Confused About 3.5

[Sergeant Slaughter]

OK, I've been reading on the main page about 3.5, and some of the (many) threads around here, but I have a couple of questions I'm very confused about.

First, are there other revisions I'm missing? I know about the errata you an find online, but 3.5 seems to indicate that there are other point releases I'm not aware of. Are these online, and 3.5 is the first of these point releases being released in print? And if so, where can I find these other point releases?

Second, is it a new edition or not? Generally, a new edition of a book is a revision of an old one. They're calling this 3.5 or Revised. But "a revision" is the definition of a new edition. And 3.5 certainly isn't the same as 3, which is how you designate new "releases" (the computer versions of editions). So, they seem to be creating a new edition in everything but name. I guess this is a marketing thing? But if so, it's mighty confusing nomenclature. A new book edition is a revision. That's what a new edition is. So why isn't this a new edition?

Third, this isn't really a question, but why are some people calling it a "patch?" It in no way resembles a patch, since patches are free, and can be simply applied to the original program to fix issues. You don't need to buy a whole new program (in this case, a book). That's why they're called patches. I mean, hey, I'm all for releasing a new edition and cleaning up the rules. But it's not a patch, unless they're going to mail me the altered pages for free, and I can stick them in my old books.

 

[Enkhidu]

Third, this isn't really a question, but why are some people calling it a "patch?" It in no way resembles a patch, since patches are free, and can be simply applied to the original program to fix issues. You don't need to buy a whole new program (in this case, a book). That's why they're called patches. I mean, hey, I'm all for releasing a new edition and cleaning up the rules. But it's not a patch, unless they're going to mail me the altered pages for free, and I can stick them in my old books.

Actually, I don't think it's a patch at all - it's more like a Service Pack that WotC figured out they can charge for - lots of patches that together necessitate an overall rewrite of the "code."

 

[coyote6]

Well, they're going add the changes to the SRD, which is posting the changes on a website for you to download for free; you can then print them out & stick them in your books.

So just think of it as being a bit like a Microsoft SQL patch: a bit of a pain to install.

 

[KnowTheToe]

They are giving it to you for free. the SRD will be updated and available for download. If you want it in a new printed book, they will charge you. This is not software, they can not download it to your PHB, they can only print new PHB. THE SRD will be available for FREE, NO CHARGE, PLEASE TAKE ONE AND TELL YOUR FRIENDS.

 

[Henrix]

I don't think you'll find Wizards calling it anything but 'revised edition'.
The 3.5 is an arbitrary designation put on it by fans. I'd think a 3.1 would be more accurate (and the second printing with errata was perhaps 3.01).

 

[Utrecht]

Actually, based off of the news today, that this is the one and only planned upgrade between 3 and 4 makes 3.5 as good as any other number.........

The bottom line is that other than the errata that has been release, this is the first revised edition.

 

[Zaruthustran]

First, are there other revisions I'm missing? I know about the errata you an find online, but 3.5 seems to indicate that there are other point releases I'm not aware of.

The official name of the so-called D&D 3.5 is actually "Dungeons & Dragons Revised", or 3E Revised. I think some the fan community came up with "3.5", and that's the common term (even within WotC).

But no, there are no other point releases.

Second, is it a new edition or not? Generally, a new edition of a book is a revision of an old one. They're calling this 3.5 or Revised. But "a revision" is the definition of a new edition. And 3.5 certainly isn't the same as 3, which is how you designate new "releases" (the computer versions of editions). So, they seem to be creating a new edition in everything but name. I guess this is a marketing thing? But if so, it's mighty confusing nomenclature. A new book edition is a revision. That's what a new edition is. So why isn't this a new edition?

It's a revision. The core 3E game is unchanged. There's still levels, classes, hit dice, feats, etc. etc. They didn't completely rewrite or create any core mechanics, they just clarified and slightly altered (revised) existing mechanics.

Third, this isn't really a question, but why are some people calling it a "patch?" It in no way resembles a patch, since patches are free, and can be simply applied to the original program to fix issues. You don't need to buy a whole new program (in this case, a book). That's why they're called patches. I mean, hey, I'm all for releasing a new edition and cleaning up the rules. But it's not a patch, unless they're going to mail me the altered pages for free, and I can stick them in my old books.

This patch is available to you for free (the SRD). You don't have to go through the trouble of giving WotC your home address for them to mail something to you; you just have to go to a web site and print out the changes. You definitely don't have to buy new books.

Patch = update that fixes bugs. That's what the revision is.

-z, surprised that he responded to a troll who has 1 post count.

 

[Negative Zero]

fans ahve called it everything from 3.1 thru 3.5 but Dragon mag actually refered to it as 3.5 in their most recent issue. that's as close to an offical endorsement as i think you'll find. now with regard to the chosing that particular name, and it's reference to computing software, i think it's very appropriate.

with the new version, the d20 ruleset which could be called the "game engine" will not change. what will change is the way the rules are presented. thus it is in fact an "incremental upgrade." it is a tweaking of the wording and occasionally the "glitches," if you will.

just like a video game will put out a patch when bugs are found (such as when EQ found that one of their big healing spells was too pwerfull and gave it a max hp cap), the game designers are fixing what they've percieved and have had pointed out are problems. bugs if you will. the game is notchanging.

just as with incremental sotfware upgrades, you can chose to upgrade, or not, and it won't affect most of your add-on programs. of course, at somepoint, the really archaic stuff won't work with your new program, and some really new things will only work with the new version. but in this case, 3E isn't that old so that shouldn't be an issue at all. also in support of this is the huge number of 3rd party "add-ons" that compatibility must be maintianed for. a huge part of 3E and d20's success is it's versatility. i highly doubt they'll change that.

so the short answer is: no, you're not missing other versions, and no, it's not a new version.

~NegZ

 

[Hardhead]

with the new version, the d20 ruleset which could be called the "game engine" will not change. what will change is the way the rules are presented. thus it is in fact an "incremental upgrade."

But we're not talking about a computer game - we're talking about a book. First your computer analogy is flawed. "Patches" actually change the game engine in some way, most of the time. Look at the recent Battlefield 1942 1.3 patch, for instance. So your analogy is off, right there.

Second, the closest things computer programs have to new "editions" are the "point" releases.

But, like I said, this isn't a computer game anyway. In the book world (which is the rules RPGs follow - computers have "versions," and books have "editions") and edition is, according to Mr. Webster "the form or version in which a text is published." So, when you change the "version number" (as they did) you by definition change editions. You can say it's not a new edition (as WotC is doing), but when you do this you're wrong.

Think of it this way. Say there was a new comic book, and every issue this comic book put a #1 on every cover, as if each book was the first. Now, if I call the sixth issue to come out "issue six," am I wrong? Should I call them all "issue 1?" No, of course not. The number they put on the cover doesn't acutally change either the definition of "issue" or the chronology of the comic book releases.

To bring this metaphor into 3.5-land, the fact that they're not calling this a new edition does not change the definition of the word "edition." It is, by any publishing definition of the word, a new edition. They can choose to not call it a new edition if they want, but that doesn't make them right.

 

[EricNoah]

There's a pretty big continuum between, say, a reprint vs. a reprint with errata corrections vs. a reprint with errata corrections and clarifications vs. a revised edition with errata corrections, some re-written rules, and some new material vs. an entire new edition of the game. Ultimately, it's a matter of semantics and also somewhat a matter of personal opinion (the question being "are the changes to D&D 3e so big/encompassing/ numerous/important that they -- for you -- essentially make this a new game or a new "edition" -- whatever you think that means?"). From what I've seen so far, in my opinion, no. But that may change as we learn more; and you may think differently.