Extra Spell
- Thread starter takasi
- Start date
jasin
Explorer
I would allow it ("poaching" off another class's list) because it could make for interesting variance from the default class lists, and because it makes the feat interesting for all casters, whereas the other interpretation makes it utterly useless for clerics and druids, mostly useless for wizards, and kind of useful for sorcerers and bards until the spell they picked becomes obsolete.Dinkeldog said:
I would also allow it because in my games, I don't have to worry about anyone saying "A-ha! Now I take class X and PrC Y and use Extra Spell to get spell Z and become all powerful! PWNED! Pwned for your lack of foresight!"; I'll just say "You're right, I haven't forseen that... let me think a bit more, and I'll let you know if I'll allow it." So I can afford to rule liberally in the general case, and assess potentially problematic specific cases as they come up. Wraithstriking duskblade seems like one of those problematic cases, but then, wraithstriking eldritch knight seems only a little less problematic, so I'm led to believe the problem is with wraithstrike, not getting other classes' spells.
There is also precedent for allowing cross-list poaching (the recaster from Races(?) of Eberron and some sort of dragon-wizard-guy from Dragon Magic), and IIRC in both cases it works in the same way as Extra Spell: one spell of a level one lower than the highest you can cast, so it's not as if the concept itself is some sort of D&D no-no.
jasin said:
Recaster is another "interesting" wording that should be fixed, IMO.
If it was handled like the artificer (minimum caster level) it would work a whole lot better. But the way it is worded presently it causes the same question that a liberally viewed extra spell causes.
What level spell if the spell has multiple spell levels for different classes?
As an extreme example, from the Spell Compendium.
pg 129 Know Vulnerabilities.
Bard 2, Cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 4.
Which version is allowed?
An artificer would be using 4th level caster (4th bard can cast 2nd level bard spells). And the spell cast would be neither arcane nor divine (artificer class ability/restriction).
IanB
First Post
I go the same way as Artoomis on this: unless the feat explicitly states something, the default rules apply. It doesn't matter what Expanded Knowledge says, except to highlight the difference; there could be good balance reasons (and are, IMO) that Expanded Knowledge allows poaching while Extra Spell does not.
Psionics and magic are different game systems with different balance concerns, albeit ones that share many characteristics. There is no rules imperative for symmetry between them for these 2 feats to exist.
Psionics and magic are different game systems with different balance concerns, albeit ones that share many characteristics. There is no rules imperative for symmetry between them for these 2 feats to exist.
Well, a player in my group asked WotC about the difference between the 2 feats from a purely objective standpoint:
(Question and answer edited for brevity.)
IOW- its not how the Feat was originally designed. They decided afterwards that the Feat as written would cause a significant power imbalance between the magic system and the psionics system...
Which, taken with other CustServ answers posted in this thread sounds to me like:
1) They're using the FAQ for Eratta again and...
2) The problem is probably less a broad power imbalance issue than an issue with particular spells. (I used to gripe with WotC about this kind of thing with M:tG- don't screw with the mechanics- get rid of the cards -or in this case, spells- that are so potentially abusable.)
All of which personally amuses me, given the number of people who think that Psionics is overpowered as compared to the magic system.
In the end, I'm still unconvinced- I still think the FAQ is wrong here. I have seen no evidence of a power problem with the possible exception of a couple of spells. I'll just continue to adjudicate the Extra Spell Feat on a spell-by-spell basis...like I do most stuff.
(Question and answer edited for brevity.)
IOW- its not how the Feat was originally designed. They decided afterwards that the Feat as written would cause a significant power imbalance between the magic system and the psionics system...
Which, taken with other CustServ answers posted in this thread sounds to me like:
1) They're using the FAQ for Eratta again and...
2) The problem is probably less a broad power imbalance issue than an issue with particular spells. (I used to gripe with WotC about this kind of thing with M:tG- don't screw with the mechanics- get rid of the cards -or in this case, spells- that are so potentially abusable.)
All of which personally amuses me, given the number of people who think that Psionics is overpowered as compared to the magic system.
In the end, I'm still unconvinced- I still think the FAQ is wrong here. I have seen no evidence of a power problem with the possible exception of a couple of spells. I'll just continue to adjudicate the Extra Spell Feat on a spell-by-spell basis...like I do most stuff.
Dannyalcatraz said:
Looking at what you posted, I just don't see this. They specifically said the two systems are different and that the differences were based on that.
Now this is one time where I see the FAQ (and CustServ) both as providing a "clarification" and not a change in the rules. Which is apparently what most people on this thread also see (based on the poll results and posts).
