• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Updated errata will be released within the next month!

Mistwell

Adventurer
Ooh. I need to add a section like that to my megadungeon!
It had us terrified. The Warlock was quickly down to just cantrips and begging us to risk a short rest despite the damage we'd all take. The bard was hoarding his spells like they were gemstones. The fighter was tired of always having to be the only guy wading into the thick of battle because nobody else could risk the loss of hit points. The druid was bemoaning having not gone circle of moon for the extra tough wild shapes, while looking at his precious goodberries as if they represented life itself. And all of us were thinking maybe a cleric would have been super helpful right about now. We had a fine discussion about whether the gas would leak into a rope trick...though none of us could cast rope trick so it was a purely theoretical discussion.
 

Satyrn

Villager
It had us terrified. The Warlock was quickly down to just cantrips and begging us to risk a short rest despite the damage we'd all take. The bard was hoarding his spells like they were gemstones. The fighter was tired of always having to be the only guy wading into the thick of battle because nobody else could risk the loss of hit points. The druid was bemoaning having not gone circle of moon for the extra tough wild shapes, while looking at his precious goodberries as if they represented life itself. And all of us were thinking maybe a cleric would have been super helpful right about now.
Now I really need to add a section like that to my megadungeon.

My first thoughts are

1) the poison gas would keep out the dungeon's current occupants, so the treasures from the ancient, fallen dwarven kingdom could remain in place . . . no, even better, the dwarves used the gas in that long ago time to repel kobold invaders (because Mordenkainen tells us that dwarves don't lay traps in their homes).

2) The gassed area, along with protecting those ancient treasures, can be used as a shortcut to other areas in the megadungeon for those able to withstand it - and such shortcuts would be extra valuable as a prize of the has could be blocked off along a path, which is a perfect kind of quest for the guilds to hire the players to perform.
 

lkj

Explorer
So, I got around to listening to the &Beyond twitch show with Jeremy Crawford as the guest (It's the one the DDB team-- Adam Bradford and Todd Kenrick-- do weekly). At the very end, they begin discussing the errata. Jeremy is about to explain how the errata affect the ranger . . . And Bradford cuts him off because they are out of time. There was apparently another show right after theirs, and so he really had to cut out (or so it seemed)

Which was both frustrating and hilarious. At first I thought it might be a joke. And I think Todd Kenrick thought Adam was joking as well. His reaction when he realizes that Adam is serious is pretty funny.

Jeremy does mention that they've made a change to the Contagion spell to make it work as it was intended. He also confirms that the ranger gets a couple of changes.

AD
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad day
I LOATHE the index. There are so many "refer to X section" in there. Guys... it takes LESS effort/ink to just list the page number for pirate than "see under backgrounds".
A few months after the PHB came out someone came up with a real index for it. Just print it out and shove it in the back of your PHB. It was more comprehensive as well. I don't have the file anymore to look at a name, but I'm pretty confident Sage Google will be able to find it.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad day
They will probably only fix spelling, grammar and phrasing. They are too scared to do anything further.
If by "too scared" you mean "too scared they will have a repeat of the same massive customer backlash they had when they did that for 4e", then I'm glad that they learned that lesson and we don't have to go through it again.

Seriously, older printings of books became actively misleading unless festooned with separate errata sheets all over. The only thing that kept it from being even worse was that they had a subscription based searchable compendium, so you just kept it open when you ran and used it instead of the books. 5e wouldn't even have that minor saving grace.
 

Eubani

Explorer
If by "too scared" you mean "too scared they will have a repeat of the same massive customer backlash they had when they did that for 4e", then I'm glad that they learned that lesson and we don't have to go through it again.

Seriously, older printings of books became actively misleading unless festooned with separate errata sheets all over. The only thing that kept it from being even worse was that they had a subscription based searchable compendium, so you just kept it open when you ran and used it instead of the books. 5e wouldn't even have that minor saving grace.
Do you know what the silliest thing is about discussions on this site? That if you say the designers went too far in one direction that you automatically want the extreme of the opposite direction. People seem to only acknowledge the extreme points of something and not the lot of distance between. At which point did I mention the lets change near everything of 4e I didn't, that was just an automatic jump to the extreme. How about being constructive and thinking about the whole continuim of the subject rather than just the book ends. Lets face it there are a few things that need a bit more than grammar fixes or a subclass. I am talking about 2-3 things not the whole damn book.
 

Mistwell

Adventurer
Do you know what the silliest thing is about discussions on this site?
Our lack of adequate built in funny gifs?

That if you say the designers went too far in one direction that you automatically want the extreme of the opposite direction. People seem to only acknowledge the extreme points of something and not the lot of distance between.
Oh you mean the Internet. You're describing a general problem with the Internet and ascribing it in particular to this message board. Not really fair. As this message board is part of the Internet, the default assumption should be that people will discuss the extremes. Not really something you can blame on this board. That's like complaining about giraffes having long necks.
 

Jester David

Villager
Do you know what the silliest thing is about discussions on this site? That if you say the designers went too far in one direction that you automatically want the extreme of the opposite direction. People seem to only acknowledge the extreme points of something and not the lot of distance between. At which point did I mention the lets change near everything of 4e I didn't, that was just an automatic jump to the extreme. How about being constructive and thinking about the whole continuim of the subject rather than just the book ends. Lets face it there are a few things that need a bit more than grammar fixes or a subclass. I am talking about 2-3 things not the whole damn book.
Both 3e and 4e started turning errata into patches. And it wasn’t well received.
Once they started down that road it was hard to stop, rapidly invalidating the physical books and causing problems and disconnects between those who have the latest errata and those who don’t.

Why would they do that again? People didn’t like it the first two times. Why do it a third time?
 

pukunui

Adventurer
Both 3e and 4e started turning errata into patches.
Isn't that what the errata to long rests and the elf's Trance trait were - a patch? If it truly was just an error, why did it take them so long to fix it?

Same with this upcoming ranger errata. How can that just be an "error correction" and not a patch, seeing as it's coming so far after the game's initial release?
 

Jester David

Villager
Isn't that what the errata to long rests and the elf's Trance trait were? A patch? If it truly was an error, surely they would have introduced it sooner?

Same with this upcoming ranger errata. How can that just be an "error correction" and not a patch, seeing as it's coming so far after the game's initial release?
Not really.
The existing errata just corrects the languages. Places where the rules aren’t clear. But the rules don’t change.

What is being asked for is an actual change. Not just a clarification, but a revision. A change to rebalance certain elements. Some pet peeve.
But that’s a slippery slope. Because once you decide to start changing, it’s hard to stop. There’s always another problem or fix required. Because the game is never perfect.
That’s how you get 3e’s 3 pages plus all the polymorph discuss, or 4e’s 27 pages, or Pathfinder’s 9 pages. To say nothing of 3.5e or Essntials.
 

SkidAce

Adventurer
Not really.
The existing errata just corrects the languages. Places where the rules aren’t clear. But the rules don’t change.
Does this mean that Crawford's fix to the ranger will be to clarify what they meant (correct languages) all along?

Kinda hard for me to believe that. If people have been misunderstanding "what they meant" all this time, they shoulda explained it already.
 

Jester David

Villager
Does this mean that Crawford's fix to the ranger will be to clarify what they meant (correct languages) all along?

Kinda hard for me to believe that. If people have been misunderstanding "what they meant" all this time, they shoulda explained it already.
*shrug*
We'll find out.
From his comments on the stream, I'd assume he was doing some tweaking. But that seems to be contradicted by his statements that they're not changing their approach to errata and that he wants to get more feedback on what the audience wants or sees as problematic.

Whatever is in there, I expect it to be fairly minor. And mostly clarifying the existing rules rather than adding or revising rules.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
*shrug*
We'll find out.
From his comments on the stream, I'd assume he was doing some tweaking. But that seems to be contradicted by his statements that they're not changing their approach to errata and that he wants to get more feedback on what the audience wants or sees as problematic.

Whatever is in there, I expect it to be fairly minor. And mostly clarifying the existing rules rather than adding or revising rules.
i never get my hopes up because honestly why worry about it but... from some tweets and discussion like the one on DDb and others in various places i have seen - they are going out of their way to pimp "ranger changes we think you will like" so if the ranger ends up being nothing really addressing any actual issue - that will strike me as poorly handled.

i do not expect a major re-write but i would expect something of note - just by their obvious efforts to tease that eratta and ranger together.
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
Both 3e and 4e started turning errata into patches. And it wasn’t well received.
Once they started down that road it was hard to stop, rapidly invalidating the physical books and causing problems and disconnects between those who have the latest errata and those who don’t.

Why would they do that again? People didn’t like it the first two times. Why do it a third time?
If they hadn’t done that, we wouldn’t have gotten the Warlock overhaul.

Worth it.
 

Jester David

Villager
If they hadn’t done that, we wouldn’t have gotten the Warlock overhaul.

Worth it.
Warlock overhaul?
You mean changing the 3e warlock's eldritch blast from a spell of 1/2 level to 1st-level? Did that make a lot of difference? I still remember people saying the warlock didn't work as written and the designer (Rich Baker IIRC) saying it didn't work as intended...
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
Warlock overhaul?
You mean changing the 3e warlock's eldritch blast from a spell of 1/2 level to 1st-level? Did that make a lot of difference? I still remember people saying the warlock didn't work as written and the designer (Rich Baker IIRC) saying it didn't work as intended...
4e Warlock. I don’t particularly care about 3/.5, tbh. It’s pretty handily my least favorite edition, and IMO everything it did right is done even better in 4e and/or 5e.

The 4e Warlock got a complete math and playability overhaul, with changes to something like 80% of its powers, and it’s core damage dealing mechanic. It was fun before the patch, but a lot of issues with playability of specific pacts and play styles were fixed.

I wish they’d done the same for the Assassin, since it wouldn’t even have changed anything in a book...but oh well.
 

Jester David

Villager
4e Warlock. I don’t particularly care about 3/.5, tbh. It’s pretty handily my least favorite edition, and IMO everything it did right is done even better in 4e and/or 5e.

The 4e Warlock got a complete math and playability overhaul, with changes to something like 80% of its powers, and it’s core damage dealing mechanic. It was fun before the patch, but a lot of issues with playability of specific pacts and play styles were fixed.

I wish they’d done the same for the Assassin, since it wouldn’t even have changed anything in a book...but oh well.
Amusingly, I ran 4e for a couple years and had two warlocks at my table and had no idea. Which is probably a good argument against the errata/patches. After a while, you have no idea what has and has not changed, and there might be a huge disconnect between someone using the errata and someone not. Imagine someone showing up at an AL table with a character pre-overhaul... :/

This made me look closer at the 4e errata document: you can't even use it in your game. It's really more of a change log. (Likely because reprinting all the revisions would make it too long.) Without the revised numbers in the defunct character builder, this is of no use.
 

pukunui

Adventurer
4e Warlock. I don’t particularly care about 3/.5, tbh. It’s pretty handily my least favorite edition, and IMO everything it did right is done even better in 4e and/or 5e.
As an aside, I reckon the 3e warlock had some of the most flavourful abilities. There was one that let you detach your hand so it could crawl around on its own, and another that let you pluck out your eye so it could fly through the air and let you see around corners and things. They seem to have abandoned that kind of creepiness for both the 4e and 5e versions.
 

Mistwell

Adventurer
Not really.
The existing errata just corrects the languages. Places where the rules aren’t clear. But the rules don’t change.

What is being asked for is an actual change. Not just a clarification, but a revision. A change to rebalance certain elements. Some pet peeve.
But that’s a slippery slope. Because once you decide to start changing, it’s hard to stop. There’s always another problem or fix required. Because the game is never perfect.
That’s how you get 3e’s 3 pages plus all the polymorph discuss, or 4e’s 27 pages, or Pathfinder’s 9 pages. To say nothing of 3.5e or Essntials.
I disagree. I think it's one reasonable existing interpretation of the rules, right now pre-errata, to say once you've issued a command to your animal companion, it will keep on doing that same thing until you issue another command to it. So if you order it to attack in round 1, and don't order it to do anything else in round 2, it will continue to attack in round 2 without the use of the Ranger's action. Clarifying that's how it should work is not any different than the other errata we've had before this.

Plus it will REALLY piss off [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] if they call it a clarification rather than a revision like that. Which is a huge bonus! :) *






*I kid I kid! I like CapNZapp. I just like to poke at him from time to time.
 
Last edited:

Jester David

Villager
I disagree. I think it's one reasonable existing interpretation of the rules, right now pre-errata, to say once you've issued a command to your animal companion, it will keep on doing that same thing until you issue another command to it. So if you order it to attack in round 1, and don't order it to do anything else in round 2, it will continue to attack in round 2 without the use of the Ranger's action. Clarifying that's how it should work is not any different than the other errata we've had before this.
I agree. That's the kind of small errata that would work just fine. It "fixes" things without rewriting rules and is arguably something that could have been done all along.
Hopefully they'll also add a line that gives the animal companion extra Hit Dice each level too.

I don't want errata as patches and disguised rule updates. I don't want errata to become a stealth 5.5 Edition. But small tweaks that clarify what was intended seem alright. After all, if people can't understand what you said, rephrasing is better than having to explain yourself continually. (See contagion for an example.)

Plus it will REALLY piss off [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] if they call it a clarification rather than a revision like that. Which is a huge bonus! :) *
*I kid I kid! I like CapNZapp. I just like to poke at him from time to time.
I'll take your word for it. I got tired of the negativity months back and muted him, and haven't looked back...
 

Advertisement

Top