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

 

[clearstream]

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.

This is a strange argument to bring at this point. I am exactly speaking from a perspective of the rules lawyer. I am pointing out that the simulationist argument relies on an unwritten consensus about what is being simulated. That makes it subjective. Objectively, the original RAW entails only that small creatures cannot use heavy weapons.

I have already conceded the common-sense point, and that has nothing to do with what is interesting about the discussion at hand. Which is entirely focused on what job errata is justified in doing? There was earlier in the thread a point made that errata is unjustified in changing rules. The value of the heavy weapon example is how it stands in contrast to the healing spirit example. We agree only by common sense that tiny creatures shouldn't ever have been allowed to use heavy weapons. So the errata seems fine. But not all players agree that healing spirit should be 1+mod uses. So the errata seems... not fine?

I state the above in detail so that others joining the thread at this point might avoid misapprehending what is contended.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Objectively, the original RAW entails only that small creatures cannot use heavy weapons.

RAW, anything that is not a player character is not able to use any weapons not listed in their stat block. Since there are no tiny PCs no tiny creatures can use weapons not in their stat block (such as sprite bows).

 

[clearstream]

RAW, anything that is not a player character is not able to use any weapons not listed in their stat block. Since there are no tiny PCs no tiny creatures can use weapons not in their stat block (such as sprite bows).

A PC that is the target of a spell or other magical effect can be tiny.

 

[clearstream]

So with in mind whether errata should change rules, picture the following

D&Dm (mirror-world D&D) has creature sizes smue and tue. Smue creatures have the properties that small ones do in D&D except they can use heavy weapons. Tue creatures have the properties that tiny ones do in D&D except they can use heavy weapons. (In D&Dm only mue creatures cannot use heavy weapons.)

1) At some time after release, an errata is published to D&Dm saying that tue creatures cannot use heavy weapons. Should the heavy weapon constraint also apply to smue creatures even though they are not specified?

2) A bit later, an errata is published to D&Dm saying that the previous errata is erased and smue creatures cannot use heavy weapons. Should the heavy weapon constraint apply to tue creatures even though this errata "erased" the previous one and prior to that they were able to use them?

Perhaps by thinking about smue and tue creatures we can see that assuming that anything that constrains the former constrains the latter (probably inconsistently) amounts to a hidden rule. What Bjork and Holopainen would have called an exogenous rule. It is a rule we add to the game aka a house rule.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to have exogenous rules. For one thing, it would be impossible to make any sense of RPG rules if we didn't bring into it a whole host of hidden rules. @Envisioner is right to point out that there are simulationist aspects of D&D that should inform our interpretations. The risk is that as these assumptions are hidden, we don't know for sure that we share the same ones: almost certainly we do not.

I am questioning if it is really the job of errata to reify our hidden rules? What if my hidden rule differs from yours? Are we happy to say that all an errata need do is please the majority? Surely "pleasing the majority" underdetermines the job of errata. Perhaps sending us all ice cream would please us more... but sending us ice cream wouldn't be errata? So clearly errata has some job to do, beyond pleasing the majority.

 

[Nikosandros]

RAW, anything that is not a player character is not able to use any weapons not listed in their stat block. Since there are no tiny PCs no tiny creatures can use weapons not in their stat block (such as sprite bows).

The MM states (very reasonably, I might add) that the DM can exchange the weapons carried and the armor worn. Where is the idea that a creature can't use anything not listed coming from?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The MM states (very reasonably, I might add) that the DM can exchange the weapons carried and the armor worn. Where is the idea that a creature can't use anything not listed coming from?

Where is to say that they can? A sprite can use a 2H sword only if the DM says they can use a 2H sword. If the DM wishes to make a nonsensical ruling they are free to do that, but a player cannot claim that it is RAW that their sprite familiar can use a 2H sword.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A PC that is the target of a spell or other magical effect can be tiny.

Hence the errata. To allow for the edge case where a PC somehow becomes tiny.

 

[SkidAce]

 

[clearstream]

Hence the errata. To allow for the edge case where a PC somehow becomes tiny.

I believe you might have missed what I am discussing. The question is not one of the reasonableness of tiny creatures not wielding heavy weapons. All that needs to be acknowledged in that regard is that prior to the errata, sans hidden rules (common sense), only small creatures were prevented by RAW from wielding heavy weapons. That doesn't mean the rules should be played that way or even made the most sense that way, it only means that taken literally the RAW entailed precisely that.

The reason this is an interesting case is exactly because everyone agrees on the RAI (myself included). I am suggesting that this means we are all happy for errata to change RAW so long as we agree on the RAI. What about when we don't agree on the RAI then? Are we still quite so happy for errata to change RAW. There is clear evidence in this thread that we are not.

That is what I am discussing. I'd like to move on from being laser-focused on the RAI for tiny creatures. It's really not important beyond the most basic, rules lawyer-ish concessions.

 

[clearstream]

Where is to say that they can? A sprite can use a 2H sword only if the DM says they can use a 2H sword. If the DM wishes to make a nonsensical ruling they are free to do that, but a player cannot claim that it is RAW that their sprite familiar can use a 2H sword.

I take it that you at least concede that the original RAW allowed a PC who was magicked into a tiny creature (without changing their race or class, or PC-ness) to wield heavy weapons, even if we all agree that the RAI was other than that? Noting my post immediately above.