Extra Spell

[RolandDeschain]

Can a Wizard take the Extra Spell feat and learn the Divine Sacrifice spell from the Paladin's spell list.

I'm not asking if it is optimal to do so, but rather if it is proper according to RAW.

Thanks in advance.

[Nettlekid]

It's a highly contested topic. I think the general consensus is that no, unlike Psionics' Expanded Knowledge which explicitly states that gained powers can be from another list, Extra Spell makes you take it from your list. But technically the wording doesn't disallow cross-spell list learning, so...well, who knows. It's often debated.

The PrCs Recaster for Changeling and Wyrm Wizard for just about anyone allow you to take a spell from another class.

[cakellene]

Feat doesn't say it allows you to access other class lists, therefore you would be constrained to your class list as normal.

[heavyfuel]

It's not controversial at all. While the feat itself doesn't say anything, the errata says you don't get access to other spell lists.

Edit: I got confused, there's no errata for Extra Spell, like Grod said, it was probably Sage or FAQ.

[bekeleven]

Fun fact: Extra invocation explicitly states that you must take an invocation from your class list.

The text for warlocks swapping invocations on level-up does not.

[qwertyu63]

Fun fact: Extra invocation explicitly states that you must take an invocation from your class list.

The text for warlocks swapping invocations on level-up does not.

Is there even another list they could take from?

[fishyfishyfishy]

Is there even another list they could take from?

Dragonfire Adept uses invocations.

OP, as a DM I would be wary of potential exploits if a player asked me this but I would probably allow it. It's not like there aren't other ways for a T1 caster to gain spells from other class lists. At least this way the player is using a valuable and limited resource to do it.

[lsfreak]

Is there even another list they could take from?
Dragonfire Adept.


It's not controversial at all. While the feat itself doesn't say anything, the errata says you don't get access to other spell lists.
There is no errata for Extra Spell.


Feat doesn't say it allows you to access other class lists, therefore you would be constrained to your class list as normal.
That depends a great deal on your reading of the text about using it to learn a spell you "lack access to." Another wonderful example of explanatory text muddling up what's going on.

EDIT: Also, I like bringing up on these threads that the text makes clear a sorcerer does not have to stick to the wiz/sorc spell list, but then leaves it up to the DM to figure out what that means. Due to being RAW-via-Rule-0, it's generally ignored in online discussions because it's so DM-dependent.

[nedz]

The FAQ does contain this though, FWIW


Can the warmage (Complete Arcane) benefit from the Extra Spell feat?
No. Extra Spell lets you add one spell to your list of spells known, but the spell must be taken from your class spell list. Since the warmage already knows all the spells on his class spell list, this feat has no effect.

Personally I'd allow this to work as per Advanced Learning, but that's irrelevant for a Wizard.

[Optimator]

I'd allow it. It's a feat. Not unbalancing and it's being highly paid for.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's not controversial at all. While the feat itself doesn't say anything, the errata says you don't get access to other spell lists.
I think it was a Sage or FAQ ruling.

I'd certainly allow the feat to work that way-- anything other interpretation makes it pretty useless.

[Chronos]

Restricting it to your own list makes it nearly useless for wizards. It's intended primarily for sorcerers, though, for whom an extra spell known really is meaningful.

[Phelix-Mu]

Restricting it to your own list makes it nearly useless for wizards. It's intended primarily for sorcerers, though, for whom an extra spell known really is meaningful.

This is how I always pictured it being used, back when I first scrolled flipped through Complete Arcane.

[RolandDeschain]

I think it was a Sage or FAQ ruling.

I'd certainly allow the feat to work that way-- anything other interpretation makes it pretty useless.

Thanks guys. Sounds like I'll have to walk the DM through it carefully to be certain. I know it's suboptimal, but I like the flavor and fits my non-theurge wizard/cleric.

Truth be told this character will always be a pretty crappy cleric, I'm pretty sure I'll build him as a Dweomerkeeper with an occasional level thrown into cleric(only a 14 wisdom).

[nedz]

Yes, houserules which favour T1 classes are ones you should really think about very hard. By RAW Extra Spell is only useful for spontaneous casters without a fixed spell list. There are plenty of feats which are only usable by Wizards.

[RolandDeschain]

Yes, houserules which favour T1 classes are ones you should really think about very hard. By RAW Extra Spell is only useful for spontaneous casters without a fixed spell list. There are plenty of feats which are only usable by Wizards.

I hear what you're saying. I actually try to avoid T1 classes as much as possible(I'm a recovering power-gamer), and leave them to the less experienced members of our group. This time I waited to see what everyone was building tried to build a character to fill in any perceived "holes".

As I fear, a bunch of the others dove right toward the T4 classes. I'm going to try to buff them up as much as possible and occasional assist the party cleric in keeping them alive.

Still trying to decide between Dweomerkeeper and War Weaver for a PrC.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Restricting it to your own list makes it nearly useless for wizards. It's intended primarily for sorcerers, though, for whom an extra spell known really is meaningful.
It's useful for a sorcerer in the same way that Weapon Specialization is useful for a fighter-- it helps, but it's probably not really worth a feat. Not when you can replace it with a knowstone or a runestaff or something.

[kabreras]

FAQ <> Errata

Beeing a feat i dont think it is that OP to be able to take some spell that is not on your class list.

Same that i allow it to be able to pick a spell from a baned school for specialists.

If you want 1 spell enough to burn a feat, go ahead.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I hear what you're saying. I actually try to avoid T1 classes as much as possible(I'm a recovering power-gamer), and leave them to the less experienced members of our group. This time I waited to see what everyone was building tried to build a character to fill in any perceived "holes".

As I fear, a bunch of the others dove right toward the T4 classes. I'm going to try to buff them up as much as possible and occasional assist the party cleric in keeping them alive.

Still trying to decide between Dweomerkeeper and War Weaver for a PrC.

As a recovering power-gamer I'd suggest going for War Weaver. Both PrC's are excellent buffers but War Weaver is a little less "on the nose" about it. A pile of persistent buffs on everyone is a bit rougher on a DM that's not accustomed to such power, no matter how simple countering such things can be. Being limited to 5th level spells and below for the instant suite of buffs at the beginning of an encounter is also a bit easier to swallow.

........ I think I may have gotten dweomerkeeper and incantatrix mixed up. Let me go double check myself.

Edit: I did get them mixed up. The reasoning's different but I stand by my advice.

Dweomerkeeper's ability to produce supernatural effects, as opposed to normal spell effects, is a game changer when paired correctly and arcane sight at will can get annoying if you don't build your adventures with the assumption that most magical auras will need to be hidden or should be expected to be discovered. It's also more of a solo act than a strong buffer.

[Curmudgeon]

Can a Wizard take the Extra Spell feat and learn the Divine Sacrifice spell from the Paladin's spell list.

I'm not asking if it is optimal to do so, but rather if it is proper according to RAW.
Benefit: You learn one additional spell at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast.
What's the highest level Paladin spell a Wizard can cast? You can't do the arithmetic required by Extra Spell until you can first supply a number.

Spells don't have levels without an associated class. As an example, what's the level of Control Water (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWater.htm)? The answers would be 4 for a Druid, 6 for a Wizard, and "—" for a Paladin. Subtraction isn't possible with "—", which means Extra Spell only works with spells already on your class list.

[nedz]

There is nothing to stop a Wizard researching a Wizard spell to do the same job. It would cost you money and time but save you a feat. It does depend upon Rule 0 though.

[Chronos]

Correction: There isn't necessarily anything to stop a wizard from researching a new spell. Spell research is explicitly subject to failure, at the whim of the DM.

[Seer_of_Heart]

What's the highest level Paladin spell a Wizard can cast? You can't do the arithmetic required by Extra Spell until you can first supply a number.

Spells don't have levels without an associated class. As an example, what's the level of Control Water (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWater.htm)? The answers would be 4 for a Druid, 6 for a Wizard, and "—" for a Paladin. Subtraction isn't possible with "—", which means Extra Spell only works with spells already on your class list.

It does not say X type of spell it says spell full stop. A spell doesn't stop being a spell if it gets cast by a druid instead of a wizard. The level of a spell would be based on what class you borrow it from or on what it says for your class if you obtain it normally.

[cakellene]

It does not say X type of spell it says spell full stop. A spell doesn't stop being a spell if it gets cast by a druid instead of a wizard. The level of a spell would be based on what class you borrow it from or on what it says for your class if you obtain it normally.

The XPH version of feat for psionics specifically states they can go off other lists, if that was intent here I would think they would have icluded the same language here.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There are other ways to get access to spells from other lists. Almost all of them are cheaper than a feat slot. I'd allow it based on that alone.

[Seerow]

It's useful for a sorcerer in the same way that Weapon Specialization is useful for a fighter-- it helps, but it's probably not really worth a feat. Not when you can replace it with a knowstone or a runestaff or something.

Knowstones are from Dragon Magazine iirc, and Runestaves are nice for supplementing a spell list, but there aren't runestaves available for everything (nor is there any really consistent pricing for making custom ones that I can remember). There's plenty of situations where having an extra spell known that you get to pick from whatever source is going to be worth the feat.

And even if you disagree? There's plenty of feats out there that are near useless. Having one more doesn't change anything. And while the OP's intentions don't seem suspect, opening up the feat for that kind of cherrypicking is adding a powerful tool to tier 1 characters, and even if it's not being misused in this case, leaves precedent for misuse by other characters.

[Seer_of_Heart]

The XPH version of feat for psionics specifically states they can go off other lists, if that was intent here I would think they would have icluded the same language here.

That's irrelevant we cannot prove decisively without a statement from the authors one way or another or published errata. Even a statement has no weight on RAW, although it does have weight on practical usage. This issue makes me really upset because I heard false information that extra spell was issued errata when it was just a sage/faq ruling.

[Curmudgeon]

It does not say X type of spell it says spell full stop. A spell doesn't stop being a spell if it gets cast by a druid instead of a wizard. The level of a spell would be based on what class you borrow it from or on what it says for your class if you obtain it normally.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Where in the rules does it say how you go about borrowing a spell from another class? There's nothing about borrowing in Extra Spell. It would seem you're referring to some house rule rather than the actual RAW.

[RolandDeschain]

How about we nudge this discussion slightly away from it's current arc and reframe it.

Throw Extra Spell out of the conversation. I'm really just looking for a "nuclear option" spell at each level to keep the party from getting killed. I'm going buff, buff, and possibly dabble in the occasional battlefield control spell. I just want something in reserve for that "just in case" moment.

For example, sleep and then color spray pulled the group out of the fire a couple times in the first couple of sessions, but only after I gave everybody their best chance to kill all the baddies.

So with that in mind, what would you recommend in terms of feat/spell combos?

[Seer_of_Heart]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Where in the rules does it say how you go about borrowing a spell from another class? There's nothing about borrowing in Extra Spell. It would seem you're referring to some house rule rather than the actual RAW.

Its a bad habit I have of using non game terms that mean approximately what I want rather than using the game terms themselves.

A better wording (but not perfect, I'm bad at phrasing things low charisma :smallsigh:) would probably be, "The level of a spell would be based on what it says for your class if you obtain it normally or if you use extra spell the spell level based on which spell level the class you look at has."

If you are 9th level wizard with your control water example it is impossible for the wizard to use extra spell to grab it as if it was cast by a wizard normally (assuming no spell level boosters) but the spell does not cease to exist as a fourth level spell so the wizard must be able to learn it since it is 1 lower than the max castable level. Because extra spell cannot grab a 6th level spell it must be learned as a 4th; extra does not mention the spell being forced to match how it would normally work for your class (6th level spell in this case).

edit: To answer your new question I personally am a fan of stinking cloud although I'm not sure what level you are or if you're already using it. It massively shuts anyone who is vulnerable to it down.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stinkingCloud.htm

[Curmudgeon]

A better wording (but not perfect, I'm bad at phrasing things low charisma :smallsigh:) would probably be, "The level of a spell would be based on what it says for your class if you obtain it normally or if you use extra spell the spell level based on which spell level the class you look at has."
Again, I think you must be using some sort of house rule here. Where in the RAW does it explain how "the class you look at", rather than the class you take levels in, has any bearing on spell level?

[kabreras]

I think you are wrong on the reading.

It ask for spell level, not class that can cast it.

You are level 5 you can cast spells level 3, that are take of your spell list, but they are level 3 spells.

So you can take any spell level 1 or 2 with extra spell.

Extra spell feat doesnt call for class list, just spells level.

[Seer_of_Heart]

Again, I think you must be using some sort of house rule here. Where in the RAW does it explain how "the class you look at", rather than the class you take levels in, has any bearing on spell level?

Its not a house rule at all, the spell level listed is how it would act under normal circumstances while the spell you learn through extra spell may be at a different level than normal because you learned it as a different level spell. The "class you look at" is if you want to grab the spell at a different spell level that a different class has because it is different from learning it normally.

[Curmudgeon]

I think you are wrong on the reading.

It ask for spell level, not class that can cast it.
But how do you determine the spell level without the class? Again using the example of Control Water (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWater.htm): what level spell is that?

[Hangwind]

Well, an Artificer gets to choose, so I don't see why a similar feat wouldn't. It seems the precedent is apply in the most advantageous way unless told otherwise.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, an Artificer gets to choose, so I don't see why a similar feat wouldn't.
I have no clue what you're going on about. Artificers aren't spellcasters; they use infusions instead. They don't get to choose any spells.

[Seer_of_Heart]

But how do you determine the spell level without the class? Again using the example of Control Water (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWater.htm): what level spell is that?

Either 6th or 4th depending on how you gain it. Normal methods of gaining control water matches class level, extra spell for example would not necessarily.

Here is my mental visualization on how it works.

Requirement the spell learned must be 1 less than the highest the caster can cast. I believe we both agree on this point.

Now look at control water, the spell exists as a fourth and sixth level spell (barring houserules). I believe we both agree on this point again.

Control water does exist as a 4th level spell; which means that a caster with 5th level spells qualifies to learn it through extra spell because it is a 4th level spell. I believe this is where we diverge in interpretation.

Even if that caster is a wizard the feat does not say that control water suddenly changes level based on who learns the spell and a 9th level wizard for example only could have learned a 4th level spell. Although normally a wizard must be level 11 to learn it (or use shenanigans) extra spell is not a normal way to learn spells. This may be where we diverge in interpretation.


hmm I think due to ambiguities in English and reading styles Curmudgeon and I will never agree on several topics including this one.

[Seer_of_Heart]

I have no clue what you're going on about. Artificers aren't spellcasters; they use infusions instead. They don't get to choose any spells.

I think he's talking about making items with spells using level of any list the artificer wants. But this is a different circumstance than that.

[kabreras]

Excatelly, thats the same in pathfinder for the extra spells that give the prestige class "arcane savant"

[Lanaya]

What's the highest level Paladin spell a Wizard can cast? You can't do the arithmetic required by Extra Spell until you can first supply a number.

But it's not asking for the highest level paladin spell you can cast. You quoted it yourself, it's based on the highest level spell you can currently cast and never states, or even implies, that spell has to be from the same class list as the spell you're learning. So if you're a 9th level wizard, you can cast 5th level spells and therefore may learn a spell of 4th level or lower. That's all there is to it.

[Hangwind]

I have no clue what you're going on about. Artificers aren't spellcasters; they use infusions instead. They don't get to choose any spells.

When creating an item, an artificer is treated as having a CL. A strange CL, but a CL none the less. If an artificer so chooses, they can select the lowest level of a spell possible to make said item. Why would a feat with a similar effect work differently?

Besides, by RAW,

For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research.
(Complete Arcane, p. 79)

So how exactly is this in any way ambivalent as to whether a wizard can learn from other spell lists? That is it's ENTIRE EFFECT for a wizard.

[sleepyphoenixx]

When creating an item, an artificer is treated as having a CL. A strange CL, but a CL none the less. If an artificer so chooses, they can select the lowest level of a spell possible to make said item. Why would a feat with a similar effect work differently?


It's right there in the class description.

Infusions: An artificer is not a spellcaster

[Hangwind]

Okay, clearly there is a lack of communication here. Let me see if I can clear up some of the confusion:

MY ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INFUSIONS!

Okay? The only thing I am concerned with is when a character can select from multiple lists at once for determining when you get a spell. When creating a magical item an artificer is treated as having a Caster Level. Therefor, it follows that other things with unspecified lists, but relying on Caster Levels, would follow the precedent.

If you want a further example with a full caster, look at the Archivist. If it appears on different divine lists, he can choose the most advantageous example.

Regardless, the second part of my post is far more important. RAW is pretty specific that this feat is supposed to give access to spells a wizard has no other way to learn. So, what else is there but divine spells?

[sleepyphoenixx]

An Artificer does not have a caster level since he is not a spellcaster.
He is treated as having one for purposes of item creation. That's not the same thing.
Extra Spell is pretty obviously not item creation.

For the second part: The RAW isn't that clear imo. It can certainly interpreted that way.
It can also be interpreted to apply to spells like Animate Dread Warrior or some of the spells in City of Splendors which are described as being restricted to specific (NPC) individuals.
Other people probably have other interpretations i can't think of.

[Hangwind]

But again, the point is not whether a Artificer can cast spells. The point is that the Artificer and the Archivist both establish the precedent of being able to select the fastest method of getting a spell if it appears on two different lists at different levels.

As for the ADW example, it doesn't pass in two different ways. First it is on the Wizard list, meaning that, at the very least, if you found a Wizard with it in his book you could copy it.

Also, it merely states that it is only found in the books of people he taught. Not that it cannot be researched under the spell research rules. In fact, I cannot think of an Arcane spell that can't be researched under those rules unless a DM bans it.

So unless you are saying this feat goes around Rule Zero, it almost has to apply to Divine spells.

(I did not address the City of Splendors example because I am not even remotely familiar with the setting.)

[Curmudgeon]

For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research.
So how exactly is this in any way ambivalent as to whether a wizard can learn from other spell lists? That is it's ENTIRE EFFECT for a wizard. You appear to think that this quote from Extra Spell refers to spells not on the Wizard spell list. Could you please explain why this is so? There are plenty of spells a Wizard may lack access to (simply because a written version of that spell may not be conveniently located) or be unable to research (insufficient time or gp); these would still be spells on the Wizard class list.

[Setra]

It does not say X type of spell it says spell full stop. A spell doesn't stop being a spell if it gets cast by a druid instead of a wizard. The level of a spell would be based on what class you borrow it from or on what it says for your class if you obtain it normally.
Wait, so by your logic you're saying a sixth level Wizard could learn Cure Moderate Wounds, but not the Cleric version of Hold Person?

So you're saying they can borrow from another class except when they can't borrow from another class.

[Seer_of_Heart]

Wait, so by your logic you're saying a sixth level Wizard could learn Cure Moderate Wounds, but not the Cleric version of Hold Person?

So you're saying they can borrow from another class except when they can't borrow from another class.

No? I'm the one arguing that you can use extra spell to grab spells at a lower level.

Edit: I used the wording "the class you borrow it from" to mean that if you grab the "cleric version" of a spell it is the level a cleric gets it as.

[Hangwind]

All right, I got tired of the argument and went searching. After a frustrating fifteen minutes, I remembered the D and D FAQ, available on the WOTC website. On page 40 it says very specifically a wizard cannot learn a spell not a part of his class with this feat. It would appear Curmudgeon was right and the official answer is no.

I doff my hat to you.:smallsmile:

[bekeleven]

All right, I got tired of the argument and went searching. After a frustrating fifteen minutes, I remembered the D and D FAQ, available on the WOTC website. On page 40 it says very specifically a wizard cannot learn a spell not a part of his class with this feat. It would appear Curmudgeon was right and the official answer is no.

I doff my hat to you.:smallsmile:

All things considered, the FAQ siding with him would be a point against.

[Curmudgeon]

All things considered, the FAQ siding with him would be a point against.
I don't think so. The FAQ is an important repository of carefully-selected questions chosen to highlight rules issues. The answers just aren't reliable. (Most of the time the answers are actually right, but they're also not well supported by rules citations to demonstrate how those answers are derived.) I'll use FAQ citations (after all, it's freely available and easy to reference) if it actually explains an answer well.

In this case, the FAQ answer agreeing with me is irrelevant. The fact that this topic is included indicates accurately that this is a question in need of answering. The fact that the FAQ answer isn't backed up by any rules citations means that it's worthless.

[Somensjev]

All right, I got tired of the argument and went searching. After a frustrating fifteen minutes, I remembered the D and D FAQ, available on the WOTC website. On page 40 it says very specifically a wizard cannot learn a spell not a part of his class with this feat. It would appear Curmudgeon was right and the official answer is no.

I doff my hat to you.:smallsmile:

does it only specify a wizard? :smallconfused:
if so couldnt an argument be made that all other spellcasters are not bound by that?

[kabreras]

FAQ <> RAW

FAQ is one guy answering a question about a rule, like a lot of peoples do here.

A FAQ answer is not controled or suported by the rules, it is just an interpretation of them.

FAQ is more like a houserule.

An errata is definite and raw yet there is no errata on this subject and everyone have his view on it since the book got edited witch is a while ago now.

I understand Curmudgeon point of view on it, and i just say that nothing in the text stop players to rule it otherwise, and that if ruled otherwise it make 1 less feat useless.

But the fact that we will never have a final and raw answer of this feat will make the debat rise and rise and rise again every few months on any D&D forum.

[Runeclaw]

But the fact that we will never have a final and raw answer of this feat will make the debat rise and rise and rise again every few months on any D&D forum.

The unfortunate fact of life is that there are some issues to which the only reasonable answer on this forum is: "it's debated; ask your DM."

I don't think the liberal interpretation would be be over powered except perhaps in certain fairly high op circumstances where it was being used to grab a spell that was part of some terrifying combo. If you're just using it to grab a spell you're fond of or to fill a hole in your party, it's unlikely to break the game.

On the other hand, I don't think that the conservative interpretation makes the feat useless. It's clearly primarily useful for spontaneous casters, but in a game that is fairly strict with Wizard spells (2 per level and then only what you find lying around or can buy, but with no guarantee of fully stocked Magic Marts), I can imagine that a wizard player might be desperate enough for a particular spell to blow a feat on it. It obviously wouldn't do much for Clerics or Druids, but a feat doesn't have to be useful to everybody to be useful. And there are certainly plenty of feats that aren't really useful to anybody.