Opinions on the Rules Compendium

[melchizedek]

Wizards has released excerpts from the Rules Compendium


Is anyone planning on buying this? To me, it seems like a waste of money. From what I've read, the book will mostly be a reprinting of old rules with some clarifications and commentary thrown in. To me, that doesn't justify the purchase of an entire book. Wizards seems to be marketing the book primarily on convenience, saying that it should be the only book a DM needs to have to look up rules. This is nice, but I, and I imagine most other people, are already used to running games without this convenience, and know the rules well enough to get by. We can look up obscure points if we need to, but most of the time, I'm just going to wing it anyway. What do other people think? Is this book worthwhile?

[Cybren]

"A form of attack that enables
an attacker to make multiple
attacks during an action
other than a full-round
action, such as the Manyshot
feat (standard
action) or a quickened
scorching ray (swift action),
allows precision
damage to be applied
only to the first attack
in the group."

Really? A quickened scorched ray doesn't get its own sneak attack?
That's uhh

dumb.

[melchizedek]

I can see the point there. If you're already casting the spell much faster than usual, do you really have time to aim precisely too?

[skywalker]

"A form of attack that enables
an attacker to make multiple
attacks during an action
other than a full-round
action, such as the Manyshot
feat (standard
action) or a quickened
scorching ray (swift action),
allows precision
damage to be applied
only to the first attack
in the group."

Really? A quickened scorched ray doesn't get its own sneak attack?
That's uhh

dumb.

It applies to the spellwarp sniper, I believe.

The greater ramifications of this passage being that it completely annihilates ranged scout builds(which is presumably what it was entirely intended to do).


As for the rules compendium itself, yeah, it sucks, won't be buying it, I've already got the rules, and it's about 7 months till 4.0 comes out. Thanks but no thanks, I'll pass on this AND exemplars of evil.

[Hamilton]

"A form of attack that enables
an attacker to make multiple
attacks during an action
other than a full-round
action, such as the Manyshot
feat (standard
action) or a quickened
scorching ray (swift action),
allows precision
damage to be applied
only to the first attack
in the group."

Really? A quickened scorched ray doesn't get its own sneak attack?
That's uhh

dumb.

This is just a stupid way of saying:

When you make multiple attacks with anything but a full round action, sneak attack damage only applies to one of the damage rolls.

[KIDS]

But Greater Manyshot should still be an exception from this rule; this rule is meant to provide general guidance, with class features or whatever being exceptions.

Anyways, I won't be buying it - they'd have to explain the rules to me extremely elegantly and with great precision to make it worth it - I don't see that happening.
"Hey that book has awesome PrCs!"
"Hey that book explained me the rules awesomely!"
ha!

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

This is just a stupid way of saying:

When you make multiple attacks with anything but a full round action, sneak attack damage only applies to one of the damage rolls.

Yes, you still get to apply sneak attack damage to the first ray in the volley, even when you use a quickened spell.

[Person_Man]

Why would we need the Rules Compendium, when we have Lord Silvanos?

I doubt I'll buy it. But I think that enough people on the boards will buy it that it will clear up many common rules arguments, which is a good thing. Or they could have just released 3.75 core rule books and an updated SRD. But that would be too simple.

[bosssmiley]

I have the downloadable d20SRD.org and WOTC's D&D FAQ as desktop links on my laptop; why would I need this book? Does it even *have* USB ports or WiFi?

[Dragonmuncher]

I have the downloadable d20SRD.org and WOTC's D&D FAQ as desktop links on my laptop; why would I need this book? Does it even *have* USB ports or WiFi?

I think it has the rules that AREN'T in the srd, like all of the little rules extensions and such that tend to crop up in each splatbook. I'm not positive, but I think that's the case, yes?

[Rex Blunder]

It totally has wifi.

At least that's what it said on the WoTC site!

[OzymandiasVolt]

The rule says multiple attacks in ONE ACTION. Meaning that it is saying the quickened scorching ray DOES get its own sneak attack, but only on the first ray. If you cast another scorching ray spell, that is a DIFFERENT action, which gets its OWN sneak attack on the first ray.

[Person_Man]

You know, reading the excerpt on Precision damage has convinced me that they should eliminate precision damage in 4th ed.

Rogues should simply get the Backstab ability, which gives them extra damage whenever they flank an enemy. Period. No crazy restrictions. Just extra damage.

Rangers (who are killing the Scout and taking their abilities) should get the Skirmish ability, which gives them extra damage whenever they or their mount move at least 10 feet before they make their attack. It will progress half as fast as Sneak Attack. Again, no other restrictions.

Anyway, that's my perfect world situation for the Striker classes.

[OzymandiasVolt]

The problem with tying the rogue's extra damage to flanking is that doing so would prevent it from being applied to, say, a surprise attack by a single rogue, or a sniper shot from a hidden rogue fifteen feet away.

[Fax Celestis]

The problem with tying the rogue's extra damage to flanking is that doing so would prevent it from being applied to, say, a surprise attack by a single rogue, or a sniper shot from a hidden rogue fifteen feet away.

Then you give them a class ability that lets them treat people as flanked when catching them by surprise. Hey, look. Fixed.

[OzymandiasVolt]

Except that you had to add on to his suggestion to make it work. So my comment on his suggestion is still valid.

(That aside, yes, your addition fixes the problem and makes it a nice mechanic. How do you define 'surprised', though? And what if they're not surprised, but are still incapable of moving or defending themselves?)

[Fax Celestis]

Surprised is defined within the SRD as "not having an action during a surprise round." One could also qualify within the same ability that opponents unable to defend themselves are considered flanked for the purposes of precision damage.

So instead of the weird denied Dex to AC/flat-footed/paralyzed/flanked conglomerate mess that Sneak Attack is now, you say the following:

"Whenever a rogue flanks an enemy he adds xd6 damage to his attack rolls. Foes that are surprised or are unable to defend themselves--such as a bound or paralyzed foe, or a foe you attack from hiding or invisibility--are considered flanked for the purposes of this ability. A target without a discernible anatomy (such as an undead, construct, oozes, plant, or incorporeal creature) is not subject to this extra damage."

There. I've just condensed a horrendously worded ability into something a bit easier to understand, is far shorter, and is generally easier to use.

Compare:

Sneak Attack

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

...versus...

Sneak Attack

Whenever a rogue flanks an enemy he adds 1d6 damage to his attack rolls, +1d6 damage per two additional rogue levels. Foes that are surprised or are unable to defend themselves--such as a bound or paralyzed foe, or a foe you attack from hiding or invisibility--are considered flanked for the purposes of this ability.

A target without a discernible anatomy (such as an undead, construct, oozes, plant, or incorporeal creature) or a target immune to critical hits is not subject to this extra damage. Similarly, a rogue cannot Sneak Attack a foe with concealment, nor can he make a sneak attack with a weapon that does nonlethal damage.

As normal, extra dice of damage are not multiplied on a critical hit.

Further, you add the following to the text of the sap and to the description of unarmed strikes:

With a sap or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage.

Clarity!

[Starsinger]

*Condensed* Clarity!

Yay Fax!! You should've written the rules compendium... Verbosity is bad for rules for a pick-up-and-play game.. And who wants to do lots of homework for a game?

[OzymandiasVolt]

Shiny! Mind if I borrow-with-no-intention-of-returning it?

[Fax Celestis]

Go right ahead. I wouldn't do it otherwise. :P

[Jarlax]

rules compendium = one last money grab by wizards.

by the table of contents this is a collection of the most obscure or complex rules in D&D, which gaming groups have either ignored for a long time due to their obscureness or come to their own conclusions about how to use it at their table.

the only people who would gain value from this are RPGA players who would have to run off these interpretations of the rules during organized play.

a better option for a book might have been "the best of 3.5" and throw some of the most popular classes, feats, spells and items from all of 3.5 into a single book. its not like such a book is going to negatively impact sales of the original source at this point.

[Starsinger]

rules compendium = one last money grab by wizards.

Or is it their gift to people who "don't want to play 4e" and instead are "going to stick to 3.5"?

[Fax Celestis]

Actually, you can "borrow" my revised sneak attack on one condition: you read the Medium in my sig and tell me what you think.

[Kurald Galain]

Then you give them a class ability that lets them treat people as flanked when catching them by surprise. Hey, look. Fixed.

Yep. "Flanked" is much easier to understand than "having lost their dexterity bonus to their AC regardless of whether they had such a bonus to begin with".

Also, is "flat footed" even a word? Other than applying to a medical condition, that is...

Oh and no, I have no desire whatsoever to buy what is effectively an errata book. Plenty of errata on the internet, and plenty of homebrew suggestions that are at times better than what WOTC comes up with.

[AslanCross]

Yep. "Flanked" is much easier to understand than "having lost their dexterity bonus to their AC regardless of whether they had such a bonus to begin with".

Also, is "flat footed" even a word? Other than applying to a medical condition, that is...

flat-foot·ed (flāt'fŏŏt'ĭd)
adj.

1. Of or afflicted with flatfoot.
2.
1. Steady on the feet.
2. Informal Without reservation; forthright: a flat-footed refusal.
3. Unable to react quickly; unprepared: The new product caught their competitors flat-footed.

[Tor the Fallen]

I can see the point there. If you're already casting the spell much faster than usual, do you really have time to aim precisely too?

Doesn't matter if it's quickened or not. Any barrage type attack only lets you sneak attack on the first attack.