D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[Celtavian]

What would I like to see errata for from experience and analysis:

1. Contagion: This spell needs a rewrite. Add "Does not affect undead and constructs." Change when the spell takes effect or how it takes effect. Don't ruin it and make it so weak as to be not worth taking for standard combat. I've always wanted an effective disease attack spell. The idea of it is very cool. As it is currently written, it is an "I win" attack as soon as it lands. No spell should be that clear an "I win" button.

2. Boost familiar hit points. These things are way too weak at higher level. Maybe make it so a higher level slot boosts their hit points or something. They need to be able to survive a hit or three. Using a higher level slot would prevent easy recovery of a stronger familiar during the adventuring day, while still allowing it to last longer for standard adventuring. It's getting to the point where any time this guy goes scouting or goes near combat, he's dead with one hit.

3. Change Great Weapon Master and Sharp-Shooter added damage to once a turn like Sneak Attack or nearly every other damage boosting ability. Sharpshooter is powerful enough removing all the penalties for cover other than total cover. Great Weapon Master's bonus action extra attack every time they drop something or crit adds enough additional damage every few rounds.

4. Giver other Sorcerer archetypes in the PHB bonus spells. Seems like they should have had them to begin with given the extremely low number of spells Sorcerer's receive.

5. Project Image is no longer a 7th level spell. Make it 5th level. It might be useful at a level where you have some slots to spare.

6. Remove concentration requirement from protection from energy. Insert in spell text can only have one protection from energy spell active at one time. This spell taking up a concentration slot is inappropriate and makes it far inferior to protection from poison and fire shield.

7. Add a couple of damage cantrips to clerics. Sacred Flame does not fit all clerics. Add some variety. Even an Unearthed Arcana article with some cantrips for different types of clerics would be nice. Some elemental damage for Tempest clerics. Some psychic and necromantic damage for Trickery and Knowledge clerics.

8. Unconscious or paralyzed target loses Dex on AC. It's just hard to imagine the target still gaining Dex to AC while in either state. It's really hurts suspension of disbelief.

9. Power Word Kill and the Demilich: Please give the demilich some means to resist this spell. It is extremely anticlimactic if the party gets to the demilich, the wizard speaks one word, and the battle is over. We don't need that kind of situation in the game.

Some things I don't want to see errata:
1. Stealth: Leave it up to the DM. There is not now and never will be a way to cover all aspects of Stealth with a written rule. Nearly every situation in which stealth is used is different. The current guidelines are fine. DMs should adjudicate Stealth according to environmental circumstances. I have seen numerous attempts in D&D to write adequate and clear Stealth rules. It never works because there are far too many variables that affect Stealth. It's always going to come down to the DM making a call in a given set of circumstances. That should be the clearly stated rule along with the guidelines for what is gained if Stealth is usable within a given set of circumstances. I think the current guidelines cover it well enough for a DM to make a call.

 

[Staffan]

IMO, the exhaustion rules themselves are fine, when used for things like sleep deprivation. The problem is that most players encounter them via the barbarian's Frenzy ability, which makes them feel punitive.

Perhaps the game needs something to reflect short-term fatigue - the kind you get after running a mile, not after running a marathon. Perhaps something like this:

Winded: You are treated as if you had one additional level of exhaustion. You can remove this condition by taking a short rest. If you would become winded again while already winded, instead gain one level of exhaustion.

And then the barbarian ability (and possibly other things) could make you winded instead of giving you actual exhaustion.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

I have to agree with the Exhaustion rule in regards to Frenzy. I don't mind the Exhaustion rule. It is far too heavy a penalty to pay to use Frenzy. You rage twice and you're basically risking death using Frenzy.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't feel that Agonizing Blast needs a fix. Sharpshooters already out-damage warlocks, especially beyond Hex range (90 feet). Sorlocks are competitive with Sharpshooters due to Quickened Spell, but there's enough investment there that I see that as a choice of specialties, not a problem.

Things that I feel need errata (i.e. RAW probably doesn't match RAI):

* The vision rules are totally bonkers. When shooting at an enemy 600' away, your accuracy improves if you drop a Fog Cloud/Darkness on yourself due to advantage/disadvantage being binary and cancelling out.
PHB 195 should be amended to say, "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it if you can see it." That way, shooting in pitch darkness is inaccurate, not unaffected by light.

* On the same note, PHB 183's rules for darkness say that darkness blinds those within the darkness. That's problematic because it means that creatures lurking within darkness are "effectively blinded" (per PHB 183) while the adventurers around the campfire are not blinded and can see the lurking creatures perfectly. PHB 183 should be rewritten to say "a creature looking though or within a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from blindness with respect to that area." Huddled around a campfire? That means bad guys in the dark can see you, you can't see them.

I have to concur with the vision rules. It gets a little goofy with both targets in heavy obscurement. I sort of understand both are swinging and dodging blind. That may cancel the advantage each has. But some of the rules could use the little suggested additions for reasons of verisimilitude.

 

[Moorcrys]

IMO, the exhaustion rules themselves are fine, when used for things like sleep deprivation. The problem is that most players encounter them via the barbarian's Frenzy ability, which makes them feel punitive.

How it interacts with Frenzy is definitely the more egregious problem with exhaustion. In addition, there is no way to heal it until high levels, and even there only one level of exhaustion per high level slot.

When 2 tiers of a 6 tier mechanic in place to simulate the effects of sleep deprivation or extreme fatigue are more debilitating and difficult to overcome via healing magic than the energy draining touch of a powerful undead spirit or even recent death (revivify and raise dead being lower level than greater restoration, which is the only means of removing levels of exhaustion), then imho the designers weren't on the same page when it comes to balancing exhaustion with the rest of 5e game mechanics.

Cheers!

 

[Moorcrys]

What would I like to see errata for from experience and analysis....

I like all of these. Some great ideas.

I'm on my phone so can't drop some XP your way or I would. In fact my phone's autocorrect consistently changes 'xp' to 'cook'... So be thankful I didn't try to cook you for the above comments.

 

[77IM]

I don't see how exhaustion from Frenzy is that big a deal. The first level of exhaustion gives disadvantage on ability checks (bummer, but by no means crippling) and goes away next time you take a long rest. If you only Frenzy once per day, that's the worst you'll see, barring the occasional environmental hazard. In fact, they could have made Frenzy a 1/day ability, but instead they let the player decide how to manage the trade-off between Frenzy and exhaustion, which I think is more interesting and very appropriate to barbarians.

Now, exhaustion from Imix, the Prince of Evil Fire, is another story. I could see that taking out an unprepared party easily.

...

I found another rule that I think needs a fix. In the PHB, under Other Activities on Your Turn, you are only allowed to interact with one object for free. A second object needs your action. I think this should be very much explicitly left to the DM's discretion. In some of the playtest drafts there was more wiggle room here about how many objects you could interact with. I thought it was better, because some tables have a preference for more fast-and-loose action-oriented gaming where it doesn't matter if you sheath your bow, draw your sword, open a door, AND stab a guy, all in one turn. Every table I've ever played at (or DMed) has allowed people to switch weapons (sheathing and drawing) without wasting a turn, because spending turns on that kind of stuff is boring as piss. So I think that paragraph should include the word "generally" and "usually" in a few places, and maybe a line about, "The DM can decide that your object interactions are quick or easy enough for you to manipulate multiple objects in the same round" (but phrased better).

 

[the Jester]

I don't think anything in 5e actually needs errata. I don't think "I don't like how this works" is a good yardstick for determining where errata is needed, either; unless there is almost-universal agreement, I just don't think adding errata to the game is a good thing.

I found another rule that I think needs a fix. In the PHB, under Other Activities on Your Turn, you are only allowed to interact with one object for free. A second object needs your action. I think this should be very much explicitly left to the DM's discretion. In some of the playtest drafts there was more wiggle room here about how many objects you could interact with. I thought it was better, because some tables have a preference for more fast-and-loose action-oriented gaming where it doesn't matter if you sheath your bow, draw your sword, open a door, AND stab a guy, all in one turn. Every table I've ever played at (or DMed) has allowed people to switch weapons (sheathing and drawing) without wasting a turn, because spending turns on that kind of stuff is boring as piss.

I don't. Switching weapons mid-combat is something that takes time and is tactically meaningful. You want to drop your bow and draw your sword, sure, I'll go for that... but once you move and need your bow, you have to go back and pick it up.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

Something needs to be done about the Crossbow Expert feat.

A feat for crossbow users is fine; crossbows users need some feat support to be effective in combat.

But the extra benefit removing disadvantage on "ranged attack rolls" within 5 feet is causing all kinds of confusion! It's worded such that it applies to ALL ranged attacks, not just crossbows, and characters with no intention of ever touching a crossbow are choosing this feat. GM's are houseruling this so it applies ONLY to crossbows because the feat is called "Crossbow Expert." (And their players are arguing about it....)

I think ability is powerful enough to justify its own feat, (Point Blank Shot) possibly with another benefit alongside it. (+1 DEX, perhaps?) Since it's not tied to crossbow use alone, it should not be included in the Crossbow Expert feat.

Either that, or the Crossbow Expert feat should be clarified, limiting this ability only to crossbows.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

The reality is the Warlock doesnt do the same damage. The DPR comparison leaves out the fact that the Fighter will be pinging with sharpshooter, action surge and (assuming battle master) superiority dice.

Even blowing one dice per round to land a +10 damage hit with precise strike, or blowing a dice on a hit with menacing attack on a sharpshooter attack that does hit (and factoring in archery style):

Assuming 11th level, all stats 20, no magic items vs AC 15:

Fighter +11, 1d10+5 (x3) (heavy crossbow, sharpshooter, crossbow master, archery style) 400' range
Warlock +9 1d10+5 (x3) Eldritch blast, hex, agonising blast, repelling blast, eldritch spear) 300 ' range

Fighter, sharpsooter, 1 sup dice
Roll/ avg damage
1-3 = 0 (miss)
4-8 = 20.5 (miss + precise attack turning miss into hit)
9-19 = 26 (hit + menacing attack)
20 = 37 (crit + menacing attack)

1st attack Damage: 21.275

Other attacks (no sup dice)
1-8 = 0
9-19 = 20.5
20 = 26

Attacks 2 and 3 damage: 12.575

Total damage with 1 superiority dice expended per round = 46.425 (and the creature is frightened and likely unable to approach the fighter)

Warlock (hex cast):
1-5 = 0
6-19 = 14
20 = 23

Damage per attack 10.95

Total damage with Hex cast per round: 32.85 (and the creature is knocked back 30')

The Fighter is churning out 50 percent more DPR than the Warlock per round with the expenditure of 1 of his 5 superiority dice per round. He can maintain this fairly reliably with Short rests coming every 2 encounters or so. Even without his sup dice, his average DPR is still 20 percent higher thanks to the benefit of archery style and its interaction with Sharpshooter. He also has 20 percent more HP, and almost certainly a 20 percent better AC.

Noteably, the Fighter also has the option of action surging once per those 2-3 encounters, pushing his DPR averaged over the encounters significantly higher, and also granting him the ability to nova strike.

Factor in the fact that magical bows and arrows stack and add to both hit and damage (and the fact they are much more common that rods of the pact keeper in any case) and the Fighter blows the Warlock out of the picture entirely.