Specific Vs. New

[drengnikrafe]

I know there are rules that say New books trump old books (and so the newest one must be used in all possible cases), as well as a rule that says specific trumps general. Which of those is treated as having a higher priority? If something says "This doesn't stack with anything", and something from an older book says "This specifically stacks with (Ability A)", which is true?

[BobVosh]

Specific. Unless new is specific as well.

[Yuki Akuma]

Uh...

New trumps old because new tends to be errata on old material when it's a reprint. If the old version of Rocky's Boxing Gloves say they stack with the bonus provided by a Monk's Belt, but the new one says it doesn't stack with anything, you use the new version.

If, on the other hand, there was an old item that specifically stacks with Rocky's Boxing Gloves, then it still does, because it hasn't been reprinted and it's still more specific.

Am I making sense?

[jmbrown]

Simply put, if a new wording comes out for an old rule check to see if there's updated errata. If there is, you'll know automatically what's been updated.

Edit: Also, 4E smartly puts its errata in its own section so you pretty much always know what's a new ruling.

[Heliomance]

This is a spin off of the debate on the crit range thread. The original question that sparked the debate is does a 3.0 prestige class with an ability that explicitly says it stacks with Improved Critical stack with the 3.5 Improved Critical which says it doesn't stack with anything?

[bosssmiley]

Consult your DM. His ruling trumps RAW in his game.

[hamishspence]

Sometimes, a new version of a feat promptly gets ignored by subsequent books.

Automatic Quicken Spell received a massive nerf in Complete Arcane. However, books published subsequent to Complete Arcane, even ones that reference it, use the old version.

(Dungeon tends to use the new, nerfed version, for epic characters that have it)

The old version quickened spells from 0 to 3rd level, then another 3 levels each time you took the feat again.

The new version quickened spells from 0 to 1st level, then another 1 level each time you take the feat again.

[Curmudgeon]

If, on the other hand, there was an old item that specifically stacks with Rocky's Boxing Gloves, then it still does, because it hasn't been reprinted and it's still more specific.

Am I making sense?

Yes, you're making sense. You're rationalizing a desire to selectively ignore the rules to get more power. It's exceedingly rare for old rules that conflict with new ones to be specifically revised, and you're aware of that. Also the general trend for WotC is to change rules mostly when things look to be more powerful than intended; things that are weaker than intended (like the Monk class) just get ignored. So refusing to follow specific new rules unless they also exhaustively revise all older conflicts works to your advantage. It's not what the game designers intended, but this desire to view things in a way that works to your advantage is entirely sensible.

Sometimes, a new version of a feat promptly gets ignored by subsequent books.

Even though Automatic Quicken Spell is an explicit replacement from 3.0 to 3.5, it illustrates the problem. Game designers are game players, too. When designers refer to game features they're not personally working on, they also tend to view things in whatever fashion grants them more power as players. Just because they're working for WotC doesn't make them immune to a lust for character power.

Rules Compendium describes the order in which rules are applied: from general to specific to exception. Nowhere in the official rules, however, is there a statement that this hierarchy has first priority. In fact, there's no claim of priority at all; it's just an explanation to the players of how exception-based rules sets work.

There is an absolute statement of priority in the Primary Source errata rule, though. If you find a disagreement in the rules, the primary source is always right.

So the argument here isn't "specific vs. new"; it's RAW vs. a desire for power. And you can pretty reliably count on greed.

[drengnikrafe]

Curmudgeon, I understand the basis of your thinking. My group of gamers are not powergamers, they don't try to break the game, and they don't read these forums for ways to overpower their characters. Therefore, they're not in constant desire for power, and won't twist rules to what suits them, they'll just follow said rules.

That being said, thank you to everyone who gave their very valuable opinion on this matter.

[Optimystik]

So the argument here isn't "specific vs. new"; it's RAW vs. a desire for power. And you can pretty reliably count on greed.

I think that's an overly negative interpretation. We don't know that "greed" is the motivation for any designer who relies upon the older wording of a particular ability when penning his work.

Take Autoquicken - it's an Epic feat. Restricting it to 3rd level spells makes no sense; Epic casters are one step below gods (or in some cases, ARE gods.) There are so many useful feats to choose from at Epic levels, that blowing 3 on this isn't even a no-brainer. And game balance is out the window anyway.

3.5 RAW is not inviolate. It is in fact full of bastardizations, arbitrariness, and inconsistencies. RAI is what really matters, because RAI at least contains a justification as to the designer's decision. That justification, whether logical or flimsy, provides the DM with more information than bare RAW does. Knowing why a particular designer justified a choice is far more important than just blindly following it. The DM can then make an informed decision on what to houserule.

Take Deathwatch - by RAW, an Evil spell. It's in the PHB, therefore it's also Evil by your Primary Source rule. But it is on the spell of an exalted class in BoED (Slayer of Domiel), who by RAW would lose all class features for casting it. This isn't a case of specific trumps general, because the Slayer doesn't get any protection from committing questionable actions like, say, a Grey Guard would. The spell does nothing but provide information - it makes absolutely no sense to be Evil, yet it is. The designer's interpretation is clearly that the spell is nothing more than a tool, so both RAI and RAMS are on his side, but RAW is firmly against him. Is greed the motivator here, or simple common sense?

[sofawall]

There is more to it than just New vs. Specific. Curmudgeon repeatedly refers to the "Primary Source", which is almost always the Player's Handbook in the discussions it get's invoked in.

But, what if something specifically goes against the PHB? Ranged Sunder is an exception to the rule that you can only sunder with a slashing or bludgeoning melee weapon, but it is not the primary source. Does the PHB win, or does Ranged Sunder win as Comp. War. is the primary source for Ranged Sunder, not the PHB?

If so, what about the 3.0 prestige class? Wouldn't its primary source be something other than the PHB as well?

And if not, then it isn't so much a Primary Source thing as a "Which came after?" thing, in which case I must ask, when does Primary Source matter?

[Curmudgeon]

But, what if something specifically goes against the PHB? Ranged Sunder is an exception to the rule that you can only sunder with a slashing or bludgeoning melee weapon, but it is not the primary source. Does the PHB win, or does Ranged Sunder win as Comp. War. is the primary source for Ranged Sunder, not the PHB?

Why are you bringing this up again? Here's the primary source errata rule:

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.

This rule only covers the case when some rule disagrees with the primary source. Ranged Sunder doesn't disagree; instead, its Normal section reiterates the rule from the Player's Handbook, and its Benefit section describes the exception to that normal rule which the feat provides. There's absolutely no disagreement involved.

But when we're talking about mixing 3.0 prestige classes and 3.5 rules, there will be minor disagreements. The primary source errata rule specifies how to solve those disagreements.

(As a final note, Complete Warrior is never a primary source. It's always a secondary D&D rule source, as is the WotC web site for bonus 3.0 prestige classes. I'd appreciate it if you'd use the same terminology that WotC uses; that way things are less confusing.)

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes, you're making sense. You're rationalizing a desire to selectively ignore the rules to get more power.

Woah woah, hold it right there.

What?!

I'm honestly insulted.

[sofawall]

Why are you bringing this up again? Here's the primary source errata rule: This rule only covers the case when some rule disagrees with the primary source. Ranged Sunder doesn't disagree; instead, its Normal section reiterates the rule from the Player's Handbook, and its Benefit section describes the exception to that normal rule which the feat provides. There's absolutely no disagreement involved.

But when we're talking about mixing 3.0 prestige classes and 3.5 rules, there will be minor disagreements. The primary source errata rule specifies how to solve those disagreements.

(As a final note, Complete Warrior is never a primary source. It's always a secondary D&D rule source, as is the WotC web site for bonus 3.0 prestige classes. I'd appreciate it if you'd use the same terminology that WotC uses; that way things are less confusing.)

So, why does the explicit exception given in Ranged Sunder work, but the explicit exception given in the PrC not work? Is it because the PrC is 3.0? Because, officially, if the PrC itself has not been updated, the PrC works in 3.5, as a 3.5 source, exactly as written. Therefore, it isn't 3.0 anymore. If it hasn't been updated, it is assumed to work perfectly well with 3.5, and does not require any addition changes. It is now a 3.5 source, giving an specific exception to a rule.

[Curmudgeon]

So, why does the explicit exception given in Ranged Sunder work, but the explicit exception given in the PrC not work?

The exception in False Keen is to the 3.0 versions of Improved Critical and keen. It's not an exception to the 3.5 versions of those things because they didn't exist yet.

Is it because the PrC is 3.0? Because, officially, if the PrC itself has not been updated, the PrC works in 3.5, as a 3.5 source, exactly as written.

The highlighted statement is bogus. Page 4 of the 3.5 DMG says 3.0 material will require minor adjustments to be used under 3.5 rules. The restrictions on critical threat ranges are such minor adjustments.

[Foryn Gilnith]

You're rationalizing a desire to selectively ignore the rules to get more power.

Ya, srsly, WTF lol

You are Curmudgeon, after all, and you're known for not censoring yourself for the sake of pansy "politeness", but this went more than a bit too far as far as ad hominem is concerned.