Rules Compendium vs SRD ??????

[HunterOfJello]

I've always been a bit curious about this topic. If the two sources disagree or use slightly different language on a topic, which source trumps the other?

I can see a number of arguments that can be made for either side, but I have yet to see a statement of consensus on the topic.

[Flickerdart]

Ooh, this is a fun one.

There are three things in play here: one is the primary source rule - certain books are defined as primary sources, and anything that disagrees on how something works is wrong. The second is replacement rules: some books outright state that they are replacing older books (such as SpC overwriting some spells). The third is errata - errata trumps everything.

Now, the SRD isn't a book, and so is beaten by everything. But the PHB, DMG, and MMI are books, and the primary sources for the stuff that's in them. Rules Compendium claims to be more important than they are, but is actually trumped by the new, reprinted premium books because it only covers things that were printed before it was.

So in conclusion, who the hell knows. Curmudgeon has some very strong opinions on this, you'll probably get to hear those at some point. It's easier for everyone's sanity if you assume that Rules Compendium is the authoritative source, because hamfisted WotC legalese aside that's probably what they intended to do.

[Psyren]

Now, the SRD isn't a book, and so is beaten by everything. But the PHB, DMG, and MMI are books, and the primary sources for the stuff that's in them. Rules Compendium claims to be more important than they are, but is actually trumped by the new, reprinted premium books because it only covers things that were printed before it was.

Which is a load of trollpuckey since they've been proven to be very inconsistent about actually updating/applying errata to these so-called "premium books." As far as I'm concerned that tag is meaningless, as is their ability to roll back any errata applied via RC or the errata files.

[NoACWarrior]

Rules compendium I believe does rewrite rules and overrides the original SRD, except in cases where a more recent book has another ruling. However, if the more recent book has a reference back to a certain rule, and doesn't clarify said rule, I'd say that the Rules compendium does take over.

[Flickerdart]

Which is a load of trollpuckey since they've been proven to be very inconsistent about actually updating/applying errata to these so-called "premium books." As far as I'm concerned that tag is meaningless, as is their ability to roll back any errata applied via RC or the errata files.
Oh definitely, it's very silly indeed (like everything about this issue), but that doesn't stop it from being technically true.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Not exactly a RAW response, but "books allowed" is often a primary assumption to see what rules material can be used in a game. If a particular DM allows Rules Compendium, it reasonably follows that he actually uses the material printed within, instead of ignoring it in favor of the primary source rule.

[TuggyNE]

I generally pretend RC is authoritative on any subject I happen to know its rules on, for the sake of my own sanity. The alternative, that WotC attempted to fix its rules but failed to grant the rules-fixing book any actual ability to fix anything, is just too depressing.

Not, of course, that RC is perfect either, but baby steps.

[Curmudgeon]

So in conclusion, who the hell knows. Curmudgeon has some very strong opinions on this, you'll probably get to hear those at some point.
So as not to disappoint ...

The 5 basic problems with Rules Compendium:

It's billed as a compendium of existing rules (which it largely is), but also throws in a bunch of new and changed rules, contrary to the WotC press releases about the book's scope.
Its authority is entirely self-declared. I haven't found any statements (web site announcements, interviews with the authors, or printed announcements) by WotC that in any way backs that claim to primacy, and I've done quite a bit of looking.
Rules Compendium only claims precedence over preexisting books (as Flickerdart mentioned).
When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.
The new (2013) Premium 3.5 core books don't contain a single one of the changes introduced in Rules Compendium. They do contain changes that weren't in the combination of original books + latest errata files. These are new books, which Rules Compendium even in its self-appointed dominance position has no say about. Without specifically saying that's what they were doing, Wizards of the Coast has officially backed out every change introduced in RC.
Again as mentioned, the Primary Sources Errata Rule says the three core rulebooks are primary sources, and only official errata files are allowed to override them. By this rule (repeated many times by WotC in the course of 3.5 errata files) Rules Compendium is never allowed to win any disputes with the primary sources.
Now, don't get me wrong; I actually like some of the changes in Rules Compendium; in particular, making the activation time for every item which produces a spell effect be the same as the casting time for that spell makes a lot of sense to me. But the way the authors of this book went about changing the rules — essentially introducing a "stealth" 3.75 release — was just a mashup of arrogance and fatuousness. Consequently, every change I adopt from Rules Compendium is labeled a house rule.

The official WotC SRD is mostly the original core rules, trimmed (sometimes butchered) to remove examples and other "product identity" trademarked content. It doesn't include most of the changes in the freely available errata files. The most convenient "SRD" site, though (d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm)) does combine lots of the freely distributed D&D content to make a linked, searchable end product. This content is not superseded by Rules Compendium's claim of primacy, either, because none of it is in the form of "a core book or supplement".

That's the situation from a RAW perspective; make of it what you will.

[Darrin]

My only real beef with the Rules Compendium is they mucked up precision damage/"volley" attacks. Easily houseruled, though: Every individual attack roll gets its own precision damage. If you make one roll for multiple attacks, you get precision once.

Do we have a comprehensive list of "changes" introduced by the Rules Compendium that have since been "unchanged" by the 2013 Premium re-release?

[DeltaEmil]

It's easier for everyone's sanity if you assume that Rules Compendium is the authoritative source, because hamfisted WotC legalese aside that's probably what they intended to do.This answers the question and ends the thread.

[137beth]

Ooh, this is a fun one.

There are three things in play here: one is the primary source rule - certain books are defined as primary sources, and anything that disagrees on how something works is wrong. The second is replacement rules: some books outright state that they are replacing older books (such as SpC overwriting some spells). The third is errata - errata trumps everything.

Now, the SRD isn't a book, and so is beaten by everything. But the PHB, DMG, and MMI are books, and the primary sources for the stuff that's in them. Rules Compendium claims to be more important than they are, but is actually trumped by the new, reprinted premium books because it only covers things that were printed before it was.

So in conclusion, who the hell knows. Curmudgeon has some very strong opinions on this, you'll probably get to hear those at some point. It's easier for everyone's sanity if you assume that Rules Compendium is the authoritative source, because hamfisted WotC legalese aside that's probably what they intended to do.
Well, at least they didn't make lots of forum posts claiming to be RAW that contradicts the actual RAW, and then forget to errata their forum-errata in. Or insist that there are a large number of "Unwritten Rules" which directly contradict the RAW/RAI, that everyone is required to use, and are perfectly obvious and clear to anyone who has read them. What's that? You aren't sure how/where to read the unwritten rules? Too bad.

[Gemini476]

Well, at least they didn't make lots of forum posts claiming to be RAW that contradicts the actual RAW, and then forget to errata their forum-errata in. Or insist that there are a large number of "Unwritten Rules" which directly contradict the RAW/RAI, that everyone is required to use, and are perfectly obvious and clear to anyone who has read them. What's that? You aren't sure how/where to read the unwritten rules? Too bad.

...I take it that you are either annoyed at Paizo or WotC´s CustServ? Both of them are very strange at times, although the second one is less inclined to spontaneous errata.

Not entirely relevant to this thread, either way.