False Focus says:
"you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component."
False focus gives you the ability to cast a spell without the material component, but that is all it does. It doesn't supply a faux material component, it just lets you skip a requirement.
Since the alchemical power components are not required by the spell, false focus won't apply to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
False Focus says:
"you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component."
False focus gives you the ability to cast a spell without the material component, but that is all it does. It doesn't supply a faux material component, it just lets you skip a requirement.
Since the alchemical power components are not required by the spell, false focus won't apply to them.
How is the powder not a material component?
False focus says nothing about optional/ non-optional.I think that false focus would cover the powder components if they cost less than 100 GP. It's not official, but that makes sense to me.
Sounds like you just want it to work.
The feat is meant to be a better version of eschew materials that lets Razmirans present their holy symbols and cast spells looking all divine without digging out a handful of beetles and bat dung like some hedge wizard. It was not intended to enable an optional power (not powder) component ruleset.
If getting that +1 DC or damage or whatever is really important to you, just talk to your GM.
Finally, comparing the power of feats is a fallacious justification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
False Focus says:
"you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component."
False focus gives you the ability to cast a spell without the material component, but that is all it does. It doesn't supply a faux material component, it just lets you skip a requirement.
Since the alchemical power components are not required by the spell, false focus won't apply to them.
How is the powder not a material component?
False focus says nothing about optional/ non-optional.I think that false focus would cover the powder components if they cost less than 100 GP. It's not official, but that makes sense to me.
I agree with Tiny Coffee Golem. The optional exclusion isn't implied anywhere. The feat covers material component up to the cost of the symbol: full stop. Any extra restriction sounds like a houserule.
It was not intended to enable an optional power (not powder) component ruleset.
An argument for RAI. This thread is for RAW and as it's clear RAW, RAI really doesn't matter.
Sounds like you just want it to work.
*shrug* And it sounds like you just don't want it to work so you take what you think the RAI is over what it actually says: It covers the cost of material components and Power Components are listed as such.
Many, if not most power components are above the 100 gp limit anyway.False Focus says:
"you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component."
False focus gives you the ability to cast a spell without the material component, but that is all it does. It doesn't supply a faux material component, it just lets you skip a requirement.
Since the alchemical power components are not required by the spell, false focus won't apply to them.
???
Are there any that aren't here, because all of the power components there are less than 100gp.
|
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/AlchemicalReagents.aspx
A more concentrated list
And Varisian Idols are 75 gp.
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/AlchemicalReagents.aspx
A more concentrated list
And Varisian Idols are 75 gp.
Yep. Somehow zero added up to "Many, if not most power components are above the 100 gp limit anyway" to LazarX...
A few power components could be added many times for one spell but only two or three times.
Just remember the same effect, like +1 damage or +1 DC, can't be added more than once.
"Reagents do not stack with either themselves or one another"
|
|
A few power components could be added many times for one spell but only two or three times.Just remember the same effect, like +1 damage or +1 DC, can't be added more than once.
"Reagents do not stack with either themselves or one another"
So, I can only add one power component at a time?
Acid Splash
Acid (F): The spell deals +1 point of damage.
Acid (M): The spell lasts 1 round longer than normal.
Brimstone (M): +1 acid damage
If I have 2 acids, can I use 1 as a focus and 1 as a material?
Do Brimstone and Acid (F) stack?
False Focus says:
"you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component."
False focus gives you the ability to cast a spell without the material component, but that is all it does. It doesn't supply a faux material component, it just lets you skip a requirement.
Since the alchemical power components are not required by the spell, false focus won't apply to them.
How is the powder not a material component?
False focus says nothing about optional/ non-optional.I think that false focus would cover the powder components if they cost less than 100 GP. It's not official, but that makes sense to me.
To me, the crux of the issue is that it's not a different component when you use the alchemical component. Like Dave Justus said, you're able to cast the spell without the material component. It's not that there's a difference between required components and optional components, it's that you cast the spell as written and there's nothing to modify it.
If you had to prep the spell as a modified one or if it were a different spell known, I'd agree with you. As it stands, though, I agree with Dave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Tiny Coffee Golem. The optional exclusion isn't implied anywhere. The feat covers material component up to the cost of the symbol: full stop. Any extra restriction sounds like a houserule.
*shrug* And it sounds like you just don't want it to work so you take what you think the RAI is over what it actually says: It covers the cost of material components and Power Components are listed as such.
And to further clarify my perspective, it says you may cast the spell without those components. It does not say you may cast the spell as though you had those components or otherwise imply that it directly substitutes in those components. As such, the spell goes off as written and does not gain any effect from the optional alchemical component.
And to further clarify my perspective, it says you may cast the spell without those components. It does not say you may cast the spell as though you had those components or otherwise imply that it directly substitutes in those components. As such, the spell goes off as written and does not gain any effect from the optional alchemical component.I agree with Tiny Coffee Golem. The optional exclusion isn't implied anywhere. The feat covers material component up to the cost of the symbol: full stop. Any extra restriction sounds like a houserule.
*shrug* And it sounds like you just don't want it to work so you take what you think the RAI is over what it actually says: It covers the cost of material components and Power Components are listed as such.
That's a fine perspective on a houserule. The feat covers the cost of material components. There is no dancing around the fact that you're adding 'non-optional' in front of 'material components' in the feat.
Optional components are not limited to power components. For instance, the spell Pellet Blast. Cold iron, silver, or adamantine pellets are all optional AND listed with the spell. In essence every power component can be written the same as that spell for every spell that they work with.
A few power components could be added many times for one spell but only two or three times.Just remember the same effect, like +1 damage or +1 DC, can't be added more than once.
"Reagents do not stack with either themselves or one another"
So, I can only add one power component at a time?
Acid Splash
Acid (F): The spell deals +1 point of damage.
Acid (M): The spell lasts 1 round longer than normal.
Brimstone (M): +1 acid damageIf I have 2 acids, can I use 1 as a focus and 1 as a material?
Do Brimstone and Acid (F) stack?
Staking means same bonuses. SO, you can have the acid (lasts 1 round longer than normal) and one of the +1 damages. The other +1 damage doesn't add as they don't stack.
So add together as many as you wish as long as they do different things.
And to further clarify my perspective, it says you may cast the spell without those components. It does not say you may cast the spell as though you had those components or otherwise imply that it directly substitutes in those components. As such, the spell goes off as written and does not gain any effect from the optional alchemical component.I agree with Tiny Coffee Golem. The optional exclusion isn't implied anywhere. The feat covers material component up to the cost of the symbol: full stop. Any extra restriction sounds like a houserule.
*shrug* And it sounds like you just don't want it to work so you take what you think the RAI is over what it actually says: It covers the cost of material components and Power Components are listed as such.
That's a fine perspective on a houserule. The feat covers the cost of material components. There is no dancing around the fact that you're adding 'non-optional' in front of 'material components' in the feat.
Optional components are not limited to power components. For instance, the spell Pellet Blast. Cold iron, silver, or adamantine pellets are all optional AND listed with the spell. In essence every power component can be written the same as that spell for every spell that they work with.
The difference I'm seeing here is that you're asserting the feat "covers the cost". I'm reading it as you can cast the spell without the component, in effect it deletes the requirement for that component. It never says that you cast the spell as though you had the component, merely that you can cast the spell without it. I think that's closer to RAW (and, happily, RAI), but I am willing to be wrong. Here's the text of the feat:
By using a divine focus as part of casting, you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component. For example, if you use a silver holy symbol worth 25 gp, you do not have to provide material components for an arcane spell if its components are worth 25 gp or less. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than the value of the divine focus, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.In the case of pellet blast, the material component does not exist, so it is not made of any of those materials, so it would not bypass any of the listed types of DR.
If the material component is made of cold iron (costing 50 gp), silver (costing 20 gp), or adamantine (costing 100 gp), the resulting blast can overcome damage reduction of the appropriate type.
I think RAI here would allow you to use False Focus to get a better metal, but I don't think RAW does.
<edit> the reason for my difference here is I view the pellet blast example to be a core part of the spell while I view the alchemical component bits to be external modifiers to the spell. Restoration, on the other hand, would be fine (if it were cheap enough to fall under the limit for its expensive version) since its more expensive version says "If spell should do X, material component is Y". Therefore the condition can be true without the use of an actual material component.
|
Assuming False Focus covered the cost, would the character have to have the items on his person anyway, they just wouldn't get consumed?
I guess I see the RAW position on this (they are material components of the spell, just not required ones) but I wonder how the spell "knows" to include that variant if you don't at least have the components on hand to power the enhanced version of the spell, even if False Focus allows you to add them into the mix without consuming them.
Berinor, the difference is that your interpretation relies on adding words to the feat. That makes it a house rule because it would have to actually be written for it to be RAW.
As to "covers the cost": I think the feat actually DOES what it says it does. "you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component". You are trying to say those words don't actually mean what they say. I'm going to go with what it actually says...
Power components are called out as material components.
The feat covers components up to the listed gp value.
No exception is made for type or kind of components.
Taenia: It says "without needing that component". In the pellet blast spell, it goes off as usual because the feat says it does without the components.
Berinor, the difference is that your interpretation relies on adding words to the feat. That makes it a house rule because it would have to actually be written for it to be RAW.
As to "covers the cost": I think the feat actually DOES what it says it does. "you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component". You are trying to say those words don't actually mean what they say. I'm going to go with what it actually says...
Interestingly, I feel the same way about your interpretation. :-)
Let's focus on pellet blast since I think we both agree that as far as RAW it is at least as permissive as the alchemical power components and our interpretations differ on the results.
"You can cast any spell with a material component costing no more than 100 gp without needing that component." (slight paraphrase that doesn't muddle anything up)
1.) Does pellet blast qualify? Definitive yes. It has a material component and that material component costs less than 100 gp.
So yes, I can cast the spell.
2.) What DR does it bypass? Let's look at the material component I used. I did not use a material component (I didn't need it). Therefore, it is not cold iron. It is not silver. It is not adamantine. We use our default result of no special DR properties.
The difference between our readings is I read "without needing that component" as "you omit the component" or "you can skip providing the component". You read it as "you replace the component" (I think - that's what "covers" sounds like to me but intent is difficult over the internet). That sounds more like blood money to me than False Focus.
Edit: I should have said if you disagree I'd be curious whether you think that's the source of the difference and why you think that's not a valid reading, either because it's not literally consistent or because there's another rule that makes you select the other way.
|
|
Now I'm confused.
In Pellet Blast terms, if False Focus removes the material component, then I never used a component and the spell is treated as working but without a component for parts of the spell? If this was Fabricate, the spell would be cast but fizzle out due to having no target.
This is Berinor's interpretation?
If False Focus doesn't remove the component but the component requirement, then Pellet Blast would use any type of DR penetration since it doesn't need the component to trigger its type of penetration. Power components would work but wouldn't be required to trigger their effects.
This is Graystone's interpretation?
Now I'm confused.
In Pellet Blast terms, if False Focus removes the material component, then I never used a component and the spell is treated as working but without a component for parts of the spell? If this was Fabricate, the spell would be cast but fizzle out due to having no target.
This is Berinor's interpretation?
For pellet blast, it uses the base version that doesn't bypass any material based DR.
That's correct for my interpretation and fabricate. I'm not thrilled with it, but the spell is pretty explicit that it "converts" the materials, so if there are no materials there's no conversion.
Ignoring the 100 gp limit, restoration would be able to be used for permanent negative levels since the material component is implied by the effect rather than the other way around.
Edit: my interpretation of RAI is that pellet blast would allow any of the DRs. There are distinctions in the wording that lead to different strict meanings, but I doubt that was deliberate. Fabricate shouldn't have had a material component. The use of materials should be in the effect instead.
Very well stated, Berinor.
Now I'm confused.
In Pellet Blast terms, if False Focus removes the material component, then I never used a component and the spell is treated as working but without a component for parts of the spell? If this was Fabricate, the spell would be cast but fizzle out due to having no target.
This is Berinor's interpretation?That's correct for my interpretation and fabricate. I'm not thrilled with it, but the spell is pretty explicit that it "converts" the materials, so if there are no materials there's no conversion.
...
Fabricate shouldn't have had a material component. The use of materials should be in the effect instead.
There might be a way around the targeting for fabricate (depending on interpretation). Since material components are consumed during the casting of the spell, fabricate normally has to consume the targeted material to create new things. With False Focus, the spell still targets a material and creates new things, but doesn't consume the targeted material. This means that one could repeatedly create 100 gold coins from a single lump of gold, for example.
The only issue is the first sentence: "You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material.". If this is treated as a paraphrasing and fluffing of the mechanical effects described by the spell then this interpretation is fine. If it isn't and it actually should be treated as rules text, then this interpretation doesn't work.
The only issue treating it as rules text is that many spells have similar initial statements. Does fireball still generate "a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar" if the spell is dealing electrical damage with elemental spell? If this statement is not meant to be rules text but a description of what the spell does mechanically normally (i.e. without modification by external rules elements) then things like elemental spell would mean the spell no longer necessarily produces an explosion of flame. Likewise fabricate would convert one type of material into another, unless another rules element like false focus changed the mechanical effect of the spell upon which that statement was based.
It's not really just the first sentence. It's also a transmutation spell rather than a conjuration spell. Also, the quality of the materials used relates to the final quality. Finally, it has a target rather than an effect like you see with the creation spells.
Without a material component you have nothing to target, so the spell can't go off. Also, the quality of the product is commensurate with the quality of the (nonexistent) materials. There are a number of reasons I think fabricate doesn't do anything if you don't supply "material components".
So while I agree with you about being careful conflating fluff and crunch, fabricate has (in my opinion) a lot of reasons to think that's a description of the core of the spell instead of just a way of saying what it look like.
It's not really just the first sentence. It's also a transmutation spell rather than a conjuration spell. Also, the quality of the materials used relates to the final quality. Finally, it has a target rather than an effect like you see with the creation spells.
Without a material component you have nothing to target, so the spell can't go off. Also, the quality of the product is commensurate with the quality of the (nonexistent) materials. There are a number of reasons I think fabricate doesn't do anything if you don't supply "material components".
So while I agree with you about being careful conflating fluff and crunch, fabricate has (in my opinion) a lot of reasons to think that's a description of the core of the spell instead of just a way of saying what it look like.
The spell targets a volume of material. It also has a material component of the same material.
It is a valid interpretation that material being targeted by the fabricate spell is the "quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication". The spell still is using materials to create items (by targeting them). It just doesn't consume the materials (which is what happens with material components).
The fact that it is a transmutation spell doesn't change anything. It does seem to make the spell weird from a fluff sense, but the fact that the spell has a material component at all is a weird. Besides, bringing in external rules elements has wonky effects sometimes - a elemental(cold) burning hands is still a [fire] spell. This is a pretty good sign that the rules are screwy somewhere, but still - them's the rules, and we are in the rules forum.
The only mechanical effects of having an effect line are in terms of determining what/where can the spell be targeted and what area it affects. The fact that the spell doesn't have one doesn't matter.
Of course, all this discussion could be avoided if the spell only had either target or material component. The fact that both are there suggests there should be some mechanical difference between when the material components are used and when they aren't. Without false focus, you target the material, consume it(as a material component) and fabricate new items. With false focus, you target the material and fabricate new items. By the appropriate use of the term "consume" (use up or destroy), you use up the targeted material normally, and you don't use up the material (but still target it) with false focus. How does this happen without more or less creating something out of nothing?
I hadn't thought about the possibility of making a copy of the materials. It seems valid from a RAW perspective. My only point with target vs effect was that you have to have a valid target (i.e. the materials actually there) to cast the spell, even if the component is waived. I haven't digested this enough to decide if it's another valid interpretation of RAW or the only valid one.
All those things in the edit were why I think the RAI for fabricate shouldn't have a material component and should instead say in the description (which my wording conflated with an effect line) that it builds from raw materials that you provide. I think we agree that this is where there's screwiness.
Edit: thinking about this on the drive to work, I agree with your interpretation, Snowblind. The target is a reasonable subject for all the "materials" references in the description. The only other reasonable alternative based on RAW is a claim that fabricate actually costs double the components as making it yourself since the spell consumes one copy and the other copy is converted. Like I said, I don't think this is the way fabricate was meant to work, but for the purposes of this forum, that's something to be mentioned but not focused on. I don't think that's in conflict with my position on alchemical components, but I welcome the scrutiny.
This has already been hashed through before. Read THIS thread at your leisure.
I see that it largely revolves around the same argument as graystone used (and assuming your opinion hasn't changed in the last 5-6 months, that seems to be largely where you stand, as well). If there's another argument you'd like to bring to this thread in its distilled form, I'd be happy to discuss whether I agree or disagree with it.
My response is the same. Ray of frost is a spell. Ray of frost with optional material components is not a distinct spell. As such, you're able to cast ray of frost (or whichever spell you like that's augmentable by these components) just fine without supplying the additional components. It just doesn't mutate based on things that would be in the description as "if you supply this component, the spell instead _____". I believe this is the core of Fomsie's argument. The difference between his(?) argument and mine is his might get what I think is RAI for pellet blast.
|
|
This has already been hashed through before. Read THIS thread at your leisure.I see that it largely revolves around the same argument as graystone used (and assuming your opinion hasn't changed in the last 5-6 months, that seems to be largely where you stand, as well). If there's another argument you'd like to bring to this thread in its distilled form, I'd be happy to discuss whether I agree or disagree with it.
My response is the same. Ray of frost is a spell. Ray of frost with optional material components is not a distinct spell. As such, you're able to cast ray of frost (or whichever spell you like that's augmentable by these components) just fine without supplying the additional components. It just doesn't mutate based on things that would be in the description as "if you supply this component, the spell instead _____". I believe this is the core of Fomsie's argument. The difference between his(?) argument and mine is his might get what I think is RAI for pellet blast.
I've got nothing new to add. I didn't read through this topic so I didn't know what had/hadn't been brought up. I linked that topic in case it had something pertinent that may have not been covered here.
Fair enough and I appreciate the context of the previous conversation, Claude. I suspect any other readers I haven't scared off yet feel the same. :-)
