I see a strange pattern with unofficial erratas: Familiars are taking hits. They just have 6hp/lvl, we should be nice with them (also, they are cute!).
We should definitely play nice, especially given how the core book says it's mean to kill somebody's mount and not attack them at all.
Which has always struck me as odd.
If an intelligent is getting dominated by a highly mobile cavalier, and it makes total sense to take out the cavalier's primary strength in order to have a hope of survival, the GM...shouldn't?
I'm all for making things fun for my players, but a big part of that is keeping the verisimilitude intact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you already have a Familiar with two abilities, does it lose one when you take the Witch Dedication? Or does that restriction only apply to a Familiar granted through the Witch MC?
It seems weird that spending two Familiar-granting feats would make it weaker than if you only spent one. Before, I had considered losing an ability to be a fair trade for daily resurrections.
we should be nice with them (also, they are cute!).
Aww, thanks.
I see a strange pattern with unofficial erratas: Familiars are taking hits. They just have 6hp/lvl, we should be nice with them (also, they are cute!).
It's because the personality types drawn to different styles of classes haven't really been realigned yet with 2e's new power budget. Whereas folks who want something reliable and sturdy are drawn to martials, people who want to break stuff are still drawn to casters (even if the fighter is a stronger class in this edition than the wizard) If you're looking for what to reign in, it's the people who are trying to exploit the system.
The solution- give fighters familiars.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, there's an idea. Make Fighter archetype only get their improved weapon proficiency through gaining a familiar and a special familiar ability that grants that improved proficiency. They will get the benefit that they can change what weapon type it applies to every day, and the drawback that if their familiar dies then they lose access to their improved martial weapon proficiency until they can replace their familiar.
Perfect. Now Fighter archetype is balanced with Witch archetype.
Today's video is basically non-negotiable. At least the first part of it.
always apply the adjustment from a natural 20 or natural 1 before anything else.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We should definitely play nice, especially given how the core book says it's mean to kill somebody's mount and not attack them at all.Which has always struck me as odd.
If an intelligent is getting dominated by a highly mobile cavalier, and it makes total sense to take out the cavalier's primary strength in order to have a hope of survival, the GM...shouldn't?
I'm all for making things fun for my players, but a big part of that is keeping the verisimilitude intact.
Makes sense from that perspective, but they didn't make animal companions tough enough to handle it. The downside to companions not being as good as another character is that they have to be treated more as gear than a piece on the board otherwise they just don't hold up. Familiars are in the same boat boat but haven't been given the same amnesty.
Which has always struck me as odd.
If an intelligent NPC is getting dominated by a highly mobile cavalier PC, and it makes total sense to take out the cavalier's primary strength in order to have a hope of survival, the GM...shouldn't?
I'm all for making things fun for my players, but a big part of that is keeping the verisimilitude intact.
There. Fixed. Not sure why those words disappeared. Forum goblins probably. Or just the phone's stupid autocorrect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. In today's video we learn that just the spellcasting dedication feat is sufficient to cast spells from scrolls and wands.
Makes me curious why the wording of casting from scrolls and wands even requires a 'spellcasting class feature' then. Since that is clearly only provided by the Basic spellcasting feat.
So would a feat that gives a cantrip in other ways also allow casting spells from a scroll or wand? For example Elf Otherworldly Magic which gives a tradition (arcane) and a cantrip.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and forget about Trick Magic Item. Just get Arcane Sense and you don't have to roll in order to use scrolls and wands.
Not really convinced. Neither of those are dipping into a spellcasting class.
Not really convinced. Neither of those are dipping into a spellcasting class.
Well, no.
But there is nothing in the spellcasting class dedication that bypasses the requirement of a 'spellcasting class feature' either. And from the video it was fairly clear, to me anyway, that it was only the ability to cast a cantrip that was what makes a character a spellcaster.
Not really convinced. Neither of those are dipping into a spellcasting class.Well, no.
But there is nothing in the spellcasting class dedication that bypasses the requirement of a 'spellcasting class feature' either. And from the video it was fairly clear, to me anyway, that it was only the ability to cast a cantrip that was what makes a character a spellcaster.
Logan didn't say that having any cantrips was enough to qualify. He said that taking the Wizard Dedication was enough to qualify for scrolls, wands, and staves with wizard spells. I think the part about the cantrips was just fleshing out the in-game reasoning.
I do wonder if the same rule applies to Eldritch Archer, though. I believe it's the only non-multiclass archetype with the three spellcasting feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder if the same rule applies to Eldritch Archer, though. I believe it's the only non-multiclass archetype with the three spellcasting feats.
Cathartic Mage is an even better example since it gets the dedication, Basic, Expert, and Master spellcasting feats at the standard levels - same as Wizard.
It also has the same interesting lack of skill proficiency requirement for taking those higher level feats that Eldritch Archer does. Which makes it strictly better (less build investment) than Wizard archetype for a full spellcasting archetype.
Oooh! That looks interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be perfectly clear: I am still of the opinion that the rules clearly say that the Basic Spellcasting Benefits feat is needed in order to use scrolls and wands - that Logan is wrong on this point again.
So to better explain that, let me pose a challenge. Find something in the printed rules that both allows a Fighter with Wizard dedication alone to cast a spell from a scroll, and that also prevents a Fighter with Otherworldly Magic to cast from the scroll.
Remembering of course that Casting from a scroll requires Cast a Spell activation, which requires a spellcasting class feature - which is provided by the Basic Spellcasting Benefits.
So if we are going to ignore part of this chain of requirements - which one? And what part of what is left prevents casting from a scroll if you only have a cantrip from an ancestry or skill feat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oooh! That looks interesting.
It is interesting.
I also consider it a bug that needs errata.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be perfectly clear: I am still of the opinion that the rules clearly say that the Basic Spellcasting Benefits feat is needed in order to use scrolls and wands - that Logan is wrong on this point again.
So to better explain that, let me pose a challenge. Find something in the printed rules that both allows a Fighter with Wizard dedication alone to cast a spell from a scroll, and that also prevents a Fighter with Otherworldly Magic to cast from the scroll.
Remembering of course that Casting from a scroll requires Cast a Spell activation, which requires a spellcasting class feature - which is provided by the Basic Spellcasting Benefits.
So if we are going to ignore part of this chain of requirements - which one? And what part of what is left prevents casting from a scroll if you only have a cantrip from an ancestry or skill feat?
The rules also clearly state that:
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.
The two halves of that sentence seemingly saying different things is why there was confusion. It's now clarified (unofficially like everything else on the channel) that in the case of spell casting dedications, all that you need is the dedication. Effectively, that line overrides the need for a spell casting class feature (with the way that it's been clarified) for wands, scrolls, and staves specifically. If something other than a wand, scroll, or staff requires a spellcating class feature, it would seem you still need Basic Spellcasting.
None of those other sources of cantrips contain a line like what I quoted, so none of them work.
I am generally in favor of being able to pick up access to wands and scrolls, as it's a pretty balanced way to add spellcaster flavor to a character. I think it's fine to lean on the more permissive side of this ruling.
To be perfectly clear: I am still of the opinion that the rules clearly say that the Basic Spellcasting Benefits feat is needed in order to use scrolls and wands - that Logan is wrong on this point again.
The class dedication explicitly gives you the Cast a Spell activity just like the spellcasting class feature does. That’s all the spellcasting feature is. I haven’t seen anyone else argue that you need a basic spellcasting feat or 1st level spell to activate wands and scrolls.
The rules also clearly state that:
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.The two halves of that sentence seemingly saying different things is why there was confusion.
Yes. The first half of the sentence tells you that the archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands. And the second half tells you how to get that ability - by getting the basic spellcasting benefits.
Also to note: The dedication also does not allow you to cast from staves - even though that line says that you can. Because the Rules for casting from a staff has the additional requirement that 'are able to cast spells of the appropriate level'.
So if the first half of that sentence is indication of future ability gained from additional feats for staves, why isn't it the same for scrolls and wands?
None of those other sources of cantrips contain a line like what I quoted, so none of them work.
And I would say that this line also doesn't work for the Fighter with Wizard dedication alone.
The class dedication explicitly gives you the Cast a Spell activity just like the spellcasting class feature does. That’s all the spellcasting feature is.
And how do you cast a cantrip other than by using the Cast a Spell activity?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Staves contain cantrips. Presumably someone with the dedication and not basic spellcasting could still cast the cantrip from the staff.
You are making an assumption that the second half of the quoted sentence is explaining how the first half works. They are two separate clauses and can both be true without that being the case. Per the clarification, the way I explained it seems to be the way to interpret it, rather than assuming any cantrip allows you to use items (something I’m pretty sure has been clarified elsewhere to not be true, though things have been appearing so many places, I doubt I could find/remember where).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are making an assumption that the second half of the quoted sentence is explaining how the first half works.
Yes. That is how sentences usually work. They make a single statement about one topic.
And at best your argument shows that this sentence is ambiguous. Which doesn't address the clear requirements in the Cast a Spell activation saying that it needs a 'spellcasting class feature' and the second half of the sentence saying, by identical name, exactly where to get that 'spellcasting class feature' from in the archetype.
rather than assuming any cantrip allows you to use items (something I’m pretty sure has been clarified elsewhere to not be true, though things have been appearing so many places, I doubt I could find/remember where).
Heh. Indeed. If you could find that, I would be interested in seeing it. It is another one of my unanswered questions: does having an innate spell let you cast that same spell from a scroll or wand. Obviously doesn't work with cantrips, but there are options to get innate spells granted at actual spell levels.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are making an assumption that the second half of the quoted sentence is explaining how the first half works.Yes. That is how sentences usually work. They make a single statement about one topic.
And at best your argument shows that this sentence is ambiguous. Which doesn't address the clear requirements in the Cast a Spell activation saying that it needs a 'spellcasting class feature' and the second half of the sentence saying, by identical name, exactly where to get that 'spellcasting class feature' from in the archetype.
The sentence is ambiguous, which is why the question was being asked in the first place. We now have a designer clearing up that ambiguity. There is no need to leap to this changes all of the other rules, because the sentence could have been interpreted in a way consistent with the designer's clarification in the first place.
|
|
rather than assuming any cantrip allows you to use items (something I’m pretty sure has been clarified elsewhere to not be true, though things have been appearing so many places, I doubt I could find/remember where).Heh. Indeed. If you could find that, I would be interested in seeing it. It is another one of my unanswered questions: does having an innate spell let you cast that same spell from a scroll or wand. Obviously doesn't work with cantrips, but there are options to get innate spells granted at actual spell levels.
I'll look for it later tonight. I'm fairly sure it's going to come back around to "you must have a spellcasting class feature" again, which nothing about Logan's clarification changed. It is possible for it to be true, in general, that you must have a spell casting feature to use a wand, and for it to be true, specifically, that a spellcasting archetype allows you to use a wand regardless of whether or not you have a spellcasting class feature. The current rules can be interpreted that way, and it would be consistent with what Logan said.
I am generally in favor of being able to pick up access to wands and scrolls, as it's a pretty balanced way to add spellcaster flavor to a character. I think it's fine to lean on the more permissive side of this ruling.
Yes, I am not against this ruling because of a balance reason. The bigger balance problem with scrolls and wands is that there is no limit on how high of a spell you can cast from them. A level 1 Ancient Elf Fighter with Wizard dedication could cast a level 9 spell scroll with no rolls required.
Not requiring Basic Spellcasting as a second feat seems trivial in comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are making an assumption that the second half of the quoted sentence is explaining how the first half works.Yes. That is how sentences usually work. They make a single statement about one topic.
And at best your argument shows that this sentence is ambiguous. Which doesn't address the clear requirements in the Cast a Spell activation saying that it needs a 'spellcasting class feature' and the second half of the sentence saying, by identical name, exactly where to get that 'spellcasting class feature' from in the archetype.
Yep I also fully support breithauptclan interpretation here. When a sentence or phrase is immediately followed by a qualifying sentence or phrase, that is a common mode of expression. It doesn't matter that the qualifying phrase puts a more specific restriction or detail in place, that wasn't in the first phrase. Its not a contradiction. It is just how natural language often works. It's simply not always reasonable to get the full detail of the rules in one phrase.
A general statement to give context followed by some specific detail is fine. If you read it as a contradiction, then it is more likely that you are reading it wrong than the writer made such an obvious mistake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the errata to make it work the way that Logan describes and get me and my crazy ideas relegated to the homebrew forum:
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and thebasic spellcastingdedication feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.
Simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are making an assumption that the second half of the quoted sentence is explaining how the first half works.Yes. That is how sentences usually work. They make a single statement about one topic.
And at best your argument shows that this sentence is ambiguous. Which doesn't address the clear requirements in the Cast a Spell activation saying that it needs a 'spellcasting class feature' and the second half of the sentence saying, by identical name, exactly where to get that 'spellcasting class feature' from in the archetype.
I completely agree with Ferious Thune here. A sentence can have multiple topics. One key way in which that's indicated in the English language is with the word "and" in a grammatically appropriate context
In this specific case the following:"A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature"
follows the basic sentence structure of "A allows you to do B, and X counts as Y." In this sentence it seems pretty clear to me that B is not conditional on X, as there's a clear change in topic and nothing within the sentence suggests they're related. You have to go to a completely different section of the rules to even get a whiff of an idea that they might be related, and even then it's very much a stretch if you ask me.
I had never heard of this issue before, but was not at all surprised by the clarification of the rules
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree with Ferious Thune here. A sentence can have multiple topics. One key way in which that's indicated in the English language is with the word "and" in a grammatically appropriate context
In this specific case the following:
"A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature"
follows the basic sentence structure of "A allows you to do B, and X counts as Y." In this sentence it seems pretty clear to me that B is not conditional on X, as there's a clear change in topic and nothing within the sentence suggests they're related. You have to go to a completely different section of the rules to even get a whiff of an idea that they might be related, and even then it's very much a stretch if you ask me.
This sort of situation does happen in writting, but the responsibility belongs to the writer to not say something ambiguous. Normally a subject change is quite clear.
However. It is not the case here.
There are only two rules, that I can find, which refer to having a spellcasting class feature
1) Learn a Spell
2) Activate an Item
The first part of the sentence you quote is about activating items. So its clearly not a subject change. It is directly related.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately, we have a writer’s input telling us how it was meant to work, so we know which interpretation of the sentence to use so that interpretation makes sense and also doesn’t change a bunch of other rules.
Could the sentence have been written better? Sure. Would an errata as suggested help make things clearer for all of the people who read it and don’t know about the video? Absolutely. Should we now assume that every innate cantrip gives the ability to activate Wands and scrolls? Absolutely not, because nothing anywhere in that sentence or the video says that is the case.
I’m not arguing that no one should have read that sentence and assumed that you need basic spellcasting. I completely understand where that comes from. It’s just a big leap to go from the clarification to everything else cantrip related breaks the game and a gnome can now activate a 9th-level wand just by being a gnome (with First World Magic).
@breithauptclan
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.
I would expect that if the wording you are suggesting, was the intended meaning it would have been written as the following since it is actually shorter:
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, as the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.
So I think, especially given the official statement, of the Lead Designer, that the intended reading is they have the ability, is that the extra clause is open to future utilization, but not really that relevant now.
It might have been better if the text had included a "for any other applications." after talking about spellcasting class feature. I suspect they wanted to leave open the ability to require certain other class abilities tied to 'spellcasting class feature' option that might exist in future classes that may not come immediately upon the dedication. So it seems unnecessary, a restatement of what was already said, or somehow limiting the prior statement, but might have been an attempt at future proofing the statement in the core, since they may have a potential case that will potentially be coming up later. But I suspect they wanted to future proof it, but didn't want to get as wordy as I do. (looking back at the wall of text I have at this point)
I think part of it that makes me feel sort of this was is the (the same way a member of a spellcasting class can), since the normal spellcasting classes that currently exist, they start with that ability. If had a spellcasting class that didn't start with the ability to use scrolls, wands and staffs, at the beginning, you'd have an argument that the first clause may not grant it and it might only grant it at the Basic Spellcasting feat, as it granted the official spellcasting class feature that grants it by default.
But at the moment, we don't have any cases that trigger any of these extra clauses... so they seem unnecessary, and even ambiguous.
Of course, if we do see some new spellcasting class that doesn't, out of the gates have access to scrolls, wands, staves, I suspect that their actual class feature definitions and multiclass dedications will make that extremely clear, rendering the original core rules clause to still seem redundant. However if they didn't put it in there, someone would either claim the multiclass archetype never gains the offical spellcasting feature, so doesn't have access to something tied back to spellcasting feature.
I think the intent however was to insure that some class features in the future classes could be tied to the Spellcasing Class Feature and allow that to be triggered later in the Multiclass Archetype.
Requirements You have a spellcasting class feature, and the spell you want to learn is on your magical tradition’s spell list.
So the reasonable question is... based on it, Learn a spell, is based on you having the SpellCasting Class Feature. This means we may actually have one item you get at Basic Spellcasting due to officially getting the spellcasting class feature, as a MC archetype. You may only stay with the 'cantrips' you begin with from your archetype dedication until you choose to grab the basic spellcasting one.
So, the more I look at it, it says, yes you can use scrolls, staves and wands like you are a member of that class, but it will wait until basic spellcasting to learn new spells above those granted by your dedication.
Actually, this makes the difference between the sorcerer and wizard and such archetypes far less onerous, since I had assumed multiclass archetype wizards would start with their four spells and immediately learn a dozen in the first level or two. Since cantrips are basically spontaneous (don't get consumed when cast) the sorcerer's archetype dedication seemed way too restricted.
Fortunately, we have a writer’s input telling us how it was meant to work, so we know which interpretation of the sentence to use so that interpretation makes sense and also doesn’t change a bunch of other rules.
...
Agreed. I really appreciate these rules clarifications. Given the size of the PF2 ruleset I never expected the wording to be perfectly clear and consistent from the start. New houses take time to settle. It's nice to know how the rules work now rather than having to wait for another printing to include clearer language.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s just a big leap to go from the clarification to everything else cantrip related breaks the game and a gnome can now activate a 9th-level wand just by being a gnome (with First World Magic).
Yeah that is a leap which I also don't support. I'm happy for certain sources of cantrips to be excluded from this.
I mean I guess the reason that Logan made the clarification/change was that there are items that cast cantrips. So you would be stuck with a situation where character with a spellcasting archetype could cast a cantrip directly but not through an item.
I just would prefer that they made the change via an errata like breithauptclan suggests.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really appreciate these rules clarifications. Given the size of the PF2 ruleset I never expected the wording to be perfectly clear and consistent from the start. New houses take time to settle. It's nice to know how the rules work now rather than having to wait for another printing to include clearer language.
I agree, it is just this game is a bit like Jenga at times.
Oh, one more point: The first part of that sentence says the 'spellcasting archetype' allows using the items. The dedication feat is not the archetype. Those are different game terms.
I'll shut up now. I think I have successfully made my point. And I don't expect consensus on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Dedication feat is part of the Archetype so that's flat out wrong.
Definitely. That's why they have the "archetype" tag.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I have successfully made my point.
I'm not sure what that point is even supposed to be. The sentence was a bit ambiguous and we had a designer clear it up.
And now you're ... ??? I'm not even sure, other than that you seem unhappy with the clarification.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I have successfully made my point.I'm not sure what that point is even supposed to be. The sentence was a bit ambiguous and we had a designer clear it up.
And now you're ... ??? I'm not even sure, other than that you seem unhappy with the clarification.
I think what they're saying is that the original wording:
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.
is incompatible with the interpretation given, rather than it being a clarification of ambiguous phrasing. The text says that a spellcasting archetype allows you to use magic items like the class does, not the dedication - and there's no reason to assume it's the dedication, and not the basic spellcasting feat, that would let you do this based on the rules text we have available without the clarification (and so it should be printed as errata, not as a clarification). The "and" connecting the two halves of the sentence throw this being the only (textually-supported) interpretation into some doubt for me personally, but I can see how you end up at this interpretation of the text. I don't think breithauptclan has been unclear in their communication here, personally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Dedication feat is part of the Archetype so that's flat out wrong.Definitely. That's why they have the "archetype" tag.
OK. I do feel the need to respond to this criticism.
All of the archetype feats have the 'archetype' tag. Including the dedication, yes. But also including all of the spellcasting feats. So why is the dedication feat equivalent to 'the spellcasting archetype' as a whole? It is one feat among many.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Their claim that the Dedication is not the Archetype is incorrect, leading to this current confusion.
But their claim isn't that the dedication feat isn't in the archetype, it's that the sentence doesn't say the dedication gives it to you. If there were text in the CRB saying "The monk archetype allows you to use Flurry of Blows in the same way that a member of the monk class can", it wouldn't be incorrect - but I don't think people would assume that the dedication feat would give you Flurry of Blows either. That's obviously a very clear example - you'd look at the later feats and see Flurry of Blows in there, but it's the exact same wording as the line about spellcasting archetypes allowing you to use magical items :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So why is the dedication feat equivalent to 'the spellcasting archetype' as a whole? It is one feat among many.
So is your assertion that you can't say you've taken an archetype unless... what, you've taken every feat in the archetype?
Again, I genuinely don't know what the point of this thought experiment is.