|
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 :)
But that's not what occurred so that example doesn't really apply, it's not talking about a class specific feature, but using certain magical items associated with those traditions the spellcasting classes have access to.
I see damage to familiars getting hand waved a lot, but even a Familiar in a familiar satchel should get blown up by an AoE.
However, an area effect that deals enough damage to break the case also damages the creature inside. The satchel is made of leather (Hardness 4, HP 16, BT 8).At 2nd level, a familiar has 10HPs. Add onto that hardness 4 for 14. There's plenty of stuff that can kill a familiar at that level.
What saves things in PFS is that you don't have to put the pawn for the familiar on the board if you aren't going to use it in combat. But if you're going to have it out doing stuff, there's a good chance it's going to get caught in an AoE at some point.
A regular Witch can use Phase Familiar to help a little bit, but the archetype doesn't get that.
If you want to spend your 1 familiar ability on Tattoo Transformation, then you can keep it safe, for the most part.
Higher level options might also help.
Familiar Tattoo, provided that your GM rules that it works like Tattoo Transformation, would give you the same thing for 60gp and using one of your invested items.
Sleeves of Storage at 4th for 100gp can keep it safe, but you also can't benefit from any Master Abilities while the familiar is in them.
I'm not sure if there are other options. But the point being that even a moderate 3d6 AoE could easily kill a familiar at the level that you take the dedication, since it uses your saves, and a Witch is probably going to have a +5 or +6 to Reflex, leaving a decent chance of crit failing. There are plenty of PFS scenarios/quests where you could conceivably run into a 6d6 AOE at 2nd level (playing up, generally). So it's good in that situation that you can effectively just take your familiar off the board beforehand.
It all kind of adds up to the dedications familiar being more of a liability than a bonus, unless you're continuing to invest in it somehow.
The case has to actually take damage for that line to matter though. And attended items do not normally take AoE damage. Nothing in that text creates a specific rule to override the general there. It would apply if you for some reason weren't carrying your satchel when you got fireballed, but that's not every likely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, the "newer" version of the spellcasting archetype rules from the APG completely omits the half sentence that the basic spellcasing feat counts as having the spellcasting class feature.
Some archetypes grant you a substantial degree of spellcasting, albeit delayed compared to a character from a spellcasting class. A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can.
Take that as you will.
EDIT:
The bounded spellcasting archetype rules in Secrets of Magic adds the half sentence back in.
Take THAT as you will. :D
|
The case has to actually take damage for that line to matter though. And attended items do not normally take AoE damage. Nothing in that text creates a specific rule to override the general there. It would apply if you for some reason weren't carrying your satchel when you got fireballed, but that's not every likely.
Hmm… I can see that interpretation, though I’m not sure it’s the intent. In some ways, it makes the satchel better than the Tattoo Transformation master ability, since with that, the familiar doesn’t take AoE damage, but can still be targeted directly if someone realizes it’s there. Considering the satchel attended means the familiar is almost never going to be able to be affected, unless some mean NPC steals the satchel. Saving Bulk would then be the main advantage of the master ability. But I would be fine to go with that ruling at a table, just because I don’t think class abilities should be getting blown up so easily.
EDIT: Also somewhat relevant, since I made that post, PFS has said an FAQ will be added there (not outside of PFS) that for massive damage, if someone has less than 20 HP, they should be treated as if they have 20 HP. So that affects things a little, as now it takes 40 damage to autokill a 2nd level familiar in PFS instead of the 20. It’s still definitely possible in some low level scenarios, just quite a bit less likely.
| 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.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.
If taking a feat with the 'archetype' tag doesn't qualify as having the archetype, then what does? I understand your earlier arguments, but this one has me baffled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The case has to actually take damage for that line to matter though. And attended items do not normally take AoE damage. Nothing in that text creates a specific rule to override the general there. It would apply if you for some reason weren't carrying your satchel when you got fireballed, but that's not every likely.Hmm… I can see that interpretation, though I’m not sure it’s the intent. In some ways, it makes the satchel better than the Tattoo Transformation master ability, since with that, the familiar doesn’t take AoE damage, but can still be targeted directly if someone realizes it’s there. Considering the satchel attended means the familiar is almost never going to be able to be affected, unless some mean NPC steals the satchel. Saving Bulk would then be the main advantage of the master ability. But I would be fine to go with that ruling at a table, just because I don’t think class abilities should be getting blown up so easily.
EDIT: Also somewhat relevant, since I made that post, PFS has said an FAQ will be added there (not outside of PFS) that for massive damage, if someone has less than 20 HP, they should be treated as if they have 20 HP. So that affects things a little, as now it takes 40 damage to autokill a 2nd level familiar in PFS instead of the 20. It’s still definitely possible in some low level scenarios, just quite a bit less likely.
I think the main advantage of the tattoo is you can smuggle the familiar places that wouldn't allow a bulky satchel to go unchecked. Which is a niche use but so are a lot of familiar abilities. That is why you can change them every day.
Also, the alternative is that you're supposed to buy a new bag every time a dragon breathes on you, and not having your gear broken is why the attended object rules exists in the first place.
|
|
Fair enough. Now I'm wondering about carrying a Sprite archer/gunslinger around in a familiar satchel. :) (I know the action economy on that would be super complicated)
Also, I wish the Familiar Tattoo item was a little more explicit about how it works with regards to damage.
At any rate, I'll just be glad PFS gives me the option of not placing the familiar on the map, so I won't have to debate a GM about whether or not the familiar should take damage (although I may have to explain the PFS pawn rules, which are pretty confusing to begin with).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think it is odd that the familiar satchel is an uncommon item. It really shouldn't be.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If taking a feat with the 'archetype' tag doesn't qualify as having the archetype, then what does? I understand your earlier arguments, but this one has me baffled.
I'm fine with people telling me that I am wrong.
I don't like it when people tell me that they don't understand what I am saying. So let me try this again.
The first half of this sentence is indeed ambiguous.
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can
There are now three options that I have seen for interpreting it.
1) Taking any feat from the archetype means that you 'have' the archetype and having the archetype means that you can use scrolls, staves, and wands.
2) There is something specific in the archetype that will allow you to use scrolls, staves, and wands.
3) (this one is new, and obviously too bad to be true) You must take all of the feats from the archetype before you 'have' the archetype and are able to cast from scrolls, staves, and wands.
However that ambiguity has been resolved. But not by Logan on a Youtube channel. The second half of that sentence is not ambiguous in the slightest.
, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.
It very clearly indicates that interpretation #2 above is the correct interpretation. That specific thing in the archetype is the Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Arcaian's example of Flurry of Blows is a perfect example of this same idea. As is Magus Archetype and Spellstriker.
And the point of debating this so much is to point out that no one, not even a game dev, can arbitrarily ignore rules text and still consider their ruling RAW. If the game devs want the spellcasting archetypes to work this way, issue errata. Because having unofficial and undocumented changes to the game rules is going to cause contention at the game table - when some people have watched the Youtube video and are willing to run with the new rules, but others have only looked at the rules text and insist on running the game RAW.
The standard way in which scrolls, wands, and staves are used is the standard Cast a Spell activation. That requires a spellcasting class feature.
The first half of that sentence doesn't give you a spellcasting class feature. The second half does. And it tells you exactly where to get it from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not clear that your reading is the correct reading. I would say it's clear that your reading can't possibly be correct
Totally disagree. It was clear. But this is going in circles so I'm going to stop now.
In fact, I would argue that using a spellheart can be done by anyone of any tradition as long as the character can "cast a spell" since the ITEMS's requirements are ONLY that. The restriction in the dedication in irrelevant
The general rule is in the item section describing the Cast a Spell activation. “ You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation component.”
The spellcasting archetype description overrides this for wands, scrolls, and staves specifically.
If taking a feat with the 'archetype' tag doesn't qualify as having the archetype, then what does? I understand your earlier arguments, but this one has me baffled.I'm fine with people telling me that I am wrong.
I don't like it when people tell me that they don't understand what I am saying. So let me try this again.
The first half of this sentence is indeed ambiguous.
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class canThere are now three options that I have seen for interpreting it.
1) Taking any feat from the archetype means that you 'have' the archetype and having the archetype means that you can use scrolls, staves, and wands.
2) There is something specific in the archetype that will allow you to use scrolls, staves, and wands.
3) (this one is new, and obviously too bad to be true) You must take all of the feats from the archetype before you 'have' the archetype and are able to cast from scrolls, staves, and wands.However that ambiguity has been resolved. But not by Logan on a Youtube channel. The second half of that sentence is not ambiguous in the slightest.
, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.It very clearly indicates that interpretation #2 above is the correct interpretation. That specific thing in the archetype is the Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Arcaian's example of Flurry of Blows is a perfect example of this same idea. As is Magus Archetype and Spellstriker.
And the point of debating this so much is to point out that no one, not even a game dev, can arbitrarily ignore rules text and still consider their ruling RAW. If the game devs want the spellcasting archetypes to work this way, issue errata. Because having unofficial and undocumented changes to the game rules is going to cause contention at the game table - when some people have watched the Youtube video and are willing to run with the...
As I said before, I understand that argument. Before the video I would have agreed with it. (Logan's statement is official enough for me to change my mind, but I can understand and respect your position that it isn't enough for you.)
What I don't understand is your statement that taking a dedication feat doesn't qualify as having the archetype. You've ignored the question that I, and Squiggit, actually asked so I'll ask it a third time:
If taking the dedication feat for an archetype doesn't qualify as 'having that archetype' then what does?
If taking the dedication feat for an archetype doesn't qualify as 'having that archetype' then what does?
Ah. Yes, taking the dedication feat does mean that you 'have' the archetype. But 'having' the archetype isn't what allows you to cast from scrolls and the like.
A spellcasting archetype allows...
'A spellcasting archetype' is more than just its dedication feat. There are several feats in it. And something in that archetype does indeed allow you to cast spells from scrolls, wands, and staves. Specifically, the Basic Spellcasting Feat.
For the record, the "newer" version of the spellcasting archetype rules from the APG completely omits the half sentence that the basic spellcasing feat counts as having the spellcasting class feature.
Some archetypes grant you a substantial degree of spellcasting, albeit delayed compared to a character from a spellcasting class. A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can.Take that as you will.
EDIT:
The bounded spellcasting archetype rules in Secrets of Magic adds the half sentence back in.
Take THAT as you will. :D
That is fascinating.
So without the second part of that sentence, it does make the argument a lot stronger that any feat from the dedication (almost certainly the dedication feat that you get first) would be enough to cast from scrolls, wands, and staves.
But since nothing in the archetype ever gives you a spellcasting class feature, that means that you are never able to cast from other items that use 'cast a spell' activation.
And that is a very non-intuitive game mechanic. That feels like a 'gotcha' type of rule that most players are going to miss.
I would hesitate to enforce that highly restrictive reading. The spellheart itself says that it only requires the "cast as spell" ability to use it. It does not actually say you have to have the same tradition or anything else....unless you are saying that ONLY those three item types are allowed)?...I'm not saying that; the book is saying that.
It uses the 'cast a spell' activation. And the cast a spell activation requires a spellcasting class feature.
You are correct that you don't have to have a particular tradition - just the class feature.
And just being able to cast a spell is not sufficient. There are ancestry feats, skill feats, and some non-spellcasting archetypes (Ghost Hunter for example) that give the ability to cast spells. But those don't give you the spellcasting class feature.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
'A spellcasting archetype' is more than just its dedication feat. There are several feats in it. And something in that archetype does indeed allow you to cast spells from scrolls, wands, and staves. Specifically, the Basic Spellcasting Feat.
I mean, you keep repeating this... and a month ago given the potential ambiguity of the overall phrasing yeah maybe, but now we have a designer clarification that this is unequivocally wrong.
So... yeah.
If it seems to go either way I'll just side with the designer bc they're the one that knows the intent. That's easy enough for me, open and shut.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first half of that sentence doesn't give you a spellcasting class feature.Professional writers and editors do not write a 35-word sentence and have the meaning be what the last 11 convey absent the other 24.
Of course they do, they write like that all the time, especially for games like this. A professional just means you're paid for it, not that you're infallible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Professional writers and editors do not write a 35-word sentence and have the meaning be what the last 11 convey absent the other 24.
That argument goes both ways though. What mechanical impact do those last 11 words have in your ruling?
From the sound of it, the entire purpose of those 11 words is to require an additional feat in order to use Archaic Wayfinders. Or after several additional rule books, Spellhearts. Which seems like an even more unprofessional design decision. Why not include all of the 'cast a spell' activation items with just the dedication?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanical impact of those last 11 words is, as you've surmised, to tell you when you get the rest of the Cast a Spell activations that just having the dedication hasn't given you.
That still sounds way too much like a retcon to me.
Especially since this
It's called "future proofing" by the way
And this
As for why the designers would do this... well... why not?
Are the only justification that you can give for it.
If it was initially intended to work with just the dedication - just let everything work with the dedication.
But I don't think that was what those 11 words were originally intended to mean.
|
|
To bring this back to the general topic of the videos, the latest one on Magic Missile and bonus damage went a different way than I expected. Add the bonus damage once per target. So if you target one enemy with all three missiles, you get bonus damage once, but if you target three enemies with one missile each, then you get it on each enemy. In the past, I think everything like this has been pick which target you want to take the bonus damage (when it's been clarified), but that relies on going back to 1E.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The MM clarification is a solid one and I think it does a great job of striking a middle-ground between the best and worst-case scenarios.
I'm just hoping that these are actually baked into the formal errata whenever that ends up dropping and isn't something that will exclusively be sourced to the YT video series.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The MM clarification is a solid one and I think it does a great job of striking a middle-ground between the best and worst-case scenarios.
I'm just hoping that these are actually baked into the formal errata whenever that ends up dropping and isn't something that will exclusively be sourced to the YT video series.
That is how it is written in the book. No real need for errata on MM. You only combine damage from missiles when they are striking the same target.
It's not a "retcon" for something to have been a thing you don't think it is the entire time.
There's no retroactive change being made here; the sentence has always said (to paraphrase) 'you can use these 3 types of items now, and any others that call for spellcasting once you take this other feat'. It has not be altered in any way in order to have that meaning.
And those aren't the only justifications, by the way, those are just the only ones I felt like offering up because a) I didn't write this stuff, and b) I can't read the authors' minds so c) there's no answer that's going to satisfy you until you open your own mind to the reality of the situation; you're wrong about what the authors meant (and also apparently wrong about believing they have ever changed that intended meaning).
You seriously want me to believe that when writing the CRB that the game devs said
Hmm... How about spellcasting archetypes. What should they be able to do with just the dedication feat? They can only cast cantrips themselves at that point. So it makes perfect sense to let them cast any level of spell from scrolls and wands. No problem letting them cast the cantrips from staves all day too. But those once per day cantrips from an Archaic Wayfinder? No, that is too powerful for just the dedication. Better make that cost an additional feat to be able to use.
And I am supposed to believe that instead of the alternative interpretation of those same exact, unchanged words where the meaning of 'a spellcasting archetype' refers to the archetype as a whole rather than just any unspecified feat from it?
You are absolutely right - there is nothing short of the game dev that wrote the CRB coming on here and giving an actual, meaningful justification that that was the intended original meaning of those last 11 words that is going to satisfy me.
Or if they want to officially errata the wording of the rule in the archetype. The game devs are of course allowed to change their mind on things.
But it needs to be done in an official way. Because this same war that we are having here is going to be had at every game table across the world when some of the players have watched that Youtube video and others haven't.
The MM clarification is a solid one and I think it does a great job of striking a middle-ground between the best and worst-case scenarios.
I'm just hoping that these are actually baked into the formal errata whenever that ends up dropping and isn't something that will exclusively be sourced to the YT video series.
Yes, I thought it was a good point to balance the damage boost of multiple-target spells with the damage boost of area spells. That makes sense.
And it is general enough of a ruling to be applied to other spells like Scorching Ray.
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't all of the one-off cantrip examples that are being discussed here granted as Innate Spells?
If so, then the whole argument is a non-starter because abilities that grant Innate Spells never give the PC the unrestricted access/ability to use the Cast a Spell activity which is required for all such Activated Items that are in question, instead they are functionally able to be cast on a case by case basis because they are Innate Spells and "If you have an innate spell, you can cast it..." and I've not seen any examples of features that grant them that include the CRITICAL text ...gain the Cast a Spell activity such as is part of the Bard, and every other varying Archetype such as the Cathartic Mage which is VERY different from the traditional MCA spellcasting options.
In my eyes, a Spellcasting Archetype (though not strictly defined) is one that grants you the ability to always use the Cast a Spell Activity.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you're just supposed to believe that taking the archetype lets you use scrolls, wands and staves... because that's what the rules say and that's what the developers have confirmed to be true.
I mean obviously you can houserule things however you want in your home games, but ... I mean this question is asked and answered.
If you're really concerned about what happens at other tables, repeating stuff we know has been clarified otherwise doesn't help anyone.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't all of the one-off cantrip examples that are being discussed here granted as Innate Spells?
Yes, the ancestry feats and skill feats that give cantrips typically give them as innate spells. It is quite a stretch to think that that also gives a spellcasting class feature or even the 'cast a spell' activity.
That is just my knee-jerk reaction to the logic that having the Wizard dedication and being able to cast cantrips is sufficient training as a Wizard to be allowed to use scrolls and wands. If casting cantrips is what is required, then what about other things that grant cantrips?
If so, then the whole argument is a non-starter because abilities that grant Innate Spells never give the PC the unrestricted access/ability to use the Cast a Spell activity which is required for all such Activated Items that are in question, instead they are functionally able to be cast on a case by case basis because they are Innate Spells and "If you have an innate spell, you can cast it..." and I've not seen any examples of features that grant them that include the CRITICAL text ...gain the Cast a Spell activity such as is part of the Bard, and every other varying Archetype such as the Cathartic Mage which is VERY different from the traditional MCA spellcasting options.
In my eyes, a Spellcasting Archetype (though not strictly defined) is one that grants you the ability to always use the Cast a Spell Activity.
Interestingly, it isn't access to the 'cast a spell' activity that allows use of the 'cast a spell' item activation. That would make sense if it was - but it isn't written that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is how it is written in the book. No real need for errata on MM. You only combine damage from missiles when they are striking the same target.The MM clarification is a solid one and I think it does a great job of striking a middle-ground between the best and worst-case scenarios.
I'm just hoping that these are actually baked into the formal errata whenever that ends up dropping and isn't something that will exclusively be sourced to the YT video series.
I don't know that it was that clear. There was certainly ample space to missinterpret the spell. A clarification is welcome. I agree it is the best most reasonable interpretation and its the one I gave in my spell guide.
Breithauptclan, I don't know if you have heard this before or not, but, personal incredulity isn't actually an argument nor is it support for an argument.
Actually, I fully agree with that. My statements of incredulity were not intended to be evidence or proof of my views. And I 100% approve of you pointing that out. Good call.
I've been thinking for a couple of hours of how to phrase what my intent is with that, and realized ... it really isn't worth it. We have been talking in circles for about two days now. Nothing substantive has been presented in that time. If we continue this it is just going to devolve into personal attacks. Which none of us want.
I've presented my case. You have presented your case. Logan has presented his case (even though we can't really query him for further explanations on the subject). And ultimately we are all going to play the game the way that we see fit.
And no, this "war" isn't happening at basically any tables at all statistically speaking. Statistically speaking the majority of people playing the game either already realized how the rule worked, or when having it pointed out will say "oh, alright, cool" and change how they play to match, or will simply never even hear about this ruling and have no reason to care whether their table matches up or not. The people that will find out about this ruling and have someone in their group that disagrees about how it works will, to make a statistical analogy, be lottery winners - and even then most of them will have a 20 second conversation about it, come to a decision, and move on, rather than "war" about it.
Indeed, the majority of roleplayers in the world are at least nominally civilized adults.
To say people would always or even often "war" over this is a spurious claim at best.
FYI for anyone not paying attention to Youtube, today's developer unofficial ruling is on a rather heavily disputed discussion we had earlier.
Short summary: Yes, you can use a weapon as an improvised weapon, but it loses all of its weapon traits, damage specification, and runes. Traits and damage will have to be determined by GM and player as is normal for an improvised weapon attack. It does keep any special materials that it is made of though.