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.

 

[Eric V]

Hmm.

This seems to be a very convoluted, hyper-rules-y way to stop monk bodies to benefit from the magic weapon spell; why didn't this fall under 'rulings, not rules' I wonder.

 

[Rune]

Regarding the unarmed strike, the language makes it clear (to me) that:

1. Of the two types of attacks in the game (weapon or magic), weapon attacks can use unarmed strikes if the are melee (as opposed to ranged).

2. Things that specifically affect weapons do not affect unarmed strikes, but things that affect/are triggered by melee weapon attacks do also affect/are also triggered by unarmed strikes.

3. Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes.

 

[Rune]

Hmm.

This seems to be a very convoluted, hyper-rules-y way to stop monk bodies to benefit from the magic weapon spell; why didn't this fall under 'rulings, not rules' I wonder.

Also prevents sundering/disarming shenanigans.

 

[spinozajack]

Seriously.

Good thing they brought those overpowered sorcerers and elemental monks under control!!

They've been making those kinds of over-nerfs for undeserving issues for a long time in 4e times, and under nerfing or completely ignoring others.

Here's another : as if anyone who was using a polearm and had PM feat was trying to use dexterity to attack with only their bonus attack in their d10 + 15 / d10 + 15 / d4 + 15 combo.

So they nerf blaster damage and don't touch the top feat for melee users in the game. Warriors and caddies. Well, if you can't beat em, join em. My paladin will be picking up his halberd next session.

Was there ever any clarification about thrown weapons being used with sharpshooter and archery style? Or more conflicting info from Crawford v. Mearls on twitter.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

I just hope they release a printer-friendly version.

Looks printer friendly enough to me. To get any friendlier you'd have to copy and paste the text in a word processor and make the text colour light grey.

 

[Eric V]

Also prevents sundering/disarming shenanigans.

Right, ok. True enough.

Though, somehow, that makes it seem more like 'rulings, not rules' not less. :S

 

[steeldragons]

Why does ANYone think the Magic Weapon spell would apply to Monk unarmed attacks? Was there a memo or something that apparently busloads of people figured they could just ignore the spell description?

First sentence: "You touch a nonmagical weapon."

I guess the designers didn't think that needed any further clarification for, ya know, anyone old enough to read it.

 

[Eric V]

Why does ANYone think the Magic Weapon spell would apply to Monk unarmed attacks? Was there a memo or something that apparently busloads of people figured they could just ignore the spell description?

First sentence: "You touch a nonmagical weapon."

I guess the designers didn't think that needed any further clarification for, ya know, anyone old enough to read it.

I don't think anyone did. That's my (and other peoples') point: Why issue the errata on it? If ever there was a case for 'rulings, not rules' this was it.

 

[pukunui]

Why does ANYone think the Magic Weapon spell would apply to Monk unarmed attacks? Was there a memo or something that apparently busloads of people figured they could just ignore the spell description?

I don't think anyone did. That's my (and other peoples') point: Why issue the errata on it? If ever there was a case for 'rulings, not rules' this was it.

According to Jeremy: "Unarmed strikes never should have appeared as weapons, hence the correction."

 

[steeldragons]

I don't think anyone did.

This thread would seem to disprove that.