Official D&D Errata Updated (Nov 2018)

Monster Manual: http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/Mm-Errata.pdf

DMG: http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DMG-Errata.pdf

 

[Blue]

Funny, I see it as the exact opposite: The new wording comports with the Sage Advice ruling. Disintegrate no longer kills a Wild Shaped druid, because while the damage might reduce a druid to 0 HP, it doesn't leave them with 0 HP, because they are left with whatever their human-form HP is.

But since there's already a disagreement over the meaning, maybe they need to errata the errata.

Actually, it looks like we both mis-rememebered it:

"What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form? The druid turns to dust, since the spell disintegrates you the instant you drop to 0 hit points."

Though then it goes on to:

"That’s the literal interpretation of the rules (RAW). In contrast, the intent (RAI) is that a druid isn’t considered to be at 0 hit points for the purposes of an effect like disintegrate until the druid’s normal form is reduced to 0 hit points."

However, the half-orc Sage Advice also supports 0 is gone:

"If the damage from disintegrate reduces a half-orc to 0 hit points, can Relentless Endurance prevent the orc from turning to ash? If disintegrate reduces you to 0 hit points, you’re killed outright, as you turn to dust. If you’re a half-orc, Relentless Endurance can’t save you."

So the RAW is in line between Errata and Sage Advice - just that Sage Advice says you may want to ignore the RAW.

 

[flametitan]

So, another odd change someone showed me: " Advantage and Disadvantage (p. 173). In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, both instances of “reroll” have been changed to “reroll or replace.”"
That is, the new sentence is, "When you have advantage or disadvantage and something in the game, such as the halfling's Lucky trait, lets you reroll or replace the d20, you can reroll or replace only one of the dice."

So, does this mean that portent only affects one roll when you target someone rolling with (Dis)advantage?

 

[Asgorath]

I am glad that the beast master was just given errata rather than rule changes.

There is nothing broken about it to fix.

It is good that they spell out that it can spend hit rice and take reactions. We always played it that way but good to have that clarification for people.

An extra body on the battlefield which usually has great mobility is underrated.

Sure, if you're using the optional flanking rules then having a safe way to get perma-advantage seems okay (i.e. have the companion just spend the entire fight giving you the flanking bonus and Dodging to stay safe).

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

And and Exhaustion got nerfed. You can now lose one whole level of it if you are killed and raised. What cheese! Now everyone who gets it will just kill themselves off to wipe it away.

Though as a more serious bit, it does mean that if you need to use revivify it will clear a level of exhaustion. Not shabby.

It says something about how ridiculously punitive the exhaustion rules are that a 5th level cleric can raise someone AND cure their exhaustion, but cannot simply sure their exhaustion. I long house ruled that Lessor Restoration/paladin lay on hands removes 2 levels.

 

[abirdcall]

Sure, if you're using the optional flanking rules then having a safe way to get perma-advantage seems okay (i.e. have the companion just spend the entire fight giving you the flanking bonus and Dodging to stay safe).

Those flanking rules are terrible. They nullify the need for other means of advantage.

You really can't think of another reason that having a beast is a good thing?

The beast can give ranged attackers disadvantage.

The beast can help defend allies in a couple ways. Up front they get an OA if an opponent rushes past. If the beast is a wolf they could even knock the opponent prone which probably means that creature can't reach the vulnerable party members.

The beast can also act as a blockade to protect a vulnerable party member by standing directly next to them.

Those are just general advantages to having a beast around. Others are circumstantial but nonetheless useful.

Now compare all of that (and more) against getting +1d8 damage.

 

[Asgorath]

Those flanking rules are terrible. They nullify the need for other means of advantage.

You really can't think of another reason that having a beast is a good thing?

The beast can give ranged attackers disadvantage.

The beast can help defend allies in a couple ways. Up front they get an OA if an opponent rushes past. If the beast is a wolf they could even knock the opponent prone which probably means that creature can't reach the vulnerable party members.

The beast can also act as a blockade to protect a vulnerable party member by standing directly next to them.

Those are just general advantages to having a beast around. Others are circumstantial but nonetheless useful.

Now compare all of that (and more) against getting +1d8 damage.

My point was that the errata change isn't going to satisfy the folks who think their Beast Master Ranger should be able to attack and have their companion attack as well. There have been many posts that talk about what a regular non-Ranger animal companion can do, especially if it gets treated like a full NPC. Why should the Beast Master's companion be inferior to that? Yes, the Dodge change is definitely an improvement, but I really don't think it's going to be enough to satisfy anyone who is really upset by the current state of the Beast Master.

 

[abirdcall]

My point was that the errata change isn't going to satisfy the folks who think their Beast Master Ranger should be able to attack and have their companion attack as well.

And I'm glad because those people are wrong.

It would also be changes to the rules. Errata is just supposed to be clarification.

 

[Azzy]

And I'm glad because those people are wrong.

That's your opinion, and other peoples' opinion is that you're wrong. But that's the nature of subjective things.

It would also be changes to the rules. Errata is just supposed to be clarification.

That ship has already sailed. Look at the Beastmaster entry again.

 

[5ekyu]

And I'm glad because those people are wrong.

It would also be changes to the rules. Errata is just supposed to be clarification.

Moving dodge from command to animal default as long as you are up is also a rules change.

To me the simplest change would be to have the beast do the same things when you don't give it an order as it does when you are missing or incapacitated - act on it's own like any npc would.

This in not power level griping but just sensible. It makes no sense that as long as I am there the beast wont attack someone attacking it on it's own *until* the enemy moves away triggering its AO. It violates my "stupid rule"!!

 

[abirdcall]

That's your opinion, and other peoples' opinion is that you're wrong. But that's the nature of subjective things.

Does this really need to be stated over and over again after every sentence?

If some people don't want to play as a Beastmaster there are a lot of other options.

This is like the people who don't like that the Warlock has fewer more powerful spell slots than the Wizard. They complain because they want the Warlock to be like the Wizard. Just play a Wizard if you like the Wizard.

And if someone wants an overpowered class or subclass they are free to just make one up and play with that.