I agree, it was fleshed out for interaction, although arguably these rules were already present in the DMG and were just moved to the PHB.
Exploration I was a bit saddened didn't really get much love. It could be that light didn't come up a lot because a lot of player characters have darkvision, so just doesn't come up a lot? I dunno. There's was a lot of room to really get the exploration pillar built up and I feel that it just didn't happen.
Definitely agree on the confusion in areas particularly as stealth. I had to flip back and forth while scratching my head to figure out what the intention was. Like you said, it's going to be up to the DM once again. If that's the intention, fine, but it seems contradictory to what was printed.
I wonder if the running text and the glossary were written by two different teams. The text calls out the DM as adjudicator for stealth, while the glossary then gives specific details. Coordinating that text is a bugbear of TTRPG production.
That definitely could be the case. I suspect that the Hide rule probably got changed in the glossary somewhere along the line and that didn't get pulled together in other places in the end. There's also some rules wonkiness where hiding gives you the "Invisible" condition, but that's shared with magical invisibility, so now See Invisibility and things like that see you when hiding mundanely. I doubt that's how it's supposed to work, but by the rules that's what happens if you go by the glossary.
A bugbear of mine is the PHB states picking locks is DC15, okay I can accept this for the sake of streamlining the game. Clear rules for players tends to let them take actions with confidence, not my favourite DC or way to do it... but I can understand it and feel comfortable telling my players when it is an exception.
The DMG however gives a list of defined DCs for picking locks of specific complexities and states them as if they are the default assumptions. Which then defeats the point of giving players only one DC, why not give them all of the DCs.
Still... Better than the new stealth rules, which have a static DC of 15, but still require the DM to remember the roll for future turns and don't interact with the creatures perceiving them until the following turn. It is as easy as it is to hide from a drunk, blind, ogre as it is an ancient dragon, at least until round two.
Which is where the new surprise rules also break... because if you have invisible you now have advantage on initiative, even if the enemy can see you with invisibility. Which at first blush sounds like something you can ignore, but then again it is quite common for there to be enemies who can see through invisibility to be mixed with enemies who cannot. So you either have a GM who has to rule you don't get your condition's benefit, or you get a benefit against things that have no reason to be disadvantaged in noticing you in the slightest.
I should mention I am not nitpicking at this because there are flaws, I am just grumpy that the flaws are actually making the game more complex and that a relatively elegant solution of check vs passive could have been implemented that would have been balanced, taken all situations into consideration and require less book keeping. Contested rolls are bad for the game imo, and contested rolls but only on round two and beyond are the worst of both worlds.
This is just the analysis I was looking for Mike. I am a story-driven DM and I usually have a rules lawyer at the table I can lean on to provide input for my adjudications but having a firm grasp on the rules-mechanic for any system I am running is a must. Your analysis is pointing out those pot holes that I will need to look out for. Thanks for posting this!
I would love to hear your thoughts on a wishlist of what could be done to streamline/fix 5e/2024 rules. I still have almost all the modules and I love running games, but I want to avoid some of the boggier rules issues that slow down play. What do you recommend just throwing out, like temporary hit points?
I agree, it was fleshed out for interaction, although arguably these rules were already present in the DMG and were just moved to the PHB.
Exploration I was a bit saddened didn't really get much love. It could be that light didn't come up a lot because a lot of player characters have darkvision, so just doesn't come up a lot? I dunno. There's was a lot of room to really get the exploration pillar built up and I feel that it just didn't happen.
Definitely agree on the confusion in areas particularly as stealth. I had to flip back and forth while scratching my head to figure out what the intention was. Like you said, it's going to be up to the DM once again. If that's the intention, fine, but it seems contradictory to what was printed.
I wonder if the running text and the glossary were written by two different teams. The text calls out the DM as adjudicator for stealth, while the glossary then gives specific details. Coordinating that text is a bugbear of TTRPG production.
That definitely could be the case. I suspect that the Hide rule probably got changed in the glossary somewhere along the line and that didn't get pulled together in other places in the end. There's also some rules wonkiness where hiding gives you the "Invisible" condition, but that's shared with magical invisibility, so now See Invisibility and things like that see you when hiding mundanely. I doubt that's how it's supposed to work, but by the rules that's what happens if you go by the glossary.
A bugbear of mine is the PHB states picking locks is DC15, okay I can accept this for the sake of streamlining the game. Clear rules for players tends to let them take actions with confidence, not my favourite DC or way to do it... but I can understand it and feel comfortable telling my players when it is an exception.
The DMG however gives a list of defined DCs for picking locks of specific complexities and states them as if they are the default assumptions. Which then defeats the point of giving players only one DC, why not give them all of the DCs.
Still... Better than the new stealth rules, which have a static DC of 15, but still require the DM to remember the roll for future turns and don't interact with the creatures perceiving them until the following turn. It is as easy as it is to hide from a drunk, blind, ogre as it is an ancient dragon, at least until round two.
Which is where the new surprise rules also break... because if you have invisible you now have advantage on initiative, even if the enemy can see you with invisibility. Which at first blush sounds like something you can ignore, but then again it is quite common for there to be enemies who can see through invisibility to be mixed with enemies who cannot. So you either have a GM who has to rule you don't get your condition's benefit, or you get a benefit against things that have no reason to be disadvantaged in noticing you in the slightest.
I should mention I am not nitpicking at this because there are flaws, I am just grumpy that the flaws are actually making the game more complex and that a relatively elegant solution of check vs passive could have been implemented that would have been balanced, taken all situations into consideration and require less book keeping. Contested rolls are bad for the game imo, and contested rolls but only on round two and beyond are the worst of both worlds.
This is just the analysis I was looking for Mike. I am a story-driven DM and I usually have a rules lawyer at the table I can lean on to provide input for my adjudications but having a firm grasp on the rules-mechanic for any system I am running is a must. Your analysis is pointing out those pot holes that I will need to look out for. Thanks for posting this!
I would love to hear your thoughts on a wishlist of what could be done to streamline/fix 5e/2024 rules. I still have almost all the modules and I love running games, but I want to avoid some of the boggier rules issues that slow down play. What do you recommend just throwing out, like temporary hit points?
That jarring disconnect in the Dragonlance art jumped out at me too.