Analysing whether the errata successfully fixes the big, mechanical issues of D&D 2024.
Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) just released their very first errata for D&D 2024. Largely, the 2024 rules are fairly robust, particularly as it iterates on the existing 2014 version of D&D 5e rather than overhauling the ruleset.
Despite this, there have been some niggling issues that needed sorting out. And thankfully, this errata sorts out a bunch of these. You can checkout the full changelog on D&D Beyond, but below I’ve taken a look at what issues it tries to resolve and how well it manages this.
Conjure minor elementals
This is the big one! Conjure minor elementals has been considered notoriously broken by the community ever since the spell was revised. Essentially, it adds 2d8 to the damage of your attacks as a level 4 spell. It’s weak on a single attack, but quickly becomes strong on multiple attacks (say if you cast scorching ray).
But none of this is problematic unless you start upcasting. This is because not only can you upcast something like scorching ray for an extra ray per spell level, but conjure minor elementals also added 2d8 to the damage for each attack for each spell level upcast by. This meant that it was possible to achieve absolutely colossal levels of damage that completely unbalanced the game.
To fix this, they’ve now reduced the damage increase to 1d8 per spell level above level 4 which clearly reduces the power of upcasting.
Below I’ve created a table to show average damage of scorching ray and conjure minor elementals combined to show how the old and new damage levels affect average damage:
| Conjure minor elementals level | ||||||
| Scorching ray level | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 2 | 31.2/31.2 | 48.8/40 | 66.3/48.8 | 83.9/57.5 | 101.4/66.3 | 119/75.1 |
| 3 | 41.6/41.6 | 65/53.3 | 88.4/65 | 111.8/77.4 | 135.2/88.4 | 158.6/100.1 |
| 4 | 52/52 | 81.3/66.6 | 110.5/81.3 | 139.8/96.5 | 169/110.5 | 198.3/125.1 |
| 5 | 62.4/62.4 | 97.5/80 | 132.6/97.5 | 167.7/115.7 | 202.8/132.6 | 237.9/150.2 |
| 6 | 72.8/72.8 | 113.8/93.3 | 154.7/113.8 | 195.7/134.9 | 236.6/154.7 | 277.6/175.2 |
| 7 | 83.2/83.2 | 130/106.6 | 176.8/130 | 223.6/154.1 | 270.4/176.8 | 317.2/200.2 |
| 8 | 93.6/93.6 | 146.3/119.9 | 198.9/146.3 | 251.6/173.2 | N/A | N/A |
| 9 | 104/104 | 162.5/133.3 | 221/162.5 | 279.5/192.4 | N/A | N/A |
Its worth keeping in mind with the average damage above that it relies on enough enemies being in the emanation with the right amount of hit points available to deal these levels of damage. You also need a turn to set this up too.
So how successful is this fix? As an example, if I upcast a fireball at levels 5 and 6 and hit 4 creatures in each blast, you’ll average 242.6 damage. This is considerably more than the 132.6 damage you could have done with these spells slots with scorching ray and conjure minor elementals and the 97.5 damage you can do now.
However, conjure minor elementals is about sustained damage over the duration of a combat. If we continue to cast scorching ray at level 5 Vs level 5 fireballs hitting 4 targets, we used to deal 132.6 damage per turn, it’s now 97.5 Vs the fireball’s 114.5 (and that’s if you can hit 4 creatures at a time).
That difference isn’t vast and means that conjure minor elementals remains good in the right circumstances (fireball is generally difficult to land after the 1st round when allies get mixed in with enemies, but scorching ray can be more precise).
So yes, I think this does largely fix conjure minor elementals. It’s also worth noting that other conjure spells received similar treatment.
Everlasting polymorph temporary hit points
In the original version of polymorph (and other polymorphing spells) no end limit was explicitly stated for the temporary hit ending. Some players interpreted that they were permanent, even when the spell ended, which was considerable considering the amount of temporary hit points.
I think a rules as intended interpretation would suggest that these temporary hit points would end when the spell ends. But to be explicitly clear, WOTC added this sentence to these spells:
“These Temporary Hit Points vanish if any remain when the spell ends.”
I think this makes it explicitly clear when these temporary hit points should end and leaves nothing open to interpretation. So a good, successful fix.
Animal shapes rejuvenating temporary hit points
Something I noted when I first read animal shapes is that the way it’s worded implies that if you choose to change shape on subsequent turns, that you gain a new set of temporary hit points. This made it a powerful source of consistent extra HP which I didn’t think was the intended use for the spell.
Thankfully, WOTC have fixed this by adding the following at the end of the spell:
“The target gains a number of Temporary Hit Points equal to the Hit Points of the first form into which it shape-shifts. These Temporary Hit Points vanish if any remain when the spell ends. The transformation lasts for the duration or until the target ends it as a Bonus Action.”
Again, I think this clearly resolves the issue with the spell.
Hiding
I think the hide/invisible interaction is a problematic one and the distinction and how things work here is not entirely clear. This errata seeks to resolve at least a part of this with the following small changes:
“Hide [Action] (p. 368) In the second paragraph, “you have the Invisible condition” is now “you have the Invisible condition while hidden”. In the third paragraph, “The condition ends on you” is now “You stop being hidden”.”
I think this resolved a niche exploit where you could discover someone that had both taken the hide action and was invisible through the invisibility spell (for example) and by finding them and stopping them being hidden, all sources of invisibility were mysteriously removed.
It certainly resolves a niche issue with the mechanic that I think most DMs would have logically recognised as ending the invisible condition applied by hiding (not by other sources). I still think too much is left for the DM to determine when it comes to hiding and invisibility which also leaves uncertainty for players seeking to use this mechanic. Ultimately, I think more is needed here.
Once per day monster spells
This is more of a clarification than anything else, but many monsters with spells stated that the spells cast could be cast once per day. This made it unclear whether one from the list of spells could be cast per day or whether each spell could be cast per day.
This has been clarified by stating that these spells can be cast once per day each. A fairly straightforward clarification.
There are other more minor fixes and clarifications to various mechanics in here that shouldn’t be impactful to most games.
While I don’t think everything is fixed in this errata, it does seem to address some of the larger issues with the mechanics. I’d still like to see better mechanics for hiding introduced, but this update does go a long way to fixing a bunch of problems .
What do you think of D&D 2024’s first errata? Do you have any burning issues with the rules that weren’t resolved? Let me know in the comments below.
Spotlight on D&D 2024
All the latest updates on what’s changing with the 2024 rules revision.
