Adraius's page

This post borrows heavily from this one over in the PF2e reddit community, which is the most comprehensive summation of multiple discussions there on the topic. In short, currently the spellcasting abilities of spellhearts are only usable by spellcasters (specifically, characters will the Spellcasting class feature), but there is significant circumstantial evidence this is not the design intention of spellhearts. With the apparent delay of the spring errata and the Remaster on its way, this issue is in need of attention.

According to the rules under Activate an Item:

If an item lists “Cast a Spell” after “Activate,” the activation requires you to use the Cast a Spell activity to Activate the Item. This happens when the item replicates a spell. You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation component.

This prevents many classes from using the spellcasting abilities of spellhearts. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence this is not intended:

1) When spellhearts came out in Secrets of Magic, they were basically advertised as "permanent talismans." Barring specific abilities like those of Talisman Dabbler, you can either have a talisman or a spellheart affixed, but not both, and talismans are generally geared toward martials.

2) Spellhearts have set DCs (with the partial exception of the cantrip's DC). Items specifically geared toward casters (scrolls, wands, staves, etc.) typically omit a DC for its usage and allow the caster to use their own spell DC, while items intended for use by any character that replicate spells typically use set DCs. The fact that spellhearts have set DCs implies they are meant to be used by those who don't usually have a spell DC.

3) Spellhearts have benefits if you affix them to a weapon and in ways that support typical martial playstyles and actions, like the Strike action.

4) On page 124 of Treasure Vault, where the new spellhearts get presented, there is an art of the iconic thaumaturge using a spellheart - likely either an enigma mirror or a phantasmal doorknob - when it would be a very poor fit for the non-Spellcasting thaumaturge. This isn't strong evidence, as they could still get some benefit from the item and sometimes there can be confusion or miscommunication in the art pipeline, but bears mentioning.

5) On page 127 of Treasure Vault, there is an 'in-character' sidebar that reads as follows:

[Spellhearts are] rather ingenious, combining the simple magic of talismans with the more complex and enduring spellforms typically used in wands—and without requiring innate magical skill from the user.

Taken together, there is substantial confusion over the intended use of spellhearts. If casting spells from spellhearts is intended to be only possible by characters with the Spellcasting class feature, this should be called out more prominently. If it is intended to be an option for any character, the rules need to be amended to allow it.

I'm confused by the rules for learning rituals, especially as a non-spellcaster. Between the header for the rituals section saying anyone can cast rituals and the rules for rituals stating 1) the primary caster of a ritual must know the ritual, and 2) you can be a primary caster for a ritual even if you can't cast spells, it's clear non-spellcasters are supposed to be able to learn rituals. Rituals are referred to as spells. However, the action that seems appropriate, Learn a Spell, requires you be a spellcaster. Furthermore, the action requires you make a check with the skill corresponding to your tradition, which non-spellcasters don't have, and even under a generous interpretation where a non-spellcaster could use any of Arcana/Nature/Occultism/Religion to learn a ritual that requires the same skill for its primary check, there are weird cases such as Community Repair, a ritual where the primary check is Performance.

Pathfinder 2e has otherwise made it clear to me that when actions have traits or requirements, they are there for a reason, and Learn a Spell was plainly not written with rituals in mind. Thus I'm left with only the "Learning Rituals" subsection of the Rituals section, all of 3 sentences summing to, "Rituals don't count against limits for your normal spell casting abilities. You have to look hard to find someone to cast one, and they may not want to teach you."

Is Learn a Spell the way we are supposed to learn rituals and the action was written without accounting for them, or is the process for learning rituals simply left up to the GM?

I'm wondering if it's possible for the Gloomblade to gain Advanced Weapon Training options, RAW and RAI. The Gloomblade fighter archetype's Shadow Weapon Training feature alters Weapon Training; I've bolded the key sections below:

At 5th level, a gloomblade gains weapon training, except that he does not select a weapon group; instead, the bonus applies to the shadow weapons he creates. A gloomblade does not select additional weapon groups as he gains levels.

From the latter section, it's clear that Gloomblades don't have the ability to take Advanced Weapon Training options in the regular fashion. However, there's also the Advanced Weapon Training feat:

Benefit(s): Select one advanced weapon training option, applying it to one fighter weapon group you have already selected with the weapon training class feature.

Because a Gloomblade doesn't select a weapon group, it would seem that he can't gain any benefit from the feat. Some have pointed to the working that the Gloomblade "does not select additional weapon groups" as evidence that shadow weapons are some sort of pseudo-weapons group; however, I think that wording is referring to the additional weapons groups the base fighter can select and in no way indicates that shadow weapons are a weapon group - the preceding text about not selecting a weapons group seems pretty clear.

I'm wondering if this is intentional, some unfortunate wording that nonetheless definitely prevents Gloomblades from using AWT options, a grey area that needs clarification or GM ruling, or an unintended exclusion that might well be errata'd for FAQ'd at some point.