SRD website vs Paper Manual, which is correct?

[lytokk]

In looking through the SRD, I noticed something that was off with the Monster Manual 1. In the Monster Manual 1, the Megaraptor is huge, Deinonychus is Large, on the SRD website, Megaraptos is Large, Deino is medium. Which one is supposed to be correct in this situation? It doesn't appear to be a simple typo,as the space/reach is correct. My thought is that since the SRD came last, its correct.

[Particle_Man]

Maybe there is an errata?

[shadow_archmagi]

Maybe there is an errata?

This is correct. The MM_Errata gives the Deino a size of Medium.









Just having a straight answer is boring though! In the absence of Errata, one could make any of the following conjectures:

The Original Paper version is correct, because paper is the True Substance for Writing, and we were fools to cast aside our books for technological idols. When our children are wasted husks, we'll yearn for tradition again.

The Original Paper version is correct, because it was written by the authors of D&D and is thus imbued with their Authorial Intent. The SRD is a mere recompilation, and thus any changes represent errors and human folly.

The SRD is correct, because the SRD is the document we use at our table. When everyone owns laptops, it's way easier to use, and the difference between the two isn't nearly as important as simply picking one and being consistent.

The book is correct, because the book is the document we use at our table. Not everyone owns laptops, so the book is way easier to use, and the difference between the two isn't nearly as important as simply picking one and being consistent.

[version] is correct because, having carefully looked at the statistics of the dinosaurs and compared them with archaeology books, our GM believes that [version] is a much more realistic representation of dinosaurs.

[version] is correct because, having compared the impact of Size categories, our GM believes that the dinosaur profile in [version] is better suited to the adventure we're having. After all, a dinosaur that was [Size] would be [too Size] to [verb] effectively!

[Ansem]

Books > internet unless specifically stated, referred to the book in question and the altered change and from first party.

[Venger]

The SRD is, as you surmised, the most up to date, incorporating errata and such, so is the one that takes precedence (for example, the druid's wild shape no longer being keyed off polymorph, as suggested by some early run 3.5 PHBs)

[Deophaun]

The question is where are you getting your SRD from? d20srd.com, for example, actually isn't the SRD, despite its name. It's SRD+errata, a lot of which (all?) WotC never included.

[lytokk]

The SRD is, as you surmised, the most up to date, incorporating errata and such, so is the one that takes precedence (for example, the druid's wild shape no longer being keyed off polymorph, as suggested by some early run 3.5 PHBs)

thats another thing. In researching the Primeval class, its like the druids wild shape, except its not. Primevals primeval form is based off of Polymorph, which completely changes the class in my mind, as I was trying to make a fire breathing dinosaur. Primeval is in the Frostburn book, printed in 2004. Is it still a polymorph affect or is it the alternate form function of druids, outlined in the srd? Or does it even matter depending on which one you believe to be canon?

[Zaydos]

Though note sometimes the SRD does not have the full text of things that weren't erratad (such as cutting out parenthetic explanations which can change how rules work) and it misses some of the stuff that was changed in the Gold Edition of the Player's Handbook so I wouldn't say it's the most up to date simply more up to date than the original printings.

[lytokk]

The question is where are you getting your SRD from? d20srd.com, for example, actually isn't the SRD, despite its name. It's SRD+errata, a lot of which (all?) WotC never included.

d20srd.com I thought that was the official SRD.

[Vanitas]

d20srd.com I thought that was the official SRD.

It isn't. The official SRD is (was?) in the WotC website

[Deophaun]

It isn't. The official SRD is (was?) in the WotC website
It's still there. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35)

[lytokk]

and that website agrees with whats in the manuals, and wild shape is a polymorph affect, which means a wild shaped druid would maintain a dragonborns breath weapon so long as the form has a mouth...

well, now I feel like I wasted a lot of time trying to figure out how to get that to work because I was looking on the wrong source...

[Karnith]

and that website agrees with whats in the manuals, and wild shape is a polymorph affect,
Actually, no; that was changed by the Player's Handbook errata (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a), and errata take precedence per WotC's primary source rule. Wild Shape is now based on the Alternate Form special ability (which has also been errata'd to not work like Polymorph anymore).

One of the main reasons that people use the Hyperlink d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) is that it generally incorporates the most recent errata, saving you the hassle of having to look up things from various documents. (The other reason is that it is vastly more convenient to use than the official SRD, since that's on a bunch of .rtf files)

[lytokk]

ok, so what's in the official WoTC SRD is incorrect... but the erratta is correct? which is also hosted by WoTC?

[Karnith]

ok, so what's in the official WoTC SRD is incorrect... but the erratta is correct? which is also hosted by WoTC?
Correct. The 3.5 SRD was released well before the most recent errata files (since it was just a compilation OGL content from various books), and to the best of my knowledge it was never updated to keep pace with errata changes. Errata for the various books/sources are freely available, and take precedence over the source that they apply to. They are not a part of the SRD, though, leading to the fun little hunting game of comparing the SRD rtf files and errata files to find out how things actually work if you insist on using the official SRD.

This is a big reason that people like d20srd.org, even though it has its own flaws: it's very convenient to use.

[TypoNinja]

One thing to watch out for on the SRD is that some of the more complicated spells/effects/sections have shorter descriptions than the paper source, or lack an expanded example of use.

The lack of detailed description and example can sometimes be troublesome when trying to determine what exactly the damn thing does, consulting your book can be useful in those cases.

[Chronos]

Example: The SRD listing of Break Enchantment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/breakEnchantment.htm) might lead one to think that it won't undo petrification, but the book specifically says that it does.

[Particle_Man]

The one think I wish the hypertext srd did was to add links in the "core" feats and domains sections, respectively, to the general feats (in the epic and divine and psionics sections) and the extra domains (in the psionics and divine sections). I mean, they are there on the srd, so that is great, but it would be nice to have them all together.

[Pickford]

In looking through the SRD, I noticed something that was off with the Monster Manual 1. In the Monster Manual 1, the Megaraptor is huge, Deinonychus is Large, on the SRD website, Megaraptos is Large, Deino is medium. Which one is supposed to be correct in this situation? It doesn't appear to be a simple typo,as the space/reach is correct. My thought is that since the SRD came last, its correct.

Assuming you're looking at the 3.5 physical copy with errata, that one.