Extra Spell Feat = Extra Confusing [2006 Thread]

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thanee
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.)

Except, Thanee, there are Feats out there that allow a PC to break a basic rule.

Example: the basic rule is that a human's punch is a non-lethal attack that doesn't count as being armed, and thus provokes AoOs. Improved Unarmed Combat, however, changes all of that.

Thus, it is no small leap that Extra Spell could be read as:

Extra Spell
You can learn an extra spell.
Option 3: This spell can be any spell. You can cast it as if it were on your class list.

Which, BTW, is how I personally rule it.

 

[Glyfair]

Except, Thanee, there are Feats out there that allow a PC to break a basic rule.

And they say they break the rule. The feat doesn't state it allows a PC to cast a spell, only "know it." I'll note there are abilities that specifically allow casters to learn and cast spells outside of their spell list.

Ecletic Learning (Warmage Alternative Class Feature)

At 3rd, 6th, 11th or 16th level, you can choose to add a new spell to your list that would normally be outside your area of experience. The spell must be a sorcerer/wizard spell...

And, from the same source as the Extra Spell feat:

Advanced Learning (Warmage Class Feature)

At 3rd, 6th, 11th and 16th level, a warmage can add a new spell to his list, representing the result of personal study and experimentation. The spell must be a wizard spell of the evocation school....

So, there is already an example of WotC adding spells to a classes spell list so the class can cast it. If they had intended for any spell to be added, then they certainly would have mentioned it.

Indeed, the first listed ability allows the spell to be added at a level higher than a sorcerer/wizard knows the spell. It wouldn't be a very good ability if a single feat could allow you to add any spell to your list, at the level it's cast for another class.

Indeed, the entire fact that the feat fails to mention what level a spell not on their class list should be learned at implies it isn't intended to allow casters to cast spells not on their spell list. If a sorcerer learns a spell that is a 1st level cleric spell, but a 2nd level druid spell, which level would it be?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Indeed, the first listed ability allows the spell to be added at a level higher than a sorcerer/wizard knows the spell. It wouldn't be a very good ability if a single feat could allow you to add any spell to your list, at the level it's cast for another class.

Saying a feat just sucks and defend that position by saying my interpretation of the feat would make a certain class ability suck, thus my interpretation is flawed, is flawed.

First, on class abilities: some are better than Feats, others are worse than Feats. Second, as a class ability and NOT a feat, its probably there to prevent the PC from burning a Feat that it doesn't have to spare. Third, both are already more limited than Extra Spell, since both have the caveat "must be from the sorcerer/wizard" spell list or must be a wizard's evocation. Fourth, in its way, Advanced Learning is arguably more powerful anyway since it allows the PC to add 4 spells over time (someone borrowed my PHB II, but I suspect they used an "and" formulation, not "or" in Eclectic Learning).

If they had intended for any spell to be added, then they certainly would have mentioned it.

So the feat is badly worded. Assuming a rational game designer, what would be the point in burning a feat to learn a spell you couldn't cast? For what reason would a PC learn a spell other than to cast it?

If a sorcerer learns a spell that is a 1st level cleric spell, but a 2nd level druid spell, which level would it be?

It would depend on why the PC is learning the spell. If the PC is trying to learn a lower level of the spell so he can cast it more often, then that's what he would do with this feat- by your example, he'd learn the cleric spell. If, OTOH, he was trying to learn a higher level spell because of some other effect that only modifies/affects (or fails to modify/affect) higher level spells, then that would be the version he'd learn- by your example, the druid spell would be the one he'd learn.

 

[Glyfair]

So the feat is badly worded. Assuming a rational game designer, what would be the point in burning a feat to learn a spell you couldn't cast? For what reason would a PC learn a spell other than to cast it?

What reason is there to waste space disallowing something that's pointless? Putting in a clause to say you can't learn a spell you can't cast, to me, would be a waste of breath.

Still, if you consider that being a "badly worded" then we have two choices:

1) It's badly worded because it assumes you wouldn't learn a spell you couldn't cast.

or

2) It's badly worded because it doesn't allow you to cast every spell you learn.

All the evidence points to the first. It's not direct evidence, but it's clear from the other similiar abilities in the system.

Indeed, having the ability to learn a spell not on your spell list is such a powerful ability, they certainly would reference that in the ability. They'd tell you it could happen, they'd give an example where it happens, they'd reference secondary issues (if a sorcerer learns Bless Weapon is it a divine spell or arcane spell?). They do none of that.

To me, it seems perfectly clear the intent of the feat wasn't to allow this. Comparing choice #1 and choice #2, the omission in choice #1 is a likely thing to happen. The omission on choice #2 is very far fetched. If they wanted the feat to allow casters to learn spells not on their spell list, they would have explictily mentioned that, because it's very powerful and goes against the key design paradigms of 3.X D&D.

 

[Mistwell]

I just checked the SRD. Learn is used ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Spells Gained at a New Level: Characters who can cast divine spells undertake a certain amount of study between adventures. Each time such a character receives a new level of divine spells, he or she learns new spells from that level automatically.

Despite these different ways that characters use to learn or prepare their spells, when it comes to casting them, the spells are very much alike.

If a spell has multiple versions, you choose which version to use when you cast it. You don’t have to prepare (or learn, in the case of a bard or sorcerer) a specific version of the spell.

Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods. If a wizard has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, she can learn spells only from schools whose spells she can cast.

She cannot, however, learn any spells from her prohibited schools.

It sure looks to me like any spell you can learn, you can cast.

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

Much like the similar feat in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, I think it is one fair interpretation of this feat that it functions like an automatic "research a new spell independently", except you do not have to spend the resources and time for researching a new spell, just a feat.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What reason is there to waste space disallowing something that's pointless? Putting in a clause to say you can't learn a spell you can't cast, to me, would be a waste of breath.

Obviously, it wouldn't be, because there are a significant number of people who disagreee with your interpretation of the Feat. A single sentence to clarify that the only spells you could learn were the ones from your class list would be well worth it.

Lets look at your interpretation in the context of the PHB Spellcasters:

Wizards gain a pair of freebie spells for their spellbook at each level. They may add any number of wizard spells to their spellbook from other texts as long as they can transcribe them with a spellcraft check (PHB p178-9) or can even create their own version of the spell with independent research. Your interpretation of the feat is virtually useless to them.

Bards & Sorcerers gain spells at a set rate. Even when they find a new spell in a book or scroll, they cannot accelerate their rate of learning. Your interpretation of the feat would give them a way to accelerate their learning rate by 1 spell per selection of this feat. Not bad, but not great.

Clerics, Druids, Paladins and Rangers: Because of the way they learn spells, this feat is useless to them with your interpretation.

(Just for comparison's sake, look at the very similar Feats Exotic Spell and Unique Spell from AU/AE. In each case, they allow the PC to gain access to new spells- and in each case, they are spells that the PC wouldn't normally be able to cast. In other words, they expand the PC's spell list by one spell.)

Still, if you consider that being a "badly worded" then we have two choices:

1) It's badly worded because it assumes you wouldn't learn a spell you couldn't cast.

or

2) It's badly worded because it doesn't allow you to cast every spell you learn.

Or

3) Its badly worded because its missing language clarifying that by taking this feat, you're adding a spell to your PC's list of spells he can cast.

 

[Thanee]

So the feat is badly worded. Assuming a rational game designer, what would be the point in burning a feat to learn a spell you couldn't cast? For what reason would a PC learn a spell other than to cast it?

It's not the feat, that is badly worded. The feat is just fine.

The PHB is badly worded when it comes to learning spells.

Of course, noone will learn a spell, that one cannot cast, hence my conclusion up there, that wizards can only learn wizard spells... not speaking of the feat here in particular, but what spells wizards learn in general. The feat makes no exception to what spells wizards can learn/cast (other feats do).

And the feat doesn't suck. It's a good feat for sorcerers.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

I just checked the SRD. Learn is used ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Of course it is. Unfortunately, nowhere does it say, what learning really means.

It sure looks to me like any spell you can learn, you can cast.

That makes sense, doesn't it? It's, BTW, pretty much the conclusion I have posted above, although you look at it from the wrong side.

Now the only piece of the puzzle you are lacking is the answer to the following question...

What spells can you cast? (This is answered in the rulebook.)

Those are (or rather should be) the spells you can learn. Learning other spells is pointless.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

It sure looks to me like any spell you can learn, you can cast.

Alternatively, it assumes that people either will not or cannot learn spells they are unable to cast.

... which Thanee's pretty much just said while I was typing this anyway

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

Obviously, it wouldn't be, because there are a significant number of people who disagreee with your interpretation of the Feat.

It's what the feat does... anything else is just wishful thinking. The feat doesn't change how spells are learned in any way. If you 'interprete' the feat that way, that you can learn (and cast) any spell in existance, then this automatically assumes, that wizards can do that already without the feat, because if you argue, that the feat doesn't state any restrictions to what spells one can learn... the core rules don't do that either. Works both ways.

Now it might not be the best approach to such a feat, since it makes it practically worthless to many classes, and this is certainly a valid point to argue about, but that doesn't make it work differently.

Bye
Thanee