What is the point of the Rules Compendium?

[aboyd]

I'm wondering why the Rules Compendium exists. Can someone explain what it adds? It appears to be redundant if you already have the PHB & DMG.

Having said that, I have a suspicion that the answer I'll get is that it contains errata. If that's true, my question would be, how much? Does it have ALL the errata, every single line from every single PDF on the WotC 3.5 errata page?

If it's not for errata, what's the point/advantage to having it?

 

[Runestar]

It does its best to clarify rules questions/doubts, as well as update/revise existing rules. So if after 7 years, you are still trying to understanding just how the heck grappling, AoOs or AMFs work, this is the book for you.

So yes, in a way, it is something like official dnd errata/FAQ you have to pay for. It doesn't contain any of the errata/questions released by wotc so far, if you are afraid of needless duplication of material.

Revisions are few and far in between, but can be rather significant. For instance, the DMG has a rule where activating a wand is either a standard action, or the casting time of the spell, whichever is longer. Rules compendium supersedes this by ruling that the activation time of a wand is simply the spell's casting time, so you can now benefit from wands of wraithstrike. I think AMF was ruled to not block line of effect as well.

Pity the hydra/AoO query was never really answered in depth though. They simply regurgitated the same ambiguous block of text from the MM...

 

[Shin Okada]

Some say the book is useful as it contains many of the "often checked" rules in one book. But in my personal experience, it doesn't. I have the book. But I never use it while playing a session. As a DM I need at least PHB & DMG or SRD in my note PC anyway. And often need at least Spell Compendium handy.

There are some revised rules in the Rules Compendium. But the book does not cover much I really need. And when the texts in RC and the core books (or other supplements) contradict to each other and there are no official errata for the former and the latter, we simply wonder which rule we should take.

So, the book rarely leaves my bookshelf.

 

[Runestar]

Wotc's general rule is that if a later supplement contradicts an earlier book, the later rule wins. Since rules compendium was the last book to be released, it is presumably the most authoritative source with regards to rules, assuming there were no errors inside (are there?).

I flipped through the book at borders. At first glance, the information seemed rather well organized, but I too did not feel it was useful enough to justify its price tag. This seems like some sort of article best released as a free weekly article (something like the error-prone "Rules of the game" articles, just without the mistakes), rather than as a last ditch effort by wotc to squeeze the last few 3e dollars out of its customers.

 

[Shin Okada]

Wotc's general rule is that if a later supplement contradicts an earlier book, the later rule wins. Since rules compendium was the last book to be released, it is presumably the most authoritative source with regards to rules, assuming there were no errors inside (are there?).

That is the problem. It meant to clarify or revise rules written in the books published beforehand. But, RC does not clearly show what part of the rules are revised. So it is difficult to find what is changed and what is not.

Also, the book seems to be written hastily and thus rather.... lacking the credibility. It is rather hard for me to convince my players that RC is the "final ultimate rules clarification".

As a result, the book brings more argument on gaming table rather than to make the game sessions smooth.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I have the Rules Compendium and it sees frequent use in my game. It is useful for those hard-to-remember or complicated rules. When there is a rules query in my game we go to the Rules Compendium first since it normally answers the question quicker and explains things in more detail than the PHB, DMG or other supplement. I'm definitely pleased with my purchase.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Vegepygmy]

I was reluctant to buy the RC at first, but once I finally decided I was definitely sticking with 3.5, I picked it up...and it was one of the best purchases I've made. My impression is basically the opposite of Shin Okada's--while it's not flawless, it's an excellent "final word" on the official rules, and I use it pretty frequently.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I have the Rules Compendium and it sees frequent use in my game. It is useful for those hard-to-remember or complicated rules. When there is a rules query in my game we go to the Rules Compendium first since it normally answers the question quicker and explains things in more detail than the PHB, DMG or other supplement. I'm definitely pleased with my purchase.

This is exactly my experience. Considering how complex 3.5 became toward the end, the Rules Compendium might be my most useful purchase ever, aside from the core books.

 

[Jhaelen]

I have the book. But I never use it while playing a session. As a DM I need at least PHB & DMG or SRD in my note PC anyway.

Since I got the RC (and the MIC), I no longer need the DMG. I copied the xp table from the DMG, since it's about the only thing that isn't in the RC.

The RC helped me to discover lots of forgotten, rarely used rules and options (many of them introduced in various supplements) and makes it easy to look them up during play.

I also don't take a PHB with me - every player has one, so there's plenty available for the rare case I don't believe a player's interpretation of a rule.

When I prepare my adventures I write up stat blocks that contain every information I need during an encounter.

So, to sum it up, the RC has proven pretty useful for me.

 

[Shin Okada]

In my case, when I touch rulebooks and supplements, most of the time it is for checking individual data for spells, special abilities, items and such. As I am DMing 3.Xe almost since it is published, and some of the players are equally familiar with the 3e rules, we rarely need to check rules. And at least we know in which part of the core rulebooks the required rule is written.

But we cannot memorize all the details of spells, special abilities, item abilities and such. So I DO need PHB, DMG and Spell Compendium anyway. And when those books are within my reach, having another book like Rules Compendium is a kind of redundant.

Also, I found RC is lacking many of the important informations regarding monsters. Say, rules regarding creature type and such.

For me, it seems that while RC contains many rules useful for players in one book, it does not satisfy the needs of a DM.