Extra Spell Feat from Complete Arcane

[Lamoni]

I actually like this feat and am glad they included it, even if it does nothing that the Tome and Blood version didn't do. My sorcerer will be taking it when it levels up next level (level 12) so he can learn magic weapon, greater. It might be a poor choice from a power standpoint, but I think that the monk in our party will greatly appreciate it and since it is 1 hr/lvl, it doesn't take any time out of combat. It is the cheapest way to improve the monk's unarmed strike IMO.

 

[ARandomGod]

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.

But it *has* to be the other way around to be .. 'appropriate'. A vague 3.0 ruling clarified by a 3.5 rule is fine, but I can't countenance the theory that this 3.5 rule is vague because it lacks wording that people wish were there. Just because people wish it said more does not mean that it's vague because it does not.

...
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 states that it doesn't allow this in 3.0. It does not state that in 3.5. Hence, without a separate FAQ or errata or official ruling, the Rules As Written do indeed allow it in 3.5

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.?

The precedent might... but it's definitely a house rule to say that the older feat wording take precedent over the newer wording of a feat. Sure, it may be a "typo", or even poor writing, I won't argue that it's not. On the other hand, I would definitely argue that there are a LOT of poorly worded feats and spells out there, and this one, as written, does allow you to choose any spell, and does not have a restriction of "arcane only" on it. Hence, to add such a restriction has to be a house rule *by definition*. Saying "I don't think they meant that", and even stating "only a moron could possibly have meant that" doesn't invalidate the fact that, as written, the darkness spell creates light. Er... Um... I mean this feat allows a caster to learn any type of spell as it currently is.

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.

Of course, you can say anything. ^_^
And I've certainly seen (and encourage, and approve of) the various debates about the rules. I myself, on the other hand, won't even say "that's your interpretation", so much as I'll say that, apparently: "that's what you wish it said", and even "that's what you think it should say". But I won't say that it's your interpretation so much as I'll point out that it's your attempt to alter the reality so that it'll be the way you want it to. And I'm impressed with either your intelligence or charisma, depending on which you used to attempt that spell. ~_^

PS, would that allow a will save?

 

[The Madhatter]

But it *has* to be the other way around to be .. ....

PS, would that allow a will save?

I think ARandomGod brings up some good points. IMC we ask "Is this what the author(s) intended this rule to cover..." I know some folks do not care what the intentions of the authors were but we try to find the "spirit" of the rules despite their fallibilities. The feat, as worded, does allow you to bypass the normal spell learning rules. It is definitely not a gamebreaker IMC so my DM has allowed it....

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think ARandomGod brings up some good points. IMC we ask "Is this what the author(s) intended this rule to cover..." I know some folks do not care what the intentions of the authors were but we try to find the "spirit" of the rules despite their fallibilities. The feat, as worded, does allow you to bypass the normal spell learning rules. It is definitely not a gamebreaker IMC so my DM has allowed it....

Odd. It strikes me as fairly clear that the authors did not intend the feat to allow cross-class spells to be taken. Most of those who are arguing that it does allow it, by the RAW, are nevertheless not making the claim that it was intended that way, but rather that it has inadvertently become so. So your statement seems quite contrary to your actions, in this case. You claim to want to play by the "spirit" of the rules, but have chosen to use an interpretation of the rules that, irregardless of whether or not it's balanced or game-breaking, goes against it.

It states that it doesn't allow this in 3.0. It does not state that in 3.5. Hence, without a separate FAQ or errata or official ruling, the Rules As Written do indeed allow it in 3.5

I'm not sure where you're getting this. "If it doesn't say it, it must allow it"? I disagree. If it were supposed to allow one to choose a spell from another class' spell list, it would explicitly say so. The fact that the wording has changed to no longer explicitly deny it does not mean it now must allow it.

The precedent might... but it's definitely a house rule to say that the older feat wording take precedent over the newer wording of a feat.

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying the new wording is somewhat vague, and by looking at the older version, we can better discern what the feat is meant to do. If the newer wording expressly allowed cross-class spell learning, there'd be no discussion. The 3.5 version takes precedence in a 3.5 game.

But it doesn't. And I don't accept the argument that "it doesn't disallow it, so it must be allowed." Rather, I see that the previous version did not allow it, the newer version does not explicitly allow it, and have come to the conclusion that the newer version does not allow it either. It's too big of a deal not to be explicitly spelled out, were it indeed the case.

this one, as written, does allow you to choose any spell, and does not have a restriction of "arcane only" on it. Hence, to add such a restriction has to be a house rule *by definition*.

I disagree. It's only a House Rule if the official rule is otherwise. You are assuming that because the feat doesn't expressly forbid cross-class spell learning, it must allow it. I'm saying that because it doesn't expressly allow it, it must not. There's nothing inherently more valid about your stance, and nothing that suggests it's more likely that you're right. Indeed, if we look at the prior version of the feat, I'd say it's more likely my interpretation is the core rule, and yours the House Rule.

Saying "I don't think they meant that", and even stating "only a moron could possibly have meant that" doesn't invalidate the fact that, as written, the darkness spell creates light. Er... Um... I mean this feat allows a caster to learn any type of spell as it currently is.

Clearly, I disagree. And I'm not only saying "I don't think they meant that." I'm also saying, the feat does not address the issue, and it would need to do so to allow cross-class spell learning. I'm saying that the assumption is that one class cannot learn spells that aren't on its own spell list, and to allow such a thing, the feat would have to explicitly say so. The assumption is not, any class can learn any spell, unless expressly forbidden.

 

[Thanee]

It does not state that in 3.5. Hence, without a separate FAQ or errata or official ruling, the Rules As Written do indeed allow it in 3.5.

So, where does it state, that it is allowed then?

And where is the rule, which says, that if something doesn't say it is disallowed, it automatically is allowed?

I'd rather say that the opposite is in effect, naturally.

Hence, to add such a restriction has to be a house rule *by definition*.

Does the Shield spell allow me to slay dragons? It doesn't say, that it doesn't do that.

Ok, that's obviously silly.

The precedent might... but it's definitely a house rule to say that the older feat wording take precedent over the newer wording of a feat.

Yeah, the old feat has nothing to do with it. Read my posts above to see, why it is completely unnecessary to say, that it is disallowed, as the general rules already cover this completely clear and undeniable.

Anything else is making up things and such a matter of house rules.

I mean this feat allows a caster to learn any type of spell as it currently is.

Again, where does it say that?

Where does it say, that it allows a caster to break the basic rules for learning spells in the PHB?

I myself, on the other hand, won't even say "that's your interpretation", so much as I'll say that, apparently: "that's what you wish it said", and even "that's what you think it should say". But I won't say that it's your interpretation so much as I'll point out that it's your attempt to alter the reality so that it'll be the way you want it to.

Exactly, just that it's the making up of being able to learn spells outside the wizard (or whatever) class spell list, which is wishing for what is not there.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

I think ARandomGod brings up some good points. IMC we ask "Is this what the author(s) intended this rule to cover..." I know some folks do not care what the intentions of the authors were but we try to find the "spirit" of the rules despite their fallibilities. The feat, as worded, does allow you to bypass the normal spell learning rules. It is definitely not a gamebreaker IMC so my DM has allowed it....

See, here's the living example for that kind of wishful thinking.

IIRC he didn't reply to a single of my posts above, but as soon as someone says it works like he wishes it to be... he comes around and says, what a logical explanation!

Sorry, Madhatter.



The feat as written *does not* allow to break the spell learning rules.

Arcane Disciple does that. It says so in the text.
The intent of Arcane Disciple is to break the class limits.

Extra Spell does not say it, so it doesn't allow it.
The intent of Extra Spell is, that a spellcaster can learn an extra spell.

A very simple concept, really.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ARandomGod]

Odd. It strikes me as fairly clear that the authors did not intend the feat to allow cross-class spells to be taken. Most of those who are arguing that it does allow it, by the RAW, are nevertheless not making the claim that it was intended that way, but rather that it has inadvertently become so. So your statement seems quite contrary to your actions, in this case. You claim to want to play by the "spirit" of the rules, but have chosen to use an interpretation of the rules that, irregardless of whether or not it's balanced or game-breaking, goes against it.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet with you on this. I think that it's likely that this rule was not intended to allow you to chose a spell from another class' spell list.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. "If it doesn't say it, it must allow it"? I disagree. If it were supposed to allow one to choose a spell from another class' spell list, it would explicitly say so. The fact that the wording has changed to no longer explicitly deny it does not mean it now must allow it.

I'm not saying that... I'm saying instead that if it says that "you can do A" and doesn't say "with the following exceptions", then it means that you can do A without exceptions.

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying the new wording is somewhat vague, and by looking at the older version, we can better discern what the feat is meant to do. If the newer wording expressly allowed cross-class spell learning, there'd be no discussion. The 3.5 version takes precedence in a 3.5 game.

I'll agree that the newer wording isn't as clear as I'd like it to be. And, I've agreed above that I think that it's meant to be as you're asserting it is. All I'm stating is that the way it's written does allow you to learn an extra spell, and does not limit where that spell can come from.

But it doesn't. And I don't accept the argument that "it doesn't disallow it, so it must be allowed." Rather, I see that the previous version did not allow it, the newer version does not explicitly allow it, and have come to the conclusion that the newer version does not allow it either. It's too big of a deal not to be explicitly spelled out, were it indeed the case.I disagree. It's only a House Rule if the official rule is otherwise. You are assuming that because the feat doesn't expressly forbid cross-class spell learning, it must allow it. I'm saying that because it doesn't expressly allow it, it must not. There's nothing inherently more valid about your stance, and nothing that suggests it's more likely that you're right. Indeed, if we look at the prior version of the feat, I'd say it's more likely my interpretation is the core rule, and yours the House Rule.Clearly, I disagree. And I'm not only saying "I don't think they meant that." I'm also saying, the feat does not address the issue, and it would need to do so to allow cross-class spell learning. I'm saying that the assumption is that one class cannot learn spells that aren't on its own spell list, and to allow such a thing, the feat would have to explicitly say so. The assumption is not, any class can learn any spell, unless expressly forbidden.

That's it. It's only a house rule if the official rule states otherwise. I'm saying that, as written, it clearly does. OK, ok, for a given value of clear. Sure, there are indications that they meant to add in a restriction. And yes, I'll agree that it's a pretty big deal there, and yet still was left out. Accidentally? Sure, I'm willing to say that. Of course, to agree to that is stating a pretty grevous ommision on WoTC's part. Then again, I don't have a problem with the idea that they could have had just such an issue. But, the very fact taht it IS such a large ommision further strengthens the opinion that it was an intentional one.

Anyhow, I somewhat enjoy the Devil's Advocate role. And, as written, it does indeed state "A is allowed" and does not list any restrictions on A, as you are stating that it pretty clearly needs to do.

So, where does it state, that it is allowed then?

Where it says that you can learn a spell you normally could not learn...

And where is the rule, which says, that if something doesn't say it is disallowed, it automatically is allowed?

I'd rather say that the opposite is in effect, naturally.


Does the Shield spell allow me to slay dragons? It doesn't say, that it doesn't do that.

Ok, that's obviously silly.

That's ok, I like silly.
Yes, the shield spell allows one to slay dragons, in that it does not specifically disallow the slaying of dragons. Hence, if someone were to attempt to slay one or more dragons with a shield spell on it, then I would allow the player to attempt this. Hell, I'd even allow the +4 shield AC bonus against that dragon, as that's not specifically disallowed either.

Or, so to say, I'd allow it to do anything it says it does, with only the restrictions that it lists on what it says it does. For instance, I wouldn't allow that +4 bonus against a spell or effect that ignores force effects.

Yeah, the old feat has nothing to do with it. Read my posts above to see, why it is completely unnecessary to say, that it is disallowed, as the general rules already cover this completely clear and undeniable.

Hrm... rereading posts now....

Ah, I see, where you say:
- The PHB rules say you cannot learn spells from other classes lists.
- The feat does not change those rules.

I thought perhaps you were referring to the idea that a wizard knowing a clerical spell would have to have a high wisdom...

Which was an interesting idea.

However, if the feat states that it allows you to learn an additional spell, and then further stated that it would allow you to learn a spell that you couldn't ordinarily learn, that does seem to be the feat stating that it would negate, for this purpose only, anything that would otherwise make you unable to learn said spells.

Of course, if you want to make the arguement that learning a spell and the ability to cast said spell are two different things, that's another tack that's completely true and would be a good loophole.

**Remember, I'm playing devil's advocate lawyer type here. When I play him, I'll agree that the arcane trickster (per the SRD), while granting new spells per day and increased spellcasting level, does not actually gain any more spells known when he levels. Hence invalidating the class as an option for the sorc.
Certainly not the intention, but the letter.

 

[Thanee]

Where it says that you can learn a spell you normally could not learn...

It nowhere says this. Here's the text:

You learn one additional spell at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast. Thus, a 4th-level sorcerer (maximum spell level 2nd) gains a new 0-level or 1st-level spell known with which to expand her repertoire. 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.

The bold part is what the feat does, following are only examples and clarifications.

It doesn't say Extra Spell allows them to learn any spell that the character cannot normally learn, more importantly, it doesn't say, that the learned spell is also added to the class list (which learning in itself doesn't do, for obvious reasons, since you can only learn spells from your class list).

And even if it would (which it does not) allow a wizard to learn a cleric spell, the wizard could do nothing with the spell, since it would still be a divine spell (wizards cast arcane spells) and it would not be castable, since wizards cast only spells from the wizard spell list.

A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list.

Hence, it is not possible for a wizard to learn spells not on the wizard class list with Extra Spell.

There's an easy explanation for the last bit, by the way... wizards might not have found or be able to buy a scroll or other access to a specific wizard spell, and they not have the time or requirements for researching it, so they might want to pick up Extra Spell to learn it.

Here's the text of another feat, which allows you to do just what you mean...

Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells.

Notice the little difference?

I thought perhaps you were referring to the idea that a wizard knowing a clerical spell would have to have a high wisdom...

That's also true, just check the Arcane Disciple feat.

However, if the feat states that it allows you to learn an additional spell, and then further stated that it would allow you to learn a spell that you couldn't ordinarily learn, ...

But it doesn't say it allows it, it says, that wizards generally use it for that. This automatically implies, that this is not what the feat does, but what wizards use the feat for.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ARandomGod]

You learn one additional spell at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast. Thus, a 4th-level sorcerer (maximum spell level 2nd) gains a new 0-level or 1st-level spell known with which to expand her repertoire. 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.

First of all, I want to reiterate what I said above... I actually agree with you, Thanee and Lord Pendragon. That seems important because it seems like it may have been missed.

Then I'll point out again where it says it.
"You learn one additional spell"
There it is. You learn one spell. And you spent a feat to do it.
This was, IMO
1) Obviously a spell for sorcerors, to give them more spells known
2) Possibly, but not obviously, a feat for a wizard specialist to allow him to know a spell of an opposition school.
3) Almost certainly not but arguably there to allow ANY spell to be learned, including ones from a completely different class list.

I say arguably because:
A) you learn a spell
And because
B) There are NO listed restrictions on the spell learned, other than the level.

Hence you are 1) allowed and 2) not disallowed to learn any spell with specific level restrictions.

If you still want to push an arguement about class list, that's pretty easy while remaining withing the wording. Simply allow the sorc or wizard to learn any clerical/druidic/whatever spell of up to one level less than the level of clerical/druidic/whatever spells that they can normally cast.

THAT interpretation could be presented as arguably Rules As Written.

However, that doesn't negate my point that the very obviousness of the neglect to place the needed clarifier indicates either
1) <reason pre-edited out by ARG>
2) Illegal or prescription drug use
3) Simple incompetence
4) A deliberate ommision.

Well, perhaps there are some other interpretations. But really, I'm ok with any of the ones I listed above. O_O

It doesn't say Extra Spell allows them to learn any spell that the character cannot normally learn, more importantly, it doesn't say, that the learned spell is also added to the class list (which learning in itself doesn't do, for obvious reasons, since you can only learn spells from your class list).

See... that seems irrelevant to me. It does say that they can learn a spell and it fails to place a restriction. You aren't saying that it does NOT do either of those things, and that's all I am saying that it does, so telling me what else it doesn't say is fruitless.

Saying that you can learn a spell but it's not added to your class list is, IMO, a lesser failure/oversight than the other option. Because, in general, the nature of a feat is to allow you to do something you normally can't do, and I don't see any reason why it can't do both 1) allow you to learn a spell you normally couldn't, AND allow you to also cast that spell that you normally couldn't. I mean, it seems (to me at any rate) that it follows logically that if indeed they meant for the spell to be able to be learned that was not in your class list (note I'm not saying that they do, I'm saying that if it were done) then it would follow that the spell would also be something that you could cast. Leaving it off your class list would have various effects, certainly. You couldn't use a scroll of it, and you couldn't activate any spell completion or similiar items. But if the feat says you can learn it and neglects to say it's on your class list, then I'm afraid that you can only cast it, and not use that wand. Hey, maybe it's a feature? Or to say, they thought it was a balancing factor of the feat? It *could* be.

Here's the text of another feat, which allows you to do just what you mean...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane Disciple
Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells.


Notice the little difference?

Yup. Obviously THAT person would be able to use wands, too.

Anyhow, once again, I actually agree that this feat was unlikely to be meant to allow a Wizard or Sorc to cast divine spells. Mostly my reaction was to Lord Pendragon's statment that such an interpretation would be a house rule when, as is, that interpretation does actually follow that rule as it is written (no matter what nonsense that may be, see also my Arcane Trickster comment in this thread). I was pointing out that if you do indeed look at that feat closely, it actually does allow for an interpretation that would have a wizard casting divine spells.

Of course, I've given the perfect rules as written way out, also, by stating that a GM could follow the letter of this feat and allow someone to cast any divine spell of a level lower than (s)he could cast... so anything lower than a cantrip would be fine. Meaning you can curse and blaspheme all you want now.
Normal: You still could have cursed and blasphemied, but now you have more reason, having wasted this feat.

 

[Thanee]

B) There are NO listed restrictions on the spell learned, other than the level.

Maybe you would like to check the spell learning rules in the PHB... there are no such restrictions either. Since they are not necessary.

However, that doesn't negate my point that the very obviousness of the neglect to place the needed clarifier indicates either
1) <reason pre-edited out by ARG>
2) Illegal or prescription drug use
3) Simple incompetence
4) A deliberate ommision.

Well, perhaps there are some other interpretations. But really, I'm ok with any of the ones I listed above. O_O

It's

5) The regular restrictions to learning spells apply, no need to restate them.

See... that seems irrelevant to me. It does say that they can learn a spell and it fails to place a restriction.

Of course, if you just ignore the Core Rules then there are no such restrictions.

Anyhow, once again, I actually agree that this feat was unlikely to be meant to allow a Wizard or Sorc to cast divine spells.

Indeed, since there is not even the slightest hint, that it would do something like that. I guess, if they had the intent to allow it, they would actually write it into the feat description (as they did with Arcane Disciple).

Bye
Thanee