D&D 5E Latest D&D Errata: Drow, Alignment, & More

Status
Not open for further replies.
E987FCF6-1386-4E95-9272-C02BF782C442.jpeg


Sage Advice is a series of articles in which Jeremy Crawford, one of the D&D Studio’s game design architects, talks about the design of the game’s rules and answers questions about them.


D&D books occasionally receive corrections and other updates to their rules and story. This Sage Advice installment presents updates to several books. I then answer a handful of rules questions, focusing on queries related to Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons and Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos.


Official errata has been published for the following books:
Here's some of the highlights.
  • Alignment is removed from the Racial Traits section of races.
  • Drow have undergone lore changes which reflect the different types of drow. The 'darkness of the drow' sidebar which portrays them as only evil has been removed.
  • Storm King's Thunder alters references to 'Savage Frontier' and 'barbarians'; Curse of Strahd alters references to the Vistani.
  • The controversial Silvery Barbs spell has been clarified.
As a drow, you are infused with the magic of the Underdark, an underground realm of wonders and horrors rarely seen on the surface above. You are at home in shadows and, thanks to your innate magic, learn to con- jure forth both light and darkness. Your kin tend to have stark white hair and grayish skin of many hues.

The cult of the god Lolth, Queen of Spiders, has cor- rupted some of the oldest drow cities, especially in the worlds of Oerth and Toril. Eberron, Krynn, and other realms have escaped the cult’s influence—for now. Wherever the cult lurks, drow heroes stand on the front lines in the war against it, seeking to sunder Lolth’s web.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
except this isn't 'finding it's way it' it's been here for longer then I have been alive. in 5e alone it is being removed going on the 10 year mark... what reason could possible be to remove it now?
They’re reviewing the game for things that wouldn’t have been included in the books had they not been catering to nostalgia, or wouldn’t be in if they were publishing it right now. 🤷‍♂️
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
I think that will happen where there is another adequate word to represent the concept, but not otherwise (I don't think double-barrelled class names will ever be a major thing, to be clear).

The trouble is, with Druid and Warlock (both of which are about equally culturally-specific, and neither of which is offending anyone but perhaps some neo-pagans who themselves dealing with issues re: being "problematic"), they've evolved into highly-specific concepts that are quite accessible via pop-culture, but which there aren't other words for which are more acceptable. Something like "Greenpriest" is never going to fly.

Paladin likewise. I don't see that going anywhere. It's an increasingly well-established archetype in pop-culture, thanks in part to video games.

I feel like you're looking at this from an approach to progressive-ness which was popular in the '90s and part of the '00s, but which is now passé. Where cultural specificity and authenticity (as channelled by white people, usually) were everything. Where renaming a class for a specific culture was moving things forwards. But that idea is no longer really relevant. So long as the name isn't actively damaging, it's likely to be retained, because these are peculiar D&D concepts. A Paladin isn't just a "Holy Warrior" or whatever. A Druid isn't just a "Nature Cleric". A Warlock isn't just "Bargaining Caster", and none of those names would work. even.

The only way I see this happening is if 7E or whatever decides to go thermonuclear and make the classes basically be Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, with everything else as a variant of them. But that'll be the end of D&D, frankly.

I do think Monk will probably go sooner rather than later, note, because "Martial arts warrior" is a huge archetype, and Monk is a terrible way of approaching it which blocks more concepts than it enables, and the name is part of the problem.


Sorry, but that's a very lazy and imho intellectually bankrupt response. You have no apparent valid criticism here, and are merely grousing that you don't like an reasoned assessment of the threats D&D faces. If you think any of those threats aren't real, then please name them, don't just namecall.
Eh. Druid, monk and paladin are probably the biggest examples after barbarian of classes/archetypes that are too narrow or culturally specific. Druid gets some blast not necessarily for it's Celtic name but for being too narrow to represent a wide variety of shamanistic or naturist archetypes. Monk ditto for aesthetic or unarmed combatant, and paladin for divine champions. Maybe they're won't be a cry out for druids as being culturally appropriated, but by trying to keep to the thin eurocentric archetype it classically represented it eliminates the ability to emulate other non-European style nature religions.

I wouldn't be surprised to one day see a new more generic "nature priest" class one day that could emulate druids, shamans, witches, clever people, or other similar concepts. The same for barbarian, monk, paladin and maybe warlock and bard.
 

Eh. Druid, monk and paladin are probably the biggest examples after barbarian of classes/archetypes that are too narrow or culturally specific. Druid gets some blast not necessarily for it's Celtic name but for being too narrow to represent a wide variety of shamanistic or naturist archetypes. Monk ditto for aesthetic or unarmed combatant, and paladin for divine champions. Maybe they're won't be a cry out for druids as being culturally appropriated, but by trying to keep to the thin eurocentric archetype it classically represented it eliminates the ability to emulate other non-European style nature religions.

I wouldn't be surprised to one day see a new more generic "nature priest" class one day that could emulate druids, shamans, witches, clever people, or other similar concepts. The same for barbarian, monk, paladin and maybe warlock and bard.
What do you do here though? These things are basically brand identity.

As long as D&D is set in generic D&D fantasy land there isn't really anyway out of this kind of situation, especially since so much of 5e was based on the premise of making D&D feel like D&D again.

I agree with you about the Monk and the Druid, but there's a central tension here between a fanbase that wants a specific identifiable thing to be a fan of and the desire for change. After all there are plenty of other games out there to play, but people want to play D&D.

It seems that what many fans want is for D&D to be recognisably D&D except for these few particular things that they personally would want to change.
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I don't understand the stupid spellcasting attack crap.

With the spell slots at least I could have a monster use a stronger form of a spell when it used a higher slot.

How the hell am I supposed to do that now with this "1/day can use this spell" nonsense? Where are the number of slots per spell level? This doesn't make any DMs job easier, just worse.
Uh... you use the book you currently own rather than this new one if/when it comes out?

Or you just add some spells to whatever monster statblock you decide to go with?

If your job as a DM so fraught that the idea of just scribbling on a sheet of paper for the Mage statblock when you write an encounter 'fireball - 8d6 fire, +1d6 per level, DC 15 DEX save for half' is such a hardship for you... you might want to take a break for a little while. ;)
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
It seems that what many fans want is for D&D to be recognisably D&D except for these few particular things that they personally would want to change.

That's right. Just incorporate things that everyone should agree on.

Like ... no bards.

f5cce83d-3082-47c1-ad5f-3d50c8b14d38_text.gif


Now we don't have to hunt them down either... we can just errata the whole lot of 'em! That's, what, a ninth level spell?
 


Ibrandul

Adventurer
Sorry to interrupt everyone's fun, but has anyone figured out what is supposed to have been changed about the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan map? I have a first printing of TftYP and my map looks precisely identical to the "new, more readable" map in the errata—unless I'm overlooking something.
 




Eh. Druid, monk and paladin are probably the biggest examples after barbarian of classes/archetypes that are too narrow or culturally specific. Druid gets some blast not necessarily for it's Celtic name but for being too narrow to represent a wide variety of shamanistic or naturist archetypes. Monk ditto for aesthetic or unarmed combatant, and paladin for divine champions. Maybe they're won't be a cry out for druids as being culturally appropriated, but by trying to keep to the thin eurocentric archetype it classically represented it eliminates the ability to emulate other non-European style nature religions.

I wouldn't be surprised to one day see a new more generic "nature priest" class one day that could emulate druids, shamans, witches, clever people, or other similar concepts. The same for barbarian, monk, paladin and maybe warlock and bard.
See I think we'll see movement in the opposite direction re: Druid.

Rather than renaming it, they're likely to be make it broader and more differentiated from the Cleric, on the exact same basis. The issue isn't the name it's that the in-game archetype is narrower than the pop-culture archetype. And it being an arguably "Eurocentric" name doesn't present any real issue, in fact it kind of obviates one. And with the list of roles you present, you seem to be forgetting Warlocks, Sorcerers and Wizards exist, which also emulate many of those.

Cleric changes every edition, often quite drastically. 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E all have very different takes on Cleric, and it may also broaden out and/or move away from the mono-god deal. They tried renaming it to Priest in 2E but it didn't stick (you know what I mean).

With Paladin there just isn't another good word that has pop-culture impact. The best attempt I've ever seen was Arcana Unearthed using "Champion", and that might work, but I couldn't see it happening unless D&D went through a period of unpopularity or a 4E-level change.

Bard isn't going anywhere. Every possible alternative name is more culturally-specific and less pop-culture-friendly. The basic concept is extremely common world-wide. You can find people with a Bard-like role in sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, all over. I don't think anyone now is particularly upset to see those terms translated to a term for an extinct lore/law-retainer role from an extinct Celtic culture.

Warlock is an ultra-specific D&D thing. I have no idea why anyone would want to rename it, or how it would help matters.

Barbarian will probably go because it's used insultingly and doesn't even fit the class it's applied to. Berserker is the obvious replacement though it's about as culturally-specific as Bard and Druid.

Monk I think will go eventually (not 5.5/6E) because it's too narrow conceptually as I noted. It's like if all Fighters were called "Knights" or something. Martial artists shouldn't be limited to "dudes who went to a monastery". Adept is a reasonable one-word replacement name, though not great.

There is a small possibility D&D 7E or 8E goes nuts and "does a Games Workshop" and decides to give everyone and everything a trademark-able name, in that case pretty much every class is getting renamed.

Also once more as a general aside, I feel like you're taking a '90s approach here. You're saying "Oh D&D needs to be able to represent all these very specific real-world traditions in game form!", but I don't think that's how pop-culture progressives are operating 2021 nor will be operating in 2025. It was how they were working in say, 1994. I think people now accept D&D is D&D, and it's more "problematic" if a culture "can't have Paladins", than if a culture has things which mechanically are Paladins, are referred to in the rules as Paladins, and perhaps in the text they note that the local word for them is something else.
 


D&D is really not a game where you take a generic setting and adapt it to various different cultures.

Some people may wish it was; I wish it was, but it's not that game. It is a culturally specific game*. I find it hard to imagine it being different without a large degree of backlash.

The Druid may not be a good fit for a shaman of a Turkic or Mongolian steppe tribe, but then a Monk is not a good fit for a medieval Franciscan either.

*Although that culture is a modern pop-culture one rooted in gaming and popular culture rather than anything to do with actual history and with only the barest smatterings of mythology.

The best that could probably be done is to write classes simply enough that they could be swapped out for alternative classes in various settings (which would be more "Powered by D&D than D&D), but that's not going to happen as long as people love their ever inflating assortment of subclasses.
 

AdmundfortGeographer

Getting lost in fantasy maps
The most interesting use of brothels in various recent fantasy has been as places where information can be obtained and then bought-sold-shared. Two quick examples: Littlefinger's brothel in King's Landing (Game of Thrones) and the brothel in Nassau in Black Sails. I'm sure there's others.
Exactly this happened in TV-14 rated Arcane on Netflix.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Barbarian on the other hand, well, I think 5.5/6E is probably the last edition where it's actually called that. It's much rarer as a term in video games, and is frequently used as a term of abuse (usually as "barbaric"), primarily against majority non-white cultures (or, really unfortunately, to imply Western cultures are "just as bad" as those - uhoh, frankly). Not sure what the alternative term is, but honestly you could probably fold it in to Fighter and/or Ranger, like in 2E (where the "Barbarian" class was oh god no awful, introduced in a Complete Handbook, and basically a bad Fighter designed to cover the warriors of various "primitive" (kill me now) societies. It was one of those classic early '90s utterly ham-fisted attempts to "get modern" which end up more racist than if they just didn't, like WoD:Gypsies).
2e might have been the first place you saw Barbarian as a class but it in fact started in 1e's Unearthed Arcana (1985), via an even-earlier Dragon article.
 

While I got no dog in this outside of "Alignment has caused me too many headaches in the past let it burn", I will say I remember a bit of an anecdote relevant on the brothel bit.

Y'know Neverwinter Nights? Well, that goes a bit into FR lore. So in the first campaign, there's a brothel you can visit. No stuff happens (Its just fade to black), but rumour has it that a WotC exec didn't relaise it was in and had a bit of A Thing when their kid played the game and just went in there.

Anywho that's why the Neverwinter Nights re-release is presently rated R 18+ in Australia
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The only way I see this happening is if 7E or whatever decides to go thermonuclear and make the classes basically be Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, with everything else as a variant of them. But that'll be the end of D&D, frankly.
That won't be the end. Stripping down to just four classes would just be another reboot, similar to what 2e kinda started as.

Hell, if Spiderman can reboot five or six times, surely D&D can do it once or twice - - - right? :)
 

pukunui

Legend
As I said upthread, I don't think they're trying to get rid of "barbarian" specifically. What they've done is improved the language used to describe the various tribal Illuskan peoples of FR's "Savage Frontier", most likely in an effort to move away from colonial terminology - the whole "noble savage" thing. They haven't just renamed the Regheds as nomads and the Uthgardt as marauders and such. They've also taken away terms like "bloodthirsty" and removed the implication that tribal peoples are uncivilized and so on.

It's about tidying up / improving the way these specific cultural groups are portrayed in the fiction of the Forgotten Realms.

These changes go some way towards making sure the Uthgardt and Reghed tribes aren't just whitewashed versions of the stereotypical/colonial take on indigenous peoples.

I welcome these changes to SKT.

It would have been nice if they'd gotten rid of the "raiding sacred burial mounds" aspect of the adventure as well, but I suppose that would have required more rewriting than mere errata can handle.
 

HammerMan

Legend
And as others have pointed out, are you planning on buying a copy of the book that says "music hall" instead of "brothel"? Or is there a rule that a music hall can't have sex on sale as well?
it is an oddiity.... I never said it was a breaking point... it is an odd prudish thing to do and it helps foster anti sexworker mindsets... but no, it isn't going to stop me from buying 5.5/6/anniversary edition
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top