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]

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.

You mean glee?

 

[Mistwell]

If anyone needs to know why Suggestion unchecked is too powerful, watch the anime Code Geass.

Jessica Jones, Season 1, the Villain (Kilgrave) has this power. He's incredibly evil, and very powerful.

 

[KYRON45]

You mean glee?

Why yes…yes I do.

 

[Mistwell]

The line is blurry to say the least. To me, the difference is scale. An optimizer will tell you to take a level of hexblade as a paladin despite the tonal mismatch because the two mechanics synergize so well and the mechanical synergy is more important than the story implications of paladin/warlock.

I don't think that's at all a fair implication. An optimizer usually decides on the kind of mechanics they want to play, pieces those together through different combinations, and then looks at the mechanics and decides what story they want to tell which fits those mechanics. The story implications of a paladin/warlock might be far more interesting than either class alone for that player and they enjoy the challenge of telling that more complicated story.

Every single optimization channel on YouTube operates to, at some point, highlight the various possibilities of story from the combination they're discussing. I've never once seen them ignore the story aspects.

 

[Stalker0]

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?

"Extensive errata?" The PHB errata is less than a page, and about half of that is just clarifying language, its not even truly in error.

for a complex multi-hundred page rules tome, that ain't so bad.

 

[Mistwell]

IMO
Optimizer: enjoys doing math and puzzles.
Power Gamer: enjoys being more powerful than others.
You can be one or the other, or both.

You can generally tell the difference by suggesting they can play a support build.

an optimizer might maximize healing.
A power gamer might say no.
both they will do probably play a paladin.

Nothing prevents you from grappling back.

I make my PCs more powerful than everyone else because everyone else in my group makes their PCs so weak (mechanically and with in-game choices), and our DM uses published adventures, that we'd get absolutely trounced all the time or force the DM to tweak every encounter downward in power if I didn't focus on making up some of that difference. I never hog the spotlight, others probably rarely notice my PC is more powerful, but I am pretty sure the DM notices and is OK with it.

This is not me complaining about our other players. Everyone I play with is awesome. It's not a judgement on their choices. I'm merely explaining why I make the choices I make.

To demonstrate just how true this is, my rogue in the game I am thinking of is hands down the most powerful PC in a game with a Wizard, a Sorcerer, and a Druid (along with a Monk and Paladin). Which let me tell you, is hard to pull off given how inherently powerful the mechanics of a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Druid happen to be, and how inherently weaker a Rogue framework is relative to those full casters. But it's 100% true. I am not even sure the Sorcerer player is aware she HAS spells to chose from which are not cantrips half the time. But she absolutely shines in social encounters, because of the charisma of the player.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Of course it's not an auto-win - there's still a saving throw, there's still the concentration requirement, and it still only affects one creature leaving their allies/minions to try to break that concentration. It's just no longer so subject to an extended litigation about what's "reasonable". Is handing over the maguffin reasonable? Is suggesting the PC leave the adventure site and go home reasonable? Is telling the PC to stop fighting and lay down their weapons reasonable? Is giving me the shop's cash drawer reasonable? If ANY of those are no, the whole reasonability issue makes the spell very weak.

It's a second level spell, not Dominate Person. It should be relatively weak.

It's a pumped up Persuade, just like Knock is super Slight of Hand/Thieve's Tools.

 

[Koloth]

I make my PCs more powerful than everyone else because everyone else in my group makes their PCs so weak (mechanically and with in-game choices), and our DM uses published adventures, that we'd get absolutely trounced all the time or force the DM to tweak every encounter downward in power if I didn't focus on making up some of that difference. I never hog the spotlight, others probably rarely notice my PC is more powerful, but I am pretty sure the DM notices and is OK with it.

To demonstrate just how true this is, my rogue in the game I am thinking of is hands down the most powerful PC in a game with a Wizard, a Sorcerer, and a Druid (along with a Monk and Paladin). Which let me tell you, is hard to pull off given how inherently powerful the mechanics of a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Druid happen to be, and how inherently weaker a Rogue framework is relative to those full casters. But it's 100% true. I am not even sure the Sorcerer player is aware she HAS spells to chose from which are not cantrips half the time. But she absolutely shines in social encounters.

Or maybe the Sorcerer player isn't that interested in combat. Sounds like she has a very powerful character during social encounters, more so then yours, and enjoys using that power during such encounters. Hopefully, the DM will occasionally let her use her social 'power' to win an encounter without any of that pesky combat stuff.

 

[billd91]

It's a second level spell, not Dominate Person. It should be relatively weak.

It's a pumped up Persuade, just like Knock is super Slight of Hand/Thieve's Tools.

Already addressed by pukunui pages ago. Even considering an action that sounds doable rather than is reasonable, the spell is a lot more restrictive than Dominate Person.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

"Extensive errata?" The PHB errata is less than a page, and about half of that is just clarifying language, its not even truly in error.

for a complex multi-hundred page rules tome, that ain't so bad.

It's already way more balance errata than we saw in all of 5e. Whether that's good or bad is up to you, but it's undeniably different from before.