Finally got Rules Compendium, what to use?

[137beth]

So, after nearly a decade of playing and running 3.5, I finally got my own copy of the Rules Compendium ('Cause, ya know, it was on sale... (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/featured.php?promotion_id=DnDC2YearAnni)

I know the RC has caused a lot of arguments on the forum as to what constitutes RAW, and whether or not the RC rules are better than the core rules.

I am not yet sure if I am going to adopt the RC as the primary rules reference for my table, simply because it doesn't have everything that the PHB, DMG, and SRD do and I'm already used to using those. However, I am considering using some of the changes in the RC as house rules. What I want to know is which rules changes you, the forum, think are worth using.

[Bronk]

I like the rule (on page 118) that keys the various DCs of special abilities to total HD instead of racial HD. It makes a lot of useful racial abilities relevant at higher levels for both PCs and their opponents, especially for PC races that have zero racial HD.

[Thurbane]

I like the rule (on page 118) that keys the various DCs of special abilities to total HD instead of racial HD. It makes a lot of useful racial abilities relevant at higher levels for both PCs and their opponents, especially for PC races that have zero racial HD.

That's incredibly useful to know - cheers! :smallsmile:

[OldTrees1]

There are a bunch of clarifications on how the mobility skills work including how they work is weird cases like charging or flying.

[Gnome Alone]

One of the great things about RPGs is that you can kinda do whatever you want with the rules; they even codify this in D&D with Rule Zero, so it's not like the Rules Compendium is completely useless or anything, but the fact that it is not (as per the instructions on regarding the "core" books as the primary rules reference source for the game) actually a definitive source of rules for the game cracks me the expletive up.

[ericgrau]

It seems pretty good for clarifications to me. Where it directly contradicts the core books irks me a bit though. Like the casting time for spells in a wand. Either don't do it or issue an errata already. Though there are many clarifications that people think are rules changes when they're not. They are only reading the rules with a stubborn interpretation. Though it might be semi-reasonable otherwise. For example acid and sonic do not bypass hardness. It's merely that "deal damage normally" was a poor choice of words in the core rules.

[Troacctid]

For example acid and sonic do not bypass hardness. It's merely that "deal damage normally" was a poor choice of words in the core rules.

That wasn't clarified in the Rules Compendium, was it? It still says acid and sonic damage is dealt to objects the same way it's dealt to creatures.

[ericgrau]

I may be thinking of something else then.

[Darrin]

Keep:
Spell-trigger activation.
Clarifications on using Tumble and Jump during a charge.
Ability damage/drain doubles on a crit (although this is more dangerous for PCs than monsters).
Sneak attack with ability damage/drain does negative energy damage.
Expert assistance on Aid Another checks.
Hiding from a creature renders it flat-footed.

Ditch:
Full precision only on full attack. Use a simpler "Volley" houserule instead: each separate attack roll gets precision damage.
Concealment and miss chances don't stack. Let 'em, although watch out for the "I close my eyes" nonsense.

Toss-Up:
Incorporeals "disappear" in an AMF. I don't even...
TWF reworded. As far as I know, Tippy is the only one that plays with TWF allowing offhand attacks on standard actions.

[Greenish]

That wasn't clarified in the Rules Compendium, was it? It still says acid and sonic damage is dealt to objects the same way it's dealt to creatures.At least the relevant paragraph isn't listed under the header of "Hardness", but separately in "Special Considerations", and no longer even mentions hardness. It's still somewhat poorly worded but less misleading.