D&D 5E New Errata & Advice For D&D Issued

WotC has issued an update to the 'Sage Advice' compilation, including new errata documents and amendments to racial attributes.

Screen Shot 2020-10-02 at 12.13.01 AM.png


"The PDF contains answers to a collection of new questions. To find the latest answers, search for “[New]” in the PDF.

The compendium includes links to new errata documents for Curse of Strahd, Ghosts of Saltmarsh, Storm King’s Thunder, Tomb of Annihilation, and Volo’s Guide to Monsters."


Racial attributes have been altered (thanks to @dave2008 for pointing that out).

errata.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Wrathamon

Adventurer
Don't mind the errata at all, but half the new rulings still drive me nuts.

When you dismiss the familiar you conjure with the find familiar spell to its pocket dimension, can it take any objects it’s wearing or carrying with it? No, the intent of find familiar is that any objects are left behind when the familiar vanishes. This intent will be reflected in future printings of the Player’s Handbook.


Why does this require a Sage Advice answer? Was this a major problem? Am I insane to think that this is the exact kind of thing that the DM and not WotC should answer?


Misty step doesn’t say the caster can bring worn or carried equipment with them. Are they intended to leave everything, including their clothes, behind? No, the caster’s worn and carried equipment are intended to go with them.

Some teleportation effects do specify that you teleport with your gear; such specification is an example of a rule being needlessly fastidious, since no teleportation effect in the game assumes that you teleport without your clothes, just as the general movement rules don’t assume that you drop everything when you walk.


See, you can be reasonable. I honestly just don't understand.

I actually like this sorta thing. One is they get a lot of players most likely finding strange situations where "items" can disappear w the familiar and are protected forever and that causes a lot of problems I'm guessing (and they got enough questions about it to answer) and now they are just clarifying that. Most likely this comes up a lot in AL play.

The other I think was great to point out in that some people just like to be rules lawyers and say your naked because other spells reference it and this doesnt so I think it was good to be point out in a stop being so literal and rai a bit more. Same with the line of sight being english and not a mechanic.

I still am baffled by held and don. I just thought don was them using a more descriptive word and not actually a mechanic.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
🤷‍♂️

I disagree but whatever.

We can map it out!

A. Right changes, right reasons.

B. Right changes, wrong reasons.

C. Wrong changes, right reasons.

D. Wrong changes, wrong reasons.

E. All changes are a disease, a disease that spreads, melting the rules into an amoeboid mass. Slowly, a new set of rules will form where the old rules once lay; where the old rules can no longer contain the crustacean horror that have grown inside them.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
With the Ghosts of Saltmarsh errata, they've changed the sea lion to a CR 5 monstrosity (rather than a CR 1/2 beast) but haven't changed its description, which still suggests that it should just be a normal beast ("These large marine mammals live along coastal regions and around islands at sea").

Interesting also that, while the Curse of Strahd errata includes all the changes to the description of the Vistani, the Tomb of Annihilation errata does not include any of the changes made to the description of Chultans.

HAW! That's because those are TWO DIFFERNT THINGS. The CR 1/2 Beast is a real-world sealion. Just an animal (like a big seal) and the CR 5 Monstrosity is a greek-myth-inspired chimera-like Lion-Shark. Seems that the naming convention (which I personally have laughed about since 2e) has rightly caused some confusion.
 

Elemental weapon requites a 'weapon', Which an unarmed Strike is not.

Divine Smite requires a 'melee weapon attack' which an unarmed strike is.

There is a difference between a 'melee weapon attack' (which does not need a weapon) and 'an attack with a melee weapon' (which does require a weapon).

You missed the premise near the start of my post:

However, let's look at it from a game design perspective and not a "read the book back to me" perspective. Why might we want to make unarmed strikes not count as weapons?

The lion's share of my post doesn't care about what the book literally says. It cares about why you as a designer of the rules might decide to create the rule as Crawford has done. In other words, the premise is that all rules are still flexible and that any specific design should be a defensible choice. My point was that there isn't really any logic to denying unarmed strikes from actually just being a simple weapon. The only real weirdness is that it feels like the game should probably say somewhere -- probably the description for unarmed strikes and natural weapons -- that you're unarmed while only armed with unarmed strike, which sounds so self-evident that it sounds dumb when you read it. Still, the table could show it as having a Special property.
 

Adamant

Explorer
You can look at it two ways.
1. Are you playing AL? If not you can ignore this because the DM of you game makes the final decision.
2. If you are the DM do you agree with this change if not you get to kick this to the curb.
As someone who actually plays AL nearly exclusively, this really doesn't change much. The key reason being that sage advice, even the compendium, isn't actually binding even in AL. The FAQ document calls it out as a resource, but then adds the disclaimer that the DM can utilize sage advice at their discretion.
 





This isnt errata, it's sage advice.

And in the exact same sage advice, unarmed strikes are expressly noted as being 'melee weapon attacks' and thus (by the wording of Divine Smite), legal delivery platforms for Smites.

Sage advice seems to contradict itself here.
Sage advice is generally based on literal interpretation of RAW. It is not rules as intended or how the designers would personally rule.
Errata tends to be the latter.

The sage advice's ruling pointing out that an actual weapon is required is based on the end of the first sentence, rather than the beginning.
 

Pauper

That guy, who does that thing.
Some teleportation effects do specify that you teleport with your gear; such specification is an example of a rule being needlessly fastidious, since no teleportation effect in the game assumes that you teleport without your clothes...

"Mr. Crawford? There's a 'Halaster Blackcloak' on line two for you."

--
Pauper
 

Pauper

That guy, who does that thing.
1. Are you playing AL? If not you can ignore this because the DM of you game makes the final decision.

Actually, even if you are playing AL, you can ignore this -- the AL explicitly notes in its FAQ document:

AL FAQ 9.1 said:
Sage Advice (SA) and tweets from the Wizards of the Coast staff are a great barometer for the 'rules-as-intended', in any case. The DM can choose to utilize them at their discretion for rules adjudication.

--
Pauper
 


The sage advice's ruling pointing out that an actual weapon is required is based on the end of the first sentence, rather than the beginning.

The latter reference to adding the smite damage to the 'weapon damage'?

If unarmed strikes are not 'weapon damage' then Heavy Armor Mastery feat does not stop damage from unarmed strikes (and a lot of other wonky things happen in other areas) seeing as damage from an unarmed strike is not 'bludgeoning, slashing or piercing damage you take from a non-magical weapon'.
 

This is from Jan 2018, but it is Jeremy Crawford saying it is both RAW and RAI that Divine Smite requires an actual weapon to work. To see this, you need to click on the tweet, so that it opens up in Twitter and then his reply is one of the final comments.

 

TheSword

Legend
There is no errata. The text for Divine Smite still reads 'melee weapon attack' which an unarmed strike, IS.
Ahh. This is all just conflicting earlier sage advice with the sage advice compilation. That makes sense.

Then I’d still be inclined to follow the advice in the most recent compilation rather than individual snippets. But it definitely isn’t clear cut. And only advisory anyway.
 

BB Shockwave

Explorer
All this mess around unarmed strikes... Maybe we should just go back to the rules where only monks and specialist fighter subclasses could use them? I mean generally you would not want to use such a weak attack anyway, unless you are stripped of your weapons. Monstrous races still have their bites and such as a secondary/multiattack but that was never intended to be a primary attack.
Nope.

Kobolds stay weak. Orcs stay stupid.

Sorry, folks. 🤷‍♂️
So Kobolds do not get a strength penalty anymore? That is kinda ridiculous. Imagine a Kobold with 18/00 (well, I still prefer AD&D stats) in full plate with a giant two handed axe. :D The whole point of playing a Kobold is that they are at the bottom of the food chain, they are weak and hence have to use teamwork and their wits and cleverness to stay alive. To be frank, I was equally not liking how Halflings get no strength penalties either.
And if Orcs had no intelligence penalty... that'd mean Orcs are as smart as humans, and should have long ago conquered half of Faerun. Especially if they had wizards. These changes really play havoc on the lore, too. This whole "everyone is equal" thing, as we have seen in Ray Bradbury's Harrisson Bergeron, does not end well.
 
Last edited:

The latter reference to adding the smite damage to the 'weapon damage'?

If unarmed strikes are not 'weapon damage' then Heavy Armor Mastery feat does not stop damage from unarmed strikes (and a lot of other wonky things happen in other areas) seeing as damage from an unarmed strike is not 'bludgeoning, slashing or piercing damage you take from a non-magical weapon'.
Good catch. So probably the punch goes into your face...
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
So Kobolds do not get a strength penalty anymore? That is kinda ridiculous. Imagine a Kobold with 18/00 (well, I still prefer AD&D stats) in full plate with a giant two handed axe. :D The whole point of playing a Kobold is that they are at the bottom of the food chain, they are weak and hence have to use teamwork and their wits and cleverness to stay alive. To be frank, I was equally not liking how Halflings get no strength penalties either.
And if Orcs had no intelligence penalty... that'd mean Orcs are as smart as humans, and should have long ago conquered half of Faerun. Especially if they had wizards. These changes really play havoc on the lore, too. This whole "everyone is equal" thing, as we have seen in Ray Bradbury's Harrisson Bergeron, does not end well.

You're objectively wrong. We've all discussed this to death. Ancestry-based penalties are a bad thing, have always been a bad thing, and removing them does not diminish them or any other peoples.
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top