"Fan Errata": a Proposal to Rewrite Some of Poorly Worded Rules of 5e

[Willie the Duck]

People in a RAW-focused mindset will fight no matter what the wording is. I've seen fights over crystal clear wording. And crystal clear wording for complex subjects tends to be even more annoying to read for those who aren't in that mindset (ie most people). So you can remove a tiny fraction of the arguments (which don't really matter because they happen mostly on forums, not in play) at the cost of making the rules more of a slog for everyone.

Clearly the designers had making the game accessible to newcomers as a higher priority than airtight, completely inarguable, unambiguous text. It was a move which has rewarded them with a very successful edition, and most groups have managed to find a way through any issues. That said, there are some places where the could have been clearer, or at least explained their goals.

Still, you are absolutely correct that there is no such thing as a ruleset so exacting that people indoctrinated into the RAW mindset will not have problems with (and honestly, if there were, it would probably be terrible as an actual game).

Honestly, if the designers/wotc employees would take a few questions every once in a while and produce detailed decision explaining their reasoning on the matter, that would be great.

And by detailed decision I mean not fire off on Nerull-damned twitter.

Or if they went the complete opposite route and made blanket statements staying consistent to the rulings-over-rules and natural-language focus of the edition. Either would be preferable to the status quo. But yes, just tell us what you had in mind, what your concerns are, and where you think the game is best served by going, and people would probably bend over backwards to propose errata-worthy wording to accomplish that goal.