|
And spellhearts!
One thing to remember with Spellhearts and Eldritch Trickster is that you can't activate them unless you have a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Spellcasting archetypes have a special rule for using scrolls, wands and staves with just the dedication feat, but no such rule exists for spellhearts.
Spellhearts use the "Cast a Spell" activation component which requires you to have the spellcasting class feature, which you won't have until you pick a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And spellhearts!One thing to remember with Spellhearts and Eldritch Trickster is that you can't activate them unless you have a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Spellcasting archetypes have a special rule for using scrolls, wands and staves with just the dedication feat, but no such rule exists for spellhearts.
Spellhearts use the "Cast a Spell" activation component which requires you to have the spellcasting class feature, which you won't have until you pick a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Cantrips are spells you cast though.
As long as the Dedication allows you to cast cantrips, it allows you to use Spellhearts.
And spellhearts!One thing to remember with Spellhearts and Eldritch Trickster is that you can't activate them unless you have a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Spellcasting archetypes have a special rule for using scrolls, wands and staves with just the dedication feat, but no such rule exists for spellhearts.
Spellhearts use the "Cast a Spell" activation component which requires you to have the spellcasting class feature, which you won't have until you pick a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Another issue with Spellhearts is that it isn't clear which ability bonus (if any) you apply to the damage for their cantrips.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And spellhearts!One thing to remember with Spellhearts and Eldritch Trickster is that you can't activate them unless you have a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Spellcasting archetypes have a special rule for using scrolls, wands and staves with just the dedication feat, but no such rule exists for spellhearts.
Spellhearts use the "Cast a Spell" activation component which requires you to have the spellcasting class feature, which you won't have until you pick a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Cantrips are spells you cast though.
As long as the Dedication allows you to cast cantrips, it allows you to use Spellhearts.
The relevant rules:
Cast A Spell
If an item lists “Cast a Spell” after “Activate,” the activation requires you to use the Cast a Spell activity to Activate the Item. This happens when the item replicates a spell. You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation component.
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.
A spellcasting dedication gives you the Cast a Spell activity, but not the spellcasting class feature. So even though you can cast your own cantrips with Cast a Spell, you can't activate items with Cast a Spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You will get away on 80% of tables with wearing Plate Mail. The number is an estimate and not for the reason you think. In games there is only a limited amount of time to do character reviews. That is the amount of GMs who likely (at a F2F game) won't even notice you wear plate.
I think that may be less true in PF2. Assuming the character has an AC one higher than expected I'd think many GMs would notice that. The math in PF2 is so tight that getting outside that math can be very noticeable.
By another player if not the GM.
And spellhearts!One thing to remember with Spellhearts and Eldritch Trickster is that you can't activate them unless you have a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Spellcasting archetypes have a special rule for using scrolls, wands and staves with just the dedication feat, but no such rule exists for spellhearts.
Spellhearts use the "Cast a Spell" activation component which requires you to have the spellcasting class feature, which you won't have until you pick a Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Cantrips are spells you cast though.
As long as the Dedication allows you to cast cantrips, it allows you to use Spellhearts.
The relevant rules:
Cast A Spell
If an item lists “Cast a Spell” after “Activate,” the activation requires you to use the Cast a Spell activity to Activate the Item. This happens when the item replicates a spell. You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation component.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.A spellcasting dedication gives you the Cast a Spell activity, but not the spellcasting class feature. So even though you can cast your own cantrips with Cast a Spell, you can't activate items with Cast a Spell.
Yes thats what the rules say. But Logan gave a different position here. So expect people will rule it both ways and not make the type of item distinction you have.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes thats what the rules say. But Logan gave a different position here. So expect people will rule it both ways and not make the type of item distinction you have.The relevant rules:
Cast A Spell
If an item lists “Cast a Spell” after “Activate,” the activation requires you to use the Cast a Spell activity to Activate the Item. This happens when the item replicates a spell. You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation component.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.A spellcasting dedication gives you the Cast a Spell activity, but not the spellcasting class feature. So even though you can cast your own cantrips with Cast a Spell, you can't activate items with Cast a Spell.
No, Logan gave the exact same answer. Please do not spread misinformation. You must have the Basic Spellcasting feat for anything that is not a scroll, staff or wand.
No, Logan gave the exact same answer. Please do not spread misinformation. You must have the Basic Spellcasting feat for anything that is not a scroll, staff or wand.Yes thats what the rules say. But Logan gave a different position here. So expect people will rule it both ways and not make the type of item distinction you have.The relevant rules:
Cast A Spell
If an item lists “Cast a Spell” after “Activate,” the activation requires you to use the Cast a Spell activity to Activate the Item. This happens when the item replicates a spell. You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation component.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.A spellcasting dedication gives you the Cast a Spell activity, but not the spellcasting class feature. So even though you can cast your own cantrips with Cast a Spell, you can't activate items with Cast a Spell.
A link to the original source is misinformation? Or just that I say its a different answer. Please call me out if I have got something wrong. The point is that people are interpreting Logans answer in different ways - and many people had very different readings of what the RAW actually was to start with. Thats all in another thread.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing Logan said in that video was that a spellcasting dedication lets a character cast from scrolls, staves, and wands. To describe that as "a different position" from what Darafern wrote is misleading to the point of misinformation. The RAW says what it says. There is no need to read any more or less into it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the rules are a little hard to work out. I break it down this way:
-----
Items like Scrolls, Staves, Wands, and Spellhearts use the "Cast a Spell" form of activation.
The general rule is that you have to have a spellcasting class feature to use that form of activation.
Cast A Spell
If an item lists “Cast a Spell” after “Activate,” the activation requires you to use the Cast a Spell activity to Activate the Item. This happens when the item replicates a spell. You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation component.
Since Freddy the Fighter lacks a spellcasting class feature (and doesn't have Trick Magic Item), he wouldn't be able to use the "Cast a Spell" activation for any items.
-----
The rules also say that if Freddy took the Wizard Multiclass archetype then the Basic Spellcasting Feat would count as a spellcasting feature.
Spellcasting Archetypes
...the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.
So once Freddy has taken the Basic Spellcasting Feat he could use the "Cast a Spell" form of activation for all items just like a Wizard could.
-----
But there is a specific rule that allows Freddy to use Scrolls, Staves, and Wands even before taking the Basic Spellcasting Feat.
Spellcasting Archetypes
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can...
This overrides the general rule requiring a spellcasting class feature so for those three items, and only those three items, the Wizard Dedication Feat alone is sufficient for Freddy to use the "Cast a Spell" activation as if he were a Wizard.
-----
Sample Breakdown:
• Freddy the Fighter (not being an Ancient Elf) can't use the the "Cast a Spell" activation for any items at 1st level.
• Freddy takes the Wizard Dedication at 2nd level so now he can use the "Cast a Spell" activation for Scrolls, Staves, and Wands as if he were a Wizard.
• Freddy takes the Basic Spellcasting Feat at 4th level so now he can use the "Cast a Spell" activation for other items, like Spellhearts, as if he were a Wizard.
This matches what Logan said in the video.
|
Venture-Agent, France—Paris
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think this is Paizo just being a little arbitrary and creating some differences.
In my opinion, Paizo messed up by giving too many similar feats between casters. Having a few classes that have access to them makes them thematic. Having all classes but a few that have access to them makes them arbitrarily given.
|
Venture-Agent, France—Paris
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, Paizo messed up by giving too many similar feats between casters. Having a few classes that have access to them makes them thematic. Having all classes but a few that have access to them makes them arbitrarily given.These feats should have been just included in general spellcasting somehow, or at least in classes' progression outside feats. Problem solved.
Also there's nothing really 'thematic' about them. Spellcasting often works very poorly without Reach spell given the abundance of touch and 30 ft spells (and spellcasters' fragility). I know, I experienced that. You could of course try to avoid such spells but that is very hard and is basically trying to avoid most of them.
I play a few spellcasters (Sorcerer and Oracle, mostly) and none of them has Reach Spell. I've also found that Reach spell was far too often used instead of Stride (Stride works wonder and is free).
Also, I disagree that all these feats should have been given to all spellcasters. In my opinion, it's a design issue if Paizo doesn't manage to give enough identity to each casters/feats so some would have some feats and others would have others. For example, noone criticizes Quick Draw to be limited to Rogues and Rangers despite being useful to absolutely every martial. Paizo managed, in the way we see Rangers and Rogues and the way Quick Draw is written, to make everyone agrees that it should be a Rogue/Ranger thing and not a Fighter/Barbarian one.
Paizo could have done the same thing with the spellcaster's feats. Choosing that Int-based casters get some, or that this tradition gets some, or that spontaneous casters get some. But they didn't release enough spellcaster feats for that to be true, and it's sad in my opinion.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, Paizo messed up by giving too many similar feats between casters. Having a few classes that have access to them makes them thematic. Having all classes but a few that have access to them makes them arbitrarily given.These feats should have been just included in general spellcasting somehow, or at least in classes' progression outside feats. Problem solved.
Also there's nothing really 'thematic' about them. Spellcasting often works very poorly without Reach spell given the abundance of touch and 30 ft spells (and spellcasters' fragility). I know, I experienced that. You could of course try to avoid such spells but that is very hard and is basically trying to avoid most of them.
I played a Bard with Reach and another without it. Both were quite viable, but the playstyle and tactics are completely different.
I play a few spellcasters (Sorcerer and Oracle, mostly) and none of them has Reach Spell. I've also found that Reach spell was far too often used instead of Stride (Stride works wonder and is free).
Also, I disagree that all these feats should have been given to all spellcasters. In my opinion, it's a design issue if Paizo doesn't manage to give enough identity to each casters/feats so some would have some feats and others would have others. For example, noone criticizes Quick Draw to be limited to Rogues and Rangers despite being useful to absolutely every martial. Paizo managed, in the way we see Rangers and Rogues and the way Quick Draw is written, to make everyone agrees that it should be a Rogue/Ranger thing and not a Fighter/Barbarian one.
Paizo could have done the same thing with the spellcaster's feats. Choosing that Int-based casters get some, or that this tradition gets some, or that spontaneous casters get some. But they didn't release enough spellcaster feats for that to be true, and it's sad in my opinion.
Sorcerer has Reach Spell. They don't have to use Tentacular Limbs.
There are differences between the classes. Sorcerers get Blood Component Substitution. Wizards get Silent Spell. Witches and Wizards get Conceal Spell.
Obviously you can pick up feats from other classes. Conceal Spell is probably the one I miss most in Sorcerer.
|
Venture-Agent, France—Paris
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally have no interest in comparing experiences, I still have mine regardless of anyone else's.
Comparing experiences is pointless. But listening to others experiences isn't.
A lot of people here could write you an article on extreme importance of positioning and keeping distance for non-melee characters in this game. I won't.
Casters fragility is only high at level 1-4 (and only for unarmored ones). Casters can easily be at 30 feet from enemies without risks. Going at melee range is more problematic, but touch spells that have to be cast in the middle of fights are quite rare.
And I'm not sure the debate would be that one-sided. A lot of people can also write about how important it is to split damage among party members. My Oracle has recently been the party tank for a few fights, it's really a question of party composition.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the rules are a little hard to work out. I break it down this way:
Sample Breakdown:
• Freddy the Fighter (not being an Ancient Elf) can't use the the "Cast a Spell" activation for any items at 1st level.
• Freddy takes the Wizard Dedication at 2nd level so now he can use the "Cast a Spell" activation for Scrolls, Staves, and Wands as if he were a Wizard.
• Freddy takes the Basic Spellcasting Feat at 4th level so now he can use the "Cast a Spell" activation for other items, like Spellhearts, as if he were a Wizard.
This matches what Logan said in the video.
Indeed that seems to be the ruling Logan made. Casting slotted spells from scrolls and wands - fine. Casting cantrips from staves - good to go. Casting cantrips from spellhearts - nope, that's too OP. That requires a second feat.
|
|
A lot of people here could write you an article on extreme importance of positioning and keeping distance for non-melee characters in this game. I won't.And I'm not sure the debate would be that one-sided. A lot of people can also write about how important it is to split damage among party members. My Oracle has recently been the party tank for a few fights, it's really a question of party composition.
I think I'm missing something. As in, what is the argument?
The value of the Reach spell metamagic is somewhat reduced because sometimes it is just as efficient (or nearly so) to just have the caster move.
The above notwithstanding, the Reach spell is still often valuable. Sometimes you cannot move enough (the target is in the air, there is impeding terrain, there is no place where the 2 targets are within 30 feet of you, etc etc etc). And there are times when the caster just really doesn't want to move (particularly squishy, AoOs, etc etc etc)
Having the Reach spell gives you options and it is therefore ALWAYS of value. That said, it may not be sufficiently valuable to be worth taking with any particular character.
Does ANYBODY disagree with the above? I don't think that EITHER of you are saying "its a must take feat" OR "Its a totally useless feat"
|
Venture-Agent, France—Paris
|
I think I'm missing something. As in, what is the argument?
I give you the full conversation, at least the way I understood it:
And I'm not sure the debate would be that one-sided. A lot of people can also write about how important it is to split damage among party members. My Oracle has recently been the party tank for a few fights, it's really a question of party composition.Spellcasting often works very poorly without Reach spell given the abundance of touch and 30 ft spells (and spellcasters' fragility). I know, I experienced that. You could of course try to avoid such spells but that is very hard and is basically trying to avoid most of them.I play a few spellcasters (Sorcerer and Oracle, mostly) and none of them has Reach Spell. I've also found that Reach spell was far too often used instead of Stride (Stride works wonder and is free).I generally have no interest in comparing experiences, I still have mine regardless of anyone else's.
But equalizing Reach and Stride is just nonsensical. A lot of people here could write you an article on extreme importance of positioning and keeping distance for non-melee characters in this game. I won't.
|
Venture-Agent, France—Paris
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, my perception is probably skewed by dungeon, cave and building crawling, but they are very widespread in the game.
I think your perception is really skewed. Armored casters have the same AC and hp than Rogues, Investigators and Maguses. Unless you tell me that a Rogue has nothing to do at melee range I think your caster should survive easily. My Oracle has no issue with melee range.
6 hp casters are way weaker, but still able to take a few hits once they reach level 5 (because of AC and hp increase, level 5 is the level where you start being able to take some hits). Sure, you won't put these ones at melee range without a good reason, but 30ft. is fine and won't get you killed.Reach Spell is maybe the best metamagic feat with Quickened Casting, but it's very far from a mandatory feat. You can play without it without much issues. I don't know why you are so scared with your casters, but I really think your experience/perception is far from widespread.
Reach Spell is maybe the best metamagic feat with Quickened Casting, but it's very far from a mandatory feat. You can play without it without much issues. I don't know why you are so scared with your casters, but I really think your experience/perception is far from widespread.
I prefer to not use it if I can. Generally I find it better to just be a bit closer. I also have a lot of things that I want to do with my third action than boost the range of a spell. I tend to view it as an action cost to use that I don't have to pay. In many campaigns I find line of sight to be more of a factor than range. Or I just want to Widen my spell instead.
I don't think my spell mix suffers to much for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that in groups with heavy defender support (Tenets of good Champion or someone who archetyped into Tenets of good champion) you don't want to be in the back, you want to be 15ft near your champion, cause that's where they can protect you.
I transposed the ''stay in the back'' mentality to my first pf2e character and I found that to be a huge hassle most of the time as i'd either A: not be in range for most of my spells and effects or B: got ganked by skirmishers who skirted around my heavy frontline and murdered me 3 stride actions away from my hitters.
Now I just find a beefy stud or studdess and stay near them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The shield is sold in a shop in Absalom dude, it's not THAT uncommon.One specific store in the entire inner seas area... Yeah, that sounds PRETTY uncommon. Should my druid playing in the land of linnorm kings expect to have easy access to an item that's on an island off the the other side of the continent or on a different one entirely. Your acting like it's as easy as picking it up anyplace your character happens to be. :P
Are you implying that only one store in the entire world sells prosthetics and mobility aids? Because that is something that is very obviously not true. Grand Bazaar is full of things that would logically appear in multiple places - it's uncommon because it's only sold by that shop inside that specific book, in Absalom. Use your imagination, bro. Uncommon stuff is trivial to access.
"Sorry, only one person in the whole world has had the idea to put magic on a wooden shield. You're not allowed to have this extremely basic item that's just a wweaker version of a common item."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you implying that only one store in the entire world sells prosthetics and mobility aids?
No. The shields are SPECIFICALLY called out as being created be Ekujae mages using unique spells and made with wood collected from the Mwangi Expanse... This reinforces that it's not an easy thing to come across and there is only one place outside the Mwangi Expanse that has canon access to them: it's not impossible to find one elsewhere but it's going to be quite hard as either you have to go to where they are made [another continent] or find one that someone else got from either the store or that other continent. Contrast that to mobility aids: "Over the history of Golarion, countless cultures have used innovative mobility devices." So one is made all over the place and one is made in another continent by mages from there using wood from there...
Grand Bazaar is full of things that would logically appear in multiple places - it's uncommon because it's only sold by that shop inside that specific book, in Absalom. Use your imagination, bro. Uncommon stuff is trivial to access.
Hey 'bro', I just read the item entries and one of these things isn't like the other. One uses unique spells, mages from a specific area from an geographically isolated area and is made from materials from that same place.
"Sorry, only one person in the whole world has had the idea to put magic on a wooden shield. You're not allowed to have this extremely basic item that's just a wweaker version of a common item."
Sure, I agree IF it's an extremely basic item... That doesn't mean they are able to mimic the materials, spells or personnel that is required for it to be made: if it was a mundane item, was widely available, used simple spells and/or needed an average caster, then sure you can get it everywhere. You put in multiple uncommon requirements and it becomes less likely per requirement. So, for instance, if you're adventuring around the Mwangi Expanse there could be multiple places to find it: the farther away from there you get it gets progressively harder to just come across them and when you're talking a continent away, you need someone to import it and we have one place listed that does so. Now it's up to the DM if there are other trading companies that trade with the Mwangi Expanse that might have them but that's 100% up to the DM and in no way assured. The only other option is to 'get lucky' and find one that an individual brought from there and no longer needs which seems like a very small pool to look in.
Now since access is all up to the DM, this may not be an issue at all: to some, you just might be able to find them everywhere: I'm just pointing out that in some games it might be more uncommon that other things because of the description of it needing some pretty specific requirements, any of which you'd have a hard time finding in the inner seas.
|
With regards to metamagic feats, I don’t find anything class thematic about any of them. Like, say the name of a metamagic feat, tell me what the feat does, and I’m not going to have any idea which classes get it and which don’t. Rather than find the metamagic feats class thematic, I find that having to select a metamagic feat with a class feat means that you are less class thematic, because you’re taking what should be a generic, class independent feat instead of something thematic for your class. I would have much rather seen metamagic feats rolled into general feats, of which there are nowhere near enough (that aren’t also skill feats). If Shield Block and Toughness can be general feats, then Reach Spell can be a general feat. Not everyone would be able to make use of it, but anyone who takes a spellcasting dedication or has a focus spell with a target could, which means it could be useful to any base class in the right situation.
Pathfinder Society Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PFS-related question in the original post was succinctly answered in the first one or two responses. To those who responded helpfully and with clear information, you have my thanks.
If people want to deliberate other unrelated rules or have a conversation about how many times you have to put on your metal armor for it to be considered more than single "act" of anathema, that's fine. But please start a different thread.