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.

 

[pukunui]

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.

I don't expect my players to act out being an eloquent orator, but I do expect them to at least tell me what their PC is attempting to achieve via their eloquent oratory. I don't want them to simply say, "I roll Persuasion to convince the king to give us what we want." I would want them to say, "I try to persuade the king to see how giving us what we want will also benefit him as well as us" (or similar), and then I would say, "OK, make a Persuasion roll."

At the same, I don't want my players to simply say, "I roll Athletics to open the door." I would want them to say, "I'm going to try and kick open the door" (or similar), and then I would say, "OK, it's a bit stuck, so make an Athletics roll."

 

[Nefermandias]

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.

Look, we're probably getting nowhere with this, but I'm going to assume you are arguing in good faith and give it one more shot.

As I see it, one has to hold a firm grasp of the rules and know not only how they work but also the intentions behind their existence. This is especially true when a DM likes to implement his own house rules and homebrew options. A DM who changes the rules on a whim without really reflecting what this will do to the game is only hurting consistency and verisimilitude.

Using my own table as an example, I have been running games since 98 and my philosophy is to always keep things the closest to RAW as humanly possible.

That said, no TTRPG system could possibly account for every single situation that may arise during a gaming session. That's when the DM has to step in a make a ruling, and according to RAW, the DM has the final say in any rules related matter.

I honestly don't see how following the game rules as written should be seen as antithesis to DM authority. One is about following a rule system, the other is about putting your trust on the referee to apply said system fairly and consistently.

Under ordinary circumstances, I wouldn't have bothered to explain this, but believe it or not, as a fellow 4e fan, I do hold your opinions in high regard.

Game on.

 

[DadtheGM]

Day one errata/patch are pretty common in modern games.

 

[Maxperson]

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

What I expect is for them to describe what they say and do, whether it's diplomacy or athletics. It's all the same thing, not different things. Description of what they do. Not, "Diplomacy!" or "Atheletics!" and hold up a die.

 

[Maxperson]

At the same, I don't want my players to simply say, "I roll Athletics to open the door." I would want them to say, "I'm going to try and kick open the door" (or similar), and then I would say, "OK, it's a bit stuck, so make an Athletics roll."

Right, and if there's say a chasm that the someone in the group is going to jump while holding a rope, so that the others can use the rope to cross, telling me that he's going to take off his plate mail and drop the 60+ pound backpack full of stuff before jumping, will get him a bonus to the roll.

Descriptions matter. Not describing the actions gimp the players.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Right, and if there's say a chasm that the someone in the group is going to jump while holding a rope, so that the others can use the rope to cross, telling me that he's going to take off his plate mail and drop the 60+ pound backpack full of stuff before jumping, will get him a bonus to the roll.

Descriptions matter. Not describing the actions gimp the players.

And what if the players (including myself who does this) and the DMs (including myself who allows this), with the explicit knowledge of that they are doing this (not doing it out of ignorance of RAW), are perfectly OK with that? What if we just don't care about this potential "gimping"?

 

[Maxperson]

And what if the players (including myself who does this) and the DMs (including myself who allows this), with the explicit knowledge of that they are doing this (not doing it out of ignorance of RAW), are perfectly OK with that? What if we just don't care about this potential "gimping"?

Hey if you're okay with playing their characters by assuming/guessing at what they mean and they're okay with you playing their PCs that way, and don't care about the gimping, have at it. It's all about having fun, not about doing it the way someone else does it.

In my game, though, it's required that you describe to me what you are doing in enough detail for me to adjudicate the action without having to assume or guess at what you mean. I have enough of the world to play. I'm not going to play the PCs, too.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Day one errata/patch are pretty common in modern games.

In video games, absolutely. WotC is basically managing this like a digital product.

 

[Remathilis]

In video games, absolutely. WotC is basically managing this like a digital product.

I mean, we had day one eratta in 2008...

 

[Lanefan]

Contagion gives you the poisoned condition despite inflicting you with a disease, not a poison.

Is the intent there to be that either one of Neutralize Poison or Cure Disease can fix it, as opposed to only one or only the other?

If yes, I could get behind the logic. If no, wtf?