Extra Spell Feat = Extra Confusing [2006 Thread]

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Wow, you are really stretching here. I don't think RAW (either by the feat description or anywhere else) supports this answer of yours. You are kind of making things up now which is not supported.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Dead: The character’s hit points are reduced to –10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

Can a dead person walk around? Take actions? Breathe? Eat? Talk? It doesn't say they can't, so therefore I guess they can!

 

[Seeten]

So, can I play a zombie necromancer in your game, Riga? =)

 

[Thanee]

Only a dead zombie necromancer.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Votan]

My major concern is that while MOST of the time the feat (extra spell) would work in a balanced fashion picking spells off of other lists, it occasionally does strange things.

For example, a Ranger or Paladin would seem to covet Extra Spell [Wraithstrike]. Nobody will ever call those 2nd, 3rd and 4th level slots useless ever again when the Paladin is maximum power attacking AND hitting AND using Divine Might all at once. This is so good it becomes an automatic level 12 feat.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

If it is "cannot learn spells not on their spell list" and "can cast any spell they have learned" then this feat provides a one-time exception to the "cannot learn spells not on their spell list" very neatly.

 

[Mistwell]

Can a dead person walk around? Take actions? Breathe? Eat? Talk? It doesn't say they can't, so therefore I guess they can!

I think you overcame the burden, which had in fact shifted to you, in proving the ability to walk, eat, take actions, breate, talk, are all disabled when your condition is dead. You drew on the real world definition of the word dead.

I am not saying we are unable to make conclusions about things not in the rules. I am saying that when you are making a claim about something not in the rules, the burden shifts to the person making that claim to demonstrate how that IS the rules rather than just one of two or more reasonable intepretations of the rules.

In this case, we have several interpretations of the rules. Thanee stated ""you can learn any spell, you just can't cast it...that's the rules, not my interpretation of them." I am saying that the question of what spells a caster can learn is not in the rules, and hence we are no longer discussing explicit RAW but an interpretation which needs support (like a real world definition, or other rules, or context, or logic, or something).

Here are some reasonable intepretations:

1) You can learn any spell, but you can only cast spells on your spell list (the Thanee position).

2) You can only learn spells on your spell list, and can cast any spell you can learn.

3) You can only learn spells on your spell list, and can only cast spells on your spell list. Yes, this is actually different than the above interpretation, because extra spell lets you learn a spell.

4) You can learn any spell on your spell list, or which you independantly research, or which are granted to you by a feat like Extra Spell or a special ability (like the Mage of the Arcane Order spellpool special ability); and you can cast any spell you learn.

5) You can learn any spell on your spell list, or which you independantly research, or which are granted to you by a feat like Extra Spell or a special ability; but you can only cast spells on your spell list.

6) You can only learn spells on your spell list; but you can cast any spell you have learned or which you independantly research, or which are granted to you by a feat like Extra Spell or a special ability.

There are others, but I think I made my point. We are dealing with one reasonable intepretation here, and not a situation of "that's the rules" like Thanee said earlier. I think there is room for other reasonable intepretations and it's an issue worthy of debate.

 

[Mistwell]

My major concern is that while MOST of the time the feat (extra spell) would work in a balanced fashion picking spells off of other lists, it occasionally does strange things.

For example, a Ranger or Paladin would seem to covet Extra Spell [Wraithstrike]. Nobody will ever call those 2nd, 3rd and 4th level slots useless ever again when the Paladin is maximum power attacking AND hitting AND using Divine Might all at once. This is so good it becomes an automatic level 12 feat.

If it's your thing, then why would that be so bad? A power gamer playing a cleric automatically takes Divine Metamagic. So now the Ranger and Paladin, relatively weak classes, have an automatic feat choices that marginally increases their power if played by a power gamer who wishes to take that route? So what.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I think you overcame the burden, which had in fact shifted to you, in proving the ability to walk, eat, take actions, breate, talk, are all disabled when your condition is dead. You drew on the real world definition of the word dead.

I know what dead means in real life. I am asking you what it means to be dead (or have the dead condition) within a game. A dead character in D&D does not have all the same traits as a dead person in real life (for one, there is no such thing as -10 hit points in real life). So, as you stated, 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.. Where is it stated otherwise that characters with the dead condition can not eat, drink, breath, move around, etc?

 

[Mistwell]

I know what dead means in real life. I am asking you what it means to be dead (or have the dead condition) within a game. A dead character in D&D does not have all the same traits as a dead person in real life (for one, there is no such thing as -10 hit points in real life). So, as you stated, 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.. Where is it stated otherwise that characters with the dead condition can not eat, drink, breath, move around, etc?

To me, you proved it otherwise by drawing on the definition of the word dead. Dead carries with it assumptions that you cannot do any of those things you mentioned, based on linguistics and common understanding of the usage of that word. Proof does not only take the form of a different rule being quoted. Proof can be found in lots of things (many of which I listed), and real world definitions is one of them.

If you want to draw on the definitions of the word "learn" and "cast" to prove Thanee's point, be my guest. But I don't think drawing on real world definitions will help much with this particular issue.