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.

 

[Echohawk]

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.

As I posted earlier, there were 27 pages of errata for the 320 page 4e Player's Handbook.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As I posted earlier, there were 27 pages of errata for the 320 page 4e Player's Handbook.

...yes...and since they mentioned the "140 page errata document", I wanted that in comparison to the number of pages published for 4e. You know, an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[Echohawk]

...yes...and since they mentioned the "140 page errata document", I wanted that in comparison to the number of pages published for 4e. You know, an apples-to-apples comparison.

I don't think anyone was claiming that their entire library of 4e books was obsolete, only that some of the books became obsolete because of the volume of errata. For me personally, the only problem book was the Player's Handbook.

 

[SkidAce]

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...)

"owa tah go siam"?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

I am very sorry that in context with friends you don't know what they mean.

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.

right... how could you misinterpret "holds up d20 and asks 'history?"

In my game they need to describe to me what they do

that's great... it was one of my examples of "If it works for you go ahead but don't tell everyone your way is the right way when you know plenty of tables do it any number of other ways

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.

so in combat you let them call for rolls but not out of combat? cause last time (maybe two times ago) I had this go around the person literally told me they make players describe there attacks too.

 

[Maxperson]

I am very sorry that in context with friends you don't know what they mean.

You can never know. You can only educated guess. I won't guess at meanings, even if I'm 90% sure that I am correct.

right... how could you misinterpret "holds up d20 and asks 'history?"

That tells me that they want to make a history check. That check might auto fail, auto succeed or require a roll depending on exactly what they are looking for. Do they want to know the age of the statuette? Who it is? What that person did? What country they belonged to? What faction within the country that person belonged to? Or do they not care about any of that and just want to know who carved it?

Holding up a die and saying "history" tells me none of that, and one roll doesn't cover it all.

so in combat you let them call for rolls but not out of combat? cause last time (maybe two times ago) I had this go around the person literally told me they make players describe there attacks too.

They don't call for rolls in combat, either. Rolls just always happen in combat when you attack, unlike with ability checks. Apples and oranges.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

And I find that pair of positions contradictory. It doesn't matter, except when it does.

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.

Well, the thing I find funny isn't that it is a personal opinion, but rather that on the one hand, we have "you are a law unto yourself and nothing else matters," and on the other, we have "rules exist for a reason and we must analyze and understand them." The former rejects analysis completely. The latter considers it essential. The former sees the DM as absolute autarch and nothing whatever should impinge upon that. The latter sees a multi-polar world where the DM is one piece, albeit an important one.

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

I'm surprised you haven't heard the phrase. A "Viking Hat" DM is...well, I would reference the original rant wherein someone actively claimed the "Viking Hat" label with pride (as in, "I am the DM! I wear the Viking Hat!"), but it is rather laced with profanity and sexist language, so I won't.

The "Viking Hat" DM's word is unquestionable law. If you dare to question it, for any reason, you have become a Problem Player who needs to be taught your place. If you have the temerity to do something like referencing some portion of the rules, may God have mercy on your soul, because the Viking Hat DM will not. You are subordinate in all things to the DM. You will accept what the DM provides, or you will leave, and no one will mourn your absence. This DM can, and will, do what they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want. If they said X last week and they say Not-X this week, you will quietly accept this without protest or comment (beyond agreement, that is), or you will be shown the door. Discussion is verboten, and in some cases, even the mere act of reading the rules at all is an unacceptable affront that you will be ostracized for.

The Viking Hat often turns players against one another to stop (alleged) problem behavior, as advised by Gygax. The Viking Hat almost always has a vision that he (it's essentially always "he") will not allow to be sullied by the players. The players are present purely by the Viking Hat's good grace; their interests, desires, and goals are largely irrelevant, and if those things happen to coincide with the game the Viking Hat DM was always going to run, that's cool, but not even slightly a priority.

 

[Xeviat]

Every new player I've ever played with have said "can I roll history?", even after being asked to not worry about the mechanics and just say what they're doing, like "do I know anything about it?" This includes old players of previous editions and young players for whom 5E is their first and only. It's just how people play.

 

[Marandahir]

Is it intentional that Barbarians and Fighters can only change a single weapon mastery per long rest while Paladins, Rangers, and Rogues can change any or both of their masteries per long rest?

Seems like an oversight, though maybe it was a balancing issue for those two classes in particular, given that they both gain more over time?

 

[mellored]

As for "I roll diplomacy" I get blocked by people cause I argue there is nothing wrong with that...

If people expect you to talk instead of rolling diplomacy. Then they should also expect you to lift instead of rolling athletics.

Role-Playing as an eloquent orator is part of the fantasy.