D&D 5E (2014) 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

 

[Blue]

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.



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?

Sure you get to have your own perspective.

Of course, since I also called it a 4e-style errata that's not actually addressing any point I made. We have the same perspective on that.

The point of contention was if 4e-style erratas have happened before, and that you dodge that in every response. First it was by suddenly changing that your point was that this was not how JC & MM said the spell works before ping-ponging back, and now setting up a strawman on if it is a 4e-style errata instead of addressing the point in the same post detailing how they had to make 4e-style errata to change Unarmed from a weapon to it's own category after the PHB was released.

What you don't get to have is your own facts. Those are shared by everyone because they exist regardless of our opinions.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure you get to have your own perspective.

Of course, since I also called it a 4e-style errata that's not actually addressing any point I made. We have the same perspective on that.

The point of contention was if 4e-style erratas have happened before, and that you dodge that in every response. First it was by suddenly changing that your point was that this was not how JC & MM said the spell works before ping-ponging back, and now setting up a strawman on if it is a 4e-style errata instead of addressing the point in the same post detailing how they had to make 4e-style errata to change Unarmed from a weapon to it's own category after the PHB was released.

What you don't get to have is your own facts. Those are shared by everyone because they exist regardless of our opinions.

What is your goal with this line of inquiry? I didn't dodge it you just didn't like my response. And I didn't change my point, that was in fact part of my response. So where are you going with this? You replied to ME to begin with, remember, butting in to my conversation with someone else?

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CLAIM THEY STARTED TO DO THOSE THINGS YEARS AGO.

If you don't like that answer then tough.

Or to put it another way...

"Do you bite your thumb at me, sir?"

 

[Asisreo]

What is your goal with this line of inquiry? I didn't dodge it you just didn't like my response. And I didn't change my point, that was in fact part of my response. So where are you going with this? You replied to ME to begin with, remember, butting in to my conversation with someone else?

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CLAIM THEY STARTED TO DO THOSE THINGS YEARS AGO.

If you don't like that answer then tough.

The Beastmaster seems to have had a buff in the errata a couple years back. I can't say it wasn't their design intent but there wasn't a real indication that they meant for the companion's attacks to be magical and the fact that they included "dodge" in the original actions means they were at least aware of that action.

As far as I'm aware, this is the only time that a specific spell got intentionally nerfed through errata, though. It does seem a bit out of place. I'm reserving my stronger emotions for it until they add more salt to this somewhat bitter situation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Only for this one spell, because it was nearly universally agreed that it was OP. The designer intent was for in combat use, but it was ridiculously better outside of combat. 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.

As for the actual nerf, I'm not a fan. It's now still useful in combat, but the total amount of healing as a 2nd level spell is kinda meh unless your spellcasting ability is 18-20 (uncommon at low levels unless dice rolls are lucky). When upcast it gets better, but then starts to fall off at about a 5th-6th level slot. While I feel the nerf was necessary, I feel it went too much the other direction, making it sub-par until higher level characters use it.

Cure wounds for 16 main stat is 2d8+2 average 11. Healing spirit is 3d6, average 10.5. One is melee standard action, one is ranged bonus action and requires a bit of time, but can be split.
With 16 main stat, one is 2d8+3, average 12. The other one is 4d6, average 14.
That is not half bad and it gets further ahead when upcast or main stat increases. So now it is objectively still a good spell, but not way overpowered.
It is also blown way out of proportion to call it 4e style errata. One sentenced is added here. 4e style was sometimes scratch the whole thing and instead...
Also the errata document of 4e was 30 pages or so for the phb alone... We have 3 pages now for 5e which are mostly very minor.

 

[pukunui]

@Mistwell: We can debate whether any of the initial core rules errata were rules changes or not until the cows come home. The fact is, there is precedent for 4e-style rules updates in 5e. Just look at the changes they made to the beast master.

I remember calling Jeremy out on it on Twitter, pointing out that he’d said they weren’t ever going to do 4e-style rules changes for 5e. He refused to acknowledge that that’s what they were doing, though.

 

[happyhermit]

Don't like the idea of a bunch of errata for the sake of balance coming, but I don't think it's coming in general and we are getting way into the edition. Not sure that this is really "4e style" errata in general though. If it is for the sake of game balance (and not that they are tired of answering questions about it or some other reason) then it's similar in that way, but...

4e "errata" was on a massive scale and speed and even re-errata'ed things, it also mostly never actually was incorporated into the books unlike the way they are with 5e. 4e immediately made sweeping changes to math and the way things worked, not to mention completely changing how powers worked. It boosted the online tools but things like skill challenges were left muddled.

 

[ProfessorDetective]

Man, I bought the special editions of the core rule books because I thought they were finished with errata for them. At least the PHB just has two very minor changes.

Yeah, that one of the less mentioned pros of D&D Beyond: that can be updated with errata like they're patching a video game.

 

[UnsounderGnome]

I agree with the others that I don't want to see 4e-style balancing errata, but I'm willing to set that aside in the case of Healing Spirit. I DM 2 games every week and have never seen it cast in combat since XGE was released. It honestly was a drain on the fun no matter how you handled it. Allow it as written and watch it completely unbalance the adventuring day. Or ban/house rule it and get ready for the arguments. As someone who does not like to run the table as a tyrant or give ultimatums to players about if we run this spell as written I will not DM this game, this is a very helpful and welcome change.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

 

[clearstream]

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.

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