rule compendium?

[RandomNPC]

seriously, can't they read the books and playtest them for balance before they realease them, or do they think they need the presses to be running and the books to be shipping to make any money?

i work at a printshop, when i stop the guy who cuts the press sheets apart i get yelled at because if the knife doesn't move we don't make money. it doesn't matter that the product needs to be shrinkwrapped and boxed, no, it needs to run through the cutter, then we make money. it doesn't make any sense, play test the stuf.

if WotC put a little more effort into thier product i'd probably pay more AND buy more.

</rant>

sorry.

[Reel On, Love]

...what does the Rules Compendium have to do with balance?

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, really?

I got the book, and I actually really like it just for the organization factor. Similar rules are listed together, and they did a great job of printing most topics on an exact whole number of pages.

Plus, there are a few updates in there, and short 1-page essays about rules development (some of these are dumb, but a couple are interesting).

[Techonce]

I flipped through it and while the new stuff was interesting, it wasn't worth the $20.

I had hoped for more.

[jamroar]

Yeah, really?

I got the book, and I actually really like it just for the organization factor. Similar rules are listed together, and they did a great job of printing most topics on an exact whole number of pages.

Plus, there are a few updates in there, and short 1-page essays about rules development (some of these are dumb, but a couple are interesting).

Is it usable as a condensed combo PHB+DMG in one book like the old Rule Cyclopedia? If so, I might get it.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yes, pretty much. It does leave out non-rule related things such as classes, equipment, specific feat and spell descriptions, and alignment for example.

The excerpts page has the table of contents if you want to see what's in it.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20071009a

[Curmudgeon]

Based on the excerpts that I downloaded and read (thanks for the link, KillianHawkeye) I have to say:

I'm thoroughly underwhelmed.

These rules are straight out of the Player's Handbook, with only the slightest nod to the many dozens of supplements that have been published since. The grappling excerpt is the same, just a bit reworded. The precision damage discussion on the damage types excerpt is also the same, with a brief mention of sudden strike and skirmish. These rules are stated as absolutes (no precision damage to undead, constructs, plants, and oozes; must be within 30') without mention of the many ways around these rules:

• Prestige classes like the Skullclan Hunter
• Alternate class abilities such as Penetrating Strike
• Spells: Grave Strike, Golem Strike, Vine Strike
• Feats like Crossbow Sniper
• Magic items like the Truedeath and Demolition weapon augment crystals

Given the plethora of exceptions WotC has crafted to these regular rules, you'd think a rules compendium could at least mention that some exceptions existed. But no.

The discussion of Antimagic Field did add one clarification: AF doesn't block line of effect.

For the most part it looks like they're trying to get us to shell out money for the same old rules, just alphabetized and annoyingly wrapped around a pretty picture on every page. I'll be saving my money.

[RandomNPC]

Based on the excerpts that I downloaded and read (thanks for the link, KillianHawkeye) I have to say:

I'm thoroughly underwhelmed.

These rules are straight out of the Player's Handbook

i know you're saying theres a little more, but that's my point.

when i get a game book it's because it's going to add more to my world. not confuse my gamers because it's got ten pages of errata and the rules have changed mid game. if something in my game needs that much perma-change i talk to the gamers and get a good idea of a group agreed houserule on it.


edit: on the balance thing. That's what the rules are for, otherwise it's just freform storytelling (i also enjoy that)

[Idea Man]

I refuse to buy a book with information that should be made available for free. Rules updates shouldn't cost anything, clarifications shouldn't cost anything, just put a pdf on the home website! This is also why I would never buy the Dragon Magazine Compendium; I have all those issues.

[Shatteredtower]

Given the plethora of exceptions WotC has crafted to these regular rules, you'd think a rules compendium could at least mention that some exceptions existed. But no.

That's covered more than adequately by the "Birth of a Rule" entry on page 13, under the "It's Really an Exception," heading. Nothing more needs to be said.

[Irreverent Fool]

I broke down and bought it. I like it. It's handy for looking up rules quickly. It's well-organized...

I just wish they'd done that with the DMG. Still, I find it handy to be able to flip it open to 'light sources' and see exactly how much area is well-lit and how much is shadowy around my PCs.

The price tag should have been lower and the book should have been larger. It's hardly a compendium but I have for the two sessions I've had it handy found it cuts down book-flipping immensely.

If you know all the rules by heart or your group doesn't argue at all with rule 0, don't bother.

[Curmudgeon]

That's covered more than adequately by the "Birth of a Rule" entry on page 13, under the "It's Really an Exception," heading. Nothing more needs to be said.

Not true. If they called it Abridged Rules or Core Rules I'd buy your argument. But Rules Compendium needs to meet the definition of the term:

Compendium -Noun

2. A concise but comprehensive summary of a larger work.

The set of official D&D rules is large. This book is nothing like a "comprehensive summary" of these many rules. The Spell Compendium, in contrast, integrated nearly all the non-PH spells available at the time into one volume.

[Person_Man]

Yeah, WotC has a real problem with creating exceptions, and then creating exceptions to those exceptions. It's doesn't add anything to the fun of a game, it just makes it needlessly complex.

Curmudgeon's Sneak Attack example is a perfect one. Sneak Attack adds extra damage, but only under certain confusing conditions, within 30 feet, but not to certain categories of enemies. Then it creates an elaborate set of workarounds to those exceptions. All of this to deal extra damage which scales considerably slower then most spells. Argh. If you want to add extra damage to a class, just add extra damage. How does it enhance game play by creating a bunch of extra rules?

[Green Bean]

I refuse to buy a book with information that should be made available for free. Rules updates shouldn't cost anything, clarifications shouldn't cost anything, just put a pdf on the home website! This is also why I would never buy the Dragon Magazine Compendium; I have all those issues.

It is for free. You can find DnD errata on their website, no charge. This is simply an organized compilation for those who want an easy reference, or those who don't want to bring a laptop to their games.

[dwagiebard]

The Spell Compendium, in contrast, integrated nearly all the non-PH spells available at the time into one volume.

No, it did not. It compiled many of the popular ones, but nowhere near all of them.

Anyway, a summary doesn't have to be comprehensive. It's a summary. They can't possibly list every single rule, this is a book for people that otherwise spend a large chunk of the session flipping through rule books.

Also, you can find all of the core rules at d20srd.org.

[Shatteredtower]

Not true.

No, quite true. The exceptions are not the rules. Their inclusion would make what serves as a clear and concise reference guide into a worthless monstrosity.

Mind you, I wish they'd settled the issue of casting spells under water in a more definitive fashion. The RAW say you can, but most people refuse to believe that.

[ken-do-nim]

I think we all know how complicated the grappling rules are, particularly when it comes to monsters with their rakes, improved grabs, and constricts, not to mention the confusions about whether they can use their other natural attacks or hand-held weapons while grabbing. There is also a critical errata in the FAQ about how monster grapples use cascading BAB just like pc's do.

I would have bought the Rules Compendium FOR THIS SUBJECT ALONE. But when I went to the bookstore and saw that it just had the player's handbook rules reprinted, I put it back on the shelf. After 4 years of owning the 3.5 books, I know where the rules are. What I wanted was a better explanation of the existing rules, and, you know, maybe some good examples.

I am neutral on the Spell Compendium for balance reasons, I think the Magic Item Compendium is awesome, and I think the Rules Compendium is the biggest rip-off book yet.

[terrant]

Since from its title we all could take a good guess as to what it contained, its unfair to complain about the content being stuff that is already in the other core books.

On the whole I like it and can see it being used at the table.

Is it a rip off - No. If you want to know what a total almost criminal rip-off is look at the "Dungeon Survival Guide".

I could agree that the Rules Compendium could be better, the guys at WoTC do love long winded paragraphs rather than bullet points like "Standard Action/No AoC".

And yes "Grappling" still requires two pages of explanation. No character of mine is ever going to initiate a grapple simple because I'd rather get on with and enjoy the game!

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Hi there, all. I, along with a few other members of the Wizards CharOp boards, did a little work on the Rules Compendium, and I have a few things to say.

First off, what I've gathered from the Wizards site and what Chris Sims said while we were discussing additions and all that is that essentially, this is the printed version of the SRD. The idea here isn't to include every supplement in existence, it's to summarize the various tweaks to the Core rules over the years -- and there have been a good number. The reasoning behind this is that no matter what game you're in, you're using SOME part of the Core rules or you're not playing D&D. Therefore, this book applies to every single game out there -- it's just more useful in some than in others.

Second off:

The precision damage discussion on the damage types excerpt is also the same, with a brief mention of sudden strike and skirmish. These rules are stated as absolutes (no precision damage to undead, constructs, plants, and oozes; must be within 30') without mention of the many ways around these rules:

• Prestige classes like the Skullclan Hunter
• Alternate class abilities such as Penetrating Strike
• Spells: Grave Strike, Golem Strike, Vine Strike
• Feats like Crossbow Sniper
• Magic items like the Truedeath and Demolition weapon augment crystals

Given the plethora of exceptions WotC has crafted to these regular rules, you'd think a rules compendium could at least mention that some exceptions existed. But no.

Well, this is the one section that the COBoards successfully lobbied to add, and I feel inclined to protect my baby. ;) For one thing, I'd like to see how it's the same as the rules for "precision damage" in Core. Go ahead. Find the rules for precision damage in Core.

There aren't any; not by that name. There's the explanation of sneak attack, but it's not defined as precision damage. This isn't so much a new rule or errata as it is a shorthand or "keyword," if you wanna borrow a Magic: the Gathering term -- giving something a name so that you don't have to type out the whole darn thing the whole time. What we did there was just classify something under the rules, which resolves questions about whether things that are immune to sneak attacks are immune to other things. (Is it precision damage? Then they're immune.)

As to why they didn't list the exceptions? Because the Golden Rule is implicit in D&D: if the rules say one thing, and the ability says another, YOU DO WITH THE ABILITY. To put your example in a different light: imagine how silly the Move description would look if it said, "You move up to 30 feet, unless you're affected by Grease because then you have to roll first, or if you affected by Web and you can't move at all, or if you're stunned and can't take an action...." I think you get the idea.

[malcolm]

Kudos on successfully lobbying for an inclusion of precision damage, but that doesn't stop the rules for it being needlessly complex. When the definition of a barbarian's rage is more complicated than the preamble to the constitution, it's time to think about simplifying a bit.

I'm skipping the rules compendium and hoping for a new mindset in 4e. (Don't dumb the game down, but do streamline)

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Kudos on successfully lobbying for an inclusion of precision damage, but that doesn't stop the rules for it being needlessly complex. When the definition of a barbarian's rage is more complicated than the preamble to the constitution, it's time to think about simplifying a bit.

Oh, so you wanted changed rules? Like a new edition, maybe?

The thing about the rules is that there are plenty of ways to streamline them, but you have to change them in order to do that. Look at the Wookie from Star Wars SAGA: streamlined rage, but it doesn't do the same thing as Barbarian rage. (Specifically, it doesn't help on certain checks and it doesn't increase your carrying capacity.) That's not what the RuC is, that's what a new edition is. The RuC is to tell you what's there, 4E is to give you a better (or worse; I have no insider knowledge of 4E,) newer system.

[Shatteredtower]

There is also a critical errata in the FAQ about how monster grapples use cascading BAB just like pc's do.

I would have bought the Rules Compendium FOR THIS SUBJECT ALONE. But when I went to the bookstore and saw that it just had the player's handbook rules reprinted, I put it back on the shelf.

I just read the entries for grappling in both books. They're not the same. That FAQ section you wanted? It's right there on pg 60 of the Rules Compendium, as the third paragraph of "Grappling Results".

After 4 years of owning the 3.5 books, I know where the rules are.

Me too, but it's still easier to find them and many of their clarifications in this volume. The alphabetical arrangement helps.

What I wanted was a better explanation of the existing rules, and, you know, maybe some good examples.

I wish someone had thought to clarify the issue of using Balance checks to cross severely obstructed terrain and the issue of using verbal spell components underwater, but it's otherwise been a useful read, even among the ideas I probably won't use. (I will continue to review the duel of wills, however.)

[ken-do-nim]

I just read the entries for grappling in both books. They're not the same. That FAQ section you wanted? It's right there on pg 60 of the Rules Compendium, as the third paragraph of "Grappling Results".

Oh, really? I'll go to the bookstore and have a second look. But I'm sure it still doesn't go into rake/constrict/improved grab. I don't know about you, but I know that every single time a monster does an improved grab on somebody and wins, the next round the DM thinks he can do the grapple check AND do all the other natural attacks the monster has at -4 against the held victim. Having it clearly spelled out in the RC would have helped.

I wish someone had thought to clarify the issue of using Balance checks to cross severely obstructed terrain and the issue of using verbal spell components underwater, but it's otherwise been a useful read, even among the ideas I probably won't use. (I will continue to review the duel of wills, however.)

Good point! Another instant-argument is the grease spell. If a creature doesn't move but is in the area of the grease spell, is it still flat-footed with less than 5 ranks in balance? That needs to be answered once and for all.

[Shatteredtower]

Oh, really? I'll go to the bookstore and have a second look. But I'm sure it still doesn't go into rake/constrict/improved grab.

Well... I think it does, but perhaps not in sufficient detail to meet the requirement you've given. The first paragraph on pg 61 clearly states that a creature can only attack one of its natural weapons while grappling unless there's an exception. Raking isn't mentioned, but the rules for raking list them as an exception to the general rule. Constriction isn't mentioned, but the rules I've found for that in the MMs always list it as a special attack, not a natural weapon, which means that a giant constrictor snake with a +6 BAB can either attempt to bite twice a round, constrict twice a round, or do each once. Behirs, on the other hand, choose between the two and get in six raking claws on top of that. Fun.

Improved grab also isn't mentioned, but I think that was because otherwise people assume that anyone can opt to take a -20 penalty on their grapple checks to grapple an opponent while not being grappled in kind. I could be wrong. It just feels like another of the exceptions they wanted to avoid bogging them down.

I don't know about you, but I know that every single time a monster does an improved grab on somebody and wins, the next round the DM thinks he can do the grapple check AND do all the other natural attacks the monster has at -4 against the held victim.

The limit of one natural weapon is rather clear (with the description of rake giving itself as an obvious exception -- and the raking attacks don't receive that penalty either). So if a dragon grapples you, it's only going to get to use one weapon against you (though four bite attacks a round, even with a penalty on the attack roll, should result in a rather quick death).

I confess that the rules for the improved grapple special attack (not appearing in this book) do leave me with a pair of questions: if the creature takes the -20 penalty on grapple checks to not be treated as grappled, it can use its other attacks against other foes. This seems to imply that they still can't be used against the grappled target, but that target could still be looking at having to survive multiple grapple checks, but it could be worded a bit more clearly.

Another instant-argument is the grease spell. If a creature doesn't move but is in the area of the grease spell, is it still flat-footed with less than 5 ranks in balance? That needs to be answered once and for all.

Yeah, I'm afraid that one wasn't answered either.

I still like the book. Then again, I'm still trying to understand why it included an entry for shape change, since I'm not finding any appreciable difference in the PHB version and the one printed in the Rules Compendium. There are wording differences, but I'm not seeing the significance of them yet.

[Irreverent Fool]

Is it a rip off - No. If you want to know what a total almost criminal rip-off is look at the "Dungeon Survival Guide".

I picked that up at my local gaming store, flipped it open, read a couple pages, looked at the size and the pricetag and was appalled. I second that opinion.

[Shatteredtower]

Argh. The polymorph subschool is included on pg 122, shapechange is now listed as belonging to the polymorph subschool, but the rules for that subschool state that previously existing spell text trumps the rules for the subschool, and shapechange still reads: "The spell functions like polymorph..."

But polymorph remains untouched.

So close. Taking away the power to use class features while you're another creature would cut away some of the spell's cheesiness factor. Not all of it (a few creatures still let you replicate high level spells as supernatural abilities), but the chunk that lets you cast spells in any form.

Ah, well.

[Dragonmuncher]

So, just to be clear: Is there anything new in the RC?

[Shatteredtower]

In terms of actual rules? No. It wasn't meant to invent rules. It collects a number of updates and errata in one handy volume, clarifies wording in a few cases, incorporates ideas from some of the Complete books in regard to skills, and simplifies some of the ideas offered in the environment books into something that more readily fits into a standard campaign, but it doesn't offer any new rules of its own. If you bought everything WotC put out in the last four years, you're not getting anything you haven't read before.

On the other hand, if you can find it all in under a minute of searching through three to four shelves (my collection runs three shelves and is by no means complete -- no Eberron, for one thing), I'd be very impressed.

There are a few sidebars, but some would consider that fluff. Knowing the history of how a game rule evolved may be viewed as some view chess trivia: a distraction that in no way improves your game. I disagree, but then again, I'm the kind of guy that likes chess trivia. Besides, sometimes such things helps give direction to those looking to tinker with the rules of their own game. More importantly, it gives some insight into the thoughts of some of the game's designers.

David Noonan's discusion on attacks of opportunity ("Clerical Error") is an instructive tale, and there's a cautionary note in "Suffocating on Realism" (about the drowning rules). Rich Baker offers useful suggestions for expanding on the tracking rules to identify what it is your tracking. Chris Sims discusses alternate ideas for turning in another entry, and a number of his entries suggest the kind of guy who wants things done as quickly as possible (one bit of advice in another entry was that if it took more than 10 seconds to add up the dice results, you should go with the average instead).

Mind you, I suspect there are a number of people who'd find Matthew Sernett's "Min-Max Two-Weapon Fighting" entry hard to swallow. The fighter/rogue advice is reasonable, sure, but he got tripped up in suggesting the use of an exotic double weapon in combination with Weapon Finesse. To be fair, the double weapon idea seemed to be an afterthought on the suggestion to use two of the same light weapons, but some are going to shake their heads at the reason he suggests that: so you can more readily pick up Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Improved Critical (though he does the latter only in combination with weapons with a good critical threat range).

But if he hasn't dropped the ball by that point, he certainly does by starting the last paragraph by writing: "This advice might seem heavy on min-maxing, but..." I like two-weapon fighting well enough, but it needs a lot more tweaking than this to come close to min-maxing.

This isn't meant to bash Mr. Sernett: I enjoyed his entry on why acid is categorized as an energy type. It's just a warning that the designers don't always think as hardball as some of the players here (Rich Baker made a 10th level character able to do 63 hp of damage with a mounted charge sound as though it was meant to be impressive, for example) -- not that there's anything wrong with that.