Wizards of the Coast Releases Day 1 Errata for Monster Manual

Wizards of the Coast has released errata for the Monster Manual ahead of its official release. Today on D&D Beyond, Wizards released a series of small changes to the new Monster Manual, which is now available in early access and will be available in wide release in two weeks. Most of the changes are tied to spellcasting, with specifications that any spell in a monster's spell list can be each cast a specific amount per day. The previous spell list implied that players could choose a certain number of spells to cast from that list per day.

The full list of errata can be found below:

• Ancient Red Dragon (p.256). In the Spellcasting section, "1/Day" has changed to "1/Day Each".
• Ancient White Dragon (p.330). The Ancient White Dragon's Charisma score has changed to 18.
• Arcanaloth (p.19). The Arcanaloth's AC is now 18.
• Balor (p.26). The balor's HP is now 287 (23d12 + 138).
• Cloaker (p.73). In the Attach action, in the sentence that begins with "While the cloaker is attached...", "Bite attacks" is now "Attach attacks".
• Cyclops Sentry (p. 88). Both instances of “Greatclub” have changed to “Stone Club”.
• Death Knight (p. 92). In the Spellcasting action, “2/Day” has changed to “2/Day Each”.
• Death Knight Aspirant (p. 93). In the Spellcasting action, “1/Day” has changed to “1/Day Each”.
• Fomorian (p. 123). Both instances of “Greatclub” have changed to “Stone Club”.
• Galeb Duhr (p. 127). The Initiative entry has changed to “+2 (12)”.
• Giant Frog (p. 357). In the Bite action, the Melee Attack Roll modifier has changed to “+3”.
• Githyanki Warrior (p. 134). In the Spellcasting action, “2/Day Each” has changed to “2/Day”.
• Goblin Boss (p. 143). The range for the Shortbow action is now “80/320 ft.”
• Green Slaad (p. 286). In the Spellcasting action, “1/Day” has changed to “1/Day Each”.
• Ice Devil (p. 176). In the Senses entry, “Blindsight 60 ft. (unimpeded by magical Darkness), Darkvision 120 ft.” has changed to “Blindsight 120 ft.”
• Kraken (p. 187). In the Fling action, “Large” has changed to “Large or smaller”.
• Performer Legend (p. 237). The Initiative entry has changed to “+9 (19)”.
• Performer Maestro (p. 237). The Initiative entry has changed to “+7 (17)”.
• Swarm of Lemures (p. 194). The swarm’s Dexterity score is now 7. In the Swarm trait, “Small” has changed to “Medium”.
• Violet Fungus (p. 126). The Initiative entry has changed to “–5 (5)”.

 

[Mistwell]

You are incorrect.

Here's what I wrote: "If you feel need to respond, please do so with substantive support for why a rushed project won't have more errors than one that wasn't rushed, my point, instead of just trying to handwave it away or make an emotional argument."

I claimed day 1 errata was a sign of a rushed product, and that a rushed product will have more errors in total than an unrushed product. He agreed that the product was likely rushed, the day 1 errata isn't important anymore since he's conceded the rush.

Your claim that I asked for substantive support in regards to day one errata is incorrect, as shown by my quote. I had asked for support that a rushed project won't have more errors that one that was not.

Day 1 errata is found as a matter of routine on all projects, rushed or not. While this project may or may not have been rushed, you have provided no substantive support for the claim that Day 1 errata is in itself a sign the project was rushed.

 

[Uta-napishti]

Dear folks locked in the titanic, yet petty death struggle about the quantity and quality of errata: As this thread falls, trailing a ragged grey smoke into the trashheap of history, please reconsider how you are investing the few precious hours we all get to spend on this earth. Go sketch a dungeon level, level your character or go make D&D cool again or fix some typos of your own or something

 

[Blue]

Day 1 errata is found as a matter of routine on all projects, rushed or not. While this project may or may not have been rushed, you have provided no substantive support for the claim that Day 1 errata is in itself a sign the project was rushed.

Since it has been explicitly said in the post that you quoted that Day 1 errata was just a supportive point, and one that proved immaterial at that, not one that was being talked about with the substantive support, you are knowingly trying to twist what I said. I will not have any more to do with you.

 

[Clint_L]

Since it has been explicitly said in the post that you quoted that Day 1 errata was just a supportive point, and one that proved immaterial at that, not one that was being talked about with the substantive support, you are knowingly trying to twist what I said. I will not have any more to do with you.

No one has established that the product was rushed, or that there is a notable excess of errata. I'm not sure what argument you are making. As I and many others have pointed out, some degree of error is inevitable in publishing. You seem to be drawing conclusions from your assumption that this product has an excess of errors, but haven't given any evidence of that. If there isn't an excess of errors, whether or not it was rushed is immaterial: there's no problem. What hill are you dying on, here?

To my eyes, this is a very well edited book. I can (and do) take issue with some of the choices WotC made for the content, but the professionalism is evident, to me. It's a well produced book.

 

[FrogReaver]

For me day 1 errata on a published book is a problem.

 

[Demetrios1453]

For me day 1 errata on a published book is a problem.

Then you have a problem with every book ever published then. Except most of them take much longer to publish errata, if ever.

 

[dave2008]

For me day 1 errata on a published book is a problem.

I mean the errors are always there, we just don't usually hear about them on day 1. So is it a problem that they are telling us about it on day 1 or that there is errata?

 

[dave2008]

I claimed day 1 errata was a sign of a rushed product,

What makes day 1 errata a sign of a rushed product? If they didn't release this errata until 2026, would you still assume this was a rushed product? What does the timing of the errata have to do with how rushed it is or is not? I would think the amount and type of errata would be more telling as to whether it was rushed or not. I think timing can be supportive evidence, but not indicative evidence. Can you clarify your thinking?

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean the errors are always there, we just don't usually hear about them on day 1. So is it a problem that they are telling us about it on day 1 or that there is errata?

I expect errors. I don’t expect them to invalidate the book I’m about to buy before I actually buy it.

 

[dave2008]

I expect errors. I don’t expect them to invalidate the book I’m about to buy before I actually buy it.

They didn't invalidate the book. I have the book right now, it is completely valid. What are you even talking about? Most books have errors when it comes out, the only difference here is that they told us about them. Did you look at the list of errata? It hardly rises to the level of invalidating the book. Heck, most are simple typos.