D&D 5E Player's Handbook Official Errata

DaveDash · Jun 10, 2015

Ouch. Our Sorcerer player isn't going to like the errata on twinned.

I'm quite surprised contagion didn't get errata.

Remathilis · Jun 10, 2015

Interesting.

Some of these appear common sense (1/day = long rest), but some (the ammo property, unarmed strikes) are bigger. None seem on the level of 4e level errata (no re-writes, sorry GWM/SS, beastmaster, or Concentration haters) but solid stuff.

This is the level of errata I can handle.

Leatherhead · Jun 10, 2015

I get the feeling they should have defined what a free hand is, the concept seems to come up often enough.

Also, they nerfed the Sling.

EzekielRaiden · Jun 10, 2015

Remathilis said:
Interesting.

Some of these appear common sense (1/day = long rest), but some (the ammo property, unarmed strikes) are bigger. None seem on the level of 4e level errata (no re-writes, sorry GWM/SS, beastmaster, or Concentration haters) but solid stuff.

This is the level of errata I can handle.

Well...I mean...*other* than the stealth and skill errata for 4e, which I think everyone agrees was major and necessary...was the errata for the 4e PHB all that much more substantial than this less than a year after publication? It sounds a lot more like you're comparing the mid- to late-cycle errata (which was for far, far more books) of 4e to the just-barely-started-cycle errata of 5e, which will never be a fair comparison.

My only real thought now is, "So much for having no errata," which is something I got told, vehemently, numerous times about 5e.

Kinneus · Jun 10, 2015

Looks like a major nerf to Sorcerers and Evokers, as well as to Scorching Ray specifically (previously THE damage spell to take).

I guess they don't like magic-users blasting stuff, huh?

My only real thought now is, "So much for having no errata," which is something I got told, vehemently, numerous times about 5e.

Yeah, I have to admit I'm disappointed to see any errata at all. I was a 4e fanboy but that always irked me. Still, I suppose this was inevitable.

Remathilis · Jun 10, 2015

EzekielRaiden said:
Well...I mean...*other* than the stealth and skill errata for 4e, which I think everyone agrees was major and necessary...was the errata for the 4e PHB all that much more substantial than this less than a year after publication? It sounds a lot more like you're comparing the mid- to late-cycle errata (which was for far, far more books) of 4e to the just-barely-started-cycle errata of 5e, which will never be a fair comparison.

My only real thought now is, "So much for having no errata," which is something I got told, vehemently, numerous times about 5e.

I was just referring the 4e (and late 3e) level of "replace X power/spell/feat with Y text", which happened to powers like come and get it. Nothing here reaches that level.

They always said it would be a "living ruleset", but I think they meant "we're not re-writing the beastmaster in the second printing of the PHB" version of errata.

Mistwell · Jun 10, 2015

Looks good. I am also surprised nothing on contagion.

steeldragons · Jun 10, 2015

hohoho. Annnnd so it [posting errata] begins.

Time to sit back and watch the blood bath.

Evenglare · Jun 10, 2015

Im pretty happy with this errata. It actually corrects errors and doesn't rewrite the damn game like 4e. I'm good with this. I LOVE 4e, but man I have a binder FULL of errata, it's ridiculous.