Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 2852091" data-attributes="member: 19675">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).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 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.</blockquote>

Verification