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)”.

 

[Alby87]

They really should release a book only on Beyond, let it be a temporal exclusive for some months, then release the book later.
I don't know how much time pass between the "closing" of a WotC book and shelf availability. Let's say when they publish a book on beyond they have also the book typographicaly closed, open just to minor text adjustements (like changing a dex save to a con save), how much time it would take from a date to be sent to printers, printing them and distributing to the retailers?

With Beyond+Physical bundle, that would be auspicable too. Play "early access", then get the book later.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Peeps, can we please dial back the snark & sniping? This is a pretty young thread, after all.

 

[occam]

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.

As another example, there's a well-documented history of errors in published revisions of Tolkien's works. For instance, every single version of The Lord of the Rings you've ever read has contained errors, the only difference between published versions being the number and nature of the errors. And they've had 70 years to try to get that right!

 

[Dire Bare]

They really should release a book only on Beyond, let it be a temporal exclusive for some months, then release the book later.
I don't know how much time pass between the "closing" of a WotC book and shelf availability. Let's say when they publish a book on beyond they have also the book typographicaly closed, open just to minor text adjustements (like changing a dex save to a con save), how much time it would take from a date to be sent to printers, printing them and distributing to the retailers?

With Beyond+Physical bundle, that would be auspicable too. Play "early access", then get the book later.

Some smaller game publishers do just that, release a digital document to crowdsurfing backers, ask for feedback, then go to print.

And guest what? They STILL have errors. Every time. Probably a lot less than they would have had otherwise, but you will never escape printing errors and errata.

It's a human thing.

WotC publishes at such a volume and scale that this would not be practical for them to do. And yet . . . look at that extremely tiny list of errors in the OP for the Monster Manual. Good job WotC!

 

[Bolares]

edit: I didn't see when the post was made, don't want to reopen discussion, on a meme from last week XD

 

[Blue]

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.

You're crossing two threads I'm having with different people.

This one here had nothing to do with 4e, it had to do with the product being rushed. Dire Bear didn't like my evidence why, but agreed it was likely rushed, so we're in agreement for that.

I can understand when there's multiple threads on different things going on in the same post it can get confusing.

Though if you are actually talking about the 4e one I have a 100% well-documented rate of what I claimed - WotC dropping earlier editions digitally (years of articles and forums for 3.x scrubbed from their website when 4e came out, subscription/digital tool for 4e dropped when 5e came out), it's literally impossible to get more substantive on that issue.

So I'm good - one case they agreed with my main point even if they didn't like the support point, and in the other I have ironclad history -- not that history need repeat itself, but it 100% supports my point in every single previous case so there's no room to argue against the history.

 

[Mistwell]

You're crossing two threads I'm having with different people.

This one here had nothing to do with 4e, it had to do with the product being rushed. Dire Bear didn't like my evidence why, but agreed it was likely rushed, so we're in agreement for that.

I can understand when there's multiple threads on different things going on in the same post it can get confusing.

Though if you are actually talking about the 4e one I have a 100% well-documented rate of what I claimed - WotC dropping earlier editions digitally (years of articles and forums for 3.x scrubbed from their website when 4e came out, subscription/digital tool for 4e dropped when 5e came out), it's literally impossible to get more substantive on that issue.

So I'm good - one case they agreed with my main point even if they didn't like the support point, and in the other I have ironclad history -- not that history need repeat itself, but it 100% supports my point in every single previous case so there's no room to argue against the history.

You claimed day 1 errata is a problem. He said it's not. You demanded substantive support for why it's not a problem...having provided zero support for why it is a problem to begin with.

 

[Clint_L]

Point me to one single published game without errata. Heck, almost every board game we play that is more complicated than checkers has rules disputes that we have to find answers for online.

I have several criticisms of the 2024 MM. But it being poorly edited is not one of them.

 

[Alby87]

Some smaller game publishers do just that, release a digital document to crowdsurfing backers, ask for feedback, then go to print.

And guest what? They STILL have errors. Every time. Probably a lot less than they would have had otherwise, but you will never escape printing errors and errata.

It's a human thing.

WotC publishes at such a volume and scale that this would not be practical for them to do. And yet . . . look at that extremely tiny list of errors in the OP for the Monster Manual. Good job WotC!

Absolutely understandable. Small publishers have smaller audience too, so is normal that more errors slip by. I know that no book is without errors, and even if internet digital users can check the book before printing still errors will be present. But a lot of them, with the enormous D&D audience, will be discovered.

2014 PHB at the end had at least 4 pages of errata document, if you had a first printing you really had a lot to correct or put bookmark.

Same for example in Pathfinder case, for example

 

[Blue]

You claimed day 1 errata is a problem. He said it's not. You demanded substantive support for why it's not a problem...having provided zero support for why it is a problem to begin with.

You are incorrect.

Here's what I wrote: "If you feel need to respond, please do so with substantive support for why a rushed project won't have more errors than one that wasn't rushed, my point, instead of just trying to handwave it away or make an emotional argument."

I claimed day 1 errata was a sign of a rushed product, and that a rushed product will have more errors in total than an unrushed product. He agreed that the product was likely rushed, the day 1 errata isn't important anymore since he's conceded the rush.

Your claim that I asked for substantive support in regards to day one errata is incorrect, as shown by my quote. I had asked for support that a rushed project won't have more errors that one that was not.