Extra Spell

[Thanee]

Well, see, it doesn't matter how often you ask this (although, at least you are doing something for the CustServ guys to be worth their salary, and hey, it's always nice to see when the actually answer something right (and if the last response can be interpreted like this, they also seem to check for confirmation on touchy subjects, which is great) - way to go, CustServ! ), the answer will always be the same (ok, this is certainly not always true with CustServ, as experience has shown ).

It simply works this way officially (especially after the FAQ, there is really no other way).

What you need to do is ask your DM, if he wants to consider to allow it for a reasonable spell choice. Trying this with a borderline (or beyond) broken spell like Wraithstrike is... strategically... questionable...

Ask for a more reasonable spell (like the Stone Skin you mentioned somewhere above), for example, and I'm sure your chances to convince him drastically improve.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

Moderator's Note:

... I would like to see more responses phrased as, "I would allow this (or wouldn't allow this) because..." rather than "You should allow this (or shouldn't allow this) because..."

/Moderator's Note (and have a great day and discussion)
Dinkeldog

I would not allow this (spells not on your spell list) because: ))

The feat does not clearly and unambiguously change the rules about spells known coming form your own spell list only, and thus the rules of allowing spells from you own spell list only stands firm.

Any feat that makes a signifcant change to the rules needs to do so in a clear and (preferably) unambiguous manner.

I see this feat as being very valuable for sorcerors, bards and any other spontaneous casting class where they have few spells known, and of perhaps only marginal value otherwise.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's not apples and oranges. A wizard casts spells. That is his arsenal. A fighter uses weapons. That is his arsenal. The analogy is valid.

The analogy would be valid if a Wizard could cast all spells, but at some sort of penalty for some of his spells.

A Fighter can use ALL weapons, but needs to take a feat to be proficient with some weapons.

A Wizard cannot use all spells, hence, it is not a good analogy.

And, of course, the poor analogy means nothing. WotC states that the feat does not allow for spells off of the class list, so the feat does not.

 

[wildstarsreach]

The analogy would be valid if a Wizard could cast all spells, but at some sort of penalty for some of his spells.

A Fighter can use ALL weapons, but needs to take a feat to be proficient with some weapons.

A Wizard cannot use all spells, hence, it is not a good analogy.

And, of course, the poor analogy means nothing. WotC states that the feat does not allow for spells off of the class list, so the feat does not.

A fighter can't use all weapons. He must take exotic weapon feat for each exotic weapon that he wants to use. Granted he could use an exotic weapon with a penalty if he didn't take this feat.

 

[takasi]

A fighter can't use all weapons. He must take exotic weapon feat for each exotic weapon that he wants to use. Granted he could use an exotic weapon with a penalty if he didn't take this feat.

This is also very important IMO.

The exotic weapon proficiency feat does "override" the default class allowances. However, these are specified with a "Normal" section of the feat. Extra Spell does not have a "Normal" section to state that this feat overrides the normal restrictions of a class.

For Feat Descriptions, page 89:

"Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent."

IMO if the feat was meant to break the normal spell acquisition rules for each class, there should be a section like this:

"Normal: Without this feat see the individual class restrictions for spells known."

Or something to that effect. Does anyone feel there shouldn't be a "Normal" section for this feat if the feat were to grant something that breaks the normal class restrictions for selecting new spells known?

 

[Artoomis]

A fighter can't use all weapons. He must take exotic weapon feat for each exotic weapon that he wants to use. Granted he could use an exotic weapon with a penalty if he didn't take this feat.

He can use them - just at a penalty. That's way different from not being able to use them. But we are just repeating ourselves.

The main point I am making is that the feat does not CLEARLY change the rules regarding spells coming from class lists only and thus very few DMs are likely to permit that sort of thing.

 

[Thanee]

Spells from other classes - no analogy; maybe too large weapons (cannot be used at all)
Class Spell List - All Weapons (can be used within limits; only via scroll/wand, or with penalty)
Learned Spells - Proficient Weapons (can be used normally)
Extra Spell - (Exotic) Weapon Proficiency (adds one to the learned/proficient spells/weapons)

Bye
Thanee

 

[dagger]

Also a Duskblade with Arcane Disciple is another way to channel divine spells.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: The Silence of the Rules

I once asked CustServ about the rules for improving magical items (as I recall, somewhere around p 281 in the DMG). In our group, we came to the conclusion that either:

1) You could improve a magic item, but the caster could only do so if he had the neccessary caster levels to create the final item from scratch.

or

2) You could improve a magic item, and the caster need only be powerful enough to cast what is being added to the extant magic item. The result would be that a crafting caster could create quite powerful items incrementally.

The rules are silent as to which method is correct, so I inquired.

The response was: Both interpretations are correct!

The rule, according to CustServ, was drafted vaguely on purpose, so that DMs could run it either way. Apparently, in playtest, they found that both interpretations had merit and downsides, and rather than reworking them, drafted a rule that could be flexible.

So if a section of text is silent, then interpretation would seem to be open.

As for the CustServ rulings wildstarsreach has received on the question on point- it seems to me as if they're looking at this through the lens of the particular class, not as a general rule.

 

[Stalker0]

I think this is one of those many times on the rules forum that you have to let the WOTC weight break the tie.

There is a obviously a big split on this issue, and both sides have good rules evidence to back themselves up. Looking to WOTC, both the FAQ and customer service have said you cannot use Extra Spell to pick up spells not on your class list.

What more is there to say?