Official D&D Errata Updated (Nov 2018)

flametitan said:

It might also have to do with Magic Initiate, as the previous Sage Advice rule for that was that it'd technically add that spell to your spells known if you were of the appropriate class. I'd have to read into it more carefully, but that might also play into it.

Click to expand...

I prefer that version. It isn't really overpowered.

ad_hoc said:

Does this really need to be stated over and over again after every sentence?

If some people don't want to play as a Beastmaster there are a lot of other options.

This is like the people who don't like that the Warlock has fewer more powerful spell slots than the Wizard. They complain because they want the Warlock to be like the Wizard. Just play a Wizard if you like the Wizard.

And if someone wants an overpowered class or subclass they are free to just make one up and play with that.

Click to expand...

That's just ridiculous. There is exactly one "pet class" in the game, so if that's what you want to run you have no other options. Furthermore, if you can't acknowledge that it is a problem for this subclass to have either the Beastmaster or the pet be, in essence, a spectator for the other, then you're not making an argument in good faith here. People generally don't want to play a pet class just to have a mount, although that's certainly a viable way to play the beastmaster. Most people who choose the Beastmaster archetype do so because they want their character and their pet to fight alongside one another. If the archetype can't accommodate that, then it needs fixing.

epithet said:

That's just ridiculous. There is exactly one "pet class" in the game, so if that's what you want to run you have no other options. Furthermore, if you can't acknowledge that it is a problem for this subclass to have either the Beastmaster or the pet be, in essence, a spectator for the other, then you're not making an argument in good faith here. People generally don't want to play a pet class just to have a mount, although that's certainly a viable way to play the beastmaster. Most people who choose the Beastmaster archetype do so because they want their character and their pet to fight alongside one another. If the archetype can't accommodate that, then it needs fixing.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling that this thread is getting coopted by the the Beastmasters Are Fine™/Beastmaster Suck™ warriors like so many other threads. Maybe you lot can resolve you issue and come to an agreement this time /s

RIP this thread.

Parmandur said:

No, the bit in question specifies that the bonus against Fiends et al is on top of the existing damage up to 6d8.

Click to expand...

Ah OK. Thanks. I didn't have my book in front of me.

Saelorn said:

Edit: And it looks like you can now punch the Tarrasque to death, since it's only immune to damage from nonmagical weapons, and unarmed strikes are no longer classified as weapons.

Click to expand...

Huh? The tarrasque should be covered by the global damage resistances/immunities errata.

Parmandur said:

I notice that every Class now gets their spells specified as "[Class X] spells"rather than just spells. Is this is some sort of anti-cheese maneuver by the devs?

Click to expand...

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

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.

Gladius Legis said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

5ekyu said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your point might be valid if the second paragraph of the errata didn't say this:

"At the end of each of the poisoned target’s turns, the target must make a Constitution saving throw"

That would imply that the target would need to be poisoned by this spell for the disease part from three fails to take effect. Poisoned immunity = no effect.

UngeheuerLich said:

Now the trident is even worse compared to the spear...

Click to expand...

They need to do second pass on weapons. The list presented has a lot of problems, and the rules clarifications and errata that have pilled up over the years has only added to them.

Parmandur said:

I notice that every Class now gets their spells specified as "[Class X] spells"rather than just spells. Is this is some sort of anti-cheese maneuver by the devs?

Click to expand...

I wish they hadn't. I'm not sure, but I think this makes multi-classing between casters more complex and annoying. I get that they want to avoid "cheese", but IMO they go a bit too far with this one.

flametitan said:

I've seen some people willfully misinterpret the way multiclassing works in order to prepare spells they shouldn't (usually via ignoring the big rule where you treat spells known and preparation as if you were only a single member of that class). This is just to help shut those people up.

Click to expand...

I don't think it only does that, though. I'll have to dig into it more after the weekend, bc it's gonna be a busy one, though.

Asgorath said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's...better than nothing, but the beast is still simply inferior except for HP totals at higher levels than a non-subclass granted beast you've simply trained to fight with you. I'm not sure the BM even stands up next to the Hunter ranger, or any of the newer Rangers. I've pretty much given up, and am working on a revision of the revised ranger. Even adding in some new BM oriented spells that buff a critter commanded by the ranger (a type of spell I'd love to see in the game, for rangers, paladins, and chain warlocks) isn't going to fix the fact that you're usually better off making your own attacks, and the beast is just a body on the field with you in a fight, while the Hunter gets pretty solid damage boosts that it can't lose for the rest of the adventuring day because a saving throw was failed.

Asgorath said:

Sure, if you're using the optional flanking rules then having a safe way to get perma-advantage seems okay (i.e. have the companion just spend the entire fight giving you the flanking bonus and Dodging to stay safe).

Click to expand...

I really think that the best fix for the BM is just to let it have a turn, but abbreviate what it can do on that turn, and boost it's damage per attack and it's HP. SO, basically the revised BM minus the "let your beast attack again instead of extra attack" nonsense.

epithet said:

That's just ridiculous. There is exactly one "pet class" in the game, so if that's what you want to run you have no other options. Furthermore, if you can't acknowledge that it is a problem for this subclass to have either the Beastmaster or the pet be, in essence, a spectator for the other, then you're not making an argument in good faith here. People generally don't want to play a pet class just to have a mount, although that's certainly a viable way to play the beastmaster. Most people who choose the Beastmaster archetype do so because they want their character and their pet to fight alongside one another. If the archetype can't accommodate that, then it needs fixing.

Click to expand...

There is also the chain warlock, to be fair. I really wish they'd literally just made the BM pet a familiar that you can't change the shape of, and that can be any beast of a certain challenge rating, and it can attack. Or what I wrote above.