One of the beauties of 5e's system is Rule 0, that the DM will make a final call on rules. This helps to "fill in the gaps" on a lot of the oddities which occur with the language of 5e. That being said, there is also value in understanding what the rules do as written as well as what the designers intended for an ability to do, especially here in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum. Sage Advice can help to clarify these things from a designer standpoint and can be useful to DMs who aren't sure how they want to rule something when it comes up at their table, even if they ultimately decide to go against the Sage Advice ruling.
So what are some rules or game mechanics that are strange or ambiguous enough one way or another that you would like to see a printed Sage Advice column addressing? Are there any unofficial rulings you would want to see formally put into print?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
Whether material components/foci require item interactions to interact with for the spell is one I've wondered about.
What is the outcome of booming blade as an opportunity attack via war caster?
Is booming blade even a valid option for war caster post errata?
For that matter, what does the spell range "self 5ft" mean (since it isn't a notation recognized by range/aoe rules in any book)? Is "self" a target or the point of origin of an AOE?
Do AOEs like sword burst and word of radiance (or fireball for that matter) qualify for war caster if there is only 1 valid target or if they can choose to only effect 1 target?
What is the outcome of booming blade as an opportunity attack via war caster?
Is booming blade even a valid option for war caster post errata?
There does seem to be a couple of tweets from Jeremy indicating that booming blade is valid for warcaster (post errata) and that green flame blade works as well so long as you only target one creature with that casting. He also states that the target of Self (X ft) treats you as the point of origin and that you CAN be the target of the spell as well but not always. Granted, these are only tweets and it would be nice if it got fully printed into SAC
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
One of the beauties of 5e's system is Rule 0, that the DM will make a final call on rules. This helps to "fill in the gaps" on a lot of the oddities which occur with the language of 5e. That being said, there is also value in understanding what the rules do as written as well as what the designers intended for an ability to do, especially here in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum. Sage Advice can help to clarify these things from a designer standpoint and can be useful to DMs who aren't sure how they want to rule something when it comes up at their table, even if they ultimately decide to go against the Sage Advice ruling.
So what are some rules or game mechanics that are strange or ambiguous enough one way or another that you would like to see a printed Sage Advice column addressing? Are there any unofficial rulings you would want to see formally put into print?
Before we even get into that we need the current SAC incorporated into the rulebook like the SAC promises multiple times. There's genuine errata-grade stuff in there that WOTC has never bothered with, which is why we need the SAC for questions as basic as "what does melee weapon attack mean?"
Vanta black vs ink blot - what do they really mean by the vision rules especially grouping darkness and fog under the same rulings? ... and how does all this interact with magical darkness? (Has to be one of the least clear sections in the PHB and I wouldn't mind having an idea of RAI whether I choose to run it that way or not.
Total cover. What exactly is it? Does it have to block vision? Does a thin pane of glass provide total cover against casting spells that only require you to see the target? How about total cover vs a heavy cross bow bolt? Does magic have to physically pass through the space between caster and target or does magic just appear/manifest at the target point? (There are some sage advice answers on related topics but I would prefer a well thought out clarification in the sage advice compendium.
Light, darkness, and obscurement are rules you can make make sense for individual cases, but don't make sense when read as a whole. It could really use a rewrite.
Also, senses. How far can we hear or smell? Is the DC different from sight? How does obscurement play into it? There are multiple creatures with advantage on perception checks made using non-vision senses and no rules about how that works with stealth or anything else.
For that matter, what does the spell range "self 5ft" mean (since it isn't a notation recognized by range/aoe rules in any book)? Is "self" a target or the point of origin of an AOE?
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you.
Not addressed specifically, but I always used that...
For that matter, what does the spell range "self 5ft" mean (since it isn't a notation recognized by range/aoe rules in any book)? Is "self" a target or the point of origin of an AOE?
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you.
Not addressed specifically, but I always used that...
But the shape of the AOE is undefined, thus the confusion. Circle/sphere is assumed based on the word "radius" in the book. It's range is identical to sword burst.
The description describes an effect with the range of self. Essentially identical to the paladin's smite spells. These are also not twinnable, problem solved right? But I guess they didn't want it to be a "self" spell for some reason (war caster maybe?) so they made it an AOE without and AOE which is now both confusing and doesn't seem like it should work with war caster for anyway 2 reasons now (unless AOEs with only 1 creature in the area are allowed with war caster, it is one of my requested rulings).
And all to hose sorcerers, the most mechanically underwhelming full casters in 5e? Their notable class features include font of magic and metamagic as the complete list! Font of magic isn't worth mentioning unless it is being broken with Warlock levels. So that leaves metamagic, most of which barely make spells as good as being cast 1 level higher, or do something actually neat like not needing components or use a bonus action making that 1/3rd of the wizard's spell list almost feel worthwhile. And this has devolved into a rant about how sad sorcerers are (they are the PHB rangers of full casters, but with 1/4th the effort put in (half of the ranger's 10 class features are meh, 2 of the sorcerer's 3 features are meh)). I'll stop. #JusticeForSorcerers
As "concealed" means "hidden from view or detection", even just using the 'hidden from view' portion, the RAW of Total Cover is that if the obstacle doesn't stop you from seeing what is behind it, then the obstacle cannot be Total Cover.
Honestly, the cover rules just need a little revision for consistency, such as:
'A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is coveredblocked by an obstacle. '
'A target has total cover if it is completely concealedblocked by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a window or a wall.'
As "concealed" means "hidden from view or detection", even just using the 'hidden from view' portion, the RAW of Total Cover is that if the obstacle doesn't stop you from seeing what is behind it, then the obstacle cannot be Total Cover.
Honestly, the cover rules just need a little revision for consistency, such as:
'A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is coveredblocked by an obstacle. '
'A target has total cover if it is completely concealedblocked by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a window or a wall.'
I think "covered" is fine (maybe better than "blocked"), but "concealed" could be clearer.
Not sure that ruling really applies, given the specificity of the spell, and how it is even more specific than a Wall of Force.
As to using "covered": It is best that definitions don't use any of the word/phrase being defined within the definition (don't self-reference); for this reason, it makes sense to simply use the same language as Half Cover. Regardless of the specific word used, the definition must be crystal-clear.
This is why a re-write would be best, just like the rules regarding light, darkness, and obscurement.
One set of rules should just be about physical obstruction (Cover), the other about the ability to see (Vision and Light). That way there would be no confusion.
Btw, I whole-heartedly agree with you about the other senses needing rules/clarity.
Not sure that ruling really applies, given the specificity of the spell, and how it is even more specific than a Wall of Force.
As to using "covered": It is best that definitions don't use any of the word/phrase being defined within the definition (don't self-reference); for this reason, it makes sense to simply use the same language as Half Cover. Regardless of the specific word used, the definition must be crystal-clear.
This is why a re-write would be best, just like the rules regarding light, darkness, and obscurement.
One set of rules should just be about physical obstruction (Cover), the other about the ability to see (Vision and Light). That way there would be no confusion.
Btw, I whole-heartedly agree with you about the other senses needing rules/clarity.
The spell is extensive, but doesn't specifically mention cover and is see through, so the SAC saying that this counts as cover does apply in the context of see-through obstacles providing cover. I guess it wouldn't hurt for there to be a ruling more generally about unobscuring cover in the SAC though.
I see what you mean about using the same word in the description of a term that also uses that word, but I don't like "blocked." How about "obstruction" for this hypothetical errata?
Cover and obscurement are already separate rules (in as much as they can be since one often provides the other). Not sure what confusion needs a rewrite there.
As to which term to use: blocked is used in Half Cover, thus why I thought to use the word. However, if using the word "obstruction", perhaps worded as "A target has ___ cover if ____ of it is behind by an obstruction."
As to Cover and obscurement being already separate: they are separate rules areas, but so long as the word 'concealed' is present in Total Cover, there is technical overlap, so the rewrite would just be making sure Cover is strictly about physical obstruction.
As to the spell Resilient Sphere: after reviewing it again, I notice that it is not described as invisible or see-through, instead explicitly stating "Nothing—not physical objects, energy, or other spell effects—can pass through the barrier, in or out, though a creature in the sphere can breathe there." Logically, this would mean even light cannot pass through (though that poses a problem for awareness). Wall of Force on the other hand is explicitly described as invisible (letting light through), and says nothing can physically pass through the wall. Being invisible means the wall cannot conceal what is on the other side, so according to current RAW, it cannot provide Total Cover (as stupid as that seems).
Overall, Total Cover needs to be rewritten for logic (not to mention A Clear Path needs clarity/logic too [this discussion might be better as a DM, so we don't bog down this thread]).
I’d like clarification of the parameters set when using actions that can enable other features. For example, there are many features that state something along the kinds if “when you take the attack action, you can do X…”
does “take the attack action” mean you take the action and can then make use of those features or do you have to make an attack first? If you have extra attack, you have to fully resolve all attacks available or can you use a feature between attacks.
Does the taking of an action somehow last an undefined duration of time that requires the things the action enables to be fully resolved, or is an action a resource used that’s immediately over but grants the choice to use those features that make use of that action as a parameter?
if a fighter can attack 4 times at level 20, and moves to 4 separate targets to make those 4 attacks, are they conceded to be taking the attack action the entire time until the 4th attack is resolved? Or have they taken the attack action and can now choose to make up to 4 attacks but are not considered to be taking the action any more?
“SHIELD MASTER You use shields not just for protection but also for offense. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield: • If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield. • If you aren’t incapacitated, you can add your shields AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you. • If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect.“
“Shield Master The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.“
the sage advice seems to clarify that you need to have already finished taking the attack action to satisfy “if you take the attack action…” this doesn’t seem to be true as you can still be considered to be taking it while your taking the action.
the feat should be errata’d to “after you’ve taken the attack action…” if the intent was to give a bonus shove after the attack action was fully resolved, since bonus actions can be taken at any time after their parameters are met.
on a related note, if an attack action continues until all attacks are resolved, why shouldn’t a soul knife be able to generate multiple individual physic blades if they gain the Al extra attack feature? If we follow the same guidance given on the shield master feat, the attack action seems to continue, thus if the character has a free hand they may generate a blade each attack, which will immediately disappear upon the attack resolving leaving the hand open again.
I think one thing that SAC is perfect medium for is a practical explanation of specific vs. general. People have a very loosey-goosey idea of what it means, and I've seen countless threads on this subforum lost in trying to explain that specific rules don't wholesale replace general rules or don't even interact with general rules when there's no conflict between them. People kind of have this idea that "since this rule is a feat, I can ignore associated other rules, because feats are specific." We need something more concrete to point at when people get lost on that.
Edit: Heck, I just commented on another thread where someone was trying to use specific vs. general to throw out the parts of the general rule that didn't fit with how they want to read the specific rule. No. That isn't how this concept works.
I believe there was a YouTube sage advice video that went into detail about specific vs general. I’m having a hard time finding it since most of the videos do not have time stamps and the titles of the videos sometimes don’t seem relevant to the content of the video.
now that I’m writing this I’m not even sure I can link the video on this platform?
im probably a bit off but from my memory the specific vs general was basically that entire sections of the PHB were either specific or general.
All class, race, subclass, feats, background benefits, and spell descriptions are specific rules. This includes all of part 1, which are chapters 1-6 and the spell descriptions themselves.
Part 2: playing the game which contains chapters 7, 8, and 9 were described as general rules. Part 3: the rules of magic containing chapters 10 and 11 is split because 10 is general rules about casting, where 11 has specific rules regarding class spell lists and spell descriptions.
there are also a few general rules in the introduction before chapter 1, which interestingly enough includes the specific vs general rule.
If so that'd be great. I think you can link out of DnDbeyond here.
But I'm fairly sure that there has to be more nuance than "these rules are the general rules and these rules are the specific ones. Specific ones beat the general ones."
Initiating combat while hidden, and the 'surprised' enemy wins initiative. Descriptively, what just happened there? Did they recognize a threat, something like a spidey sense? Or, should they carry on with their normal business unawares, yet are somehow prevented from doing so because of being surprised by... nothing, somehow, so mechanically cannot continue whatever course of action they were already on. Etc.
Also, lighting/vision/obscurement/cover just needs a full errata/rewrite.
Close the multi-class spellcaster knowing higher level spells loophole that we all collectively pretend isn't there.
Holding a focus and casting a spell with that same free hand for the somatic component.
What precisely is the target of a spell and how to differentiate it from the point of origin.
When moving while grappling a target how much control do you have over where they end up while 'moving with you'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I got quotes!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of the beauties of 5e's system is Rule 0, that the DM will make a final call on rules. This helps to "fill in the gaps" on a lot of the oddities which occur with the language of 5e. That being said, there is also value in understanding what the rules do as written as well as what the designers intended for an ability to do, especially here in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum. Sage Advice can help to clarify these things from a designer standpoint and can be useful to DMs who aren't sure how they want to rule something when it comes up at their table, even if they ultimately decide to go against the Sage Advice ruling.
So what are some rules or game mechanics that are strange or ambiguous enough one way or another that you would like to see a printed Sage Advice column addressing? Are there any unofficial rulings you would want to see formally put into print?
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
Whether material components/foci require item interactions to interact with for the spell is one I've wondered about.
What is the outcome of booming blade as an opportunity attack via war caster?
Is booming blade even a valid option for war caster post errata?
For that matter, what does the spell range "self 5ft" mean (since it isn't a notation recognized by range/aoe rules in any book)? Is "self" a target or the point of origin of an AOE?
Do AOEs like sword burst and word of radiance (or fireball for that matter) qualify for war caster if there is only 1 valid target or if they can choose to only effect 1 target?
There does seem to be a couple of tweets from Jeremy indicating that booming blade is valid for warcaster (post errata) and that green flame blade works as well so long as you only target one creature with that casting. He also states that the target of Self (X ft) treats you as the point of origin and that you CAN be the target of the spell as well but not always. Granted, these are only tweets and it would be nice if it got fully printed into SAC
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
Before we even get into that we need the current SAC incorporated into the rulebook like the SAC promises multiple times. There's genuine errata-grade stuff in there that WOTC has never bothered with, which is why we need the SAC for questions as basic as "what does melee weapon attack mean?"
Glass windows. You can simultaneously see the target, and they have full cover. Really trips me up sometimes.
Vanta black vs ink blot - what do they really mean by the vision rules especially grouping darkness and fog under the same rulings? ... and how does all this interact with magical darkness? (Has to be one of the least clear sections in the PHB and I wouldn't mind having an idea of RAI whether I choose to run it that way or not.
Total cover. What exactly is it? Does it have to block vision? Does a thin pane of glass provide total cover against casting spells that only require you to see the target? How about total cover vs a heavy cross bow bolt? Does magic have to physically pass through the space between caster and target or does magic just appear/manifest at the target point? (There are some sage advice answers on related topics but I would prefer a well thought out clarification in the sage advice compendium.
They could better clarify once and for all things like;
Darkness vs Heavily Obscured
Stealth vs Invisible
Teleportation vs Movement
Illusions
Light, darkness, and obscurement are rules you can make make sense for individual cases, but don't make sense when read as a whole. It could really use a rewrite.
Also, senses. How far can we hear or smell? Is the DC different from sight? How does obscurement play into it? There are multiple creatures with advantage on perception checks made using non-vision senses and no rules about how that works with stealth or anything else.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Range
Not addressed specifically, but I always used that...
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
But the shape of the AOE is undefined, thus the confusion. Circle/sphere is assumed based on the word "radius" in the book. It's range is identical to sword burst.
The description describes an effect with the range of self. Essentially identical to the paladin's smite spells. These are also not twinnable, problem solved right? But I guess they didn't want it to be a "self" spell for some reason (war caster maybe?) so they made it an AOE without and AOE which is now both confusing and doesn't seem like it should work with war caster for anyway 2 reasons now (unless AOEs with only 1 creature in the area are allowed with war caster, it is one of my requested rulings).
And all to hose sorcerers, the most mechanically underwhelming full casters in 5e? Their notable class features include font of magic and metamagic as the complete list! Font of magic isn't worth mentioning unless it is being broken with Warlock levels. So that leaves metamagic, most of which barely make spells as good as being cast 1 level higher, or do something actually neat like not needing components or use a bonus action making that 1/3rd of the wizard's spell list almost feel worthwhile. And this has devolved into a rant about how sad sorcerers are (they are the PHB rangers of full casters, but with 1/4th the effort put in (half of the ranger's 10 class features are meh, 2 of the sorcerer's 3 features are meh)). I'll stop. #JusticeForSorcerers
As "concealed" means "hidden from view or detection", even just using the 'hidden from view' portion, the RAW of Total Cover is that if the obstacle doesn't stop you from seeing what is behind it, then the obstacle cannot be Total Cover.
Honestly, the cover rules just need a little revision for consistency, such as:
'A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is
coveredblocked by an obstacle. ''A target has total cover if it is completely
concealedblocked by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a window or a wall.'I think "covered" is fine (maybe better than "blocked"), but "concealed" could be clearer.
And SAC does have a somewhat applicable ruling for invisible obstacles providing cover: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA280
Not sure that ruling really applies, given the specificity of the spell, and how it is even more specific than a Wall of Force.
As to using "covered": It is best that definitions don't use any of the word/phrase being defined within the definition (don't self-reference); for this reason, it makes sense to simply use the same language as Half Cover. Regardless of the specific word used, the definition must be crystal-clear.
This is why a re-write would be best, just like the rules regarding light, darkness, and obscurement.
One set of rules should just be about physical obstruction (Cover), the other about the ability to see (Vision and Light). That way there would be no confusion.
Btw, I whole-heartedly agree with you about the other senses needing rules/clarity.
The spell is extensive, but doesn't specifically mention cover and is see through, so the SAC saying that this counts as cover does apply in the context of see-through obstacles providing cover. I guess it wouldn't hurt for there to be a ruling more generally about unobscuring cover in the SAC though.
I see what you mean about using the same word in the description of a term that also uses that word, but I don't like "blocked." How about "obstruction" for this hypothetical errata?
Cover and obscurement are already separate rules (in as much as they can be since one often provides the other). Not sure what confusion needs a rewrite there.
As to which term to use: blocked is used in Half Cover, thus why I thought to use the word. However, if using the word "obstruction", perhaps worded as "A target has ___ cover if ____ of it is behind by an obstruction."
As to Cover and obscurement being already separate: they are separate rules areas, but so long as the word 'concealed' is present in Total Cover, there is technical overlap, so the rewrite would just be making sure Cover is strictly about physical obstruction.
As to the spell Resilient Sphere: after reviewing it again, I notice that it is not described as invisible or see-through, instead explicitly stating "Nothing—not physical objects, energy, or other spell effects—can pass through the barrier, in or out, though a creature in the sphere can breathe there." Logically, this would mean even light cannot pass through (though that poses a problem for awareness).
Wall of Force on the other hand is explicitly described as invisible (letting light through), and says nothing can physically pass through the wall. Being invisible means the wall cannot conceal what is on the other side, so according to current RAW, it cannot provide Total Cover (as stupid as that seems).
Overall, Total Cover needs to be rewritten for logic (not to mention A Clear Path needs clarity/logic too [this discussion might be better as a DM, so we don't bog down this thread]).
I’d like clarification of the parameters set when using actions that can enable other features. For example, there are many features that state something along the kinds if “when you take the attack action, you can do X…”
does “take the attack action” mean you take the action and can then make use of those features or do you have to make an attack first? If you have extra attack, you have to fully resolve all attacks available or can you use a feature between attacks.
Does the taking of an action somehow last an undefined duration of time that requires the things the action enables to be fully resolved, or is an action a resource used that’s immediately over but grants the choice to use those features that make use of that action as a parameter?
if a fighter can attack 4 times at level 20, and moves to 4 separate targets to make those 4 attacks, are they conceded to be taking the attack action the entire time until the 4th attack is resolved? Or have they taken the attack action and can now choose to make up to 4 attacks but are not considered to be taking the action any more?
“SHIELD MASTER
You use shields not just for protection but also for offense. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
• If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
• If you aren’t incapacitated, you can add your shields AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.
• If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect.“
“Shield Master
The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.
This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.“
the sage advice seems to clarify that you need to have already finished taking the attack action to satisfy “if you take the attack action…” this doesn’t seem to be true as you can still be considered to be taking it while your taking the action.
the feat should be errata’d to “after you’ve taken the attack action…” if the intent was to give a bonus shove after the attack action was fully resolved, since bonus actions can be taken at any time after their parameters are met.
on a related note, if an attack action continues until all attacks are resolved, why shouldn’t a soul knife be able to generate multiple individual physic blades if they gain the Al extra attack feature? If we follow the same guidance given on the shield master feat, the attack action seems to continue, thus if the character has a free hand they may generate a blade each attack, which will immediately disappear upon the attack resolving leaving the hand open again.
I think one thing that SAC is perfect medium for is a practical explanation of specific vs. general. People have a very loosey-goosey idea of what it means, and I've seen countless threads on this subforum lost in trying to explain that specific rules don't wholesale replace general rules or don't even interact with general rules when there's no conflict between them. People kind of have this idea that "since this rule is a feat, I can ignore associated other rules, because feats are specific." We need something more concrete to point at when people get lost on that.
Edit: Heck, I just commented on another thread where someone was trying to use specific vs. general to throw out the parts of the general rule that didn't fit with how they want to read the specific rule. No. That isn't how this concept works.
I believe there was a YouTube sage advice video that went into detail about specific vs general. I’m having a hard time finding it since most of the videos do not have time stamps and the titles of the videos sometimes don’t seem relevant to the content of the video.
now that I’m writing this I’m not even sure I can link the video on this platform?
im probably a bit off but from my memory the specific vs general was basically that entire sections of the PHB were either specific or general.
All class, race, subclass, feats, background benefits, and spell descriptions are specific rules. This includes all of part 1, which are chapters 1-6 and the spell descriptions themselves.
Part 2: playing the game which contains chapters 7, 8, and 9 were described as general rules. Part 3: the rules of magic containing chapters 10 and 11 is split because 10 is general rules about casting, where 11 has specific rules regarding class spell lists and spell descriptions.
there are also a few general rules in the introduction before chapter 1, which interestingly enough includes the specific vs general rule.
If so that'd be great. I think you can link out of DnDbeyond here.
But I'm fairly sure that there has to be more nuance than "these rules are the general rules and these rules are the specific ones. Specific ones beat the general ones."
I got quotes!