Extra Spell Feat from Complete Arcane

[Timeboxer]

Hmm.

I hate to admit it, because I really don't like the idea of wizards learning divine spells, but I think Nifft is right -- this is more or less precisely analogous to the Expanded Knowledge feat, and as such, it does seem to allow wizards to learn divine spells, and possibly clerics to learn arcane spells.

Handy way to set up contingent heal, I suppose. But I'm not a fan.

 

[The Madhatter]

There has always been Spell Phylactery in the FR setting (MOF?). It's exactly a contingent heal, though it's a cleric spell. I do find it hard to believe the Author of Complete Arcane would waste any breath to try to justify/sell it to a Wizard if it didn't allow someone to break the normal rules of spell access.

 

[Abstraction]

Using the Complete Divine, take Arcane Disciple, with the Summoning Domain spell list. It gains you nothing but the Planar Ally spells, but at least it gains you those.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

There has always been Spell Phylactery in the FR setting (MOF?). It's exactly a contingent heal, though it's a cleric spell. I do find it hard to believe the Author of Complete Arcane would waste any breath to try to justify/sell it to a Wizard if it didn't allow someone to break the normal rules of spell access.

I find it hard to believe the author of Toughness, Endurance, and Run would waste any breath trying to sell any of those feats to anyone. That doesn't mean I should reinterpret them to do things they weren't meant to do. Extra Spell is an fair feat for a spontaneous caster who wants a bit more versatility in his known spells. That's it.

I hate to admit it, because I really don't like the idea of wizards learning divine spells, but I think Nifft is right -- this is more or less precisely analogous to the Expanded Knowledge feat, and as such, it does seem to allow wizards to learn divine spells, and possibly clerics to learn arcane spells.

This spell is reprinted from Tome and Blood. It didn't allow a wizard to break class spell restrictions in 3.0, and it doesn't in 3.5, AFAIK. It isn't merely an arcane version of a psionics feat, it's an older feat brought forward to 3.5. Hence the precedent would lie with the original feat, not another unrelated 3.5 feat in a different book.

Obviously the wording is strange, or the discussion would not be occuring. You cannot say such an interpretation is a house rule. It is just your opinion on the intent of the feat.

? I certainly can say such an interpretation is a house rule, since it's my assertion that the rules as written do not allow it. Saying "that's just your interpretation" is a meaningless response you could add to any rules discussion in this forum that lacks a FAQ or Sage response. What's the point of it?

And it's not always the case that discussion = vague rules. You've been around here long enough to have seen discussions started on the clearest rules, I'm sure.

 

[Thanee]

Besides, even if the feat would allow to learn a divine spell, the wizard still couldn't prepare or cast it, since it is not added to the class list (wizards can only prepare and cast WIZARD spells, for obvious reasons). This, by the way, also prevents the wizard from actually learning it in the first place, but I said it already on the first page, that the feat does not alter the way spells are learned.


And to those saying it is like a version of Expanded Knowledge...

a) It's the other way around, Expanded Knowledge is the psionics version of Extra Spell.

b) It says, that it works that way...

EXPANDED KNOWLEDGE [PSIONIC]
Benefit: Add to your powers known one additional power of any level up to one level lower than the highest-level power you can manifest. You can choose any power, including powers from another discipline’s list or even from another class’s list.

This is probably because of the way disciplines work different to schools of magic (keyword: specialization, wizards only lose access to one or two schools, psions only have a single discipline to begin with).

Bye
Thanee

 

[The Madhatter]

I find it hard to believe the author of Toughness, Endurance, and Run would waste any breath trying to sell any of those feats to anyone.

Hey now! I like the Endurance feat, but it's no power attack.....

 

[xazil]

Besides, even if the feat would allow to learn a divine spell, the wizard still couldn't prepare or cast it, since it is not added to the class list (wizards can only prepare and cast WIZARD spells, for obvious reasons). This, by the way, also prevents the wizard from actually learning it in the first place, but I said it already on the first page, that the feat does not alter the way spells are learned.


And to those saying it is like a version of Expanded Knowledge...

a) It's the other way around, Expanded Knowledge is the psionics version of Extra Spell.

b) It says, that it works that way...



This is probably because of the way disciplines work different to schools of magic (keyword: specialization, wizards only lose access to one or two schools, psions only have a single discipline to begin with).

Bye
Thanee

Maybe the feat is just intended for specialist wizards to gain access back to a spell in a school they gave up? This would make the spell gained both a wizard spell and one that they normally could not learn.

 

[Mistwell]

I agree with the intepretation that this feat is based on a clearer 3.0 version, and baring language directly to the contrary, the plain words of the 3.0 version serve to explain the vague words in the 3.5 version. The feat, therefore, should not permit an arcande caster to learn a divine spell, or vice versa.

As for whether or not it would be an unbalanced houserule to allow it to function in the proposed way, I think the answer is that it would be a balanced feat if read either way. Arcana Unearth proved a while ago that a feat for a spell (even a spell the caster could not ordinarily cast) is a fair trade and not unbalancing.

 

[green slime]

Extra Spell is an fair feat for a spontaneous caster who wants a bit more versatility in his known spells. That's it.This spell is reprinted from Tome and Blood. It didn't allow a wizard to break class spell restrictions in 3.0, and it doesn't in 3.5, AFAIK. It isn't merely an arcane version of a psionics feat, it's an older feat brought forward to 3.5. Hence the precedent would lie with the original feat, not another unrelated 3.5 feat in a different book.? I certainly can say such an interpretation is a house rule, since it's my assertion that the rules as written do not allow it. Saying "that's just your interpretation" is a meaningless response you could add to any rules discussion in this forum that lacks a FAQ or Sage response. What's the point of it?

Precedence has nothing to do with it. When examining what the feat allows you to do, you can only interpret the text that is there. Anything else is actually irrelevant.

Personally, IMO, the text in question is flavour text. I see no problem, however, with allowing the "expanded knowledge" usage. I wouldn't go so far to say that any other interpretation but my own is a "house rule".

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Precedence has nothing to do with it. When examining what the feat allows you to do, you can only interpret the text that is there. Anything else is actually irrelevant.

I interpreted the text that is there in my very first post in this thread.

I wouldn't go so far to say that any other interpretation but my own is a "house rule".

In this case, I would and do. Why? Because to do otherwise is to assume that there's no correct answer. We aren't discussing philosophy or ethics, where each individual's interpretation is valid. We're discussing rules, where only one interpretation is intended (I hesitate to say "correct"), even though we here may not be able to say which interpretation is the intended one. And since there is an intended rule, and I believe I've given that rule in my post, any other rule must be a House Rule.

Now, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong, and my interpretation is the House Rule. But so long as I am asserting that mine is the intended interpretation of the rule, it isn't arrogant or out of place to point out that other rulings are House Rules. There have been plenty of times when I've replied to a rules thread here with a personal interpretation which I added I thought was a House Rule, specifically because I didn't think it was the one intended by the designers. It works both ways.