Is Wall of Water on the cleric spell list or not? (Sandstorm v.s. SpC)

[RoboEmperor]

1. In Sandstorm, where the spell originated from, it's on the cleric spell list.
2. In Sandstorm, there's also the Flashflood spell, which is basically a super Wall of Water, also on the cleric spell list.
3. In Spell Compendium, Wall of Water is not on the Cleric Spell list, and wall of water has been completely rewritten.
4. In Spell Compendium, Flashflood is not in the book.

Question: Is wall of water on the cleric spell list or not?

Arguments saying it is removed from cleric spell list:
1. SpC is updated version, and exclusion of cleric on wall of water doesn't seem like a typo, since its not in the "cleric spell list" or in the spell description.

Arguments saying it is not removed from cleric spell list:
1. Lack of inclusion is not a specific overwrite. There are tons of classes with SpC spells on their spell lists but do not have their class listed in SpC's spell descriptions. (i.e. Dread Necromancer). This means SpC has no power to remove spells from class spell lists, so if a source book has the SpC spell listed in a class's spell list, it's on that spell list regardless of whether SpC says so or not.
2. It makes no sense a cleric can make a Wall of Water for the flashflood spell (the spell description explicitly says it creates a wall of water), but not a Wall of Water by itself.

Possible Results?
a. Clerics have Wall of Water removed from their spell list.
b. Clerics do not have Wall of Water removed from their spell list.
c. Clerics have Sandstorm's version of Wall of Water, while all other classes have SpC's version of Wall of Water.

Does anyone know of another instance where SpC removed a spell from a class spell list?

[Fouredged Sword]

Ok, here is how I would read it.

The spell compendium is the primary source for all spell effects. Period. That is the whole point of the book and everything in it overwrites everything else.

The omission of wall of water's cleric spell level is not a specific overwrite and thus does not overrule sandstorm's addition of it to the cleric list.

This is "ask your DM" territory, but I would rule that you use the spell compendium spell, but allow clerics to use it.

[Gullintanni]

Ok, here is how I would read it.

The spell compendium is the primary source for all spell effects. Period. That is the whole point of the book and everything in it overwrites everything else.

The omission of wall of water's cleric spell level is not a specific overwrite and thus does not overrule sandstorm's addition of it to the cleric list.

This is "ask your DM" territory, but I would rule that you use the spell compendium spell, but allow clerics to use it.

The general rule is that if two things share the same name, the most recently published version becomes the established version, except if one of the preceeding publications is in a primary source.

In this case, that would mean the SpC version of Wall of Water is the only playable version of the spell.

The same thing happened to Mantle of the Fiery Soul (IIRC). The SpC version replaces the Sandstorm version. Now it doesn't change caster lists in this case but the two spells operate slightly differently, and unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your optimization preferences), the SpC version comes in significantly weaker than the Sandstorm version.

[Troacctid]

You should expect table variation. The rules in this case are unclear.

[The Viscount]

I agree that it's not clear, but as you say sense seems to support it being on the cleric list.

In terms of Spell Compendium removing from lists, it removed a number of spells from the hexblade and wu jen list by not listing them when it updated certain spells.

[Dimers]

Does anyone know of another instance where SpC removed a spell from a class spell list?

Yep. Complete Divine listed Weather Eye as cleric or druid; SC dropped cleric. Likewise the spell Scent, dropping sorc/wiz access in SC.

Edited to add: Complete Adventurer's Listening Lorecall allowed sorc/wiz; SC's doesn't. Magic of Faerun had sorc/wiz for Blindsight and SC doesn't. Favor of the Martyr in SC is clearly MoF's Favor of Ilmater except clerics can't cast it.

And now that I'm looking at Favor of the Martyr, I'd really like to get a continual item of that. Immune to nonlethal, charm, compulsion, pain, dazed, fatigued/exhausted, nauseated, sickened, stunned, staggered, plus you can act without hurting yourself while at -1 to -9 hp and you get the Endurance feat. Paladin gets 4th level spells at level 14, so minimum caster level is 7 ... that comes to 112,000 gp market price. Worth it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The books came out in March 2005 and December 2005, respectively. I think this is just a case of the writers not communicating with each other, and coming up with two completely different spells that just happen to have the same name.

For another example of this, Magic Item Compendium (March 2007) and Drow of the Underdark (May 2007) both have the Fearsome armor enchantment, but they're completely different effects. Again, it looks like two different groups of writers working on two different books happened to give two different things the same name.

In both cases, both things should be valid for use. It's just a coincidence that they have the same name.

[Dimers]

I disagree. Some text is copied word-for-word from the splats to SC, and most spells do match up class by class. Levels are sometimes* adjusted up or down a little ... otherwise clearly the same concept.

* Less than one in ten. The great majority use the same leveling too.

More edit: Oh, you were addressing the OP, not me. Ne'ermind.

[RoboEmperor]

The books came out in March 2005 and December 2005, respectively. I think this is just a case of the writers not communicating with each other, and coming up with two completely different spells that just happen to have the same name.

For another example of this, Magic Item Compendium (March 2007) and Drow of the Underdark (May 2007) both have the Fearsome armor enchantment, but they're completely different effects. Again, it looks like two different groups of writers working on two different books happened to give two different things the same name.

In both cases, both things should be valid for use. It's just a coincidence that they have the same name.

You might be on to something here. Sandstorm was not listed in the list of sources for Spell Compendium.

[RoboEmperor]

Seeing how Wall of Water is only mentioned in sandstorm, and seeing how SpC does NOT create new spells, it's an update, not 2 group of writers coming up with the same name.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Seeing how Wall of Water is only mentioned in sandstorm, and seeing how SpC does NOT create new spells, it's an update, not 2 group of writers coming up with the same name.

Sandstorm has the full spell description for Wall of Water on page 128, it's not just a mention, it's presented as a new spell.

Spell Compendium on page 285 specifically lists every original source that it included spells from, and Sandstorm is not listed. They were required to give the original authors of those books credit for their content, i.e. the spells from those books that were included in Spell Compendium. The absence of Sandstorm from that list absolutely means the Spell Compendium writers did not draw on any of the spells published in that book when making it. As far as those writers were concerned Wall of Water did not exist in Sandstorm at the time Spell Compendium was written.

Wall of Water originally appeared in the article “Guardians of the Deepest Seas” by James Jacobs, in Dragon magazine #314 on page 47, which is what Spell Compendium credited. That version is very nearly identical to the one in Spell Compendium, including the entire spell description's verbiage, and is clearly the original inspiration for that version. The version in Sandstorm is significantly different but appears to draw inspiration from the original. I doubt the spell was 1. Included in Dragon 314; 2. Revised in Sandstorm; 3. Reverted back to the Dragon 314 version in Spell Compendium. This is clearly a case of different teams of writers not communicating with each other on projects that were being developed at around the same time.

[RoboEmperor]

Sandstorm has the full spell description for Wall of Water on page 128, it's not just a mention, it's presented as a new spell.

Spell Compendium on page 285 specifically lists every original source that it included spells from, and Sandstorm is not listed. They were required to give the original authors of those books credit for their content, i.e. the spells from those books that were included in Spell Compendium. The absence of Sandstorm from that list absolutely means the Spell Compendium writers did not draw on any of the spells published in that book when making it. As far as those writers were concerned Wall of Water did not exist in Sandstorm at the time Spell Compendium was written.

Wall of Water originally appeared in the article “Guardians of the Deepest Seas” by James Jacobs, in Dragon magazine #314 on page 47, which is what Spell Compendium credited. That version is very nearly identical to the one in Spell Compendium, including the entire spell description's verbiage, and is clearly the original inspiration for that version. The version in Sandstorm is significantly different but appears to draw inspiration from the original. I doubt the spell was 1. Included in Dragon 314; 2. Revised in Sandstorm; 3. Reverted back to the Dragon 314 version in Spell Compendium. This is clearly a case of different teams of writers not communicating with each other on projects that were being developed at around the same time.

XD. My brain does not have Dragon Magazine in it because I have no access to them, nor the willpower to read them all if I did.

Ok, so I guess it is definitely c., Clerics cast Sandstorm's Wall of Water, and everyone else casts SpC's Wall of Water. I'm fine with that, Sandstorm's Wall of Water is superior anyways.