Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thanee" data-source="post: 2381841" data-attributes="member: 478">Right. And all of them say so.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.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.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.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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />ByeThanee</blockquote>

Verification