Rules Compendium Rules Changes

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I wasn't until this thread. I figured the RC was just a compendium. I know 3e rules pretty good (yep even got grapple down). So I didn't think there was much to bother with.

But those illumination rules are great to know, I've been wanting those since 3e came out.

Second that.

 

[Deset Gled]

I mean, we have what, eight months until 4e? Nobody is much interested in a ton of new rules and clarifications for 3.5 now?

Clarifications are nice, but rules changes suck. WotC is on the record as stating: "When we release errata, it will always be free." The Rules Compendium is the exact opposite of that.

In order to avoid threadcrapping, I will not discuss this any further in this thread, and leave it for discussing specific changes. If someone wants to discuss why people don't seem to care about the RC, please start a separate thread.

 

[Jhulae]

Clarifications are nice, but rules changes suck. WotC is on the record as stating: "When we release errata, it will always be free." The Rules Compendium is the exact opposite of that.

In order to avoid threadcrapping, I will not discuss this any further in this thread, and leave it for discussing specific changes. If someone wants to discuss why people don't seem to care about the RC, please start a separate thread.

Changes are not Errata. Errata (by its nature) fixes errors. If a rule was in error, the errata on that rule should be free.

Since the PHB has come out, some rules have changed (like the Aid Another rule - it was changed in Complete Adventurer). So, that rule wouldn't be found in Errata because the original rule wasn't in error. It was, however, obsolete.

Same thing with Swift and Immediate actions. Those aren't in the PHB, but they are not errata. They are completely new rules added to the game at a later date to allow specific types of actions. Again, not errata.

 

[Mistwell]

Clarifications are nice, but rules changes suck.

Rules additions are not "rules changes" except in the broadest sense...in which case every book WOTC ever put out would be "rules changes".

I don't see any of this as errata, just additions and clarifications.

 

[Elemmakil]

The flat-footed when hidden bit is certainly a change, and a bad one at that. It's inelegant - generally, you are either flatfooted or you aren't, you aren't flat-footed against specific attacks or opponents. This raises way more questions that it answers. In particular, can you make AoO's (in general; I know that this isn't an issue with hide in particular)? This probably depends on whether you are flat-footed against an opponent or against an attack. Also, it is largely redundant with denial of dex to AC, since (if it doesn't deny AoO's), you already don't have dex to AC, so the rule is there for no apparent reason to include this. Actually, it does do something. It enables to ridiculous 9x cha mod to damage ability of the Iajutsu Master, but that's OK because no sane DM would allow the Master into their game to begin with.

Seriously, the last time they published a "flat-footed against specific attacks" ability (feat in RotW), the CO boards over at WotC turned it into another one-round kill almost anything build with, of course, the Master. The build was called the Killer Gnome II.

Tempest (of the WotC boards) helped make this build, and also helped write this book. I really don't think that he would intentionally put this in, but he could have noticed it.

That rule was way better in the core books.