Dungeons & Dragons 2024 Player's Handbook Is Already Getting Errata

The 2024 Player's Handbook on D&D Beyond contains several updates to the new revised 5th edition ruleset. Early access users of D&D Beyond who have also obtained a physical copy of the 2024 Player's Handbook have noticed several minor differences between the digital and physical copy, assumably due to soon-to-be-released errata. Notably, the following changes have been spotted:

• Giant Insect spell contains a clarification on its HP (the physical edition states that the summoned insect has an HP of 30+10 for each level in the spell slot used to cast the spell; the digital version states 30+10 for every level above 4th level),
• Shields now require the Utilize action to don or doff
• Goliath's Powerful Build now specifies that it grants Advantage on ability checks to end the Grappled Condition instead of saving throws.
• True Polymorph's spell description no longer states that the spell effects end if its target's temporary hit points run out.
• The Telekinetic feat now specifies that it grants an increased range to the use of Mage Hand instead stating that you can cast Mage Hand at a further distance away.

Notably, Wizards of the Coast has not released an official errata document for the Player's Handbook, although they may be holding out until the book's full release on September 17th.

 

[Demetrios1453]

It’s fascinating to me, the difference in attitudes between the folks who, in their own games, prefer players take a descriptive approach, and the folks who seem deeply offended that other people would have such a preference.

It's the other way round in this discussion. I haven't seen anyone say they're flat-out against descriptive approach, just that they're fine with players not being descriptive if they want. It is, conversely, some of the descriptive approach people who appear to be dead set against the non-descriptive method.

 

[Demetrios1453]

you say you don't care then throw out insults (vailed enough that mods wont hit you for it) about how other DMs play there characters for them and they gimp there players... if you really didn't care you would agree to disagree without trying to imply some superiority

Thank you for saying their quiet parts out loud!

 

[Charlaquin]

It's the other way round in this discussion. I haven't seen anyone say they're flat-out against descriptive approach, just that they're fine with players not being descriptive if they want. It is, conversely, some of the descriptive approach people who appear to be dead set against the non-descriptive method.

You’re responding to me directly quoting the descriptive approach person saying it’s just his preference and encouraging people to run things however they like, and the anti-descriptive approach person calling the descriptive approach childish…

 

[Charlaquin]

Thank you for saying their quiet parts out loud!

Funny. What we’ve been saying out loud is that it’s just our preference and others should run the game how they like to. It’s bizarre how defensive people get about that, attributing a secret ulterior motive to that preference. For the millionth time, just because I prefer not to make assumptions about PC actions doesn’t mean I give a wet fart what you do at your table.

 

[gban007]

You’re responding to me directly quoting the descriptive approach person saying it’s just his preference and encouraging people to run things however they like, and the anti-descriptive approach person calling the descriptive approach childish…

Did you miss what GMforPowergamer's post was replying to? Max saying that 'If they're acting like adults, they will describe to me what their character does in the first place and not expect me to guess and then have to correct me.' - pretty much calling GmforPowergamer's players childish, so GmforPowergamer's replied to that - so Maxperson was not just stating his preference, he was labelling people playing the other way as not acting like adults, i.e. childish.

 

[Charlaquin]

Did you miss what GMforPowergamer's post was replying to? Max saying that 'If they're acting like adults, they will describe to me what their character does in the first place and not expect me to guess and then have to correct me.'

Yes, in response to GMforPowergamers saying “that entire argument falls apart if both DM and player are long time friends who act like adults...” So, it was in fact GMforPowergamers who was implying that Maxperson and/or his players who were being childish, and Maxperson was defending his position against that accusation.

 

[SteveC]

Funny. What we’ve been saying out loud is that it’s just our preference and others should run the game how they like to. It’s bizarre how defensive people get about that, attributing a secret ulterior motive to that preference. For the millionth time, just because I prefer not to make assumptions about PC actions doesn’t mean I give a wet fart what you do at your table.

I think this is the best approach possible. I run my games using The Conversation: I heard about it formally using that name with the Capital Letters in PbtA, but I was running it that way a long time before I ever heard of PbtA. When I'm running a game, I tend to focus on Conversation, so even players who aren't comfortable talking can feel included. I think that's the best way to run a game, and I wouldn't feel comfortable just stating actions attempted and then making a check.

BUT, there is no way I can tell people running a game and having fun that they are doing it wrong. Maybe it's just the people you've known forever, so you can fill in the details. Maybe you have a player or players who are just shy. Maybe you have some who hate acting with the intensity of 10000 suns. It doesn't matter. There's no way I'm yucking your yum at your table.

That's the answer for just about all issues: if everyone at the table is having fun, who cares what I or anyone else thinks is best? Roll the dice and play the game. Pretend to be an elf. Or not

 

[Charlaquin]

I think this is the best approach possible. I run my games using The Conversation: I heard about it formally using that name with the Capital Letters in PbtA, but I was running it that way a long time before I ever heard of PbtA. When I'm running a game, I tend to focus on Conversation, so even players who aren't comfortable talking can feel included. I think that's the best way to run a game, and I wouldn't feel comfortable just stating actions attempted and then making a check.

BUT, there is no way I can tell people running a game and having fun that they are doing it wrong. Maybe it's just the people you've known forever, so you can fill in the details. Maybe you have a player or players who are just shy. Maybe you have some who hate acting with the intensity of 10000 suns. It doesn't matter. There's no way I'm yucking your yum at your table.

That's the answer for just about all issues: if everyone at the table is having fun, who cares what I or anyone else thinks is best? Roll the dice and play the game. Pretend to be an elf. Or not

Yes! This!!

 

[gban007]

Yes, in response to GMforPowergamers saying “that entire argument falls apart if both DM and player are long time friends who act like adults...” So, it was in fact GMforPowergamers who was implying that Maxperson and/or his players who were being childish, and Maxperson was defending his position against that accusation.

Ah yes, you are right sorry, I missed that part in the conversation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I use both if the approaches under discussion. You know how we don't like people telling us that our playstyle is wrong? Well, neither do players. If someone wants to ask to roll a check when they are new, I will try to steer them toward thinking narratively, but if they are an experienced gamer, I'm not going to force them to do it my way.

And I don't understand the idea that "if they roll more, they will fail more!" If they would have succeeded without rolling, wouldn't the DC be low enough that they would succeed WITH rolling? I usually use rolls, low or high, as a springboard for narrative complications, not necessarily just "pass or fail". If they roll low, but I think they should succeed, then they struggle, but make it. The struggle becomes a triumph, and low rolls become less feared.

I never quite understand why some gamers fear rolling.

OTOH, I think the approach of player narrating attempt and goal and DM narrating result IS the most sensible way to play, but I won't force it on others.

It is an odd bit of psychology.

The theory seems to be that, if the player had just described their action well enough, that the DM would have just given them the success. The old "since they said they look under the bed and that is where the clue is, they find it automatically". Meanwhile if you just ask to roll, you are never circumventing the roll through your description.

There is a lot to unpack in those decisions though, including the idea that guessing correctly with limited information should be the goal of play.