disaster of poorly written, poorly laid out, badly designed garbage."

Can't have it both ways, 1st Krynson.  Either the rules are deliberately a loosey-goosey guideline at best and the GM is supposed to do what's best for her table (once she figures out how the bloody hell running games actually works, anyways - which the DMG is absolutely not going to teach her), or the rules are an ironclad LAW, a'la Adventurer's League.

Wizards doesn't get to promote AL as ZA BESTO WAY TO D&D PLAY AL AND NOTHING BUT AL BUY MORE MODULES, and castigate anyone who dares make best-for-their-table calls on the fly because they're not Sticking To The Books(TM), while also writing the sort of ruleset in which two out of every three pages of rules are basically self-contradictory guideposts and situations like the fog and darkness rules arguments arise.  If they want people to run By The Book(C), then The Book needs to be consistent and sensible.

Until it is, my own table runs by the rules of "I'm the DM, and if I say a rule in the book is nonsense and we're doing something this way instead that's how it works."

I’m fine with the rules as they are. I know well enough how things run at my table when I’m the DM and in the group that I play with when I’m not the DM and that’s all that counts. I’m currently playing with 3 different DMs and the rules are slightly different depending on which one of us is running and what house rules each of us uses. 

My big annoyance right now is a player who doesn’t take the time to read any of the rules about his characters. It’s painful stopping the game to explain simple things to him every week that are on his character sheet! But nothing in life is perfect.

5th Edition is my first foray into D&D and I immediately went into DMing.  I had and understand the frustrations mentioned.  There was a lot of questions of how this interacts with that.  It often required going from one page to the next and back.  It took several times to finally "get it."   I think WoTC has learned this and is adapting with newer releases.  We are seeing more snippet sidebars with call backs to rules and clarifications or intent of the rule.

That said, I wouldn't want 5.5 books.  First, regarding the DMG(my most used book), I don't think of it as a Rules Reference.  That is a tool to create, narrate, and improve things upon with.  Any time I have a rules question, I am almost always cracking open the PHB.  Second, redoing the Core books would take extensive time and resources.  Resources that would be taken from other projects, which is the most common request I hear.  People want more new content.  Third, more iron clad, detailed rules do not necessarily equal fun or perfectly run games.  Look at professional sports.  The rules read like mortgage contracts but at the end of the day they still have issues and conflicts. 

Reading some of the responses, I fear some have had the bitter taste of bad D&D.  Is DMing hard? Absolutely. Can having a bad group of players a completely demoralizing experience?  It sure can be.  Not all tables are for everyone, and a group of players that you don't mesh with can make it miserable.  That isn't on the books or the developers.  There is a reason that many of say "No D&D is better than Bad D&D." 

I don't want more iron clad rules... I want more clarity.

I teach science writing at the college level. I tell my students regularly, that more writing does not equal better writing. Brevity is the soul of wit, and conciseness is preferable to wordiness. The problem with the PHB and DMG is that they are wordy but opaque, rather than being brief and clear.

They do not need to pull a dozen people off other projects or something to fix this. What they need is a good, professional editor who also understands the rules of D&D, who can make sure that they say what they mean, and mean what they say.