Official D&D Errata Updated (Nov 2018)

Monster Manual: http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/Mm-Errata.pdf

DMG: http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm sure I'm not the only one disappointed in the Beast Master changes, I think many of us were expecting something stronger than this:



Continuing the previously-issued command on subsequent rounds would've been a much more compelling choice, it's unclear if that would've been enough to fix the Beast Master but this certainly doesn't feel sufficient.

Yes, obviously.

But they aren't interested in making the beastmaster a compelling subclass. They're more worried somebody will cry "my PHB is no longer good enough" even though the PHB beastmaster is just a waste of space.

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay, the errata for the true polymorph spell says:

In the “Creature into Object” subsection (p. 284), the following text is appended to the first sentence: “, as long as the object’s size is no larger than the creature’s size.

That's already in the sentence, but the sentence (in the first printing) also continues to state "and the creature’s challenge rating is 9 or lower."

So, is this extraneous or are they saying to get rid of the bit about CR 9?

Maybe you're getting "Creature into Object" and "Object into Creature" mixed up?

(The bit about CR 9 applies to the latter. The errata is about the former.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Actually, it looks like we both mis-rememebered it:

"What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form? The druid turns to dust, since the spell disintegrates you the instant you drop to 0 hit points."

Though then it goes on to:

"That’s the literal interpretation of the rules (RAW). In contrast, the intent (RAI) is that a druid isn’t considered to be at 0 hit points for the purposes of an effect like disintegrate until the druid’s normal form is reduced to 0 hit points."

However, the half-orc Sage Advice also supports 0 is gone:

"If the damage from disintegrate reduces a half-orc to 0 hit points, can Relentless Endurance prevent the orc from turning to ash? If disintegrate reduces you to 0 hit points, you’re killed outright, as you turn to dust. If you’re a half-orc, Relentless Endurance can’t save you."

So the RAW is in line between Errata and Sage Advice - just that Sage Advice says you may want to ignore the RAW.

Isn't the obvious solution to deprecate Sage Advice given before a particular set of errata?

 

[CapnZapp]

Probably. i had a player who during a high level test played a sorcerer paladin multiclass that really took advantage of that combo.

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

They think they made Contagion better. How cute. They actually made it much worse because everything in the MM and their mother is immune to the poisoned condition.

I think the intent was to make it clearer - they seem to have succeeded.

As for immunity - that would cover the temporary filler condition but it would seem the long term effect can still happen. So a poisoned immunity only means you get no effects until three saves down - which iirc was one of the basic interpretations before the 2018 errata.

So, not weaker.

I think the unclarity has been removed. It is now clear that their spiel "only corrections no changes" is bollocks.

They have clearly added that the spell inflicts a condition where it did not before. Saying "we forgot, this was always intended" is BS five years after release.

As for this spell - it's only hope of every getting used by a player was for the disease to go online right after the first failed save. So it's a write-off that in my opinion needs no further analysis.

 

[Dausuul]

I think the unclarity has been removed. It is now clear that their spiel "only corrections no changes" is bollocks.

They have clearly added that the spell inflicts a condition where it did not before. Saying "we forgot, this was always intended" is BS five years after release.

Agreed. Even though I like this change, I hate the precedent they're setting here. I can see the contagion change being a significant issue at tables where people don't follow this stuff on a regular basis; what happens when a new player shows up with an updated PHB and wants to use contagion?

As for this spell - it's only hope of every getting used by a player was for the disease to go online right after the first failed save. So it's a write-off that in my opinion needs no further analysis.

On this one, I disagree. The spell is now an effective weapon to debuff a legendary foe. Poisoned is a fairly nasty condition (disadvantage on all attack rolls), and if you hit with a melee spell attack, you can now impose that condition for a guaranteed 3 rounds even if the target has Legendary Resistance. You can't do it to creatures that are immune to poison, but a lot of those creatures (e.g., undead) were immune to contagion anyway.

 

[Blue]

Isn't the obvious solution to deprecate Sage Advice given before a particular set of errata?

99% of the sage advice will still be applicable, mostly in things that aren't touched.

The issue is down the road when there are conflicts and it's not sure which came first and which superseded it.

But in this case, it turns out the new Errata and the RAW description for druid are in sync, just we had both remembered the RAI portion.

 

[Azzy]

Maybe you're getting "Creature into Object" and "Object into Creature" mixed up?

(The bit about CR 9 applies to the latter. The errata is about the former.)

Yup, I did in my first pass.

 

[5ekyu]

Agreed. Even though I like this change, I hate the precedent they're setting here. I can see the contagion change being a significant issue at tables where people don't follow this stuff on a regular basis; what happens when a new player shows up with an updated PHB and wants to use contagion?


On this one, I disagree. The spell is now an effective weapon to debuff a legendary foe. Poisoned is a fairly nasty condition (disadvantage on all attack rolls), and if you hit with a melee spell attack, you can now impose that condition for a guaranteed 3 rounds even if the target has Legendary Resistance. You can't do it to creatures that are immune to poison, but a lot of those creatures (e.g., undead) were immune to contagion anyway.

Exactly - a pretty automatic if not immune disadvantage until three saves are made - with the possibility of mucking with save after save if you have multiple "muck with saves" abilities seems to be far from useless.

personally, if i had my druthers - this would be the baseline mechanic for many spells - a serious effect that lasts until three saves race either way turns you loose or whammies you - polymorph-restrained for instance. Not a fan at all of one die roll KO without reasonable countermeasures myself..

 

[Asgorath]

Because it is superior in other ways, compared to a Warlock's chained companion or Wizard's familiar.

And I don't think the game should satisfy everyone.

The real issue is that everyone looks at the Beastmaster and think of what it "should" be (a character with a combat pet) instead of looking at what it actually is (a character with an exploration pet who also has some limited combat support capabilities), and just try to play along with that, or play something else.

And more generally, a true "combat pet class" is both detrimental and unnecessary. Detrimental because the players apparently just won't accept to have about the same combat powers as other characters, they always pretend that Ranger + Pet must be more than one character, because hey they are two! But it is also unnecessary, because as a DM if you really want to be two characters, I'll just let you do that and have a pet tiger that works as an NPC, end of the story.

...

Once again, this is a concern only if you insist in wanting the pet to be a combat character on par with the rest of the PC, and that's not acceptable from a balance POV and it is unfair to other players.

You have at least two options:

- use the pet for exploration, and for only some limited combat support (e.g. protecting a weaker party member by threatening with OA, providing flanking or distractions)

- use the pet as a meatshield, accept it gets killed off often, and summon another each time (may be more suitable for an evil Ranger, but why not?)

If you really want a pet that is long-term, fully capable, and as important as a PC, get it as an NPC. Pay for it with some roleplay and by negotiating permission with your DM.

A Pact of the Chain Warlock's Familiar is vastly superior as an exploration companion, as you can have invisible creatures that you can communicate with telepathically. How is a Beast Master's companion anywhere close to this useful? One might argue that an invisible familiar providing the Help action every round (similar to a Wizard's Owl familiar) is a better combat support option as well. Also, when either of those Familiars die, you just spend 10g and summon another one with basically no consequences.

Any character can do what you suggest in your last line, so again, we're circling back to why would anyone ever play a Beast Master Ranger in its current form? I just don't see how the Beast Master's companion is better at any of the things you listed above, especially when one of the options on the table is just "get an NPC who just happens to be a beast and have it act as a full party member". If the Beast Master's companion isn't supposed to be used in combat, why are essentially all its special abilities related to combat?