Found an error earlier today
spell list page 209 paladin lvl 5 destructive smite
spell descriptions no such spell exists but there IS a destructive wave at the right level that does not show up in other spell lists so I THINK it got renamed in one place but not the other
FYI I have let Mike Mearls know and asked about it.
wizards spell list level 8 Trap the Soul
spell seems to be missing from spells section
Walock class entry refers to Thunderwave but its not on his spell list
Oh boy, this is starting well.
I am guessing they did not have anyone as anal retentive as us players combing the book lol
I suspect the same that happened on first print of players book 4th edition. the spells got finalized after the lists were done and the lists were not re updated.
It's a good thing they staggered the release of the books so things like this wouldn't happen.
Anyone that expected an error free book were setting themselves up for disapointment to begin with. There are way too many moving parts to allow for that possibility in any sense.
I agree with you, CelticPaladin.
I do have to find some irony, though, in the fact that early this week I was involved in a discussion about how 4E's release problems were because of the errata that was caused by the combined release date.
It's not so much the release date as how many eyes and how much care is given to proofreading between the time of final copy and print.
yup I expected some glitches like this I just figured best to collect them quickly and help get an official errata sheet out quick
ShadeRaven wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Yes, there would inevitably be minor errors in a newly released book like the 5th Edition Player Handbook. The developers would probably release online Errata documents to go along with the other 5th Edition books as well as with the PHB. I have heard that they did something of the sort with the previous edition books as well.
Errors
- The destructive smite. (presumably renamed destructive wave).
Things that could be cleared up.
- The technicly-correct-but-misleading warlock example.
- The less-then-clear rules on stealth.
- The not-intended-but-still-ok-with-thrown-weapons archery style.
- The not-intended-and-somewhat-overpowered durable feat.
- The potent cantrip psudo-useless issue.
- The overchannel on-a-cantrip-is-psudo-overpowered issue.'
Anything else?
This might be a nitpick? but on pg. 161 shouldn't the music sheet page say "III" instead of "IIV" ?
Tharkun001 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This is disappointing but not unexpected. Looks like I'll be buying another copy of the PHB when they release an errata'd second printing (so long as it's not a more expensive faux leather-bound "deluxe" edition).
If they had posted the PDF online, we could have proof-read it for them before it went to the printers.
Dunno why no-one thought of that.
Pretty sure Great Weapon Master's extra attacks should only apply if you're using a weapon in two hands. (But right now, you can use a weapon one-handed just fine for it.)
Humble Suggestion:
Change 'passive perception' checks to 'Situaltional Awareness'*. The Term 'Situational Awareness' enforce the idea that it is hard to know everything in combat. When it's percetion, people just look at the minis and think, I can precive that the goblen dashed into the under brush.
On a completly different note, the PHB stinks, literally. I opened it to get that great new book smell, but instead it reaks. I dion't know if this is my copy, or the glue, or whatever.
*Which cannot be taught, by the way. Like a poet’s … mind for … to make the perfect words.
mellored wrote:
Error
- Warlock "Slot Level" progression on page 106 maxes out the spell level progression at level 5 spells, but the list of Warlock spells goes up to level 9 on page 210.
wchoward1967 wrote:
mellored wrote:
wchoward1967 wrote:
It's a sneaky plot to get all us early birds who are so quickly buying up the flawed first runs, to have to go out and get a revised printing in a month or two.
I've notice a couple of minor typos so far while compiling spells for mah spell cards:
Animal Friendship: "spells ends." to "spell ends."
Color Spray: "spell can effect." to "spell can affect."
I plan on updating this post with more as I find them. Hopefully not too many more, though 
Also, an afect/effect error? Come on, this isn't 2E anymore! (lool)
these errors make me sad =(
I had such high hopes. The staggered release was supposed to avoid these problems. I'm sure any number of us would have gladly signed an NDA to proof-read it!
Ramzour wrote:
p167 - Grappler (feat) wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Index entry for "proficiency bonus" on p. 315: all references that say p. 14 should be p. 12.
-HM
Another one, related to the Paladin's cap on Divine Smite:
I understand why it exists (MC-ed Paladin shenanigans). But the cap looks like it's one level lower than it should be at 5d8.
2d8 = 1st-level
3d8 = 2nd-level
4d8 = 3rd-level
5d8 = 4th-level
As it stands there's no benefit from using a 5th-level slot, which single-class Paladins do eventually get, to Smite. I have a tough time believing that's intentional. Shouldn't the cap be 6d8?
My copy of the PH is in another room right now and I don't feel like getting it, but, two things jumped out at me:
1. Tempest Cleric's ability to push creatures 10 feet when dealing lightning damage should really be errata'd to "when dealing lightning damage with a cleric spell of first level or higher" or even just "a spell of first level or higher." As written, it works with lightning damage from the Elemental Weapon spell, a magical lightning weapon, or Shocking Grasp, should the cleric multiclass into wizard. I doubt it was intended for the cleric to have a nigh-guaranteed pushing ability every turn. I thought they'd have learned from last edition's Frost Cheese. You can't just give out a bonus whenever you deal damage of a certain type, because it's really, really easy to gain access to any given damage type.
2. Wish has a duration of "instantaneous" but one of the possible effects is to give creatures resistance to a damage type, or immunity to one type of attack from a specific creature. There is no listed duration for these effects. I'd suggest a duration of 8 hours for these effects, putting it roughly in line with some other 8th-9th level spells.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
If they just given me a proofread, none of this would have occurred.
It boggles me.
Brock_Landers wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
The Polearm Master Feat should remove the quatterstaff from the following bullet entry (it was not there during playtest) since the creature is out of range to be attacked when provoking upon entering your reach being 10 feet away since the quaterstaff has no reach property.
Polearm Master: While you are wileding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quaterstadd, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Is there any way to like the last post 
When you write something and see it that way for a while, then write something else that relates to the first thing, if there's a minor typo, page-number change, or name-change, its VERY EASY to mentally gloss over the change and see it the old way in your mind, without ever noticing the actuall difference or change.
In other words, if these are the only errata, that counts as pretty good.. Even a few Grapple minor errors are a huge improvement over the stereotypical Grapple rule jokes.
Possible issue: The "death" domain is listed for some deities in appendix B, but there's nothing about the domain in the rules for clerics.
Also, Kord is out of alphabetical order in the listing of Greyhawk deities. Should come after Istus.
Also also, Pholtus is listed as having the Light domain on p. 60, but not in the table in appendix B.
I was confused about the Death domain as well, but there is a note (in the magic chapter? I forget where) that it would be included in the DMG, as an option for evil characters, which, yeah, *sigh.
Plaguescarred wrote:
malisteen wrote:
The Agonizing Blast warlock invocation should be clearer on whether you add your Charisma modifier to the damage of each attack, to each target, or just to the first target.
I think the point is they need to reconsider the folks who are proofing. This is the reason many people do not even want to purchase paper copy any more. With the digital copy, update as we do and that is fine. Where is that digital copy of the player's handbook?
Over all actual Errors seem to be pretty minor compared to previous editions when we had WAY more stuff found by the time a week had gone by. Hopefuly the errata sheet will end up being just 1 page :D
GladiusLegis wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Polearm Master: While you are wileding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quaterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
I would think reach weapons you get the attack when they get within 10 foot of you and quarterstaff without reach you get the attack when they get to 5 foot of you
OR if you read this word for word it may be that you only have reach once the attack actualy happenes so you only have a reach 5 till the actual swing so all AOO is when the monsters step beside you. a clarification is needed for sure because it can be read two ways.
Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it.
Keen_Man wrote:
The Warlock 'Quick Build' says to take the first level spell Ray of Sickness but that isn't listed as a Warlock spell.
Brock_Landers wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Acid Splash page 211 is listed as a Conjuration cantrip. Shouldn't this be Evocation, like Magic Missle and Fireball? Guess I could see it either way... but it seems inconsistent with other spells that throw things and do damage I guess. Anyone know if this is a mistake?
Sands666 wrote:
As written a creature turned while within 25 feet of you cannot willingly move anymore because every available space it can move to is within 30 feet of you, and i don't think its the intent.
Mislead should make you invisible and hidden, otherwise enemies still know where you are, despite not seeing you, which fails the duperie.
HDQS28 Mislead: You become invisible at the same time that an illusory double of you appears where you are standing. The double lasts for the duration, but the invisibility ends if you attack or cast a spell. You can use your action to move your illusory double up to twice your speed and make it gesture, speak, and behave in whatever way you choose. You can see through its eyes and hear through its ears as if you were located where it is. On each of your turns as a bonus action, you can switch from using its senses to using your own, or back again. While you are using its senses, you are blinded and deafened in regard to your own surroundings.
Heavily Obscurement through darkness should say you can still see in dim or bright light because as written you are blinded and can't see, which means a human in darkness can't see a creature coming with a torch for exemple.
BR65 Vision and Light: A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see the appendix)....Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.
Clarification Needed (unless I am missing something):
Page 20, Dwarf Traits, Speed. Your base walking speed is 25 feet. Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor.
Page 176. Varitant Encumbrance: If you carry weight in excess of 5 times your Strength score, you are encumbered, which means your speed drops by 10 feet. (etc)
It's not the armor that's slowing you down, it's the total weight of gear. For now, I am going using "weight of the armor does not contribute to encumbrance" interpretation for dwarves since the rule on their speed really only applies to Heavy Armor that has a Strength score associated with it using the basic (STR x 15) rules on encumbrance.
The barbarian class does not provide any information on how their damage resistance is determined when raging, i.e. level, attribute bonus, or some type of formula.
ShadeRaven wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
I've found two errors in the list of historical gods and pantheons in Appendix B, and I suspect there's probably a lot more.
Firstly, Odin's holy symbol is not a "watching blue eye", it is the Valknut, a symbol of three interlocking triangles. Secondly, Thor should have the Life domain, since he's one of their big fertility gods, with his hammer acting as a metaphor for the penis.
Hmpf. Maybe I should just wait for v5.5? Some of these things are pretty funny. I especially like the one with darkness that Plaguescarred found; thats freakin' hillarious
faer4 wrote:
kalil wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
mellored wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
I hope the abysmally small amount of known spell for the sorcerer is a typo and is suppose to be 25 instead of 15 (to at least equal the amount of wizard prepare spell per day) I heard even the BARD got more known spell thent he sorcerer.
himrin wrote:
Spaces exist in 5E wether you play with a grid or not (its reference multiple places in the rules), and every feet the turned undead moves is moved to a space within X feet of the cleric.
Maybe I just don't read into rules as much as others, but turning means they move away from you, and once outside of the 30' radius, they won't willingly go back within that 30' space. But I guess if you really really look at it completely as hard coded rules I could see someone saying that they can't willingly move away because that is still within 30 feet.
However, it could be postulated that the turning is forcing them to move away from the turner, and therefore making it unwilling movement.
ShadeRaven wrote:
himrin wrote:
LanethanAK wrote:
Chimerasame wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
A minor error on Page 91 for Ranger, under "Spells Know of 1st Level or Higher", it says "You know two 1st-level spells of your choice from the ranger spell list." It should start out saying "Starting at 2nd level, ...."
I'd like to request that the Opportunity Attack, Reach Weapons, and Long Rest rules be slightly reworded in order to clear up their currently confusing state.
Opportunity Attack
Current Wording: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."
Proposed Wording: "You can make an opportunity attack against a hostile creature that moves after entering your reach. For example..."
Issue Resolved: Enemies can no longer move around the donut of your reach without provoking an Opportunity Attack. Under the current rules, an adjacent enemy that moves around you does not provoke an Opportunity Attack, as long as he stays within 5 feet of you."
Reach Weapons
Current Wording: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it."
Proposed Wording: "You add 5 feet to your reach for all Actions and Reactions with this weapon. For example..."
Issue Resolved: The current "when you attack" wording will be confusing to many players, since in the last two editions Reach increased your reach all the time, and allowed you to make Opportunity Attacks/Attacks of Opportunity against enemies that attempt to move adjacent to you. It also makes using a Reach without the Polearm Master Feat a reasonable tradeoff (less damage then using a Greatsword, but more likely to provoke an Opportunity Attack).
Long Rest
Current Wording: "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity—the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."
Proposed Wording: "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenous activity, such as walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity, the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it. The DM may choose to allow brief interruptions, such as..."
Issue Resolved: As currently worded, players can be interrupted by up to 359 rounds of non-contiguous movement, combat, spellcasting, or similar adventuring activites, and still gain the benefits of a Long Rest. It's basically impossible NOT to gain the benefits of a Long Rest. Gaining the benefits of a Short Rest can actually be harder in some circumstances, since it can't be interrupted, whereas players could be interrupted by a 10 rounds/1 minute of combat every ten minutes during a Long Rest and still gain its full benefits.
If for balance or other reasons the designers choose not to make these changes or similar changes for whatever reason, I understand. But at the very least, please add examples that make your intentions clear. Even if you can't make the changes to the printed Player's Handbooks, updated the Basic PDF with examples in the very near future and then posting a Sage Advice about it would quickly resolve any ambiguities for many DMs, which would be extremely helpful.
Person_Man wrote:
175,000 play testers would have been more than happy to proofread this so there isn't so much of the errata.
We're not talking about a few simple mistakes either, but entire missing material, spells and such, which is a huge part of the game.
The PHB costs just under $50 which is a significant investment.
We should not have to accept an inferior product. "Oh well, you can't avoid errata. *shrug*"
WRONG! Raise the bar of expectations. Raise the standards. By allowing ourselves to lower them in our own minds and attitudes will only excuse this incompetence and dereliction away and it will increase in measure.
Hold them accountable.
Marandahir wrote:
Rolemancer wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Did somebody already mention that "Trap The Soul" is on the Wizard spell list, but got no write-up to describe what it does? If not, I just did.
maceo00 wrote:
JoeyLast wrote:
mellored wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
JoeyLast wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
I didn't say release it for free to be proofread. Sell the PDF well in advance, have it proofread, it can be updated, then print. A printed book cannot be updated, except via reprint. Don't like the idea? Then have the company do their job!
A jet has many moving parts, but everything has to be accounted for before it is flown. If Boeing can do it, WotC can.
A book without errata or much errata at all from a professional publishing company is NOT too much to ask for or to expect.
When is the next reprint planned for and do we get a discount if we purchase the first inferior run?
Rolemancer wrote:
Proof-reading is easy. You just check every word. Nothing can go wrnog.
Its super easy!
Eye all ways mass ip poofrreading.
Rolemancer wrote:
I wonder if we'll end up with a Dysfunctional Handbook for 5e.
Are the undead in the PHB missing condition immunities or is that intentional?
In the PHB, the skeleton and zombie are only immune to poison. What about the classic immunity to charm, sleep, hold, and fear spells?
I notice the Sleep spell says you can put undead to sleep, but the monster entries do not.
kev777 wrote:
Page 17 Size - "Small characters have trouble wielding heavy weapons, as explained in chapter 6" Chapter 6 is Customization Options, but the rule for small creatures weilding heavy weapons (which causes the creature to have disadvantage on all attacks), is explained in chapter 5 under Heavy on page 147.
Character Advancement table page 15 (et al) - I don't think this is actually an error, but curious what other people make of it. From levels 1-11 you have to gain more experience to reach each level than you did the previous level. For example, to get from 9th to 10th level you need to get 16,000xp before leveling up. To get from level 10 to 11 you need to achieve 21,000xp (more than needed in the previous level). But then, to get form level 11 to 12 you need 15,000xp to level up... at that point the level up progression is scaled differently. Is this to control XP gain bloat within the 3rd tier?
Sands666 wrote:
Find Familiar Spell is missing the Find Familiar Table that is expressly stated in the spell description.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
I don't know if this has been already mentioned, but...
The paladin version of Channel Divinity (p 85) does not include any mention of how many uses per rest it grants. I'll assume it functions identically as the Clerics, but that is clearly an oversight.
Vinom wrote:
RGuillenJr wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Kulland wrote:
"So will that really fix what must be a fairly complex problem that happens across the arc or just make people feel the abrupt discontinuity and wonder WTF happened?"
Yes, that will fix what is actually a pretty simple problem and cause people to go, "WTF, another level up? This is AWESOME!!"
Dwarves get proficiency with the "Throwing Hammer", but that should probably be "Light Hammer".
Wow.....bummer these errors already.
I expected a few missing commas and capitalization errors here and there but a lot of these effect game play.
Would someone who has the time compile these? I'm not talking about compiling spelling errors but expressly the gameplay errors.
Thanks.
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this but the Trap the Soul description is missing. It should be on page 283 between Transport via Plants and Tree Stride.
James_the_True wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
James_the_True wrote:
Did they really intend for the Monk's Stunning Strike to be used only with weapons, and not Unarmed Strike? Because that's what it says on page 79.
Garuun wrote:
Barimen wrote:
I was going to go on and on about the differences between someone writing a novel, and a group of developers working on an RPG manual. But then you were quickly proven wrong. Sucks for both of us, I guess...
I'm guessing the paladins' Divine Smite class feature is supposed to be a bonus action to use (though it currently states no action type required). If it is truly free as listed, then paladins can do absurd amounts of damage, since you can drop a spell slot on each of your two attacks (or three if you're hasted) and then use a bonus action smite spell on top of that.
It seems highly probable that the paladin's divine smite class feature is supposed to require a bonus action like the individual smite spells.
Dwarfslayer wrote:
The sorcerer's ability to create spell slot is broken RAW and need errata as created spell slot from sorcery points have no duration, so nothing stops a sorcerer from creating spell slot during downtime to use during adventure.
PHB101 Creating Spell Slots: You can transform unexpended sorcery points into one spell slot as a bonus action on your turn. The Creating Spell Slots table shows the cost of creating a spell slot o f a given level. You can create spell slots no higher in level than 5th.
The sorcerer first suggested equipmment (b) should be revise as sorcerer are not proficient with all simple weapons, possibly resulting in new PC picking up weapon they cannot use as effectively as they think;
PHB101 Equipment: You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:• (a) a light c rossbow and 20 bolts or (b) any simple weapon
Rock Gnome: Artificrs Lore, should refer to Intelligence check, not Intelligence (History) check, since Intelligence (Arcane) is the check made related to magic items, or alchemical objects, and I guess one would make an Intelligence (investigation) check related to technological devices.
Here is the text from the player's handbook:
Artificer's Lore. Whenever you make an Intellgence (History) check related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices you can add twice your proficiency bonus, instead of any proficiency you normally apply.
The text should probably read:
Artificer's Lore. Whenever you make an Intellgence check related to magic items, alchemical objects, or technological devices you can add twice your proficiency bonus, instead of any proficiency you normally apply.
Pages 106 & 210: The warlock's quick build suggestions include Ray of Sickness, but that isn't on their spell list. I assume that it should be...?
Page 186: "The character also regains spent Hit Dice, up to a number of dice equal to half of the character's total number of them." Combined with the "round fractions down" rule (page 7), this would seem to imply that 1st level characters can never get their Hit Dice back, at least until they advance to 2nd level. I assume that there should be a "(minimum 1)" added to that. Or that this is one of those rare cases where fractions should be rounded up. Or that "half Hit Dice" are permitted, temporarily, in the sense that you recover one for every two long rests. Not sure which of these is right, although I'm guessing the first one (which is what we have been doing). Honestly, it amazes me that no one has brought this up before, as pretty much every group should have encountered it, right away...
Page 269: "If it successfully saves three times, the spell ends." I assume that this should, instead, read something like, "If it successfully saves three times, the effect ends, for that creature." Otherwise, one creature resisting the Prismatic Wall's indigo layer would cause the whole wall to collapse, which I assume is not what they intended. I also assume that this was a case of someone getting too cut-and-paste happy (from Prismatic Spray, I mean)...
This isn't exactly an errata thing, but I think it is worth mentioning. Given the way wizards are split up into schools automatically, now, and have class features related to their school spells (Arcane Ward, Benign Transposition, Split Enchantment, Grim Harvest, etc., etc.), I think WotC should have done a much better job of making sure that all of the schools have a fair number of spells, in relation to each other.
A little backstory, by way of explanation. It was kind of driving our wizard players nuts that the spell lists were no longer broken down by school (pages 210-211; and, yes, this is something else they should think about fixing), so I finally broke down and whipped up a reorganized list, myself. In doing so, I discovered some disturbing numbers. Here are the break-downs for spell schools:
Abjuration 24 spells
Conjuration 32 spells
Divination 16 spells (just sad...)
Enchantment 19 spells
Evocation 40 spells (what a shock...)
Illusion 27 spells
Necromancy 18 spells (maybe 19, if they ever fill in the missing Trap the Soul)
Transmutation 38 spells
Worse still, some schools have no spells, at all, at some levels: divination 7th and 8th, enchantment 3rd and 7th, illusion 8th, necromancy 5th. Hopefully, this will be rectified in future supplements, assuming that there are any.
BTW, if anyone wants a copy of the reorganized list (it is rather handy), you can get it here:
https://app.box.com/s/two15178lqp1sy8da3q3
Not sure if this was mentioned, but the "Variant Human Traits" sidebar on page 31 reads, "If your campaign uses the optional feat rules from chapter 5,..." and it should read "If your campaign uses the optional feat rules from chapter 6,..."
demon_idol wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
I think there needs to be a bit of errata on a few abilities in the game as is. It's very clear what's being intended, but I've been seeing a lot of wonky interpretations of the rules that I can't blame them for finding.
Such as:
Bard's Magical Secrets. They can steal Banishing Smite at level 10 whereas a Paladin gets it at level 17, which allows a Bard to instant-kill anything as long as it gets under 50 hp. They can also steal the 5th Level ranger spells that they also only get at level 17. Which seems oddly broken.
Contaigon spell: Some people interpret it the rules as you catch the disease immediately. Then they give you the disease that gives you disadvantage on your Con saves. So the secnod they touch you, the wording makes it sound like they get it immediately, and thus will have disadvantage on the three saves they get afterwards, and while they're trying to make this now impossible save, any attack that hits them stuns them for a round, so they get hitstunned. It's very clear that the disease shouldn't actually take affect until after the saves, but the wording on the spell is bad for that.
Find Steed: There's been large debates over the past few days about this. Due to the awkward wording in the spell, and how a Target of a spell is defined as "A point of origin" that "can be a whole creature", people are saying that you can essentially double-cast area-of-effect spells by being on your steed and casting spells that have a range of "self", as the point of origin is the target, and since it is targeting yourself, it can ALSO target your steed, so casting something like cone of cold comes out of both you and your horse basically doubling the damage.
While it's very easy to shoot down the Contaigon and Find Steed abuse, I would like to not get into that potential argument when I can. As for Bard's Magical Secrets, that is functioning as intended, but I think it's intended use is a little over-stepping it's bounds.
Crossbow Expert feat is vaguely worded. RAW it will apply to all ranged attack weapons AND ranged attack cantrips for the purposes of avoiding disadvantage if attacking in melee range.
Crossbow Expert
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you
gain the following benefits:
• You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with
which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t
impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded
w eapon, you can use a bonus action to attack
with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.
1eejit wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Alynn wrote:
Expeditious Retreat Page 238 ... seems to be missing words. The second sentence hurts to read. For the interim I am reading it as
When you cast this spell [you can use the Dash action], and then as a bonus action ...
Cwylric wrote:
PHB pg. 182 Climbing, Swimming and Crawling should remove crawling from the title as it doesn't discuss crawling at all. Crawling can instead be found under Being Prone on pg. 190
The entry for cats in Appendix D (and the DM Basic Rules) doesn't include darkvision. This is also the case for some other real-world critters that are nocturnal in the DMBR.
Apparently, I killed this thread with cats. 
Azzy1974 wrote:
That's impressive if we have...and pleasing. I shudder at the pages of errata in the last PHB I bought.
So far the over all amount of errata feels like it will be small. Maybe we will end up getting some example of play for specific rules document. That would clear up quite a bit.
Keen_Man wrote:
I've also noted a few minor things, like they forgot to correct the spell progressions of all the partial casters (Eldritch Knight, Paladin, Ranger, and Arcane Trickster). As it stands, each one is accelerated, as opposed to the amount that they add to the development of a multiclass character. Half-casters (Paladin, Ranger) gain caster level 1 at 2nd level, caster level 2 at 3rd, and then progresses one level for every two levels thereafter. Minor casters (Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster) start at CL1 at 3rd level, immediately push up to CL 2 at 4th, and then gain +1 CL for every three levels thereafter.
Also, if you look at the spells known progressions of EK and AT, and compare them to the Sorcerer (the quintessential spontaneous caster, IMHO), you'll notice that each follows the pattern exactly, with five exceptions: the four bonus spells that don't have to match up with the focus of the prestige path (abjuration/evocation for the Eldritch Knight, enchantment/illusion for the Arcane Trickster), and an additional slot that appears at level 11 in both cases. It's my guess that the 11th level slot is supposed to be one of these non-specialist spells, but maybe that's just the Great Old One using me to foment madness and chaos amongst the player populace.
MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
(Sorry about that, I failed my save against the compulsion to laugh maniacally. I just hate natural 1's, don't you?)
Stinking Cloud is listed as a 3rd level bard spell. This seems like it must have been a place holder spell for something else, as it is distinctly (pun intended) un-bard-like. Missing spells that should probably be 3rd level bard spells: mass healing word, haste, slow, revivify, remove curse.
demon_idol wrote:
OmnusII wrote:
kalil wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
The Grappler feat says that creature that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple but they do not automatically succeed according to Grappling rules.
PHB167 Grappler: Creatures that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple.
PHB195 Grappling: A grappled creature can use its action to escape. To do so, it must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by your Strength (Athletics) check.
The Grappler feat says that creature that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple but they do not automatically succeed according to Grappling rules.
PHB167 Grappler: Creatures that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple.
PHB195 Grappling: A grappled creature can use its action to escape. To do so, it must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by your Strength (Athletics) check.
The spell Freedom of Movement says you can spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from a grapple but you have a speed of 0 when grappled.
PHB244 Freedom of Movement: The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has it grappled.
demon_idol wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ray of sickness is one of the suggested starting spells for a warlock (see quick build, pg 106), but it's not on the warlock spell list, nor is it on any of the patrons' expanded spell lists. So are the quick build rules in error, or should that spell be on the warlock spell list?
Also, the rules for inspiration state (pg 125) that you can use it to gain advantage on any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check. The rules for advantage and disadvantage (pg 173) state "Inspiration ... can also give a character advantage on checks related to the character's personality, ideals, or bonds." I think it's fair to say that the former trumps the latter in this instance, but it's still worth pointing out as unclear text that needs tidying up.
Couple of minor annoyances.
1. The index should give the page number for what you are looking for instead of referencing another part of the index.
Ex. Temporary Hit Points. see under Hit Points.
Now that is just unnecessary. Put the page number after Temporary Hit Points. Not just limited to Temp Hp entry.
2. Chapter numbers are referenced many times but the entries at the bottom of the pages have only chapter names.
Ex. Inspiration (see chapter 4) can also give a character advantage on checks...
Chapter 4 turns out to be Personality and Background starting on page 121. Add a page number to the entry and/or add chapter numbers to the bottom of the page.
pukunui wrote:
Yeah, I asked Greg the same question and he tweeted back Jeremy's answer. The question is: why is ray of sickness not a warlock spell? Seems like it would be right up their alley.
Does anyone happen to know if it is an error or an intentional result that 'Detect Magic' is not available to (only!) warlocks in their spell list? I see that there is an invocation that allows for the casting of it at will, saying that it 'does not use a spell slot', but it would seem that the 'does not use a spell slot' would be completely redundant if there is not an option for it to use a spell slot in the first place...?
I definitely agree with that-I thought the answer would be it was missing off the spell list.
Oh well.
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
From demon_idol's thread looks like the damage for Mordenkainen's Sword wasn't increased from the playtest (compare to Bigby's Hand spell).
Mordenkainen's Sword has got to have been an error.
Compare these two wizard spells:
Bigby's Hand: Level 5, cost to cast 0, range 120 feet. Requires concentration. Lasts 1 minute.
Creates a hand that the caster can, as a bonus action, move up to 60 feet and cause one of 4 different effects to take place. If used to attack, you make a melee spell attack with it and do 18 (average) force damage on a hit. If cast using a 7th level slot average damage for the fist is 36. In addition, it can be cast using 8th, and 9th level slots for even more damage.
Mordenkainen's Sword: Level 7. cost to cast 250 gp, range 60 feet. Requires concentration. Lasts 1 minute.
Creates a sword that caster can, as a bonus action, move up to 20 feet and make a melee spell attack. Average damage using a 7th level slot is 16.5.
Mordenkainen should have stuck to making extradimensional spaces. Bigbys hand is much better in every way, even when cast as a 5th level spell.
Mordenkainen's sword could be changed in a lot of ways to make it worth taking instead of Bigby's hand. One could raise its damage to 6 to 9 d10, and change duration to 1 minute (no concentration required). One could make it automatically hit, and to be able to attack adjacent extra-dimensional, ethereal, and out of phase creatures for full effect, as long as the caster is aware of their presence enough to move the sword adjacent. One should also probably raise the range and movement to be equivelent to Bigby's hand.
Either that, or just get rid of the spell. It makes Mordenkain look dumb compared to Bigby.
Hi, sorry if there is a newer thread but I can't find mention of the Ready action. PHB says it only goes off later in the round, therefore only those higher in the initiative count can use it. Last night my character almost died failing to interrupt a spell, and only later did we see the Mike Mearl clarification that Ready does carry over into the next round. This requires errata in PHB.
Just curious if anyone else found this vague. In gaining hit points after level one each class reads : Hit Die (or 1+half max) + Constitution modifier. For Bards, for example: "1d8 (or 5) + your constitution modifier..." Is that supposed to mean that as a bard no matter what your roll is you can't get less than 5+con modifier each level, or that if you choose to roll you are stuck with that?
GlorfnNorn wrote:
GlorfnNorn wrote:
MechaPilot and Azzy are both correct regarding the "1d8 (or 5)" quetion.
Unlike Azzy, I treat the static value as the lowest possible result of the roll (well, technically I say "It's either the result of the die, or the static value - you pick." and the player then has no reason not to choose the static value if it is higher than their roll).
The reason why I do that is pretty simple, actually: I don't roll for damage that monsters deal, and one of the very few downsides of using that static damage approach is that the player's never have the luck of me rolling low on damage - a downside that is mitigated by the PCs not having as much need for those low damage rolls because they have better than "average" hit points.