| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When an ability says "Focus 4" that means it's a 4th level Focus Spell.
Like Angelic Wings is Focus 3, because an angelic sorcerer can't get it before level 6, when their highest spell level is 3.
All focus spells cost 1 focus now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That wasn't ever the case - powers (now focus spells) in the playtest did have variable costs, but it wasn't equal to the power level, it was defined per power in the feat that granted it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone know why they went away from the term power? I like that better and it risks less confusion from those new to RPGs
So all things that are spells are called "____ spell".
People in the playtest actually were actually calling for the name to be changed to something involving "spell" because having this entire separate thing that's not called spells but pretty much function exactly like spells just without using spell slots was seen as too confusing.
Focus spells are spells though, if you can cast a focus spell you are by definition a spellcaster.
Focus spells are spells though, if you can cast a focus spell you are by definition a spellcaster.
I thought I saw a statement to the contrary in the core rulebook. Or was that just for innate spells?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Focus spells are spells though, if you can cast a focus spell you are by definition a spellcaster.I thought I saw a statement to the contrary in the core rulebook. Or was that just for innate spells?
I found what you are talking about (p 302) and you are right, I was wrong. Focus-spell only classes don't count as spellcasters despite literally casting spells (since focus spells do count as spells). That is strange to me as it is directly contrary to their stated reasoning for making everything which acts like a spell count as a spell.
So by the definitions in the book the term spellcaster does not mean someone who casts spells it means someone who uses spell slots. That was a bad decision in game design. In the CRB though it seems to only apply to some items as being a spellcaster is not a prerequisite for metamagic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That p 302 statement specifically says you must be a spellcaster to use metamagic.
The word metamagic does not appear on that page. It says you don't qualify for feats which require you to be a spellcaster but that isn't a prerequisite for metamagic feats specifically though they are all class feats for full casting classes anyways so it's kind of moot at this point.
As far as I can tell you can still use metamagic with focus spells since nothing I can find says you can't
I am away from my book and pdf but I thought metamagic fears were tied to spellcaster classes and not accessible to anyone but spellcasters. But I am not an expert on the new rules yet.
Well they are but that's because they are class feats. They just don't use the term spellcaster in their prerequisite rather they use wizard, sorcorrer, etc. Kind of a meaningless distinction in this case.
For the CRB p. 302 states that spellcaster means someone who can cast spells other than focus or innate spells. Which would be any full caster or anyone with the dedication feat for such a class. It applies to items and feats
In the CRB there are no feats which requiere you to be "a spellcaster" but I expect them to show up in the APG for archetypes.
Really it just means that paladins and monks cant use staves or other items which require you to be a spellcaster.
But overall I agree now that I've seen the issue. Having Spellcaster not mean someone who casts spells was a mistake.
Right now you can only access metamagic feats via spellcasting classes, so you're have to multiclass in to pick up the feat and apply it to your core class focus spell anyway.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcaster By definition in the glossary..it seems pretty clear to me
spellcaster A spellcaster is a character whose class or archetype grants them the spellcasting class feature. The ability to cast focus spells or innate spells does not by itself make a character a spellcaster.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcaster By definition in the glossary..it seems pretty clear to me
spellcaster A spellcaster is a character whose class or archetype grants them the spellcasting class feature. The ability to cast focus spells or innate spells does not by itself make a character a spellcaster.
Yes it is clear it is just odd (and IMO bad) that there is a mechanical distinction between someone who can cast spells and someone who is a spellcaster.
i think the only reason such a distinction exists is potential magical items.
i don't think it plays anywhere else?
Nowhere else I could find.
But I expect it to show up in some archetypes in future books. Like a prerequisite could say "Divine Spellcaster" which would allow clerics, divine sorcerers, and any future divine tradition full casters (oracles) to take the dedication but not champions or divine tradition monks.
While we're on the subject of the OP. If something is Cantrip 3, does that mean a bard has to be level 6 to take or cast that cantrip?
While we're on the subject of the OP. If something is Cantrip 3, does that mean a bard has to be level 6 to take or cast that cantrip?
The only examples of that are composition cantrips which can only be learned through taking the appropriate class feat. But I think yes it means the minimum spell level is 3.
the problem is that powers where always a type of spells, so people didn't like that things that were spells weren't called spells, so they became focus spells instead.
This really makes me think that it was more a reaction to people "despising" that 4ed called every class' limited use ability a "power." "Why does my paladin have 'powers', they should be miracles or prayers"?
BTW, despite those complaints, the abilities always were called spells, prayers, or martial exploits. People really just didn't like the gamist terminology of "powers", and that is likely a consideration here.
The only real catch is that calling them focus spells means that if martials like the fighter ever get them, it has to be acknowledged as high end martial techniques using magic- but notably, since at this point it would have to be opted into somehow by taking a feature, that's probably fine.
It's also in line with my personal setting, where martials are doing things they shouldn't be able to, such as feats of physically impractical combat prowess on massive creatures because their bodies actually take in and refine the world's ambient magic when they exert themselves and train, and they become enhanced physically well beyond real world standards.
A fighter focus power would be representative of them learning to harness that ambient magic, gathering it, and then using it to super enhance an attack.