It still baffles me that the 2014 5e Dungeons & Dragons system managed to sell the idea of “rulings, not rules” as a feature for Dungeon Masters and players, instead of obviously lazy design, but 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 an “old school” gaming sentiment that prioritized DM judgments over the system providing clearly laid out rules. By avoiding some of the legalistic “keyword-driven” language of 3e and 4e DnD, new players and DMs found 5e approachable.

Keyword based systems typically define keywords, then refer back to those, while "naturalistic" systems use common language interpretations of words. The 5e DnD designed bizarrely mixed both in 2014, and continues to do so in 2024.

Many will point out how 5e was a massive commercial success, as 2020 was DnD’s best year financially, and it has reached such milestones multiple times since the edition’s release. The perfect storm of factors contributing to the game’s growth, like Critical Role and Stranger Things, have been analyzed ad nauseam. A bigger question is how much 5e really did to add to that success. Having approachable, conversational language certainly made it feel welcoming to new players, but for new DMs, it’s hard to see the edition as anything but a problem, one the 2024 rules haven’t 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, like whether Pathfinder 2e is easier than DnD 5e to learn, there are some caveats that I don’t see addressed typically. To take a keyword-style approach, there is a distinction between “learn,” “play,” and “run.” Most people define “learning” a tabletop RPG as reading its rules and walking away with a feeling of general understanding of those rules. “Play” is actually using those rules as a player, and “run” is using those rules as a Game Master. A legalistic, keyword-based system like Pathfinder 2e is certainly harder to “learn,” but easier to “play” and “run.”

The truth is, nearly every DM will alter rules they do not like or home brew rules when they fit their campaign. Having ambiguous rules is never to a DM’s benefit.

A looser conversational system like 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. Its system is harder to “play,” and much harder to “run” than a legalistic “textbook style” system presentation, at least over time. In the past decade of play, numerous groups have had time to feel out those gray areas of 5e DnD. Some of those come from rules interactions that are much less straightforward than the text might lead you to believe, and others intentionally offload game design onto the DM.

While DnD 4e had a complicated reputation, its rules were the simplest in actual play of any edition of the game, but they required 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 (pre-Advanced DnD) and 5e DnD are neck and neck for the simplest rules the game has ever had, but that simplicity to “learn” them does not make them simple to “run” or “play.” 5e’s “rulings, 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 Making Rulings On Core Rules Offloads Designer Responsibility

I have been a DM far more than I have been a player during the course of this edition, and I can confirm the rules created countless headaches. The truth is, nearly every DM will alter rules they do not like or home brew rules when they fit their campaign. Having ambiguous rules is never to a DM’s benefit. I certainly recall how editions from 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 wear metal armor, or exactly which items do and do not work while in Wild Shape, illustrate the 5e design paradigm. The text on armor simply stated that “druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal,” but provided no guidance on how that impacts game mechanics if they do so. Sage Advice later confirmed this was simply a holdover from legacy Druid “flavor” and had no impact. This was removed from the 2024 PHB, but Wild Shape remains nebulous as ever, as DMs still determine which items work with animals.

I would much rather slog through dense rules that clearly define interactions with other rules and provide explicit examples, knowing I won’t be wasting the valuable time my players and I dedicate to simply enjoy playing the game.

2024 Wild Shape includes, “the DM decides whether it’s 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 “rulings, not rules,” and how this philosophy is terrible for DnD. If the rules provided official guidance for what items, specifically, worked with various nonstandard body types, like quadrupeds or snakes, a DM might still disagree, and house rule it otherwise. By not providing any rules at all, the DM is forced to create house rules for each form and maintain some consistency across all such decisions.

The 2024 Player's Handbook Is Inconsistent

Some Rules Seem To Clarify 5e D&D Ambiguities, Others Remain Vague As Ever

Clearly, the 2024 DnD rules did not fix the edition, but they show a strange inconsistency about whether that was 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 is 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 acknowledgment that vague rules are a bug, not a feature.

For the world’s most high profile and profitable tabletop RPG, which had years of playtesting for its 2024 revision, to have this much ambiguity is mind-boggling to me.

Other areas of the 2024 PHB entirely conflict with this. The level 2 spell Suggestion is as vague as ever, requiring DM judgment calls, with its guardrails tweaked to be even less specific than they were in 2014. The action economy is as poorly defined as ever, with strange loopholes and abuses added that were not there before. It is still unclear if multiple castings of Death Ward provide a stacking benefit or not, and I am not holding my breath for a clear answer in the 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 has not been for decades. It is a financial investment to buy $150 worth of core books, and a time investment to learn its rules. Gaming groups (rightfully) expect any DnD edition will be in play for several years of gaming, not for a one-off campaign trying an eclectic rule system. There are still dozens of ambiguous spells and rules in the 2024 PHB.

5e D&D's Rules Raised Numerous Questions

2024's Revised Player's Handbook Simply Raises A New Set Of Questions

The designers may have believed they created an easy-to-understand system with little need for official clarification on its gray areas, but ten years of questions for Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford’s X have proven otherwise. For every question that has received an “official answer” there are still two that only have “best guesses” from the community. For the world’s most high profile and profitable tabletop RPG, which had years of playtesting for its 2024 revision, to have this much ambiguity is mind-boggling to me. DMs and players are asking questions on their first read of the 2024 PHB.

Despite Jeremy Crawford's X post where he states that it is obvious that Disintegrate can destroy Force Cage, the 2024 version of Force Cage still does not say this, nor does the 2024 Disintegrate.

The new rules have been playtested since 2022, if not earlier. Given these years of analysis, how could these obvious questions have not come up during the One D&D playtest process, and why don’t we see clear answers in the new PHB? There were so many spells 2024 DnD needed to clarify, and rules that required elaboration, 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.

Overall, I can’t help but be disappointed in a game that is still going to waste valuable session time forcing me to finish doing the designers’ jobs.

A DnD edition like the 2024 5e rules asks me to waste time during game sessions, and that time is far more valuable. I would much rather slog through dense rules that clearly define interactions with other rules and provide explicit examples, knowing I won’t be wasting the valuable time my players and I dedicate to simply enjoy playing the game. I’m entirely comfortable making rules decisions that my players and I feel are fair and keep the game moving. When I’m paying for a 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 Yielded A Less Ambiguous D&D System

There are some big changes to 2024 DnD’s PHB rules, and I am grateful to see at least some rules fleshed out more than their 2014 incarnations, like Tool Proficiencies. Overall, I can’t help but be disappointed in a game that is still going to waste valuable session time forcing me to finish doing the designers’ jobs. Every question a fan has ever raised in the past decade on Sage Advice or a DnD forum could have been addressed within the core rules. Instead, we are left with a different set of ambiguities that Dungeons & Dragons should have avoided.

Source: Dungeons & Dragons/YouTube