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

 

[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've found it. They said in the table the maximum amount of ki points to spend is 4 at level 11. Now, it might've made sense to have the spell unlockable at level 13 where you're allowed to spend the required 5 ki points but that doesn't align with any of the other features. So unfortunately, it seems this was the result of keeping things in-line with pre-established systems and not overlooking strange outliers.

 

[Upper Bugburbian]

Arcane shot fix for XGtE is a good one though; original was so restrictive I couldn't see why anyone would play that subclass.

 

[Upper Bugburbian]

I've found it. They said in the table the maximum amount of ki points to spend is 4 at level 11. Now, it might've made sense to have the spell unlockable at level 13 where you're allowed to spend the required 5 ki points but that doesn't align with any of the other features. So unfortunately, it seems this was the result of keeping things in-line with pre-established systems and not overlooking strange outliers.

That makes sense; you wouldn't want to take a power you had to wait two levels to use. Of course, they could have just made it cost 4 and it would hardly make any difference at either 11th or 17th level. Though as originally written I'd just take it as a case of a specific rule taking precedence over a general one and letting it go.

 

[clearstream]

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.

It can be kind of hard to explain. Essentially, think about what we project onto rules... and then think about how the rule could look if we can set that aside or at least concede other projections equal validity.

In the case at hand, we project "common sense" onto a RAW that perfectly clearly constrained small creatures and did not constrain tiny creatures. Small creatures are not also tiny, so there are no mechanical issues with this rule. We happen to all agree that the RAW does not match the RAI... but this is really because the RAI is post-projection. The original RAW is unproblematic. The problem was that we had expectations that we projected onto it.

Sometimes RAW is problematic. Say if the Heavy weapon RAW had failed to list any creature sizes? We'd have no idea how to apply it because to assume it meant all creatures would be to assume that Heavy weapons couldn't be used at all. That would be an example of RAW that is problematic even before we project anything onto it.

So here, the errata changes the RAW to something we all felt it must have intended anyway. But that is only a matter of features of the worlds we had in mind that we projected onto it to yield a RAI. What has happened is that the RAW was changed by the errata. It now has quite a different meaning, prior to projecting anything on it. Whatever we think about tiny characters - say they are in our world magically condensed giant versions of creatures - the RAW now stops them using Heavy weapons. (Prior to house-ruling, which in our world in which all tiny creatures are tiny-giants might mean reverting it to its original text.)

I am not saying that this change is good or bad, I am saying that it rules out a really convincing argument that errata cannot change RAW. We might say that it should only do so in cases where the RAI is a matter of common-sense, but I don't think there are clear boundaries... only normal concepts of what that might be which, like many normal concepts, don't apply in all times and places, for all people. So it is not always clear when a change to RAW, that actually changes the game effect of the mechanic, is a correction to RAI.

I raise this to justify instead attacking this from a different angle: that we might not want to assume the RAI was clear to the designer in the first place, if it was not expressed in the RAW. Healing Spirit is an example of that IMO. It is distinct from the Heavy weapons errata because I don't think the change represents a normal view of what the RAW intended, because many players have chimed in to say they expected something different.

 

[happyhermit]

It can be kind of hard to explain. ...

Not that it matters, but I didn't say that, quote misattributed somehow.

 

[clearstream]

Not that it matters, but I didn't say that, quote misattributed somehow.

Gracious, that really went astray. I'm not sure why. Fixed!

 

[TheSword]

Here’s the deal. I was at GenCon shortly after Jeremy Crawford was announced as The Sage. He was wandering the D&D gaming room so I went over and talked to him about his philosophy on errata. He said he didn’t like errata because it fractured the player base. Some people didn’t have internet access or didn’t bother checking for errata so it created two different games: the one with errata and the one without and players wouldn’t know which one they were sitting down for. He didn’t want 4th edition style errata where every 6 months they were making 30 changes to various spells and abilities.

I got concerned because I’ve seen what overpowered things do to the game, especially in Organized Play where DMs didn’t have the choice to apply house rules to fix issues and said that a lot of that 4e errata made the game playable. I asked what happens if something was so broken it needed to be fixed. He said that there wouldn’t be zero balance changes, it was just that they would heavily consider whether something was truly broken enough that it was worth fracturing the player base to fix it. He said they would consider whether leaving the overpowered thing in the game was worse than the problems caused by issuing errata and if it was, they would fix it.

That made me feel better.

Sensible, considered and proportional approach to a game brand he has stewardship over...

... How dare he!

 

[Li Shenron]

It can be kind of hard to explain. Essentially, think about what we project onto rules... and then think about how the rule could look if we can set that aside or at least concede other projections equal validity.

In the case at hand, we project "common sense" onto a RAW that perfectly clearly constrained small creatures and did not constrain tiny creatures. Small creatures are not also tiny, so there are no mechanical issues with this rule. We happen to all agree that the RAW does not match the RAI... but this is really because the RAI is post-projection. The original RAW is unproblematic. The problem was that we had expectations that we projected onto it.

Sometimes RAW is problematic. Say if the Heavy weapon RAW had failed to list any creature sizes? We'd have no idea how to apply it because to assume it meant all creatures would be to assume that Heavy weapons couldn't be used at all. That would be an example of RAW that is problematic even before we project anything onto it.

So here, the errata changes the RAW to something we all felt it must have intended anyway. But that is only a matter of features of the worlds we had in mind that we projected onto it to yield a RAI. What has happened is that the RAW was changed by the errata. It now has quite a different meaning, prior to projecting anything on it. Whatever we think about tiny characters - say they are in our world magically condensed giant versions of creatures - the RAW now stops them using Heavy weapons. (Prior to house-ruling, which in our world in which all tiny creatures are tiny-giants might mean reverting it to its original text.)

I am not saying that this change is good or bad, I am saying that it rules out a really convincing argument that errata cannot change RAW. We might say that it should only do so in cases where the RAI is a matter of common-sense, but I don't think there are clear boundaries... only normal concepts of what that might be which, like many normal concepts, don't apply in all times and places, for all people. So it is not always clear when a change to RAW, that actually changes the game effect of the mechanic, is a correction to RAI.

I raise this to justify instead attacking this from a different angle: that we might not want to assume the RAI was clear to the designer in the first place, if it was not expressed in the RAW. Healing Spirit is an example of that IMO. It is distinct from the Heavy weapons errata because I don't think the change represents a normal view of what the RAW intended, because many players have chimed in to say they expected something different.

Tiny characters were a non-issue from the original RAW point of view. There are no tiny PC according to the PHB. Monsters do not strictly follow the rules of PC. It was equally valid for the original RAW to allow or disallow tiny creatures to use heavy weapons, because it didn't matter.

It was like Schrodinger's cat, it was both allowed and disallowed at the same time. The errata didn't change the cat but rather opened the box.

Maybe now there are tiny playable races in some book, or there will be later, or enough people brought up that they are playing a sprite or fairy PC in a game and wanted to know for sure, and now they do.

There are still potentially infinite undefined rules that might be unboxed one day.

 

[Envisioner]

Tiny characters were a non-issue from the original RAW point of view. There are no tiny PC according to the PHB. Monsters do not strictly follow the rules of PC. It was equally valid for the original RAW to allow or disallow tiny creatures to use heavy weapons, because it didn't matter.

From any perspective other than that of absurdly strict rules-lawyering, which completely ignores all simulationist aspects of the RPG format in favor of "well technically the rules don't say not to" logic, if the whole point of a weapon having this quality is that it's a "heavy" weapon and thus not usable by Small characters, then it's obvious that a smaller-than-Small character would find it even more impossible to use. An argument could be made about things that are based in magic, or even just things that are kind of vaguely defined and subject to interpretation, but in this case the metaphor is so clearly obvious that only a willful misrepresentation of the intent can argue against it.

 

[clearstream]

Tiny characters were a non-issue from the original RAW point of view. There are no tiny PC according to the PHB. Monsters do not strictly follow the rules of PC. It was equally valid for the original RAW to allow or disallow tiny creatures to use heavy weapons, because it didn't matter.

It was like Schrodinger's cat, it was both allowed and disallowed at the same time. The errata didn't change the cat but rather opened the box.

Seeing as your argument here rests on a contention that monsters that wield weapons do not follow the same rules as PCs, and we are speaking here of matters of RAW, you will need to reference the relevant rules.

If you do not, then I will be justified in saying that such RAW does not exist. The original RAW will thus allow tiny creatures to use Heavy weapons and not, as you put it, allow or disallow their use at the same time.

There are still potentially infinite undefined rules that might be unboxed one day.

This is quite a different contention. Your first contention was about whether creatures that wield weapons do so under the same rules as PCs. So if an orc picks up a pike, they may or may not have reach. Setting aside a DM's ongoing authority to change any rule, the default by RAW is that an orc with a pike has reach with that pike.

Taking your point here to be roughly an assertion of COWTRA (just because the rules haven't disallowed something, doesn't mean that its allowed), then given that the rules say that a pike gives reach, we should suppose that an orc using a pike gains reach. What we should not suppose is that an orc with a pike gains finesse, because the rules don't say that orcs with pikes don't have finesse (even if, as a matter of possibility, they could one day in the unknown future say that they do get finesse).

[EDIT: Reflecting on how you construct your idea here, it really is kind of nice. I like the way that you urge us to reflect on a past moment when X did not exist, keeping in mind the present moment when X does exist, and understand that there might have been no need to have rules constraining X back then, before it existed. All I am saying is that it is wrong to say in this case that X did not exist back then, or at least put the burden on you to show some evidence for your claim that it did not.)

[EDIT2: I guess this question becomes moot considering that magic can make PCs tiny.]