The 3.5 Rules Compendium is not official errata

[SorO_Lost]

Afaik, everything it changed that became "worse" was just a reprint of existing text already in a book.

Not sure on the RC but MiC certainly nerfed everything it reprinted.

Like even elemental properties were hit.

In it's debute, there certainly were no rules saying you can't have a Flaming Flaming Burst weapon, "acts like" +X in spells actually means for the most part the stack so certainly rules and intent agreed. Fast forward to the DMGII where Synergy rules do in fact replace base abilities, Corrosive Burst is not an upgrade from Corrosive, or again buy both if desired.

MiC? Synergies all around. Seriously, not exactly worthy of needing an update to fix.

[snakeman830]

If anything from the original weapon/armor properties needed an update to synergies, it's Fortification.  That way you could pick up Light Fortification armor somewhat early on and improve it as you went.

[Nunkuruji]

This is now starting to cause me a problem, as one of my players wants to use spell trigger items with swift/immediate spells

RC states

Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, but activating the item doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

Now, the sane DM in me has always believed it to be: Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, minimum 1 standard action

This is most compatible with SRD,

Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

while eliminating any exploits of casting long spells with an item.


Thoughts/Opinions?

[dipolartech]

Its a matter of do you consider the RC to be printed before or after SRD? Because its very clear in the quote from RC that activating time = casting time.

[sirpercival]

Yeah, if you go by the SRD a wand of Nerveskitter is extremely useless.

[RedWarlock]

Well, outside of wandsheath (which I'm not familiar with, but aware of), the whole wands thing doesn't really seem that bad to me, considering they have to have the wand in-hand, unless they're quick-drawing or something, and that's a feat's worth of investment right there.

Are there specific instances of spells in wands that make this borked?

[betrayor]

This is now starting to cause me a problem, as one of my players wants to use spell trigger items with swift/immediate spells

RC states

Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, but activating the item doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

Now, the sane DM in me has always believed it to be: Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, minimum 1 standard action

This is most compatible with SRD,

Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

while eliminating any exploits of casting long spells with an item.


Thoughts/Opinions?

If you go by raw then activating a spell trigger item takes the same action as the casting time of the spell that the item is about....
If you ignore Rules Compendium then the raw is even more abusable as you can cast long cast duration spells in a standard action....
You can't have it both ways......
Of course as a Dm you could houserule it to to work however you like.....
 

[Nunkuruji]

Yeah, if you go by the SRD a wand of Nerveskitter is extremely useless.

Right, the point would be that you need to have proper spellcasting slots to make such spells useful, and of course such wands would be pointless.

I'll let it fly, with the usual warning, anything you can do the DM can do better.

[Prime32]

Bear in mind that swift actions and swift-action spells did not exist when the Core rule was written. There were Quickened spells and feather fall, but they're niche (and there's not many spells you can Quicken and still fit in a wand).

EDIT: The ELH's staff of mighty force contains a Quickened spell, which would be pointless if you couldn't activate it as a swift action. No Core staff contains a spell that would normally require a swift action to use.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

That's pretty damn weird, to release a sourcebook compiling all the major rules for D&D and then declare it's not official errata.

Ftfy. I don't see what the problem is. Its overwriting rules. Not editing previous books. Therefore its a new book, not errata. It's still official though.

[McPoyo]

That's pretty damn weird, to release a sourcebook compiling all the major rules for D&D and then declare it's not official errata.

Ftfy. I don't see what the problem is. Its overwriting rules. Not editing previous books. Therefore its a new book, not errata. It's still official though.

Although you could always argue "core takes precedence against other printings" and "latest printing is correct" round and round with it, depending on which takes your preference.

[StreamOfTheSky]

This is now starting to cause me a problem, as one of my players wants to use spell trigger items with swift/immediate spells

RC states

Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, but activating the item doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

Now, the sane DM in me has always believed it to be: Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, minimum 1 standard action

This is most compatible with SRD,

Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

while eliminating any exploits of casting long spells with an item.


Thoughts/Opinions?

Yes, you've found one of the rules that RC changed.  Whether you want to accept that change or not is up to you.

I agree with you, it's kind of broken to use the RC's rule, those swift/immediate spells often aren't terribly dependent on CL or save DC (always a plus for a magic item) and needing to expend actual spell slots on them always seemed part of "the deal" to me.

On the other hand, casters be broken, yo.  Letting noncasters get some of that swift/immediate goodness might be better.

On yet another hand...casters are likely going to make use of the RC change the most...  If you could like restrict swift/immediate wands to people that capped out at 4th level spellcasting or lower, I'd mind it much less...

[sirpercival]

  If you could like restrict swift/immediate wands to people that capped out at 4th level spellcasting or lower, I'd mind it much less...

I'm not sure how you could implement that in any way that made sense, unless you wrote a class feature that you gave to all classes that fit the bill.  And then what would happen if they multiclassed into a full caster?

I've never found the swift/immediate wand rule to be problematic, but then again I tend to run high-op, caster-heavy games.  So, YMMV.

[Halinn]

At the mid-high levels, the full casters generally have the spell slots to use the swift/immediate spells without having to wand it. If it's a spell of a high enough level that the spell slot would really be missed, the wand will be similarly costly.

[SorO_Lost]

Hu? Wha?

So not on the same page as you guys. Because last time I checked, spellcasters cast swift spells as swift actions. Wands using their spell's casting time favors none casters better, like a Rogue and Hunter's Eye or Monk and Waithstrike. Handing Wands of Wings of Cover out only means the Sorcerer has less going for him, not more.

[ariasderros]

Hu? Wha?

So not on the same page as you guys. Because last time I checked, spellcasters cast swift spells as swift actions. Wands using their spell's casting time favors none casters better, like a Rogue and Hunter's Eye or Monk and Waithstrike. Handing Wands of Wings of Cover out only means the Sorcerer has less going for him, not more.

+1

The casters are not really affected by this. You can say that their resources are spells per day, or spells per GP, but the main thing is the access to the spells in the first place. Do not forget, Sorcerers are tier two, Wizards are tier one, because although the Sorcerer has more spells per day, the Wizard has more spells known. Spell access = versatility = power. More castings per day can be gained in many, many ways, and is not a measure of power because of this.

(click to show/hide)

The casters with access to those spells already have access to them in their natural state, thus the quick casting time benefits them irregardless.

Those that do not cast those spells normally, whose access would be of the "per GP" variety, lose from the quicker casting spells for having them all made standard action, but would benefit far more from the fact that the longer casting spells would take only a standard action.

Look at the balance this way, what's worse, making the Rogue unable to meaningfully benefit from Grave Strike, or having the Rogue be able to have standard action Planar Bindings, Summons, and all kinds of other long-casting-time spells suddenly be simply standard actions.

(click to show/hide)

Remember this when looking at rules interpretation or house rules about magic items: how would an Artificer benefit or lose out from this?
This is how you should look at it even if even if you don't allow the Arty in your game for whatever reason.
Because, power that exists can always end up in the players hands, no matter how you try to prevent it, no matter how restrictive you try to be with the power, et alli. You can rely on Gentleman's Agreements, but even that can go wrong. The designers forgot that, and we received pun-pun, Changeling Illithid Savants with phaerimm spellcasting, et cetera.

And make no mistake, allowing the RC version of use time is equal to casting time doesn't change the power of the spells themselves, make any of them more useful, or less so. Changing the casting time of spells by putting them into items, does change their power, some become much less powerful (Nerveskitter), some become more powerful (Ghoul Glyph).

(click to show/hide)

And who makes the Items? The people who already cast the spells. Who is penalized by slowing down the fast spells? Not the casters. Who benefits first from speeding up the casting time? The spellcasters, since others only benefit after, and if, the casters sell their bling, which is much less likely if said gear has different traits than their spells.
Who benefits from keeping the casting time of the item be the same as the base spells? Everyone, equally.

'Nuff said.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Considering 5e is errata-ing via Twitter now, that gives some more back-credence to this sort of unofficial rules commentary.


Did anyone manage to track down the original posting?


_(bump) 

[TC X0 Lt 0X]

Considering 5e is errata-ing via Twitter now, that gives some more back-credence to this sort of unofficial rules commentary.


Did anyone manage to track down the original posting?


_(bump) 

Twitter?
God damn does WotC even have two brain cells to rub together?

[Samwise]

When WotC was running their so-called "organized" play program for 4E, they gave out in-game benefits via messaging because "communications".

So . . . no.
WotC does not even have two brain cells to rub together.
In fact, they may not even have one to sharpen against a rock to make a useful shiv.

[Endarire]

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.