Is Rules Compendium considered a bad book?

[heavyfuel]

So, this is from the "Trading Move Actions for Swift Actions" thread:


[...] but do note that some people on this forum like to pretend that the Rules Compendium isn't a real book.


I like to pretend RC is not a real book. [...]

Why is that? It seems like a fine book, even if somewhat disorganized. Also, I've been here a while, and never noticed this, is this "hate" for Rules Compendium something that actually goes on here?

[OldTrees1]

I have not seen any hate for RC. I have seen the fair criticism that it is a rarely picked up book, but it does have some nice consolidation and elaboration on some rules (like Jumping/Tumbling/Flying while charging).

[Irk]

A variety of rulings cause it, including the much loathed precision damage volley attack rule, which nerfs archers. ON the other hand, it does provide things like swift action wands, so it's a bit split. I have not looked at the book in great depth myself, really, so I could be mistaken.

[Vaz]

A variety of rulings cause it, including the much loathed precision damage volley attack rule, which nerfs archers. ON the other hand, it does provide things like swift action wands, so it's a bit split. I have not looked at the book in great depth myself, really, so I could be mistaken.

I thought it actually prevented swift action wands - saying they defaulted to their normal casting time? Hence Wands of Nerveskitter etc?

[Story]

Another really stupid rule is that concealment and miss chance don't stack at all.


On the other hand, it does say that Prcs don't count towards multiclass penalties, a rule which accidentally got left out of the 3.5 DMG. But who plays with multiclass penalities anyway?

[HammeredWharf]

I've used RC in my games and found it quite useful. On the other hand, it's probably not worth buying, because you can find most of its rules in other books or on the SRD.

[The Random NPC]

Another reason people might not like the book, is that much of it is errata that we shouldn't have had to pay for.


I thought it actually prevented swift action wands - saying they defaulted to their normal casting time? Hence Wands of Nerveskitter etc?

It says that wands default to their normal casting time, and if a spell is cast with a swift action, the wand can be too.

[TiaC]

There's a kinda silly rule in it that classifies Ability Damage as a type of Damage. This means that generic damage boosts can easily overpower anything that deals ability damage with an attack. (e.g. Cleric 1/Marshal 1/Master of Shrouds X)

[KillianHawkeye]

I think that some people don't like how it included changes/updates to certain rules, because WotC didn't bother to update their errata files to include the same changes to the original source materials.

However, I can say with certainty that it is a great book to have at the table because it is very easy to find whatever information you need. It's not 100% necessary, but it is an amazingly useful reference. I normally only carry my PHB and the Rules Compendium to my games, although the Spell Compendium makes for a semi-frequent 3rd place when I'm playing a spellcaster.

[ShurikVch]

Rules Compendium clarified some things, confused some other things (come on, what's happen with the incorporeals in the AMF?), and made up some other more (Can't have more than one breath weapon? Are they serious?)
So, if you use RC ruling all the time (instead case-by-case), I say: better to not use it at all. it add almost even more confusion than remove

[ddude987]

The only rules that I can think of that are used at the table are the swift action wands, because everyone wants a swift wand of nerveskitter or wraithstrike. Wand slot weapons + wraithstrike wands are the regular half the time.

[Pluto!]

Errata that you have to pay for make for one of the worst products, but if the book's available anayway, I like having it.

The reason I've most heard for discarding its contents altogether is that because its errata encompass core rules revisions, which doesn't jibe with the primary source rules. That's not something I've heard from normal game players, but it's been bandied around by online One True RAW Disciples from time to time.

[Curmudgeon]

It says that wands default to their normal casting time, and if a spell is cast with a swift action, the wand can be too.
That's true — and also truly irrelevant.

Nerveskitter is an immediate (not swift) action spell. Most immediate action spells can be used on your turn, effectively becoming swift actions. Nerveskitter is special, because it can only be cast before your first turn for an encounter. If you wait until it's your turn then you've already rolled initiative and it's too late for Nerveskitter, which requires that you cast it when you roll initiative.

You can cast Nerveskitter while you're flat-footed; there's a specific rule allowing you to do that. However, there's no rule allowing you to activate an item while you're flat-footed. So the fact that an immediate action wand would be usable with an immediate action doesn't matter in this case; the game doesn't allow you to use an immediate action to activate a wand of Nerveskitter until you're no longer flat-footed (i.e., after rolling initiative normally, when the spell won't work).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Isn't there also an argument that none of the RC's rules apply because something something rulebook precedence?*


*I in no way support or endorse this theory.

[ddude987]

I think its because original source has precedence unless specified, however, it is specified in the RC that it takes precedence over other rules.

[Zanos]

Isn't there also an argument that none of the RC's rules apply because something something rulebook precedence?*


*I in no way support or endorse this theory.
Yeah, because the core rulebooks were reprinted, making them newer primary sources and RC overwritten.

[OldTrees1]

Another really stupid rule is that concealment and miss chance don't stack at all.

IIRC it was only concealment miss chances that did not stack/were capped. This removed the silly "I close my eyes to increase my accuracy" dysfunction.

[Urpriest]

Yeah, the Rules Compendium is fine, the problem is the context in which it was published. Basically, the primary source rules exist, and they only serve to muck up designer decisions because they were written so as to hamstring future books.

[Story]

This removed the silly "I close my eyes to increase my accuracy" dysfunction.

What? As far as I can tell, it removed everything but the closing your eyes to defeat Mirror Image trick.

[OldTrees1]

This removed the silly "I close my eyes to increase my accuracy" dysfunction.

What? As far as I can tell, it removed everything but the closing your eyes to defeat Mirror Image trick.

I was talking about the >50% concealment miss chance that closing one's eyes reduces to 50%.

Mirror Image is a series of targets. It is not a miss chance. Closing your eyes has 0 benefit, and will even make it harder if they did not have concealment before.

[Grod_The_Giant]

IIRC it was only concealment miss chances that did not stack/were capped. This removed the silly "I close my eyes to increase my accuracy" dysfunction.
I dunno, I can see that working. Extensive visual illusions could be more confusing than trying to fight by sound alone. No sensory data is better than false sensory data, you know?

[The Random NPC]

I was talking about the >50% concealment miss chance that closing one's eyes reduces to 50%.

Mirror Image is a series of targets. It is not a miss chance. Closing your eyes has 0 benefit, and will even make it harder if they did not have concealment before.

Mirror Image has a line explicitly stating an attacker can close their eyes to avoid the spell, while gaining blinded condition for as long as they close their eyes.

[Story]

Mirror Image is a series of targets. It is not a miss chance. Closing your eyes has 0 benefit, and will even make it harder if they did not have concealment before.

Actually, the spell description specifically states that it has no effect when you close your eyes.

Edit: Swordsage'd

[Blackhawk748]

Honestly its pretty good, and ive used it on a case by case scenario before. Though i totally ignore the precision damage volley thing, seriously LEAVE ARCHERS ALONE, this is the same reason i ignore the Mounted Skirmish errata, if you dont know what it is continue not knowing, youll feel better.

[OldTrees1]

Mirror Image has a line explicitly stating an attacker can close their eyes to avoid the spell, while gaining blinded condition for as long as they close their eyes.

I stand corrected?
Closing your eyes will not allow you to know which square the caster was/is in (your last piece of information included up to 9 different 5ft squares). Being blind does not grant knowledge of location it merely blocks the vision of the images (which grants you no additional knowledge).



I dunno, I can see that working. Extensive visual illusions could be more confusing than trying to fight by sound alone. No sensory data is better than false sensory data, you know?

Hmm. I will have to think on that more. It sounds reasonable although I am not sure if it can be applied to a concealment illusion.

[Story]

You can pinpoint the square with a listen check. Or any one of many other methods.

[ShurikVch]

I was talking about the >50% concealment miss chance that closing one's eyes reduces to 50%. Since when we have concealment miss chance >50%?
AFAIK, Total Concealment is an absolute maximum, and it is 50%
(In 3.5, 3.0 was different)

[137beth]

The fact that it feels like errata that you have to pay for is what bothers me the most about it. The actual rules changes are a mixed bag. If it were a free PDF, I'd like it a lot more.

[OldTrees1]

You can pinpoint the square with a listen check. Or any one of many other methods.

You can pinpoint the square with a listen check, regardless of if your eyes are open or not.


Since when we have concealment miss chance >50%?
AFAIK, Total Concealment is an absolute maximum, and it is 50%
(In 3.5, 3.0 was different)

I remember reading of a scaling concealment miss chance in 3.5 that exceeded 50%. I think it got to 60-70%. This is silly of course since Total Concealment(closing one's eyes) is 50%. Hence why I like RC's explicit 50% cap on concealment miss chances. (RC is still not worth the money, but ...)

[Story]

IIRC, one of the soulmelds gives you scaling miss chance, but you'd be hard pressed to get it up that high.