Extra Spell
- Thread starter takasi
- Start date
Thanks- I had forgotten that!
When I originally encountered the 2 feats, I ruled they worked the same way...
When I originally encountered the 2 feats, I ruled they worked the same way...
ElectricDragon
Explorer
When the Extra Spell feat originally came out (Tome and Blood, 3.0, no duskblades, no warmages) it was paired with another feat called Extra Slot. The Extra Spell feat was mainly for spontanious casters, allowing them to get another spell to choose from without having to gain more levels. The Extra Slot feat was mainly for prepared casters as it allowed them to prepare an extra spell each day. Neither feat allowed spells outside of the class list. Their power was strong enough without that little bit of extra oomph.
Then along comes arcane casters with access to every spell on their list. Extra Slot would still work for them; yet most players want to get more than a sorcerer or bard would get from the feat to make it worthwhile for their chosen class. Some feats are not meant for some classes.
In the case of the wizard (For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells) why would this apply to the duskblade? It is not a class that has more options for learning spells. Never mind how it applies to wizards; it does not apply to duskblades. Period.
Ciao
Dave
Then along comes arcane casters with access to every spell on their list. Extra Slot would still work for them; yet most players want to get more than a sorcerer or bard would get from the feat to make it worthwhile for their chosen class. Some feats are not meant for some classes.
In the case of the wizard (For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells) why would this apply to the duskblade? It is not a class that has more options for learning spells. Never mind how it applies to wizards; it does not apply to duskblades. Period.
Ciao
Dave
Aaron L said:
There is a huge difference between the wording of expanded knowledge and the wording of extra spell, which actually argues against extra spell allowing a caster to choose off list spells.
First expanded power uses the term "add" - the same as the warmage and beguiler abilities - but not the "learn" language from extra spell.
Much more importantly, expanded knowledge explicitly states "You can choose any power, including powers from another discipline's list or even another class's list." Extra spell has no such wording. As a matter of fact, all abilities I can find that let you go "off list" explicitly state that they allow this; extra spell does not.
I don't see as much ambiguity as other people here (though there really isn't that much as there is close to 90% agreement and that's remarkable for the rules forum on a disputed topic).
wildstarsreach said:
No.
Arcane channeling is a standard action.
You don't get to do "standard" actions as part of a full-attack action. A full-attack action allows you to make more than one attack not take more than one standard action.
A full-attack action is very specific.
The logic path you are following is the same as applying manyshot to all attacks being made when the archer has more than one attack.
irdeggman said:
A 13+ level duskblade can combine casting (and channeling) a touch spell with a full attack action - this is explicit. In effect casting (and channeling) a touch spell and a full attack are 1 full attack action for the 13+ duskblade. As such, of course a duskblade of this level could cast a swift spell and then us a full attack action to channel a different (target:touch) spell and full attack.
delericho
Legend
I agree with the FAQ: the feat is not intended to allow you to add spells that aren't on your class spell list.
That said, I don't feel it is a bad house-rule for the DM to allow this, as feats are precious, and this usage doesn't seem game-breaking. I would include the caveat that the spell level should be taken as the least favourable level for any class that does have access to it.
And, of course, the DM would have to monitor it closely for abuse, but that's a given anyway.
That said, I don't feel it is a bad house-rule for the DM to allow this, as feats are precious, and this usage doesn't seem game-breaking. I would include the caveat that the spell level should be taken as the least favourable level for any class that does have access to it.
And, of course, the DM would have to monitor it closely for abuse, but that's a given anyway.
DreamChaser
Explorer
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
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
