Extra Spell

[Mort]

I would rule that if he is an arcane caster, then it's is only arcane spells. If it is divine, then they would only be able to get divine spells. There are many domain spells that a cleric doesn't get in their general spell list.

But there are no real differences between arcane and divine spells other than what list they are on (heck more than a few spells are both). If you rule that this feat allows you to go off list, why the artificial limitation, either you can or you can't go off list. By imposing a clearly artificial limitation, you're aknowledging how problematic your interpreation is; and that should say something.

As for the feat being useless -it's not for sorcerers or even duskblades - they get an extremely limited "spells known" list and this is the only way to expand that. Besides not every feat has to be a "must have."

 

[Votan]

I think that two things are obvious:

1) The feat is badly worded both given the example in it and the comparable psionic feat which clearly had a different intention

2) The feat is generally not overpowered if you allow the picking of any spell except that some specific spells can be massively game breaking if they can be combined. In particualr, I am thinking about the combination of arcane and divine buffs or specific spells that change the wya a class plays (Wraithstrike, or spells off of classes with 4 level progressions who sometimes get exceptionally powerful 4th level spells).

 

[Aaron L]

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).

I didn't mean that's what the feat allowed, I mean that's what it should allow, because if psionicists can do it, so should sorcerers and duskblades be able to. I know it doesn't work that way, but it should. It's unfortunate that it doesn't.

 

[Mort]

I think that two things are obvious:

1) The feat is badly worded both given the example in it and the comparable psionic feat which clearly had a different intention

2) The feat is generally not overpowered if you allow the picking of any spell except that some specific spells can be massively game breaking if they can be combined. In particualr, I am thinking about the combination of arcane and divine buffs or specific spells that change the wya a class plays (Wraithstrike, or spells off of classes with 4 level progressions who sometimes get exceptionally powerful 4th level spells).

Ok, everyone keeps saying the feat is badly worded - but it's not really - it just doesn't say what some people want it to say. EVERY other time that a feat or ability allows a class to go off list it is EXPLICITLY stated, here it simply is not. Heck I just looked at the SRD it says "At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook" - nothing about staying on list here, it's simply assumed.

 

[Sejs]

Ultimately the issue in this case boils down to (as others have said) not whether Extra Spell is problematic, but whether Wraithstrike is.

And it is.

Just nix that spell on both sides of the dm screen and poof, problem solved.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Hmmm....

I'd be more convinced of this if there are abilities that let you go "off list" that explicitly limit the lists from which abilities (spells, powers, whatever) may be chosen...IOW, other Feats that function like the FAQed version of Extra Spell.

I don't know if any exist or not- I'm just saying.

 

[Votan]

Ok, everyone keeps saying the feat is badly worded - but it's not really - it just doesn't say what some people want it to say. EVERY other time that a feat or ability allows a class to go off list it is EXPLICITLY stated, here it simply is not. Heck I just looked at the SRD it says "At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook" - nothing about staying on list here, it's simply assumed.

Oh, I agree. But by saying things like a spell that a wizard is unable to research you create speculation about what sorts of spells can a wizard not research. They introduced clarifying language that made the feat harder to understand -- that is bad writing. If they had omitted that language I think that the argument against spell list jumping would actually be stronger.

In any case, it is pretty obvious that it was not intended to mean that you could ignore spell list but rather to describe when a wizard would burn a feat rather than spending a few hundred GP. Given that, in the same book, there is a feat that doubles the wizards spells known (yes, one feat) it wasn't completely absurd to wonder why the designers felt that 50% of the text should be devoted to what sort of mental illness would be required for a wizard to take this feat (since, RAW, collegiate wizard should be worth vastly more as a feat).

 

[Rhun]

Ok, everyone keeps saying the feat is badly worded - but it's not really - it just doesn't say what some people want it to say. EVERY other time that a feat or ability allows a class to go off list it is EXPLICITLY stated, here it simply is not. Heck I just looked at the SRD it says "At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook" - nothing about staying on list here, it's simply assumed.

Can you actually post an example of a feat or ability that actually does allow a class to choose spells from a non-class spell list?

 

[Felix]

As Written:
The character can choose any spell to add to his spells known list. The feat itself does not limit which spells these are, it merely provides a way to get another spell and does not restrict that choice of spell to only a spell on the class' spell list. So any spell would work.

FAQ Ruling:
The ruling does not contradict the feat because the feat was silent on what restrictions it placed on the choice of spell. This then adds a limitation to the feat that was not there previously. I would rather that the FAQ did not do this, but in this case the ruling does make sense from a game mechanic standpoint: it allows caster to expand their spell repitoire within their own casting idiom. Which is fine with me.

My Ruling Would Be
On a case by case basis to allow a particular spell. Does the sorcerer wish to learn Cure Moderate Wounds? If that sorcerer had been a devout worshipper to whichever god, then I have no problem with this. Does the Duskblade want Wraithstrike? Sorry bud, pick again. But I have no problem with casters choosing spells from outside of their spell list, though I might take exception to the particular spell they chose.

I don't think there's a poll option for that so I didn't vote.

 

[Rhun]

Ok, everyone keeps saying the feat is badly worded - but it's not really - it just doesn't say what some people want it to say.

And FWIW, if a feat needs to be included in the FAQ for clarification of exactly how it operates, that is a prime example of it being badly worded...why else would it need clarification?