I think something that I’ve learned myself, is that pdf’s should always come out before print runs are done. And they should be used as a sort of beta to catch mistakes and problems for a few months before going to print. The issue just is that it can likely hurt sales as the excitement would die down.
If they already intended to give out early copies, then it should have only been pdf form, and then give an outlet for those early players to voice any errors they catch in their early read. They won't be allowed to talk about it online while the NDA is active (just like when they had the book itself), but they can at least give the comments to WotC directly. Just give the clarification that it's not a place to complain about design choices, just to point out actual errors / confusion that would need clarified in the official print. It works for multiple reasons: 1) They are still relatively on-track to meet their deadline because they have something to give the early access players, who will no doubt give them the corrections within a few days, to still give enough time to print the books. 2) They can be assured that the players will proof-read better than any employee, due to their love of the game. 3) The players feel like they have more say in the matter by correcting errors, even if they can't change "bad choices" that were made. If this route was done, they'd probably give the pdfs out earlier to give ample time to print books, or they could promote this route of player correction as part of the UA process like before, and just say the finalized book will take a bit longer because of it. The players would probably be perfectly fine with that, since they trust the early access people to ensure the book is as error-free as possible.
@@20storiesunder Yeah, printing books of any reasonable quality at scale is going to take actual months. You can print faster with more money but then you either need to charge more or make less profit per book, and we all know what WotC's going to pick.
A rules change with Temporary Hitpoints made it so that if a spell does not specify when the temp hitpoints end they last until long rest. Polymorph gives temp hitpoints based on the polymorphed form. It does _not_ specify that these temp hitpoints go away if The spell ends, like dropping concentration RaW: Polymorph is power word fortify 3 spell levels early
Going through this today... -They fixed the Grappler feat in D&D Beyond. -Don't get me started on Two Weapon fighting. Everytime it was in the UA, I wrote that they needed to make it weapons in each hand to avoid that stupid shield and 2 weapons cheese. -Dual Wielder and Light Weapon Property should not be working together to give Nick weapons 2 extra attacks for balance reasons. It makes Nick weapons better than other two weapon fighting options (and Archery) and the whole point of Nick is to allow casting/moving hunter's mark, using second wind/tactical mind, and bonus action smite spells.
I have a copy! The funniest change is that now the wish spell explicitly says you can't make a wish that would undo the multiverse, destroy the city of doors or affect the Lady of Pain. Which will confuse most players since she is such an obscure figure in the lore.
I wouldn't exactly call her obscure given her role in Planescape (The game and the books, and Planescape just got a new release) It does show they're, between the new books and this, leaning into making her and multiverse/planescape more prominent, though.
Confuse players of characters that can cast 9th level spells? I'd say very unlikely, esp. since you can take 2 seconds to Google Lady Of Pain D&D. Sadly, in 35 years of playing the game, I still haven't played a campaign with characters casting 9th level spells 😆
Someone on reddit mentioned that the description of somatic components no longer mentions needing a free hand, despite warcaster saying it lets you perform somatic components with both hands full. I really think this is a lack of rigor on the developers' part. This is not a new ruleset. We all know the rules like the back of our hands. And yet things like this slip through. The wording on things changes in weird ways like opportunity attacks on allies. I *guarantee* you, the developers did not make that change intentionally. They have shown over and over that they do not interrogate their own rules with that kind of rigor. They are not precise in their wording and the sloppiness turns into confusing or conflicting rules, like the goliath thing.
Yeah, I had seen that one come up too and changes like that are so confusing because it feels like they just forgot to go back and remove something they were testing.
@@20storiesunderlikely the feat. It looks intentional that they removed requirements to have two hands. (My guess is to be inclusive for people missing a hand?) But it creates a lot of awkward parts of the game such as being able to hold a shield and fight with two weapons.
@@bradleyhurley6755 I hope that wasn't the justification, that's such insanely bad representation if so. "Oh yeah there are no downsides" is the type of thing that would make me shudder, if someone was depicting my disability.
One change that feels unintended is in Abberant Sorcery. The Psionic Sorcery feature now cant work with spells that have a material gold price listed in the spell. Which.... means it only doesn't work on Summon Aberration. Feels like a change that was put in place before they removed the ability to swap spells, because now its so oddly specific.
The reason why people rightfully say that there is no excuse for all these mistakes in the book, is because most of these could've been avoided easily with playtesting. Playtests for spells have been requested for a year and we got none. The community is very quick at spotting wording mistakes, and it would not have taken them much time or money with their existing systems to let us proofread it and make these small adjustments. Also, yeah, a lot of these can be fixed at home with a "clearly they meant this instead", but the more of these patches the rules have the less confident the reader becomes in other rules meaning what they say. It becomes less clear what the designers were actually trying to do.
It doesn't matter. People were all over a lot of things during playtesting, namely the CME spell and the entirety of the ranger class's relation to Hunter's Mark... aaaaand they didn't do jack shit about it.
Just wanted to update, in the digital rules the Goliath did get patched. It's ability now says "You have Advantage on any ability check you make to end the Grappled condition. " And the Grappler feat reads "Fast Wrestler. You don't have to spend extra movement to move a creature Grappled by you if the creature is your size or smaller."
The strange rewording of the stunned condition is something that in curious to see if it gets errata’d. It ALMOST seems intentional but then there’s just enough other mistakes already coming out that I feel it likely wasn’t intentional
Back in 2014, upon reading the phb for the first time, I identified the best Druid and barbarian subclasses and had never played the system before. Again here with minor elementals, I exclaimed out loud when I first saw the scaling. For these imbalances to not be outwardly obvious makes me question the design team’s competency. When you hear Crawford talk up the ranger and then you read it, it only confirms that the guy is a moron.
Conjure minor elemental is so funny to me because it's like if Hunter's Mark passively performed *better* Smites. It's truly the ascension of two of the "martial spells" that gave people gripes
The new polymorph spell gives you temp hp equal to the creature you polymorph intos HP and according to the new temp hp rules they don't end when the spell ends
This is a two-part problem honestly- they removed the text "Unless a feature that grants you temporary hit points has a duration," from the Temporary hit points rule and they removed the text "When the spell ends, the target loses any remaining temporary hit points from this spell." from all spells that gave temp HP. So... there's an argument to be made that this is intentional, otherwise, why would they go out of their way to remove these lines?
That and getting the TempHP is not contingent on transforming in the first place. If you resist the spell and succeed, you get the Temp HP but don't transform.
@@Finalplayer14 sorry, I wasn't clear, I don't think it's necessarily a bug, but I do think it's an issue that will be resolved unless they forgot to put those lines of text in the rules or something lol I'd be a bit more okay if this was True Polymorph something but regular polymorph should not make the party unkillable
Honestly even the most well written books likely have some sort of errata that could be fixed day 1. It's not that big of a claim. You could easily use the wrong word or have a typo or just explaination wise do something in a poor enough way that its better to clarify things. Errata becomes an issue when you have something like DnD and you have some major issues that clearly should of been fixed much earlier that in cases was even pointed out well ahead of time.
I hope they explain Dual Wielder better, because I don't understand it. The other problem are problems that can be interpreted at the table. If someone tries to make two-weapon fighting with one hand by switching weapons, you as the DM just say "No, you can't do that" Conjure Minor Elementals is only a problem in few very specific builds - I don't think it will be a problem in casual play. It still seems like a strange oversight because I'm sure they where told my multiple people in the feedback.
I feel like WotC had a unique and modern oportunity to avoid all of this that they did not take advantage of. They could have sent all the books out to the influencers and optomizers that they did, and then watch all the videos and posts that circulated. Using that info to fix the books and the content before it officially gets published. It would push the larger release date back, but at this point, it would be pushed back to holiday season, which is a great time to release a new product. And they would get free QC to check and catch all of these misses before it was ever released, and avoid the "Day 1 Patch" problem that video games deal with all the time.
It really seems like they just rushed it out without enough time to proofread the text. Not only did they not send it out to influencers, it feels like they didn't even re-read it themselves.
It takes a long time to print these massive tomes, and it costs a lot of money too. Just to print a few thousand for "testing purposes" is just too much of an expense when they could simply sent them PDFs instead.
It‘s so funny to me that they desperately want to copy the video game industry production and monetisation (which is incredibly inappropriate) and now they are realising video game companies manage to do this because they can patch. To think that the writing was done while everything was still secret to the public.
When Colby and Chris make a build around the printed version of CME and both swear off using it again... that's a broken spell. I hate that term in these conversations but it's accurate here.
Just remember that they are optimizers, most people playing D&D play in casual games. You can use Conjure Minor Elementals to break the game, but doesn't mean you have to. If you break the game, you will ruin your campaign and what's the fun in that.
@sortehuse so I see your point and I hear you but I think it’s important to mention that even casual players can notice the incredible potency of a spell like CME once they’ve chosen it. Even if they took it by accident without realizing how “good” it is. Neither me or anyone at my table is an “optimizer” by any stretch but it was very clear to all of us just how good this is. And yeah, we are still definitely more than “casuals” but I think, once taken, it should be immediately obvious to anyone how good it is.
@@sortehuse People can nerf themselfs to make game more fun - but it doesn't mean that we should ignore problems and not blame gamedesigners for gamedesign problems.
@@InsightCheck ... but you really have to make an advanced gish build to really abuse it. Most casual players just make an Eldritch Knight if they want to play a gish. I do think CME is a problem, but there is no need to exaggerate how big the problem is, understanding the Dual Wielder Feat will be a problem in more groups.
@@notsochosenone5669 I not saying that there isn't a problem - I just think it's a minor problem. People that play at optimizer groups including their DM know about the problem with CME and people that play in casual groups need not to worry. I still hope they fix it.
There's definitely a bunch of things that should be clarified. apart from things already mentioned in the video like CME, CWB, and Powerful Build, Light property and Dual Wielder should specify "when wielding 2 weapons at once" to prevent juggling with a shield in the other hand, Giant Insect should also more than likely be corrected (HP 30 + 10 per spell level ABOVE 4TH), and Incapacitated condition should reduce movement to 0.
I promise you, the opportunity attack thing is not on purpose. They specifically changed the text of champions remarkable athlete because 'clever players realized it applied to initiative' and 'you shouldn't need to use careful reading of the rules to get such benefits'. I am paraphrasing here, but the point is, if they did it intentionally, they would have spelled it out more clearly, and probably mentioned it in a video as well. I do kinda like it though. Seems neat, though the warcaster interaction might get a little out of hand.
An oddity since Tasha's (well, technically since one of the Psionics UAs that introduced a version of the Feat, and was definitely pointed out at the time), at least in the 5e version the Mage Hand range increase in the Telekinetic Feat RAW does nothing. It ups the range to 60 feet, the spell says the hand appears within range (tied to the range attribute), but disappears if it's ever more than 30 feet away (hard coded number not tied to the range attribute even if they're the same number at base). So 5e RAW you can *cast* it to 31+ feet, but then it'll instantly pop before you can do anything for being more than 30 feet away. Obviously not RAI, and no sane DM would run it that way, but that's what the rules that are written said. 5.5 version of the Feat is basically the same (bit about willingly failing the save for the shove is removed, but added to the general rules for saves. Range increase for Mage Hand is always a thing rather than being a bonus for already knowing the spell, but still a range increase). I haven't seen the 5.5 version of Mage Hand to see if they fixed it in the spell, but if not that problem is still there.
@@GirlPhoenix85 Apparently they've now updated the text of 5.5 Telekinetic to "its range and the distance it can be away from you" on DnDBeyond for people with the early access there, so while the first round print books won't say the fix it'll likely be in whatever the first errata document and second printings whenever those happen.
Rangers should get a fix to Hunter's Mark by level 3 to work with and not disrupt subclass features. I got a house rule I'm ready to apply to in DNDBeyond once I get 2024 PHB access
@SirEliteGrunt minus concentration or minus bonus action is my guess. Unless they're talking about removing the triggering condition of certain abilities being the target of your hunter's mark.... or when you use hunter's mark....
My fix has always been a 6th level feature to allow you to apply hunters mark without a bonus action (whether as part of the attack action or at the start of your turn), and then a 10th level feature to remove concentration
@@benry007 I think the reason they didn’t just outright remove concentration from hunter’s mark is to prevent multiclass dipping for it, which is my rationale for removing concentration at a higher level, but I could agree. I also put the features at 6 and 10 because 7 and 11 are both subclass feature levels for the ranger iirc
Someone just mentioned that the Warlock's pact of the blade says that you can only conjure a melee weapon, but you can bond with *any* magical weapon, which includes ranged weapons. "you can conjure a pact weapon in your hand - a Simple or Martial melee weapon of your choice with which you bond - or create a bond with a magic weapon you touch" So... you can use a longbow as your pact weapon but only if it's magical? I'm sure that's not intended. They probably meant to restrict the whole thing to melee weapons, but alas..... [Edit] - reviewing the 2014 version of the feature, it looks like that was also the case in 2014. Sigh.
And since bonding a magic weapon is just a Bonus Action in the 5.5 version rather than an hour long ritual like in the 5e version you can relatively quickly swap between melee and ranged if you have a magic ranged weapon, just need to burn a Bonus Action to touch+bond the ranged weapon or create+bond a melee weapon (or touch+bond that too if you happen to have both a magic ranged and a magic melee)
When it comes to see invisibility the thing that is missed is that it doesn't let you "see invisible" creatures. It does allow you to ignore the invisible condition. The important thing here is that if you are behind total cover someone cannot see you. See invisible doesn't allow you to see a creature behind total cover. The confusion is because of the numerous ways the hide action itself has been interpreted along with the invisible condition. For example the invisible condition doesn't really make you unseen.
@@almisami it does not. It only allows you to basically ignore the invisible condition. Creatures behind cover and who are heavily obscureded do not use the invisible condition and therefore are not detected.
Ngl, I'm laughing my ass off at the notion of "early fixes". ONE D&D isn't a new edition. It is suppose to be a sort of one large fix package. And that package of fix already needs fixes😂😂😂
seems pretty ordinary that there'd be errata soon after. playtesting and player/dm feedback are ongoing while they've had the core books locked some months. for a game launch that doesn't require programming you wanna react pretty soon.
Single target buff spells are some of the worst in the game. Haste is the example given for the War Caster opportunity buff, but Haste is already an insanely overrated spell. Do people who cast Haste use anything else? Because if they did, they'd quickly realise that dropping down a Hypnotic Pattern and disabling half the encounter would help the party far more than buffing one single person. What other spells are there for this? Magic Weapon??? Keep in mind the spell HAS to be single target. You can't cast Bless as a Reaction as a Cleric. Healing spells are still inefficient to cast mid-combat, so if a Cleric or Druid has Warcaster then it finally makes healing mid-combat useful.
Depends. I have a Bladesinger/Sorcerer/Monk gish that is specifically designed to be a tanky melee build so telling her to cast Hynotic Pattern would be a waste of time and you are killing her build. Having a 33 AC is useful and means I get to dive right into combat and tie up a bunch of enemies while the blasters get to do their thing. I wouldnt recommend every caster take haste. But if you are a Gish melee build with unbeatable Con saves, do it. Haste is basically Shield of Faith + Enhanced Ability Dexterity (adv on dex saving throws) + an extra Action.
@@JacksonJinn Have fun (basically double concentrating on spells). Sorry - old twin spell was fucking broken. Single target polymorph is already stupid strong - and doubling it is fucking bonkers. Haste being bad and twin spell being broken isn't mutually exclusive things. Also - new twin spell is also strong and super cheap, lol. New sorcerer in general is contender on being strongest class in the game - stop downplaying it.
11:26 not so much eldritch knight since you get it at level 17th/18th? Bladesinger gets it a 7th. A dual wielding level 7 bladesinger is 100% cracked. 4 attacks (replace 1 with cantrip) and all of them get 2d8+ damage. Thats like spamming smites on every attack with 1st level spell slots without consuming the spell slot. FOR 10 MINUTES LOL!!
True, but think about it for one second. Would you rather wait for a finished product 🥱 or get the exact same product right now 🤩 (it is half baked and not the exact same… in fact it is very different from what it would have been if we waited longer) GET IT NOW look big round number 50 wow😍. But seriously imagine if for the 50th anniversary they released a playtest version. Maybe even a small adventure with rules Classes and Spells but no finished book and used the feedback to improve the books. I‘d pay 20 bucks for that. They could have people playing 5.24 for a whole year and release on the 51st. I imagine it would have still worked marketing-wise. It certainly would have won me over and the ‚FOMO-preorder-everything-from-my-favorite-company croud‘ would buy it anyway.
@@InsightCheckshould not have to purchase the erratas tho. Just update the pdf we already payed $30 for. Once a year would be just fine. If they had done that since the start they basically would have had the 2024 PHB already done 😂
@@InsightCheck Yea kinda. However, I'd like to see language fixes to core rules (stealth, two weapon fighting, etc). Those can't be added as a new feature.
Do not forget that polymorph hp does not go away if concentration is broken, polymorph self into giant ape with 117 hp, drop it, and cast armor of agathys while choosing to keep the 117 hp. not only does the spellcaster become stupidly tanky, melee fighters will always take guaranteed damage from hitting you.
It looks like the polymorph spell has a separate paragraph saying you gain temp hp that is not part of the saving throw. So you might get the temp hp even if you make your saving throw to not transform
The hiding and see invisibility combination feels to me like people needing to use a little more common sense. See Invisibility doesn't mean you can see an invisible creature if there's something in the way. Likewise, if you hide behind a box and then walk out in full view of a creature, that creature can now see you. The invisible condition even specifies it doesn't work if the creature can somehow see you, the invisibility spell just changes the conditions in which that occurs.
This shouldn’t be acceptable you’ve had years of playtest. If they are going to errata things immediately they should have to refund or replace all books sold
Based on my interepretation, if you use Shillelagh and then cast True Strike you get to do 1d8 + spellcasting modifier Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage at levels 1-4, 1d10 + 1d6 + spellcasting modifier Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage at levels 5-10, 1d12 + 2d6 + spellcasting modifier Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage at levels 11-16, and 5d6 + spellcasting modifier Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage at levels 17-20.
I hate the fact that d&d beyond automatically applies errata. I bought a product, wizards of the coast should not be able to make changes to the product that I bought without my permission. Curse of strahd was the first time I noticed and the first time it really pissed me off.
@@20storiesunderI mean when you have a playtest that points out the problem and you talk all the time about how you read every comment, but someone ignore every comment that point out how broken something is. It's definitely gross incompetence because you actively ignored the feedback telling you it was a problem after talking about how you read everything.
no wonder to me, when in playtest 99% where complaining about it and also 95-99% did complain about the bonus action to use a smite .... and both made it into the phb w/o changes and completly ignoring the complains a fix of +1d8 / lvl for cme won't be enough even .... to have this spell even "useable" in game it needs to be +1d8 / 2 spell lvls so it gets down to the same as spirit shroud does But there's other spell changes that make no sense ... + spiritual hammer needing conc now, is a certain way to say we don't want any clr to use that spell anymore after they reach 5th lvl + Hunter's mark only applying its damage once / round .... why use that spell at all now ? + Hex only apply once a turn either ( at least that is compensated a bit by the auto upscaling of warlocks ) and i could go on and on and on to me it looks like they listed to the major yt ones and ignored the feedback of the players completly
@@shoganmajere7913 Don't confuse mistakes with intentional design, sites being a bonus action isn't a mistake no matter how much folks in reddit don't like it. Same with spiritual weapon, design decisions aren't mistakes.
@@20storiesunder normal incompetence is typos, putting the wrong level on an ability etc. Putting a spell into your game after having a UA and wall to wall feedback that its overpowered from literally hundreds of online pundits qualifies for the word "gross". If this doesn't I can't think of a situation that would except maybe having a naked picture of your mom show up in the glossary of the PHB.
It's a minor thing, but something I noticed (assuming I'm understanding new rules correctly): 1) Hold a spell to cast as a reaction - Expends spellslot (I think, admittedly this is the only part I'm unsure of with new rules) 2) When casting with reaction you get counterspelled - The spellslot is then restored 3) This is contrary to if you were to just ignore the reaction trigger, your spellslot would be gone It's not necessarily inconsistent, but feels very weird.
It won't be immediate but there are some explicit errors like the ones you mentioned here, that will eventually get erratas. However, what I'm more curious about is the clarification of intentions with certain rules and interactions. Things like: The Nick Mastery is usable without wielding or using the Nick Weapon itself, making it so you can trigger the Nick Mastery when you're dual wielding Shortswords or Handcrossbows. How the Temporary Hit Points from Concentration spells like Polymorph or Heroism or Shapechange and Non-Concentration spells like Armor of Agathys last until you lose them or take a long rest- not when the spell ends. If the Blinded Condition is intended to still give you disadvantage on attacks and foes advantage on attacks against you when you can still see them via Blindsight. These could be errors or they could be intended, we won't know until we ask.
The added problem is that historically they have not been very forthcoming about "intention". They called a lot of things that were obviously oversights in 2014 "intentional". I presume this is either WotC/Hasbro trying to "save face" by not admitting mistakes, or someone high up in the game design organization (like Jeremy Crawford) being unable to admit to mistakes. Either way, it really hurts their credibility. They could have easily errataed a million things in 2014, like bard's jack of all trades applying to initiative... but instead of doing that, they just said "oh yeah, that was on purpose", despite it being extremely inobvious and almost certainly a design mistake.
The idea that you can use Nick without a Nick weapon is HUGE reach. It's implicit in the game rules that you can only use the properties of an item when you take an action with that item. Gtfo.
@@apjapki lol I missed that he said that. Yeah, good luck finding a DM that lets you use the Nick property of a weapon ... without using that weapon. I *do* wish they had clarified whether Nick is supposed to be on the main hand weapon or the off hand weapon. Also for some reason they removed the "other hand" qualification for two weapon fighting. Now it just says you make another attack with a different weapon. Given the draw/stow rules in 5.5, a lot of people are saying you can use two weapon fighting in a single hand. Attack with scimitar, stow it, draw a dagger, attack with that one. You're "attacking with a different light weapon". WotC desperately needs a rules lawyer as an editor and to give them enough time to actually review the rules. I'm guessing all these errors are due to the product being rushed out the door.
things i think need day 1 errata: 1)summon elemental needs to be once per turn. 2) remove concentration from hunters mark. 3) allow quicken spell to take advantage of new spell slot per turn rule and move exemption to aberrant sorcerer's Psionic sorcery feature (i don't think any other character option has access to that many spells that don't require slots as many times a day.)
Do you think that they could publish the books with added errata pages in 1-2 years? I just wish that the paper books would have versions (that incorporated the errata changes).
Subscribified!! GREAT video length, proper content. And honestly just please keep your tone and your warmth in both your message and your content. There’s plenty of hyper critical takes. Yours isn’t a hot take, it’s a warm bake. Like a muffin that’s fresh but has had time to cool off. And that’s a delicious take. Roll on!
lol this was the best comment hahaha In all seriousness though, I’m glad you felt that. I always try to have reasoned and measured takes. If something is egregious, sure, I’ll call it out, but generally I like to not get too spicy :)
it's frustrating when I spent hours playtesting and giving feedback to the UA, just to see mistakes or inconsistencies show up that I submitted feedback on. What was the point?
I do know that when they were talking about the two weapon fighting they did mention specifically using two weapons in one hand. It definitely looks like it's missing the mark on a cursory glance, but it allows martial characters to have significantly more mechanical versatility when combined with weapon mastery.
In case it has not been mentioned, they have already updated the digital copy to address conjure insects, the goliath isues, the grappler feat, and made donning and doffing a shield require an interact action.
The argument about a day 1 patch affecting sales is something I don't really agree with. Mostly because, for the people who have already preordered, the Wizards/Hasbro already has their money. And for the people who are waiting to see, they are going to see the rampant discourse about errors and questionable content and the like and they'll be inclined to not buy anyway. And the people who did preorder, if they see this same discourse and regret their decision, especially if they are unable to secure some sort of refund or cancellation, they will almost certainly be supremely peeved at the lack of quality control and may genuinely be turned off from D&D as it is entirely. Wizards/Hasbro was already riding a fine line in terms of community sentiment, with many already swearing off of it and now plenty of TTRPG alternatives hitting the market or on the horizon. If anything, *not* putting out patch early would just worsen the situation for no actual sales gain - a lot of people may decide to just pick and choose content they want, homebrew the rest, and drop D&D products or D&D entirely if any sort of update/rules clarification isn't expected in 6 months to a year after. Especially with this being a big push for the VTT: you kinda need players in the long term for that not to be a money sink disaster, and you don't retain without good community sentiment.
5:06 You neglected to mention that there are significantly FEWER humans working on this content since the time it began, since that billion-dollar corporation decided, in its infinite wisdom, to lay off a lot of the writing staff partway through development. The problem here isn't that the individuals working on the books missed some things here and there; the issue is that the corporation doesn't care about delivering a quality product, so they didn't put the necessary resources into this product.
Hiding definitely needs errata, because it's not at all clear how it's supposed to work. If you move behind a pillar, hide, then walk out and sit in the middle of the room (taking no actions, thus not triggering any of the explicit end conditions), when, if ever, does your invisibility end? Invisibility could also use errata, because the invisible condition no longer specifies that you can't be seen, it just gives bonuses if you can't be seen (and thus arguably doesn't do anything, since nothing is preventing you from being seen), but that's far less likely to be a good faith misunderstanding.
The invisibility ends when a creature can see you. It says that in the end conditions. The DM determines when that is. It's not unclear just DM dependent.
You missed the health on giant insect, which is almost certainly a mistake. Spell is already broken with a normal amount of health, so that’s getting patched day 1 at my table
It is possible that Powerful Build interacts correctly with Monster 'grab' abilities, but it's still an oversight to not have it interact with grappling.
Strange that there is talk of an errata before the book has been released for sale. I think stunned is intended to allow movement. While overpowered, conjure minor elements is clear how it works so I don’t think that will get a change. It will be left up to DMs to house rule it as they see fit. The Goliath powerful build and Grappler feat, feel like they do need errata. Dual Wielding and two weapon fighting could probably be sorted with an FAQ. A hidden character is invisible to the one looking for them so it makes sense to me that they have the invisible condition to that creature but here again another FAQ would suffice. I like that see invisibility gets a boost with this. As for other weird interactions, give me a chance to get my hands on the book so I can at least read it!
I cant help but think that some of these one or two word issues are simply because they needed to fit things on a page. They mentioned that multiple times in their hype videos. Which in my eyes, is no valid excuse for these sloppy misses. Saving a page or so lost them SO much money by creating this confusion.
I think it’s baffling how the biggest problems with balance come with combining more attacks with more damage attack. What’s what happened with GWM & PAM, SS & XBE, and now Conjure Minor Elementals and stuff like Scorching Ray. They’ve made steps in the right direction by redesigning SS and making Lifedrinker a “once per turn” option, but it’s just not enough. For opportunity attacks, I feel like this was done to prevent issues where someone tries to take an opportunity attack and there being questions about if that creature is still hostile towards you bc they’re running away. Using your reaction to give someone an extra 5ft of movement is honestly a fair tradeoff. I doubt they’ll change that back Same with See Invisibility. I’ve personally been in the situation as a new player where I cast See Invisible and my DM said “nothing happens” bc the creatures were technically hidden, but I wouldn’t know that. Part of the problem here is the DM, but the game shouldn’t be designed for those “gotcha” moments. You do have a really good point about errata affecting book sales. They’ll probably wait a while bc they know for a fact that as soon as they release Errata, there’ll be headlines like “WotC releases errata before the official release of the book” because admitting to mistakes is bad for some reason. Edit: I really like your open minded approach to this topic too. I’ve heard a lot of other people use phrases like “absolutely busted” or “straight up bad”, but they’re forgetting that there are humans behind the scenes working on our game
We may be surprised, but that's not as bad as it used to be. We'll just go later in the round. (Surprise gives your opponent disadvantage on initiative now and does not give you an extra round like in 2014)
According to a tweet by Jeremy Crawford Concentration: "You make a separate saving throw for each source of damage" (PH, 203). Roll for each missile. This hasn't been further supported in any Errata Or Sage Advice I know about and Concentration and Magic Missile has gone unchanged in 2024. And if each Missile is its own source source of damage does that mean each dart also gets the Conjure Minor Elemental buff? Something is wrong here. I've always assumed that since the Magic Missile spell says all darts hit simultaneously that seems intentional its one save no matter how many darts, so this tweet has me puzzled years later.
@@tylerdrake370 Thats an interesting point. Even though its dealing damage, Magic Missile doesn't seem to be a "Spell Attack" since the 2024 PHB defines spell attack as "An attack ROLL as part of a spell"..... oh boy.
I don't think there's been a D&D edition that didn't need errata from day 1. For systems of this size it's impossible to avoid imo. I'm a game dev who works on massive codebases and it feels very similar. Billions don't help as much as you'd think
I sure hope. Even ignoring balance, there are just some things that straight up don't work (e.g., Goliath Powerful Build is functionally useless). It seems clear to me that this book needed a bit more time in the oven.
I wouldve much prefered if they deleted the conjure spells than overwrite their effects to be either moonbeam 2 or aura of shank better. I argue they shouldve let people min max and playtest this content for far longer befoee even considering publishing them. They couldve dodges the need for major erratas.
I get the deadline was tight and its a small group and mistakes are made. But this is not the original phb. This book itself is one big errata with 10 years of feedback. I really like the new book but i am dissapointed at the amount of erratas needed. They needed a few more playtest of other things besides class/subclasses (except the ranger, that needed one more go). Spells and feats needed at least one more go also. To many general feats feel like they should have been origin feats. And some spells are just straight broken (giant insect and minor elementals). But overall the book is better than the 2014pbh.
I’ve honestly been trying to take this release with a grain of salt. I shouldn’t find myself invested enough to care either way; some out there think it’s words brought from on high, others think it’s a pile of hot mess. For myself, I’m disappointed in the lack of iterative evolution for a release that took two years. I dislike the flavor that was removed so there was space left to inform the player just how much flavor was added. Some spells were balanced, some were made more convoluted and open to abuse; while others somehow skipped by under the radar. No spell designed should result in a creature being outright removed from combat with no reasonable answer in sight. Either a continual save, or in the case of objects made of force; they should’ve all received an AC and hit point threshold. Neither side of the table enjoys a creature(s) being removed so easily and forced to watch the action from the outside. And backgrounds shouldn’t be tied to any particular feat IF they took so much effort to say that no species is monolithic. If a member of a species can be unique, then a background should explain why; not be monolithic in its own right. That said, again, if you think it’s great; then good on ya! But response to confusion should not fall on those interpreting the written word. This whole books reason for existing is to codify the rules of play; how they work, and how they interact with each other. After two years and 395 pages later you still have text heavily open to interpretation; than that is a failure on those writing the rules! They could have made some art smaller or added another 5 pages to include a more robust explanation. Yes, we all get caught up in our head cannon; so reading something where in your mind you completely understand how it works.. sure it sounds appropriate. But if you never handed the book to someone who doesn’t know how to play or isn’t apart of the new revisions design to proof read it for clarity… that’s a failure on their team. And to just say “meh, we’ll errata it later” is a shitty response to those who bought physical copies. It just shows bad business practices. If I were responsible for writing a technical book for your new vehicle, would you be happy to look through it only to find “TBD, probably go check the internet” under the topic you’re searching for? I bet not. Worse still if I left instructions that were open to interpretation and now you’re pouring antifreeze in your windshield wiper fluid reservoir.
I too thought that--since this is merely an update to the rules--addressing things like this would be a much more refined and simple process. Sure, there's new stuff here, but it isn't a whole new edition. I've come to realize that their priority was on 'moving the needle' on things their data says people like or don't like. That and handling potential sensitivity issues. Nothing wrong with that, but it feels like the lion's share of the effort went into these issues. That is why they did little (imho) to address things like the prevalence of issues that stem from so called 'dipping,' where many issues arise from. Their data says people play usually up to around 10th level and people like to multi-class, so....there you go. In 5.14 they washed their hands of things like this by making mutli-classing optional. Now, they it seems they just shrug their shoulders and say, oh well. Also, since 4e (where balance errata seemed to be an almost weekly process), WOTC has been vary leery about putting out non-typo errata to fix balance more than once every blue moon.
As for Conjure Elementals, this could be 2d8 for each spell slot level 8 and above, so it's not broken, but why does it proc on attacks in the first place?
The ability to listen and change is a sign of a healthy game and community. The reason we have new additions is to adapt and reflect. WOTC are the best stewards but they are far from the worst
I'm paying an 8th level beast master, and for me so far it has not been a problem. I am playing a dual weapon fighter with two llight weapons, one of which has the Nick property. So we get four attacks a round between me and my beast. I can see why it could be a problem if you are not dual wielding.
Two points. Am I the only one that realizes that they didn’t update the Aasimar with the new design. The Scurge still has friendly fire (I thought that was errata before but I may have misremembered ) and the Fallen still has the fear effect based on Charisma (the previous+2 for the species). And Lightbringer (worthless as it is ) also is attached to Charisma. All simple easy fixes. [Still not a fan of the damage and nova of the class but what ever ] There will be an errata when they do a second printing. That has been the pattern so far and they seem not likely to change that.
Do monsters use the same Grapple rules as players? If their stat blocks have different grapple escape mechanics (requiring a save), I could see that as the potential reason behind Goliath’s Powerful Build wording.
Make the Rangers Patch actually worth something Give me a reason to use Smite as a Paladin. Right now, there isn't one Why is Spiritual Weapon Concentration None of the conjure changes make sense Why can I still not FIND TRAPS
I don't think the drawing / stowing weapons works like that. At least how I read it, it's only once an action, not an attack. Even dropping an item now counts as "stowing" it too so you can't juggle weapons like that either. Also y'all would have loved 4E when we got day 1 errata and clarification on every release and would get a book about every other month.
No. The rules glossary specifically says you can do it for each attack, not each attack action. It makes this distinction too when it talks about moving between attacks so it is pretty clear.
@@Neverfate Yep once per attack not once per attack action as you originally said. Here's how it works: Attack (then stow) Free item interaction to draw Bonus attack When you have the Dual Wielder feat or multiple attacks you can draw and stow several times per turn (For example two attack fighter can attack with greataxe, stow as part of attack, free item interaction draw scimitar, second attack draw short sword, bonus scimitar attack). The juggling in this edition is going to be rampant.
I agree with some of the things you call out as mistakes, but I think there is... a perspective difference perhaps. You covered let's say 4 to 6 actual errors. And you said that you can see an argument go be made ghat WotC has so much money, so many resources, that these sort of errors should be lessened. You acknowledged the other side as well, but I want to focus on that argument for a moment because.... does it? How many errors and mistakes make it through in Tv and movies, which throw WotC's entire yearly budget at a single project multiple times a year? How many car recalls happen? Mistakes that could kill people. Same with food recalls. I'm not trying to say "and therefore every mistake is fine" but there seems to be an idea amongst certain sections of thr community that mistakes are somehow unique, or a sign that WotC couldn't be bothered to put forth their best effort. Meanwhile, Boeing is losing doors off planes. Many of these mistakes are easy to see the origin of. Grappling used to half speed and be a save to end, so those mistakes, while unfortunate make sense how they happened. And pointing out "this seems to be a mistakev and should be fixed" I'm all behind. But when I see people going towards "this is a mistake, and shows WotC for the talentless money-grubbing hacks I've always known they are"... then I think we've gone too far.
I'm kind of angry with both the obvious errors (Hallow, Minor Elementals, Opportunity Attacks) and ambiguities (True Sight, Weapon and Shield Juggling, Polymorph, Repulsing Booming Blade, Mobile/Speedy). This does not feel like a product that was several years in development. It feels like rushed untested changes were made in the last 6 months and DMs have to pick up the pieces. My games will have Day 1 fixes.
The conjure minor elementals spell being considered overpowered bc of the ability to apply it to every attack is fairly confusing to me. The only way to do that is to multiclass enough levels in two classes where you have extra attacks (i.e. wizard + fighter) which takes a fairly high number of levels to where the bonus from extra attacks actually sounds that meaningful Or you mentioned Eldritch Knight.. which would only be able to finally access that spell at around lvl 19 at its earliest and if someone really stuck to that class long enough to do that many extra attacks and be able to cast conjure minor elementals? Dang, congrats I think they've earned that extra damage. Otherwise there's Bladesinging Wizard as mentioned... which can get one extra attack at most in all its leveling. And at that point if they're getting it two times at most (reactions not included) it's hard for me to read it as *that* strong personally. Like wording wise, it *sounds* strong. But effectively, if you actually dig down into things it really just doesn't sound that powerful to me? Maybe if you multiclassed a wizard up to level 7 so they could access the spell and then went monk just so they could apply it to every single one of their attacks? But that's a long road to go for just one spell and even then, it doesn't read that strongly to me.
It’s a bit odd to suggest that because something is only problematic to a few classes that it isn’t an issue. A problem is a problem whether it’s accessible to 1 or all classes. Also, Valor Bards can also access it through Magical Secrets. And yeah, any multiclass with enough levels. The reality is that the spell can so disproportionately outperform any spell at its level, and even many higher level spells, that it simply doesn’t make sense. And even if it was class exclusive, that might even be worse because it could incentivize disproportionate use of one class because of it. If you’re curious how it all plays out, Colby from D4 D&D Deep Dive made a build using it this week and it’s not even close how powerful it was. I think he said this build had more sustained DPR on every round than any nova build could output using all of their resources and only works on one turn. And you could argue that “only an optimizer would do that” and that might be true, but the fact that there is one spell that massively overperforms its level is problematic from a design perspective.
the probklem is WOTC operates as a small company OWNEd by a much larger company. we get the small company mistakes woitha big time corporat elawyers jumping in and ru9ining all good will while the poeple at wOTC do their bes tot play damage contorl.
I mean, yeah, the Metamagic nerfs need to be fully reverted. The buffed ones can stay, and should, but the ones they killed are DEAD, and they shouldn't be. The point of Metamagic is specifically to break the rules of Spellcasting, now they're afraid to let you do that? It's baffling.
After seeing parts of the new PHB I have 0 confidence that DM's are going to get any assistance in the DMG because it is going to be similarly rushed out and people will still defend the multi-billion dollar company that can't do anything but rush out products in mtg and dnd anymore.
I think something that I’ve learned myself, is that pdf’s should always come out before print runs are done. And they should be used as a sort of beta to catch mistakes and problems for a few months before going to print. The issue just is that it can likely hurt sales as the excitement would die down.
this is a very good idea
Printing takes so much time and money, I don't see it being an easy decision.
If they already intended to give out early copies, then it should have only been pdf form, and then give an outlet for those early players to voice any errors they catch in their early read. They won't be allowed to talk about it online while the NDA is active (just like when they had the book itself), but they can at least give the comments to WotC directly. Just give the clarification that it's not a place to complain about design choices, just to point out actual errors / confusion that would need clarified in the official print. It works for multiple reasons:
1) They are still relatively on-track to meet their deadline because they have something to give the early access players, who will no doubt give them the corrections within a few days, to still give enough time to print the books.
2) They can be assured that the players will proof-read better than any employee, due to their love of the game.
3) The players feel like they have more say in the matter by correcting errors, even if they can't change "bad choices" that were made.
If this route was done, they'd probably give the pdfs out earlier to give ample time to print books, or they could promote this route of player correction as part of the UA process like before, and just say the finalized book will take a bit longer because of it. The players would probably be perfectly fine with that, since they trust the early access people to ensure the book is as error-free as possible.
@@UltimateMustacheX these are all great points!
@@20storiesunder Yeah, printing books of any reasonable quality at scale is going to take actual months. You can print faster with more money but then you either need to charge more or make less profit per book, and we all know what WotC's going to pick.
It's hilarious that they finally fixed Devil's Sight to work in dim light. But they didn't make that same change to True Sight.
I actually like it better the other way. It gave it a cool and creepy feel, that you could only get the benefit in complete lack of light.
A rules change with Temporary Hitpoints made it so that if a spell does not specify when the temp hitpoints end they last until long rest.
Polymorph gives temp hitpoints based on the polymorphed form. It does _not_ specify that these temp hitpoints go away if The spell ends, like dropping concentration
RaW: Polymorph is power word fortify 3 spell levels early
Going through this today... -They fixed the Grappler feat in D&D Beyond.
-Don't get me started on Two Weapon fighting. Everytime it was in the UA, I wrote that they needed to make it weapons in each hand to avoid that stupid shield and 2 weapons cheese.
-Dual Wielder and Light Weapon Property should not be working together to give Nick weapons 2 extra attacks for balance reasons. It makes Nick weapons better than other two weapon fighting options (and Archery) and the whole point of Nick is to allow casting/moving hunter's mark, using second wind/tactical mind, and bonus action smite spells.
I have a copy! The funniest change is that now the wish spell explicitly says you can't make a wish that would undo the multiverse, destroy the city of doors or affect the Lady of Pain. Which will confuse most players since she is such an obscure figure in the lore.
or tickle players curiosity!
Maybe that's them trying to make her a more prominent figure by mentioning the name in one of the games most iconic spells
I wouldn't exactly call her obscure given her role in Planescape (The game and the books, and Planescape just got a new release)
It does show they're, between the new books and this, leaning into making her and multiverse/planescape more prominent, though.
Confuse players of characters that can cast 9th level spells? I'd say very unlikely, esp. since you can take 2 seconds to Google Lady Of Pain D&D. Sadly, in 35 years of playing the game, I still haven't played a campaign with characters casting 9th level spells 😆
I think this wrong, you should can undo the multiverse casting Wish. I will houserule it in my campaign that you can destroy the multiverse with it
Someone on reddit mentioned that the description of somatic components no longer mentions needing a free hand, despite warcaster saying it lets you perform somatic components with both hands full.
I really think this is a lack of rigor on the developers' part. This is not a new ruleset. We all know the rules like the back of our hands. And yet things like this slip through. The wording on things changes in weird ways like opportunity attacks on allies. I *guarantee* you, the developers did not make that change intentionally. They have shown over and over that they do not interrogate their own rules with that kind of rigor.
They are not precise in their wording and the sloppiness turns into confusing or conflicting rules, like the goliath thing.
Yeah, I had seen that one come up too and changes like that are so confusing because it feels like they just forgot to go back and remove something they were testing.
Hard to know if it's intended or not. Warcaster mentions removing the restriction but maybe it was the feat that didnt get rewritten correctly
@@20storiesunderlikely the feat. It looks intentional that they removed requirements to have two hands. (My guess is to be inclusive for people missing a hand?) But it creates a lot of awkward parts of the game such as being able to hold a shield and fight with two weapons.
@@bradleyhurley6755 I hope that wasn't the justification, that's such insanely bad representation if so.
"Oh yeah there are no downsides" is the type of thing that would make me shudder, if someone was depicting my disability.
One change that feels unintended is in Abberant Sorcery. The Psionic Sorcery feature now cant work with spells that have a material gold price listed in the spell. Which.... means it only doesn't work on Summon Aberration.
Feels like a change that was put in place before they removed the ability to swap spells, because now its so oddly specific.
The reason why people rightfully say that there is no excuse for all these mistakes in the book, is because most of these could've been avoided easily with playtesting. Playtests for spells have been requested for a year and we got none. The community is very quick at spotting wording mistakes, and it would not have taken them much time or money with their existing systems to let us proofread it and make these small adjustments.
Also, yeah, a lot of these can be fixed at home with a "clearly they meant this instead", but the more of these patches the rules have the less confident the reader becomes in other rules meaning what they say. It becomes less clear what the designers were actually trying to do.
It doesn't matter. People were all over a lot of things during playtesting, namely the CME spell and the entirety of the ranger class's relation to Hunter's Mark... aaaaand they didn't do jack shit about it.
Just wanted to update, in the digital rules the Goliath did get patched. It's ability now says "You have Advantage on any ability check you make to end the Grappled condition. "
And the Grappler feat reads "Fast Wrestler. You don't have to spend extra movement to move a creature Grappled by you if the creature is your size or smaller."
I actually just noticed that myself too!
@@InsightCheck the Grappler feat is fixed too, I'm looking for more
The strange rewording of the stunned condition is something that in curious to see if it gets errata’d. It ALMOST seems intentional but then there’s just enough other mistakes already coming out that I feel it likely wasn’t intentional
I made a whole video about this lol
Yeah this is exactly how I feel about stunned lol
@@InsightCheckgreat video btw
Back in 2014, upon reading the phb for the first time, I identified the best Druid and barbarian subclasses and had never played the system before. Again here with minor elementals, I exclaimed out loud when I first saw the scaling. For these imbalances to not be outwardly obvious makes me question the design team’s competency. When you hear Crawford talk up the ranger and then you read it, it only confirms that the guy is a moron.
Yeah, his claims with the Ranger had me going ''Did we read the same book?!''
Conjure minor elemental is so funny to me because it's like if Hunter's Mark passively performed *better* Smites.
It's truly the ascension of two of the "martial spells" that gave people gripes
The new polymorph spell gives you temp hp equal to the creature you polymorph intos HP and according to the new temp hp rules they don't end when the spell ends
This is a two-part problem honestly- they removed the text "Unless a feature that grants you temporary hit points has a duration," from the Temporary hit points rule and they removed the text "When the spell ends, the target loses any remaining temporary hit points from this spell." from all spells that gave temp HP.
So... there's an argument to be made that this is intentional, otherwise, why would they go out of their way to remove these lines?
@@Finalplayer14 ya but casting polymorph and then dropping concentration for 157 temp hp at level 7 is busted
@@Multistrangedude1 I agree! It's absurd, so I'm inclined to believe its a bug not a feature.
That and getting the TempHP is not contingent on transforming in the first place. If you resist the spell and succeed, you get the Temp HP but don't transform.
@@Finalplayer14 sorry, I wasn't clear, I don't think it's necessarily a bug, but I do think it's an issue that will be resolved unless they forgot to put those lines of text in the rules or something lol
I'd be a bit more okay if this was True Polymorph something but regular polymorph should not make the party unkillable
It definitely needs an errata. Stunned, Conjure minor elementals, Polymorph, Light weapon property are all broken.
I would expect print mistakes in books for smaller developers. I'm not giving WotC the "can't afford proof readers" pass.
Completely right. They are worse than some smaller publishers.
Honestly even the most well written books likely have some sort of errata that could be fixed day 1. It's not that big of a claim. You could easily use the wrong word or have a typo or just explaination wise do something in a poor enough way that its better to clarify things. Errata becomes an issue when you have something like DnD and you have some major issues that clearly should of been fixed much earlier that in cases was even pointed out well ahead of time.
I hope they explain Dual Wielder better, because I don't understand it.
The other problem are problems that can be interpreted at the table. If someone tries to make two-weapon fighting with one hand by switching weapons, you as the DM just say "No, you can't do that"
Conjure Minor Elementals is only a problem in few very specific builds - I don't think it will be a problem in casual play. It still seems like a strange oversight because I'm sure they where told my multiple people in the feedback.
There are so many errors, and bad design choices, that it would be a damn good idea.
I feel like WotC had a unique and modern oportunity to avoid all of this that they did not take advantage of. They could have sent all the books out to the influencers and optomizers that they did, and then watch all the videos and posts that circulated. Using that info to fix the books and the content before it officially gets published. It would push the larger release date back, but at this point, it would be pushed back to holiday season, which is a great time to release a new product. And they would get free QC to check and catch all of these misses before it was ever released, and avoid the "Day 1 Patch" problem that video games deal with all the time.
It really seems like they just rushed it out without enough time to proofread the text. Not only did they not send it out to influencers, it feels like they didn't even re-read it themselves.
It takes a long time to print these massive tomes, and it costs a lot of money too. Just to print a few thousand for "testing purposes" is just too much of an expense when they could simply sent them PDFs instead.
or they could've just used the playtesting system they already have
It‘s so funny to me that they desperately want to copy the video game industry production and monetisation (which is incredibly inappropriate) and now they are realising video game companies manage to do this because they can patch. To think that the writing was done while everything was still secret to the public.
The two-weapon fighting is especially confusing because they fixed it on one UA, and then went back on the following one
There is 0 chance the oppotunity attack change was intended. It makes no sense creatures have to leave to get healing touch from a warcaster.
When Colby and Chris make a build around the printed version of CME and both swear off using it again... that's a broken spell. I hate that term in these conversations but it's accurate here.
Just remember that they are optimizers, most people playing D&D play in casual games. You can use Conjure Minor Elementals to break the game, but doesn't mean you have to. If you break the game, you will ruin your campaign and what's the fun in that.
@sortehuse so I see your point and I hear you but I think it’s important to mention that even casual players can notice the incredible potency of a spell like CME once they’ve chosen it. Even if they took it by accident without realizing how “good” it is. Neither me or anyone at my table is an “optimizer” by any stretch but it was very clear to all of us just how good this is. And yeah, we are still definitely more than “casuals” but I think, once taken, it should be immediately obvious to anyone how good it is.
@@sortehuse People can nerf themselfs to make game more fun - but it doesn't mean that we should ignore problems and not blame gamedesigners for gamedesign problems.
@@InsightCheck ... but you really have to make an advanced gish build to really abuse it. Most casual players just make an Eldritch Knight if they want to play a gish.
I do think CME is a problem, but there is no need to exaggerate how big the problem is, understanding the Dual Wielder Feat will be a problem in more groups.
@@notsochosenone5669 I not saying that there isn't a problem - I just think it's a minor problem. People that play at optimizer groups including their DM know about the problem with CME and people that play in casual groups need not to worry.
I still hope they fix it.
There's definitely a bunch of things that should be clarified. apart from things already mentioned in the video like CME, CWB, and Powerful Build, Light property and Dual Wielder should specify "when wielding 2 weapons at once" to prevent juggling with a shield in the other hand, Giant Insect should also more than likely be corrected (HP 30 + 10 per spell level ABOVE 4TH), and Incapacitated condition should reduce movement to 0.
I promise you, the opportunity attack thing is not on purpose.
They specifically changed the text of champions remarkable athlete because 'clever players realized it applied to initiative' and 'you shouldn't need to use careful reading of the rules to get such benefits'. I am paraphrasing here, but the point is, if they did it intentionally, they would have spelled it out more clearly, and probably mentioned it in a video as well.
I do kinda like it though. Seems neat, though the warcaster interaction might get a little out of hand.
An oddity since Tasha's (well, technically since one of the Psionics UAs that introduced a version of the Feat, and was definitely pointed out at the time), at least in the 5e version the Mage Hand range increase in the Telekinetic Feat RAW does nothing. It ups the range to 60 feet, the spell says the hand appears within range (tied to the range attribute), but disappears if it's ever more than 30 feet away (hard coded number not tied to the range attribute even if they're the same number at base). So 5e RAW you can *cast* it to 31+ feet, but then it'll instantly pop before you can do anything for being more than 30 feet away. Obviously not RAI, and no sane DM would run it that way, but that's what the rules that are written said. 5.5 version of the Feat is basically the same (bit about willingly failing the save for the shove is removed, but added to the general rules for saves. Range increase for Mage Hand is always a thing rather than being a bonus for already knowing the spell, but still a range increase). I haven't seen the 5.5 version of Mage Hand to see if they fixed it in the spell, but if not that problem is still there.
It's still that way. 🤦♀️
@@GirlPhoenix85 Apparently they've now updated the text of 5.5 Telekinetic to "its range and the distance it can be away from you" on DnDBeyond for people with the early access there, so while the first round print books won't say the fix it'll likely be in whatever the first errata document and second printings whenever those happen.
I love that they repeated the same type of mistake on the same feat, that they did in 2014.
I find OneD&D less appealing the more I hear about it.
Rangers should get a fix to Hunter's Mark by level 3 to work with and not disrupt subclass features. I got a house rule I'm ready to apply to in DNDBeyond once I get 2024 PHB access
What’s the fix?
@SirEliteGrunt minus concentration or minus bonus action is my guess. Unless they're talking about removing the triggering condition of certain abilities being the target of your hunter's mark.... or when you use hunter's mark....
My fix has always been a 6th level feature to allow you to apply hunters mark without a bonus action (whether as part of the attack action or at the start of your turn), and then a 10th level feature to remove concentration
@@pederw4900 I would probably go the other way around. First remove concentration, then remove bonus action usage. Maybe at level 7 and then lvl 11.
@@benry007 I think the reason they didn’t just outright remove concentration from hunter’s mark is to prevent multiclass dipping for it, which is my rationale for removing concentration at a higher level, but I could agree. I also put the features at 6 and 10 because 7 and 11 are both subclass feature levels for the ranger iirc
Someone just mentioned that the Warlock's pact of the blade says that you can only conjure a melee weapon, but you can bond with *any* magical weapon, which includes ranged weapons.
"you can conjure a pact weapon in your hand - a Simple or Martial melee weapon of your choice with which you bond - or create a bond with a magic weapon you touch"
So... you can use a longbow as your pact weapon but only if it's magical? I'm sure that's not intended. They probably meant to restrict the whole thing to melee weapons, but alas.....
[Edit] - reviewing the 2014 version of the feature, it looks like that was also the case in 2014. Sigh.
And since bonding a magic weapon is just a Bonus Action in the 5.5 version rather than an hour long ritual like in the 5e version you can relatively quickly swap between melee and ranged if you have a magic ranged weapon, just need to burn a Bonus Action to touch+bond the ranged weapon or create+bond a melee weapon (or touch+bond that too if you happen to have both a magic ranged and a magic melee)
When it comes to see invisibility the thing that is missed is that it doesn't let you "see invisible" creatures. It does allow you to ignore the invisible condition. The important thing here is that if you are behind total cover someone cannot see you. See invisible doesn't allow you to see a creature behind total cover.
The confusion is because of the numerous ways the hide action itself has been interpreted along with the invisible condition. For example the invisible condition doesn't really make you unseen.
I always kind of assumed See Invisibility gave you infrared/thermal vision.
This new version of the rules makes this headcanon... canon.
@@almisami it does not. It only allows you to basically ignore the invisible condition. Creatures behind cover and who are heavily obscureded do not use the invisible condition and therefore are not detected.
Ngl, I'm laughing my ass off at the notion of "early fixes". ONE D&D isn't a new edition. It is suppose to be a sort of one large fix package. And that package of fix already needs fixes😂😂😂
seems pretty ordinary that there'd be errata soon after. playtesting and player/dm feedback are ongoing while they've had the core books locked some months. for a game launch that doesn't require programming you wanna react pretty soon.
Single target buff spells are some of the worst in the game. Haste is the example given for the War Caster opportunity buff, but Haste is already an insanely overrated spell. Do people who cast Haste use anything else? Because if they did, they'd quickly realise that dropping down a Hypnotic Pattern and disabling half the encounter would help the party far more than buffing one single person. What other spells are there for this? Magic Weapon??? Keep in mind the spell HAS to be single target. You can't cast Bless as a Reaction as a Cleric. Healing spells are still inefficient to cast mid-combat, so if a Cleric or Druid has Warcaster then it finally makes healing mid-combat useful.
Haste in it's current state 100% should be mass buff at very least. 3 targets + 1 on upcast (like bless).
Depends. I have a Bladesinger/Sorcerer/Monk gish that is specifically designed to be a tanky melee build so telling her to cast Hynotic Pattern would be a waste of time and you are killing her build.
Having a 33 AC is useful and means I get to dive right into combat and tie up a bunch of enemies while the blasters get to do their thing.
I wouldnt recommend every caster take haste. But if you are a Gish melee build with unbeatable Con saves, do it.
Haste is basically Shield of Faith + Enhanced Ability Dexterity (adv on dex saving throws) + an extra Action.
@@007ohboy haste with the new light weapon thing makes dual wield really good with haste.
We USED to have it as a twinspell option, but whoops, can't let the Sorcerer have fun...
@@JacksonJinn Have fun (basically double concentrating on spells). Sorry - old twin spell was fucking broken. Single target polymorph is already stupid strong - and doubling it is fucking bonkers. Haste being bad and twin spell being broken isn't mutually exclusive things.
Also - new twin spell is also strong and super cheap, lol. New sorcerer in general is contender on being strongest class in the game - stop downplaying it.
11:26 not so much eldritch knight since you get it at level 17th/18th? Bladesinger gets it a 7th. A dual wielding level 7 bladesinger is 100% cracked. 4 attacks (replace 1 with cantrip) and all of them get 2d8+ damage. Thats like spamming smites on every attack with 1st level spell slots without consuming the spell slot. FOR 10 MINUTES LOL!!
Is bladesinger one of the new subclasses?
@@almisami no
I think D&D 5.24 was a rushed job to finish by the 50th anniversary of the game, and we are seeing this in the final product.
True, but think about it for one second.
Would you rather wait for a finished product 🥱
or get the exact same product right now 🤩
(it is half baked and not the exact same… in fact it is very different from what it would have been if we waited longer) GET IT NOW look big round number 50 wow😍.
But seriously imagine if for the 50th anniversary they released a playtest version.
Maybe even a small adventure with rules Classes and Spells but no finished book and used the feedback to improve the books. I‘d pay 20 bucks for that.
They could have people playing 5.24 for a whole year and release on the 51st. I imagine it would have still worked marketing-wise. It certainly would have won me over and the ‚FOMO-preorder-everything-from-my-favorite-company croud‘ would buy it anyway.
Yes it does need a patch. Honestly a yearly/once every 2 years patch would be great for DnD in general.
And they sooort of have been doing that with Xanathar's and Tasha's but those were more like 3 years apart.
@@InsightCheckshould not have to purchase the erratas tho. Just update the pdf we already payed $30 for. Once a year would be just fine. If they had done that since the start they basically would have had the 2024 PHB already done 😂
@@InsightCheck Yea kinda. However, I'd like to see language fixes to core rules (stealth, two weapon fighting, etc). Those can't be added as a new feature.
Do not forget that polymorph hp does not go away if concentration is broken, polymorph self into giant ape with 117 hp, drop it, and cast armor of agathys while choosing to keep the 117 hp. not only does the spellcaster become stupidly tanky, melee fighters will always take guaranteed damage from hitting you.
It looks like the polymorph spell has a separate paragraph saying you gain temp hp that is not part of the saving throw.
So you might get the temp hp even if you make your saving throw to not transform
The hiding and see invisibility combination feels to me like people needing to use a little more common sense. See Invisibility doesn't mean you can see an invisible creature if there's something in the way. Likewise, if you hide behind a box and then walk out in full view of a creature, that creature can now see you. The invisible condition even specifies it doesn't work if the creature can somehow see you, the invisibility spell just changes the conditions in which that occurs.
This shouldn’t be acceptable you’ve had years of playtest. If they are going to errata things immediately they should have to refund or replace all books sold
Current WotC is only the market leader by nepobaby inheritance
Based on my interepretation, if you use Shillelagh and then cast True Strike you get to do 1d8 + spellcasting modifier Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage at levels 1-4, 1d10 + 1d6 + spellcasting modifier Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage at levels 5-10, 1d12 + 2d6 + spellcasting modifier Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage at levels 11-16, and 5d6 + spellcasting modifier Bludgeoning, Force or Radiant damage at levels 17-20.
Yup, definitely. Considering the number of creators that had access to the book with ample advance, this feels like another round of playtest.
I hate the fact that d&d beyond automatically applies errata. I bought a product, wizards of the coast should not be able to make changes to the product that I bought without my permission. Curse of strahd was the first time I noticed and the first time it really pissed me off.
How original, the multi billionaire company rushing an important product release
Conjure Minor Elementals making it to print is gross incompetence.
It's normal incompetence, no need to colour it.
@@20storiesunderI mean when you have a playtest that points out the problem and you talk all the time about how you read every comment, but someone ignore every comment that point out how broken something is. It's definitely gross incompetence because you actively ignored the feedback telling you it was a problem after talking about how you read everything.
no wonder to me, when in playtest 99% where complaining about it
and also 95-99% did complain about the bonus action to use a smite ....
and both made it into the phb w/o changes and completly ignoring the complains
a fix of +1d8 / lvl for cme won't be enough even .... to have this spell even "useable" in game it needs to be +1d8 / 2 spell lvls so it gets down to the same as spirit shroud does
But there's other spell changes that make no sense ...
+ spiritual hammer needing conc now, is a certain way to say we don't want any clr to use that spell anymore after they reach 5th lvl
+ Hunter's mark only applying its damage once / round .... why use that spell at all now ?
+ Hex only apply once a turn either ( at least that is compensated a bit by the auto upscaling of warlocks )
and i could go on and on and on
to me it looks like they listed to the major yt ones and ignored the feedback of the players completly
@@shoganmajere7913 Don't confuse mistakes with intentional design, sites being a bonus action isn't a mistake no matter how much folks in reddit don't like it.
Same with spiritual weapon, design decisions aren't mistakes.
@@20storiesunder normal incompetence is typos, putting the wrong level on an ability etc. Putting a spell into your game after having a UA and wall to wall feedback that its overpowered from literally hundreds of online pundits qualifies for the word "gross". If this doesn't I can't think of a situation that would except maybe having a naked picture of your mom show up in the glossary of the PHB.
If ‘see invisibility’ is basically thermal vision then it would explain why it sees hidden/invisible creatures.
It's a minor thing, but something I noticed (assuming I'm understanding new rules correctly):
1) Hold a spell to cast as a reaction - Expends spellslot (I think, admittedly this is the only part I'm unsure of with new rules)
2) When casting with reaction you get counterspelled - The spellslot is then restored
3) This is contrary to if you were to just ignore the reaction trigger, your spellslot would be gone
It's not necessarily inconsistent, but feels very weird.
Hold 9th level spell... Have other party member cast counterspell on you so you keep the spell rather than it expiring.
When it is counter spel it says the slot is not expended , not neccasrily restored however same end results I suppouse.
It won't be immediate but there are some explicit errors like the ones you mentioned here, that will eventually get erratas. However, what I'm more curious about is the clarification of intentions with certain rules and interactions. Things like:
The Nick Mastery is usable without wielding or using the Nick Weapon itself, making it so you can trigger the Nick Mastery when you're dual wielding Shortswords or Handcrossbows.
How the Temporary Hit Points from Concentration spells like Polymorph or Heroism or Shapechange and Non-Concentration spells like Armor of Agathys last until you lose them or take a long rest- not when the spell ends.
If the Blinded Condition is intended to still give you disadvantage on attacks and foes advantage on attacks against you when you can still see them via Blindsight.
These could be errors or they could be intended, we won't know until we ask.
The added problem is that historically they have not been very forthcoming about "intention". They called a lot of things that were obviously oversights in 2014 "intentional". I presume this is either WotC/Hasbro trying to "save face" by not admitting mistakes, or someone high up in the game design organization (like Jeremy Crawford) being unable to admit to mistakes. Either way, it really hurts their credibility.
They could have easily errataed a million things in 2014, like bard's jack of all trades applying to initiative... but instead of doing that, they just said "oh yeah, that was on purpose", despite it being extremely inobvious and almost certainly a design mistake.
The idea that you can use Nick without a Nick weapon is HUGE reach. It's implicit in the game rules that you can only use the properties of an item when you take an action with that item. Gtfo.
@@apjapki lol I missed that he said that. Yeah, good luck finding a DM that lets you use the Nick property of a weapon ... without using that weapon.
I *do* wish they had clarified whether Nick is supposed to be on the main hand weapon or the off hand weapon.
Also for some reason they removed the "other hand" qualification for two weapon fighting. Now it just says you make another attack with a different weapon. Given the draw/stow rules in 5.5, a lot of people are saying you can use two weapon fighting in a single hand. Attack with scimitar, stow it, draw a dagger, attack with that one. You're "attacking with a different light weapon".
WotC desperately needs a rules lawyer as an editor and to give them enough time to actually review the rules. I'm guessing all these errors are due to the product being rushed out the door.
@@NateFinch I think either weapon can be the nick weapon. I think it doesn't say because there is no restriction.
2024 Grasping Vine imposes grappled, but also has an escape DC like all other grapples.
things i think need day 1 errata: 1)summon elemental needs to be once per turn. 2) remove concentration from hunters mark. 3) allow quicken spell to take advantage of new spell slot per turn rule and move exemption to aberrant sorcerer's Psionic sorcery feature (i don't think any other character option has access to that many spells that don't require slots as many times a day.)
Should have done more play tests also they said there would be play tests for the other books but that was a lie.
Do you think that they could publish the books with added errata pages in 1-2 years? I just wish that the paper books would have versions (that incorporated the errata changes).
Subscribified!! GREAT video length, proper content. And honestly just please keep your tone and your warmth in both your message and your content. There’s plenty of hyper critical takes. Yours isn’t a hot take, it’s a warm bake. Like a muffin that’s fresh but has had time to cool off. And that’s a delicious take. Roll on!
lol this was the best comment hahaha
In all seriousness though, I’m glad you felt that. I always try to have reasoned and measured takes. If something is egregious, sure, I’ll call it out, but generally I like to not get too spicy :)
Yes - I’ve been calling it day 1 DLC, but I think we’re in the same page
it's frustrating when I spent hours playtesting and giving feedback to the UA, just to see mistakes or inconsistencies show up that I submitted feedback on. What was the point?
I do know that when they were talking about the two weapon fighting they did mention specifically using two weapons in one hand. It definitely looks like it's missing the mark on a cursory glance, but it allows martial characters to have significantly more mechanical versatility when combined with weapon mastery.
It's just ridiculous to imagine. It's kind of a joke that combat needs a swiss army knife approach.
SAC stated you need a weapon in each hand when you make your first attack.
@@quillogist2875 SAC is not relevant to PHB 2024 - unless they recently released a new one that specifically says it is.
In case it has not been mentioned, they have already updated the digital copy to address conjure insects, the goliath isues, the grappler feat, and made donning and doffing a shield require an interact action.
The argument about a day 1 patch affecting sales is something I don't really agree with. Mostly because, for the people who have already preordered, the Wizards/Hasbro already has their money. And for the people who are waiting to see, they are going to see the rampant discourse about errors and questionable content and the like and they'll be inclined to not buy anyway.
And the people who did preorder, if they see this same discourse and regret their decision, especially if they are unable to secure some sort of refund or cancellation, they will almost certainly be supremely peeved at the lack of quality control and may genuinely be turned off from D&D as it is entirely. Wizards/Hasbro was already riding a fine line in terms of community sentiment, with many already swearing off of it and now plenty of TTRPG alternatives hitting the market or on the horizon. If anything, *not* putting out patch early would just worsen the situation for no actual sales gain - a lot of people may decide to just pick and choose content they want, homebrew the rest, and drop D&D products or D&D entirely if any sort of update/rules clarification isn't expected in 6 months to a year after. Especially with this being a big push for the VTT: you kinda need players in the long term for that not to be a money sink disaster, and you don't retain without good community sentiment.
5:06 You neglected to mention that there are significantly FEWER humans working on this content since the time it began, since that billion-dollar corporation decided, in its infinite wisdom, to lay off a lot of the writing staff partway through development. The problem here isn't that the individuals working on the books missed some things here and there; the issue is that the corporation doesn't care about delivering a quality product, so they didn't put the necessary resources into this product.
Hiding definitely needs errata, because it's not at all clear how it's supposed to work. If you move behind a pillar, hide, then walk out and sit in the middle of the room (taking no actions, thus not triggering any of the explicit end conditions), when, if ever, does your invisibility end?
Invisibility could also use errata, because the invisible condition no longer specifies that you can't be seen, it just gives bonuses if you can't be seen (and thus arguably doesn't do anything, since nothing is preventing you from being seen), but that's far less likely to be a good faith misunderstanding.
The invisibility ends when a creature can see you. It says that in the end conditions. The DM determines when that is. It's not unclear just DM dependent.
You missed the health on giant insect, which is almost certainly a mistake. Spell is already broken with a normal amount of health, so that’s getting patched day 1 at my table
It is possible that Powerful Build interacts correctly with Monster 'grab' abilities, but it's still an oversight to not have it interact with grappling.
Strange that there is talk of an errata before the book has been released for sale.
I think stunned is intended to allow movement.
While overpowered, conjure minor elements is clear how it works so I don’t think that will get a change. It will be left up to DMs to house rule it as they see fit.
The Goliath powerful build and Grappler feat, feel like they do need errata.
Dual Wielding and two weapon fighting could probably be sorted with an FAQ.
A hidden character is invisible to the one looking for them so it makes sense to me that they have the invisible condition to that creature but here again another FAQ would suffice. I like that see invisibility gets a boost with this.
As for other weird interactions, give me a chance to get my hands on the book so I can at least read it!
I knew it was smart to wait to buy my copy😂
Digital will get any update for free
Hahaha
Conspiracy theory: they know about all the issues and will errata at some point but will use this to push players onto digital, which is their agenda.
@@PsyrenXY I like physical. They can't rob me
Regardless of what THEY do, there are at least a couple things I will be house ruling day one.
Oh for sure, I'm sure many will have their own house rules ready to come in hot lol
I cant help but think that some of these one or two word issues are simply because they needed to fit things on a page. They mentioned that multiple times in their hype videos. Which in my eyes, is no valid excuse for these sloppy misses. Saving a page or so lost them SO much money by creating this confusion.
Yes! So much of this could have been fixed with examples.
I think it’s baffling how the biggest problems with balance come with combining more attacks with more damage attack. What’s what happened with GWM & PAM, SS & XBE, and now Conjure Minor Elementals and stuff like Scorching Ray. They’ve made steps in the right direction by redesigning SS and making Lifedrinker a “once per turn” option, but it’s just not enough.
For opportunity attacks, I feel like this was done to prevent issues where someone tries to take an opportunity attack and there being questions about if that creature is still hostile towards you bc they’re running away. Using your reaction to give someone an extra 5ft of movement is honestly a fair tradeoff. I doubt they’ll change that back
Same with See Invisibility. I’ve personally been in the situation as a new player where I cast See Invisible and my DM said “nothing happens” bc the creatures were technically hidden, but I wouldn’t know that. Part of the problem here is the DM, but the game shouldn’t be designed for those “gotcha” moments.
You do have a really good point about errata affecting book sales. They’ll probably wait a while bc they know for a fact that as soon as they release Errata, there’ll be headlines like “WotC releases errata before the official release of the book” because admitting to mistakes is bad for some reason.
Edit: I really like your open minded approach to this topic too. I’ve heard a lot of other people use phrases like “absolutely busted” or “straight up bad”, but they’re forgetting that there are humans behind the scenes working on our game
We may be surprised, but that's not as bad as it used to be. We'll just go later in the round. (Surprise gives your opponent disadvantage on initiative now and does not give you an extra round like in 2014)
Yeah, I'm already errataing/home-brewing fixes. My players are pretty good, but I want to squash any min-maxer cheese before it comes up.
According to a tweet by Jeremy Crawford
Concentration: "You make a separate saving throw for each source of damage" (PH, 203). Roll for each missile.
This hasn't been further supported in any Errata Or Sage Advice I know about and Concentration and Magic Missile has gone unchanged in 2024.
And if each Missile is its own source source of damage does that mean each dart also gets the Conjure Minor Elemental buff? Something is wrong here.
I've always assumed that since the Magic Missile spell says all darts hit simultaneously that seems intentional its one save no matter how many darts, so this tweet has me puzzled years later.
Well i think CME only applies to 'attacks' which require an attack roll and Magic Missle dont require an attack roll, therefore are not an 'attack'
@@tylerdrake370 Thats an interesting point. Even though its dealing damage, Magic Missile doesn't seem to be a "Spell Attack" since the 2024 PHB defines spell attack as "An attack ROLL as part of a spell"..... oh boy.
That's all? Seems like very few mistakes in such a big book imo
I don't think there's been a D&D edition that didn't need errata from day 1. For systems of this size it's impossible to avoid imo. I'm a game dev who works on massive codebases and it feels very similar. Billions don't help as much as you'd think
Oh I fully believe it
@@InsightCheck So when the next thing I'm working on comes out and there's bugs now there's an explanation for it xD
Oh. So this comment was just for you to CYA... gotcha.
I sure hope. Even ignoring balance, there are just some things that straight up don't work (e.g., Goliath Powerful Build is functionally useless). It seems clear to me that this book needed a bit more time in the oven.
I wouldve much prefered if they deleted the conjure spells than overwrite their effects to be either moonbeam 2 or aura of shank better.
I argue they shouldve let people min max and playtest this content for far longer befoee even considering publishing them. They couldve dodges the need for major erratas.
I get the deadline was tight and its a small group and mistakes are made. But this is not the original phb. This book itself is one big errata with 10 years of feedback. I really like the new book but i am dissapointed at the amount of erratas needed. They needed a few more playtest of other things besides class/subclasses (except the ranger, that needed one more go). Spells and feats needed at least one more go also. To many general feats feel like they should have been origin feats. And some spells are just straight broken (giant insect and minor elementals). But overall the book is better than the 2014pbh.
"The deadline was tight."
10 years
@@apjapki right!!
I’ve honestly been trying to take this release with a grain of salt. I shouldn’t find myself invested enough to care either way; some out there think it’s words brought from on high, others think it’s a pile of hot mess.
For myself, I’m disappointed in the lack of iterative evolution for a release that took two years.
I dislike the flavor that was removed so there was space left to inform the player just how much flavor was added.
Some spells were balanced, some were made more convoluted and open to abuse; while others somehow skipped by under the radar. No spell designed should result in a creature being outright removed from combat with no reasonable answer in sight. Either a continual save, or in the case of objects made of force; they should’ve all received an AC and hit point threshold. Neither side of the table enjoys a creature(s) being removed so easily and forced to watch the action from the outside.
And backgrounds shouldn’t be tied to any particular feat IF they took so much effort to say that no species is monolithic. If a member of a species can be unique, then a background should explain why; not be monolithic in its own right.
That said, again, if you think it’s great; then good on ya!
But response to confusion should not fall on those interpreting the written word. This whole books reason for existing is to codify the rules of play; how they work, and how they interact with each other.
After two years and 395 pages later you still have text heavily open to interpretation; than that is a failure on those writing the rules! They could have made some art smaller or added another 5 pages to include a more robust explanation. Yes, we all get caught up in our head cannon; so reading something where in your mind you completely understand how it works.. sure it sounds appropriate. But if you never handed the book to someone who doesn’t know how to play or isn’t apart of the new revisions design to proof read it for clarity… that’s a failure on their team.
And to just say “meh, we’ll errata it later” is a shitty response to those who bought physical copies. It just shows bad business practices. If I were responsible for writing a technical book for your new vehicle, would you be happy to look through it only to find “TBD, probably go check the internet” under the topic you’re searching for? I bet not. Worse still if I left instructions that were open to interpretation and now you’re pouring antifreeze in your windshield wiper fluid reservoir.
I too thought that--since this is merely an update to the rules--addressing things like this would be a much more refined and simple process. Sure, there's new stuff here, but it isn't a whole new edition. I've come to realize that their priority was on 'moving the needle' on things their data says people like or don't like. That and handling potential sensitivity issues. Nothing wrong with that, but it feels like the lion's share of the effort went into these issues.
That is why they did little (imho) to address things like the prevalence of issues that stem from so called 'dipping,' where many issues arise from. Their data says people play usually up to around 10th level and people like to multi-class, so....there you go. In 5.14 they washed their hands of things like this by making mutli-classing optional. Now, they it seems they just shrug their shoulders and say, oh well.
Also, since 4e (where balance errata seemed to be an almost weekly process), WOTC has been vary leery about putting out non-typo errata to fix balance more than once every blue moon.
They could have solved intentionality ambiguity with ANY examples given especially for feats.
Thanks for making the video. The rushed, unfinished nature needs to be talked about.
As for Conjure Elementals, this could be 2d8 for each spell slot level 8 and above, so it's not broken, but why does it proc on attacks in the first place?
The ability to listen and change is a sign of a healthy game and community. The reason we have new additions is to adapt and reflect. WOTC are the best stewards but they are far from the worst
Great vid, IC!
At least most of these are fairly easy to house rule at the moment... To bad you need to, anyways
My biggest wish is just make Hunters Mark less bonus action dependent, makes Beastmaster rough to play
I'm paying an 8th level beast master, and for me so far it has not been a problem. I am playing a dual weapon fighter with two llight weapons, one of which has the Nick property. So we get four attacks a round between me and my beast. I can see why it could be a problem if you are not dual wielding.
I think there will be a day 1 errata for conjure minor elementals that will add a "once per turn" to the damage.
That's what I've done at my table.
Two points.
Am I the only one that realizes that they didn’t update the Aasimar with the new design. The Scurge still has friendly fire (I thought that was errata before but I may have misremembered ) and the Fallen still has the fear effect based on Charisma (the previous+2 for the species). And Lightbringer (worthless as it is ) also is attached to Charisma. All simple easy fixes. [Still not a fan of the damage and nova of the class but what ever ]
There will be an errata when they do a second printing. That has been the pattern so far and they seem not likely to change that.
Do monsters use the same Grapple rules as players? If their stat blocks have different grapple escape mechanics (requiring a save), I could see that as the potential reason behind Goliath’s Powerful Build wording.
Lots of comments, so maybe mentioned - while homebrew fixes are great, that still leaves a mess for AL DMs to deal with...like CME.
Also stunned condition not reducing speed
Make the Rangers Patch actually worth something
Give me a reason to use Smite as a Paladin. Right now, there isn't one
Why is Spiritual Weapon Concentration
None of the conjure changes make sense
Why can I still not FIND TRAPS
No amount of time and money will ever equate to the level of QA releasing to the public will.
The 2024 wording seems to imply that artificers aren't a class anymore, so I look forward to their errata correcting this error.
It's OK, I homebrewed and patched myself out of DND.
Waiting on PF2E to be delivered, along with Into the Wyrd and Wild.
I don't think the drawing / stowing weapons works like that. At least how I read it, it's only once an action, not an attack. Even dropping an item now counts as "stowing" it too so you can't juggle weapons like that either. Also y'all would have loved 4E when we got day 1 errata and clarification on every release and would get a book about every other month.
No. The rules glossary specifically says you can do it for each attack, not each attack action. It makes this distinction too when it talks about moving between attacks so it is pretty clear.
@@apjapki yeah you get to draw or stow once an attack. In order to switch weapons you need to both stow one and draw another
@@Neverfate Yep once per attack not once per attack action as you originally said.
Here's how it works:
Attack (then stow)
Free item interaction to draw
Bonus attack
When you have the Dual Wielder feat or multiple attacks you can draw and stow several times per turn (For example two attack fighter can attack with greataxe, stow as part of attack, free item interaction draw scimitar, second attack draw short sword, bonus scimitar attack).
The juggling in this edition is going to be rampant.
I agree with some of the things you call out as mistakes, but I think there is... a perspective difference perhaps.
You covered let's say 4 to 6 actual errors. And you said that you can see an argument go be made ghat WotC has so much money, so many resources, that these sort of errors should be lessened. You acknowledged the other side as well, but I want to focus on that argument for a moment because.... does it?
How many errors and mistakes make it through in Tv and movies, which throw WotC's entire yearly budget at a single project multiple times a year?
How many car recalls happen? Mistakes that could kill people. Same with food recalls.
I'm not trying to say "and therefore every mistake is fine" but there seems to be an idea amongst certain sections of thr community that mistakes are somehow unique, or a sign that WotC couldn't be bothered to put forth their best effort. Meanwhile, Boeing is losing doors off planes.
Many of these mistakes are easy to see the origin of. Grappling used to half speed and be a save to end, so those mistakes, while unfortunate make sense how they happened. And pointing out "this seems to be a mistakev and should be fixed" I'm all behind. But when I see people going towards "this is a mistake, and shows WotC for the talentless money-grubbing hacks I've always known they are"... then I think we've gone too far.
I'm kind of angry with both the obvious errors (Hallow, Minor Elementals, Opportunity Attacks) and ambiguities (True Sight, Weapon and Shield Juggling, Polymorph, Repulsing Booming Blade, Mobile/Speedy). This does not feel like a product that was several years in development. It feels like rushed untested changes were made in the last 6 months and DMs have to pick up the pieces. My games will have Day 1 fixes.
The conjure minor elementals spell being considered overpowered bc of the ability to apply it to every attack is fairly confusing to me.
The only way to do that is to multiclass enough levels in two classes where you have extra attacks (i.e. wizard + fighter) which takes a fairly high number of levels to where the bonus from extra attacks actually sounds that meaningful Or you mentioned Eldritch Knight.. which would only be able to finally access that spell at around lvl 19 at its earliest and if someone really stuck to that class long enough to do that many extra attacks and be able to cast conjure minor elementals? Dang, congrats I think they've earned that extra damage.
Otherwise there's Bladesinging Wizard as mentioned... which can get one extra attack at most in all its leveling. And at that point if they're getting it two times at most (reactions not included) it's hard for me to read it as *that* strong personally.
Like wording wise, it *sounds* strong. But effectively, if you actually dig down into things it really just doesn't sound that powerful to me? Maybe if you multiclassed a wizard up to level 7 so they could access the spell and then went monk just so they could apply it to every single one of their attacks? But that's a long road to go for just one spell and even then, it doesn't read that strongly to me.
It’s a bit odd to suggest that because something is only problematic to a few classes that it isn’t an issue. A problem is a problem whether it’s accessible to 1 or all classes. Also, Valor Bards can also access it through Magical Secrets. And yeah, any multiclass with enough levels.
The reality is that the spell can so disproportionately outperform any spell at its level, and even many higher level spells, that it simply doesn’t make sense. And even if it was class exclusive, that might even be worse because it could incentivize disproportionate use of one class because of it.
If you’re curious how it all plays out, Colby from D4 D&D Deep Dive made a build using it this week and it’s not even close how powerful it was. I think he said this build had more sustained DPR on every round than any nova build could output using all of their resources and only works on one turn. And you could argue that “only an optimizer would do that” and that might be true, but the fact that there is one spell that massively overperforms its level is problematic from a design perspective.
YES. IT NEEDS SEVERAL DAYS FOR IT
the probklem is WOTC operates as a small company OWNEd by a much larger company. we get the small company mistakes woitha big time corporat elawyers jumping in and ru9ining all good will while the poeple at wOTC do their bes tot play damage contorl.
So true
Invisible condition doesnt Now mean you Are translucent. Ať least Someone mentioned it, I dont have the book
Short answer is no, long answer is "it would be nice"
I mean, yeah, the Metamagic nerfs need to be fully reverted. The buffed ones can stay, and should, but the ones they killed are DEAD, and they shouldn't be. The point of Metamagic is specifically to break the rules of Spellcasting, now they're afraid to let you do that? It's baffling.
Answer: Yes.
Patch Name?
*_DC 20_*
After seeing parts of the new PHB I have 0 confidence that DM's are going to get any assistance in the DMG because it is going to be similarly rushed out and people will still defend the multi-billion dollar company that can't do anything but rush out products in mtg and dnd anymore.