Orithilaen's page

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 32 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Can you carry an intelligent item with you when you use dimension door?

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sporkedup wrote:
I'm enjoying hashing it out, though! I don't want the class to lose its uniqueness from PF1, and I'm concerned the pick-a-list will end up soft on mechanical flavor. But I also get that pick-a-list is a very natural result of the patron mechanic. I probably have nothing more to add to this discussion at this point. Carry on, folks! Just not about Elphaba anymore. That's sailed.

More like flown away.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
If you're planning to cast heal at all during the day, it's entirely an extra slot.

The question is whether you would normally use three or more of your highest level spell slots to cast heal. There are diminishing returns, that's all I'm saying. No disagreement with you, Rysky, or QuidEst that it's a very useful ability that doesn't have a good oracle parallel, and no disagreement either that the life oracle in particular should get better options as a healer. (Healing Hands just makes it more lopsided with an additional +1 per die for the cleric.)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Building the best casters has always required system mastery, but I think PF2's reduction to caster power means that building a good-enough caster requires more than it used to. And the game is still new so people are still working out what works best.

Sticking to the arcane list, a lot of the very good spells from PF1 are still very good (invisibility, fly, grease, black tentacles). Blink is arguably better but that's maybe controversial. Collective transposition is new and seems extremely useful. Would be interested to know people's experiences with duplicate foe. Summoning in general is a lot weaker but can be used for flanking bonuses and to use up your foe's actions. Teleport took what I think is a fun and flavorful "nerf." True strike, and the 7th level companion whose name escapes me, are now must-halves for their combo with spell attacks. Cantrips are useful for those cases when the martials can handle a threat without much help, which on the one hand makes a wizard less interesting in those fights, and on the other hand means you can save your other spells for when they matter most.

I'd say I'm less interested in another fight about 2e and more interested in how you can play a caster now.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
You have different rings.

There's no limit on how many rings you can have, except the overall cap on 10 invested items.


And as pointed out, given the starting golds/items per level, feel free to create a fighter.

One with bracers, the other without.
Remember also to use rare materials foe your armor.

If I create a fighter, I'm going to outfit them in full plate and purchase the best potency and resilience runes I can afford. Then the extra 10000 (10030 counting the price of full plate) nets me an additional +6 to my AC. (If my Dex is 20 or higher, it's only a +1, but now we're adding yet another cost to the combo.)

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

HumbleGamer: if you're not worried about slots, you're going to use armor property runes a lot less (and maybe never, as the game adds more magic items). For example, there are lots of items that give you item bonuses to Stealth, and while they're usually not cheaper than the item bonus equivalent rune of shadow, they also have other nice abilities. And the ring of energy resistance actually is cheaper.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:

Hem, that was the point of the discussion.

To use the most economic combinations, because it does not have any disadvantage, and it is way, way cheaper.

And because of that everybody would.

Again, only if (1) you don't need or can't use the base armor bonus to AC and (2) you do want one or two of the property runes. In that situation, it's a nice bit of economizing (probably not intended but hard to tell and there's no rule against it).

But it's a pretty narrow situation. If you want to maximize your AC with any type of armor but explorer's clothing, it doesn't help. And of you're a wizard, you might rather spend the money or slots on other things.

Note also that you can already get some of the property rune benefits from other slots (as Laran says above), which makes me think this may actually be RAI--the expense of armor relative to bracers is a slots premium, you're paying for the one, two, or three extra property runes slots associated with the potency rune.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:

If you think that thr developers deliberately meant to let players to exploit the system by wearing bracers + another armor ( every class will do that way. Otherwise would be stupid, as you would waste golds for nothing ), I say it is your choice.

To me, their intent is clear.

Keep in mind, the item bonuses from the armor and from the bracers don't stack with each other. So it pretty often won't be the best choice (I think usually not unless it's a character who would normally be relying on bracers instead of armor). You will normally want the best potency rune you can afford on the best armor you have your best proficiency in, since the potency rune and the armor's base item bonus do stack.

Edit: In other words, the real advantage of this combo is that it lets you get armor property runes more cheaply, not that it boosts your AC or saves.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Laran wrote:

Bracers of Armor +3 with padded +1 is 60,160

Padded armor with +3 potency and +3 resiliency is 70,000

Thus, you will save almost 10,000 gold. (a significant chunk of your wealth even at level 20). Down side would be investing 2 items instead of 1

That's a good point--I missed that bracers are generally cheaper than the equivalent fundamental runes.

Since the primary advantage of explorer's clothing over bracers is that it lets you use property runes, this makes me wonder if in fact they're not supposed to stack (though, as you say, the combo does have the drawback of using up two investment slots). But I can't think of a rule that would stop you.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think it's clear from the rules that you can only wear one armor at once. See CRB page 535: "An item that needs to be worn to function lists 'worn' as its usage. This is followed by another word if the character is limited to only one of that type of item." Every suit of armor in CRB Chapter 11 lists its usage as "worn armor." But to respond to the questions:

Laran wrote:
1) Am I correct in assuming that multiple items which affect the same modifier would only benefit from the highest one? For example, item bonus to AC

Yes, since item bonuses don't stack.

2) If I have Bracers +3 AC, can I enchant explorer leathers with property runes (of course put the fundamental rune on first) and get the +3 item bonus to AC from Bracers and get a rune of Shadow from the padded armor

I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to do this. (As Taja notes, it doesn't seem like a great idea--it seems strictly inferior to just putting both runes on the padded armor.)

3) If I have mage armor with the +1 AC/+1 to saves, can I combine it with +1 runed studded leather armor (which gives +3 item bonus to AC) so I would have +3 AC/+1 Saves

Mage armor says, "While wearing mage armor, you use your unarmored proficiency to calculate your AC," which could be read to presume that mage armor is incompatible with wearing real armor. (I assume the text doesn't mean that you'd be able to use your unarmored proficiency even if you're actually wearing armor.) But I would read this narrowly to just be clarifying that you still use the unarmored proficiency if that is what you would use without the spell effect, so I think this combo should work.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

There are different types of feats: ancestry feats, general feats, class feats, and skill feats. By default, you don't get any general feats at first level. You do get one ancestry feat, and most classes also give you a class feat (check the class).

Versatile Heritage gives you one general feat at 1st level. This doesn't have any interaction with the half-elf heritage ability, which lets you choose *ancestry* feats (not general feats) from the elf, half-elf, and human lists. (Also, since by default you only have one heritage, I don't think you can have both the versatile heritage and the half-elf heritage, but it's possible there's a way to do this I don't know about.)

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think it makes sense to count the extra spells from divine font as full-fledged spell slots, since there's usually only one (and at most two) spells a cleric can prepare in them, and heal/harm will pretty often not be the optimal choice for a spell slot of your highest spell level.

I agree though that revelation spells probably need to be better for the oracle to work in its playtest incarnation. It might also help to have a class feat to give access to a limited version of divine font, like the sorcerer's divine evolution.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
beowulf99 wrote:
Quick Climb and Quick Swim give you their respective move speeds equal to your land speed. Since your climb or swim speed is equal to your Land Speed with no mention of that being your unaltered land speed, you would in fact get the altered land speed as your base climb or swim speed(s).

While I think we all agree that the climb speed incorporates any bonuses you have to your land speed, I don't see any reason to think that an ability giving you a climb speed equal to your land speed gives you a base climb speed greater than your base land speed. That would be pretty weird.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I would say no. Boots of Speed doesn't stack with itself. Normally, that's no issue: it gives a bonus to your land Speed and a bonus to your climb Speed, no overlap. But Quick Climber applies the bonus to your land Speed to your climb Speed. So you have two +5 feet item bonuses to your climb Speed and you just take the best, so it comes out to just a +5 bonus.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of representing curses being the "price of power" by having them be your daily tracker of revelation spell use. It's altogether too linear and feels too deflationary. The "price of power" but you can modulate it according to your needs and it gets re-set each day--it seems to be doing something very different, and much less interesting, than what curses had the potential to do in PF1. Likewise with tying the curse to the mystery; to me it is a better story, and better reflects the mysterious nature of the oracle, if the two are not necessarily thematically related.

I think my personal preference would be for a short list of curses, each with an important but narrow mechanical drawback that is always on. The effects of the curse could grow worse as the oracle gains more revelation spells, or it could just be a sunk cost. In PF1 the sheer abundance of curses was a problem, I think (just checked AON and it looks like there are 40+), and with a tighter constraint on that it might be possible to solve some of the problems that happened with PF1's curse design.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the critical failure penalties for Recall Knowledge checks really only make sense when they're rare. So it's "you have a good chance of knowing this, but you got really unlucky." Then it makes sense that you "recall" something false and feel confident in it. For a character who just doesn't know anything about the topic, or knows very little, it does feel strange.

But that problem suggests its own solution, and maybe relieves the metagame worry. If you have a low bonus, don't roll. Your character doesn't say, "Hmm, did I maybe read something about this somewhere?", because they know that they almost certainly didn't, and if something comes to mind, it's probably a false association. It's the wizard with the super high bonus who (oops) rolls a 1 who ends up with the critical failure.

As far as adjusting for level/likely DC, I think this is fine--it reflects a character's sense of which topics are especially difficult. Of course the way the game frames it is more abstract that in would be in "real life" but that's just the same as other features of the game world.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This is something Pathfinder largely derived from its antecedents, but I generally don't like the way religion works in setting. A few examples:

1. The heal/harm division between good and evil gods never made much sense to me. Couldn't it make sense for a good cleric of a crusader god to be able to get special benefits using harm instead of heal? Or, conversely, for clerics of Asmodeus to prioritize healing, to entice people into deals with the devil and because lawful evil seems to mean that (sometimes) you're a team player?

PF2 both alleviates and exacerbates this. On the one hand, it's nice that alignment is no longer an ironclad rule (though so far Lamashtu is the only exception); on the other hand, now that clerics can do both with a class feat, it seems like many more gods (good and evil ones as well as neutral) should allow both.

2. More fundamentally, the pantheon and the way gods work is very confusing to me. The line between a very powerful being and a god, and between "I'll be nice to you/serve you because you'll give me nice things" and "I see you as a worthy object of worship," is a tricky one to draw in general. In Golarion, where some creatures who grant spells have stat blocks (or are mythic PCs!), and where flaws of gods appear to be relatively well-known, it seems especially blurry. You might expect in such a world that relationships with gods predominate toward the merely transactional ("I'll pray to Asmodeus so I can use divine magic") or coalitional ("Iomedae is an extremely powerful being and this is something she'd care about, so let's ask her for help"), but the model of religion I see in the source materials seems closer to religions in the real world with very different theologies.

This is a direct answer to the thread question about what I dislike about the Pathfinder universe, not necessarily a criticism--dealing with 2. in a way that I personally find satisfying might also risk stepping into any number of minefields. (I kind of do think PF2 gives the design space to have a more satisfying resolution of 1., though--but it's early still so we'll see.)

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, it's more sharing a class ability than poaching it. The domain spells give an oracle some more flexibility in using the focus points/curse mechanic and that seems like a core aspect of how it's supposed to work--you get a domain spell at first level for free, just like a cleric. So you always have at least two options (domain spell + revelation spell from your mystery).

This doesn't help the life oracle much, especially at low levels, but it sounds like that issue is getting attention from the design team.

I think I also agree that there's a mismatch here with a last-resort self-sacrifice ability. The matching flavor of that kind of ability to me is a flashy spell with a dramatic effect and I'm not sure that fits a staple per-encounter focus spell. More breath of life than life link.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Is she using Debilitating Bombs and is she being tactical with her bomb choice? The bomber is a debuffer as much as a damage dealer. Can't compete directly with a martial at damage dealing (not without using up lots of resources quickly, anyway) but can impose flat-footed, movement constraints, etc. Debilitating Bombs works well to enable the otherwise weak Perpetual Infusions bombs to be more effective.

All alchemists can also use elixirs as a secondary support role--make them with advanced alchemy and hand them out to party members at the beginning of the day.

As far as missing: is she missing more than the other players? If her Dex is too low, I would let her rebalance, but it doesn't sound like that's the issue. Against very hard to hit enemies, maybe use quicksilver mutagen?

Would be helpful to know a little more about how her character is built.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
rainzax wrote:

Base list + Trait system:

If this route is adopted, I think a "helper" sidebar which lists, from the CRB + APG, which spells have which traits, would really help people who haven't yet, or would be reluctant to, scour these books/pdfs spell by spell to identify traits. It'd allow a casual glance to give the player all the initial information they need to make their choice.


This shouldn't be the only way to conveniently get the information, but note that Archives of Nethys has a very nice function that lets you search by trait. (Just go to a rules element with the trait and click on the trait.)

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaterie wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
You could use Flame Barrier to save the fighter’s life for a round so he can finish the fight. Or rebuke death to get him and the rogue both back into it.
Awesome. So the hail mary stuff works only if you multiclass to get some actual focus powers.

No need to multiclass--you can get rebuke death or flame barrier from Domain Fluency at level 12.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Saros Palanthios wrote:
That's how the 1e version of Grease worked, sure. The 2e version lacks that language about only saving when the spell is first cast. I'm wondering if that's intentional or not.

Since it doesn't call out a specific time for creatures to make the save (it doesn't say "Each turn..."), I would interpret it to only require a save when first cast, which seems like a reasonable default since that's how most spells work. It would also make a pretty good spell even better if it could repeatedly force saves like that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
cavernshark wrote:
It would be really cool if witches were Occult base, but got a feature called "Patron Spells" that worked a little bit like the signature spell class ability for sorcerers and bards. They could, at each spell level, pick a single spell off of an alternate list chosen at first level (primal, divine, arcane) that represents the unique magic of their patron. This way you could retain all the flexibility of an amorphous patron and future proof against the addition of future spells. This way your winter witch won't miss out if new ice spells get added, you just retrain your patron spells. It'd also open up some design space for feats entirely based around those additional spells known (e.g. commune with your familiar for 10 minutes once a day to convert a prepared spell into one of your patron spells).

I really like this idea. You could customize the lists further, too: "you can pick patron spells from the arcane list or from any spell with the healing trait" or something like that.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
Again, I'd like to stress how much can be solved simply by giving Occult as the base Spell list and opening the Patron ability up to grant a whole new Tradition would open up the variety of different Witch characters you could make right off the bat without appreciably making them any more powerful than any other spellcaster since their casting will be tied to their singular set of Spell Slots and Class DC.

I think it would make a difference to power to be able to cast spells from two lists instead of one. Occult has good force spells, enchantment spells, divination spells, buffs, and debuffs. It doesn't have the powerful evocations and transmutations on the arcane and primal list, and it doesn't have the healing capacity of the primal and divine lists. Giving access to two lists is a substantial increase to the versatility and therefore the power of the caster. (Multiclass casters get this but with more constraints and at a substantial price to class feat slots.)

I wonder if there are other ways to accomplish something like this, though. One thought is to build an additional tradition choice into the class feats, making it sort of an in-house spellcasting archetype, though that would leave less space for the witch-y class feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Witches had probably one of the most flexible spell lists in PF1, to me it only makes sense that they're the pick a list caster, because they already sort of did that in PF1 to a lesser extent.

I think PF1 was different because while their spell list was a mix of the core class lists, they also had lots of holes in their base list. They got lots of good enchantments from the wizard list but not the flashy evocations or transmutations. They got healing magic from the cleric list but on a delayed progression and without the best status removers (and also without divine staples like alignment-based attack spells). They had a decent buff/debuff repertoire like the bard but were missing some of the best buffs (like haste). You could pick a patron that plugged these holes but they usually plugged no more than one and often did so incompletely. The choice of class mostly dictated your spell list, with a little customization on top.

It could work to have witches as the "patron magic" class, just as sorcerers are the "blood magic" class, and make patron/hexes/familiar the defining class features independent of spell list. But I think it would feel and play pretty differently from the PF1 witch--just like a PF2 demonic sorcerer compared to a PF1 abyssal sorcerer.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Some thoughts.

The underlying issue here is that PF2 spellcasting is built around four and only four traditions, each of which are thematically tied to specific elements from Pathfinder's source material: arcane is wizard's magic, divine is cleric's magic, primal is magic with a nature/elements feel, and occult seems heavily reminiscent of the PF1 psychic spell list.

This already produces some thematic awkwardness for the game. The bard is the core occult caster but gets lots of spells (magic missile, mage armor, the telekinetic spells) that don't seem that bard-y. The fey sorcerer gets a spell list that natively lets her cast fireballs but requires supplementation to get the enchantment and illusion spells most suited for fey.

To be clear, I think that's fine. The traditions approach has lots of advantages. Aside from the many gameplay-centered ones, one lore-related advantage is that it seems to be a way to develop a deeper in-game explanation of how different kinds of magic relate to each other and the world. It's inevitable that developing this kind of systematic approach will disrupt some assumptions from previous editions of the game and all the more so from the broader fantasy and myth traditions that Pathfinder draws on.

The problem for the witch is that "witch" has pretty thick (if rather varied) meaning out-of-game and it also has lots of association in-game from its Pathfinder and D&D history, and both of those correspond to a "magical tradition" that doesn't match up with any of the four traditions. There are some witchy spells and some non-witchy spells on all four spell lists. (Many people say occult is the best fit, and I think I see why, but spells like hypercognition, zealous conviction, and telekinetic maneuver/haul seem awkward fits there too.) So given the constraint of the magical traditions, the pressure seems to be to (1) break up the witch into different "subclasses" tied to different traditions, which runs the risk of making the overarching concept too broad or (2) make a particular witch's spell list very customizable, which runs the risk of undermining why the game switched to magical traditions in the first place. (One concrete issue with (2) is that older witch options may become less supported over time, since I expect that new spells will be added just to the tradition lists and not to previous packages of patron theme spells.)

I don't have any elegant solution. I guess I think the best approach might be to narrow focus. What is Baba Yaga's magical tradition? What is Feiya's? There's always archetypes to expand and tailor a particular spellcaster's theme, without disrupting the structure of the base class as much; not just multiclass, but also archetypes like the halcyon speaker that seem to be based on the multiclass spellcaster rules.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Can you quote a rule or you just made it up?

Core Rulebook page 250: "When you use an action that utilizes the Performance skill, it gains one or more traits relevant to the type of performance." The book then lists the types and which traits they correspond to, which you can map on to the list in Virtuosic Performer pretty easily.

The idea seems to be that every time you make a Performance check, you are doing some specific kind of performance. Some uses of performance are gated by trait (you have to use an auditory or a visual kind of performance for counter performance, depending on the trigger) but others aren't and Lingering Performance seems to be in the unrestricted category. I suspect that part of why Virtuosic Performer exists is to help with Lingering Performance/Inspire Heroics checks, which are pretty important to a bard but are dependent on a skill check that won't usually be an auto-succeed.

Edit: FWIW, the quoted text doesn't appear in the Archives of Nethys section for Performance, which left me pretty confused about how all these abilities worked together until I checked the relevant section of the book.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I agree that it means all crossbows that are simple weapons. Compare it to the cleric Deadly Simplicity feat (one step increase to damage die for a simple favored weapon) or the champion deific weapon class ability (same). As with those, the idea seems to be to make a suboptimal weapon choice competitive.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Lore-wise, a divine sorcerer feels pretty different from an oracle to me. And it's not just or even primarily the curse.

A divine sorcerer feels like a PF1 sorcerer who happens to cast divine spells. The magic is in the blood; it doesn't depend on faith or reverence, it isn't especially religious. If I were to convert a celestial or empyreal PF1 sorcerer to PF2, a divine angelic sorcerer would be the right choice in almost all cases, with important changes to spell list but a pretty close fit thematically.

An oracle, on the other hand, seems to depend on a relationship with a divine source (or sources). Its theme is closer to the cleric in that it is invested by an external power or powers, even though the relationship is much more irregular than a cleric's.

In PF1 I built an oracle whose premise was that he harbored a shard of the power of the slain god he had worshipped in his youth. One of his goals was to restore his god to life, in which case he would have likely become high priest of the refounded faith. Mechanically, this character would work as a divine sorcerer. Thematically, I think it's not quite right.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lightning Raven wrote:
Nope. It's the other way around. In a campaign, you don't roll enough to make the +1 STR strictly better all the time. There will be a lot of overlap between 16STR and 18STR and if you're in a unlucky streak, you will not even feel the difference.

I don't think this is right. Rolling more doesn't make an 18 Str character more or less better than a 16 Str character. It just reduces the variance.

Think of a one-roll case. A 1st level fighter (attack +7 or +6) attacks a skeleton guard (AC 16, 4hp so a hit with either 16 Str or 18 Str will destroy it).

On a roll of 10-20 (55%), both hit. No difference there.
On a roll of 1-8 (40%), both miss. No difference there.
On a roll of 9 (5%), the Str 18 fighter hits and the Str 16 fighter misses.

So, 95% of the time (in this very simple example), the difference doesn't matter: the Str 18 fighter doesn't do 20% more damage, they do 0% more damage. But 5% of the time--not a huge percentage, but a real one--it's the difference between the creature being destroyed and the creature being totally uninjured and the action wasted. Variance. That doesn't require playing for a long period of time; it requires rolling an attack roll exactly once and getting a particular result (and a 5% probability is low but not that low).

Over time, we can expect we'll get some of each kind of roll. So the 2-point difference in Str will make a moderate difference, overall, rather than a huge difference (destroying vs. not destroying the enemy) or no difference. This probably doesn't require that much playtime--we're not dealing with very small probabilities. But the difference is still there even in the span of a single action, it's just that it manifests more rarely but also potentially more decisively.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pirate Rob wrote:
2: Halcyon spells are prepared or cast just like other spells granted by your class, so what class you're using as your base makes a big difference to the answer of your question here. Druids are prepared casters so they could take Halcyon Spellcasting Adept at 14 and learn Blink. If they later took Halcyon Spellcasting Sage at 18 they'd get a 6th level halcyon slot that they could put Blink (6) in without having to learn it separately. (or either of their other 6th level halcyon spells, or heightened versions of any of their other lower halcyon spells.)

The text that's confusing me is on page 105, under Halcyon Speaker Dedication: "You can use your halcyon spell slots to spontaneously cast your halcyon spells." In other words, it sounds like eighteenth level druids with Halcyon Spellcasting Sage have:

- three 7th level druid spell slots, which work exactly as normal druid spell slots except that they can prepare halcyon spells in them (presumably including heightened versions of lower-level halcyon spells they know)
- one 7th level halcyon spell slot, which they can use to cast halcyon spells spontaneously (and can't prepare halcyon spells in--I think)

Am I reading that right?

So then the question is whether the spontaneous casting with the halcyon spell slot is limited like the sorcerer's to spells the druid knows specifically at that level.

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm trying to figure out exactly how the halcyon spells system in the Lost Omens Character Guide works. The basic mechanic is straightforward: you gain a set of spells from the primal or arcane list that you can cast as if they were on your "native" spell list. But then there are a few complications:

1. How does the cantrip you get for the Magaambyan Attendant Dedication work? At first I thought it was a halcyon spell, but it's not called out as one like the others. Now I'm wondering if the purpose is to give rudimentary arcane or primal spellcasting even to non-spellcasters, to open up the other Magaambyan Attendant/Halcyon Speaker options. (Is it an at-will cantrip like normal?)

2. How do the halcyon spell slots you get from Halcyon Speaker feats interact with heightened spells? It sounds like a druid who has blink as a 4th level halcyon spell can prepare blink as a 6th level spell in her druid slots, as long as she can cast 6th level halcyon spells. But can she use a 6th level halcyon slot to cast it spontaneously, or is like the sorcerer's spell repertoire such that she'd need to select it also as a 6th level halcyon spell to do that?

3. The description of halcyon spells on page 101 says that you can choose whether to cast a halcyon spell as a primal or an arcane spell. Normally you would want to cast them as the tradition corresponding to your primary spellcasting class, because you'll have the best proficiencies with that tradition. (The halcyon spellcasting feats boost your other proficiency but at a delayed pace.) Am I missing something that gives you a benefit for choosing the "weaker" tradition? I thought earlier it might be the Halcyon Speaker's synergy feats, but those treat halcyon spells as both primal and arcane automatically.