D&D 5E 5e rules that you want errata for

Tony Vargas · May 21, 2015

doctorhook said:
"Errata" is a weird term in the D&D community these days,

Just as 4e weirdly evaded the term by calling its errata 'updates,' 5e evades the need for Errata by presenting it's rules as mere suggestions for the DM. Errata fixes rules that are broken, unclear, or otherwise screwed up - suggestions are just suggestions, if they don't work for you (because they'd be broken, unclear, or otherwise screwed up if interpreted as rules), just don't use them.

Issuing 'errata' for something so fluid as 5e would be almost counterproductive. Anyone using a 'rule' they find a problem with would just fix it, themselves - and fix it in a way that's best for them and their group. All issuing an errata against the same rule would do is tell everyone who fixed it in a different way that they were somehow 'wrong' to do so.

That wouldn't be in the spirit of 5e, at all.

Not that we shouldn't discuss which rules are worth fixing, just that we should go ahead and fix them, too.

CapnZapp · May 21, 2015

MonkeezOnFire said:
I think overall that 5e is a great edition and there isn't much I'd change about it but there was one thing that caused an argument and some hurt feelings at the table. That thing was a vampire's charm.

RAW a saving throw against a vampire's charm is only allowed during the initial cast and "Each time the vampire or the vampire's companions do anything harmful to the target..." It was near the end of the encounter and the vampire was the last enemy in the room. I had the vampire charm the fighter since he pumps out a bunch of damage. The fighter, lacking a great wisdom save, fails. On his turn the fighter can't attack the vampire as he's charmed and since nothing else is around he doesn't really have anything to do. He doesn't even get a save since the timing is only when something happens to make him hostile towards his vampire friend.

He fails another saving throw when the vampire bites him. After that the vampire got pushed away and I had the vampire focus on the other melee combatants that had surrounded it. This left the fighter in an awkward position. Unable to attack the big baddie left in the room and unable to save from the effect. At this point I could tell the player was being frustrated so when his turn rolled around I decided to let him have a saving throw. One of the other players chides in that this is against the rules and shouldn't be allowed. Before I can make my ruling the fighter player leaves the skype call in frustration.

TL;DR: I learned the hard way that mind affecting things suck the fun right out of the game for players. The vampire's charm should at least allow a saving throw every turn for the victim like most things do.

A vampire is an iconic opponent. Your players need to fear vampires, which they will do from now on.

CapnZapp · May 21, 2015

doctorhook said:
My apologies, Cap, but I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. You said that wild mage DM dependency isn't a problem, but then you seem to suggest that DMs need to give wild mages lots of surges, which seems like a contradiction. Could you clarify what you meant?

Solid point; I don't want to say 5E is missing anything, but some classes feel like there are gaps in they breadth of abilities they have access to (Warlock and elemental Monk, I'm looking at you, but there are others). Some of that would be fixed with more spells, some would be fixed with better spell lists. I would sorta like a more comprehensive "top-down assessment" of 5E spells to make sure bases are adequately covered.

Alrighty then,

There are, to my mind, two components to this:
a) the basic fact itself you need DM approval to play the subclass. This I feel is adequately communicated. I also feel it is fully warranted, because I see how the whacky surges don't fit all campaigns.

This was the complaint, and so I disagree. But:

b) if the DM do approve of the subclass, how then to handle it? Here I feel the PHB completely fails the budding wild mage player. A casual reading of the text fails to convey the crucial information that getting advantage IS the subclass. It's almost all the wild mage gets. There needs to be surges all over the place!

None of this is adequately communicated, I say. And there are loads of posts where DMs consider granting a surge once in a while, or a few surges a day.

From this I conclude the rules have failed to make a crucial point clear: if you the DM allow wild mages, you should prepare for lots of surges, or you're gimping that subclass choice.
If you the player want to play a wild mage, not only do you need to talk to the DM about surges, you need to satisfy yourself he or she will let your character go the extra mile and spam surges left and right.

If your sorcerer has 20 spell slots at a certain level, you can get advantage 21 times that day.

That's a lot of surges*. Much more than the rules prepare the reader for!

*) and it doesn't even include spell points...

Hope that explains why I said two things

Li Shenron · May 21, 2015

Tony Vargas said:
Errata fixes rules that are broken, unclear, or otherwise screwed up

What [MENTION=58401]doctorhook[/MENTION] probably means is that this ^ is a wrong definition of errata, but it's a widespread mistake among gamers due to ignorance of the meaning of the term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum

It's been said ad nauseam, but "errata" are mistakes in the rules text, not in the rules. Originally, "errata" are not even the corrections but only the mistakes (that's exactly what the word means), while the corrections are called "corrige". So the "errata sheets" used to bear the text "errata corrige" to mean a list of mistakes and their correction. But after a long time, the bad habit of calling both the mistakes and the correction "errata" just because too widespread to stop.

Still, design changes are not "errata", they are "revisions". They (or their corrige) don't fix broken rules, they only fix the TEXT if the printed version doesn't match the rule-as-designed.

Of course nobody gives a bat guano, ignorance is bliss... But the misunderstanding can generate some disappointment e.g. if a publisher (correctly) announces to incorporate errata (or rather properly its corrige) in a reprint, and some gamers expect design changes instead, which is clearly what this thread is about.

---

And by the way back to the topic, I would of course want all errata to become corrige already in the next print, although I've heard that 5e has very few compared to previous editions.

Separately, as for revisions or design changes, I hope they do zero even if there's a bunch of things I believe should have been different, because every revision complicates gaming if some people have different books at the table. But if I could name one thing that I wish was different, it's Guidance at will.

MonkeezOnFire · May 21, 2015

Quickleaf said:
Not a problem per say, but an omission: Trap the Soul spell in the PHB.

I believe the explanation for this was that trap the soul and other similar spells were combined into the different options of the imprisonment spell. Trap the soul was just never removed from the wizard spell list to reflect the change. There's a similar error on the paladin spell list where destructive smite was changed to destructive wave.

I think clarifying mistakes like these is the only official errata we will need. 5e encourages changing the game to fit your own playstyle already and I feel like putting out official changes to mechanics undermines that notion a bit.

Werebat · May 21, 2015

I think they need to errata halfling art.

Mouseferatu · May 21, 2015

And too much of any of these kinds of changes only leads to errata asphyxiation.

Mishihari Lord · May 21, 2015

MonkeezOnFire said:
...

He fails another saving throw when the vampire bites him. After that the vampire got pushed away and I had the vampire focus on the other melee combatants that had surrounded it. This left the fighter in an awkward position. Unable to attack the big baddie left in the room and unable to save from the effect. At this point I could tell the player was being frustrated so when his turn rolled around I decided to let him have a saving throw. One of the other players chides in that this is against the rules and shouldn't be allowed. Before I can make my ruling the fighter player leaves the skype call in frustration.

...

Just for clarification, how long was the fighter out of the fight, in rounds and real time? On first read your post sounds like it was just a single round.

MonkeezOnFire · May 21, 2015

Mishihari Lord said:
Just for clarification, how long was the fighter out of the fight, in rounds and real time? On first read your post sounds like it was just a single round.

He missed about 4 rounds if I recall correctly. This happened some time ago so some of the details are a bit fuzzy to me. This was also pretty late into the session. The players' alertness was down and turns started taking a bit longer.

I just don't like how the charm only gives a saving throw when a specific situation comes up. What if the vampire charms someone and then proceeds to attack other party members exclusively? That person can no longer contribute meaningfully to the fight.

DEFCON 1 · May 21, 2015

Mouseferatu said:
And too much of any of these kinds of changes only leads to errata asphyxiation.

You might say that after a point it gets kind of erratac.

D&D 5E 5e rules that you want errata for

Tony Vargas

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

Li Shenron

Legend

MonkeezOnFire

Adventurer

Werebat

Explorer

Mouseferatu

Hero

Mishihari Lord

First Post

MonkeezOnFire

Adventurer

DEFCON 1

Legend

Similar Threads