How are "Spells with the same name" treated

[littlebum2002]

Calling them "spells of the same name" is a bit of lawyering on my part, since "2 spells of differing power which have the same name" is much better than "a powerful spell which has been nerfed".


Anyway:

1) Viscid Glob. Listed in both Spell Compendium and Underdark. It LOOKS like the spell description is the same, but maybe something is different that I'm not noticing. Still, UD is a Level 4 spell and SC is a Level 5 spell. Has it been nerfed and had the level increased? Or are you allowed to use the UD version if you want?

2) Sign. Miniatures Handbook version gives you a natural 20 on your next initiative check. Awesome. Spell Compendium version gives you +4 on your next initiative check. Decidedly less awesome.


So 2 questions:

1) What is the RAW on these (and others which I have surely missed)
2) If different, what is the RAI? I'm assuming that the Spell Compendium version is supposed to replace the other version, but assuming is usually dangerous in D&D.

[claypigeons]

I believe the Spell Compendium is the updated source. Isn't there a blurb in the front stating it counts as the equivalent of errata where sources would conflict?

[Keneth]

If a spell with the same name is published in a later publication, then those mechanics must be used. Since Spell Compendium was published after Underdark and Miniatures Handbook, those versions of spells take precedence.

[littlebum2002]

The sidebar I believe you are referencing states:

(I'm hoping this is fair use)

This book includes spells from many sources...yadda yadda..


Most of the spells are presented with little change, but some material has been revised to v3.5...yadda yadda


Most of the changes....we made to create an improved version of that material-to help out spells that were formerly suboptimal choices, to adjust spells that were simply too good, or take whatever steps the 3.5 revision made necessary.




To me, this sounds like they are only referring to 3.0 spells which were updated to 3.5, not 3.5 spells which were just compiled. But since I never played 3.0, I don't understand the differences between the two, so I may be mistaken.

[eggynack]

There's definitely some implication that a newer source will take precedence, and overwrite the old version of a given spell, but I don't think that anything explicitly says that. There definitely is the 3.0 to 3.5 thing going on, but other stuff seems open to interpretation and rulings.

[Zaydos]

It continues, though, and lists additional reasons things were changed.


Most of the changes we made to previously published material we made to create an improved version of that material—to
help out spells that were formerly suboptimal choices, to adjust spells that were simply too good, or take whatever steps the D&D 3.5 revision made necessary.

Which indicates it was also used to errata spells that needed changing for reasons other than edition based updates.

Besides the general rule is that if something is reprinted the new version takes precedence. I ignore this for the Improved Flight feat as I prefer the old one's prerequisites which allowed druids to take it (as that was the point) but otherwise I go with it.

[Vortenger]

Besides the general rule is that if something is reprinted the new version takes precedence.

This is correct.

[JaronK]

Actually, in general it's the OLDER material that takes precedence... see the primary source rules. But SpC specifically states it's updating the old spells, so in this special case SpC wins out. The same applies for the Magic Item Compendium.

JaronK

[littlebum2002]

It continues, though, and lists additional reasons things were changed.



Which indicates it was also used to errata spells that needed changing for reasons other than edition based updates.

Besides the general rule is that if something is reprinted the new version takes precedence. I ignore this for the Improved Flight feat as I prefer the old one's prerequisites which allowed druids to take it (as that was the point) but otherwise I go with it.

Gotcha.

I thought it was saying:
"we took whatever steps the 3.5 revision made necessary: helping out spells that were formerly suboptimal choices, adjusting spells that were simply too good, etc"

But you're telling me that they are saying:
"We improved the material, either by
A) helping out spells that were formerly suboptimal choices,
B) adjusting spells that were simply too good, OR
C) Taking whatever steps were necessary to convert 3.0 spells to 3.5"


I guess that makes more sense. Actually, it makes a LOT more sense, since the "Complete" books were already 3.5, so they no updating was necessary.

[Deophaun]

Actually, in general it's the OLDER material that takes precedence... see the primary source rules.
"Primary" is not a synonym for "older." It's the book's topic that gives it precedence, not its publishing date.

[JaronK]

"Primary" is not a synonym for "older." It's the book's topic that gives it precedence, not its publishing date.

Yes, but the way it works is that the first book to publish the rules for something is the primary source. PHB published feats, so PHB is the primary source for feats. And so on. This means that generally older books are likely to be the primary source compared to a newer one.

JaornK

[Deophaun]

Yes, but the way it works is that the first book to publish the rules for something is the primary source.
Nope. The MM is the first book to publish rules about fire elementals. If a supplement came out later called The Book of Fire Elementals, it would trump whatever the MM had to say about Fire Elementals, because it has topic primacy. Being first doesn't make something the primary source.

[JaronK]

Nope. The MM is the first book to publish rules about fire elementals. If a supplement came out later called The Book of Fire Elementals, it would trump whatever the MM had to say about Fire Elementals, because it has topic primacy. Being first doesn't make something the primary source.

Actually, it would only be the primary source for the new fire elementals it created because specific trumps general (and that's more important than primary source rules). This is precisely why the SpC and MiC have special notes saying they can override the old spells... if they didn't have that, they wouldn't.

Complete Warrior is not the primary source on melee classes... PHB is. But it is the primary source for Swashbucklers, because that's where it was printed. Draconomicon isn't the primary source for the Monster Manual 10 dragons, but it does add new information about them so that new information counts.

And seriously, you do realize that "Primary" means "earliest in time or order of development", right? It also means "of chief importance; principal" but the primary source rules do talk about the first printing of something being the trumping one.

JaronK

[Captnq]

Latest printing wins.

[JaronK]

Latest printing wins.

Cool. Please show us where you got this rule. Here's where mine comes from:


Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Note: The most recent updates are shaded like this.

So where's yours?

JaronK

[Deophaun]

Complete Warrior is not the primary source on melee classes...
Actually, it is. If WotC wanted to completely redo the Fighter class, they could have done a comprehensive overhaul in Complete Warrior, provided new leveling tables and class features, and it would trump whatever was in the PHB.

Really, your interpretation of the primary source rules would be a terrible, terrible way to maintain any game system.

Draconomicon isn't the primary source for the Monster Manual 10 dragons
Except for the fact that it is...

And seriously, you do realize that "Primary" means "earliest in time or order of development", right?
It could mean that. When you go to the dictionary, each of those individual definitions are just that: individual. It does not mean that all definitions apply to all uses of the word. As the primary source rules state that topic defines primacy, that particular definition does not apply.

It also means "of chief importance; principal" but the primary source rules do talk about the first printing of something being the trumping one.
No, they don't. Read what you quoted below. No where is "first printing" or any synonym thereof claimed to trump anything else. If that were the case, errata would be dysfunctional.

[JaronK]

Errata is more specific, generally, which is why it works. But notice how every example in the rule I listed above is of the first printing.

The fact that you're claiming Complete Warrior is the primary source on melee classes (including the Fighter!) when I just quoted a rule saying that the PHB is the primary source on all PC base classes tells me you're using your own house rules. Nowhere in the rules is it written that Complete Warrior is the primary source for that.

And yes, it's a bad idea, but it's RAW.

JaronK

[jindra34]

I think it was a bad enough idea that some people at WotC ignored it out right. Because the Complete Psionic, lacking any language about that, does the whole stealth errata thing all over the place. Yet it shouldn't work because the XPH under the given statement, is the primary source.

[Harrow]

Errata is more specific, generally, which is why it works. But notice how every example in the rule I listed above is of the first printing.

The fact that you're claiming Complete Warrior is the primary source on melee classes (including the Fighter!) when I just quoted a rule saying that the PHB is the primary source on all PC base classes tells me you're using your own house rules. Nowhere in the rules is it written that Complete Warrior is the primary source for that.

And yes, it's a bad idea, but it's RAW.

JaronK

No, it is not RAW. You're quote only put the PHB as a Primary Source for PC base classes in relation to the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide. There is nothing to suggest that Complete Warrior would not be the Primary Source for all Melee classes, including those from the Players Handbook

[ddude987]

If something, such as fighter, did not receive any updates to its stats, abilities, etc in complete warrior, why does it matter which source is primary? I don't see anything in complete warrior that actually changes fighter so it seems like which of the two books are the "primary" source is irrelevant.


No, it is not RAW. You're quote only put the PHB as a Primary Source for PC base classes in relation to the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide. There is nothing to suggest that Complete Warrior would not be the Primary Source for all Melee classes, including those from the Players Handbook

also the quote says dnd sources, not just core sources so it includes all official WoTC printed sources.

[JaronK]

If something, such as fighter, did not receive any updates to its stats, abilities, etc in complete warrior, why does it matter which source is primary? I don't see anything in complete warrior that actually changes fighter so it seems like which of the two books are the "primary" source is irrelevant.

In this case it matters because there's a rule in Complete Warrior that says that if you disqualify from a PrC you lose the benefits of that PrC. But in the DMG there's a PrC (and the DMG is the primary source for PrCs) that disqualifies itself (namely the Dragon Disciple) which becomes completely nonfunctional if you use the Complete Warrior rule on it.

If Complete Warrior is the primary source, that completely breaks the PrC in question. Also, the idea of Complete Warrior as the primary source for melee PrCs makes no sense... what about hybrid classes? Is the primary source for hybrid PrCs like the Runesmith Complete Warrior or Complete Arcane? What about skillmonkey casters like the Beguiler and Factotum... is the Primary Source for standard classes like that Complete Adventurer or Complete Arcane? And for mages... is it Complete Mage or Complete Arcane?

So no, Complete Warrior is not the primary source for anything like that. It's only the primary source for the classes it first introduced (and the primary source for those other classes is of course the books that introduced them).

JaronK

[ddude987]

In this case it matters because there's a rule in Complete Warrior that says that if you disqualify from a PrC you lose the benefits of that PrC. But in the DMG there's a PrC (and the DMG is the primary source for PrCs) that disqualifies itself (namely the Dragon Disciple) which becomes completely nonfunctional if you use the Complete Warrior rule on it.

Ah thanks. That makes sense. I forgot that that rule was only in certain books.

Also how could CW be the primary source of melee classes when "melee classes" isn't defined in the game. Fighter could be a "ranged class" too.

[JaronK]

Precisely. It's a completely unclear term, and unsupported by the primary source rules as given.

Complete Warrior is the primary source for things newly introduced in it. It does not trump the DMG on PrCs, nor the PHB on Feats, Standard Classes, and similar.

JaronK

[TuggyNE]

Really, your interpretation of the primary source rules would be a terrible, terrible way to maintain any game system.

It is, in fact, a terrible terrible way to maintain any game system. Which is why it's so annoying that they made that the official set up. Primary source rules are pretty thoroughly broken.

[Deophaun]

The fact that you're claiming Complete Warrior is the primary source on melee classes (including the Fighter!) when I just quoted a rule saying that the PHB is the primary source on all PC base classes...
No. You quoted a rule saying that the PHB is the primary source for using base class descriptions. It most definitely does not say it is the primary source for base classes. If Complete Warrior rewrote the Fighter class, that's perfectly within its scope and authority. If it rewrote how BAB works, that would be outside its bounds, because the PHB tells you how to use BAB.