Rules Compendium anti magic field example

[Hypersmurf]

It's considered errata?

Now, the description of the Rules Compendium does say "the Rules Compendium incorporates official errata", but that is different from actually being errata itself.

Well, then, I hope they distinguish between the bits that are official errata and the bits that aren't... or designate whether or not the RC is considered a primary source.

Otherwise the effort they've taken to move Sunder to Action Type Varies and give it footnote 28 will be in vain, since the table will be subservient to Table 8-2 and thus overruled...

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

It's worth noting that the Spell Compendium had a statement that claimed it was "updated to include official errata". I have always interpretted this statement to mean all changes in the book are "stealth" errata. That is to say that the book is supposed to be considered official errata, but they don't bother to tell us what was updated, or release the errata on the website. It's obvious from the many changes in the book that it is supposed to supercede previous printings of the spells, but that WotC isn't following their own rules very well.

At the same time, it's worth noting that the Complete Psionics book contains "updates" to many powers, but has no statement about errata anywhere.

 

[mvincent]

It's worth noting that the Spell Compendium had a statement that claimed it was "updated to include official errata". I have always interpretted this statement to mean all changes in the book are "stealth" errata.

That statement was also used to describe the deluxe edition PHB... but no stealth errata was intended there. Semantically, it simply means that the errata is included. Other changes made by the book should stand separate from that statement.

 

[mvincent]

Otherwise the effort they've taken to move Sunder to Action Type Varies and give it footnote 28 will be in vain, since the table will be subservient to Table 8-2 and thus overruled...

Most people seemed to view that issue as subject to interpretation to begin with.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Most people seemed to view that issue as subject to interpretation to begin with.

Call it an example, if you like.

Let's say the Rules Compendium states that a Medium longsword deals 1d10 damage. Either a/ the RC is considered errata and/or primary, and overrules the PHB's assertion that it's 1d8; or b/ the RC is not considered errata and/or primary, and is in error any time it differs from the source. In case b/, it would be better for the RC to effectively contain photocopies of the primary source material, since any changes it makes are irrelevant anyway.

Then there's the worst case, c/, where some changes are official errata and some changes are not, but with no indication of which take primacy over the original source and which are errors.

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

That statement was also used to describe the deluxe edition PHB... but no stealth errata was intended there. Semantically, it simply means that the errata is included.

Actually, the deluxe PHB does include at lease one piece of stealth errata that I know of. In the bard spellcasting description, the SRD states that all bard spells have a verbal component. The deluxe PHB states that most bard spells have a verbal component. It's a small difference, but it does have some interesting ramifications, and was obviously changed on purpose.

I know that the "upadated to include" text would not be always read in the way I have interpreted it, but I don't know of any other way to resolve the problem of the stealth errata in the SC and deluxe PHB without breaking the Primary Source Rule. It is an interpretation of necessity, so to speak.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, the deluxe PHB does include at lease one piece of stealth errata that I know of.

Spring Attack and Shot on the Run both changed; those changes have never appeared in the PHB Errata document.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Ugh. This looks terrible.

Is this book a cattle prod designed to move sensible DMs to 4e as quickly as possible?

Cheers, -- N

 

[mvincent]

I know that the "upadated to include" text would not be always read in the way I have interpreted it

Fair enough. But do you believe that it should sometimes be read that way? How would you tell the difference?

but I don't know of any other way to resolve the problem of the stealth errata in the SC and deluxe PHB without breaking the Primary Source Rule.

The primary source rule doesn't seem to be an absolute. Sometimes WotC breaks that rule (sometimes they even tell you that they are doing so). Conversely, the statement "updated to include official errata" seems more clear-cut to me.

 

[Kevin Brennan]

They don't tackle any of the thorny questions (instantaneous conjurations, magic arrows fired from a magic bow into an antimagic field) and seem to add in new wrinkles - I've always had antimagic fields blocking line of effect, but they say now that it doesn't block line of effect.

I think the RC is actually pretty clear on these.

"A magic weapon used to attack...a creature inside an antimagic area, gains none of the benefits of its magic properties."

It also states that magic inside an area is suppressed, not dispelled, so once the effect moves outside the field it starts working again. That's why shooting something through a field works.

As for instantaneous conjurations, the way the rules are worded I think the ruling is pretty clear (the point of origin for such spells is logically the caster).