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.

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.

EU8WnNDU0AYY7VQ.jpg


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
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad


clearstream

(He, Him)
Then don't use it?

You say HS was over-powered, then you complain they fixed it? I don't get it. "It's broken but how dare you try to correct it!"
I think the objection is more about maintaining a robust separation of concerns. Errata should be for editing mistakes, e.g. a mistakenly copied value that made it to the printed version. Mechanical rebalancing should happen in some kind of versioning document or guide to play. It's really not errata.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
Im glad I held off replacing my (2) 1st printings of the PHB. 5-1/2 years seems like quite a long time to still be releasing errata for this book.

Same here. I've been looking forward to buying a new PHB for years, but every year or so I am holding on to see if there is a new errata-corrige, and there always is, so I haven't bought it yet. At least this year's corrections really are few and minor (unlike last year's ones).
 

Li Shenron

Legend
I think the objection is more about maintaining a robust separation of concerns. Errata should be for editing mistakes, e.g. a mistakenly copied value that made it to the printed version. Mechanical rebalancing should happen in some kind of versioning document or guide to play. It's really not errata.

Yes, and no.

Yes errata-corrige should be for editing mistakes only. But in D&D there's RAW and RAI, and sometimes the RAW seemed enough to express the RAI but it later turns out it wasn't, even tho the RAI hasn't changed. The problem is that a lot of people insists that RAW is more important even when the results it's against the RAI.

What I think happened with Healing Spirit, is that the RAI was for the spell to be used in combat mainly, and that the expected average amount of healing was below the theoretical maximum because of other stuff going on in combat prevented to achieve that. They didn't think quickly enough that using it out of combat instead meant to easily achieve a much higher result. I don't believe that the missing "1+bonus" limit was simply an editing mistake (i.e. I don't think they meant it to be there since the start but overlooked its absence in the first print). What I believe is that it didn't even come to their mind at that time that it was required in the RAW in order to fulfill the RAI. So the new RAW now really matches the RAI. Is this a "revision of the rules"? Well it's a revision of the RAW, but not a revision of the RAI!
 
Last edited:

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
They wanted to gather data first, to see if it was actually disproportionately represented in play or if it only looked overpowered on paper but in practice didn’t get overused.
I also suspect it might have to do with when reprints occur. As Jeremy said, they errata'd Xanathar's now just prior to their 4th printing... perhaps Abyss is getting another printing soon too and they figured now was the time to make a couple small erratas.
 

IIRC, Jeremy Crawford suggested this change as a house rule on Twitter only weeks after XGtE came out, due to the number of people seeing the abuse.

Not quite - he suggested a far more reasonable 2x stat mod, which is much closer to where this should be. I agree with your analysis re: the utility overall - cast as a 3rd-4th level slot it's drastically more effective, but still I think not quite right. And it's weird because Crawford nailed it, but apparently someone in the decision chain changed it to a lower value.

Reminds me of the time Crawford was entirely reasonable about sidekicks, and how they should be implemented, and was apparently totally ignored and overridden by persons unknown, who made sidekicks into 3E-style trash (not a critique of 3E, note, just a characterization of the particular, and very-inappropriate-to-5E design that they echoed).

This Errata does match how Crawford said the Spell was expected to work on Twitter at the time, though: he never saw the "overpowered" aspect as anything more than a corner case, so they patched the corner.

As I noted, this goes way beyond what Crawford suggested - it's barely above half the power of his suggested value, which puts it in a particularly bad place. They changed one problem (overpowered out of combat, not unreasonable in combat) into a different problem (underpowered period), whilst breaking their word in the process. I'm fine with them breaking their word, but if it's worth doing that for this one spell, it's worth doing it for other stuff.

Obviously in any campaign I run I'll follow Crawford's suggestion, and suggest DMs in the two games I play in do likewise, but it's lame and inconsistent. If you're going to go so far as to break your own word to nerf something, at least nerf it correctly.
 

R_J_K75

Legend
Same here. I've been looking forward to buying a new PHB for years, but every year or so I am holding on to see if there is a new errata-corrige, and there always is, so I haven't bought it yet. At least this year's corrections really are few and minor (unlike last year's ones).

I guess if I havent replaced both of mine yet, I can probably live without them. Even if I did and Im the only one and the table with a current copy then that could create potential confusion. Nevertheless, I do check their price periodically but think Id opr for the Wildemount campaign setting first at this point.
 

So the new RAW now really matches the RAI. Is this a "revision of the rules"? Well it's a revision of the RAW, but not a revision of the RAI!

I disagree. The value is so low that I do not believe that it matches the RAI of the original spell at all. When you're likely actually casting it as a 2nd-level spell, you probably have a stat mod of +3 in your primary. That means you get 4d6 (14 points, average) healing out of it, and in combat that requires people to move through it and/or you to expend bonus actions moving it around, things which are not, together, trivial.

Given that even ignoring out of combat, it was totally plausible to expect 8d6 or more total in-combat healing, I cannot accept that this matches RAI.

Whereas Crawford's actual suggestion, of 2x stat mod, was quite close to RAI. Whichever nameless person decided on 1+stat mod broke RAI.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
I disagree. The value is so low that I do not believe that it matches the RAI of the original spell at all. When you're likely actually casting it as a 2nd-level spell, you probably have a stat mod of +3 in your primary. That means you get 4d6 (14 points, average) healing out of it, and in combat that requires people to move through it and/or you to expend bonus actions moving it around, things which are not, together, trivial.

Given that even ignoring out of combat, it was totally plausible to expect 8d6 or more total in-combat healing, I cannot accept that this matches RAI.

Whereas Crawford's actual suggestion, of 2x stat mod, was quite close to RAI. Whichever nameless person decided on 1+stat mod broke RAI.

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).
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top