Is there a list of all the 3.0/3.5 spells that got renamed/revised somewhere?

[Pippin]

What the title said, ie. where can I find something much more comprehensive than this:

Spells that may or may not have been "silently" revised, in no particular order:



% Returning Weapon -> Hurl
% Mindrape -> Programmed Amnesia
% Improved Blink -> Greater Blink
% Speed Swim -> Swim
% Gedlee’s Electric Loop -> Electric Loop
% Antimagic Aura -> Antimagic Ray
% Zajimarn’s Field of Icy Razors -> Field of Icy Razors
% Lutzaen's Frequent Jaunt -> Dimensional Jumper
% Lower Spell Resistance -> Spell Vulnerability



Spells that may or may not have been "silently" abolished, in no particular order:



% Augment Object

[Tarvus]

DISCLAIMER: I do believe IMarvinTPA is considered fair use given its lack of specificity but Mods please apply the scrubbing brush if needed:

Case by case is really the only way that I know of. Something like IMarvinTPA's Dungeons and Dragons Database (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/)lists all the sources for a given spell (For an example look up the spell Fire Shuriken). The source might be available. That would at least let you search using something like regex to find ones with multiples with something like "Source = *,*".

If you do find such a resource or generate one yourself, please do share it here. I'm sure everyone would love a copy, I definitely would.

[Pippin]

That's interesting. I think I'm going to read most spells in the upcoming weeks, so I might as well start my own list. The website you cited does not seem to link mindrape and programmed amnesia together though, it might not be comprehensive on that matter.

[Curmudgeon]

There's a list of 3.0->3.5 replacements here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x). Spell Compendium has a list of renamed spells on pages 5-6, and many of the spells in that book have been revised from their original publication.

I've found that IMarvinTPA is outdated on many spells. For example, it lists Weapon of the Deity as "Arc 4, Blk 4, Clr 4, Mysticism 4, Pal 4" from Complete Divine. That spell has been changed to "Blackguard 3, Cleric 3, Paladin 3, Mysticism 4" in Spell Compendium.

[Pippin]

There's a list of 3.0->3.5 replacements here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x). Spell Compendium has a list of renamed spells on pages 5-6, and many of the spells in that book have been revised from their original publication.

I've found that IMarvinTPA is outdated on many spells. For example, it lists Weapon of the Deity as "Arc 4, Blk 4, Clr 4, Mysticism 4, Pal 4" from Complete Divine. That spell has been changed to "Blackguard 3, Cleric 3, Paladin 3, Mysticism 4" in Spell Compendium.
Thanks for the link! That will cover most of my problems I suppose.

SpC linked the spell matrix spells together but didn't mention mindrape. CArc didn't mention it either, though that was the book in which programmed amnesia was described for the first time... Oh well, luckily for us, that should mean mindrape is legal for 3.5 games.

Also, is there a follow-up article about this? There were still a few spells/feats that hadn't been revised yet. What's the general consensus about those?

[Tarvus]

There's a list of 3.0->3.5 replacements here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x). Spell Compendium has a list of renamed spells on pages 5-6, and many of the spells in that book have been revised from their original publication.

I've found that IMarvinTPA is outdated on many spells. For example, it lists Weapon of the Deity as "Arc 4, Blk 4, Clr 4, Mysticism 4, Pal 4" from Complete Divine. That spell has been changed to "Blackguard 3, Cleric 3, Paladin 3, Mysticism 4" in Spell Compendium.

Huh, just when I think I've read the Wizard's web stuff, theres always more content. I blame the terribad linking system :smalltongue:

And yes, IMarvinTPA does have some mistakes but its the most comprehensive resource I've found that still under fair use*.

*Or at least might be - tbh I'm still hazy what separates us posting descriptions when discussing, things like IMarvinTPA and the ones that get taken down.

[Curmudgeon]

*Or at least might be - tbh I'm still hazy what separates us posting descriptions when discussing, things like IMarvinTPA and the ones that get taken down.
IMarvinTPA has full text of spells only when those spells have been published as Open Gaming Content. For non-OGC spells it lists only summaries. Other sites have full text of copyrighted content.

[Douglas]

DISCLAIMER: I do believe IMarvinTPA is considered fair use given its lack of specificity but Mods please apply the scrubbing brush if needed:
Please do not use red, that is generally reserved for Mod speech. Also, the forum rules do not care about fair use, only copyright.


That's interesting. I think I'm going to read most spells in the upcoming weeks, so I might as well start my own list. The website you cited does not seem to link mindrape and programmed amnesia together though, it might not be comprehensive on that matter.
That's because Mindrape and Programmed Amnesia are different spells. They do similar things, but have several quite substantial differences.


*Or at least might be - tbh I'm still hazy what separates us posting descriptions when discussing, things like IMarvinTPA and the ones that get taken down.
The difference is, essentially, whether the site or description renders the original source redundant. If you get a general idea of what something does but still need to look it up in the actual book before having enough information to actually rule on it in a game, then it's probably ok. Probably. If whatever you're talking about is covered by the Open Gaming License or something similar, on the other hand, where the copyright holder explicitly gives permission for it to everyone, then you can post whatever you like up to and including full verbatim copy&paste rules text and it's definitely ok.

From what I see on a brief inspection, IMarvinTPA appears to be right on the line, trying to show everything it possibly can without going too far. I think it succeeded in stopping short of the line, but I'm not completely certain and cannot guarantee another mod won't find something that goes too far, in which case there will be a scrubbing.

If you find any instance of closed content reproduced in full on that site, please report it for moderator consideration.

[Tarvus]

Please do not use red, that is generally reserved for Mod speech. Also, the forum rules do not care about fair use, only copyright.
Fixed. Sorry.

The forum rules do not care about fair use, only copyright.
Fair use is copyright, its the 'reasonable exceptions and limitations' that apply to an author's rights. :smallconfused:

The difference is, essentially, whether the site or description renders the original source redundant.
Hmm. So shouldn't we all be more careful about the things we post? I mean I've seen complete spell descriptions posted here for discussion, wouldn't that fall under that category?

Thanks for the clarifications btw, don't want trouble over something avoidable is all.

[Douglas]

Fair use is copyright, its the 'reasonable exceptions and limitations' that apply to an author's rights. :smallconfused:
Fair use is an exception that applies to the legal interpretation of copyright as decided by the courts. Our forum rules are not a legal interpretation decided by courts, and attempting to allow for fair use here could, as I understand it, potentially make us liable if someone sued and a court found our judgment to be wrong.


Hmm. So shouldn't we all be more careful about the things we post? I mean I've seen complete spell descriptions posted here for discussion, wouldn't that fall under that category?

Thanks for the clarifications btw, don't want trouble over something avoidable is all.
Yes, it does, and I have scrubbed posts for containing such things before. Anything covered by the Open Gaming License or something similar, which includes everything on d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org/) and I believe everything on d20pfsrd.com (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/), feel free to post full text all you want because the copyright owners gave blanket permission for that to everyone. Anything else, post the name, the source, and describe it in your own words, but do not post full text.

[Pippin]

I updated the OP.

Besides the books, I know that WotC sometimes revised, if not abolished, 3.0 spells/feats in their magazines. Is there a list of all those magazines? For example, I know that Unapproachable East (edit: or maybe that was Oriental Adventures) has had some of its content revised in some Dragon magazine, but I can't remember the number. Never mind, that was Dragon 318.

If someone has an interesting list, or knowledge on the matter, I'd very much appreciate their help!