Summary: Add illusions to primal summoner archetype repertoire with fey gift spells, then add to primal main class repertoire because they're primal spells. Legit?
Sorcerer--Spell Repertoire: "At 1st level, you learn two 1st-level spells of your choice and four cantrips of your choice, as well as an additional spell and cantrip from your bloodline. You choose these from the common spells from the tradition corresponding to your bloodline, or from other spells from that tradition to which you have access."
Fey Eidolon--Fey Gift Spells: "When you add spells to your repertoire, you can choose from the primal list as well as from enchantment and illusion spells that appear on the arcane spell list. As usual for when you add spells of a different tradition to your spell list, you're still a primal spellcaster, so all of your spells are primal spells."
So: Make a primal sorcerer. Take summoner archetype dedication, fey eidolon, initial eidolon ability feat and basic summoner spellcasting feat. Add invisibility and illusory object to summoner repertoire. Now, since you know the primal invisibility and illusory object spells, does that make them "spells from that tradition to which you have access"?
Any feats or abilities that are gained through an archetype that refer to "your repertoire" would be referring to the archetype's repertoire only, so you would only be able to pick those extra spells with your Summoner repertoire, limiting their usefulness.
This is especially true since the Eidolon is the one giving this ability to you, so it would make the most sense to only apply to the spells they grant.
You misunderstand; I'm not trying to use the line "When you add spells to your repertoire..." from the archetype to add to the sorcerer repertoire. Here's what I'm doing.
First, I add invisibility to the archetype repertoire. Since the archetype ability says "All your spells are primal spells", the invisibility I added to the archetype repertoire is a primal spell.
Next, I choose which spells to add to my sorcerer repertoire. Since 1: the invisibility I added to my archetype repertoire is a primal spell, and 2: I feel reasonably confident saying that I "have access" to spells in my own repertoire(s), I conclude that (primal) invisibility is a "spell from that tradition to which I have access". Therefore, it is a valid selection for my sorcerer repertoire.
[EDIT] At worst I might have to use the Learn A Spell action and pay the gold cost, which feels justifiable from a balance perspective, albeit kinda ridiculous from a logical one.
By this (strained) logic, you could track down a Fey Summoner who already had those spells as Primal spells and simply learn it from them. They're Primal after all. Or Clerics could help Divine Sorcerers pick up Domain spells that aren't typically Divine. Heck, maybe that's why in the far future (Starfinder) all the Traditions have become blended into one.
Hopefully that illuminates the absurdity of these shenanigans.
Abilities that convert a spell into another Tradition aren't doing so on at an objective level, rather on a contextual one. And I suspect you know that, yet want to spin a rules loophole into existence in a game whose rules explicitly say that rules are not king and GMs should adjudicate when things get wonky.
Those examples don't seem remotely absurd; they're the same sort of in-game process you'd have to go through to track down an uncommon/rare spell/feat/etc. I totally might allow them if I were GMing, depending on the specifics.
I fully admit that what I'm proposing is stronger, because it side-steps that in-game process, but there's no such thing as side-stepping the GM, so I'm not even sure what I'm being accused of. If my GM said it didn't work, I would simply not do it.
The funny thing is, I think the most OP aspect of this build is the fact that it can cast 2 offensive cantrips every round with maxed out primal spell attack/DC proficiency.
Just because a spell is cast as a "primal" spell doesn't mean it's on the Primal spell list. Clerics get a myriad of spells from outside the Divine spell list due to their Deity (See Sarenrae and Fireball), but it doesn't mean any cleric can ask them to teach them how to cast Fireball without changing their deity.
Your Sorcerer spells are locked to the Primal list only, plus any spells you get through your Bloodline. Speaking of, the Fey bloodline already grants you 9 spells from outside the Primal list. If you want Invisibility as a Sorcerer just be an Imperial Sorcerer, they get better focus spells anyway.
Cordell Kintner wrote: Just because a spell is cast as a "primal" spell The relevant rules text is more ambiguous than that; it doesn't say spells you cast are cast as primal spells, it says "all your spells are primal spells". The most obvious interpretation to me is "all your spells" = "all spells in your repertoire for this archetype". But it's absolutely subject to interpretation.
Cordell Kintner wrote: it doesn't mean any cleric can ask them to teach them how to cast Fireball without changing their deity Why not? That very much feels subject to GM approval. WRT divine casters specifically, I can easily imagine an argument like, just because you learn how, doesn't mean your deity will actually GIVE it to you--but again, it really feels like something I'd say you have to spend downtime to make a skill check to ATTEMPT to do, not something I'd say "no" to.
Cordell Kintner wrote: Your Sorcerer spells are locked to the Primal list only, plus any spells you get through your Bloodline. It doesn't say "list", it says "tradition". If it said "list", I'd agree that it probably meant the explicit list in the book. But if a spell is primal, it is a spell of the primal tradition, tautologically.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If you already have an answer to the question, why ask it? Otherwise, it just seems like you're fishing for people to agree with you.
I was looking for confirmation that I hadn't missed anything--or what I had missed, if there was something. And I basically got that--Cordell helped highlight the ambiguity of "all your spells", which in my mind downgrades this build from "RAW legal" to "RAW plausible".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Only Witches, Sorcerers, and Summoners, all classes with a variable tradition, use that wording. Every class that only has a single tradition say that you can only pick from your tradition's list. A minor word change doesn't mean they get to ignore the general rule that your tradition's list is the default list, plus any changes from your class (Such as your Bloodline, which again I want to point out is already giving you 9 additional arcane/occult spells!)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
That reminds me of pf1 spell grabbing tracking down spells from 6th level spellcasters and going "I'll get haste as 2nd level because summoners have it at that level".
Thankfully pf2 has doubled down on the fact that the letter of the rules is less important than their spirit.
I will say it should be easier to build a primal illusionist than it is, but this doesn't seem like the way to do it.
After further digging, I agree with Cordell. I didn't realize that his wording of a spell being "cast as" a spell of a given tradition, is actually the conventional wording used in other places in the rules that the text in Fey Gift Spells was alluding to when it said "As usual,..."
I'm now convinced that the RAI actually does proscribe learning spells from outside your tradition by e.g. finding someone else who has it, because the magical laws of physics that the rules seem to be describing is one in which a repertoire doesn't convert spells KNOWN to its tradition, only CASTINGS thereof.
That said, 1: Yeah, part of this was fueled by "primal casters should have illusions" (plus the fact that IMO incapacitation tags nerfed enchantments beyond general combat viability), and 2: I really resent the assumption that I already understood all this and was just trying to exploit the wording.
kroarty wrote: The funny thing is, I think the most OP aspect of this build is the fact that it can cast 2 offensive cantrips every round with maxed out primal spell attack/DC proficiency. No more than anybody else can. Which isn't very much--are there any offensive cantrips that are only one action?
I'm pretty sure they misunderstand how Act Together works.
You have three Actions. You use Act Together on your turn. Let's say you Electric Arc, meaning the Eidolon needs to use a One Action activity or action to resolve Act Together.
Act Together spent Two Actions, leaving you with a single action left.
The benefit of having Act Together is not that you have Four Actions, it's that you get a free single Action activity or action during your round. As far as I can tell, there's no way to be able to cast Electric Arc twice on your round, even with Quickened.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
