Community

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

I approve of the Rules Compendium as a rules source. The way it is implemented currently could be better but I like it in theory.

We all like the theory, the problem is that currently it doesn't help at ALL. It just caused more of these annoying little rules arguments. A simple PDF of an update is better. I mean some of the errors are almost laughable. How do we know the warforged nerf IS a nerf, rather than just stuff up like all the other issues? There is no transparency.

I, for one, hate having to constantly argue about stupid little things within the rules. I wish WotC would issue more clarification and errata.

Again, the compendium has caused more issues than it has fixed by being contradictory, incongruous, and unclear as to whether changes are errors or intended. Look around, it hasn't stopped arguments, it's made MORE.

The whole, "I shouldn't have to pay to use the up to date rules" line isn't anything new either.

That was different; there was an option to pick another spell whenever that happened. LG had a mechanic for that. Moreover, the compendium isn't a book; no one is arguing that should warforged be updated in the Ebberon book that is fine (as it is just a preview in Dragon) they are arguing over the online subscription. It is a different issue.

Lastly, Warforged were in need of a nerf. Now they are back down on the same level as the other str/con races.

Sophistry. That is irrelevant as to the viability of the Compendium. Just because Warforged are too good doesn’t mean the updating makes sense. Again as already stated, we aren’t even sure if it IS a nerf, due to the incompetence of the rest of the compendium. (P.S: I agree, they need to be toned down)

The issue isn't the idea of the compendium, it's its execution thus far, untried, badly edited and causing greater woes than it is fixing.

WolfStar76 wrote:

That still means there's about 60,000 of us looking around and catching errors. No, it isn't our job to do that, but job or not - by numbers alone we're going to be better at it than they are.

If as much care for the Compendium was taken as there is with Errata/Updates/whatever you want to call them, we wouldn't have a problem. Which is also why I think Errata should be the only source used to update previously published rules rather then a Compendium that doesn't have the same quality control.

It also happens we get the higher quality version for free, whereas we have to pay for the error-filled version. Why on earth is the error-filled version being used to ajudicate rules?

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

I'm curious, what would it take for you to be happy with the compendium as a rules source? (Assuming it still required a subscription)

If it didn't errata stuff on its own initiative. The errata that WotC publishes (last one was published only a couple of weeks ago) is clear and unambiguous and clearly not an error from data-entry personnel.

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

WotC historically hates issuing errata. They would rather their game be broken for months or even years rather than issue errata clarifying or fixing something. The RPGA cannot issues rulings on things involving the core rules. So where does that leave us?

This seems to be a strawman given that WolfStar has repeatedly said that Errata will be issued every month along with the update to the compendium.

I have no problem with the compendium being used to determine the latest version of an item/race/power/whatever. What I have a problem with is it being the only way to determine what the latest version of something is.

One reason is that it appears to be much easier for the employees in charge of the compendium to make errors then it is for the employees in charge of issuing errata.

Another reason is that DMs have no way of knowing if my item/power/race is being correctly used unless they pull out a laptop with an internet connection. Because the changes made in the compendium aren't compiled in an easy to read list (which is also easy to print off), all they have to rely on is my print-out of the relevant page from the Dragon PDF. For all they know, I'm using the latest version however in reality I may be using a horribly broken version that hasn't garnered anywhere near the attention other items (like Reparation Apparatus) have.

Finally a big reason being that WotC is charging for errata. I don't know why people think that's acceptable. If it truly were acceptable, WotC would close down the Errata section on the website completely.

WolfStar76 wrote:

Would it help if I created a "directed discussion" thread on what changes people would like to see in the CCG 1.9 (or even 1.8a) to let everyone give specific feedback?

I could then point Chris Tulach toward the thread to take into consideration for the next version.

You mean actually do something constructive with my whining? That's crazy talk WolfStar. Stop being level headed.

Sigh, will that mean we'll have to sort through our rants and post them in a useful way?

Sigh. Fine.

(That's me saying 'Yes' that would help, In LG we had an LGCS discussion thread, where people talked about stuff, and it often made a huge difference to the effectiveness of the final product.)

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

I'm curious, what would it take for you to be happy with the compendium as a rules source? (Assuming it still required a subscription)

The biggest thing is that all articles need to be date stamped and a change log needs to be public.

WolfStar76 wrote:

Would it help if I created a "directed discussion" thread on what changes people would like to see in the CCG 1.9 (or even 1.8a) to let everyone give specific feedback?

I could then point Chris Tulach toward the thread to take into consideration for the next version.

Suggestions? How about you let us write it and pass it on?