PDA

View Full Version : Greater Spell Focus in FRCS vs PH?



bot
2010-11-05, 05:42 AM
I was just skimming though feats in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting where I noticed the Greater Spell Focus feat is listed as a +4 to spell DC, while the Greater Spell Focus in PH only grants a +1 ?!

I tried reading though a FRCS erreta but didn't find anything about it. I'm know i'm not the first to spot it, so do you know what up with it?

F.x. if I play a Master Specialist to lvl 3 in a FR setting, would I get the +4 version instead of the +1?

Cyclocone
2010-11-05, 05:45 AM
The SF in FRCS is 3.0, and thus the one in the 3.5 PHB replaces it.

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-05, 06:29 AM
Do note that in 3.5 the bonus from Greater Spell Focus stacks with the bonus from Spell Focus.

bot
2010-11-05, 07:02 AM
Ah ok, I didn't think if that but that is of course the reason. thanks for clarifying it for me

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 07:16 AM
Actually, as long as the DM allows it, you can use it.
3.0 material can still be used in a 3.5 game. The PHB says that.

Psyren
2010-11-05, 07:54 AM
Actually, as long as the DM allows it, you can use it.
3.0 material can still be used in a 3.5 game. The PHB says that.

...As long as it has not been updated in a 3.5 source. (GSF has.)
You can only use 3.0 material that hasn't been updated (e.g. many spells from Tome and Blood) or replaced completely (e.g. everything from the Psionics Handbook.)

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 07:57 AM
...As long as it has not been updated in a 3.5 source. (GSF has.)
You can only use 3.0 material that hasn't been updated (e.g. many spells from Tome and Blood) or replaced completely (e.g. everything from the Psionics Handbook.)

Actually, it doesn't make such a qualification. It's on like page 5 of the PHB, check it out.

hamishspence
2010-11-05, 07:58 AM
Weren't there one or two feats in Psionic Handbook that weren't added to Expanded Psionics Handbook, despite there being nothing rules-breaking about them?

I think one was called Psychoanalyst or something like that- gave you small skill bonuses.

Douglas
2010-11-05, 08:25 AM
Actually, it doesn't make such a qualification. It's on like page 5 of the PHB, check it out.
It may not make such a qualification specifically for 3.0->3.5, but there is a general rule elsewhere that if a new version of something is published the new version replaces the old one and the old version is no longer valid. The 3.5 PHB is newer than the 3.0 FRCS, so the PHB version of Greater Spell Focus is the only one of the two allowed in 3.5 games - unless you're playing without the PHB (which might be a tad difficult) or making a house rule.

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 08:39 AM
It may not make such a qualification specifically for 3.0->3.5, but there is a general rule elsewhere that if a new version of something is published the new version replaces the old one and the old version is no longer valid. The 3.5 PHB is newer than the 3.0 FRCS, so the PHB version of Greater Spell Focus is the only one of the two allowed in 3.5 games - unless you're playing without the PHB (which might be a tad difficult) or making a house rule.

No, it actually specifically states that 3.0 material is still as valid as 3.5 material.

Tael
2010-11-05, 08:46 AM
No, it actually specifically states that 3.0 material is still as valid as 3.5 material.

Only if that material has not been updated.

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 08:49 AM
Only if that material has not been updated.

... site for me where it says that.

Tael
2010-11-05, 08:57 AM
... site for me where it says that.

Straight from the Errata:


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.

The PHB takes precedence over other books, and since more recent versions of books take precedence over less recent ones, the 3.5 PHB is the Primary Source. Ergo, you use 3.5's Spell Focus.

Also, seriously, common sense.

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 09:10 AM
Straight from the Errata:


The PHB takes precedence over other books, and since more recent versions of books take precedence over less recent ones, the 3.5 PHB is the Primary Source. Ergo, you use 3.5's Spell Focus.

Also, seriously, common sense.

Plus, the PHB (being a primary source) says specifically that the older versions of things in D&D are just as usable as their 3.5 counterparts.

I'm not talking about the Spell Focus thing, but what about things like the samurai? Would you really rather use the one in complete warrior or the one in Oriental Adventures?

Psyren
2010-11-05, 10:00 AM
I'm not talking about the Spell Focus thing, but what about things like the samurai? Would you really rather use the one in complete warrior or the one in Oriental Adventures?

Neither; they both suck, one is just marginally better.

A better question; would anyone in their right mind use 3.5 Haste if 3.0 was still legal?

Optimator
2010-11-05, 02:04 PM
Neither; they both suck, one is just marginally better.

A better question; would anyone in their right mind use 3.5 Haste if 3.0 was still legal?

MAN 3.0 Haste was good.

jiriku
2010-11-05, 02:08 PM
No lie. If it had been 9th level, it would still have been worth casting.

Aharon
2010-11-05, 02:12 PM
or replaced completely (e.g. everything from the Psionics Handbook.)

Minor Nitpick:
The Expanded Psionics Handbook doesn't actually come out and say that it completely replaces everything in the Psionics handbook, so you may use the elements of the Psionics Handbook that are still compatible (notably some powers and metapsionic feats, especially Persistent Power). Expect your DM to throw books at you, though, because the intent very clearly is that the XPH should completely replace the Psionic Handbook.

Psyren
2010-11-05, 02:51 PM
Minor Nitpick:
The Expanded Psionics Handbook doesn't actually come out and say that it completely replaces everything in the Psionics handbook, so you may use the elements of the Psionics Handbook that are still compatible (notably some powers and metapsionic feats, especially Persistent Power). Expect your DM to throw books at you, though, because the intent very clearly is that the XPH should completely replace the Psionic Handbook.

Well, if you want a 3.5 version of Persistent Power, look no further than Bruce Cordell's Hyperconscious. But actually I agree with you; I see no reason, for instance, why I can't adapt Planar Vanguard (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20031219a) to 3.5 - especially since all the prereqs are 3.5-legal.

My argument primarily concerns things that have been updated; allowing the 3.0 versions of those just plays hob with what little balance 3.5 possesses.

Greenish
2010-11-05, 03:00 PM
I'm not talking about the Spell Focus thing, but what about things like the samurai? Would you really rather use the one in complete warrior or the one in Oriental Adventures?Hmm, probably CWar. The feats are worse, but you can wring some synergy for Intimidate focus with it.

But honestly, for a samurai I'd use Warblade.

SensFan
2010-11-05, 03:05 PM
For what it's worth, I'm currently in a IRL FR campaign, and my DM has let me use FRCS Greater Spell Focus.

olentu
2010-11-05, 04:17 PM
Minor Nitpick:
The Expanded Psionics Handbook doesn't actually come out and say that it completely replaces everything in the Psionics handbook, so you may use the elements of the Psionics Handbook that are still compatible (notably some powers and metapsionic feats, especially Persistent Power). Expect your DM to throw books at you, though, because the intent very clearly is that the XPH should completely replace the Psionic Handbook.

Well actually as I recall the expanded psionics handbook is really the most recient version of the psionics handbook as opposed to a separate book. So which one is correct depends on if newer versions of things or older versions of things take precedence as either one or the other must.

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-05, 06:34 PM
Well actually as I recall the expanded psionics handbook is really the most recient version of the psionics handbook as opposed to a separate book. So which one is correct depends on if newer versions of things or older versions of things take precedence as either one or the other must.

That's already been covered. When a new version of something is printed, WotC wants us to stop using the old one.

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 08:26 PM
I don't have the PHB on me right now, but I'm more than certain that it says on page 5 you can use 3.0 material even if it's updated.

I'm not saying it's always a good thing, you should talk to your DM first, but yeah.

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-05, 08:57 PM
I don't have the PHB on me right now, but I'm more than certain that it says on page 5 you can use 3.0 material even if it's updated.

I'm not saying it's always a good thing, you should talk to your DM first, but yeah.

Well nobody is gonna stop you if that's what you mean, but the "official stance" is pretty clear....

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 09:02 PM
Well nobody is gonna stop you if that's what you mean, but the "official stance" is pretty clear....

Indeed, I was merely saying that the PHB says you can use 3.0 material, even if updated.

Tael
2010-11-05, 09:13 PM
Indeed, I was merely saying that the PHB says you can use 3.0 material, even if updated.

Fortunately I do infact have the 3.0 PHB. The entire passage you refer to is thus:

If this is your first experience with D&D, we welcome you to a wonderful
world of adventure and imagination. If you used the prior version of
this book, rest assured that this revision is a testament to our dedication
to continuous product improvement. Weve updated errata, clarified
rules, and made the game even better than it was. But also rest assured
that this is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game.
This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products
can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

Note how it says that it is compatible, and may be used with adjustments. That does not mean that it is legal, just that it should all work out okay. It also says nothing about using 3.0 versions of 3.5 things, especially since errata (which is what 3.5 basically was) makes 3.0 non-legal.

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 09:16 PM
Fortunately I do infact have the 3.0 PHB. The entire passage you refer to is thus:

Note how it says that it is compatible, and may be used with adjustments. That does not mean that it is legal, just that it should all work out okay. It also says nothing about using 3.0 versions of 3.5 things, especially since errata (which is what 3.5 basically was) makes 3.0 non-legal.

No, the 3.5 DMG, it's in the sidebar on like page 5.

Tael
2010-11-05, 09:29 PM
No, the 3.5 DMG, it's in the sidebar on like page 5.

You mean this sidebar?


If this is your first experience with D&D, we welcome you to a wonderful
world of adventure and imagination. If you played the prior version of
this book, rest assured that this revision is a testament to our dedication
to continuous product improvement and innovation. Weve updated
errata, clarified rules, polished the presentation, and made the game
better than it was. This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition
of the game. This revision is compatible with existing products, and these
products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

Yea, it's exactly the same.

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 09:47 PM
You mean this sidebar?


Yea, it's exactly the same.

Ah, ok. Well, surely the implication is "if the 3.5 material doesn't fit/cover it, feel free to use 3.0 books."

Psyren
2010-11-05, 09:48 PM
Ah, ok. Well, surely the implication is "if the 3.5 material doesn't fit/cover it, feel free to use 3.0 books."

I don't think anyone was ever disputing that. The problem arises when the 3.5 material does cover it.

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 09:58 PM
I don't think anyone was ever disputing that. The problem arises when the 3.5 material does cover it.

Indeed, but if it doesn't cover it in a way you feel adequate, then you can feel free to use 3.0 material as well.

At least, that's what I take out of it.

Toptomcat
2010-11-05, 10:35 PM
If we're at the point of going 'well, clearly it implies this', then what do you think WOTC printing a weaker version of previous material with the exact same name implies? 'Anyone who feels like their character is too strong, go ahead and use this version instead?' Or 'We liked the idea last time but felt like we went a little overboard. Here's a more balanced version to be substituted for the previous material?'

Lhurgyof
2010-11-05, 10:43 PM
If we're at the point of going 'well, clearly it implies this', then what do you think WOTC printing a weaker version of previous material with the exact same name implies? 'Anyone who feels like their character is too strong, go ahead and use this version instead?' Or 'We liked the idea last time but felt like we went a little overboard. Here's a more balanced version to be substituted for the previous material?'

Sometimes it's not even about which is more powerful...

There are some times when certain things of the same name are different, perhaps of the same power-level but different.

olentu
2010-11-06, 01:47 AM
That's already been covered. When a new version of something is printed, WotC wants us to stop using the old one.

It did not look like it had been covered since the post to which I replied so I decided it could not hurt to cover it again. I mean clearly all the times before that post did not work.