Extra Spell Feat = Extra Confusing [2006 Thread]

[Thanee]

Oh, and I don't buy the "you can learn any spell, you just can't cast it" thing at all.

Well, that's the rules, not my interpretation of them. There is no mentioning whatsoever anywhere in the rules (at least as far as I am aware of), which states what spells a character can learn. If you can find some passage in the rules, which explicitly explains what spells a character can learn, please let me know!

It's my assumption, that characters can only learn the spells they can cast. And it is surely a quite logical assumption.

But I have already explained that above.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

You're responding right after your own posts, ...

What's bad about that? I actually do that on purpose, to have a clear seperation between unrelated issues (granted, one post above with the wizard-spell-learning-feat could have been edited into the post above it - hey, it was morning and I was in a hurry ).

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.

The feat description clearly adds the new spells to the character's spell list, just like Arcane Disciple does, and as Extra Spell does not. It's mentioned very clearly in the feat description, multiple times. Don't have the book with me, though, so you will have to wait until later.

Bye
Thanee

 

[RigaMortus2]

Wizards can learn and cast a lot of different spells. What they lack is the ability to cast them in quantity. This is what Extra Slot is for.

Sorcerers can learn and cast a smaller number of different spells. What they gain is the ability to cast them in a larger quantity. This is what Extra Spell is for.

Would a Wizard benefit from Extra Spell? Sure. But it is a waste IMO since they can always find/buy a scroll and permanently add it to their repitoire that way.

Would a Sorcerer benefit from Extra Slot? Sure. But since they get more slots to cast spells than a Wizard, it too is kind of a waste.

They made these two feats to balance out the two primary casters, and make them more on par with one another (should a player choose to do that by taking the feats).

 

[Seeten]

Thanee is right, by the RAW, Extra spell does not allow you to cast spells not on your list. You CAN learn a spell not on your list with it, and you'd know it, and understand it, but you couldnt cast it.

I also agree the feat kinda sucks, but so do millions of feats. +2 Athletics and +2 climb for example. Ugh.

 

[dagger]

Thanee is right, by the RAW, Extra spell does not allow you to cast spells not on your list. You CAN learn a spell not on your list with it, and you'd know it, and understand it, but you couldnt cast it.

I also agree the feat kinda sucks, but so do millions of feats. +2 Athletics and +2 climb for example. Ugh.

Until the feat is clarified by Wizards I disagree it's RAW.

 

[Thanee]

Don't have the book with me, though, so you will have to wait until later.

Ahem... here it is now.

"Your spell list expands to include a number of dream-related spells (all described later in this chapter), regardless of what sort of caster you might be. You must still learn or prepare these spells normally; they are added to your class list, not necessarily to the list of spells you personally know."

It specifically mentions adding the spells to the class list, which is necessary to allow anything, that is not on it already.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mistwell]

If you refer to yourself in the third person, you can completely eliminate personal pronouns from that post!

-Hyp.

It's because I do not know if Thanee is a he or a she, hence I have to just call "it" Thanee.

If Thanee would like to identify him or her self as a male or a female, it would help.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, that's the rules, not my interpretation of them. There is no mentioning whatsoever anywhere in the rules (at least as far as I am aware of), which states what spells a character can learn.

Let me see if I understand your logic here.

1) "you can learn any spell, you just can't cast it"
2) "that's the rules, not [Thanee's] interpretation of them"
3) "There is no mentioning whatsoever anywhere in the rules which states what spells a character can learn."

Riiiight.

So there is no mention anywhere in the rules that "you can learn any spell", but that's "the rules" and not your "intepretation of the rules".

How about this: If it isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules, then by default it's your interpretation until proven otherwise, and not the other way around.

 

[Thanee]

Now that makes no sense at all. You are just randomly mixing parts together.

It would probably be a good idea to start with trying to understand what I am trying to say. I really don't think you do.

The rules:

You can cast spells, which are on your class list.
You can learn spells (no mentioning what spells).

So, even if you learned a spell not on your class list, you could not cast it, which is obviously pretty pointless then.

My conclusion/interpretation of the intention (and a rather obvious one):

You can only learn spells, that you can cast.

Extra Spell:

You can learn an extra spell.

Option 1) This spell can be any spell. But if it is not on your class list, you won't be able to cast it. (That second part it the rule.)

Option 2) This spell has to be on your class list, because you need to be able to cast the spell. (This is using my interpretation of what spells one can learn.)

Regardless of rules and interpretations, both results are effectively the same. You will only learn spells on your class list with Extra Spell, because anything else is just a waste of a feat.

The option, that let's you learn and cast a spell, which is not on your class list, does not exist. It's not possible.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mistwell]

Why couldn't learning a spell be the same thing as adding that spell to your class list (and I don't mean as a house rule - I mean as a intepretation of the RAW)?

If I invent a new spell in accordance with the spell invention rules under the RAW, surely I have learned it, and it is added to my class list, right? If invention works, why wouldn't learning a new spell through a feat do the same thing (add it to my class list)?