1000 humble pardons if this is already a thread, but any idea when we should see the PDF?
We should see a PDF release some time shortly after an announcement that PDFs are going to be released.
As for when that will be? WotC stated a few months back that they are looking at options in regards to digital products, and will say more when there is more to say - which there obviously isn't yet.
I guess I was under the impression Ol' Man Mearls stated that a PHB Errata PDF was on its way March ?? reflecting feedback from Survey 1...But hey, ask my wife, I'm wrong ALL the time...
JohnnyNitro wrote:
CCS wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
JohnnyNitro wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CCS wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Planned PDF: walk your book over to the scanner. Scan every page. Organize on your computer and presto you have your own pdf. Just don't give it to other people or you'll be in trouble hahaha. Faster than waiting for WotC to figure it out.
Well, shoot. I should have been more explicit: I'm just wondering when the PHB Errata will show up. Quite sure it was supposed to be a PDF type thing, again, supposedly, to be released this month if memory serves...if not, sorry for creating a stir and wasting anybody's time...
JohnnyNitro wrote:
Sands666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
JohnnyNitro wrote:
I'm okay with it being a bit delayed, if it means that the testing of proposed changes is being given its due diligence to prevent having to re-errata the initial errata. A hole in two is just as good as an ace, when you look at the amount of errata made to the 3e/4e core books. Hell, the Rules Compendium was pretty much a compilation of all errata'd material as a definitive edition resource.
I would rather have a streamlined set of errata on my tablet that have underwent intense scrutiny, than have to buy an entirely new book because a significant chunk of the rules I've already purchased no longer resemble the original printings at all.
Delaying errata in favor of detailed analysis is good. And that analysis should mean, actually getting to the bottom of what's broken vs what's popular. For example, I would have quit playing 4e had they nerfed Twin Strike (2x1W) to be (fake) Twin Strike (2W + mods), instead of reducing the number of stackable mods which was one of that edition's major balance flaw.
I'm more than happy to wait for a proper fixes, than bandaids or over-reactions. The number of times they overreacted with errata during the 4e era was absurd. There are comparatively few bugs in 5th edition, but they exist and should be decisively sorted out.
It will be amusing to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth when some people's favorite exploits no longer function 
It's great that not only are they taking feedback seriously this time around (by actually publically playtesting the game quite extensively for assent by its customers), but they are taking meta-feedback seriously : errata should happen rarely, and fix any errors in the right way instead of band-aids like feat patches / taxes. Identify the root cause of the problem, then launch a surgical strike. The overall game works quite well and is solid, and this round of errata will reflect that. Minor, incidental changes, to specific broken combos or unintended RAI / RAW mismatches. For example, fighters are not supposed to have unlimited healing capability from level 1. In our group last week, our fighter kept on healing himself without using hit dice aka surges, instead relying on this second wind exploit to keep fighting 2, 3 combats longer than the rest of the group could manage. My paladin was way out tanked by him for that reason alone. Not to mention out-damaged. You shouldn't be able to out-tank a paladin and out-damage him at the same time, there is no niche protection that way. Fighters are simply broken now that they can heal themselves long after the cleric has run out of cure wounds and the paladin out of lay on hands and hit dice. It's totally ridiculous.
Wizards, fix that. Thanks. There is a definite need for a hard daily limit on the number of times one can use Second Wind. This is in line with the limitations placed on many other short-rest cooldown abilities that you put in between the last playtest and the PHB. Either that, or make it give temp HP, even better. That would solve all problems, no matter the duration a given campaign sets for short rests. (1hr, 5 minutes, 1 day). Second Wind is evocative of a short duration boost, not actual healing. Temporary hit points is the ideal fix, but I'd be fine with a 3x per day hard cap. At least that way, the fighter can't do 5-10 encounters a day when the paladin can only barely handle 2. Totally backwards.
Hang on a sec, DS...
In a previous thread you stated that WotC was definitely already changing Second Wind. You made repeated claims assuring us that the fix was in. Now you are asking WotC to please do something about it.
Confusion sets in.
What's wrong with Second Wind? It looks reasonably balanced--even a little weak--to me.
Matau99 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Matau99 wrote:
It's broken because the world, on which his home campaign is based, has days that are each 132 hours long. So fighters have far too many opportunities to abuse Second Wind. WotC clearly screwed up.
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
tubadancross wrote:
pukunui wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
Torg_Smith wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
Torg_Smith wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Oh, oh, let's discuss Crossbow Expert next! And how Trance interacts with long rests. I feel these things haven't been discussed nearly enough, and something gives me the feeling that bringing them up in this thread will lead to complete resolution of all disagreements.
I mean, what's the point of playing a TRPG if someone else is playing by different rules? 
If you give your players infinite time to rest why does it matter if the fighter can heal faster?
You seem to be saying fighters are unbalanced if they -can- start a fight fully healed every 4-5 hours...but a group that is all at low health with no spells already makes 1 full hp fighter close to useless. They are already to the point where they have to run/hide and take a long rest.
Normal rules expect you to take 2 shortrest and 1 long rest per day. The DM is supposed to control pacing so it is on him. For more than a couple rests to happen in a day, you have to ALLOW them to do it.
Besides, if your party is taking 10 short rests in a day, why are you not complaining about the other classes short rest mechanics? Warlocks casting 20 spells a day and whatnot.
DaomSlayer wrote:
Torg_Smith wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Main thing I've noticed that definitely needs a nerf is polymorph. It's insanely good to just turn a PC into a monster with a ton of HP, and then just have the spellcaster sit out of the fight, so the monsters can't break his concentration. You effectively get a 150+ free HP and better damage, and the caster can join back in the fight and cast polymorph again after the first expires. It's a giant never ending well of bonus hit points.
The druid's wild shape, even the circle of the moon, is limited to 1/3 his druid level for CR, but for whatever reason for poylmorph you get the full CR of the creature, resulting in a crazy power boost at pretty much no cost. It's even worse than 3E polymorph. At least with 3E poly, if the character actually dropped while shifted, he was unconscious in normal form too. The 5E version, even if you kill the shifted character, all you do is restore him to his normal form at full strength.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
The only "problem" with polymorph has been, is, and will always be, its flexibility. After all, were it a series of individual spells, each limited to turning yourself (or someone else) into a specific form, I don't think it would be nearly as popular.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Well, I just hope you're right. Because, until the devs fix this problem, I'm banning fighters from any game I run.
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
pukunui wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Why don't you ask them if they're considering making a change to Second Wind for errata?
If they outright say yes or no, then I have no further business here. I've said my piece clearly enough.
It's ironic that you think the devs don't read their own forums but somehow twitter makes you feel like you're their buddy and "in on the joke".
They do read these threads (though probably don't agree with much they read from the DS faction, considering how 5e has a much more old school vibe to it, and consequently has been very successful), and we also know that debates and arguments here filter up to them, e.g. when they admitted they were arguing internally about how Reaping Strike caused problems with narrative (black and white contradictions tend to do that). We all know who won that debate.
Public pressure often works. But it's not easy. A cause has to have righteousness on its side, even if it's not popular. You make it popular. Only a few years ago it would have been unthinkable for gays to have so much influence in the public arena and much so much progress getting their rights in so short a time. They stood up for what's right, resolutely, no matter the opposition.
Similarly (though on a much less important scale) I will argue for what I think is right in terms of the rules for the hobby I love, even if it gets this account shut off. So be it. It's really not a big deal to me.
You're comparing your effort to get a couple sentences in a tabletop roleplaying game acknowledged as breaking willing suspension of disbelief, with the gay rights movement.
Roleplaying game errata.
Gay rights movement.
Between this and the claim that you are responsible for a laundry list of changes to 5e and full of "wins" under your belt...I think you need to come out of the clouds a bit. Obviously the oxygen is a little thing up there.
So how 'bout it guys? Crossbow Expert next? We're on a roll here.
It was an analogy, and I already stated that D&D rules aren't important compared to civil rights. Duh.
Interestingly, if you attend a con and make the effort to shake hands with the Devs, they'll tell you themselves that feedback survey outcomes are what drive change.
DaomSlayer wrote:
/nelson.