D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[Jester David]

I'd rather not see any rules patches this edition. When I'm checking a rule I really don't want to have to look in the book and a PDF to see if it's been adjusted.
There's always going to be problems. Always. It's impossible to fix every spell and make everything perfectly balanced or consider every corner case and you will drive yourself insane if you try.

Most of the time, these problem rules can be fixed on a table-by-table basis. Is "X"causing you a problem? Find a solution that works for you like the OP did.

DM adjudication helps a lot to cut out the silly weird corner cases. If my players tried dropping darkness or fog cloud on themselves to cancel out disadvantage for long range I would laugh sooooo hard.

 

[Chocolategravy]

At level 11 a warlock will be doing 3d10+3d6+15 damage (36 points). A fighter with 3 attacks will be doing 3d8+15 or 28.5 damage. If he takes the -5/+10 option and that makes one of the attacks miss, that's 39 damage. Pretty comparable. And I think the fighter is the best ranged attacker. A ranger is looking at 4d8+2d6+10 (35).

You're ignoring a lot of things on the Fighter's side like +2 to hit from archery, benefit of magic weapon, other class benefits like improved crit range, superiority dice damage etc. and the fact that DEX is far better than CHR unless you're also a level 6 Paladin.

 

[Moorcrys]

I don't think anything in 5e actually needs errata. I don't think "I don't like how this works" is a good yardstick for determining where errata is needed, either; unless there is almost-universal agreement, I just don't think adding errata to the game is a good thing.

Well, you're right, of course. Nothing •needs• errata. But what I do like about these threads are that people smarter than I present issues that coincide with my own experience and tend to offer solutions that I can implement at the table or house rule. Particularly with regard to spells and classes, I don't mind house ruling a bit to make things that are currently avoided to fall in line with other options.

Frenzy berserker is currently avoided at the table - it's the only class in the PHB with any sort of punitive consequences for using a cornerstone ability of its subclass. And the mechanic it utilizes to mitigate the uses of frenzy is, at the moment, excessively harsh in that there's no way for a low level party to deal with it other than taking long rests. On top of it, using frenzy makes the class •less• effective overall, since the frenzy ability doesn't even supersede the penalties incurred while the frenzy is happening. That's a problem. It's a problem that I'm happy to house rule, but play it straight at the table and we've encountered significant fun issues with it. Who wants a subclass power that is the calling card of the subclass that you don't ever want to use? That to me says it should be scrutinized - even if it just means that Paladins can use 10 hit points of lay on hands to remove one level of exhaustion and/or a lower level spell is added in future supplements that affects exhaustion.

 

[the Jester]

Frenzy berserker is currently avoided at the table - it's the only class in the PHB with any sort of punitive consequences for using a cornerstone ability of its subclass. And the mechanic it utilizes to mitigate the uses of frenzy is, at the moment, excessively harsh in that there's no way for a low level party to deal with it other than taking long rests. On top of it, using frenzy makes the class •less• effective overall, since the frenzy ability doesn't even supersede the penalties incurred while the frenzy is happening. That's a problem. It's a problem that I'm happy to house rule, but play it straight at the table and we've encountered significant fun issues with it. Who wants a subclass power that is the calling card of the subclass that you don't ever want to use? That to me says it should be scrutinized - even if it just means that Paladins can use 10 hit points of lay on hands to remove one level of exhaustion and/or a lower level spell is added in future supplements that affects exhaustion.

Whereas I have had I think 3 berserker barbarians at my table, and they've been fun and incredibly potent. That bonus action attack is nasty. And the fact that there's no way to reduce exhaustion is a feature, not a bug; otherwise, the exhaustion level you gain is pointless. It's supposed to be a meaningful decision whether to use that frenzy or not when you rage, and exhaustion makes it so.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This isn't something that needs errata, it's something that you don't like at your table. That's what house rules are for. Errata is for actual errors. Things like "42d8" slipping into the book when it should be "2d8".

 

[brehobit]

You're ignoring a lot of things on the Fighter's side like +2 to hit from archery, benefit of magic weapon, other class benefits like improved crit range, superiority dice damage etc. and the fact that DEX is far better than CHR unless you're also a level 6 Paladin.

Agree with the +2 archery bonus. However, warlocks have items that help with EB too. And pushing back 10' on every single attack is huge (if both sides are maxing their ranged at will). And a warlock can do this naked where the fighter is useless at range (and in general) without a weapon. All told they are darn comparable, and the warlock still has a number of invocations and spells available that can help (a fighter is pretty worthless against 2 dozen goblins. A warlock with a fireball isn't).

And at one point they are a lot better: levels 17-19. One more attack per round...

In all reality, a fighter is going to out damage a warlock at range using at-will (or long-duration) powers. The fighter does win at nova damage against a single target though. And the warlock wins against mobs (by a lot). But the warlock gets so much more on top of that.

 

[Celtavian]

Whereas I have had I think 3 berserker barbarians at my table, and they've been fun and incredibly potent. That bonus action attack is nasty. And the fact that there's no way to reduce exhaustion is a feature, not a bug; otherwise, the exhaustion level you gain is pointless. It's supposed to be a meaningful decision whether to use that frenzy or not when you rage, and exhaustion makes it so.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This isn't something that needs errata, it's something that you don't like at your table. That's what house rules are for. Errata is for actual errors. Things like "42d8" slipping into the book when it should be "2d8".

Your players are ok using Frenzy one time a day? Even if they're able to rage 3 or 4 times a day?

 

[Moorcrys]

Whereas I have had I think 3 berserker barbarians at my table, and they've been fun and incredibly potent. That bonus action attack is nasty. And the fact that there's no way to reduce exhaustion is a feature, not a bug; otherwise, the exhaustion level you gain is pointless. It's supposed to be a meaningful decision whether to use that frenzy or not when you rage, and exhaustion makes it so.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This isn't something that needs errata, it's something that you don't like at your table. That's what house rules are for. Errata is for actual errors. Things like "42d8" slipping into the book when it should be "2d8".

Hah that's cool. No worries - that hasn't been my experience. I certainly don't think the rules for exhaustion are an accident, I think they're excessive, particularly with regard to frenzy. I know the intent of placing a drawback to balance whether or not to frenzy. We've found that drawback to be prohibitive. That's why I said scrutinize - as in check it out. If the designers think it's working as intended, all good. I can house rule no problem. [emoji3] It's had a negative impact at the tables I've played at and DMed. That's the type of thing the thread is asking about, I believe, and not where there are typos.

 

[Jester David]

Well, you're right, of course. Nothing •needs• errata. But what I do like about these threads are that people smarter than I present issues that coincide with my own experience and tend to offer solutions that I can implement at the table or house rule. Particularly with regard to spells and classes, I don't mind house ruling a bit to make things that are currently avoided to fall in line with other options.

Frenzy berserker is currently avoided at the table - it's the only class in the PHB with any sort of punitive consequences for using a cornerstone ability of its subclass. And the mechanic it utilizes to mitigate the uses of frenzy is, at the moment, excessively harsh in that there's no way for a low level party to deal with it other than taking long rests. On top of it, using frenzy makes the class •less• effective overall, since the frenzy ability doesn't even supersede the penalties incurred while the frenzy is happening. That's a problem. It's a problem that I'm happy to house rule, but play it straight at the table and we've encountered significant fun issues with it. Who wants a subclass power that is the calling card of the subclass that you don't ever want to use? That to me says it should be scrutinized - even if it just means that Paladins can use 10 hit points of lay on hands to remove one level of exhaustion and/or a lower level spell is added in future supplements that affects exhaustion.

I'm okay with a big thread of "I have problems with this, this is how I houseruled". That's great. But that's a very different thread with a very different focus. And it's a positive thread as it's suggesting fixes and working to improve the game for interested people.
Threads calling for errata are different. They're negative and pointing out problems in a game, often without suggesting fixes (even easy ones) and placing the onus on "fixing" the game on an external source, typically the dev team. At best it's shifting the buck to someone else and at worst it's just whining.

Errata threads also tend to be very opinionated. As [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] says, stuff like frenzy is debatable. It makes for poor errata discussion since it seems to be working as intended. If frenzy was treated as a once/day buff to rage for boss fights it would be fine, but instead of an arbitrary (i.e. gamist) limit, they impose a flavour penalty that allows you to use the ability more than once a day at a cost. So you can decide using frenzy early in the day is worth the price or want to chance that second or third level of exhaustion.
To say nothing of all the complaints regarding stealth.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm okay with a big thread of "I have problems with this, this is how I houseruled". That's great. But that's a very different thread with a very different focus. And it's a positive thread as it's suggesting fixes and working to improve the game for interested people.
Threads calling for errata are different. They're negative and pointing out problems in a game, often without suggesting fixes (even easy ones) and placing the onus on "fixing" the game on an external source, typically the dev team. At best it's shifting the buck to someone else and at worst it's just whining.

Errata threads also tend to be very opinionated. As [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] says, stuff like frenzy is debatable. It makes for poor errata discussion since it seems to be working as intended. If frenzy was treated as a once/day buff to rage for boss fights it would be fine, but instead of an arbitrary (i.e. gamist) limit, they impose a flavour penalty that allows you to use the ability more than once a day at a cost. So you can decide using frenzy early in the day is worth the price or want to chance that second or third level of exhaustion.
To say nothing of all the complaints regarding stealth.

Stealth complaints tend to come because it's impossible to hard code Stealth. You have players trying to run Stealth RAW using Rogue's Cunning Action and something like the Halfling ability to gain the hide bonus every round even though it is completely ridiculous. Or using the Wood Elf hide in light obscurement to Hide every round. Neither of those abilities obviates that if the opponent knows where you are, you don't get to use Hide. Once the Halfling runs from behind the other player, he doesn't get to hide behind them every round. The opponent knows that trick and is watching for it. That's why you leave it to the DM to figure out after listening to the player's arguments and examples as to why he wants to do something. I always get the feeling when I read these threads some players are trying to make DMs follow "RAW" for something like Stealth. That shouldn't be the case. Stealth is far too variable. DMs have to make calls and stick by them understanding what an ability might look like then expect some hard coded perfect answer applicable in every circumstance for an extremely variable ability. First line under any Stealth rule should be DM decides on a case by case basis. Here are your basic guidelines.

 

[redrick]

Well, certainly nothing needs errata if there is not a consensus that it is broken. I think the slightly less confrontational approach to this sort of thread is, "common problems and common fixes."

I don't want a bunch of scraps of paper printed off of Wizards' website and pasted into my PHB for different editions of errata. I don't want to have an argument with a player that boils down to who is familiar with the latest version of the errata.

Rules changes should be treated as house rules by the DM to push the game more into the direction that they want. If that means tweaking down the power of the Warlock's eldritch blast to further highlight the ranged superiority of the archer fighter, so be it. If that means variant initiative systems, different spell lists, whatever, all of that is encouraged for a given DM of a given campaign.

What might be cool would be a semi-regular online retrospective by the design team on, "Common balance desires and suggested hacks." A look back at 1 year of the game and ways that some people have modified the game to power-up or power-down various classes, features, etc. DM's can then look to that document if they want to and implement any changes that address areas of the game that they are not happy with. The DMG already has a lot of this, but it would be great to see these things evolve as the game continues to rack up more and more play-hours all over the world.