D&D 5E New Errata Released For D&D PHB, OotA, Xanathar, and ToF

Ruin Explorer said:

Wait we're doing 4E-style buffs/nerfs in 5E now? I thought they said they'd only be clarifying misunderstandings in 5E. How long has this been going on for? Did I just miss it earlier - I admit given them saying they weren't doing 4E-style errata, I was paying like zero attention to them. I mean that's a gigantic nerf for Healing Spirit right there, and undeniably 4E-style, because it wasn't just missing text, or a "misunderstanding".

Click to expand...

So given your position here, would you agree with the following

Errata can change rules (nerfing or buffing them) provided those changes are only as follows

1. That the rule should be changed should match the intuitions of everyone, i.e. be a matter of "common-sense"
2. The mechanical revision to the rule should exactly conform to the RAI everyone is already playing, i.e. the way guided by "common sense"

That is, errata should take an utterly conservative approach to changing rules. Many of the rule "fixes" found in Sage Advice, and almost everything in Unearthed Arcana, would fail this test.

Changing the heavy weapon constraint to also apply to tiny creatures is an example of a change that passes the test, and it does so because it fits both 1. and 2. above. On the other hand, it is unlikely that spells can ever pass the tests above so the change to healing spirit is not a matter for errata: it should have been in Sage Advice.

Sound right?

clearstream said:

It doesn't strike you that this reasoning could equally apply to creature sizes?

Click to expand...

Sure, it should. But it aint RAW.

I point that out not to dispute the question of if orcs can use pikes, but to question if we can be safe in making appeals to common sense?

Click to expand...

No, since not everyone has it.

But neither is RAW "safe".

There are no safe options.

On the evidence so far, you have resisted the orc gaining the benefit of reach with a pike. This would also mean that a tiny MM creature that picked up a heavy weapon would disapply that property. Or, contrary to common sense, they cannot pick it up or if they can they cannot wield it.

Click to expand...

Common sense tells us that a tiny creature cannot use any weapon that isn't especially made for a creature that size. Common sense tells us bears can't use heavy weapons either. But neither of these is RAW.

But the rules in the PHB are for players, not creatures.

Paul Farquhar said:

It's merely and observation. So far as RAW is concerned there is no distinction between an orc and a wolf. The DM can give an orc different weapons and armour, they can give a wolf different weapons and armour. There is no "must have hands in order to use weapons" rule or "must have a body in order to wear armour". Such things depend entirely on the DM applying some degree of common sense. RAW simply does not work.

Click to expand...

Okay, so your point is simply that RAW alone is inadequate to run a cohesive game. DMs need to apply rules not in RAW (such as needing a hand to wield a weapon) for the game to hang together 100%.

Because Barding does show us that armor for beasts is a thing, and I am not familiar with any warhorse or Mastiff that starts with armor. And I would be shocked if people put forth that an Orc is only proficient in Greataxes and no other weapons. Which makes me think you are making such an extreme position simply to highlight the silliness that can come from a game run 100% by RAW and nothing else.

Chaosmancer said:

Okay, so your point is simply that RAW alone is inadequate to run a cohesive game.

Click to expand...

In 5E that's certainly true, given how minimalistic the approach was to the rules. 3.5 gets a lot closer to what I would call a complete set of rules, that you could put into a computer game or something and have them actually work with minimal additional coding needed.

And I would be shocked if people put forth that an Orc is only proficient in Greataxes and no other weapons.

Click to expand...

I don't see why they should be proficient with anything else, other than maybe a club. Orcs don't use daggers and such; proficiency represents a degree of practice and familiarity that takes effort to develop, and a horde of tribal predators out in the hinterlands probably doesn't have the time for such.

Envisioner said:

I don't see why they should be proficient with anything else, other than maybe a club. Orcs don't use daggers and such; proficiency represents a degree of practice and familiarity that takes effort to develop, and a horde of tribal predators out in the hinterlands probably doesn't have the time for such.

Click to expand...

I see no reason they couldn't pick up other weapon proficiencies, I mean its unlikely they would have some exotic things like lances, or specialized troop weapons.

But its a short hop from a skinning knife to stabbing with it as a dagger.

Anyway, my orcs have that double bladed klingon thingy, so...

Envisioner said:

I don't see why they should be proficient with anything else, other than maybe a club. Orcs don't use daggers and such; proficiency represents a degree of practice and familiarity that takes effort to develop, and a horde of tribal predators out in the hinterlands probably doesn't have the time for such.

Click to expand...

But they do have time for massive axes made out of steel?

Spears, clubs, and staves would be more suited to a "tribal predators" Greataxes are weapons of war. And if they can make Greataxes, they can make and use other weapons too.

SkidAce said:

Anyway, my orcs have that double bladed klingon thingy, so...

Click to expand...

The orc double axe? XD

Chaosmancer said:

But they do have time for massive axes made out of steel?
Spears, clubs, and staves would be more suited to a "tribal predators" Greataxes are weapons of war. And if they can make Greataxes, they can make and use other weapons too.

Click to expand...

This is a case where it kind of depends on which version of the fluff you're following. A lot of recent portrayals of orcs go the tribal route, which I think is influenced by Warcraft more than anything, but the original inspiration was Tolkien, in which the orcs (particularly the Uruk-Hai) pretty much only existed to make war, so it would make sense for them to primarily focus on weapon usage. Their racial fetish for the greataxe is partly a symbolic thing, similar to dwarves with both axes and hammers, and also a reflection of the game mechanics - half-orcs get an extra damage die of the same size for their critical hits, so they're the only group that normally wants a 1d12 greataxe instead of a 2d6 greatsword. It makes sense that a similar logic would carry over to the orcs, even if the Monster Manual doesn't give them the Brutal Critical ability for reasons of game balance.

Envisioner said:

The orc double axe? XD

Click to expand...

Bat'leth

Envisioner said:

The orc double axe? XD



This is a case where it kind of depends on which version of the fluff you're following. A lot of recent portrayals of orcs go the tribal route, which I think is influenced by Warcraft more than anything, but the original inspiration was Tolkien, in which the orcs (particularly the Uruk-Hai) pretty much only existed to make war, so it would make sense for them to primarily focus on weapon usage. Their racial fetish for the greataxe is partly a symbolic thing, similar to dwarves with both axes and hammers, and also a reflection of the game mechanics - half-orcs get an extra damage die of the same size for their critical hits, so they're the only group that normally wants a 1d12 greataxe instead of a 2d6 greatsword. It makes sense that a similar logic would carry over to the orcs, even if the Monster Manual doesn't give them the Brutal Critical ability for reasons of game balance.

Click to expand...

Tolkien orcs are master industrialists. They can make any weapon or armour, in huge quantities and quickly.

clearstream said:

So given your position here, would you agree with the following

Errata can change rules (nerfing or buffing them) provided those changes are only as follows

1. That the rule should be changed should match the intuitions of everyone, i.e. be a matter of "common-sense"
2. The mechanical revision to the rule should exactly conform to the RAI everyone is already playing, i.e. the way guided by "common sense"

That is, errata should take an utterly conservative approach to changing rules. Many of the rule "fixes" found in Sage Advice, and almost everything in Unearthed Arcana, would fail this test.

Changing the heavy weapon constraint to also apply to tiny creatures is an example of a change that passes the test, and it does so because it fits both 1. and 2. above. On the other hand, it is unlikely that spells can ever pass the tests above so the change to healing spirit is not a matter for errata: it should have been in Sage Advice.

Sound right?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't actually agree with that.

My position is both more and less firm. My issues here stem from WotC's stated position, which is that they would not do 4E-style nerfs/buffs to 5E via errata.

That means, very simply one thing for 5E - errata should only fix typos or gross lack of clarity (which is essentially an elaborate form of typo). Everything about "intuition" and so on? Nah. That allows all sorts of crazy nonsense.

That's for errata.

Sage Advice is not errata. It's just Jeremy Crawford's opinion. He's a nice man, he's a smart man. I like Jeremy Crawford. He's also easily the best Sage that Sage Advice has ever had, certainly in the last thirty years (god some of the stuff in 2E was terrible - a lot of it was actually straight-up rules-wrong and even actually opening the PHB/DMG revealed that). But that's a very, very low bar. That's like a 30cm hurdle (12 inches for Americans).

I don't mind at all what they say in Sage Advice. I don't even mind that they put it in a PDF. Because neither I nor other DMs playing are "bound" by it, and it's even strongly suggested we follow it (thank goodness). I have no objection to it, even if it occasionally makes me roll my eyes. I do object a bit when Jeremy Crawford says people are "ignoring the rules" when in fact they're merely interpreting them differently to him, but I feel like he's mostly doing so in a playful way so it's not too bad.

Unearthed Arcana is also not errata. They can do whatever the heck they like with UA, and you know what? I support them. Strongly. The big "class feature variants" UA was great. If they put that in a book, or even an official PDF, and it becomes official, great. And groups can choose to use it or not because that's how content works in 5E. It's no more an "errata" than Xanathar's is an "errata", or Eberron is an "errata".