Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 3255153" data-attributes="member: 3929">This PHB citation makes you think that a feat cannot allow the same thing only quicker?<a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3252461&postcount=89" target="_blank">My first post, #89.</a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3252487&postcount=96" target="_blank">My second post, #96.</a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3252575&postcount=101" target="_blank">My third post, #101.</a>In each of these post I have labored to make clear that there is a difference between what the rules say as they are written, and what the FAQ has to say about the matter. Several times I have explicitly said that the FAQ is not wrong, so if you are sensitive about people attacking the FAQ, please be mollified. I have even gone so far as to say that the FAQ does not necessarily contradict the wording of the rules.But please put the FAQ aside for a moment. Try to see what the rules say first, and then apply the FAQ. It is possible, as I laid out in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3254946&postcount=161" target="_blank">post #161</a> for the feat to allow a spell from outside the class spell list, and for a sorcerer to cast it. The FAQ disagrees. Does this mean the FAQ is wrong? If the purpose of the FAQ were to clarify intent, and if it has been faithful to the intent of the feat in this case, then no, it is not wrong. If the purpose of the FAQ is to make clear precicely what the feat says with no particular weight attached to writer's intent, then there is a good argument that the FAQ is indeed wrong.But that is neither here nor there because I have already said myself that the FAQ is reasonable. You can <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3252461&postcount=89" target="_blank">re-read it</a> if you like.There are two questions to be asked. 1) Can the Duskblade aquire the spell? 2) Can the Duskblade cast the spell?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Can the Duskblade aquire the spell?</li> </ul>The feat Extra Spell states that the PC "learns one additional spell", and there are no restrictions on what that spell is with the exception of the level of the spell. Feats also alter the way base class mechanics work, so there is precident for a feat to overrule other rules. So, yes, there is a good argument that the Duskblade can indeed aquire it, as written.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Can the Duskblade cast the spell?</li> </ul>There is ground for both arguments in the Duskblade description. Half says, "you cast ... spells drawn from the DB spell list", which can indeed be exclusive. The other half says, "you can cast any spell you know", and if you allow that feats can add options to a character's mechancis, then you may allow that a feat is able to circumvent the normal method of gaining Spells Known, and that will allow the Duskblade to learn and cast a spell outside of the DB spell list.It is an observation, not an assumption. I'll let you know when I start assuming something, like how I'm assuming that we're examing the text of the rules throughly before we apply the FAQ.Specifically?"You learn one additional spell."Those words. Sift them how you like you'll not find within them one ounce of restriction. Please tell me what words, specifically, in the feat say, "must be from within the class' spell list".The degree of specificity can be argued about; if everything were laid out explicitly the PHB would be 1700 pages long, if not issued in volumes. The PHB is rife with implication if you look for it, and there is no reason not to allow the same for this feat.---And I figure I should state again, because what could it hurt, that I'm not arguing what the rules should be or how I would rule them in my own game: I'm arguing the meaning of what the rules are. The meaning of what the words acutally say. Simply becasue I argue that the Duskblade has a basis for wanting a non-class spell list spell does not mean I think he should, or that I would give it to him. I'm simply presenting the argument.</blockquote>

Verification