D&D 5E WotC has updated the Hadozee glide ability on DnDBeyond

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

the thing is, why not just put it out in normal errata, put it on the website and sing from the roof tops "Hey that thing no one likes, we have a fix"

Probably to avoid drawing attention to the other thing. That's my only guess.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Probably to avoid drawing attention to the other thing. That's my only guess.

I would think that MORE so, not less they want to say "we listened and corrected as soon as possible"

 

[dave2008]

why not put out a statement at the same time. Why would putting the info on the main page make beyond take longer?

You didn't answer my question

 

[James Gasik]

Actually we have been told by two people there is more. (I am hopeful about what that means) I now need to wait for someone to buy it and report on it. On something I bought.

People complain about errata all the time but that is FREE errata.

Well yes, WotC does have a history of making you pay for errata (the 3.5 era), but I don't know that I should be happy about needing to wait for errata in the first place...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I would think that MORE so, not less they want to say "we listened and corrected as soon as possible"

Well, it looks like they officially announced that they made a mistake on the other issue. So my theory that they avoided publicly announcing this errata because of that seems incorrect.

 

[dave2008]

Here is what is on D&D Beyond Now: Statement on the Hadozee

They also included an errata PDF

Here is the statement:
We wanted to acknowledge and own the inclusion of offensive material within our recent Spelljammer: Adventures in Space content. We failed you, our players and our fans, and we are truly sorry.

The campaign includes a people called Hadozee which first appeared in 1982. Regrettably, not all portions of the content relating to the Hadozee were properly vetted before appearing in our most recent release. As we continue to learn and grow through every situation, we recognize that to live our values, we have to do better.

Throughout the 50-year history of Dungeons & Dragons, some of the characters in the game have been monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world groups have been and continue to be denigrated. We understand the urgency of changing how we work to better ensure a more inclusive game.

Effective immediately, we will remove the offensive content about Hadozee in our digital versions – and these will no longer be included in future reprints of the book. Our priority is to make things right when we make mistakes. In addition, we’ve initiated a thorough internal review of the situation and will take the necessary actions as a result of that review.

We are eternally grateful for the ongoing dialog with the D&D community, and we look forward to introducing new, engaging and inclusive content to D&D for generations to come. D&D teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents. In that spirit, we are committed to making D&D as welcome and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.

 

[dave2008]

I would think that MORE so, not less they want to say "we listened and corrected as soon as possible"

The errata PDF is available now: Errata SpellJammer

 

[Mistwell]

Considering the lore has also been updated and the thread about that has been closed, perhaps @darjr would edit the OP to include the lore changes as well.

Stop talking about Fight Club.

 

[dave2008]

Considering the lore has also been updated and the thread about that has been closed, perhaps @darjr would edit the OP to include the lore changes as well.

You can just download the errata PDF here: spelljammer errata

 

[Gradine]

Stop talking about Fight Club.

 

[Umbran]

I think the errata will come soon and will be free.

You would be correct about that.

https://media.wizards.com/2022/dnd/downloads/SJA-Errata.pdf

Edit to add: For the skeptical, no, you don't need a D&D Beyond account to get that errata.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, not to get too snarky, but the doom and gloom and death of all fairness about D&D Beyond forcing you to pay for errata that you otherwise cannot confirm turns out to have been... maybe a 24 hour delay?

Possibly a full work day for someone to write and post that announcement?

 

[Demetrios1453]

So, in the end, all the ridiculous wailing and gnashing of teeth that it appeared on D&DB first was for naught, since it was, predictably, publicly errata-ed within hours, either because D&DB jumped the gun, or WotC was waiting for the official statement to clear various protocols through the legal and other departments.

At last, our long errata nightmare is over.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The errata PDF is available now: Errata SpellJammer

Interesting that they're making some of the monsters more powerful. I imagine that's due to the complaints that the book had too many low CR monsters, so they just bumped up the hit points and combat effectiveness of a couple of them. Or they could have just noticed that some of them were too powerful for the CR they were given.

 

[HammerMan]

So, not to get too snarky, but the doom and gloom and death of all fairness about D&D Beyond forcing you to pay for errata that you otherwise cannot confirm turns out to have been... maybe a 24 hour delay?

Possibly a full work day for someone to write and post that announcement?

You say that it was a 24 hour delay… I say they put it out but it might* have been becuse of the backlash.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wait are we going back to 4E-style errata?

Pretty much every single errata here breaks the rule established for 5E where they'd only errata things it was totally vital to errata, because they were grossly out-of-whack. Except the backstory for the Hadozee. That passes the "OH CRAP!" test.

Honestly, I'd be very happy to go back to 4E-style errata, but that's HUGE if so, like a gigantic and fundamental change in how they're approaching the rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wait are we going back to 4E-style errata?

Pretty much every single errata here breaks the rule established for 5E where they'd only errata things it was totally vital to errata, because they were grossly out-of-whack. Except the backstory for the Hadozee. That passes the "OH CRAP!" test.

Honestly, I'd be very happy to go back to 4E-style errata, but that's HUGE if so, like a gigantic and fundamental change in how they're approaching the rules.

It certainly seems that way. Which makes sense if they’re trying to shift to a primarily digital content model.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It certainly seems that way. Which makes sense if they’re trying to shift to a primarily digital content model.

More like moving to a digital model because in 2022 the idea that you can't patch errors on the fly isn't acceptable.

 

[Nikosandros]

Very nice that they released an errata PDF so quickly. Now, if they could also provide some extra material like system generation charts...

I miss the old web-enhancements.

 

[ReshiIRE]

At-least they apologised.