D&D 5E Errata for MM & DMG?

[CapnZapp]

So, the intention was for the horned devil's errata entry to read as something like...

Horned Devil (p. 74). Hit points: 178 (17d10 + 85) [was 178 (17d10 + 55) or 148 (17d10 + 55)]. We realized after the book went to print that we changed the wrong part of the entry.

...yes? That is, the entry actually starting with the correct(ed) entry like every other errata entry in the list.

Starting off your errata by saying "Avg. hit points is 148 [was 178]" when that is
1) not the correct errata you want people to note down
2) completely irrelevant since the average was never wrong in the first place
is ...unfortunate...

 

[thalmin]

According to the errata, this was resolved by changing the save to be Constitution.

D'OH! How did I miss that?!
Thanks

 

[BoldItalic]

So, the intention was for the horned devil's errata entry to read as something like...

Horned Devil (p. 74). Hit points: 178 (17d10 + 85) [was 178 (17d10 + 55) or 148 (17d10 + 55)]. We realized after the book went to print that we changed the wrong part of the entry.

...yes? That is, the entry actually starting with the correct(ed) entry like every other errata entry in the list.

Starting off your errata by saying "Avg. hit points is 148 [was 178]" when that is
1) not the correct errata you want people to note down
2) completely irrelevant since the average was never wrong in the first place
is ...unfortunate...

It makes sense to me. Originally, it was 17d10+85 which averages to 178. Just before printing the book, they discovered it was overpowered and decided to reduce it by 30. They changed the 178 down to 148 but forgot to drop the 85 down to 55. So the book went out with an inconsistency. Now they have errata'd that to correct the inconsistency. The 148 stands, but the 85 has been corrected to 55.

 

[CapnZapp]

It makes sense to me. Originally, it was 17d10+85 which averages to 178. Just before printing the book, they discovered it was overpowered and decided to reduce it by 30. They changed the 178 down to 148 but forgot to drop the 85 down to 55. So the book went out with an inconsistency. Now they have errata'd that to correct the inconsistency. The 148 stands, but the 85 has been corrected to 55.

You're just repeating what Aaron said.

I'm not having a problem understanding the explanation; I think the errata entry is garbled and misleading.

 

[seebs]

True. That has nothing to do with the otyugh's tentacle slam attack, though, since it gives a variety of chances to either not be affected by it or recover from its effect once it is in place.

What is the chance to recover from it once it's in place?

So far as I can tell, as-written, there is basically nothing in the entire game that can ever recover once it's gotten stunned by the otyugh. Nothing else has a permanent stun-lock contingent only on saves you autofail while stunned.

EDIT: I don't think the push thing counts, because that requires third-party help. Solo, there is nothing in the game that could beat the otyugh... Until they changed that to a con save.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Solo, there is nothing in the game that could beat the otyugh

That doesn't at all matter, D&D is not written with the intent to be played solo - and still, someone could defeat an otyugh solo by not ever getting tentacle slammed in the first place (though the errata changing the save to be passable even if you've failed it before does make things easier).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

You're just repeating what Aaron said.

I'm not having a problem understanding the explanation; I think the errata entry is garbled and misleading.

I agree, but I think the errata specifically represents changes made to the latest printing, so the format follows that.

Still, it could have been written more clearly.

 

[seebs]

That doesn't at all matter, D&D is not written with the intent to be played solo - and still, someone could defeat an otyugh solo by not ever getting tentacle slammed in the first place (though the errata changing the save to be passable even if you've failed it before does make things easier).

The game isn't *played* solo, but parties sometimes split up, and the "you could just not be there" defense is meaningless. Gosh, ancient red dragons are pretty much total wusses once you realize you could just never be on the same continent as one!

Point is, this stood out as a unique thing in the rules. There is nothing else that, once it has a successful stun on you, has a 100% guarantee of a kill regardless of your AC, resistances, stats, hit points, or anything else.

 

[CapnZapp]

Never split the party.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The game isn't *played* solo, but parties sometimes split up, and the "you could just not be there" defense is meaningless. Gosh, ancient red dragons are pretty much total wusses once you realize you could just never be on the same continent as one!

Point is, this stood out as a unique thing in the rules. There is nothing else that, once it has a successful stun on you, has a 100% guarantee of a kill regardless of your AC, resistances, stats, hit points, or anything else.

And now it does no more... con saves are not automatically failed.