When referring to the current edition of DND...

[dreaded_beast]

Say I play version 3.5 DND.

On the forums, do I have to always refer to it as 3.5 or can I get away with saying 3rd / Third edition?

When speaking to people who use to play back in the day, but are interested in playing Third edition, I find myself almost always having to explain that there are 2 types of Third edition, 3.0 and 3.5, which adds a bit to their confusion.

A very minor concern, but one that always crops up when I think / talk about the various editions.

 

[Sammael]

I usually refer to it as 3(.5), unless the discussion concerns some aspect of the game which was changed from 3.0 to 3.5.

 

[DragonLancer]

I've taken to calling it 3.X only saying which edition I refer when I need to.

 

[LeifVignirsson]

3.X here too, there are just so many rules that I use from both that I just gave up saying 3.0 or 3.5... My DM understands me and for the players, I just hold the book open to the page, point and grunt at the section I want them to read...

 

[Umbran]

I think the standard has become 3.x when dealing with a topic that covers both 3e and 3.5e, but not previous editions, and only being specific when the differences between the editions becomes relevant.

 

[D+1]

Say I play version 3.5 DND.

On the forums, do I have to always refer to it as 3.5 or can I get away with saying 3rd / Third edition?

Just use 3E/3rd/Third Edition/etc. unless the conversation turns to something that specifically requires differentiating between 3.0 and 3.5. The only people who NEED to see constant differentiation between the two (or genericized references such as 3.x for that matter) are those who are overly obsessed with the differences between the two. Unless somebody feels a pointless need to turn a thread to an edition-wars flamefest everybody will be perfectly clear what you're talking about and no special effort need be made.

[Note that this is not to demean those who have said they use "3.x", it is to demean those who would make them think that using "3.x" is at all necessary or even desireable.]

 

[jmucchiello]

Say I play version 3.5 DND.

Why not just say that?

On the forums, do I have to always refer to it as 3.5 or can I get away with saying 3rd / Third edition?

Why would you prefer the longer "Third Edition" over "3.5 DND"? The second one is more accurate and shorter to type.

OTOH, you don't HAVE to do anything. You can be as clear or as obtuse as you want.

 

[Scribble]

I'm in the camp that usually just says 3rd or third edition unless it's soemthing rules specific, where the distinction would be nesessary.

Why would you prefer the longer "Third Edition" over "3.5 DND"? The second one is more accurate and shorter to type.

Letters tend to be quicker for people to type. Even though there are more characters in "Third Edition then "3.5 D&D" Third edition tends to come out easier/faster. Probably because we type letters a whole lot more then numbers. Give it a try sometime. My guess is you'll notice a drop in your typing speed when you type numbers.

Or maybe I'm just a freak.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Good question. 3x is probably the best due to the fact that 3 and 3.5 are so close together and there are probably a LOT of people who play 3.0 still.

 

[Hunter Simon]

Good question. 3x is probably the best due to the fact that 3 and 3.5 are so close together and there are probably a LOT of people who play 3.0 still.

I primarily play 3.0, yet I use the Ranger and Bard from 3.5, plus a few 3.5 rules as house rules (i.e. Dwarves gain +4 stability vs. bull rush; racial weapons martial rather than exotic for member races, etc.)

So what do I play? 3.0? Not totally...3.5? Nope...

I suspect most people are like me, using both editions together.