Even though I know there's a controversy to whether or not use Spell Compendium as a unerring and definitive errata, in my playgroups we tend to do so with some exceptions.

Now we are facing a issue which we can't seem to solve by ourselves. We have noticed that lesser telepathic bond has been removed from the cleric spells list, while in every other manual it appeared in, it was considered a cleric spell.

We know that most (if not all) prestige classes with custom spell lists which appeared outside of the DMG are not listed in the SC, but this is the first time we found a spell that was removed from a core class spell list (but I'm sure there'll be more of these situations on the manual).

Now, since it's not the only spell to have this fate I was wondering whether, barring errata, spells removed from the SC are to be considered removed and not an oversight; should a group use the manual as errata?

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because Designer reasoning has been ruled off-topic \$\endgroup\$
    – Jason_c_o
    Dec 16, 2018 at 11:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is a designer reasoning question and as such i am voting to close it. Check rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7964/… \$\endgroup\$ Dec 16, 2018 at 12:03
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The site can answer a question like As it would indicate an oversight, does the Spell Compendium eliminate any other spells from any casters' lists? and if the question's title is also changed to reflect that. (That question may be a lot of work, but it's also a limited list, and it's possible somebody's done it already.) \$\endgroup\$ Dec 16, 2018 at 12:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Zachiel I know the Compendium changed access to the spell blindsight so wizards couldn't cast it anymore, so, yeah, I know telepathic bond isn't an utter aberration. However, a comprehensive list of spells eliminated from class lists by the Compendium if there are, like, 20 of them may point to a pattern of removal, or if there are, like, only these 3 instead could indicate random accidental editorial oversights. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 16, 2018 at 12:43
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Not a designer reasoning question; reopened. Designer reasons is a very specific formula ("explain the designers' reasoning to me"), this is just asking whether an ommission was a real update or accidental ommission. @V2Blast Please be careful with your title edits not to present passable questions as off topic. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 16, 2018 at 19:44

1 Answer 1


In the case of non-core spellcasters, Spell Compendium explicitly states that the book was ignoring them, so you should read absolutely nothing into one of those classes being missing. Note that this is true of both base and prestige classes—Spell Compendium covers the assassin prestige class from Dungeon Master’s Guide, but not the wu jen base class from Complete Arcane.

For core classes, it is more likely that the omission is significant. Those classes were considered, and they presumably started with the original text and edited from there. But it’s really impossible to say for sure. I think it makes far more sense to handle this on a case-by-case basis, just going with whatever seems best to the table.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .