Im totally confused about how non-multiclass archetype dcs function and could do with having a nice definitive answer.
1. If i have a spellscale kobold cleric that goes into dragon disciple, what dc do I use for the Dragon Breath feat/focus power?
2. Obviously i have the divine proficiency plus wisdom from my cleric levels, can I use that because the dragon breath bloodline power can be gained from the wyrmblessed divine bloodline, or would that be divine dc plus charisma because the bloodline power it references is usually a sorcerer thing?
3. I also have the dc from the spellscale heritage innate spells... Does that dc scale with my level and would it apply in any way to the archetype dc because spellscale kobold was a prerequisite of the dedication feat?
I would really appreciate having this all sorted out in a way I can understand, because the character doesn't have sorcerer levels or spells and therefore as far as i know cant use that as the basis for a dc and the dragon disciple archetype doesn't mention what to use. Pathbuilder groups it under the cleric dc, but that isnt a rules source and i think it only does that because it's keeping all the focus spells together? Or maybe because as a cleric thats my "primary" dc that i use unless an ability specifies otherwise? I really dont know.
Spellscale Kobold gives you trained proficiency in Arcane spell attack and DC.
Since Dragon Breath is from the Draconic bloodline, and the Draconic bloodline is Arcane tradition, I would expect that you would use your Arcane spell proficiency for the bloodline spell, even though you also have a different proficiency for a different spellcasting tradition.
Your innate spell proficiency is technically different - though not meaningfully different since Spellscale Kobold lists Charisma as your spellcasting ability modifier for your Arcane spell proficiency. But innate spells always use Charisma for the ability modifier even if you have a spellcasting proficiency for the same tradition from some other source (a class or archetype usually). But for example, a Spellscale Kobold that has a class of Wizard would use their Arcane spellcasting proficiency + INT for their Wizard spells, but would still use Arcane spellcasting proficiency + CHA for their innate spells.
One benefit that you do get for innate spells is that you can use your Cleric spellcasting proficiency for the proficiency part of the innate spells. So that cantrip you get from Spellscale Kobold would use your proficiency rating from your Cleric class and then add you CHA bonus to it. But because the bloodline spell is a focus spell instead of an innate spell, it wouldn't get that benefit. So it would still be cast at the Trained proficiency that Spellscale Kobold gives you for Arcane spells.
There is also This excellent video on YouTube for this topic too.
Since Dragon Breath is from the Draconic bloodline, and the Draconic bloodline is Arcane tradition, I would expect that you would use your Arcane spell proficiency for the bloodline spell, even though you also have a different proficiency for a different spellcasting tradition.
You'll also notice in the link for dragon breath that dragon breath is from the wyrmblessed divine tradition/bloodline as well.
So doesn't that mean it'd be my divine proficiency+charisma? I mean neither dragon disciple dedication nor dragon breath specify that it has to be the arcane version of the focus power, so at 20th level for example it'd be legendary plus charisma for a cloistered cleric spellscale kobold?
Otherwise a wyrmblessed sorcerer going into dragon disciple would be getting pretty useless arcane versions too, and I dont see anything to suggest that.
Since Dragon Breath is from the Draconic bloodline, and the Draconic bloodline is Arcane tradition, I would expect that you would use your Arcane spell proficiency for the bloodline spell, even though you also have a different proficiency for a different spellcasting tradition.
You'll also notice in the link for dragon breath that dragon breath is from the wyrmblessed divine tradition/bloodline as well.
So doesn't that mean it'd be my divine proficiency+charisma? I mean neither dragon disciple dedication nor dragon breath specify that it has to be the arcane version of the draconic stuff? So at 20th level for example it'd be legendary plus charisma for a cloistered cleric spellscale kobold?
It could really go either way. This is something that I'd definitely like to see a FAQ/Errata on from Paizo, since this is a pretty crucial rule for the dedication. Until then, it's GM FIAT, since Wyrmblessed interacting with Dragon Disciple at all isn't really defined...well...anywhere.
Since Dragon Breath is from the Draconic bloodline, and the Draconic bloodline is Arcane tradition, I would expect that you would use your Arcane spell proficiency for the bloodline spell, even though you also have a different proficiency for a different spellcasting tradition.
You'll also notice in the link for dragon breath that dragon breath is from the wyrmblessed divine tradition/bloodline as well.
So doesn't that mean it'd be my divine proficiency+charisma? I mean neither dragon disciple dedication nor dragon breath specify that it has to be the arcane version of the focus power, so at 20th level for example it'd be legendary plus charisma for a cloistered cleric spellscale kobold?
Otherwise a wyrmblessed sorcerer going into dragon disciple would be getting pretty useless arcane versions too, and I dont see anything to suggest that.
Ah, so it is. Sorry, I don't have all the new content memorized yet, LOL.
So yeah, I could see the argument of having a Divine version of Dragon Breath.
Breath of the Dragon seems be giving Dragon Breath as an innate spell, albeit a Focus Spell too.
Wouldn't that make one's highest spell proficiency what matters?
(And Charisma, of course)
Breath of the Dragon seems be giving Dragon Breath as an innate spell, albeit a Focus Spell too.
Wouldn't that make one's highest spell proficiency what matters?
(And Charisma, of course)
The reason why this is a question is because it doesn't say that it's an innate spell. Feats typically tell you what type of spell they grant you (unless it's obvious, like a wizard feat giving you wizard spells, etc.) This leaves us with a few options.
#1 One way of interpreting it would be assuming it's an innate spell.
#2 Another option would be going based off of where you got the spell from. If you go with that interpretation, then you would have to take a look at the dragon disciple dedication since Breath of the Dragon is an archetype feat. Unfortunately no reference to the types of spells granted in the archetype is given there either. Though, it does have a prerequisite of "You are a kobold with the dragonscaled or spellscaled heritage, a dragon instinct barbarian, or a draconic bloodline sorcerer." Keying off of that you can take a look at the tradition of spellscaled kobolds' spells and assume it's an extension of that.
#3 Finally, a third option would be to key in on the spell itself, which is of the draconic and wyrmblessed bloodlines, inherently linking it with both the Arcane and Divine traditions.
Personally, I think the 2nd and 3rd options require a few too many assumptions to be particularly good explanations, and would probably just run with the assumption that it's supposed to be an innate spell and they kinda forgot to mention that. Specifically, beyond just being kind of complicated the main reasons I don't like the other explanations are:
- For Option #2 there's 1 too many layers of digging for it to seem practical (if the dedication mentioned it that would make more sense to me). Moreover, if you have to go back to the pre-req for the dedication, then what would be the tradition and key ability score for dragon instinct barbarians?
- For Option #3 there's 2 options. So... which is it? Also, it falls into the same issue as option #1 in that if that was the case then traditionally they'd mention that it counts as if you got it from that bloodline or something similar, and if I'm assuming that they forgot to mention a detail, then I'm going to go with the one that seems to make more sense to me and is easier to adjudicate.
Breath of the Dragon seems be giving Dragon Breath as an innate spell, albeit a Focus Spell too.
Wouldn't that make one's highest spell proficiency what matters?
(And Charisma, of course)
No, it's not an innate spell. Innate spells are called as such from abilities or effects that grant them. Otherworldly Magic and Otherworldly Acumen, for example, specify "innate" in the spells they grant. Even the first line of Innate Spells makes it pretty clear what they're meant for:
Certain spells are natural to your character, typically coming from your ancestry or a magic item rather than your class.
Since Bloodlines aren't Ancestries, and the Dragon Disciple dedication takes a Class feat, the odds of the Breath ability being Innate are pretty slim, if at all. Just as well, the Breath of the Dragon feat doesn't have the word "innate" in the description at all, thus shooting down that theory.
That being said, the Focus Spell rules might give us more insight:
If you are a spellcaster, your focus spells are the same tradition of spell as the class that gave you the focus spell. A bard’s are occult, a cleric’s are divine, a druid’s are primal, a wizard’s are arcane, and a sorcerer’s are determined by their bloodline.
If you get focus spells from a class or other source that doesn’t grant spellcasting ability (for example, if you’re a monk with the Ki Strike feat), the ability that gives you focus spells also provides your proficiency rank for spell attack rolls and spell DCs, as well as the magical tradition of your focus spells. You gain the ability to Cast a Spell and use any spellcasting actions necessary to cast your focus spells (see below). However, you don’t qualify for feats and other rules that require you to be a spellcaster.
So, from what I can tell, Breath of the Dragon and the other Focus Spell abilities fall into a weird place of being a focus spell from a casting class that is provided by a dedication that doesn't actually grant spellcasting. Super corner-case with no proper definition. On one hand, the former interpretation means that it can indeed be from the Wyrmblessed, since it is now a valid choice for a Sorcerer to select, as chosen by their Bloodline which likewise grants this Focus Spell. On the other hand, because Dragon Disciple is a non-spellcasting class, its rules would more likely fall into the "source that doesn't grant spellcasting ability" side of things, even though there is a feat that provides bonus spells which requires having an actual spellcasting feature to make use of, which would make it "undefined" by RAW. It'd be no different than, for example, selecting a Ki Strike feat from a Monk dedication choice.
You could default to the Spellcaster clause above, but the precedent from other non-spellcaster Focus spells (such as Warden spells, Devotion spells, and Ki spells) is it picks the tradition most commonly available (Arcane, in the case of a Draconic Sorcerer ability) and defaults to Trained, unless they possess a higher spellcasting ability in that same tradition, with Charisma being the default ability modifier, since "Focus spells and other sources of spells specify which ability modifier you use for spell attack rolls in the ability that granted them," with that defaulting to Charisma, being from the Sorcerer class and all.
Again, this is ultimately GM FIAT because the rules aren't clear outside of determining that it's not an Innate spell, any more than any other Focus Spell is. There's arguments for both sides that have merit, and unless Paizo comes in to errata and clarify things, the only thing that's really going to matter is what the GM has to say on the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's not an innate spell.
Agreed Innate spells are something else.
That being said, the Focus Spell rules might give us more insight:If you are a spellcaster, your focus spells are the same tradition of spell as the class that gave you the focus spell. A bard’s are occult, a cleric’s are divine, a druid’s are primal, a wizard’s are arcane, and a sorcerer’s are determined by their bloodline.
It does ultimately come from a Sorcerer Bloodline of which there are two, so if you are a spell caster choose: Arcane or Divine.
If you get focus spells from a class or other source that doesn’t grant spellcasting ability (for example, if you’re a monk with the Ki Strike feat), the ability that gives you focus spells also provides your proficiency rank for spell attack rolls and spell DCs, as well as the magical tradition of your focus spells. You gain the ability to Cast a Spell and use any spellcasting actions necessary to cast your focus spells (see below). However, you don’t qualify for feats and other rules that require you to be a spellcaster.
Maybe it falls into that category, in which case you are stuffed as there is no class DC specified for it. It is clearly a gap in the wording of Dragon Disciple.
Given that it is explicitly allowed for Draconic Barbarians and other non spell classes, then you are going to have to assume a class DC. Which clearly has to be your base class DC or it becomes a useless ability. But technically that is a GM ruling, but hopefully your GM is reasonable and remembers the guidlines
Ambiguous Rules
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed
So after reading through all this discussion, assuming cloistered cleric spellscale kobold, its either:
1. An innate spell (Its probably not this, but included for completeness), meaning it defaults to highest proficiency, adding charisma. (Legendary + charisma)
2. A Sorcerer class-based spell (From the choice of arcane or divine as per wyrmblessed), meaning it can use the existing divine proficiency, adding charisma. (Legendary + charisma)
3. A non-spellcasting archetype spell, meaning it "...clearly has to be your base class DC or it becomes a useless ability", which in this case is the cleric's existing divine proficiency, adding wisdom. (Legendary + wisdom)
4. A non-spellcasting archetype spell, meaning it defaults to either untrained or trained and doesn't add any ability modifier, making it "a useless ability". (Untrained or Trained + Nothing)
I dont think anyone believes the last option to be be the case, but like the first option, I included it for the sake of completeness. That just leaves options 2 or 3, in which the only difference for the cleric specifically is spellcasting modifier, but given pathfinder's tight ability point budgeting and combat maths, thats a pretty big difference by itself...
Option 3 makes the most sense for barbarians accessing the archetype, else their abilities would be pretty useless, and it stands to reason that other classes on a spellscale kobold would follow suit. That is also the most beneficial option of how to run it though, and I know when in doubt people on the forum arent generally fond of siding with the most beneficial option. Despite this its pretty all or nothing for barbarians or other non-spellcasting classes with the dragon disciple archetype so perhaps it should be option 3.
Does this line up with the rules?
If you get focus spells from a class or other source that doesn’t grant spellcasting ability (for example, if you’re a monk with the Ki Strike feat), the ability that gives you focus spells also provides your proficiency rank for spell attack rolls and spell DCs, as well as the magical tradition of your focus spells.
Right, I forgot focus spells had their own rules on these things.
This is probably supposed to be what happens here. Though, the problem still remains that it doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do in the feat. This was something that I remember looking up a while ago when trying to figure out the DC for the blessed one dedication on a martial class, since it likewise doesn't explicitly say what ability modifier or proficiency to use. Fortunately, though, it did say that it's of the divine tradition and the fact that it's called a devotion spell in the feat's description made everyone I asked pretty much unanimously say that it should function like devotion spells, which are cha based divine spells and gives you trained proficiency.
The problem with Breathe of the Dragon is some of the key parts that were either clearly stated or able to be intuited in Blessed One are missing (and honestly, even blessed one doesn't include the level of detail that was promised for abilities that grant focus spells, but whatever). Notably, there are multiple sorcerer bloodlines, and in this case they even have 2 that both give dragon's breathe, so it's not really clear which to use.
Either way, though, I think it'd still use Cha, since it's sorcerer based, but for spellcasters it could be very important to note whether it's divine or arcane based, as one of those proficiencies may be higher than trained.
P.S.
I don't see anything that suggests it should use a class DC. Moreover, some classes that don't use your class DC don't even make you trained in it. Could someone please explain how class DCs entered this conversation?
If you get focus spells from a class or other source that doesn’t grant spellcasting ability (for example, if you’re a monk with the Ki Strike feat), the ability that gives you focus spells also provides your proficiency rank for spell attack rolls and spell DCs, as well as the magical tradition of your focus spells.
Yes, I hadn't remembered this either. And it appears to be the exact case that we are discussing: a focus spell being granted by a source that doesn't grant spellcasting ability.
Dragon Disciple archetype or the Breath of the Dragon archetype feat should be the source, so one of those should specify the proficiency rank or spell DCs.
Since they don't, we would have to go up one step further and look at how you got access to the archetype in the first place. But even that causes problems in some cases. The archetype lists 'access' methods, but it doesn't actually have those as prerequisites for the archetype (I guess that is so that GMs can create or allow other access methods that would also work).
For spellscale Kobold this works fine because spellscale Kobold does list a proficiency rank for spell attack and spell DC and a tradition.
For Draconic bloodline Sorcerer it also works fine. It also gives a tradition and proficiency for spells.
For Dragonscaled Kobold and Dragon Instinct Barbarian this doesn't work. Neither of those list a tradition or proficiency for spellcasting.
P.S.
I don't see anything that suggests it should use a class DC. Moreover, some classes that don't use your class DC don't even make you trained in it. Could someone please explain how class DCs entered this conversation?
Which is why Gortle suggested using Class DC in those cases. Which I think would be OK, but only for those cases where the path you took to get Dragon Disciple doesn't provide something better.
And if the GM allows a different path to the archetype than what is already printed, then it is up to them to decide how to set the proficiency and tradition for Dragon Breath.
Im pretty sure the barbarian abilities use the barbarian's class dc because they're abilities from the barbarian class.
Regarding the dragon disciple dc stuff and more broadly the many other unanswered questions, I can see GMs getting very tired of how much of the rules stuff is ambiguous and relies on them to make judgement calls. It seems increasingly common that the majority of questions people have in this forum is answered by "Nobody knows, the GM has to make the call, paizo might know but they wont tell us."
Having a character that works one way at one table and works differently at another table thanks to everything being left up to GM preference is infuriating too. It really kills the enthusiasm to make creative characters, which is such a shame because that was 90% of the appeal of 1st edition.
I thought that one did use class DC. It doesn't give you spellcasting, so you don't have any other DC to use. Pretty sure that's just listed as Arcane because there are effects that play off of that.
I thought so as well. The difference being that for Dragon's Rage Breath is that it comes from your class. Though, again, it would be nice if it actually said that in the ability.
Im pretty sure the barbarian abilities use the barbarian's class dc because they're abilities from the barbarian class.
Regarding the dragon disciple dc stuff and many other unanswered questions, I can see GMs getting very tired of how much of the rules stuff is ambiguous and relies on them to make judgement calls. It seems increasingly common that the majority of questions people have in this forum is answered by "Nobody knows, the GM has to make the call, paizo might know but they wont tell us."
Having a character that works on way at one table and works differently at another table thanks to everything being left up to GM preference is infuriating.
Yeah. Though, if you're on the forums the prevalence of this issue is going to seem a lot bigger than it actually is. It's definitely an issue for things like PFS where you're taking a character to different GMs and wanting it to work the same way (or having a backup character, which let's be real here: not everyone wants to have multiple PFS characters).
In home games I've never actually had an issue with the rules. Even if it's not "clear" it's always been fairly easy to come up with a ruling that makes sense and move on. Experiencing this both as a player and as a GM it really hasn't been that bad, but again, that's for home games.
I've never been a PFS GM, so I'm not sure how common these kinds of things are there, and I know at least some PFS players specifically avoid certain builds that aren't always ruled the same, which is kind of sad.
I guess its only alienating for people who enjoy making creative character builds, or who have specific characters in mind, or that want to pfs/play one character at different tables, or that lean towards certain effects (polymorph for example), or that simply get excited about playing their characters and dont like being met with disappointment when their gm doesnt make the same calls. (we've all got at least one of those contrarian, slightly obnoxious friends that take their turn as GM, right?)
As I say, its a massive shame for all those who loved 1st edition because it had written rules and paizo clarifications that prevented all these issues (even if some rules/clarifications were found in obscure places) and encouraged you to be creative with character builds while letting you be confident about whether they worked or not and allowed you to get excited about playing a new character. This phenomenon may be exaggerated by the fact that the people that frequented the paizo forums during 1e were largely the people that cared about RAW and the game system itself, and those same people arent being catered to by the inherent ambiguity and "hands off" approach of this edition.
Thats my observation anyway, not that its a particularly productive one, given that it doesnt help answer anything and I'm not so deluded as to believe they'll adjust their design/rules approach based on reading comments like this. Sometimes venting our frustrations are all we can do!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess its only alienating for people who enjoy making creative character builds, or who have specific characters in mind, or that want to pfs/play one character at different tables, or that lean towards certain effects (polymorph for example), or that simply get excited about playing their characters and dont like being met with disappointment when their gm doesnt make the same calls. (we've all got at least one os those contrarian, slightly obnoxious friends, right?)
As I say, its a massive shame for all those who loved 1st edition because it had written rules and paizo clarifications that prevented all these issues (even if some rules/clarifications were found in obscure places) and encouraged you to be creative with character builds, therefore allowing you to be confident about whether they worked or not and allowed you to get excited about playing a new character. This phenomenon may be exaggerated by the fact that the people that frequented the paizo forums during 1e were largely the people that cared about RAW and the game system itself, and those same people arent being catered to by the inherent ambiguity and "hands off" approach of this edition.
I don't think it's fair to say that the system is alienating to all of the people rattled off in the first paragraph, especially since it completely ignores my comment (which I'm assuming you're replying to) and doesn't even attempt to address how these issues are typically handled. Like I said, there are certainly situations in which it's not ideal (though, Paizo is working on it, and I know for a fact they'd be doing more for the community if it wasn't for Covid wrecking a ton of their plans), and I freely admitted that it's an issue for PFS, but you didn't address home games at all.
Yes, all of the things you mentioned could be a little easier, but also, a lot of them can be answered with a simple 2 minute talk with the GM (a lot faster than tracking down the official PF1 ruling, which the GM might not accept anyway). For example, I have like 10 unused characters planned out to level 20 in pathbuilder right now. I AM one of those people who loves character creation and unique builds. In that process I also have a few notes written down to ask any GM I plan to use a character with to see if it's okay (not all characters need this, but some do). These notes range from "Are uncommon ancestries allowed in this campaign?" to "how will this ability work in your game?", and I've never had to spend more than 10 minutes talking about it with a GM, nor have I had to change more than a couple feats or spells to make a character work with any ruling they give me.
Moreover, even if you could find a "correct" ruling that was never a guarantee that the GM would run it that way in their game (outside of PFS). Rule 0 may not have been explicitly stated in PF1 (I don't think it was, anyway), but let's be real here: it always existed. If a GM said something was the case, then it was, because without the GM there is no game. Don't get me wrong: I like rules heavy games, and more errata would of course be appreciated, but the number of issues an average character runs into between levels 1 and 20 is typically 0 to 3 (in my experience). One of those might be a major difference, and in those cases it would be nice to have an official ruling, and in the meantime it's important to make sure you're on the same page ahead of time, but let's not pretend that a character's gotta deal with 50 unclear rulings to function, or that a GM is significantly more troubled in PF1 over PF2. I mean, if anything I'd say GMing PF2 is way easier, but that's just from my own personal experience, which is rather limited.
Btw, the one exception to this quick talk solution with characters I've built in particular that I could see happening in the future is a very GM vs Player ruling of animal companions that I see no basis for in RAW.
I'm not going to say what it is so as to not bring it up again, but I've seen it be discussed here before, so I figured I'd bring it up. And if I ran into it I wouldn't blame Paizo, since it's not their fault if someone misreads a rule. I'd just try to reason with the GM, and if I couldn't convince them, then I'd either not join the group or bring another character.
You know I hadn't factored in covid limiting paizos interaction and ability to address these issues. Maybe they are eager to correct or errata these issues and have just been unable to do so yet, in which case i look forward to them communicating with us or filling in the gaps.
And yes, perhaps i phrased that first sentence poorly, id meant that those things added together with things like GMs that enjoy being contrarian or simply have a poor sense of judgement / balance are what can cause issues for the types of players I listed.
Also while grilling your GM ahead of time on how they are going to rule everything ambiguous in the game is fine in theory, in practice it simply adds a tedious extra complication to making a character, something that should be enjoyable and exciting in its own right. We all have lives outside of the game that can make even organising sessions hard enough, let alone finding time to discuss the plethora of choices we might make as the game progresses and how each will be ruled ahead of time. Its far from ideal for people that actually enjoy character creation and want to be prepared and excited for their first session, especially if there's elements such as potential social awkwardness or confrontation avoidance to consider. Which from what ive seen and experienced isnt uncommon among players. In contrast I've never experienced a GM that will rule against or dispute written rules unless they're doing so in a big way by actively homebrewing large portions of the system, which means written rules can simply bypass such factors, making the whole experience more enjoyable for everyone involved.
Clear and concise rules should always be the foundation of the game so everyone is on the same page, GMs shouldn't have to fill in gaps that should have been covered by the system already. If a GM wants to houserule away a rule they dont like in favor of something more fun or functional that's fine, but that should be something extra they elect to do.
So after reading through all this discussion, assuming cloistered cleric spellscale kobold, its either:
1. An innate spell (Its probably not this, but included for completeness), meaning it defaults to highest proficiency, adding charisma. (Legendary + charisma)
2. A Sorcerer class-based spell (From the choice of arcane or divine as per wyrmblessed), meaning it can use the existing divine proficiency, adding charisma. (Legendary + charisma)
3. A non-spellcasting archetype spell, meaning it "...clearly has to be your base class DC or it becomes a useless ability", which in this case is the cleric's existing divine proficiency, adding wisdom. (Legendary + wisdom)
4. A non-spellcasting archetype spell, meaning it defaults to either untrained or trained and doesn't add any ability modifier, making it "a useless ability". (Untrained or Trained + Nothing)
I dont think anyone believes the last option to be be the case, but like the first option, I included it for the sake of completeness. That just leaves options 2 or 3, in which the only difference for the cleric specifically is spellcasting modifier, but given pathfinder's tight ability point budgeting and combat maths, thats a pretty big difference by itself...
Option 3 makes the most sense for barbarians accessing the archetype, else their abilities would be pretty useless, and it stands to reason that other classes on a spellscale kobold would follow suit. That is also the most beneficial option of how to run it though, and I know when in doubt people on the forum arent generally fond of siding with the most beneficial option. Despite this its pretty all or nothing for barbarians or other non-spellcasting classes with the dragon disciple archetype so perhaps it should be option 3.
Does this line up with the rules?
Again, there are merits for both 2 and 3. Option 2 makes sense since the original effect (Dragon Breath) comes from a Sorcerer spellcasting feat(ure). As such, the DCs would follow the same tradition as the Bloodline, plus the class' modifier, which is Charisma. Whether a GM permits Wyrmblessed to be valid or not is a whole other matter.
Which segues into option 3, being that it is a Focus spell granted from a class (or rather, dedication) that does not provide Spellcasting. The Barbarian argument definitely helps this interpretation, but there is still the question of whether you can make alternative choices (such as Wyrmblessed versus straight Draconic, the default option) with this feat or not, and given the Access line of the dedication, a GM may rule that they don't get those benefits, especially since RAW, a Wyrmblessed Sorcerer taking this dedication feat does not have to conform their Dragon choice from the feat to their original choice.
It would be nice if there was something that definitively showed that these Bloodlines where interchangeable, similar to how Longbows and Composite Longbows are identical outside of their specific changes. It's not unreasonable for a GM to rule as such, but it's not a guarantee, especially in PFS.
I would personally want it to be Option 3 because I wanted to make a super awesome Prismatic Draconic Sorcerer character, and this interpretation would make it legally possible within the RAW to do so without it being non-viable.
...there is still the question of whether you can make alternative choices (such as Wyrmblessed versus straight Draconic, the default option) with this feat or not, and given the Access line of the dedication, a GM may rule that they don't get those benefits, especially since RAW, a Wyrmblessed Sorcerer taking this dedication feat does not have to conform their Dragon choice from the feat to their original choice.
It would be nice if there was something that definitively showed that these Bloodlines where interchangeable
The best they gave us is "Related Bloodline: Because the wyrmblessed and draconic bloodlines have similar origins, they count the same as each other for the purposes of prerequisites and access requirements."
It'd be bad if they had that text specifically to qualify for dragon disciple then had their dragon breath archetype ability be based on a non existent arcane proficiency anyway. So its safe to assume divine dragon disciples are a valid thing and there is an option for a divine dc dragon breath from the archetype. That much at least shouldn't be in question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WIth these rule problems. Yes they should be clear and it is annoying and costing players. I've seen it.
However in the majority of cases it won't get raised as an actual issue, probably the GM is not going to check they will just go with the interpretation of the player who built the character. If the player says its the class DC and the number is in line with other DCs at the table, most people won't have the time or the inclination to investigate. A GM has enough to do as it is.
That is how it should be. Its a game after all, The ability is meant to be useful, not gimped. This is what the guidlelines say - reasonable outcome.
Often its only if the ability looks overpowered then the checking will happen.
...there is still the question of whether you can make alternative choices (such as Wyrmblessed versus straight Draconic, the default option) with this feat or not, and given the Access line of the dedication, a GM may rule that they don't get those benefits, especially since RAW, a Wyrmblessed Sorcerer taking this dedication feat does not have to conform their Dragon choice from the feat to their original choice.
It would be nice if there was something that definitively showed that these Bloodlines where interchangeable
The best they gave us is "Related Bloodline: Because the wyrmblessed and draconic bloodlines have similar origins, they count the same as each other for the purposes of prerequisites and access requirements."
It'd be bad if they had that text specifically to qualify for dragon disciple then had their dragon breath archetype ability be based on a non existent arcane proficiency anyway. So its safe to assume divine dragon disciples are a valid thing and there is an option for a divine dc dragon breath from the archetype. That much at least shouldn't be in question.
I mean, that's good enough for me. I just didn't expect any sort of clarification whatsoever. It would have been nice for them to go the extra step in clarifying if effects which rely on or bolster one also work for the other, though, since they have been pointlessly pedantic in most every other rule in the game thus far.
WIth these rule problems. Yes they should be clear and it is annoying and costing players. I've seen it.
However in the majority of cases it won't get raised as an actual issue, probably the GM is not going to check they will just go with the interpretation of the player who built the character. If the player says its the class DC and the number is in line with other DCs at the table, most people won't have the time or the inclination to investigate. A GM has enough to do as it is.
That is how it should be.
I disagree entirely with your second paragraph. Games are fun because they are based on a solid, clearly defined set of balanced rules that in the case of ttrpgs determine strengths and weaknesses based on character creation choices. The players should not just be able to blag mechanical elements of their character off, relying on the gm not having the time to "investigate" them to find out if theyre making up their own numbers and have the GM "just go with it" until the GM subjectively feels something is overpowered and decides to step in. (You dont need to look very hard online to find instances of deluded GMs that banned objectively underpowered classes in 1e, because they believed them to be overpowered, for example.)
If a player wants to make use of character options they should 100% know how they work. The only way they can do that is by being informed by clear written rules and understanding the mechanics associated with them. That way, should a GM have questions at any point then neither the player nor the GM need to needlessly detract from the gameplay. The player can simply reference the applicable rules, keeping everyone on the same page and making things simple and unmarred by biased judgements that can lead to disruption of player and GM enjoyment at the table. As you say, the GM has enough to do as it is, and I'd add that they shouldn't need to keep an eye out for their players potentially self-adjudicating their own houseruled proficiency modifiers either.
I disagree entirely with your second paragraph. Games are fun because they are based on a solid, clearly defined set of balanced rules
That is how it should be.
My third sentence relates to the second not the first. I'm not saying this is a good experience. It does need to be fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the dragon disciple dc stuff and more broadly the many other unanswered questions, I can see GMs getting very tired of how much of the rules stuff is ambiguous and relies on them to make judgement calls. It seems increasingly common that the majority of questions people have in this forum is answered by "Nobody knows, the GM has to make the call, paizo might know but they wont tell us."
Having a character that works one way at one table and works differently at another table thanks to everything being left up to GM preference is infuriating too. It really kills the enthusiasm to make creative characters, which is such a shame because that was 90% of the appeal of 1st edition.
The prevalence of such things is highly exaggerated on these forums because that is most of what we are discussing on the rules forum - the strange interactions of rules that cause unintended or undefined effects.
When actually running a game, I practically never encounter anything of the sort.
And if a player does build a character that has one of these ambiguities, it is fairly easily solved because
1) It can be ruled on once during character creation/level up when the ambiguity is first discovered.
2) The differences between the various possible rulings is generally fairly small.
For #2, consider this Spellscale Kobold Cleric with Dragon Breath from an archetype at 20th level.
Ruling it as an innate arcane spell gives trained + CHA.
Ruling it as a regular arcane spell also gives trained + CHA.
Ruling it as an innate divine spell gives legendary + CHA.
Ruling it as a regular divine spell gives legendary + WIS.
How big of a difference is it going to make? Assuming dumping CHA and pumping WIS: trained + CHA = 22, legendary + WIS = 34 (I think). So 14 points at most at max level assuming you are deliberately trying to make it be as different as possible.
If you aren't dumping CHA, the difference will be more around 8 points.
The prevalence of such things is highly exaggerated on these forums because that is most of what we are discussing on the rules forum - the strange interactions of rules that cause unintended or undefined effects.
I can't really agree with this broad statement: It's quite prevalent for some things, like familiars. They pretty much go from mindless object to extra PCs in exploration mode purely at the whims of that particular DM... Some of our unanswered questions aren't strange niche corner cases.
Ruling it as an innate arcane spell gives trained + CHA.
Ruling it as a regular arcane spell also gives trained + CHA.
Ruling it as an innate divine spell gives legendary + CHA.
Ruling it as a regular divine spell gives legendary + WIS.
Also remember that innate spells proficiency goes up with other spell proficiencies: Innate Spells, Core Rulebook pg. 302
"If your proficiency in spell attack rolls or spell DCs is expert or better, apply that proficiency to your innate spells, too."
So for #1, the difference is the stat bonuses, as it has legendary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we need to sponsor folk with a forever GM. Even without these "issues" it must suck to be always needing a new group to play with.
Thats only one scenario, sometimes forever GMs have less than excellent judgement and are straight up bad at making game design and balance calls and absolutely do benefit from having written rules. Perhaps its a side-effect of misconceptions from previous systems that they've GMd for years or complacency for having "always played it this way", leading them to lose sight of what's fair in newer systems and unintentionally having their compromised judgement affect the enjoyment of the game. These people wouldn't be doing it deliberately, and from the experience ive had with a GM like this the guy was actually one of the nicest most enthusiastic ttrpg'er that ive ever met.
Its also beneficial to have written rules simply because the type of people that can find the GM role appealing are sometimes (in minority!) those seeking an environment in which they feel in control and assert control, maybe to compensate for other issues that may also cause them to be more dominant or provocative/contrary, like feeling a lack of control/importance irl. These GMs are ironically sometimes those with the worst judgement that benefit the most from being shown the rules in black and white because they'll rarely be convinced by trifling matters like logic, fairness or fun once they've made their kneejerk decision. Again, they're probably not bad people or doing it consciously/deliberately, but I believe ive met at least one of this kind of forever GM.
Lets face it the role of forever GM requires a certain kind of stubbornness regardless of what kind of GM they are and that can lead even good GMs to double down on less than perfect initial judgement calls. GMs should not have to make game design judgement calls like those found dotted around pf2e, they have enough to worry about already. As much as we'd like to assume all GMs are paragons of game judgement, balancing and fun, we all know they're not so quirk-free, and every GM absolutely should have clear and comprehensive rules to fall back on so they dont have to risk unintentionally gimping character concepts or player enjoyment.
I think the thing to take away is that no GM is ever hampered by clear, concise written rules, and having them is a singularly positive thing. They wholly benefit less experienced GMs/those with poor judgement, whereas the more experienced GMs will know to use them as reference should they wish to houserule/homebrew modifications to them, something they absolutely know they should run past their players to avoid compromising enjoyment.
In regard to it sucking not having a permanent forever GM, from experience having moved house a fair bit its a mixed bag. While it may cause gaps in gaming while you get set up in a new area, you do get to meet new people and get to know them, so that's nice.
I think we need to sponsor folk with a forever GM. Even without these "issues" it must suck to be always needing a new group to play with.
LOL You take the good with the bad. While moving to a new group might mean learning new rules interpretations and losing a good group it also means you might move to a table that aligns more with your tastes or you might shed an unwanted fellow gamer that didn't mesh with your game style. While I do miss my old home group, there is something to be said for wandering around and exploring new gaming groups too.
In regard to it sucking not having a permanent forever GM, from experience having moved house a fair bit its a mixed bag.
For me, I've moved completely to online play as it's much, much easier to meet online expectations of posting vs meeting offline ones for scheduling. That and I'm not exactly in a metropolitan area with a lot of games to pick from with most playing organized play at the only game store [and I'm not a fan of organized play].
For me, I've moved completely to online play as it's much, much easier to meet online expectations of posting vs meeting offline ones for scheduling. That and I'm not exactly in a metropolitan area with a lot of games to pick from with most playing organized play at the only game store [and I'm not a fan of organized play].
That's something ive yet to get into. From experience using discord and similar for online pc games, ive found it lacking compared to being physically present with others to game. Much of the experience benefits from being able to witness facial expressions and pick up on subtleties expressed in body language while having a laugh together, something Id struggle not having. Playing at game stores has its drawbacks too, mainly being noisy and potentially causing immersion issues, but I have had success finding home games from there and gotten to know many good friends through them. Happy to hear you've found a way to play that's comfortable for you... ive yet to delve back into gaming amid all the covid stuff but im hoping it'll quieten down soon and I can get back to finding a new group.
It'd be nice if I could get the rules straight before I do so, just in case I end up playing pathfinder 2e and not 5e or another system. I mean I have characters prepared for quite a few different systems because I really enjoy coming up with character concepts, building characters and exploring game systems but every time i attempt that with pathfinder 2e i end up hitting roadblocks from overly ambiguous rule gaps. Not the end of the world, but certainly irritating.
The best set up ive played at was in a home game with the GM running the TV above the table as a second screen for their laptop, using a program of some kind to conceal the maps until explored. Private info being something passed out on scraps of paper between gm and players, with the option of stepping into the GMs kitchen to discuss lengthier plans. Most of the functionality without the specialised price tag.
Though equally one of the best games ive played in bypassed maps entirely and used only descriptions and imagination. That one required a bit of give and take and sometimes had some confusion about positioning, but still worked well overall.
But compared to a one-time pf1e game i had in a game store where they used maps and props and miniatures but the GM didnt know 5ft steps were a thing and accused me of powergaming/taking advantage when I moved around using regular move actions to flank or to move out of combat before fireballing things, all while the deafening hum of other tables made it hard to hear a thing anyone said, anything is wonderful. I think they had major hang-ups about how the game was "supposed to be played" based on their MMORPG experiences...
Not pathfinder, but ive also played a couple of store/gaming club games where they straight up ignored the RP aspect of the TTRPG. Actively shutting down attempts to communicate and treating the game as a combat simulator. Though again, the deafening noise of the respective loacations did a pretty good job of preventing RP anyway. Thankfully i did not stay in those games for more than a session or two while i organised joining home games.
I think my order of preference would be home > online > store/club, though as i say i havnt really given online a proper go yet.
Our current setup is home with a projector and a projector screen ( probably 120")
The DM uses his desktop and monitor for the DM tools ( using one roll20 account ) and uses the monitor for a second roll20 account, meant for players.
We decide what to do and roll the dices ourselves.
Not being able to move, we simply tell him where to move our token.
Yeah that matches my experience pretty closely. Finding that again would be nice.
I played with plenty of groups but only home or online.
I think, if I recall correctly, that I never played at a store/club.
If you dont mind me asking, were the home games with people you knew for a long time beforehand, and if not, how did you find them?
(Im always keen on finding ways of skipping the game store section of the home game finding process after moving to a new area.)