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

 

[Jester David]

To enemies who aren't immune to poison.

They should've stated that Contagion causes disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls explicitly, instead of actually giving the poison condition. Then it affects everyone it used to affect.


According to what? Certainly not the rules of D&D, where poison and disease are two separate game elements.

Name one creature that’s immune to disease.

Previously, rules-as-written you could cast contagion on a skeleton. Heck, you could cast it on golems.

 

[Valetudo]

I really wish they would rewrite barkskin to act as heavy armor. I homebrew it that way but still, it has to be one of the worst written spells.

 

[abirdcall]

I really wish they would rewrite barkskin to act as heavy armor. I homebrew it that way but still, it has to be one of the worst written spells.

It's one of the most straightforward and succinctly written spells. It's just underpowered for non-beast forms. Perfectly good for buffing the AC of a bear though.

 

[Lucas Yew]

By now I wonder when the SRD gets its next update.

 

[Eric V]

It's an NPC spell, now; enjoy hitting your players with it.

 

[5ekyu]

By now I wonder when the SRD gets its next update.

i recall JC saying last week the basic rules would get updated this month.

 

[Li Shenron]

A problem I see is the new change for Disintegrate contradicts the Sage Advice about a disintegrate and a wildshaped druid.

I think the errata corrige could have been even clearer, or why not even mention wildshaped and polymorphed creatures directly. I've always read it so that the creature reverts back to the original form, because it was clear to me that the intent of the shapechanging rules is to add your new form on top of the original, in a way similar to temporary HP. But it's good to have it somewhat clarified.

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."

To it's also clear that RAF always takes precedence on a local level i.e. your own gaming group.

RAW can be used to resolve short-term disputes in organized play, but RAI is the most important thing on a global level i.e. for the whole community. It is idiotic to think that the designer's intent should be nullified by an editor's mistake or lousy job.

But apparently the role of the Sage (i.e. Crawford) is not in general to talk about RAI but to focus on helping to read the RAW, as a sort of customer support in resolving disputes.

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?

Because it is superior in other ways, compared to a Warlock's chained companion or Wizard's familiar.

And I don't think the game should satisfy everyone.

That's just ridiculous. There is exactly one "pet class" in the game, so if that's what you want to run you have no other options.

...

If the archetype can't accommodate that, then it needs fixing.

The real issue is that everyone looks at the Beastmaster and think of what it "should" be (a character with a combat pet) instead of looking at what it actually is (a character with an exploration pet who also has some limited combat support capabilities), and just try to play along with that, or play something else.

And more generally, a true "combat pet class" is both detrimental and unnecessary. Detrimental because the players apparently just won't accept to have about the same combat powers as other characters, they always pretend that Ranger + Pet must be more than one character, because hey they are two! But it is also unnecessary, because as a DM if you really want to be two characters, I'll just let you do that and have a pet tiger that works as an NPC, end of the story.

The main problem with the beastmaster has always been two things that both stem from how the health of the pet is calculated.

...

Second, and more of a concern, is pet survivability.

Once again, this is a concern only if you insist in wanting the pet to be a combat character on par with the rest of the PC, and that's not acceptable from a balance POV and it is unfair to other players.

You have at least two options:

- use the pet for exploration, and for only some limited combat support (e.g. protecting a weaker party member by threatening with OA, providing flanking or distractions)

- use the pet as a meatshield, accept it gets killed off often, and summon another each time (may be more suitable for an evil Ranger, but why not?)

If you really want a pet that is long-term, fully capable, and as important as a PC, get it as an NPC. Pay for it with some roleplay and by negotiating permission with your DM.

 

[5ekyu]

I think the errata corrige could have been even clearer, or why not even mention wildshaped and polymorphed creatures directly. I've always read it so that the creature reverts back to the original form, because it was clear to me that the intent of the shapechanging rules is to add your new form on top of the original, in a way similar to temporary HP. But it's good to have it somewhat clarified.



To it's also clear that RAF always takes precedence on a local level i.e. your own gaming group.

RAW can be used to resolve short-term disputes in organized play, but RAI is the most important thing on a global level i.e. for the whole community. It is idiotic to think that the designer's intent should be nullified by an editor's mistake or lousy job.

But apparently the role of the Sage (i.e. Crawford) is not in general to talk about RAI but to focus on helping to read the RAW, as a sort of customer support in resolving disputes.



Because it is superior in other ways, compared to a Warlock's chained companion or Wizard's familiar.

And I don't think the game should satisfy everyone.



The real issue is that everyone looks at the Beastmaster and think of what it "should" be (a character with a combat pet) instead of looking at what it actually is (a character with an exploration pet who also has some limited combat support capabilities), and just try to play along with that, or play something else.

And more generally, a true "combat pet class" is both detrimental and unnecessary. Detrimental because the players apparently just won't accept to have about the same combat powers as other characters, they always pretend that Ranger + Pet must be more than one character, because hey they are two! But it is also unnecessary, because as a DM if you really want to be two characters, I'll just let you do that and have a pet tiger that works as an NPC, end of the story.



Once again, this is a concern only if you insist in wanting the pet to be a combat character on par with the rest of the PC, and that's not acceptable from a balance POV and it is unfair to other players.

You have at least two options:

- use the pet for exploration, and for only some limited combat support (e.g. protecting a weaker party member by threatening with OA, providing flanking or distractions)

- use the pet as a meatshield, accept it gets killed off often, and summon another each time (may be more suitable for an evil Ranger, but why not?)

If you really want a pet that is long-term, fully capable, and as important as a PC, get it as an NPC. Pay for it with some roleplay and by negotiating permission with your DM.

"The real issue is that everyone looks at the Beastmaster and think of what it "should" be (a character with a combat pet) instead of looking at what it actually is (a character with an exploration pet who also has some limited combat support capabilities), and just try to play along with that, or play something else."

Actually, I wont try to speak for everyone and will leave that to folks like you, but for me, my complaints are about what it is.

The rule that the creature cannot attack, will not attack, without orders of the ranger is not out of commission **except** for OA makes zero sense on multiple levels. That's a fail to me. It isnt stopping the beast from doing damage without order just requiring a very convoluted setup. It also breaks the usual mechanic for NPCs - GM control unless PC spends action.

Now, weighing what it **is** vs other sub-classes - just the PHB hunter - thru 7th level it doesn't match up to the basic everyday every round extra d8 and disad to OA.

I **agree** its strength could have been as scout/explore option, but it fails that too. There is zero support for that really built into the sub-class. Is there any communication provided beyond you giving it orders - mo speak with animals, no telepathy see thru eyes, not even a ritual cast option for those spells. Forcing you to spend spells for making this thing be able to communicate back what it found is not getting you much more than what the spells and animal handling would get you otherwise.

Also they give it boosted HP and specify its trained to "fight alongside you" but no such gains to its intelligence or communication or scouting... so if we are to be "looking at what it actually is" and we are supposed to be seeing "an exploration pet" - I am not sure those two actually fit what was presented.

Finally, accepting that it can get killed is fine as is accepting that it will need replacing but the actual replacement does not include summoning - just bonding with a beast you have there and not hostile. That creates a long period of downtime for the ability - which is fine if its potent enough to balance that out - and a serious lack of control over what form the next one takes. For a lot of common adventure structure that can turn into "no sub-class" in effect for an overly long period without much power to show for it.

I am *not* someone who wants ranger+beast to be on par with playing two PCs but I do want it on par with other sub-classes and consistent with typical NPC rules.

This could have been managed a number of different ways - just borrow the "pick one type of three" options for beast support like they did for hunter and scale up a series of "stuff beasts do for you" features without having to name specific singular started beasts. Let it be "using the local fauna as your ally" more than a named pet.

Then the names pet could remain a feature of training, awakening spells, etc.

But long story long, what you suggest we should be looking at it as being does not match what they have it able to do as supported by that sub-class features.

 

[dave2008]

According to what? Certainly not the rules of D&D, where poison and disease are two separate game elements.

FYI, poison damage and the poisoned condition are also 2 separate things.

 

[CapnZapp]

Now we know for a fact that all creatures can recover their HP over a short rest, which means nothing is really getting hit until that last blow

Two questions:

Was this ever in doubt. And why the sad face?

(To me, anything else would be completely bewildering. Monsters aren't just there to be killed. If you can heal up by resting, so should the goblins and owlbears.)