What is the point of the Rules Compendium?

[Psion]

I find it compact and convenient.

It does vex me that they left some pretty basic things out, like standard creature types. Some of the sidebars could have been excavated for things like that.

 

[irdeggman]

Also, I strongly dislike if they change basic core rules in a later supplement like this without also making them available as errata.

Bye
Thanee

I agree on this point - but even worse is the "stealth" errata. Errata that mysteriously appeared in later printings of the core books but was left out of the official errata.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

I agree on this point - but even worse is the "stealth" errata. Errata that mysteriously appeared in later printings of the core books but was left out of the official errata.

I've yet to come across this. What are some examples?

 

[Thanee]

"stealth" errata... havn't seen that either so far.

Bye
Thanee

 

[irdeggman]

"stealth" errata... havn't seen that either so far.

Bye
Thanee

I tried to start a thread on it a while ago - but can't search for it.

One of the things I recall is the swim check rule for how long you can hold your breath.

Not in the SRD nor errata but it is in the collector's edition of the PHB.

I know that there are several others - I just can't recall what they are since they are not "flagged".

 

[Thanee]

I tried to start a thread on it a while ago - but can't search for it.

You can still find it, if you use the sort function to sort by name (give it a time frame that includes the time when you posted the thread) and then look for your username in the list.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Deset Gled]

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?).

Actually, WotC's general rule (for 3.5) is the exact opposite. They explicitly state this in the DMG errata:

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

They just seemed to forget this rule around the time they published Complete Psion.

I will admit this is a sore point for me. See my sig for further complaining about the RC.

 

[irdeggman]

Actually, WotC's general rule (for 3.5) is the exact opposite. They explicitly state this in the DMG errata:



They just seemed to forget this rule around the time they published Complete Psion.

I will admit this is a sore point for me. See my sig for further complaining about the RC.

Except for that fact that in the Rules Compendium itself:

pg 5

"When a pre-existing core book or supplement differs from the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precendence."

 

[irdeggman]

You can still find it, if you use the sort function to sort by name (give it a time frame that includes the time when you posted the thread) and then look for your username in the list.

Bye
Thanee

I don't have that option.

I am not a subscriber anymore.

About a year and half ago when Morris ran his plea to avoid going broke I resubscribed - but never got credit for being a subscriber and hence never got the "extra" features that entitles you to.

So I just won't do it again - even though I like this site a lot.

 

[Deset Gled]

Except for that fact that in the Rules Compendium itself:

pg 5

"When a pre-existing core book or supplement differs from the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precendence."

I'm well aware of that (I even quote it in my sig). But you'll note that it is a statement reffering only to the RC, while the errata is a blanket statement. Hence, primary source is the general rule, the more recent RC taking precedence is a specific exception.

Since we're on the topic, it's interesting to note that the RC doesn't specifically call itself "errata" (IIRC, it says in another location that the book "incorporates errata", but again does not specify that the book itself is errata). One could argue that the statement above is using laymans terms to call itself errata, and thus is a new primary source. OTOH, one could argue that since the RC is not specifically identified as errata, it is in violation of the Primary Source Rule, and thus the core books are still correct and the RC is technically wrong. Ones on the internet could spend a lot of time arguing about this.