8

How does a DM know, in D&D 5th edition, which source to refer to if there is a seeming conflict between two core rule books?

During the discussion under this question, I noted the following assertion made that seems right, but I'd like to see a formal derivation of the position.

MM supersedes PHB for stats as well as what Miniman states, PHB doesn't offer "Variant" which is the DMs choice. — this comment by XAQT78

And

The MM supersedes the PHB. — this answer by Ryan

While my own instinct is that the Monster Manual is a DM tool, and DM's rulings overcome other opinions and interpretations, thus MM > PHB, new DM's may be at a loss when running into a similar case where one core book leads them in one direction, and another core book leads them in a different direction.

An early discussion on Inspiration, where the tone in the PHB differs somewhat from the tone in the DMG, is a similar case.

If the MM supersedes the PHB, please explain the reasoning behind why. (Or the reverse).

  • Example: The example I am most familiar with, as I have the original printings, was the discrepancy between the MM and PHB stats for bears Appendix D: Creature Statistics(PHB 1st printing) where the bonus was +3 and +5 respectively. It has since been modified by PHB errata of 2018 to match the MM,

    [New] Black Bear (p. 304). The to-hit bonus for both Bite and Claws is now +4. [New] Brown Bear (p. 304). The to-hit bonus for both Bite and Claws is now +6. (errata

    but for just under 4 years the question could have been: which has precedence?

Note: this question does not intend to address things like the Homunculus, that in the MM does not have a discrete means of creation, while the expansion/supplement Xanathar's Guide to Everything adds such a spell/process for the PC's to use. The question's scope is limited to the core books: Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, Dungeon Masters Guide.

If a precedent was set in previous editions ...

... and this point of view is a carry over from 3.xe, and/or 4e, that would be useful in an answer.

KorvinStarmast
  • 143,146
  • 34
  • 471
  • 760
  • 8
    A flat-out and crystal-clear example of sources actually conflicting may make the question stronger. – Hey I Can Chan Jan 28 '19 at 13:23
  • @HeyICanChan The rules in the cited question are what drove this, and I linked that. You want me to add that to it? I think there was a difference in stat blocks for some beasts between MM and PHB, but I do not have the books in front of me at the moment. (and an errata may have fixed the bear, which is an example I recall from a while back) – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '19 at 13:24
  • 6
    The examples are from other questions' comments and answers. I think a question works better if it stands alone; that way the reader doesn't have to sort through other questions to find examples of why this question is important. (Also, we 3.5e folks know this problem well; I feel your pain.) – Hey I Can Chan Jan 28 '19 at 13:29
  • @HeyICanChan I can't do that at the moment. It may be a while before I am able to drag up an example that fits your point, but I agree that it would be helpful. – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '19 at 13:40
  • 2
    I think you're onto something here, but without a specific issue to compare the books against this feels too broad. I definitely see the case as to why it may not be too broad, but without a concrete example to review I'm not sure how to address this. – NotArch Jan 28 '19 at 14:13
  • 1
    @PJRZ The PHB contains several monster statblocks that could well be in conflict with the MM ones. There is an overlap in their domain, even if slight. Other candidates include spell names and levels. – kviiri Jan 28 '19 at 14:17
  • @PJRZ That's part of an answer, not a comment. – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '19 at 14:26
  • @NautArch Example Provided. – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '19 at 14:34
  • @HeyICanChan Example Provided – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '19 at 14:34
  • @PJRZ Example Provided – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '19 at 14:35
  • Wait...your example has already been errata'd to be the same? I think that makes it not a useful example :) – NotArch Jan 28 '19 at 14:37
  • @KorvinStarmast though it seems to be that the example is a past example that has already been resolved. I think an unresolved conflict is really what we need here. I'm not sure that having a hypothetical discussion about "what if this issue wasn't resolved" is going to be the most helpful. – Rubiksmoose Jan 28 '19 at 14:38
  • 1
    @NautArch Not everyone has the sixth printing and later, and Not Everyone down loads the errata. Some people just play out of the books that they buy, warts and all. – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '19 at 14:39
  • @Rubiksmoose It wasn't resolved for four years; and a lot of people are not anal-retentive like me ( I am one who down loads the errata as soon as they come out). A similar situation can arise. As I don't have my books in front of me there is nothing more to be said until later. – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '19 at 14:39
  • 1
    I understand, but when your example of "what's wrong" isn't actually wrong anymore because they fixed it, then it's not a useful example. I think if you narrow the scope of your question to a good and existing example rather than the broad question you've got with a narrow example it'd help the focus on this. I'm not sure if it'll be case by case or not depending on discrepancies, but I think it will help. – NotArch Jan 28 '19 at 14:43
  • 1
    @NautArch Out of curiosity, has 5e already established that items changed by later texts supersede items of the same name in earlier texts? If not, then, with that in mind, this question's valid—in a roundabout way—for futureproofing against disagreements about such discrepancies. – Hey I Can Chan Jan 28 '19 at 14:51
  • Answers in comments removed; those whose comments were removed can ping a moderator in chat requesting the comment text if they want to translate it into an answer. – doppelgreener Jan 28 '19 at 14:53
  • @HeyICanChan I'm not sure what you mean? In this example, WoTC updated the PHB to match what was in the MM so they are now equivalent and therefore no disagreement exists. I think your example works if there is a case where an errata creates (and not resolves) a mismatch - but that's a specific example we'd need to see to answer. – NotArch Jan 28 '19 at 14:54
  • 1
    @NautArch I'm unconcerned with this question's specific examples. (I've faith that KS'll update this with something more current.) However, in 3.5e, for example, the rule is that When a later-published game element possess the same name as an earlier-published game element, the later-published version is used. In the same vein, if an order of rules precedence is established by answers to this question, then a similar rule can be established for 5e… if it hasn't been established already. – Hey I Can Chan Jan 28 '19 at 15:06
  • 4
    @HeyICanChan To my knowledge they have not, which in my mind makes it very important that this question is based on an actual problem that exists now and not a hypothetical one. If we are going to get into the weeds of source primacy, we need to know there is a reason to do so. "Futureproofing" should not be used as a reason to answer a question without a demonstrable problem at its core. – Rubiksmoose Jan 28 '19 at 15:07

0 Answers0