Extra Spell Feat = Extra Confusing [2006 Thread]

[Glyfair]

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.

Well, I could.

I've read a number of occult books for some RPG flavor. I know a few listed spells, that I'm sure I learned. I can't, however, cast them.

(Not that I'm pretending this has an validity, anymore than the fact that the D&D rules don't have a definition of what you can & can't do when dead is a valid point.).

Still, has anyone contacted WotC about this issue (either the sage or customer service)? I know a number here wouldn't care what they said either way, but getting them to address it seems to be a reasonable option.

 

[Votan]

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.

With one feat it dramatically increases the power level of the Ranger/Paladin compared to the Barbarian/Fighter. The Fighter has managed to finally get Greater Weapon Specialization. He has +2 to hit and +4 to damage. The Paladin takes a 2 handed weapon (this is 12th level) and power attacks for an extra 24 points of damage. To make matters worse, he pretty much hits every blow.

It's not all bad -- it just shows that opening spell lists like this can have unintended consequences. I think that the feat itself is hopelessly ambiguous (the part at the end about wizards just makes it ultra-confusing because it seems to say something different) and really, really should have a clarification point added in the errata.

[I just checked and it is not currently errataed].

But, given the current text, reasonable people will definitely differ as to the correct reading of it.

 

[Thanee]

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."

This is a bit out of context, though. What I mean is:

The rules don't really say or restrict what spells you can learn, so a strict reading leads to the assumption, that you can learn any spell. However, the rules say, that you can only cast spells on your class list, therefore - obviously (but this is an interpretation) - you can only learn spells on your class list.

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

This is not my position.

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

This is closest to my position. Or 3) rather, it's more precise.

You can only learn spells on your spell list and you can only cast spells on your spell list.

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.

I don't get the difference, really. Why would Extra Spell allow you to learn a spell not on your spell list, if you can only learn spells on your spell list and Extra Spell only allows you to learn a spell?

I think I know what you mean to say, that Extra Spell does not limit the spells you can learn, but neither does the rulebook (which is what I'm saying all the time). If we assume, that you can only learn spells on your spell list, than this applies to whenever you learn a spell (like when you pick up Extra Spell), not only to some cases, to all (any exceptions are specifically noted).

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.

As I said, like all the time, there is room for interpretation in what 'learning a spell' is, since it is nowhere clarified, what that really means.

I'm of the opinion, that there is only one reasonable interpretation, that you can only learn spells from your class spell list (any exceptions, including research or feats like Arcane Disciple, are specifically noted).

There is no room for interpretation in what Extra Spell does. It let's you learn a spell.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mistwell]

Not to throw a wrench in things (and this is not a reply specifically to what Thanee just said), but what if you can teach someone else any spell you have learned, even if you cannot cast a spell you have learned?

In other words, what if a generalist wizard who has learned and can cast the spell charm person teaches that spell to a specialist wizard who has excluded the enchantment school. The specialist wizard could "learn" the spell from the generalist, and put it in his spellbook, but not cast it.

The specialist wizard then teaches another generalist wizard the spell charm person.

Therefore, learning spells you cannot cast would have a function. You can pass the spell on to someone who CAN cast it.

I can even see an organizational element coming out of this concept. Members of a certain organization always learn a spell handed down for generations that nobody has been able to cast. When they some day teach the spell to someone who DOES learn how to cast it, they know based on their prophecy that this is the legendary person they have been waiting for.

 

[Thanee]

Heh. Yeah, but I really, really doubt, that his is what they intended.

And it really makes no sense from a logical point of view to have people learn/teach spells from their prohibited school, which they do not really study.

The designers probably found it so obvious, that wizards learn wizard spells, and bards learn bard spells, and so on, that they forgot to mention it. Or they thought, that saying 'wizards cast wizard spells' includes that part.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

No, I'm answering the question I was asked.

The feat, by being simply worded leaves a lot to interpretation. A few more words would have clearly delineated what was permissible and what is not. As it is, there is no language saying what level spell has to be chosen when this Feat is used to choose a spell that has differing caster levels.

The same thing happens in the law. Quite often, the original draft of a law is quite simple. This leads to conflicting enforcement efforts and even conflicting legal cases. The legislature then re-drafts the law or passes a new law with different language, hoping to end the conflict. Eventually, they get a draft that does what they actually intended should happen.

(With this in mind, I have contacted WotC for clarification- no response as yet.)

Upon reflection, I'll even admit that I actually erred when I said that this feat was useless for divine casters. They could use this feat to gain access to the spell at a different caster level or from a domain spell list- the spell would still be divine, thus avoiding the arcane/divine crossover issue that has preoccupied this thread.

Similarly, a Bard or other Non-"full" arcane spellcaster could use this spell to gain access to an arcane spell that they normally would have to wait a few levels for...or may not even have on their list.

But until WotC tells me you don't automatically learn to cast the spells you learn with this feat, I'll stand by my interpretation and allow it. I won't tell my players "No" until WotC tells me my interpretation is in error.

 

[Thanee]

The feat, by being simply worded leaves a lot to interpretation. A few more words would have clearly delineated what was permissible and what is not. As it is, there is no language saying what level spell has to be chosen when this Feat is used to choose a spell that has differing caster levels.

Spells have no caster level. And there is quite definitely some text, which specifies what (maximum) spell level can be chosen.

Similarly, a Bard or other Non-"full" arcane spellcaster could use this spell to gain access to an arcane spell that they normally would have to wait a few levels for...

Uhm... the feat quite clearly says you can only learn spells of one level lower than the highest you can cast. A 6th-level sorcerer can learn a new spell up to 2nd spell level, since 3rd spell level is the highest that can be cast currently.

But until WotC tells me you don't automatically learn to cast the spells you learn with this feat, I'll stand by my interpretation and allow it. I won't tell my players "No" until WotC tells me my interpretation is in error.

Even afterwards you can play it that way. If that house rule works better for your group, where's the problem?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Spells have no caster level

Sure they do: a spell that is "Cleric 3, Sorc/Wiz 5" can only be cast by clerics capable of casting 3rd level spells, or by Sorcerers or Wizards who can cast 5th level spells. That's a caster level.

Similarly, a Bard or other Non-"full" arcane spellcaster could use this spell to gain access to an arcane spell that they normally would have to wait a few levels for...

Uhm... the feat quite clearly says you can only learn spells of one level lower than the highest you can cast.

To explain: Hypothetically a Bard would be able to learn the Wizard's 2nd level spell that would normally be a 4th level Bard spell, if such a spell existed.

Even afterwards you can play it that way. If that house rule works better for your group, where's the problem?

Not that we don't have house rules, but unless we feel the WotC interpretation is egregiously incorrect, we do tend to conform our games to the official rulings. Its a function of the particular players in our group. Several of them are so WotC centered that 3 of the last 5 campaigns run in our group have been Core + Completes only, with my 2 being the only exceptions.

 

[Thanee]

To explain: Hypothetically a Bard would be able to learn the Wizard's 2nd level spell that would normally be a 4th level Bard spell, if such a spell existed.

Ah, ok, got it now. Yeah, that would work *if* you could learn spells from other lists and cast them. Since you cannot, that's not a problem.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Troll Bait]

What book does wraithstrike come from? I wonder what the contention is with the choice of this spell.