The latest Errata! Come get your reprint today!

[CyberThread]

So like...they are printing bunch of the 3.5 books, and crowing on how it has the


LATEST....


and..


GREATEST!!!!


ERRRATTAAAAAAAA!

*marching band plays in celebration *


Is it anything new, or just what they gave us for free already a few years back ?

[eggynack]

I don't own the new ones, but I don't think they changed the errata. There was a problem, a bit ago, where stuff from the polymorph sub-school in the PHB II was in the PHB errata instead, but that's not a rules change.

[Big Fau]

WotC's bad editing has caused them to leave out sections of the errata, and they gave no explanation as to whether this was intentional (changing the errata) or not (the usual oversight).

Ex: Wands with Swift/Immediate action spells now take a Standard action to use.

[olentu]

Hmm, didn't WotC put stealth errata into one of their later printings back when 3.5 was still active. Modified the list of available animal companions as I recall. I would assume that is still there.

[ArqArturo]

... Errata of what?.

[nedz]

Hmm, didn't WotC put stealth errata into one of their later printings back when 3.5 was still active. Modified the list of available animal companions as I recall. I would assume that is still there.

This comes up quite often in one of my groups — mainly with spells.
I can't remember the details, but there have been a few instances where we scrabble to check the version of the PH.

[137beth]

This issue is possibly my favorite thing about Pathfinder--they make errata, and then add the errata to their PRD...AND include it in the next printing...and they do it more often than WotC...:smallannoyed:

[Yora]

Say... is Pathfinder basically a retro clone by now?

[mattie_p]

There is at least one incident of new errata that I am aware of. The reprinted 3.5 DMG includes the line that taking a prestige class never results in multiclass XP penalties.

This line was included in the 3.0 DMG, absent from the original 3.5 DMG, and never included in the errata to the 3.5 DMG.

[Karnith]

There is at least one incident of new errata that I am aware of. The reprinted 3.5 DMG includes the line that taking a prestige class never results in multiclass XP penalties.

This line was included in the 3.0 DMG, absent from the original 3.5 DMG, and never included in the errata to the 3.5 DMG.
Strangely, the line is in the SRD, however.

[RFLS]

Strangely, the line is in the SRD, however.

I think the SRD includes all errata ever, even if it meant merging multiple sources. [citation needed]

[ArqArturo]

Say... is Pathfinder basically a retro clone by now?

Pathfinder is now like looking at the future of the past. Kinda like Fallout.

[Karnith]

I think the SRD includes all errata ever, even if it meant merging multiple sources. [citation needed]
I mean, it's also in the official 3.5 SRD (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), which doesn't include errata.

[Humble Master]

I will probably sound stupid for asking this but what is errata in D&D?

[mattie_p]

I think the SRD includes all errata ever, even if it meant merging multiple sources. [citation needed]

Not quite. The Official SRD (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35) does explicitly include the line. But the official SRD does not include publicly available errata to 3.5. D20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) does merge errata with the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/changes.htm), hyperlinking it in the form we all know.


I will probably sound stupid for asking this but what is errata in D&D?

Here is the errata. (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a)

[Vedhin]

I will probably sound stupid for asking this but what is errata in D&D?

It's where WotC realizes they left something out of the rules/were unclear/etc., and actually decides to put out an offical change to the rules.

[SillySymphonies]

The reprinted 3.5 DMG includes the line that taking a prestige class never results in multiclass XP penalties. This line was included in the 3.0 DMG, absent from the original 3.5 DMG, and never included in the errata to the 3.5 DMG.

I came upon an even curiouser one: my original 3.5 MM lists vampire LA as +5 for the sample vampire, as +8 for the sample elite vampire and as +8 under 'creating a vampire'. My DM's 3.5 MM 2012 reprint lists vampire LA as +5 for the sample vampire, as +5 for the sample elite vampire and as +8 under 'creating a vampire'. :smallconfused:

This 'erratum' was never included in the errata to the 3.5 MM...

[Karnith]

I came upon an even curiouser one: my original 3.5 MM lists vampire LA as +5 for the sample vampire, as +8 for the sample elite vampire and as +8 under 'creating a vampire'. My DM's 3.5 MM 2012 reprint lists vampire LA as +5 for the sample vampire, as +5 for the sample elite vampire and as +8 under 'creating a vampire'. :smallconfused:

This 'erratum' was never included in the errata to the 3.5 MM...
It was probably originally an editing error from the 3.0->3.5 switch (though very curious that they didn't fix it one way or another). Vampires had LA +5 in 3.0, according to my copy of Savage Species.