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="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1908721" data-attributes="member: 17296">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 known2) 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 spellAnd becauseB) 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 either1) <reason pre-edited out by ARG>2) Illegal or prescription drug use3) Simple incompetence4) A deliberate ommision.Well, perhaps there are some other interpretations. But really, I'm ok with any of the ones I listed above. O_OSee... 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification