"Updated" Spells and the Legality Thereof

[Rubik]

The way the rules work for determining the legality of updates in 3.X D&D is that the newest item with the name in question is the updated version of it. So 3.0 Haste is overridden by the version in the 3.5 Player's Handbook.

There is at least "one" spell that should be exempt from this, though: Curse of Lycanthropy. There are two entirely, completely different spells under this name, which have nothing to do with each other, beyond involving lycanthropy. The one printed in Complete Divine grants the target a strain of lycanthropy of the caster's choice. The other, which originated in the Book of Vile Darkness and was updated in the Spell Compendium, creates a variable number of wererats wholesale from a victim's blood. Both have the same name, but only the latter is present in the SpC. That one is problematic for a number of reasons, whereas the former, while surprisingly powerful and useful, is much less so. I'd suggest allowing both spells but using the most updated version of each.

Are there any other rules items that are this way? Spells or feats or classes or races which happen to have the same name but are entirely different, and shouldn't "update" according to the later source?

[Rubik]

It doesn't exactly meet the criteria I specified in the first post, but I think soulknife would be a good candidate for something that should be kept as it was back in 3.0. It's so much more useful as an easy-to-enter PrC, especially if it were integrated and combined with the soulbow.

[Jeff the Green]

While not quite to the level of CoL, there are two quite different versions of darkbolt. One is a level 2 cleric/wizard/vile darkness domain spell and fires a single bolt doing 1d8 damage/2 levels and Fortitude or stun. The second is a level 5 darkness domain spell and fires 1 bolt/2 levels (either all at once or as a free action on your turn), each doing 2d8 damage and Fortitude or daze.

[Rubik]

Another for the list: the beguiler.

Should we negate the existence of the pika-like creature in Shining South because of the class in the PHB II? They're not even vaguely similar, and yet the rules of priority mean that the two of them cannot exist concurrently.

[ericgrau]

I think the rules of priority refer to the actual ability/class/spell/etc., not its name. If they are obviously different then keep both. Sometimes it's confusing because of intentional changes, but if they're in two completely unrelated books then it should be fine to keep both.

Keeping the old replaced one on purpose as a house rule is another matter, and up to the group.

[Sith_Happens]

SpC and PHBII both have Master's Touch spells, which have nothing to do with each other.

[Story]

The spell that permanently gives you the cold subtype was updated to no longer work, but the one for the fire subtype was left unchanged. Go figure.

[Malimar]

Another for the list: the beguiler.

Should we negate the existence of the pika-like creature in Shining South because of the class in the PHB II? They're not even vaguely similar, and yet the rules of priority mean that the two of them cannot exist concurrently.

I believe the rules only specify the latest thing supersedes previous things if they're the same manner of thing; a class supersedes an older class of the same name, a race supersedes a race, but a class doesn't update a race, even though they have the same name.

(I've heard this logic used as the basis for the the claim that the Races of Destiny half-ogre doesn't supersede the Dragon Magazine half-ogre, because the former is a race and the latter is a template.)

[lsfreak]

Improved Shield Bash and Shield Charge are completely different between versions. The 3.0 version add a bull rush and double damage, respectively, the 3.5 version let you keep AC when bashing and give a trip attempt.

Order of the Bow Initiate has nearly identical entry requirements, but half the class benefits are radically different: ranged sneak attack vs bonus damage on all 30-foot ranged attacks, Zen Archery that stacks with Dex if you already have it versus a worthless cover-reducing feat, banking shot versus 60-foot sneak attacks, and the 3.0 version gets better Weapon Specialization and ability to get a free attack 1/round when someone makes an AoO that the 3.5 version just doesn't have a replacement for. The only overlaps are better Weapon Focus and the ability to threaten with a bow, plus that they both get bonus damage. More in line with the soulknife than Curse of Lycanthropy, though.

[Venger]

tome and blood's mindbender and complete arcane's mindbender are vastly different from one another regarding qualification and class features. they also have radically different tones.

the 3.0 exotic weapon's master and the one from CWar really only share the names. they have nothing in common and are even a different number of levels.

[Jeff the Green]

Oh, I forgot: the Wrath domain from BoED and the Wrath domain from SpC are wildly different, sharing a total of two spells (righteous might and storm of vengeance).

[nedz]

Well we have the Ranger Camouflage class feature and the Ranger Camouflage spell. These should be all right because they are different things, dam confusing though.

Also,
there are two Darkness domains, two Demonic domains, two Portal domains, two Repose domains and two Storm domains — different settings though.

[Svata]

I don't know, having not played any 3.0 myself (other than the original Neverwinter Nights), but wasn't the Arcane Archer a lot better in 3.0 than 3.5, where it is terribad?

[The Insaniac]

There are also three versions of mind over body. The two from FR have nothing to do with the one in the EPH.

[Story]

There are also three versions of mind over body. The two from FR have nothing to do with the one in the EPH.

I thought you were talking about the Diamond Mind maneuver at first.

[TuggyNE]

I don't know, having not played any 3.0 myself (other than the original Neverwinter Nights), but wasn't the Arcane Archer a lot better in 3.0 than 3.5, where it is terribad?

It's terrible in both, lacking any sort of spellcaster progression.

[Rubik]

It's terrible in both, lacking any sort of spellcaster progression.That's one thing Pathfinder actually got right.

...almost, anyway.

[nedz]

XPH contains two versions of Deja Vu

[Rubik]

XPH contains two versions of Deja Vu

[Venger]

XPH contains two versions of Deja Vu

darn, you beat me to it :smalltongue:

on the note of psionic powers: ego whip, id insinuation, mind blast, mind thrust, and psychic crush, empty mind, intellect fortress, mental barrier, thought shield, and tower of iron will all have new and improved functions in 3.5

[Gemini476]

XPH contains two versions of Deja Vu


XPH contains two versions of Deja Vu

That's one thing Pathfinder actually got right.

...almost, anyway.

What did DSP do with Deja Vu in their books? I haven't actually read the physical/PDF copies, and the d20PFSRD doesn't seem to do it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Not spells, but items:
Fearsome armor in DotU and Fearsome armor in MIC. The one in DotU improves the Intimidate skill, the one in MIC creates its own fear effect. Luckily, DotU was first published two months after MIC, so it's the most recent and thus the current source on this item.

Torc of Power Preservation in XPH/SRD, and Torc of Power Preservation in MIC. The one in XPH provides a constant benefit for a much higher price, the one in MIC is only usable a few times/day and it's quite cheap. The XPH version could easily be referred to as a 'Greater' version of the item. I can understand changing an item that's so good that every psionic manifester gets one as early as possible, but it's extremely sloppy, considering the one in MIC costs 4,000 gp, has a default caster level of 8th, but still takes a 7th level spell or an 8th level power to create.

[TuggyNE]

That's one thing Pathfinder actually got right.

...almost, anyway.

What you did there, I see it. Twice.

[Rubik]

What you did there, I see it. Twice.Ditto.


What you did there, I see it. Twice.Ditto.

[Jeff the Green]

I forgot two more domains: Darkness (BoVD and SpC) and Weather (CD and ECS). To make things worse, the prior versions of each domain got duped with new names: Vile Darkness and Windstorm. :smallsigh:

[Douglas]

I don't know, having not played any 3.0 myself (other than the original Neverwinter Nights), but wasn't the Arcane Archer a lot better in 3.0 than 3.5, where it is terribad?
To some degree, yes. This is because in 3.0 the enhancement bonus of a bow and the arrows shot from it stacked, making the free enhancement bonus on arrows that Arcane Archer got actually relevant. Still not that much better, though, because getting that enhancement bonus on the arrows via a buff spell instead was still an easy cheap option that anyone with a friendly wizard could get.

[T.G. Oskar]

the 3.0 exotic weapon's master and the one from CWar really only share the names. they have nothing in common and are even a different number of levels.

Hoo, boy!

Let's start with the simple: officially, the Exotic Weapon Master (from Masters of the Wild) was updated into the Complete Warrior version, and as you say, they're nothing alike. However, that'd be the easiest part.

You see, the Exotic Weapon Master is supposed to replace EWM, Master of Chains, and...Weapon Master (from Sword and Fist). Yet, there's ANOTHER Weapon Master, and that's the one from Oriental Adventures, which had the subtitle of "Kensei". OA was released on October 2001, a good nine months after S&F, and that one is pretty similar, BUT, when looking at the Rules Reference (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x) article, there's no mention of the OA version. Extraofficially, the OA version should remain untouched, even if it HAS the same name and is fundamentally the same class. THAT one is replaced by the Kensai from CW...I think?

BTW, the Kensei from OA and the Kensai from CW are nowhere near the same. Confused yet? Wait until you hear about the Psychic Weapon Master, which is the old Weapon Master...but with psionic progression AND with the earliest version of the Kensai's Signature Weapon ability. THAT one got upgraded into 3.5 in a latter Mind's Eye supplement...keeping most of the stuff from the old Psychic Weapon Master (and therefore, the old Weapon Master) and porting them into the newer edition.

So yeah: you've got three PrCs that share the same title (Weapon Master), all three widely different, one that shares a subtitle with ANOTHER PrC in all but ONE letter, another which is THE SAME PRC BUT WITH PSIONICS (or rather, progressing your manifesting abilities), and thus allowing the abilities of the latter to progress into the new edition. Though you lose some of the nicer stuff (1/day, you make your weapon deal maximum damage!) and keeps the two most broken effects of the original (increased critical multiplier AND a bonus to threat range if you have Improved Critical). By the way, Psychic Weapon Master is the ONLY way to get a critical threat range above 15-20, and you get an increase to the multiplier to boot (Elven Greatblade with 13-20 critical threat range AND x3 multiplier!?).

...oh wait, you never lost that. So yeah, the PrC that was supposed to be replaced never got replaced at all. Makes the three versions of Bladesinger pretty tame in comparison...

[Venger]

well, thank you for that trip down memory lane!

I knew almost none of that.

a crit range of wider than 15-20 is available through disciple of dispater which, never being updated, is still RAW legal 3.5 material.

[TuggyNE]

a crit range of wider than 15-20 is available through disciple of dispater which, never being updated, is still RAW legal 3.5 material.

Sort of. Spectacularly sort of, so to speak. *insert Curmudgeonly rant about 3.0 Imp Crit here*

[Psyren]

Non-spell example: there are two vestiges named Astaroth that are the same level but have completely different abilities.

[Gemini476]

Non-spell example: there are two vestiges named Astaroth that are the same level but have completely different abilities.

Just for reference, one is a Demon Lord and the other is a fallen angel. Yeah.

Dragon #357 and the Cityscape WE respectively.

[kardar233]

Sort of. Spectacularly sort of, so to speak. *insert Curmudgeonly rant about 3.0 Imp Crit here*

Something that can (completely legally, I believe) increase crit range past 15-20 is the 9th-level spell of the Deathless domain from the Eberron Campaign Setting, which doubles crit range while explicitly stacking with Improved Critical, while being from an 3.5 source (so that the 3.0 argument is irrelevant).

It's still a 9th-level spell just for getting some more threat range, though.

[Tsuzurao]

Non-spell example: there are two vestiges named Astaroth that are the same level but have completely different abilities.

I believe Wizards actually addressed that in the same web article where the second Astaroth was introduced. It's just a matter of two individuals with the same name, but different titles, origins, and abilities.

[Phelix-Mu]

For PrC madness, there are two versions of Arachnomancer, from Drow of the Underdark and Underdark supplements. They are clearly very different, and both from splats that, to the best of my knowledge, were published late in the reign of 3.5.

Notably, I believe it was the Underdark version that seems to give a rather nice, seemingly at will poison touch attack. Ignoring for the moment that there are about a half-dozen reasons why such an ability is far from optimal, it's decent for what it is.

[Phelix-Mu]

I've also just reminded myself that there are like 3 versions of the spell ball lightning, at least one of which is radically different. I think the first was MoF, now there is an SpC version, and also one in...I want to say...Shining South? Alas, if anyone is trying to track them down, google it...that particular recollection is way too sketchy to be reliable.

[Gemini476]

I've also just reminded myself that there are like 3 versions of the spell ball lightning, at least one of which is radically different. I think the first was MoF, now there is an SpC version, and also one in...I want to say...Shining South? Alas, if anyone is trying to track them down, google it...that particular recollection is way too sketchy to be reliable.

Player's Guide to Faerun, Spell Compendium, Magic of Faerun, and Unapproachable East.

All four are different, more or less.

[kardar233]

I've also just reminded myself that there are like 3 versions of the spell ball lightning, at least one of which is radically different. I think the first was MoF, now there is an SpC version, and also one in...I want to say...Shining South? Alas, if anyone is trying to track them down, google it...that particular recollection is way too sketchy to be reliable.

There are four different versions, actually. Magic of Faerun, Unapproachable East, Player's Guide to Faerun, and Spell Compendium.

They have slightly different effects:
Magic of Faerun: 1d6/caster level damage, divided freely, free action to direct on casting round, standard action afterwards, 100ft move, Ref half
Unapproachable East: 1d6/2 caster levels, divided freely, free action direct on casting round, move action afterwards, 100ft move, Ref half
Player's Guide to Faerun: 2d6/ball damage, 1 ball/2 caster levels, uses programming/order system rather than basic direction, free action direct on casting round and move afterwards, 100ft move, Ref half
Spell Compendium: 1d6/caster level, single ball, move action to direct on all rounds, 30ft move, Ref negates.

So yes, it was seriously nerfed in Spell Compendium.

[Brookshw]

There is at least "one" spell that should be exempt from this, though: Curse of Lycanthropy. There are two entirely, completely different spells under this name, which have nothing to do with each other, beyond involving lycanthropy. The one printed in Complete Divine grants the target a strain of lycanthropy of the caster's choice.

Now that you bring it up......
What can make a man turn neutral. Lust for power? Gold? Or did they acquire the Were-DireBoar template?