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

 

[Fenris447]

Missing the point. I am all in favor of houserules. The distress is what happened with 4e. This sort of errata started to destroy the game. It resulted in literally a book of errata to rebalance stuff and sometimes to rebalance stuff which the errata caused in the first place. Which fostered a reputation for the game that the books were not complete so why even bother to buy them if you needed another book just to correct the first book.

WOTC acknowledged this issue early on with 5e saying the type of errata they'd enact would not be this type - where they use errata to balance something by changing the rule entirely as opposed to just clarifying it or correcting a typo.

I wasn't around when 5e started so I'll take your word for it that WOTC said they wouldn't make balance errata changes. You're not wrong, but you're also making a slippery slope argument. One small tweak does not mean they're going to now make sweeping changes worthy of entire documents or even books. If, in the next errata ~18 months from now, we see more changes like this, then we can and should worry they're changing course. But I think it might be healthier if we all wait for the next round before getting stressed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Which fostered a reputation for the game that the books were not complete so why even bother to buy them if you needed another book just to correct the first book.

Heh heh... I think it was the fact you could get every single thing in the game through a D&D Insider subscription which fostered the belief no one should have bothered buying any of the actual books. And you got all the errata through that on top of it.

 

[Li Shenron]

The last erratas were in 2018. So 2019 there was no errata and you could have bought a new PHB, and your reference to last year's errata as not few/minor must be referring to something else.

I was thinking about the errata which included for example Beastmaster changes (default actions and magic weapon attacks). Has it been 2 years already?

 

[Li Shenron]

They started making these types of changes years ago.

In 2018 they added in a whole new subsection about effects not stacking in the DMG.

Also in 2018 they added an new weapon to Polearm Master, a one handed one when before the only 1H weapon was the quarterstaff and there was a lot of people thinking us it 1H was cheese and disallowing it.

Heck, you can go back earlier that that with the changes to unarmed, which used to be a melee weapon and then was taken out of that category which caused a lot of ripple effects. That was one of the first errata documents for the PHB, maybe the first.

This has been going on for a long time. It's not something new to be outraged or surprised about now.

I kind of think all these were meant since the start...

 

[LordEntrails]

To me, it's the consistency. I've built characters around RAW only to have them shut down by DM's who arbitrarily make rulings so we can "have fun" but it's not fun having a player do the same thing you built your entire character around for free because of some "rule of cool."

The rules as written are important because they're written. They're a reference. We can defer back to them. It's the reason there's an argument with this errata right now; people don't like it when written things are changed because the adjustment feels abrupt and, to some, unnecessary.

DM's like to talk about session zeroing things, too. But it's rare for a DM that doesn't strictly adhere to the rules to not come up with a ruling made up from outside of the books in the middle of a campaign. I can't build a character around that.

Plus, there are some players who'll use the on-the-fly rulings to abuse the game, mostly unintentionally, and you make yourself seem amateurish at best when you rip their "clever solution" away from them when you realize their strategy devolved into "Let the wizard cast fireball with their highest spellslot then let them tiny hut in the BBEG's bedroom so they can do it again." Every single fight.

I just want to play a vanilla game, not modded to hell and back like one of Bethesda's open world games.

As I said, I get this. But, to me this appears, your issue is not about the rules, or the rules 'being changed', but about you want consistency/predictability in the games you play. This, imo, is about you not having (or wanting?) a stable group to play with. If you had a stable group with a the right understanding amongst them, then none of this matters.

BUT, that doesn't mean you are doing or wanting anything 'wrong'.

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).

Funny, my PHB book updates every time a new erratta is published. I only had to pay for it once...

Missing the point. I am all in favor of houserules. The distress is what happened with 4e. This sort of errata started to destroy the game. It resulted in literally a book of errata to rebalance stuff and sometimes to rebalance stuff which the errata caused in the first place. Which fostered a reputation for the game that the books were not complete so why even bother to buy them if you needed another book just to correct the first book.

WOTC acknowledged this issue early on with 5e saying the type of errata they'd enact would not be this type - where they use errata to balance something by changing the rule entirely as opposed to just clarifying it or correcting a typo.

And in how many years this has now happened once? Sure, be concerned but keep it in perspective. Once a decade or so is not going to cause a 4E repeat. Sure, be concerned, voice your concern. But really, its not (yet) worrying about (in my opinion) to the degree folks are exhibiting concern.

 

[Mistwell]

They started making these types of changes years ago.

In 2018 they added in a whole new subsection about effects not stacking in the DMG.

Also in 2018 they added an new weapon to Polearm Master, a one handed one when before the only 1H weapon was the quarterstaff and there was a lot of people thinking us it 1H was cheese and disallowing it.

Heck, you can go back earlier that that with the changes to unarmed, which used to be a melee weapon and then was taken out of that category which caused a lot of ripple effects. That was one of the first errata documents for the PHB, maybe the first.

This has been going on for a long time. It's not something new to be outraged or surprised about now.

All of those changes fell, in my opinion, under "This is what we intended we just accidentally left it out" level of errata. The spear change for polearms was clearly an error as they had it as a pole arm in the beta testing and I think they just accidentally left it out. The stacking looked to be the same thing and the unarmed was a clarification of what the rule was already.

None of that is like this change, which is whole-cloth new rule, completely not part of the intent, tied to something that did not originally have anything to do with the spell (caster stat).

And Crawford said the spell worked the way everyone was using it, and so did Mearls. So yeah, I am surprised. And I can be bothered by it, thanks. It's OK if it doesn't bother you, and I am not telling you how you should feel about it, so what's with telling me how I should feel about it?

 

[Blue]

All of those changes fell, in my opinion, under "This is what we intended we just accidentally left it out" level of errata. The spear change for polearms was clearly an error as they had it as a pole arm in the beta testing and I think they just accidentally left it out. The stacking looked to be the same thing and the unarmed was a clarification of what the rule was already.

None of that is like this change, which is whole-cloth new rule, completely not part of the intent, tied to something that did not originally have anything to do with the spell (caster stat).

At least the Unarmed was absolutely not what was in the rules. It needed changes in multiple places, including adding in a whole new paragraph under melee attacks on page 195 to describe it and how it worked, did damage, and that you were proficient. Unarmed worked fine as a weapon, it wasn't incomplete. It was recrafted after being published.

And Crawford said the spell worked the way everyone was using it, and so did Mearls. So yeah, I am surprised. And I can be bothered by it, thanks. It's OK if it doesn't bother you, and I am not telling you how you should feel about it, so what's with telling me how I should feel about it?

You were complaining about "It was a 4e-style 'errata'. The kind they swore they would never do again. ". I was saying that they had been doing those for years, which is why this isn't something new to be surprised about.

You can also be surprised because it was how Crawford and Mearls said the spell works, but you post I was replying to was not about that. My response is in the context of the what you had said - 4e style errata.

 

[pukunui]

Let’s not forget that with 4e, they were releasing “rules updates” on a monthly basis. With 5e, it’s every few years for the core rules and once if we’re lucky for each supplement.

 

[Mistwell]

You were complaining about "It was a 4e-style 'errata'. The kind they swore they would never do again. ". I was saying that they had been doing those for years, which is why this isn't something new to be surprised about.

And you and I disagree about them having been "doing that for years", and you have comments from several others in this thread who also feel like this is a new species of errata distinct from those others. That's why I am complaining. That's why they were complaining. You disagree, which is fine. You can be not surprised by something that some others are surprised by.

You can also be surprised because it was how Crawford and Mearls said the spell works, but you post I was replying to was not about that. My response is in the context of the what you had said - 4e style errata.

And it IS 4e-style errata and I was not the first person in this thread to describe it that way.

You do get that I can have a different perspective on this than you, right?

 

[Mistwell]

Let’s not forget that with 4e, they were releasing “rules updates” on a monthly basis. With 5e, it’s every few years for the core rules and once if we’re lucky for each supplement.

I am not forgetting it. I am noting it when it happens. If this is the end of it, no big deal at all. If this is just the beginning though, it could end up being a bigger deal. I think it's fair to note it when it happens though.