Do Official or Unofficial Errata for the RULES COMPENDIUM 3.5 (2007) exist?

[Duke of Urrel]

I asked the question in the title because I don't know of any official errata for the Rules Compendium v. 3.5 (2007). If there are any, do you know of them?

I also believe I have found an obvious error in the Rules Compendium and would like to share it.

On page 8, the RC shows, in two separate tables, that throwing a grappling hook is a standard action, but that securing a grappling hook is a full-round action. The RC has nothing more to say about either action except that both actions employ Use Rope skill and that the latter action requires a skill check with a DC of 10. The reader is referred to page 50.

On page 50, the RC clarifies, in a footnote under a table, that the DC for a Use Rope skill check to secure a grappling hook adds "+2 for every 10 feet the hook is thrown." It also reiterates, in the descriptive text below, that the Use Rope skill check to throw a grappling hook represents a standard action. No full-round action is mentioned in connection with grappling hooks here.

Either the RC expects us to make two Use Rope checks, both at the same DC, the first representing a standard action to throw a grappling hook and the second representing a full-round action to secure one; or, more likely, the writers of the RC just made a mistake in the "Full-Round Action" table on page 8, because both throwing and securing a grappling hook are the same action, a standard action, just as they are implied to be on page 50 and in the descriptive text on page 86 of the Player's Handbook v. 3.5 (2012). This interpretation follows the principle that we should give descriptive text precedence over any table in case of conflict.

The Rules Compendium is supposed to give the final word on many rules, but the RC is no more perfect than any other rulebook. Has anybody compiled an unofficial list of the errors it contains? This would be a handy list to have, if it exists. If it doesn't, please accept my discussion of Use Rope skill as an entry in a future list of errata.

[ZamielVanWeber]

AFAIK that is straight up the game working as intended. Turn 1: you make a Use Rope Check at DC 10 to get the hook part where you want it to go. Turn 2: You now have to carefully manipulate the rope to move the hook into a place where it latches firmly and can support your weight. This is a full-round action with a scaling check because the more rope between you and the hook the harder it is to do precision work.

As for errata there is none official. As 3.5 started to wind down WotC started to phone errata in until they eventually gave up entirely.

[Venger]

no, there hasn't been any rc errata.

just ignore the mistake. rc has no power to change anything anyway, just to clarify.

[ZamielVanWeber]

just ignore the mistake. rc has no power to change anything anyway, just to clarify.

That I generally find to be a hilarious hiccup in hyper-RAW discussions but generally a silly position to hold from a practical perspective. The Rules Compendium is meant to clarify and errata a few things and to say it does not because it cannot is extreme (and also causes the errata for the DMG, PHB, MM, MIC, and SC to not work because they were reprinted).

[Thurbane]

Did the PHB/DMG/MM (deluxe) reprints contain any stealth errata?

[ZamielVanWeber]

Did the PHB/DMG/MM (deluxe) reprints contain any stealth errata?

I do know they contain some errata but I have never fully looked over a copy aside from MIC as I got that after thw reprint and the reprint was 4 dollars cheaper. My copies of the 3.5 core books are still in good condition (heck, so is my 3.0 handbook and I got that months after it came out).

[Venger]

Did the PHB/DMG/MM (deluxe) reprints contain any stealth errata?

Not to my knowledge, though it does incorporate the official errata.

[Duke of Urrel]

AFAIK that is straight up the game working as intended. Turn 1: you make a Use Rope Check at DC 10 to get the hook part where you want it to go. Turn 2: You now have to carefully manipulate the rope to move the hook into a place where it latches firmly and can support your weight. This is a full-round action with a scaling check because the more rope between you and the hook the harder it is to do precision work.

Thank you for this, Zamiel von Weber. I say this even though I was hoping that everybody would agree with the interpretation that I prefer, which is that "Secure grappling hook" was mistakenly included in the "Full-Round Action" table on page 8 of the RC.


Did the PHB/DMG/MM (deluxe) reprints contain any stealth errata?

Good question, Thurbane.

A lot of official errata were incorporated into the final editions of the core rulebooks (PH, DMG, and MM) after 2007, but as far as I know, revisions from the Rules Compendium generally were not included in them. For example, all "free actions" in the Player's Handbook remained "free actions" in the 2012 edition, despite the invention of the specific terms "swift action" and "immediate action." The "Polymorph Subschool" is an exception to this general rule; this was definitely a revision that appeared in the Rules Compendium and that was later incorporated into the 2012 Player's Handbook.

I am (now more than ever) pretty sure that nobody got around to publishing official errata for the Rules Compendium. This being so, we may have to conclude that officially, this book is error-free. And I may have to admit that what I claim to be an error (namely the inclusion of "Secure grappling hook" in the "Full-Round-Action" table) is not an error at all in the opinion of many, maybe even most, players who use the RC. On the other hand, I suspect that many players who believe it is a proper rule (and one of the few obvious changes of the rules of the PH) don't like it very much.

I have another question. Did this particular change in the rules – the separation of "Throw grappling hook" and "Secure grappling hook" into two actions, a standard action and a full-round action – appear in any supplemental rulebook that was published before the Rules Compendium? This would give it more legitimacy in my own judgement.

[Darrin]

This being so, we may have to conclude that officially, this book is error-free.


Nope. Someone tried to close down the "Sleight of Hand is a free action" loophole in the table on page 117 but they forgot to update the actual rules text.

The "volley" rules are also a bit of a mess, but I'm not sure that's an out-and-out error or just the designers being sloppy.

[Duke of Urrel]

Someone tried to close down the "Sleight of Hand is a free action" loophole in the table on page 117 but they forgot to update the actual rules text.

I agree that this rule was updated in the Rules Compendium but not in the Player's Handbook. However, I simply accept the RC rule as a revision of the rule in the Player's Handbook, just as I accept that casting a Quickened spell is now a swift action and casting the Feather Fall spell is now an immediate action. It's no problem for me that the revision appears only in a table, because nothing in the descriptive text on page 177 contradicts it, not even implicitly. (And besides, I like this revision!)


The "volley" rules are also a bit of a mess, but I'm not sure that's an out-and-out error or just the designers being sloppy.

I am ignorant but intrigued. What are the "volley" rules?

[Venger]

I agree that this rule was updated in the Rules Compendium but not in the Player's Handbook. However, I simply accept the RC rule as a revision of the rule in the Player's Handbook, just as I accept that casting a Quickened spell is now a swift action and casting the Feather Fall spell is now an immediate action. It's no problem for me that the revision appears only in a table, because nothing in the descriptive text on page 177 contradicts it, not even implicitly. (And besides, I like this revision!)



I am ignorant but intrigued. What are the "volley" rules?

Tables are secondary. Text is primary (text trumps table) is the issue here, even if you do believe rc can change things.

the volley rules are one of the stupider things rc tried to change. in rc's mind, if you make a volley attack, such as a manyshot or a salvo with the manticore belt, you only apply precision damage to the first attack because rogues really needed to be nerfed.

[Darrin]

It's no problem for me that the revision appears only in a table, because nothing in the descriptive text on page 117 contradicts it, not even implicitly.


In my mind, "Text trumps table", so the text in the PHB still trumps a table entry that I cannot tie to any particular text or errata.



I am ignorant but intrigued. What are the "volley" rules?

This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22141863&postcount=2) explains some of the history, as I understand it.

Briefly: There's a discrepancy in the Rules Compendium where it says you only get precision damage on multiple attacks when you are using a full-round action, and the Weaponlike Spells section which says when spells make multiple attacks you only get precision damage on the first attack regardless of the action type.

[Deophaun]

Just curious: has anyone ever been in a position where requiring two rounds to effectively use a grappling hook ever mattered? That doesn't strike me as something done while the clock is ticking, because trying to climb while, say, being attacked is a generally bad idea.

[Darrin]

Just curious: has anyone ever been in a position where requiring two rounds to effectively use a grappling hook ever mattered? That doesn't strike me as something done while the clock is ticking, because trying to climb while, say, being attacked is a generally bad idea.

Luke Skywalker comes to mind... but other than that, no.

[Duke of Urrel]

Just curious: has anyone ever been in a position where requiring two rounds to effectively use a grappling hook ever mattered? That doesn't strike me as something done while the clock is ticking, because trying to climb while, say, being attacked is a generally bad idea.

Ropes with grappling hooks aren't only used for climbing; they're also used for swinging. I'm old enough to remember Bat-A-Rangs!

http://orig04.deviantart.net/166c/f/2013/077/4/d/batman_batarang_throw_by_superrenders-d5yfony.png

http://www.wallpaperist.com/wallpapers/Comics/Batman/Batarang-swing-1280-1024.jpg

Batman never had to spend six seconds shaking a rope in order to get a Bat-A-Rang to hold. He just threw up the Bat-A-Rang, it wound itself around any suitable protrusion, and he was ready to jump and swing!

This explains why it never occurred to me, before the Rules Compendium, that the rule writers might have originally meant that you first had to throw a grappling hook and then secure it, using two separate actions.