Errors/changes in the Hypertext d20SRD

[Biggus]

I knew that the Hypertext d20SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) had corrected one or two obvious errors which got missed in the errata, such as the price of a standard strand of prayer beads, and that like other versions of the SRD it sometimes misses out explanatory text from spells and so on.

But now it's been brought to my attention (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?622416-eliminating-the-long-casting-time-for-a-spell-like-ability&p=24807348#post24807348) that on at least one occasion, they've actually changed a rule for no apparent reason:


A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.


Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise

Does anyone know of any other cases where it changes text which isn't a clear error? Like quite a few other people on here I use the d20SRD as my primary ready-reference, so I'd like to know if it's wrong about anything else.

[MinimanMidget]

Note for anyone else whose memory is as bad as mine:



Using a spell-like ability usually takes 1 standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity unless otherwise noted. If the spell-like ability duplicates a spell that has a casting time of less than 1 standard action, the spell-like ability has that casting time.


So yeah, this isn't something that got changed.

[Biggus]

Note for anyone else whose memory is as bad as mine:

So yeah, this isn't something that got changed.

No, the Rules Compendium specifies only those spells whose casting time is less than a standard action, that isn't what the SRD says. Have a read of the original thread I linked to for the full details.

[Piggy Knowles]

Another error can be found in the section on epic uses of perform. It uses the same table as diplomacy, when in fact the DCs are roughly 20 points higher.

[Telonius]

I would go on it and poke around for some more, but the full-page roll-over "Call of Duty" ads have been making that site nearly un-usable for a few weeks now. (I guess that counts as an error, but probably not the kind of error you meant...)

[Crake]

I would go on it and poke around for some more, but the full-page roll-over "Call of Duty" ads have been making that site nearly un-usable for a few weeks now. (I guess that counts as an error, but probably not the kind of error you meant...)

You mean you don't use an ad blocker?!

[Telonius]

Nah, I usually don't see the need, beyond the popup blockers that come standard on the browser. Had a couple bad experiences with ad blocking software (slowing down performance to a crawl, sneaking in tracking software) and 99% of the time my brain just blocks out the ads anyway.

[Darg]

A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description.

Seems pretty spot on here considering it says the spell/ability description takes preference.

The only reason invocations don't follow this rule is because there is no "unless noted otherwise" and specific trumps general.


Nah, I usually don't see the need, beyond the popup blockers that come standard on the browser. Had a couple bad experiences with ad blocking software (slowing down performance to a crawl, sneaking in tracking software) and 99% of the time my brain just blocks out the ads anyway.

Using firefox with Ublock Origin, Disconnect, and Privacy Badger I personally see dramatic decrease in page load times in ad heavy sites. It's also for safety reasons. Some ads can contain malware which can be loaded onto your computer with an accidental click. There are also examples of ads exploiting holes in the security of OSs to load themselves automatically (practically non-existent unless you don't update your computer). I whitelist sites that I know vet their ads. If they aren't transparent, then so is the hand that blocks them.

[Troacctid]

Another error can be found in the section on epic uses of perform. It uses the same table as diplomacy, when in fact the DCs are roughly 20 points higher.
This is an error in the SRD itself, not the website. You can blame WotC for it.

[Thurbane]

I would go on it and poke around for some more, but the full-page roll-over "Call of Duty" ads have been making that site nearly un-usable for a few weeks now. (I guess that counts as an error, but probably not the kind of error you meant...)

Yeah, this drives me insane. It ruins the site. When I'm my work PC, I don't have the luxury of AdBlocker.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, this drives me insane. It ruins the site. When I'm my work PC, I don't have the luxury of AdBlocker.
If you use Chrome, try going into Settings > Site Settings and blocking Javascript from the d20srd domain. It worked for me on my mobile browser (which can't use adblocker extensions).

[Bullet06320]

If you use Chrome, try going into Settings > Site Settings and blocking Javascript from the d20srd domain. It worked for me on my mobile browser (which can't use adblocker extensions).

thank you, those adds are bloody annoying

[nedz]

For some reason I now get the privacy pop-up every time I open a page. This makes the site virtually unusable.

I did stumble across a couple of errors. There are two non-SRD PRCs on the site - the text for one being completely wrong. These are not in the index - I only found them by accident when I ran a web search - you can see them in the /srd/prestigeClasses sub-folder however.

[Biggus]

For some reason I now get the privacy pop-up every time I open a page. This makes the site virtually unusable.

I did stumble across a couple of errors. There are two non-SRD PRCs on the site - the text for one being completely wrong. These are not in the index - I only found them by accident when I ran a web search - you can see them in the /srd/prestigeClasses sub-folder however.

I get the privacy pop-up a lot too, although not always.

How do you navigate to the /srd/prestigeClasses sub-folder? When I click on "prestige classes" it just takes me to a brief list of definitions.

Which classes are they?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

How do you navigate to the /srd/prestigeClasses sub-folder? When I click on "prestige classes" it just takes me to a brief list of definitions.

Here's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/) a direct link.


Which classes are they?

The Gifted of the Traveler and Shadowcrafter are the two extras, the latter of which doesn't match the actual Shadowcrafter in Underdark.

[AvatarVecna]

The paragon template on the SRD gives one bonus feat. The version in the physical book gives two, and there's no errata or 3.5 update I've found that can explain the discrepancy.

EDIT: Also, while I haven't had a lot of problems of this nature with the 3.5 SRD, the 5e SRD has problems everywhere, particularly in the spell section where durations and spell levels and the like will be off while the descriptions are fine. My best guess is that there's a number of spells where they basically copied the 3.5 SRD page for a spell, then altered it to fit the 5e book, but there's some stuff they didn't check for changes as dutifully as they should've.

[Biggus]

Here's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/) a direct link.

The Gifted of the Traveler and Shadowcrafter are the two extras, the latter of which doesn't match the actual Shadowcrafter in Underdark.

Thank you, how do you get to that page? I've never seen it before.

What book is Gifted of the Traveler from? Google isn't coming up with anything.


The paragon template on the SRD gives one bonus feat. The version in the physical book gives two, and there's no errata or 3.5 update I've found that can explain the discrepancy.


So it does, well spotted.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The paragon template on the SRD gives one bonus feat. The version in the physical book gives two, and there's no errata or 3.5 update I've found that can explain the discrepancy.

It's in the 3.5 Update Booklet, but it's easy to miss. On page 23, on the line after the Paragon Mind Flayer, there's a Paragon Template line that has a "-1" in the Epic Feats column, reducing the bonus epic feats from 2 to 1.


Thank you, how do you get to that page? I've never seen it before.

It's not linked anywhere in the SRD, you just have to know that that's how websites are laid out and construct the URL yourself.

It works on any page that's part of a larger category. Go to a link, cut the last section off, and you get the index page. For example, the link for the Troll monster entry is https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm. Remove the "/troll.htm" bit and you get a link to all the monster pages at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters.


What book is Gifted of the Traveler from? Google isn't coming up with anything.

Both are homebrew, which is why they don't appear on the main PrC page. I assume they were made for the website creator's own group and put up there for convenience or something.

[Elkad]

On the subject of stuff not linked at d20srd, the level advancement table is there as well.

BAB, good/poor saves, exp needed, wbl, etc...

[nedz]

It's not linked anywhere in the SRD, you just have to know that that's how websites are laid out and construct the URL yourself.

It works on any page that's part of a larger category. Go to a link, cut the last section off, and you get the index page. For example, the link for the Troll monster entry is https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm. Remove the "/troll.htm" bit and you get a link to all the monster pages at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters.

Yep.
The resources for a website are stored in folders which the script (HTML/JavaScript/etc.) loads them from.
You don't normally see them because you just run the script, but you can always load them.



Both are homebrew, which is why they don't appear on the main PrC page. I assume they were made for the website creator's own group and put up there for convenience or something.
Gifted of the Traveler may be an obscure Eberron PrC, but I don't know the source.

[Crake]

On the subject of stuff not linked at d20srd, the level advancement table is there as well.

BAB, good/poor saves, exp needed, wbl, etc...

Those things aren't actually in the SRD, intentionally so by wizards.

[Biggus]

It's not linked anywhere in the SRD, you just have to know that that's how websites are laid out and construct the URL yourself.

It works on any page that's part of a larger category. Go to a link, cut the last section off, and you get the index page. For example, the link for the Troll monster entry is https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm. Remove the "/troll.htm" bit and you get a link to all the monster pages at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters.



Yep.
The resources for a website are stored in folders which the script (HTML/JavaScript/etc.) loads them from.
You don't normally see them because you just run the script, but you can always load them.


Thank you. I knew some websites are laid out like that where the index page is visible, I never knew that lots of them have invisible index pages.

[Elkad]

Those things aren't actually in the SRD, intentionally so by wizards.

That was my point. The table is on d20srd anyway.

[Rebel7284]

Many websites block the ability to show folder contents like this. Pretty sure it comes pre-disabled on recent versions of Apache2. I think the logic is that it allows people to use websites in a way that is unintended and deceased security

[Jack_Simth]

I knew that the Hypertext d20SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) had corrected one or two obvious errors which got missed in the errata, such as the price of a standard strand of prayer beads, and that like other versions of the SRD it sometimes misses out explanatory text from spells and so on.

But now it's been brought to my attention (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?622416-eliminating-the-long-casting-time-for-a-spell-like-ability&p=24807348#post24807348) that on at least one occasion, they've actually changed a rule for no apparent reason:





Does anyone know of any other cases where it changes text which isn't a clear error? Like quite a few other people on here I use the d20SRD as my primary ready-reference, so I'd like to know if it's wrong about anything else.Heh.

There's two definitions in Core for spell-like abilties: One in the Player's Handbook, one in the Monster Manual. Both made it into the base SRD, the website simply picked one.

[Seak]

Not sure if this counts, because if I'm not mistaken this error was actually printed in some of the player's handbooks, but the Armor Proficiency (Medium) feat lists bard as one of the automatic beneficiaries, while the bard class lists only light armor.

[Biggus]

Heh.

There's two definitions in Core for spell-like abilties: One in the Player's Handbook, one in the Monster Manual. Both made it into the base SRD, the website simply picked one.

It's more complicated than that. As pointed out in the original thread I linked to, there are two different definitions in the PHB, one of which agrees with the one in the MM, one of which doesn't, which suggests that the one which agrees with the MM is the right one. Also, according to the errata, the MM is the primary source for SLAs, so it should take precedence.

[Crake]

It's more complicated than that. As pointed out in the original thread I linked to, there are two different definitions in the PHB, one of which agrees with the one in the MM, one of which doesn't, which suggests that the one which agrees with the MM is the right one. Also, according to the errata, the MM is the primary source for SLAs, so it should take precedence.

It's even worse than this though, because d20srd didn't pick one, they made their own based on, what I assume is, their personal interpretation.

[Darg]

I don't see anything conflicting in the PHB about SLAs. And the errata says the the PHB is the primary source when it comes to the player while the MM is the primary source when it comes to monsters.

As far as I can tell they did a good job merging the books for a cohesive definition for SLAs. The PHB has a section under Actions in Combat and Special Abilities. Which the SRD mimics.


A spell-
like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted
otherwise in the ability or spell description.


A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.

Doesn't conflict as far as I can tell. Even still, the MM doesn't define what "otherwise noted" means and it constantly says that SLAs duplicate spells. "Duplicate" is used constantly in D&D to mean an exact replica. The RC makes mention that spell-like abilities take on the cast time of the spell by providing an example. There really isn't much to go on to prove that SLAs are 1 standard action. Invocations don't have the "unless otherwise noted" verbiage to reference the cast time of the spell. So if it's not an invocation and you have to look up the function of the SLA in the spell description, the SLA functions just like the spell because the cast time is noted in the spell description.

[Crake]

I don't see anything conflicting in the PHB about SLAs.

There's another entry on page 142 that makes no mention of spell description, only ability description, and every other entry in 3.5 only ever mentions ability description, so the page 180 quote you posted is the odd one out in the inclusion of spell description.


Doesn't conflict as far as I can tell.

Whether it conflicts or not isn't the issue. The fact is that the d20srd line doesn't exist anywhere in the srd and is a fabrication of the d20srd site managers.


There really isn't much to go on to prove that SLAs are 1 standard action.

Except that there are multiple monsters cited as using SLAs of spells that are very long cast times as mid-combat tactics.


The RC makes mention that spell-like abilities take on the cast time of the spell by providing an example.

No, the rules compendium states that SLAs take on the casting time of the spell if it is less than a standard action. Seems a bit strange to make that distinction if the intention is that all SLAs of spells use the casting time of the base spell.

[Darg]

There's another entry on page 142 that makes no mention of spell description, only ability description, and every other entry in 3.5 only ever mentions ability description, so the page 180 quote you posted is the odd one out in the inclusion of spell description.

I also pointed out that in every case, except for invocations, that the verbiage "unless otherwise noted" can be found. The only place where this verbiage is fully comprehensively defined is found in the PHB on page 180. On page 142 prior to your reference, the book references page 180 to find the cast time:


Using a special ability is usually a standard action, but whether it is a standard action, a full-round action, or not an action at all is defined
by the ability (see Special Abilities, page 180).

In the MM and other sources, many SLAs do not have descriptions. So where do you get the information on how it functions? The spell description. In the spell description it has the cast time entry. So it is being noted where you discover the effect of the SLA. Many SLA descriptions also have a "functions like" verbiage and then references the spell without changing the cast time in the description. If the spell description notes a cast time, then that cast time is noted. At the very least the RAI is extremely obvious.


Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are uniques; these are explained in the text where they're described

This is the very first paragraph under SLAs in the rules compendium. This sets the general rule. It then goes on to say that a SLA is usually a standard action unless otherwise noted. It's that verbiage again then it provides you an example. Even if the example is a rule, it doesn't exclude longer cast times either.

As for monsters stated as using long cast time SLAs, it wouldn't be uncommon to make preparations prior. Not to mention the plethora of mistakes and inaccuracies in monster entries.