D&D (2024) D&D 2024 PHB errata thread +

[Chaosmancer]

Personally I have no problem with how the damage triggered in the 2014 rules (although I thought the spell was somewhat overtuned). Creating an environmental hazard that individual enemies can be knocked into is indeed fun.

By contrast, the 2024 rules incentivize moving the Cleric rather than moving the enemies. That means optimal strategies for the spell involve trying to increase the distance the Cleric can travel on their turn, and again on everyone else's turns, which introduces a sliding scale of ridiculousness that wasn't present in the 2014 rules.

So no, I can't agree that this was always an issue. In the 2014 rules I could indeed approach Spirit Guardians as a tactical challenge, whereas in the 2024 rules my primary concern would be trying to gauge at what point efforts to move the Cleric farther and faster stop being creative and start being ridiculous.

And yet, if you don't decide to start dragging the cleric across the entire enemy group every turn, what it DOES do is allow for a scene where the cleric walks forward, and their divine power burns a path through their enemies. Instead of walking forward, stopping, and waiting.

It also allows the enemy to move out of the effect on their turn, giving them more tactical choices compared to before.

It is all give and take.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Delete

 

[Mistwell]

You can Hide while you’re Heavily Obscured but not while the enemy is simply Blinded so the action or the condition should get an errata to allow Hiding from people that can't see this way without needing being Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.

What part of "NO STEALTH DISCUSSIONS PLEASE" was unclear?

 

[Pauln6]

What part of "NO STEALTH DISCUSSIONS PLEASE" was unclear?

I believe that if you speak about the stealth rules louder than a whisper, you no longer have the invisible condition.

 

[pukunui]

Very funny but let’s not take it any further pls.

 

[Melfast]

In regards to 2 WPN fighting hijinks, I just rely on the SAC Ruling that says:

Can I make an attack with one weapon, then draw a second weapon with my other hand and qualify to use two-weapon fighting?​

To use the two-weapon fighting bonus action (PH), you must have both weapons in hand when you make the first attack. If you’re instead fighting with two or more weapons as part of the Extra Attack feature, the rule for the two-weapon fighting bonus action doesn’t apply. The rule for that bonus action applies only to itself, not to any other use of two or more weapons in the game.

I'm very glad for the update the makes taking out or putting away a shield require the Utilize action. It shuts down some of the nonsense.

 

[Melfast]

Sorry, I thought I included the quote that was asking about taking a two-weapon attack while wearing a shield. Hopefully this introduction makes the answer clearer.

You can't. Per SAC (2014, but it is still posted), you have to have both weapons in hand when you make your first attack. So, no shield. Putting on or taking off your shield is now a Utilize action, so you can't do anything with it as a free interact action, and it is not a weapon so no drawing and stowing a shield as part of drawing and stowing weapons - it is armor. The two weapon rule also says you can only benefit from two weapon's extra attack once, so you don't get to take a dual wielder bonus attack in any case if you have already taken one regardless of the Nick property. Finally, in the D&D article on Weapon Mastery, they included the following when talking about the Nick Weapon Mastery:

"The Nick mastery property allows you to make the additional attack you receive from wielding two Light weapons as part of the initial attack action.

Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean you can make a third attack as a Bonus Action, as the Light property specifies you only get one extra attack. But, while it may not pump your damage, this frees up your Bonus Action to use class/species abilities, such as the Rogue’s Cunning Action, while still getting an additional attack in."

 

[Pauln6]

Sorry, I thought I included the quote that was asking about taking a two-weapon attack while wearing a shield. Hopefully this introduction makes the answer clearer.

You can't. Per SAC (2014, but it is still posted), you have to have both weapons in hand when you make your first attack. So, no shield. Putting on or taking off your shield is now a Utilize action, so you can't do anything with it as a free interact action, and it is not a weapon so no drawing and stowing a shield as part of drawing and stowing weapons - it is armor. The two weapon rule also says you can only benefit from two weapon's extra attack once, so you don't get to take a dual wielder bonus attack in any case if you have already taken one regardless of the Nick property. Finally, in the D&D article on Weapon Mastery, they included the following when talking about the Nick Weapon Mastery:

"The Nick mastery property allows you to make the additional attack you receive from wielding two Light weapons as part of the initial attack action.

Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean you can make a third attack as a Bonus Action, as the Light property specifies you only get one extra attack. But, while it may not pump your damage, this frees up your Bonus Action to use class/species abilities, such as the Rogue’s Cunning Action, while still getting an additional attack in."

Yeah, this remains very sensible. Apparently, the intention is for the feat to grant a third attack with light weapons. I'm not sure it was necessary to ban any two one handed weapons. We will still allow our fighter to use his two longswords. They were never rules legal even in 1e. It's not optimal as they won't qualify for nick in any event.

 

[pukunui]

This is odd! The sentence that was removed from the true polymorph spell indicating that if ends early if the target runs out of THP is back!

 

[Demetrios1453]

I don't think they designed the spell thinking people would have the cleric cast it, run around the battlefield to deal damage, then have the fighter or the monk pick up the cleric and carry/drag them around to deal damage again. That's the part that needs fixing. For me, it's just a matter of saying that targets of spirit guardians (and any other spell in this boat) can only take the damage once per round.

Now that I've gotten around to reading the spell list in earnest instead of a quick skim, it actually does say that a target can only be affected by spirit guardians once per turn.

"When you cast this spell, you can designate creatures to be unaffected by it. Any other creature’s Speed is halved in the Emanation, and whenever the Emanation enters a creature’s space and whenever a creature enters the Emanation or ends its turn there, the creature must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 3d8 Radiant damage (if you are good or neutral) or 3d8 Necrotic damage (if you are evil). On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage. A creature makes this save only once per turn."

Bolded text by me.

So... Whenever a creature (a) has the spell's AoE enter its space, (b) enters the area of the spell's AoE, or (c) ends its turn within the spell's AoE, it must make that save. The triggering event to cause the damage is, as per the text, rolling a saving throw. But it's only allowed to make that save roll once per turn - i.e. if there's a second time in the same turn that one of the three listed events occurs that would normally trigger having to make another save, it simply doesn't (because its one allowed save per turn has already taken place) and so nothing happens. The text distinctly states that no damage is taken until after the saving throw is rolled - so if no saving throw is rolled (since a second save cannot be forced), no damage is taken.

That final sentence in the quoted text is actually pretty common in damaging Emination spells, presumably to stop shenanigans like the one being discussed.

Now, the fighter or barbarian can presumably still drag the cleric around to harm other, as of yet unaffected creatures, but thats a different matter entirely.