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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

YMMV. I just am flashing back to the online client for 4th ed where they kept going back and revising things. Sometimes just correcting typos sure. Other times just full on rules changes. Made the books obsolete. I'm more than resigned to errors in a print product. Hell, I played White Wolf. Page X. But I do feel that the ability to make revisions to an always online, always accessible product has a knock on effect of giving publishers a cushion, and cushions can make us too comfortable. We already see this in video games. Ship buggy garbage but its fine because they will patch it for years to come. Measure twice. Cut Once.

Perhaps, if hyperbole is a concern, you might want to avoid it too? 4e's errata emphatically did not make the books obsolete.

Personally, I don't understand why errata is such an offensive, "enraged" inducing thing (your word, not mine.) The vast majority of errata published for 4e was, as you say, fixing typos or plugging overlooked issues (like that one Ranger attack that could theoretically allow infinite damage if you cheesed your attack bonus high enough.) Yes, some of it was dumb. Some of everything is dumb. That's not a meaningful criticism without more information.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The DM calls for checks in the 2014 ruleset. Ability checks are a tool for the DM.

This would be precisely the divide they were speaking of, yes.

Also, hilarious to see such hardline opinions when I've seen exactly the same posters stridently talk about how the DM isn't bound by the rules and can do whatever they want. Funny how that suddenly stops being true when the thing the DM wants to do is no longer aimed in the Viking Hat direction.

 

[Belen]

That's not how 5e is written to work, though. The 5e rules say that the player describes to you what he is doing, "I'm examining the statue to see if I recognize anything about it." and then the DM calls for an ability check if necessary, "Okay, make a history check."

If a player asks for a check, the DM is more likely(even if not consciously) to grant the ability check rather than just saying yes if it's an easy thing to know for that PC. The player is gimping himself by asking.

Never seen that in play. If someone is trained in a skill and it is easy, then I will just say, you know what it is.

 

[Maxperson]

Never seen that in play. If someone is trained in a skill and it is easy, then I will just say, you know what it is.

I have. First, it's really easy to just say yes when someone asks for a roll. It's more likely to get a roll than an auto success. Second, if they describe what they are doing instead of just saying, "Can I roll X?," they are orders of magnitude more likely to describe an auto success than if they just ask to roll X, which gives the DM 0 to go on.

I don't let my players gimp themselves that way. Players have to describe actions and then I adjudicate, asking for a roll only if necessary.

 

[pukunui]

I have. First, it's really easy to just say yes when someone asks for a roll. It's more likely to get a roll than an auto success. Second, if they describe what they are doing instead of just saying, "Can I roll X?," they are orders of magnitude more likely to describe an auto success than if they just ask to roll X, which gives the DM 0 to go on.

I don't let my players gimp themselves that way. Players have to describe actions and then I adjudicate, asking for a roll only if necessary.

I try to do it this way, but some of my players are just too stuck in the old roll-playing mentality, and no matter what I do, I can't get them to change. Some of them also just enjoy rolling the dice, even if they know they have no chance of failing.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't believe was intent, my read was that was trying to pull out an example of industries where perfection should be paramount, errors eliminated completely if possible, and that even in businesses that may spend millions a year in eliminating such things (for the sake of point here, ignoring Boeing's antics of late which runs counter to this) - and if it is impossible to eliminate in places like that, is hard to expect that in businesses that won't have such a keen focus / budget for eliminating mistakes that they can do better.
Thus I think it is reasonable to expect that any product was likely to have some issues slip through - question is how many an individual may feel is reasonable, and how many would be indication of undue lack of care as such. Here I'm not sure, things like Goliath issue, shield donning, giant insect and poisoner feel like maybe one or two wouldn't be so bad, but at least 4 suggests not as good a process as could the case.

100% spot on. You got it.

We should EXPECT errors in a product like this.

 

[Nefermandias]

This would be precisely the divide they were speaking of, yes.

Also, hilarious to see such hardline opinions when I've seen exactly the same posters stridently talk about how the DM isn't bound by the rules and can do whatever they want. Funny how that suddenly stops being true when the thing the DM wants to do is no longer aimed in the Viking Hat direction.

Don't know who you are calling strident, but since you quoted me, I will speak for myself.

Yes, I strongly believe the DM should be the ultimate arbiter or rules on his own table. This goes without question.

That said, it is useful to discuss the written rules and also try and analyse the author's intentions on how the game was supposed to be played.

Please, also understand that when I say something like "The DM is the one supposed to be asking for Ability Checks, not the players" I am of course stating my personal views on the matter. There is no contradiction between saying the DM word is final while also having a personal opinion.

Ther is nothing "funny" about that.

On a side note, I'm not sure what you mean by "viking hat".

 

[Echohawk]

Really? 2014 5e needed errata from day one as well. This isn't anything new.

While that's true, it took 10 months for WotC to actually release errata for the 2014 PH. I posted this analysis in the other errata thread yesterday, but here it is again, presented slightly differently.

D&D Player's Handbook errata, from fastest to slowest:

• 0 months: 4e Player's Handbook, released June 2008, first "Update" published June 2008.
• 2 months: 3.5e Player's Handbook released July 2003, first errata published September 2003.
• 2 months: revised 2e Player's Handbook released April 1995, errata sheet published June 1995.
• 6 months: 2e Player's Handbook released February 1989, corrections published in Dragon #148 in August 1989.
• 10 months: 5e Player's Handbook released August 2014, version 1.0 of the errata published June 2015.
• 12 months: 3e Player's Handbook released August 2000, "Rules Corrections" published in August 2001.
• 21 months: 1e Player's Handbook released June 1978, errata published in Dragon #35 in March 1980.

Of course, the speed at which errata was published is not at all the same thing as the volume of errata needed. 4e wins any quantity competition by a landslide, given that the last version of the errata for the 4e Player's Handbook clocked in at 27 pages!

 

[Professor Murder]

Perhaps, if hyperbole is a concern, you might want to avoid it too? 4e's errata emphatically did not make the books obsolete.

Personally, I don't understand why errata is such an offensive, "enraged" inducing thing (your word, not mine.) The vast majority of errata published for 4e was, as you say, fixing typos or plugging overlooked issues (like that one Ranger attack that could theoretically allow infinite damage if you cheesed your attack bonus high enough.) Yes, some of it was dumb. Some of everything is dumb. That's not a meaningful criticism without more information.

It's not hyperbolic to speak about my own experiences. I bought the 4th ed PHB when it dropped. Because they had an online client, they were regularly making rules changes that were not just small clarifications or grammar corrections, but functional changes. Magic Missile is the best example.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not hyperbolic to speak about my own experiences. I bought the 4th ed PHB when it dropped. Because they had an online client, they were regularly making rules changes that were not just small clarifications or grammar corrections, but functional changes. Magic Missile is the best example.

And not one part of that makes the book "obsolete." That is, in fact, pure hyperbole.

Sections were changed. That's what errata does.