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.

 

[Remathilis]

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!

I think it shows that The method and speed of errata has changed with technology, the need for it has remained constant.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

Sections were changed. That's what errata does.

That first 4e book was not worth the paper it was printed on just a few month later.
So I was glad there was a digital version that updated withball the changes.

But that was not the worst part.
References showed page xx. Grammatical errors. Obvious mistakes in the monster manual.

The whole print books were really rushed out. And I really did wait for a second printing and it did not come at all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

okay I'm only doing this once to try to not get BACK into this circle...

The players says what they want to try to do... the DM adjudicates it. The words used to do so only need to make sense in the context at the table.... This is not "D&D rules" this is just playing a game.

If the player says "goo gah um ell ess" and the DM/GM/Story teller understands what that means it's cool (although one hell of an in joke...)

If a player was just told about a statue, they pick up a d20 and hold it up to where the dm sees and says "History?" and the DM understands that to mean "Do I know anything about this, should I roll" thats cool.

If a player just told about a statue says "I take the time to ponder if I recall any lore on it" that's cool too.

If the DM wants them to roll that's fine, if the DM wants to give it to them thats fine... '

I am sick of hearing on here "It doesn't matter that all of your adult players have been with you for 20+ years and you all understand most of the time what would and wouldn't require a roll they still have to state an action and wait on the DM"

I often wonder if that is why my combats run so fast... "I attack the orc, 17" seems much faster then "I swing my sword at the orc" "Okay roll an attack roll" "I got a 17"

 

[Professor Murder]

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

Sections were changed. That's what errata does.

I buy the book.
I wish to use the book to run my game.
The book does not in fact reflect the rules of the game.
In order to use the rules as written, I have to use the online version.
The book no longer represents the game.

But that said, Ive stated my position. Moving along.

 

[Echohawk]

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

Sections were changed. That's what errata does.

My MacBook's dictionary tells me that one of the meanings of "obsolete" is "out of date" so I don't think it is unreasonable for @Professor Murder to characterize the 4e books as becoming obsolete over time, given the volume of errata. The final version of the collected errata for all the 4e books was a 140-page document.

I ran a years-long 4e campaign, all the way to 30th level. For the back half of that, the sheer volume of errata made my first print Player's Handbook at the very least unreliable as a reference. I stopped using it and relied on others sources, such as the Essentials books and the online tools. So it certainly became obsolete for me.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This is pretty embarrassing for wotc. They should have released a full 5.5srd before the rulebooks went to print, so that the community could have spotted these silly errors in advance.

 

[Remathilis]

This is pretty embarrassing for wotc. They should have released a full 5.5srd before the rulebooks went to print, so that the community could have spotted these silly errors in advance.

The 2024 core books: coming in 2026!

 

[Maxperson]

okay I'm only doing this once to try to not get BACK into this circle...

The players says what they want to try to do... the DM adjudicates it. The words used to do so only need to make sense in the context at the table.... This is not "D&D rules" this is just playing a game.

If the player says "goo gah um ell ess" and the DM/GM/Story teller understands what that means it's cool (although one hell of an in joke...)

If a player was just told about a statue, they pick up a d20 and hold it up to where the dm sees and says "History?" and the DM understands that to mean "Do I know anything about this, should I roll" thats cool.

If a player just told about a statue says "I take the time to ponder if I recall any lore on it" that's cool too.

If the DM wants them to roll that's fine, if the DM wants to give it to them thats fine... '

I am sick of hearing on here "It doesn't matter that all of your adult players have been with you for 20+ years and you all understand most of the time what would and wouldn't require a roll they still have to state an action and wait on the DM"

A player can look at a fly, a statue, a sandwich and a shoe and say, "History?" And I don't care how long you've been playing together, the best the DM can do is ASSUME that he knows what the player means by it.

If I have to assume what you mean, then I am in effect playing your game and I have no intention of playing anyone else's game for them. In my game they need to describe to me what they do so that I actually know their intent, not guess at it, no matter how educated my guess may be.

I often wonder if that is why my combats run so fast... "I attack the orc, 17" seems much faster then "I swing my sword at the orc" "Okay roll an attack roll" "I got a 17"

And this is a fairly blatant False Equivalence. Attack rolls are not ability checks and there's no room for misinterpretation due to lack of description.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My MacBook's dictionary tells me that one of the meanings of "obsolete" is "out of date" so I don't think it is unreasonable for @Professor Murder to characterize the 4e books as becoming obsolete over time, given the volume of errata. The final version of the collected errata for all the 4e books was a 140-page document.

Compared to how many pages of books and magazines?

140 pages of errata when there are 10k pages of text, for example, would be rather low I should think.

 

[Remathilis]

My MacBook's dictionary tells me that one of the meanings of "obsolete" is "out of date" so I don't think it is unreasonable for @Professor Murder to characterize the 4e books as becoming obsolete over time, given the volume of errata. The final version of the collected errata for all the 4e books was a 140-page document.

I ran a years-long 4e campaign, all the way to 30th level. For the back half of that, the sheer volume of errata made my first print Player's Handbook at the very least unreliable as a reference. I stopped using it and relied on others sources, such as the Essentials books and the online tools. So it certainly became obsolete for me.

Part of the reason Essentials was dubbed 4.5 was because so much errata was issued that that Printed versions of the first round of books (PHB/DMG/MM/AV 1) was utterly out of date. Whole powers were redesigned to work differently. Skill challenges were redone. Stealth was redone. Monster math was changed and many iconic monsters got new versions. The whole armor table got redone in AV. The books very quickly no longer reflected the game as it was being played and the Essentials book better reflected how the game was actually being played.