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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is an odd bit of psychology.

The theory seems to be that, if the player had just described their action well enough, that the DM would have just given them the success. The old "since they said they look under the bed and that is where the clue is, they find it automatically". Meanwhile if you just ask to roll, you are never circumventing the roll through your description.

There is a lot to unpack in those decisions though, including the idea that guessing correctly with limited information should be the goal of play.

I've always liked the idea that the PC does what the player wants them to do, to the best of the PCs ability to perform that task. So the player may describe an elaborate series of actions in searching a room, for example, but if the PC is ill-equipped to do exactly that (whether by virtue of poor stats, skill deficiency, lack of in-game knowledge, what have you), they will likely be less effective in executing the player's orders. And the reverse is true as well; if the PC is better able to accomplish a task than the player is, they can be more effective than a vague player response would otherwise indicate. In short, the PC is the player's interface with the game, for better or worse.

 

[Charlaquin]

I never quite understand why some gamers fear rolling.

It’s bad for pacing, and it can (usually unintentionally) lead to introducing a chance of failure when there ought not to be one.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is an odd bit of psychology.

The theory seems to be that, if the player had just described their action well enough, that the DM would have just given them the success. The old "since they said they look under the bed and that is where the clue is, they find it automatically". Meanwhile if you just ask to roll, you are never circumventing the roll through your description.

Degree of descriptive detail isn’t the relevant factor, but the content of the description. If you beautifully describe looking in completely the wrong place, you’re not going to find it. If you describe looking in the right place, you will find it regardless of how detailed that description is.

There is a lot to unpack in those decisions though, including the idea that guessing correctly with limited information should be the goal of play.

Guessing correctly with limited information is not the goal of play. The goal is to create exciting, memorable stories through play, and in this style, the means of achieving that goal are imagining yourself as your character, in the fictional scenario, making decisions as you imagine you would do as that person in that situation, and dealing with the meaningful consequences of those decisions. Sometimes doing so does require a player to make decisions with limited information, but if the DM is doing their job well, you should generally have access to sufficient information to make good decisions. One potential drawback of this approach though is that it can get quite frustrating if the DM is not forthcoming with that needed information, or worse, actively hides it. Clear, thorough, concise description and good use of telegraphing are very important skills for a DM to have if they want to run a game in this style well.

 

[Umbran]

If they're acting like adults...

Because adults never have misunderstandings and have to back up and clarify?

 

[Umbran]

Funny. What we’ve been saying out loud is that it’s just our preference and others should run the game how they like to.

Just so folks know - when that "just our preference" is coupled with judgmental or emotionally loaded language about another's preference, what comes across is NOT "just our preference".

 

[Charlaquin]

Just so folks know - when that "just our preference" is coupled with judgmental or emotionally loaded language about another's preference, what comes across is NOT "just our preference".

Agreed!

 

[Umbran]

Agreed!

Mod Note:
That was not an invitation for your input.

 

[Nefermandias]

I came in to make the comment about the rolls and that people would get mad at it... he went on to quote me (not me him) and start with this... but your right I need to get off enworld that will not enforce the civility rules.

At what point exactly has @Maxperson been uncivil towards you?

This is a discussion forum. Of course you are bound to encounter people with different views and experiences at any given topic.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

At what point exactly has @Maxperson been uncivil towards you?

This is a discussion forum. Of course you are bound to encounter people with different views and experiences at any given topic.

I have shown it twice in quotes... now the mods have said to stop...;

 

[Chaosmancer]

Degree of descriptive detail isn’t the relevant factor, but the content of the description. If you beautifully describe looking in completely the wrong place, you’re not going to find it. If you describe looking in the right place, you will find it regardless of how detailed that description is.

I was referring to the bolded. Purple prose only comes into it when the same logic is applied to social checks.

Guessing correctly with limited information is not the goal of play. The goal is to create exciting, memorable stories through play,

Which can be achieved regardless, or hindered regardless. However, for the people who often espouse the idea that asking for a roll is detrimental to your character's success, they are not framing the situation in terms of creating memorable stories. They are framing it in terms of winning and losing. That is why they talk about "success" and not about how just asking to roll the dice robs the player of the chance to tell an interesting story.

and in this style, the means of achieving that goal are imagining yourself as your character, in the fictional scenario, making decisions as you imagine you would do as that person in that situation, and dealing with the meaningful consequences of those decisions. Sometimes doing so does require a player to make decisions with limited information, but if the DM is doing their job well, you should generally have access to sufficient information to make good decisions. One potential drawback of this approach though is that it can get quite frustrating if the DM is not forthcoming with that needed information, or worse, actively hides it. Clear, thorough, concise description and good use of telegraphing are very important skills for a DM to have if they want to run a game in this style well.

Out of curiosity, can you speak equally elegantly on the benefits of not requiring players to constantly refer to everything in character without referencing their desire to roll? Because, that is the opposing side to your stated preference, a lack of requirement and freedom to do as they will.

I have thoughts on the matter, but I am curious to hear your side of it, if you have one.