I hate you Wizards *shake fist*

[Ramza00]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...dacc/215397200

Tired of hauling all of your D&D rules supplements to the gaming table? Having trouble finding the rule you need? The Rules Compendium supplement takes all of the game's most important rules and presents them in a single comprehensive, easy-to-reference volume for players and Dungeon Masters. In addition to presenting the rules of the game, the Rules Compendium incorporates official errata as well as behind-the-scenes designer and developer commentary explaining how the rules system has evolved and why certain rules work the way they do.

I hate you Wizards. Not releasing errata for a year and now this.

[talsine]

awesome, releasing a book that has all the stuff that SHOULD"VE BEEN IN THE CORE BOOKS ANYWAY! /sigh.

I'll probebly buy it for the errata all in one place and because i'm a whore.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

The commentary will be interesting too, but I hope they do not charge to much for this.

[Ramza00]

awesome, releasing a book that has all the stuff that SHOULD"VE BEEN IN THE CORE BOOKS ANYWAY! /sigh.

I'll probebly buy it for the errata all in one place and because i'm a whore.

Exactly. It should have been all done in the core books, but it wasn't.

And I will find a use for it trust me. Now me paying for it is another matter I buy products when they are useful or I perceive usefulness. If I feel I been gipped before I buy the product I will do more illict things and thus WOTC doesn't make money.

[Ramza00]

The commentary will be interesting too, but I hope they do not charge to much for this.

List Price $26.95 C$34.95
Amazon Price $17.79

[Legoman]

Give the guys a break - they have to make money somehow, right?

That said, I'll pass, as should everyone else. The DM is there for a reason.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Hm. Most WotC hardcovers start at $29.95. Three buck discount.

In any case, I'm just wondering which items exactly constitute, "all of the game's most important rules" and whether or not the errata is just the stuff that's already been available on the WotC site or if they're pulling the "gotta buy a new book to get the new errata" trick again. The cynic in me says it's the latter.

I look forward to any reviews members of this message board have to offer in October.

[evil]

I think it makes a good reference for the DM. If i don't know the answer I either have to make stuff up or spend time looking through the DMG & PHB. I don't like doing either. If I had a handy guide next to me that had say... the conditions for bluff modifiers, I think it would help.

[Skara Brae]

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15278


This thread sheds some interesting light on the topic of WotC and the money issue, IMO. While it primarily addresses the breakup of TSR, it does give some insight into how WotC views the world... though, as a bit of warning, the people there aren't big fans of WotC.

[Thomas]

I don't quite understand what possible use this book could be. The errata and FAQ are free. You can read up on the Sage's crazy rulings at the WotC site (or in Dragon, if you happen to have access to issues, or subscribe), and tricky rules issues are easily cleared out when you bring them to, say, this board. The rules themselves are already in the books.

[Indon]

I know the title reads "Rules Compendium", but I keep seeing "D&D: Director's Cut".

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The errata and FAQ are free.

No. Not anymore.

Want the latest errata and revisions on psionic powers? Gotta buy Complete Psionic.

Want the latest errata and revisions on magic spells? Spell Compendium.

And soon we're gonna get the same on magic items with the Magic Item Compendium.

And when was the last time the issued errata on any of they're newer publications? Some have had sentences or paragraphs in obvious need of correction.

WotC just doesn't appear to be playing the free errata game anymore.

[Darrin]

I don't quite understand what possible use this book could be. The errata and FAQ are free. You can read up on the Sage's crazy rulings at the WotC site (or in Dragon, if you happen to have access to issues, or subscribe), and tricky rules issues are easily cleared out when you bring them to, say, this board. The rules themselves are already in the books.

I wonder if they're actually going to tell us whether or not Bards get medium armor proficiency, or why you suddenly needed a Strength requirement to wield a Bastard Sword/Dwarven Waraxe.

I suppose cleaning up some of the partial/swift/immediate/free action mess might be good, too.

[Person_Man]

Dude, WTF?

This is the dumbest idea for a book ever written. Why don't they just update the SRD?

Having said that, I intend to sit in the Borders and read it, just to get their take on our rules debates.

[Thomas]

The FAQ was updated in late December, and the latest errata looks to have been for the MM3. What's the usual delay between publication of the book and publication of the errata?

I wonder if they're actually going to tell us whether or not Bards get medium armor proficiency, or why you suddenly needed a Strength requirement to wield a Bastard Sword/Dwarven Waraxe.

I suppose cleaning up some of the partial/swift/immediate/free action mess might be good, too.

I do not understand either of these. Swift, immediate, and free actions seem clear enough (and there's no such thing as a partial action in 3.5). And what medium armor proficiency and Strength requirements?

[Matthew]

There is a Strength 13 requirement to use the Bastard Sword One Handed. Check out the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat.

[ken-do-nim]

Dude, WTF?

This is the dumbest idea for a book ever written. Why don't they just update the SRD?

Having said that, I intend to sit in the Borders and read it, just to get their take on our rules debates.

Hey, we agree!

I resisted Spell Compendium for a long, long time. I figured I owned the Complete Series, why get repeated entries? But I caved, partially because it's all in one place, partially because of the allure that "it may be updated", and of course for the spells I didn't have yet. [And I have to say I was disappointed; they didn't errata much at all and many spells in there are quite obviously broken]

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The FAQ was updated in late December, and the latest errata looks to have been for the MM3. What's the usual delay between publication of the book and publication of the errata?

Well, Tome of Magic was an April, 2006 release. The errata has a release date stamp of March 28. So that gives us a starting point of "pre-release".

Admittedly, there's a two-year gap between Complete Warrior and its most recent errata update. But that is it's latest update. I don't know when it was initially released. And the errata was released before August 2005, since there is a specific note calling attention to the new erratum in the document.

Complete Adventurer has a 7-month gap between publication and latest errata. Though it is possible there was an initial errata document before this, as was the case with Complete Warrior, the document does not make it obvious.

Almost all large gaps larger than these coincide with the Polymorph errata. The sole exception is Monster Manual III, which was updated several months after that incident solely to fix the Climb skill on the Conflagration Ooze.

In any case, the errata support of new publications is mostly a secondary concern to me. There's still a lot of errata that can only be obtained through the purchase of another book. I was floored when I discovered the nature of the changes to briar web just last month. I had initially assumed the "includes errata" aspect of Spell Compendium refferred to items already called out in those free errata sheets. For the most part, this assumption was dashed when I bought Complete Psionic, and saw that WotC was willing to change spells and powers without releasing free errata. But I wasn't prepared for a changed spell to be so drastically different as was the case with briar web.

Personal Note:
And all that is particularly painful, since I play a Druid in Living Greyhawk, which requires me to use the updated version of any spell I cast. I now feel obligated to by Spell Comendium if I want to continue playing my druid. It's either that or risk feeling like I'm losing out on something compared to all the other Druids in Living Greyhawk. Right now, I'm stubborn enough to stick with the latter and save some cash.

[PinkysBrain]

The FAQ was updated in late December

To be fair, Andy Collings (aka the Sage) now answers questions online in the Ask Wizards column.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/ask

[Darrin]

I do not understand either of these. Swift, immediate, and free actions seem clear enough (and there's no such thing as a partial action in 3.5). And what medium armor proficiency and Strength requirements?

Read the Bard class description, and then read the Medium Armor Proficiency Feat. Now according to the SRD or official errata, please tell me if bards are proficient in medium armor or not.

Same with Bastard Swords and Dwarven Waraxes. In 3.0, and in the 3.5 weapon descriptions, there is no mention of a Strength requirement (nor can I think of any other weapons that have any ability requirement... even someone with 3 Str can load a crossbow). But if you look at the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, all of a sudden Bastard Swords/Dwarven Waraxes require 13 Str. So which is correct, the weapon description or the feat description?

And while swift/immediate/free seems clear enough, they're not CORE or in the SRD. And there are a couple wording issues, like with Flyby attack, where a search/replace of "partial" has resulted in some wonkyness.

[Thomas]

Oh, funny thing, that.

Medium armor & bards: They're not; it's obvious which bit is an editing glitch. (Since nowhere else is there any indication bards are actually proficient with medium armor.)

There's no real reason the weapon descriptions should include any of the requirements of the feat, so there's no issue there - no contradiction. The weapon descriptions also don't make mention of the BAB +1 requirement. Using the weapon doesn't require anything; but taking the EWP (bastard sword) or EWP (dwarven waraxe) feat requires Str 13.

Why these haven't been addressed in errata is a good question; though I can imagine easily, since I've not noticed either in all the years I've owned the 3.5 PHB and used the SRD...

[SpiderBrigade]

Honestly I think that requiring books to get the latest errata is a terrible idea for WotC. Sure, they can encourage people to buy the books to get those rules updates, but it's not like people aren't buying their books anyway, you know? Plus it makes the game very frustrating for people who don't have all the books, or for groups whose members have non-identical collections. And it's really not in their best interest for the popular impression of D&D to be, "oh, that game gets really frustrating because the books have conflicting rules and there's no errata."

[Person_Man]

Hey, we agree!

Wow, the end of days must be drawing neigh. ;-)

[Tormsskull]

When 3.5 came out I stopped buying anything except core books. Even if I was still interested in buying splat books, I can't imagine ever buying this. But, Wizards has been going down the tube for a while now, so this doesn't really surprise me.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

And when was the last time the issued errata on any of they're newer publications?

Just because I can answer my own question through the research I did for my last post:

Powers of Faerûn, released March 2006, errata added May 31, 2006.

We got ourselves a whole year's worth of publications without errata.

Also, I just noticed that Tome of Magic is listed as having been released in March, 2006. This is verified when I check the copyright page of that book. My statement that it was released in April was brought upon by the March, 2006 issue of Dragon advertising a "Sneak Peak" at Tome of Magic. This lead me to believe the book was released the following month rather than the same one. (Of course, subscribers to the magazine get their issues about a month ahead of time. So, it's a truer sneak peek for them.)

And it's really not in their best interest for the popular impression of D&D to be, "oh, that game gets really frustrating because the books have conflicting rules and there's no errata."

I usually avoid this, but since I do have some semi-relevant content above...

QFT

[brian c]

There's no real reason the weapon descriptions should include any of the requirements of the feat, so there's no issue there - no contradiction. The weapon descriptions also don't make mention of the BAB +1 requirement. Using the weapon doesn't require anything; but taking the EWP (bastard sword) or EWP (dwarven waraxe) feat requires Str 13.

I agree with you, and just to add on: you can use a bastard sword and take the standard non-proficiency penalty even if you have less than 13 STR. Also, if you're a dwarf (counting dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon) then you have no need to the exotic proficiency feat and can use a dwarven waraxe normally no matter what your strength is. The 13 str requirement is only for taking that feat (using the weapon well), not for using the weapon in general.

[Thomas]

That's my point exactly. It's a requirement for the feat, not the weapon. A dwarf doesn't need the EWP (dwarven waraxe) feat.

[Dragonmuncher]

Medium armor & bards: They're not; it's obvious which bit is an editing glitch. (Since nowhere else is there any indication bards are actually proficient with medium armor.)

You're probably right, but really, there would only be two places where "bards are automatically proficient in medium armor" would pop up. One would be the Medium Armor proficency feat (where it appears), and the other would be the Bard class entry (where it doesn't).

The class entry probably takes precedence here, meaning they're not proficent in it, but it's not THAT obvious- one says they do, and one says they don't.

[Everyman]

For many a year, I dreamed of working for WotC. I've always loved designing mechanics and writing scenarios for new materials. However, this...
...
This made me cry.

That's right. I actually cried when I saw that page.

Unless this book is compiling EVERY rule system to date (core, psionic, incarnum, ToM, ToB, etc), this is just erratta in a can. It looks nice, but there is nothing in there but empty rules calories.

Please, oh please let there be more to this book then just erratta and rule clarifications. It might be worthwhile if they at least put a lot of emphasis on the "behind-the-scenes designer and developer commentary explaining how the rules system has evolved and why certain rules work the way they do".

Please, WotC...don't let me down.

[Ramza00]

Unless this book is compiling EVERY rule system to date (core, psionic, incarnum, ToM, ToB, etc), this is just erratta in a can. It looks nice, but there is nothing in there but empty rules calories.

That sums it up perfectly, beautiful said yet ugly at the same time.

Please, oh please let there be more to this book then just erratta and rule clarifications. It might be worthwhile if they at least put a lot of emphasis on the "behind-the-scenes designer and developer commentary explaining how the rules system has evolved and why certain rules work the way they do".

Please, WotC...don't let me down.

And I don't know if I trust the idea of "designers intent" anymore after reading the enworld exchange about the designer of complete scoundrel. He purposefully wanted to grant ninja fighter feats (not allow ninjas to grab fighter only feats) since there really is no reason to do ninja compared to rogue, and you will still have d6 hps, 3/4 bab, and 6 skill points, and the weaker sudden strike (compared to sneak attack). Well of course the other designers quickly saw that and threw the ax to the other designer's intent.