I don't see a particularly good way to report errata (if there is, please let me know), so here are a few I noticed in the print 2024 PHB so far. As always, put on an asterisk that this is new content and it's possible I may have missed something, but I did try to double check myself.
And to set the tone here, I really love the new 2024 PHB. I think most of the changes are good and my intention in reporting the errata is to help make it even better, not to complain.
1) Page 183, Sage equipment doesn't add up to the intended value, which should be 50 gp per option B. A spot check on a couple of other background and classes tallied up fine. For Sage, I get:
Sage Default
gp
Quarterstaff (the regular weapon, not the focus; switching to the focus would leave us 2 sp short instead of 5 gp)
0.2
Calligrapher's Supplies
10
Book (history)
25
Parchment (x8)
0.8
Robe
1
Money
8
Total
45
-Easiest fix is to simply change the starting money from 8 to 13 gp.
2) p165 The Wizard can't obviously get a spellbook through starting equipment option B. Adding up the values in option A, the spellbook has a value of 0 gp. There is also no spellbook (blank or otherwise) available for purchase anywhere in the Gear section, and it is definitely not equivalent to the Book listed there (which has a different weight, is filled with contents, etc.). This is also a factor for p167, Copying the Book, as the rules currently provide nothing for a Wizard to copy their book into. I can think of a few potential fixes here. First, list the Spellbook outside of options A or B, so the Wizard gets one regardless of option. Second, the implication of a 0 gp spellbook is that the Wizard is capable of crafting a blank spellbook themselves for no cost as a part of writing down their spells; if so, I would state this explicitly. I would not consider free blank books gained in this way particularly problematic as it's rather expensive to fill the book anyway (despite the empty claims that doing so is now faster and cheaper than before: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1753-2024-wizard-vs-2014-wizard-whats-new).
3) p208 (Telekinetic) and p298 (Mage Hand). Rules-as-written the range boost to 60 m from Telekinetic is nonfunctional. Mage Hand explicitly says the hand disappears if it is ever more than 30 m from the caster. Rules-as-intended this value is clearly meant to be tied to range, but it is not written that way, so Telekinetic would create the hand at 60 m and then it would instantly disappear because it is more than 30 m from the caster. Easiest fix would be to change the wording of Mage Hand to say, "The hand vanishes if it is ever outside the range of this spell..."
These next bonus items are not real rules problems and I'd generally like to keep personal opinions out of the errata, but I think they are legitimate mistakes so I'm including them here anyway:
Bonus 1) p220 Tools (as compared to their appearance in XGE) no longer say what they contain. Let's take Calligrapher's Supplies. Is it possible to write without separate pen and ink? I would think so, as backgrounds like Sage and Scribe get Calligrapher's Supplies but no pen and ink, but how much ink does it have? When do you run out and have to craft more? I think there's a lot of room for confusion across the board with Tools here as a result of this omission. Easiest fixes would be to port the contents over from XGE and/or be more explicit in what these tools can do for tasks that don't require an ability check.
Bonus 2) p223, p227 it's very strange to see paper showing a market value of twice the value of parchment. Historically this was not the case, as parchment requires animal farming and a significant amount of per-sheet processing whereas paper "at the time" (quotes because this is fantasy, but it's clearly based on Earth history) was usually made from rags that had reached the end of their usefulness. Easiest fix would be to make paper worth less (perhaps 2 cp), or make it a stack of paper rather than a sheet, etc.
Bonus 3) There are still a handful of spells that use diameter instead of radius (Blade Barrier, Prismatic Wall, Symbol, Wall of Fire, Wall of Thorns, etc.), which is 100% guaranteed to be a source of confusion for some players when the vast majority of spells use radius. Easiest fix would be to replace diameters with radii.
3) p208 (Telekinetic) and p298 (Mage Hand). Rules-as-written the range boost to 60 m from Telekinetic is nonfunctional. Mage Hand explicitly says the hand disappears if it is ever more than 30 m from the caster. Rules-as-intended this value is clearly meant to be tied to range, but it is not written that way, so Telekinetic would create the hand at 60 m and then it would instantly disappear because it is more than 30 m from the caster. Easiest fix would be to change the wording of Mage Hand to say, "The hand vanishes if it is ever outside the range of this spell..."
It is surprising how incompetent they are at fixing things. This issue with the telekinetic feat has existed as long as the feat. The wording of mage hand needed updating in the 2014 rules to support this feat. It is just disappointing that they could not resolve these types of issues with the new version since I would have thought someone would have mentioned it to them.
So... they forgot to add a spellbook to the adventuring gear :(
Maybe it's like a lightsaber—only Jedi (Wizards in D&D) can build them for their needs. From the new 2024 basic rules:
Spellbook. Your wizardly apprenticeship culminated in the creation of a unique book: your spellbook. It is a Tiny object that weighs 3 pounds, contains 100 pages, and can be read only by you or someone casting Identify. You determine the book’s appearance and materials, such as a gilt-edged tome or a collection of vellum bound with twine.
3) p208 (Telekinetic) and p298 (Mage Hand). Rules-as-written the range boost to 60 m from Telekinetic is nonfunctional. Mage Hand explicitly says the hand disappears if it is ever more than 30 m from the caster. Rules-as-intended this value is clearly meant to be tied to range, but it is not written that way, so Telekinetic would create the hand at 60 m and then it would instantly disappear because it is more than 30 m from the caster. Easiest fix would be to change the wording of Mage Hand to say, "The hand vanishes if it is ever outside the range of this spell..."
It is surprising how incompetent they are at fixing things. This issue with the telekinetic feat has existed as long as the feat. The wording of mage hand needed updating in the 2014 rules to support this feat. It is just disappointing that they could not resolve these types of issues with the new version since I would have thought someone would have mentioned it to them.
I think it's pretty clear the feat supersedes the spell range.
Telekinesis Minor Telekinesis. You learn the Mage Hand spell. You can cast it without Verbal or Somatic components, you can make the spectral hand Invisible, and its range and the distance it can be away from you both increase by 30 feet when you cast it. The spell’s spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat.
Edit: Well I'll be damned, the printed version doesn't say "and the distance it can be away from you both", which is definitely a printing error.
@David42 It's not my intention to dunk on the developers; it's a complex system with a lot of stuff going on. Mistakes happen. What does strike me as silly is the lack of any official way to report errors. I get that they don't want to be flooded by every rando who wants to change to the rules to their preferences, but I would consider this to be something of a solved problem in 2024. A tactic sometimes used with video games that I think would work great here is to have a site where bugs can be reported and then users can vote to confirm the bugs. If a bug doesn't get confirmed, the devs don't get bothered.
@tarodnet That's the implication, but since it doesn't actually say a wizard can craft one, option B just ends up being a trap as-written. I like the idea of crafting a blank spellbook for no cost as a part of scribing spells.
@Dr_Selastraga thanks for that quote. Clearly someone found this problem and fixed it somewhere, just not in the print book.
@Taenx My print copy lists a duration of 24 hours for Goodberry. I would say that's a mistake on the site, not the print. I guess I should have been clear that my post was about the print book, so I'll go add that note now, and I guess we all need to be clear what our source is on reporting future errata! In any case, I don't doubt there are many more to find; the ones I listed in my first post are just from running through a single character creation of a Wizard.
Here are a couple more possibilities based on the D&D Beyond text of the PHB.
1) 2024 True Polymorph makes the spell almost useless
Here is the 2014 text: "The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can’t speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech, unless its new form is capable of such actions."
Here is the 2024 text: "The target is limited in the actions it can perform by the anatomy of its new form, and it can’t speak or cast spells."
Intentional or not ... I don't know ... but it makes the 9th level spell significantly less useful if you transform someone into a dragon that can't speak or an archmage that can't cast spells.
A person wrote this in the General Discussion forum:
---
It seems like there's been some errata incorporated for some of the new 2024 rules already!
Here's what I've seen so far (in no particular order):
Goliath Powerful Build feature: originally applied to saving throws but now applies to ability checks.
Poisoner feat: poison lasted "until you hit" but now it's "until you deal damage".
The Armor table now specifies that Shields require the Utilize action to don or doff.
Grappler feat: This now states you don't use extra movement rather than not having your speed halved.
Giant Insect: The statblock now correctly indicates that the insect receives +10 hit points per spell level about 4th. (Previously it was missing the "above 4th" part.)
Conjure Woodland Beings: The upcasting part now correctly indicates that the damage increases for ever spell slot level above 4th (previously it was 5th).
Telekinetic feat: The mage hand range limit has been fixed. Previously it just let you cast it up to 30 feet further away, but now they've added "and the distance it can be away from you" to the description.
True Polymorph: The spell no longer ends early if you run out of THP. However, it appears you can't talk no matter what form you're in.
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.
Military Saddle gives advantage on any *ability check* you make to remain mounted. But, under _Mounted combat_ it says that you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity *saving throw* to not fall when your mount is moved (or when you or the mount get knocked Prone). This means the Military Saddle does, effectively, nothing.
It should give you advantage on *saving throws* to remain mounted.
Unless this is intended to give advantage on Animal handling (Wisdom) checks to calm your mount or Acrobatic (Dexterity) checks to avoid falling from the saddle (for example)?
I have the sense there was a lot of save /check shuffling going on late into development. IMO they could have (and still can) save themselves a lot of trouble by simply making more use of the new term they added: d20 Test. If the rule were to read "advantage on any d20 Test you make to remain mounted", it works regardless of existing or future rules interactions.
The wording of the Military Saddle (and the saving throw to remain mounted) are from the 2014 rules. This was/is a chance to fix this inconsistency (like the online 2024 rules fixed the Telekinetic's Mage Hand improvement).
it says : "Infused with magic for the duration" but the duration is instantaneous..
And down the spell it says "Uneaten berries disapear when the spell ends" but the duration is instantaneous... so it just make berries disapear and thats it? hahahah
it says : "Infused with magic for the duration" but the duration is instantaneous..
And down the spell it says "Uneaten berries disapear when the spell ends" but the duration is instantaneous... so it just make berries disapear and thats it? hahahah
If you look at it in the digital book, it has a 24-hour duration. The DDB live version has a data entry error.
I have a question regarding the Rogue and the Wayfarer Background. Rogues are automatically proficient with Thieves' Tools. The Wayfarer Background would be a good choice for a Rogue, but its Tool Proficiency is...Thieves' Tools? Would the Rogue therefore get Expertise in Thieves' Tools? Should the DM just allow the player to choose another proficiency? Or is the Rogue just S.O.L.?
Expertise is only for skill proficiencies. It is not relevant to tools. See Expertise in the rules glossary.
There is no RAW provision for swapping tool proficiencies.
If you want my personal opinion, Wayfarer is best suited to a "rogue-lite" character who wants to be able to pick locks and the like without being a member of the Rogue class. Wayfarer isn't a great choice for a Rogue from an ability score standpoint anyway; you want something to boost Dex and Int.
In any case, the presence of sub-optimal combinations doesn't constitute a mistake needing errata.
Expertise is only for skill proficiencies. It is not relevant to tools. See Expertise in the rules glossary.
There is no RAW provision for swapping tool proficiencies.
If you want my personal opinion, Wayfarer is best suited to a "rogue-lite" character who wants to be able to pick locks and the like without being a member of the Rogue class. Wayfarer isn't a great choice for a Rogue from an ability score standpoint anyway; you want something to boost Dex and Int.
In any case, the presence of sub-optimal combinations doesn't constitute a mistake needing errata.
That would be a significant change, since in the 2014 rules, Rogues can choose their Thieves' Tools as one of their expertise choices. Note that lockpicking and trap disarming, at least per the 2024 thieves' tools tooltip, seem to be straight dex checks, so there is no actual relevant skill. Knowing the tool proficiency does not give them advantage in such tasks (as it would if there was a relevant skill) but it seems they can never be experts at using them, either.
Artificers are similar at 6th level but there at least the wording is 'double proficiency with all checks involving tools that involve your proficiency'
The Blinded condition should be negated if you can see somehow
Isn't that automatic?
Duration
A condition lasts either for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition or until the condition is countered (the Prone condition is countered by standing up, for example).
Being able to see definitely sounds like a counter to "You can't see" in my book.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't see a particularly good way to report errata (if there is, please let me know), so here are a few I noticed in the print 2024 PHB so far. As always, put on an asterisk that this is new content and it's possible I may have missed something, but I did try to double check myself.
And to set the tone here, I really love the new 2024 PHB. I think most of the changes are good and my intention in reporting the errata is to help make it even better, not to complain.
1) Page 183, Sage equipment doesn't add up to the intended value, which should be 50 gp per option B. A spot check on a couple of other background and classes tallied up fine. For Sage, I get:
It is surprising how incompetent they are at fixing things. This issue with the telekinetic feat has existed as long as the feat. The wording of mage hand needed updating in the 2014 rules to support this feat. It is just disappointing that they could not resolve these types of issues with the new version since I would have thought someone would have mentioned it to them.
So... they forgot to add a spellbook to the adventuring gear :(
Maybe it's like a lightsaber—only Jedi (Wizards in D&D) can build them for their needs. From the new 2024 basic rules:
I think it's pretty clear the feat supersedes the spell range.
Edit: Well I'll be damned, the printed version doesn't say "and the distance it can be away from you both", which is definitely a printing error.
Another Errata for you..
Goodberry
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: Ten berries appear in your hand and are infused with magic for the duration.
How does this work? Do you create 10 berries and their magic instantaneously goes away? Was the duration supposed to be 24 hours like before?
Wait what? Oh, this seems to be a tooltip error. Both the printed book and the Compendium version specify that the duration is 24 hours.
@David42 It's not my intention to dunk on the developers; it's a complex system with a lot of stuff going on. Mistakes happen. What does strike me as silly is the lack of any official way to report errors. I get that they don't want to be flooded by every rando who wants to change to the rules to their preferences, but I would consider this to be something of a solved problem in 2024. A tactic sometimes used with video games that I think would work great here is to have a site where bugs can be reported and then users can vote to confirm the bugs. If a bug doesn't get confirmed, the devs don't get bothered.
@tarodnet That's the implication, but since it doesn't actually say a wizard can craft one, option B just ends up being a trap as-written. I like the idea of crafting a blank spellbook for no cost as a part of scribing spells.
@Dr_Selastraga thanks for that quote. Clearly someone found this problem and fixed it somewhere, just not in the print book.
@Taenx My print copy lists a duration of 24 hours for Goodberry. I would say that's a mistake on the site, not the print. I guess I should have been clear that my post was about the print book, so I'll go add that note now, and I guess we all need to be clear what our source is on reporting future errata! In any case, I don't doubt there are many more to find; the ones I listed in my first post are just from running through a single character creation of a Wizard.
Are we collecting errata?
Here are a couple more possibilities based on the D&D Beyond text of the PHB.
1) 2024 True Polymorph makes the spell almost useless
Here is the 2014 text: "The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can’t speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech, unless its new form is capable of such actions."
Here is the 2024 text: "The target is limited in the actions it can perform by the anatomy of its new form, and it can’t speak or cast spells."
Intentional or not ... I don't know ... but it makes the 9th level spell significantly less useful if you transform someone into a dragon that can't speak or an archmage that can't cast spells.
A person wrote this in the General Discussion forum:
---
It seems like there's been some errata incorporated for some of the new 2024 rules already!
Here's what I've seen so far (in no particular order):
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.
---
Thanks for the clarification.
Another mistake, similar to the Goliath one:
Military Saddle gives advantage on any *ability check* you make to remain mounted. But, under _Mounted combat_ it says that you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity *saving throw* to not fall when your mount is moved (or when you or the mount get knocked Prone). This means the Military Saddle does, effectively, nothing.
It should give you advantage on *saving throws* to remain mounted.
Unless this is intended to give advantage on Animal handling (Wisdom) checks to calm your mount or Acrobatic (Dexterity) checks to avoid falling from the saddle (for example)?
I have the sense there was a lot of save /check shuffling going on late into development. IMO they could have (and still can) save themselves a lot of trouble by simply making more use of the new term they added: d20 Test. If the rule were to read "advantage on any d20 Test you make to remain mounted", it works regardless of existing or future rules interactions.
The wording of the Military Saddle (and the saving throw to remain mounted) are from the 2014 rules. This was/is a chance to fix this inconsistency (like the online 2024 rules fixed the Telekinetic's Mage Hand improvement).
The new goodberry makes no sense,
it says : "Infused with magic for the duration" but the duration is instantaneous..
And down the spell it says "Uneaten berries disapear when the spell ends" but the duration is instantaneous... so it just make berries disapear and thats it? hahahah
If you look at it in the digital book, it has a 24-hour duration. The DDB live version has a data entry error.
I have a question regarding the Rogue and the Wayfarer Background. Rogues are automatically proficient with Thieves' Tools. The Wayfarer Background would be a good choice for a Rogue, but its Tool Proficiency is...Thieves' Tools? Would the Rogue therefore get Expertise in Thieves' Tools? Should the DM just allow the player to choose another proficiency? Or is the Rogue just S.O.L.?
Partner, Massive Chaos
Writer/Co-Creator, Hunter Black
Co-Host, POPSKL Podcast
Repped by Venture Entertainment Partners - He/Him
Expertise is only for skill proficiencies. It is not relevant to tools. See Expertise in the rules glossary.
There is no RAW provision for swapping tool proficiencies.
If you want my personal opinion, Wayfarer is best suited to a "rogue-lite" character who wants to be able to pick locks and the like without being a member of the Rogue class. Wayfarer isn't a great choice for a Rogue from an ability score standpoint anyway; you want something to boost Dex and Int.
In any case, the presence of sub-optimal combinations doesn't constitute a mistake needing errata.
That would be a significant change, since in the 2014 rules, Rogues can choose their Thieves' Tools as one of their expertise choices. Note that lockpicking and trap disarming, at least per the 2024 thieves' tools tooltip, seem to be straight dex checks, so there is no actual relevant skill. Knowing the tool proficiency does not give them advantage in such tasks (as it would if there was a relevant skill) but it seems they can never be experts at using them, either.
Artificers are similar at 6th level but there at least the wording is 'double proficiency with all checks involving tools that involve your proficiency'
The Blindsight should make you ignore effects from the Blinded condition.
The Blinded condition should be negated if you can see somehow
Yea it needs to get a "Invisible" style re-write with a few "unless" clauses. Not sure they'll do it though.
Isn't that automatic?
Being able to see definitely sounds like a counter to "You can't see" in my book.