Errata for Monster Manual and DMG Posted

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?474432-MM-and-DMG-Errata-are-Posted

Ninja'd. Or I failed my perception and/or investigate roll.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

I was hoping that they would have expanded the statement about magic staves as weapons to include a ruling about using a magic rod as a weapon. I'd be okay with it being considered a club.

 

[Staffan]

I'm curious about attunement. If you are a fighter and have magic initiate (wizard) then does that mean that you can attune to items that require you to be a wizard?

No. In order to attune to an item that requires a wizard, you must fulfill one of two requirements:

1. Have actual wizard levels.
2. Be a monster that has spell slots and casts spells from the wizard spell list.

Option 2 is by definition impossible for a PC - it's there to make sure that liches can still use wizard-only items.

However, the fighter with Magic Initiate does qualify for the more generic "spellcaster" requirement. So he'd be able to use a wand of fireballs, but not a staff of fire.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

You could always rule it as an improvised weapon (is that 1d4?)

For home games, I simply rule the same way as staves, listed below.

Magical staff = quarterstaff
Nonmagical staff (arcane/druidic focus) = improvised quarterstaff
Magical rod = club, unless Rod of Lordly Might (already considered a mace)
Nonmagical rod (arcane focus) = improvised club

The primary reason I wonder is for AL purposes, where table variation on rulings can derail an entire character's playstyle if the DM at a newly visited table doesn't agree with the PC's interpretation of the rules. Since the official stance of the AL admins is to expect table variance, DMG errata was my only hope for something concrete regarding this matter. I guess that I'm too used to the video game portrayal of casters being able to club a baddie upside the head with both staves and rods.

I'm curious about attunement. If you are a fighter and have magic initiate (wizard) then does that mean that you can attune to items that require you to be a wizard?

Those that require being a spellcaster? Yes
Those that call out a specific class? No.

All this new sentence does is clarify the meaning of spellcaster beyond the scope of class levels.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Hmm did we really need this errata. I guess they fixed wands of paralysis. But any DM concerned with balance would have applied a save or some kind anyway (or not given out the item in the first place).

The last sage advice of any real interest to me was the Eberron article.

 

[pukunui]

The last sage advice of any real interest to me was the Eberron article.

Do you mean the very first Unearthed Arcana article? Or did I miss something?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Hmm did we really need this errata.

There is no such thing as "need" when it comes to errata - everyone can just fix/ignore/not realize any errors they encounter.

But it is nice to have errata, even this small batch of relatively obvious errors and their relatively obvious solutions.

 

[Sound Hammer]

Has anyone used any of this errata so far? What do y'all think?

 

[Psikerlord#]

Do you mean the very first Unearthed Arcana article? Or did I miss something?

Um yeah I guess so?

 

[pukunui]

Um yeah I guess so?

OK. Just thought I'd ask because the Unearthed Arcana articles and Sage Advice columns are different things, with the former offering new content and the latter rules clarifications. I didn't recall Jeremy ever addressing Eberron in his column, but I figured it was possible I might have missed something.

 

[Psikerlord#]

OK. Just thought I'd ask because the Unearthed Arcana articles and Sage Advice columns are different things, with the former offering new content and the latter rules clarifications. I didn't recall Jeremy ever addressing Eberron in his column, but I figured it was possible I might have missed something.

Arghh!! sorry you're right, I'm mixing them up!