"directly implies" is an oxymoron.
Who gives a shit?
Oh... and it directly states "You can cast that spell once per day."
But it doesn't say you are ABLE to, nor does it say you have the ability to cast it. In fact, it doesn't directly state that you CAN cast the spell once per day. It states that you gain a spell slot that must be used to cast one particular spell, even in the CArc version. Also, Arcane Heirophant's prerequisites state that you need "ability to cast 2nd level spells. You can't cast 2nd level spells, you can cast one 2nd level spell, sometimes. The feat specifically states that when you become ABLE to cast second level spells, blah de blah de blah.
Anyway, I don't really give a fuck either way whether it works, I just answered a question. Take it up with weenog.
That is literally the dumbest thing have ever read. The feat says you may cast... that means, by definition that you are able to do it. Also, by that logic, if someone does not have a bonus second level spell from their stats they need to wait an extra level to take the class as well. They too would only be able to cast one second level spell. Granted they could change it daily, but they would only be able to cast one on a given day, not multiple.
This is a ridiculous idea, and I would actually smack any DM that pulled that upside his head with my PHB.
shrug
I'm not saying I support either argument, I'm just stating what the argument is/would be. I'd let it fly in my campaign, but I have a high tolerance level.
The feat is quite specific in stating that "when you become
able to cast second level spells........" which by logic means that the feat itself doesn't grant the ability to cast second level spells (as ability is the noun form of able).
Word semantics? Yes. A retardedly worded feat? Absolutely, and most importantly.
