D&D 5E New Errata Released For D&D PHB, OotA, Xanathar, and ToF

WOtC has published an updated Sage Advice compendium with updated errata for the D&D Player's Handbook, Out of the Abyss, and for Xanathar's Guide and Tome of Foes.

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf PHB

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/OotA-Errata.pdf OOtA

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/XGtE-Errata.pdf Xanathar

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/MTF-Errata.pdf ToF

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Indeed, the game-distorting might of the Tiny creature wielding Heavy weapons could not be endured.

Most of the errata is clarification for the benefit of RAW pedants (like this one) or typo corrections like d6/d8. Balance changes are very rare, and only if they think something is very very out of whack.

 

[happyhermit]

Indeed, the game-distorting might of the Tiny creature wielding Heavy weapons could not be endured.

Hopefully you are just joking, but there is not really any harm in fixing errors like this. It doesn't fracture the player base or make anyone's book less useful because 99% of people aren't stupid/shifty enough to read it as "Sure small creatures can't use heavy weapons, but tiny creatures? Sure, that makes sense." Those corrections shouldn't be necessary (and they aren't really) but they don't hurt anybody and when you get a million people playing a game, even that 1% can start to become a problem.

 

[clearstream]

Hopefully you are just joking, but there is not really any harm in fixing errors like this. It doesn't fracture the player base or make anyone's book less useful because 99% of people aren't stupid/shifty enough to read it as "Sure small creatures can't use heavy weapons, but tiny creatures? Sure, that makes sense." Those corrections shouldn't be necessary (and they aren't really) but they don't hurt anybody and when you get a million people playing a game, even that 1% can start to become a problem.

Of course

I am both joking, and suggesting a line for discussion. The change to Heavy weapons is an example of what @Li Shenron was talking about. The common-sense RAI all the way through seemed clear (that if small creatures can't use Heavy weapons, then tiny creatures also can't use them), but actually the RAW was also perfectly clear in its original form (for whatever reason, tiny creatures actually can use Heavy weapons).

It's a great example of how we bring assumptions into a fantasy world that could well be parked at the entrance. From a purely textual perspective, there was nothing faulty about the original RAW. The errata corrected it to a RAI that in this instance we seem to agree with. This is why I prefer to argue that designers don't necessarily have any well-formed intent beyond what they wrote in the first place. Rather than that errata should not correct RAW to RAI.

The implications of our position on the job of errata litter this thread... for instance, of what happens when we don't have any common sense of the RAI.

 

[dalisprime]

If it was for me, I would have also made it a bit more than just 1+stat, but it is not the exact amount which really defines the RAI.

I think the RAI is for this spell to be effectively a sort of "cure wounds that sticks around the battlefield for a few rounds" so that any PC who needs a bit of healing can go into the spell and get it.

Then, in combat how long do you think this spell is expected to last? It's a concentration spell, so there's a risk each round it will fizzle. Maybe if the Cleric is good and lucky, it can last the whole combat. But how does the whole combat last? I don't think that typical 5e combats last more than 5-6 rounds in most cases. And once again I believe for the RAI of this spell to be in combat, not in combat and a few rounds afterwards. They could have added a rule that the spell ends automatically "when the encounter ends", but that's really out of touch with 5e rules. I think the original max duration of 1 minute was probably meant to capture 99.99% of combats, but they probably didn't think about how much extra healing all the PCs can get every time a combat lasts less than 10 rounds, because if the caster manages to keep concentration until the end, all the leftover duration can be exploited.

The sad reality is that probably you should never design a spell like this. Since the mechanic of the spell is based on turns, it is not going to work well out of combat when you actually don't have turns, even tho you can replace a turn with 6 seconds. The spell assumes a "cost" in PCs using their movement, and again you don't really care about action economy when you're out of combat.

The spell doesn't compare properly with Prayer of Healing which cannot be used in combat and hence has a very different RAI. It's better to compare it with Cure Wounds/Healing Word at low level (when Healing Spirit potentially heals significantly more HP in total), and then with Mass Cure Wounds/Mass Healing Word at mid-high level, and here is where I see that I would have been more generous than 1+Wis, because once you can either cast Mass Cure Wounds (3d8+Wis to ALL your PCs in most cases) or an augmented Spirit of Healing (4d6 multiplied by 1+Wis) then the latter total is already slightly behind and you still might lose concentration and the healing is spread over multiple rounds and the PCs need to use their movement (the only advantage of SoH is a more optimized usage of those healed HP).

Why would you compare HS to MCW or MHW tho? Higher level spells are always more effective than lower level spells upcast. Take scorching ray compared to fireball. They both do 8d6 damage but SR will only do that damage to a single target and the moment you start spreading it to more targets you decrease its damage/target. The only advantage it has over FB is no friendly fire.
Same applies to HS. At second level it's more effective than HW/CW in combat but gets outclassed by higher level spells as it should.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Of course

I am both joking, and suggesting a line for discussion. The change to Heavy weapons is an example of what @Li Shenron was talking about. The common-sense RAI all the way through seemed clear (that if small creatures can't use Heavy weapons, then tiny creatures also can't use them), but actually the RAW was also perfectly clear in its original form (for whatever reason, tiny creatures actually can use Heavy weapons).

It's a great example of how we bring assumptions into a fantasy world that could well be parked at the entrance. From a purely textual perspective, there was nothing faulty about the original RAW. The errata corrected it to a RAI that in this instance we seem to agree with. This is why I prefer to argue that designers don't necessarily have any well-formed intent beyond what they wrote in the first place. Rather than that errata should not correct RAW to RAI.

The implications of our position on the job of errata litter this thread... for instance, of what happens when we don't have any common sense of the RAI.

I don´t really understand if you think the change is good or bad. If our common sense already knows how to read the line, why not change it to match to how most people already read it.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I think yo may have accidentally reversed one of these.

Sentinel CAN be used at reach with the errata.
Polearm Master can be used with spears with the errata.

You are correct. I intended "can" , the "not" is a typo. I have corrected the post.

 

[Upper Bugburbian]

Don't get the shift in monk casting stoneskin from 11th to 17th level, nobody ever seems to play an elemental monk anyway, and stoneskin is a fairly lame spell in 5th, especially compared to earlier editions.

 

[Upper Bugburbian]

Same with the water whip change, another minor monk ability whose game breaking ability I completely fail to see.

 

[Upper Bugburbian]

They fixed the PHB horse stats, but not the mule stats

 

[Asisreo]

Don't get the shift in monk casting stoneskin from 11th to 17th level, nobody ever seems to play an elemental monk anyway, and stoneskin is a fairly lame spell in 5th, especially compared to earlier editions.

I'll admit that these changes seem arbitrary. The only thing I can think of is that they found some overly broken combo using an 11th level's monk's stoneskin that nobody else has seen before. I'll look into what could possibly be broken about it but I think WoTC just doesn't like martial classes lol.