D&D Errata Nerfs Conjuring Spells, Makes Other Changes

dnd-asterik-1234066 (1).jpeg

A new errata for Dungeons & Dragons' revised 5th Edition has provided a significant nerf to conjuring spells and provided some clarity on how the Hide action works within the game. Wizards of the Coast released a new errata for its various D&D Core Rulebooks today, with a host of mostly minor changes to the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. Two of the biggest changes came to the Player's Handbook, with various conjuring spells receiving a notable debuff to upcasting, and the Hidden rules receiving a round of clarifications.

The Conjure Elemental, Conjure Fey, Conjure Minor Elementals, and Conjure Woodland Beings spells all received debuffs to their "Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot" sections, with the amount of increased damage decreasing from 2 attack die of a certain size to 1 attack die of a certain size. Several shapeshifting spells that granted temporary hit points now clarify that those temporary hit points go away once a spell is cast.

Additionally, the Hidden rules now explicitly state that the Hide action grants the Invisible condition "while hidden" and states what ends a player character hiding, which includes an enemy finding you via a Perception check. The Hide action received some notice during the initial Player's Handbook release for some alleged loopholes in the rules.

A full list of errata can be found on D&D Beyond.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

The new suggestion spell does not have to be reasonable anymore.
I would argue that the "reasonable" requirement was always WAY too subject to arguments and shenanigans at the table.

Player: "My PC wouldn't see that as a reasonable suggestion. The spell has to fail..."
<Much gnashing of teeth of the DM ensues>

DM: "The BBEG wouldn't see that as a reasonable suggestion. The spell has to fail..."
<Much gnashing of teeth of the players ensue>

The suggestion having to sound achievable at least has a greater objectivity to it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I would argue that the "reasonable" requirement was always WAY too subject to arguments and shenanigans at the table.

Player: "My PC wouldn't see that as a reasonable suggestion. The spell has to fail..."
<Much gnashing of teeth of the DM ensues>

DM: "The BBEG wouldn't see that as a reasonable suggestion. The spell has to fail..."
<Much gnashing of teeth of the players ensue>

The suggestion having to sound achievable at least has a greater objectivity to it.
Yeah, "reasonable" wasn't too helpful... a short example would've been useful.
 


The change to the conjure spells was identical to my house rule, so I'm glad to see that. Also glad that they clarified that temp HP granted by certain spells like polymorph expire when those spells do, that was another house rule at my table.
 


I would argue that the "reasonable" requirement was always WAY too subject to arguments and shenanigans at the table.
Now it is just an auto win.... with a bit of setup.
Player: "My PC wouldn't see that as a reasonable suggestion. The spell has to fail..."
<Much gnashing of teeth of the DM ensues>
I am sad to hear that this is how it plays at your table.
DM: "The BBEG wouldn't see that as a reasonable suggestion. The spell has to fail..."
<Much gnashing of teeth of the players ensue>
See above.
The suggestion having to sound achievable at least has a greater objectivity to it.
Nope. Not at all as it is written.

It has the resteiction of not obviously deal damage. Which is still debatable and the only straw to hold on for the DM.

Suggestion: "Stop fighting. Hand over all your items. Tell me all your plans. Run around in circles until you are totally exhausted."
 

The open ended nature of the spell means that the suggestion should be reasonable to the parties involved and the context of the narrative at the moment. Reasonable being relative to all of the factors involved.
Can you provide a couple common examples? I didn't really get the gist of your explanation :'(
 

Now it is just an auto win.... with a bit of setup.
Of course it's not an auto-win - there's still a saving throw, there's still the concentration requirement, and it still only affects one creature leaving their allies/minions to try to break that concentration. It's just no longer so subject to an extended litigation about what's "reasonable". Is handing over the maguffin reasonable? Is suggesting the PC leave the adventure site and go home reasonable? Is telling the PC to stop fighting and lay down their weapons reasonable? Is giving me the shop's cash drawer reasonable? If ANY of those are no, the whole reasonability issue makes the spell very weak.
 

Can you provide a couple common examples? I didn't really get the gist of your explanation :'(
Common examples wouldn’t work. You would need examples relative to the setting your playing but I’ll try.

If you suggest that an assassin go stab the governor. That’s a reasonable suggestion to someone who stabs people for a living.

If you suggest a first level cleric go stab the arch bishop…that’s not a reasonable suggestion.

Suggesting a 3rd level thief pick the pocket of a merchant in a bazaar might be reasonable.

Suggesting an 8 year old gnome to go steal a herd of cattle is not reasonable.

The key understanding is what is reasonable to the situation and the parties involved.

You can’t make “rules” for what is or isn’t reasonable.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top