Does an Imp get any benefit from his alternate form?

[Jack Simth]

According to the Rules Compendium (which is, I believe, the final word): "The creature retains the special qualities of its natural form." This was also the rule according to the 3.5 Monster Manual errata. IIRC there was some mucking up of the polymorph rules in the PHB2, but as I said, the Rules Compendium seems pretty clear that you do not lose immunities / resistances / regeneration / fast healing.

According to the Rules Compendium, the Rules Compendium is the final word.
According to the header on every single piece of errata for the DMG, PHB, and MMI, the DMG, PHB, and MMI are the final word.

 

[Noumenon]

But in this case it doesn't matter because the SRD also says

The creature retains the special qualities of its original form. It does not gain any special qualities of its new form.

meaning that an Imp who's a Boar has special qualities damage reduction 5/good or silver, darkvision 60 ft., fast healing 2, immunity to poison, resistance to fire 5, but not low-light vision or scent.

 

[Vegepygmy]

According to the Rules Compendium, the Rules Compendium is the final word.
According to the header on every single piece of errata for the DMG, PHB, and MMI, the DMG, PHB, and MMI are the final word.

(1) Since the Rules Compendium was published after the DMG/PHB/MM errata, that would mean the Rules Compendium is the official final word.

(2) In this case, the rule is the same in the errata and the Rules Compendium, so it really doesn't matter which one trumps.

 

[Jack Simth]

(1) Since the Rules Compendium was published after the DMG/PHB/MM errata, that would mean the Rules Compendium is the official final word.

Question: Where do you get the "Most recent source trumps" bit from?

(2) In this case, the rule is the same in the errata and the Rules Compendium, so it really doesn't matter which one trumps.

Cool.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Question: Where do you get the "Most recent source trumps" bit from?

If a company issues a press release in 2007 saying "We do not sell hot dogs," and then they issue a press release in 2009 saying "We sell hot dogs," would you conclude that they don't sell hot dogs? Or would you accept that their more recent statement on the matter is probably more accurate?

 

[Jack Simth]

If a company issues a press release in 2007 saying "We do not sell hot dogs," and then they issue a press release in 2009 saying "We sell hot dogs," would you conclude that they don't sell hot dogs? Or would you accept that their more recent statement on the matter is probably more accurate?

In a case of hot dogs? No. In a case of operation instructions where the two statements come from different branches of the company, and explicit, repeatedly published overarching company policy says that the branch that released the 2007 statement always takes priority over the branch that released the 2009 statement? 2007 takes priority. Go check the errata, then tell me which we're dealing with here.

Or, to be a little less snarky about it, consider:
The Core rulebooks (DMG, PHB, MMI) are the ones that constitute the main portion of the game, and are the ones that get the most vetting and playtesting (both because you pretty much need them to run the game at all - so basically everyone who plays uses them so there's more people reporting problems - and because as the first bit to come out, it tends to have the most time for checking). The other books that come out later don't get as much playtesting or editing (see Complete Divine, and the assorted PrC's where there's a Text vs. Table discrepancy on their spellcasting, for an example; there's also a couple of 3.5 books that include Scrying as a class skill... a skill that no longer exists in 3.5). So when the errata says to watch primary sources, several entries of the errata specify that the PHB, DMG, and MM dominate, and a much later source says something else, why do you keep concluding that the later source is right?

 

[Sigurd]

The compendium is a reworking of the rules. If it is the most recent authoritative examination of a given rule it trumps older publications or it would not be a compendium. It would be discussing a different game.

All of this is subject to your DM of course.

 

[Thurbane]

Wizards have actually stated that the Rules Compendium trumps earlier publications in the case of disputes - I can't find the link, though...

 

[Vegepygmy]

So when the errata says to watch primary sources, several entries of the errata specify that the PHB, DMG, and MM dominate, and a much later source says something else, why do you keep concluding that the later source is right?

Because the people who wrote the later source were well aware of what the errata said, and they said that the later source trumps the errata. It would be bizarre to conclude that they didn't mean what they said.