# Extra Spell



## takasi (Dec 29, 2006)

A buddy and I were debating Extra Spell.  He wants to be able to add Wraithstrike to his duskblade.  According to the FAQ:

"Extra Spell lets you add one spell to your list of spells known, but the spell must be taken from your class spell list."

My friend says this contradicts the wording of the feat.  What is your opinion?  Here are my thoughts:

"You learn one additional spell at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast."

This does not say you can learn a spell from outside of your class list.  This text limits the highest level of the new spell.

"Thus a 4th level sorcerer (maximum spell level 2nd) gains a new 0-level or 1st-level spell known with which to expand her repertoire."

This does not say you can learn a spell from outside of your class list.  This text provides an example of the level limitations of the first statement.

"For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research."

This does not say you can learn a spell from outisde of your class list.  

"Lacks access to" may be misleading text here.  There are spells on your class list that you may "lack access to".  A wizard, for example, only automatically learns a specific number of spells.  In order to learn additional spells he must find a scroll, spellbook or someone to teach him.  If he does not have access to these things he would not be able to learn the spell.  

"Unable to research" may also be misleading, but there are requirements for research:  time and money.  If you have neither than taking this feat would allow you to access a spell without paying for either.

For spontaneous casters that cannot learn spells this is an excellent feat to expand their repertoire.  

Nothing in the description of the feat indicates you can learn a spell that is not in your class list and the FAQ reinforces this absence.  If you allow the duskblade to take wraithstrike with this feat you might as well let a wizard learn heal spells or a cleric learn fireball.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 29, 2006)

I voted 'yes' because that's what I think the rules say.  However, this creates problems when you consider slow progression classes.  If you actually allow 'yes' then a wizard with this feat could take irresistible dance as a 6th level spell because it's 6th level on the bard list.  There are undoubtedly other choices that are just as bad.  Swapping some spells will not be terrible, but be very careful about what you allow.


----------



## takasi (Dec 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I voted 'yes' because that's what I think the rules say.




Why do you think this?  Which words say this?


----------



## Andre (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> A buddy and I were debating Extra Spell.  He wants to be able to add Wraithstrike to his duskblade.  According to the FAQ:
> 
> "Extra Spell lets you add one spell to your list of spells known, but the spell must be taken from your class spell list."
> 
> My friend says this contradicts the wording of the feat.  What is your opinion?




That sentence doesn't contradict the wording of the feat, it clarifies it. If the feat allowed a caster to take spells from another class' spell list, it should say so explicitly. 

That said, allowing the feat to be used for cross-class spells doesn't have to be unbalancing, but a GM would have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis and the player would have to be willing to change spells at a later date if things became unbalanced (meaning not fun to the group as a whole).


----------



## Thanee (Dec 29, 2006)

No, because it doesn't. It neither says so, nor do the rules allow it (well, they don't actually say anything about this, but they do not allow you to cast these spells, so it would be pointless to learn them), nor can it be intended to do so.

So, just no.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> My friend says this contradicts the wording of the feat.  What is your opinion?




My opinion is, that it contradicts what your friend wants. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 29, 2006)

Andre said:
			
		

> That sentence doesn't contradict the wording of the feat, it clarifies it.




I concur.  Normally, I'm all for jumping on the FAQ when it screw up.  But it this case, it's just clarifying, which is exactly what it's supposed to do.

Another case similar to this one is a Mystic Theurge spontaneously converting spells to Cure spells.  In the Cleric class description, it states that any prepared spell can be swapped for a cure spell.  Does this mean that a MT (Wiz/Clr mix) can convert their arcane spells to divine ones (or, does it allow them to cast arcane healing spells)?  I say no, because the text in the Cleric class description is implicitly limited to spells granted by the Cleric class.


----------



## Ilium (Dec 29, 2006)

If you need a supporting point, ask this question: When you want to add Charm Monster to your duskblade's list, what level is it?  It could be 3rd (as on the bard list) or 4th (as on the Sor/Wiz list).  Since the feat doesn't specify it supports the idea that the designers never intended you to do such a thing.

Note, I don't think this spell is on the duskblade list, but you get the idea, regardless.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 29, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> My opinion is, that it contradicts what your friend wants.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



 I think that's it 

BTW, also ask your friend to think carefully about wanting wraithstrike to actually be available in the game. Has he ever considered what a dragon with wraithstrike can do?


----------



## rgard (Dec 29, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I concur.  Normally, I'm all for jumping on the FAQ when it screw up.  But it this case, it's just clarifying, which is exactly what it's supposed to do.
> 
> Another case similar to this one is a Mystic Theurge spontaneously converting spells to Cure spells.  In the Cleric class description, it states that any prepared spell can be swapped for a cure spell.  Does this mean that a MT (Wiz/Clr mix) can convert their arcane spells to divine ones (or, does it allow them to cast arcane healing spells)?  I say no, because the text in the Cleric class description is implicitly limited to spells granted by the Cleric class.




Hadn't thought of that one, but as my Ur Priest, Wizard, MT doesn't spontaneously cure anything...I love that combo!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> Why do you think this?  Which words say this?



 What words say it doesn't?  The example otherwise makes no sense at all.  For example, a wizard has 'access' to every 0th-level spell out there.  Do you think this feat was intended to allow players an option to circumvent restrictions on spells set by the DM?  Per the rules, no spells on the class spell list are restricted to a generalist wizard, so in that vein what could this feat possibly do for a wizard, as given by the example, if not allow him access to spells outside his class spell list?

Personally, I think everyone is voting based on the FAQ and what they want the answer to be.  I can see that perspective as that's how I would rule IMC, but I don't think that's the rule as written in CA.


----------



## SteelDraco (Dec 29, 2006)

This is one of the problems with using spells and classes from different sources. IMO, if you're going to allow the Wraithstrike spell at all, it should already be on the duskblade spell list. It's designed for warrior-mages, which is what the duskblade is all about. WotC just doesn't print new spell lists for every class they've done in the past for every book that comes out. As a DM, if someone playing a duskblade asked me if they could use a spell that seemed appropriate, I'd just let them have it. I might require them to switch out another spell known for it, but that's more a problem I have with the duskblade's access to every spell on their list.

That said, as written, I don't believe the Extra Spell feat is intended to give you access to spells outside your class spell list. That's something that has to be explicity stated in the feat description - look at the Arcane Disciple feat. Since Extra Spell doesn't do that, it doesn't add spells to your class spell list.

I don't think it's an unreasonable house rule, but I don't think it's legal by the RAW.


----------



## Nifft (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research."
> 
> This does not say you can learn a spell from outisde of your class list.




My reading of this sentence is that it says exactly that. "Unable to research" would include things that are explicitly off of your spell list.

My reading is that the feat was intended to allow Duskblades, Beguilers, Warmages and the like to expand their limited options at a relatively high cost (since those classes don't get bonus feats).



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> If you allow the duskblade to take wraithstrike with this feat you might as well let a wizard learn heal spells or a cleric learn fireball.




Yes. I agree. Think carefully before allowing this feat in your campaign if such things bother you. Also Arcane Disciple and so forth. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Sejs (Dec 29, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> My opinion is, that it contradicts what your friend wants.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee





Bingo.

And c'mon... wraithstrike on a duskblade?  Smack your friend with a rolled up newspaper.  He has it coming.


----------



## takasi (Dec 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> What words say it doesn't?




For the duskblade they are right here:

"You cast arcane spells which are drawn from the duskblade spell list on page 98."

That's a rule.  Where does it say, in this feat, that this rule does not apply to this feat?



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The example otherwise makes no sense at all.  For example, a wizard has 'access' to every 0th-level spell out there.




Which example?  The only example I see is for a sorcerer.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Do you think this feat was intended to allow players an option to circumvent restrictions on spells set by the DM?  Per the rules, no spells on the class spell list are restricted to a generalist wizard, so in that vein what could this feat possibly do for a wizard, as given by the example, if not allow him access to spells outside his class spell list?




This is what I originally posted:

"Lacks access to" may be misleading text here. There are spells on your class list that you may "lack access to". A wizard, for example, only automatically learns a specific number of spells. In order to learn additional spells he must find a scroll, spellbook or someone to teach him. If he does not have access to these things he would not be able to learn the spell. 

"Unable to research" may also be misleading, but there are requirements for research: time and money. If you have neither than taking this feat would allow you to access a spell without paying for either.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Personally, I think everyone is voting based on the FAQ and what they want the answer to be.  I can see that perspective as that's how I would rule IMC, but I don't think that's the rule as written in CA.




I think they are voting because the rules in CA do not say you can break the rules for drawing spells beyond a character's spell list.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 29, 2006)

My vote is class list only. The basic rule is that every spellcaster gets access to a certain spell list. There's nothing in the feat to contradict that imo. And considering how powerful such an addition would be, I think the feat would specifically mention other spell lists if that was intended.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I think that's it
> 
> BTW, also ask your friend to think carefully about wanting wraithstrike to actually be available in the game. Has he ever considered what a dragon with wraithstrike can do?




Like a dragon would need wraithstrike.  When a dragon or many NPC's can be gimped out in the 40's to 50's AC, and then have +30 or so to hit, what can you expect.


----------



## the_mighty_agrippa (Dec 29, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> My opinion is, that it contradicts what your friend wants.




Agreed.

It is not on his spell list, so he can't select it.  The feat is designed to let sorcerers and bards get more versatility by expanding their spells known, not to let spellcasters reach across established magical boundaries to pick and choose the best possible spells to maximize their builds.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> What words say it doesn't?  The example otherwise makes no sense at all.  For example, a wizard has 'access' to every 0th-level spell out there.  Do you think this feat was intended to allow players an option to circumvent restrictions on spells set by the DM?  Per the rules, no spells on the class spell list are restricted to a generalist wizard, so in that vein what could this feat possibly do for a wizard, as given by the example, if not allow him access to spells outside his class spell list?
> 
> Personally, I think everyone is voting based on the FAQ and what they want the answer to be.  I can see that perspective as that's how I would rule IMC, but I don't think that's the rule as written in CA.




I think that the Faq needs to re-evaluate their decision and if they come to the same decision, errata this feat with a better wording.

The above is why it implies that it would be from other lists.  I will however concede that to broad a interpretation, leaves divine as a possiblity.  For arcane casters it would only be arcane spells and for divine casters it would be divine spells.  Some domain spell are not accessable to clerics.

By the way I'm the friend that Takasi is talking about.

Here's the situation, we are 4th level and there are only 5 feats between this and 20th level.  If I were to use a feat on this it would have to be important enough to forgo combat feats that may be critical to survival.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 29, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> My vote is class list only. The basic rule is that every spellcaster gets access to a certain spell list. There's nothing in the feat to contradict that imo. And considering how powerful such an addition would be, I think the feat would specifically mention other spell lists if that was intended.




Again as mentioned, why would they put "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research." when wizards always have access to all the wizard/sorcerer spells.

This seems either the writer didnt think about english or the rules.  Now with the current FAQ ruling making a clarification, I'll live with that but it is a bad wording then on the feat by it's author.


----------



## takasi (Dec 29, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> The above is why it implies that it would be from other lists.




What are you basing this on?  Where does it say in the feat description that the rules for drawing spells from your class list do not apply to this feat?


----------



## takasi (Dec 29, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Again as mentioned, why would they put "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research." when wizards always have access to all the wizard/sorcerer spells.
> 
> This seems either the writer didnt think about english or the rules.  Now with the current FAQ ruling making a clarification, I'll live with that but it is a bad wording then on the feat by it's author.




I think the wording from the author of Complete Arcane makes perfect sense.  

"Lacks access to" may be misleading you here. There are spells on your class list that you may "lack access to". A wizard, for example, only automatically learns a specific number of spells. In order to learn additional spells he must find a scroll, spellbook or someone to teach him. If he does not have access to these things he would not be able to learn the spell. 

"Unable to research" may also be misleading, but there are requirements for research: time and money. If you have neither than taking this feat would allow you to access a spell without paying for either.

I think you're reading more into the feat description than what's actually written because you want to add wraithstrike to your duskblade.


----------



## ainbimagh (Dec 29, 2006)

My guess is, either he is arguing with his DM and trying to justify through semantics an unbalanced character.

Or they are both coming here freely for opinion on how the feat is designed.

For the prior, deal with it, you dont get wraithstrike.
For the latter, read the poll, notice 90%+ say no, you dont get wraithstrike.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 29, 2006)

I actually agree with I2K on this one...nothing in the way the feat is written specifies that a character taking this feat must choose the spell from his own class list.


----------



## dagger (Dec 29, 2006)

I have seen illegal builds on Wizards Optimization forum for Duskblades with Wraithstrike and they are pretty sick.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> What are you basing this on?  Where does it say in the feat description that the rules for drawing spells from your class list do not apply to this feat?




"For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research."  This is where I base it on since wizards/sorcerers have access to all wizard/sorcerer spells.


----------



## takasi (Dec 29, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research."  This is where I base it on since wizards/sorcerers have access to all wizard/sorcerer spells.




They don't always have access to all wizard/sorcerer spells.  A wizard, for example, only automatically learns a specific number of spells. In order to learn additional spells he must find a scroll, spellbook or someone to teach him. If he does not have access to these things he would not be able to learn the spell.




			
				Rhun said:
			
		

> I actually agree with I2K on this one...nothing in the way the feat is written specifies that a character taking this feat must choose the spell from his own class list.




Nothing in the feat says he can choose a spell that's not in his class list.  His class description however does say he is limited.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 29, 2006)

dagger said:
			
		

> I have seen illegal builds on Wizards Optimization forum for Duskblades with Wraithstrike and they are pretty sick.




Here's the problem if a duskblade had wraithstrike vs an Eldritch knight.

Both take the round to charge a touch spell.  The round they strike, they swift cast wraithstrike.  This the the casting of one spell per round.  Then they full attack.  Both have somparable attacks and spells.  If you swift cast the wraithstrike, then you are not arcane channeling a spell.


----------



## irdeggman (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> "Lacks access to" may be misleading text here.  There are spells on your class list that you may "lack access to".  A wizard, for example, only automatically learns a specific number of spells.  In order to learn additional spells he must find a scroll, spellbook or someone to teach him.  If he does not have access to these things he would not be able to learn the spell.
> 
> "Unable to research" may also be misleading, but there are requirements for research:  time and money.  If you have neither than taking this feat would allow you to access a spell without paying for either.




There is another requirement for learning a spell, other than just time and money.



> Spells Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any spells from her prohibited schools. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
> 
> *If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. She cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until she gains another rank in Spellcraft.* A spell that was being copied from a scroll does not vanish from the scroll.
> 
> In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level x50 gp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> For the duskblade they are right here:
> 
> "You cast arcane spells which are drawn from the duskblade spell list on page 98."
> 
> That's a rule.  Where does it say, in this feat, that this rule does not apply to this feat?



 The entire feat states that.  The feat itself is not so restricted.



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> Which example?  The only example I see is for a sorcerer.



 The feat mentions wizard.  You even quote it in your first post.



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> "Lacks access to" may be misleading text here. There are spells on your class list that you may "lack access to". A wizard, for example, only automatically learns a specific number of spells. In order to learn additional spells he must find a scroll, spellbook or someone to teach him. If he does not have access to these things he would not be able to learn the spell.



 Just because he's limited to 2 free spells per level does not limit his access in any way.  The wizard goes up a level, his 2 free spells can be ANY spell he chooses.  There is no limitation on those 2 spells.



			
				wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Here's the situation, we are 4th level and there are only 5 feats between this and 20th level. If I were to use a feat on this it would have to be important enough to forgo combat feats that may be critical to survival.



 Although I'm arguing the rules in your favor, I would not personally allow wraithstrike at all, let alone as part of this feat for other classes.  Just like I would be VERY careful about what level they come over as (e.g. irresistible dance).


----------



## Nifft (Dec 29, 2006)

IMHO you should just take away _wraithstrike_, since that's a problematic spell in the hands of ... well, pretty much anyone who would want to cast it. Quickened _true strike_ is a 5th level spell-slot, and that's just for one attack.

Nothing to do with the Extra Spell feat -- _wraithstrike_ should go away. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Rhun (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> Nothing in the feat says he can choose a spell that's not in his class list.  His class description however does say he is limited.





This isn't a solid argument, though. A lot of the rules don't give specifics. I'm just saying that based on how loosely the feat is written, it can certainly be interpreted to allow a PC to choose a spell from a different class list. I'm not saying I would allow it (although the more I read through this thread, the more I think I would allow a character to do this in one of my games).

This, of course, is where the job of the DM comes in. It is his job to interpret the rules for the game he is running.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> Nothing in the feat says he can choose a spell that's not in his class list.  His class description however does say he is limited.



 You can keep repeating that if you want, but it's not helping.  The argument here is not as simple as you seem to think because the real argument is how you read rules in general.  Does the lack of a restriction in the feat mean that no restrictions apply or that all restrictions apply as normal?  If the latter, can a multiclass spellcaster cast any spells at all or do the restrictions apply to their other classes?  Obviously, they can cast spells so an interpretation of "all restrictions apply as normal" cannot also be true.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 29, 2006)

ainbimagh said:
			
		

> My guess is, either he is arguing with his DM and trying to justify through semantics an unbalanced character.
> 
> Or they are both coming here freely for opinion on how the feat is designed.
> 
> ...




As I have told Takasi, I understand that I am in the minority.  It doesn't mean that it is wrong but it also doesn't mean that it is right.

Also any time you get more than just 1 ro 2 % not seeing the same thing in wording, that means that the wording is bad and needs to be addressed.  So we needed opinions.

Anyway, I can live without wraithstrike.  It would be nice in fewer situations where even at the top end of BA you still miss 90 percent of the time with hitting the creature.


----------



## SlagMortar (Dec 29, 2006)

I don't have the feat in front of me, and do not want to try to get nitty gritty with the rules quotes are intermixed with other comments.  Is it possible that the line about a spell the wizard "lacks access to" could mean specialist wizards?  

If there is nothing indicating that it is talking about non-specialist wizards, then it is implied that the line is talking about specialist wizards (or similarly restricted wizards such as by PrC) because they are the only wizards that lack access to any spells at all.


----------



## takasi (Dec 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The entire feat states that.  The feat itself is not so restricted.




What does it state that contradicts which spells a class can select from?



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The feat mentions wizard.  You even quote it in your first post.




You stated:

"The example otherwise makes no sense at all. For example, a wizard has 'access' to every 0th-level spell out there. "

How does the example of a sorcerer make no sense?  I do not see an "example" for a wizard, especially anything concerning 0th-level spells.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Just because he's limited to 2 free spells per level does not limit his access in any way.  The wizard goes up a level, his 2 free spells can be ANY spell he chooses.  There is no limitation on those 2 spells.




There are limitations on the third, and that's what the feat allows.


----------



## ainbimagh (Dec 29, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> This isn't a solid argument, though. A lot of the rules don't give specifics. I'm just saying that based on how loosely the feat is written, it can certainly be interpreted to allow a PC to choose a spell from a different class list. I'm not saying I would allow it (although the more I read through this thread, the more I think I would allow a character to do this in one of my games).
> 
> This, of course, is where the job of the DM comes in. It is his job to interpret the rules for the game he is running.



Wow that is just a ... sad way of thinking.. hell you could interpret cleave to give you a free melee attack if you kill someone with a bow, because it doesnt state that you need to deal enough damage to drop it below 0 with a melee attack.. Besides, unless a feat SPECIFICALLY states you can break/bend another rule.. you cannot and since the feat doesnt state you can cast spells from outside or you class list.  You cannot, otherwise there would be no point in other rules if you could just 'interpret' around them.

Cleave: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.
SIZE]


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Dec 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I think that's it
> 
> BTW, also ask your friend to think carefully about wanting wraithstrike to actually be available in the game. Has he ever considered what a dragon with wraithstrike can do?




I certainly agree with this. If a player opens he can of worms with this spell or spells like M disjunction and such, then as a DM, I feel free to use it. A dragon with wraithstrike would be just terrible.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 29, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Here's the situation, we are 4th level and there are only 5 feats between this and 20th level.  If I were to use a feat on this it would have to be important enough to forgo combat feats that may be critical to survival.




Now this is something different to the initial question.

The initial question asks, whether it is allowed by the rules. It is not.

There is also the question, whether it should be allowed (as a house rule, which is certainly a possibility).

My opinion here is, that it should not be allowed, but others have different opinions there.

So, don't argue with your DM about whether it is allowed, but rather argue about whether it _should_ be allowed. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 29, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Also any time you get more than just 1 ro 2 % not seeing the same thing in wording, that means that the wording is bad and needs to be addressed.




Yep, it could be clearer. I wouldn't call it bad, there certainly are worse ones out there (metamagic rods, anyone ), but it is a little misleading.

BTW, if you are looking for feats, that let you hit better, try Arcane Strike (should be possible for the Duskblade to use that one). Not at your current level, though. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## takasi (Dec 29, 2006)

In any event I pointed out where the text could be misleading.

Does anyone actually think the FAQ contradicts the feat description?


----------



## EyeontheMountain (Dec 29, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> In any event I pointed out where the text could be misleading.
> 
> Does anyone actually think the FAQ contradicts the feat description?




The text is not clear, but I do not think it is misleading. In this case the FaQ has clarified the unclear text, but only conradicted those who tried to get the most out of the feat.


----------



## Mort (Dec 29, 2006)

If we are going to get into semantics: Extra spell says you can "learn" an extra spell. You can only cast spells from your allowed spell list - so whether extra spell allows a spell of your list is irrelevant because you can't cast it. 
Note both the warmage (CA) and begauiler (PHB II) with their respective special abilities, say you can "add a spell to your existing list", which is very different language and should be the language looked at. Because the feat is in the same book as the warmage, yet does not expressly allow adding the spell to your class spell list, that implies it does not. The FAQ merely clarifies this.

Regardless - think of it this way. Not allowing a spell off your class list with this feat is clear simple and does not lead to any complications.  Allowing a spell off your class list, leads to all sorts of questions and rules problems. Even if it was ambiguous, simpler is usually better.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 30, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yep, it could be clearer. I wouldn't call it bad, there certainly are worse ones out there (metamagic rods, anyone ), but it is a little misleading.
> 
> BTW, if you are looking for feats, that let you hit better, try Arcane Strike (should be possible for the Duskblade to use that one). Not at your current level, though.
> 
> ...




Metamagic rods seem to be your nemesis.  Yes the need an errata update as well.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 30, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> If we are going to get into semantics: Extra spell says you can "learn" an extra spell. You can only cast spells from your allowed spell list - so whether extra spell allows a spell of your list is irrelevant because you can't cast it.
> Note both the warmage (CA) and begauiler (PHB II) with their respective special abilities, say you can "add a spell to your existing list", which is very different language and should be the language looked at. Because the feat is in the same book as the warmage, yet does not expressly allow adding the spell to your class spell list, that implies it does not. The FAQ merely clarifies this.
> 
> Regardless - think of it this way. Not allowing a spell off your class list with this feat is clear simple and does not lead to any complications.  Allowing a spell of your class list, leads to all sorts of questions and rules problems. Even if it was ambiguous, simpler is usually better.




Whereas I would like a broader interpretation, my DM, not Takasi in this case has ruled differently.  Yes as a general rule, simplier is better but I can't help myself.


----------



## dagger (Dec 30, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Here's the problem if a duskblade had wraithstrike vs an Eldritch knight.
> 
> Both take the round to charge a touch spell.  The round they strike, they swift cast wraithstrike.  This the the casting of one spell per round.  Then they full attack.  Both have somparable attacks and spells.  If you swift cast the wraithstrike, then you are not arcane channeling a spell.




Huh?


A duskblade at 13th level with Wrathstrike and a full attack channel is not meant to be.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 30, 2006)

ainbimagh said:
			
		

> Wow that is just a ... sad way of thinking.. hell you could interpret cleave to give you a free melee attack if you kill someone with a bow, because it doesnt state that you need to deal enough damage to drop it below 0 with a melee attack.. Besides, unless a feat SPECIFICALLY states you can break/bend another rule.. you cannot and since the feat doesnt state you can cast spells from outside or you class list.  You cannot, otherwise there would be no point in other rules if you could just 'interpret' around them.
> 
> Cleave: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.
> [SIZE]





I don't know about it being a sad way of thinking, but yes, the DM can interpret the rules just about any way he wants. Rule 0. And being an "Old School" DM, I've never had to worry or argue with somebody about the interpretation of a rule. After all, its my world, its my interpretation.

As far as Cleave goes, it could definitely be written better. However, since it specifically says you get to make an *extra melee attack* with the *same weapon* used to drop the previous creature, cleaving with a bow is not possible. You cannot make a melee attack with a bow, so this is specifically not allowed.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 30, 2006)

dagger said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> 
> A duskblade at 13th level with Wrathstrike and a full attack channel is not meant to be.




Yes, it is not meant to be.  Do you think that you could cast two spells in one round.  He swift actions a wraithstrike, and the casts as part of a full attack through arcane channeling a second spell.  No, I think not.  I'll admit that the rules and opinions are against me but this from that standpoint is not as broken as stated by others.

However, I was talking to Takasi and we worked out that at 11th level where the duskblade would have this and 3 attacks, it is possible to really pervert this since the BA is full.

Power Attack  +11 dam x2 for 2-handed weapon
+5 Str x1.5 (Enlarged)
+2 weapon
Holy enhancement +2d6 vs evil creatures
+1d6 elemental damage

22+6+7+4=39+2d6 for longsword enlarged = 46pts average per hit

+8 to hit with magic/weapon focus/str

With touch AC being generally low, 3 attacks at 11th level makes this likely to do on average about a 140 pts of damage.  

This would be on top of any additional touch spells that were currently up and inflicted.

I hadn't thought about this and withdraw my want but it is evil in a good way.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 30, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> You cannot make a melee attack with a bow...




Elves can! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 30, 2006)

I'm taking the 3rd or 4th poll option!  

IMHO, the feat is not drafted clearly enough- as is, either interpretation is an equally valid reading...so this is right where the FAQ comes to our rescue.

Then why do I not vote on the poll?  Because my various DMs are split on the issue- some think the FAQ is garbage here, some are perfectly at ease with it.

Essentially, my vote is: "It allows whatever my DM says it allows."

Personally, I trend towards the broadest reading of "lacks access to" and "unable to research," and would probably run my campaigns allowing spellcasters to add spells outside of their list via this feat.

To answer the question of "which level" would such a spell be if it existed on multiple lists, my answer would be "the highest level."  Furthermore, the PC could not learn the spell if its nominal level is higher than the PC's highest possible class spell level (IOW- the PC is from a class that doesn't have full casting ability, so doesn't have 9 spell levels from which to choose, and thus, cannot add 9th level spells).


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 30, 2006)

I say that it should, based on the fact that Expanded Knowledge allows you to get a psionic power from any class's power list in the same manner.

Whether the FAQ bothered to take into account what the designer actually intended is another matter entirely.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 30, 2006)

Thanks- I had forgotten that!

When I originally encountered the 2 feats, I ruled they worked the same way...


----------



## ElectricDragon (Dec 30, 2006)

When the Extra Spell feat originally came out (Tome and Blood, 3.0, no duskblades, no warmages) it was paired with another feat called Extra Slot. The Extra Spell feat was mainly for spontanious casters, allowing them to get another spell to choose from without having to gain more levels. The Extra Slot feat was mainly for prepared casters as it allowed them to prepare an extra spell each day. Neither feat allowed spells outside of the class list. Their power was strong enough without that little bit of extra oomph.

Then along comes arcane casters with access to every spell on their list. Extra Slot would still work for them; yet most players want to get more than a sorcerer or bard would get from the feat to make it worthwhile for their chosen class. Some feats are not meant for some classes.

In the case of the wizard (*For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells*) why would this apply to the duskblade? It is not a class that has more options for learning spells. Never mind how it applies to wizards; it does not apply to duskblades. Period.

Ciao
Dave


----------



## Mort (Dec 30, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I say that it should, based on the fact that Expanded Knowledge allows you to get a psionic power from any class's power list in the same manner.
> 
> Whether the FAQ bothered to take into account what the designer actually intended is another matter entirely.




There is a huge difference between the wording of expanded knowledge and the wording of extra spell, which actually argues against extra spell allowing a caster to choose off list spells. 

First expanded power uses the term "add" - the same as the warmage and beguiler abilities - but not the "learn" language from extra spell.

Much more importantly, expanded knowledge explicitly states "You can choose any power, including powers from another discipline's list or even another class's list." Extra spell has no such wording. As a matter of fact, all abilities I can find that let you go "off list" explicitly state that they allow this; extra spell does not. 

I don't see as much ambiguity as other people here (though there really isn't that much as there is close to 90% agreement and that's remarkable for the rules forum on a disputed topic).


----------



## irdeggman (Dec 30, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Yes, it is not meant to be.  Do you think that you could cast two spells in one round.  He swift actions a wraithstrike, and the casts as part of a full attack through arcane channeling a second spell.  No, I think not.  I'll admit that the rules and opinions are against me but this from that standpoint is not as broken as stated by others.




No.

Arcane channeling is a standard action.

You don't get to do "standard" actions as part of a full-attack action.  A full-attack action allows you to make more than one attack not take more than one standard action.

A full-attack action is very specific.

The logic path you are following is the same as applying manyshot to all attacks being made when the archer has more than one attack.


----------



## Mort (Dec 30, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Arcane channeling is a standard action.
> 
> ...




A 13+ level duskblade can combine casting (and channeling) a touch spell with a full attack action - this is explicit. In effect casting (and channeling) a touch spell and a full attack are 1 full attack action for the 13+ duskblade. As such, of course a duskblade of this level could cast a swift spell and then us a full attack action to channel a different (target:touch) spell and full attack.


----------



## irdeggman (Dec 30, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> A 13+ level duskblade can combine casting (and channeling) a touch spell with a full attack action - this is explicit. In effect casting (and channeling) a touch spell and a full attack are 1 full attack action for the 13+ duskblade. As such, of course a duskblade of this level could cast a swift spell and then us a full attack action to channel a different (target:touch) spell and full attack.





My bad - that is what I get for truncating my reading for higher levels.


----------



## delericho (Dec 30, 2006)

I agree with the FAQ: the feat is not intended to allow you to add spells that aren't on your class spell list.

That said, I don't feel it is a bad house-rule for the DM to allow this, as feats are precious, and this usage doesn't seem game-breaking. I would include the caveat that the spell level should be taken as the least favourable level for any class that _does_ have access to it.

And, of course, the DM would have to monitor it closely for abuse, but that's a given anyway.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 30, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Elves can!
> 
> Bye
> Thanee





Some elves...too bad you aren't playing an elf in any of my games.


----------



## DreamChaser (Dec 30, 2006)

Well, no where does it say that monks can't fly...it clearly outlines the movement they can do but never explicitly states that they cannot fly. I suppose this means that my monk character should be able to fly. After all, some sort of flying would be a reasonable explanation for the increase speed and Slow Fall ability.

This is the same rationale as any "the feat/spell/ability doesn't NOT say X" argument.

In order to offer spells off the class's spell list, the Extra Spell feat would have to EXPLICITLY state that it allows the character to choose a spell that is not on his or her spell list, not vaguely imply it in a reference to wizards that could mean any number of other things.

Take for example the Archivist: the ability of the archivist to learn spells not on their own list is clearly spelled out in the class description (any divine caster, cannot be chosen as the automatic spells gained in a level, must be learned from a scroll or other source). This is explicit. Extra Spell is not.

DC


----------



## ainbimagh (Dec 30, 2006)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> Well, no where does it say that monks can't fly...it clearly outlines the movement they can do but never explicitly states that they cannot fly. I suppose this means that my monk character should be able to fly. After all, some sort of flying would be a reasonable explanation for the increase speed and Slow Fall ability.
> 
> This is the same rationale as any "the feat/spell/ability doesn't NOT say X" argument.
> 
> ...




Bingo.


----------



## Elemental (Dec 30, 2006)

dagger said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> 
> A duskblade at 13th level with Wrathstrike and a full attack channel is not meant to be.




Don't forget Power Attack for +20 or so damage per hit.

Expanded Knowledge is the psionic equivalent, and that specifies you can learn powers outside your normal limits (such as a psychic warrior learning an ardent's power). Extra Spell doesn't specify that. So I voted no.


----------



## ElectricDragon (Dec 30, 2006)

In the case of the wizard: 


> *For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells*



 Why would this apply to the duskblade? It is *not* a class that has 


> more options for learning spells



 Never mind how it applies to wizards; it does not apply to duskblades. Period.

Ciao
Dave


----------



## Rhun (Dec 30, 2006)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> This is the same rationale as any "the feat/spell/ability doesn't NOT say X" argument.
> 
> In order to offer spells off the class's spell list, the Extra Spell feat would have to EXPLICITLY state that it allows the character to choose a spell that is not on his or her spell list, not vaguely imply it in a reference to wizards that could mean any number of other things.





However, the feat does EXPLICITY say "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character *lacks access to and would be unable to research.*"

Emphasis is mine. A spell on the Cleric's spell list is most certainly one that a Wizard "lacks access to and would be unable to research." And I don't think anyone here can argue that point.

Which brings us back to how this is supposed to be interpreted. The FAQ clarifies this, but if we are using just the reading of the feat the way it is listed, is can be interpreted either way.


----------



## DreamChaser (Dec 30, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> However, the feat does EXPLICITY say "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character *lacks access to and would be unable to research.*"
> 
> Emphasis is mine. A spell on the Cleric's spell list is most certainly one that a Wizard "lacks access to and would be unable to research." And I don't think anyone here can argue that point.
> 
> Which brings us back to how this is supposed to be interpreted. The FAQ clarifies this, but if we are using just the reading of the feat the way it is listed, is can be interpreted either way.




Even if this were a valid interpretation of the feat (which I do not admit) it would still only be an interpretation that would apply to a wizard or another class that learned spells in a similar manner to the wizard (like the Archivist).

Depending upon how you interpret access, it is not true that a wizard would not have access to a cleric spell. He could find a cleric spell scroll which would then give him access to the spell. It would not, however, enable him to learn or cast said spell.

Ultimately "access" is not an in game term when applied to spells which makes for the issue addressing this question.

DC


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 30, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Arcane channeling is a standard action.
> 
> ...




 Level 13 allows arcane channeling as part of a full attack hence some of the debate.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 30, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> A 13+ level duskblade can combine casting (and channeling) a touch spell with a full attack action - this is explicit. In effect casting (and channeling) a touch spell and a full attack are 1 full attack action for the 13+ duskblade. As such, of course a duskblade of this level could cast a swift spell and then us a full attack action to channel a different (target:touch) spell and full attack.




Isn't swift casting and then arcnae channeling as part of an attack casting 2 spells.  Isn't this expressly forbidden unless you have one of the exceptions?


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 30, 2006)

Okay,  
  I'm seeing the logic but the feat is still badly worded and should be fixed.  That also goes for Metamagic rods so that Thanee can rest easier.

Does anyone know where you would submit to WotC a feat?


----------



## ainbimagh (Dec 30, 2006)

You can submit it through the website to cust serv, but the feat is not badly worded, the desire to abuse semantics to bend rules is the issue.  WoTC cant change that.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 30, 2006)

ainbimagh said:
			
		

> You can submit it through the website to cust serv, but the feat is not badly worded, the desire to abuse semantics to bend rules is the issue.  WoTC cant change that.




We will have to agree to disagree on this.


----------



## ainbimagh (Dec 30, 2006)

*sighs* Its things like that, that make me happy I play with rules lawyers, they may try to get the best of me.. but they do so by explicitly following the rules to the letter, rather than assuming that something is possible because the skill does not say it is not.


----------



## Mort (Dec 30, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Isn't swift casting and then arcnae channeling as part of an attack casting 2 spells.  Isn't this expressly forbidden unless you have one of the exceptions?




What other exceptions? Quickened and swift spells are exceptions.
There's absolutely nothing against casting a swift spell and a standard spell in the same round (heck that's the main reason swift and quickened spells exist - one of the most common wizard combos is quickened true strike followed by disintigrate).

[edited for clarity]


----------



## Rhun (Dec 30, 2006)

ainbimagh said:
			
		

> You can submit it through the website to cust serv, but the feat is not badly worded, the desire to abuse semantics to bend rules is the issue.  WoTC cant change that.





Oh, please. I'm a DM 90% of the time, and I have no interest in abusing the feat. It IS badly worded, and can be interpreted multiple ways. Just because one person was hoping to get _Wraithstrike_ out of it does not mean everyone is out to bend the rules.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 31, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> Oh, please. I'm a DM 90% of the time, and I have no interest in abusing the feat. It IS badly worded, and can be interpreted multiple ways. Just because one person was hoping to get _Wraithstrike_ out of it does not mean everyone is out to bend the rules.




Here's the thing.  I'm not asking for this now.  We are at 4th level.  If my interpretation was correct, then this would have been possible around 9th level.  I'm not trying to abuse the rules or blindside the DM.  I'm informing them of my intent and trying to find out if it was possible.  Thank you above for sticking up for me.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 31, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> However, the feat does EXPLICITY say "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell *is generally used* to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research."
> 
> Emphasis is mine.




I emphasised another part there...

'Is generally used' clearly implies, that this sentence is not a rule, but rather an explanation for a rule (which is in the first sentence (only)).

Is it possible, while not allowing spells from other class lists to be learned, for wizards to use the feat to aquire a spell they lack access to and would be unable to research? Yes it is (especially when the DM highly restricts how many spells wizards can learn apart from their free level up spells; the feat allows them to learn another spell of their choosing without the need of a scroll or a teacher or the time and money to do research). And that's all there is to it.

It's an explanation (attempt) why a wizard would maybe choose this feat, even though it makes little sense for a wizard to choose this feat, because the benefit is extremely small. It's certainly not a good explanation. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Rhun (Dec 31, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Here's the thing.  I'm not asking for this now.  We are at 4th level.  If my interpretation was correct, then this would have been possible around 9th level.  I'm not trying to abuse the rules or blindside the DM.  I'm informing them of my intent and trying to find out if it was possible.  Thank you above for sticking up for me.





Not a problem at all. I get sick of everyone yelling "Abuse, abuse!" It's a game, after all, and IMHO, any DM that can't prevent player abuse shouldn't be a DM. I've been playing over 20 years, and never had to rely on a FAQ or anything else to clarify the rules for me. 'course, my players have always been cool with whatever I decide too, so I guess I am blessed in that aspect.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 31, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Is it possible, while not allowing spells from other class lists to be learned, for wizards to use the feat to aquire a spell they lack access to and would be unable to research? Yes it is (especially when the DM highly restricts how many spells wizards can learn apart from their free level up spells; the feat allows them to learn another spell of their choosing without the need of a scroll or a teacher or the time and money to do research). And that's all there is to it.
> 
> It's an explanation (attempt) why a wizard would maybe choose this feat, even though it makes little sense for a wizard to choose this feat, because the benefit is extremely small. It's certainly not a good explanation.





Perhaps, but I am of the opinion that this would truly be a lousy feat for a wizard to take if that is the case. Of course, I rarely put restrictions on what spells they have available to learn. Again, I'm not arguing that you are wrong, I'm just saying that the way the feat is written, it could be interpreted either way.

How 'bout this though...if Dara wants to take this feat in my ToEE game, she can choose the spell from any spell list she wants.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Dec 31, 2006)

I say yes, because the feat is completely useless even for sorcerers if you only get a piddly lower level spell from your own spell list.

That said, I wouldn't let a wizard take a spell that is only on the bard, ranger, or paladin list.  A 9th level wizard shouldn't be able to get holy sword.    But cure critical wounds would be fine.  If you want the spell bad enough to blow a feat on it, why not?


----------



## Thanee (Dec 31, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but I am of the opinion that this would truly be a lousy feat for a wizard to take if that is the case.




Definitely. That's - IMHO - also the reason why this sentence is there in the first place.
They should just have left it out, which would have made things much easier and clearer. 



> Of course, I rarely put restrictions on what spells they have available to learn. Again, I'm not arguing that you are wrong, I'm just saying that the way the feat is written, it could be interpreted either way.




The feat alone... yes. The feat in context of the remaining rules... no. 



> How 'bout this though...if Dara wants to take this feat in my ToEE game, she can choose the spell from any spell list she wants.




You think we need the extra healing? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 31, 2006)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> I say yes, because the feat is completely useless even for sorcerers if you only get a piddly lower level spell from your own spell list.
> 
> That said, I wouldn't let a wizard take a spell that is only on the bard, ranger, or paladin list.  A 9th level wizard shouldn't be able to get holy sword.    But cure critical wounds would be fine.  If you want the spell bad enough to blow a feat on it, why not?




I would rule that if he is an arcane caster, then it's is only arcane spells.  If it is divine, then they would only be able to get divine spells.  There are many domain spells that a cleric doesn't get in their general spell list.


----------



## Mort (Dec 31, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I would rule that if he is an arcane caster, then it's is only arcane spells.  If it is divine, then they would only be able to get divine spells.  There are many domain spells that a cleric doesn't get in their general spell list.




But there are no real differences between arcane and divine spells other than what list they are on (heck more than a few spells are both). If you rule that this feat allows you to go off list, why the artificial limitation, either you can or you can't go off list. By imposing a clearly artificial limitation, you're aknowledging how problematic your interpreation is; and that should say something.

As for the feat being useless -it's not for sorcerers or even duskblades - they get an extremely limited "spells known" list and this is the only way to expand that. Besides not every feat has to be a "must have."


----------



## Votan (Dec 31, 2006)

I think that two things are obvious:

1) The feat is badly worded both given the example in it and the comparable psionic feat which clearly had a different intention

2) The feat is generally not overpowered if you allow the picking of any spell *except* that some specific spells can be massively game breaking if they can be combined.  In particualr, I am thinking about the combination of arcane and divine buffs or specific spells that change the wya a class plays (Wraithstrike, or spells off of classes with 4 level progressions who sometimes get exceptionally powerful 4th level spells).


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 31, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> There is a huge difference between the wording of expanded knowledge and the wording of extra spell, which actually argues against extra spell allowing a caster to choose off list spells.
> 
> First expanded power uses the term "add" - the same as the warmage and beguiler abilities - but not the "learn" language from extra spell.
> 
> ...





I didn't mean that's what the feat allowed, I mean that's what it should allow, because if psionicists can do it, so should sorcerers and duskblades be able to.  I know it doesn't work that way, but it should.  It's unfortunate that it doesn't.


----------



## Mort (Dec 31, 2006)

Votan said:
			
		

> I think that two things are obvious:
> 
> 1) The feat is badly worded both given the example in it and the comparable psionic feat which clearly had a different intention
> 
> 2) The feat is generally not overpowered if you allow the picking of any spell *except* that some specific spells can be massively game breaking if they can be combined.  In particualr, I am thinking about the combination of arcane and divine buffs or specific spells that change the wya a class plays (Wraithstrike, or spells off of classes with 4 level progressions who sometimes get exceptionally powerful 4th level spells).




Ok, everyone keeps saying the feat is badly worded - but it's not really - it just doesn't say what some people want it to say. EVERY other time that a feat or ability allows a class to go off list it is EXPLICITLY stated, here it simply is not. Heck I just looked at the SRD it says "At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook" - nothing about staying on list here, it's simply assumed.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 31, 2006)

Ultimately the issue in this case boils down to (as others have said) not whether Extra Spell is problematic, but whether Wraithstrike is.

And it is. 

Just nix that spell on both sides of the dm screen and poof, problem solved.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2006)

> As a matter of fact, all abilities I can find that let you go "off list" explicitly state that they allow this; extra spell does not.




Hmmm....

I'd be more convinced of this if there are abilities that let you go "off list" that explicitly _limit_ the lists from which abilities (spells, powers, whatever) may be chosen...IOW, other Feats that function like the FAQed version of Extra Spell.

I don't know if any exist or not- I'm just saying.


----------



## Votan (Dec 31, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> Ok, everyone keeps saying the feat is badly worded - but it's not really - it just doesn't say what some people want it to say. EVERY other time that a feat or ability allows a class to go off list it is EXPLICITLY stated, here it simply is not. Heck I just looked at the SRD it says "At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook" - nothing about staying on list here, it's simply assumed.




Oh, I agree.  But by saying things like a spell that a wizard is unable to research you create speculation about what sorts of spells can a wizard not research.  They introduced clarifying language that made the feat harder to understand -- that is bad writing.  If they had omitted that language I think that the argument against spell list jumping would actually be stronger.  

In any case, it is pretty obvious that it was not intended to mean that you could ignore spell list but rather to describe when a wizard would burn a feat rather than spending a few hundred GP.  Given that, in the same book, there is a feat that doubles the wizards spells known (yes, one feat) it wasn't completely absurd to wonder why the designers felt that 50% of the text should be devoted to what sort of mental illness would be required for a wizard to take this feat (since, RAW, collegiate wizard should be worth vastly more as a feat).


----------



## Rhun (Dec 31, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> Ok, everyone keeps saying the feat is badly worded - but it's not really - it just doesn't say what some people want it to say. EVERY other time that a feat or ability allows a class to go off list it is EXPLICITLY stated, here it simply is not. Heck I just looked at the SRD it says "At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook" - nothing about staying on list here, it's simply assumed.





Can you actually post an example of a feat or ability that actually does allow a class to choose spells from a non-class spell list?


----------



## Felix (Dec 31, 2006)

*As Written:*
The character can choose any spell to add to his spells known list. The feat itself does not limit which spells these are, it merely provides a way to get another spell and does not restrict that choice of spell to only a spell on the class' spell list. So any spell would work.

*FAQ Ruling:*
The ruling does not contradict the feat because the feat was silent on what restrictions it placed on the choice of spell. This then adds a limitation to the feat that was not there previously. I would rather that the FAQ did not do this, but in this case the ruling does make sense from a game mechanic standpoint: it allows caster to expand their spell repitoire within their own casting idiom. Which is fine with me.

*My Ruling Would Be*
On a case by case basis to allow a particular spell. Does the sorcerer wish to learn _Cure Moderate Wounds_? If that sorcerer had been a devout worshipper to whichever god, then I have no problem with this. Does the Duskblade want _Wraithstrike_? Sorry bud, pick again. But I have no problem with casters choosing spells from outside of their spell list, though I might take exception to the particular spell they chose.

I don't think there's a poll option for that so I didn't vote.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 31, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> Ok, everyone keeps saying the feat is badly worded - but it's not really - it just doesn't say what some people want it to say.





And FWIW, if a feat needs to be included in the FAQ for clarification of exactly how it operates, that is a prime example of it being badly worded...why else would it need clarification?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2006)

> Can you actually post an example of a feat or ability that actually does allow a class to choose spells from a non-class spell list?




Expanded Knowledge is the closest analogue _I_ know.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 31, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Expanded Knowledge is the closest analogue _I_ know.





So if the final line of the Expanded Knowledge feat read "You may choose any power" instead of "You may choose any power, including powers from another discipline's list or even another class' list," would you change your ruling on how the feat works to not allow other lists? Because to me the "You may choose *ANY* power" line is clear enough, and the rest of the statement is simply redundant.


----------



## Votan (Dec 31, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> So if the final line of the Expanded Knowledge feat read "You may choose any power" instead of "You may choose any power, including powers from another discipline's list or even another class' list," would you change your ruling on how the feat works to not allow other lists? Because to me the "You may choose *ANY* power" line is clear enough, and the rest of the statement is simply redundant.




But it is fairly interesting that the designers felt the need to inser thtis statement there.  Of course, given that this is due to a very subtle point of rules precedence (at least as best as I can tell) that is easy to get wrong, a clarifying statement at the end of Extra Spell would have been worth it as an alternative to the wizard text.  Who cares if no wizard ever takes the spell?  They don;t take Extra Rage either and nobody see that as a tragedy!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2006)

*ahem*

I'm on the "not really agreeing with the FAQ on this one" side, myself.  

At any rate, if it really works the way the FAQ says it does, what is the real benefit?  To which classes?

'Cause I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 31, 2006)

Votan said:
			
		

> But it is fairly interesting that the designers felt the need to inser thtis statement there.




Well sure, because whoever wrote Expanded Knowledge had the common sense to know if he didn't include that little statement, that there would be DMs freaking out across the world because they wouldn't be able to interpret what the word *ANY* actually meant.


----------



## Felix (Dec 31, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> And FWIW, if a feat needs to be included in the FAQ for clarification of exactly how it operates, that is a prime example of it being badly worded...why else would it need clarification?



Actually, the feat itself is fairly clear. "You learn one additional spell at any level up to one level lower..." This wording does not limit the feat-chooser to which spell he chooses.

If the feat intended to only allow extra spells from the class' spell list, then it was poorly worded to express that limitation; you must assume that the intent was otherwise to suspect that the wording of the feat was unclear.

The FAQ entry does indeed confirm the suspicion that many folks had regarding the intent of the feat, and those looking for confirmation that the feat limits the choice to those spells within the class spell list found it in the FAQ. But it does not change the fact that the feat standing alone is very clear: the character who chooses this feat may "learn one additional spell". No other restrictions were placed upon that choice except that done by DMs who didn't want spellcasters venturing outside of their class list and those thinking along the same lines as the FAQ.

And let me conclude by saying that something being clear and something being balanced or well written is not the same at all; often the meaning of what has been written and the intent of the author diverge without acknowledgement.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 31, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> Actually, the feat itself is fairly clear. "You learn one additional spell at any level up to one level lower..." This wording does not limit the feat-chooser to which spell he chooses.




Actually, this is the exact way I interpret the feat. But since 90% of people here don't agree with my interpretation, I am left with the conclusion that the feat must be poorly written.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> The FAQ entry does indeed confirm the suspicion that many folks had regarding the intent of the feat, and those looking for confirmation that the feat limits the choice to those spells within the class spell list found it in the FAQ. But it does not change the fact that the feat standing alone is very clear: the character who chooses this feat may "learn one additional spell". No other restrictions were placed upon that choice except that done by DMs who didn't want spellcasters venturing outside of their class list and those thinking along the same lines as the FAQ.




Preach it, brother! This is the point I have been trying to get across for some time now.


----------



## Votan (Dec 31, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> *ahem*
> 
> I'm on the "not really agreeing with the FAQ on this one" side, myself.
> 
> ...




Sorcerers who want an extra 4th level spell known seem to be the primary target audience.   

In general, spells known is the key balancing feature of the Spontaneous casters.  That being said, Arcane Disciple is brutal if you can find a way to synch up the spellcasting stats for the domain and the main spells.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2006)

> "You learn one additional spell at any level up to one level lower..."




Is that the actual wording?  (I don't have the book in front of me...)  If so, that would put a hole in the "cost & research" interpretation of "unable to learn" (see post #15)- if a PC has the time & resources to learn a higher level or same level spell, he definitely has the time & resources to learn a lesser one.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 31, 2006)

Below is the feat from the CA.  Below that is my submission for what I consider a better wording for what I thought the feat was.  Now if this feat gets approved it doesn't always mean that the taker of the feat would get what they want.  There may be spells that are imbalancing and for the sake of game balance and continuity be disallowed.


*Extra Spell*
You may learn an additional spell.
*Prerequisite: * Caster level 3rd.

*Benefit:* You learn one additional spell at any level up to one level lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast.  Thus, a 4th-level sorcerer (maximum spell level 2nd) gains a new 0-level or 1st-level spell known with which to expand her repertoire.  For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research.
*Special:* You can gain this feat multiple times.  Each time, you learn a new spell at any level up to one level lower than the highest level of spell you can cast.

*Expanded Spell Knowledge*
You may learn an additional spell.
*Prerequisite:* Caster level 7th, Knowledge Arcana 10 ranks for Arcane spells or Knowledge Religion 10 ranks for Divine spells.

*Benefit:* You learn one additional spell at any level up to one level lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast from the lists for your class.  You learn one additional spell at any level up to two levels lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast from the lists that your class does not have access to.  You are limited to arcane spells if you are an arcane caster and divine spells if you are a divine caster unless you meet both knowledge skill prerequisites.  You learn one additional spell at any level up to three levels lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast from the lists of divine if you are an arcane caster or arcane if you are a divine caster.  
  Thus, an 8th-level sorcerer (maximum spell level 4th) gains a new 0-level, 1st-level, 2nd-level or 3rd-level spell known with which to expand her repertoire.  Restrictions as stated above.
*Special:* You can gain this feat multiple times.  If you are a wizard who has to prepare spells, not a spontaneous caster, then you can learn two additional spells from list available.  If spells are taken from lists other than wizard then you are subject to above conditions.


----------



## Felix (Dec 31, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Is that the actual wording?  (I don't have the book in front of me...)  If so, that would put a hole in the "cost & research" interpretation of "unable to learn" (see post #15)- if a PC has the time & resources to learn a higher level or same level spell, he definitely has the time & resources to learn a lesser one.



As wildstarsreach has posted, the precise wording is:



> *Extra Spell*
> You may learn an additional spell.
> *Prerequisite:* Caster level 3rd.
> 
> ...



Emphasis added.

The underlined portion of the text is the actual game-mechanical effect of the feat; the rest of the wording serves to exemplify that which has been said, and to explain why a class which can scribe as many spells as they like into their spellbooks would want to take this feat.

I never really saw the need for the "cost and research" argument because none of the text restricts which spells may be chosen via this feat; not to mention that the word "generally" appears implying that there might be other reasons why spellbook casters might want to take this feat.

As written, the only restriction on the spell chosen is that it be one level lower than the highest level spell the character can cast.



			
				Rhun said:
			
		

> But since 90% of people here don't agree with my interpretation, I am left with the conclusion that the feat must be poorly written.



Most of the disagreements on the Rules forum stem from a muddling of the arguments about "What is written" and "What should be written". I suspect this may be your trouble here; the FAQ is often cited in "should be" arguments, but rarely in "what is" arguments. 

And as for "poorly worded", if the intent was to restrict the character's choice, then it was indeed poorly worded; this does not mean that what was written is unclear, unbalanced, or unplayable. And don't let 90% of the responses push you around; only one opinion matters in the end: your own.

But then, being obstinate for its own sake isn't a virtue either.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 31, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Yes, it is not meant to be.  Do you think that you could cast two spells in one round.  He swift actions a wraithstrike, and the casts as part of a full attack through arcane channeling a second spell.  No, I think not.  I'll admit that the rules and opinions are against me but this from that standpoint is not as broken as stated by others.
> 
> However, I was talking to Takasi and we worked out that at 11th level where the duskblade would have this and 3 attacks, it is possible to really pervert this since the BA is full.
> 
> ...




With regards to wraithstrike, this is an example of the duskblade out fighting the fighter.  And it gets worse at 20th level:

PA +15/30+9 Str/Enl+Aligned weapon 2d6+magic 4+Element dam 1d6+2d6 Weap=60 points ave per hit.

That leaves +6 Str, +1 WF,+4 wepon, +5 BA is +15/+10/+5/+0.  The character would probably hit with 2 hits, likely hit with a third and maybe hit with a 4th.  That leaves between 120-240 per round.  If hasted then that would be between 180-300 points a round.  This is outfighting the fighter.  A character maximized as an elderitch knight would come up between 100-200 or 150-250 if hasted.  Wraith strike can be overwhelming for any DM.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 31, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> With regards to wraithstrike, this is an example of the duskblade out fighting the fighter.





Don't be too sure. Your 11th level example isn't all that impressive. There is a 12th level fighter in my group that averages about 40 points of damage per strike without using any type of spell. And he often hits with all three iterative attacks. Lately he has been dropping Fire Giants (142 hp) in a single round (since almost every round at least one of his strikes ends up being a critical).


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 31, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> Don't be too sure. Your 11th level example isn't all that impressive. There is a 12th level fighter in my group that averages about 40 points of damage per strike without using any type of spell. And he often hits with all three iterative attacks. Lately he has been dropping Fire Giants (142 hp) in a single round (since almost every round at least one of his strikes ends up being a critical).




Especially with Improved Critical and Power Critical.  Most fighters I've noticed aren't usually optimized as you are describing though.

What are the basic stats that he has so most can see that a Duskblade with this may not be as abusive as some think then.


----------



## Mort (Dec 31, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Is that the actual wording?  (I don't have the book in front of me...)  If so, that would put a hole in the "cost & research" interpretation of "unable to learn" (see post #15)- if a PC has the time & resources to learn a higher level or same level spell, he definitely has the time & resources to learn a lesser one.




Not at all. When a wizard goes up a level, he automatically learns 2 spells (no extra time, resources or roll needed). The feat would allow him to learn a 3rd one in the same manner. Is it a huge benefit? Not really, but not all feats were created equal for all classes.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Dec 31, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> Not at all. When a wizard goes up a level, he automatically learns 2 spells (no extra time, resources or roll needed). The feat would allow him to learn a 3rd one in the same manner. Is it a huge benefit? Not really, but not all feats were created equal for all classes.




This is something that takasi and I have talked about.  I see his point that you level but if during the course of an adventure, you level and could not buy scrolls or have access to research lab, that is what takasi thinks that was meant to address.  A wizard could get a 3rd spell on a level.  But this is borderline waste of a valuable feat IMO.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 31, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> This is something that takasi and I have talked about.  I see his point that you level but if during the course of an adventure, you level and could not buy scrolls or have access to research lab, that is what takasi thinks that was meant to address.  A wizard could get a 3rd spell on a level.  But this is borderline waste of a valuable feat IMO.





I'd say that using a feat to gain something that you could buy in a little while crosses the border into utter uselessness


----------



## Votan (Dec 31, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I'd say that using a feat to gain something that you could buy in a little while crosses the border into utter uselessness




Let us see.  The SRD suggests that the cost of copy a spell is: "This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.".  Now, it has to be one level lower than the highest you can cast.  

At first level this gives you a cantrip.  Maybe 25 gp in value?  

So, at 6th level, this feat replces a 100 gp cost to scribe a spell.  

At 18th level, it is worth 400 gp.  

Now consider the worst of feat (skill focus).  it can be replaced by an item that costs 100 gp times the competence bonus squared.  At first level you can get the equivalent of a 900 gp magic item for a feat and it stacks with the item.  

Yes, this feat is much worse than skill focus (which is widely considered to be a poor feat choice).    

Something like Negotiator can be replaced with 2 +2 ability items for a total cost of 800 gp.

Obviously this is about the worst use of a feat possible.  If you are this desperate for money, the campaign has other problems.


----------



## Felix (Dec 31, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> But this is borderline waste of a valuable feat IMO.



For a wizard, absolutely.

Doesn't mean it's not a great feat for other classes though. Extra Spell has the opposite issue: good for wizards and not so much for sorcerers.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 31, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> For a wizard, absolutely.
> 
> Doesn't mean it's not a great feat for other classes though. Extra Spell has the opposite issue: good for wizards and not so much for sorcerers.





For a Sorcerer it's a passable feat, if you desperately need one extra spell of a certain level.  For the most part, though, I'd still say it's pretty much a waste of a feat, unless you allow it go grant spells from other class's lists.

Then again I consider Dodge as written to be pretty much a waste of a feat, too.


----------



## irdeggman (Dec 31, 2006)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> This is something that takasi and I have talked about.  I see his point that you level but if during the course of an adventure, you level and could not buy scrolls or have access to research lab, that is what takasi thinks that was meant to address.  A wizard could get a 3rd spell on a level.  But this is borderline waste of a valuable feat IMO.





But on page 181 of Complete Arcane is "the" wizard's feat.

_Collegiate Wizard_


Now this feat is listed with warnings and cautions, but it is still in the same book as Extra Spell. It is also one of the more "discussed" feats as to whether or not it is "overpowered" and should be allowed in a game.


Prereq: Int 13, wizard 1st level

Benefit - Without quoting the feat it basically enables the wizard to double the "known" spells per level.  Instead of 4 + at first level you get 6 + and instead of 2 at each subsequent level you get 4.


So why take Extra Spell when the benefits of this feat is much, much greater?

And as so many people have pointed out not all feats are equally beneficial to all classes.


----------



## Votan (Dec 31, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> But on page 181 of Complete Arcane is "the" wizard's feat.
> 
> _Collegiate Wizard_
> 
> ...




Yes, this feat is about 100 times as beneficial.  It grants 2 spells of equal level to what the wizard can cast at *every* level.  I think that the designers decided to be cute an insert a line to convince naive wizard players that this feat could be worthwhile.  This backfired by making the feat confusing.  

If it does let you pick from any class spell list, a clarifying statement letting you know how this works could have been helpful.  For example, if a spell is at many different levels for different classes, which one do you pick?  Can a cleric pick Disintegrate off of the Duskblade list instead of the Sorcerer/Wizard list?  

Also note that the new canonical 12th level feat for both Rangers and Paladins will become Extra Spell [Wraithstrike].  If you think that is bad, the 9th level feat for a Fighter/Divine Crusader is the same!  One just fills all slots with this spell, power attack for the maximum on pretty much every swing and watch as things die really, really fast.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> *ahem*
> 
> I'm on the "not really agreeing with the FAQ on this one" side, myself.
> 
> ...




Spontaneous casters with a highly limited number of spells known can benefit greatly from this feat.

I have used it already, and was not disappointed. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> *As Written:*
> The character can choose any spell to add to his spells known list. The feat itself does not limit which spells these are, it merely provides a way to get another spell and does not restrict that choice of spell to only a spell on the class' spell list. So any spell would work.




But can you cast the spells learned this way, if they are not on the class list?
There's a definite rule about what spells can be cast... and those not on the class spell list cannot.
Since the feat definitely does not add spells to the class spell list, it would be pointless to learn spells from other classes, even if it was possible with the feat.

Also, do you think a Wizard can start the game with _Cure Light Wounds_ written in the spellbook?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2007)

So...within the same book you have Collegiate Wizard- a Feat that _doubles_ known spells per level- and another- Extra Spell that lets you "add a (single) spell" your PC couldn't normally learn to his spell list...

That just strengthens my opinion that Extra Spell is intended to be read expansively and not restricted as per the FAQ clarification.

While not all feats are created equal, nor are all feats intended to be used by all PCs, this is a fairly radical difference in power & utility.  The limitation on Collegiate Wizard is that the spells must all be part of the class list.  Limiting Extra Spell to that same list radically devalues the Feat vis a vis Collegiate Wizard so thoroughly that the only way I could buy the FAQ interpretation is if Extra Spell were limited to spontaneous casters.

Perhaps, just maybe, I'd restrict it to be arcane only for arcane casters, and divine only for divine casters, but that's about it.


----------



## Mort (Jan 1, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> So...within the same book you have Collegiate Wizard- a Feat that _doubles_ known spells per level- and another- Extra Spell that lets you "add a (single) spell" your PC couldn't normally learn to his spell list...
> 
> That just strengthens my opinion that Extra Spell is intended to be read expansively and not restricted as per the FAQ clarification.
> 
> ...




Once you restrict arcane to arcane and divine to divine you are essentially admiting that you don't think the feat was meant to go off list. 

Looking at the abilities that allow a spellcaster to go off list, we can look at the Warmage and the Beguiler.  Both have an "advanced learning" class feature that explicitly allows them to pick 1 spell not on their class list and add it. Both put large limitations on the spells available and both require that the spell added be considered 1 level higher.  The Duskblade btw, which is in the same book as the beguiler and also has a set spell list, is notably missing this ability.

Also, intent of the designers is a pretty tough argument. Especially since you so quickly dismiss the FAQ, and its author undeniably has a better insight into intent than anyone posting here. 

And why do you (and others) keep saying the benefit is so minor - at 6th level a sorcerer knows 2 2nd level spells. With this feat he can know 3. That's 50% more spells than other sorcerers of that level, hardly insignificant. A 9th level sorcerer who takes this feat will know 4 3rd level spells, instead of the usual 3; again a significant (33%) increase.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2007)

> Once you restrict arcane to arcane and divine to divine you are essentially admiting that you don't think the feat was meant to go off list.




Actually, no.

In D&D (and not in other game systems), I maintain a fairly hard line between arcane and divine spells- divine spells are granted by divine sources, thus are not subject to being "researched," the arcane versions of those spells that have both arcane and divine sources are the exception.

There are lots of spells that are arcane that are not on the sorcerer/wizard list- like those that are on the Wu Jen list.

And vice versa.



> And why do you (and others) keep saying the benefit is so minor - at 6th level a sorcerer knows 2 2nd level spells. With this feat he can know 3. That's 50% more spells than other sorcerers of that level, hardly insignificant. A 9th level sorcerer who takes this feat will know 4 3rd level spells, instead of the usual 3; again a significant (33%) increase.




Compare that to Collegiate Wizard, which grants a 100% increase while staying within the list.

To me, that means that the expansive reading of Extra Spell that grants a single spell is only balanced in regards to Collegiate Wizard if it grants access outside of a class' spell- like the similar Expanded Knowledge feat for psionic PCs.


----------



## Mort (Jan 1, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Actually, no.
> 
> In D&D (and not in other game systems), I maintain a fairly hard line between arcane and divine spells- divine spells are granted by divine sources, thus are not subject to being "researched," the arcane versions of those spells that have both arcane and divine sources are the exception.
> 
> ...




But the line is still only one of class lists, that's it. How the feat should work in any given game is purely up to the DM, but that's not what we are discussing here.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Compare that to Collegiate Wizard, which grants a 100% increase while staying within the list.
> 
> To me, that means that the expansive reading of Extra Spell that grants a single spell is only balanced in regards to Collegiate Wizard if it grants access outside of a class' spell- like the similar Expanded Knowledge feat for psionic PCs.




Again, no one ever said all feats were created equal, and in fact many people claim collegiate wizard is too powerful. You shouldn't set the bar at that feat.  It's like me saying any feat better than toughnes is clearly too powerful and should be enterpreted to not be better than toughness.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2007)

> But the line is still only one of class lists, that's it.




No, its a line based upon the nature of the source of the magic.

While there are many things mages can discover about the nature of magic, divine magic can ONLY source from divine wellsprings, and are thus beyond access to anyone who does not have levels in a class with divine spellcasting abilities.

Its like the old joke:



> The world's scientists finally found out how to make life from inert materials, so they challenged God to a contest to see who could make the best human being.
> 
> On the day of the contest, the scientists showed up with lots of assistants, all kinds of machinery, lab equipment, and raw materials.  God showed up empty handed and alone.
> 
> ...




And, for the record, note that I said


> Perhaps, just maybe, I'd restrict it to be arcane only for arcane casters, and divine only for divine casters, but that's about it.




As in, I'm not decided about crossing that line, but that restriction is only the barest possibility.



> ...no one ever said all feats were created equal




I myself said that they weren't.



> ...many people claim collegiate wizard is too powerful. You shouldn't set the bar at that feat.




I didn't- I set it at Expanded Knowledge.

Collegiate Wizard is essentially a cousin of Extra Spell, one directed solely at wizards according to its prereqs.  It doubles a wizard's spells known, but the spells can only come from the sorc/wiz list.

Extra Spell (pre-FAQ) had no limitation to source, but only adds one spell.  To my mind, that is actually pretty balanced as compared to Collegiate Wizard.

There is no Psionic feat to compare to collegiate wizard, AFAIK.  If there were one, I'd expect it to be limited to the PC's class list, and would consider that to be balance with Expanded Knowlege (which adds 1 power from any power list).


----------



## Mort (Jan 1, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, its a line based upon the nature of the source of the magic.
> 
> While there are many things mages can discover about the nature of magic, divine magic can ONLY source from divine wellsprings, and are thus beyond access to anyone who does not have levels in a class with divine spellcasting abilities.




But this is from your own interpretation of the line between arcane and divine and has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing. You are free to set any and all limits in your own game.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I didn't- I set it at Expanded Knowledge.
> 
> Collegiate Wizard is essentially a cousin of Extra Spell, one directed solely at wizards according to its prereqs. It doubles a wizard's spells known, but the spells can only come from the sorc/wiz list.
> 
> ...




Again expanded knowledge explicitly states that it is an exception, this feat has no such language.  Expanded knowledge explicitly states "add to your powers known" this feat does not.  Maybe this feat should be broader than it is, and anyone who wants to can expand it. I'm just saying the baseline of this feat is not to allow off-list spells. 

And that's all the rules really are: a baseline. If in my game a wizard says "hey, I'd like this wu-jen spell it would really fit my character," and for some reason they couldn't research it, I'd likely allow it, but that's because it's my game. I would still think the baseline is class list only.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> For a wizard, absolutely.
> 
> Doesn't mean it's not a great feat for other classes though. Extra Spell has the opposite issue: good for wizards and not so much for sorcerers.




I agree, for sorcerers, this is invaluable with having access to a large list.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2007)

> Again expanded knowledge explicitly states that it is an exception, this feat has no such language. Expanded knowledge explicitly states "add to your powers known" this feat does not. Maybe this feat should be broader than it is, and anyone who wants to can expand it. I'm just saying the baseline of this feat is not to allow off-list spells.




Extra Spell says "You learn one additional spell"- in the arcane system- at least in the wizard class- that is the analogous language to "add to your powers known" in the psionics system.

The caster/manifester prereqs are identical- 3rd.

The mechanics- adding a power/spell 1 level lower than the PC's max- are identical.

Both can be taken multiple times.

The only difference is that one says explicitly what the other is silent upon- the size and nature of the pool of spells/powers that may be "targeted" by the Feat, "clarified" by the FAQ.*

Show me 2 other feats so similarly drafted that are adjudicated so differently.

*For those who don't know me, I'm not one of the people who dismisses the FAQ out of hand- I take a "wholeistic" approach, considering RAW, FAQ, Eratta, CustServ and my own opinion.  Here, I think the FAQ erred.


----------



## ElectricDragon (Jan 1, 2007)

Rhun said:
			
		

> Can you actually post an example of a feat or ability that actually does allow a class to choose spells from a non-class spell list?




Here is one such example from the dread necromancer class from Heroes of Horror:



			
				Heroes of Horror said:
			
		

> *Advanced Learning (Ex):* At 4th level, a dread necromancer can add a new spell to her list, representing the result of personal study and experimentation. The spell must be a cleric or wizard spell of the necromancy school, and of a level no higher than that of the highest-level spell the dread necromancer already knows. Once a new spell is selected, it is added to that dread necromancer's spell list and can be cast just like any other spell she knows. If a spell is both a cleric spell and a wizard spell, use the lower of the two spell levels (when different) to determine what level the spell is for a dread necromancer.
> A dread necromancer gains an additional new spell at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level.




How specific is this ability compared to the feat?
Ciao
Dave


----------



## Mort (Jan 1, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Extra Spell says "You learn one additional spell"- in the arcane system- at least in the wizard class- that is the analogous language to "add to your powers known" in the psionics system.
> 
> The caster/manifester prereqs are identical- 3rd.
> 
> ...




This is not correct. Expanded Knowledge says you "add a power" (easily interpreted to mean add to your list). Extra spell says you "learn a spell." This is different because you can only cast a spell if it is on your class list, if it has not been added on your class list you cannot cast it, though of course you can learn a spell on your class list. Semantics perhaps, but added to everything else, it has weight.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Show me 2 other feats so similarly drafted that are adjudicated so differently.
> 
> *For those who don't know me, I'm not one of the people who dismisses the FAQ out of hand- I take a "wholeistic" approach, considering RAW, FAQ, Eratta, CustServ and my own opinion.  Here, I think the FAQ erred.




If it wasn't 2:30 a.m I just may look through all my books, but I have stuff to prepare for tomorrow; interesting challenge though and I may have to look.  Still, I do not consider it dispositive because Expanded knowledge has the wording and Extra spell does not. The FAQ had the opportunity to say the language applies, instead it explicitely stated class-list only (in other words that the language present in expanded knowledge was not meant to be added).

One other thing: as close as they are, psionics and and magic are two different systems. In psionics there is no duplication between disciplines. No such thing as 8th level on one list and 5th level on another - so there is no confusion when going off list and a psion cannot get a power early. The same cannot be said for the magic lists. A spell may be 8th level on one list and 5th level on another. For example, with this interpretation a wizard can get polar ray 3 levels early (take extra spell at 12th level and take polar ray off the duskblade spell list as a 5th level spell).


----------



## Mort (Jan 1, 2007)

ElectricDragon said:
			
		

> Here is one such example from the dread necromancer class from Heroes of Horror:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Heroes of Horror
> ...





Yet another example where the class ability allows going off list, but with severe limitations (this is consistant, warmage = evocation specialist, so evocation only, beguiler = illusion specialist so illusion only, and dread necromancer - see above). Why should a regular feat be better than the class ability? And yes,I note how specific they were here. Wording for the warmage is equally specific re: going off list. Yet for extra spell (from the same book as the warmage) the language is not added.

wow (3:00 a.m. my wife will kill me) good night.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2007)

> This is not correct. Expanded Knowledge says you "add a power" (easily interpreted to mean add to your list). Extra spell says you "learn a spell." This is different because you can only cast a spell if it is on your class list, if it has not been added on your class list you cannot cast it, though of course you can learn a spell on your class list. Semantics perhaps, but added to everything else, it has weight.




Actually, each class has limitations on how many powers a PC can know at a given level, just like spellcasters- but for the relevant feat, you can only normally "add a power" that is on your own class' list and can't use it unless it is on your class list.  For psions, this list would mean their subspecialty or the general psion/wilder list, for wilders, the general psion/wilder list, etc.

The analogy holds.



> In psionics there is no duplication between disciplines. No such thing as 8th level on one list and 5th level on another - so there is no confusion when going off list and a psion cannot get a power early.




Incorrect- a few minutes perusal of the XPH reveals 2 things:

1) Psions have subspecialty lists with unique powers that may or may not be shared with other classes, like the Psychic Warrior- but are barred from other Psionic subspecialties and the Wilder class.  This is analogous to the full-caster spells that show up in the spell lists from classes like the Wu Jen that are barred from Wizards (though not Sorcerers- according to OA, Sorcerers must either make a decision between the Sorc/Wiz list or the Wu Jen list or may choose from both- the language is a tad ambiguous).

2) There ARE powers that differ in level between psionic classes, like Chameleon (Egoist 2 and Psychic Warrior 1); Empathic Feedback (Psion/Wilder 4, Psychic Warrior 3); Evade Burst (Psion/Wilder 7, Psychic Warrior 3); Hustle (Egoist 3, Psychic Warrior 2); and Mind Blank, Personal (Psion/Wilder 7, Psychic Warrior 6).

Note that power Evade Burst- its a 4 level difference between the Psion and PsyWar versions...a greater gap than your arcane spell hypothetical.

I'm sure there are other "split-level" powers in CompPsi (and other sourcebooks) as well.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The only difference is that one says explicitly what the other is silent upon- the size and nature of the pool of spells/powers that may be "targeted" by the Feat, "clarified" by the FAQ.*




There, you said it yourself. One says so explicitly, so it works, the other is silent upon it, so it does not work. That's the difference.

And as already stated numerous times, it doesn't matter at all, if Extra Spell would allow you to learn spells from other classes, since it wouldn't allow you to cast them, so that exercise is pointless either way, without _adding new rules_ to the feat description. That's not a matter of interpretation.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> So...within the same book you have Collegiate Wizard- a Feat that _doubles_ known spells per level- and another- Extra Spell that lets you "add a (single) spell" your PC couldn't normally learn to his spell list...
> 
> That just strengthens my opinion that Extra Spell is intended to be read expansively and not restricted as per the FAQ clarification.




Last time I checked, Collegiate Wizard did not work for Sorcerers at all...

And it's not in the feat section, but is an example feat in the organizations section, so it does not necessarily have to be created with the other one in mind. It's certainly rather pointless to take Extra Spell as a Wizard, but that does not change how it works.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 1, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> So...within the same book you have Collegiate Wizard- a Feat that _doubles_ known spells per level- and another- Extra Spell that lets you "add a (single) spell" your PC couldn't normally learn to his spell list...
> 
> That just strengthens my opinion that Extra Spell is intended to be read expansively and not restricted as per the FAQ clarification.
> 
> While not all feats are created equal, nor are all feats intended to be used by all PCs, this is a fairly radical difference in power & utility.




Collegiate Wizard gives practically zero power and utility that gold alone could not give. The only real advantage is time and potentially spell selection (DM dependent).

Nearly the same benefit can be had by finding a Wizard's spellbook and some treasure.

This is not a powerful feat. A useful feat, sure. But, not powerful.

A Wizard could buy specific spells from other Wizards at 50 GP per level (PHB page 179).

At 1st level, this is 150 GP for spell purchase and 300 GP for putting spells into a spell book. Equivalent to a few potions which could easily be used up while low level adventuring.

And, at the cost of a feat.

At 20th level, this is at most 9,950 GP for spell purchase and 19,900 GP for putting spells into a spell book (although many Wizards would try to have a Boccob's book by 10th level, so that would save about 12,640 GP). It would cost him at most 29,850 GP (or 17,210 GP with a Boccob's at 10th). That might sound like a lot, but at 20th level, that's 29,850 / 760,000. That's < 4% of his total wealth. Hardly a drop in the bucket.

Your opinion here does not follow RAW, nor is it very logical.

An overall 4% savings in gold (or ~2.25% for most PC Wizards who gain a Boccob's Book) is not as earthshaking as you are making it out to be.

And, at the cost of a feat.

The only real advantage of Collegiate Wizard is that the Wizard gets to explicitly pick and choose which additional spells he wants whereas without this feat, the DM has a lot more control.


Finally, comparing feats and using one to state functionality of another is not valid. That's like saying that one spell works like another because it does not say that it does not.


----------



## Aaron L (Jan 1, 2007)

So you are saying that two essentially identical feats function entirely differently because one includes a special clause while the other just doesn't say?


I like to keep things equal and assume that since the feat for psionic powers works that way, the feat for spells feat works that way, too.


----------



## Felix (Jan 1, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> But can you cast the spells learned this way, if they are not on the class list?
> There's a definite rule about what spells can be cast... and those not on the class spell list cannot.
> Since the feat definitely does not add spells to the class spell list, it would be pointless to learn spells from other classes, even if it was possible with the feat.



Quite right. The rule for what spells a sorcerer can cast is found in the Sorcerer: Spells entry. To wit:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Spells*: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below).



It not only allows the possibility that spells can be drawn from sources other than the Sor/Wiz spell list, but ties his ability to cast a spell to his pool of Spells Known. The feat clearly adds a spell to that list, and so the sorcerer's ability to cast that spell is unfettered.



> Also, do you think a Wizard can start the game with _Cure Light Wounds_ written in the spellbook?
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



Not if he's a first level Wizard; he would only be able to choose a cantrip; but he already knows all of those. And in what you quoted of me I wasn't passing judgement on how well the feat would work, merely commenting on what the wording of the feat meant.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2007)

> It not only allows the possibility that spells can be drawn from sources other than the Sor/Wiz spell list, but ties his ability to cast a spell to his pool of Spells Known. The feat clearly adds a spell to that list, and so the sorcerer's ability to cast that spell is unfettered.




The Sorcerer can already draw from more than one list- they may draw from the Sorc/Wiz list or from the Wu Jen list (as per OA, not changed in the 3.5 update in Dragon).



> One says so explicitly, so it works, the other is silent upon it, so it does not work.



and


> Your opinion here does not follow RAW, nor is it very logical.




1) As people have pointed out in other threads, the Eratta list changes the RAW, not the FAQ (not that I neccessarily buy that).  The RAW of Extra Spell is silent to this matter, meaning it is open to interpretation- not that it is non-functional.

2) It is quite logical- I'm adjudicating 2 nearly identically worded Feats in the same fashion.



> Last time I checked, Collegiate Wizard did not work for Sorcerers at all...




I said as much earlier:



> Collegiate Wizard is essentially a cousin of Extra Spell, one directed solely at wizards according to its prereqs. It doubles a wizard's spells known, but the spells can only come from the sorc/wiz list.






> And as already stated numerous times, it doesn't matter at all, if Extra Spell would allow you to learn spells from other classes, since it wouldn't allow you to cast them, so that exercise is pointless either way




And yet the analogous class ability for the Warmage adds spells to their list and lets them cast it as well.

For Extra Spell to function as I (and others) rule it to, no rules need be added.  The exercise isn't pointless.

Extra spell lets the caster add a spell to the caster's list of known spells.  If you know a spell, you can cast it.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> So you are saying that two essentially identical feats function entirely differently because one includes a special clause while the other just doesn't say?




They are not even close to being identical. They might be equivalent, but they are based on entirely different foundations (magic (which includes two systems already, arcane and divine) and psionics).

And... yes.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Quite right. The rule for what spells a sorcerer can cast is found in the Sorcerer: Spells entry. ...




We're talking about Wizards, though. 

Sorcerers are more tricky, thanks to a certain 'primarily' in their class writeup. 
It becomes a matter of common sense for them.



> Not if he's a first level Wizard




Why not?

Can you give me a solid reason, why a Wizard cannot start the game with _Cure Light Wounds_ as one of his/her 1st-level spells?

And as a follow-up... when the Wizard becomes a 2nd-level Wizard, can s/he then add _Cure Light Wounds_ to the spellbook (if it's not in there already, anyways) as part of the level-up process?




> And in what you quoted of me I wasn't passing judgement on how well the feat would work, merely commenting on what the wording of the feat meant.




Ok. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 1, 2007)

I believe that the decision that the FAQ made for the feat Extra Spell maybe incorrect.  I think that my premises make my argument valid as this is a conservative decision that that does not apply to standard spontaneous casters.

This feat has the most affect on a spontaneous caster.  This argument is not for the wizard as this is not who this seems designed for.  On page 18 of the FAQ, the answer is no and I believe that this is because of two things, he has access to all Warmage spells of the level he can cast and he already has the advanced learning special ability.  This has been interpreted that since the Warmage cannot benefit, that all other spontaneous casters have the same limitation.  I think that this is a misinterpretation on most peoples part.

The part that address’s wizards leaves some to make the possible argument that this may allow spells that may be allowed only to another class. ” For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research.”  This is almost a waste of a feat since the Collegiate Wizard feat that a wizard could taken at 1st level on Page 181 of the Complete Arcane.

Now, unlike the Expanded Knowledge (Psionic), which does allow Psionic character to take one additional power of one level than he can manifest from any list, even restricted unknown lists.  This feat does not explicitely state.

Extra spell is most like Expanded Knowledge Psionics and should have a clarification towards that.  Psions and other Psionic classes have limited number of powers and effects like sorcerers and most other spontaneous casters.  Most classes that spontaneously cast learn just a few spells per level.  A Warmage has access to his entire list so this class should not be the example in which the clarification of this feat is the rule.

Can the Warmage (Complete Arcane) benefit from the Extra Spell feat?
No. Extra Spell lets you add one spell to your list of spells known, but the spell must be taken from your class spell list.  Since the Warmage already knows all the spells on his class spell list, this feat has no effect.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I said as much earlier: ...




Yeah. What I meant with that is, that the comparison between Extra Spell and Collegiate Wizard does not work to discern how Extra Spell might work, since it might very well do nothing for Wizards... and still work as intended, since it is designed for Sorcerers (primarily).



> And yet the analogous class ability for the Warmage adds spells to their list and lets them cast it as well.




It also says so, quite explicitly. I tend to read rules in a way, that they do what they say.



> For Extra Spell to function as I (and others) rule it to, no rules need be added.  The exercise isn't pointless.




This is wrong. There is a rule, that prevents Wizards from casting spells not on their class spell list. Extra Spell does nothing with that list.



> Extra spell lets the caster add a spell to the caster's list of known spells.




Yep, that's synonymous with learning a new spell.



> If you know a spell, you can cast it.




This is not generally true.

If you allow the learning of spells outside of one's class spell list, these cannot be cast from most classes. Sorcerers _might_ be the only exception there, but I would rather think they work like all the other classes in this context.


Let's try with the Bard... so the Bard learns Extra Spell to learn _Magic Missile_ and now wants to cast the spell.

There are two rules...



> He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time.




Check. He knows this spell now, so he can probably cast it.



> A bard casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the bard spell list.




Oh, wait, he can only cast spells from the bard spell list. _Magic Missile_ isn't on that list.

So he cannot cast it, after all.

Both these rules have to be fulfilled in order for this to work!


And for Extra Spell to work as you say for Wizards, the following rule must be broken...



> A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.




Hence, it does not work that way.


There is one word in the Sorcerer class write-up, which gives a little backdoor for Sorcerers to actually use this...



> A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn *primarily* from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below).




Because of this word, which only appears in the Sorcerer class write-up, I cannot tell you, that it does not work for them. 

But I'm reasonably sure, that it is not intended for them to be able to learn non-Sor/Wiz spells. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Extra spell is most like Expanded Knowledge Psionics and should have a clarification towards that.




Why? There are easily 10 times as many spells as there are psionic powers. Even with adding all psionic classes together, you won't have the same number a Wizard can already choose from.

Why is this an argument for how Extra Spell has to work? It's based on an _entirely different_ magic system.



> A Warmage has access to his entire list so this class should not be the example in which the clarification of this feat is the rule.




Why not? It's as good an example as any other. The feat does not allow to cross class list boundaries, no matter what percentage of your class list you happen to know.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## takasi (Jan 1, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Can the Warmage (Complete Arcane) benefit from the Extra Spell feat? No. Extra Spell lets you add one spell to your list of spells known, but the spell must be taken from your class spell list.  Since the Warmage already knows all the spells on his class spell list, this feat has no effect.




Here's a question for everyone to answer please.

See the statement I quoted above about the Warmage and Extra Spell.

Do you think the statement after "No." ONLY applies to the Warmage?

A player is asking WotC for a FAQ clarification on this.  I just want to know, based on a reasonable reading of this statement, or any FAQ statement, would this apply only to the class referred to?  Or is it a blanket statement that applies to all classes?

(Yes, he's still trying to get our DM to give his duskblade wraithstrike by RAW.  )


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

takasi said:
			
		

> Extra Spell lets you add one spell to your list of spells known, but the spell must be taken from your class spell list.




That's quite a blanket statement.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felix (Jan 1, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> We're talking about Wizards, though.
> 
> ...
> 
> Can you give me a solid reason, why a Wizard cannot start the game with _Cure Light Wounds_ as one of his/her 1st-level spells?



As far as the feat is concerned, the Wizard cannot gain _Cure Light Wounds_ through that feat because it is a first level spell, and the feat allows only a spell of one level lower than the character can cast, which in this case would be a cantrip. The argument changes if the Wizard wants to take _Cure Minor Wounds_, which by the wording of the feat the Wizard would be able to select.



> And as a follow-up... when the Wizard becomes a 2nd-level Wizard, can s/he then add _Cure Light Wounds_ to the spellbook (if it's not in there already, anyways) as part of the level-up process?



It depends upon how you read these entries in the Wizard description:


*Spells:* A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list.

*Spellbooks:* ... At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook.

It is not clear that the "Spellbook" entry restricts Wizards from adding any spell of any spell list into their spellbook, but the "Spells" entry can be read as restricting the Wizard to only casting Sor/Wiz spells. So even if the Wizard could add _Cure Light Wounds_ to their spellbook, that does not mean that said wizard could necessarily cast that spell. Nor is it clear that the Wizard couldn't prepare _Cure Light Wounds_, but his ability to actually _cast_ the spell is not guaranteed.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Felix, sorry for the lil confusion, but I'm not speaking of the feat there...

I mean a starting 1st-level Wizard's normal starting spells. But you answered that already. 

What I'm aiming for is this... since a Wizard cannot cast these spells (and that's a fact), even though there is nothing really preventing the Wizard from learning them, isn't it reasonable to assume, that they actually cannot even learn them in the first place?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felix (Jan 1, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Felix, sorry for the lil confusion, but I'm not speaking of the feat there...
> 
> I mean a starting 1st-level Wizard's normal starting spells. But you answered that already.
> 
> ...



Ah. Then the discussion would rebound back to this:


> It depends upon how you read these entries in the Wizard description:
> 
> 
> *Spells:* A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list.
> ...



So they wizard _may_ be able to add _Cure Light Wounds_ to their spellbook, but if the "Spells" description is read as restricting the wizard to only casting Sor/Wiz spells, then why would the wizard want to?

EDIT:

(and darn you for editing while I was replying! )



> What I'm aiming for is this... since a Wizard cannot cast these spells (and that's a fact), even though there is nothing really preventing the Wizard from learning them, isn't it reasonable to assume, that they actually cannot even learn them in the first place?



It is certainly a reasonable assumption, but not one explicitly stated by the language of the Wizard description.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Exactly. It's pointless.

There are two options at this point.

1) It is allowed. And pointless.

2) Or it is not allowed, and the rules assume, that you transfer this knowledge from the spellcasting restriction to the learning of spells.

I strongly believe, that 2) is the intention (well, it's kinda obvious really).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2007)

> Let's try with the Bard... so the Bard learns Extra Spell to learn Magic Missile and now wants to cast the spell.
> 
> There are two rules...
> 
> ...




A fighter is proficient with simple and martial weapons, not with exotic ones.  The Feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency adds one Exotic weapon to a particular fighter's list of proficient weapons, despite that weapon's absence from the class' base list of weapons.  The Feat alters the default rule of a PC's weapon proficiencies.

Similarly, Extra Spell adds one spell to a spellcaster's known spells- he _can_ cast it.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

There is no such thing as the class spell list for spells for the fighter's potential weapons 'known'.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Similarly, Extra Spell adds one spell to a spellcaster's known spells- he _can_ cast it.




That's an assumption you make, that is not only not supported by the rules, it's actually outright contradicted.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felix (Jan 1, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Exactly. It's pointless.
> 
> There are two options at this point.
> 
> ...



Which opens an interesting line of argument. If the wizard cannot cast a spell outside the Sor/Wiz list because he cannot _learn_ the spell (this would be your option 2), and the feat Extra Spell allows the wizard to learn any spell, would it not be reasonable to say that because he now has learned the spell he can now cast it?

In option 1, it is not the inability to learn spells from outside the Sor/Wiz list that prevents the wizard from casting them, merely that he "Casts spells from the Sor/Wiz list", which is the description in the "Spells" entry. So even if the feat allowed the Wizard to learn the spell and put it in his spellbook, this does not necessarily mean that the wizard can cast it.

Under Option 2, the argument allowing a wizard to cast _Cure Light Wounds_ gained through Extra Spell is stronger than if the rule is Option 1.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Which opens an interesting line of argument. If the wizard cannot cast a spell outside the Sor/Wiz list because he cannot _learn_ the spell (this would be your option 2), and the feat Extra Spell allows the wizard to learn any spell, would it not be reasonable to say that because he now has learned the spell he can now cast it?




Because he can't. That's a rule. There is no interpretation here.

It's the same with what I have said above (with spells learned during character creation or level-up). It also doesn't restrict the learning of these spells there, much like Extra Spell does not (explicitly, that is).

The reasoning here is, that since you cannot cast them, you cannot even learn them. And this transfers to every instance where you learn spells (unless they are also added to the class spell list, like in the case of Arcane Disciple, for example; altho it holds true there, too, since the spell is then on the class spell list, of course).



> In option 1, it is not the inability to learn spells from outside the Sor/Wiz list that prevents the wizard from casting them, merely that he "Casts spells from the Sor/Wiz list", which is the description in the "Spells" entry. So even if the feat allowed the Wizard to learn the spell and put it in his spellbook, this does not necessarily mean that the wizard can cast it.




Correct.



> Under Option 2, the argument allowing a wizard to cast _Cure Light Wounds_ gained through Extra Spell is stronger than if the rule is Option 1.




Under my Option 2 it's actually not allowed to learn spells that are not on the class spell list. Extra Spell lets you learn a spell, hence it must be from the class spell list.

That's what I'm getting at here. It's either pointless or not allowed. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2007)

> There is no such thing as the class spell list for spells for the fighter's potential weapons 'known'.




There is a direct analogy between a class' spell list and a class' list of proficient weapons, and both lists expand in virtually every new book.  Each is a list of tools for the class described.

Some classes lists are defined by "Simple/Martial/Exotic" proficiency, while others have ennumerated lists of proficient weapons- an analogy conceptually no different from full casters and classes like Bards or Rangers with limited spell lists.



> > Similarly, Extra Spell adds one spell to a spellcaster's known spells- he can cast it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Extra Spell's text starts off with:

"You learn one additonal spell at any level up to one lower thatn the highest level of spell you can currently cast."

According to p.179 of the PHB:

"A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizards' spellbook.  No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing...Next, she must spend a day studying the spell.  At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check...If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook...A wizard can also research a spell independcntly, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one."

I don't see a contradiction here.  A spell "learned" has been deciphered and transcribed into the wizard's spellbook, and such a spell is memorizable and castable as long as the wizard is of sufficient level.

Theoretically, a Wizard could transfer any arcane spell transferred to scroll or book into his own, regardless of class lists, given sufficient time and research money.

Extra Spell just cuts through the game mechanics of learning by having the PC burn a feat.

If a wizard could only cast spells from the extant sorc/wiz list (how many ever books you're using to define it), then independent research would be impossible- such a spell would- by _definition_- not be on the class list.


----------



## Felix (Jan 1, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Felix said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Emphasis Added

The argument would be that while it is the case that you can't normally learn spells outside of the class spell list, Extra Spell does allow this. And because you have a feat that allows you to do what you normally can't do (like most feats function), the normal rules don't apply when concerning the particular spell that you chose through Extra Spell.

EDIT

But as I said, the argument is not ironclad, simply a stronger argument than if the Rule is Option #1 that allows scribing (read: learning) any spell you like, but disallows the casting of any but Sor/Wiz spells.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Yeah, but then one is back at the point that the feat does what it says it does, and it certainly does not say anything about modifying the class spell list, while other, similar feats do this. Therefore it is safe to assume, that it is not supposed to (IMHO, anyways).

You learn a spell, thus you have to follow the rules for learning spells, unless specifically stated otherwise. If the rules say that you can only learn spells from your class spell list (as in Option 2)), then that's what you get.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> There is a direct analogy between a class' spell list and a class' list of proficient weapons, and both lists expand in virtually every new book.  Each is a list of tools for the class described.




A fighter (well, even a commoner) can pick up *any* weapon (apart from size issues) and use it. How is that similar?



> I don't see a contradiction here.  A spell "learned" has been deciphered and transcribed into the wizard's spellbook, and such a spell is memorizable and castable as long as the wizard is of sufficient level.




Where does it say, that you can cast it?



> If a wizard could only cast spells from the extant sorc/wiz list (how many ever books you're using to define it), then independent research would be impossible- such a spell would- by _definition_- not be on the class list.




That's why there are some effects that actually modify the class spell list (like... when you create a new spell).

If you want to read the game text of a feat, that works in this fashion, check out Arcane Disciple in Complete Divine (it's one of the very few instances, where this happens; Expanded Knowledge is another, obviously, but does not apply to spellcasters, so it's not such a great comparison).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felix (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, but then one is back at the point that the feat does what it says it does, and it certainly does not say anything about modifying the class spell list, while other, similar feats do this. Therefore it is safe to assume, that it is not supposed to (IMHO, anyways).
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



It doesn't have to modify the class spell list. If you can only cast spells you can learn, and those spells are drawn from the class spell list, then a feat that allows you to learn a spell will allow you to cast that spell and leave your class spell list unmolested.

This is different from only being able to cast spells from your class spell list. In which case all the "learning" in the world won't allow you to cast a spell that isn't on you class list. Unless the feat is worded to specifically allow that.

The question then becomes if the rule is "can only cast spells you can learn" or "cast spells from your class spell list". Your Option 1 only allows for the second interpretation, and Option 2, while it does not wholly endorse the first, neither does it rule it out.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> If you can only cast spells you can learn, ...




That, however, is not the rule. It's a result of the rule.

You can only cast spells that appear on your class spell list (PHB rule).
You can, also, only learn spells that appear on your class spell list (implied rule; Option 2) above).



> ...then a feat that allows you to learn a spell will...




...have to follow those rules, unless specifically stated otherwise. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 2, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> A fighter is proficient with simple and martial weapons, not with exotic ones.  The Feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency adds one Exotic weapon to a particular fighter's list of proficient weapons, despite that weapon's absence from the class' base list of weapons.  The Feat alters the default rule of a PC's weapon proficiencies.
> 
> Similarly, Extra Spell adds one spell to a spellcaster's known spells- he _can_ cast it.




Fighters can already use any weapon.

Wizards cannot cast all spells.

Apples and Oranges yet again.


----------



## Felix (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> You can only cast spells that appear on your class spell list (PHB rule).



As I've said before, it depends upon how you read the PHB.

In either case, that would be the argument for allowing CLW into a Wizard's casting repitoire, and between Option 1 and 2, the argument is stronger assuming Option 2.

Not that this is how I would rule it, that's just how I would argue it.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Fighters can already use any weapon.
> 
> Wizards cannot cast all spells.
> 
> Apples and Oranges yet again.



Though the example was poor, the principle is sound.

Whirlwind Attack as a maneuver is not possible without the feat; the rules do not allow it. Neither do the rules allow for Wizards to cast CLW. It is possible to argue that Extra Spell alters the casting rules in the same way that Whirlwind Attack permits a change in the combat options of a fighter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2007)

> Fighters can already use any weapon.
> 
> Wizards cannot cast all spells.




I'm not too concerned- I offered an analogy, and no analogy is perfect.

If you'll look again, I didn't discuss weapon use (after all, _any_ PC can already use any weapon), I discussed weapon_ proficiency._


> Where does it say, that you can cast it?




Pages 178-179 tell you that a Wizard must have his spellbooks to prepare spells for casting. 

The portion I quoted before describes the default method of transcribing spells into a wizard's spellbook

Again:



> "A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one *on a magic scroll *or in another wizards' spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing...Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check...If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook...*A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one.*"




(emphasis mine)

Between Magic Scrolls and Independent Research, there is no arcane spell outside of a Wizard's reach.  With enough time and research, he can add at least some version of any arcane spell to his spellbook.

The only limitation in those pages is "If a wizard has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, she can learn spells only from schools whose spells she can cast."

If its in his spellbook, he can cast it (assuming he is of sufficient level).

If you read the section on p56 narrowly: "A wizard casts arcane spells...which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list..." then the section of the PHB dealing with Independent Research (bolded, above) is essentially meaningless.

If, instead, the designers really meant what they wrote in the Independent Research text, giving it full effect means Wizards can clearly cast spells not on the Sorc/Wiz list, if they invest money and take time to research duplicating extant spells from other classes or innovating spells of their own.

The only part of this that the (non-FAQ version of) Extra Spell changes is the need for research and money.


----------



## Glyfair (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> And as already stated numerous times, it doesn't matter at all, if Extra Spell would allow you to learn spells from other classes, since it wouldn't allow you to cast them, so that exercise is pointless either way, without _adding new rules_ to the feat description. That's not a matter of interpretation.




I find it interesting that the most vehement defenders of Extra Spell allowing you to add spells outside of your spell list simultaneously argue for strict  literal interpretation ("the feat doesn't limit the spell you can learn, so you can learn any spell") and against a strict literal interpretation ("well, it would be silly to learn a spell that you can't cast, so of course the feat overrules the limitation on only casting spells on the sorcerer list").

IMO, *functionally* the correct answer to this question is ask your DM how he is ruling on the issue before you assume either way.  My answer is clearly that you cannot add a spell not on your class list.

(BTW, does anyone know how the RPGA games rule on this?  That's one occasion where the table DM doesn't have carte blanch on this sort of issue.)


----------



## Felix (Jan 2, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that the most vehement defenders of Extra Spell allowing you to add spells outside of your spell list simultaneously argue for strict  literal interpretation ("the feat doesn't limit the spell you can learn, so you can learn any spell") and against a strict literal interpretation ("well, it would be silly to learn a spell that you can't cast, so of course the feat overrules the limitation on only casting spells on the sorcerer list").



Here's why:

The Sorcerer entry clearly allows that his spells known primarily come from the Sor/Wiz spell list, he can use any spell slot of proper level to cast any of his spells known, and Extra Spell introduces another Spell Known. The result being a Sorcerer who can cast Cure Light Wounds.

The difficult question comes when you apply the wording from the Wizard's description, and this is what the past two pages have been about. It is not clear that Extra Spell allows a wizard to learn, memorize, and cast any spell, but nor is it clear that this is prohibited, especially in the light that the sorcerer _can_ do this, as written, of course.



> IMO, *functionally* the correct answer to this question is ask your DM how he is ruling on the issue before you assume either way.



The same is true about ability score generation, HP rolling, adjudication of skill checks, and a whole host of other clearly described game mechanics. This is no solution.



> My answer is clearly that you cannot add the spell to your list.



To which list are you referring? The class spell list? The Spells Known list? The spells contained in your spellbook list?

Why this is so clear to you?



> (BTW, does anyone know how the RPGA games rule on this?  That's one occasion where the table DM doesn't have carte blanch on this sort of issue.)



I believe that it is the general rule that the RPGA games adhere to FAQ rulings in the case of a dispute. For what it's worth.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2007)

> I find it interesting that the most vehement defenders of Extra Spell allowing you to add spells outside of your spell list simultaneously argue for strict literal interpretation ("the feat doesn't limit the spell you can learn, so you can learn any spell") and against a strict literal interpretation ("well, it would be silly to learn a spell that you can't cast, so of course the feat overrules the limitation on only casting spells on the sorcerer list").




???

I think by now it should be clear that I am definitely of the opinion that:

1) the feat doesn't limit the spell you can learn, so you can learn any spell (my only hangup might be crossing the arcane/divine divide).

and

2) It is silly to learn a spell you can't cast.  Normally, classes are limited to casting from only their own spell list.  Extra Spell does get around this, just like Expanded Knowledge gets around similar strictures in the psionic system.

but also as is clear from p179:

3) The limitation of only casting spells on the sorcerer/wizard list is *not* absolute, at least for Wizards.*

* While p 179 says that "A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time he attains a new level in his class and never gains spells any other way," there are also WotC & Paizo Feats that add spells to the known spell lists of spontaneous casters, some specifically for sorcerers only.  Clearly, some Feats are a way around the limitations of particular classes.


----------



## Glyfair (Jan 2, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> To which list are you referring? The class spell list? The Spells Known list? The spells contained in your spellbook list?




Fixed.



> My answer is clearly that you cannot add a spell not on your class list.


----------



## Felix (Jan 2, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*(From Sorcerer description, SRD)*
A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.
This wording allows that the sorcerer can draw spells from another spell list, or at very least does not prohibit the sorcerer drawing spells from another spell list.


*(From Sorcerer description, SRD)*
He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time
This wording means that he is able to cast any Spell Known, regardless of how it came to be on his spells known list.


*(From Extra Spell)*
Thus, a 4th-level sorcerer (maximum spell level 2nd) gains a new 0-level or 1st-level spell known with which to expand her repertoire.
This wording clearly links the terms "learn" with the Sorcerer's "spells known", meaning that any spell learned for him becomes one of his Spells Known.


*(From Extra Spell)*
Benefit: You learn one additional spell at any level up to one level lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast.
This wording clearly does not prescribe the spell list from which a spell may be selected, allowing that a spell from any list may be selected.


1. Must not necessarily draw spells from the Sor/Wiz list.
2. May cast any Spell Known.
3. A learned spell is a Spell Known.
4. You may learn any spell, not to be restricted by class list.

Even if you disagree with this for whatever reason, how can you say that this wording leads  _clearly_ to the conclusion that you must choose a spell from within your class spell list? The only way I can see for it to be clear is if you admit the FAQ, in which case you're talking about "what the rules should be" instead of "what the rules are". A worthy topic, but not something I'd argue with anyone over.


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 2, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> ...Even if you disagree with this for whatever reason, how can you say that this wording leads  _clearly_ to the conclusion that you must choose a spell from within your class spell list? The only way I can see for it to be clear is if you admit the FAQ, in which case you're talking about "what the rules should be" instead of "what the rules are". A worthy topic, but not something I'd argue with anyone over.




While it may be *possible* to read Extra Spell as granting you ANY extra spell (regardless of spell list), for that to be true it should be CLEARLY spelled out as this would be a very signifcicant rule change.

It seems to me, as written, this is primarily a spontaneous caster's feat.  They are teh ones who benefit most from an extra spell known.


----------



## Felix (Jan 2, 2007)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> While it may be *possible* to read Extra Spell as granting you ANY extra spell (regardless of spell list), for that to be true it should be CLEARLY spelled out as this would be a very signifcicant rule change.



Extra Spell
You learn one additional spell at any level up to one level lower...

The underlined is the only description of the spell learned that does not describe the limitation on the level of the spell learned.

"You learn one additional spell..."

This feat does not restrict the origin of the additional spell. The sorcerer's description implies that gaining spells from outside the Sor/Wiz spell list is possible. As written, the only restrictions to the source of the additional spell are user, DM, or FAQ applied. Not that they arn't wholly valid, but their source is not from the feat nor from the PHB.

At _very_ least, not for sorcerers.



> It seems to me, as written, this is primarily a spontaneous caster's feat.  They are teh ones who benefit most from an extra spell known.



Absolute agreement from me on this opinion.

EDIT *(Significant rules change)*: 
This is a red herring. Every new feat is a significant rules change, at least for somebody. If a feat allowed Rogues to sneak attack while blinded then the rules would have been significantly changed from insisting upon a rogue being able to see his opponent to allowing a sneak attack while the rogue cannot see his opponent. Extra Spell changes the rules concerning usual manner in which spells are learned.

EDIT #2 *(FAQ)*:
_If_ the FAQ is a direct gague of what the intent of the feat writer was, then clearly the writer did not intend for the feat to allow sorcerers or anyone to be able to select spells from outside their class spell list. This would be a very good reason why it is not explicitly allowed in the feat. 

But regardless, the wording of the feat leads to the conclusion that you can choose any spell. The character's ability to cast the spell may be in quesiton, but what is not in question is that _any_ spell may be chosen for the PC to learn. In the sorcerer's case, there is a clear link thusly: Extra Spell may be any spell --> spell learned --> Spells Known --> unfettered ability to cast Spells Known --> ability to cast spell learned.


----------



## takasi (Jan 2, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> *(From Sorcerer description, SRD)*
> A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.
> This wording allows that the sorcerer can draw spells from another spell list, or at very least does not prohibit the sorcerer drawing spells from another spell list.




That clause is explained in the PHB on page 179.  "With the DM's permission" a sorcerer can research spells that aren't on the wizard/sorcerer list.

As I've said before, there is some misleading language in the RAW feat that allows a DM to interpret the rule either way.  Does anyone disagree?

The FAQ clarifies the WotC interpretation.  Does anyone believe the FAQ contradicts the feat?  Does anyone believe that the FAQ "got it wrong"?  Is there anything in the RAW of the feat that contradicts the FAQ ruling, and if so what?

Also, please note that the duskblade does not say "primarily", it says spells are drawn from the list.  No "primarily".  In this case, can those who are arguing about the sorcerer at least agree that, for the duskblade, there is very little reason to interpret this feat as a legitimate method of acquiring non-duskblade spells?


----------



## takasi (Jan 2, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> But regardless, the wording of the feat leads to the conclusion that you can choose any spell. The character's ability to cast the spell may be in quesiton, but what is not in question is that _any_ spell may be chosen for the PC to learn.




Why do you make this assumption?

What words, specifically, from the feat say that you can choose any spell?

There are classes where there is no "wiggle room" written in their class like the clause for a sorcerer's spell selection.  IMO, if there are restrictions on a class then a feat cannot override these restrictions unless the feat specifically mentions it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2007)

> Does anyone believe the FAQ contradicts the feat? Does anyone believe that the FAQ "got it wrong"?




This is one case where I think the FAQ got it wrong.

1)  The FAQ interpretation is contra the benefits of a nearly identically worded feat, Expanded Knowledge.  The only difference is one feat is explicit where another is silent.  IMHO, the silent spaces in the rules are meant to be the purview of the DM- if nothing else, they should be interpreted as per their nearest analogue.  I would love to see the FAQ rationale for the difference.

2)  The FAQ interpretation also seems to be without regard to the Independent Research section of p179.  Interpreting Extra Spell like Expanded Knowledge only elminates the necessity of research time and an expenditure of wealth to learn the "off-list" spell- hardly game-breaking.



> IMO, if there are restrictions on a class then a feat cannot override these restrictions unless the feat specifically mentions it.




Here, we're just doomed to go in circles.  IMHO, the feat can override the restrictions if it is silent especially if similar feats elsewhere are explicit.

My reason for this is that I've seen several examples within the rules where the rules are simply imprecise or even contradictory in the use of language.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Pages 178-179 tell you that a Wizard must have his spellbooks to prepare spells for casting.




But it doesn't say, that the Wizard can cast spells in his/her spellbook.



> Between Magic Scrolls and Independent Research, there is no arcane spell outside of a Wizard's reach.  With enough time and research, he can add at least some version of any arcane spell to his spellbook.




Only, if the DM creates a new spell for the Sor/Wiz list to allow so.



> If you read the section on p56 narrowly: "A wizard casts arcane spells...which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list..." then the section of the PHB dealing with Independent Research (bolded, above) is essentially meaningless.




Why? Research adds to the class spell list, so it works totally fine.



> If, instead, the designers really meant what they wrote in the Independent Research text, giving it full effect means Wizards can clearly cast spells not on the Sorc/Wiz list, if they invest money and take time to research duplicating extant spells from other classes or innovating spells of their own.




This is somewhat correct only... they can cast them *after* they have successfully researched them (pure DM decision, if the spell can be created; it is advised *against* allowing spells like _Cure Light Wounds_, actually), at which point they are added to the class spell list and then the text works mighty fine.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Here, we're just doomed to go in circles.  IMHO, the feat can override the restrictions if it is silent especially if similar feats elsewhere are explicit.
> 
> My reason for this is that I've seen several examples within the rules where the rules are simply imprecise or even contradictory in the use of language.




So, whenever a feat does not say *anything* it can just do whatever you want?

So I can just pick up Extra Spell once, and then learn every spell in existance, since it only says, I can learn one spell (totally non-restrictive statement there; i.e. when I learn two spells I also learn one spell), but is silent whether I can also learn another spell and another spell and another spell... ? 

It's also silent about raising my BAB to 1,000. I think it does that, too? 

Or how about Extend Spell?



> *Benefit:* An extended spell lasts twice as long as normal. A spell with a duration of concentration, instantaneous, or permanent is not affected by this feat. An extended spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.




It doesn't say there, that my Sorcerer has to use a full-round action to apply this feat, since feats overrule all general rules that are not repeated, it can just be used like this? Can it be used at all? It certainly doesn't say how it is used...



Sorry, but I certainly agree, that there are cases, where the language is contradictory, but that doesn't mean, that in *all* cases, when something is not spelled out twice or thrice, you can just ignore written rules, especially when they are not contradicted in the slightest.

*This is especially true, when a reading of a feat *does* contradict written rules, as opposed to another that does not.*

Bye
Thanee

P.S. Besides, when a Wizard can learn any spell with Extra Spell (within the given spell level and school limits, but not within the class list limits), then a Wizard can do so already without the feat and the rule for casting spells does not really apply and does not limit them in the slightest, since the normal rules for learning spells do not say anything at all about the class list either. And then, in turn, Extra Spell does not allow them to learn any spell at all, since it is generally used by Wizards to learn spells they cannot research, which by your definition rules out all spells (existing and non-existing), anyways. 

The question then remains... why is there a Wizard spell list in the first place?

For activating wands, maybe...


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that the most vehement defenders of Extra Spell allowing you to add spells outside of your spell list simultaneously argue for strict literal interpretation...




Not sure why you put this under a quote of mine, but I am certainly not saying, that you can use Extra Spell to add a spell that is not on your class list already. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite... you can only learn spells from your class list. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2007)

> So, whenever a feat does not say *anything* it can just do whatever you want?




Of course not.  You look first to similar feats for clarification.  If none exists, you check with WotC (FAQ/Eratta/CustServ).  You then examine whatever you find in those sources and make a ruling for your campaign...and I do mean campaign.  I can reasonably forsee running different campaigns with slightly different rules interpretations in order to fit the demands of the campaign setting.  After all, 2Ed did just that by nixing spells for Clerics in Dragonlance.

Here, we have a clearly analogous feat, nearly as similar to it as Practiced Spellcaster is to Practiced Manifester.  As yet, I've seen no convincing reason why 2 feats so similar should be adjudicated so differently when the main difference is explicitness vs silence.

(And, for the record, Extra Spell isn't silent as to how many spells you get to learn.  It closes by saying that you may take the feat multiple times, each time for a new spell- just like Expanded Knowledge works with psionic powers.)



> And then, in turn, Extra Spell does not allow them to learn any spell at all, since it is generally used by Wizards to learn spells they cannot research, which by your definition rules out all spells (existing and non-existing), anyways.




Its not my rule- the research rules are in black & white on pg 179 of the PHB.

1) As has been pointed out by others, the costs of time and gold are not trivial, and may in fact hinder a PC from learning a spell.

2) Despite expending time and GP, the wizard may fail his Spellcraft check, rendering him unable to research the spell at that time.  If he deems the spell vital enough, he may see burning a Feat to learn it as a valid option.  There may also be campaign-specific reasons why a spell cannot be learned through the process delineated on pg 179.

For example- I ran a campaign in which the party was marooned on a deserted island for their first 5 levels.  The island was a hunting preserve, with the party as the prey du jour.  Without a lab, a library, any gold or time for research, the PC turned to learning how to fight (he took Ftr levels).  Had he considered it, Extra Spell could have broadened his arsenal a bit.



> The question then remains... why is there a Wizard spell list in the first place?




To reduce options right out of the gate, thus providing initial form to spellcasting classes, and, of course, to continue to restrict the spell access of those PCs that don't take advantage of the research rules (for whatever reason).


----------



## Felix (Jan 2, 2007)

takasi said:
			
		

> That clause is explained in the PHB on page 179. "With the DM's permission" a sorcerer can research spells that aren't on the wizard/sorcerer list.



This PHB citation makes you think that a feat cannot allow the same thing only quicker?



> The FAQ clarifies the WotC interpretation. Does anyone believe the FAQ contradicts the feat? Does anyone believe that the FAQ "got it wrong"? Is there anything in the RAW of the feat that contradicts the FAQ ruling, and if so what?



My first post, #89.
My second post, #96.
My third post, #101.

In each of these post I have labored to make clear that there is a difference between what the rules say as they are written, and what the FAQ has to say about the matter. Several times I have explicitly said that the FAQ is not wrong, so if you are sensitive about people attacking the FAQ, please be mollified. I have even gone so far as to say that the FAQ does not necessarily contradict the wording of the rules.

But please put the FAQ aside for a moment. Try to see what the rules say first, and then apply the FAQ. It is possible, as I laid out in post #161 for the feat to allow a spell from outside the class spell list, and for a sorcerer to cast it. The FAQ disagrees. 

Does this mean the FAQ is wrong? _If_ the purpose of the FAQ were to clarify intent, and if it has been faithful to the intent of the feat in this case, then no, it is not wrong. _If_ the purpose of the FAQ is to make clear precicely what the feat says with no particular weight attached to writer's intent, then there is a good argument that the FAQ is indeed wrong.

But that is neither here nor there because I have already said myself that the FAQ is reasonable. You can re-read it if you like.



> Also, please note that the duskblade does not say "primarily", it says spells are drawn from the list. No "primarily". In this case, can those who are arguing about the sorcerer at least agree that, for the duskblade, there is very little reason to interpret this feat as a legitimate method of acquiring non-duskblade spells?



There are two questions to be asked. 1) Can the Duskblade aquire the spell? 2) Can the Duskblade cast the spell?


Can the Duskblade aquire the spell?
The feat Extra Spell states that the PC "learns one additional spell", and there are no restrictions on what that spell is with the exception of the level of the spell. Feats also alter the way base class mechanics work, so there is precident for a feat to overrule other rules. So, yes, there is a good argument that the Duskblade can indeed aquire it, _as written_.


Can the Duskblade cast the spell?



			
				PHB II said:
			
		

> *Spells:* You cast arcane spells, which are drawn from the Duskblade spell list on page 98. You can cast any spell you know without preparing it ahead of time.



There is ground for both arguments in the Duskblade description. Half says, "you cast ... spells drawn from the DB spell list", which can indeed be exclusive. The other half says, "you can cast any spell you know", and if you allow that feats can add options to a character's mechancis, then you may allow that a feat is able to circumvent the normal method of gaining Spells Known, and that will allow the Duskblade to learn and cast a spell outside of the DB spell list.



> Why do you make this assumption?



It is an observation, not an assumption. I'll let you know when I start assuming something, like how I'm assuming that we're examing the text of the rules throughly before we apply the FAQ.



> What words, specifically, from the feat say that you can choose any spell?



Specifically?

"You learn one additional spell."

Those words. Sift them how you like you'll not find within them one ounce of restriction. Please tell me what words, _specifically_, in the feat say, "must be from within the class' spell list".



> IMO, if there are restrictions on a class then a feat cannot override these restrictions unless the feat specifically mentions it.



The degree of specificity can be argued about; if everything were laid out explicitly the PHB would be 1700 pages long, if not issued in volumes. The PHB is rife with implication if you look for it, and there is no reason not to allow the same for this feat.

---

And I figure I should state again, because what could it hurt, that I'm not arguing what the rules should be or how I would rule them in my own game: I'm arguing the meaning of what the rules are. The meaning of what the words acutally say. Simply becasue I argue that the Duskblade has a basis for wanting a non-class spell list spell does not mean I think he should, or that I would give it to him. I'm simply presenting the argument.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 2, 2007)

Below is the current answer that I have received.  Unfortunately they have missed what I asked and have added further clarification.  Regardless of what Takasi says, even if wraithstrike is beyond getting, therre are plenty of other spells to get.  Stoneskin for one.

 Subject 
FAQ Submission 

 Discussion Thread 
 Response (Sam S.) 01/01/2007 10:42 PM 
Hi there James,

The FAQ ruling is correct. Extra Spell can also be used as a tool by the DM who wants to limit the spells characters get access to. The DM could limit spells to only be chosen from certain books, and a spell found outside those books might be available if the caster was willing to spend a feat (Extra Spell) to learn it.

A DM is of course free to rule, house rule, or alter the feat as they wish.


Take Care and Good Gaming!


----------



## Felix (Jan 2, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Regardless of what Takasi says, even if wraithstrike is beyond getting, therre are plenty of other spells to get.



If takasi is willing to apply a restriction on the spell chosen limiting it to the class' spell list, what prevents him from applying other restrictions? Nothing actually. He can disallow the feat. He can disallow the whole class. If he's the DM, he can disallow _you_.

My point being that takasi saying so does change the meaning of the words as they are written, merely how they are applied _in his game_.



> The FAQ ruling is correct.



Ex cathedra, and just as trustworthy. It's not an argument, it's not thought, it's an answer. "Why?" would be a nice question to ask him, though I doubt he'd answer with anything more meaningful than, "Because".


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Why? There are easily 10 times as many spells as there are psionic powers. Even with adding all psionic classes together, you won't have the same number a Wizard can already choose from.
> 
> Why is this an argument for how Extra Spell has to work? It's based on an _entirely different_ magic system.
> 
> ...




I know that not all feats are create equally.  But when feats are similar in requirements, then they should be made the same in relative power.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 2, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Fighters can already use any weapon.
> 
> Wizards cannot cast all spells.
> 
> Apples and Oranges yet again.




It's not apples and oranges.  A wizard casts spells.  That is his arsenal.  A fighter uses weapons.  That is his arsenal.  The analogy is valid.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> I know that not all feats are create equally.  But when feats are similar in requirements, then they should be made the same in relative power.




Maybe they are? Maybe it is seen relative in power (just to be sure, you are speaking of Expanded Knowledge here, right?), that a Psion can learn from all classes and a Wizard cannot, considering how many more spells there are.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> It's not apples and oranges.  A wizard casts spells.  That is his arsenal.  A fighter uses weapons.  That is his arsenal.  The analogy is valid.




Yeah, it is valid, but it's done wrong.

Spells from other classes - no analogy; maybe too large weapons (cannot be used at all)
Class Spell List - All Weapons (can be used within limits; only via scroll/wand, or with penalty)
Learned Spells - Proficient Weapons (can be used normally)
Extra Spell - (Exotic) Weapon Proficiency (adds one to the learned/proficient spells/weapons)

Bye
Thanee


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 2, 2007)

Further answers from customer service.

 Discussion Thread 
 Response (Sam S.) 01/01/2007 11:10 PM 
Hi there James,

Extra Spell applies for all classes. Casters are limited to spells that are on their spell list. It would allow a Sorcerer from a remote arctic land to choose a spell like Firebrand from the Spell Compendium or Stars of Arvandor from the Book of Exalted Deeds, even if the Sorcerer would not normally know anything regarding those spells in the campaign. Remember that not all campaigns allow all spells from all resources that have been printed for the D&D game.


Take Care and Good Gaming! 

I'm going to have to clarify further but I see where they are going.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 2, 2007)

Can a duskblade channel divine spells with arcane
channeling? What about arcane spells gained from other
classes?
Yes and yes.

The above is from page 11 of the FAQ.  This then sheds some potential new light on how this feat may work with regards to the Duskblade.  Not sure.  What do you guys think?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 2, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> This then sheds some potential new light on how this feat may work with regards to the Duskblade.




No; it's referring to a multiclassed Duskblade.

In other words, "Can a Duskblade/Cleric channel an Inflict Light Wounds he casts as a Cleric spell, or can he only channel his Duskblade spells?"

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> It would allow a Sorcerer from a remote arctic land to choose a spell like Firebrand from the Spell Compendium or Stars of Arvandor from the Book of Exalted Deeds, even if the Sorcerer would not normally know anything regarding those spells in the campaign. Remember that not all campaigns allow all spells from all resources that have been printed for the D&D game.




This is something I find rather funny, BTW. It implies, that a player can pick a spell from a source that is not allowed into the campaign by the DM. I somehow doubt that will work often. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## jasin (Jan 2, 2007)

As a side remark: what if the player in question wanted to take Extra Spell to have his duskblade learn cure moderate wounds (so he could double as a field medic) or fear (so he could have a horrifying battlefield presence)? Would that be nearly as problematic as taking wraithstrike?


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Certainly not (from a balance pov), since _Wraithstrike_ is one rather excessive little spell.

From a rules pov it's simply not possible, though. Nothing a DM cannot house rule, however.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Votan (Jan 2, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This is one case where I think the FAQ got it wrong.
> 
> 1)  The FAQ interpretation is contra the benefits of a nearly identically worded feat, Expanded Knowledge.  The only difference is one feat is explicit where another is silent.  IMHO, the silent spaces in the rules are meant to be the purview of the DM- if nothing else, they should be interpreted as per their nearest analogue.  I would love to see the FAQ rationale for the difference.




I think here, silence can be informative.  If a feat alters the default rules it needs to state it (Exapnded knowledge) but, if it does not, then of course the feat is silent.  

For example, Combat Reflexes does not specificy that you need to make a successful melee to hit roll on your attacks of opportunity.  This is not because they auto-hit but because the standard rules apply.  

That being said, when applied to Sorcerers, the ability of a sorcerer to research spells not on their default list and the PHB wording means that the feat might just work for them.  The Customer Service ruling seems to say "Do what you want in your campaign".  Later feat structures explicitly point out what the feat changes in terms of rules but this feat is badly worded.  

In this case, ambigiuous wording, I honestly do not think that there really is a RAW -- you can reasonably read the feat two ways.  The FAQ clarified which way to read it, but you need the FAQ to make this conclusion as the text of the feat will go in circles forever.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Votan said:
			
		

> Later feat structures explicitly point out what the feat changes in terms of rules...




Complete Divine came before Complete Arcane, and has a feat with a very explicit wording (Arcane Disciple).



> ...but this feat is badly worded.




I don't think it is (apart from the really pointless sentence about wizards and what they might use the feat for, noone will use it for that).

The learning rules in the PHB are badly worded. The feat just builds on those.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Votan (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Complete Divine came before Complete Arcane, and has a feat with a very explicit wording (Arcane Disciple).




True, but that feat was trying to do somehting complicated and, therefore, needed this extra wording to be read.  Ironically, so did *Extra Spell* but that wasn't as instantly obvious.  



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> I don't think it is (apart from the really pointless sentence about wizards and what they might use the feat for, noone will use it for that).
> 
> The learning rules in the PHB are badly worded. The feat just builds on those.




My personal theory is that they were playing with the reader.  _I wonder if we can make some naive wizard player completely waste a feat?_  By adding this language, they actually forced people to ask the question "What do they mean by that?  It can't possibly be the direct reading of the feat?  Not in a book that also contains Collegiate Wizard?"  

But that pointless sentance about what wizards could do with the feat, easily avoided by "This feat is for Spontaneous Casters only" as a disclaimer, can be highly annoying in practice.  In particular, it is the best argument for the ability to go outside of the class lsit as one is forced to wonder what sorts of spells could not be normally learned or researched?  

Because of that wonder about that sentance (is this mocking flavor text or actual rules, if the latter then the feat does seem to allow for spells off of the list but I beleive it is the former) the feat is uninterpretable without outside information.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jan 2, 2007)

Moderator's Note:

Okay everyone, let's start cooling off a bit.  Remember that implicit in the ruleset is that there is room for interpretation and allow other people the latitude to make rulings for their games.  Moving forward, I would like to see more responses phrased as, "I would allow this (or wouldn't allow this) because..." rather than "You should allow this (or shouldn't allow this) because..."

/Moderator's Note (and have a great day and discussion)
Dinkeldog


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 2, 2007)

Below is the response that I just received.  I somehow am beginning to believe that customer service is not reading what I send.

 Response (Sam S.) 01/02/2007 09:07 AM 
Hi again James,

The feat works the same way for all classes. It is a bad choice for classes that already know all the spells on their class spell list like Clerics, Druids, Duskblades, Beguilers, and others. Just like Martial Weapon Proficiency is a bad choice for any class that is already proficient with all martial weapons.


Take Care and Good Gaming!


----------



## IcyCool (Jan 2, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Below is the response that I just received.  I somehow am beginning to believe that customer service is not reading what I send.




That answer makes perfect sense to me.  I'd be worried that I agree with CustServ, but hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, neh? 

I'm in the crowd of "this feat lets you learn an extra spell from your class list."


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 2, 2007)

Here is what I just received:

 Subject 
FAQ Submission 

 Discussion Thread 
 Response (Sam S.) 01/02/2007 09:22 AM 
Hi again,

Forgive me for that one, as I misunderstood why you had a problem with the Duskblade taking the Extra Spell feat. The answer still stands, James. The Duskblade cannot choose spells outside their spell list. It is just the way the rules work and this ruling has been passed down by the people who make the rules.


Take Care and Good Gaming! 

I'm not happy so I guess I have to lump it.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Well, see, it doesn't matter how often you ask this (although, at least you are doing something for the CustServ guys to be worth their salary, and hey, it's always nice to see when the actually answer something right (and if the last response can be interpreted like this, they also seem to check for confirmation on touchy subjects, which is great) - way to go, CustServ! ), the answer will always be the same (ok, this is certainly not always true with CustServ, as experience has shown ).

It simply works this way officially (especially after the FAQ, there is really no other way).

What you need to do is ask your DM, if he wants to consider to allow it for a reasonable spell choice. Trying this with a borderline (or beyond) broken spell like _Wraithstrike_ is... strategically... questionable... 

Ask for a more reasonable spell (like the _Stone Skin_ you mentioned somewhere above), for example, and I'm sure your chances to convince him drastically improve. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 2, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Moderator's Note:
> 
> ... I would like to see more responses phrased as, "I would allow this (or wouldn't allow this) because..." rather than "You should allow this (or shouldn't allow this) because..."
> 
> ...





I would not allow this (spells not on your spell list) because: )) 

The feat does not clearly and unambiguously change the rules about spells known coming form your own spell list only, and thus the rules of allowing spells from you own spell list only stands firm.

Any feat that makes a signifcant change to the rules needs to do so in a clear and (preferably) unambiguous manner. 

I see this feat as being very valuable for sorcerors, bards and any other spontaneous casting class where they have few spells known, and of perhaps only marginal value otherwise.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 2, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> It's not apples and oranges.  A wizard casts spells.  That is his arsenal.  A fighter uses weapons.  That is his arsenal.  The analogy is valid.




The analogy would be valid if a Wizard could cast all spells, but at some sort of penalty for some of his spells.

A Fighter can use ALL weapons, but needs to take a feat to be proficient with some weapons.

A Wizard cannot use all spells, hence, it is not a good analogy.

And, of course, the poor analogy means nothing. WotC states that the feat does not allow for spells off of the class list, so the feat does not.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 2, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The analogy would be valid if a Wizard could cast all spells, but at some sort of penalty for some of his spells.
> 
> A Fighter can use ALL weapons, but needs to take a feat to be proficient with some weapons.
> 
> ...




A fighter can't use all weapons.  He must take exotic weapon feat for each exotic weapon that he wants to use.  Granted he could use an exotic weapon with a penalty if he didn't take this feat.


----------



## takasi (Jan 2, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> A fighter can't use all weapons.  He must take exotic weapon feat for each exotic weapon that he wants to use.  Granted he could use an exotic weapon with a penalty if he didn't take this feat.




This is also very important IMO.

The exotic weapon proficiency feat does "override" the default class allowances.  However, these are specified with a "Normal" section of the feat.  Extra Spell does not have a "Normal" section to state that this feat overrides the normal restrictions of a class.  

For Feat Descriptions, page 89:

"Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing.  If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent."

IMO if the feat was meant to break the normal spell acquisition rules for each class, there should be a section like this:

"Normal: Without this feat see the individual class restrictions for spells known."

Or something to that effect.  Does anyone feel there shouldn't be a "Normal" section for this feat if the feat were to grant something that breaks the normal class restrictions for selecting new spells known?


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 2, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> A fighter can't use all weapons.  He must take exotic weapon feat for each exotic weapon that he wants to use.  Granted he could use an exotic weapon with a penalty if he didn't take this feat.




He can use them - just at a penalty.  That's way different from not being able to use them.  But we are just repeating ourselves.

The main point I am making is that the feat does not CLEARLY change the rules regarding spells coming from class lists only and thus very few DMs are likely to permit that sort of thing.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Spells from other classes - no analogy; maybe too large weapons (cannot be used at all)
> Class Spell List - All Weapons (can be used within limits; only via scroll/wand, or with penalty)
> Learned Spells - Proficient Weapons (can be used normally)
> Extra Spell - (Exotic) Weapon Proficiency (adds one to the learned/proficient spells/weapons)




Bye
Thanee


----------



## dagger (Jan 2, 2007)

Also a Duskblade with Arcane Disciple is another way to channel divine spells.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2007)

Re: The Silence of the Rules

I once asked CustServ about the rules for improving magical items (as I recall, somewhere around p 281 in the DMG).  In our group, we came to the conclusion that either:

1) You could improve a magic item, but the caster could only do so if he had the neccessary caster levels to create the final item from scratch.

or

2) You could improve a magic item, and the caster need only be powerful enough to cast what  is being added to the extant magic item.  The result would be that a crafting caster could create quite powerful items incrementally.

The rules are silent as to which method is correct, so I inquired.

The response was: Both interpretations are correct! 

The rule, according to CustServ, was drafted vaguely on purpose, so that DMs could run it either way.  Apparently, in playtest, they found that both interpretations had merit and downsides, and rather than reworking them, drafted a rule that could be flexible.

So if a section of text is silent, then interpretation would seem to be open.

As for the CustServ rulings wildstarsreach has received on the question on point- it seems to me as if they're looking at this through the lens of the particular class, not as a general rule.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 2, 2007)

I think this is one of those many times on the rules forum that you have to let the WOTC weight break the tie.

There is a obviously a big split on this issue, and both sides have good rules evidence to back themselves up. Looking to WOTC, both the FAQ and customer service have said you cannot use Extra Spell to pick up spells not on your class list. 

What more is there to say?


----------



## Ilium (Jan 2, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> What more is there to say?




"IMC"


----------



## Thanee (Jan 2, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think this is one of those many times on the rules forum that you have to let the WOTC weight break the tie.




15:113 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## jasin (Jan 2, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Moving forward, I would like to see more responses phrased as, "I would allow this (or wouldn't allow this) because..." rather than "You should allow this (or shouldn't allow this) because..."



I would allow it ("poaching" off another class's list) because it could make for interesting variance from the default class lists, and because it makes the feat interesting for all casters, whereas the other interpretation makes it utterly useless for clerics and druids, mostly useless for wizards, and kind of useful for sorcerers and bards until the spell they picked becomes obsolete.

I would also allow it because in my games, I don't have to worry about anyone saying "A-_ha_! Now I take class X and PrC Y and use Extra Spell to get spell Z and become all powerful! PWNED! Pwned for your lack of foresight!"; I'll just say "You're right, I haven't forseen that... let me think a bit more, and I'll let you know if I'll allow it." So I can afford to rule liberally in the general case, and assess potentially problematic specific cases as they come up. Wraithstriking duskblade seems like one of those problematic cases, but then, wraithstriking eldritch knight seems only a little less problematic, so I'm led to believe the problem is with wraithstrike, not getting other classes' spells.

There is also precedent for allowing cross-list poaching (the recaster from Races(?) of Eberron and some sort of dragon-wizard-guy from Dragon Magic), and IIRC in both cases it works in the same way as Extra Spell: one spell of a level one lower than the highest you can cast, so it's not as if the concept itself is some sort of D&D no-no.


----------



## IcyCool (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> 15:113
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




That's hardly a tie, by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## jasin (Jan 2, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> That's hardly a tie, by any stretch of the imagination.



I think that was quite her point.


----------



## IcyCool (Jan 2, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I think that was quite her point.




I was agreeing with Thanee, sorry if that wasn't clear.


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 3, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I would allow it ("poaching" off another class's list) because it could make for interesting variance from the default class lists, and because it makes the feat interesting for all casters, whereas the other interpretation makes it utterly useless for clerics and druids, mostly useless for wizards, and kind of useful for sorcerers and bards until the spell they picked becomes obsolete.
> 
> I would also allow it because in my games, I don't have to worry about anyone saying "A-_ha_! Now I take class X and PrC Y and use Extra Spell to get spell Z and become all powerful! PWNED! Pwned for your lack of foresight!"; I'll just say "You're right, I haven't forseen that... let me think a bit more, and I'll let you know if I'll allow it." So I can afford to rule liberally in the general case, and assess potentially problematic specific cases as they come up. Wraithstriking duskblade seems like one of those problematic cases, but then, wraithstriking eldritch knight seems only a little less problematic, so I'm led to believe the problem is with wraithstrike, not getting other classes' spells.
> 
> There is also precedent for allowing cross-list poaching (the recaster from Races(?) of Eberron and some sort of dragon-wizard-guy from Dragon Magic), and IIRC in both cases it works in the same way as Extra Spell: one spell of a level one lower than the highest you can cast, so it's not as if the concept itself is some sort of D&D no-no.




Recaster is another "interesting" wording that should be fixed, IMO.

If it was handled like the artificer (minimum caster level) it would work a whole lot better.  But the way it is worded presently it causes the same question that a liberally viewed extra spell causes.

What level spell if the spell has multiple spell levels for different classes?

As an extreme example, from the Spell Compendium.

pg 129  Know Vulnerabilities.

Bard 2, Cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 4.

Which version is allowed?

An artificer would be using 4th level caster (4th bard can cast 2nd level bard spells). And the spell cast would be neither arcane nor divine (artificer class ability/restriction).


----------



## IanB (Jan 3, 2007)

I go the same way as Artoomis on this: unless the feat explicitly states something, the default rules apply. It doesn't matter what Expanded Knowledge says, except to highlight the difference; there could be good balance reasons (and are, IMO) that Expanded Knowledge allows poaching while Extra Spell does not.

Psionics and magic are different game systems with different balance concerns, albeit ones that share many characteristics. There is no rules imperative for symmetry between them for these 2 feats to exist.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 3, 2007)

Well, a player in my group asked WotC about the difference between the 2 feats from a purely objective standpoint:



> *Question*
> Expanded Knowledge (Expanded Psionics Handbook p46) and Extra Spell (Complete Arcane p79-80) have virtually identical wording, analogous prerequisites (3rd caster/manifester level)...Are the 2 feats supposed to work this differently, despite their extremely similar wording? If so, what is the rationale?






> *CustServ Answer*
> This is definitely intentional and really has to do with the difference between Psionics and Magic. It looks like for balance issues, the good people in R&D decided that being able to pull a spell that isn't already on your class list would be too powerful.




(Question and answer edited for brevity.)

IOW- its not how the Feat was originally designed.  They decided afterwards that the Feat as written would cause a significant power imbalance between the magic system and the psionics system...

Which, taken with other CustServ answers posted in this thread sounds to me like:

1) They're using the FAQ for Eratta again and...

2) The problem is probably less a broad power imbalance issue than an issue with particular spells.  (I used to gripe with WotC about this kind of thing with M:tG- don't screw with the mechanics- get rid of the cards -or in this case, spells- that are so potentially abusable.)

All of which personally amuses me, given the number of people who think that Psionics is overpowered as compared to the magic system.

In the end, I'm still unconvinced- I still think the FAQ is wrong here.  I have seen no evidence of a power problem with the possible exception of a couple of spells.  I'll just continue to adjudicate the Extra Spell Feat on a spell-by-spell basis...like I do most stuff.


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 3, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> IOW- its not how the Feat was originally designed.  They decided afterwards that the Feat as written would cause a significant power imbalance between the magic system and the psionics system...




Looking at what you posted, I just don't see this.  They specifically said the two systems are different and that the differences were based on that.



> Which, taken with other CustServ answers posted in this thread sounds to me like:
> 
> 1) They're using the FAQ for Eratta again and...




Now this is one time where I see the FAQ (and CustServ) both as providing a "clarification" and not a change in the rules.  Which is apparently what most people on this thread also see (based on the poll results and posts).


----------



## Felix (Jan 3, 2007)

> 1) They're using the FAQ for Eratta again and...
> 2)...WotC about this kind of thing with M:tG- don't screw with the mechanics-...



_Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 3, 2007)

> Looking at what you posted, I just don't see this. They specifically said the two systems are different and that the differences were based on that.




They didn't say the designers intended it- it was R&D.  That sounds like a process started _after_ publication.


----------



## IanB (Jan 3, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> They didn't say the designers intended it- it was R&D.  That sounds like a process started _after_ publication.




In WotC parlance, R&D = design and development. The designers would definitely be included in that statement.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 3, 2007)

I'm coming late to the party, but, "No, this feat doesn't allow you to learn spells not on your class spell list."

This is a feat aimed squarely at sorcerors and bards.


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 3, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> They didn't say the designers intended it- it was R&D.  That sounds like a process started _after_ publication.









> Quote:
> CustServ Answer
> This is definitely intentional and really has to do with the difference between Psionics and Magic.
> 
> ...





Break it down to the 2 sentences.

The first states "This is definitely intentional and really has to do with the difference between Psionics and Magic."

The second is an opinion and not a statement of fact. It could also be a guess based on someone trying to dig deeper into the "why".  This has nothing to do with factual statement preceeding it though.


----------



## Felix (Jan 3, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> This is a feat aimed squarely at sorcerors and bards.



No doubt this is so. And how does it relate to them? Does it allow Sorcerers to choose _Cure Light Wounds_? As written, of course, as the FAQ otherwise neatly solves that problem.

And even if aimed at sorcerers and bards, it does not keep others from taking it; how do the mechanics work? 

_If_ the feat allows sorcerers to learn from outside their spell list, and _if_ the wording of the feat does not change from spontaneous to memorized caster, then why would the feat work differently and not allow memory casters to learn any spell? (Note: the ability to cast said spell is not yet in question; merely their ability to learn it. The two are not necessarily synonamous.)


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 3, 2007)

dagger said:
			
		

> Also a Duskblade with Arcane Disciple is another way to channel divine spells.



Funny thing is I could take 3 levels of wizard and get wraithstrike.  Not the flavor that I want.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 3, 2007)

Arcane feats, just like psionic feats but only weaker.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 3, 2007)

I love the Duskblade class.  I've been mulling over ideas that I will send to piazo for dragon publication.  This list has helped with suggested ideas.  I will post them after I submit them to piazo.  Also, I didn't mean to get you guys in a heated debeat.  Hug each other and make nice.  



This is said tongue and cheek.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jan 3, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Funny thing is I could take 3 levels of wizard and get wraithstrike.  Not the flavor that I want.



Yes, I'm sure it's the "flavor" that's distasteful to you.  Not that it would screw up your hit points, BAB, caster level, class abilities, or any of the myriad other mechanical reasons to avoid multiclassing...but the _flavor_.


----------



## Felix (Jan 3, 2007)

takasi & wildstarsreach,

Are you two both players in the game, or is one of you the DM? It sounds as if takasi is and wildstarsreach is advocating for his PC.

It seems that takasi, though he sounded as if his mind were already quite made up on the matter when he began the thread, is doubly so convinced that the rules do not support wildstarsreach after six pages and several arguments in favor of allowing any spell. 

Was this thread started to bring a rules discussion to the public, or was it the act of a DM who wanted to make sure he was treating a player fairly? If takasi you are the DM, then what you've ruled is perfectly sound, doubly so if you always abide by the FAQ. It is after all your game and your place to make the ruling. But even so I would submit that the argument in wildstarsreach's favor is not groundless, even if it is not necessarily conclusive. After that, it's your game, and your ruling should be abided by.

_Is_ that your relationship?


----------



## Thanee (Jan 3, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> IOW- its not how the Feat was originally designed.




Interesting conclusion. 



> All of which personally amuses me, given the number of people who think that Psionics is overpowered as compared to the magic system.




Well, I consider psionics (well, Psions mostly and a bunch of powers, TBH) overpowered.

And I think Expanded Knowledge is fair game (except for Psions ), because of the much smaller amount of Powers that are available.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jan 3, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> Arcane feats, just like psionic feats but only weaker.




This goes the other way around as well...

Psionic feats, just like arcane feats but more powerful.

Question is... which are better balanced? 

Or are they actually the same, since there are other factors to consider?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 3, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> I go the same way as Artoomis on this: unless the feat explicitly states something, the default rules apply.




I agree and also go along with this line of thinking.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 3, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> No doubt this is so. And how does it relate to them? Does it allow Sorcerers to choose _Cure Light Wounds_?




You quoted the last sentence of my post, so I assume you read the first ...

In case you didn't:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> No, this feat doesn't allow you to learn spells not on your class spell list.




This feat allows sorcerors (and bards, et al.) to "break" the Spells Known by Level table.

In a campaign I played in, all serious transportation magic (e.g., _teleport_) was strictly controlled by a guild of wandermages; they were the only ones who knew the complex magical mechanics necessary to move long distances without going "splat."  Such spells were almost never found as scrolls and could not be chosen as one of the wizards' two bonus spells on leveling up.

In that campaign, the feat would have been useful for a wizard to pick up a single "controlled" spell (subject, of course, to DM approval).

In most campaigns, there is never a reason for a wizard to choose this feat.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Rhun said:
			
		

> cleaving with a bow is not possible. You cannot make a melee attack with a bow, so this is specifically not allowed.




Sure you can.  You take a -4 penalty for using it as an improvised weapon.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 3, 2007)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> Well, no where does it say that monks can't fly...it clearly outlines the movement they can do but never explicitly states that they cannot fly. I suppose this means that my monk character should be able to fly. After all, some sort of flying would be a reasonable explanation for the increase speed and Slow Fall ability.
> 
> This is the same rationale as any "the feat/spell/ability doesn't NOT say X" argument.
> 
> ...




The problem with this arguement is that there IS a precedent for adding spells to your spell list.  That rule is that it must be on your class spell list.  If you want to break this rule, you need another rule that explicitly breaks it.

Your example of the Monk being able to fly is inconclusive because it doesn't say one way or the other.  It doesn't say they can fly, and it doesn't say they can't fly.  But with adding spells to your repetoire, the default rule DOES say that they have to come from your class spell list.


----------



## Felix (Jan 3, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> This feat allows sorcerors (and bards, et al.) to "break" the Spells Known by Level table.



Considering that as the sorcerer "Spells" entry is written it would be easy to rule that the language supports a sorcerer learning any spell from any list, I hardly think it's inappropriate to allow a feat, which by itself places absolutely no restrictions on the spell chosen, save that of level, to grant the sorcerer access to any spell from any list.



> In a campaign I played in, all serious transportation magic (e.g., _teleport_) was strictly controlled by a guild of wandermages; they were the only ones who knew the complex magical mechanics necessary to move long distances without going "splat."  Such spells were almost never found as scrolls and could not be chosen as one of the wizards' two bonus spells on leveling up.
> 
> In that campaign, the feat would have been useful for a wizard to pick up a single "controlled" spell (subject, of course, to DM approval).
> 
> In most campaigns, there is never a reason for a wizard to choose this feat.



If you'll refer back to prior pages I think you'll find that I have already agreed with you.


----------



## Nail (Jan 3, 2007)

Votan said:
			
		

> My personal theory is that they were playing with the reader.  _I wonder if we can make some naive wizard player completely waste a feat?_  By adding this language, they actually forced people to ask the question "What do they mean by that?  It can't possibly be the direct reading of the feat?  Not in a book that also contains Collegiate Wizard?"



Truth.

The "extra text about how wizards might use the feat" is card-trick-like misdirection.


----------



## Nail (Jan 3, 2007)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I would not allow this (spells not on your spell list) because: ))
> 
> The feat does not clearly and unambiguously change the rules about spells known coming form your own spell list only, and thus the rules of allowing spells from you own spell list only stands firm.



FWIW, "me too".


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 3, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> IOW- its not how the Feat was originally designed.  They decided afterwards that the Feat as written would cause a significant power imbalance between the magic system and the psionics system...




It is how the feat was originally designed. You are reading into every sentence (both in RAW and by Cust Serv) things that are not there.

If it were originally designed as allowing spells outside the spell list, it would state it with something like: Normal: spells cannot be chosen off the caster's normal spell list.


As for balance, Psions get about 170 powers to choose from and Expanded Knowledge gives them about another 100+, many discipline ones for which Sorcerers already get equivalent spells. That feat was designed with those fewer number of powers in mind.

Sorcerers already get well over 600 spells to choose from (all WotC sources, ~350 spells in the PHB alone). Allowing them to choose from another 1000+ spells which they are denied for specific balance reasons is way out of balance.

I think you do not quite get the concept of balance in this regard. It refers to spell synergy, not just the ability to have a specific spell.

For example, Polymorphing into a specific creature might be balanced. However, following that up by changing into a Colossal form of that creature with a Wu Jen spell might suddenly be very unbalanced.

The more spells suddenly opened up for use, the more spell synergy possibilities that are created. The Psionic ones are controlled. From 3E to 3.5, certain feats / powers were modified / removed to get rid of certain synergies in the Psionic system. This cannot be done when you open up all spells for Arcane casters.

And, these synergies can be controlled with certain PrCs like Mystic Theurge since the caster is at least 3 levels lower (4 for a Sorcerer) with his spells in each class. This does not happen with your interpretation of this feat.

Opening up all spells for an Arcane caster is VERY unbalanced.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Specifically?
> 
> "You learn one additional spell."
> 
> Those words. Sift them how you like you'll not find within them one ounce of restriction. Please tell me what words, _specifically_, in the feat say, "must be from within the class' spell list".




Well, there is the problem.  The restriction is not listed in the feat.  It is the default restriction placed upon (most) spell casters.  That restriction being that they can only cast spells from their class' spell list.  So while you might be able to "learn one additional spell", the spell that you do learn is not added to your spell list and thus can not be cast.  I'll fire the same question back at you...



> Please tell me what words, _specifically_, in the feat say, "add this spell to your class' spell list".


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 3, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Please tell me what words, specifically, in the feat say, "add this spell to your class' spell list".




Exactly.  That is what is required if such a signifcant rule change was to be made by this feat.   Without that, the default rule of spells coming from your own class list only still applies.

Contrast this feat with Expanded Knowledge, which includes the text, "You can choose any power, including powers from another discipline’s list or even from another class’s list. "

Without that sort of text you cannot choose from another class' spell list.

At least that's the way I would play it.


----------



## Mort (Jan 3, 2007)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Exactly.  That is what is required if such a signifcant rule change was to be made by this feat.   Without that, the default rule of spells coming from your own class list only still applies.
> 
> Contrast this feat with Expanded Knowledge, which includes the text, "You can choose any power, including powers from another discipline’s list or even from another class’s list. "
> 
> ...




Not only that, but expanded knowledge does use the word "add" not "learn" in addition to the explicit language above. It simply seems the designers chose not to use the same explicit permisive language. 
To me, The very fact that the 2 feats are so close except for  the clear language allowing off-list selection shows that Extra Spell wasn't meant to go off-list; and that's the way I would interpret the RAW.  In my own game, if it's a reasonable spell and the circumstances are such that the mage can't research it, I could be persuaded otherwise, but that's IMC.


----------



## takasi (Jan 3, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> _Is_ that your relationship?




Not in this particular campaign.  We are both players in this one.

Our last session was a week ago and our next session is tonight.  So many posts have passed....


----------



## Felix (Jan 4, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> It is the default restriction placed upon (most) spell casters.



Quite right: _most._ So how does the feat work for those casters upon which this restriction is not placed? Can a sorcerer pick and cast _Cure Light Wounds_?

As far as the classes who allegedly operate under this mechanic, if the restriction is part of the class, and not a part of the feat, then why would the character not be able to choose any spell with the feat, even though he not be able to cast it? After all, a fighter may select Empower Spell as a feat, though he be incapable of using it.

At this point I'm not arguing that every caster be able to cast the spell chosen from the feat, merely that any spell is viably chosen with the feat. This would render a situation where any caster could choose any spell he liked with Extra Spell, but unless his class' rules allowed him to use it, the spell would be useless to him; as useless as Empower Spell for a pure fighter.



> Please tell me what words, specifically, in the feat say, "add this spell to your class' spell list".



It does not. What it does do is say you learn the spell and directly ties "learning" a spell to making it a "spell known". The sorcerer description says two relevant things; a sorcerer can cast all of his spells known; a sorcerer draws his spell *primarily* from the sor/wiz spell list.

So, we have a class that can cast all of his spells known.
We have a class whose spells must not necessarily come from the Sor/Wiz class list.
We have a feat which does not restrict the choice of spell.
We have a feat that makes the learned spell part of the character's spells known.

So how does "add this spell to your class' spell list" come into it, and why would you think I was advocating on those grounds?



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Without that, the default rule of spells coming from your own class list only still applies.



Would you please cite this default rule and provide your analysis of how it interacts with the Sorcerer's description of his spells _primarily_ coming from his class spell list? Thanks.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> ..._primarily_...




I wonder what they thought when they put that word there... 

Because I really don't think it is meant to allow Sorcerers to learn anything not on their class list (apart from entirely new spells, which are being researched maybe during the campaign). 

But that's as good a guess as any other. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felix (Jan 4, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> I wonder what they thought when they put that word there...
> 
> Because I really don't think it is meant to allow Sorcerers to learn anything not on their class list (apart from entirely new spells, which are being researched maybe during the campaign).
> 
> ...



It's a hell of a word, neh? 

Opens up quite a door.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 4, 2007)

> As for balance, Psions get about 170 powers to choose from and Expanded Knowledge gives them about another 100+, many discipline ones for which Sorcerers already get equivalent spells. That feat was designed with those fewer number of powers in mind.
> 
> Sorcerers already get well over 600 spells to choose from (all WotC sources, ~350 spells in the PHB alone). Allowing them to choose from another 1000+ spells which they are denied for specific balance reasons is way out of balance.




For those who were concerned that psionics must be banned from their campaigns because its better than magic (I'm not to be numbered among them), this FAQ just gives them more ammo.

Despite the vast number of spells available on the Sor/Wiz class lists, I'm more likely to find people on these boards complaining about how Psions & Wilders outdo those core classes despite having 1/4th the number of powers as the Sorcerers and Wizards have spells.

However, between that little word "primarily" in the rules regarding Sorcerers (as well as the OA option of Sorcerers using the Wu Jen list) opening an interesting door for DMs & Players alike to look through, and the ability of a Wizard to learn, copy and add any spell in the game to his spellbook via Independent Research, neither of these 2 classes is likely to suffer significantly from having Extra Spell limiting their options to class lists only- its the lesser caster classes that will.

Why?

*Expanded Knowledge is not limited to Psions.*  Any psionic PC capable of manifesting powers can utilize this Feat.  A PsyWar, Lurk, or any other manifesting class can gain access to the "most broken" powers on the Psion list, greatly expanding their power.  As I recall, Energy Missile was among the most complained about on these boards.

Meanwhile, the Bard composes his "Ode to Broken Game Balance" lamenting his inability to ever gain Magic Missile or Fireball.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 4, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It is how the feat was originally designed. You are reading into every sentence (both in RAW and by Cust Serv) things that are not there.
> 
> If it were originally designed as allowing spells outside the spell list, it would state it with something like: Normal: spells cannot be chosen off the caster's normal spell list.
> 
> ...




This is probably the best description of why the more liberal interpretation would be wrong.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 4, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Well, there is the problem.  The restriction is not listed in the feat.  It is the default restriction placed upon (most) spell casters.  That restriction being that they can only cast spells from their class' spell list.  So while you might be able to "learn one additional spell", the spell that you do learn is not added to your spell list and thus can not be cast.  I'll fire the same question back at you...




Unfortunately as much as I want to agree with Felix, I am having to concede to the conservative interpretation of the feat.  Takasi is right that without using the language to have the exceptions, it would be your class list.


----------



## Felix (Jan 4, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> This is probably the best description of why the more liberal interpretation would be wrong.



Not quite right. KarinsDad gives a very good description of why the more liberal interpretation would be _less balanced_. Quite a different animal entirely than "wrong".

EDIT:

wildstarsreach, for the whole of this thread takasi has given a perfectly reasonable and grounded interpretation of the rules. My point has been that yours as well is grounded, though they are at cross purposes; I'm waiting for Artoomis to chime in saying there can be two right answers to rule questions, as he does in his signature. It's really up to your DM to decide, and you may point this thread in his direction so he can see both arguments.

In the end, legitimate or not, your DM will likely decide based on how he thinks it will effect his game, and so his decision has as much to do with the spell you choose as it does what the rules say. I suggest you drop the case for _Wraithstrike_, as I would likely bar that even if I did rule that you could pick any spell. Plenty of other good spells out there.

And you might say, "Please". Never hurts.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Not quite right. KarinsDad gives a very good description of why the more liberal interpretation would be _less balanced_. Quite a different animal entirely than "wrong".




I'm one who wants the more liberal interpretation.  It is my opinion to agree with KarinsDad here and my opinion isn't yours.  I am coming to the opinion that unfortunately as much as I might argue, that the FAQ got it right according the wording or lack thereof.  Yes, "You learn one additional spell."  It is silent on anything else until you get to wizards.  With wizards, it gives something that it doesn't give Sorcerers.  Several people have given descriptions on the possibility of why wizards might not have access or ability to research certain spells.  

I am saying that it is possible that I, was wrong about the interpretation of this feat.  I can see where it could lead otherwise but I am changing my vote to that the FAQ got it right regardless of what I think.  The writers didn't put anything in to say otherwise unlike Expanded Knowledge (Psionics).  Since the writers of the feat aren't answering the FAQ questions, we unfortunately have nothing else to go on.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Not quite right. KarinsDad gives a very good description of why the more liberal interpretation would be _less balanced_. Quite a different animal entirely than "wrong".
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...



I have though a couple in our group have pointed out that wraithstrike should be a 5th level since it is like a quickened spell.

It should be scaled like true strike

[/QUOTE]
And you might say, "Please". Never hurts.  [/QUOTE]

Already have.  Doesn't work since wraithstrike is overpowered.


----------



## Felix (Jan 4, 2007)

wildstarsreach said:
			
		

> It is my opinion to agree with KarinsDad here and my opinion isn't yours.



You'll note that KarinsDad was arguing along balance lines, and not upon the wording of the feat or of the classes. As game balance is not a matter of the wording of the rules but rather their implimentation, when you argue balance you argue "how the rules should be used"; you do not argue "what the rules are", which I have been.

As they're completely different lines of argument, it's rather hard for one to prove the other, as you opined, "wrong". Thus my reply.



> Already have. Doesn't work since wraithstrike is overpowered.



My opinion as well.

Note I've recommended selecting another spell for the feat.


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 4, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> However, between that little word "primarily" in the rules regarding Sorcerers (as well as the OA option of Sorcerers using the Wu Jen list) opening an interesting door for DMs & Players alike to look through, and the ability of a Wizard to learn, copy and add any spell in the game to his spellbook via Independent Research, neither of these 2 classes is likely to suffer significantly from having Extra Spell limiting their options to class lists only- its the lesser caster classes that will.




This point from OA seems to be one of the anchors of the arguement here.

OA is a "setting" and things work differently there.

The text in OA expands the sorcerer's list of spells to include the Wu Jen's spells for OA "setting" not as two separate lists.

As a general rule (non-setting specific) use the Wu Jen from Complete Arcane (whcih does not expand the sorcerer's spell list to include Wu Jen spells).

From the Magic Overview section on gaining new spells.



> Adding Spells to a Sorcerer’s or Bard’s Repertoire: A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time he attains a new level in his class and never gains spells any other way. When your sorcerer or bard gains a new level, consult Table: Bard Spells Known or Table: Sorcerer Spells Known to learn how many spells from the appropriate spell list he now knows. With permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of.




Which fills the missing gap from the SRD on sorcereer spells:



> Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below).
> 
> To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a sorcerer’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the sorcerer’s Charisma modifier.
> 
> ...


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> a sorcerer draws his spell *primarily* from the sor/wiz spell list.




Right.  Primarily they pick their spells from the sor/wiz list.  When they don't, they pick from just the Sor list.  Tthere are a few spells in PHB2 and Spell Compendium that a Sorcerer can cast, but a Wizard does not.  Other than that, it is up to the DM to allow other spells.  These usually come from research or custom made spells.  I don't think a Sorc can learn Cure Light Wounds, but they could learn a similiar (custom) spell that has the exact same effect.  Again, up to the DM.


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> ... I'm waiting for Artoomis to chime in saying there can be two right answers to rule questions...




Not going to happen in this case.  In this case, given the contrast with Expanded Knowledge where language is included that does expand the list to draw from, it is pretty clear that the written rule of drawing from only your own class list holds.

The opposite conclusion is based upon a rather weak argument but a very, *very* generous DM might be swayed to allow it.  I would not - the Expanded Knowledge feat was the thing that, for me,  put the final nail in the coffin of the liberal interpretation.

To me, at least, the liberal interpretation is too strained to be acceptable as a legitimate reading of the rules.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 4, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Right.  Primarily they pick their spells from the sor/wiz list.  When they don't, they pick from just the Sor list.




Well, that certainly can't be meant there. 

irdeggman's explanation above looks quite on target to me. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> You'll note that KarinsDad was arguing along balance lines, and not upon the wording of the feat or of the classes. As game balance is not a matter of the wording of the rules but rather their implimentation, when you argue balance you argue "how the rules should be used"; you do not argue "what the rules are", which I have been.




Actually, I was not so much arguing as pointing out to Danny who claimed that there were no apparent balance issues that yes indeed, there are. Very obvious ones when one looks.

As for rules, it's simple and there was no need to repeat all of the rules reasons. But, it basically boils down to:

Rule A: Sorcerer can only learn class spells (or unusual spells with DM permission)
Rule B: Sorcerer can learn an additional spell

If unlike Expanded Knowledge, Rule B does not state that it overrides Rule A, it does not.


----------



## wildstarsreach (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> You'll note that KarinsDad was arguing along balance lines, and not upon the wording of the feat or of the classes. As game balance is not a matter of the wording of the rules but rather their implimentation, when you argue balance you argue "how the rules should be used"; you do not argue "what the rules are", which I have been.
> 
> As they're completely different lines of argument, it's rather hard for one to prove the other, as you opined, "wrong". Thus my reply.
> 
> ...




Regardless of of the feat wording, many times and this is why a lot of people think the FAQ gets it wrong is that they more often rule towards game balance.


----------



## Felix (Jan 4, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or *they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.*



And no doubt that taking a feat, one of 7 the sorcerer is guaranteed to get, is unable to represent that "some understanding of by study".



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Not going to happen in this case.



A first.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> The opposite conclusion is based upon a rather weak argument



To which you've not rebutted. If it's so weak, then by all means: topple it. Which particular premise do you take exception to? 



			
				RigaMortis2 said:
			
		

> Primarily they pick their spells from the sor/wiz list. When they don't, they pick from just the Sor list.



Cite this rule please.

And considering the description allows that the sorcerer may choose "unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study", perhaps you suggest that spells off of other lists are "usual", and so don't qualify for the sorcerer as unusual?

The wording is vague. It is not specific as Artoomis, RigaMortis2, et al are claiming. "If not the Sor/Wiz list, then the Sor list", indeed; spun from wholecloth. Yes, it is reasonable to restrict the sorcerer to the Sor/Wiz list, but _it is not compulsory_.


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> And no doubt that taking a feat, one of 7 the sorcerer is guaranteed to get, is unable to represent that "some understanding of by study".




Go to the section on learning spells (my other text quote) that "explains how this happens".  It also states that approval (DM's in the PHB) is required.

Don't rely on one location and a single sentence, look for more that either support, decry or clarify the rules.


Also don't use a setting example as one that applies to the general rule.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> And no doubt that taking a feat, one of 7 the sorcerer is guaranteed to get, is unable to represent that "some understanding of by study".




It could with DM permission.

But, the feat as written does not state that it does this (unlike Expanded Knowledge which explicitly states it).

So sure, with DM permission, a more liberal reading of most any feat can be made. That does not change the fact of what is actually (not) written there for this feat. An exception is not written, hence, it only exists with DM Caveat.

The feat does not state is as an expection to the general learning rule. WotC (through the FAQ and Cust Serv) states it as not an exception. I really wonder why people are still discussing it. Seems crystal clear.


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> And ...To which you've not rebutted. If it's so weak, then by all means: topple it. Which particular premise do you take exception to? ...




Your whole argument comes from the wrong perspective.  The normal rule is that you get to select spells from your class spell list - Sorceror description notwithstanding.  

This places the burden of proof of selecting ANY spell (regardless of class list) using "Extra Spell" to be squarely upon the shoulders of those who would like the rules to allow that.  This burden has not yet been overcome. 

Simple as that, really.  There is no permise to argue against, really, - it is you who must explain how the normal rule has been *specifically changed* by this feat - especially in light of the very different and specific wording in the otherwise virtually identical psionic feat.  I have not yet seen any such explanation.

So, to this point, I see any reading of "Extra Spell" to allow a selection form another class' spell list to be, at best, an extremely odd and incorrect hyper-technical reading of the rules.

In other words, I think you are just fooling yourself to think that your reading is really a legitimate reading of the rules.

That said, the rules are really just a starting point for any game, and any DM is free to interpret the rules in any way at all - including ways that the vast majority (about 90% if the poll is to be believed) of us would not do so.

So..., here's the deal:

1.  The overwhelming majority of us would not allow your reading.
2.  The "official" ruling (FAQ) is that only class spell lists are allowed, as normal.
3.  If you can convince your DM, more power to you... and that's all that really matter in the end, right?

However, if you intend to the arguments in this thread to convince your DM, I think you will fail.


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 4, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




First, a feat is *not needed* to gain "unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study."  Only DM approval of the new spell - along with, I suppose, appropriate research time, etc.

The feat *is* needed to add this new spell as an *additional* spell known above the normal limit. 

This feat has NO VALUE for a wizard, as they may know "any number of spells," though, as WotC customer service suggests, could be used as a game mechanism for the DM to allow certain very unusual spells that normally cannot even be successfully researched.

For a sorcerer or bard, increasing the number of known spells is a very big deal and having a feat that does only that seems perfectly fine (from a game balance and original intent point of view).

Finally, note that spell descriptions contain:

"Level
The next line of a spell description gives the spell’s level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell’s relative power. This number is preceded by an abbreviation for the class whose members can cast the spell. "

This further reinforces that classes may only cast (and therefore "know") certain spells.  Anything else must be specifically allowed somehow or allowed by DM permission only.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 4, 2007)

I also think that the name Extra Spell sounds more like just another spell, as opposed to Expanded Knowledge, which sounds like more. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 4, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Cite this rule please.




That IS the rule.  you quoted it yourself.  I'll cite it though, even though it seems redundant.



> a sorcerer draws his spell primarily from the sor/wiz spell list




So, if a Sorcerer DOESN'T draw a spell from the sor/wiz list, where else do they draw it from?  The only "list" left is just the Sorcerer list (which the Wizard is not a part of).  Other than that, the DM has to decide to allow spells off of other lists.  Which, if you bothered to quote EVERYTHING in my last post, I already stated:



> ...Tthere are a few spells in PHB2 and Spell Compendium that a Sorcerer can cast, but a Wizard does not. Other than that, it is up to the DM to allow other spells. These usually come from research or custom made spells. I don't think a Sorc can learn Cure Light Wounds, but they could learn a similiar (custom) spell that has the exact same effect. Again, up to the DM.







			
				Felix said:
			
		

> And considering the description allows that the sorcerer may choose "unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study", perhaps you suggest that spells off of other lists are "usual", and so don't qualify for the sorcerer as unusual?




Yeah, they are usual.  Other classes cast them all the time, quite frequently.  Especially if they are from the PHB.  If you want to learn Cure Light Wounds off of the Cleric spell list, the DM has to decide to allow that or not.  I don't see any problem RAW-wise with allowing a Sorcerer to create a custom spell that duplicates Cure Light Wounds (I guess we are getting into semantics territory here).  The other thing you have to consider is how a Sorcerer "studies unusual spells".  Again, that to me seems like something the DM has to adjucate.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> The wording is vague. It is not specific as Artoomis, RigaMortis2, et al are claiming. "If not the Sor/Wiz list, then the Sor list", indeed; spun from wholecloth.




This is extrapolated, like you have to do with many unclear rules.  You have to ask yourself, what do they mean about "primarily" from the Sorc/Wiz list?  Then you have to ask yourself if there are any other class lists that the Sorcerer qualifies for to learn spells from (in this case, there is a small list with spells that JUST a Sorcerer can cast) w/o any DM fiat.  Anything else is DM fiat.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> Yes, it is reasonable to restrict the sorcerer to the Sor/Wiz list, but _it is not compulsory_.




If that is the case, then the DM is using Rule 0.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2007)

> The text in OA expands the sorcerer's list of spells to include the Wu Jen's spells for OA "setting" not as two separate lists.




Actually, the language in OA indicates sorcerers must choose one or the other list, they cannot choose from both the Sorc/Wiz list AND the Wu Jen list.



> So, if a Sorcerer DOESN'T draw a spell from the sor/wiz list, where else do they draw it from? The only "list" left is just the Sorcerer list (which the Wizard is not a part of).




I'm not aware of any Sorcerer-only spells...

As for "the only list left," I'm forced to argue that there are several.



> The feat does not state is as an expection to the general learning rule. WotC (through the FAQ and Cust Serv) states it as not an exception. I really wonder why people are still discussing it. Seems crystal clear.




Because it is also crystal clear that several of us disagree with the ruling.

Lets be honest here- even the most pro-FAQ players feel there are rulings that they disagree with.  I'm sure every poster in this thread can point to one FAQ ruling they'd never play with.

This is one of mine.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2007)

In case anyone is wondering- my posts reveal how _I'd_ administer the Feat.

I'm not representing at all how it would be administered by other DMs in our group.

While most are much more conservative than I am- in most of their campaigns, you can forget anything outside of the Core, with some exceptions (and some still don't run 3.5)- their rulings on particular feats, spells and other things have varied.


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 5, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Actually, the language in OA indicates sorcerers must choose one or the other list, they cannot choose from both the Sorc/Wiz list AND the Wu Jen list.





True the text does say "either".

My point is still valid however. It is a campaign setting specific rule that changes the sorcerer spell list and is not a "generic" rule that applies to all settings.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 5, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Because it is also crystal clear that several of us disagree with the ruling.




Obviously.

The question is, do you disagree with how the rule works, or with how the rule _should_ work. 

Those are two different things.

There is really little ground to argue how the rule actually works.
But how the rule _should_ work is something else entirely.



> This is one of mine.




And that's totally fine. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2007)

> The question is, do you disagree with how the rule works, or with how the rule should work.




Like I said, I don't see the power imbalance that R&D supposedly perceived.  To me, at least, the Feat's silence is still is open to interpretation, and I'll continue to rule it to function identically to Expanded Knowledge.

IMHO, the Full casters & Full manifesters are pretty balanced versus each other, even with the FAQ interpreting Extra Spell and Expanded Knowledge differently.  Others on these boards have vociferously voiced opinions that the Psionic Classes routinely outdo the Core casters.

Combine that with the differing interpretations of the Feats resulting in the lesser manifesting classes getting access to all the Psion/Wilder list while lesser spellcasters getting shut out.

In reality, its not the difference in the number of powers vs number of spells available to each class, its the difference in the quality of the powers vs the spells that have most people up in arms.

Most people on these boards who play min-maxed full casters routinely have a mental list of spells they will almost always take for those PCs.  And judging by the number of times those spells show up in threads helping newbies out for their wizards & sorcerers, or complaining about overpowered spells, I'm pretty sure those PC spell-lists would be 80-90% the same.  That's the same 30-some spells out of 1000 WotC spells, chosen again and again, all around the world.  Pare the list from which to choose down to Core + Completes, and the spell lists would become even more similar.  If the selection was Core only, I'd be willing to bet you'd see 99% or better identity.

I'm not sure the same could be said of min-maxed Psions and Wilders, despite a much smaller pool from which to choose.

Clearly, the Sorc/Wiz list has a lot more "dead weight" on it.

Yet this is precisely the list that is being the most restricted, and because of this, the so-called "underpowered" partial spellcasters like Bards, etc. will forever be even worse off in comparison to the lesser psionic manifesters than ever before, lending creedence to the complaints of those who believe the Psionic classes are overpowered relative to the core spellcasting classes.


----------



## Votan (Jan 6, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Like I said, I don't see the power imbalance that R&D supposedly perceived.  To me, at least, the Feat's silence is still is open to interpretation, and I'll continue to rule it to function identically to Expanded Knowledge.
> 
> IMHO, the Full casters & Full manifesters are pretty balanced versus each other, even with the FAQ interpreting Extra Spell and Expanded Knowledge differently.  Others on these boards have vociferously voiced opinions that the Psionic Classes routinely outdo the Core casters.
> 
> ...




In my opinion, it isn't unbalanced to house-rule the feat this way.  In general, the only times that this will work out badly are when the spell itself synergizes with another spell or the spell is inherently overpowered (Wraithstrike).  But, a lot of the the time there are alternatives to doing this that are actually more powerful (Arcane Disciple, Cleric Domains and so forth).  

I actually worry a lot more about clerics cherry picking key arcane spells rather than the reverse.  In general, a sorcerer or wizard is never really going to do anything bad for getting a spell that is balanced for a full caster class with better design elements (clerics have better HD, armor use, better BAB, better saves and a stronger skill list but are still full casters; if there spells are overpowered in the hands of an arcane caster than that is a problem with the design of the spell).  

So I don;t think that this is an unreasonable approach.  But I am quite sure that the rules as they are written (and supported by FAQ) don;t say this.  But then I have never been in a game where some degree of house ruling did not occur to smooth out the rough edges of the game anyway.  If this makes your games more fun or makes a character concept more viable then hey -- that's cool.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2007)

> In general, the only times that this will work out badly are when the spell itself synergizes with another spell or the spell is inherently overpowered (Wraithstrike).




As yet, nobody in my campaigns, nor anyone in any of the other campaigns has used that spell.  However, I've heard the buzz about how it seems to be overpowered...

But the solution isn't to edit the feat, its to disallow the spell- use a specific rather than general solution to the problem.

IOW, use a scalpel to excise the problem, not a nuke to flatten everything you see.

Like I said, I used to gripe to WotC about how they'd ban 2 or 3 cards that created a combo, when all they had to do was ban one- usually the most recently printed one.


----------



## Votan (Jan 6, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As yet, nobody in my campaigns, nor anyone in any of the other campaigns has used that spell.  However, I've heard the buzz about how it seems to be overpowered...
> 
> But the solution isn't to edit the feat, its to disallow the spell- use a specific rather than general solution to the problem.
> 
> ...




True.  The spell (Wraitstrike) is really only deadly if it can migrate to medium or full BAB classes that can effectively enter melee.  There is a significant penalty to be a Fighter/Mage and Wraithstrike just makes the pain less.  But, for a power attacking cleric, it is an awesome spell as you can shave amazing amounts of AC off of a Target.  

An Old Red Dragon, for example, goes from AC 33 to AC 6 (+27 to hit).  A Pit Fiend drops from AC 40 to AC 17 (+ 23 to hit).  Even a critter like a Grey Render drops from AC 19 to Ac 9 (+10 to hit).  This makes a massive difference in damage output if power attacking with a  2 handed weapon is an option.  

It also stacks with Arcane Strike (think of a Duskblade) which means maximum power attack is going to happen with every strike at medium levels.

Now imagine a cleric with Divine Power as a buff who uses this spell as well . . .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2007)

Just as a For Example, here are a couple of relatively recent threads that regard the relative power of Psions vs Arcane casters, at least tangentially.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170210&page=1
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=183877&page=1&pp=40

Be warned, some of the posts are kinda math-y.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 6, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm not aware of any Sorcerer-only spells...




I beleive Arcane Fusion is one of them.  And IIRC it is from Complete Mage.  I don't have my books in front of me atm, so if I am mistaken here, I'll check when I get home and update it.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 6, 2007)

But those came after the core rule text. 

OTOH, there _are_ wizard-only spells in the PHB, so if anyone should have such a text meaning what you say, it would have to be the wizard. Therefore, it has to mean something else (i.e. what irdeggman said earlier).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 6, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> But those came after the core rule text.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




I realize you are joking, but just to refute...  So did the feat we are describing   We entered non-Core rules-land long before I chimed in


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I realize you are joking, but just to refute...  So did the feat we are describing   We entered non-Core rules-land long before I chimed in




But, Sorcerer Only spells came in after this feat as well AFAIK.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 6, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I realize you are joking, but just to refute...  So did the feat we are describing   We entered non-Core rules-land long before I chimed in




But you said, that the _primarily_ (in the core rules) refers to Sor-only spells, which are not on the Sor/Wiz spell list... that's what I meant (in case that wasn't clear).

There are no such spells, but there are Wiz-only spells... so there is no reason to think, that this is the reason for the _primarily_ IMHO. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 6, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> But you said, that the _primarily_ (in the core rules) refers to Sor-only spells, which are not on the Sor/Wiz spell list... that's what I meant (in case that wasn't clear).
> 
> There are no such spells, but there are Wiz-only spells... so there is no reason to think, that this is the reason for the _primarily_ IMHO.
> 
> ...




Ok, I see what you are saying.  I guess my point is, sure, at the time the PHB was written and the Extra Spell feat came out, that wouldn't apply ("primarily" referring to Sor-only spells).  But since we have multiple sources to work with now, and since there are Sor-only spells, the arguement does apply.  In other words, I couldn't have made the same arguement pre-Complete Mage (or whatever book the Sor-only spells are in)   But here is where we are, and so I think that it makes sense.

The logic I am using (again) is this...  "Primarily" to me means that this is the main list Sorcerers use to pick their spells from.  So if there is another list (or another way) for Sorcerers to get spells, we have to first see what other lists are out there that the Sorcerer would "legally" (within the D&D rules) be able to take.  There is a Cleric list, a Druid list, a Bard list, etc. and the Sorc is not allowed to pick spells from those lists according to the standard D&D rules in the PHB.  The Sorc DOES have access to a few spells that are only available to the Sorc (as opposed to being available to the Sorc and Wizard).  So, again, this would mean to me that "primarily" they pick from Sorc/Wiz list (as it is written) and then "secondary" (if you will) they can pick from the Sorc-only list (which is very small, it may only have 2 or 3 spells on it).  Anything OTHER than that, they either (a) don't qualify to pick from or (b) the DM could Rule 0 to allow them.  In addition, if they wanted a _Cure Light Wounds-type_ spell, they'd have to use the rules for researching or studying new spells, since _Cure Light Wounds_ is not an "unusual spell" as Clerics and Druids and Bards cast it quite frequently.  However, an "Arcane Cure Light Wounds" (or whatever you choose to call it) that has the same effect as your average "Cure Light Wounds" would be unusual if the DM chose to allow it.

Ok, that was entirely more longwinded than I had intended it to be


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2007)

I have never noticed Wiz only or Sorc only spells...anyone know of a list?


----------



## Thanee (Jan 7, 2007)

The list for Wiz only spells in the PHB is pretty short. 

_Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer_ and _Mordenkainen's Lucubration_

@RigaMortus2: But when you go by this logic consequently, a Wizard would not be able to learn the above two spells, since they are not on the Sor/Wiz list. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 7, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I have never noticed Wiz only or Sorc only spells...anyone know of a list?




Ok, so I just double checked the "sorc only spell list" and I am incorrect about it (sort of).  The spell Arcane Fusion in Complete Mage is actually on the Sorc/Wizard list...  HOWEVER, when you go to the spell description, it lists _*Level:* Sorcerer 5_ as the class that is able to take it.  This might be an oversight on WotC's part, or it may be intentional.

This basically refutes what I said earlier, as even though the Sorcerer is the only one able to take it, it is still technically on the Sorcerer/Wizards spell list...  So what does this mean for a Wizard who wants to take Arcane Fusion?  Hmmm...



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> The list for Wiz only spells in the PHB is pretty short.
> 
> _Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer_ and _Mordenkainen's Lucubration_
> 
> ...




Just like Arcane Fusion, _Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer_ and _Mordenkainen's Lucubration_ are both technically still on the Sorc/Wiz spell list.  However, it is limited to Wizards only.  You'll have to figure out what that means.


----------



## jasin (Jan 7, 2007)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Recaster is another "interesting" wording that should be fixed, IMO.
> 
> If it was handled like the artificer (minimum caster level) it would work a whole lot better.  But the way it is worded presently it causes the same question that a liberally viewed extra spell causes.
> 
> ...



Assuming you feel the basic principle of cross-list poaching is fine, I see no problem. If know vulnerabilities is available as a Brd 2, Clr 3 and Sor/Wiz 4 spell, and you can pick one spell from any list, just pick one. (Obviously, it's probably the best idea to pick the bard version... but probably an even better idea to pick something to which you'd otherwise have no access at all.)


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 7, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Just like Arcane Fusion, _Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer_ and _Mordenkainen's Lucubration_ are both technically still on the Sorc/Wiz spell list.  However, it is limited to Wizards only.  You'll have to figure out what that means.




What it means is that the Sorcerer/Wizard generic list is not designed for Wizard Only or Sorcerer Only spells. The spell itself always take priority over the generic list.

No question here.


----------



## irdeggman (Jan 7, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Assuming you feel the basic principle of cross-list poaching is fine, I see no problem. If know vulnerabilities is available as a Brd 2, Clr 3 and Sor/Wiz 4 spell, and you can pick one spell from any list, just pick one. (Obviously, it's probably the best idea to pick the bard version... but probably an even better idea to pick something to which you'd otherwise have no access at all.)





So even more "rules" must be added to make the feat work that way.

Hmmm at what point does the feat get rendered useless as written becasue of the number of "additions" required to make it fit.

It seems to me that the FAQ, which basically covers interpretation and not a new rule, covers it fine by making the spell only available from the PC's spell list in the first place. That means things like whether it is divine or not (hey what about all of the spells which reuire different type of foci depending on whether or not it is divine? Or those that require a DF and now the PC is making it an arcane spell?). Even more "additions" are now required in order to make the feat read the way some "want" it to.


----------

