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.

 

[Mistwell]

What? Of course you're the one targeting with the spell -- the spell isn't dictating the targets, you are. Come on now, you're grasping for straws here.

No, you're misunderstanding me. Not WHICH targets, but whether or not it CAN target more than one. That is dictated by the spell, not you. Yes, the spellcaster chooses WHICH targets, but the spellcaster cannot make the spell target more than one target if the spell doesn't allow for that - that is up to the spell description, not you. And the ability is based off the spell description, not you.

The moment you tell me that you won't allow twinned Fire Bolt and twinned Disintegrate is the moment I agree to disagree. Otherwise your logic is flawed cherry picking of a sentence. You apply your logic to the entire sentence or you don't at all, period. Otherwise your logic is bunk.

I am applying my logic to the whole sentence. My logic is "read it as you would anything else in the English language using a reasonable person standard - what do you think this means?" That's my logic, it's applied to the entire sentence, and that logic dictates it can only twin spells which are capable of hitting one target only based on the spell description, and it doesn't really care if it "could" be an object instead of a creature. That is logical. You don't need to be so literal about the word creature there - the word creature is fairly meaningless in this context, and context is crucial for understanding English. I also explained why that is consistent with the rest of the rules, with comparison to "damage" meaning both hit point damage and the possibility of subdual damage. Creature in this case means both creature and the possibility of an object for the rare use of the spell for an object - as if you want to twin spell a fire bolt against an object, an example we both know will not come up in games.

It's funny, you've been offering nothing but catty remarks to me and now complain that I'm offering the same attitude in turn. Maybe cut out the snarky "(not surprising)" bits and I'd listen.

I didn't start catty - it was only when, instead of merely disagreeing with me, you opted to instead tell me I am being illogical if I dare disagree with you, that the catty came out.

Fortunately, what I am advocating is what the game designers are also explicitly also advocating - I am right on this one, per the game designers, in their official errata. You might consider therefore it's not illogical - it's just plain old something you disagree with. Contrary opinions can also be logical and still contrary. Heck, they can be logical and wrong even. Logic isn't the deciding factor, so stop tossing it around like it's a gem only you possess.

 

[Mistwell]

There is no rule text to support this. You would have to make up the incubation period and the like. It would be a house rule.

At best you could interpret that the disease doesn't take effect until the third save is missed, even that would be adding something not listed.

There is rules text to support it. The diseases are all listed in the DMG with their incubation times.

Mind you I am not saying I necessarily agree with this interpretation of the spell, but it's an interpretation. You cause the listed disease, the DM looks it up in the DMG, and you go from there.

 

[Delandel]

I just figured you didn't know any better, and made a mistake. My confusion came because what you actually typed was, "... + swing if he crits." But, you DID clear things up for me just now - thanks for that. Might help our debate move forward if you made an effort to be that clear in the future.

I see that you like to break the rules, and make assumptions that are improbable, when doing your math - this does not support your argument, but makes it look like you are manipulating data.

Naw, you didn't think I was making a mistake, you said that I enjoy breaking the rules. Nice backpedal though: it's almost an apology but then you say I'm the one who needs to put more effort. So close!

So, you've gone from mathematical, logical analysis to anecdotal evidence?

This is gold.

Look dude. I was showing that pre-errata Sorcerer damage was a-okay, and that the changes weren't needed. I made a quick post showing some math. I don't know what you were sipping when you decided to go on a rant against me calling me a cheater and talking about 896 damage fireballs. It was hilarious though, which is why I'm deciding to respond.

Then you start with:

Also, though you don't seem to think so, there IS a cost to constantly using that Reckless Attack. When everybody, including ranged attackers, has advantage against the Barb, he's going to get hit by everything! Believe it or not, Barbarians CAN be KO'd!

Which, of course, is just a random opinion thrown out there. To which I respond, yeah, they can be KO'd, but I personally don't see it happen often. Opinion for opinion.

And now you give me this gem:

So, you've gone from mathematical, logical analysis to anecdotal evidence?

I don't even know what to say. Wow. Can I have some of what you're sipping?

Ok... I'll entertain it. I've been DM'ing for 5th edition since the Starter Box came out. I run both Encounters and Expeditions, as well as play in Expeditions and Epics, every chance I get. I'd venture to bet that I've seen more tables of 5th edition D&D, and different players and characters in action, than you have. And in MY experience, they do not. It's actually very common for characters with multiple melee attacks per round to be left with no available target for their last attack. This is one of the drawbacks built into playing a melee character, which ranged characters face much less frequently.

I've played with three different playgroups, seen maybe 20 different characters from levels 1-12, since the Starter Set. I've played through LotP. I've DM'd it. I've done homebrew and most of Hoard. My experiences are Barbarians are powerhouses and their resiliency makes swinging recklessly an easy choice. As the DM, you really have to have it out for that barbarian to drop him. And he won't be getting a bonus attack every swing, but still very often. Turns out when you're doing upwards 30+ damage to a minion it tends to drop. And there's usually another creature in range to hit.

You have different experiences? Good for you! Now what do you want?

Heh - apparently you ignored the part where I stated I was just trying to make a point.

And it was a crappy point. Getting three swings isn't as hard as you make it out to be. Doing 896 Fireball damage never happens. Next!

Let me see if I can make it a little more clear for you. If you're talking about a target rich environment, full of minions, the Sorcerer is going to be much more effective, with AoE spells, than the Barb who MIGHT get 3 attacks/round. Even assuming the Sorcerer can only get 3 targets into his Fireball's area of effect, he'll still outperform the Barb, on average - and if it's such a target rich environment, odds are probably pretty good you can get more than 3 enemies in an 8x8 area, no?

The point is, if you want to continue to argue that, in a room full of minions, a Barb will outperform a caster... the only conclusion I can come to is that you are woefully inexperienced, or incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Now, if you want to talk about a boss fight - that's a whole different story - but you seem stuck on this extra attack from GWM.

If by "target rich environment" you mean TWO ENEMIES, then yes. With TWO ENEMIES, a barbarian can get his three swings. He can on one enemy too if he crits, but less frequently.

If you bothered looking at my posts, or remembering them, I said that Fireballs are indeed good! I say that, hooray fireballs! But that's all they've got left now. THAT is my problem. I'm not "stuck" on anything, people like you are stuck on the same things so that is what I respond to.

More importantly - my main point is just that Barbs vs. Sorcerers are apples and oranges. There are so many other considerations (melee/range, single-target focus vs. AoE, one-trick pony vs. versatility), that I think a strict dps comparison is not really a fair way to evaluate the classes.

Your main point is whatever your new sentence is. You went on a rant about GWM double bonus action swings. You're all over the place now. It's a shotgun argument where you're hoping something sticks, ignore previous posts like they're not a scroll up away.

My main point was the nerfs weren't warranted, that the Sorcerer was already not some overpowered blaster before this errata, and he got significantly worse now. I don't care about your quibbles for barbarian survivability or the merits of ranged vs. melee. Seriously dude. You're looking, hoping, to win some argument about whatever the crap else. I don't know why. THIS IS MY MAIN POINT.

More please!

 

[Remathilis]

There is rules text to support it. The diseases are all listed in the DMG with their incubation times.

Mind you I am not saying I necessarily agree with this interpretation of the spell, but it's an interpretation. You cause the listed disease, the DM looks it up in the DMG, and you go from there.

Granted, my PCs are rarely the type to cast such a spell, but methinks if they do THAT is the interpretation I'll use. TBH, I doubt they even notice doomlocking is a thing.

 

[Ashrym]

Contagion is overrated. Bestow curse in the same slot works without needing to fail 3 saves for the duration or damage the target, and hold monster also doesn't need to damage the target while allowing range.

Slimy doom is pretty good but the spell has competition in similar options. Being an attack roll instead of a save is probably it's best benefit.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Contagion is overrated. Bestow curse in the same slot works without needing to fail 3 saves for the duration or damage the target, and hold monster also doesn't need to damage the target while allowing range.

You misunderstand. The "broken" interpretation of Contagion because it works off of an attack roll instead of a save, while forcing multiple followup saves, without concentration. In short, you use it to bypass and simultaneously ablate Legendary Resistance.

 

[Mistwell]

You misunderstand. The "broken" interpretation of Contagion because it works off of an attack roll instead of a save, while forcing multiple followup saves, without concentration. In short, you use it to bypass and simultaneously ablate Legendary Resistance.

I agree it's an issue. I wish it had been clarified. I think it was reported plenty to their customer service and again in the surveys. Ah well.

 

[Ashrym]

You misunderstand. The "broken" interpretation of Contagion because it works off of an attack roll instead of a save, while forcing multiple followup saves, without concentration. In short, you use it to bypass and simultaneously ablate Legendary Resistance.

I didn't misunderstand. I stated that the attack roll is probably the best benefit.

That's a niche ability, however. Legendary resistance encounters happen but so do encounters with creatures immune to disease. In the case of a legendary creature, unless the spell caster can also inflict damage after casting the spell and succeeding in the attack roll on his turn the legendary creature can still take a legendary action at the end of the caster's turn.

It's possible no one will damage the creature before it's turn and it will have enough opportunity to respond.

Legendary saves still work on the subsequent saves so it's still temporary.

I find it overrated.


Edit - second thought, immunities might not apply to the spell, but it still seems niche as primarily a tool for legendary creatures.

 

[Jeffery Clark]

My main point was the nerfs weren't warranted, that the Sorcerer was already not some overpowered blaster before this errata, and he got significantly worse now. I don't care about your quibbles for barbarian survivability or the merits of ranged vs. melee. Seriously dude. You're looking, hoping, to win some argument about whatever the crap else. I don't know why. THIS IS MY MAIN POINT.

More please!

Amen. People forget that this isn't a spammable thing. Sorcerers give up getting their "extra" spell slots to use metamagic. Sorcerers don't get sorcery points back on a short rest, only long. Wizards and Warlocks get to reclaim spell slots on a short rest. Using metamagic vs creating extra spell slots is a trade-off. Now it is very unbalanced. The usefulness of sorcery points took a huge hit, especially at early levels. The key thing is that people forget that we can really only do this stuff reliably once or twice per long rest. LONG REST. Not short rest like wizards/warlocks and just about every other class's abilities. Wizards get ritual casting so they don't burn spell slots outside of combat, get spell recovery on a short rest, and each of the tradition schools gives them some pretty good abilities at 2nd and 6th level. Look @ Fighters' extra attack at level 5, or Rogue's sneak attack at that same level - 3d6 extra damage PER TURN. Sorcs were supposed to be flexible casters who could occasionally open up and save their party from a sticky situation. Now, they're Wizard wannabes.

Anyway, my AL games will follow the new errata as written per league rules, and my homebrew games will not.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I didn't misunderstand. I stated that the attack roll is probably the best benefit.

Pardon, but by comparing Contagion to Bestow Curse you appeared to misunderstand that Contagion's "broken" reputation comes from its niche as a tool against legendary creatures. The sentence, "Bestow curse in the same slot works without needing to fail 3 saves for the duration or damage the target" led me to believe you do not fully appreciate how much easier it is to stunlock a legendary creature with Contagion (under the straightforward, broken interpretation) than with Bestow Curse. Hit a dragon with Bestow Curse and it still has a 50%-ish chance each round to save without even spending any legendary resistance; hit a dragon with Slimy Doom and every single member of your party has multiple chances per turn to stun it with no save allowed.

If I'm wrong and you fully understood that, hey, sorry for underestimating you. But hopefully the tip will be useful to someone out there on the Internet, somewhere, even if it's not useful to you.