Author Topic: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata  (Read 19205 times)

Offline Nytemare3701

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
  • 50% Cripple, 50% Awesome. Flip a coin.
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2017, 09:01:11 PM »
If your group doesn't like an official rule/ruling, the GM or relevant party can ignore it.  No sense in following rules just because they're 'the rules' if people dislike them and can ignore them.

Meta-Rule0 if you will.

Offline Tshern

  • The Clown Prince of Crime
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1245
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2017, 01:15:42 PM »
If your group doesn't like an official rule/ruling, the GM or relevant party can ignore it.  No sense in following rules just because they're 'the rules' if people dislike them and can ignore them.
To be fair, I don't think I've ever played in a campaign that's been following RAW without a single adjustment. The groups I've played with more often have a bunch of well-established house rules that have become our own "RAW".
Pian unohtuu aika ja tila
Ja nahkapeitto ja syyllisyys
Ja rauenneilla kasvoilla
Viipyy muiston pysyvyys

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10708
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2017, 03:55:21 PM »
I'd go so far as to say that it is impossible to play without at least deciding how you're going to interpret some rules, because the RAW frequently isn't clear at all...
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline Tshern

  • The Clown Prince of Crime
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1245
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #43 on: May 20, 2017, 07:43:19 AM »
I'd go so far as to say that it is impossible to play without at least deciding how you're going to interpret some rules, because the RAW frequently isn't clear at all...
True as well. And you don't even need to go into absurdities like "Well, it doesn't say humans have two legs!" to find ambiguities.
Pian unohtuu aika ja tila
Ja nahkapeitto ja syyllisyys
Ja rauenneilla kasvoilla
Viipyy muiston pysyvyys

Offline snakeman830

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1091
  • BG's resident furry min/maxer
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #44 on: May 20, 2017, 10:27:11 AM »
Heck, the core rulebooks seem to operate under that assumption, given that many methods of regrowing or re-attaching severed limbs exist, but RAW, no method to actually lose them does.
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #45 on: May 20, 2017, 11:22:32 AM »
*looks left*
*looks right*
Vorpel

 :P

Offline snakeman830

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1091
  • BG's resident furry min/maxer
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #46 on: May 20, 2017, 11:29:04 AM »
*looks left*
*looks right*
Vorpel

 :P
Which severs heads only which, incidentally, can't be regrown or reattached (on account of being dead, usually).
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."

Offline ketaro

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4241
  • I'm always new!
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #47 on: May 20, 2017, 06:30:57 PM »
Heck, the core rulebooks seem to operate under that assumption, given that many methods of regrowing or re-attaching severed limbs exist, but RAW, no method to actually lose them does.

Savage Species has a feat for literally ripping your limbs off and throwing them at people. Detach. ;)

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #48 on: May 20, 2017, 07:22:13 PM »
Savage Species has a feat for literally ripping your limbs off and throwing them at people. Detach. ;)
Hmmm, "limb: one of the projecting paired appendages (such as wings) of an animal body used especially for movement and grasping but sometimes modified into sensory or sexual organs." ~Webster

I suddenly want to play an Anthropomorphic Snake Echidna Monk with Troll-Blooded & Detach.

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #49 on: May 23, 2017, 12:41:24 PM »
Savage Species has a feat for literally ripping your limbs off and throwing them at people. Detach. ;)
Hmmm, "limb: one of the projecting paired appendages (such as wings) of an animal body used especially for movement and grasping but sometimes modified into sensory or sexual organs." ~Webster

I suddenly want to play an Anthropomorphic Snake Echidna Monk with Troll-Blooded & Detach.

Let's throw in brilliant energy on a certain necklace from savage species while we are at it since you are monkeying around anyway.... ^^

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2017, 05:22:28 PM »
Searched up the various mentions of the Chris Perkins quote ...

zugschef on Jul 12, 2013
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=337384#337384

Pickford on March 5, 2013
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14833651&postcount=95


Deset Gled on October 9, 2007
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?209207-Rules-Compendium-anti-magic-field-example&p=3821024&viewfull=1#post3821024
October 1, 2007
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?208562-Where-s-the-Errata&p=3806095&viewfull=1#post3806095

... and February 20, 2008
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?219478-has-the-book-tome-of-battle-any-errata&p=4060674&viewfull=1#post4060674


Glyfair on August 2, 2007 ... the oldest hit
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?202969-Wasn-t-there-supposed-to-be-a-big-errata-push&p=3676769&viewfull=1#post3676769

Those last 2 have links, one to gleemax and one to boards1, but neither are findable on wayback.
I think that part, is more a problem of insufficient archiving back then, with so many different variants of the wotc archive.
Possibly some aggressive scrubbing.

Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2017, 05:46:14 PM »
Searched up the various mentions of the Chris Perkins quote ...
Of course the RC isn't Errata, it's not a free poorly put together pdf hosting on the website under a product named after typo corrections attempting to correct statistic blocks and edited out for size content in already published books. The RC is a fully published and official supplement containing rule updates and sold off the shelves just like the Dungeon Master's Guide II, Eberron Campaign Setting, the Spell Compendium, and the Magic Item Compendium. Apples and oranges.  :P

All through your google fu turned up two hits I missed, eh most of them are forum hits anyway.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 05:49:30 PM by SorO_Lost »

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #52 on: May 24, 2017, 01:39:55 PM »
Of course the RC isn't Errata, it's not a free poorly put together pdf hosting on the website under a product named after typo corrections attempting to correct statistic blocks and edited out for size content in already published books. The RC is a fully published and official supplement containing rule updates and sold off the shelves just like the Dungeon Master's Guide II, Eberron Campaign Setting, the Spell Compendium, and the Magic Item Compendium. Apples and oranges.  :P

Indeed.

And I think perhaps it should be noted the extent to which most game companies REALLY hate the very concept of errata.
At first it was suggested that WotC wasn't even going to issue errata for 3E/3.5, much the way TSR virtually never issued errata for AD&D. Do some searching for that. It basically took them completely leaving out entire pages for TSR to actually post errata. Instead you got things like the "thoul" in BECMI.
What is a "thoul"?
A thoul is a creature that is part hobgoblin, part troll, and part ghoul.
Or, you know, it is a typo because someone's finger slipped up a row when typing "ghoul", but TSR doesn't make mistakes, so screw you peasants!

Aside:
Of course that was back in AOHell days, when getting errata off the internet was a chore. Then again, I remember when errata was something you had to send an SASE to the company to get, or, maybe, if it was really significant and the company was really customer friendly, they made available to FLGS to hand out to people. (Ah! The joy of the 10 page MegaTraveller errata pamphlet featuring critical charts completely left out of the rules books, and pages of line by line text corrections!)

Why do they hate errata so much?
Well, aside from their sheer arrogance and not wanting to admit they could ever do anything wrong, errata is a confession that they sold you a defective product.
And what do you do when you realize you have purchased a defective product?
Why, you demand a replacement of course! Or a refund if you cannot get a replacement.

Yeah, like that is ever going to happen!

These are game books, not cars, where you could die if something goes wrong.
Hardcopy game books that need to be completely reprinted to make corrections, not computer programs that can be patched by some code.
So no, they aren't going to replace or refund, so they aren't going to admit to any product defects, at least not in any significant way.

At first they tried to get away with some stealth errata via Sage Advice, but everyone hated that. So much that they converted it to a FAQ, which still tried to stealth errata everything, making everyone even more outraged.
Then of course they did 3.5 two years ahead of schedule because everything was so messed up.
Finally they gave in and issued limited pdfs that they never kept up to date or complete.
And be happy they gave you that much!

So indeed, the RC is NOT errata.
If anything, it is the "true" 3.75, with the SpC and MiC supporting it.
Put out minutes before the line was cancelled of course, and not actually labeled that way because it would be bad marketing. But that is what it is.
And no, it isn't the SRD.
The SRD with the OGL was always going to be a subset of the "complete" rules and product line. Seriously, be happy they actually updated the SRD with Swift and Immediate actions!

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata
« Reply #53 on: May 24, 2017, 05:24:25 PM »
Course it'd be 10 years later, they went full on, into Tweet-ratas.
So I suppose this phantom link archive ~source, is a Proto-tweet-rata.

Then there's this ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible
Your codpiece is a mimic.