Am I reading this wrong or did the FAQ get it wrong?

[dagger]

This has been hashed out many times....the FAQ is correct. Not all feats are useful to all classes.

 

[takasi]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=183988

 

[rgard]

I'm in agreement since this uses much closer to the specific wording. A implies B, B implies C, A therefore C. It follows logic of what they write.

I wish that when they write feats, they would would be more specific and put what they intend to restrict.

I agree with sometimes wanting more specificity.

Anyway, I looked up the entry for the Warmage class options in the PHB2 (pg 67) and found an ability called 'Eclectic Learning.'

The warmage can use this at 3, 6, 11 or 16th levels or all of them instead of advanced learning. Advanced Learning is where the warmage can add any evocation (wizard spell) that is not on the warmage list to his list of spells known.

With Eclectic Learning, the warmage can add any arcane (wiz/sorc) spell to his known spells, but from any school (could be necro, ench, etc) AND it has to be ONE level higher than normal. Invisibility would be a 3rd level spell for the warmage.

You could do the same thing for the Duskblade. I would give you the choice of giving up Quick Cast and take Eclectic Learning instead for that given level (5, 10, 15 and or 20). The best you could get then would be a 4th level wiz/sorc spell which would be one of your 5th level spells (4+1=5).

How does that work for you?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[takasi]

How does that work for you?

Knowing the OP, I seriously doubt his DM will allow this.

 

[irdeggman]

My interpretation of this case is that the FAQ is wrong. The bit about the extra spell being limited to your class spell list is wholly made up by the FAQ. Nothing in the text of the feat, in any way, implies that the extra spell is limited in this way. In fact, it implies just the opposite by mentioning what a wizard might use the feat for.

Since, by the RAW, at level-up a wizard can add ANY spell, of his highest spell level or lower, from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to his spell book, the ONLY spells a wizard "lacks access to" would be spells NOT on the sorc/wiz spell list. This implies that Extra Spell is NOT limited to spells from your class spell list.

Note that I say 'by the RAW', because specific campaigns might limit the sorc/wiz spells the wizard can freely add to his spell book at level-up and thus the FAQ interpretation of the feat would make it useful for gaining whatever spell those wizards might be barred from automatically learning. But this would be a campaign specific thing and thus an individual DM ruling (just as spell research would be), not the RAW which is the assumed state for published feats and such.

Well what if the wizard already choose his 2 spells? And he had failed on a spellcraft check to learn a spell from a scroll?

He would not normally have access to that spell in that case.

Now if you read it as "any" spell, even those not on his list then you will end up with wizards (and sorcerers) adding things like "cure light wounds" to their spells known.

The feat is clearly meant for spontaneous casters who have a limited number of spells known from their list.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I certainly do agree thatthe feat could be clearer, but I do get offended by those who insist on avoiding the intent of the ability(Which he FaQ generally does a good job of clarifying) to get into ridiculous interpretations.

Via the FaQ it seems clear that the feat is mostly for sorcerors and others with a large spell list but few spells known. Duskblades can indeed use this feat, as hey do not know every spell on their lists.

I don't really see a big problem with allowing a divine caster to take divine spells or an arcane caster to take arcane spells not on their lists with supervision from the DM. It isa whole feat, and in D&D feat are precious. In this case I would tend to disallow casters to take spells from limited spell lists like rangers/paladins and so on as their spells do not really follow the 1st, 2nd, etc level power of other full casting classes like wizards and clerics.

However extending it out to allow divine casters to grab arcane spells and vice versa is jsut absurd, and to me falls directly under the heading of munchkinsim.

 

[wildstarsreach]

I certainly do agree thatthe feat could be clearer, but I do get offended by those who insist on avoiding the intent of the ability(Which he FaQ generally does a good job of clarifying) to get into ridiculous interpretations.

Via the FaQ it seems clear that the feat is mostly for sorcerors and others with a large spell list but few spells known. Duskblades can indeed use this feat, as hey do not know every spell on their lists.

I don't really see a big problem with allowing a divine caster to take divine spells or an arcane caster to take arcane spells not on their lists with supervision from the DM. It isa whole feat, and in D&D feat are precious. In this case I would tend to disallow casters to take spells from limited spell lists like rangers/paladins and so on as their spells do not really follow the 1st, 2nd, etc level power of other full casting classes like wizards and clerics.

However extending it out to allow divine casters to grab arcane spells and vice versa is jsut absurd, and to me falls directly under the heading of munchkinsim.

In this I agree. Arcane to Arcane, highest spell level as general rule as well. Bard Charm monster would not be an accessable sine this is normally a 5th level wizard/sorcerer spell.