I see no ambiguity here; rogues are proficient with Simple weapons AND Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property.
Weapon Proficiencies
Simple weapons and Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property
That's how I read it too. This is why we need more Oxford commas
The Oxford comma only applies in lists of three or more items. It’s not relevant to this example, in which any comma would actually be completely incorrect. English grammar doesn’t really have any correct way to make this completely unambiguous, but they’ve chosen the best possible option.
I would probably have put “with Simple Weapons and with Martial Weapons that have…”.
Edit: Thinking about it, if they had meant the Finesse/Light criterion to apply to all weapon options, they’d probably have phrased it as “Simple and Martial Weapons that have…”.
I see no ambiguity here; rogues are proficient with Simple weapons AND Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property.
Weapon Proficiencies
Simple weapons and Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property
That's how I read it too. This is why we need more Oxford commas
The Oxford comma only applies in lists of three or more items. It’s not relevant to this example, in which any comma would actually be completely incorrect. English grammar doesn’t really have any correct way to make this completely unambiguous, but they’ve chosen the best possible option.
"Martial weapons with... and Simple weapons" or "All simple weapons and martial weapons with..." are the only truly unambiguous ways, but this one is the best available if you don't want to do those.
If they wanted to interpret it the other way, I would argue that "simple and martial weapons with..." is actually unambiguous.
Currently you can't speak or cast spells, regardless of the form you take. In fact, there are several things that are like this and I'm hoping they change it. Sadly, go en that they've changed TP already, I doubt this will get fixed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing high charisma characters with no real life charisma - the only fantasy that still eludes me.
Currently you can't speak or cast spells, regardless of the form you take.
That's almost certainly a design decision, not a bug (the fact that, even if made permanent, it ends automatically when you take a long rest, probably is a bug).
I see no ambiguity here; rogues are proficient with Simple weapons AND Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property.
Weapon Proficiencies
Simple weapons and Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property
That's how I read it too. This is why we need more Oxford commas
The Oxford comma only applies in lists of three or more items. It’s not relevant to this example, in which any comma would actually be completely incorrect. English grammar doesn’t really have any correct way to make this completely unambiguous, but they’ve chosen the best possible option.
"Martial weapons with... and Simple weapons" or "All simple weapons and martial weapons with..." are the only truly unambiguous ways, but this one is the best available if you don't want to do those.
If they wanted to interpret it the other way, I would argue that "simple and martial weapons with..." is actually unambiguous.
English needs a lexical scoping operator.
Could have also made it a bulleted list:
- Simple weapons - Martial weapons that have the finesse or light property
- Simple weapons - Martial weapons that have the finesse or light property
There are lots of ways of doing it, all of which have something in common: they're not 'natural language'. As long as 5e insists on natural language, problems like this are unavoidable (which is not to say that there aren't problems with not using natural language, they're just different problems).
Goliath Powerful Build feature: originally applied to saving throws but now applies to ability checks
In the print version of the 2024 PHB, the goliath's Powerful Build feature gave them advantage on saving throws to escape the Grappled condition, but on D&D Beyond, it says it gives them advantage on ability checks.
I finally see why they made the errata.
In 2014 PHB, it was a contest to initiate a grapple, and a contest to escape. (and goliath didn't get powerful build)
In the printed 2024 PHB, it's a save to initiate a grapple but it's still a CONTEST to escape. Thus powerful build giving them advantage on a save to end the grappled condition does nothing. Thus, the change.
It's been brought to my attention that the school of magic listed for the blindness/deafness spell is not the same in the printed PHB as it is here on DDB. In the printed PHB, it's listed as a transmutation spell. Here on DDB, it's listed as a necromancy spell. In the 2014 rules, it was the latter, so it's not yet clear whether the printed 2024 PHB is in error or is in fact correct and DDB is wrong.
It's been brought to my attention that the school of magic listed for the blindness/deafness spell is not the same in the printed PHB as it is here on DDB. In the printed PHB, it's listed as a transmutation spell. Here on DDB, it's listed as a necromancy spell. In the 2014 rules, it was the latter, so it's not yet clear whether the printed 2024 PHB is in error or is in fact correct and DDB is wrong.
In 2024, they changed it to Transmutation. It's Transmutation in the 2024 PHB print, and it's Transmutation in the 2024 Blindness/Deafness free rules. So I think it's pretty clear what it's supposed to be, but there is a page out there with the old school still listed, and that's what needs to be fixed.
Edit: here, Blindness/Deafness and Blindness/Deafness should not be different (they broke the first rule of data management). But again, given that the free rules listing matches the print, I think the "correct" answer is clear.
It's been brought to my attention that the school of magic listed for the blindness/deafness spell is not the same in the printed PHB as it is here on DDB. In the printed PHB, it's listed as a transmutation spell. Here on DDB, it's listed as a necromancy spell. In the 2014 rules, it was the latter, so it's not yet clear whether the printed 2024 PHB is in error or is in fact correct and DDB is wrong.
In 2024, they changed it to Transmutation. It's Transmutation in the 2024 PHB print, and it's Transmutation in the 2024 Blindness/Deafness free rules. So I think it's pretty clear what it's supposed to be, but there is a page out there with the old school still listed, and that's what needs to be fixed.
Edit: here, Blindness/Deafness and Blindness/Deafness should not be different (they broke the first rule of data management). But again, given that the free rules listing matches the print, I think the "correct" answer is clear.
That first link shows it as "necromancy" to me. The other two links show it as transmutation. I'm guessing that when they made the new version of the spell in the compendium, they used the old version as a template and forgot to change the spell school.
On a different note, the new version of fabricate is missing the old version's bit about not it not being able to "transmute" creatures or magic items. While I would still say that neither of those things would count as "raw materials", I do find it odd that they would remove that, because as written, it now looks like you could use the spell to convert a living creature into, say, leather goods without killing the creature first.
It's been brought to my attention that the school of magic listed for the blindness/deafness spell is not the same in the printed PHB as it is here on DDB. In the printed PHB, it's listed as a transmutation spell. Here on DDB, it's listed as a necromancy spell. In the 2014 rules, it was the latter, so it's not yet clear whether the printed 2024 PHB is in error or is in fact correct and DDB is wrong.
In 2024, they changed it to Transmutation. It's Transmutation in the 2024 PHB print, and it's Transmutation in the 2024 Blindness/Deafness free rules. So I think it's pretty clear what it's supposed to be, but there is a page out there with the old school still listed, and that's what needs to be fixed.
Edit: here, Blindness/Deafness and Blindness/Deafness should not be different (they broke the first rule of data management). But again, given that the free rules listing matches the print, I think the "correct" answer is clear.
That first link shows it as "necromancy" to me. The other two links show it as transmutation. I'm guessing that when they made the new version of the spell in the compendium, they used the old version as a template and forgot to change the spell school.
That's quite strange if you didn't make a mistake on the order. If we're going in order of the links I provided, they should show Transmutation, Necromancy, Transmutation. The first and third links go to the 2024 free rules spell list, and the second one goes to the non-source Spell Rules (which reference D&D Free Rules (2024) but clearly don't match them - for me at least).
On a different note, the new version of fabricate is missing the old version's bit about not it not being able to "transmute" creatures or magic items. While I would still say that neither of those things would count as "raw materials", I do find it odd that they would remove that, because as written, it now looks like you could use the spell to convert a living creature into, say, leather goods without killing the creature first.
the format is different between the 2014 and 2024 spell description pages, so it depends on what version you are using. The 14 rules use necro, 24 uses transmutation.
People are still using the 2014 rules and spells and stuff, so why isn’t there a label that says ( 2014 or 2024 ) after the name of a good number of options.
That's quite strange if you didn't make a mistake on the order. If we're going in order of the links I provided, they should show Transmutation, Necromancy, Transmutation. The first and third links go to the 2024 free rules spell list, and the second one goes to the non-source Spell Rules (which reference D&D Free Rules (2024) but clearly don't match them - for me at least).
Yeah, sorry, I made a mistake. It is the second link that shows it as necromancy.
the format is different between the 2014 and 2024 spell description pages, so it depends on what version you are using. The 14 rules use necro, 24 uses transmutation.
People are still using the 2014 rules and spells and stuff, so why isn’t there a label that says ( 2014 or 2024 ) after the name of a good number of options.
This thread is a discussion of the 2024 rules. The problem is this page, which at the time of this post lists the old necromancy school but specifically says it is 2024.
That's quite strange if you didn't make a mistake on the order. If we're going in order of the links I provided, they should show Transmutation, Necromancy, Transmutation. The first and third links go to the 2024 free rules spell list, and the second one goes to the non-source Spell Rules (which reference D&D Free Rules (2024) but clearly don't match them - for me at least).
Yeah, sorry, I made a mistake. It is the second link that shows it as necromancy.
No problemo, I just wanted to make sure the problem didn't go even deeper than we had previously imagined!
I hope they errata the temporary hit points sticking around after wild shape and polymorph end. Unless I'm reading the rules wrong?
They should probably just errata temporary hit points to state that temporary hit points granted by an ability with a non-instant duration are lost when that ability ends.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would probably have put “with Simple Weapons and with Martial Weapons that have…”.
Edit: Thinking about it, if they had meant the Finesse/Light criterion to apply to all weapon options, they’d probably have phrased it as “Simple and Martial Weapons that have…”.
"Martial weapons with... and Simple weapons" or "All simple weapons and martial weapons with..." are the only truly unambiguous ways, but this one is the best available if you don't want to do those.
If they wanted to interpret it the other way, I would argue that "simple and martial weapons with..." is actually unambiguous.
English needs a lexical scoping operator.
I hope they errata true polymorph..
Currently you can't speak or cast spells, regardless of the form you take. In fact, there are several things that are like this and I'm hoping they change it. Sadly, go en that they've changed TP already, I doubt this will get fixed.
Playing high charisma characters with no real life charisma - the only fantasy that still eludes me.
True Polymorph has been updated to reflect the print version. It now once again includes the line about ending early.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/spell-descriptions#TruePolymorph
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/spell-descriptions#TruePolymorph
The mobile app hasn't been updated yet, but probably will be eventually.
That's almost certainly a design decision, not a bug (the fact that, even if made permanent, it ends automatically when you take a long rest, probably is a bug).
Yeah, was talking about that on the Discord. It seems to have been intentional as the other corrections listed by the OP remain intact
Could have also made it a bulleted list:
- Simple weapons
- Martial weapons that have the finesse or light property
There are lots of ways of doing it, all of which have something in common: they're not 'natural language'. As long as 5e insists on natural language, problems like this are unavoidable (which is not to say that there aren't problems with not using natural language, they're just different problems).
I finally see why they made the errata.
In 2014 PHB, it was a contest to initiate a grapple, and a contest to escape. (and goliath didn't get powerful build)
In the printed 2024 PHB, it's a save to initiate a grapple but it's still a CONTEST to escape. Thus powerful build giving them advantage on a save to end the grappled condition does nothing. Thus, the change.
That's so bizarre!
It's been brought to my attention that the school of magic listed for the blindness/deafness spell is not the same in the printed PHB as it is here on DDB. In the printed PHB, it's listed as a transmutation spell. Here on DDB, it's listed as a necromancy spell. In the 2014 rules, it was the latter, so it's not yet clear whether the printed 2024 PHB is in error or is in fact correct and DDB is wrong.
In 2024, they changed it to Transmutation. It's Transmutation in the 2024 PHB print, and it's Transmutation in the 2024 Blindness/Deafness free rules. So I think it's pretty clear what it's supposed to be, but there is a page out there with the old school still listed, and that's what needs to be fixed.
Edit: here, Blindness/Deafness and Blindness/Deafness should not be different (they broke the first rule of data management). But again, given that the free rules listing matches the print, I think the "correct" answer is clear.
That first link shows it as "necromancy" to me. The other two links show it as transmutation. I'm guessing that when they made the new version of the spell in the compendium, they used the old version as a template and forgot to change the spell school.
On a different note, the new version of fabricate is missing the old version's bit about not it not being able to "transmute" creatures or magic items. While I would still say that neither of those things would count as "raw materials", I do find it odd that they would remove that, because as written, it now looks like you could use the spell to convert a living creature into, say, leather goods without killing the creature first.
That's quite strange if you didn't make a mistake on the order. If we're going in order of the links I provided, they should show Transmutation, Necromancy, Transmutation. The first and third links go to the 2024 free rules spell list, and the second one goes to the non-source Spell Rules (which reference D&D Free Rules (2024) but clearly don't match them - for me at least).
Nightmare fuel.
the format is different between the 2014 and 2024 spell description pages, so it depends on what version you are using. The 14 rules use necro, 24 uses transmutation.
People are still using the 2014 rules and spells and stuff, so why isn’t there a label that says ( 2014 or 2024 ) after the name of a good number of options.
Yeah, sorry, I made a mistake. It is the second link that shows it as necromancy.
This thread is a discussion of the 2024 rules. The problem is this page, which at the time of this post lists the old necromancy school but specifically says it is 2024.
No problemo, I just wanted to make sure the problem didn't go even deeper than we had previously imagined!
I hope they errata the temporary hit points sticking around after wild shape and polymorph end. Unless I'm reading the rules wrong?
They should probably just errata temporary hit points to state that temporary hit points granted by an ability with a non-instant duration are lost when that ability ends.