3.5 trumps 3.0? Specific trumps general? What is specific?

[graeylin]

What trumps what, in the scheme of things?

It is my understanding that 3.0 material is considered 3.5 legal, unless it's been updated or changed in a later, 3.5 book. Thus, 3.5 material that speaks to/about 3.0 material trumps 3.0 material.

In Savage Species, the Ghaele are said to not be proficient with armor of any type. That's 3.0 material.

In 3.5, all characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

So, does a ghaele character (in 3.5) have light armor proficiency?

[JDL]

In 3.5e, a Ghaele is an Outsider type. Per the entry in the monster manual for Outsiders:


"Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Outsiders not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Outsiders are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor."

The Ghaele monster is not listed as wearing any armor, therefore it has no proficiency. This overrules the 3.0 rules.

[Renen]

But wouldnt taking a class level give you proficiency (if its one of those classes that does)?

[Milo v3]

But wouldnt taking a class level give you proficiency (if its one of those classes that does)?

Yes, but this is for a Ghaele without true class levels yet.

[Alabenson]

But wouldnt taking a class level give you proficiency (if its one of those classes that does)?

Yes, if a Ghaele were to take a level in a class that was proficient with light or heavier armor, then they would gain the appropriate proficiencies. That said, the Ghaele monster class does not grant any such proficiencies, as Ghaele's are not proficient in any armor.

[graeylin]

Interesting, thanks for that... outsider features.

But, when the ghaele is played as a character, is it not a character?

and wouldn't the more specific rule "all characters except..." trump the more general rule "outsiders have these features..."?

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, they would have Armor Proficiency (light) with most class choices. However, they're specifically prohibited from using that feat's benefit.

[Alabenson]

Interesting, thanks for that... outsider features.

But, when the ghaele is played as a character, is it not a character?

and wouldn't the more specific rule "all characters except..." trump the more general rule "outsiders have these features..."?

With respect to armor proficiencies, the "all characters except..." isn't a rule so much as it is a generalized observation, and so has no actual bearing on a Ghaele's proficiencies.

[JDL]

Again, as per the 3.5e monster manual:


Class Levels
Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

Ghaele advancement is not by character class. A Ghaele advances by racial hit dice per the following: 11-15 HD (Medium); 16-30 HD (Large)

Note that the Ghaele has a Level Adjustment: — entry. This means that the monster is unsuitable for use as a character. Only monsters with a +0 or more are intended for use as a PC. For example, compare the entries for the Astral Deva, Planetar and Solar Angels. Only the Astral Deva is suitable as a player character with an ECL of 20 (12 HD +8 LA). Adding PC classes to a Ghaele is not intended by RAW, though theoretically advancing the HD of the Ghaele would allow it to select Light Armor Proficiency when gaining additional feats.

[Karl Aegis]

Getting a bonus feat that grants Armor Proficiency is actually exceedingly rare. The only class that immediately comes to mind is the Oriental Adventures Crab Clan Samurai for Armor Proficiency (Heavy).

Feats grant proficiency, but proficiency does not grant the feat.

[The Glyphstone]

Again, as per the 3.5e monster manual:


Class Levels
Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

Ghaele advancement is not by character class. A Ghaele advances by racial hit dice per the following: 11-15 HD (Medium); 16-30 HD (Large)

Note that the Ghaele has a Level Adjustment: — entry. This means that the monster is unsuitable for use as a character. Only monsters with a +0 or more are intended for use as a PC. For example, compare the entries for the Astral Deva, Planetar and Solar Angels. Only the Astral Deva is suitable as a player character with an ECL of 20 (12 HD +8 LA). Adding PC classes to a Ghaele is not intended by RAW, though theoretically advancing the HD of the Ghaele would allow it to select Light Armor Proficiency when gaining additional feats.

I'm guessing that you missed the bit about where Savage Species is in play, and the resultant Ghaele monster class.

[JDL]

True, however according to the 3.5 errata:


Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Since the 3.5e errata specifies that the Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions it takes precedence over the 3.0 Savage Species source material.

[The Glyphstone]

Monster descriptions, yes. But the 3.5 Monster Manual does not contain any rules about Monster Classes; that is exclusive to SS, thus it remains the primary source in this case. The only thing that the MM would override would be the rules of the Outsider type itself, and in this case, they don't contradict. MM says outsiders are only proficient in armor they are described as wearing, which is none for the Ghaele class. The Ghaele class says it is not proficient in any armor or shields.

If you're claiming that Ghaeles are not playable as PCs because MM says they are LA -, against the explicit existence of the Savage Species monster classes being designed to allow a leveling progression of races that would otherwise be unplayable like the Ghaele...I don't know what to say.

[Flickerdart]

Since the 3.5e errata specifies that the Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions it takes precedence over the 3.0 Savage Species source material.
To my knowledge, the 3.5 Monster Manual contains no Ghaele monster class to override the one in SS.

[graeylin]

So, could it be argued that this:

The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source.

Covers the issue?

The player's handbook stakes that all characters (not all character classes) except wizards... get light armor proficiency. A ghaele being played as a character IS a character, so the player's handbook would trump what the monster manual says about outsiders.


Also (and much weaker, but hey... it's worth a shot):
The monster manual states this about outsiders"
"Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types."

And, my monster manual has a description of two ghaele, both wearing armor. One looks like pretty light armor, the other, like a light plate, perhaps. So... since the ghaele is described with armor, it has proficiency?

[Chronos]

Ghaele are usable as characters. Every creature in every book is usable as a character. What they are not (ordinarily) usable as is a player character. But any one that appears in a game is a character (specifically, a non-player-character), and they can have class levels if the DM wishes, as they meet the only requirement (Int of 3 or greater). Their advancement entry doesn't say "by character class", so they don't typically advance that way, but they can. If they do gain class levels, they might gain some proficiencies, but if they don't, they don't.

[thethird]

So, could it be argued that this:

The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source.

The Ghaele is neither a base class nor a PC race.

"The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities."

The Ghaele is a monster. Even if played by a PC.


Also (and much weaker, but hey... it's worth a shot):
The monster manual states this about outsiders"
"Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types."

And, my monster manual has a description of two ghaele, both wearing armor. One looks like pretty light armor, the other, like a light plate, perhaps. So... since the ghaele is described with armor, it has proficiency?

It is not described as wearing any kind of armor. It is described as wielding a sword. But no armor.

By the way Savage Species progression, which you seem to be using says:

"Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Ghaeles are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, but not with armor or shields."

Note that since it is a 3.0 source it can be tweaked in the port to 3.5. Basically talk to your DM.

Seriously talk to your DM. Everything seems to indicate that Ghaele are NOT proficient with light armor. But being proficient with light armor wouldn't be a problem at most tables. For Pete's sake if you are being allowed to play one I'm sure the most likely outcome is that you are going to be allowed to play one with light armor.

[Troacctid]

Some types of light armor also don't require proficiency. Remember that you can still wear armor you're not proficient with, you'll just take the armor check penalty on additional rolls. If there is no check penalty, anyone can wear the armor as if they were proficient.

[Susano-wo]

Color me crazy, but to my recollection (and I think this has been stated previously), the PHB does not state that all characters except group X get light armor proficiency. This is stated nowhere. You can see that in the PHB, there are only a few classes (the previously mentioned ones) that do not receive it. That is not a rule, so there is no overriding to be done.

[graeylin]

Color me crazy, but to my recollection (and I think this has been stated previously), the PHB does not state that all characters except group X get light armor proficiency. This is stated nowhere. You can see that in the PHB, there are only a few classes (the previously mentioned ones) that do not receive it. That is not a rule, so there is no overriding to be done.

Kinda does state exactly that, i think.

ARMOR PROFICIENCY (LIGHT) [GENERAL]

Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Pick Pocket, and Tumble checks.

Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.

Special: All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

[Flickerdart]

Feats are not the primary source of anything; they have no say over anything outside the scope of the feat itself.

[graeylin]

Feats are not the primary source of anything; they have no say over anything outside the scope of the feat itself.

Okay, say I agree with that logic.

This feat, referring to itself, states that all classes except X, Y, and Z get it as a free bonus.

That seems like it's saying something about the feat itself. It's not trying to say that Monks get an extra hit die, just that as far as this feat is concerned, every class except these listed get it free. Seems to be well within the scope of the feat itself, to give itself away for free.

[Runeclaw]

By this logic it would be impossible for any new book to introduce a class that didn't receive light armor proficiency. This is obviously not the case. The sentence there is just to clarify to players that they don't need to take this feat to wear light armor if their class already provides it. The list of exceptions is obviously limited to the classes defined in that particular book (i.e. core classes).

RAI is clear that you don't get light armor proficiency unless you take a class that provides it (or select it as a feat).