D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[FormerlyHemlock]

First of all, I'm not certain that range over 90' comes up all that often in most games. But yes, the warlock is doing about the same damage as the martial warriors that are specialized in range combat.

At level 11 a warlock will be doing 3d10+3d6+15 damage (36 points). A fighter with 3 attacks will be doing 3d8+15 or 28.5 damage. If he takes the -5/+10 option and that makes one of the attacks miss, that's 39 damage. Pretty comparable. And I think the fighter is the best ranged attacker. A ranger is looking at 4d8+2d6+10 (35).

The warlock specialized in arcane combat is doing almost as much damage at medium-short range (90'), at the cost of a spell slot, as a fighter specialized in ranged combat. That doesn't really seem like a problem to me. Let's say they're fighting multiple CR 8 Frost Giants (AC 15). From the moment they get within 600', the fighter is doing 35.8 points of damage points of damage per turn. If he spends a spell slot on Magic Weapon that goes up to 40.7 points of damage. (A battlemaster could use Precise Strike instead of Magic Weapon, but let's keep this simple.) Now the warlock: since he's specialized in arcane combat, let's say he's got Eldritch Spear and Spell Sniper. Like the fighter, he will be firing as soon as they hit the 600' mark (both warlock and fighter want to kill them before they start chucking boulders). The warlock will be doing 24.45 points of damage per turn, and once he Hexes them that damage climbs to 32.1 per turn. If the warlock has Devil's Sight he can instead cast Darkness, which boosts his DPR to 30.35. Sure the warlock has other spells he can use instead (mostly short-ranged), but the fighter has Action Surge and a far superior AC, so it's a wash. (BTW, if the Rogue is hiding for advantage every round and took Sharpshooter, he is likewise doing 32.41 points of damage every round, comparable to the Warlock with Hex.)

The key point here is that the fighter is in fact far better at doing damage at range, but the warlock is better at inflicting control effects if he pays for it (Knockback via Repelling Blast). The fighter is investing his fighting style (Archery) and one feat (Sharpshooter) to be able to do this, and optionally also his non-abjuration/evocation spell (Magic Weapon) if an Eldritch Knight; the warlock is investing two or three of his five invocations (Eldritch Spear, Agonizing Blast, possibly Devil's Sight, possibly Repelling Blast) and also a feat (Sharpshooter). You can argue about which one is getting the better deal--I'd say fighter, you'd say warlock but they're competitive with each other. If Agonizing Blast were nerfed this would cease to be the case and the fighter would be the hands-down winner, which I would view as regrettable. In that scenario, evokers would actually be better than nerfed warlocks at the ranged damage game, so you might as well go evoker and have good-but-not-as-good-as-fighter damage on a chassis that can also teleport, create undead/elemental minions, and chuck fireballs. Warlocks would lose their niche as the cantrip damage kings.

 

[Mistwell]

Contagion - needs clarification on how quickly the disease takes effect
Grappler feat - references something from the playtest that didn't make it to the final rules, so needs clarification what it's supposed to say

Those are the only two I can think of. Something being "too weak" definitely does not need errata.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm going to be that guy who hops on the thread and points out that errata is really for typos, misspellings, and blatant errors (like contradictory statements, or the same thing being defined differently in multiple places). Errata is not really meant for actual content changes, and I'd rather those be delivered in some other fashion and not called "errata." Errata is for mistakes in the 1st printing that you fix in the 2nd printing and nobody notices precisely because they don't affect the content.

Good point. I agree. In my post I highlighted issues where I think the intended rule is different than how it actually got written out, but you're right that those things aren't strictly errata. And content changes (even things like tweaking Frenzy barbarians) are definitely not errata, and should have a different name. Call it D&D version 5.1.

 

[Hriston]

Grappler feat - references something from the playtest that didn't make it to the final rules, so needs clarification what it's supposed to say

This has been clarified by Jeremy Crawford in the following tweet:

Q: The third bullet of the grappler feat refers to a rule that doesn't exist. What would you suggest to fix it?

A: The bullet simply shouldn't be there. It erroneously refers to an old version of the grappling rules.

I agree it would be nice to see this fixed in a reprint, and also be reconciled with this statement, also by Crawford:

Q: How to treat third bullet of Grappler feat? Refers to old grapple rules. Just ignore or should something else be there?

A: I'd ignore the third bullet, except in a case where a larger creature has a special trait that lets it automatically break out.

 

[DaveDash]

The warlock specialized in arcane combat is doing almost as much damage at medium-short range (90'), at the cost of a spell slot, as a fighter specialized in ranged combat. That doesn't really seem like a problem to me. Let's say they're fighting multiple CR 8 Frost Giants (AC 15). From the moment they get within 600', the fighter is doing 35.8 points of damage points of damage per turn. If he spends a spell slot on Magic Weapon that goes up to 40.7 points of damage. (A battlemaster could use Precise Strike instead of Magic Weapon, but let's keep this simple.) Now the warlock: since he's specialized in arcane combat, let's say he's got Eldritch Spear and Spell Sniper. Like the fighter, he will be firing as soon as they hit the 600' mark (both warlock and fighter want to kill them before they start chucking boulders). The warlock will be doing 24.45 points of damage per turn, and once he Hexes them that damage climbs to 32.1 per turn. If the warlock has Devil's Sight he can instead cast Darkness, which boosts his DPR to 30.35. Sure the warlock has other spells he can use instead (mostly short-ranged), but the fighter has Action Surge and a far superior AC, so it's a wash. (BTW, if the Rogue is hiding for advantage every round and took Sharpshooter, he is likewise doing 32.41 points of damage every round, comparable to the Warlock with Hex.)

The key point here is that the fighter is in fact far better at doing damage at range, but the warlock is better at inflicting control effects if he pays for it (Knockback via Repelling Blast). The fighter is investing his fighting style (Archery) and one feat (Sharpshooter) to be able to do this, and optionally also his non-abjuration/evocation spell (Magic Weapon) if an Eldritch Knight; the warlock is investing two or three of his five invocations (Eldritch Spear, Agonizing Blast, possibly Devil's Sight, possibly Repelling Blast) and also a feat (Sharpshooter). You can argue about which one is getting the better deal--I'd say fighter, you'd say warlock but they're competitive with each other. If Agonizing Blast were nerfed this would cease to be the case and the fighter would be the hands-down winner, which I would view as regrettable. In that scenario, evokers would actually be better than nerfed warlocks at the ranged damage game, so you might as well go evoker and have good-but-not-as-good-as-fighter damage on a chassis that can also teleport, create undead/elemental minions, and chuck fireballs. Warlocks would lose their niche as the cantrip damage kings.

Except the Fighter should be the class that does the most damage in combat bar none. He should be in a class of his own, because he can't do sh*t outside of combat. There's two other classes that break this. The BladeLock and the SorcLock, and both in part due to Agonizing Blast.

The Warlock who "Wants to specialize in combat" can still do so with a flat +cha bonus, and STILL have one of the best damaging cantrips in the game (d10's and force damage). Arguably, the Warlock who wants to specialize in combat will probably go BladeLock, and still do extremely nasty damage even with a flat bonus to EB.

Now, this may not "need" errata (nothing really needs errata - the DM can rule however he wants), but Jeremy Crawford does have his eye on this one, so we shall see.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The assertion that (DX) fighters can't do anything outside of combat is just wrong. It's a fallacy to think that you "need" class abilities to function outside of combat. I don't know about you, but 50-75% of what happens outside of combat in my game centers around character actions, not character powers/feats/skills/whatnot. Of the remaining 25-50%, a large portion centers on skills (especially Stealth and Perception, both of which a fighter has access to and one of which he excels at due to high DX). Backgrounds are probably about important as class when it comes to exploration/interaction, but neither one is as important as the player's ability and desire to engage with NPCs, look for clues, remember and synthesize information he's been given about the game world, and take the initiative. "Now that we're home, I'm going to ask the historian if he's ever seen the long fang symbol embroidered in the flag we stole" doesn't take any class abilities. Sure, a lore bard might not even need to ask the NPC sage at all, which saves time, but a fighter/barbarian/paladin/cleric/ranger can still engage with the problem perfectly well if he will use his head. He can't Comprehend Languages the way the wizard can, and he probably can't Disguise Self himself as somebody to sneak into an enemy camp, but those types of things are something of a rarity IME. He can sneak around perfectly well, and take care of himself if he gets caught sneaking. (He may even have a familiar who can aid in his sneaking by teleporting through doors and such.) He can open locks and disarm traps. He can even have conversations and talk to people, shocking though that may seem to some people. You don't necessarily need to have CHA 20 and a +6 Proficiency bonus to Persuasion before you can open your mouth!

If a fighter is 75% as effective as a lore bard outside of combat, is it really a problem if a warlock is 68% as effective as a fighter at dealing at-will damage? The fighter still has a better AC, Second Wind, Action Surge, Con proficiency, an extra feat, no concerns with Tiamat/Rakshasa Spell Resistance, etc. The fighter is already attractive.

As an aside, note that the high-level Evoker is already a better damage-dealer against tough things than the Warlock is, especially a Fighter 2/Evoker 10+. That's because he can Magic Missile x2 for 1d4+6 per missile and a guaranteed hit: 119 points of guaranteed damage that round compared to the Sorlock's 70-ish. That's due to the recent Crawford clarification that Evokers are supposed to get bonus damage on each missile, even if they all hit the same target. In fact, the Fighter/Evoker is even better in this case than the fighter is. But of course the fighter can keep it up as long as he has arrows whereas the Evoker spikes once and then has to fall back to a lower damage tier.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Substitute -5/+10 mechanic for +1 attribute
Delete passive perception
Substitute lightfoot halfling and wood elf hide abilities with proficiency in stealth skill
Delete disengage

As another poster already suggested, there should be a blatant - "we want you to houserule this edition, that's why some rules are a bit vague" paragraph. Embrace the DM empowerment approach in the same way the 13th Age core rule book does.

 

[DaveDash]

The assertion that (DX) fighters can't do anything outside of combat is just wrong. It's a fallacy to think that you "need" class abilities to function outside of combat. I don't know about you, but 50-75% of what happens outside of combat in my game centers around character actions, not character powers/feats/skills/whatnot. Of the remaining 25-50%, a large portion centers on skills (especially Stealth and Perception, both of which a fighter has access to and one of which he excels at due to high DX). Backgrounds are probably about important as class when it comes to exploration/interaction, but neither one is as important as the player's ability and desire to engage with NPCs, look for clues, remember and synthesize information he's been given about the game world, and take the initiative. "Now that we're home, I'm going to ask the historian if he's ever seen the long fang symbol embroidered in the flag we stole" doesn't take any class abilities. Sure, a lore bard might not even need to ask the NPC sage at all, which saves time, but a fighter/barbarian/paladin/cleric/ranger can still engage with the problem perfectly well if he will use his head. He can't Comprehend Languages the way the wizard can, and he probably can't Disguise Self himself as somebody to sneak into an enemy camp, but those types of things are something of a rarity IME. He can sneak around perfectly well, and take care of himself if he gets caught sneaking. (He may even have a familiar who can aid in his sneaking by teleporting through doors and such.) He can open locks and disarm traps. He can even have conversations and talk to people, shocking though that may seem to some people. You don't necessarily need to have CHA 20 and a +6 Proficiency bonus to Persuasion before you can open your mouth!

If a fighter is 75% as effective as a lore bard outside of combat, is it really a problem if a warlock is 68% as effective as a fighter at dealing at-will damage? The fighter still has a better AC, Second Wind, Action Surge, Con proficiency, an extra feat, no concerns with Tiamat/Rakshasa Spell Resistance, etc. The fighter is already attractive.

Don't really agree with this at all. Certain classes get spells/mechanics/etc that make them much more useful in the other pillars of the game than just rolling dice. The Warlocks Familiar for example is amazing for the exploration pillar, and Warlocks also have natural synergy with the Social Pillar due to high Charisma.

Fighters on the other hand are absolutely freaking amazing at fighting. It's kind of the entire point of their class. I've played a stealth based Fighter before and sorry, they don't cut it compared to a pure Rogue. I'd be hard pressed to make a Fighter that would be comfortable as the lead in all three pillars in the game (unlike the Warlock).
Agonizing Blast (as written) combined with certain other things upsets this balance. There's no need for it, it's out of place with how all other cantrips work, given all the other useful and interesting mechanics the Warlock has, and Jeremy Crawford has even flagged it as being on his radar as a potential candidate for errata.

Magic Missile costs spell slots, a limited resource. Cantrips do not. Doing 2xEB combined with Polearm master and Warcaster is just silly.

 

[Celtavian]

Except the Fighter should be the class that does the most damage in combat bar none. He should be in a class of his own, because he can't do sh*t outside of combat. There's two other classes that break this. The BladeLock and the SorcLock, and both in part due to Agonizing Blast.

The Warlock who "Wants to specialize in combat" can still do so with a flat +cha bonus, and STILL have one of the best damaging cantrips in the game (d10's and force damage). Arguably, the Warlock who wants to specialize in combat will probably go BladeLock, and still do extremely nasty damage even with a flat bonus to EB.

I have to agree with Dave. The fighter should be the flat out best damage dealer in the same way the barbarian is the flat out best at taking damage. All the fighter does is hit stuff. He provides no buffs. He can't do many effects. He isn't highly skilled. He pretty much uses weapons to hit stuff for damage. He should do it better than anyone else.

Warlock has a lot of nifty abilities. Warlock-fighter in our group is making the regular fighter he ran in the last campaign look like a gimp.

 

[Moorcrys]

I guess I'll be the guy who says that a thread about typos is boring and I don't believe it to be the intent of the OP.

I'm going to jump on the 'exhaustion' bandwagon. I think it's poorly written/implemented and not thought out and if not errata'd they should introduce some mechanics to mitigate its ridiculous difficulty to remove - especially considering it's linked to a fundamental class ability for Barbarians that isn't game breaking in and of itself.