Master Specialist: Expanded Spellbook

[Yogibear41]

Can a Master Specialist choose a spell not normally on his list with his Expanded Spellbook ability?

For example could a Master Specialist Conjurer: Choose Heal or Restoration since they are (conjuration) spells?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Can a Master Specialist choose a spell not normally on his list with his Expanded Spellbook ability?

For example could a Master Specialist Conjurer: Choose Heal or Restoration since they are (conjuration) spells?The ability in question says the following:


Expanded Spellbook: When you reach 2nd level, you can add one spell of your chosen school to your spellbook. The spell can be of any level that you can cast, and it is in addition to the normal spells gained when increasing your level.

You can add another spell of your chosen school to your spellbook at 5th and at 8th level.

It says nothing about your spell list, just that it be of your specialist school. All conjuration spells are of the conjuration school, and so yes, by RAW you can most certainly choose any conjuration spell to add to your spellbook. (Assuming you are a conjuration specialist, at least.)

[Gorthawar]

It says nothing about your spell list, just that it be of your specialist school.

The complete mage errata changed this to wizard spell. As such this would be a no.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The complete mage errata changed this to wizard spell. As such this would be a no.So it's all but useless now. Gotcha.

[Inevitability]

So it's all but useless now. Gotcha.

I mean, Master Specialist is already a very viable class: full casting with a very common prerequisite feat and possible early entry is never bad. You're looking at a perfectly fine toyota and complaining it's not a lamborghini. What would an useful class look like to you, if this one's 'all but useless'?

Besides, plenty of games don't operate on the optimization assumption that a wizard can find basically every spell and the transcription costs basically never matter. Sometimes it's just nice to get additional spells known, even if they're from the regular old wizard list.

[Gruftzwerg]

The ability in question says the following:



It says nothing about your spell list, just that it be of your specialist school. All conjuration spells are of the conjuration school, and so yes, by RAW you can most certainly choose any conjuration spell to add to your spellbook. (Assuming you are a conjuration specialist, at least.)

Sorry but by RAW it's actually the other way around:

The ability didn't grant you permission to pick spells from other classes spell list.

It's the same as with the Extra Spell feat.

Neither grant you the ability to pick spells outside from you class's spell list.

To sum it up: It never was intended to do that and the errata shows that.

[RandomPeasant]

To sum it up: It never was intended to do that and the errata shows that.

Perhaps the errata shows that it was never intended to do that, but the errata very much shows that the text as written does that, because if the text as written didn't do that you wouldn't need any errata. "Spell" means "spell", not "spell from your list", and the fact that the designers repeatedly errata'd things that said "spell" to say "spell from your list" instead is an argument for that, not against it.

[sreservoir]

Perhaps the errata shows that it was never intended to do that, but the errata very much shows that the text as written does that, because if the text as written didn't do that you wouldn't need any errata. "Spell" means "spell", not "spell from your list", and the fact that the designers repeatedly errata'd things that said "spell" to say "spell from your list" instead is an argument for that, not against it.

Note that the argument against Extra Spell isn't errata, it's FAQ. It's a pretty odd claim, though, considering what the feat says about wizards.

[Gruftzwerg]

Perhaps the errata shows that it was never intended to do that, but the errata very much shows that the text as written does that, because if the text as written didn't do that you wouldn't need any errata. "Spell" means "spell", not "spell from your list", and the fact that the designers repeatedly errata'd things that said "spell" to say "spell from your list" instead is an argument for that, not against it.
&

Note that the argument against Extra Spell isn't errata, it's FAQ. It's a pretty odd claim, though, considering what the feat says about wizards.

D&D 3.5 is permission based. You never got the permission to pick spells from other classes. The "general rules" for your class to pick up spells haven't been touched. As such, you are still limited to pick a spell from your class.

Regarding the errata:
Not every change in the errata is a bugfix. Some changes are just there to prevent misinterpretations, since people keep forgetting the general rules / the rule hierarchy. Same here, the errata didn't change anything mechanically. It sole helps those who struggle with the application of the Primary Source Rule.

[DigoDragon]

I mean, Master Specialist is already a very viable class: full casting with a very common prerequisite feat and possible early entry is never bad. You're looking at a perfectly fine toyota and complaining it's not a lamborghini. What would an useful class look like to you, if this one's 'all but useless'?

I'll agree here. I am currently playing a wizard who is four levels into Master Specialist. Finding scrolls and spell books with good spells I want to copy can be a crapshoot. Even though the extra spell is only from the wizard spell list, it's a free additional spell of my choice! :3

[Bullet06320]

its a good houserule to let your specialist pick a spell of his school from any source, as your not only a specialist in your chosen school, but your a master specialist, bonus points if your also a focused specialist. it just makes sense cuz your super focused on that school of spells

[RandomPeasant]

Note that the argument against Extra Spell isn't errata, it's FAQ. It's a pretty odd claim, though, considering what the feat says about wizards.

Ironically, that's a stronger case for the position that the ability doesn't let you do that. But it also doesn't apply to the Master Specialist ability, so you're left with a contradiction that is rathe hard to work out (and, no, "some errata is really not changing the rules" is not a solution to this problem -- changing the rules changes the rules, that's what the word "change" means).


D&D 3.5 is permission based. You never got the permission to pick spells from other classes.

This is just inventing a standard out of thin air. You never got any explicit permission to use the ability to pick fireball or cone of cold either, but you can still pick them because the ability lets you pick "a spell" and they are spells. Just as restoration or flame strike are spells, despite not appearing on the Sorcerer/Wizard list.


The "general rules" for your class to pick up spells haven't been touched. As such, you are still limited to pick a spell from your class.

How on earth do the general rules for your class learning spells apply to a spell you are learning from an ability you gained from a prestige class. Why does that make any sense at all.


its a good houserule to let your specialist pick a spell of his school from any source, as your not only a specialist in your chosen school, but your a master specialist, bonus points if your also a focused specialist. it just makes sense cuz your super focused on that school of spells

I mean, I get the logic, but to be honest a lot of the school definitions break down for non-Wizard spells, so picking them up doesn't necessarily make you feel like more a specialist in your particular school. divine power, for instance, is an Evocation, despite its closest analog on the Wizard list (the lackluster transformation) being a Transmutation.

[Darg]

I mean, I get the logic, but to be honest a lot of the school definitions break down for non-Wizard spells, so picking them up doesn't necessarily make you feel like more a specialist in your particular school. divine power, for instance, is an Evocation, despite its closest analog on the Wizard list (the lackluster transformation) being a Transmutation.

I dunno. It fits the theme of the school quite well when the source of the magic is considered:


Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end.

Transformation is doing what it says, transforming you. Divine Power on the other hand is tapping into "the divine power of your patron" to produce a desired end.

That said, I can't say that the flavor of the spell would work roleplay wise if you don't have a source of divine power to draw upon.

[Gruftzwerg]

This is just inventing a standard out of thin air. You never got any explicit permission to use the ability to pick fireball or cone of cold either, but you can still pick them because the ability lets you pick "a spell" and they are spells. Just as restoration or flame strike are spells, despite not appearing on the Sorcerer/Wizard list.


The general rules for learning and adding spells to your spellbook.

1)
A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list

2)
Adding Spells to a Wizard’s Spellbook
Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several
methods. If a wizard has chosen to specialize in a school of magic,
she can learn spells only from schools whose spells she can cast

A wizard can sole cast spells form the sorcerer/wizard list and only those can be added to the spellbook.
If you pretend that there are no general rules regarding the spell selection, why pick Extra Spell in the first place...




How on earth do the general rules for your class learning spells apply to a spell you are learning from an ability you gained from a prestige class. Why does that make any sense at all.

Because Extra Spell sole allows you to learn an additional spell. Not to learn one additional spell of any class.

You learn one additional spell at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast.
Anything else implies more then the rule text says.

"Learn one additional spell.." can coexist within the limitations of the general rule for learning spells without causing a dysfunction. And without dysfunction, no Specific Trumps General. The general rule is still intact.

You would need an explicit statement like "you can pick an additional spell from any class list" to create a disagreement with the general rules to change em. And that is not what the text of Extra Spell says.

[Anthrowhale]

I agree with Gruftzwerg here. As long as the rules can be interpreted as not creating an exception, that's the appropriated (conservative) default to work with.

[Darg]

The limit on wizards is what they can cast, not what they can learn or put into their spellbook. By RAW, they can technically put the off class list spell into their book, they just can't cast it though because they only cast spells from the wizard list.

[RandomPeasant]

Because Extra Spell sole allows you to learn an additional spell.

Cool. Is restoration a spell? Is it somehow not a spell if I am a Wizard rather than a Cleric? What if I am a Rogue? Is it a spell then? When, exactly, do spells start and stop being spells. Be specific.


Anything else implies more then the rule text says.

No, what implies more than what the rules text says is the assertion that there are spells you cannot learn when you are allowed to learn a spell. What implies more than the rules text says is the assertion that an ability from your class applies to feats or PrCs. There's nothing anywhere that suggests that there are "general rules for learning spells" or that they are embodied in the descriptions of specific classes. There are specific rules for learning spells. One of them is a Wizard scribing spells into their spellbook by leveling up. A Wizard taking Extra Spell is a different way of learning spells and does not inherent restriction from other ways of learning spells because why would it?


The general rule is still intact.

The general rule is a fabrication. The general rule has been invented exclusively to produce a dysfunction where there are somehow spells that do not count as "a spell".


You would need an explicit statement like "you can pick an additional spell from any class list" to create a disagreement with the general rules to change em. And that is not what the text of Extra Spell says.

Why? I could just as easily say that you would need an explicit statement like "you can pick an additional spell from your class list", which would make substantially more sense because it would not result in a situation where there were spells that were not considered to be spells.


I agree with Gruftzwerg here. As long as the rules can be interpreted as not creating an exception, that's the appropriated (conservative) default to work with.

The "exception" only exists because Gruftzwerg has asserted that the normal rules for your class learning spells are "general rules" and not simply the specific rules for your class's normal mechanism for learning spells. But there's no reason to believe that. They're the rules for a specific thing: learning spells by gaining class levels. The "general rule" for a Wizard learning spells, by this standard, is that it's free, since you don't spend scribing costs to learn spells from level-up. But that doesn't imply anything about learning spells from scrolls, and there's no reason to think that it would.


The limit on wizards is what they can cast, not what they can learn or put into their spellbook. By RAW, they can technically put the off class list spell into their book, they just can't cast it though because they only cast spells from the wizard list.

There's not, that I'm aware of, anything that makes a distinction between "spells in the Wizard's spellbook", "spells the Wizard can prepare", and "spells the Wizard can cast". "casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list" is descriptive, not proscriptive, otherwise you get problems with things that allow you to learn non-standard spells (which surely exist, even if you believe RAW Extra Spell is not one).

The really interesting question is what happens when a Wizard scribes haste from a scroll created by a Trapsmith into their spellbook. haste is absolutely on the Wizard spell list. But it's on that list at 3rd level, and it's on the scroll at 1st. What happens? Does the spell change level from the scroll to the book? Does the process fail? Can the Wizard now cast haste as a 1st level spell?

[Gruftzwerg]

Cool. Is restoration a spell? Is it somehow not a spell if I am a Wizard rather than a Cleric? What if I am a Rogue? Is it a spell then? When, exactly, do spells start and stop being spells. Be specific.
We aren't arguing if it is a spell or not. It's rather if it is a spell from your class list:
"A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list"

Because you can sole add spells that you can cast and that are not higher than the highest level you have access to:
"Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods. If a wizard has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, she can learn spells only from schools whose spells she can cast"

"Can you cast Restoration as a default wizard?"
No, it's not on your Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. Thus, you can't learn it either. Extra Spell doesn't make any changes regarding that.


No, what implies more than what the rules text says is the assertion that there are spells you cannot learn when you are allowed to learn a spell. What implies more than the rules text says is the assertion that an ability from your class applies to feats or PrCs. There's nothing anywhere that suggests that there are "general rules for learning spells" or that they are embodied in the descriptions of specific classes. There are specific rules for learning spells. One of them is a Wizard scribing spells into their spellbook by leveling up. A Wizard taking Extra Spell is a different way of learning spells and does not inherent restriction from other ways of learning spells because why would it?

The general rule is a fabrication. The general rule has been invented exclusively to produce a dysfunction where there are somehow spells that do not count as "a spell".
If you don't get what and why something is a general rule and which one isn't, I assume that you either aren't aware of the Primary Source Rule, or have difficulty to apply it correct (no offense here. just pointing out which rules you are missing here).

The Primary Source Rule is the most important rule, because it is a tool to see which rule may trump another rule and which one doesn't. Sadly it was printed later into the ERRATA because WotC did forget to include it into the core books while being totally dependent on it when writing/reading the rules.

A) It creates a hierarchy first with "book supremacy"

The PHB is for topics "how to play the game" (base rules);
The MM is for monsters and Special Abilities..
The DMG for magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on..

B) Then we have Primary Sources for "topics".
Since "topic" is undefined in 3.5 you may not narrow down what a "topic" is or can be.
Thus everything that is somehow "more specific" than a more "general topic" becomes a new (sub-)topic.
While it sole allows to compare 2 rules at a time, you can compare multiple rules by effectively building a chain of hierarchy to compare em. To give a simple example here:
1. we have "Attack" rules
2. we differentiate between standard (action) attack and Full Attack
3. do you use a single 1h weapon, a 2h weapon or maybe TWF?
4. you use Power Attack
5. You use Shock Trooper
Every step is creating a more specific situation and thus may trump the more general rules above it. But sole for those things it explicitly makes a call out. You may not read either of these rules in a vacuum. You have to look up its place in the hierarchy and see where it may trump the general rules (explicit statement) and where not (no explicit statement).

If we apply this to our situation now:
1. We have the wizard class
2. wizard's ability to cast spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard
3. wizard's ability to learn/add spells that he can cast.
You have to show how a wizard can cast Restoration to be able to learning the spell. Because that is part of the requirements to be able to learn a spell.






Why? I could just as easily say that you would need an explicit statement like "you can pick an additional spell from your class list", which would make substantially more sense because it would not result in a situation where there were spells that were not considered to be spells.
Because of the rule hierarchy. The wizard class and the rules for adding spells into his/her spellbook have already made statements what you can learn/add. A "more specific" rule doesn't need to repeat "more general" rules. Think about the previous example. Does Power Attack explain all the more general rules to you (like, 1h/2h/TWF; Standard Attack or Full Attack; iterative attacks from high BAB;...)? No, because it doesn't need to thx due to the rule hierarchy. Since Power Attack is more specific than all the other mentioned rules it makes the changes as mentioned in its rule text.

Back to adding wizard spells:
1. wizards can cast spells form the sorcerer/wizard spell list
2. wizards can add a spell that of max their highest lvl that they can cast.
Nowhere does the rules for adding spells make any changes to what a wizard can "cast". Extra Spell did never provide you with the permission to make any changes for that. That's what I meant with you may not read the sentence in a vacuum. You have to see it in context of its place in the hierarchy or rules.



The "exception" only exists because Gruftzwerg has asserted that the normal rules for your class learning spells are "general rules" and not simply the specific rules for your class's normal mechanism for learning spells. But there's no reason to believe that. They're the rules for a specific thing: learning spells by gaining class levels. The "general rule" for a Wizard learning spells, by this standard, is that it's free, since you don't spend scribing costs to learn spells from level-up. But that doesn't imply anything about learning spells from scrolls, and there's no reason to think that it would.

If something is more general or more specific ain't fix things. It always depends what you are comparing to each other.
Let me explain it with the Power Attack example:
"Attack Rules > Standard/Full Attack > 1h/2h/TWF > Power Attack > Shock Trooper"
As said the Primary Source Rule (PSR) can sole compare 2 rules at each step. To the left side you have more general rules, and to the right it becomes more specific. While Power Attack is more specific than the general Attack rules, it is at the same time more general compared to the Shock Trooper rules. As said, it depends always on which 2 rules you are comparing at any given moment.

For our situation with the wizard, the ability to "add spells" is more specific than the "Spells:" ability itself. Because it relies on the information what you can "cast" and that is handled in the general "Spells:" ability.





There's not, that I'm aware of, anything that makes a distinction between "spells in the Wizard's spellbook", "spells the Wizard can prepare", and "spells the Wizard can cast". "casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list" is descriptive, not proscriptive, otherwise you get problems with things that allow you to learn non-standard spells (which surely exist, even if you believe RAW Extra Spell is not one).
Let us look how such examples do look like:
1) Wyrm Wizard

... select one spell from any class's spell list (including divine spells), of a level equal to or lower than the highest-level arcane spell you can prepare and cast.
Here the ability creates a conflict with the general rules for adding spells as a wizard. Since it is a more specific topic (a wizard with the 2nd lvl wyrm wizard ability "Spell Research") it has the permission to trump the general rules presented before.

2) Recaster

choose a spell up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast from any class's spell list. You can add this spell to the spell list of the same arcane spellcasting class to which you added your increased spellcasting ability at that level.
Again, we have an explicit statement that ain't in harmony with the general rules. Since it is again a more specific situation, it may trump the general rules for wizard learning/adding spells.

And now we look at Extra Spell:

You learn one additional spell at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast.
Extra Spell lacks the permission to give access to other spell lists. It can function under the general rules without causing a dysfunction. And without dysfunction, no Specific Trump General. You would need to "imply words" into the rules text to create that dysfunction you want/need. But that is not the case here.




The really interesting question is what happens when a Wizard scribes haste from a scroll created by a Trapsmith into their spellbook. haste is absolutely on the Wizard spell list. But it's on that list at 3rd level, and it's on the scroll at 1st. What happens? Does the spell change level from the scroll to the book? Does the process fail? Can the Wizard now cast haste as a 1st level spell?
The wizard can learn spells from other sources that his class is capable of casting. But when he learns em, he still learns the wizard version. The rules for alternate sources never did give you the permission to learn spells like another class. Thus haste still has the same lvl as for all wizards.
If you want to have haste as 1st lvl spell as a wizard, you need to add it as spell from another class with things like Wyrm Wizard or Recaster. Or if your DM is very gorgeous, you could try to "research" it (but I highly doubt that many DMs will allow this due to balance reasons. The trapsmith gets it as 1st lvl spell since it is a PRC that comes online much later than a base class like wizard).


____________________

For reference the PSR:


Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

[lylsyly]

I've been reading this thread with interest of people's opinions but now that this primary source rule as come up again I am gone.

[Jay R]

There's no point arguing over whether or not the ability allows you to choose a spell that's not from your class spell list. That's a DM judgment call, and we all have different DMs.

In any game I run, it would not be allowed. I do not see any indication that the Expanded Spellbook is intended to allow spells from other class lists. By contrast, the Expanded Knowledge ability of a Recaster specifically allows it:

Expanded Knowledge: At 2nd level, and again at 4th level, choose a spell up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast from any class's spell list. You can add this spell to the spell list of the same arcane spellcasting class to which you added your increased spellcasting ability at that level.

I conclude that if the designers intended to allow choosing from any class list, they would explicitly allow it.

So if it came up in my game, that's how I would rule. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Another DM might consider it a valid expansion, and allow it. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

I won't change your mind; you won't change my mind; and there's no universal answer for all games at all tables.

[Gruftzwerg]

I've been reading this thread with interest of people's opinions but now that this primary source rule as come up again I am gone.
Well, imho the OP didn't ask for opinions for preferred houserules. He simply made a rule question. (and since he has 10 years of forum XP, I assume he knows how the forum works and which responses he will get if he asks a rule question without asking for personal preferences).

Combine this with the fact that the Primary Source Rule is the tool to solve any rule conflicts. Add the fact that the PSR ain't printed in any of the Core books but in the ERRATA and you should get why it comes up so often in rule discussions.

It always surprises me when people "like" rule discussions until the "PSR" comes up.
Ain't that a rule for you?
If you ignore it, you just play homebrew and don't care for the actual rules. And if you shouldn't actually care for the rules, this would imply that you just like to share opinions about houserules. It's your choice which one you prefer. But if you really like rule discussions, you should try to get along with the PSR (no offense here. I'm just trying to apply a harmless Suggestion spell on you ^^).

Sure, there are situations where the DM may still want to rule against RAW (rules as written) and decide otherwise. But that doesn't change what the rules actually say.




There's no point arguing over whether or not the ability allows you to choose a spell that's not from your class spell list. That's a DM judgment call, and we all have different DMs.

In any game I run, it would not be allowed. I do not see any indication that the Expanded Spellbook is intended to allow spells from other class lists. By contrast, the Expanded Knowledge ability of a Recaster specifically allows it:

Expanded Knowledge: At 2nd level, and again at 4th level, choose a spell up to one level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast from any class's spell list. You can add this spell to the spell list of the same arcane spellcasting class to which you added your increased spellcasting ability at that level.

I conclude that if the designers intended to allow choosing from any class list, they would explicitly allow it.

So if it came up in my game, that's how I would rule. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Another DM might consider it a valid expansion, and allow it. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

I won't change your mind; you won't change my mind; and there's no universal answer for all games at all tables.

While I agree that the DM has the last word on this, it doesn't help to default to it to early as an answer/response in the forum. That should be the last option. Especially if we don't know if he asks as player or as DM maybe.
OP has asked a rule question, not how we would personally rule it at our table.

If the OP wants a RAW answer, it boils down to a simple "no" since Extra Spell doesn't provide an explicit statement to trump the general rules presented for casting & adding spells.

A DM might houserule otherwise, but that should be done with care. Because that would be giving casters more power than intended and further widen the gap between mundanes and casters here (and that I something I personally would dislike at most tables).

[RandomPeasant]

We aren't arguing if it is a spell or not.

Great, then we're done here and you can get restoration from Extra Spell as a Wizard (provided you can cast 5th level spells), because what the ability says, as printed in Complete Arcane, is that you get "one additional spell at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast".


No, it's not on your Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. Thus, you can't learn it either. Extra Spell doesn't make any changes regarding that.

I mean, it doesn't need to. The thing that stops a Wizard from getting restoration normally is that there are restrictions on the "learn the spell" step, not the "cast the spell" step. Wizards can prepare spells that are in their spellbooks, and cast spells they've prepared. So if restoration gets in your spellbook, you can jolly well cast it whether you have gained it by Extra Spell or some other mechanism (indeed, it used to be that "copy from a scroll" was a valid mechanism to do that, until the Rules Compendium changed it).


Thus everything that is somehow "more specific" than a more "general topic" becomes a new (sub-)topic.

And this is where your argument falls apart. Extra Spell is not a "more specific" part of the Wizard class, it is a separate thing. There might be, I suppose, some argument for your position if we were talking about an "Expanded Knowledge" ACF for Wizards. But we aren't. We're talking about a feat, which is not specific to any class and indeed does not make any kind of general reference to "your class". So why should we expect it to draw anything from the rules associated with your class?


where it may trump the general rules (explicit statement) and where not (no explicit statement).

To be honest with you, I also don't see how your conclusion follows from this. It seems to me that "one additional spell", without qualification, is an explicit allowance to learn whatever spell you want. When the Beguiler's Advanced Learning allows them to learn a new spell, it says "a sorcerer/wizard spell", not "a sorcerer/wizard spell that is not on the beguiler spell list normally".


You have to show how a wizard can cast Restoration to be able to learning the spell. Because that is part of the requirements to be able to learn a spell.

Think about what you're saying for a second there. Casting can't be a requirement to learn a spell, because you can't cast spells you don't know, so this standard creates a circular dependency loop that makes it impossible for Wizards to learn any spells ever. What "can learn spells only from schools whose spells she can cast" means, to my reading, is that you can learn spells if they are from schools you can cast spells from in general. It's a part of how prohibiting schools works (and, no, Extra Spell doesn't let you do an end-run around it, because prohibiting also stops you from casting the spells even if you do learn them), so there's no circular dependency you need to resolve.


Let us look how such examples do look like:

Actually let's not, because D&D is not written with sufficient precision to allow this sort of reasoning from examples to work. Lest it seem like I am simply deflecting, let me present my proof:


A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.

A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.

There you have it: explicit examples explicitly stating A and not-A. There is no way to derive from these examples what the correct general rule is. And this is of some importance, as the Rogue's bonus feats don't state either way, and one answer is rather more powerful than the other. We understand the rules by understanding the rules, not by inferring what other rules imply about them. So, again, I ask you: where is the rule that says restoration is not a spell?


If you want to have haste as 1st lvl spell as a wizard, you need to add it as spell from another class with things like Wyrm Wizard or Recaster.

Wait, what? I don't understand how you're threading that needle. If the spell is the same level for all Wizards, it's the same level whether they're learning it from a Wizard scroll or a Trapsmith scroll or level-up or Recaster or anything else. Otherwise you're asserting that the spell is a different spell, which is obviously not the case because effects like spell immunity don't differentiate between "Bard suggestion" and "Wizard suggestion".


There's no point arguing over whether or not the ability allows you to choose a spell that's not from your class spell list. That's a DM judgment call, and we all have different DMs.

You could say this about any argument on any topic. It is entirely impossible to write rules that bind a table that does not wish to be bound by them. It is nevertheless generally agreed that understanding what the rules themselves -- rather than modifications made on an ad hoc basis -- say has value.


I do not see any indication that the Expanded Spellbook is intended to allow spells from other class lists.

I'll be honest, I never really understood the obsession with "intent" in understanding the rules. Why should I be persuaded by the intent of someone who is manifestly not competent to express that intent? I'll grant you that RAW is not always the best way to run a game, but the place to go from there is "what should the rules be" not "what do I imagine the guy writing these rules thought he was saying". In this case, I don't think you can really make a case that allowing the Wizard to pull in spells off their list with Extra Spell is an issue when there are Archivists and Artificers and StP Erudites running around. Either you do a systematic overhaul of what spells people can pilfer from other people's lists (which is my preferred solution, but involves changing the rules in ways that cannot simply be handwaved as "RAI"), or you allow everyone to get in on the pilfering because at least that way there's a justification to playing an arcane prepared book caster instead of the divine prepared book caster who can wear armor.

[Darg]

I'll be honest, I never really understood the obsession with "intent" in understanding the rules. Why should I be persuaded by the intent of someone who is manifestly not competent to express that intent? I'll grant you that RAW is not always the best way to run a game, but the place to go from there is "what should the rules be" not "what do I imagine the guy writing these rules thought he was saying". In this case, I don't think you can really make a case that allowing the Wizard to pull in spells off their list with Extra Spell is an issue when there are Archivists and Artificers and StP Erudites running around. Either you do a systematic overhaul of what spells people can pilfer from other people's lists (which is my preferred solution, but involves changing the rules in ways that cannot simply be handwaved as "RAI"), or you allow everyone to get in on the pilfering because at least that way there's a justification to playing an arcane prepared book caster instead of the divine prepared book caster who can wear armor.

Every class has a mechanism for learning spells off list, with sorcerer having it baked right into the class feature. That said, they require permission/provision from the DM. I don't see any reason Extra Spell couldn't work the same way.

[Gruftzwerg]

Great, then we're done here and you can get restoration from Extra Spell as a Wizard (provided you can cast 5th level spells), because what the ability says, as printed in Complete Arcane, is that you get "one additional spell at any level up to one lower than the highest level of spell you can currently cast".

Again your argument is to view the feat in a vacuum and to ignore all other rules.. Sorry but the rules don't work that way.



I mean, it doesn't need to. The thing that stops a Wizard from getting restoration normally is that there are restrictions on the "learn the spell" step, not the "cast the spell" step. Wizards can prepare spells that are in their spellbooks, and cast spells they've prepared. So if restoration gets in your spellbook, you can jolly well cast it whether you have gained it by Extra Spell or some other mechanism (indeed, it used to be that "copy from a scroll" was a valid mechanism to do that, until the Rules Compendium changed it).
And those restrictions are still intact. The "Benefit:" of Extra Spell reads "one additional spell" and not "one additional spell from any list". There is no reason to assume that it does more than what stands there.



And this is where your argument falls apart. Extra Spell is not a "more specific" part of the Wizard class, it is a separate thing. There might be, I suppose, some argument for your position if we were talking about an "Expanded Knowledge" ACF for Wizards. But we aren't. We're talking about a feat, which is not specific to any class and indeed does not make any kind of general reference to "your class". So why should we expect it to draw anything from the rules associated with your class?
If Extra Spell wouldn't be more specific, it couldn't make any changes to your character. It's Specific Trumps General (which thrives from the Primary Source Rule. It's due to the rule hierarchy the PSR sets).




To be honest with you, I also don't see how your conclusion follows from this. It seems to me that "one additional spell", without qualification, is an explicit allowance to learn whatever spell you want. When the Beguiler's Advanced Learning allows them to learn a new spell, it says "a sorcerer/wizard spell", not "a sorcerer/wizard spell that is not on the beguiler spell list normally".

You are comparing apple with oranges here.

Beguiler's knows all his spells from the his regular list and has the "special ability" to learn spells explicitly form the "sorcerer/wizard" list. That special ability trumps the "regular beguiler spells known" (Specific Trumps General).

But that is not how Extra Spell works. As I said before, Extra Spell sole allows you "to learn an additional spell" as it's effect. That is where it differs from your regular abilities you have from class. "spells from any class list" is not part of the feat. Nothing implies that.

It's like saying just because the next traffic sign doesn't have a speed-limit that you may now drive as fast as you want and ignore previous speed limits. Sorry, rules don't work that way. The rules don't need to repeat things that are still in effect. It's your duty to keep track of such rules.




Think about what you're saying for a second there. Casting can't be a requirement to learn a spell, because you can't cast spells you don't know, so this standard creates a circular dependency loop that makes it impossible for Wizards to learn any spells ever. What "can learn spells only from schools whose spells she can cast" means, to my reading, is that you can learn spells if they are from schools you can cast spells from in general. It's a part of how prohibiting schools works (and, no, Extra Spell doesn't let you do an end-run around it, because prohibiting also stops you from casting the spells even if you do learn them), so there's no circular dependency you need to resolve.
You can cast your class' spells you don't know via scrolls. And if your clvl is enough to cast the spell normally, you automatically can cast it without casterlevel check.






Actually let's not, because D&D is not written with sufficient precision to allow this sort of reasoning from examples to work. Lest it seem like I am simply deflecting, let me present my proof:

So you deny my example that effectively presents "two non-identical similar statements with different outcomes", but argue that your example of "two non-identical similar statements with different outcomes" allows you to what?

This would prove further my point: different rule mechanics and thus different outcomes.
I don't see how this is helping to prove your point.

But I guess the next section will show where you misinterpretation thrives from (imho).


There you have it: explicit examples explicitly stating A and not-A. There is no way to derive from these examples what the correct general rule is. And this is of some importance, as the Rogue's bonus feats don't state either way, and one answer is rather more powerful than the other. We understand the rules by understanding the rules, not by inferring what other rules imply about them. So, again, I ask you: where is the rule that says restoration is not a spell?
Let's start with the Bonus Feats example of fighters and monks:
1) Where do you find the general feat rules?
In the feats section of the PHB.
The PHB is the primary source for the rules to play the game (book supremacy) and the feats section is the primary source for its topic (topic supremacy).
Here you will find the general rules how you can select feats.


2) monk bonus feats
The monk's ability to gain bonus feats specifically calls out that your don't need to meet the prerequisites.
This is in conflict with the general rules. Since getting feats via monk lvls is more specific then how you normally get feats, it may trump the general rules. It has creates its own subtopic where it has supremacy over.

3) fighter bonus feat
The fighters ability to gain bonus feats doesn't call out that you may ignore the prerequisites. It friendly reminds you of the general rules.
"Friendly reminders" are a common thing. Think again of traffic sings. Some times a speed limit sign is repeated after a while to "friendly remind" the driver of the speed limit. But the traffic rules don't demand these friendly reminders. Same in 3.5. Some times the rules remind you of the general rules, some times not. The best example of this are effects that increase the size. We lack the permission in the general stacking rules to stack em. Some abilities remind you of that, some don't.

>>>> Back to Extra Spell:
Extra Spell neither makes the explicit call out that you may pick from other lists than your own class, nor does it remind you of the general rules for your class to pick up new spells.






Wait, what? I don't understand how you're threading that needle. If the spell is the same level for all Wizards, it's the same level whether they're learning it from a Wizard scroll or a Trapsmith scroll or level-up or Recaster or anything else. Otherwise you're asserting that the spell is a different spell, which is obviously not the case because effects like spell immunity don't differentiate between "Bard suggestion" and "Wizard suggestion".

Specific Trumps General != Specific Becomes General

"spell is the same level for all Wizards" is your polarized statement, not mine.

I see general rules for generic wizards, and special rules for specific wizards with recaster/wyrm-wizard abilities.
Thus there is no correct spell lvl for all wizards. Just for the "general case".

Clerics have this feature by default, since some domain spells are granted on an earlier lvl than normal.

Thus a Wyrm Wizard could have Haste as 1st lvl and 3rd lvl spell theoretically.

Sorry for the lengthy post and I hope that it doesn't leave an offensive impression. No ill intentions here. Every table needs to decide these kind of things for themselves. But imho RAW has a clear answer to this. The 3.5 F.A.Q. comes to the same conclusion. It just doesn't explain the reasons in detail because the authors don't do that in the FAQ for simplicities reasons.
[/QUOTE]

[RandomPeasant]

Every class has a mechanism for learning spells off list, with sorcerer having it baked right into the class feature. That said, they require permission/provision from the DM. I don't see any reason Extra Spell couldn't work the same way.

Things could work in any number of ways. I am rather more interested in how they do work, and the absence of any provision in Extra Spell suggesting it depends on DM permission implies that it does not require it.


There is no reason to assume that it does more than what stands there.

You are creating a distinction without a difference. restoration is a spell. An effect that allows you to learn an additional spell allows you to learn it on that basis. There's no "more than what stands there" unless we cave to your demand to start reading class rules into feats.


Beguiler's knows all his spells from the his regular list and has the "special ability" to learn spells explicitly form the "sorcerer/wizard" list. That special ability trumps the "regular beguiler spells known" (Specific Trumps General).

That's simply not consistent with your position. Saying "a sorcerer/wizard spell" is more specific than saying "a spell". It necessarily inherits any restrictions that "a spell" has, because adding new restrictions doesn't lift old ones. So if "a spell" means "a spell from your list", then "a sorcerer/wizard spell" means "a sorcerer/wizard spell that is also on your list", and Advanced Learning is dysfunctional. Or maybe you do believe that adding restrictions lifts old ones. I find that pretty obviously dysfunctional, but in any case that position means Extra Spell can get restoration too, because not being able to learn a spell of the highest level you can cast is a restriction too.


You can cast your class' spells you don't know via scrolls.

No you can't. The rules are quite explicit that activating a scroll is "basically like casting a spell", not that activating a scroll is casting a spell. That distinction may be subtle enough to be of no practical importance, but it is quite sufficient to leave your position untenable.


This would prove further my point: different rule mechanics and thus different outcomes.

On its own, perhaps. But let me quote that bit of Rogue rules text I just alluded to initially:


A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability.

So how does this work? Well, I don't want to start that additional debate, but it must either be that the Rogue has to meet the prerequisites or the Rogue doesn't. If the Rogue does, the Fighter's ability and the Rogue's work in the same way despite having different text. If the Rogue doesn't, the Monk's ability and the Rogue's work in the same way despite having different text. No matter what the concrete rules are, we have different text that produces the same outcome, and your proposed approach does not work and what the Recaster says does not matter.

We interpret rules by interpreting those rules, and more general ones that may be applicable, not by finding parallel examples and attempting to compare the phrasing. Such an approach does not and cannot work. We could imagine contexts in which it does work, but 3.5 simply is not written in a way to support it.


"Friendly reminders" are a common thing.

This doesn't prove what you think it does. How do we know it's not the Recaster with the "friendly reminder"? Perhaps it is the general rule that "a spell" is "a spell" whether it is on your list or not. Certainly such a framework is a lot more intuitively understandable than "actually sometimes there are spells that don't count as spells unless there's a new restriction unless that restriction isn't made with reference to a spell list unless there's a friendly reminder that there is a restriction unless there's a friendly reminder that there isn't a restriction". Spells are spells. Extra Spell gives you a spell, so it can give you restoration whether it's on your class list or not.

[Gruftzwerg]

You are creating a distinction without a difference. restoration is a spell. An effect that allows you to learn an additional spell allows you to learn it on that basis. There's no "more than what stands there" unless we cave to your demand to start reading class rules into feats.
Extra Spell doesn't give you the ability to "learn a spell and to cast it". It gives you the ability to "learn an additional spell". It expands your ability to learn spells and builds upon it. And it sole makes the changes that are explicitly mentioned. If it sole says "one additional spell", it still relies on your general ability to learn spells. And that ability normally limits you to the highest lvl that you can currently cast and by the sorcerer/wizard list. The sole exception that Extra Spell adds is a more strict limitation to the lvl of the spell you can learn (1 level lower that you can cast). The list you may pick the spell from wasn't touched by Extra Spell.




That's simply not consistent with your position. Saying "a sorcerer/wizard spell" is more specific than saying "a spell". It necessarily inherits any restrictions that "a spell" has, because adding new restrictions doesn't lift old ones. So if "a spell" means "a spell from your list", then "a sorcerer/wizard spell" means "a sorcerer/wizard spell that is also on your list", and Advanced Learning is dysfunctional. Or maybe you do believe that adding restrictions lifts old ones. I find that pretty obviously dysfunctional, but in any case that position means Extra Spell can get restoration too, because not being able to learn a spell of the highest level you can cast is a restriction too.
That is what I tried to explain in my previous post by saying that general and specific aren't fix tags. We have the burden to logically determinate which one is more specific then the other for each separate/different situation.

Try to follow my approach:
1. What ability allows the beguiler the "general" access cast spells at all?
The "Spells:" ability. And that gives him access to know all spells from the beguiler's spell list. This is the most generic way for him to access and cast spells.

2. Does anything try to alter this by being more "specific"?
The Advanced Learning ability tries to alter his normal way to know spells by altering the general ability.

Thus Advanced Learning is more specific than the general Spells ability.

If we now look at Extra Spell again, it is more specific then the general spell ability. But the sole point where it differs is the "one additional spell" and the "one level lower than your highest lvl" part. It didn't say anything about access to other spell lists like "Advance Learning" does.



No you can't. The rules are quite explicit that activating a scroll is "basically like casting a spell", not that activating a scroll is casting a spell. That distinction may be subtle enough to be of no practical importance, but it is quite sufficient to leave your position untenable.
The things/rules where it differs from a "regular cast" (general) are mentioned in the rules for using a scroll. In all other aspects it is still "basically like casting a spell".

Finally we have this

A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard's spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard's Intelligence modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score.

Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells. She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night's sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare.
What a wizard can "cast" stands there. It refers to the the sorcerer/wizard spell list and the table (which limits your available spell lvls).







On its own, perhaps. But let me quote that bit of Rogue rules text I just alluded to initially:



So how does this work? Well, I don't want to start that additional debate, but it must either be that the Rogue has to meet the prerequisites or the Rogue doesn't. If the Rogue does, the Fighter's ability and the Rogue's work in the same way despite having different text. If the Rogue doesn't, the Monk's ability and the Rogue's work in the same way despite having different text. No matter what the concrete rules are, we have different text that produces the same outcome, and your proposed approach does not work and what the Recaster says does not matter.
Same as always. By applying the Primary Source Rule correct:

We first ask: "What are the general rules here and what tries to create an exception to alter em?"

The general rules for feats can be found in the "Feats" section of the PHB. There the rules explain how they normally work.

The rogues tries to be more specific by allowing you to: "..gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability.
You get one more feat to pick. The rule for meeting requirements hasn't been touched and thus is in full effect. Just because it lacks a friendly reminder of the general rules doesn't mean you may ignore em. You may sole ignore things if the rules explicitly tell you to do so.

When a specific thing alters something it sole makes the changes that are mentioned by text and not what it otherwise possibly might do if you read more into it than the text explicitly says.






We interpret rules by interpreting those rules, and more general ones that may be applicable, not by finding parallel examples and attempting to compare the phrasing. Such an approach does not and cannot work. We could imagine contexts in which it does work, but 3.5 simply is not written in a way to support it.
While the Primary Source Rule is sadly not included in the core books, it made its way into the ERRATA very quick because of its importance. It's the rule that sits over all other rules and provides a hierarchy to solve any rule conflicts. Most people have a hard time to realize its importance and that any rule interaction relies upon it.

Wanna use Power Attack (specific) instead of a regular attack (general)? You are making indirectly use of the PSR. Otherwise Power Attack couldn't be more specific > create a niche for its own more specific topic > trump any general rules.
If you ever used "Specific Trumps General" as rule argument, you should know that it thrives from the Primary Source Rule. It's just that the way the PSR is written is very minimalistic and thus cryptic to read...




This doesn't prove what you think it does. How do we know it's not the Recaster with the "friendly reminder"? Perhaps it is the general rule that "a spell" is "a spell" whether it is on your list or not. Certainly such a framework is a lot more intuitively understandable than "actually sometimes there are spells that don't count as spells unless there's a new restriction unless that restriction isn't made with reference to a spell list unless there's a friendly reminder that there is a restriction unless there's a friendly reminder that there isn't a restriction". Spells are spells. Extra Spell gives you a spell, so it can give you restoration whether it's on your class list or not.

You check if something is a "friendly reminder" by comparing it to the more "general rules". If it sole repeats the general rules it is a friendly reminder. If it tries to alter the general rules, it creates a "specific exception". These two exclude each other by simple logic.
Think about traffic rules again. Here where I live we have a general maximum speed limit of 50km/h for traffic within cities. For people from other countries it is mention sole once when you pass the border. After that you will barely find a friendly reminder speed limit sign when you pass the sign for entering a city. The general rules are always in effect unless you have an explicit exception by specific speed limit signs.

It always boils down to relying on the hierarchy set by the PSR. (which is btw the same hierarchy that is used by all rule and law systems. The mechanics presented in the PSR is nothing that d&d invented. It's the nature of rules overall. Even the code your computer is running on relies on the same logical hierarchy)

[RandomPeasant]

It expands your ability to learn spells and builds upon it.

Except that it absolutely doesn't do that, because it makes no reference whatsoever to "your ability to learn spells". It just gives you a spell. Seriously, where are the words in Extra Spell -- not in the tower of implications you have constructed around the "Primary Source Rule", in the specific ability we are specifically discussing and its specific rules -- that make any reference to how you normally learn spells. Show me those words. Then we can talk about how it needs to interact with your class to do what it does. Until then the Primary Source Rule is a distraction, because there is no external reference to have primacy over what the feat does.


It didn't say anything about access to other spell lists like "Advance Learning" does.

Advanced Learning also doesn't say that. It does not say "you can learn a sorcerer/wizard spell". It says that the spell "must be a sorcerer/wizard spell". That is an additional restriction, not an allowance.


The things/rules where it differs from a "regular cast" (general) are mentioned in the rules for using a scroll. In all other aspects it is still "basically like casting a spell".

So the thesis is that you have to be able to cast spells to learn them, and you can do that because you can cast spells from scrolls, and while using a scroll is explicitly not casting a spell it is still "like" casting a spell for the purposes of learning spells because scrolls don't explicitly mention they don't work for the "must be able to cast to learn" requirement.

How on earth is that a more reasonable interpretation of the rules than understanding a phrase from a sentence about specialist Wizards as being about specialization? The rules are really quite simple. Spells are spells. Casting a spell happens after you already know it. If you find yourself going "well, actually" to things like that, you've lost the plot.


What a wizard can "cast" stands there. It refers to the the sorcerer/wizard spell list and the table (which limits your available spell lvls).

That text is very obviously descriptive, not proscriptive. Otherwise you break a whole bunch of stuff. For instance: mnemonic enhancer isn't a sorcerer/wizard spell, it's just a wizard spell. so by a prescriptivist reading of that line, no one can cast it absent some special way of adding it to their list.


Same as always. By applying the Primary Source Rule correct:

The Primary Source Rule isn't the issue as regards the Fighter/Monk/Rogue thing. The point of that example is to demonstrate that your appeal to "the Recaster has this text and Extra Spell doesn't so Extra Spell can't work the way Recaster does" cannot be correct.


You check if something is a "friendly reminder" by comparing it to the more "general rules".

Oh, cool, so what's the general rule on if restoration is a spell? It's that it is, right? So when I learn an "additional spell", that spell can be restoration.

[Gruftzwerg]

Except that it absolutely doesn't do that, because it makes no reference whatsoever to "your ability to learn spells". It just gives you a spell. Seriously, where are the words in Extra Spell -- not in the tower of implications you have constructed around the "Primary Source Rule", in the specific ability we are specifically discussing and its specific rules -- that make any reference to how you normally learn spells. Show me those words. Then we can talk about how it needs to interact with your class to do what it does. Until then the Primary Source Rule is a distraction, because there is no external reference to have primacy over what the feat does.
Advanced Learning is not standalone ability. It sole works if you already have the ability to cast spells.
- It doesn't provide you with the general ability to cast spells.
- Neither does is give you a 2nd spell list.
It build upon and expands the normal "Spells:" ability the class has.


Advanced Learning also doesn't say that. It does not say "you can learn a sorcerer/wizard spell". It says that the spell "must be a sorcerer/wizard spell". That is an additional restriction, not an allowance.

It's still a specific exception to the general ability to learn and know spells. And that is what counts here. It's targeting and altering your general "Spells:" ability.
Now show me where Extra Spell's rule text makes any changes to the spells you may chose from. If you can't show me an explicit statement to allow that, the general rules for your class are still full in effect.
Which would mean that a beguiler can't profit from Extra Spell at all. Because his general spell ability already gives him access to all spells of his class. Extra Spell can't target the specific Advance Learning ability.




So the thesis is that you have to be able to cast spells to learn them, and you can do that because you can cast spells from scrolls, and while using a scroll is explicitly not casting a spell it is still "like" casting a spell for the purposes of learning spells because scrolls don't explicitly mention they don't work for the "must be able to cast to learn" requirement.

Scorlls are just an example that you can do that. The evidence is still in your "Spells" ability that you can cast spells from a specific list and of a appropriate level according to your caster level. This is further limited by tables that reflect your daily spells. Finally casters have different methods to know spells (spells known list or spell book).




How on earth is that a more reasonable interpretation of the rules than understanding a phrase from a sentence about specialist Wizards as being about specialization? The rules are really quite simple. Spells are spells. Casting a spell happens after you already know it. If you find yourself going "well, actually" to things like that, you've lost the plot.
By following the rule hierarchy set by the Primary Source Rule.
If you would stop ignoring it, we could maybe make some progress in our discussion.



That text is very obviously descriptive, not proscriptive. Otherwise you break a whole bunch of stuff. For instance: mnemonic enhancer isn't a sorcerer/wizard spell, it's just a wizard spell. so by a prescriptivist reading of that line, no one can cast it absent some special way of adding it to their list.
Follow the Primary Source Rule and see that there is no issue here.
1. That Sorcerer and Wizards share the same Sorcerer/Wizards list is the general rule.
2. There are specific exceptions that trump this general rule. There are a few specific spells that are sole either for Sorcerer or for Wizards.
Since these spells create a more specific situation, it becomes a subtopic of its own and thus has supremacy for it's niche topic. This is where the "Specific Trumps General" analogy thrives from: The "book and topic supremacy" found in the PSR.



The Primary Source Rule isn't the issue as regards the Fighter/Monk/Rogue thing. The point of that example is to demonstrate that your appeal to "the Recaster has this text and Extra Spell doesn't so Extra Spell can't work the way Recaster does" cannot be correct.
I mentions Recaster and Wyrm Wizards as legal examples to access other spell lists and tried to use those examples to showcase what Extra Spell is lacking in comprehension.
You are reading more into the text of Extra Spell as stands there. And depending on your class the feat may have slightly different effects (or no effect at all if your class already knows all spells for your class by default).




Oh, cool, so what's the general rule on if restoration is a spell? It's that it is, right? So when I learn an "additional spell", that spell can be restoration.
Nice that we confirmed that it is a spell. Now show me how you can confirm if it is on the "Sorcerer/Wizard" spell list. Because you have to confirm all general rules and may not nitpick here.

Imagine you wanna make an attack. Suddenly multiple general rules are in effect checking if you may do what you intend to do.

- do you have the actions to attack
- do you have attacks left
- are you TWF
- do you use a 2h weapon for STR bonus multiplier
- do you have enough hands free for the amount of weapons you intend to use
- ....

All those (and maybe more if I forgot something..) are checked because someone said "I wanna attack with my axe". All those rules are in tact.
And if you use Power Attack on top of that, sole the parts PA explicitly mentions change. You can't pretend that PA does more than it text explicitly says. You may not suddenly ignore all general rules just because some got trumped by PA. That is not how it works.


Same with Extra Spell. It can only change those things mentioned in its text. And the change is "one additional spell". It never makes any changes to the spells you can access to learn.