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]

From the Adventures League Local Coordinator's discussion: http://prntscr.com/7fk83i

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".

No, you can't twin Magic missile at all. It can target multiple creatures, thus it can't be twinned....

Right. ...and you're the guy with the link. Did you read it? No twinning Magic Missile. No twinning Burning Hands. No twinning Scorching Ray.

If it can target multiple creatures, not "if you choose to target or not", if the spell, as written, can be used to target more than 1 target, no twinny.

As for all of this unarmed strikes hullabaloo...what is everyone up in arms [heh heh...unarmed strikes...arms...ehem] about? Monks still do d4 + Dex. instead of Str. with their unarmed strikes. Monks still can spend their ki point and get a stunning strike. Monks can still have their unarmed strikes count as magical attacks at [6th?] whatever level it is. All of this is what monks do. Someone/ANYone else who wants to throw a punch uses these general "unarmed strikes in combat" clarification. WHAT is with all the whining about the unarmed strikes "not counting as weapons"...which, I have seen no where in the Monk's description to claim they were counted as weapons before?

 

[pukunui]

Actually, can someone explain the reason we needed an update/change to unarmed strikes? What problem was it fixing?

On Twitter, I asked Jeremy: "What is the idea behind making unarmed strikes not weapons? How does this change affect monks?" His response: "Unarmed strikes never should have appeared as weapons, hence the correction. The monk is barely affected."

Anyone notice how much more powerful Magic Iniate got as a feat. I heard a rules interruptation rescently 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 Iniatate cleric and choose healing word, you can now cast it using any of your wizard slots.

That's not how I read it, but then I don't think that erratum is entirely clear.

 

[MerricB]

Actually, can someone explain the reason we needed an update/change to unarmed strikes? What problem was it fixing?

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!

 

[pukunui]

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

Indeed. As per Jeremy: "You can make a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike, so a monk can use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike."

 

[Eric V]

The elemental monk errata was...quite exceptionally misguided in my opinion.

Seriously.

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

 

[Nebulous]

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

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

Right. He's been impressed by how amazing his damage output is. Which i thought was suspect, but it seemed right according to the rules.

 

[Lancelot]

After scanning through the errata, the only change to my game is a couple of spells (e.g. phantasmal killer) make saves at end of turn, instead of start of turn.

That's it. Everything else (in my game) was basically just clarification of things we kind of knew anyway. A monk's fists aren't valid targets for magic weapon. You can't Twin Spell a burning hands or a scorching ray. Reach can be used for opportunity attacks. You need a hand free to load a missile weapon (i.e. the bolts or bullets don't somehow jump into it automatically). In all honesty, my players would have been surprised if anyone at our table had a different interpretation to this, or if our DM would somehow allow it.

Of course, other people's mileage my vary. If anyone out there disagrees with a ruling, the good news is that it can be ignored. Their DM decides the interpretation anyway, so it only impacts organized play. And if my participation in organized play was contingent on whether my sorcerer can Twin multi-target or area-effect spells, then... well, even without the clarification, I'm probably asking for trouble with the DM.

I'm pretty happy about it, overall. I generally hate and fear errata, because I feel compelled to place stickies in my books or have print-out sheets lying around. But there are no really significant changes here. Frankly, I could ignore this errata completely (other than a mental note that a few of the ultra-weak illusion spells are now ever-so-slightly better), and it makes no impact to our game. Excellent news.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think errata looks fine. The one thing I wanted a bit of guidance on - hiding - we got, and basically: it's up to the DM - cool beans.

As a bonus they also clarified reach OA is ok, beast multi-attack and act on its own is ok, and free hand to load crossbows. Overchannel cantrip thing doesn't work. All fine. I agree with the water whip nerf too.

I would have liked to see paladin smite requires a bonus action, instead of no action, but ... eh. No complaints. I prefer to have this errata than not.

 

[famousringo]

As for all of this unarmed strikes hullabaloo...what is everyone up in arms [heh heh...unarmed strikes...arms...ehem] about? Monks still do d4 + Dex. instead of Str. with their unarmed strikes. Monks still can spend their ki point and get a stunning strike. Monks can still have their unarmed strikes count as magical attacks at [6th?] whatever level it is. All of this is what monks do. Someone/ANYone else who wants to throw a punch uses these general "unarmed strikes in combat" clarification. WHAT is with all the whining about the unarmed strikes "not counting as weapons"...which, I have seen no where in the Monk's description to claim they were counted as weapons before?

1. It messes up a lot of multiclass options. Less options means less fun for a lot of players.

2. It takes some handy attack buffs off the table for the martial class that probably has the biggest damage scaling problem.

3. Par for the course for these after-the-fact rules changes, it muddies the rules as much as it clarifies them. Now monks need to carefully scrutinize every ability to determine whether it says "weapon attack" or "melee weapon attack." When the book says one, does it actually mean the other? Other martials don't have this problem.

4. They fixed a non-problem. Nobody was complaining about muliticlassing monks breaking encounters with Magic Weapon. Those complaints are about things like Sharpshooter and Contagion.

Edit: it's been a long day, now second guessing myself on whether there's meant to mbe any distinction between "weapon attack" and "melee weapon attack."

You know what? Screw rules clarifications. The more of them I see, the more annoyed I am by 5th Ed rules.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Doesn't this re enable polearm mastery + warcaster?