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]

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.

I just think they wrote the rule assuming you're hiding, since you took the hide action and are staying silent and not attacking and are concealed. I don't think they anticipate you dancing naked in front of guards while also being a mime and staying silent.

 

[Imaro]

I just think they wrote the rule assuming you're hiding, since you took the hide action and are staying silent and not attacking and are concealed. I don't think they anticipate you dancing naked in front of guards while also being a mime and staying silent.

I agree... but there's always that one player...

 

[Charlaquin]

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

The requirements of casting the spell don’t determine what benefits it grants, its effects do. And its effects don’t do anything the Hide action doesn’t do. I also think it’s stupid that a second level spell slot accomplishes the exact same tho g that mundane hiding does, but that is what the literal text of the book says.

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

Sending stones actually have text describing their effects, and those effects are different than the effects of yelling. This is unlike the invisibility spell, whose text only describes it granting the invisible condition. Which would be fine, if the invisible condition actually made you invisible, but if it does that, it must also do it when you take the Hide action, since gaining the invisible condition is also the effect of taking the Hide action.

Is this an absurd state of affairs? Yes. I am of the opinion that the rules surrounding stealth are therefore poorly written.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

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

Too late! Thread is off the rails

 

[Mistwell]

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

Sorry about that. I'll bow out.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

So, great, until you attack, deal damage, or cast a spell, you have advantage on initiative checks, advantage on attacks against creatures unless they can somehow see you, and creatures have disadvantage on attacks against you and can’t target you with effects unless they can somehow see you. But two of those three benefits don’t do anything unless the condition prevents you from being seen, because the text of the spell itself sure doesn’t. And if the condition itself prevents you from being seen, it must also do that when you gain the condition by taking the Hide action, since the Hide action doesn’t describe any exception to that.

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

How the spell can be broken is not the relevant point here. Whether or not the spell makes you unable to be seen while under its effects is. And the text of the spell itself doesn’t say anything about making you unable to be seen. So either that must be an effect of the condition, or the spell must not prevent you from being seen.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just think they wrote the rule assuming you're hiding, since you took the hide action and are staying silent and not attacking and are concealed. I don't think they anticipate you dancing naked in front of guards while also being a mime and staying silent.

Rookie mistake.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Rookie mistake.

I'm a little surprised that for a DM that is very good (I have inferred from your posts) at taking what a player says is their intended action, and adjudicating whether or not that action would require a roll (or not) and what the DC might be, based on their chosen action - I am surprised that you would have a problem with these Stealth rules needing the same sort of consideration.

DM: "What are you doing?"
Player: "Waiting for the guard to be distracted, and then sneaking up behind and attacking"
DM: Okay, you're not visible to the guard (invisible) so he doesn't see you. Go ahead and attack.

VS

DM: "What are you doing?"
Player: "Dancing around naked in front of the guard!"
DM: "... So he sees you and calls out to the other guards . And then draws his sword."

Note: I don't think the new stealth rules are very well worded, but I don't think that they're all that hard to figure out how they mean to work, either.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm a little surprised that for a DM that is very good (I have inferred from your posts) at taking what a player says is their intended action, and adjudicating whether or not that action would require a roll (or not) and what the DC might be, based on their chosen action - I am surprised that you would have a problem with these Stealth rules needing the same sort of consideration.

DM: "What are you doing?"
Player: "Waiting for the guard to be distracted, and then sneaking up behind and attacking"
DM: Okay, you're not visible to the guard (invisible) so he doesn't see you. Go ahead and attack.

VS

DM: "What are you doing?"
Player: "Dancing around naked in front of the guard!"
DM: "... So he sees you and calls out to the other guards . And then draws his sword."

My problem is not that the stealth rules need that sort of consideration, it’s that they don’t leave room for that sort of consideration. The rules are, by my reading, crystal clear in allowing the player in scenario 2 to remain hidden, and in order for the DM in that situation to rule as they do in your example, they must rule contrary to what the rules text explicitly describes. Which is certainly what I would do, but I don’t like having to rule more restrictively than RAW. I think this is a glaring issue in the RAW because it forces DMs who want to rule in accordance with the internal logic of the fiction into conflict with the RAW.

Note: I don't think the new stealth rules are very well worded, but I don't think that they're all that hard to figure out how they mean to work, either.

I don’t think they’re hard to figure out how they mean to work. I think it’s plain as day that they’re meant to work exactly as they say they do, and that’s a problem for me because the way they say they work sucks.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My problem is not that the stealth rules need that sort of consideration, it’s that they don’t leave room for that sort of consideration. The rules are, by my reading, crystal clear in allowing the player in scenario 2 to remain hidden, and in order for the DM in that situation to rule as they do in your example, they must rule contrary to what the rules text explicitly describes. Which is certainly what I would do, but I don’t like having to rule more restrictively than RAW. I think this is a glaring issue in the RAW because it forces DMs who want to rule in accordance with the internal logic of the fiction into conflict with the RAW.


I don’t think they’re hard to figure out how they mean to work. I think it’s plain as day that they’re meant to work exactly as they say they do, and that’s a problem for me because the way they say they work sucks.

Hmm. I disagree. I mean, I agree that they're not great, but I think that they absolutely intend for the "somehow sees you" line to mean anything that makes sense that they would see you (and otherwise a successful perception check).