I have no mouth but I must perform verbal components

[hyphz]

A slightly odd one here, and possibly pedantic but reflective of a wider issues that doesn't seem to have been addressed.

As far as I can tell nothing in Pathfinder 2e makes monster's innate etc. spells any exception to the spellcasting rules. This creates some problems with components.

For example:
An Aboleth Alghollthu Master can cast Hypnotic Pattern and Hallucinatory Terrain, both of which have material components. But it has no hands and no possibility that it would be carrying around a component pouch.

A Cassisian can cast Heal, which requires touch if cast only with a somatic component, and verbal if cast at range. It's a flying helmet with no hands or mouth. Lantern Archons have the same problem; while it's explicitly mentioned that they can speak, they still have nothing to touch or perform somatic components with.

Invisibility is a favorite; it has a material component. But it can be cast by Greater Bargests, Brain Collectors, and Cacodaemons. Can anyone see them carrying around a compnoent pouch? Cacodaemons don't even have any limbs.

Now, ok, it's easy to say that these are easily fixed up by the GM's decisions and that's true. But it speaks to an underlying issue, which is whether or not the monsters and game were balanced on the assumption that enemies use all the components in the normal way when spellcasting. I and the players have noticed that casting enemies are much easier to deal with in PF2e than other d20 games, and their battles much more initiative dependent, because even requiring them to move or open a door can shut down their key defensive spell and then they are eating 2-3 actions worth of dual pick attacks the next round.

So, was the balance of NPC spellcasting components verified or was it assumed that the GM is handwaving stuff?

[beowulf99]

Well, monsters and the like aren't built with the same rules as PC's in the first place, so why hold them to all the same rules that PC's are held to in game? If the bestiary gives a creature a spell obviously that creature has some method for casting it. And that method does not have to be the same as used for a PC.

It isn't like creatures who aren't carrying around a component pouch don't still have to spend the action. That would be unfair.

I'm having trouble seeing your point. Is it an immersion breaking thing?

[hyphz]

As I said, it's a game balance thing. Are the monsters balanced to use the same spellcasting as players, or are they balanced on the basis of handwaving?

The need for free hands and its effect on the action economy can be dramatic. For example, a Marilith can cast Blade Barrier (VSM). Even if we rule it doesn't need a component pouch, per RAW it has to put down one of its swords to do so. If it Releases the sword, it can cast in the same round, but the sword can then be grabbed or Mage Handed away, potentially permanently weakening its Bladestorm and Focused Attack moves. If it puts the sword away, and we handwave the fact it has somewhere to put it, it still has used an action to do so and can't cast the Blade Barrier until another round has passed.

So this suddenly can make a very significant difference to how the fight goes, and the use of M components is a big concern to multiclassed caster PCs, so if we're just supposed to ignore it for monsters I'd really like to know for definite which basis the designers used for the testing and math.

[Captain Morgan]

hyphz wrote:

So, was the balance of NPC spellcasting components verified

Yes. See this post from James Jacobs on the subject.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1553?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your- Questions-Here#77615

[hyphz]

That post doesn't seem to relate to spell components? It just says that simply adding abilities to a monster doesn't affect its level directly because it doesn't keep the monster around for longer, so it has more choices, but won't actually do more.

But as I mentioned above, the interpretation of monster spell components can be very significant in terms of how much time in the action economy a monster takes to cast a spell, and what tradeoffs it has to make to do so quickly. That can definitely affect how much the monster can do before it dies.

As mentioned, I had an enemy spellcaster who was prevented from casting a key defensive spell, Wall of Force across a battlefield, because a PC closed a door in their face. Action disruption can be very important.

[beowulf99]

In the case of the Marilith it is pretty easy to assume that you can treat the Marilith as a Cleric substituting the Material Component for a Focus component. That focus component being a sword.

I'm sure there are easy ways to justify just about any component substitution in similar ways.

Largely, whether you require that Marilith to drop a sword or not is up to the GM. I wouldn't, just assuming that through whatever means a creature can cast the spells it has without compromising their offensive or defensive abilities any more than spending those actions.

So I suppose it lands firmly in the Hand Waive section. If you feel that a creature doesn't have a reasonable way to "dodge" spell requirements then don't run them that way.

[Captain Morgan]

hyphz wrote:

As I said, it's a game balance thing. Are the monsters balanced to use the same spellcasting as players, or are they balanced on the basis of handwaving?

The need for free hands and its effect on the action economy can be dramatic. For example, a Marilith can cast Blade Barrier (VSM). Even if we rule it doesn't need a component pouch, per RAW it has to put down one of its swords to do so. If it Releases the sword, it can cast in the same round, but the sword can then be grabbed or Mage Handed away, potentially permanently weakening its Bladestorm and Focused Attack moves. If it puts the sword away, and we handwave the fact it has somewhere to put it, it still has used an action to do so and can't cast the Blade Barrier until another round has passed.

So this suddenly can make a very significant difference to how the fight goes, and the use of M components is a big concern to multiclassed caster PCs, so if we're just supposed to ignore it for monsters I'd really like to know for definite which basis the designers used for the testing and math.

It is an example of how the action economy of NPCs is balanced around spellcasting-- it is intended that more spells means less actions for other stuff, which is why having both isn't really a power boost. Your NPC not being able to cast a spell because the PCs made them spend two actions on walking over to a door and opening it is the system working as intended.

Whether monsters are meant to lose actions on stuff like needing a free hand... I'd agree with beowulf. It won't come up that often (most spellcasting monsters have a hand free) and when it does it is probably worth making a judgement call. A high end agent of the Abyss having a benefit available to a 2nd level cleric is easy to justify and probably not worth the space in the stat block.

[mrspaghetti]

We know that component substitution is a thing for some classes, so I don't see why it can't be a thing for any npc/creature that can cast a spell innately or otherwise, as an unwritten rule.

tl;dr - yes, handwaved.