Extra Spell

[Felix]

takasi & wildstarsreach,

Are you two both players in the game, or is one of you the DM? It sounds as if takasi is and wildstarsreach is advocating for his PC.

It seems that takasi, though he sounded as if his mind were already quite made up on the matter when he began the thread, is doubly so convinced that the rules do not support wildstarsreach after six pages and several arguments in favor of allowing any spell.

Was this thread started to bring a rules discussion to the public, or was it the act of a DM who wanted to make sure he was treating a player fairly? If takasi you are the DM, then what you've ruled is perfectly sound, doubly so if you always abide by the FAQ. It is after all your game and your place to make the ruling. But even so I would submit that the argument in wildstarsreach's favor is not groundless, even if it is not necessarily conclusive. After that, it's your game, and your ruling should be abided by.

Is that your relationship?

 

[Thanee]

IOW- its not how the Feat was originally designed.

Interesting conclusion.

All of which personally amuses me, given the number of people who think that Psionics is overpowered as compared to the magic system.

Well, I consider psionics (well, Psions mostly and a bunch of powers, TBH) overpowered.

And I think Expanded Knowledge is fair game (except for Psions ), because of the much smaller amount of Powers that are available.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Arcane feats, just like psionic feats but only weaker.

This goes the other way around as well...

Psionic feats, just like arcane feats but more powerful.

Question is... which are better balanced?

Or are they actually the same, since there are other factors to consider?

Bye
Thanee

 

[RigaMortus2]

I go the same way as Artoomis on this: unless the feat explicitly states something, the default rules apply.

I agree and also go along with this line of thinking.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No doubt this is so. And how does it relate to them? Does it allow Sorcerers to choose Cure Light Wounds?

You quoted the last sentence of my post, so I assume you read the first ...

In case you didn't:

No, this feat doesn't allow you to learn spells not on your class spell list.

This feat allows sorcerors (and bards, et al.) to "break" the Spells Known by Level table.

In a campaign I played in, all serious transportation magic (e.g., teleport) was strictly controlled by a guild of wandermages; they were the only ones who knew the complex magical mechanics necessary to move long distances without going "splat." Such spells were almost never found as scrolls and could not be chosen as one of the wizards' two bonus spells on leveling up.

In that campaign, the feat would have been useful for a wizard to pick up a single "controlled" spell (subject, of course, to DM approval).

In most campaigns, there is never a reason for a wizard to choose this feat.

 

[RigaMortus2]

cleaving with a bow is not possible. You cannot make a melee attack with a bow, so this is specifically not allowed.

Sure you can. You take a -4 penalty for using it as an improvised weapon.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Well, no where does it say that monks can't fly...it clearly outlines the movement they can do but never explicitly states that they cannot fly. I suppose this means that my monk character should be able to fly. After all, some sort of flying would be a reasonable explanation for the increase speed and Slow Fall ability.

This is the same rationale as any "the feat/spell/ability doesn't NOT say X" argument.

In order to offer spells off the class's spell list, the Extra Spell feat would have to EXPLICITLY state that it allows the character to choose a spell that is not on his or her spell list, not vaguely imply it in a reference to wizards that could mean any number of other things.

Take for example the Archivist: the ability of the archivist to learn spells not on their own list is clearly spelled out in the class description (any divine caster, cannot be chosen as the automatic spells gained in a level, must be learned from a scroll or other source). This is explicit. Extra Spell is not.

DC

The problem with this arguement is that there IS a precedent for adding spells to your spell list. That rule is that it must be on your class spell list. If you want to break this rule, you need another rule that explicitly breaks it.

Your example of the Monk being able to fly is inconclusive because it doesn't say one way or the other. It doesn't say they can fly, and it doesn't say they can't fly. But with adding spells to your repetoire, the default rule DOES say that they have to come from your class spell list.

 

[Felix]

This feat allows sorcerors (and bards, et al.) to "break" the Spells Known by Level table.

Considering that as the sorcerer "Spells" entry is written it would be easy to rule that the language supports a sorcerer learning any spell from any list, I hardly think it's inappropriate to allow a feat, which by itself places absolutely no restrictions on the spell chosen, save that of level, to grant the sorcerer access to any spell from any list.

In a campaign I played in, all serious transportation magic (e.g., teleport) was strictly controlled by a guild of wandermages; they were the only ones who knew the complex magical mechanics necessary to move long distances without going "splat." Such spells were almost never found as scrolls and could not be chosen as one of the wizards' two bonus spells on leveling up.

In that campaign, the feat would have been useful for a wizard to pick up a single "controlled" spell (subject, of course, to DM approval).

In most campaigns, there is never a reason for a wizard to choose this feat.

If you'll refer back to prior pages I think you'll find that I have already agreed with you.

 

[Nail]

My personal theory is that they were playing with the reader. I wonder if we can make some naive wizard player completely waste a feat? By adding this language, they actually forced people to ask the question "What do they mean by that? It can't possibly be the direct reading of the feat? Not in a book that also contains Collegiate Wizard?"

Truth.

The "extra text about how wizards might use the feat" is card-trick-like misdirection.

 

[Nail]

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.

FWIW, "me too".