If any of those arrows had penetrated, then the specific damage from that arrow would not be susceptible to healing via nap mechanics. Since the creature can take a nap and remove all of the damage, it necessarily means that none of the damage was substantially physical in any way.
Amorphous Hit Points worked significantly better under any ruleset that Gygax would have used, since naps didn't heal anything at all unless you were dealing with a supernatural creature or a superhuman Constitution score, and thus there was room to describe some of those hits as partially physical. Under slow healing, damage can by any combination of meat and fatigue. Under fast healing, damage cannot be meat.
No, I think the point is to make it clear how the class interacts with (for example) the Magic Initiate feat. If you're a wizard, and you take Magic Initiate (Wizard), you can use your wizard slots to cast the 1st-level spell you got from the feat. However, a wizard who takes Magic Initiate (Cleric) can't do the same.With the changes made to spell slots, does this negate the Multiclass Spellcaster chart on pp164-5 in the PHB?
I don't think this errata changes one main reason to multiclass Warlock with other spellcasting classes - that you can recharge your slots on short rests and then use those slots for smiting (Paladin) or sorcery points (Sorcerer).
I think this is only about shutting down the idea that you can multiclass Wizard 5 and Cleric 5 and still pick spells as either a Wizard 10 or a Cleric 10. You can't. You never could.
Did people really think this is how it worked? I never heard of that or had anyone try it. I always just used the chart for total spell slots and then picked spells for each class individually, which leaves you sometimes with a higher level spell slot empty to upcast something.
People have argued that the wording of how clerics select their prepared spells meant that clerics get to pick spells from any level they can cast. I didn't think it's a correct reading, but it was an incorrect reading that multiple people argued for and used, and this errata clears it up completely. Here's a blog that put forth the argument: https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/
So your saying the threads of peeps debting whether it works with shields or just overrides them is just silly? I think it definately could have been written better.It's one of the most straightforward and succinctly written spells. It's just underpowered for non-beast forms. Perfectly good for buffing the AC of a bear though.
So your saying the threads of peeps debting whether it works with shields or just overrides them is just silly? I think it definately could have been written better.