D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

What do people feel need errata in the 5e game? Generally things that are over powered, under powered or just hugely unclear as written. I'd go with:

• Stealth rules -- just too unclear.
• Durable feat -- far too weak (best case, gives you plus 1 average more on a hit die--healer feat is much better other than the +1 CON.)
• Weird (the spell). Too weak compared to fear.
• Agonizing blast: Makes warlocks better at range than archers etc. Especially at levels 11+

My fixes for the all but the first (the first is too hard...)

• Durable: As written (minimum applies to total) but also get +1 hit die and advantage on death saves.
• Weird: It's a 9th level spell. I'd go with "Targets make a wisdom save. If it fails, they take 4d10 psychic damage and are frightened for the duration. If they succeed on that first save, they make another. If that fails, they take 4d10 damage and are frightened until the end of their next turn or the spell otherwise end. Anyone effected by this spell after the end of their turn must make another wisdom save. If they succeed the spell ends for that creature. If they fail they take 4d10 psychic damage."
  Agonizing blast: Damage bonus from CHR is per target not per blast. So if you hit one person with 3 blasts in a single casting, it's only +CHR once.

In any case, what do you feel needs errata and do you have thoughts about how to fix it?

Grapple master feat.
Stealth rules.
Eldritch Blast / Agonizing Blast should be a flat +Cha.
Crossbow Expert - Remove the ability to fire into melee without penalty.
Contagion.
Simulacrums of Simulacrums.
Passive skills wording.
Expertise needs to be looked at, especially combined with grapple/shove.

Those are the things that have caused "Arguments at the table", or otherwise seem to be a bit overboard balance wise.

Oh also. Moon Druid bump to level 3. I have one if these in my group right now, and they're absurdly OP at low levels. Over 100+ effective HP.

Exhaustion needs to be redone. As it stands it's annoying and far easier to heal back from physically crippling injuries than to recover from multiple effects of exhaustion.

Drow, they suck.

Half Orc, too overpowered. Extra damage dice on crit AND dropping to 1 instead of unconscious or dead is overpowered. Combine it with Darkvision ect..and compare it to other races. OVER.....Powered.

brehobit said:

Agonizing blast: Makes warlocks better at range than archers etc. Especially at levels 11+

In any case, what do you feel needs errata and do you have thoughts about how to fix it?

Click to expand...

I don't feel that Agonizing Blast needs a fix. Sharpshooters already out-damage warlocks, especially beyond Hex range (90 feet). Sorlocks are competitive with Sharpshooters due to Quickened Spell, but there's enough investment there that I see that as a choice of specialties, not a problem.

Things that I feel need errata (i.e. RAW probably doesn't match RAI):

* The vision rules are totally bonkers. When shooting at an enemy 600' away, your accuracy improves if you drop a Fog Cloud/Darkness on yourself due to advantage/disadvantage being binary and cancelling out.
PHB 195 should be amended to say, "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it if you can see it." That way, shooting in pitch darkness is inaccurate, not unaffected by light.

* On the same note, PHB 183's rules for darkness say that darkness blinds those within the darkness. That's problematic because it means that creatures lurking within darkness are "effectively blinded" (per PHB 183) while the adventurers around the campfire are not blinded and can see the lurking creatures perfectly. PHB 183 should be rewritten to say "a creature looking though or within a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from blindness with respect to that area." Huddled around a campfire? That means bad guys in the dark can see you, you can't see them.

* Great Old One Warlock's Create Thrall ability needs to be rewritten to give you some kind of control over your thrall. Currently it only gives you telepathy, advantage on Charisma checks and prevents them from attacking you. That's pretty weak for a 14th level ability. As I read it, it's intended to make them your slave, but the text was probably written by someone who didn't fully realize that "charm" has changed in 5E. I know I didn't realize how minimal the effect was until someone pointed it out to me on the Internet! The ability seems intended to be powerful and iconic, but due to RAW it's flaccid and almost irrelevant. The best use for it as written is probably to enthrall another PC so you can communicate with each other over great distances. Suggested fix: add wording to say, "The creature is then is charmed by you and obeys your commands until..."

* Contagion needs clarification on intended onset time.

* Too weak: berserker barbarian's Frenzy. Suggested fix: instead of a bonus action attack, make it a straight-up regular attack like the Haste spell grants. That's not ridiculous for something that costs a level of exhaustion.

Hiya!

I see the "need" part...so I guess that means it "in my opinion"? Because otherwise I think the word errata needs the quotes.

Example: (1a) "You get +2 when doing X" <----> (1b) "When doing X, you get +1". That is in need of errata. Both statements are attributing specific, and different, values for X.

Example: (2a) "You get a bonus when doing X" <----> (2b) "When doing X, you usually get a bonus". That is not in need of errata. Both give the same rough idea...a bonus for doing something...usually. What that bonus is, and exactly what X covers is up for individual interpretation and DM judgement.

So...with all the things you listed...I'd have to say... NONE of it "needs" errata.

The only thing I think I'd add in as errata if/when they do a 2nd printing of the books is add something with it's own heading, in the first few pages (in the Introduction, I'd guess) of the PHB and DMG that basically says "Yeah, some things in these rules you may think are vague or incomplete. It's supposed to be that way. The rules are open enough that we wanted to encourage each individual DM to decide exactly how his game will run. This lets everyone run their games their own way....from high-fantasy super-heroic, down to street-level, gritty death-comes-easy, games. When we use a word like 'hidden', we mean it in the English language meaning first, and game-rules mechanics second."

...or at least something along those lines.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Weird and phantasmal killer should be scrapped and instead phantasmal force should be given scaling with spell slots.

emdw45 said:

I don't feel that Agonizing Blast needs a fix. Sharpshooters already out-damage warlocks, especially beyond Hex range (90 feet). Sorlocks are competitive with Sharpshooters due to Quickened Spell, but there's enough investment there that I see that as a choice of specialties, not a problem.

Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not certain that range over 90' comes up all that often in most games. But yes, the warlock is doing about the same damage as the martial warriors that are specialized in range combat.

At level 11 a warlock will be doing 3d10+3d6+15 damage (36 points). A fighter with 3 attacks will be doing 3d8+15 or 28.5 damage. If he takes the -5/+10 option and that makes one of the attacks miss, that's 39 damage. Pretty comparable. And I think the fighter is the best ranged attacker. A ranger is looking at 4d8+2d6+10 (35).

* Contagion needs clarification on intended onset time.

* Too weak: berserker barbarian's Frenzy. Suggested fix: instead of a bonus action attack, make it a straight-up regular attack like the Haste spell grants. That's not ridiculous for something that costs a level of exhaustion.

Click to expand...

Agreed on both of these.

GameOgre said:

Exhaustion needs to be redone. As it stands it's annoying and far easier to heal back from physically crippling injuries than to recover from multiple effects of exhaustion.

Click to expand...

It is really rough. Much more than damage which is weird. I think I'd prefer damage take longer to recover from, but I get the "don't need a healer" thing they are shooting for and I rather like it.

Half Orc, too overpowered. Extra damage dice on crit AND dropping to 1 instead of unconscious or dead is overpowered. Combine it with Darkvision ect..and compare it to other races. OVER.....Powered.

Click to expand...

I've seen this argument, but I feel the alt. human is stronger most of the time. Even for fighter types, things like pole arm masterly or sentinel are just huge for them.

brehobit said:

First of all, I'm not certain that range over 90' comes up all that often in most games. But yes, the warlock is doing about the same damage as the martial warriors that are specialized in range combat.

At level 11 a warlock will be doing 3d10+3d6+15 damage (36 points). A fighter with 3 attacks will be doing 3d8+15 or 28.5 damage. If he takes the -5/+10 option and that makes one of the attacks miss, that's 39 damage. Pretty comparable. And I think the fighter is the best ranged attacker. A ranger is looking at 4d8+2d6+10 (35).



Agreed on both of these.

Click to expand...

Which is a problem because the Warlock is versatile in the exploration and social pillar of the game, and the fighter is not. The warlock should not be doing comparable damage.

Also it gets worse if you're a BladeLock and take Warcaster + Polearm master.

I'm going to be that guy who hops on the thread and points out that errata is really for typos, misspellings, and blatant errors (like contradictory statements, or the same thing being defined differently in multiple places). Errata is not really meant for actual content changes, and I'd rather those be delivered in some other fashion and not called "errata." Errata is for mistakes in the 1st printing that you fix in the 2nd printing and nobody notices precisely because they don't affect the content.

...Now, to the question of "which rules need fixing for me to play D&D," the answer is, well none, really. I'm looking at my two-page house-rules document and almost everything on there reflects my personal preferences, rather than "problems" that need "fixing."

One glaring exception is the Ready an Action rules, which I find really finicky and confusing for the average player -- while I appreciate the elegance of "Readying converts an Action into a Reaction," most players don't think in those terms. They think in terms of "I want to take my turn later" or "I want to interrupt that guy's action," neither of which can be done with Ready. And I don't think this is a legacy mindset from previous editions, because I'm mostly talking about players for whom 5e is their first real RPG. So if I could rewrite one half-column in the PHB, it would be the one on Ready an Action (possibly split it into Ready and Delay, like in 3e). All that said, when I am a player in Adventurer's League games and we play it straight, the Ready rules work just fine (they just don't do quite what I want them to), so I'm not sure they "need" errata.