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

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.

Book Updates | Sage Advice | Dungeons & Dragons

This Sage Advice provides updates and errata for a number of books, as well as answers to rules questions.

dnd.wizards.com

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:

• Curse of Strahd
• Dungeon Master’s Guide
• Player’s Handbook
• Storm King’s Thunder
• Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide
• Tales from the Yawning Portal
• Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything
• Tomb of Annihilation
• Volo’s Guide to Monsters

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.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

If the Menzoberranzanification of the drow is purged from D&D forever, I'll accept any amount of collateral damage for it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Absolutely nothing...?

Yeah, which is already perfectly clear. The commonality of misreadings comes from a mismatch between flavor and function, not any actual ambiguity in the text.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

So here's some excerpts from the current 5E Monster Manual description of the beholder:

One glance at a beholder is enough to assess its foul and otherworldly nature. Aggressive, hateful, and greedy, these aberrations dismiss all other creatures as lesser beings, toying with them or destroying them as they choose.

The disdain a beholder has for other creatures extends to other beholders. Each beholder believes its form to be an ideal, and that any deviation from that form is a flaw in the racial purity of its kind.

As alien as their creator, the rooms in a beholder's lair reflect the creature's arrogance. A beholder judges its own worth by its acquisitions, and it never willingly parts with its treasures.

I had naively assumed that changes to monster lore would be limited to the most humanoid ones and not include creatures like beholder and mind flayers, but now I'm wondering based on the removal of the "roleplaying Beholders" paragraphs in Volo's how they're planning to revise the beholder's description to deemphasize or remove traits such as these.

 

[pukunui]

I had naively assumed that changes to monster lore would be limited to the most humanoid ones and not include creatures like beholder and mind flayers, but now I'm wondering based on the removal of the "roleplaying Beholders" paragraphs in Volo's how they're planning to revise the beholder's description to deemphasize or remove traits such as these.

Yeah, I have to admit, I don't really understand the thinking behind some of the Volo's changes.

Beholders: The three paragraphs in the "Roleplaying a Beholder" section are useful. What does getting rid of that stuff and replacing it with "the following tables can be used for inspiration" really achieve?

Giants: Likewise, what does removing the section detailing how fire giants will sometimes ransom back their captives/slaves achieve? It can't be to make it so fire giants aren't slavers, because they haven't touched the preceding section entitled "Slaves: Lavor-saving Devices". Is it because it mentions that wealthier prisoners are more likely to be ransomed than poor ones?

Gnolls: Further, why remove the paragraphs on how to roleplay gnolls when it's clear they aren't changing their lore on gnolls? If anything, they're doubling down on making it so gnolls aren't a playable race by suggesting they'll change them to fiends instead of humanoids.

Kobolds: While I can understand removing the text on roleplaying kobolds, since they are a playable race, I think it would still be useful to leave it in there and just say "This is how NPC kobolds tend to behave. PC kobolds are exceptional and don't have to conform to this behavior." Or words to that effect.

Mind Flayers: Why remove the statement that mind flayers are inhuman monsters, etc etc. Why not just add the "use the following tables as inspiration" bit as an extra paragraph instead of a replacement one?

Orcs: I totally get why they've removed the "Orcs as Underlings" sidebar, the text under "Roleplaying an Orc", and the section on half-orcs since they're completely rewriting them not to be slavishly evil and barely capable of empathy, etc. This is fine.

Yuan-ti: I do not understand why they felt it was necessary to cut so much out of this entry. Yuan-ti are meant to be inhuman horrors. Is there some sort of racist language here that I'm just not seeing?

 

[TheSword]

I’m really conflicted on this issue. On one hand I just see this as the inevitable overlappping of a family brand, multiple writers, 30 years of products and twitter. Those things were never gonna play well together. The sanitizing of language to be less provocative was always going to happen.

Some of the changes do feel a bit bizarre. Like the removal of the sections on mind flayers and beholders. I honestly can’t see the gain at all. Particularly as the following tables are filled with a examples of evil and madness. Unless it’s just an attempt to be less prescriptive. I suspect the whole writing style of Volo’s guide was seen as too prescriptive. I’m just not sure errata is a good solution to that.

The rest of the stuff though, like PC races having no default alignment is a bit of a no-brainer. I’m struggling to see how that is particularly dramatic or controversial.

All and all, ‘who cares’ would be my answer. I’m not sure D&D will feel any different after these changes. Arguing that it is a step change in WOC’s approach seems a bit hyperbolic whichever side of the fence you’re sitting on.

I personally enjoy the way Lizardfolk are treated. Neutral and full of good and bad characters, but with the Lizardking/queen offshoot that is more aggressive, domineering and powerful. Those figures lead lizardfolk tribes to violence and aggression. I’m about to run Encounter at Blackwall Keep and it makes the lizardfolk dynamic far more interesting. I’m perfectly fine with the same applying to Priestesses of Lolth, and Priests of Grummsh fulfilling the same role.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, I have to admit, I don't really understand the thinking behind some of the Volo's changes.

Beholders: The three paragraphs in the "Roleplaying a Beholder" section are useful. What does getting rid of that stuff and replacing it with "the following tables can be used for inspiration" really achieve?

Giants: Likewise, what does removing the section detailing how fire giants will sometimes ransom back their captives/slaves achieve? It can't be to make it so fire giants aren't slavers, because they haven't touched the preceding section entitled "Slaves: Lavor-saving Devices". Is it because it mentions that wealthier prisoners are more likely to be ransomed than poor ones?

Gnolls: Further, why remove the paragraphs on how to roleplay gnolls when it's clear they aren't changing their lore on gnolls? If anything, they're doubling down on making it so gnolls aren't a playable race by suggesting they'll change them to fiends instead of humanoids.

Kobolds: While I can understand removing the text on roleplaying kobolds, since they are a playable race, I think it would still be useful to leave it in there and just say "This is how NPC kobolds tend to behave. PC kobolds are exceptional and don't have to conform to this behavior." Or words to that effect.

Mind Flayers: Why remove the statement that mind flayers are inhuman monsters, etc etc. Why not just add the "use the following tables as inspiration" bit as an extra paragraph instead of a replacement one?

Orcs: I totally get why they've removed the "Orcs as Underlings" sidebar, the text under "Roleplaying an Orc", and the section on half-orcs since they're completely rewriting them not to be slavishly evil and barely capable of empathy, etc. This is fine.

Yuan-ti: I do not understand why they felt it was necessary to cut so much out of this entry. Yuan-ti are meant to be inhuman horrors. Is there some sort of racist language here that I'm just not seeing?

These changes are not about racism, it's about removing things that might be too disturbing for a 10 year old reader (or, more importantly, their parents).

 

[pukunui]

These changes are not about racism, it's about removing things that might be too disturbing for a 10 year old reader (or, more importantly, their parents).

Hmm. Yes, that does make sense.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yeah, I have to admit, I don't really understand the thinking behind some of the Volo's changes.

Beholders: The three paragraphs in the "Roleplaying a Beholder" section are useful. What does getting rid of that stuff and replacing it with "the following tables can be used for inspiration" really achieve?

Giants: Likewise, what does removing the section detailing how fire giants will sometimes ransom back their captives/slaves achieve? It can't be to make it so fire giants aren't slavers, because they haven't touched the preceding section entitled "Slaves: Lavor-saving Devices". Is it because it mentions that wealthier prisoners are more likely to be ransomed than poor ones?

Gnolls: Further, why remove the paragraphs on how to roleplay gnolls when it's clear they aren't changing their lore on gnolls? If anything, they're doubling down on making it so gnolls aren't a playable race by suggesting they'll change them to fiends instead of humanoids.

Kobolds: While I can understand removing the text on roleplaying kobolds, since they are a playable race, I think it would still be useful to leave it in there and just say "This is how NPC kobolds tend to behave. PC kobolds are exceptional and don't have to conform to this behavior." Or words to that effect.

Mind Flayers: Why remove the statement that mind flayers are inhuman monsters, etc etc. Why not just add the "use the following tables as inspiration" bit as an extra paragraph instead of a replacement one?

Orcs: I totally get why they've removed the "Orcs as Underlings" sidebar, the text under "Roleplaying an Orc", and the section on half-orcs since they're completely rewriting them not to be slavishly evil and barely capable of empathy, etc. This is fine.

Yuan-ti: I do not understand why they felt it was necessary to cut so much out of this entry. Yuan-ti are meant to be inhuman horrors. Is there some sort of racist language here that I'm just not seeing?

mind flayer playable race?

yuan-ti aside from the cool snake bits do have influences of mesoamerican and even Asian influences if you look back over them so maybe that personally I just say make them the logical endpoint of cobra from gi joe as that would both be evil and inoffensive.

 

[Bolares]

I will be keeping the evil humanoid races in my games. Dungeons and Dragons is already silly in many ways and that has never bothered my group.

That's the beauty of "do whatever. YOU TOO can do whatever

 

[Bagpuss]

These changes are not about racism, it's about removing things that might be too disturbing for a 10 year old reader (or, more importantly, their parents).

Except they remove stuff like..

Paying the Price (p. 26) from the Fire Giants background which is about ransoming slaves they have.

Yet keep all the stuff about having slaves, and feeding the weaker ones to trolls.

What's the logic here? Paying a ransom is negotiating with terrorists/kidnappers so bad, not suitable for 10 year olds, but having slaves and feeding slaves to trolls is fine?

In Volo's just from Chapter 1 they have removed over 1,500 words chiefly roleplaying advice for DMs and replaced it with nothing.

If you get your books through D&D Beyond they are actually going to take that content off you.