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.

 

[Lanefan]

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!

Looks like this one set a new record then, as it got errata at -1 months before general release....

 

[Lanefan]

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"?

That's all very well until the player's shorthand phrasing means one thing to the player and another to the DM.

I've seen (and been in) some truly fearsome and nasty arguments caused by just this: a player not using enough words and leaving it up to the DM to guess the rest, as if assuming the DM can read minds.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Easy to argue 4e was also managed like a digital product.

 

[Nikosandros]

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?

There's no Cure Disease in 5th edition. Lesser Restoration can remove disease in the 2014 rules, but diseases as a condition seem to have disappeared from the 2024 revision.

 

[Maxperson]

That's all very well until the player's shorthand phrasing means one thing to the player and another to the DM.

I've seen (and been in) some truly fearsome and nasty arguments caused by just this: a player not using enough words and leaving it up to the DM to guess the rest, as if assuming the DM can read minds.

Yep. If I have to assume/guess at what you mean, you better not respond with, "But my character wouldn't have done that?" when I interpret your holding the die up and saying, "Athletics!" If you want your character to have done what he would do, then you need to have described that to me yourself instead of hoping that I'd get it right.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yep. If I have to assume/guess at what you mean, you better not respond with, "But my character wouldn't have done that?" when I interpret your holding the die up and saying, "Athletics!" If you want your character to have done what he would do, then you need to have described that to me yourself instead of hoping that I'd get it right.

that entire argument falls apart if both DM and player are long time friends who act like adults...

"Whoa my character wouldn't do that"
"Oh, sorry miss understood, what did you mean?"

this HAS come up at my games... about 2-3 time per year, and it is handled just as easy as above and adds about as much time in those 2-3 times as would have to be added every time someone has to describe something...

Here is all I care about as a DM and as a Player...

Player said something that communicated a desire (no matter how few or many words used) DM understood in context of the scene/campagin/session what was being relayed.


I will even raise you, I have look at my players weird (well no adays my camera but you know) and said "Wait... what?" but I don't think I have done so more do to short hand then full explanations... in fact if anything something a player has gone into GREAT detail about what they are doing has made me ask "What are you trying to do?"

 

[Maxperson]

that entire argument falls apart if both DM and player are long time friends who act like adults...

"Whoa my character wouldn't do that"
"Oh, sorry miss understood, what did you mean?"

If they're acting like adults, they will describe to me what their character does in the first place and not expect me to guess and then have to correct me. If they choose to make me guess, they didn't really want their character to do the other thing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If they're acting like adults, they will describe to me what their character does in the first place and not expect me to guess and then have to correct me. If they choose to make me guess, they didn't really want their character to do the other thing.

it isn't childish to have a short hand... it IS childish to have a break down cause 1 in 50 times someone doesn't get what you mean by the short hand.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

it isn't childish to have a short hand... it IS childish to have a break down cause 1 in 50 times someone doesn't get what you mean by the short hand.

It’s fascinating to me, the difference in attitudes between the folks who, in their own games, prefer players take a descriptive approach, and the folks who seem deeply offended that other people would have such a preference.

 

[mellored]

in fact if anything something a player has gone into GREAT detail about what they are doing has made me ask "What are you trying to do?"

This.

Player: I roll diplomacy/ athletics
DM: what are you trying to do?
Player: I am trying to...

Will quickly lead to.

Player: I am trying to...
DM: roll diplomacy/athletics