I feel like spellscale kobold will probably be ruled to only affect the spell granted from the heritage.
As written now, maybe it would have some sort of interaction with your class abilities...but I doubt it. Because it'd have a lot of weird ramifications.
Like does being a spellscale wizard grant you int or charisma? If it still grants you int, but all your spells have a charisma DC base, and any other class abilities depend on it...I'd say you have a recipe for an under-performing character.
Even if I interpret spellscale kobold generously, any class granted non-spell casting abilities will continue to depend on the class' default ability score and not charisma. However, I think this is an overall nerf to the character.
No, I think ultimately spellscale kobold only applies to the single spell granted by the heritage.
That was what I thought as well, but if we compare it to something else that came out in the APG, Tengu's Storm Lash, that doesn't hold up. The wording for spellscale is so far off from everything I can't even give a RAI for it. They gain most of the benefits of a arcane sorc MC (missing a cantrip and repetoire) as a race, without actually being a sorcerer. Arguably more powerful, as this say key ability is for ALL arcane spells, not just sorcerer ones.
Maybe they felt it wasn't that clear the way it was written in the CRB, so they decided to change it with the APG.
But it doesn't say the word all.
It just says "and your key spellcasting ability is charisma". That's pretty vague as to whether it changes for anything else (at least to me).
If we break this down sentence by sentence:
A trace of draconic magic flows through your veins.
Fluff here, no mechanics.
Choose one cantrip from the arcane spell list.
Pretty straight forward, choose a cantrip, you're going to get it.
You can Cast this Spell as an arcane innate spell at will.
This sentence specifies how often you can use the cantrip, it's possible that you might get a cantrip you can't use at will don't know if there are currently any examples.
A cantrip is heightened to a spell level equal to half your level rounded up.
This is telling you the spell automatically gets heightened. Good to know that you wont be stuck at nothing damage if you chose an attack cantrip.
Now everything up to the point has clearly been referring only to the spell granted by this ability. So when we get to:
You gain the trained proficiency rank in arcane spell attack rolls and spell DCs, and your key spellcasting ability is Charisma.
Why we would be inclined to read it as applying to all spellcasting?
Nah, it's telling you your proficient in arcane spell attack rolls and DCs, and that you're spellcasting ability for this spell is Charisma.
I agree it's a little vague because it doesn't clearly specify it's only for this spell.
But I'm fairly certain your interpretation isn't correct.
The only thing that's kind of unusual is they mention spellcasting ability at all, since it defaults to charisma anyways, but I'm of the view that the person who wrote this was reminding us. Not trying to set new rules territory.
I'm sorry I just don't buy it.
If it was actually intended to change the casting stat of any arcane spell casting class you might take I think it would should be a little more explicit to do so.
Literally everything in the ability description up to the comma is very obvious and referring to the spell your gaining from the heritage.
I really don't believe they're changing your spell casting stat for any arcane spell casting you might gain, because they don't explain how that would interact with anything else.
Also...uh using a wand requires it to be on your spell list. So a rogue, even with minor magic, definitely can't activate a wand of darkness because that's not on their spell list. A rogue with minor magic gets two 0 level spells they can use (they don't even get a spell list really) but I would be generous and say they could use a wand with the two spells they have (although I don't know why they would want to). But darkness isn't a cantrip. So no, the rogue can't use it.
This means that either non casting spellscales cannot activate magic items, even though as worded it would allow that, or that is allowed and wizard ones have two key scores (which is where most of the issues lie).
Yeah, scrolls and wands and staves can't be activated by non-spell caters (unless you explicitly have some ability that states otherwise).
Like the Trick Magic Item feat.
Why would this feat exist if just anyone could activate every magic items.
Looking through, I assumed being trained in spell DCs and attack rolls and being able to cast cantrips would allow you to qualify, but it does specify the Cast a Spell activity. I'm not sure why you would take minor magic then, when eldritch trickster exists, but that's a different thread.
However, they worded spellscaled explicitly to give training in arcane DCs and spell lists. Otherwise they would have worded it like one of the many others, or left it to the rules of innate spells. I have to see the cantrip and the training as two different effects. If its not meant to be, then this is clear errata territory.
As for why you would take Minor Magic, maybe you want a cantrip, but don't want full casting.
To be honest I'm not sure why. Though thief racket is a good reason not to be eldritch trickster, but it's certainly attractive if you want to be a caster trickster instead of a more traditional rogue.
Spellscaled doesn't give a spell list. It tells you to choose a single cantrip to be able to cast. There's a huge world of difference there.
The only significant difference between spellscaled and other similar abilities is that it reminds you to use charisma.
I agree it does make you trained in arcane DCs, but that does nothing for your ability to use wands or scrolls.
I agree it's not the most clearly worded ability, but I don't think you're turning your kobold wizard into an charisma based caster.
Did anyone else reading the thread title hear it in their head as the tune of the 80s Transformers theme song where it says "Transformers: Robots in Disguise?" XD
Did anyone else reading the thread title hear it in their head as the tune of the 80s Transformers theme song where it says "Transformers: Robots in Disguise?" XD
Yes, and that's mostly why I even clicked on the thread :D