Warmage and Extra Spell

[Votan]

Arcane Disciple is from Complete Divine and adds all spells of one domain (from your deity) to your class spell list.
It does put some limitations on the spells, tho, since they are cast based on Wisdom and you can only cast one such spell per spell level.

It's the only feat in existance, AFAIK, which actually alters the class spell list.
The only other example would be the Advanced Learning ability from the Warmage.

Bye
Thanee

If a class feature counts, I will point out the maximum level of Rainbow Servant. All cleric spells are added to the Wizard's spell list.

This is an endlessly frustrating argument. Because there are feats that can change class spell lists (Arcane Disciple, Rainbow Servant, Advanced Learning, Extra Manifestation) amome of which work for wizards/sorcerers it is not clear that this is a "banned" activity. So it is hard to rule out the possibility that this feat is changing the class spell list the way that arcane disciple does.

I am actually more worried about things like poaching spells off of the Bard Spell list than the cleric list. It's possible to get an 8th level spell early this way as a wizard.

I also, however, see the cleric being able to add (polymorph. Evard's Black Tentacles, Improved Invisibility or enveration) as a spell at 9th level to be a bit much. Wizards get this key spells at 7th level, Sorcerers at 8th leve and Clerics at 9th level?

But I also agree that the wording for this spell is poor and should have specified the spell list to avoid confusion. As it is written it is impossible to ferret out the actual meaning of the feat. It is reasonable to assume that it does not grant access to other spell lists. However, because it does not say anything about this (one way or the other), Scion is correct in that there is nothing in that confusing bit of RAW that prohibits it either.

Since other feats allow this, it doesn't extend the rules in a new way as the general spell list rules can be broken by other material.

 

[Thanee]

As it is written it is impossible to ferret out the actual meaning of the feat. It is reasonable to assume that it does not grant access to other spell lists.

It's not only reasonable, it's the only way to read the feat.

There is simply no mentioning of altering the class spell list, so it remains unaltered.
A feat should say, if it does something. If it does not say, like in this case, then it also does not do it.

Please also look up my examples of the wording of wizards learning spells in the PHB above, which also does not mention "wizard spells" or something like that. If by "learning any spell" you could choose other classes' spells, then a typical PHB wizard could already do that - at 1st level even.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Oh, I agree. My 9th level sorcerer took Extra Spell. (Although if he had a high wisdom, Arcane Disciple might have beat it out.)

High Wisdom is good, but the main limit is, that you only get to cast one spell per spell level each day and you still have to learn them individually. I don't think that's good for sorcerers.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Votan]

It's not only reasonable, it's the only way to read the feat.

There is simply no mentioning of altering the class spell list, so it remains unaltered.
A feat should say, if it does something. If it does not say, like in this case, then it also does not do it.

Please also look up my examples of the wording of wizards learning spells in the PHB above, which also does not mention "wizard spells" or something like that. If by "learning any spell" you could choose other classes' spells, then a typical PHB wizard could already do that - at 1st level even.

The problem is that feats (unlike other mechanisms) have precedents for adding to a class spell list. In terms of spells for a wizard/sorcerer instead of powers or warmages they are all in the Complete Divine which is one more reason to dislike that book. The mechanism byu which a wizard learns spells naturally is clearly covered in the core rulebooks and definitely does not allow a wizard to learn from another class list.

So with a feat is is possible that a feat could allow a spell to be added to somebody's spell list. There is just enough precedent in arcane disciple and cleric spell access (Rainow Servant) to ask questions. The latter was especially unfortunate as a feat (arcaen disciple introduced wisdom as the casting attribute for the domian spells; wihtout the second feat the argument from precedent is a lot harder).

So, since it sdays nothing here in the feat, is it a reasonable position to say that the rules as written are unclear? Probably. Now I am convinced that the rules as intended do not allow for this.

I aslo think that the rules as balanced could be in trouble as well. My personal list of problems that the broader view could lead to are:

1) Fourth level arcane spells are where arcane casters get the spells that finally allow them parity with other classes. Letting the cleric grab one at 9th level and then use it all day in full plate armor lengthens the period in which arcane casters play as weaker.

This gets even worse as it continues. Druids (especially druids who will have natural spell at level 6 and no longer have lots of great options for feats and have a weaker spell lsit) and Clerics will be dipping into the arcane list for key spells. The cleric and druid were not in desperate need of a power boost.

2) The classes with fewer spell levels have powerful spells at lower levels. Getting these as a primary caster is pretty darn good. Forget the sorcerer wanting cure light wounds. Consider:

Holy Sword (Paladin 4)
Greater Dispel Magic (Bard 5 -- look, a great spell uses a lower level slot)
Great Shout and Otto's Irresitable Dance (8th level arcane spells 2 levels early)
Bladestorm (CV, Ranger 3, consider this little gift to the melee cleric or the wildshaped druid)
Sniper's Eye (CV, Assassin 4, I'm sure a Daggerspell mage would love this spell)

3) Custom spells for new classes. Sometimes these are really nice and a major reason to consider this class. A Paladin might like to get Hound of Doom off of the Hexblade list for example (actually, for a high level paladin this is about the best use of a feat I can imagine -- the hound works off of the hit points, BAB and CHA of the person who casts the spell).

4) Consistency. Even if we know that it is possible that a feat could do this, it is better to demand that a feat explicitly state that these spells can come from other lists. Of course, they did insert confusing language into the feat which does make it a lot harder to adjuticate.


In my mind, the authors created the problem because they wanted to be "cute" by explaining why a wizard would take a feat so woefully suboptimal as to be insane (wizards can learn spells by gaining levels at 2 per level, scribe found scrolls, learn from other spellbooks or pay small amounts of gold to learn a spell -- when would spending a feat ever be the right choice?). Instead of just accepting that wizards would not take such a feat they inserted language that made things blindingly unclear. Why would they do this? You don't have to be a min/maxer to realize that combat casting is a strange feat for a Barbarian to take.

But by trying to explain why a wizard would do something silly they opened the door to all sorts of interpretations of the feat. Without this language, you would be correct that there was no other reasonable way to interpret this feat. But the language has people (legimately) wondering "what spells can a wizard not learn using other methods?". There is, unfortunately, an obvious answer and it is what creates all of this confusion.

 

[Thanee]

The problem is that feats (unlike other mechanisms) have precedents for adding to a class spell list.

Right. And all of them say so.

The mechanism byu which a wizard learns spells naturally is clearly covered in the core rulebooks and definitely does not allow a wizard to learn from another class list.

As mentioned above, this is actually wrong, AFAIK. The only clear restriction to the class list is given for casting, but not for learning spells in the PHB.

So, since it says nothing here in the feat, is it a reasonable position to say that the rules as written are unclear? Probably.

IMHO... no. It's not reasonable to assume, that one feat does something, because another (even a similar) feat does so.

If there was some reason, that there is really something missing in the feat description (tho, this should then be covered in the errata), then I could see it, but there is no such reason present. There is a sufficient explanation available to the confusing part about wizards without adding content to the feat description. This is clearly the preferable method in reading a feat, only if there is really something amiss, should adding content be considered.

I also think that the rules as balanced could be in trouble as well.

Yeah, allowing all spells to be learned by all classes is bound to provoke problems with the huge number of spells around, which often are balanced by other aspects of a class (i.e. the 5th level Heal of the adept class, or generally the "lesser caster" spells, as you mentioned as well).

I could see allowing it, if it is not abused, tho.

In my mind, the authors created the problem because they wanted to be "cute" by explaining why a wizard would take a feat so woefully suboptimal as to be insane (wizards can learn spells by gaining levels at 2 per level, scribe found scrolls, learn from other spellbooks or pay small amounts of gold to learn a spell -- when would spending a feat ever be the right choice?).

Yeah, that's exactly it. They should just have left the whole sentence, it does not clarify anything, it's pointless and (as seen multiple times) only creates confusion.

Why would they do this?

Because the book is mostly for wizards (sorcerers are considered a secondary class, the primary arcane caster is the wizard). They surely wanted to avoid numerous questions about how stupid that feat is, since people do not realize, that it is meant for sorcerers and not for wizards.

But by trying to explain why a wizard would do something silly they opened the door to all sorts of interpretations of the feat. Without this language, you would be correct that there was no other reasonable way to interpret this feat.

As explained above, it's completely irrelevant, what a wizard can learn, because they cannot cast the spells they learn, unless they are on their class spell list. That's the only real limitation they have. Since this is the same reason, why the core-only wizard can only learn wizard spells, it is not reasonable to assume, that the feat does anything different.

I can see how someone can become confused about that, and ask questions about it, but it's not a reasonable or valid (which is what I mean with reasonable, basically) interpretation of the feat for sure, all things considered. Only if you disregard the core rules, could you come up with that interpretation, since the core rules make clear, that wizards can only cast wizard spells and this strongly implies, yet it's not spelled out, that they can only learn wizard spells.

And I also still think the language is pretty clear, actually. With the use of the word 'generally', they make clear, that the part is just a clarification and no added rule.

Bye
Thanee