Talk:Expanded Spellcasting (3.5e Feat)

Variant Rule?
I would rather see that as a variant rule, instead of a feat. I believe the players shouldn't pay with such a precious and limited resource for a defect in the conception of their classes; for something that they should already have access to by default, basically. Don't you think? -HarrowedMind (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the List
Now this might be a crazy idea but I wonder if it might be appropriate to broaden a spellcasting list that has been expanded by this feat, perhaps by another feat. I'm not sure how the mechanics of such would work, though. Surgo (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)