Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1905216" data-attributes="member: 707">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.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 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification