Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Votan" data-source="post: 2381773" data-attributes="member: 18680">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.</blockquote>

Verification