D&D Errata Nerfs Conjuring Spells, Makes Other Changes

dnd-asterik-1234066 (1).jpeg

A new errata for Dungeons & Dragons' revised 5th Edition has provided a significant nerf to conjuring spells and provided some clarity on how the Hide action works within the game. Wizards of the Coast released a new errata for its various D&D Core Rulebooks today, with a host of mostly minor changes to the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. Two of the biggest changes came to the Player's Handbook, with various conjuring spells receiving a notable debuff to upcasting, and the Hidden rules receiving a round of clarifications.

The Conjure Elemental, Conjure Fey, Conjure Minor Elementals, and Conjure Woodland Beings spells all received debuffs to their "Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot" sections, with the amount of increased damage decreasing from 2 attack die of a certain size to 1 attack die of a certain size. Several shapeshifting spells that granted temporary hit points now clarify that those temporary hit points go away once a spell is cast.

Additionally, the Hidden rules now explicitly state that the Hide action grants the Invisible condition "while hidden" and states what ends a player character hiding, which includes an enemy finding you via a Perception check. The Hide action received some notice during the initial Player's Handbook release for some alleged loopholes in the rules.

A full list of errata can be found on D&D Beyond.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

I noticed the poison sting of the pseudodragon was buffed. And it is still unclear if it counts as an attack.
It is clearly an "Action." It like any other attack "Action" that requires a save, just like a dragon's breath weapon.
I don't know how someone can think that having an at will abilit that renders unconscious for 1 hour is balanced in any way... Con DC 12 is about a 50% chance for quite some levels.

Failing by 5 for unconaciousness at least made it halfway ok.
I think I'll add an attack roll there.
:/
It is not OP because damage or simple an Action by an ally ends the condition. So all it really does is take an action for a PC. Though at CR 1/4 that does seem a bit rough (though I haven't crunched the numbers).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Agreed. Mostly at least. Some enemies have special abilities PCs can't get and vice versa.

No. It is actually not. In the last session, I gave my players an extra dex saving throw to avoid a pit trap and a str saving throw to catch a wooden beam while falling through a rotten roof. Why? Because I thought it was fair, no matter what the rules said. Because if my BBEG would have fallen that way, I'd also had let him use a legendary resistance to stop that fall somehow.


Of course. Same for you.
The rules should allow a dex save and a str save to simulate the Hollywood trope of preventing a fall by catching an edge, branch etc. It’s a shame that D&D has no mechanism for that in the RAW. I don’t think it ever has.
 

The rules should allow a dex save and a str save to simulate the Hollywood trope of preventing a fall by catching an edge, branch etc. It’s a shame that D&D has no mechanism for that in the RAW. I don’t think it ever has.
D&D does have a mechanism for that: the ability check. IIRC, the 2014 core books specifically mentioned allowing checks for the scenario you noted.
 



It is clearly an "Action." It like any other attack "Action" that requires a save, just like a dragon's breath weapon.

It is not OP because damage or simple an Action by an ally ends the condition.
No. This is still OP. Sorry. Just situationally OP.
So all it really does is take an action for a PC. Though at CR 1/4 that does seem a bit rough (though I haven't crunched the numbers).
It is not OP vs PCs. It is OP as a familiar.
 




Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top