15
\$\begingroup\$

In the Systems Reference Document (SRD) text of polymorph it is stated that

The spell has no effect on a shapechanger or a creature with 0 hitpoints

However in my PHB copy it is worded as

An unwilling creature must make a Wisdom saving throw to avoid the effect. A shapechanger automatically succeeds on this saving throw.

Implying that a willing shapechanger can be effected since it only allows a success on a save that is only rolled by an unwilling target. I was unable to find an errata on this subject.

What is the RAW in this case? The SRD was published later than PHB--does it make it more official? Is this even an intentional change? Is there an errata I am missing somewhere?

\$\endgroup\$
16
\$\begingroup\$

The spell wording in your PHB is out of date

The SRD, DnDB, and revised PHB agree that your version is not the most up to date version.

If you look on D&D Beyond, you can currently find the most up to date information.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/polymorph

Tells us:

The spell has no effect on a shapechanger or a creature with 0 hit points.

My PHB says "first printing August 2014 (This printing includes corrections to the first printing.)” and it includes the exact same phrasing as I quoted above (the same as on the SRD and DnDB).

Oddly enough, I cannot find an errata that changes the wording of the shapechanger part in the PHB. The errata does note when the "0 hit points" part was added however.

SRD is not an official rules source

Note that the SRD is not an official rules source. It just so happens that it was updated after your PHB was printed and thus happens to be right in this case.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Feb 2 '18 at 23:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What about “moved to chat” is not clear? Or take it to rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7742/…. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Feb 3 '18 at 3:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ This answer is being talked about on the Stack Exchange Meta here \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Feb 3 '18 at 3:50
11
\$\begingroup\$

While the SRD does not override the PHB, the newer printing of the PHB has the same wording as the SRD, as covered by Rubiksmoose.

According to the Sage Advice Compendium:

The fifth edition of D&D has three official rulebooks, each of which was first published in 2014:

  • Player’s Handbook (abbreviated PH)
  • Monster Manual (abbreviated MM)
  • Dungeon Master’s Guide (abbreviated DMG)

The SRD is not even mentioned here. On its page, it says:

The Systems Reference Document (SRD) contains guidelines for publishing content under the Open-Gaming License (OGL).

So no, the SRD is not an official rules source and does not override the official rulebooks. It exists as a tool for publishers, not as a free rules resource. That role is occupied by the Basic Rules.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This looks like a valid approach to me but someone down voted it. Would the downvoter care to explain why? \$\endgroup\$ – OganM Feb 3 '18 at 0:03
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ To back this up, "Note that the SRD is not an official rules source for D&D.". \$\endgroup\$ – CTWind Feb 3 '18 at 0:43
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It is worth noting that in this case OP's PHB is out of date regardless of the SRD's official status. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Feb 3 '18 at 0:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Rubiksmoose Is the specific sentence in my post out of date? If so yes that is relevant but otherwise I think mere existence of errata obviously makes all pre-errata material out of date so probably no specification is needed. \$\endgroup\$ – OganM Feb 3 '18 at 1:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.