New Errata for PHB, MM and DMG out.

[ThePolarBear]

Here is the link. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/errata-november-2018)

I might have missed something or another thread, but i've not seen anything at a glance.

Still have to read through the changes, but noticed this little pearl:

[New] Polearm Master (p. 168).
A second sentence has been added to the first benefit: “This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack.
Both instances of “or quarterstaff” have been changed to “quarterstaff, or spear.”

Found anything else interesting?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Paladin smites now scale up to 6d8, meaning there's finally a difference between 4th and 5th level slots!

[PhoenixPhyre]

They fixed some monster stuff, including giving purple worms proficiency to hit, as well as bumping bear (both brown and black) attack bonuses by 1.

[JackPhoenix]

Dungeon Delver no longer gives you resistance against traps, you won't get the penalty to passive Perception for traveling at fast pace.

Acid Splash can't be used against unseen targets.

Contagion imposes poisoned condition until the disease takes hold, making it usable in combat once again.

Simulacrum is construct

[MaxWilson]

Hooray! Stunning Strike is now usable for grappling/shoving shenanigans, as is logical. Monks are now officially good grapplers and I can eliminate a house rule.

The changes to Contagion are interesting and good. Contagion is now both clearly written and pretty good.

[OvisCaedo]

This is rather amusing after an earlier stance on Contagion was "it's so clear how it should work that we decided we didn't need to errata it". Still, I rather like the new version; clear AND useful for anything not immune to it. This means that, with a hit, you can pretty reliably inflict the poisoned condition for three rounds regardless of the enemy's saves or even legendary resistance.

Of course, you have to hit, and they have to not be immune to a very commonly resisted condition... But still.

Not sure what the Disintegrate change in wording is supposed to clarify, though. I assume instant death interactions, but is this any clearer?

[Pex]

You can now use a spear for Pole Arm Master.

[MaxWilson]

You can now use a spear for Pole Arm Master.

Technically you could already do that by using a spear as an improvised quarterstaff... but now you don't have to improvise.

[Foxhound438]

Like not actually a big deal, but why did it ever not apply to spears? Anyways, spear and shield is now going to be the "new cheese" that lives along side of qs+b (and I will continue to endorse both). quarterstaff still has the advantage of being able to use shillelagh, as well as the few magic item options for quarterstaffs. Are there any specific magic spears in the book? I don't remember seeing any in the DMG, but maybe from campaign books or something?

hard nerf to contagion, no longer can you apply flesh rot immidiately with an attack roll, if I read it right.

sleet storm concentration break clarified to be a Start of Turn effect, before it was kind of hard to tell when it was supposed to happen

divine smite buff, but who the hell is using their spell slots on that? It's certainly more than a minor thing for various multiclasses.

very slight buff to ranger's companion getting to dodge for free, as well as magic damage at a point, making crab ranger pretty okay- you tell crab to stand next to an enemy, then do your normal thing, then it dodges on its turn and can make an opportunity attack with a grapple. HP scaling is still bad as hell, but they're getting better.

The rest of the new PHB stuff seems to be just minor clarifications and whatnot.

Everything in the MM looks like stat corrections to make things line up properly

I don't have a DMG handy, but it looks like scrolls containing bonus action spells no longer require an action to use, so that's nice.

[Naanomi]

Dungeon delver change makes it a much better feat... makes me want to redo my ‘passive perception king’ as a moon Druid instead of an Inquisitive Rogue

[ToastyTobasco]

Yay slight paladin buff! Also looks like the Beastmaster got a bit of a buff.

[gloryblaze]

Paladin smites now scale up to 6d8, meaning there's finally a difference between 4th and 5th level slots!

Not quite, by my reading - the previous "to a max of 5d8" clause is still in there. They just appended "to anmax of 6d8" to the very end, after the sentence about doing bonus damage to fiends and undead. When the feature is read in its totality, I think a normal divine smite still does 5d8 max (with a 4th or 5th level slot), while a smite against a fiend or undead will do 6d8 with a 4th or 5th level slot.

[JackPhoenix]

Not sure what the Disintegrate change in wording is supposed to clarify, though. I assume instant death interactions, but is this any clearer?

As I read it, you can now use half-orc's Relentless Endurance and similar abilities to avoid being disintegrated.

[Foxhound438]

Not sure what the Disintegrate change in wording is supposed to clarify, though. I assume instant death interactions, but is this any clearer?

my guess would be that zealot barbarians being at zero and being disintegrated might have been argued to be fine because they weren't "reduced" to zero if they were already there, so this is killing that argument. Same for if you decide to dust someone that's just down and at zero to end pop-up healing. Both cases seem like ways to murder your players from the dm seat, but it could be relevant the other way around too.

[Foxhound438]

Not quite, by my reading - the previous "to a max of 5d8" clause is still in there. They just appended "to anmax of 6d8" to the very end, after the sentence about doing bonus damage to fiends and undead. When the feature is read in its totality, I think a normal divine smite still does 5d8 max (with a 4th or 5th level slot), while a smite against a fiend or undead will do 6d8 with a 4th or 5th level slot.

I think you're right, looking at it again, since it's "appended to the last sentence". So this one's not a buff, just a clarification.

[Trustypeaches]

Eternal Mountain Defense (p. 81). “11th Level Required” has been changed to “17th Level Required.”
Water Whip (p. 81). “A bonus action” has been changed to “an action.”
Truly, the nerfs we all needed

[gloryblaze]

As I read it, you can now use half-orc's Relentless Endurance and similar abilities to avoid being disintegrated.

It might also prevent you from dusting transformed druids - it reduces your animal form to 0hp, so it would work by the old wording, but it does not leave you with 0hp, as you immediately rollover into humanoid form hp.

[OvisCaedo]

Truly, the nerfs we all needed

Those aren't marked as new, though I don't know WHEN they came out.

[Daphne]

as well as bumping bear (both brown and black) attack bonuses by 1.

This makes Moon Druid even better at low levels, an unnecessary change imo.

[JackPhoenix]

It might also prevent you from dusting transformed druids - it reduces your animal form to 0hp, so it would work by the old wording, but it does not leave you with 0hp, as you immediately rollover into humanoid form hp.

Yep, realized that a bit too late and was about to post the same thing when I've noticed you've ninja'd me.

[Kaliayev]

Exhaustion (p. 291). The following
sentence is appended to the last
paragraph: “Also, being raised from the
dead reduces a creature’s exhaustion
level by 1.”

I suppose it's now better to let someone die than use greater restoration to reduce a level of exhaustion?


Does anyone have a better grasp of the history behind "your spells" to "your x spells?" As best I can tell, the SAC's magic initiate entry has been citing the latter phrasing for three years, and they finally decided to errata the PHB so the SAC entry makes sense.


Simulacrum is construct

Well, the spell is cleaner now, not that it isn't still a mess.


Not quite, by my reading - the previous "to a max of 5d8" clause is still in there. They just appended "to anmax of 6d8" to the very end, after the sentence about doing bonus damage to fiends and undead. When the feature is read in its totality, I think a normal divine smite still does 5d8 max (with a 4th or 5th level slot), while a smite against a fiend or undead will do 6d8 with a 4th or 5th level slot.

This is correct.

How long until a PHB with these changes is on the shelf? These smite changes are a wee bit of a mess to read.

[stoutstien]

Welp buff druids, couldn't add " while weilding in two hands to pole arm Master, and .. actually a good fix for contagion.

[No brains]

[New] Sanctuary (p. 273). The final
sentence now reads, “If the warded
creature makes an attack, casts a spell
that affects an enemy, or deals damage
to another creature, this spell ends.”

Sanctuary Spirit Guardians has been patched out. Rest in pepperoni, untouchable leprechaun gang leader.


[New] Exhaustion (p. 291). The following
sentence is appended to the last
paragraph: “Also, being raised from the
dead reduces a creature’s exhaustion
level by 1.”

It's too bad Berserker and Zealot are mutually exclusive, otherwisde a Zealot Berserker could just die and shed their exhaustion for free.

"Take a rest man!" "I'd rather die."

[Foxhound438]

hold- HOLD ON EVERYONE

let's get to the real questions here:

If I have PAM and throw my spear, can I use my bonus action to cause the spear to fall out of the target and land on their toe for 1d4+mod damage?

[ThePolarBear]

Sanctuary Spirit Guardians has been patched out. Rest in pepperoni, untouchable leprechaun gang leader.

I wonder why not "fixing" Invisibility too. I mean, it's not an AS BIG of a problem if the Dragonborn breathes or the Cleric has Spirit Guardian up, but it could have kept a consistent wording.


"Take a rest man!" "I'd rather die."

And spend a lot of time resting to recover from all the other penalities - like -4 to many rolls OR an unexpected race change, just to go on 5th level spells.

----

I can't find any word on the supposed change on the wording for rests and elves, but i might have missed them. Someone has a "new" printing and can find something somewhere? It's one year more or less that we have a Sage Advice Compendium entry citing an errata that's not there...

[OvisCaedo]

hold- HOLD ON EVERYONE

let's get to the real questions here:

If I have PAM and throw my spear, can I use my bonus action to cause the spear to fall out of the target and land on their toe for 1d4+mod damage?

Hmm. It looks like despite the qualifiers to get the bonus action don't specify melee attacks, it does specify that the bonus action attack has to be a melee one. So I guess you could throw it at someone, and then run up to them and bonus action fumble the flat end into their shin as you pick it up?

[ATHATH]

Do note that although Find Steed now grants a two-way telepathic connection, Find Greater Steed still grants the old one-way telepathic connection.

[Exocist]

Is anyone else reading the beastmaster changes and thinking "Really?" (Though what did you expect?)


In the third sentence of the second para-graph, “Dodge,” has been deleted. After that sentence, this one is added: If you don’t issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action.

The original text is this


The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one attack yourself and you can command the beast to take an Attack action.

Which makes the revised text this


The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one attack yourself and you can command the beast to take an Attack action. If you don’t issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action.

Which means that you also have to not command the beast to move in order for it to automatically take the dodge action right? So the beast is still pretty much useless.

Not to mention no changes to HP means it gets killed by any AoE, and not changing the time required to get it back mean it is a more-than-long-rest resource.

[NaughtyTiger]

About half of the errata are the exact opposite of JC's "works as designed"

[8wGremlin]

Some spell shenanigans have been closed down:
now all spellcasters have had "your spells" changed to 'your <insert class here> spells" this stops some odd magic initiate wordplay tricks.

[JackPhoenix]

Do note that although Find Steed now grants a two-way telepathic connection, Find Greater Steed still grants the old one-way telepathic connection.

Because the later isn't in PHB, so it obviously won't be errata'd in PHB errata.

[Joe the Rat]

Best surprise: Spear is now a polearm. Trident is now completely pointless, Ironically.

Still not seeing "Elves Long Rest in 4 hours" locked down.

A lot of numbers tweaks.

[ATHATH]

Because the later isn't in PHB, so it obviously won't be errata'd in PHB errata.
I know, but I was just pointing it out.

[HappyDaze]

I'm so happy to see that there might be fewer quarterstaff & shield warriors now that they can carry a proper spear and still use Polearm Master. I always thought quarterstaff & shield was an inelegant exploit. I'd be even happier if Polearm Master required the weapon to be used in two hands.

[LudicSavant]

Find Steed now not only has a 2-way connection, but the steed itself got a higher attack bonus: +6 from +4.

Looks like moon druids are getting stronger at the levels they were already best at, too, with stronger bear stats.

[Merudo]

Which means that you also have to not command the beast to move in order for it to automatically take the dodge action right? So the beast is still pretty much useless.


Yep - as written, if you ask the beast to move, it cannot take the dodge action under any circumstance.

Telling the beast to move is a command, and the beast may only takes the Dodge action if you don't give it a command.

[SociopathFriend]

Did Warlock not always specify it needed to be Warlock levels for Invocations? Because if it's not that means I only have until my DM sees the Errata to exploit that loophole in my Paladin/Warlock... forgiveness > permission.

[rbstr]

Did Warlock not always specify it needed to be Warlock levels for Invocations? Because if it's not that means I only have until my DM sees the Errata to exploit that loophole in my Paladin/Warlock... forgiveness > permission.

It's been that way for a long time (years?). Only stuff tagged with [New] is...new.

[Kaliayev]

After rereading the exhaustion change, realizing the prior ambiguity surrounding death from exhaustion (i.e. someone who dies from exhaustion and is revivified would either lose all levels of exhaustion in the process or immediately die again), and doing some analysis fishing, I have to question if this (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/940659849238429696?lang=en) is effectively void. That is, the errata suggests that exhaustion persists as a condition in the state of death. If someone dies from six levels of exhaustion, a simple revivify + long rest isn't going to return them to much of an adventuring state.

[MaxWilson]

After rereading the exhaustion change, realizing the prior ambiguity surrounding death from exhaustion (i.e. someone who dies from exhaustion and is revivified would either lose all levels of exhaustion in the process or immediately die again), and doing some analysis fishing, I have to question if this (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/940659849238429696?lang=en) is effectively void. That is, the errata suggests that exhaustion persists as a condition in the state of death. If someone dies from six levels of exhaustion, a simple revivify + long rest isn't going to return them to much of an adventuring state.

That Tweet is just Crawford being wrong again. Ignore it.

[sambojin]

Spellcasting: Material Components. Does this mean that I can't cast a spell with expensive material components and a somatic component while carrying a shield, if I'm already holding a spellcasting focus? It's an *or* after the -.
Sounds like two free hands are needed in specific situations.

I guess if it's a costly component, you just stash your focus on your belt, retrieve the component, wave your hand around (while holding the component), and it's all good. I mean, you don't even necessarily need to hold the component do you? Just have it in your current equipment? It's a strange change.

I'm probably reading it wrong. It seems like it was covering something, and not shield-use while casting, but I don't know what. If your DM is a stickler for item interactions and needing expensive material components in-hand, it just got weirder (or as weird, anyway). Maybe.

[Zalabim]

Hooray! Stunning Strike is now usable for grappling/shoving shenanigans, as is logical. Monks are now officially good grapplers and I can eliminate a house rule.
You can also now use grappling rules/effects for grabbing and dragging an unconscious/incapacitated enemy/ally.

Dungeon Delver no longer gives you resistance against traps, you won't get the penalty to passive Perception for traveling at fast pace.
Dungeon Delver still gives resistance. Only the last bullet is changed.

That Tweet is just Crawford being wrong again. Ignore it.
Good to see the hate train is still running on time. This errata does make the answer void now, but do you have any basis for calling it wrong when it was given?


Which means that you also have to not command the beast to move in order for it to automatically take the dodge action right? So the beast is still pretty much useless.
Most of the time, the beast would get issued a command to take an action (to attack) anyway.

Not to mention no changes to HP means it gets killed by any AoE, and not changing the time required to get it back mean it is a more-than-long-rest resource.
AoE is still a big problem for it, but being a longer-than-long-rest resource isn't unusual. Everyone has Hit Dice, for example.

Yep - as written, if you ask the beast to move, it cannot take the dodge action under any circumstance.

Telling the beast to move is a command, and the beast may only takes the Dodge action if you don't give it a command.
It's less clear than it could be, but it seems really uncharitable to assume it's talking about any command at all and not the command that takes your action. Really uncharitable seems to be the name of the game though.

[MaxWilson]

Good to see the hate train is still running on time. This errata does make the answer void now, but do you have any basis for calling it wrong when it was given?

It was never supported by the text, doesn't match how other conditions work, and the errata proves that the lack of textual support was not an oversight or the errata would have converged on Crawford's claim instead.

Are you willing to defend Crawford's Tweet as reasonable? What's your argument?

[Cybren]

It was never supported by the text, doesn't match how other conditions work, and the errata proves that the lack of textual support was not an oversight or the errata would have converged on Crawford's claim instead.

Are you willing to defend Crawford's Tweet as reasonable? What's your argument?

It should be taken as prima facie that you aren’t tired from stuff before you died when you’re brought back to life the same way that you aren’t injured

[HappyDaze]

It should be taken as prima facie that you aren’t tired from stuff before you died when you’re brought back to life the same way that you aren’t injured

Do other conditions like paralysis, blindness, diseased, poisoned, etc. all go away too?

[Zalabim]

It was never supported by the text, doesn't match how other conditions work, and the errata proves that the lack of textual support was not an oversight or the errata would have converged on Crawford's claim instead.

Are you willing to defend Crawford's Tweet as reasonable? What's your argument?

According to a spell like Raise Dead, it removes poisons, curse diseases, but does not remove any curses or magical effects. It says nothing about exhaustion either way, so either exhaustion is gone (as long as its not a magical effect) or exhaustion remains (because it doesn't say) and a creature that died of exhaustion can never be raised, resurrected, revivified, or true resurrected (and possibly applies to reincarnate as well). The spells don't address mundane exhaustion at all, which implies the latter is the "rule". Crawford says that is not the intention, which seems like a reasonable answer. The final errata is a more nuanced position somewhere in between. Choo-choo away though.

[ThePolarBear]

Do other conditions like paralysis, blindness, diseased, poisoned, etc. all go away too?

It depends on the spell. Higher level spells tend to remove a bigger spectrum of conditions than lower level ones, while also having less penalities on the recovery time.

Revivify doesn't do much more than bring you back on your feet. True Resurrection cures you from pretty much everything. Reincarnate doesn't specify either way and can be a problem... is a reincarnated cursed and poisoned individual still cursed and poisoned since the spell doesn't say, or just cursed, since it's a new body and the poison was physical? Or the curse goes away, too, since it's linked to the body? Does the curse go away but the poison remain, somehow?

Exhaustion was, for all spells, in the same situation as all conditions are for Reincarnate. The problem is that a creature dies from exaustion, and there was no official stance on it. JC gave the official stopgap stance like he did for what happens when a spell targets something it can't target a while back, before the release of Xanathar.

[Arial Black]

"Flexible Casting (p. 101). This section now ends with this sentence: “Any spell slot you create with this feature vanishes when you finish a long rest.” "

Q: Is this the end of the CoffeeLock?

A: No, I don't think so.

[JackPhoenix]

"Flexible Casting (p. 101). This section now ends with this sentence: “Any spell slot you create with this feature vanishes when you finish a long rest.” "

Q: Is this the end of the CoffeeLock?

A: No, I don't think so.

It's been that way for a while. Coffeelocks specifically exist to avoid that rule by not taking long rests.

[Exocist]

Yep - as written, if you ask the beast to move, it cannot take the dodge action under any circumstance.

Telling the beast to move is a command, and the beast may only takes the Dodge action if you don't give it a command.

I have actually noticed something in the new errata


In the second sentence of the second paragraph, the phrase that begins “though it doesn’t take ...” has been deleted.

This is the text it refers to


The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one attack yourself and you can command the beast to take an Attack action.

Which has now been updated to


The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one attack yourself and you can command the beast to take an Attack action. If you don’t issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action.

My question is - what happens if you command the beast to move but don't command it to take any action? It's an NPC, controlled by the DM, and it's now missing the phrase that says it doesn't take any actions. Therefore, does it take an action as determined by the DM?

[Unoriginal]

My question is - what happens if you command the beast to move but don't command it to take any action?

It takes the Dodge action. Says so in the text.

It's a bit confusing because they say both the movement and the Action take a command, but the separation between "command to move" and "command to do Action" is clear.

[Exocist]

It takes the Dodge action. Says so in the text.

It's a bit confusing because they say both the movement and the Action take a command, but the separation between "command to move" and "command to do Action" is clear.

If that was their intent, it's not clear at all. Getting into some 3.5-level semantics here:


The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one attack yourself and you can command the beast to take an Attack action. If you don’t issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action.

Emphasis mine - note how both sentences use the "Verbally command" wording (same wording) and the last sentence doesn't specify anything about what type of command you give (or didn't give) it - it just says "if you don't issue a command" which could refer to either command to move or command to act.

Do we need a sage advice clarification on this errata? :smallconfused:

[MaxWilson]

It should be taken as prima facie that you aren’t tired from stuff before you died when you’re brought back to life the same way that you aren’t injured

But in the general case you ARE still injured. Revivify isn't Resurrection + Greater Restoration all rolled into one. It doesn't restore missing limbs or fix gaping wounds or give you back your HP. If you were poisoned and drained of Max HP until your next long rest, or perma-stunned by an Intellect Devourer, you still are. You're just alive again instead of dead, that's all.


According to a spell like Raise Dead, it removes poisons, curse diseases, but does not remove any curses or magical effects. It says nothing about exhaustion either way, so either exhaustion is gone (as long as its not a magical effect) or exhaustion remains (because it doesn't say) and a creature that died of exhaustion can never be raised, resurrected, revivified, or true resurrected (and possibly applies to reincarnate as well). The spells don't address mundane exhaustion at all, which implies the latter is the "rule". Crawford says that is not the intention, which seems like a reasonable answer. The final errata is a more nuanced position somewhere in between. Choo-choo away though.

A better fix would just be to say, "stage six exhaustion (death) is cured by spells which restore you to life, leaving you at stage five."

If WotC were good at game design, THAT would be the errata.

[No brains]

And spend a lot of time resting to recover from all the other penalities - like -4 to many rolls OR an unexpected race change, just to go on 5th level spells.

Revivify has no ill side effects. It's also 2 spell levels cheaper than the revives with baggage. Then again, it's still far from perfect. You're still spending 200gp of diamonds more on refreshing your berserker and zealots can't abuse free revives by seeking more exhaustion than necessary. Though I guess this gives berserkers something to spend their money on at 5th level.


Hmm. It looks like despite the qualifiers to get the bonus action don't specify melee attacks, it does specify that the bonus action attack has to be a melee one. So I guess you could throw it at someone, and then run up to them and bonus action fumble the flat end into their shin as you pick it up?

I don't know buddy, throwing a spear at someone and hitting them with the haft seems kinda... pointless. :smalltongue: Though looking forward, Tavern Brawler has a similar glitch where a thrown improvised weapon still permits a grapple as a bonus action. If one gets patched, both may go down.

I wonder if people are going to be complaining about one-handed spears the way they've been complaining about one-handed staves? Or if they'll just be happy and fluff it as a shield bash as they play hoplites.

[Kaliayev]

My question is - what happens if you command the beast to move but don't command it to take any action? It's an NPC, controlled by the DM, and it's now missing the phrase that says it doesn't take any actions. Therefore, does it take an action as determined by the DM?

Your updated text is a tad wrong.


The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage or Help action. If you don’t issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one attack yourself and you can command the beast to take an Attack action.

By putting the errata change after the extra attack, you muddy the paragraph a little. Since the sentence immediately follows what actions can be commanded, the dodge phrasing takes effect whenever you don't use an action to issue a command. That being said, a "command to action" would probably be better phrasing. Beast master is still a lousy archetype, but the companion becomes slightly more effective at being a distraction.


I wonder if people are going to be complaining about one-handed spears the way they've been complaining about one-handed staves? Or if they'll just be happy and fluff it as a shield bash as they play hoplites.

Since the spear doesn't gain any other fresh buffs, I doubt it.

[Rhedyn]

If the point of this edition is to put things in the DM's hands, then none of this errata matters.

Also. Is this ever making it to print?

[OracularPoet]

I wonder if people are going to be complaining about one-handed spears the way they've been complaining about one-handed staves? Or if they'll just be happy and fluff it as a shield bash as they play hoplites.

Not going to spend the effort to search through for examples, but I’m fairly sure that there are several examples in each of the Iliad and the Aeneid of Greek and Trojan heroes attacking with the butt of their spears while still wearing their shields.

[Millstone85]

Is this ever making it to print?As stated in each document:
"All the updates here appear in the 10th printing of the book and in the 2018 core rulebook gift sets."

[Cynthaer]

If the point of this edition is to put things in the DM's hands, then none of this errata matters.

This kind of just sounds like you're picking a fight.

I think it's pretty noncontroversial that, while individual tables are expected to make their own modifications, errata are still appropriate to better convey the designers' intentions for the "default" game.

[LudicSavant]

I wonder if people are going to be complaining about one-handed spears the way they've been complaining about one-handed staves? Or if they'll just be happy and fluff it as a shield bash as they play hoplites.

I know I’m totally doing the second thing. Hoplites and Zulu warriors all the way.

Mind, our groups were already refluffing quarterstaves as various underloved bludgeoning instruments, like maces and hammers and war clubs.

I feel like there are two main camps of players here: those who are scared of things like great weapon master and polearm master, and those who have seen well-optimized casters :p

[stoutstien]

I know I’m totally doing the second thing. Hoplites and Zulu warriors all the way.

Mind, our groups were already refluffing quarterstaves as various underloved bludgeoning instruments, like maces and hammers and war clubs.

I feel like there are two main camps of players here: those who are scared of things like great weapon master and polearm master, and thise who have seen well-optimized casters :p

Problem is martial classes have a list of "feat tax" to be optimized compared to casters who can just max casting stat and be great. I'm not saying that they need the feats to be good but martial feats are a lot more game changing that caster counter parts. If they put a lot of the weapon feats on the weapons as special properties it would open up more flexibility in builds.
Gwm -prof to hit / + Prof to damage first weapon attack per turn on all heavy weapons
SS- same for all ranged weapons
Light weapons- add two attacks on AoO
Spears/q staff/ pole arms+free reaction attack on enemy moving within reach. Add ba attack anytime you miss an attack while weilding them.

[LudicSavant]

Problem is martial classes have a list of "feat tax" to be optimized compared to casters who can just max casting stat and be great. I'm not saying that they need the feats to be good but martial feats are a lot more game changing that caster counter parts. If they put a lot of the weapon feats on the weapons as special properties it would open up more flexibility in builds.


Yeah. The trouble is that there are folks out there who’ve never seen a caster doing anything more complicated than throwing fireballs that think things like melee fighters taking to-hit penalties are “broken.”

[KorvinStarmast]

This makes Moon Druid even better at low levels, an unnecessary change imo. Other than it makes sense with the stat blocks as written. ... and black bear/brown bear aren't just for moon druids. They are also monsters/beasts, and can be summoned by Rangers ...

[stoutstien]

The only real buff to Moon druids was disintegrate change. Bear forms are overrated for druid form.

[Rhedyn]

errata are still appropriate to better convey the designers' intentions for the "default" game. What the devs believe their intentions were can change over time.

This isn't an MMO, we don't need "patches".

None of this is worth two people with different copies of the book understanding different rules being in the book. The changes aren't large but enough to be different rules.

[ThePolarBear]

Revivify has no ill side effects. It's also 2 spell levels cheaper than the revives with baggage. Then again, it's still far from perfect. You're still spending 200gp of diamonds more on refreshing your berserker and zealots can't abuse free revives by seeking more exhaustion than necessary. Though I guess this gives berserkers something to spend their money on at 5th level.

True that. I'm just used to campaigns where diamonds for spells are something you have to look for, not something that is granted. The 200 gp diamond might be the one you find prehaps once or twice, so i tend to see resurrection spells as something requiring a bit more investment than Revivify. Still not engraved in the spellbook in my mind. :D

[SociopathFriend]

What the devs believe their intentions were can change over time.

This isn't an MMO, we don't need "patches".

None of this is worth two people with different copies of the book understanding different rules being in the book. The changes aren't large but enough to be different rules.

Isn't that the point? A rule being misleading or missing a few key words can become something entirely different- such as a 15th level character with only three Warlock levels getting an Invocation that's balanced around being picked up at Warlock 15?

[ATHATH]

The only real buff to Moon druids was disintegrate change. Bear forms are overrated for druid form.
They're really nice for nova'ing for Moon Druid 2/Paladin 2s, though, as the bear forms get a Multiattack action that hits twice at a +6 and can be used with Divine Smite with/on each hit.

[stoutstien]

They're really nice for nova'ing for Moon Druid 2/Paladin 2s, though, as the bear forms get a Multiattack action that hits twice at a +6 and can be used with Divine Smite with/on each hit.
Very MaD but could see a player getting some play from this lv 3-8 before it gets boring.
I know I will get a ton of hate but for most tables I only allow Paladin spell slots for divine smite.

[Kaliayev]

I don't have a DMG handy, but it looks like scrolls containing bonus action spells no longer require an action to use, so that's nice.

Except they didn't also errata the spell scroll entry on page 200. Whoops!

[ATHATH]

Very MaD but could see a player getting some play from this lv 3-8 before it gets boring.
I know I will get a ton of hate but for most tables I only allow Paladin spell slots for divine smite.
It (the Moon Druid 2/Paladin 2/Moon Druid 16 version of the build) has some low points at level 1 (before you can Wild Shape) and levels [somewhere around 8]-10 (the only CR 2 creature with Multiattack is the cave bear, and its stats aren't much better than a brown bear's), but it picks back up again once you get CR 3 Wild Shape forms at level 11 and can get a 3 attack Multiattack action. Dunno how well it performs at higher levels, but elementals that can use Divine Smite sound pretty scary/effective.

Do note that I'm not factoring in the existence of the frilled deathspitter from the Plane Shift: Ixalan supplement in this build mini-review/endorsement- they're CR 1/2 Beasts that get a 3 attack Multiattack option that can boost the nova-potential of the build by quite a bit in the early levels. At 4th level, a Moon Druid 2/Paladin 2 getting three attacks per round that you can Smite with using 2nd level spell slots (do note that you'll "only" have 2 2nd level spell slots at that level, not that it matters much) before a single-classed Paladin can get Extra Attack or 2nd level spell slots while having more "effective" HP (counting Wild Shape form) than said single-classed Paladin is kind of disgusting.

[prototype00]

So just to check, Disintegrate, if it hits a Moon Druid in bear form and drops it out of bear form into Human form, it still is okay on account of the Druid not being at 0 HP? Nice.

[Rhedyn]

Isn't that the point? A rule being misleading or missing a few key words can become something entirely different- such as a 15th level character with only three Warlock levels getting an Invocation that's balanced around being picked up at Warlock 15? That should be up to the DM that day.

And I would disagree that it is confusing. The new wording implies allowing multiclassing as a default assumption.

[Arkhios]

Feinting Attack.

You can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action on your turn to feint, choosing one creature within 5 feet of you as your target. You have advantage on your next attack roll against that creature. If that attack hits, add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.


You can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action on your turn to feint, choosing one creature within 5 feet of you as your target. You have advantage on your next attack roll against that creature this turn. If that attack hits, add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.

Disclaimer: Colors I chose are just to emphasize the change as written in errata, not to implicate my opinion.

What do you think, is this a nerf or a buff?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Feinting Attack.




Disclaimer: Colors I chose are just to emphasize the change as written in errata, not to implicate my opinion.

What do you think, is this a nerf or a buff?

Nerf. Pre-errata it had no duration other than consumed on next attack, post it does (this current turn). So if for some reason you can't attack that turn, it's wasted. Not a huge nerf, since that's kinda what you'd expect it to do, but...

[Mad Nomad]

Nerf. Pre-errata it had no duration other than consumed on next attack, post it does (this current turn). So if for some reason you can't attack that turn, it's wasted. Not a huge nerf, since that's kinda what you'd expect it to do, but...

I understand the reason for the time limit. It would seem a bit ridiculous to perform a feint, shift your attention elsewhere for a few turns, and then still have advantage when you return to your original target.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I understand the reason for the time limit. It would seem a bit ridiculous to perform a feint, shift your attention elsewhere for a few turns, and then still have advantage when you return to your original target.

It makes total sense. Which is why it's not really a bad nerf imo--I'd have played it that way anyway because the other makes no fictional sense. RAW as usually used (careful parsing, looking for loopholes while ignoring the fiction and common sense, etc) is bad play in my book.

[Rhedyn]

It makes total sense. Which is why it's not really a bad nerf imo--I'd have played it that way anyway because the other makes no fictional sense. RAW as usually used (careful parsing, looking for loopholes while ignoring the fiction and common sense, etc) is bad play in my book.
Yeah there is no reason to assume that you can/should play 5e with careful RAW reading.

But some DMs like having Warforges that can turn into carts.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Spellcasting: Material Components. Does this mean that I can't cast a spell with expensive material components and a somatic component while carrying a shield, if I'm already holding a spellcasting focus? It's an *or* after the -.
Sounds like two free hands are needed in specific situations.

I guess if it's a costly component, you just stash your focus on your belt, retrieve the component, wave your hand around (while holding the component), and it's all good. I mean, you don't even necessarily need to hold the component do you? Just have it in your current equipment? It's a strange change.

I'm probably reading it wrong. It seems like it was covering something, and not shield-use while casting, but I don't know what. If your DM is a stickler for item interactions and needing expensive material components in-hand, it just got weirder (or as weird, anyway). Maybe.

First, this is an old errata, and has been in the printed books for years.

The net result is that you never need two hands free to cast a spell.

Since you did not know about this until now, then I’m guessing you never read through the compiled Sage Advice? There is a long explanation on this topic there.

[Twigwit]

Is this ever making it to print?


I bought the Hydro74 art box set recently and it has all the current errata.

[Astofel]

Huh, just last week I killed a half-orc PC with Disintegrate and ruled against him being able to survive via Relentless Endurance, for the same reason that Disnitegrate kills wildshaped druids. If this errata had just come out a few days earlier, he would have survived.

Not that it actually matters because the half-orc in question quickly got brought back by an NPC 10th level cleric actually succeeding at a Divine Intervention roll.

[spankherbooty]

[QUOTE=Kaliayev;23510754

Does anyone have a better grasp of the history behind "your spells" to "your x spells?" As best I can tell, the SAC's magic initiate entry has been citing the latter phrasing for three years, and they finally decided to errata the PHB so the SAC entry makes sense.



.[/QUOTE]

I think I might be able to take credit for this one. In the Facebook group D&D 5e RAW I brought up the conflict between JC's ruling and the actual text of Magic Initiate. Here's a copy and paste of the original post...

[In light of Dave Williams post below on JC's "certain reading of the rules" on a subject that seemed settled by RAW (but upon further reading really isn't), I want to bring up something about the Magic Initiate feature again.

JC said that you could not cast the 1st level spell you learn from the feat using spell slots, unless it was a spell from a class whose spells you could already cast. So a sorcerer could use the feat to learn and cast Magic Missile this way, and cast it with spell slots, but not Cure Wounds (which would be limited to once a day).

BUT - the actual words of the Magic Initiate feature don't read that way necessarily. They say...

"Choose a class: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. You learn two cantrips of your choice from that class's spell list.

In addition, choose one 1st-level spell to learn from that same list. Using this feat, you can cast the spell once at its lowest level, and you must finish a long rest before you can cast it in this way again."

So regarding the 1st-level spell it says "using this feat" you can cast the spell "once". Nowhere does it say you can't cast the spell using spell slots.

Remember it says you "learn" the spell. Not that you can "only" cast the spell using this feat. Just as you "learn" the cantrips and are assumed to be able to cast them as often as you wish (since they don't require spell slots), you "learn" the 1st-level spell too and thus there is no good reason to read the other part of the description as forbidding the casting of it using spell slots.

Even the sentence "Using this feat, you can cast the spell once at its lowest level, and you must finish a long rest before you can cast it in this way again." can be taken as meaning it applies only to casting the spell "using this feat" "in this way" - meaning without having to use up a spell slot (since classes like Barbarian or Monk wouldn't have any spell slots).

By RAW (and not even necessarily a "certain reading"), nothing in the description prevents you from using the spell as you would any other spell you "learn".

Thoughts/rulings? (and please - we already know JC's previous ruling - I want RAW thoughts here).]

It then devolved into what class feature, what part, actually grants spell casting abilities. It then turned out that the wording of different classes meant that there would be different interpretations as to which classes could use spell slots to cast their magic initiate spell if it wasn't from their class. This meant that by some interpretations the Magic Initiate feat worked differently depending on your class.

[No brains]

But would PAM also work with an Yklwa?

[JackPhoenix]

But would PAM also work with an Yklwa?

No, because it's not in PHB.

[FrancisBean]

I see they adjusted the Bard's Magical Secrets, but missed the Lore Bard's Additional Magical Secrets. Fortunately, my table has a reasonable DM who will just facepalm a bit before making them both consistent.


Magical Secrets (p. 50).
In the first and third paragraphs, “any class” is now “any classes.”

In other words, the Bard no longer needs to carefully choose a class from which to pull 2 spells; instead, it's perfectly legit to take Find Steed and Find Familiar in one shot, for example. (Or for the Lore Bard at my table leveling from 5 to 6 right now, Eldritch Blast and some non-Warlock option like Revivify.)

EDIT: The errata says pg 50., but it's actually pg 54., for anybody reading along.

[No brains]

A smarter question I had would be if Contagion was actually nerfed. If I'm reading it right, now creatures that are immune to the poisoned condition can't be affected by it. Aren't there many creatures immune to being poisoned, or do they just have immunity to poison damage?

[JackPhoenix]

A smarter question I had would be if Contagion was actually nerfed. If I'm reading it right, now creatures that are immune to the poisoned condition can't be affected by it. Aren't there many creatures immune to being poisoned, or do they just have immunity to poison damage?

That's a good thing, IMO. There's no disease immunity, which means you could've caused fever in skeletons, golems or elementals. While there are still outliers (Something like 20% of MM has immunity to poisoned condition), it makes sense that creatures without anything resembling biological functions can't be affected by diseases. While nobody used disease against NPCs in my games, I would've ruled that those types are immmune anyway.

[JumboWheat01]

So spears get a bit of a buff with working with PAM, but tridents remain a "why?" weapon. At this point, I'm thinking of just buffing them to d8 (d10v) at any game I run, make 'em feel a little better.

[Arkhios]

So spears get a bit of a buff with working with PAM, but tridents remain a "why?" weapon. At this point, I'm thinking of just buffing them to d8 (d10v) at any game I run, make 'em feel a little better.

Not any more than flail is a "why?" weapon. Don't see much point in complaining about either tbh. Why everything needs to be special somehow? Why isn't the general idea enough?

[Christian]

Not any more than flail is a "why?" weapon. Don't see much point in complaining about either tbh. Why everything needs to be special somehow? Why isn't the general idea enough?

There's actually an intelligible system to the type/feature/damage values of nearly all of the weapons in the PHB. The exceptions (greatclub, hand axe, and trident) are irritating not just because they break the pattern, but because they create objectively good or bad choices that make the existence of some weapons nonsensical. (Eg. a greatclub is just a heavier, more expensive quarterstaff that can't be used one-handed. Nobody should ever use one, and there's no reason for them to exist.)

I'm sure there are threads around here somewhere specifically about this ...

[The Jack]

Yep. I totally made one . The weapon table is mostly adherent to it's own system, which you can really see with any attention. Damage, martial, reach, light, two handed and heavy all make up a system. Cons to the weapon (two handed, heavy, martial) add damage whilst possitives (light, reach) reduce damage.

Versatile and finess are a pricing issue. Weight is also a pricing issue .
Style is... dunno, but a lot of weapons are just there to upset people who wanna buh martial weapon profeciency with feats

Anyhow. Reach weapons are very unexplored.

But i think my driving problem here is that they'd be an incredibly quick patch. I dont get how they can make changes to such peripherL aspects of the game but keep core things like a weapons table in error.

[stoutstien]

Wait great clubs are tied for 2nd for the heaviest weapon but no heavy weapon tag? Why haven't I made a tribe of great club weilding gnomes.

[BaconAwesome]

First, this is an old errata, and has been in the printed books for years.

The net result is that you never need two hands free to cast a spell.

Since you did not know about this until now, then I’m guessing you never read through the compiled Sage Advice? There is a long explanation on this topic there.

The one thing that's never been addressed, AFAIK, is whether foci and components are subject to the same rules on stowing and welding as weapons. There is a sage advice someplace that says that reaching into a component pouch is part of a spell's action, but nothing about whether a wizard holding a lantern in one hand and a focus in the other can stow the focus, pull out a diamond, and cast chromatic orb in a single round or whether she needs to drop the focus the way she would if she was switching from a dagger to a dart.

[BoringInfoGuy]

The one thing that's never been addressed, AFAIK, is whether foci and components are subject to the same rules on stowing and welding as weapons. There is a sage advice someplace that says that reaching into a component pouch is part of the spells action, but nothing about whether a wizard holding a lantern in one hand and a focus in the other can stow the focus, pull out a diamond, and cast chromatic orb in a single round or whether she needs to drop the focus the way she would if she was switching from a dagger to a dart.
I think the reason it doesn’t come up is there is no reason to doubt a Focus is just another object in your environment you are interacting with.

A staff can be both a weapon and a focus. Should it be harder or easier to stow depending if it is was last used to strike or cast?