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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I still maintain "needed" is a strong word to use here.

I honestly thought the items in this errata list were things with a pressing need. Now I realize there are items on the list that are included only to satisfy the designer's obsessive compulsive condition...

I would suggest that you probably have not experienced or received nearly the same number of queries, tweets, emails etc. about the rules that were clarified in this document as the designers have... and thus what you feel is a "pressing need" might not jive with what they've determined actually is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would suggest that you probably have not experienced or received nearly the same number of queries, tweets, emails etc. about the rules that were clarified in this document as the designers have... and thus what you feel is a "pressing need" might not jive with what they've determined actually is.

Or, I would say, what they've decided is needed--which may or may not reflect what actually is needed any better than CapnZapp has.

"Understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth."

In fact, it could be like 3.5e--tweaking a bunch of little things, while leaving enormous holes (like Natural Spell) completely untouched. Or it could be like some of 4e's errata--I mean, some things were errata'd almost instantly, while others were a long time coming. The PHB Wizard, for instance, was a change a long time in the making.

 

[spinozajack]

Anything that is optional though, like feats, is unlikely to see errata for that very reason. Each table can choose which feats it uses (or doesn't use), or amend them as they wish. There is no real "need" to errata feats even if they thought it might be a good idea for a select few in hindsight.

Some spells and optional class features were quote "errata'ed". So in that sense everything is optional.

Just because you can choose not to play your current character or even campaign, with a given game element doesn't mean it doesn't have issues that deserve fixing in the general sense across the board.

 

[Eric V]

Ah yesssss, my cantrips at theoretical endgame is soooo good. Balance!

Not to add to your woes or anything, but it's also FAR more likely for you to run into fire-resistant creatures at that level than it is for your barbarian friend to run into magic weapon-resistant creatures.

 

[Celtavian]

Poor spell selection made me feel very limited in what I could do compared to playing a Wizard. Damage could be nice with Quicken + Spell but not really on par with the big damage dealers like SS Fighters, and my resources were more limited than theirs. My big once per day is a meteor swarm and a quickened cantrip, which I've hit for 160ish damage, all well and good, but other classes as you know can do this a lot more. A wizard shapechanged into a Dragon will get a lot more mileage out his 9th, or putting foresight on his SS fighter buddy will equate to lots more damage effectively.

Main issue again was poor spell selection. Playing a Wizard you can pull out the right spell that saves the encounter. Sorcerer you couldnt. What you could do was nova damage though, and twinning spells like scorching ray felt as natural as a fighters action surge. It felt right on a class that was supposed to be more damage focused.

At lower levels when our Sorc finally started twinning we were like "Ah, so that makes up for the other 99% of combat when you're tossing around cantrips for 3-4 damage". Seriously slow start to the class, and now it's even worse.

And for those reasons everyone at my table is agreement this errata is trash.

Looking forward to some of the Sorcerer options coming out of Unearthed Arcana status, and yes, Princes players guide is helpful. But we haven't fully integrated those spells into our campaigns yet.

That does sound pretty lame for sorcerers. I might adjust by adding a bonus spell list to each sorcerer. Twinned doesn't seem overpowered. You basically get to hit two targets with a single casting of scorching ray. Not the same target twice. I understand why the game designers did it, but I doubt it was for reasons of balance so much as clarifying intent. I don't think it hurts the game at all to keep it as is.

Did you try an enchanter type sorcerer? How did that work? Double hold spells or double suggestion early on. Did that work out ok?

 

[77IM]

Regarding twinned spell, at least now chromatic orb has a reason for existing and not just being a poor man's magic missile.

...but the infernal warlock with hex is laughing at all the poor draconic sorcerers trying to cast twinned, elemental-affinitied scorching ray.

 

[spinozajack]

Ouch. Our Sorcerer player isn't going to like the errata on twinned.

I'm quite surprised contagion didn't get errata.

So they did in fact errata actual mechanics.

Just not the right ones.

Not surprised. Wizards is playing is safe with their profits and don't want to rock the boat by actually improving their product at the risk of some forum angst. But now instead they issue a document with 90% minor phrasing issues that nobody complained about (which they should do anyway), and 10% is nerfing stuff that didn't need nerfing while not nerfing stuff that does.

It's 4e all over again, except in slow motion. 1/year errata, I've lost confidence in their ability to do the right thing. If they're going by survey satisfaction data, I wonder how many people complained that twin spell was too powerful, compared with some actually overpowered things like polearm master stacking with GWM and giving free dual wielding + twf fighting style too.

I was looking over the list of things that benefit from each additional poleram attack I get (Including OAs and free hits from crits and kills due to GWM), and the list is pretty long. Sacred Weapon, Magic Weapon, GWM's +10, improved smite (+1d8 damage on each attack, including the bonus attack). I guess I should thank them that my character is now going to be a multi-attacking blending machine. It's just sad that my next melee character will probably gravitate towards polearms as well. And the one after that.

If you want to make a damaging character in 5e, you needn't look further than polearms. Period. No matter what the melee class, polearm aka spiked chain is the answer.

 

[Celtavian]

Regarding twinned spell, at least now chromatic orb has a reason for existing and not just being a poor man's magic missile.

...but the infernal warlock with hex is laughing at all the poor draconic sorcerers trying to cast twinned, elemental-affinitied scorching ray.

Yes. Eldritch blast is king.

 

[77IM]

Also, two multiclassing changes that I haven't seen mentioned:
-- Paladins can smite using any spell slot, not just a paladin spell slot
-- Warlock invocation level requirements are warlock levels, not character levels

Both are things that most people ruled that way already anyway, but it's nice to have it official. I'm no longer afraid to bring my paladin/warlock to an AL game.

 

[spinozajack]

I guess they thought paladins were underpowered? I wonder if they got that idea from their oh-so-astute-and-always-right survey data.

Maybe it's backwards day.