Do the 2012 issues of the core rulebooks supersede the Rules Compendium?

[Duke of Urrel]

The following statement appears on page five of the Rules Compendium v. 3.5 (2007).


When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.

My question is straightforward. The final printings of the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual were all in 2012. These final issues did not exist when the Rules Compendium was printed in 2007. Does this mean that the Rules Compendium does not take precedence over these final issues?

Or should we argue that the final issues were only revisions of the original issues (on the basis of the Errata), but not revisions of the Rules Compendium, so that the Rules Compendium should still take precedence over them?

I lean toward the second interpretation. My reason is that the Player's Handbook of 2012 seems completely oblivious of some obvious revisions of its own rules in the Rules Compendium. To name one obvious example, the terms swift action and immediate action, identified in the Rules Compendium as "new free actions," do not appear in the Player's Handbook of 2012; instead, only the old term free action appears. If the game designers had intended to revise the Rules Compendium in 2012, I believe they would have said so at some point.

But I imagine not everybody in the Playground agrees with me. What do you think?

[JeenLeen]

I suppose, by the RAW statement of the Rules Compendium, we can't really answer the question. Assuming those core rulebooks had updates (and were thus a new version, thus not just a reprint and thus the same as a "preexisting core book"), then the Rules Compendium has nothing to say on how it interacts with books to be published in the future. (At least, from what I can tell from your quotation.)

Do the 2012 printings of those books state anything about precedence?

---
As a personal opinion, I would guess that the editors of the new printings of the core rulebooks probably didn't take into consideration stuff they should have, so in general the Rules Compendium would have precedent. Some of the revisions made in the 2012 printings could potentially supersede the Rules Compendium... but probably only if they differed from the pre-Rules-Compendium corebook. (That was a confusing though; I hope I wrote it properly.) Basically, the most recent revision of particular text seems the best thing to take as a final ruling.

[Zanos]

I don't think any text in the 2012 books was actually changed, they just included separate errata pamphlets/inserts or something.

[137beth]

I don't think any text in the 2012 books was actually changed, they just included separate errata pamphlets/inserts or something.

Also, they added a new cover. I'd say the "premium reprints" are the same as the old books for the purposes of which books were "preexisting."

Note, though, that many people on this forum consider the Rules Compendium's statement about taking precedent to be invalid. Those people would tell you that the Rules Compendium never took precedent over the core books, even before the reprints.

[Troacctid]

If they were new books, then their copyright info wouldn't say that they were originally printed in 2003. It's literally in the book itself.

[Duke of Urrel]

I suppose, by the RAW statement of the Rules Compendium, we can't really answer the question. Assuming those core rulebooks had updates (and were thus a new version, thus not just a reprint and thus the same as a "preexisting core book"), then the Rules Compendium has nothing to say on how it interacts with books to be published in the future. (At least, from what I can tell from your quotation.)

I completely agree with you on this. We are starting from the same standpoint!


Do the 2012 printings of those books state anything about precedence?

As far as I know, the answer to this question is: No.


As a personal opinion, I would guess that the editors of the new printings of the core rulebooks probably didn't take into consideration stuff they should have, so in general the Rules Compendium would have precedent.

Again, I agree.


Some of the revisions made in the 2012 printings could potentially supersede the Rules Compendium... but probably only if they differed from the pre-Rules-Compendium corebook. (That was a confusing though; I hope I wrote it properly.) Basically, the most recent revision of particular text seems the best thing to take as a final ruling.


I don't think any text in the 2012 books was actually changed, they just included separate errata pamphlets/inserts or something.

Your remarks also mirror my thinking. I think the editors who issued the final 2012 printings of the core rulebooks paid attention to and incorporated the Errata – which makes these final issues very convenient and useful – but paid no attention at all to the Rules Compendium. I think the rule writers assumed that readers would still use the core rulebooks as the starting point and would still consider all the supplemental books and the Rules Compendium to supersede the core rulebooks.

EDIT: That last sentence didn't come out right. I meant to say: "I think the rule writers assumed that readers would still use the core rulebooks as the starting point and would still consider all the supplemental books to add to the core rulebooks and the Rules Compendium to supersede them."

[Duke of Urrel]

If they were new books, then their copyright info wouldn't say that they were originally printed in 2003. It's literally in the book itself.

What you say about copyright makes sense. If they had actually changed the text, then they would've updated the copyright, too, wouldn't they?

And as far as I know, there were no Errata to the core rulebooks published after 2003. Is this true? (This is not to say that no outstanding errors remained after 2003. Nobody is perfect!)

[icefractal]

Note, though, that many people on this forum consider the Rules Compendium's statement about taking precedent to be invalid. Those people would tell you that the Rules Compendium never took precedent over the core books, even before the reprints.I've heard the argument for this, but I've always wondered what the point of it was? There's no longer any official organized play for 3.5E (and I don't think even organized play would have been that subject to the exact letter of the wording), so who is likely to use an interpretation that makes any book like the RC innately unfunctional?

It reminds me of the "By how the PHB is strictly written, only [Fighter] bonus feats in that book count, so the [Fighter] feats in every other book are just normal feats with a meaningless tag on them and can't be taken as bonus feats," stance. Ok, you can read it that way, but to what purpose?

[Zanos]

What you say about copyright makes sense. If they had actually changed the text, then they would've updated the copyright, too, wouldn't they?

And as far as I know, there were no Errata to the core rulebooks published after 2003. Is this true? (This is not to say that no outstanding errors remained after 2003. Nobody is perfect!)
They didn't change the text, as far as I know. It's just the same book with some extra sheafs of paper packaged with it.

[Duke of Urrel]

Also, they added a new cover. I'd say the "premium reprints" are the same as the old books for the purposes of which books were "preexisting."

Note, though, that many people on this forum consider the Rules Compendium's statement about taking precedent to be invalid. Those people would tell you that the Rules Compendium never took precedent over the core books, even before the reprints.

I have encountered the legal opinion of which you speak, 137ben, and I wonder if somebody would like to visit this thread to give reasons why they believe it is justified. I promise I won't be unkind, although I am disinclined to accept this opinion.


I've heard the argument for this, but I've always wondered what the point of it was? There's no longer any official organized play for 3.5E (and I don't think even organized play would have been that subject to the exact letter of the wording), so who is likely to use an interpretation that makes any book like the RC innately unfunctional?

It reminds me of the "By how the PHB is strictly written, only [Fighter] bonus feats in that book count, so the [Fighter] feats in every other book are just normal feats with a meaningless tag on them and can't be taken as bonus feats," stance. Ok, you can read it that way, but to what purpose?

I believe there is an interpretive tradition – and a reasonable one – that holds that each of the core rulebooks supersedes every other rulebook in the field in which it has the supreme authority. For example, the Player's Handbook is the supreme authority on the core player-character classes, the Dungeon Master's Guide is the supreme authority on magic items, and the Monster Manual is the supreme authority on monsters and their statistics, &c. I think some people reject the Rules Compendium because they feel that it threatens to overturn this interpretive tradition.

There may also be specific reasons why people reject the supremacy of the Rules Compendium, but I don't believe any specific reason should be sufficient. I believe a justified objection to the supremacy of the RC would have to be something general. Otherwise, why not accept the RC generally, but reject some of its revisions on a case-by-case basis?

[Troacctid]

I believe there is an interpretive tradition – and a reasonable one – that holds that each of the core rulebooks supersedes every other rulebook in the field in which it has the supreme authority. For example, the Player's Handbook is the supreme authority on the core player-character classes, the Dungeon Master's Guide is the supreme authority on magic items, and the Monster Manual is the supreme authority on monsters and their statistics, &c. I think some people feel that the Rules Compendium threatens to overturn this interpretive tradition, and some people want to defend it against this threat.
That's not how the rules work, fortunately. Rules apply in order from general to specific to exception. A specific rule or exception in another book always trumps a general rule, even if the general rule is from a core book. The game would not function otherwise.

[Duke of Urrel]

They didn't change the text, as far as I know. It's just the same book with some extra sheafs of paper packaged with it.

Now that I think of it, in the Player's Handbook of 2012, they did add that page 320 at the very end, the one that discusses the "Polymorph Subschool." Does anybody recall where this came from and when it first appeared?

EDIT: I've just answered my own question. The Polymorph Subschool seems to have originated in the Player's Handbook II, where it appears on pages 95 and 96. Since the Player's Handbook II was published in 2006; since the Rules Compendium came out in 2007; and since the Errata of the Player's Handbook II, which also came out in 2007, do not mention the word "polymorph"; I think it's safe to say that the appended page 320 in the Player's Handbook of 2012 does not supersede the Rules Compendium. So there's no reason to claim that any other part of the 2012 issue of this core rulebook supersedes the RC.

[Bronk]

The following statement appears on page five of the Rules Compendium v. 3.5 (2007).


When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.



The argument as I've seen it appear is that this statement is self declared, and doesn't fit into the established hierarchy of book precedence:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18607748&postcount=89

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18607822&postcount=90

[Troacctid]

The argument as I've seen it appear is that this statement is self declared, and doesn't fit into the established hierarchy of book precedence:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18607748&postcount=89

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18607822&postcount=90
Which is wrong, of course, because exceptions trump general rules every time, regardless of source. That's a cardinal rule of the system—you can't just ignore it, or the whole game falls apart.

Imagine if I were to argue, for example, that even though the bonded item rules allow you to craft a bonded item without prerequisites, you still need the prerequisites because the core rules say you do, and the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide always take precedence over the Dungeon Master's Guide II. Would you buy that? Because you shouldn't—it's not how the rules work. But it is a consequence of Curmudgeon's argument.

[Twurps]

I don't really have a position in this discussion. Our group has resolved all rules issues in a way that is satisfying to all, so I don't really care.

I'm assuming though that WotC would have tried to write their books in such a way that it can attract new players to the game without forcing them to buy (and read/understand!) ALL of their books before being able to play their first game. For that assumption to be true, someone who buys just the core 3 (PH, DMG, MM) should be playing by the same rules as the veteran owning all/most of the books. Options can be added, but existing options shouldn't significantly change.

Curmudgeon's answer linked above most closely approximates that view, and therefore is in my opinion how it SHOULD work. (and if I were ever to market a game/system like D&D, that's how it would work). However: There are many examples of rules from the core3 being re-written in later books. (Dragon special-mounts from Dragon Compendium come to mind). How it should work, makes most of those books utterly useless, which can't have been their intention either.

So that's why I don't have a RAW opinion. As it forces me to either have/read/understand ALL 3.5 and 3.0 books including Dragon mag. and whatnot, or it reduces half my books as fancy paper weights. I pass on both options.

Edited to add: The rules compendium is unique, in the sense that in it, it's own superiority is stated. So The above is only partly relevant. However: If a book is able to make itself supersede others, again there is no way of playing RAW without owning al the books. Who is to say there isn't another book claiming itself superior over others? (And maybe even totally invalidating the rules compendium for all I know). For that reason, a book claiming it's own superiority just isn't right, and SHOULD not be possible.

[Troacctid]

Pretty much all the updates in RC are common-sense fixes or clarifications that align with how you already would have been playing with it. Stuff like lava dealing fire damage, spellbook-users being restricted to their class spell list when scribing spells, and being able to see light sources in the dark even if you're outside their illumination radius. It's 99% that stuff.

Pretty much the only time the argument comes up is when someone says, "Lol, look how dysfunctional this rule is, it's so dumb but that's RAW for you!" and I'm like, "RC fixed it so it functions fine," and they're like "RC isn't a valid source!" :smallsigh:

[DarkSoul]

No, they don't. They're just reprints of the originals and the RC is considered by Wizards of the Coast to be the definitive rules reference text for 3.5.

[Andezzar]

If they were new books, then their copyright info wouldn't say that they were originally printed in 2003. It's literally in the book itself.They are new books, even if they have the same content as older books. The rule in the RC requires the book to exist before the RC, it says nothing about the age of the information in those books. A book that has not been printed before October 2007 cannot exist before the RC, and thus the RC cannot overwrite it.

You'd have a point if the RC said something about older information being superseded, but it does not. It talks about books only.

I'm not saying that this standpoint facilitates fun gameplay, but that is what the authors of the RC wrote.

Another interesting point is that the authors of the RC only claim that the book "is meant to take precedence" not that it actually has the authority to override other rules.

[Duke of Urrel]

I'm assuming though that WotC would have tried to write their books in such a way that it can attract new players to the game without forcing them to buy (and read/understand!) ALL of their books before being able to play their first game. For that assumption to be true, someone who buys just the core 3 (PH, DMG, MM) should be playing by the same rules as the veteran owning all/most of the books. Options can be added, but existing options shouldn't significantly change.

Curmudgeon's answer linked above most closely approximates that view, and therefore is in my opinion how it SHOULD work. (and if I were ever to market a game/system like D&D, that's how it would work). However: There are many examples of rules from the core3 being re-written in later books. (Dragon special-mounts from Dragon Compendium come to mind). How it should work, makes most of those books utterly useless, which can't have been their intention either.

So that's why I don't have a RAW opinion. As it forces me to either have/read/understand ALL 3.5 and 3.0 books including Dragon mag. and whatnot, or it reduces half my books as fancy paper weights. I pass on both options.

Edited to add: The rules compendium is unique, in the sense that in it, it's own superiority is stated. So The above is only partly relevant. However: If a book is able to make itself supersede others, again there is no way of playing RAW without owning al the books. Who is to say there isn't another book claiming itself superior over others? (And maybe even totally invalidating the rules compendium for all I know). For that reason, a book claiming it's own superiority just isn't right, and SHOULD not be possible.

I think it should be okay for both dungeon masters and players to agree to play a "core-only" game, so that they don't have to own all the rulebooks. If I'm a player and my dungeon master rules that "core only" means "no Rules Compendium," then I think I can accept that, just as I can accept when a dungeon master rejects any other supplemental rulebook outside the core.


Pretty much all the updates in RC are common-sense fixes or clarifications that align with how you already would have been playing with it. Stuff like lava dealing fire damage, spellbook-users being restricted to their class spell list when scribing spells, and being able to see light sources in the dark even if you're outside their illumination radius. It's 99% that stuff.

Pretty much the only time the argument comes up is when someone says, "Lol, look how dysfunctional this rule is, it's so dumb but that's RAW for you!" and I'm like, "RC fixed it so it functions fine," and they're like "RC isn't a valid source!"

As the quoted text from Twurps shows, rules-lawyering isn't the only reason why some people don't want to grant supremacy to the Rules Compendium.

But I agree with you that the Rules Compendium is a book that, for the most part, merely repeats, consolidates, and summarizes rules from both core and supplemental rulebooks. The more supplemental rulebooks you use in the game, the more useful the Rules Compendium becomes. Besides this, it contains some useful fixes, as you mentioned. (The simple rule that you can see light sources from long distances in the dark is not trivial; it puts a stop to a lot of tedious debates over what you can and cannot see within the rules.) Categorically rejecting the Rules Compendium for the simple reason that it conflicts in very few instances with the core rulebooks makes no more sense to me than rejecting amendments to a constitution because they conflict with the main text of the constitution.

[Pleh]

They are new books, even if they have the same content as older books. The rule in the RC requires the book to exist before the RC, it says nothing about the age of the information in those books. A book that has not been printed before October 2007 cannot exist before the RC, and thus the RC cannot overwrite it.

You'd have a point if the RC said something about older information being superseded, but it does not. It talks about books only.

I'm not saying that this standpoint facilitates fun gameplay, but that is what the authors of the RC wrote.

Another interesting point is that the authors of the RC only claim that the book "is meant to take precedence" not that it actually has the authority to override other rules.

No, this makes no sense at all. The new printing for PHB overrules RC and has no differences between the new printing and they old printing? So RC is completely pointless as it fixes the rules only for the new printing of the old rules to blanket reset them back to exactly what they were?

I don't want to be rude, but that is bad logic. Your arguments are only convincing me to disagree with you more.

On the point people are making about needing RC to play, you don't. The core rules are more broken and you can play the broken original just fine. RC is a resource to patch the holes if you want to play the patched game.

[Troacctid]

They are new books, even if they have the same content as older books. The rule in the RC requires the book to exist before the RC, it says nothing about the age of the information in those books. A book that has not been printed before October 2007 cannot exist before the RC, and thus the RC cannot overwrite it.

You'd have a point if the RC said something about older information being superseded, but it does not. It talks about books only.
Fine, if reprints count, then I'll just go down to my local print shop and have them print a new spiral-bound copy of my book. Then it'll supersede all the other books because it was printed after them. Problem solved!

[ryu]

Fine, if reprints count, then I'll just go down to my local print shop and have them print a new spiral-bound copy of my book. Then it'll supersede all the other books because it was printed after them. Problem solved!

Which would be a thing if you had official backing as opposed to a third party, or if your new printing was more than a single book which won't be distributed.

[Andezzar]

I'm not saying that this is a particularly well-written rule, but they wrote a book must exist before the RC to be overwritten by the RC. A book that has not been printed by October 2007 cannot exist prior to the RC.

[Duke of Urrel]

I looked up the interpretive rules of the great Curmudgeon. Many thanks to Bronk for the link!

I think the crux of Curmudgeon's argument is the "primary source rule," which appears in the official Official Errata (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata) for the Player's Handbook v. 3.5, which were last revised in 2006.


When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.


The Rules Compendium's claim to supremacy, Curmudgeon argued, conflicts with the primary source rule. The Rules Compendium cannot have higher authority than the Official Errata for the core rulebooks because, according to the primary source rule quoted above, nothing can. The primary source rule gave supremacy to the sources in which it appeared: the Official Errata for the core rulebooks.

This is literally true in and of itself, but I don't think it necessarily must be true for all time. The primary source rule quoted above appeared in a source that was never revised after 2006, but the Rules Compendium came out in 2007. Just as the Rules Compendium cannot be binding upon any book that appeared after 2007, the 2006 Official Errata cannot be binding upon the Rules Compendium. My reasoning here is that no piece of legislation can make future legislative changes illegal.

So I don't believe the primary source rule of 2006 can invalidate the supremacy claim that the RC made for itself in 2007. A book that came out after 2007 could supersede the RC, but I think it could do so only if it claimed supremacy over the RC, and the Errata-enriched re-issues of the core rulebooks after 2007 made no such claim.

I personally feel that the other reasons Curmudgeon gave for the invalidity of the Rules Compendium don't the same weight as his argument from the Official Errata. Yes, the RC's supremacy claim is "self-declared," but so is the primary source rule of 2006 (which appears in several sources only because there are several sets of Official Errata, one for each core rulebook, rather than a single compendium). Yes, the claim refers only to "pre-existing books" and yes, the final issues of the core rulebooks did come out after the RC, but the re-issued core rulebooks make no reference at all to the RC, so I can't read into them any claim to supersede the RC.

Just as you can choose to play first-edition D&D or version 3.0 if you choose, you can also choose to play core-only D&D version 3.5, and if you do, you can ignore all supplemental rulebooks, including the Rules Compendium. But I think the claim that the RC is pre-emptively invalidated by the primary source rule is a stretch.

[MeeposFire]

Just when you thought you had seen all the arguments that one edition of D&D can provide over the years it can still surprise you.

Well I guess this is far less painful than bloodline or whether that vest in incarnum works on hellfire warlock sort of arguments but still...

[Mato]

Pretty much the only time the argument comes up is when someone says, "Lol, look how dysfunctional this rule is, it's so dumb but that's RAW for you!" and I'm like, "RC fixed it so it functions fine," and they're like "RC isn't a valid source!" :smallsigh:That's like how half of all arguments go on here with every single source.

The other half engages in pointless language debates spending hours trying to convince you that because a word can be used in different ways, the entire paragraph makes no sense.

[Troacctid]

Which would be a thing if you had official backing as opposed to a third party, or if your new printing was more than a single book which won't be distributed.
Does the text say that?

[Afgncaap5]

My opinion is that the Rules Compendium is, RAI, the final word, and the PH reprints are nostalgic rereleases that acted as a really nice reminder of what had come before while also generating some quick cash from WotC in the face of 3.5 fans who were still not buying their new stuff.

I don't wanna weigh in on the specifics of the arguments here, but I'm mentally applying everything people say to the Star Wars franchise and the digital rereleases of the original series that changed things from the original. It's making for a curious examination of potential interpretations of Star Wars continuity, let me tell you.

[RedWarlock]

Basically, the reprints were a cheap cash grab, and whoever decided to print them without fixing them needs to be (insert rules-conflicting punishment here). ;)

[Zanos]

I think they were advertised incorrectly, but they were a pretty nice opportunity for anyone without the 3.5 core books to pick them up without spending a couple hundred dollars on ebay. Good condition core sets are hard to find.