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.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

That's was my thinking as well without the clarification. We know from 3E how some groups are with the rule lawyering. If you don't spell it out for them exactly, they will use the most liberal interpretation of the rule that is possible to gain the most power.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Im pretty happy with this errata. It actually corrects errors and doesn't rewrite the damn game like 4e. I'm good with this. I LOVE 4e, but man I have a binder FULL of errata, it's ridiculous.

And like...they made binders of errata, but no errata on the binder?


terrible.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Anyone notice how much more powerful Magic Initiate got as a feat. I heard a rules interpretation recently that if the 1st level spell chosen belonged to a class you have the spell was basically an extra spell known, but the errata does not have that restriction. If your playing a single class wizard for example and you take Magic Initiate cleric and choose healing word, you can now cast it using any of your wizard slots.

I thought that much should have been obvious. This edition doesn't really go for the whole "separating out your different spellcasting classes" thing. Classes control how you learn new spells, and your total effective spellcaster levels determine your spell slots, but you could always cast any spell you know in any of your slots. The feat just gives you one more spell known, and one spell slot in case you didn't otherwise have any.

 

[CapnZapp]

You can no longer use Magic Weapon on unarmed strikes. You may still use Stunning Strike with unarmed strikes.

That's the main change. There may be other things I haven't spotted yet.

(Here's my take on the important changes).

Cheers!

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)

 

[CapnZapp]

So now the Ranger needs to trick its animal into believing you are absent, for it to act by itself.

Sigh.

 

[MerricB]

What is broken with unarmed as a weapon?

I don't know if anything was broken, but there may be implications we're not seeing. (Also, there may be future design potentials this enables).

 

[Psikerlord#]

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.

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.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

I don't know if anything was broken, but there may be implications we're not seeing. (Also, there may be future design potentials this enables).

Looks like it keeps Rage bonus damage from adding into unarmed strikes.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't have the PHB yet, but having read all these "errata" I feel confident that indeed all of them really are just text corrections and clarifications, and none of them is really a rule change.

Or in other words, none of these seems because the designers changed their mind about a rule, but rather because they just noticed that the first printed version doesn't correspond to the wanted rule (or doesn't explain clearly enough).

 

[DaveDash]

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.

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.