Extra Spell

[Felix]

Is that the actual wording? (I don't have the book in front of me...) If so, that would put a hole in the "cost & research" interpretation of "unable to learn" (see post #15)- if a PC has the time & resources to learn a higher level or same level spell, he definitely has the time & resources to learn a lesser one.

As wildstarsreach has posted, the precise wording is:

Extra Spell
You may learn an additional spell.
Prerequisite: Caster level 3rd.

Benefit: You learn one additional spell at any level up to one level 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.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time, you learn a new spell at any level up to one level lower than the highest level of spell you can cast.

Emphasis added.

The underlined portion of the text is the actual game-mechanical effect of the feat; the rest of the wording serves to exemplify that which has been said, and to explain why a class which can scribe as many spells as they like into their spellbooks would want to take this feat.

I never really saw the need for the "cost and research" argument because none of the text restricts which spells may be chosen via this feat; not to mention that the word "generally" appears implying that there might be other reasons why spellbook casters might want to take this feat.

As written, the only restriction on the spell chosen is that it be one level lower than the highest level spell the character can cast.

But since 90% of people here don't agree with my interpretation, I am left with the conclusion that the feat must be poorly written.

Most of the disagreements on the Rules forum stem from a muddling of the arguments about "What is written" and "What should be written". I suspect this may be your trouble here; the FAQ is often cited in "should be" arguments, but rarely in "what is" arguments.

And as for "poorly worded", if the intent was to restrict the character's choice, then it was indeed poorly worded; this does not mean that what was written is unclear, unbalanced, or unplayable. And don't let 90% of the responses push you around; only one opinion matters in the end: your own.

But then, being obstinate for its own sake isn't a virtue either.

 

[wildstarsreach]

Yes, it is not meant to be. Do you think that you could cast two spells in one round. He swift actions a wraithstrike, and the casts as part of a full attack through arcane channeling a second spell. No, I think not. I'll admit that the rules and opinions are against me but this from that standpoint is not as broken as stated by others.

However, I was talking to Takasi and we worked out that at 11th level where the duskblade would have this and 3 attacks, it is possible to really pervert this since the BA is full.

Power Attack +11 dam x2 for 2-handed weapon
+5 Str x1.5 (Enlarged)
+2 weapon
Holy enhancement +2d6 vs evil creatures
+1d6 elemental damage

22+6+7+4=39+2d6 for longsword enlarged = 46pts average per hit

+8 to hit with magic/weapon focus/str

With touch AC being generally low, 3 attacks at 11th level makes this likely to do on average about a 140 pts of damage.

This would be on top of any additional touch spells that were currently up and inflicted.

I hadn't thought about this and withdraw my want but it is evil in a good way.

With regards to wraithstrike, this is an example of the duskblade out fighting the fighter. And it gets worse at 20th level:

PA +15/30+9 Str/Enl+Aligned weapon 2d6+magic 4+Element dam 1d6+2d6 Weap=60 points ave per hit.

That leaves +6 Str, +1 WF,+4 wepon, +5 BA is +15/+10/+5/+0. The character would probably hit with 2 hits, likely hit with a third and maybe hit with a 4th. That leaves between 120-240 per round. If hasted then that would be between 180-300 points a round. This is outfighting the fighter. A character maximized as an elderitch knight would come up between 100-200 or 150-250 if hasted. Wraith strike can be overwhelming for any DM.

 

[Rhun]

With regards to wraithstrike, this is an example of the duskblade out fighting the fighter.

Don't be too sure. Your 11th level example isn't all that impressive. There is a 12th level fighter in my group that averages about 40 points of damage per strike without using any type of spell. And he often hits with all three iterative attacks. Lately he has been dropping Fire Giants (142 hp) in a single round (since almost every round at least one of his strikes ends up being a critical).

 

[wildstarsreach]

Don't be too sure. Your 11th level example isn't all that impressive. There is a 12th level fighter in my group that averages about 40 points of damage per strike without using any type of spell. And he often hits with all three iterative attacks. Lately he has been dropping Fire Giants (142 hp) in a single round (since almost every round at least one of his strikes ends up being a critical).

Especially with Improved Critical and Power Critical. Most fighters I've noticed aren't usually optimized as you are describing though.

What are the basic stats that he has so most can see that a Duskblade with this may not be as abusive as some think then.

 

[Mort]

Is that the actual wording? (I don't have the book in front of me...) If so, that would put a hole in the "cost & research" interpretation of "unable to learn" (see post #15)- if a PC has the time & resources to learn a higher level or same level spell, he definitely has the time & resources to learn a lesser one.

Not at all. When a wizard goes up a level, he automatically learns 2 spells (no extra time, resources or roll needed). The feat would allow him to learn a 3rd one in the same manner. Is it a huge benefit? Not really, but not all feats were created equal for all classes.

 

[wildstarsreach]

Not at all. When a wizard goes up a level, he automatically learns 2 spells (no extra time, resources or roll needed). The feat would allow him to learn a 3rd one in the same manner. Is it a huge benefit? Not really, but not all feats were created equal for all classes.

This is something that takasi and I have talked about. I see his point that you level but if during the course of an adventure, you level and could not buy scrolls or have access to research lab, that is what takasi thinks that was meant to address. A wizard could get a 3rd spell on a level. But this is borderline waste of a valuable feat IMO.

 

[Aaron L]

This is something that takasi and I have talked about. I see his point that you level but if during the course of an adventure, you level and could not buy scrolls or have access to research lab, that is what takasi thinks that was meant to address. A wizard could get a 3rd spell on a level. But this is borderline waste of a valuable feat IMO.

I'd say that using a feat to gain something that you could buy in a little while crosses the border into utter uselessness

 

[Votan]

I'd say that using a feat to gain something that you could buy in a little while crosses the border into utter uselessness

Let us see. The SRD suggests that the cost of copy a spell is: "This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.". Now, it has to be one level lower than the highest you can cast.

At first level this gives you a cantrip. Maybe 25 gp in value?

So, at 6th level, this feat replces a 100 gp cost to scribe a spell.

At 18th level, it is worth 400 gp.

Now consider the worst of feat (skill focus). it can be replaced by an item that costs 100 gp times the competence bonus squared. At first level you can get the equivalent of a 900 gp magic item for a feat and it stacks with the item.

Yes, this feat is much worse than skill focus (which is widely considered to be a poor feat choice).

Something like Negotiator can be replaced with 2 +2 ability items for a total cost of 800 gp.

Obviously this is about the worst use of a feat possible. If you are this desperate for money, the campaign has other problems.

 

[Felix]

But this is borderline waste of a valuable feat IMO.

For a wizard, absolutely.

Doesn't mean it's not a great feat for other classes though. Extra Spell has the opposite issue: good for wizards and not so much for sorcerers.

 

[Aaron L]

For a wizard, absolutely.

Doesn't mean it's not a great feat for other classes though. Extra Spell has the opposite issue: good for wizards and not so much for sorcerers.

For a Sorcerer it's a passable feat, if you desperately need one extra spell of a certain level. For the most part, though, I'd still say it's pretty much a waste of a feat, unless you allow it go grant spells from other class's lists.

Then again I consider Dodge as written to be pretty much a waste of a feat, too.