Extra Spell

[ainbimagh]

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

Bingo.

 

[Elemental]

Huh?


A duskblade at 13th level with Wrathstrike and a full attack channel is not meant to be.

Don't forget Power Attack for +20 or so damage per hit.

Expanded Knowledge is the psionic equivalent, and that specifies you can learn powers outside your normal limits (such as a psychic warrior learning an ardent's power). Extra Spell doesn't specify that. So I voted no.

 

[ElectricDragon]

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

 

[Rhun]

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.

However, the feat does EXPLICITY say "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research."

Emphasis is mine. A spell on the Cleric's spell list is most certainly one that a Wizard "lacks access to and would be unable to research." And I don't think anyone here can argue that point.

Which brings us back to how this is supposed to be interpreted. The FAQ clarifies this, but if we are using just the reading of the feat the way it is listed, is can be interpreted either way.

 

[DreamChaser]

However, the feat does EXPLICITY say "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research."

Emphasis is mine. A spell on the Cleric's spell list is most certainly one that a Wizard "lacks access to and would be unable to research." And I don't think anyone here can argue that point.

Which brings us back to how this is supposed to be interpreted. The FAQ clarifies this, but if we are using just the reading of the feat the way it is listed, is can be interpreted either way.

Even if this were a valid interpretation of the feat (which I do not admit) it would still only be an interpretation that would apply to a wizard or another class that learned spells in a similar manner to the wizard (like the Archivist).

Depending upon how you interpret access, it is not true that a wizard would not have access to a cleric spell. He could find a cleric spell scroll which would then give him access to the spell. It would not, however, enable him to learn or cast said spell.

Ultimately "access" is not an in game term when applied to spells which makes for the issue addressing this question.

DC

 

[wildstarsreach]

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.

Level 13 allows arcane channeling as part of a full attack hence some of the debate.

 

[wildstarsreach]

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.

Isn't swift casting and then arcnae channeling as part of an attack casting 2 spells. Isn't this expressly forbidden unless you have one of the exceptions?

 

[wildstarsreach]

Okay,
I'm seeing the logic but the feat is still badly worded and should be fixed. That also goes for Metamagic rods so that Thanee can rest easier.

Does anyone know where you would submit to WotC a feat?

 

[ainbimagh]

You can submit it through the website to cust serv, but the feat is not badly worded, the desire to abuse semantics to bend rules is the issue. WoTC cant change that.

 

[wildstarsreach]

You can submit it through the website to cust serv, but the feat is not badly worded, the desire to abuse semantics to bend rules is the issue. WoTC cant change that.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.