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.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Less than 24 hours and we're already at 16 pages! Well I didn't read them all but I am still on the fence as to my opinion of the errata. I mean, it's nice that they are fixing typos and such, but I sort of hate that they substantially changed anything - errata killed 4.0 for me and it put a serious, serious hurting on 3.5. On the other hand, there are several things I wish they WOULD change, and they didn't - so I am also sort of annoyed they didn't change the things they could have! So yeah, not sure how I feel about it.

One interesting thing is that I thought the dwarf racial change was a nerf - until I realized there is no throwing hammer! That's what a light hammer just does anyway. Also, I'm not sure why they changed things like evocation wizard +Int damage and overchannel on cantrips, but I'm guessing there was some broken combo somewhere that actually made that school good, so they got rid of it.

I understand not wanting to read through the entire thread, but the errata is pretty much like the example you cite, and described in the opening paragraph of the article: it's just typo fixing and clarifications, not any substantial changes. Just making RAW more inline with RAI. I think the 4E errata was often included large changes to the rules, actual "corrections" or re-balancing of things, and people are making the assumption that these changes are doing the same thing, when they're not.

 

[Celtavian]

Less than 24 hours and we're already at 16 pages! Well I didn't read them all but I am still on the fence as to my opinion of the errata. I mean, it's nice that they are fixing typos and such, but I sort of hate that they substantially changed anything - errata killed 4.0 for me and it put a serious, serious hurting on 3.5. On the other hand, there are several things I wish they WOULD change, and they didn't - so I am also sort of annoyed they didn't change the things they could have! So yeah, not sure how I feel about it.

One interesting thing is that I thought the dwarf racial change was a nerf - until I realized there is no throwing hammer! That's what a light hammer just does anyway. Also, I'm not sure why they changed things like evocation wizard +Int damage and overchannel on cantrips, but I'm guessing there was some broken combo somewhere that actually made that school good, so they got rid of it.

I really wanted an official change to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Mastery. Pretty unhappy I didn't get one. I wrote one I can live with for the moment. I get tired of feats that create ridiculous damage spikes that trivialize encounters. Both Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are feats that I as a DM have to account for all the time when building and running encounters or the encounters will be trivial. How the game designers don't see this, I don't now. For example, an enemy mage has approximately 40 hit points. Without GWM or Sharpshooter, the mage can take a few hits from a party and still be a viable enemy. With Sharpshooter and GWM, the mage is dead in a round if they show their face. Even one Sharpshooter hit is approximately 20 damage. Add in things like Hunter's Mark or a magic weapon, they go higher. It creates serious issues for DMs, yet they don't do anything to correct it starting the power up cycle that tends to kill games like D&D.

 

[evilbob]

I get tired of feats that create ridiculous damage spikes that trivialize encounters.

Really? I'm sure this is well-proven in a myriad of threads I've not seen, but "effective disadvantage" for +10 damage is game-breaking? It's not intuitive to me. I guess at high levels characters don't miss much?
(Sorry for going way off topic!)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The Vision and Light change is interesting. If I'm reading it correctly, this means a creature attacking someone heavily obscured now has disadvantage, instead of advantage for attacking a blinded creature and disadvantage (canceling each other out), is that correct?

I think that still requires a house rule. The only thing that errata changed was that now, when you're holding up a torch in the darkness, the goblins lurking in the dark can see you but you can't see them. Previously it was the opposite: they were blinded for being in a heavily obscured area, and you could see them because you were not. Of course nobody ran it that way (I hope) because that would be insane, but the errata simply codified the sane interpretation.

I don't see anything that would prevent advantage/disadvantage from cancelling out when two humans fight in the dark. I have a house rule that does change it ("if you cannot see an attacker who can see you, it gains advantage on its attacks against you") but I don't see it in these errata.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Later in the round =/= start of your next turn (which would be some time next round). Ready now aligns with just about everything else that lasts until start/end of next turn, so that's good.

It depends on how you define the start or end of the round. There's no change here if you read a round as starting on your turn and lasting until your next turn.

 

[Celtavian]

Really? I'm sure this is well-proven in a myriad of threads I've not seen, but "effective disadvantage" for +10 damage is game-breaking? It's not intuitive to me. I guess at high levels characters don't miss much?
(Sorry for going way off topic!)

It is game breaking even at lower level, just not as obvious. No, high level characters don't miss much due to Bounded Accuracy. There's a lot of ways to gain advantage to offset the penalty, one of the easiest is the 1st level bless spell.

The damage gets multiplied per attack. So when a fighter with three attacks and Action surge with four superiority dice, bless, and a magic weapon tees off with maybe a bard dice thrown in for good measure, he hits usually 4 or more times in that round against most things for an average of 92 points of damage in one round. Unless the creature is a dragon or other huge brute, it trivializes the encounter. Often coupled with the other party members doing damage as well, it trivializes things. Throw in the even sicker combo of a paladin using Vow to offset the penalty and smiting on top of using GWM, you get some really sick damage you have to carefully plan for as a DM.

I don't like a feat being a more important factor in DM encounter building than any other character ability. That is how both Sharpshooter and GWM work (though Sharpshooter is the worst as it eliminates nearly every negative of using a ranged weapon).

It's very, very annoying as a DM as it informs nearly every decision when building and playing encounters. You see what an Eldritch Knight Sharpshooter archer can do with haste and action surge. Try looking at that damage on paper. Well, it translates just as well to the real game.

 

[Mistwell]

Fire-resistance shouldn't be that big a deal at the endgame since there's a feat tax around it. Fire-immune though, that's the pain.

My calculations also ignored the barbarian having a magical weapon at all. At level 20, what type of weapon is he wielding? A +3 greataxe maybe, with other bonuses? At least I have my +3 -- or wait there's no equivalent weapon for blasters. I wouldn't want to encroach on the poor barbarian's territory!

Also if we're talking endgame, a Dragon Sorcerer needs to cast Scorching Ray as a 5th level spell to beat a high level Agonizing Eldritch Blast in average damage. Then we can add that 24 hour concentration of Hex on EB and the Sorc isn't keeping up, period. And the funny thing is that the Warlock's damage is absolutely fine! I'm not looking to drag Warlock through the mud, just the absolute joke they did here.






Oh, I can do that easily:

"When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self..."

I cast Scorching Ray targeting Bob. Bob is only one creature, and Scorching Ray doesn't have a range of self. Therefore, I qualify for the prerequisites.

Oh, but Scorching Ray could target more than one creature, you say! Therefore if it could then no no no!

Then by that logic, I cannot twin Fire Bolt, because Fire Bolt can target a creature OR object. Because it COULD target an object, this logic states that it doesn't qualify

The emphasis is on the word "one" not on the type. I think that's pretty obvious. Also, it's a strawman as I was not arguing that.

So no, Twin Spell did NOT always work this way by RAW. The intent was not to work this way according to Crawford, hence the change.

I disagree, it did always work that way by RAW. If the spell can have more than one target at the same time (not types of targets, quantity of targets simultaneously, as in more than one at the same time) then it cannot be twinned. That was always I think the pretty obvious read on the ability, and I still don't really get the argument that the ability is based on what your intent is as opposed to the text of the spell in question. Seemed like the "what's the casters intent" is a means of trying to game the rules beyond the obvious intent of those rules.

 

[evilbob]

Throw in the even sicker combo of a paladin using Vow to offset the penalty and smiting on top of using GWM, you get some really sick damage you have to carefully plan for as a DM.

Don't forget that vengeance paladins can haste themselves as well! Wow, and they can vow 1/short rest as well. Never noticed that combo before. Excuse me while I go roll up a human vengeance paladin...

 

[Delandel]

The emphasis is on the word "one" not on the type. I think that's pretty obvious. Also, it's a strawman as I was not arguing that.



I disagree, it did always work that way by RAW. If the spell can have more than one target at the same time (not types of targets, quantity of targets simultaneously, as in more than one at the same time) then it cannot be twinned. That was always I think the pretty obvious read on the ability, and I still don't really get the argument that the ability is based on what your intent is as opposed to the text of the spell in question. Seemed like the "what's the casters intent" is a means of trying to game the rules beyond the obvious intent of those rules.

No, what you're doing is now cherry picking which words you want to focus on to suit your idea of what the sentence means. There is no "clear emphasis," you either apply your logic to the complete sentence or you do not.

"When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn't have a range of self..."

If you say that "only one creature" means spells that CAN do otherwise are ineligible, then Fire Bolt is ineligible too, because it too can target something beyond one creature (objects). But you're just ignoring that because it doesn't suit your interpretation.

 

[evilbob]

The emphasis is on the word "one" not on the type. I think that's pretty obvious.

Sorry Mistwell, I know you've been around here forever but I have to agree that this was more ambiguous than you're claiming. I think "as long as it only targeted one creature" was a completely valid way to interpret that sentence - thus the ruling to take away that interpretation. (Whether or not someone can rightfully claim it as a "nerf" is still subject to debate.)