D&D 5E Player's Handbook Official Errata

There's a new printing of the 5E Player's Handbook a'coming. It "corrects some typos while clarifying a few rules." But for those of us who already have a 5E Player's Handbook, there's a one-page PDF of official errata now available. It contains 51 items, covering classes, equipment, feats, spells, and more.

Download it right here! The errata has already been incorporated into the free Basic Rules.

 

[scottcoz]

deleted

 

[miniaturehoarder]

The elemental monk errata was...quite exceptionally misguided in my opinion.

It put the water whip on the same level as the Fist of Unbroken Air as it should be. Bonus casting of anything represents an enormous increase of power.

 

[Coredump]

I read your take on the monk.

I still don't understand what the problem was, and why errata was needed?

What is broken with unarmed as a weapon?

(That fists don't bypass resistance is a given)

Errata is not a 'change', it is a correction for something that was presented incorrectly. Errata was needed in this case because an unarmed strike was never a weapon, but it was presented incorrectly in the PHB. That mistake has not been corrected. It has nothing to do with Nerfs, or OP, or Broken, or anything else like that. The game rules were created a certain way, and some were presented incorrectly.

 

[Coredump]

It is a Nerf. A lot of damage output for the Sorcerer came from twinning spells like Scorching Ray and Magic Missile. Now they can't.

We've already decided to ignore this Nerf as the Sorcerer is already under powered enough as it is, and it actually feels right for them to be able to twin spells like Scorching Ray - provided they're shooting at one target.

Designers got it badly wrong on this one IMO.

It is not a nerf. It has *always* been this way. The way you were reading it was not the 'correct' way. The fact that you allowed Twinned Magic Missile was never part of the rules; but it wasn't presented well and you misunderstood that passage.

Correcting your misunderstanding is not a nerf.

 

[Delandel]

This is an issue with the -5/+10 mechanic, not so much spells. Take away that +10 damage and you're looking much more competitive. I recommend putting that to your group.

Okay, no Power Attack at all:

New Scorching Ray (6d6+5=26) vs. Raging Reckless (auto-advantage) Swing (2d12+14=27 or 3d12+21=40.5). No, that's not good enough.

I run out of Scorching Rays much faster than a martial runs out of swings, but I'm getting either less damage (remember, no advantage) or blown out by that third swing. And that's without the -5/+10!

Also, what am I supposed to do exactly? Poop on my friend's character by whining to the DM? Not happening. The most I can do is hope that the people I play with won't force me to use this errata. It's a position to be in either way.

 

[Celtavian]

This is an issue with the -5/+10 mechanic, not so much spells. Take away that +10 damage and you're looking much more competitive. I recommend putting that to your group.

Yep.

 

[Li Shenron]

Unarmed strikes also now bypass almost all resistance to nonmagical damage. Since most forms of physical resistance specify that they apply to weapon attacks. Which I guess makes ki-empowered strikes redundant.

My opinion is that there should be some clarifications on resistance rather than weapons or unarmed strikes.

It's quite obvious to me that "resistance to nonmagical damage" really means that you are resistant to getting hurt by physical damage. It doesn't matter if it's a sword, a punch, a rock, falling damage or getting squeezed, they are all the same. Other stuff like starvation (if it ever causes HP damage in 5e, which I don't know) not included. Then there can be some more restricted forms of resistance e.g. to bludgeoning only. Magic weapons, spells, or magic creatures for which even their unarmed strikes cound as magic (including Monks of level high enough) typically bypass this kind of resistance.

That's all. Splitting hair about someone's hand or horn or tail not being technically a weapon and therefore being actually better than a weapon when it really makes no sense, then someone else countering by splitting the already splitted hair by saying you can make weapon attacks with something that's not a weapon... huge waste of time in my book.

On Twitter, I asked Jeremy: "What is the idea behind making unarmed strikes not weapons? How does this change affect monks?" His response: "Unarmed strikes never should have appeared as weapons, hence the correction. The monk is barely affected."

We should just listen to the designers more often to understand better how to play the game as intended. Those who insist to stick on the RAW and ignore the RAI are creating their own problems.

 

[pukunui]

My opinion is that there should be some clarifications on resistance rather than weapons or unarmed strikes.

It's quite obvious to me that "resistance to nonmagical damage" really means that you are resistant to getting hurt by physical damage. It doesn't matter if it's a sword, a punch, a rock, falling damage or getting squeezed, they are all the same. Then there can be some more restricted forms of resistance e.g. to bludgeoning only. Magic weapons, spells, or magic creatures for which even their unarmed strikes cound as magic (including Monks of level high enough) typically bypass this kind of resistance.

Also from Jeremy: "The intent is resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning damage, regardless of source (MM errata preview)."

 

[Celtavian]

Okay, no Power Attack at all:

New Scorching Ray (6d6+5=26) vs. Raging Reckless (auto-advantage) Swing (2d12+14=27 or 3d12+21=40.5). No, that's not good enough.

I run out of Scorching Rays much faster than a martial runs out of swings, but I'm getting either less damage (remember, no advantage) or blown out by that third swing. And that's without the -5/+10!

Also, what am I supposed to do exactly? Poop on my friend's character by whining to the DM? Not happening. The most I can do is hope that the people I play with won't force me to use this errata. It's a position to be in either way.

Don't you also have a fire bolt that does up to 4d10. So you'll eventually do 23, twin it for 1 point, 46? While the barbarian is still doing 27 or 40.5 (with crit?). And you get to toss out a bunch of other spells on top of it, while he continues to swing his weapon.

That's why that is balanced. Barb takes hits and swing his weapon. You get to do other nifty stuff. Don't you eventually get wings? You get to fly around, blast at range, while the barbarian continues to run around and swing his weapon.

C'mon now. Why you trying to take everything away form the barbarian?

 

[Coredump]

My opinion is that there should be some clarifications on resistance rather than weapons or unarmed strikes.

Ask and you shall receive...

Crawford put out a tweet that the MM errata will change resistance to be any non-magical, not just 'weapon attacks'.