I’m convinced the D&D 2024 Player’s Handbook has taken rule over rules too far

It still baffles me that the 2014 5e Dungeons & Dragons System managed to sell the idea of ​​”Decrees, not rules“As a feature for Dungeon Masters and players, Instead of obviously lazy designBut the revised 2024 Player’s Handbook Has no excuse for its half-finished rules a decade later. The philosophy presented at the time of 5e’s release was in line with a “Old school“Gaming sentiment that prioritized DM judgment over the system providing clearly laid out rules. By avoiding some of the legalistic “keyword-driven” language of 3e and 4e DNDNew players and DMs found 5e approachable.

Many will point out how 5e was a massive commercial success, as was 2020 DNDs best year financially, and it has reached such milestones several times since the release of the edition. The perfect storm of factors contributing to the game’s growth, viz Critical role And Stranger thingshave been analyzed ad nauseam. A bigger question is How much 5e really has to add to that success. Having an approachable, conversational language certainly made it feel welcoming to new players, but for new DMs, it’s Hard to see the addition as a problem, one of the 2024 rules have not been fixed yet.

Pathfinder 2e is harder to learn but easier to play

The conversational language of 5e forces D&D rulings into the gaming table

When people discuss rules complexity, how do Pathfinder 2e is easier than DND 5e to study, there are some caveats that I don’t see addressed typically. To take a keyword-style approach, there is a distinction between “learning,” “playing,” and “running.” Most people define “learning” a tabletop RPG as reading its rules and walking away with a sense of general understanding of the rules. “Play” is actually using the rules as a player, and “running” is using the rules as a game master. A legalistic, keyword-based system like Pathfinder 2e is certainly harder to “learn,” but easier to “play” and “run.”

A looser conversational system than 5E DND Feels easy to “learn,” since a reading of the Player’s Handbook Will flow smoothly, closer to reading a novel than a textbook. His system is harder to “play,” and much harder to “run” than a legalistic “textbook style” system presentation, at least over time. Over the last decade of play, many groups have had time to feel the gray areas of 5e DND. Some of these come from rules interactions that are much less straightforward than the text might lead you to believe, and Others intentionally offload game plan onto the DM.

While DND 4e has a complicated reputation, its Rules are the simplest in actual play of any edition of the gameBut they require more upfront time investment to understand its framework. They were the simplest because the answers were there, and they were consistent and logical. Basic Dungeons & Dragons (for-Advanced DnD) and 5 e DND Are neck and neck for the simplest rules the game has ever had, but the simplicity to “learn” them does not make them simple to “run” or “play.” 5e’s “ruling, not rules” was a deliberate throwback to design that some saw as “DM empowerment.”

The 2024 D&D Rules still raise unnecessary questions

Forcing DMs to make rulings on core rules offloads designer responsibility

I was a DM much more than I was a player during this edition, and I can confirm these rules created countless headaches. The truth is, almost every DM will change the rules they don’t like or the rules for the brew when they fit their campaign. Having ambiguous rules is never to a DM’s benefit. I certainly recall like editions of 2e AD&D To 4e had situations where rules were sometimes unclear, but there was almost always an official answer somewhere. I would occasionally make an ad hoc judgment and look up the “canon” rule later.

Questions of what happens when DND Druids wearing metal armor, or just what things do and don’t work in wild form, illustrate the 5e design paradigm. The text on armor simply stated that “Druids shall not wear armor or use shields made of metal,” but provided no guidance on how this impacts game mechanics if they do. Sage Advice later confirmed that this was simply a holdover from Legacy Druid “Tam” and had no impact. This is removed from the 2024 PHBHowever Wild shape remains as nebulous as ever, as DMs are still deciding what things work with animals.

2024 wild form includes, “The DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment based on the creature’s size and shape..” This remains a prime example of “rules, not rules,” and As this philosophy is terrible for DND. If the rules provided official guidance for which items, specifically, worked with various non-standard body types, like quadrupeds or snakes, a DM could still disagree, and rule it differently. By not providing any rules, the DM is forced to create house rules for each form And maintain some consistency over all such decisions.

The 2024 Player’s Handbook is inconsistent

Some rules seem to clarify 5e D&D ambiguities, others remain as vague as ever

Clearly, the 2024 DND Rules did not fix the addition, however They show a strange inconsistency as to whether this is even a goal. In some cases, the rules seem to recognize areas where the game was too ambiguous and provide more coherent and useful guidelines. It’s clearer what Tool Proficiencies do and how to use them. The 2014 command spell was overly ambiguous, requiring DM adjudication for every command not on the list, and the 2024 command requires players to use a list of pre-defined commands. These changes reflect recognition that vague rules are a bug, not a feature.

Other areas of the 2024 PHB Totally conflicted with this. The level 2 spell offering is as vague as ever, requiring DM judgment calls, with its guardrails tweaked to be even less specific than they were in 2014. The fight economy is as poorly defined as ever, with odd loopholes and abuses added that were not there before. It’s still unclear if multiple castings of Death Ward provide a stacking benefit or not, and I’m not holding my breath for a clear answer in the upcoming Dungeon Master’s Guide. These may feel like nitpicks, but they add up.

Some people want simple tabletop RPGs that are easily hacked, with rules that let the DM riff on the fly without spending upfront investment in learning the rules. DND Is not that kind of game and hasn’t been for decades. It’s a financial investment to buy $150 worth of core books, and a time investment to learn the rules. Gaming groups (rightfully) expect no DND Edition will be in play for several years of gaming, not for a one-off campaign trying out an eclectic rule system. There are still dozens of ambiguous spells and rules In the 2024 PHB.

5e D&D’s rules raised many questions

2024’s revised Player’s Handbook simply raises a new set of questions

The designers may have believed they were creating an easy-to-understand system with little need for official clarification on its gray areas, but Ten years of questions for Sage Advisor or Jeremy Crawford’s X account have proven otherwise. For every question that received an “official answer” there are still two that only have “best guesses” from the community. For those World’s most high profile and profitable tabletop RPGwhich has years of playtesting for its 2024 revision, To have this much ambiguity is mind-boggling to me. DMs and players ask questions on their first reading of the 2024 PHB.

The new rules have been playtested since 2022, if not earlier. Given the years of analysis, how could the obvious questions have not come up during the One D&D Playtest process, and why do not see clear answers in the new PHB? There were so many spells 2024 DND Need to explain, and rules that require planning, but the Revised core book seems to arbitrarily veer between rules that are clearly spelled out, and others that remain as nebulous as ever. A DND Edition that has a “learning curve,” like 4e, asks me to spend time outside of the game.

A DND Edition like this 2024 5e rules asks me to waste time during play sessions, and that time is much more valuable. I’d much rather wade through dense rules that clearly define interactions with other rules and provide explicit examples, because I won’t waste the valuable time my players and I devote to simply enjoying playing the game. I am completely comfortable making rules decisions that my players and I feel are fair and keep the game moving. When I pay for a premium book, I shouldn’t have to. Good design minimizes DM judgment calls, saving session time.

The 2024 Player’s Handbook could have done more

Years of playtesting should have resulted in a less ambiguous D&D system

There are some big changes to 2024 DNDs PHB rules, and I’m grateful to see at least some rules that are more than their 2014 incarnations, like Tool Proficiencies. Overall, I can’t help but be disappointed in a game that will still waste valuable session time and force me to finish the designers’ jobs. Every question a fan has ever raised in the last decade On sage advice or a DND Forum May be addressed in the core rules. Instead, we are left with a different set of ambiguities that Dungeons & Dragons Should have avoided.

Source: Dungeons and Dragons / YouTube