I understand that the errata thread is for... well... errata, but if there's one document that includes a lot of useful information and changes often is the Sage Advice Compendium, even if it's not strictly errata.
I think it would be very useful to track it as well on the locked thread.
My copy of Volo's has the Warlock of the Fiend as a 12 hit dice monster but describes it as a 17th-level spell caster. This must be an error--it should be a 17 hit dice monster or a 12th-level spell caster--but I don't know if WoC has caught it or which way it was intended. I haven't found it in the published errata. Also, I do not know how DnDB lists it since I haven't re-purchased that material here. Does anyone know the intention for this NCP?
My copy of Volo's has the Warlock of the Fiend as a 12 hit dice monster but describes it as a 17th-level spell caster. This must be an error--it should be a 17 hit dice monster or a 12th-level spell caster--but I don't know if WoC has caught it or which way it was intended. I haven't found it in the published errata. Also, I do not know how DnDB lists it since I haven't re-purchased that material here. Does anyone know the intention for this NCP?
The HD and the spell caster level don't need to be the same - the monster should be assumed correct as printed. :)
Thanks for the quick response, Stormknight. When we're not talking about NPC-type foes, I agree completely, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Overpowering the NPCs undermines the integrity of the rules. If a PC can't be a 17th-level spell caster with only 12 HD, the NPC shouldn't be either. And the Warlock of the Archfey on the same page is "correct"--11 HD and 11th level. I'll continue to assume it's an error.
It's possible that someone at Wizards of the Coast made a mistake, but equally, there is no requirement for the HD of a monster to equal it's caster level. Feel free to make a homebrew rule for your own campaigns, that's also a totally valid approach. As you mention though, this is the printed stat block for the monster and no errata has been printed to change it. :)
It's a little odd .... the errata in that thread is copied from the errata documents officially published by Wizards of the Coast.
However, whenever a new printing of a book is released, we always update the wording on D&D Beyond to match the latest printing.
Occasionally, Wizards of the Coast make small changes that aren't documented in the errata and this looks like one of them.
I've checked the various editions I have and this updated wording ("Its hit point maximum equals its normal maximum or four times your ranger leveI, whichever is higher.") first appears in the sixth print of the Player's Handbook.
In the random height and weight table for races in Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, the formula for weight reads as follows: "Weight = (Base Weight + Height Modifier in pounds) × Weight Modifier". If this is to be interpreted correctly using proper order of operations according to math, the maximum weight for a centaur would be 14,640 pounds. Is this intended by WotC? I can't possibly believe that a Vedalken, who are described as "tall and slender", could possibly be up to over half a ton. Especially as later on it says that they rarely are more than 200 pounds. I believe that the equation should read:"Weight = Base Weight + (Height Modifier × Weight Modifier) in pounds". I know that WotC may not have caught this as I haven't read a print copy or the official errata so I'm not sure what could even be done about it.
When did the wildhunt shifter get changed? After ERfTLW came out, their shifting feature was only "no creature within 30' can have advantage on attacks". Now it added advantage on wisdom ability checks (this was the only feature in WGtE) and it added "unless you're incapacitated" to the end of the no advantage feature.
When did the wildhunt shifter get changed? After ERfTLW came out, their shifting feature was only "no creature within 30' can have advantage on attacks". Now it added advantage on wisdom ability checks (this was the only feature in WGtE) and it added "unless you're incapacitated" to the end of the no advantage feature.
There's been no errata applied there, however please note that Wayfinders Guide to Eberron was updated to be inline with the content published in Eberron: Rising from the Last War.
When it was first released and for the first few weeks, that was different in Rising. I had it from day one and at least on here it didn't have the bit about advantage on wisdom checks. not complaining I was just wondering.
My apologies if this does not belong here and should be posted elsewhere.
I was just reading through the PHB version 2.0.2 errata, published April 2020. And regarding the correction for the Rogue on p. 98...
[New] Spells Known of 1st-Level and Higher (p. 98). In the final sentence of this subsection, the closing phrase has changed to read as follows: “… unless you’re replacing the spell you gained at 3rd, 8th, 14th, or 20th level from any school of magic.”
Reading the "Spells Known..." section I understand that at 3rd level a Rogue only has Wizard spells correct
So, the comment in the errata pertaining to the 3rd level spell gained from another school of magic, is implying that the Rogue secured the non-Wizard spell through some other means and is eligible for replacement? If not, then the errata correction has the potential to create some confusion about replacing spells at Rogue levels 4-7.
My apologies if this does not belong here and should be posted elsewhere.
I was just reading through the PHB version 2.0.2 errata, published April 2020. And regarding the correction for the Rogue on p. 98...
[New] Spells Known of 1st-Level and Higher (p. 98). In the final sentence of this subsection, the closing phrase has changed to read as follows: “… unless you’re replacing the spell you gained at 3rd, 8th, 14th, or 20th level from any school of magic.”
Reading the "Spells Known..." section I understand that at 3rd level a Rogue only has Wizard spells correct
So, the comment in the errata pertaining to the 3rd level spell gained from another school of magic, is implying that the Rogue secured the non-Wizard spell through some other means and is eligible for replacement? If not, then the errata correction has the potential to create some confusion about replacing spells at Rogue levels 4-7.
You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the enchantment and illusion spells on the wizard spell list.
[...]
The spells you learn at 8th, 14th, and 20th level can come from any school of magic.
Whenever you gain a level in this class, you can replace one of the wizard spells you know with another spell of your choice from the wizard spell list. The new spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots, and it must be an enchantment or illusion spell, unless you’re replacing the spell you gained at 3rd, 8th, 14th, or 20th level from any school of magic.
The bolded portion of the final sentence originally read:
unless you're replacing the spell you gained at 8th, 14th, or 20th level.
It was already true that the spells from levels 8, 14, and 20 come from any school of magic. However, you initially learn three spells, and one of them is from any school of magic whereas the other two must be enchantment/illusion spells.
Originally, the wording indicated that if you replaced a known spell upon level-up, the new spell had to be an enchantment or illusion spell, unless you're replacing a spell you learned at level 8, 14, or 20; however, if you replaced any of your known spells from 3rd level, then as written, you could only replace it with an enchantment or illusion spell - even if you were replacing the one spell you learned at 3rd level that didn't have to be enchantment or illusion.
The errata changed it so that any time you're replacing a non-school-restricted spell (i.e. the spells you learn at level 8, 14, or 20, or the one spell from level 3 that didn't have to be an enchantment or illusion spell), you can replace it with a spell from any school.
"You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the enchantment and illusion spells on the wizard spell list."
Where can we suggest more improvements for erratas? For Tomb of Annihilation, in pg226, on option 5 of the Kobold Inventor's Weapon Invention, the Rot Grub Pot, it should reference the swarm of rot grubs to Volo's Guide to Monsters, or include it in Appendix D. It should NOT link to appendix A.
I understand that the errata thread is for... well... errata, but if there's one document that includes a lot of useful information and changes often is the Sage Advice Compendium, even if it's not strictly errata.
I think it would be very useful to track it as well on the locked thread.
My copy of Volo's has the Warlock of the Fiend as a 12 hit dice monster but describes it as a 17th-level spell caster. This must be an error--it should be a 17 hit dice monster or a 12th-level spell caster--but I don't know if WoC has caught it or which way it was intended. I haven't found it in the published errata. Also, I do not know how DnDB lists it since I haven't re-purchased that material here. Does anyone know the intention for this NCP?
Thanks.
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
The HD and the spell caster level don't need to be the same - the monster should be assumed correct as printed. :)
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Thanks for the quick response, Stormknight. When we're not talking about NPC-type foes, I agree completely, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Overpowering the NPCs undermines the integrity of the rules. If a PC can't be a 17th-level spell caster with only 12 HD, the NPC shouldn't be either. And the Warlock of the Archfey on the same page is "correct"--11 HD and 11th level. I'll continue to assume it's an error.
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
It's possible that someone at Wizards of the Coast made a mistake, but equally, there is no requirement for the HD of a monster to equal it's caster level. Feel free to make a homebrew rule for your own campaigns, that's also a totally valid approach. As you mention though, this is the printed stat block for the monster and no errata has been printed to change it. :)
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Thanks!
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
For Beast Companion HP, dndbeyond states that:
My physical and .pdf copies of the PHB state that:
According to this thread, there is no errata changing how you calculate the companion's HP.
Have I missed something, somewhere?
Asking for a friend.
It's a little odd .... the errata in that thread is copied from the errata documents officially published by Wizards of the Coast.
However, whenever a new printing of a book is released, we always update the wording on D&D Beyond to match the latest printing.
Occasionally, Wizards of the Coast make small changes that aren't documented in the errata and this looks like one of them.
I've checked the various editions I have and this updated wording ("Its hit point maximum equals its normal maximum or four times your ranger leveI, whichever is higher.") first appears in the sixth print of the Player's Handbook.
I hope that helps!
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
In the random height and weight table for races in Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, the formula for weight reads as follows: "Weight = (Base Weight + Height Modifier in pounds) × Weight Modifier". If this is to be interpreted correctly using proper order of operations according to math, the maximum weight for a centaur would be 14,640 pounds. Is this intended by WotC? I can't possibly believe that a Vedalken, who are described as "tall and slender", could possibly be up to over half a ton. Especially as later on it says that they rarely are more than 200 pounds. I believe that the equation should read:"Weight = Base Weight + (Height Modifier × Weight Modifier) in pounds". I know that WotC may not have caught this as I haven't read a print copy or the official errata so I'm not sure what could even be done about it.
When did the wildhunt shifter get changed? After ERfTLW came out, their shifting feature was only "no creature within 30' can have advantage on attacks". Now it added advantage on wisdom ability checks (this was the only feature in WGtE) and it added "unless you're incapacitated" to the end of the no advantage feature.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
That's the wording from Eberron: Rising from the Last War.
There's been no errata applied there, however please note that Wayfinders Guide to Eberron was updated to be inline with the content published in Eberron: Rising from the Last War.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
When it was first released and for the first few weeks, that was different in Rising. I had it from day one and at least on here it didn't have the bit about advantage on wisdom checks. not complaining I was just wondering.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
The text within Eberron: Rising from the Last War hasn't changed and no errata has been issued or applied.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Note that there were quite a few changes in the 2018 printings of the rulebooks that aren't noted in the errata PDF: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/150613/as-of-the-november-2018-core-book-updates-what-changes-were-made-in-the-latest
(The same is true to a lesser extent of some changes made in earlier printings.)
My apologies if this does not belong here and should be posted elsewhere.
I was just reading through the PHB version 2.0.2 errata, published April 2020. And regarding the correction for the Rogue on p. 98...
[New] Spells Known of 1st-Level and
Higher (p. 98). In the final sentence of this
subsection, the closing phrase has changed
to read as follows: “… unless you’re replacing
the spell you gained at 3rd, 8th, 14th, or
20th level from any school of magic.”
Reading the "Spells Known..." section I understand that at 3rd level a Rogue only has Wizard spells correct
So, the comment in the errata pertaining to the 3rd level spell gained from another school of magic, is implying that the Rogue secured the non-Wizard spell through some other means and is eligible for replacement? If not, then the errata correction has the potential to create some confusion about replacing spells at Rogue levels 4-7.
Thanks.
Here's the relevant section of the Arcane Trickster rogue's Spellcasting feature (emphasis mine):
The bolded portion of the final sentence originally read:
It was already true that the spells from levels 8, 14, and 20 come from any school of magic. However, you initially learn three spells, and one of them is from any school of magic whereas the other two must be enchantment/illusion spells.
Originally, the wording indicated that if you replaced a known spell upon level-up, the new spell had to be an enchantment or illusion spell, unless you're replacing a spell you learned at level 8, 14, or 20; however, if you replaced any of your known spells from 3rd level, then as written, you could only replace it with an enchantment or illusion spell - even if you were replacing the one spell you learned at 3rd level that didn't have to be enchantment or illusion.
The errata changed it so that any time you're replacing a non-school-restricted spell (i.e. the spells you learn at level 8, 14, or 20, or the one spell from level 3 that didn't have to be an enchantment or illusion spell), you can replace it with a spell from any school.
This 2020 PHB errata change to the Arcane Trickster rogue matches an identical change made to the Eldritch Knight fighter in the 2017 PHB errata.
Thank you. Obviously that minor detail:
"You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the enchantment and illusion spells on the wizard spell list."
is what I missed, now it makes sense!
Where can we suggest more improvements for erratas? For Tomb of Annihilation, in pg226, on option 5 of the Kobold Inventor's Weapon Invention, the Rot Grub Pot, it should reference the swarm of rot grubs to Volo's Guide to Monsters, or include it in Appendix D. It should NOT link to appendix A.
Firstly, Wizards of the Coast makes the errata, not D&D Beyond so you'd have to make suggestions to WotC.
Secondly, I'm not seeing the issue you're referencing, the Kobold Inventor stat block includes a link to the Swarm of Rot Grubs in Volo's Guide.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules