Updated errata will be released within the next month!

[Mistwell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.