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

And that’s fine. You just solved de-grappling…for you. How many other people are going to find your well intended errata not to their liking? See what I’m saying?

Now start on page one of the PHB and go through and solve all of the problems anyone has ever had with any rule/class/etc. and get back to me the new page count and cost.

The rules for any RPG are broad strokes. Think about it….if they weren’t we couldn’t have 3500 post arguments on the rules for peek-a-boo as often as we do. And then where would be be Reynard?!?! WHERE WOULD WE BE?!? 😉
The question is of course, "exactly how broad should those strokes be?"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The question is of course, "exactly how broad should those strokes be?"
Well that’s the X factor isn’t it?

How do you make the perfect rules set when you can’t account first of all for taste let alone the unquantifiable number of “eventualities” that turn up while playing?

At some point as a creator I’d have to imagine you just have to stop and say…this is it; this is the foundation of something great.

Then once it’s out in the world and has a chance to walk and breathe on its own…then you figure out what’s next for it. This could mean supplements, errata, 3rd party options.

That’s what makes these games so great. These terrific publishers give us feet….be we do the walking. There might be a better analogy but …I think most of our fellows here know what I’m getting at.
 





They fixed a few things that should have been fixed in October and left dozens of abusable combos that also should have beeen fixed months ago. Not enough.
 


And that’s fine. You just solved de-grappling…for you. How many other people are going to find your well intended errata not to their liking? See what I’m saying?

Now start on page one of the PHB and go through and solve all of the problems anyone has ever had with any rule/class/etc. and get back to me the new page count and cost.

The rules for any RPG are broad strokes. Think about it….if they weren’t we couldn’t have 3500 post arguments on the rules for peek-a-boo as often as we do. And then where would be be Reynard?!?! WHERE WOULD WE BE?!? 😉
You’re not wrong, but also people are allowed to express displeasure that a particular “fix” that they would have liked isn’t in the book.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top