Mixing
Is there a hierarchy of specificity?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
As we all know from page 7 of the Player's Handbook, "Specific Beats General". The way it discusses 'general' and 'specific' is basically that 'general' means the standard game rules, as given in chapters 7-10 (and, I suppose, much of the Dungeon Master's Guide); and the 'specifics' are things like class features, racial traits, spells, conditions, and magic items.
But is there a hierarchy of specificity, or different levels of specific-ness? Is a magic item "more specific" than a spell? More or less than a condition?
In most cases, they both apply, and there are rules for how to combine them, but sometimes you have one exception that says "you can" and another that says "you can't". Is there any actual rules guidance for how to untangle those, or is it just down to the DM to decide which effect takes precedence?
I hesitate to give specific examples, which may tend to drive answers in the direction of discussing those examples rather than the overall idea that some rules are 'more specific' than others.
But, purely for the purpose of clarifying the kind of things I'm talking about:
Brad the Fighter has been Stunned, and as a result automatically fails all Dexterity saves. He finds himself within the area of a fireball cast by his Evoker friend, who uses Sculpt Spells to allow Brad to automatically succeed the save. (I certainly think Sculpt Spells wins for storytelling reasons; but is there something that would make Sculpt Spells inherently more specific than Stunned?)
Brad the Fighter is facing a dragon and its wizard ally, who stand side by side. First, he fails his saving throw against the dragon's Frightful Presence, and thus cannot move closer to the dragon. However, he then fails his save against the wizard's compulsion spell that demands that he must run towards the pair. (Is one effect more specific than the other? Does the answer change if it were a command spell with the command 'Approach', or if the dragon had instead cast a fear spell? Does "specific beats general" even apply in such a situation?)
I ask this because I have recently heard some claims that, for example, a class ability is 'more specific' than a condition, which confused me, and I wonder if I've missed a game concept somewhere along the way.
dnd-5e
asked 4 hours ago
Darth Pseudonym
8,2621950
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
As we all know from page 7 of the Player's Handbook, "Specific Beats General". The way it discusses 'general' and 'specific' is basically that 'general' means the standard game rules, as given in chapters 7-10 (and, I suppose, much of the Dungeon Master's Guide); and the 'specifics' are things like class features, racial traits, spells, conditions, and magic items.
But is there a hierarchy of specificity, or different levels of specific-ness? Is a magic item "more specific" than a spell? More or less than a condition?
In most cases, they both apply, and there are rules for how to combine them, but sometimes you have one exception that says "you can" and another that says "you can't". Is there any actual rules guidance for how to untangle those, or is it just down to the DM to decide which effect takes precedence?
I hesitate to give specific examples, which may tend to drive answers in the direction of discussing those examples rather than the overall idea that some rules are 'more specific' than others.
But, purely for the purpose of clarifying the kind of things I'm talking about:
Brad the Fighter has been Stunned, and as a result automatically fails all Dexterity saves. He finds himself within the area of a fireball cast by his Evoker friend, who uses Sculpt Spells to allow Brad to automatically succeed the save. (I certainly think Sculpt Spells wins for storytelling reasons; but is there something that would make Sculpt Spells inherently more specific than Stunned?)
Brad the Fighter is facing a dragon and its wizard ally, who stand side by side. First, he fails his saving throw against the dragon's Frightful Presence, and thus cannot move closer to the dragon. However, he then fails his save against the wizard's compulsion spell that demands that he must run towards the pair. (Is one effect more specific than the other? Does the answer change if it were a command spell with the command 'Approach', or if the dragon had instead cast a fear spell? Does "specific beats general" even apply in such a situation?)
I ask this because I have recently heard some claims that, for example, a class ability is 'more specific' than a condition, which confused me, and I wonder if I've missed a game concept somewhere along the way.
dnd-5e
asked 4 hours ago
Darth Pseudonym
8,2621950
Are you asking about a structured hierarchy or about different levels of specificity?
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Just generally when something is more specific than another. Somebody made a comment in another question about one kind of thing being "more specific" than another and I thought it was sort of a strange idea.
– Darth Pseudonym
2 hours ago
1
A better phrasing might be "different levels of specificity". Hierarchy might be implying categories to some readers.
– Grosscol
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
As we all know from page 7 of the Player's Handbook, "Specific Beats General". The way it discusses 'general' and 'specific' is basically that 'general' means the standard game rules, as given in chapters 7-10 (and, I suppose, much of the Dungeon Master's Guide); and the 'specifics' are things like class features, racial traits, spells, conditions, and magic items.
But is there a hierarchy of specificity, or different levels of specific-ness? Is a magic item "more specific" than a spell? More or less than a condition?
In most cases, they both apply, and there are rules for how to combine them, but sometimes you have one exception that says "you can" and another that says "you can't". Is there any actual rules guidance for how to untangle those, or is it just down to the DM to decide which effect takes precedence?
I hesitate to give specific examples, which may tend to drive answers in the direction of discussing those examples rather than the overall idea that some rules are 'more specific' than others.
But, purely for the purpose of clarifying the kind of things I'm talking about:
Brad the Fighter has been Stunned, and as a result automatically fails all Dexterity saves. He finds himself within the area of a fireball cast by his Evoker friend, who uses Sculpt Spells to allow Brad to automatically succeed the save. (I certainly think Sculpt Spells wins for storytelling reasons; but is there something that would make Sculpt Spells inherently more specific than Stunned?)
Brad the Fighter is facing a dragon and its wizard ally, who stand side by side. First, he fails his saving throw against the dragon's Frightful Presence, and thus cannot move closer to the dragon. However, he then fails his save against the wizard's compulsion spell that demands that he must run towards the pair. (Is one effect more specific than the other? Does the answer change if it were a command spell with the command 'Approach', or if the dragon had instead cast a fear spell? Does "specific beats general" even apply in such a situation?)
I ask this because I have recently heard some claims that, for example, a class ability is 'more specific' than a condition, which confused me, and I wonder if I've missed a game concept somewhere along the way.
dnd-5e
asked 4 hours ago
Darth Pseudonym
8,2621950
As we all know from page 7 of the Player's Handbook, "Specific Beats General". The way it discusses 'general' and 'specific' is basically that 'general' means the standard game rules, as given in chapters 7-10 (and, I suppose, much of the Dungeon Master's Guide); and the 'specifics' are things like class features, racial traits, spells, conditions, and magic items.
But is there a hierarchy of specificity, or different levels of specific-ness? Is a magic item "more specific" than a spell? More or less than a condition?
In most cases, they both apply, and there are rules for how to combine them, but sometimes you have one exception that says "you can" and another that says "you can't". Is there any actual rules guidance for how to untangle those, or is it just down to the DM to decide which effect takes precedence?
I hesitate to give specific examples, which may tend to drive answers in the direction of discussing those examples rather than the overall idea that some rules are 'more specific' than others.
But, purely for the purpose of clarifying the kind of things I'm talking about:
Brad the Fighter has been Stunned, and as a result automatically fails all Dexterity saves. He finds himself within the area of a fireball cast by his Evoker friend, who uses Sculpt Spells to allow Brad to automatically succeed the save. (I certainly think Sculpt Spells wins for storytelling reasons; but is there something that would make Sculpt Spells inherently more specific than Stunned?)
Brad the Fighter is facing a dragon and its wizard ally, who stand side by side. First, he fails his saving throw against the dragon's Frightful Presence, and thus cannot move closer to the dragon. However, he then fails his save against the wizard's compulsion spell that demands that he must run towards the pair. (Is one effect more specific than the other? Does the answer change if it were a command spell with the command 'Approach', or if the dragon had instead cast a fear spell? Does "specific beats general" even apply in such a situation?)
I ask this because I have recently heard some claims that, for example, a class ability is 'more specific' than a condition, which confused me, and I wonder if I've missed a game concept somewhere along the way.
dnd-5e
dnd-5e
asked 4 hours ago
Darth Pseudonym
8,2621950
asked 4 hours ago
Darth Pseudonym
8,2621950
edited 1 hour ago
asked 4 hours ago
Darth Pseudonym
8,2621950
asked 4 hours ago
Darth Pseudonym
8,2621950
asked 4 hours ago
Darth Pseudonym
8,2621950
8,2621950
Are you asking about a structured hierarchy or about different levels of specificity?
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Just generally when something is more specific than another. Somebody made a comment in another question about one kind of thing being "more specific" than another and I thought it was sort of a strange idea.
– Darth Pseudonym
2 hours ago
1
A better phrasing might be "different levels of specificity". Hierarchy might be implying categories to some readers.
– Grosscol
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Are you asking about a structured hierarchy or about different levels of specificity?
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Just generally when something is more specific than another. Somebody made a comment in another question about one kind of thing being "more specific" than another and I thought it was sort of a strange idea.
– Darth Pseudonym
2 hours ago
1
A better phrasing might be "different levels of specificity". Hierarchy might be implying categories to some readers.
– Grosscol
2 hours ago
Are you asking about a structured hierarchy or about different levels of specificity?
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Are you asking about a structured hierarchy or about different levels of specificity?
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Just generally when something is more specific than another. Somebody made a comment in another question about one kind of thing being "more specific" than another and I thought it was sort of a strange idea.
– Darth Pseudonym
2 hours ago
Just generally when something is more specific than another. Somebody made a comment in another question about one kind of thing being "more specific" than another and I thought it was sort of a strange idea.
– Darth Pseudonym
2 hours ago
1
1
A better phrasing might be "different levels of specificity". Hierarchy might be implying categories to some readers.
– Grosscol
2 hours ago
A better phrasing might be "different levels of specificity". Hierarchy might be implying categories to some readers.
– Grosscol
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
"Specific Beats General" is about the effect itself, not where it comes from
"Specific Beats General" doesn't prioritize Item effects over Spells, or Spells over Class Features, or any other possible permutation of sources of features. It's simply a description of the scope of the abilities.
Consider the following item and class feature (invented, probably aren't real):
Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
In this situation, when I wield the Rod of Holding, I can paralyze anyone I point it at, except for when I point it at someone who has the Paralysis Resistance feature, where even with no saving throw, they still have a 55% chance of resisting the rod. In this case, the "Specific Beats General" wording says that a "General effect" (A rod that paralyzes anyone I point it at) is beaten by a "Specific Situation" (... except for this one creature that can maybe resist the effect).
But you could easily reverse this situation and get the same result:
Paralyzing Gaze. As an Action, look at a creature. That creature is Paralyzed for 1 minute
Armor of Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against the wielder, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now, it's a class feature targeting a creature that has a special item, but it's the same result: The Class Feature is a General Effect (paralyze anyone you look at) being beaten by an Item creating a Specific Situation (... except this creature wearing this magic armor, which resists it 55% of the time).
But this could be beaten. Now consider the following examples:
Better Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute. This ignores any effects which partially resist Paralysis, or which have a variable chance of ignoring paralysis.
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now the Better Rod of Holding will win out over the class feature, simply because the parameters specified by the item have been made more specific. "Cause Paralysis, even if they have a thing which allows them to maybe resist paralysis" is more specific than "maybe resist paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Better Paralysis Resistance's "resist ALL paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Betterer Rod of Holding's "Cause Paralysis, this cannot be ignored under any circumstances", which is then less specific than... you get the idea.
Some of this comes down to DM fiat (what happens if "Cause Paralysis, ignore immunities" collides with "Cannot be paralyzed, even if the effect says it ignores immunities"??), and I'm only focusing on the interaction between two features/items/whatever because that's simpler to explain. But the Heirarchy of specificity generally just boils down to how many stipulations are made about what an effect says it does. If an effect specifically calls attention to exceptions and circumstantial situations, it's probably a more specific effect than an effect that does not.
answered 4 hours ago
Xirema
10.6k13170
1
Only your last example is valid, in the others, the two rules are not actually in conflict, so they both are applied in the order they are triggered. You should update the resistance to say "you get a saving throw even if you normally couldn't make one". If the rules don't conflict, then they resolved in trigger order.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
@Tezra The counter feature doesn't make use of a Saving Throw, so I've simply removed language about Saving Throws to make the examples a bit clearer.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Tezra The point of the first two examples is that they're identical. I'm showing that there's no heirarchy of Items >> Class Features or Class Features >> Items. They're not meant to interact with each other.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Grosscol Done.
– Xirema
3 hours ago
1
These examples aren't very relevant. It's obvious that a "when you would be paralyzed" effect triggers when you are paralyzed and can cancels out the "you are now paralyzed" effect; those aren't inherently contradictory rules. See the examples I added to the post for a sample of what I'm getting at.
– Darth Pseudonym
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
-3
down vote
Time is usually the best indicator of priority
Basically, create a stack of the effects based on when they where applied to the character. Last one on the stack trumps previous rules. Note that it's important to pay attention to if rules actually clash, so keep track of each rule separately while resolving the stack.
For example, let's take: "Can my character fly?"
- Flying is not a default ability, so no
- But I took an avian race that grants flight, so yes
- But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw, so no
- But my friend cast fly on me, so yes
- But the enemy rogue poisoned me before 4 so I'm paralyzed (can't move). Fly only grants a flying movement speed; it doesn't grant any form of "freedom of movement", so no, and 4 should be no in this case. (Order doesn't matter here because it's not a conflict.)
Where spells are involved, it's also important to remember that "Spells do what they say they do, and only what they say they do", so magic should generally trump non-magic. For example, if I am paralyzed, and a spell says I automatically pass my Dex save, the spell should take priority unless the thing causing paralysis explicitly says that magic cannot bypass it.
If you have multiple effects that don't conflict, but can cancel each other out, than you resolve all of those effects in the order they are triggered.
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
17.5k247112
answered 4 hours ago
Tezra
740312
For those who feel like down voting, it would be more constructive if you could provide a counter argument for why you wouldn't use this rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
3
Actually, comments are not for arguing or debating - they are for asking clarifications and providing suggestions for improvement. Starting arguments with the author about their post is, in fact, explicitly disallowed (see the last point here). In cases where you disagree or find fault with a post but the reason would just start an argument, downvoting and not leaving a comment is the correct call.
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
1
@Tezra Would the same hold true if the character was Paralyzed (5) and then their friend cast Fly (4)?
– Daniel Zastoupil
2 hours ago
Just curious about #3: "But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw" - what is this supposed to mean? You intentionally handicapped yourself for RP purposes? Because there's no such mechanic in 5e - either you choose a flying race/subrace and can fly, or you choose a non-flying race/subrace and can't (unless you gain the ability through other means). There's no mechanical "clipped wings" flaw that applies to certain races but not others.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
"Specific Beats General" is about the effect itself, not where it comes from
"Specific Beats General" doesn't prioritize Item effects over Spells, or Spells over Class Features, or any other possible permutation of sources of features. It's simply a description of the scope of the abilities.
Consider the following item and class feature (invented, probably aren't real):
Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
In this situation, when I wield the Rod of Holding, I can paralyze anyone I point it at, except for when I point it at someone who has the Paralysis Resistance feature, where even with no saving throw, they still have a 55% chance of resisting the rod. In this case, the "Specific Beats General" wording says that a "General effect" (A rod that paralyzes anyone I point it at) is beaten by a "Specific Situation" (... except for this one creature that can maybe resist the effect).
But you could easily reverse this situation and get the same result:
Paralyzing Gaze. As an Action, look at a creature. That creature is Paralyzed for 1 minute
Armor of Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against the wielder, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now, it's a class feature targeting a creature that has a special item, but it's the same result: The Class Feature is a General Effect (paralyze anyone you look at) being beaten by an Item creating a Specific Situation (... except this creature wearing this magic armor, which resists it 55% of the time).
But this could be beaten. Now consider the following examples:
Better Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute. This ignores any effects which partially resist Paralysis, or which have a variable chance of ignoring paralysis.
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now the Better Rod of Holding will win out over the class feature, simply because the parameters specified by the item have been made more specific. "Cause Paralysis, even if they have a thing which allows them to maybe resist paralysis" is more specific than "maybe resist paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Better Paralysis Resistance's "resist ALL paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Betterer Rod of Holding's "Cause Paralysis, this cannot be ignored under any circumstances", which is then less specific than... you get the idea.
Some of this comes down to DM fiat (what happens if "Cause Paralysis, ignore immunities" collides with "Cannot be paralyzed, even if the effect says it ignores immunities"??), and I'm only focusing on the interaction between two features/items/whatever because that's simpler to explain. But the Heirarchy of specificity generally just boils down to how many stipulations are made about what an effect says it does. If an effect specifically calls attention to exceptions and circumstantial situations, it's probably a more specific effect than an effect that does not.
answered 4 hours ago
Xirema
10.6k13170
1
Only your last example is valid, in the others, the two rules are not actually in conflict, so they both are applied in the order they are triggered. You should update the resistance to say "you get a saving throw even if you normally couldn't make one". If the rules don't conflict, then they resolved in trigger order.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
@Tezra The counter feature doesn't make use of a Saving Throw, so I've simply removed language about Saving Throws to make the examples a bit clearer.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Tezra The point of the first two examples is that they're identical. I'm showing that there's no heirarchy of Items >> Class Features or Class Features >> Items. They're not meant to interact with each other.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Grosscol Done.
– Xirema
3 hours ago
1
These examples aren't very relevant. It's obvious that a "when you would be paralyzed" effect triggers when you are paralyzed and can cancels out the "you are now paralyzed" effect; those aren't inherently contradictory rules. See the examples I added to the post for a sample of what I'm getting at.
– Darth Pseudonym
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
"Specific Beats General" is about the effect itself, not where it comes from
"Specific Beats General" doesn't prioritize Item effects over Spells, or Spells over Class Features, or any other possible permutation of sources of features. It's simply a description of the scope of the abilities.
Consider the following item and class feature (invented, probably aren't real):
Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
In this situation, when I wield the Rod of Holding, I can paralyze anyone I point it at, except for when I point it at someone who has the Paralysis Resistance feature, where even with no saving throw, they still have a 55% chance of resisting the rod. In this case, the "Specific Beats General" wording says that a "General effect" (A rod that paralyzes anyone I point it at) is beaten by a "Specific Situation" (... except for this one creature that can maybe resist the effect).
But you could easily reverse this situation and get the same result:
Paralyzing Gaze. As an Action, look at a creature. That creature is Paralyzed for 1 minute
Armor of Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against the wielder, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now, it's a class feature targeting a creature that has a special item, but it's the same result: The Class Feature is a General Effect (paralyze anyone you look at) being beaten by an Item creating a Specific Situation (... except this creature wearing this magic armor, which resists it 55% of the time).
But this could be beaten. Now consider the following examples:
Better Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute. This ignores any effects which partially resist Paralysis, or which have a variable chance of ignoring paralysis.
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now the Better Rod of Holding will win out over the class feature, simply because the parameters specified by the item have been made more specific. "Cause Paralysis, even if they have a thing which allows them to maybe resist paralysis" is more specific than "maybe resist paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Better Paralysis Resistance's "resist ALL paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Betterer Rod of Holding's "Cause Paralysis, this cannot be ignored under any circumstances", which is then less specific than... you get the idea.
Some of this comes down to DM fiat (what happens if "Cause Paralysis, ignore immunities" collides with "Cannot be paralyzed, even if the effect says it ignores immunities"??), and I'm only focusing on the interaction between two features/items/whatever because that's simpler to explain. But the Heirarchy of specificity generally just boils down to how many stipulations are made about what an effect says it does. If an effect specifically calls attention to exceptions and circumstantial situations, it's probably a more specific effect than an effect that does not.
answered 4 hours ago
Xirema
10.6k13170
1
Only your last example is valid, in the others, the two rules are not actually in conflict, so they both are applied in the order they are triggered. You should update the resistance to say "you get a saving throw even if you normally couldn't make one". If the rules don't conflict, then they resolved in trigger order.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
@Tezra The counter feature doesn't make use of a Saving Throw, so I've simply removed language about Saving Throws to make the examples a bit clearer.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Tezra The point of the first two examples is that they're identical. I'm showing that there's no heirarchy of Items >> Class Features or Class Features >> Items. They're not meant to interact with each other.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Grosscol Done.
– Xirema
3 hours ago
1
These examples aren't very relevant. It's obvious that a "when you would be paralyzed" effect triggers when you are paralyzed and can cancels out the "you are now paralyzed" effect; those aren't inherently contradictory rules. See the examples I added to the post for a sample of what I'm getting at.
– Darth Pseudonym
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
"Specific Beats General" is about the effect itself, not where it comes from
"Specific Beats General" doesn't prioritize Item effects over Spells, or Spells over Class Features, or any other possible permutation of sources of features. It's simply a description of the scope of the abilities.
Consider the following item and class feature (invented, probably aren't real):
Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
In this situation, when I wield the Rod of Holding, I can paralyze anyone I point it at, except for when I point it at someone who has the Paralysis Resistance feature, where even with no saving throw, they still have a 55% chance of resisting the rod. In this case, the "Specific Beats General" wording says that a "General effect" (A rod that paralyzes anyone I point it at) is beaten by a "Specific Situation" (... except for this one creature that can maybe resist the effect).
But you could easily reverse this situation and get the same result:
Paralyzing Gaze. As an Action, look at a creature. That creature is Paralyzed for 1 minute
Armor of Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against the wielder, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now, it's a class feature targeting a creature that has a special item, but it's the same result: The Class Feature is a General Effect (paralyze anyone you look at) being beaten by an Item creating a Specific Situation (... except this creature wearing this magic armor, which resists it 55% of the time).
But this could be beaten. Now consider the following examples:
Better Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute. This ignores any effects which partially resist Paralysis, or which have a variable chance of ignoring paralysis.
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now the Better Rod of Holding will win out over the class feature, simply because the parameters specified by the item have been made more specific. "Cause Paralysis, even if they have a thing which allows them to maybe resist paralysis" is more specific than "maybe resist paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Better Paralysis Resistance's "resist ALL paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Betterer Rod of Holding's "Cause Paralysis, this cannot be ignored under any circumstances", which is then less specific than... you get the idea.
Some of this comes down to DM fiat (what happens if "Cause Paralysis, ignore immunities" collides with "Cannot be paralyzed, even if the effect says it ignores immunities"??), and I'm only focusing on the interaction between two features/items/whatever because that's simpler to explain. But the Heirarchy of specificity generally just boils down to how many stipulations are made about what an effect says it does. If an effect specifically calls attention to exceptions and circumstantial situations, it's probably a more specific effect than an effect that does not.
answered 4 hours ago
Xirema
10.6k13170
"Specific Beats General" is about the effect itself, not where it comes from
"Specific Beats General" doesn't prioritize Item effects over Spells, or Spells over Class Features, or any other possible permutation of sources of features. It's simply a description of the scope of the abilities.
Consider the following item and class feature (invented, probably aren't real):
Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
In this situation, when I wield the Rod of Holding, I can paralyze anyone I point it at, except for when I point it at someone who has the Paralysis Resistance feature, where even with no saving throw, they still have a 55% chance of resisting the rod. In this case, the "Specific Beats General" wording says that a "General effect" (A rod that paralyzes anyone I point it at) is beaten by a "Specific Situation" (... except for this one creature that can maybe resist the effect).
But you could easily reverse this situation and get the same result:
Paralyzing Gaze. As an Action, look at a creature. That creature is Paralyzed for 1 minute
Armor of Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against the wielder, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now, it's a class feature targeting a creature that has a special item, but it's the same result: The Class Feature is a General Effect (paralyze anyone you look at) being beaten by an Item creating a Specific Situation (... except this creature wearing this magic armor, which resists it 55% of the time).
But this could be beaten. Now consider the following examples:
Better Rod of Holding. As an Action, point at a creature with this Rod. That creature is now paralyzed for 1 minute. This ignores any effects which partially resist Paralysis, or which have a variable chance of ignoring paralysis.
Paralysis Resistance. When an effect causes Paralysis against you, roll a d20. On a 10 or better, the effect fails.
Now the Better Rod of Holding will win out over the class feature, simply because the parameters specified by the item have been made more specific. "Cause Paralysis, even if they have a thing which allows them to maybe resist paralysis" is more specific than "maybe resist paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Better Paralysis Resistance's "resist ALL paralysis effects", which would then be less specific than the Betterer Rod of Holding's "Cause Paralysis, this cannot be ignored under any circumstances", which is then less specific than... you get the idea.
Some of this comes down to DM fiat (what happens if "Cause Paralysis, ignore immunities" collides with "Cannot be paralyzed, even if the effect says it ignores immunities"??), and I'm only focusing on the interaction between two features/items/whatever because that's simpler to explain. But the Heirarchy of specificity generally just boils down to how many stipulations are made about what an effect says it does. If an effect specifically calls attention to exceptions and circumstantial situations, it's probably a more specific effect than an effect that does not.
answered 4 hours ago
Xirema
10.6k13170
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Xirema
10.6k13170
answered 4 hours ago
Xirema
10.6k13170
answered 4 hours ago
Xirema
10.6k13170
10.6k13170
1
Only your last example is valid, in the others, the two rules are not actually in conflict, so they both are applied in the order they are triggered. You should update the resistance to say "you get a saving throw even if you normally couldn't make one". If the rules don't conflict, then they resolved in trigger order.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
@Tezra The counter feature doesn't make use of a Saving Throw, so I've simply removed language about Saving Throws to make the examples a bit clearer.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Tezra The point of the first two examples is that they're identical. I'm showing that there's no heirarchy of Items >> Class Features or Class Features >> Items. They're not meant to interact with each other.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Grosscol Done.
– Xirema
3 hours ago
1
These examples aren't very relevant. It's obvious that a "when you would be paralyzed" effect triggers when you are paralyzed and can cancels out the "you are now paralyzed" effect; those aren't inherently contradictory rules. See the examples I added to the post for a sample of what I'm getting at.
– Darth Pseudonym
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1
Only your last example is valid, in the others, the two rules are not actually in conflict, so they both are applied in the order they are triggered. You should update the resistance to say "you get a saving throw even if you normally couldn't make one". If the rules don't conflict, then they resolved in trigger order.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
@Tezra The counter feature doesn't make use of a Saving Throw, so I've simply removed language about Saving Throws to make the examples a bit clearer.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Tezra The point of the first two examples is that they're identical. I'm showing that there's no heirarchy of Items >> Class Features or Class Features >> Items. They're not meant to interact with each other.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
@Grosscol Done.
– Xirema
3 hours ago
1
These examples aren't very relevant. It's obvious that a "when you would be paralyzed" effect triggers when you are paralyzed and can cancels out the "you are now paralyzed" effect; those aren't inherently contradictory rules. See the examples I added to the post for a sample of what I'm getting at.
– Darth Pseudonym
1 hour ago
1
1
Only your last example is valid, in the others, the two rules are not actually in conflict, so they both are applied in the order they are triggered. You should update the resistance to say "you get a saving throw even if you normally couldn't make one". If the rules don't conflict, then they resolved in trigger order.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
Only your last example is valid, in the others, the two rules are not actually in conflict, so they both are applied in the order they are triggered. You should update the resistance to say "you get a saving throw even if you normally couldn't make one". If the rules don't conflict, then they resolved in trigger order.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
@Tezra The counter feature doesn't make use of a Saving Throw, so I've simply removed language about Saving Throws to make the examples a bit clearer.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
@Tezra The counter feature doesn't make use of a Saving Throw, so I've simply removed language about Saving Throws to make the examples a bit clearer.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
1
@Tezra The point of the first two examples is that they're identical. I'm showing that there's no heirarchy of Items >> Class Features or Class Features >> Items. They're not meant to interact with each other.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
@Tezra The point of the first two examples is that they're identical. I'm showing that there's no heirarchy of Items >> Class Features or Class Features >> Items. They're not meant to interact with each other.
– Xirema
4 hours ago
1
1
@Grosscol Done.
– Xirema
3 hours ago
@Grosscol Done.
– Xirema
3 hours ago
1
1
These examples aren't very relevant. It's obvious that a "when you would be paralyzed" effect triggers when you are paralyzed and can cancels out the "you are now paralyzed" effect; those aren't inherently contradictory rules. See the examples I added to the post for a sample of what I'm getting at.
– Darth Pseudonym
1 hour ago
These examples aren't very relevant. It's obvious that a "when you would be paralyzed" effect triggers when you are paralyzed and can cancels out the "you are now paralyzed" effect; those aren't inherently contradictory rules. See the examples I added to the post for a sample of what I'm getting at.
– Darth Pseudonym
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
-3
down vote
Time is usually the best indicator of priority
Basically, create a stack of the effects based on when they where applied to the character. Last one on the stack trumps previous rules. Note that it's important to pay attention to if rules actually clash, so keep track of each rule separately while resolving the stack.
For example, let's take: "Can my character fly?"
- Flying is not a default ability, so no
- But I took an avian race that grants flight, so yes
- But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw, so no
- But my friend cast fly on me, so yes
- But the enemy rogue poisoned me before 4 so I'm paralyzed (can't move). Fly only grants a flying movement speed; it doesn't grant any form of "freedom of movement", so no, and 4 should be no in this case. (Order doesn't matter here because it's not a conflict.)
Where spells are involved, it's also important to remember that "Spells do what they say they do, and only what they say they do", so magic should generally trump non-magic. For example, if I am paralyzed, and a spell says I automatically pass my Dex save, the spell should take priority unless the thing causing paralysis explicitly says that magic cannot bypass it.
If you have multiple effects that don't conflict, but can cancel each other out, than you resolve all of those effects in the order they are triggered.
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
17.5k247112
answered 4 hours ago
Tezra
740312
For those who feel like down voting, it would be more constructive if you could provide a counter argument for why you wouldn't use this rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
3
Actually, comments are not for arguing or debating - they are for asking clarifications and providing suggestions for improvement. Starting arguments with the author about their post is, in fact, explicitly disallowed (see the last point here). In cases where you disagree or find fault with a post but the reason would just start an argument, downvoting and not leaving a comment is the correct call.
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
1
@Tezra Would the same hold true if the character was Paralyzed (5) and then their friend cast Fly (4)?
– Daniel Zastoupil
2 hours ago
Just curious about #3: "But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw" - what is this supposed to mean? You intentionally handicapped yourself for RP purposes? Because there's no such mechanic in 5e - either you choose a flying race/subrace and can fly, or you choose a non-flying race/subrace and can't (unless you gain the ability through other means). There's no mechanical "clipped wings" flaw that applies to certain races but not others.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
Time is usually the best indicator of priority
Basically, create a stack of the effects based on when they where applied to the character. Last one on the stack trumps previous rules. Note that it's important to pay attention to if rules actually clash, so keep track of each rule separately while resolving the stack.
For example, let's take: "Can my character fly?"
- Flying is not a default ability, so no
- But I took an avian race that grants flight, so yes
- But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw, so no
- But my friend cast fly on me, so yes
- But the enemy rogue poisoned me before 4 so I'm paralyzed (can't move). Fly only grants a flying movement speed; it doesn't grant any form of "freedom of movement", so no, and 4 should be no in this case. (Order doesn't matter here because it's not a conflict.)
Where spells are involved, it's also important to remember that "Spells do what they say they do, and only what they say they do", so magic should generally trump non-magic. For example, if I am paralyzed, and a spell says I automatically pass my Dex save, the spell should take priority unless the thing causing paralysis explicitly says that magic cannot bypass it.
If you have multiple effects that don't conflict, but can cancel each other out, than you resolve all of those effects in the order they are triggered.
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
17.5k247112
answered 4 hours ago
Tezra
740312
For those who feel like down voting, it would be more constructive if you could provide a counter argument for why you wouldn't use this rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
3
Actually, comments are not for arguing or debating - they are for asking clarifications and providing suggestions for improvement. Starting arguments with the author about their post is, in fact, explicitly disallowed (see the last point here). In cases where you disagree or find fault with a post but the reason would just start an argument, downvoting and not leaving a comment is the correct call.
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
1
@Tezra Would the same hold true if the character was Paralyzed (5) and then their friend cast Fly (4)?
– Daniel Zastoupil
2 hours ago
Just curious about #3: "But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw" - what is this supposed to mean? You intentionally handicapped yourself for RP purposes? Because there's no such mechanic in 5e - either you choose a flying race/subrace and can fly, or you choose a non-flying race/subrace and can't (unless you gain the ability through other means). There's no mechanical "clipped wings" flaw that applies to certain races but not others.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
up vote
-3
down vote
Time is usually the best indicator of priority
Basically, create a stack of the effects based on when they where applied to the character. Last one on the stack trumps previous rules. Note that it's important to pay attention to if rules actually clash, so keep track of each rule separately while resolving the stack.
For example, let's take: "Can my character fly?"
- Flying is not a default ability, so no
- But I took an avian race that grants flight, so yes
- But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw, so no
- But my friend cast fly on me, so yes
- But the enemy rogue poisoned me before 4 so I'm paralyzed (can't move). Fly only grants a flying movement speed; it doesn't grant any form of "freedom of movement", so no, and 4 should be no in this case. (Order doesn't matter here because it's not a conflict.)
Where spells are involved, it's also important to remember that "Spells do what they say they do, and only what they say they do", so magic should generally trump non-magic. For example, if I am paralyzed, and a spell says I automatically pass my Dex save, the spell should take priority unless the thing causing paralysis explicitly says that magic cannot bypass it.
If you have multiple effects that don't conflict, but can cancel each other out, than you resolve all of those effects in the order they are triggered.
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
17.5k247112
answered 4 hours ago
Tezra
740312
Time is usually the best indicator of priority
Basically, create a stack of the effects based on when they where applied to the character. Last one on the stack trumps previous rules. Note that it's important to pay attention to if rules actually clash, so keep track of each rule separately while resolving the stack.
For example, let's take: "Can my character fly?"
- Flying is not a default ability, so no
- But I took an avian race that grants flight, so yes
- But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw, so no
- But my friend cast fly on me, so yes
- But the enemy rogue poisoned me before 4 so I'm paralyzed (can't move). Fly only grants a flying movement speed; it doesn't grant any form of "freedom of movement", so no, and 4 should be no in this case. (Order doesn't matter here because it's not a conflict.)
Where spells are involved, it's also important to remember that "Spells do what they say they do, and only what they say they do", so magic should generally trump non-magic. For example, if I am paralyzed, and a spell says I automatically pass my Dex save, the spell should take priority unless the thing causing paralysis explicitly says that magic cannot bypass it.
If you have multiple effects that don't conflict, but can cancel each other out, than you resolve all of those effects in the order they are triggered.
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
17.5k247112
answered 4 hours ago
Tezra
740312
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
17.5k247112
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
17.5k247112
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
17.5k247112
17.5k247112
answered 4 hours ago
Tezra
740312
answered 4 hours ago
Tezra
740312
answered 4 hours ago
Tezra
740312
740312
For those who feel like down voting, it would be more constructive if you could provide a counter argument for why you wouldn't use this rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
3
Actually, comments are not for arguing or debating - they are for asking clarifications and providing suggestions for improvement. Starting arguments with the author about their post is, in fact, explicitly disallowed (see the last point here). In cases where you disagree or find fault with a post but the reason would just start an argument, downvoting and not leaving a comment is the correct call.
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
1
@Tezra Would the same hold true if the character was Paralyzed (5) and then their friend cast Fly (4)?
– Daniel Zastoupil
2 hours ago
Just curious about #3: "But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw" - what is this supposed to mean? You intentionally handicapped yourself for RP purposes? Because there's no such mechanic in 5e - either you choose a flying race/subrace and can fly, or you choose a non-flying race/subrace and can't (unless you gain the ability through other means). There's no mechanical "clipped wings" flaw that applies to certain races but not others.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
For those who feel like down voting, it would be more constructive if you could provide a counter argument for why you wouldn't use this rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
3
Actually, comments are not for arguing or debating - they are for asking clarifications and providing suggestions for improvement. Starting arguments with the author about their post is, in fact, explicitly disallowed (see the last point here). In cases where you disagree or find fault with a post but the reason would just start an argument, downvoting and not leaving a comment is the correct call.
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
1
@Tezra Would the same hold true if the character was Paralyzed (5) and then their friend cast Fly (4)?
– Daniel Zastoupil
2 hours ago
Just curious about #3: "But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw" - what is this supposed to mean? You intentionally handicapped yourself for RP purposes? Because there's no such mechanic in 5e - either you choose a flying race/subrace and can fly, or you choose a non-flying race/subrace and can't (unless you gain the ability through other means). There's no mechanical "clipped wings" flaw that applies to certain races but not others.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
For those who feel like down voting, it would be more constructive if you could provide a counter argument for why you wouldn't use this rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
For those who feel like down voting, it would be more constructive if you could provide a counter argument for why you wouldn't use this rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity.
– Tezra
4 hours ago
3
3
Actually, comments are not for arguing or debating - they are for asking clarifications and providing suggestions for improvement. Starting arguments with the author about their post is, in fact, explicitly disallowed (see the last point here). In cases where you disagree or find fault with a post but the reason would just start an argument, downvoting and not leaving a comment is the correct call.
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
Actually, comments are not for arguing or debating - they are for asking clarifications and providing suggestions for improvement. Starting arguments with the author about their post is, in fact, explicitly disallowed (see the last point here). In cases where you disagree or find fault with a post but the reason would just start an argument, downvoting and not leaving a comment is the correct call.
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
1
1
@Tezra Would the same hold true if the character was Paralyzed (5) and then their friend cast Fly (4)?
– Daniel Zastoupil
2 hours ago
@Tezra Would the same hold true if the character was Paralyzed (5) and then their friend cast Fly (4)?
– Daniel Zastoupil
2 hours ago
Just curious about #3: "But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw" - what is this supposed to mean? You intentionally handicapped yourself for RP purposes? Because there's no such mechanic in 5e - either you choose a flying race/subrace and can fly, or you choose a non-flying race/subrace and can't (unless you gain the ability through other means). There's no mechanical "clipped wings" flaw that applies to certain races but not others.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
Just curious about #3: "But then I added the "clipped wings" (requires flight) flaw" - what is this supposed to mean? You intentionally handicapped yourself for RP purposes? Because there's no such mechanic in 5e - either you choose a flying race/subrace and can fly, or you choose a non-flying race/subrace and can't (unless you gain the ability through other means). There's no mechanical "clipped wings" flaw that applies to certain races but not others.
– V2Blast
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135076%2fis-there-a-hierarchy-of-specificity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Are you asking about a structured hierarchy or about different levels of specificity?
– Grosscol
3 hours ago
Just generally when something is more specific than another. Somebody made a comment in another question about one kind of thing being "more specific" than another and I thought it was sort of a strange idea.
– Darth Pseudonym
2 hours ago
1
A better phrasing might be "different levels of specificity". Hierarchy might be implying categories to some readers.
– Grosscol
2 hours ago