This thread assumes provided information is about Basic (the free PDF).
Grammatical, Structure, Misinformation, Missing Info
-
Even numbered pages show it's "V0.1" (correct); Odd numbered pages show it's version "V1.0" (incorrect) - KtWF
-
Potent Cantrip: Needs saving throw cantrips. -mellored
-
page 77 "Mounting and Dismounting": Last sentence is "within 5 feet it." but should be "within 5 feet of it." -Be3Al2
-
Faerie Fire is not listed in the basic rules list of spells by levels. It is listed in the alphabetical list though. -Chakrum
-
Ability point buy table is two pages after the paragraph about ability point buys, making it very confusing. -Daganev
-
"Someone I loved died because of I mistake I made. That will never happen again." - page 38 in the Criminal background -abanathie
Clarification
-
Opportunity attacks might need clarification with their interaction with reach weapons. -Lawolf
-
Dwarven Combat Training references proficiency with the throwing hammer, but there is no such weapon; it's called a light hammer in the equipment section. -SPR
Subjective, Speculative
-
Overchannel: 1d12 * the number of times you used it + 1d12 per spell level (thus, it works on cantrips). -mellored
-
Fast Hands: Cannot use wands, scrolls, or other magic items. -mellored
-
You should always recover at least 1 HD during a long rest, even at level 1. -Lawolf
-
Etherealness, Antimagic Field, Astral Projection and Gate were left off the wizard spell list (might have been intentional, but I'm mentioning it in case it wasn't). -FallingIcicle
-
No Wish spell, yet it's mentioned under the Disintegrate spell. -KtWF
Last Update: Post #21
Not yet, but this thread seems as good as any.
So far...
Potent Cantrip: Needs saving throw cantrips.
Overchannel: 1d12 * the number of times you used it + 1d12 per spell level (thus, it works on cantrips).
Fast Hands: Cannot use wands, scrolls, or other magic items.
You should always recover at least 1 HD during a long rest, even at level 1.
Opportunity attacks might need clarification with their interaction with reach weapons.
Subjective errata wasn't really where I was going with this, but post-on brothers.
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
Dwarven Combat Training references proficiency with the throwing hammer, but there is no such weapon; it's called a light hammer in the equipment section.
Just a missing word that is easy to fill in:
page 77 "Mounting and Dismounting": Last sentence is "within 5 feet it." but should be "within 5 feet of it."
Be3Al2 wrote:
"Overchannel: 1d12 * the number of times you used it + 1d12 per spell level (thus, it works on cantrips)."
The rule is incorrect and needs to be changed, but your "correction" is not actually what Mike said in his tweets. We don't really know what the final revision will be.
"Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it. "
B3AI2 is correct Aaron, that sentence is incorrect without the addition of "of" before "it".
Etherealness, Antimagic Field, Astral Projection and Gate were left off the wizard spell list (might have been intentional, but I'm mentioning it in case it wasn't).
DemoMonkey wrote:
"No reason it shouldn't work for cantrips.
As long as you take damage for it."
Completely agree with you. I was just pointing out that your fix falls under "house rule" and not errata. We only know the rule is wrong; their exact solution to it is not yet determined.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Technically, a spear can be used as a two handed thrown weapon. While being used as such, it can benefit from duelist style and great weapon style while used with a rogues sneak attack.
No Wish spell, yet it's mentioned under the Disintegrate spell.
Glaives and Halberds ARE THE SAME GODDAMN WEAPON!
Not that there's anything wrong with that and I'm most definitely not upset about it at all in the slightest.
they should clarify that a fight or spell interrupts a long rest only if it's 1 hr +, if that is what they meant. Right now it is ambiguous. Alternatively, or my preference, would be a side bar saying interrupt that sentence either way - whatever works best for your table, leave it open.
The rules for heavily obscured and darkness block vision or makes you blinded, which prevent normal vision to see outside or beyond darkness as written. Its Impenetrable Darkness syndrome all over again! This happened during 4E early days during first PHB release for those who remember and still happen here. As written, when you are in darkness, you are blinded and cannot see any remove lit area and people within, which is a problem RAW. Also any obscured area by darkness block vision which makes you not see through them. That is okay for magical darkness, but natural darkness should not act that way.
BR65 Heavily Obscured: A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaquefog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature
in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the
blinded condition (see the appendix).
Ability point buy table is two pages after the paragraph about ability point buys, making it very confusing.
"Someone I loved died because of I mistake I made. That will never happen again." - page 38 in the Criminal background.
It should say "Someone I loved died because of a mistake I made. That will never happen again."
Consolidated ...reviewing now to check if I messed anything up, else this thread end up in this thread. =)
Last noteworthy mention: If you feel I put an errata item in a wrong catagory, or we need a new catagory, let me know and I'll move it/make it.
You might want to mention Merl's intent.
Overchannel right now is very much overpowered. You can deal maximum damage with cantrips without taking any damage.
It was confirmed by Merls that it's not supposed to work with cantrips.
My suggested fix was that you take 1d12 damage when using a cantrip. Which merls also said could work.
Merls also confirmed that fast hands where not supposed to work with "magic items". Though that's still fairly vauge.
My personal opinion would be to allow potions and other consumables, but not spell creating items.
The minimum 1 HD per long rest was also confirmed as the intent by merls.
There's also been unintential stacking of archery style (+2 to hit with ranged weapons) and dualist (+2 damage on melee attacks) when made by thrown weapons (i.e. hand axes).
However, all the numbers i've run shows this to still be very balanced. Thus i suggest allowing it as is.
Merls has suggested that archery be switched to "+2 to hit with ranged attacks", and allowing it to work with cantrips.
And the spells missing (including wish) from basic are likely intentional. Merls confiremed there would be more spells in the PHB, and mentinoed a few.
There are several other "teasers" like that in basic. Mentioning things that arn't there. Like drow, feats, and multiclassing.
mellored wrote:
Here's 1 quote.
@JRutterbush : handaxes and ranged attacks... "my call would be count as both melee and ranged for purposes of qualifying for benefits"
@JRutterbush : Wouldn't that mean that Archer Fighters could get +2 to melee attacks with a handaxe (or other thrown weapon)?
@mikemearls : As written, yes, but it would be better for that ability to say +2 to ranged attacks and also capture spells, which feels right
@mikemearls : technically, you could clobber someone over the head with a crossbow (improvised weapon) and get that bonus
@mikemearls : in my game, I'd restrict it to ranged attacks
Potential for Extra Attacks (Fighter, Pg. 25) to be miunderstood. The second paragraph perhaps should read, "The number of extra attacks increases to twothree when you reach 11th level in this class and to threefour when you reach 20th level in this class." Plus, it'll follow the chart when doing quick glance, as well.
mellored wrote:
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Oh, another interesting one here. You can draw and stow a weapon as part of an action. So make an attack with duelist style, draw and stow a weapon, then make an off-hand attack as a bonus action.
Ramzour wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Raz: All they would need to do to stop fighting style cheese is specify melee or ranged attacks instead of melee or ranged weapons. Why not fix it and make the DMs job easier?
p.s. I am glad they specifically mentioned you can't take a fighting style more than once though. That always bothered me in the playtest.
Ramzour wrote:
mellored wrote:
The Trident is worthless, it's identical to the Spear, but Martial, it should be 1d8 (versatile 1d10), very annoying.
Brock_Landers wrote:
KTWF
Maybe something like this?
Superfluous entry: Trident (duplicates Spear)
Superfluous entry: Glaive (duplicates Halberd)
Might as well add Great Axe to that as well.
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
I don't think we need to make errata for stuff that's currently *under*powered, much of that might be fine in phb. Like those weapons. I agree with stuff like nerfing Overchannel/Cantrips though.
YMMV: Lifestyle expenses should cover more than 1 person [Probably 2-4] when applied to non-adventurers. This is to help us get somewhat more realistic economics.
Halberds and whips should allow a special trip attack (Contested attack versus STR/Athletics or DEX/Acrobatics). Halberds should allow a dismount action (Contested Attack versus DEX/Acrobatics).
That's all that I can really find that sticks out to me.
Well we know greataxes will work with a PHB feature (barbarins).
So it's reasonable to think other features do as well. Glaves, halbreds, and tridents might each have a feat for example.
And spells like wish are likely going to show up.
BoldItalic wrote:
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Chimerasame wrote:
Andrelai wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Chimerasame wrote:
We need two categories. "Errata" for typos and clear contradictions/omissions, and "WTF" for the rest.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Very true Nicodaudel. But I was more going for WTF as a category for "Well, we know this doesn't work. We don't know whether that's intentional for reasons we don't know, unintentional because they missed it, or there's another piece to the puzzle we don't have yet."
DemoMonkey wrote:
Siphersh wrote:
SwampDog
Take one step backwards in the process, to the design process.
Designer 1: " Let's put a great axe in the game. Some people love to use axes."
Designer 2: "Great idea!"
Designer 1: "But lets make it inferior to a great sword."
Designer 2: "But why?."
Designer 1: "No reason. Just because swords are cooler."
Designer 2: "Right. Print it!"
You are placing the blame on the wrong people. The people unhappy that their aesthetic choice are inferior are not the issue. The designers, who made one of the choices inferior for no explicable reason, are the issue.
I absolutely agree with you, you should make your choices on what's true to the character. You are doing absolutely nothing wrong by doing that. I just think the game design shoulkd support your choice, not penalize it. (Even if the penalty is only a fraction of a point DPR.)
SwampDog wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
"If it's for an RP choice then it's not possible to be penalized because game mechanics don't exist. Just play the game and don't sweat the small stuff."
So KTWF, you think it was good design then to set it up like that? I'm unclear on where you are going with that.
Because that's what point I'm trying to make. Not that players shouldn't be free to make whatever choices they feel are appropriate to their characters, but rather that it was poor design to make one of two choices that didn't have anty compelling reason to be different, inferior. Even if it's only a tiny bit inferior.
Lawolf wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
"...or not inferior at all when measured by more than a single metric - like really happened."
Are you talking about the 20gp difference in cost? I will be happy to concede that may be important once, when the character is equipping their first weapon, for the one session that they are at level one. After that, not so much.
Or was there another situation in which the axe is better? There was another thread about that, but no one could get it to work there. Did I miss something?
DemoMonkey wrote:
"The Brutal Critical barbarian class feature."
Actually, no. The math on that was done. great sword still wins, just not by as much.
Brock_Landers wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
"It is a valid choice - and is "equal but different" - to go for more flashy+less consistent, over less flashy+more consistent... especially when a mechanic exists to turn "did extra bad" into another chance at "did extra good.""
That relies on the psychology of good results leaving a stronger impression than bad ones; or in other words, people can be tricked into believing it's better, without it actually being better, becasue they only remember the good results.
It's why casinos are a very effective lure for some people.
However that doesn't actually make the choices equal. That just makes an inferior choice look shinier.
I think even with the reroll (from Fighter GWF) and multiclassing into Barbarian (for the brutal critical) you are STLL better off with the greatsword over time.
"Ah, I thought average 2d12 = 13, and average 3d6 = 10.5, so the greataxe would win"
Valid, but the extra 1.5 points 1 time in 20 - or .075 per attack - doesn't catch up to the extra .5 average damage the sword does unless you are only hitting the target on a 17 or more.
BoldItalic wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Fair enough Aaron. I appreciate the different perspective. Truthfully I think I've said all I have to say about it too at this point.
Aside to KTWF: apologies for completely highjacking your thread! I genuinely forgot it was just supposed to be a "repository" thread. Mea culpa.
Anecdotal non scientific experience here.
In our 8 hour game last night we fought many 9-11 HP humanoids. The 19 Str dwarf used a greataxe and rarely killed enemies in 1 hit. It didn't matter that his chance to roll max damage was higher than the 14 Str maul fighter's, because he would roll a 1-5 on his first attack. The maul fighter on the other hand almost always killed enemies in a single hit.
A higher chance to deal maximum damage really doesn't matter all that much. It only matters if dealing max damage leads to killing a creature faster, and that scenario only happens at a very limited HP range. On the other hand, higher chance to roll low for damage will adversely affect combat length.
So, what is far more important than a 1 point increase in average damage is reduced variability in damage. I have already shown the math of this elsewhere so I won't repeat it again, but you kill enemies significantly faster using a greatsword than using an axe.
Lawolf wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Thanks for this thread, KTWF. You're doing an admiral job (and not in a rear admiral sort of way!). Kudos! 
I always appreciate some of you and you're one of them Azzy. =)
Thank you, the feeling is mutual
Clarification:
I don't know if this counts as errata, but on page 23, "destroy undead" is defined in terms of "challenge rating", but there's nothing in the PDF about what CR is supposed to mean.
Siphersh wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Didn't barbarians get auto-advantage in rage? In which case, an expanded crit range, Raging, and a greataxe might work? (I didn't do the math)
kilpatds wrote:
mellored wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
mellored wrote:
Bonus action spells are slower (despite being called faster in the description) by the fact that they prevent casting a second spell in a round while a regular spell doesn't.
Rogue Elusive works even while restrained or any other nonsensical situation where the enemy has advantage due to the rogue not being able to react. Hurray bad advantage mechanic.
FFSAA wrote:
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
mellored wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
mellored wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
FFSAA wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Goodberry
Duration: Instantaneous
Description: Up to ten berries appear in your hand and are infused with magic for the duration.
I guess the duration should be 24 hours according playtest and the subsequent text in description of the spell.