D&D 5E (2024) So the Armorer still need be Wearing before Don his armor.

[Marc17]

Yes, but is this anything more than concern over an editing error?

Well, the real issue is that such editing errors seem to be common enough in 5.24 that people my group were making fun of such while playing a few games to get to know the rules. Their overly specific and not to well though out descriptive process has been frequent enough that it made me to, perhaps, jest that they make these errors on purpose to teach new DMs that they'll need to adjudicate and change rules for a smooth game as part of their 'rulings not rules' mantra. Like how being invisible doesn't mean you can't be seen, just not targeted.

 

[pukunui]

Well, the real issue is that such editing errors seem to be common enough in 5.24 that people my group were making fun of such while playing a few games to get to know the rules. Their overly specific and not to well though out descriptive process has been frequent enough that it made me to, perhaps, jest that they make these errors on purpose to teach new DMs that they'll need to adjudicate and change rules for a smooth game as part of their 'rulings not rules' mantra. Like how being invisible doesn't mean you can't be seen, just not targeted.

Reminds me of how the 3.5e Expanded Psionics Handbook had the Déjà vu power written out in full twice (on purpose).

 

[Clint_L]

I haven't noticed a ton of editing errors in 2024 - a few are inevitable and every publication has them. But 2024 doesn;t stand out to me.

 

[pukunui]

I haven't noticed a ton of editing errors in 2024 - a few are inevitable and every publication has them. But 2024 doesn;t stand out to me.

The 5e book with the most errors (typos, etc) that I've seen is actually Eberron: Rising from the Last War. That one is riddled with them.

 

[Marc17]

I haven't noticed a ton of editing errors in 2024 - a few are inevitable and every publication has them. But 2024 doesn;t stand out to me.

I don't know if I would call all what we were finding errors exactly, but rather very strange layout and possibly bad proof reading or just odd choices. Several accounts of seemingly exactly worded rules that don't seem to do what you'd expect them to do with lots of people saying "well, obviously they really meant this". One special ability that said to acted as a spell, that spell referred to another spell, that spell referred to a condition. Working backwards, it didn't really fit very well. One player said he'd found bad cut and paste in the DMG as a magic item made reference to something that was no longer a part of 5.24. Poor layout of the PHB for character creation. etc.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Remember good faith is assumed