Dungeons & Dragons 2024 Player's Handbook Is Already Getting Errata

The 2024 Player's Handbook on D&D Beyond contains several updates to the new revised 5th edition ruleset. Early access users of D&D Beyond who have also obtained a physical copy of the 2024 Player's Handbook have noticed several minor differences between the digital and physical copy, assumably due to soon-to-be-released errata. Notably, the following changes have been spotted:

• Giant Insect spell contains a clarification on its HP (the physical edition states that the summoned insect has an HP of 30+10 for each level in the spell slot used to cast the spell; the digital version states 30+10 for every level above 4th level),
• Shields now require the Utilize action to don or doff
• Goliath's Powerful Build now specifies that it grants Advantage on ability checks to end the Grappled Condition instead of saving throws.
• True Polymorph's spell description no longer states that the spell effects end if its target's temporary hit points run out.
• The Telekinetic feat now specifies that it grants an increased range to the use of Mage Hand instead stating that you can cast Mage Hand at a further distance away.

Notably, Wizards of the Coast has not released an official errata document for the Player's Handbook, although they may be holding out until the book's full release on September 17th.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Too late! Thread is off the rails

Someone needs to make a new errata thread I guess. One with "No Hide discussion allowed!" in the title.

I don't know of any new errata or I would.

 

[Demetrios1453]

My problem is not that the stealth rules need that sort of consideration, it’s that they don’t leave room for that sort of consideration. The rules are, by my reading, crystal clear in allowing the player in scenario 2 to remain hidden, and in order for the DM in that situation to rule as they do in your example, they must rule contrary to what the rules text explicitly describes. Which is certainly what I would do, but I don’t like having to rule more restrictively than RAW. I think this is a glaring issue in the RAW because it forces DMs who want to rule in accordance with the internal logic of the fiction into conflict with the RAW.


I don’t think they’re hard to figure out how they mean to work. I think it’s plain as day that they’re meant to work exactly as they say they do, and that’s a problem for me because the way they say they work sucks.

Then... break the rules.

Simple.

 

[Horwath]

The new surprise is good. Much cleaner and not overwhelming.

surprise should be overwhelming.

 

[Horwath]

So, when does the 3rd printing coming out?

 

[Maxperson]

Given all the wailing and gnashing of teeth (let alone all the virtual oil tankers full of virtual ink spilled) over the matter, that seems to be a pretty nice, logical set of rules.

I mean, except for the part where you can walk out in bright light and stand in front of someone and if they don't beat your hide check, they can't see you if you don't attack or make noise. That part isn't logical at all.

 

[Stalker0]

I would argue the natural language of the stealth paragraph does imply an "active check", it certainly sounds active in the language.

Now I truly think they meant it to be a "passive or active perception check", but when I read the paragraph that is not how it sounds to me. It sounds like "you need to take an action and roll an actual perception check".

So "crystal clear" it is not imo.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm a little surprised that for a DM that is very good (I have inferred from your posts) at taking what a player says is their intended action, and adjudicating whether or not that action would require a roll (or not) and what the DC might be, based on their chosen action - I am surprised that you would have a problem with these Stealth rules needing the same sort of consideration.

It's not the same consideration. It's fixing broken(as written) stealth rules. There's a difference. But yes, I expect most DMs will fix the stealth rules that way.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmm. I disagree. I mean, I agree that they're not great, but I think that they absolutely intend for the "somehow sees you" line to mean anything that makes sense that they would see you (and otherwise a successful perception check).

But if it means that, it has to mean that whether you got the condition from taking the Hide action or from having the Invisibility spell cast on you. The spell does not specify that it does anything to prevent you from being seen, so that effect must be coming from the Invisible condition.

 

[Charlaquin]

Someone needs to make a new errata thread I guess. One with "No Hide discussion allowed!" in the title.

I don't know of any new errata or I would.

We’ve kinda already covered all the errata.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then... break the rules.

Simple.

I plan to. But rules that need to be broken to make sense… are bad rules… I don’t think this should be a controversial opinion, yet here we are.