Extra Spell Feat = Extra Confusing [2006 Thread]
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
BTW this seems to be the restatement of the other position:
"Default limitations do not remain in effect unless explicitly repeated by a feat. Extra Spell doesn't say you can't learn spells from a list other than your own; therefore, you can. In support of this position, advocates frequently mention the text about a wizard learning a spell "he would be otherwise unable to research." Frequently, "should" arguments are brought into play: the feat SHOULD grant the spell because it's underpowered otherwise, the feat SHOULD grant the spell because other feats can grant spells from off the caster's spell list, and so forth."
BTW, does anyone have the text to the Improved Oneiromancy feat from Heros of Horror? It may be relevant to this issue.
"Default limitations do not remain in effect unless explicitly repeated by a feat. Extra Spell doesn't say you can't learn spells from a list other than your own; therefore, you can. In support of this position, advocates frequently mention the text about a wizard learning a spell "he would be otherwise unable to research." Frequently, "should" arguments are brought into play: the feat SHOULD grant the spell because it's underpowered otherwise, the feat SHOULD grant the spell because other feats can grant spells from off the caster's spell list, and so forth."
BTW, does anyone have the text to the Improved Oneiromancy feat from Heros of Horror? It may be relevant to this issue.
Thanee
First Post
Mistwell said:
Riiight.
...and always miraculously miss the part, that says '...is generally used...' before that.
...and totally disregard the thought, that '...unable to research...' might possibly mean something else than '...unable to research under any and all circumstances...'.
Great explanation for a house rule; not so great explanation for anything else.
Bye
Thanee
Last edited:
Thanee
First Post
Havn't looked up the text, but that feat that allows wizards to learn four spells each level up instead of two would be pretty good in that guy's (who has written the above-quoted text) hands, no? It also doesn't say what spells to learn, which automatically means, that you can learn and cast any spell in existance (and psionic power and divine ability, too, I guess).
Anyways, all this doesn't matter at all, since learning spells is not restricted... casting spells is (unless you are a sorcerer, at which point you must find out, what kinds of spells you can cast secondarily and tertiarily and so on).
Bye
Thanee
Anyways, all this doesn't matter at all, since learning spells is not restricted... casting spells is (unless you are a sorcerer, at which point you must find out, what kinds of spells you can cast secondarily and tertiarily and so on).
Bye
Thanee
Last edited:
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I think you protest too much. You're responding right after your own posts, multiple times in this thread, and often in exagerated tones. You're convinving me that you are not nearly as sure of your position as you seem to be saying
Anyway, if you have the text of the feat I asked about I'd love to see it. I wasn't really looking for just a small portion of the feat, as we both know context is often relevant.
Oh, and I don't buy the "you can learn any spell, you just can't cast it" thing at all. It's not a logical position, and sounds very much like a weak argument used to wiggle out of something rather than deal with the issue head on. Unless you feel it has meaning outside of a rules debating position, and is spelled out explicitly somewhere by WOTC, then I will continue to read that position as an admission that something fishy is going on with your interpretation.
Anyway, if you have the text of the feat I asked about I'd love to see it. I wasn't really looking for just a small portion of the feat, as we both know context is often relevant.
Oh, and I don't buy the "you can learn any spell, you just can't cast it" thing at all. It's not a logical position, and sounds very much like a weak argument used to wiggle out of something rather than deal with the issue head on. Unless you feel it has meaning outside of a rules debating position, and is spelled out explicitly somewhere by WOTC, then I will continue to read that position as an admission that something fishy is going on with your interpretation.
Last edited:
I have to agree with Thanee on this point... going by RAW, you can't use THAT feat do get that result. However, if one of my players wanted to do so, I'd probably let him... but that would be a house rule.
In summary, those DMs who think it reasonable for Extra Spell to grant non-class spells... will let it grant non-class spells. Those who don't... won't.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Endovior said:
I have to agree with Thanee on this point... going by RAW, you can't use THAT feat do get that result. However, if one of my players wanted to do so, I'd probably let him... but that would be a house rule.
In summary, those DMs who think it reasonable for Extra Spell to grant non-class spells... will let it grant non-class spells. Those who don't... won't.
In general I agree with Thanee on this issue as well. However, Thanee's own tone and redundancy and shifty arguments in support of Thanee's position are what are convinving me to take a second look at the other side.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Mistwell said:
If you refer to yourself in the third person, you can completely eliminate personal pronouns from that post!
-Hyp.
