Community

bgibbons wrote:

I am curious (since I have little to no interest in a D&D Insider subscription) as to the format of the Rules Compendium. How is the information presented? By which I mean, is the information about, say, the Minotaur race sourced to Dragon Magazine, with a separate article about the Minotaur from the Monster Manual, or is it just one article with the latest information, regardless of where it came from?

-- Brian Gibbons.

There aren't separate articles. From the Monster Manual, the compendium only gives the 3 minotaur monster stat blocks (plus Goristro), and a couple monster stat blocks from Dragon articles. For a PC race, it only gives the Dragon version. This is the official version now (the other was really only given for making up monsters with the caveat that a DM could allow a PC to use them in a home game.) Home games can still use them, of course.

_metz_ wrote:

Having said that, if the Compendium is to become the binding rules source, it seems innapropriate that one has to pay monthly to use it... I am happy to purchase books, but I am not playing WoW, and refuse to 'pay as you play' for my LG replacement.

I'd just note here - the only reason you should be paying to check the Compendium, at least in theory, is if you used some non-book content - the books get updated for free.

But yes, given that they also deleted components(both embedded and attached), I'd like a note saying, "This was deliberate and here's why." - The why should be pretty simple - 4 rod wielding warlocks and characters with the ability to survive almost anything...

This begs the question - what the *expletive deleted* is a Living Construct? and does it qualify? Did the Compendium address that?

Living Construct is merely the set of specials in the Dragon magazine. The no need to breathe, etc...

Well It would be good to have some sort of updating mechanism for Dragon Magazine.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Having said that, if the Compendium is to become the binding rules source, it seems innapropriate that one has to pay monthly to use it... I am happy to purchase books, but I am not playing WoW, and refuse to 'pay as you play' for my LG replacement.

Again, I agree, but to an extent. All of the published books will have Updates released that you can access freely. These updates will be reflected in the compendium. The Dragon/Dungeon articles don't get updates, but since the material from already restricted in that it must be purchased separately, then it doesn't bother me that the updates for it are similar (and you can get both as part of the same DDI package.) It also appears that they will release a yearly compilation of Dragon articles as a book. If that book has updates, I'm pretty sure they'll provide them free of charge just like the other published books.

This begs the question - what the *expletive deleted* is a Living Construct? and does it qualify? Did the Compendium address that?

Unfortunately, the keywords only seem to be in the Monster Manual, at the back. As far as I can tell, it's only purpose it to make the warforged different as they are the only creatures with this keyword. It states:

Living Construct [Keyword]: A living construct is considered
a living creature that does not need to eat, drink, or breathe.
However, this does not render the creature immune to any
effect. A living construct needs only 4 hours to benefit from
extended rest, and it gains a +2 bonus to saving throws
against ongoing damage. When a living construct rolls a
death save, it takes the better of its die roll or 10 as the
result.

But yes, given that they also deleted components(both embedded and attached), I'd like a note saying, "This was deliberate and here's why." - The why should be pretty simple - 4 rod wielding warlocks and characters with the ability to survive almost anything...

I don't believe they deleted this material. The compendium only updated the race write-up, not the entire article. The warforged race has an entry, the paragon paths have entries, and the feats and magic items have separate entries. The rules regarding attached and embedded components don't really have a place to be included in the compendium.

Also note that they have left in component weapons, such as the Warsoul Weapon and Armbow, as well as items like the Delver's Light.

As far as the 4 rod wielding warlock, I think that's just always been a case of literal intepretation for optimization. The article only states "Rods and wands can be embedded and hidden in your arm and still function, leaving your hands free for other tasks." Some have taken this to mean you can have two rods embedded and another two in hand. I think it just means you can have two rods embedded and still do other things, like when a light shield takes up a hand so that you can't use a weapon, but still allows you to hold items or use the hand for other tasks. That's just my take, though.

ibixat wrote:

quick question about the rules compendium, does that translate to items.

For example, is Feytouched armor, from manual of the planes, currently LFR lega because it appears in the compendium.

I'm no authority, but if the compendium contains a different version of an item that is already legal, then you should use the updated version. (ie. veteran's armor)

If the player resources don't list the item as useable, such as the Feytouched armor example only being in the MotP, which is only valid for paragon paths and not equipment, then I don't believe you could buy it. I think the compendium is there to give you the most current version of something, not allow access to otherwise restricted items.