D&D 5E 5e rules that you want errata for

[DaveDash]

He missed about 4 rounds if I recall correctly. This happened some time ago so some of the details are a bit fuzzy to me. This was also pretty late into the session. The players' alertness was down and turns started taking a bit longer.

I just don't like how the charm only gives a saving throw when a specific situation comes up. What if the vampire charms someone and then proceeds to attack other party members exclusively? That person can no longer contribute meaningfully to the fight.

There's heaps of spells that deal with charm/fear. How come your party hasn't prepared any of them? My Cleric never leaves home without Calm Emotions and/or Dispel Evil and Good at higher levels.

You don't go into a Dragon fight without ranged weapons and then complain, and you don't fight powerful undead without the means to deal with them.

By the time your players are fighting Vampires, they should be experienced. If the Fighter is rolling around without Resilient Wisdom, and the party has no means of dealing with nasty wisdom saving throws, then they're not being a very effective group. I'm sorry, but they deserve to get crushed by some of the more legendary creatures in the game. It's already too easy at mid-high levels as it is.

It's not a big deal anyway, sometimes you roll your group, most times your group rolls you. That's D&D They're meant to learn from the experience and prepare better next time.
I almost TPK'd my group at level 13 with a Arcanist Mind Flayer because they just charged in there expecting to roll it. Nope.
Next Mind Flayer they came across (CR16 Arcanist combined with a Beholder) they were way more careful, prepared properly, and wasted it instead.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's been said ad nauseam, but "errata" are mistakes in the rules text, not in the rules. Originally, "errata" are not even the corrections but only the mistakes (that's exactly what the word means), while the corrections are called "corrige". So the "errata sheets" used to bear the text "errata corrige" to mean a list of mistakes and their correction. But after a long time, the bad habit of calling both the mistakes and the correction "errata" just because too widespread to stop.

Still, design changes are not "errata", they are "revisions". They (or their corrige) don't fix broken rules, they only fix the TEXT if the printed version doesn't match the rule-as-designed.

Of course nobody gives a bat guano

I knew that in the context of publishing, errata was just to clean up typos and the like, yes. Never heard 'corrige' though, that was interesting. In the context of gaming, obviously, folks have been using errata for revisions for a long time. But, I guess 4e's 'Updates' weren't that disingenuous, afterall.

"Revisions" would still be inappropriate for 5e, though, and even 'corrige' wouldn't be that appropriate, as the expectation that the DM would already have fixed it up to his liking would still apply.