The rules for Innate Spells from the CRB make no mention about spellcasting-component actions, so I assume they work just like PCs who cast spells.
There is a conversion of the moon spider from PF1 into PF2, and it makes obscuring mist an Innate Spell. The moon spider prefers to ambush its prey by casting obscuring mist and making interlopers stumble into its very sticky webs. The spell has a 1-minute duration. Does this mean that it will be making audible noises when adventurers draw near? And does it make clicking noises while doing so?
Does the kraken talk? It needs to do so to cast dominate, punishing winds, and resist energy. To create punishing winds, does it use a material component?
What of dragons who have Innate Spells? Reverse gravity is a suggested spell for Ancient Red Dragons. Does an Ancient Red Dragon need to whip out a material component pouch in order to cast reverse gravity?
The CRB says that, to speak the words of a Verbal Component, "You must speak them in a strong voice, so it’s hard to conceal that you’re Casting a Spell."
So does the PF2 Caligni Stalker (formerly Dark Stalker), which specializes in assassinating, need to speak in a "strong voice" before casting Darkness?
And what about the Green Hag, or the Sprites that try to deceive adventurers by casting ghost sound? That requires a verbal component by the caster.
In PF1, spell-like abilities could be done silently and without having to take any somatic action. In PF2, it seems like they all activate these abilities as wizards do. But this seems out of theme and goes against how these monsters are supposed to "work."
Am I interpreting this rule correctly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that innate spells cannot possibly require components, or a large number of Bestiary creatures break.
A Cassisian doesn't have the limbs required to provide Somatic or Material components.
Same with a Cacodaemon, Naga, Nightmare, etc...
A Guthallath isn't intelligent enough to talk, or even have emotions. How can it provide verbal components?
The Kraken is pulling Material Components out of a little pouch? (The next one I run is now, because lulz, but come on...)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers don't require actual material components (their blood is a material component), but still uses the same action with the same limitations. I would assume innate spells work similarly.
Likewise, I'd assume Verbal components require the creature to make noises and Somatic ones require them to have freedom of movement, but I would also assume that their specific forms are dictated by the creatures' anatomy.
So yes, a dragon must speak and gesture to cast spells...that's really not especially odd to me.
|
Sorcerers don't require actual material components (their blood is a material component), but still uses the same action with the same limitations. I would assume innate spells work similarly.
Not quite. Sorcerers can "replace material components with somatic components". So a V,S,M spell for a Wizard would instead be V,S,S for a Sorcerer-- with the limitations of Verbal and Somatic, but not the limitations of Material.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers don't require actual material components (their blood is a material component), but still uses the same action with the same limitations. I would assume innate spells work similarly.Not quite. Sorcerers can "replace material components with somatic components". So a V,S,M spell for a Wizard would instead be V,S,S for a Sorcerer-- with the limitations of Verbal and Somatic, but not the limitations of Material.
Ah! You're right. I was thinking of the PF2 playtest rather than the final rules.
A bit of text noting that creatures with spontaneous spells cast them as Sorcerers is probably worth including at some point, but it's also an easy GM ruling to make on the fly.
Sorcerers don't require actual material components (their blood is a material component), but still uses the same action with the same limitations. I would assume innate spells work similarly.
Likewise, I'd assume Verbal components require the creature to make noises and Somatic ones require them to have freedom of movement, but I would also assume that their specific forms are dictated by the creatures' anatomy.
So yes, a dragon must speak and gesture to cast spells...that's really not especially odd to me.
But that would be a house rule, yes? There's nothing about Innate Spells as written that makes them function like a sorcerer's class feature. I'm just trying to find out whether the intention is reflected in what's written.
And by what you're saying, then monsters will have to make noise to use their innate spells, which in my examples I don't think makes sense.
Obviously innate spells are innate and castable by animals (lots in bestiary have them) so they don’t need component pouches or special sounds.
Casting a spell requires you to use the actions the spell itself requires and nothing under innate spells removes those requirements. As such, what's obvious to me is the opposite from what seems obvious to you. As written, every creature must satisfy each and every requirement of the actions they take unless a specific exception is made: there is no such exception for innate spells for PC's or monsters.
And by what you're saying, then monsters will have to make noise to use their innate spells, which in my examples I don't think makes sense.
As to intent, I'd have to agree with Deadmanwalking: even if you don't have to use the exact component, the traits remain: Mark has said that a bard replacing components with a performance doesn't replace the traits of those components: this means a performance used instead of a material component still uses manipulate and one instead of a verbal one uses concentrate instead of always being concentrate as is the norm for using the performance skill. So, IMO, the intent is that any replacement you make doesn't give you ANY advantage that's not spelled out: for instance, Eschew Materials sole benefit is it saves you the 5sp cost of a Material Component Pouch...
So for things like a Caligni Stalker casting Darkness or a Green Hag, or the Sprites casting ghost sound they, IMO, make sounds unless they take Silent Spell what specifically removes the need to make noise, though it's STILL as obvious as casting other spells because it "still has visual manifestations".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that would be a house rule, yes? There's nothing about Innate Spells as written that makes them function like a sorcerer's class feature. I'm just trying to find out whether the intention is reflected in what's written.
For material components? Yeah, that's technically a House Rule, though not a super big one or one that will come up a lot. Material components are not really super common.
And by what you're saying, then monsters will have to make noise to use their innate spells, which in my examples I don't think makes sense.
I think it does. Darkness still works to blind and confuse foes, and should likely be done after they know there's a fight, I mean the lights magically going out isn't subtle or sneaky already regardless of the verbal component. As for Ghost Sound, there are lots of uses for that even when people can hear you talking around it, from loud footsteps behind them making them assume you summoned something, to the sound of children screaming to make adventurers come running. Also, on a pedantic note, sprites don't have ghost sound.
How does a Quelaunt cast its innate Hideous Laughter?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=343
What's the issue? Nothing in the description says it can't make noises [just says it can't speak a language] or move it's limbs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the issue? Nothing in the description says it can't make noises [just says it can't speak a language] or move it's limbs.How does a Quelaunt cast its innate Hideous Laughter?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=343
Core 304
Verbal
A verbal component is a vocalization of words of power. You must speak them in a strong voice, so it’s hard to conceal that you’re Casting a Spell. The spell gains the concentrate trait. You must be able to speak to provide this component.Making noises isn’t enough. You need to speak words of power and words means a language. If you cannot speak a language you cannot do this.
Also how does it vocalise noises with no mouth or nose? Air gets in and out how? Somehow I don’t think you can clap your hands to provide verbal component, or it would be classed as somatic.
"can't speak any language" and 'can't speak at all' aren't the same thing. Nowhere in the game are 'words of power' identified as a language, as a caster would HAVE to learn such a thing before they could cast: as such, it's not a language. No where is 'magic' listed under language as understood in the game. IMO, Morse code type 'clapping' with limbs fits the bill as long as it's a "strong" noise that's "hard to conceal".
The bottom line is that you really can't hang your hat on needing "words of power" when those are NEVER defined in any meaningful way. On top of that, even if everything you say was correct, monsters aren't built the same way as PC's are so even 100% refutable proof of what a PC must do isn't proof that a monster must do the same. If the game gives a monster an ability, it's a good assumption to make that they have the ability to use it [from an intent basis at least].
PS: La Gomera, the smallest islands in Spain’s Canary Islands, has "El Silbo," a whistled communication that isn't spoken at all: you can communicate words and ideas with sound and not be speaking in the traditional sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's clear to me that you needn't worry about the components nor their associated traits when dealing with innate spells. It's a big part of what makes them desirable as character options.
Another poster showed me proof that it was so a good while ago. Proof enough for me anyways, as I'm sure many will disagree despite the evidence.
If I can find the original post that convinced me, I'll repeat it here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as I'm sure many will disagree despite the evidence.
This is kind of a loaded way of putting it. The problem is the arguments generally revolve around inferring meaning from other, unrelated rules and trying to extrapolate something out, rather than a clear indication of anything.
If there were definitive, clear-cut evidence one way or the other, these threads probably wouldn't exist.
Another poster showed me proof that it was so a good while ago.
If there is clear, elicit and definitive proof of that, I'd love to see it. Any quotes?
There are a lot of odd interactions to take into account with innate spells, and "spell like effects" that aren't defined as spell like abilities anymore in PF2.
For instance: You have a Wayfinder. You command it to be targeted by Light. The Wayfinder is "targeted" by Light. Would that "casting" of light trigger attacks of opportunity?
Your Command is verbal and concentrate, so activating that item would not include a manipulate action. But Light uses a Somatic component. So is this a case where the components don't matter? Or the actions for that matter, since Light is a 2 action spell, and the command for wayfinder is a single action?
A Runescarred caster doesn't have to be from a spellcasting class, doesn't gain access to "cast a spell" or any components, yet can cast it's spells by virtue of Innate spells.
Do these spells require components that you can use simply because you have to? Or do they only require action expenditure?
Flip side, if a Runescarred character were a member of a spellcasting class, would they then be required to use spell components for their innate spells, including substitutions if they have them?
I personally feel that they don't require specific components. I don't see any reason why they should.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we trying to run monsters as though they are player characters?
Why are we trying to run monsters as though they are player characters?
Player Characters can have innate spells too.
Player Characters can have innate spells too.Why are we trying to run monsters as though they are player characters?
Well, yes. But the original posting and most of this thread aren't talking about that.
I can play a Fey-Touched Gnome and cast Produce Flame as an Innate Spell. And when I do so, I would follow the normal rules for actions needed (two actions: Somatic and Verbal components for Produce Flame).
But why would a Caligni Stalker have to follow the same rules and speak its verbal components in a loud voice?
Why are we trying to run monsters as though they are player characters? I would probably have it take the same number of actions in order to maintain balance. But I would just handwave away the component requirements because the monster entry says that it works - so it works. Role play and reskin as needed.
Why are we trying to run monsters as though they are player characters?
Mainly because the PC way is the singular way that's explained so anything else would be complete made out of whole cloth and handwavium... That is the exact opposite of a rule discussion instead being Advice or Homebrew. Add to that that we've seen Dev's say that when you replace components that you keep the traits of those actions so it's mostly a moot point. And spells STILL have noticeable manifestations and I'm not sure what the point is: for instance, a Green Hag, or the Sprites casting ghost sound are still notices because of the light show the spell produces even it you'd say they didn't shout.
I mean if you've decided that monsters just plain don't follow any of the rules then traits, number of actions used and pretty much anything else described under the spell don't apply. Heck, why have their innate spells use any actions at all since we aren't applying the actions required by the "PC" rules. I don't know why they'd give you spells if they didn't expect you to follow the rules included in them: "Spell Components Each spell lists the spell components required to cast it after the action icons or text, such as “[three-actions] material, somatic, verbal." The spell components, described in detail below, add traits and requirements to the Cast a Spell activity. If you can’t provide the components, you fail to Cast the Spell." With this explicit ruling, there would have to be an equally explicit exception for Innate and/or monsters casting to not need them. That doesn't exist.
I can play a Fey-Touched Gnome and cast Produce Flame as an Innate Spell. And when I do so, I would follow the normal rules for actions needed (two actions: Somatic and Verbal components for Produce Flame).
Actually, Mark Seifter commented on the relationship between actions and components in the linked thread. It boiled down to how Actions and Components are not directly linked, though they tend to be the same.
This is part of the core of my argument. As your Fey-Touched Gnome, if you don't take a casting class, how do you even gain the ability to provide components for your innate spell?
No ability that I am aware of mentions granting you the ability to provide them, only casting class and archetype features do that.
This is part of the core of my argument. As your Fey-Touched Gnome, if you don't take a casting class, how do you even gain the ability to provide components for your innate spell?
Everyone can provide components.
See trick magic item: "For example, this might allow a fighter to cast a spell from a wand"
from Wand:
"A spell cast from a wand doesn’t require physical material components, but you must replace any material component normally required to cast the spell with a somatic component. If the spell requires a focus, you must still have that focus to cast the spell from a wand, and if the spell has a cost, you must still pay that cost to cast the spell from a wand."
The feat doesn't grant the fighter ANY specific knowledge of components but allows the use of a wand from a non-caster. If a fighter can use components needed to use a wand without any specific allowances, I see NO reason a gnome needs any special knowledge to be able to use them: Gaining the ability to cast a spell is enough to use the components required to do so.
Everyone can provide components.
If this is the case, then why does every casting class have the following:
Occult Spellcasting
You draw upon magic from esoteric knowledge. You can
cast occult spells using the Cast a Spell activity, and you
can supply material, somatic, and verbal components when
casting spells (see Casting Spells on page 302).
Divine Spellcasting
Your deity bestows on you the power to cast divine spells.
You can cast divine spells using the Cast a Spell activity, and
you can supply material, somatic, and verbal components
when casting spells (see Casting Spells on page 302). Because
you’re a cleric, you can usually hold a divine focus (such as a
religious symbol) for spells requiring material components
instead of needing to use a spell component pouch.
Primal Spellcasting
The power of the wild world flows through you. You can
cast primal spells using the Cast a Spell activity, and you
can supply material, somatic, and verbal components when
casting spells (see Casting Spells on page 302). Because
you’re a druid, you can usually hold a primal focus (such as
holly and mistletoe) for spells requiring material components
instead of needing to use a spell component pouch.
Etc...
Every spellcasting class and their archetype provide you with the ability to provide components, and specify which components you can provide. Every one of them does this.
Know what doesn't do this? Any ability, item, feat or archetype that provides an Innate spell. Name one. I would be interested in knowing it exists.
See trick magic item: "For example, this might allow a fighter to cast a spell from a wand"
from Wand:
"A spell cast from a wand doesn’t require physical material components, but you must replace any material component normally required to cast the spell with a somatic component. If the spell requires a focus, you must still have that focus to cast the spell from a wand, and if the spell has a cost, you must still pay that cost to cast the spell from a wand."
The feat doesn't grant the fighter ANY specific knowledge of components but allows the use of a wand from a non-caster. If a fighter can use components needed to use a wand without any specific allowances, I see NO reason a gnome needs any special knowledge to be able to use them: Gaining the ability to cast a spell is enough to use the components required to do so.
Nice cherry picking there. Maybe next time quote the feat you are citing, instead of the are of the book that tells a "proper" spellcaster how to use a wand.
Prerequisites trained in Arcana, Nature, Occultism, or Religion
You examine a magic item you normally couldn’t use in an effort
to fool it and activate it temporarily. For example, this might allow
a fighter to cast a spell from a wand or allow a wizard to cast a
spell that’s not on the arcane list using a scroll. You must know
what activating the item does, or you can’t attempt to trick it.
Attempt a check using the skill matching the item’s magic
tradition, or matching a tradition that has the spell on its list,
if you’re trying to cast a spell from the item. The relevant skills
are Arcana for arcane, Nature for primal, Occultism for occult,
Religion for divine, or any of the four for an item that has the
magical trait and not a tradition trait. The GM determines the
DC based on the item’s level (possibly adjusted depending on
the item or situation).
If you activate a magic item that requires a spell attack roll
or spell DC and you don’t have the ability to cast spells of the
relevant tradition, use your level as your proficiency bonus and
the highest of your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifiers.
If you’re a master in the appropriate skill for the item’s tradition,
you instead use the trained proficiency bonus, and if you’re
legendary, you instead use the expert proficiency bonus.
Success For the rest of the current turn, you can spend actions
to activate the item as if you could normally use it.
Failure You can’t use the item or try to trick it again this turn,
but you can try again on subsequent turns.
Critical Failure You can’t use the item, and you can’t try to
trick it again until your next daily preparations.
But you are missing a key component of the feat: It requires a Knowledge check. Specifically a knowledge check of the tradition of the item you are trying to trick. Your Fighter can provide a component, temporarily in the case of the feat, through academic knowledge. Not out of "no where".
A Fighter tricking a 5th level scroll isn't just a fighter, it is a well learned fighter, who has a working knowledge of the Arcane. Without that knowledge, they can't provide any components.
If every character could provide components naturally, what would be the point of "tricking" an item to think you were a caster?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone can provide components.If this is the case, then why does every casting class have the following...
Because the developers erred on over-explaining things in this edition. They wanted the game to be as accessible to new players as possible.
There are dozens of examples throughout the Core Rulebook in which they mention something that probably didn't need mentioning. It's one of the reasons the Core Rulebook is so big.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously innate spells are innate and castable by animals (lots in bestiary have them) so they don’t need component pouches or special sounds.
You seem to be under the false impression that critters use the same rules as PCs.
Everyone can provide components.If this is the case, then why does every casting class have the following...Because the developers erred on over-explaining things in this edition. They wanted the game to be as accessible to new players as possible.
There are dozens of examples throughout the Core Rulebook in which they mention something that probably didn't need mentioning. It's one of the reasons the Core Rulebook is so big.
This. The game is reminding casters that they can use components. It's a 'hey, remember you can do this' instead of 'only YOU can do this!'. Nothing anywhere limits components that I can find but many things require their use.
But you are missing a key component of the feat: It requires a Knowledge check.
100% meaningless. You are hanging your hat that you need EXPLICIT instructions to be allowed the use of components: NOTHING in recall knowledge grants that and neither does anything in the feat: The feat however SPECIFICALLY shows an example of it's use where a class without those explicit component granting sections USING such components with out issue even though they where never granted the ability. If you disagree, quote the section that allows it like you did for the casting classes please.
Everyone can provide components.If this is the case, then why does every casting class have the following...Because the developers erred on over-explaining things in this edition. They wanted the game to be as accessible to new players as possible.
There are dozens of examples throughout the Core Rulebook in which they mention something that probably didn't need mentioning. It's one of the reasons the Core Rulebook is so big.
This. The game is reminding casters that they can use components. It's a 'hey, remember you can do this' instead of 'only YOU can do this!'. Nothing anywhere limits components that I can find but many things require their use.
But you are missing a key component of the feat: It requires a Knowledge check.100% meaningless. You are hanging your hat that you need EXPLICIT instructions to be allowed the use of components: NOTHING in recall knowledge grants that and neither does anything in the feat: The feat however SPECIFICALLY shows an example of it's use where a class without those explicit component granting sections USING such components with out issue even though they where never granted the ability. If you disagree, quote the section that allows it like you did for the casting classes please.
Oh. Convenient. So a rule telling a player that they gain access to a class feature, in this case spellcasting, is just "reminding them" of something anyone can just do spontaneously, rather than informing the player that their character has a unique and powerful skill or ability.
Well, I guess I'll go make a barbarian that "can" just produce alchemical reagents and use advanced alchemy, because obviously "anyone can". The rules for that in alchemist are just reminding the alchemist that they can also do so. Or hey, I'll just start adding dex to damage with every class, since thiefs aren't the only ones who "can" add dexterity to damage with finesse weapons, that line is just reminding them that they have that option.
Trick Magic Item is an exceptional ability. It is not something "anyone can do" as you claim, it is something that you have to be capable of: Using academic Knowledge to cludge your way through magic when you couldn't use normally. You know, because magic is an extraordinary ability that only some people have, but nah never mind, everyone can just use it willy nilly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
rather than informing the player that their character has a unique and powerful skill or ability.
A powerful skill or ability like being able to ignore components?
I know you're trying to be glib but this is sort of self defeating, because you're talking about abilities being expressly defined, yet have yet to point to a single piece of text that expressly defines the ability for innate spells to do what you say they can do.
You can't say "the text is explicit for a reason" on one rule and then handwave that away for another.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are so many questionable and undefined aspects to Innate Spells from the question of the spell components, to what EXACTLY qualifies as an Innate Spell and if they provoke AoO.
I honestly think that at this point it may be wise to put together a big list of all the big burning questions about them and make a thread about it all. From my perspective, Innate Spells are one of the most weakly defined aspects of the rules the three paragraphs they gave them in the Spells Chapter simply isn't enough. I understand that there was a limit to the amount of space in that Chapter but to be candid I am disappointed that these were not more distinctly defined and given more space given how much if up in the air in terms of the RAW. At best a lot of the guidance really has to currently come down on GM interpretation but some questions that have no solid or definitive answer have the potential to REALLY impact how the game is played such as one thread I created in regards to Spells that are cast via a Magic Item Activation (Staffs, Scrolls, and others as well) that questions if the only defining factor is if the Magic Item explicitly states that a Spell is Innate or if, as the Innate Spells section strongly suggests, ALL Spells cast from a Magic Item are automatically Innate.
I'd very much like to see this section of the rules completely rewritten and codified to clear up all these questions for the next wave of Errata.
rather than informing the player that their character has a unique and powerful skill or ability.A powerful skill or ability like being able to ignore components?
I know you're trying to be glib but this is sort of self defeating, because you're talking about abilities being expressly defined, yet have yet to point to a single piece of text that expressly defines the ability for innate spells to do what you say they can do.
You can't say "the text is explicit for a reason" on one rule and then handwave that away for another.
Innate spells are explicit. The rules and guidelines for casting an innate spell explicitly never mention components, or the cast a spell activity. They simply state that you "can cast your innate spells even if you aren’t a member of a spellcasting class."
But what makes more sense: A fey-touched gnome spontaneously knows the words and gestures required to cast a spell. Or they can simply use magic naturally, in a way that can't be taught?
The language of each casting traditions infers that "you" can do these things. They are not a reminder of some nebulous skill that everyone has access to, just because. The very existence of Trick Magic Item should be enough to show that no, not everyone can spontaneously provide components or cast a spell. If you aren't "trained" in magic then the best you can do is try to muddle your way through on academic knowledge. If this wasn't the case, then trick magic item would serve no purpose.
I would like an example of a rule that states that you "can do" something simply as a reminder. I struggle to think of a good example.
rather than informing the player that their character has a unique and powerful skill or ability.A powerful skill or ability like being able to ignore components?
I know you're trying to be glib but this is sort of self defeating, because you're talking about abilities being expressly defined, yet have yet to point to a single piece of text that expressly defines the ability for innate spells to do what you say they can do.
You can't say "the text is explicit for a reason" on one rule and then handwave that away for another.
This pretty much sums it up IMO. beowulf99, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too: You can't say you need explicit rules while putting forth something that's never spelled out even in passing anywhere.
Well, I guess I'll go make a barbarian that "can" just produce alchemical reagents and use advanced alchemy, because obviously "anyone can". The rules for that in alchemist are just reminding the alchemist that they can also do so. Or hey, I'll just start adding dex to damage with every class, since thiefs aren't the only ones who "can" add dexterity to damage with finesse weapons, that line is just reminding them that they have that option.
I'd agree with you is there was countless instances of other abilities that relied on those abilities to work for everyone. Any class/race can get innate spells and the ability to Cast a Spell and those abilities require component use EXPLICITLY. Nowhere does this kind of situation happen with reagents or dex to damage. When you have the option to use the rules in place or being forced to make something up completely, it seems clear to me you use the rules in place.
Innate spells are explicit. The rules and guidelines for casting an innate spell explicitly never mention components, or the cast a spell activity. They simply state that you "can cast your innate spells even if you aren’t a member of a spellcasting class."
The ONLY way to cast a spell is to use the Cast a Spell action: please point out the explicit mechanics for casting a spell without the action...
|
|
I would like an example of a rule that states that you "can do" something simply as a reminder. I struggle to think of a good example.
Cantrips. Cantrip definitions are included in literally EVERY Spellcaster Class despite being defined in nearly identical fashion in the Spells Chapter.
Quite honestly, I'm not at all sure why there was a need to include the full paragraph defining it over and over again for each Spellcasting Class as well as including "reminder" rules for it in just about every place that offers the option to gain one such as Ancestry Feats.
I would like an example of a rule that states that you "can do" something simply as a reminder. I struggle to think of a good example.Cantrips. Cantrip definitions are included in literally EVERY Spellcaster Class despite being defined in nearly identical fashion in the Spells Chapter.
Quite honestly, I'm not at all sure why there was a need to include the full paragraph defining it over and over again for each Spellcasting Class as well as including "reminder" rules for it in just about every place that offers the option to gain one such as Ancestry Feats.
So is your argument that anyone can use cantrips then? Cantrips are just available to every class?
Because it sounds like Cantrips are only available to spellcasters, and the inclusion of that ability is letting a player of that class know that, hey some of your spells are cantrips and here is how they work differently from you regular spells.
The supposition is this: Caster Classes are simply being reminded that they can use the Cast a Spell activity and can provide components, since according to graystone, anyone can do so.
So if that is the case, I want an example of a rule that states that you, "can do X", that is only reminding a player of an option or activity that any character can do, without altering that option or activity.
|
|
Hmm? No not at all, I just wanted to let you know of an instance where rules are printed "as a reminder" with no real apparent benefit. The entire paragraph could EASILY have been simply replaced in the Spellcasting Feature for each Class with something along the lines of:
You can also cast special types of spells called Cantrips (page 300) that don't use spell slots.
That simple sentence would have saved the book about 300 characters per Class and Ancestry Feat that includes them, or in other words about a whole 1-inch of print space in a double-column format like is used that could have been otherwise used to print an extra Feat in EVERY section of the CRB that it's included in.
I'm not saying that everyone can cast them, what I'm saying is that they didn't NEED to redefine it in every location that they're offered, they only needed to point to the one clear definition that guides how they work for everyone.
So is your argument that anyone can use cantrips then? Cantrips are just available to every class?
Between race, class and class feats, everyone CAN use cantrips...
The supposition is this: Caster Classes are simply being reminded that they can use the Cast a Spell activity and can provide components, since according to graystone, anyone can do so.
Correct: the thing you're missing is that you need a spell/spell slot/spell list for cast for it to do anything. For wands/staves/scrolls just being able to Cast a Spell does nothing unless you have a spell/spell list to back it up. So Trick Magic Item is emulating a spell tradition [ie spell list] and in no way grants component use, nor does the knowledge skills for that matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm? No not at all, I just wanted to let you know of an instance where rules are printed "as a reminder" with no real apparent benefit. The entire paragraph could EASILY have been simply replaced in the Spellcasting Feature for each Class with something along the lines of:
You can also cast special types of spells called Cantrips (page 300) that don't use spell slots.
That simple sentence would have saved the book about 300 characters per Class and Ancestry Feat that includes them, or in other words about a whole 1-inch of print space in a double-column format like is used that could have been otherwise used to print an extra Feat in EVERY section of the CRB that it's included in.
I'm not saying that everyone can cast them, what I'm saying is that they didn't NEED to redefine it in every location that they're offered, they only needed to point to the one clear definition that guides how they work for everyone.
Sure. And if everyone could provide components, then they could have simply had a line in each casting class that said, "You can cast spells." But instead they went through and noted what components you can use.
Rituals are also an odd duck. They specify that a knowledge of the tradition of that ritual is sufficient to provide components for that ritual as the primary caster. It then goes on to say that secondary casters have no such requirement, and the secondary checks are often non-magic tradition skills.
Does this mean that those secondary casters are providing components?
This is a muddy bit of rules interaction. I just can't see it from graystone's angle. I see the rules as being explicit, if there is an ability or action in the book then you need to meet the requirements of that ability. Innate spells stretch this quite a bit, by not explicitly stating that you gain Cast a Spell or components, but still stating that you can cast an innate spell.
In my mind, the only way to rectify this is to use the spell as any other action. Spend the actions, cast the spell.
I could be persuaded to accept that this would require the components within that spell, if Mark Seifter hadn't come out and stated in no uncertain terms that actions and components are not one and the same.
So I find myself at an impasse. For now, at my table, innate spells don't require components, as you are never called out as needing, nor having access to them.