Specific and General rules, discussed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A core principle of D&D is "Specific beats General"--the more specific rule overrides the more general rule.

But then arises the question--what does "specific" and "general" mean in this case. How do you tell which one is more specific? Some people try to look at the wording of each one and judge their "specificity" based on the individual cases. In my opinion, that's the wrong way of doing it.

My take is that general rules are those that apply everywhere by default. They are found in two places in the PHB: the introduction (before the race entries) and in chapters 4-10. These are the rules that apply (unless altered) to everyone, everywhere during gameplay.

Specific rules are found in
* Chapters 2 and 3 (races and classes)
* Chapter 11 (spells)
* The "Feats" section of chapter 6
* and in the rest of the book when specifically called out as such (cf. grapple/shove as special attacks despite not using attack rolls).

Everything in Chapters 2, 3, and 11 are specific rules. They override anything in the other chapters that they conflict with. But you can't use something from those chapters as evidence of a general rule--you can't reason from exceptions. They only affect each other if they say so--there is no always-on hierarchy of specificity beyond general and specific. This means that each spell, feat, ability, race trait, etc stands alone on top of the general rules unless it specifically calls out another specific rule (such as the interactions between Rage and Persistent Rage).

As a side note, there are no "primary source" rules in 5e like there were in 3e. All rules are rules of equal weight (although some are variants and only in play if enabled, in which case they replace their "normal" selves), and they have to specifically override each other. No implied repeal.

[Frogreaver]

A core principle of D&D is "Specific beats General"--the more specific rule overrides the more general rule.

But then arises the question--what does "specific" and "general" mean in this case. How do you tell which one is more specific? Some people try to look at the wording of each one and judge their "specificity" based on the individual cases. In my opinion, that's the wrong way of doing it.

My take is that general rules are those that apply everywhere by default. They are found in two places in the PHB: the introduction (before the race entries) and in chapters 4-10. These are the rules that apply (unless altered) to everyone, everywhere during gameplay.

Specific rules are found in
* Chapters 2 and 3 (races and classes)
* Chapter 11 (spells)
* The "Feats" section of chapter 6
* and in the rest of the book when specifically called out as such (cf. grapple/shove as special attacks despite not using attack rolls).

Everything in Chapters 2, 3, and 11 are specific rules. They override anything in the other chapters that they conflict with. But you can't use something from those chapters as evidence of a general rule--you can't reason from exceptions. They only affect each other if they say so--there is no always-on hierarchy of specificity beyond general and specific. This means that each spell, feat, ability, race trait, etc stands alone on top of the general rules unless it specifically calls out another specific rule (such as the interactions between Rage and Persistent Rage).

As a side note, there are no "primary source" rules in 5e like there were in 3e. All rules are rules of equal weight (although some are variants and only in play if enabled, in which case they replace their "normal" selves), and they have to specifically override each other. No implied repeal.

I think the main problem arises when what's intended to be the "specific rule" that overrides the "general rule" is too ambiguous. When we are dealing with an ambiguous rule the normal thing to do is look to see if a general rule might give us some guidance on how to interpret it.

It also doesn't help the specific and general rule framework when they set up a general rule with absolute standard defining language - like the attack roll means attack rule:

"If there's ever any question whether something you're
doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're
making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

If it had just said, something you are doing counts as an attack if you are making an attack roll. The added "if there's ever..." definitely makes that rule read as having additional weight that maybe wasn't intended.

[Unoriginal]

I think the main problem arises when what's intended to be the "specific rule" that overrides the "general rule" is too ambiguous. When we are dealing with an ambiguous rule the normal thing to do is look to see if a general rule might give us some guidance on how to interpret it.

While true that "specific beats general" doesn't help when the specific isn't understood, looking at the general rule won't provide an explanation aside from seeing how the specific differ from the general.



It also doesn't help the specific and general rule framework when they set up a general rule with absolute standard defining language

A general is always absolute standard defining language, though.


- like the attack roll means attack rule:

"If there's ever any question whether something you're
doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're
making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

If it had just said, something you are doing counts as an attack if you are making an attack roll. The added "if there's ever..." definitely makes that rule read as having additional weight that maybe wasn't intended.

"If there is ever a question, do X" is a general. It defines what you do in general when there is a question. If an ability provides a different explanation then the ability is a specific.

[Frogreaver]

"If there is ever a question, do X" is a general. It defines what you do in general when there is a question.

And since there is a question about Whirlwind attack then that rule applies :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

And since there is a question about Whirlwind attack then that rule applies :smallsmile:

Until it gets superseded by the Whirlwind Attack's actual description, yes.

[Frogreaver]

Until it gets superseded by the Whirlwind Attack's actual description, yes.

But Whirldwind attack is the thing that gives us that question. The problem arises because Whirlwind Attack is ambiguous. Because it's ambiguous it leaves that question open. Because it leaves that question open the attack roll means an attack rule applies. It's pretty simple logic to follow.

You have to believe Whirlwind Attack isn't ambiguous at all in order to make the case that the "attack roll means attack" doesn't apply.

[Unoriginal]

But Whirldwind attack is the thing that gives us that question. The problem arises because Whirlwind Attack is ambiguous. Because it's ambiguous it leaves that question open. Because it leaves that question open the attack roll means an attack rule applies. It's pretty simple logic to follow.

You have to believe Whirlwind Attack isn't ambiguous at all in order to make the case that the "attack roll means attack" doesn't apply.

Whirlwind Attack isn't ambiguous. It clearly states what it does, and it differs from the general.

My mistake back then was assuming the general applied to a specific which did not imply it.

To put it in other words, the only reason one would consider it ambiguous is because it contradicts the general rule, but if it contradicts the general rule then it primes over it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But Whirldwind attack is the thing that gives us that question. The problem arises because Whirlwind Attack is ambiguous. Because it's ambiguous it leaves that question open. Because it leaves that question open the attack roll means an attack rule applies. It's pretty simple logic to follow.

You have to believe Whirlwind Attack isn't ambiguous at all in order to make the case that the "attack roll means attack" doesn't apply.

How is it ambiguous? You ignore the general rules in favor of what is written in Whirlwind Attack, there is no ambiguity.

As an example, Chronurgy Wizard have a 14th level ability that grants them a level of exhaustion when used. Generally, long resting and being raised from the dead remove one point of exhaustion and their are spells and effects (Greater Restoration, Tireless Ranger UA) that can also remove exhaustion however this ability specifies that levels of exhaustion gained from this ability can only be removed through long resting.

If you're exhausted through Convergent Future, you must long rest to recover. If you're using Whirlwind Attack, you make a single attack with multiple attack rolls. These abilities supersede the general rules they are associated with because they add specifics.

EDIT: I actually want to touch on the bolded part specifically. The general part of the rule being contradicted by Whirlwind Attack is not the line "if you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack" it's the 3 step process. The 3 step process is for attacks that target a single creature, whereas Whirlwind Attack is an attack that targets several.

There isn't any contradiction in the statement "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" because Whirlwind Attack does count as an attack, and does involve an attack roll. The fact that it involves several attack rolls doesn't make this statement incorrect.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But Whirldwind attack is the thing that gives us that question. The problem arises because Whirlwind Attack is ambiguous. Because it's ambiguous it leaves that question open. Because it leaves that question open the attack roll means an attack rule applies. It's pretty simple logic to follow.

You have to believe Whirlwind Attack isn't ambiguous at all in order to make the case that the "attack roll means attack" doesn't apply.

No. Class abilities are always specific, and always override the general if there's conflict. General rules can never override any other rule.

In this case, the actual wording only leaves one option (that conflict exists).


You can use your action to make a melee weapon attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target.

A melee attack. That is singular. So you make one attack, composed of multiple attack rolls.

Any reading that involves ambiguity here requires you to claim (without evidence) that they made a typo there. If they wanted to say that it was multiple attacks, each with one attack roll, they'd say that. Or really, they'd just have said


You can use your action to make melee weapon attacks against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you.

Because the last phrase is utterly redundant in the multiple attack case.

So to get ambiguity, you have to assume that either they typoed (with no evidence or such) or that they left in large chunks of redundant, confusing text. Plus, if they were separate attacks, they wouldn't have needed the "within 5 feet of you" limitation unless they wanted to punish polearm users for some strange reason. With the straightforward reading, you need a range limitation (otherwise it gets silly).

[Frogreaver]

Whirlwind Attack isn't ambiguous. It clearly states what it does, and it differs from the general.

My mistake back then was assuming the general applied to a specific which did not imply it.

To put it in other words, the only reason one would consider it ambiguous is because it contradicts the general rule, but if it contradicts the general rule then it primes over it.

IMO Whirlwind Attack is very ambiguous and that has nothing to do with the general rule. The proof is in all the questions that have came up about it. I don't believe for a moment that most people ever read the ability as a single attack targeting multiple enemies. Instead they read it as one attack per enemy.

[JackPhoenix]

Class abilities are always specific

Not true.

Rogue's Sneak Attack states that you can apply it when you have an advantage, or when there's an enemy of the target adjecent to the target and you don't have a disadvantage. That's general rule
Swashbuckler's Rakish Audacity states that "you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll." That's a specific rule overriding the general rule of Sneak Attack.

Both are class abilities. There's plenty of similar examples where specific subclass ability overrides general ability of a base class.

[Frogreaver]

No. Class abilities are always specific, and always override the general if there's conflict. General rules can never override any other rule.

In this case, the actual wording only leaves one option (that conflict exists).

Disagree, and the evidence of how often this question arises seems to be on my side.


A melee attack. That is singular. So you make one attack, composed of multiple attack rolls.

Or, it's singular because you are making a melee attack per each target. Instead of 2 melee attacks per each target.


Any reading that involves ambiguity here requires you to claim (without evidence) that they made a typo there. If they wanted to say that it was multiple attacks, each with one attack roll, they'd say that. Or really, they'd just have said

The ambiguity isn't reliant on a typo.


Because the last phrase is utterly redundant in the multiple attack case.

Agreed, but they have printed redundancies in many situations. Having a redundancy is thus not enough to remove the ambiguity.

EDIT:
You can use your action to make melee weapon attacks against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you.

You proposed the above as how they would have worded it if I were correct. But that wording leaves open the question of how many melee weapon attacks you are making against those targets... Try to add in the one attack per enemy requirement and see what it starts sounding like.

[ProsecutorGodot]

IMO Whirlwind Attack is very ambiguous and that has nothing to do with the general rule. The proof is in all the questions that have came up about it. I don't believe for a moment that most people ever read the ability as a single attack targeting multiple enemies. Instead they read it as one attack per enemy.

It's possible that they were instead confused at its interaction with the moving between attack rules, which specify that it must be attacks rather than attack rolls.

Whirlwind Attack is unambiguously a single attack. However in most typical cases you would be making multiple attacks for every attack roll, hence why there could be a mistaken belief that the attack roll is what you move between.

I'll quote the SAC entry again so those not involved prior can reference it:

Can a ranger move between the attack rolls of the Whirlwind Attack feature? No. Whirlwind Attack is unusual, in that it’s a single attack with multiple attack rolls. In most other instances, an attack has one attack roll. The rule on moving between attacks (PH, 190) lets you move between weapon attacks, not between the attack rolls of an exceptional feature like Whirlwind Attack.
You might notice the question asked is about attack rolls and never even references that Whirlwind Attack is anything but a single attack.


Not true.
It's probably more fair to say that class abilities that conflict with a non-class rule are always specific. It's also probably fair to say that Subclass abilities are more specific than base class ones.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not true.

Rogue's Sneak Attack states that you can apply it when you have an advantage, or when there's an enemy of the target adjecent to the target and you don't have a disadvantage. That's general rule
Swashbuckler's Rakish Audacity states that "you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll." That's a specific rule overriding the general rule of Sneak Attack.

Both are class abilities. There's plenty of similar examples where specific subclass ability overrides general ability of a base class.

They're both specific abilities. But one overrides the other explicitly. That's not specific beats general, that's just the text doing its normal thing. Specific vs general only matters for implicit overrides.

General rules can override each other explicitly--any rule can do that. But only specific rules can override general ones implicitly. No other rule can affect any other implicitly.

[Frogreaver]

Whirlwind Attack is unambiguously a single attack.

This is incorrect. Citing sage advice doesn't prove it either. I do agree that what's in sage advice was their intent. But to say it's unambiguous is a major leap.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Disagree, and the evidence of how often this question arises seems to be on my side.

Or, it's singular because you are making a melee attack per each target. Instead of 2 melee attacks per each target.

The ambiguity isn't reliant on a typo.

Agreed, but they have printed redundancies in many situations. Having a redundancy is thus not enough to remove the ambiguity.

EDIT:

You proposed the above as how they would have worded it if I were correct. But that wording leaves open the question of how many melee weapon attacks you are making against those targets...

If they'd have worded it as "you can make a melee weapon attack against each of the enemies...", you might be correct. But the way it's worded just doesn't support the multiple attacks reading at all, based on grammar.

And I've seen lots of questions about really basic, really obvious stuff. Like "how many hit points do I get if I'm a level 1 barbarian with 16 CON" obvious. So the fact that there are questions doesn't mean it's ambiguous. It just means that people are crappy at reading.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is incorrect. Citing sage advice doesn't prove it either. I do agree that what's in sage advice was their intent. But to say it's unambiguous is a major leap.

I'm not citing sage advice for this ruling, I'm reading it in plain english out of the book. It does not say "Attacks" anywhere in Whirlwind Attack.

There is absolutely no basis for calling it anything but a single attack.

[Frogreaver]

If they'd have worded it as "you can make a melee weapon attack against each of the enemies...", you might be correct. But the way it's worded just doesn't support the multiple attacks reading at all, based on grammar.

The grammar supports either. That's what makes it ambiguous. Make an attack against each enemy can either mean a single attack that targets each enemy or it can mean make one attack per each enemy.


I'm not citing sage advice for this ruling, I'm reading it in plain english out of the book. It does not say "Attacks" anywhere in Whirlwind Attack.

There is absolutely no basis for calling it anything but a single attack.

Let's assume for a moment that a Fighter has 3 enemies around him (he's level 11). If the fighter said I make an attack against each enemy around me, is the DM going to tell him he can't do? No, because in natural english that means he's attacking each enemy with 1 attack.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Make an attack against each enemy can either mean a single attack that targets each enemy or it can mean make one attack per each enemy.

You make an attack against several creatures and roll a separate attack roll for each target.

How does that mean anything but exactly what it says? It's a single attack, it targets several creatures, you roll separately for each.

[Frogreaver]

You make an attack against several creatures and roll a separate attack roll for each target.

How does that mean anything but exactly what it says? It's a single attack, it targets several creatures, you roll separately for each.


The fighter doesn't have any specific ability to do this in one attack, so he makes 3 separate attacks using his Extra Attack feature, which coincidentally, is a specific example given for how you can move between attacks.

I think that's been answered, it's the same way the level 11 fighter can make an attack against 3 enemies around him. That is a grammatically proper thing to say of the fighter, right?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Let's assume for a moment that a Fighter has 3 enemies around him (he's level 11). If the fighter said I make an attack against each enemy around me, is the DM going to tell him he can't do? No, because in natural english that means he's attacking each enemy with 1 attack.
The fighter doesn't have any specific ability to do this in one attack, so he makes 3 separate attacks using his Extra Attack feature, which coincidentally, is a specific example given for how you can move between attacks.

I also don't see how this compares to the Whirlwind Attack either, the Fighter is still following the general rules when he uses his extra attacks, something explicitly listed as more than one attack.

Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.

Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.


I think that's been answered, it's the same way the level 11 fighter can make an attack against 3 enemies around him. That is a grammatically proper thing to say of the fighter, right?

Sure, it communicates the point but we also have to adjudicate what it means mechanically.

Mechanically, the fighter is not making a single attack, where a Ranger attempting to do the same thing with Whirlwind Attack is. I can also say "I'd like to attack 3 enemies" as a Wizard, but unless I specify the methodology my DM can't draw an accurate conclusion. Once I've explained my methodology, we have a specific rule to explain how my Wizard is attacking 3 enemies.

[Frogreaver]

Sure, it communicates the point but we also have to adjudicate what it means mechanically.

Mechanically, the fighter is not making a single attack, where a Ranger attempting to do the same thing with Whirlwind Attack is.

So you agree that in natural language a phrase like that can mean something other than making a single attack against multiple enemies. So the phrase conveys one meaning for the fighter and another for the Ranger. I'd say that qualifies as ambiguous.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So you agree that in natural language a phrase like that can mean something other than making a single attack against multiple enemies. So the phrase conveys one meaning for the fighter and another for the Ranger. I'd say that qualifies as ambiguous.

No, the fighter is speaking to his DM in natural language and the DM is understanding the players meaning. The player is not actually going to attack a single time, he's attacking 3 enemies, the rules explain this clearly.

Whirlwind Attack uses the natural language in written form, and does exactly what it says. The Ranger says "I want to use Whirlwind Attack" and the DM resolves it from there.

They convey different meanings because they reference entirely different rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So you agree that in natural language a phrase like that can mean something other than making a single attack against multiple enemies. So the phrase conveys one meaning for the fighter and another for the Ranger. I'd say that qualifies as ambiguous.

One of the major points of the OP was that you can't do this. You can't reason from one ability about another--words have different meanings in different contexts. Each specific rule stands alone and only references the general rules. So whatever the fighter ability says is meaningless for a ranger ability. Or even another fighter ability unless it says it changes, interacts with, or overrides it.

[Frogreaver]

One of the major points of the OP was that you can't do this. You can't reason from one ability about another--words have different meanings in different contexts. Each specific rule stands alone and only references the general rules. So whatever the fighter ability says is meaningless for a ranger ability. Or even another fighter ability unless it says it changes, interacts with, or overrides it.

1. I'm not citing a fighter ability and comparing them.
2. How else would you show something is ambiguous to someone that doesn't agree, other than by showing some phrase they are saying can only possibly mean 1 thing can also mean something else?


No, the fighter is speaking to his DM in natural language and the DM is understanding the players meaning. The player is not actually going to attack a single time, he's attacking 3 enemies, the rules explain this clearly.

The phrase means 1 thing here.


Whirlwind Attack uses the natural language in written form, and does exactly what it says.

You claim the phrase means something else here.

How can you possibly say that phrase isn't ambiguous?

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. I'm not citing a fighter ability and comparing them.
2. How else would you show something is ambiguous to someone that doesn't agree, other than by showing some phrase they are saying can only possibly mean 1 thing can also mean something else?


An ambiguous phrase in a single context has multiple possible readings. Here you're comparing multiple separate contexts (different abilities). Cross-context comparisons fail. Automatically. You can't learn anything about the meaning of a phrase in a ranger ability by looking at a fighter ability. Period. You can only learn by looking at grammar (which is unambiguous here--if attack was plural it would cause a number disagreement and sound really really weird unless you inserted the words "each of" before "any number of") and by looking at the general rules.

[ProsecutorGodot]

1. I'm not citing a fighter ability and comparing them.
2. How else would you show something is ambiguous to someone that doesn't agree, other than by showing some phrase they are saying can only possibly mean 1 thing can also mean something else?

You cited 1 to prove 2.

Your reasoning for 2 doesn't work either because it relies entirely on removing relevant context. It doesn't matter how many different ways I can rule for a player saying "I want to attack 3 enemies" it only matters for how this specific Ranger wants to do so and what ability allows him to do it.

I already know I'm making a horrible mistake bring up an analogy here but follow this for a second - Your friend says he wants to order a "pie" and when you ask him how, he hands you a business card for a local pizza joint and says to order the 5.99 two topping medium.

Would you sincerely argue that since "pie" could ambiguously mean Pizza or Pie that he wasn't asking for Pizza? Were the directions he gave you not a specific enough indicator that he wanted Pizza?

[Frogreaver]

An ambiguous phrase in a single context has multiple possible readings. Here you're comparing multiple separate contexts (different abilities). Cross-context comparisons fail. Automatically. You can't learn anything about the meaning of a phrase in a ranger ability by looking at a fighter ability. Period. You can only learn by looking at grammar (which is unambiguous here--if attack was plural it would cause a number disagreement and sound really really weird unless you inserted the words "each of" before "any number of") and by looking at the general rules.

Let's tackle this first. How does one show in a single context that a phrase is ambiguous when someone disagrees. I think you are setting the bar on that so high as to be unreachable. So tell me how it can be done and I will do it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Let's tackle this first. How does one show in a single context that a phrase is ambiguous when someone disagrees. I think you are setting the bar on that so high as to be unreachable. So tell me how it can be done and I will do it.

In this single context, you can't, that's what we're trying to explain to you. You believe that it is ambiguous yet your only evidence when prompted is to remove the relevant context and support it with an entirely unrelated rule.

Read only Whirlwind Attack. When you are reading only Whirlwind Attack, how many attacks (not attack rolls) do you make?

[Frogreaver]

You cited 1 to prove 2.

Your reasoning for 2 doesn't work either because it relies entirely on removing relevant context. It doesn't matter how many different ways I can rule for a player saying "I want to attack 3 enemies" it only matters for how this specific Ranger wants to do so and what ability allows him to do it.

No. I didn't start with the fighters abilities. I started with a phrase and showed how it could mean something else. I'm assuming you think there's some specific context in the ranger ability that removes the ambiguity - but none exists. The best you've got is the singluar attack and I've already made the case via the fighter example how a singular attack in such a phrase can refer to a single attack per enemy.


I already know I'm making a horrible mistake bring up an analogy here but follow this for a second - Your friend says he wants to order a "pie" and when you ask him how, he hands you a business card for a local pizza joint and says to order the 5.99 two topping medium.

Would you sincerely argue that since "pie" could ambiguously mean Pizza or Pie that he wasn't asking for Pizza? Were the directions he gave you not a specific enough indicator that he wanted Pizza?

For anyone with any familiarity with pizza pie and pie pie that context is sufficient to remove the ambiguity as pizza pies have toppings and pie pies do not (at least generally so). Context can remove ambiguity - but it doesn't always.


In this single context, you can't, that's what we're trying to explain to you. You believe that it is ambiguous yet your only evidence when prompted is to remove the relevant context and support it with an entirely unrelated rule.

Hmmmm, I think that if I can't show it's ambiguous directly then you surely cannot show it is not ambiguous directly. If neither of us can make the case whether it's ambiguous or not, doesn't that actually prove it is ambiguous?


Read only Whirlwind Attack. When you are reading only Whirlwind Attack, how many attacks (not attack rolls) do you make?

It's not clear whether it's one attack against all the enemies or one attack per each enemy.

[ProsecutorGodot]

No. I didn't start with the fighters abilities. I started with a phrase and showed how it could mean something else. I'm assuming you think there's some specific context in the ranger ability that removes the ambiguity - but none exists. The best you've got is the singluar attack and I've already made the case via the fighter example how a singular attack in such a phrase can refer to a single attack per enemy.

You are literally right here using the fact that a fighter player can ask to do something a certain way is evidence that the written ability for Whirlwind Attack is ambiguous. You keep contradicting yourself, saying you're not comparing other abilities but then you go right in the very next sentence comparing them again.

It does not matter what it could mean in different contexts, stop comparing them.


Hmmmm, I think that if I can't show it's ambiguous directly then you surely cannot show it is not ambiguous directly. If neither of us can make the case whether it's ambiguous or not, doesn't that actually prove it is ambiguous?

It's not clear whether it's one attack that hits all the enemies or one attack per each enemy.
I'm out of different ways to say "just read it and stop making erroneous assumptions based on unrelated logic".

You have the burden of proof. You made the statement that it's ambiguous, you need to prove it, which you haven't.

The bolded statement is the exact conclusion you reach reading the ability without making any further assumptions, you don't even need to know what the words mean as far as the game system is concerned to know that you get one X and that X targets multiple Y and that you have to roll a Z separately for each of them.

Any contradictions that you find when discerning what X, Y and Z mean should be ignored in favor of the class feature. Whirlwind Attack does the very specific thing that it says it does.

[Frogreaver]

You are literally right here using the fact that a fighter player can ask to do something a certain way is evidence that the written ability for Whirlwind Attack is ambiguous.

I am using it as evidence that such a phrase CAN mean 1 attack per enemy. You agreed this was true. What prevents it from being true of the Ranger?


You keep contradicting yourself, saying you're not comparing other abilities but then you go right in the very next sentence comparing them again.

No where am I comparing a Ranger ability to a Fighter ability. I am comparing different potential uses for a phrase found in the ranger ability. That's always step 1 in showing potential ambiguity.

Just like your pie example. There was "potential" ambiguity there, because the word pie can refer to different things. However, the context in the pie example was enough to remove the ambiguity. There is no context here that is able to do so.


It does not matter what it could mean in different contexts, stop comparing them.

Of course it does. It's step 1 in making the case that it's ambiguous. The defense is to say there's some context that clearly spells out which way the word or phrase is meant in a given instance. I'm waiting on some definitive context there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Of course it does. It's step 1 in making the case that it's ambiguous. The defense is to say there's some context that clearly spells out which way the word or phrase is meant in a given instance. I'm waiting on some definitive context there.

That's not what ambiguity means. You can't get ambiguity from different contexts. The contexts themselves (plus the grammar) are individually clear and have nothing to do with each other. They might as well be written in different languages. What you're trying to do is like casting two unrelated programming objects to each other. It's an invalid operation.

And ambiguity is cheap if all you mean is "I read it differently". Because anyone can do that with any piece of text, no matter how clear it is. That's why the law doesn't use a "any ambiguity" standard--it uses various reasonable person standards (which are terms of art, but they're decidedly limited in how they apply).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Just like your pie example. There was "potential" ambiguity there, because the word pie can refer to different things. However, the context in the pie example was enough to remove the ambiguity. There is no context here that is able to do so.
I knew I would regret the pie example. I keep saying it but analogies in forum discussion never prove a point and only serve as a distraction.


Of course it does. It's step 1 in making the case that it's ambiguous. The defense is to say there's some context that clearly spells out which way the word or phrase is meant in a given instance. I'm waiting on some definitive context there.

I'm just going to quote the last edit I made, since I'm not entirely sure if you saw it while writing your post:


You have the burden of proof. You made the statement that it's ambiguous, you need to prove it, which you haven't.

Bolded statement for reference: It's not clear whether it's one attack that hits all the enemies
The bolded statement is the exact conclusion you reach reading the ability without making any further assumptions, you don't even need to know what the words mean as far as the game system is concerned to know that you get one X and that X targets multiple Y and that you have to roll a Z separately for each of them.

Any contradictions that you find when discerning what X, Y and Z mean should be ignored in favor of the class feature. Whirlwind Attack does the very specific thing that it says it does.

Start by reading Whirlwind Attack. This is a specific rule, as detailed in the Specific Beats General rules, class features are specifics. Whirlwind Attack does exactly what it says it does. It is a mechanical rule, written a specific way to illustrate a specific idea and it does that clearly.

When you take the Whirlwind Attack action, you make an attack. This is very noticeably a singular word, one attack. You don't have to know what that attack does, how many creatures it targets or what any of the words mean to understand right then and there that it only makes a single attack.

Now that you know, undeniably and unquestionably that it makes a single attack, you can fill in the blanks. It's a single attack that targets several creatures and you roll a separate attack roll for each target. The meaning of "an attack" doesn't change.

[Frogreaver]

That's not what ambiguity means. You can't get ambiguity from different contexts.

Step 1 is always to show that a phrase can mean something different. I've done that. That's a very important step, because without it the case for whether something is ambiguous is over.

That is, in order to have meaning be ambiguous a word or phrase must have multiple possible meanings. It's a necessary but not sufficient criteria.


The contexts themselves (plus the grammar) are individually clear and have nothing to do with each other.

1. Nothing in the grammar supports one reading over the other.
2. The context of Whirlwind Attack isn't individually clear. But besides just asserting back and forth why not actually show that it the context cannot support the alternative meaning?


They might as well be written in different languages. What you're trying to do is like casting two unrelated programming objects to each other. It's an invalid operation.

It's starting to sound like your not actually following what I'm doing.

1. Establish that a word or phrase has different possible meanings. (Fighter example does this)
2. Review context for the ability in question to see if context dictates one reading over the other. What are the only "contexts" I've been cited? The grammar of a singular attack - but I've demonstrated (using the fighter example) that such a singular attack can be singular and still leave open the single attack per each enemy case. That is, the Fighter example also invalidates the grammar evidence - unless there's some unspoken counter to this? Is there even a 2nd reason or evidence provided for Whirlwind Attack being a single attack that targets all the enemies?


And ambiguity is cheap if all you mean is "I read it differently". Because anyone can do that with any piece of text, no matter how clear it is. That's why the law doesn't use a "any ambiguity" standard--it uses various reasonable person standards (which are terms of art, but they're decidedly limited in how they apply).

Same can be said of your non-ambiguity. If it just means you don't think it can be read differently then it's not very meaningful either.


You have the burden of proof. You made the statement that it's ambiguous, you need to prove it, which you haven't.

1. Burden of proof is dumb when you have been just as vehemetely arguing the opposite position. I say that puts us on equal footing in terms of the burden of proof we each have.

2. I did offer an argument for it... A. Assume you are correct, that it's impossible to prove it's ambiguous. B. Because it's impossible to prove it ambiguous it is also impossible to prove it is not ambiguous. C. Because it cannot be proven to be either ambiguous or not ambiguous, then it is ambiguous and we have reached a contradiction. Therefore, it must be ambiguous.

[ProsecutorGodot]

1. Burden of proof is dumb when you have been just as vehemetely arguing the opposite position. I say that puts us on equal footing in terms of the burden of proof we each have.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, clearly this discussion is going nowhere at lightspeed.

[Frogreaver]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, clearly this discussion is going nowhere at lightspeed.

I can agree to that.

[Valmark]

Funny enough they wrote "melee attacks" in the revised ranger UA- I'm surprised I never heard anybody confused by that seeing how much RR is heard of around.

Wikidot even uses it as the official version (which was why I thought rangers could move initially, couldn't check the books in that moment).

If they publish RR officially somewhere and keep WA like that I imagine there'll be a lot of discussion going forward.

[kazaryu]

A core principle of D&D is "Specific beats General"--the more specific rule overrides the more general rule.

But then arises the question--what does "specific" and "general" mean in this case. How do you tell which one is more specific? Some people try to look at the wording of each one and judge their "specificity" based on the individual cases. In my opinion, that's the wrong way of doing it.

My take is that general rules are those that apply everywhere by default. They are found in two places in the PHB: the introduction (before the race entries) and in chapters 4-10. These are the rules that apply (unless altered) to everyone, everywhere during gameplay.

Specific rules are found in
* Chapters 2 and 3 (races and classes)
* Chapter 11 (spells)
* The "Feats" section of chapter 6
* and in the rest of the book when specifically called out as such (cf. grapple/shove as special attacks despite not using attack rolls).

Everything in Chapters 2, 3, and 11 are specific rules. They override anything in the other chapters that they conflict with. But you can't use something from those chapters as evidence of a general rule--you can't reason from exceptions. They only affect each other if they say so--there is no always-on hierarchy of specificity beyond general and specific. This means that each spell, feat, ability, race trait, etc stands alone on top of the general rules unless it specifically calls out another specific rule (such as the interactions between Rage and Persistent Rage).

As a side note, there are no "primary source" rules in 5e like there were in 3e. All rules are rules of equal weight (although some are variants and only in play if enabled, in which case they replace their "normal" selves), and they have to specifically override each other. No implied repeal.

i think that part of the issue you're having, is that you're trying to categorize 'specific' and 'general'.

which is silly. 'specific' and 'general' are 2 relative points on a spectrum. the spectrum essentailly being 'how many different situations does this apply to'. so the rule that 'specific beats general' isn't. a specific rule beats a general rule. general rules/specific rules don't exist as discrete ideas. the rule instead means 'a rule overrides any rule that is designed to cover a broader scope than it'. for example: a rule for a specific spell (for example, warlock invocations) will override rules for spells in general. or a rule for a specific class using a specific spell (i.e. illusionist) will override that specific spells rules.

[Frogreaver]

i think that part of the issue you're having, is that you're trying to categorize 'specific' and 'general'.

which is silly. 'specific' and 'general' are 2 relative points on a spectrum. the spectrum essentailly being 'how many different situations does this apply to'. so the rule that 'specific beats general' isn't. a specific rule beats a general rule. general rules/specific rules don't exist as discrete ideas. the rule instead means 'a rule overrides any rule that is designed to cover a broader scope than it'. for example: a rule for a specific spell (for example, warlock invocations) will override rules for spells in general. or a rule for a specific class using a specific spell (i.e. illusionist) will override that specific spells rules.

Well said. Broad and narrow I think is better terminology for that concept than general and specific.