D&D Errata Nerfs Conjuring Spells, Makes Other Changes

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.

 

[Reynard]

If you're grappling a foe, you can move them by moving yourself but at half speed. So I don't see an issue with grappling someone, walking them off a cliff, and dropping them as long as the cliff is close enough.

I remember pulling that trick with gargoyles in Princes of the Apocalypse.

How would you feel about it if you were the grappled person?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find it interesting that for 5.5 there's extensive errata to fix balance issues, while for 5e they explicitly avoided that and instead almost only published errata to fix actual errors in the text.

Are we heading back to the times of 4e, and in 3 years there will have been so many rules updates that the first printing 5.5 rulebooks will be tricky to use if your characters are on D&D beyond?

I am looking forward to 5.5's version of The Complete Errata Handbook.

 

[Staffan]

How would you feel about it if you were the grappled person?

I'd hope I roll better on my opposed check or save the next time.

 

[KYRON45]

How would you feel about it if you were the grappled person?

Is that a factor when you decide to do something while playing?

I’m going to cast fireball at those zombies; let me ask them how they’ll feel about that first.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you're grappling a foe, you can move them by moving yourself but at half speed. So I don't see an issue with grappling someone, walking them off a cliff, and dropping them as long as the cliff is close enough.

You can move them with you. Of course you can go over the cliff yourself.

If grappling would allow you to shove the enemy ahead of you, why is there a shove option?

But if you want to allow such shenanigans, feel free to do so.

I remember pulling that trick with gargoyles in Princes of the Apocalypse.

Yeah. Gargoyles have a fly speed. So they can just walk over with the player and then just use fly speed to stay on the cliff. But even then, I would make them do a shove, because walking over a cliff during a grapple is a lot more difficult because you can't pull. And flying does not give you as much leverage as pushings yourself from solid ground.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Is that a factor when you decide to do something while playing?

I’m going to cast fireball at those zombies; let me ask them how they’ll feel about that first.

Putting asid the fireball, which is something a bit different (spell vs improvised action), this is exactly how I adjucate player and DM actions.

How would the other party feel if it is used against them.

 

[KYRON45]

Putting asid the fireball, which is something a bit different (spell vs improvised action), this is exactly how I adjucate player and DM actions.

How would the other party feel if it is used against them.

Once the game starts everyone should know that anything they can do, the other side can do.
DMing by Socratic method seems like it could get very tedious.

As long as a good time is had; do what you need to.

 

[Reynard]

I'd hope I roll better on my opposed check or save the next time.

I am trying to imagine a different context in which a PC can lose a single roll and then be completely at the mercy of an enemy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Once the game starts everyone should know that anything they can do, the other side can do.

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

DMing by Socratic method seems like it could get very tedious.

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.

As long as a good time is had; do what you need to.

Of course. Same for you.

 

[KYRON45]

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.

It’s funny how the look on the DMs face is the same for both when PCs might die as well as when that big monster you’ve been waiting to run gets whacked in round 2 of the fight.