(3.5) Specific beats general: where does it say that?

[Biggus]

I could have sworn I'd seen it in an official rulebook, but now I come to look, I can't find it. Anyone know where it is?

[tyckspoon]

It's the way it has to work for D&D to be written the way it is (IE, 'it works this way unless you have a feat/spell/item/etc that says otherwise' - in order for those game objects to actually change the general case rules, the more specific thing must overrule the general situation) but I believe you're looking for the text in the errata files that clarifies how to resolve cases where multiple rules sources disagree. You might also find it in the various sidebars in books like the DMG and Rules Compendium where they discuss the philosophy and construction of the rules. I doubt you'll find it as an actual explicit statement of a rule, except possibly phrased as 'If a Feat (item spell class ability etc) says you can do it, you can, even if it contradicts a rule.'

[Troacctid]

Rules Compendium, page 5.

[Rijan_Sai]

Rules Compendium, page 5.

Ironic, given the whole "Rules Compendium doesn't give itself the authority to change the rules" argument! :smalltongue:

That said, I'm not 100% sure but I believe most errata files state something to this effect as well.

[MisterKaws]

Ironic, given the whole "Rules Compendium doesn't give itself the authority to change the rules" argument! :smalltongue:

That said, I'm not 100% sure but I believe most errata files state something to this effect as well.

The erratas actually say the opposite, in that the primary(general) source for anything overrules the secondary(specific).

[Crichton]

The erratas actually say the opposite, in that the primary(general) source for anything overrules the secondary(specific).


I think you might be misunderstanding the meaning of specific and general, in the context of the principle of Specific trumps General.


What the erratas say in the opening passage of each of them is if there is a rules disagreement, the primary source is considered the correct one.



The principle of Specific trumps General is the idea that the general rules are laid out -defining how things normally operate- but that certain things like class features, feats, spell descriptions, etc, can create specific exceptions to how things would normally work.



These two things are not at all equivalent.

[Lvl45DM!]

Generally general beats specific but in any specific case specific trumps general

[heavyfuel]

Ironic, given the whole "Rules Compendium doesn't give itself the authority to change the rules" argument! :smalltongue:

Even if you agree with this feeling, RC can still present valid new rules, just like every other splat book. As long as these rules don't contradict the primary sources (PHB, DMG, MM), they are perfectly valid.

The rule that says specific beats general doesn't violate the Primary Source rule and is, therefore, valid regardless of how you feel about Rules Compendium.

[MisterKaws]

I think you might be misunderstanding the meaning of specific and general, in the context of the principle of Specific trumps General.


What the erratas say in the opening passage of each of them is if there is a rules disagreement, the primary source is considered the correct one.



The principle of Specific trumps General is the idea that the general rules are laid out -defining how things normally operate- but that certain things like class features, feats, spell descriptions, etc, can create specific exceptions to how things would normally work.



These two things are not at all equivalent.

I know, but one might argue that exceptions are, indeed, disagreements.

[Crichton]

I know, but one might argue that exceptions are, indeed, disagreements.

Uhhh.. No. Clearly you're still misunderstanding the meaning of the terms.

An example of an exception would be the Endurance feat saying that when you take that feat you're no longer subject to fatigue if you sleep in light or medium armor, when the general rule is that you would be fatigued. (This is an actual example pulled from the PHB)

A disagreement would be if the PHB said you were fatigued after sleeping in light or medium armor, but the DMG said you were only fatigued after sleeping on medium. (This one is a hypothetical that I made up)

[MisterKaws]

Uhhh.. No. Clearly you're still misunderstanding the meaning of the terms.

An example of an exception would be the Endurance feat saying that when you take that feat you're no longer subject to fatigue if you sleep in light or medium armor, when the general rule is that you would be fatigued. (This is an actual example pulled from the PHB)

A disagreement would be if the PHB said you were fatigued after sleeping in light or medium armor, but the DMG said you were only fatigued after sleeping on medium. (This one is a hypothetical that I made up)

No, I'm being purposefully pedantic by mimicking a paranoid DM who doesn't want to allow anything other than core but doesn't want players whining.

[Crichton]

No, I'm being purposefully pedantic by mimicking a paranoid DM who doesn't want to allow anything other than core but doesn't want players whining.

I... see?

And this is a helpful contribution to the topic at hand.. how?

[MisterKaws]

I... see?

And this is a helpful contribution to the topic at hand.. how?

Might help you understand how to argue against the real deal. Should have done it in blue text, regardless.

[Mato]

Rules Compendium, page 5.Ironic, given the whole "Rules Compendium doesn't give itself the authority to change the rules" argument! :smalltongue:

When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.
:smallsmile:


The erratas actually say the opposite, in that the primary(general) source for anything overrules the secondary(specific).No they don't.

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.
(The specific description of something takes precedence over a generalized table)

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 book that specifically covers a given topic takes precedence over a less specific book. In example, why are you looking at this secondary reference? The PHB tells you how to play the game and the DMG tells you how to adjudicate the rules.)

When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source is correct and any secondary reference is incorrect. This means that the skill list in the character chapter is correct, while the table in the skill chapter that is merely referencing that information is therefore a secondary source. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.
(The specific description of something, such as how to play and run a game, takes precedence over a generalized information mentioned elsewhere)


When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as in a table or a character’s statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.
(The specific rules take precedence over casual references)

[Nothing]

Just remember, there is a difference between the rules disagreeing with each other and the ideas of what you think the rules might say disagreeing with what the rules say.

[MisterKaws]

No they don't.

Where did you pull those from? The official (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata) ones lack the text you put in parentheses.


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. Note: The most recent updates are shaded like this.

Again, I'm being pedantic mostly for theoretical discussion, because I know the reading explained below is ridiculous and invalidates all the 100-something books published by WotC themselves. Actually, let's go ahead in full blue text:

The erratas to other sources listing the Specific Trumps General rule cannot override the reading in the PHB/DMG errata, because the PHB/DMG errata are the primary source erratas when it comes to rulings. Thus, any rule that even so much as tries to override the core three books is invalid and should not work. This means, among other things, that most of the additional rules published by WotC in additional books is, by RAW, invalid. This is surely WotC's way of having you save your hard-earned cash by not forcing you to buy a few thousand dollars' worth in heavy books which also just as heavily damage the planet.
I cringed every time I typed a letter from that. Sorry.

[Mato]

Where did you pull those from? The official (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata) ones lack the text you put in parentheses.Wooosh!
Should I have put that in blue text?


I cringed every time I typed a letter from that. Sorry.It's ok. Just remind your self the RC has book and topic precedence on rule updates and only half the forum took it seriously. :smallwink:

Also, fun little nit pick. The PHB has topic precedence on spells & spellcasting and it also contains a full rules entry on special abilities in it's chapter about magic. The MM1 however only contains a glossary entry on special abilities that contains an abbreviated reference to three of the four special abilities the PHB mentions and has no right to touch any rules on magic (such as su or sp abilities). The errata's error it's self was a debated subject there for a time. :smallsmile:

[MisterKaws]

Wooosh!
Should I have put that in blue text?

It's ok. Just remind your self the RC has book and topic precedence on rule updates and only half the forum took it seriously. :smallwink:

Also, fun little nit pick. The PHB has topic precedence on spells & spellcasting and it also contains a full rules entry on special abilities in it's chapter about magic. The MM1 however only contains a glossary entry on special abilities that contains an abbreviated reference to three of the four special abilities the PHB mentions and has no right to touch any rules on magic (such as su or sp abilities). The errata's error it's self was a debated subject there for a time. :smallsmile:

That's why most tables just wing it and houserule precedence however they see fit, I guess.

[Biggus]

Rules Compendium, page 5.

Thank you. I thought it was in one of the core books, probably the DMG, but it seems I was wrong.


Ironic, given the whole "Rules Compendium doesn't give itself the authority to change the rules" argument! :smalltongue:


It is indeed ironic, since it was a discussion in which the whole "Rules Compendium can't change the rules" thing came up which led me to wonder this.

[Mato]

It is indeed ironic, since it was a discussion in which the whole "Rules Compendium can't change the rules" thing came up which led me to wonder this.GitP's forums contains a lot of encouraged misinformation created by it's community.

Take just about everything you read on here with a grain of salt.

[Biggus]

Take just about everything you read on here with a grain of salt.

Oh yeah, no doubt about that...

In the other thread I was arguing that it's silly to claim that the RC can't change the rules based on a technicality, when it says right there in its introduction that it does.