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.

 

[Rune]

Presumably they had some reason to believe the ambiguity was problematic. Maybe they were getting a lot of questions about it. Or maybe a lot of people were showing up to organized play games trying to exploit a loophole.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Even if a DM did allow someone to cast magic weapon on a monk's fists, why is that a problem? Does it actually break anything?

 

[Obryn]

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.

WotC did just rehire SKR. Weird monk nerfs were inevitable.

 

[Louis Brenton]

"Wizard, Spellbook: A spellbook doesn't contain cantrips." Does that mean if a Wizard finds a scroll for a cantrip, he can't copy it into his spellbook & learn it?

 

[miniaturehoarder]

That's the most authoritative answer we have so far, an AL Regional Coordinator. The clarification so far is that for example: if I knock down something with magic missile with darts left, the other darts cannot target another creature if I wish to twin, they are "wasted".

I think the caster has to fire them all at once anyway so that scenario wouldn't happen. I think the last time a caster could hold the missiles in the air was Larry Elmore Cover Basic edition.

 

[Mistwell]

That is my feeling as well. I understand it was meant to prevent fireball spam and whatnot, but if the rule is now "any spell that could possibly target more than 1 creature" cannot be twinned, that is a HUGE nerf and makes spending sorcery points on twinning spells useless. If they're going to enforce that, I'm going allow my DMs to let my players swap metamagic abilities.

The errata as written is that a bunch of spells like magic missile, scorching ray, acid splash, etc that can be used to affect 1 target or can affect multiples can no longer be twinned because they are not "incapable" of targeting multiple creatures, even if they only target a single creature.

I am not understanding your view on this. You linked to the prior Tweet from Mearls as if it supported your view - but it didn't. What it said was, "Mearls: I am leery but sure, " followed immediately by Crawford saying, "No way, it's intended for spells that target just one target". And I think you misunderstood Crawford on that - he wasn't saying spellcasters who choose one target, he said SPELLS that target just one target.

This ruling is the same as that one - this has always been the ruling on this issue. The intent was for it to apply only to SPELLS that target only one target, not choices of a spellcaster to decide to target just one target. Seems consistent, and not a nerf but the rule as written and intended.

 

[MerricB]

"Wizard, Spellbook: A spellbook doesn't contain cantrips." Does that mean if a Wizard finds a scroll for a cantrip, he can't copy it into his spellbook & learn it?

He never could. Cantrips can't be learnt except through gaining levels.

 

[MerricB]

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."

And if you go to the PHB, you'll discover that under weapons it lists "unarmed strike". Therefore unarmed strike is a weapon!

Yes, you and I may know better, but given the number of people who argued that they didn't need a hand free to reload a hand crossbow, I can see why the clarification was required.

Cheers!

 

[miniaturehoarder]

"Wizard, Spellbook: A spellbook doesn't contain cantrips." Does that mean if a Wizard finds a scroll for a cantrip, he can't copy it into his spellbook & learn it?

Wizard couldn't copy & learn a cantrip anyways based on the carefully read text of the un-errata'ed PHB. Errata just removes cantrips from all Wizards spellbooks to lessen folks assuming one might be able to copy them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"Wizard, Spellbook: A spellbook doesn't contain cantrips." Does that mean if a Wizard finds a scroll for a cantrip, he can't copy it into his spellbook & learn it?

Cantrips can't be written onto scrolls in the first place, as I had understood it. You simply have a fixed number you know, based on class, and (possibly) race/feats.