Wizards of the Coast Releases Day 1 Errata for Monster Manual

Wizards of the Coast has released errata for the Monster Manual ahead of its official release. Today on D&D Beyond, Wizards released a series of small changes to the new Monster Manual, which is now available in early access and will be available in wide release in two weeks. Most of the changes are tied to spellcasting, with specifications that any spell in a monster's spell list can be each cast a specific amount per day. The previous spell list implied that players could choose a certain number of spells to cast from that list per day.

The full list of errata can be found below:

• Ancient Red Dragon (p.256). In the Spellcasting section, "1/Day" has changed to "1/Day Each".
• Ancient White Dragon (p.330). The Ancient White Dragon's Charisma score has changed to 18.
• Arcanaloth (p.19). The Arcanaloth's AC is now 18.
• Balor (p.26). The balor's HP is now 287 (23d12 + 138).
• Cloaker (p.73). In the Attach action, in the sentence that begins with "While the cloaker is attached...", "Bite attacks" is now "Attach attacks".
• Cyclops Sentry (p. 88). Both instances of “Greatclub” have changed to “Stone Club”.
• Death Knight (p. 92). In the Spellcasting action, “2/Day” has changed to “2/Day Each”.
• Death Knight Aspirant (p. 93). In the Spellcasting action, “1/Day” has changed to “1/Day Each”.
• Fomorian (p. 123). Both instances of “Greatclub” have changed to “Stone Club”.
• Galeb Duhr (p. 127). The Initiative entry has changed to “+2 (12)”.
• Giant Frog (p. 357). In the Bite action, the Melee Attack Roll modifier has changed to “+3”.
• Githyanki Warrior (p. 134). In the Spellcasting action, “2/Day Each” has changed to “2/Day”.
• Goblin Boss (p. 143). The range for the Shortbow action is now “80/320 ft.”
• Green Slaad (p. 286). In the Spellcasting action, “1/Day” has changed to “1/Day Each”.
• Ice Devil (p. 176). In the Senses entry, “Blindsight 60 ft. (unimpeded by magical Darkness), Darkvision 120 ft.” has changed to “Blindsight 120 ft.”
• Kraken (p. 187). In the Fling action, “Large” has changed to “Large or smaller”.
• Performer Legend (p. 237). The Initiative entry has changed to “+9 (19)”.
• Performer Maestro (p. 237). The Initiative entry has changed to “+7 (17)”.
• Swarm of Lemures (p. 194). The swarm’s Dexterity score is now 7. In the Swarm trait, “Small” has changed to “Medium”.
• Violet Fungus (p. 126). The Initiative entry has changed to “–5 (5)”.

 

[TiQuinn]

These seem like extremely minor errata. NBD.

 

[occam]

To me it seems the 2024 rules both has far more errors and far more mechanical problems than 5E did.

Based on published errata, you'd be objectively wrong about that.

 

[Zaukrie]

Sigh. Most of the responses so far are rich.

What book goes to print without errata? None. From no publisher. Ever.

The current list is small. Impressively small. Will it grow? Probably. So?

I get so frustrated with how toxic fandom can be sometimes.

Agreed. It's just so sad.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sigh. Most of the responses so far are rich.

What book goes to print without errata? None. From no publisher. Ever.

The current list is small. Impressively small. Will it grow? Probably. So?

I get so frustrated with how toxic fandom can be sometimes.

Agreed. Especially since those books were final approved and sent off for printing months before we got them in our hands. That's several months to find additional things.

As in Indie publisher, and I'm 100% certain every other publisher will agree, it doesn't matter how many times you review something, the minute you print it you suddenly see all kinds of errors

 

[Blue]

Adorable.

You feel the Day 1 errata means an overly rushed product and is unacceptable . . . if I am understanding you correctly.

I feel that is a ridiculous take.

Again with the emotional response and nothing substantive. With that repeating, at this point I will assume you are unable to defend your stance in any way except attempts at mockery.

And, since you already had agreed that it was likely rushed, the fact that you don't accept what I was saying as an indication it was rushed is absolutely immaterial -- you had already agreed with me about my main point.

 

[Marandahir]

So no fix for the misspelling of Merrow as "Merror" in the levels index?

 

[Mistwell]

Again with the emotional response and nothing substantive. With that repeating, at this point I will assume you are unable to defend your stance in any way except attempts at mockery.

And, since you already had agreed that it was likely rushed, the fact that you don't accept what I was saying as an indication it was rushed is absolutely immaterial -- you had already agreed with me about my main point.

Blue, your entire contention has nothing substantive supporting it, and appears to be based on your personal opinion which you admit is driven by emotion (anger) since 4e at WOTC and their publication decisions. If you want others to provide "substantive support" for their disagreement with your opinion, you probably should provide that for your opinion to begin with.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

To me it seems the 2024 rules both has far more errors and far more mechanical problems than 5E did.

It doesn’t. Probably has less than most prior editions.

 

[SlyFlourish]

I can understand errata but I really want to see a pdf of it I can download, save, and print.

 

[Clint_L]

In grad school, one of my literature profs had us do a group project comparing different publications of the same texts for variations. Not revisions by the author, just publication errors. We chose "The Gernsback Continuum" by William Gibson because it's a great story with a rich publication history.

Every single published version contained multiple differences caused by publisher error. And this is one short story, not a complex set of rules, hundreds of pages long. My point is, errors are inevitable in publishing, and if you think otherwise, you're just wrong. So is Day 1 errata evidence of sloppiness? Depends on how many and how severe. To really know, you'd need some kind of relevant data for comparison. Failing that, it's just your personal impression.

Compared to previous editions, this doesn't seem out of line. Compared to other games, this seems like small potatoes. That's a pretty short list, and most of them are superficial. So IMO, with a bit of actual experience comparing publications for errors, the 2025 MM seems pretty well edited.