Extra Spell Feat = Extra Confusing [2006 Thread]

[Staffan]

Complete Adventurer. It's a 2nd level Assassin or Sor/Wiz spell, Swift action to cast, duration 1 round. During that time, all your melee attacks are resolved as touch attacks.

If you need to devote 3-4 levels to a poor-BAB class with bad hp in order to get the spell, and suffer arcane spell failure in order to try and cast it, it's not so attractive to fighter-types. If you can spend a feat to get it with a heavy-armor/good BAB divine-casting class, things become quite different.

 

[satori01]

This is a question that should be submitted to the Sage, are spells on your Spells Known list added automatically to your Spell list?

What does this feat do for say a Warmage, where the Spells Known list is the same as the Spell list?

An interperatation of the rules in from the Thanee School of thought would lead one to say, that whatever spell a Warmage mage learned through extra spell does not appear on their spell list, and thus the Warmage knows the spell but can not cast it.

However, on Page 12 of Complete Arcane, under the spells section the Warmage has this line:

[I]" Essentially, his {the Warmage} spell list is the same as his spells known list"[/I]

Thus by the strict rules inteperatation a Warmage, ( and a Beguiler as they have this clause under the spell section as well), could use extra spell to learn any spell and be able to cast.

The poor Dread Necromancer, which I think everyone will agree is in the same caster vein as the Warmage and the Begulier does not have this line in the spell section of the class:
B]I]" Essentially, his {the Warmage} spell list is the same as his spells known list"[/I][/B]

and thus by strict rules interperatation can not use Extra Spell like it's brethren the Warmage and Beguiler.

The rules are so poorly written here that Strict Inteperatation and application of what is written yields pattently unbalanced results, and throws question as to the intent of the designers.

If learning a spell and putting it on your Spells Known list = having the spell on your Spell List, then the feat is equal for all.

Otherwise under the Strict Intpertation, this feat is Awesome for Beguilers and Warmages, that under RAW can learn any spell and cast it.

 

[Thanee]

This is a question that should be submitted to the Sage, are spells on your Spells Known list added automatically to your Spell list?

I can tell you what his answer will be (essentially): It doesn't matter, since you can only learn spells, which are on your spell list.

Bye
Thanee

 

[satori01]

I can tell you what his answer will be (essentially): It doesn't matter, since you can only learn spells, which are on your spell list.

Bye
Thanee

Except of course the feat does not say that. I would be happy to get a response like that, (and I did just email this question to the sage), for as I think I showed above, the RAW is all over the place, and we need a statement of intention to be able to adjudicate the feat.

As an aside, I started a new thread regarding what I think is a loophole in the RAW that does allow Warmages and Beguilers to use the feat to learn and cast any spell they chose, be it Arcane or Divine.
I would apprecitate any rules wonks out there to comment on this, (if they so chose of course).

 

[Mistwell]

This is a question that should be submitted to the Sage, are spells on your Spells Known list added automatically to your Spell list?

Your question seems too broad. I would go with a specific example. Start by asking "Can a Duskblade take the Extra Spell feat and use it to add the spell Magic Missle to his spell list?"

Duskblade is new, so they will be more inclined to answer your question. Magic Missle is specific, so easy to look it up and so basic as to be a known quantity.

 

[Thanee]

Except of course the feat does not say that.

I'm not talking about the feat, I'm talking about the core rules about learning spells.

The feat just does what the core rules do (because, as you rightly point out, it doesn't say anything else, therefore it just uses the standard rules, which, unfortunately in this case, happen to be rather nonexistant). And the core rules should work that way, I guess that's something most people will agree with, that wizards cannot simply learn cleric spells during level up as their freebie spells.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The nearest analogous Feat to Extra Spell I can find in other WotC rules is the Psionic Feat, Expanded Knowledge.

As I recall (its on loan today), its similarly worded, and allows you to learn and use a power from any psionic list.

I'd say just like Practiced Manifester and the various Practiced whatever all work the same (adding +4 to a PCs effective level for a certain class feature), Extra Spell and Expanded Knowledge would operate similarly.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The nearest analogous Feat to Extra Spell I can find in other WotC rules is the Psionic Feat, Expanded Knowledge.

As I recall (its on loan today), its similarly worded, and allows you to learn and use a power from any psionic list.

I'd say just like Practiced Manifester and the various Practiced whatever all work the same (adding +4 to a PCs effective level for a certain class feature), Extra Spell and Expanded Knowledge would operate similarly.

I'm not certain I understand.

You're saying there are two feats, one of which says "Learn an extra spell", and one which says "Learn an extra power, even if that power is from another class's list"... and calling it evidence that the first feat should allow spells from another class's list?

Isn't the explicit statement in one, and the absence of that statement in the other, evidence that the statement is applicable to the one and not the other?

-Hyp.

 

[Votan]

I'm not certain I understand.

You're saying there are two feats, one of which says "Learn an extra spell", and one which says "Learn an extra power, even if that power is from another class's list"... and calling it evidence that the first feat should allow spells from another class's list?

Isn't the explicit statement in one, and the absence of that statement in the other, evidence that the statement is applicable to the one and not the other?

-Hyp.

This has tended to be my interpretation of the difference between extra spell and expanded knowledge. Extra spell also lacks that little section below saying how this is different than usual rules that things that bring big exceotions have tended to have recently. As said before in this thread, the best that can be said of the feat is that it is extremely poorly written and subject to a great deal of confusion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You're saying there are two feats, one of which says "Learn an extra spell", and one which says "Learn an extra power, even if that power is from another class's list"... and calling it evidence that the first feat should allow spells from another class's list?

Just got my books back.

I'm saying that there are two feats, one of which says "Learn an extra spell" and one which says "Learn an extra power" which has been ruled to say that you can learn any power and use that power even if it is from another class's list, without limitation on class or discipline.

Extra Spell
You learn an additional spell.
Prerequisite: Caster Level 3rd
...For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research.
Complete Arcane, p79

Given the vast number of ways wizards can add spells, including creating their own through research, or devising on their own, all that is left would be spells 1) from other class lists (which, given the breadth of the wizard's list, would almost have to be divine) or 2) those limited for campaign reasons.

Expanded Knowledge
You learn another power.
Prerequisite: Manifester Level 3rd
...You can choose any power, including powers from another discipline's list or ecen from another class' list.
Expanded Knowledge, p46

The description of the feats is virtually identical, the mechanics differ slightly. The latter feat is much clearer, possibly because of differing designer intent, possibly because it was simply better drafted...but until there is a clarification, we can't know for sure.