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

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

I use the slow healing and healers kit dependency (which only goes so far, but at least it’s something). However, I think the way I interpret it can still make some sense of actual physical damage and default fast healing.

Basically, you say the character is still physically damaged for as long as makes sense in the fiction (weeks or months without magic), but actual impairment to combat ability only lasts as long as the hit point damage. Kind of like in most action/adventure movies. It gets around all the conceptual issues about meatless damage and such (which I hate).

It’s a bit of a stretch, but works well enough for me to just use the optional rules with it and call it good enough.

 

[pukunui]

Found some instances where the errata needs errata:

1) The Bard's Magical Secrets errata points to page 50, but the text (in my book at least) is on page 54.

2) The original errata for the find steed spell ("Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the steed takes on a form that you choose ...") has (accidentally?) been removed.

 

[ScuroNotte]

With the changes made to spell slots, does this negate the Multiclass Spellcaster chart on pp164-5 in the PHB?

Do you have to track spell slots for each class seaparately?

If this is true, I think they just made it worse overall for multiclassing and, more importantly, for ease of play.

 

[Dausuul]

With the changes made to spell slots, does this negate the Multiclass Spellcaster chart on pp164-5 in the PHB?

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.

The only change to the multiclassing rules is to clarify that cantrips scale by character level.

 

[smbakeresq]

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.



With the Polymorph change the old money making trick of polymorphing a dying body into a more valuable body to be cut up for rare components to sell for profit is officially gone. Times change

 

[Overlord Bread]

Just putting in my two cents about the ranger errata changes at least to beast hunter/ranger in general, I personally as a DM and my group in general have just been using the UA Revised Ranger that they released back in 2016 and I think it fixes a lot of the issues that came with Beast Master ranger. I just wish that they would make it official somehow, because I think it in general fixes a lot issues that people complain about rangers in general tbh. But this all could just be me I don't know

 

[Dessert Nomad]

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/

 

[smbakeresq]

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/

It doesn't matter anymore, but I can see if you force a reading I guess that interpretation is possible. I figured the way it is now was the only reasonable reading if allowing for a little writing inconsistency.

 

[Valetudo]

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.

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

Yes.

Your AC cannot be less than 16.

It is as simple and straightforward as it gets.

It's actually a great example of how, no matter how well written/simple the rule, people are going to be confused and/or twist it around to try to abuse it.