Your go-to section of the rules

[TuggyNE]

So, I've noticed that I have a bit of a pet section in the rules that I refer to: the spell stacking rules. Curmudgeon has a really inordinate fondness for primary source rules. How about the rest of you? Any areas you notice you keep quoting more than others in any RAW discussions you have, even when it's only peripherally related?

[Waker]

I tend to find myself reading the Incarnum rules quite a bit. I frequently suggest to people that an Incarnate or Totemist might fit the idea that they want, which then sometimes requires an explanation of how meldshaping works.

[Psyren]

The problem with "primary source" is that, in the absence of an errata file stating otherwise, it allows older material on a subject to trump newer, which is illogical. The so-called primary source for classes is the PHB, which states there are 11 base classes; slavishly following primary source means that there are no other base classes in D&D 3.5.

Basically, what they should have said is "an official errata file or a more recent sourcebook" to remove a lot of this confusion. But WotC's poor editing affected even their meta-writings and failure/endless arguments are the result.

[Acanous]

The Leadership rules. I usually end up on that page calculating for the majority of my level-ups. When I'm a DM, I sit there looking at it to ensure my PC's have the correct numbers of followers and things.

[TheifofZ]

Basic Spellcasting mechanics and spell lists.
I love to play spellcasters, to the point where I try to play other classes to avoid feeling typecast, and as a DM I always have to make sure the players aren't forgetting something like exact range of a spell, if they're tying to quote from heart.

[AttilaTheGeek]

For me, it's the Evocation section of the wizard/sorcerer section spell list. I like math, and I like explosions, and I like optimization, but I can't remember every spell.

[Mato]

My happy place.

Without it I might start wishing for Ragnarök to happen sooner than originally planned.

[toapat]

So, I've noticed that I have a bit of a pet section in the rules that I refer to: the spell stacking rules. Curmudgeon has a really inordinate fondness for primary source rules. How about the rest of you? Any areas you notice you keep quoting more than others in any RAW discussions you have, even when it's only peripherally related?

i observe more that Curmudgeon prefers rules as originally printed.

The only time primary source is valuable is when using Spell resistance, as the original printing is not cripplingly bad to the Monk and Drow

as far as myself? i guess it would be the Griffin monster table.

[White_Drake]

I love the grapple rules.

[TuggyNE]

Some intriguing responses so far :smallcool:


The problem with "primary source" is that, in the absence of an errata file stating otherwise, it allows older material on a subject to trump newer, which is illogical. The so-called primary source for classes is the PHB, which states there are 11 base classes; slavishly following primary source means that there are no other base classes in D&D 3.5.

Basically, what they should have said is "an official errata file or a more recent sourcebook" to remove a lot of this confusion. But WotC's poor editing affected even their meta-writings and failure/endless arguments are the result.

Yes. I'm not sure I'd ever actually use primary source to resolve a rules debate in an actual game (mostly because the common sense ruling is both generally more useful, and easier to determine).


as far as myself? i guess it would be the Griffin monster table.

Wait. What? How often does that even come into play? :smalltongue:

[mattie_p]

I seem to be going to the rules on multiclassing from the PHB lately.