Sage Advice Rules Roundup

[Kryx]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sage-advice-june2015


SAGE ADVICE COMPENDIUM
Ever since Sage Advice started in January, we’ve received requests to gather it in one place. We’ve listened and created the following PDF to make it easier for you to find answers to your questions:

Sage Advice Compendium (version 1.0) (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.0.pdf)

The PDF not only collects Sage Advice questions to date, but also lists the sources of the game’s official rules. Even better, we’ll expand that document every time we publish Sage Advice (the questions at the end of this column are also included). The PDF will effectively become the FAQ for the game.



PLAYER’S HANDBOOK ERRATA
Here’s a link to the latest version of the Player’s Handbook errata document:

Player’s Handbook Errata (version 1.1) (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf)

The eagle-eyed Sam Simpson, a member of our customer service team, noticed that the document released on June 10 missed a few details that appear in the third printing of the Player’s Handbook. As a result, we’ve updated the document to version 1.1 to be truly comprehensive. Here’s a list of the parts that have changed since version 1.0:

Ranger’s Companion (The document now clarifies that the beast can spend Hit Dice during a short rest.)
Wild Magic Surge (A surge can happen once per turn.)
Pact of the Tome (The chosen cantrips needn’t be from the same spell list.)
Suffocating (The words “or are choking” now appear in the first sentence.)



ERRATA-RELATED QUESTIONS
Why does the Player’s Handbook errata change X and not Y?
The errata for the first printing of the Player’s Handbook sparked a number of questions. Why did we make the changes we made? Why didn’t we make other changes? Did we change certain things, such as Empowered Evocation, because they were overpowered?

The answer to such questions is straightforward: we fixed mistakes in the text. The errata fixes text that was incomplete or off the mark in the original printing of the book. In the new edition, the errata process is strictly for the correction of such things. Rebalancing and redesigning game elements is the domain of playtesting, Unearthed Arcana articles, new design, and possible revision later in the edition’s lifespan.

We play the game often, and we regularly review Twitter posts, Reddit discussions, website forums, survey results, emails, and customer service reports about the game. You have concerns about the contagion spell? We know about them. You feel the Beastmaster is underpowered? We’ve had our eye on that subclass for a while. In fact, we have a long list of things in the game that we keep an eye on and that we expect to experiment with in the months and years ahead.

But that experimentation is unrelated to errata. Corrections—that’s what errata is about. If you read the errata document and think, “We were already playing Empowered Evocation the way it appears in the errata,” then the errata process is working as intended. It’s not intended to be filled with new design surprises. It’s meant to repair spots where we forgot to tell you something, where we inadvertently told you the wrong thing, or where some of you grasped our design intent and others didn’t, as a result of the text not being clear enough.

Some monsters have resistance or immunity to damage from nonmagical weapons. How is that affected by the change to unarmed strikes in the PH errata?
The change to unarmed strikes is related to a correction coming in the Monster Manual. As corrected, unarmed strikes aren’t weapons, but a character can use them to make melee weapon attacks. Such strikes aren’t meant to bypass a creature’s resistance or immunity to bludgeoning damage from nonmagical weapons.

Here’s a simple fix to use until the Monster Manual errata is released: whenever a stat block refers to resistance or immunity to bludgeoning damage from nonmagical weapons, read that last part as “nonmagical weapon attacks.”

[Magic Myrmidon]

I particularly liked the PDF reference for the spells. I couldn't tell if it included the Elemental Evil spells, but it's still a useful resource. I already found a slightly better one, but I'll still have it on hand because of the printability.

[T.G. Oskar]

I found hilarious that Crawford decided to tackle the two most critiqued parts of the Errata in a go. "Contagion is broken? Beastmaster sucks? We know that already!", then mentions "but that's not what errata is for", just to hammer the point. They seem to have gotten a dictionary to hammer it through; errata =/= rules fixes, errata == fixing print mistakes. The unfortunate part of errata on a rulebook is that it ends up altering the way the rules work.

It does mention a "possible revision" in the future, meaning there might be a "Player's Essential Options v5.5" on the horizon...just not now. Hopefully that revision will tackle other...unfortunate situations (such as Paladins lacking Warding Bond..., ahem), but they're pretty much showing the idea behind their design principles: they won't release anything until global playtesting goes through. Even revisions to latter rules will be done after playtesting. Whether they'll listen to the playtesters or just get a few pointers and release it as-is will determine the success of their design principles, but we can expect that errata will no longer be used for rules fixes; instead, revisions will be used.

Sounds legit?

Also: the Spell Lists don't add the spells from the Elemental Evil Player's Companion; I could notice just by looking at the Bard's spell list, which is supposed to have a thunder-damage cantrip. It does have which spell school applies to which spell, though.

[dafrca]

It does mention a "possible revision" in the future, meaning there might be a "Player's Essential Options v5.5" on the horizon...just not now.
And then he says "...we expect to experiment with in the months and years ahead." note he said they, the design team expect to experiment, not polish and publish. They seem to think they have years to fix things. I wish I had a job where I didn't need to preform for years. :smallsigh:

[Toadkiller]

I wish I had a job where I didn't need to preform for years. :smallsigh:
Here you go!

http://www.senate.gov/employment/po/positions.htm

[T.G. Oskar]

And then he says "...we expect to experiment with in the months and years ahead." note he said they, the design team expect to experiment, not polish and publish. They seem to think they have years to fix things.

Maybe it's wishful thinking for them? Note the difference between the releases of the first PHB and its errata for 3.5, 4e and this edition (and why not, also for Pathfinder). Considering that the Core books are still strong almost a year after release, and that they plan to milk the edition for all its worth (going multiplatform instead of focusing the brand on tabletop gaming), it's not unreasonable. Perhaps premature, perhaps immature, but not irrational.

That they mentioned a possible revision implies that they are thinking on polishing and publishing...just not one new supplement every three or so months, like Paizo is doing. One of the reasons why there's an edition change is mostly bloat, which coupled with low sales and years of bugs means they need to essentially reboot the system and start anew.

The thing is whether delaying releases and experimenting to let players do the polishing will prevail against the tendency of WotC of releasing editions with decreasing shelf lives.