D&D 5E Player's Handbook Official Errata

Jefe Bergenstein · Jun 11, 2015

procproc said:
It sounds like you only have experience with the 3.x flavor of clerics. In 1e AD&D (and 2e, until they made specialty priests and Skills & Powers) NO ONE wanted to play a cleric. They were essentially relegated to party support and healing. DaveDash's analogy is apt.

That was one way to play them. Or you could play a multiclassed fighter/cleric, which, thanks to 1st/2nd edition's utterly broken multiclassed rules, put you at most a whopping 1 level behind the single classed chump fighter, and with much better saves.

Beat on the bad guys during the fight and heal up afterwards. You got hold person at 3rd level (and odds are 3 of them thanks to bonus spells), which was effectively a save or die. Same with heat metal (which had no save).

spinozajack · Jun 11, 2015

Starting to agree that Feats might need to be turned off entirely to keep 5th ed playable long term, given their inability / unwillingness to deal with their arguably excessive effect on the game. Greatswords aren't meant to be lightsabers. +10 to damage on each hit is really excessive already. By 5th level my current character will be applying it up to 3-4 times per round. Combats are already pretty short, we don't need them to be over in two rounds.

FormerlyHemlock · Jun 11, 2015

Coredump said:
Sorry you feel the Sorc is underpowered. But it hasn't changed, it was always at that power level.

I don't think the Sorcerer has changed as much as some people think. The new wording for Elemental Affinity is the same as Empowered Evocation, but Crawford has been explicit in the past that each Magic Missile is intended to benefit from Empowered Evocation.

New wording: "Empowered Evocation (p. 117). The damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls". I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but check this out:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/557820938402947072

JeremyECrawford said:
@BrailSays Empowered Evocation does benefit magic missile's damage roll.

BrailSays said:
@JeremyECrawford +x per bolt,even on same target?

JeremyECrawford said:
@BrailSays Yep. It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once.

If we use Jeremy's twitter response as a guide to interpreting the errata (sigh), then Magic Missile and Scorching Ray only roll 2d6 once (+CHA/INT), and then you apply that to the target X number of times. It benefits "only one damage roll" so it's not (1d6+CHA)+(1d6+CHA), it's just 2d6+CHA times 3/5/7/whatever. So Magic Missile/Scorching Ray will have a very high variance.

Anyway, the only Sorcerer "nerf" I see in this errata is therefore the Twinning thing, which was controversial anyway. Evokers are actually hurt much more because Overchannel has been clarified to not work at all on cantrips.

Coredump · Jun 11, 2015

Delandel said:
Oh, I can do that easily:

"When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self..."

I cast Scorching Ray targeting Bob. Bob is only one creature, and Scorching Ray doesn't have a range of self. Therefore, I qualify for the prerequisites.
.

And you have proven that you misunderstand the written rule.

"targets only one creature" is a requirement of the *spell* selected, not just that particular casting of the spell.

The rule has always been the same, many people interpreted it correctly, you interpreted it incorrectly. The Errata makes it so that everyone interprets it correctly.

FormerlyHemlock · Jun 11, 2015

procproc said:
It sounds like you only have experience with the 3.x flavor of clerics. In 1e AD&D (and 2e, until they made specialty priests and Skills & Powers) NO ONE wanted to play a cleric. They were essentially relegated to party support and healing. DaveDash's analogy is apt.

That isn't true[1]. AD&D2 clerics post-Tome of Magic were pretty awesome. Mental Domination is one of my favorite spells, and the Mathematics sphere is just plain cool. I also like the one (Spacewarp?) that lets you create a wormhole. Unlike Teleport, which can go wrong spatially, that spell can go wrong in the time dimension.

Also, multiclassed cleric/wizards (Priests of Isis with access to all spheres and magic resistance of 5% per level!) were insanely good.

[1] Edit: unless you're pointing out that Legends and Lore was published before the Tome of Magic? If so, I apologize for misunderstanding your point. My point is that standard clerics are fantastic if you allow Tome of Magic spells in the game, since they have access to almost all spheres.

Coredump · Jun 11, 2015

evilbob said:
Sorry Mistwell, I know you've been around here forever but I have to agree that this was more ambiguous than you're claiming. I think "as long as it only targeted one creature" was a completely valid way to interpret that sentence - thus the ruling to take away that interpretation. (Whether or not someone can rightfully claim it as a "nerf" is still subject to debate.)

Of course it was ambiguous.... that is exactly why it needed errata. The point is the rule has always been the same, it was just written in a way that lead to misunderstandings.

Delandel · Jun 11, 2015

Coredump said:
And you have proven that you misunderstand the written rule.

"targets only one creature" is a requirement of the *spell* selected, not just that particular casting of the spell.

The rule has always been the same, many people interpreted it correctly, you interpreted it incorrectly. The Errata makes it so that everyone interprets it correctly.

And you have proven the same faulty logic. Nowhere in the book does it support your interpretation.

Scorching Ray says "you can hurl them [the rays] at one target or several." If I'm hurling them at one target, then I'm targeting only one creature.

If having the OPTION to target several disqualifies it by your logic, then having the OPTION to target objects with Fire Bolt or Disintegrate disqualifies them too. "targets only one creature." You don't get to choose which word in a sentence uses your logic and which doesn't.

The Errata is a change in RAW to be in line with Crawford's apparent intent of the metamagic. "That's how it always is and you're just wrong" is laughable. Anyone who plays Magic: The Gathering can back me up, we've been drilled into how to read these lines.

FormerlyHemlock · Jun 11, 2015

Delandel said:
The Errata is a change in RAW to be in line with Crawford's apparent intent of the metamagic. "That's how it always is and you're just wrong" is laughable. Anyone who plays Magic: The Gathering can back me up, we've been drilled into how to read these lines.

Changing RAW to match RAI is sort of the point of errata... as the Vision rule changes illustrate.

Delandel · Jun 11, 2015

Hemlock said:
Changing RAW to match RAI is sort of the point of errata... as the Vision rule changes illustrate.

No argument here. I'm refuting Coredump's claim that the previous RAW had always agreed with this RAI and that the errata isn't changing anything.

EDIT: Of course, I majorly dislike this new RAW, for the reasons I described a couple post back.

DaveDash · Jun 11, 2015

Delandel said:
No argument here. I'm refuting Coredump's claim that the previous RAW had always agreed with this RAI and that the errata isn't changing anything.

EDIT: Of course, I majorly dislike this new RAW, for the reasons I described a couple post back.

Yet things like Contagion were given a free pass.

Makes you wonder how much thought and discussion really went into this errata.

The ruling itself isn't bothersome since we will just ignore it. I'm far more disturbed at the thought process at WoTC. Their high level approach is good, but their execution on this errata is very poor, and doesn't give me confidence in them. Not to mention the Sorcerer thing seems to fly in the face of rulings not rules, and the whole "We're only going to errata things that cause arguments at the table".
The game is now worse off than before, as the hugely popular glass cannon blasty mage archtype has been reduced to a buff bot.

Meanwhile you can still cheese the game with stunlock contagion, summoning pixies, etc

D&D 5E Player's Handbook Official Errata

Jefe Bergenstein

Legend

spinozajack

Banned

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

Coredump

Explorer

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

Coredump

Explorer

Delandel

First Post

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

Delandel

First Post

DaveDash

Explorer

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Voidrunner's Codex