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.

 

[Mistwell]

Disagree... its pretty clearly running on the mantra of 5e... where a check is only used when there is uncertainty. Everyone is of course free to run it however they like...

I'll say again, when you see it on the physical page in front of you, if you approach it with an open mind I suspect you will see what I am seeing. I really do think this is what they intend for the rule, to simplify it. I think you're just assumed to be sneaking about, waiting for creatures to face away from you, etc..

 

[Charlaquin]

Except that being Invisible defines Concealed as such

"You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed."

I can somehow see a naked person dancing in front of me as long as I have eyesight. This is not moderately difficult.

If you interpret the invisible condition in this way, you must also accept that the invisibility spell doesn’t prevent you from being seen either.

 

[bedir than]

If you interpret the invisible condition in this way, you must also accept that the invisibility spell doesn’t prevent you from being seen either.

No, I must not accept that a spell and mundane life are exactly the same. Nothing in the rules suggests that, neither in natural language nor in the precise rules lawyering done here

 

[Imaro]

I'll say again, when you see it on the physical page in front of you, if you approach it with an open mind I suspect you will see what I am seeing. I really do think this is what they intend for the rule, to simplify it. I think you're just assumed to be sneaking about, waiting for creatures to face away from you, etc..

I'm reading it right now and I'm not sure how what you're saying here contradicts my interpretation since if you literally walk up to the guards face, naked and dance you aren't actually doing anything youv'e stated above. It's the absurd situation that I am saying would get you seen... not actually taking the precautions fiction-wise to stay hidden.

 

[Charlaquin]

We aren't talking about invisible in the natural language sense... it’s a game condition.

But if the game condition doesn’t on its own prevent you from being seen, neither does the invisibility spell, which has no effect other than granting said game condition.

Yes finding you and if you are obviously naked, dancing in their face... they've found you without a check being necessary.

Then no check must be necessary to find a creature under the effects of the invisibility spell.

 

[pukunui]

That is what the book says. I'll quote it again. "Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check." It defines how you figure out if a creature can "find you." It's not some rule in isolation elsewhere in the book, this is the very paragraph right before the book says that your condition ends if a creature "finds you."

I mean. @Mistwell is absolutely correct. The rule is perfectly clear, most of the alternative interpretations were a result of not seeing the rules all together in context. Now we have that context, and it’s pretty inarguable that the critics of the rule were correct in their interpretation of it. It does, in fact, enable you to remain unseen outside of cover or obscuration with a high enough Stealth check.

I wasn't disputing the interpretation. I was simply attempting to clarify that the text for hiding / stealth / etc hasn't been chnaged between what's in the book and what's on DDB. However, I think some posters in this thread were led to believe by @Mistwell's original post that the text had changed due to his inclusion of "active or passive Perception check".

I cut and pasted the relevant rules from DDB in a previous post. Together, yes, I think it's reasonable to draw the same conclusion. However, the actual, literal text for hiding still just reads "find you" not "find you with an active or passive Perception check".

That is all that I was trying to point out. Hopefully that is now 100% clear.

 

[SkidAce]

Please, please don't derail this thread with the stealth thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, I must not accept that a spell and mundane life are exactly the same. Nothing in the rules suggests that, neither in natural language nor in the precise rules lawyering done here

The invisibility spell literally does nothing other than grant the invisibility condition. Therefore, it can’t grant any effects that are not also granted to a creature that uses the Hide action. Therefore, either a creature that uses the Hide action must remain unseen whilst in an enemy’s line of sight, or a creature under the effects of the invisibility spell must not.

 

[bedir than]

The invisibility spell literally does nothing other than grant the invisibility condition. Therefore, it can’t grant any effects that are not also granted to a creature that uses the Hide action. Therefore, either a creature that uses the Hide action must remain unseen whilst in an enemy’s line of sight, or a creature under the effects of the invisibility spell must not.

The Invisibility spell is a spell that requires the Magic Action. It requires several things that are completely unrelated to hiding.

For the same reason Yelling and Sending Stones are not the same thing

 

[Imaro]

But if the game condition doesn’t on its own prevent you from being seen, neither does the invisibility spell, which has no effect other than granting said game condition.

No... the invisibility spell gives you the condition and it's own specific list of when the condition ends...

Make an attack roll
Deal damage
Cast a spell.

Nothing else removes the Invisible condition from the target... since these are the only way the spell ends... its a specific implementation of the condition.

Then no check must be necessary to find a creature under the effects of the invisibility spell.

Wrong since the spell can only be broken in one of 3 ways... see above