Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sledged" data-source="post: 1681237" data-attributes="member: 17045">That's exactly what he's saying, and when you do prepare them you're limited to one slot for each spell level.   Shhh... don't say "memorize" or the 3E/3.5E police will arrest you.  If that were the case, this feat would be a lot better than Spell Mastery.  Even Spell Mastery requires you to have the spell in question scribed in your spellbook at the time you take the feat.  In general, characters must prepare spells received from levels in wizard from spellbooks.  This feat does not change that mechanic.  If it did, it would say something to the effect that spells can be prepared without the aid of a spellbook in a similar manner that Spell Mastery does.   Absolutely.   Because that's the limitation of the feat.  It's the same reason why the spellcaster uses wisdom instead of instead of the normal ability score to determine whether or not the spell can be learned and to determine the save DC.   Again, if the feat allowed a wizard to prepare the spell without having it scribed in her spellbook, it would have said so.    Under normal circumstances you can prepare any spell scribed in your spellbook, as many times as you want provided you have slots available at the appropriate spell level or above.  However, this feat explicitly states that domain spells are limited to one slot at each spell level, and yes, you can scribe it as many times as you want.  The feat doesn't limit that.  Of course the drawback is that you have to spend money and XP for each scrolled spell.  However, if you don't mind that, scribe the hell out of 'em.   Whoa.  Calm down.  I didn't misinterprete it.  Because of your statement's context, the reason why such a scenario couldn't take place was unclear:  I merely added that comment for the sake of clearity.  Just as Thanee made even further comment on your statement.</blockquote>

Verification