New Errata for PHB, MM and DMG out.

[JackPhoenix]

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

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

[Joe the Rat]

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

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

A lot of numbers tweaks.

[ATHATH]

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

I know, but I was just pointing it out.

[HappyDaze]

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

[LudicSavant]

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

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

[Merudo]

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

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

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

[SociopathFriend]

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

[rbstr]

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

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

[Kaliayev]

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

[sambojin]

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

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

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

[Zalabim]

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

You can also now use grappling rules/effects for grabbing and dragging an unconscious/incapacitated enemy/ally.

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

Dungeon Delver still gives resistance. Only the last bullet is changed.

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

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

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

Most of the time, the beast would get issued a command to take an action (to attack) anyway.

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

AoE is still a big problem for it, but being a longer-than-long-rest resource isn't unusual. Everyone has Hit Dice, for example.

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

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

It's less clear than it could be, but it seems really uncharitable to assume it's talking about any command at all and not the command that takes your action. Really uncharitable seems to be the name of the game though.

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

[Cybren]

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

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

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

[HappyDaze]

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

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

[Zalabim]

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

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

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

[ThePolarBear]

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

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

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

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

[Arial Black]

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

Q: Is this the end of the CoffeeLock?

A: No, I don't think so.

[JackPhoenix]

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

Q: Is this the end of the CoffeeLock?

A: No, I don't think so.

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

[Exocist]

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

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

I have actually noticed something in the new errata

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

This is the text it refers to

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

Which has now been updated to

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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

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

[Exocist]

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

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

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

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

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

Do we need a sage advice clarification on this errata?

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

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

[No brains]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kaliayev]

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

Your updated text is a tad wrong.

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

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

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

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

[Rhedyn]

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

Also. Is this ever making it to print?

[OracularPoet]

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

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

[Millstone85]

Is this ever making it to print?

As stated in each document:
"All the updates here appear in the 10th printing of the book and in the 2018 core rulebook gift sets."

[Cynthaer]

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

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

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

[LudicSavant]

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

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

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

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