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.

 

[bganon]

True. Balors might be a bad example. It would work on Vampires though: their Con is only +4.

Vampires have Legendary Resistance, and after auto-succeeding their first save can shift into mist form, which grants advantage on Con saves...

Monsters have lots of tricks.

 

[Parmandur]

No, that's incorrect. A vague rule is not the same as, and doesn't operate the same as, a clearly worded and specific rule.

The designers have chosen one interpretation of the published vagueness. Whether or not this more closely matches the ideal rule that existed only in their minds is irrelevant. These represent changes to the (vague and/or poorly-written) published rules, which were until now the rules of the game.

Well, sure, making the rule more clear is an improvement. Doesn't mean it is a different rule if it operates the same way in practice as before the clarification, though, even if a subset (even the majority!) of players misinterpreted the more vague original.

 

[famousringo]

No, that's incorrect. A vague rule is not the same as, and doesn't operate the same as, a clearly worded and specific rule.

The designers have chosen one interpretation of the published vagueness. Whether or not this more closely matches the ideal rule that existed only in their minds is irrelevant. These represent changes to the (vague and/or poorly-written) published rules, which were until now the rules of the game.

Just to back up this argument, compare it to common law jurisprudence.

The legislators who passed a bill into law may intend one interpretation or another, but once a judge interprets the law to mean something in particular (publishing errata in this analogy), that becomes an important precedent that severely constrains future interpretations of the law. That precedent may or may not reflect the original intent of the legislators, but the point is that the law is forever changed by the official ruling. Removing ambiguity changes the law.

 

[Parmandur]

Just to back up this argument, compare it to common law jurisprudence.



The legislators who passed a bill into law may intend one interpretation or another, but once a judge interprets the law to mean something in particular (publishing errata in this analogy), that becomes an important precedent that severely constrains future interpretations of the law. That precedent may or may not reflect the original intent of the legislators, but the point is that the law is forever changed by the official ruling. Removing ambiguity changes the law.

An interesting analogy, flawed by the exact identity of "legislator" and "judge" in this circumstance, and that this has been the consistant application since day one anyways.

 

[the Jester]

An interesting analogy, flawed by the exact identity of "legislator" and "judge" in this circumstance, and that this has been the consistant application since day one anyways.

If by "consistent application" you mean "consistent application for [your] group", sure.

 

[Parmandur]

If by "consistent application" you mean "consistent application for [your] group", sure.

Happily, that is the case. However, I meant as in "stated by designers when asked."

Not saying there are no straight up changes here; but if Perkins or Crawford were running a game with a Sorcerer ten months ago, they had the same ability in regards to twinning as specified in the errata. A cha he in text, sure; bit no change in the rule.

 

[the Jester]

Huh. I was just looking at the paladin, and I found the first thing where I think errata is actually called for, short of clarifying things here and there.

At 18th level, paladins get aura improvement, but the paladin of vengeance has no aura. Instead, at 7th level (when other paladin oaths gain their auras), it gets Relentless Avenger (basically, chase a guy after you whack him with an OA).

I'd propose- and will prolly houserule- that at 18th level, the OoV paladin get to pursue his entire speed instead of half his speed.

EDIT: For clarity, I do realize that the OoV paladin gets the standard auras that all paladins get. But the other gusy get an oath aura, too.

 

[Celtavian]

Huh. I was just looking at the paladin, and I found the first thing where I think errata is actually called for, short of clarifying things here and there.

At 18th level, paladins get aura improvement, but the paladin of vengeance has no aura. Instead, at 7th level (when other paladin oaths gain their auras), it gets Relentless Avenger (basically, chase a guy after you whack him with an OA).

I'd propose- and will prolly houserule- that at 18th level, the OoV paladin get to pursue his entire speed instead of half his speed.

EDIT: For clarity, I do realize that the OoV paladin gets the standard auras that all paladins get. But the other gusy get an oath aura, too.

You don't want to give the Vengeance paladin any more, man. He has the best spell list of the three paladins. His abilities are pretty good as well.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

You should never find a scroll with a Cantrip written on it

They are a common treasure so sayeth the DMG.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Cantrip scrolls are great. Although I can't remember what the rule is on man magic chats using them, raw