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.

 

[steeldragons]

snip perceived issues

I see. Well, I don't see, actually...any of that as being problems. But appreciate the explanation/"reasons" behind the whin-eh-"complaints." Thanks for the list.

 

[Celtavian]

The biggest repercussion for the Monk WRT unarmed strikes no longer being a weapon is that unarmed Monks can't use Stunning Strike anymore. Pfffffffft.

That seems unintentional.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

That part is helpful, though this also seems unintentional. If not intentional, I hope they catch it quick.

 

[Celtavian]

Interesting. Most of these changes were expected, but the change to unarmed strikes surprised me. Was having unarmed strikes count as weapons actually causing problems?

Overall, I'm pleased. This is the kind of errata I like. It fixes typos and minor errors, but doesn't try to rewrite the entire rulebook. I just hope they release a printer-friendly version.

Not in our campaign. Monk unarmed strikes extremely weak. Low damage. No magic items to boost them. Not sure why they felt the need to address unarmed strikes.

 

[Salamandyr]

Screw that, unarmed strike will continue to count as weapons in any game I run.

 

[Blue]

Looks fine. Simple clarifications to natural language for the most part that play out as common sense with the rules not rulings. Unarmed strike a bit of an unexpected rewrite.

They said living document, we got some updates. Nothing big and only one thing that was surprising. Keep it up D&D team. I hope the haters get over it.

 

[Celtavian]

I understand the unarmed strike ruling now. Not sure why they felt it was necessary to ensure monks don't get a magical bonus on their unarmed strikes, but it does make sense from a simulationist approach. I can see why they don't want magic weapon or the like to work on a monk's whole body.

 

[MerricB]

Quick update:

Jeremy has also clarified that although the new wording of unarmed strikes means they no longer deal "weapon damage", meaning that they can bypass resistance to bludgeoning damage from non-magical weapons, the intent of the resistance is to work against non-magical sources of bludgeoning damage; he hash-tagged it as a MM errata preview.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/608808064716701696

I've added that ruling to my errata clarification article (which Jeremy retweeted the link to, so there must be something good about it. )

Cheers!

 

[Connorsrpg]

So, why didn't they just write unarmed strikes not allowed into the actual magic weapon spell? As it now stands this is quite confusing. Plus, like others, I had no problem allowing unarmed strikes to be magicalised I mean, that's is exactly what happens 'naturally' at level 6 anyway?

The proficiency part is no big deal to us - we use weapon groups anyway.

 

[Rune]

Doesn't this re enable polearm mastery + warcaster?

Don't see how, but it does specifically enable Shillelagh + Polearm Master.