Can you use these feats through a multiclass dedication? I remember reading something about "your spell list" part only referring to the spells granted by your dedication, but I can't find it anywhere so I don't know if I am remembering wrong or something.
The text itself seems to indicate it works, so if someone can provide me with anything to know the answer, I would apreciate it.
Unless something has changed that I am not aware of, "your spell list" is notoriously undefined. A tradition's spell list is defined, but not what spells are on your personal spell list.
That said, I don't see anywhere in Crossblooded Evolution that references 'your spell list' anyway. It references your repertoire. And it references your tradition list.
The fact that it doesn't give any special ability to learn spells that are not on your tradition list is a bit strange though. At the very least, it is implied that having the feat will let you learn spells that are not on your tradition list. But it might also be an indication that any character can learn spells not on their tradition list unless explicitly prevented from it. But this applies to base class Sorcerers just as much as it does Sorcerer Archetype characters.
So to answer the question clearly: I think Crossblooded Evolution will work fine for a Sorcerer Archetype character.
As for Divine Access, that one does reference 'your spell list', but it only does so to say that it adds spells to that undefined list.
So if it successfully does anything for a base class Oracle, it should do the same thing for an Oracle Archetype character too.
Just in case as I didn't specify it in my first post, I meant using those feats for the spell list of your actual class.
Calculating... I don't think it makes a difference if your base class can cast spells or not.
Take a Wizard for example.
Taking Sorcerer (primal) Archetype alone would not let them put Arcane non-Primal spells in their Sorcerer Repertoire. Adding Crossblooded Evolution (Arcane) would let them add one Arcane spell into their Repertoire and cast it with their Sorcerer spell slots.
Same with the Wizard taking Oracle archetype. With just the archetype they can't add any Arcane non-Divine spells into their Oracle Repertoire. Divine Access would let them add the deity's spells (no matter the spell's tradition) into their Oracle spell list and they would become available to be put into Repertoire.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah looks like Crossblooded adds the spells to the sorcerer repertoire. So for example a bard archetyped into arcane sorcerer could use the sorcerer feat to put a Heal (divine/primal) spell on their sorcerer repertoire, but not their bard repertoire.
The rules for using feats from one spellcasting class in another are a bit fuzzy yeah, you could probably use a wizard dedication to learn Reach Spell and use it for your main class cleric spells for example.
But those work on spells in general. This feat however works on a repertoire, not all of your repertoires that you might have. And there's only one reasonable scope for it.
Yeah looks like Crossblooded adds the spells to the sorcerer repertoire. So for example a bard archetyped into arcane sorcerer could use the sorcerer feat to put a Heal (divine/primal) spell on their sorcerer repertoire, but not their bard repertoire.
The rules for using feats from one spellcasting class in another are a bit fuzzy yeah, you could probably use a wizard dedication to learn Reach Spell and use it for your main class cleric spells for example.
But those work on spells in general. This feat however works on a repertoire, not all of your repertoires that you might have. And there's only one reasonable scope for it.
So let's look at what it says:
- "You can have one spell in your spell repertoire from a tradition other than the one that matches your bloodline." Heavily implied - you must have a bloodline, which archetype sorcerors do. Also, you need to have a spell repertoire. Important to note that it doesn't put the spell in your spell repertoire. It just allows you to quietly elide the issue of "it's the wrong tradition". Archetype Sorcerors do inherently get a spell repertoire.
- "You cast that spell as a spell from your bloodline’s tradition." Effectively, that spell counts as being part of your bloodline's tradition for you personally, for the purposes of casting spells.
- "You can swap which spell you add and from which tradition as you could any other sorcerer spell". So if you're going to retrain this thing, it must be through the Sorceror retraining rules.
- It doesn't actually specify that the repertoire in question is your Sorceror repertoire. By the writing, it actually assumes that you just have the one.
So, if you want to use this feat from a sorceror archetype to adjust the spells available to your primary class...
- If your primary class is a prepared caster, it's a no-go. You dont' have an applicable spell repertoire to modify.
- If the tradition of your primary class does not line up with the tradition of your bloodline, that's a no-go. The feat does not permit you to pretend that the spell is of any other tradition.
- Once you've selected the spell it it's locked in. You can't retrain it with non-sorcerer retrains, because the feat doesn't allow that. You can't retrain it with Sorceror retrains because you're not takign ti as a sorceror spell. It's locked.
- It's an 8th level Sorc feat, so you're spending a 16th level class feat to make it happen.
/*********/
By my read?
- RAW, nothing technically prevents it, if you're willing to jump through the appropriate hoops and take the appropriate hits.
- To my eyes, the possibility of grabbing via archetype was not considered one way or the other when the feat was being written. It clearly is not deliberately making it possible, given the aforementioned hoops. At the same time, it would have been trivial to replace "repertoire" with "Sorceror repertoire" and close the loophole entirely.
- It's not too good to be true. It's a meaningful investment and a few hoops for an okay payoff. I'd say it was a "meh" payoff, but I figure that the people who are really into casters would find more value there than I can see, and I'm adjusting my assessment up accordingly.
If I was GMing, and a player came to me with this and wanted to do it, I'd let it happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your rules lawyering skill is solid. I can find no technicalities to argue against.
However...
If I was GMing, and a player came to me with this and wanted to do it, I'd let it happen.
I wouldn't. It is a Sorcerer class feat. When it says 'your spell repertoire' it is meaning your Sorcerer repertoire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your rules lawyering skill is solid. I can find no technicalities to argue against.
However...
If I was GMing, and a player came to me with this and wanted to do it, I'd let it happen.I wouldn't. It is a Sorcerer class feat. When it says 'your spell repertoire' it is meaning your Sorcerer repertoire.
I agree that that's what it's meant to refer to. I also don't consider that sufficient reason to reject.
I'd allow it because it's a crazy thing that the player wants to do and it wouldn't break the game. Allowing the rules lawyers to have their slender wins when it doesn't actually make them meaningfully more powerful makes them happy and harms no one. Why wouldn't I allow it?
I'd probably require them to offer some in-game justification for how it made sense, but if they could come up with something vaguely plausible I'd allow it.
I'd allow it because it's a crazy thing that the player wants to do and it wouldn't break the game. Allowing the rules lawyers to have their slender wins when it doesn't actually make them meaningfully more powerful makes them happy and harms no one. Why wouldn't I allow it?
Because then they would argue for something else afterwards.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm entirely willing to allow all kinds of crazy things in a home game simply because it'd be fun for that particular game.
But I don't buy into this rules lawyering. Anytime you start an argument with "technically it doesn't say...what it probably means, but it doesn't exactly say it again in this particular spot..." you're on thin ice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd allow it because it's a crazy thing that the player wants to do and it wouldn't break the game. Allowing the rules lawyers to have their slender wins when it doesn't actually make them meaningfully more powerful makes them happy and harms no one. Why wouldn't I allow it?Because then they would argue for something else afterwards.
Perhaps...? I admit, I don't mind when that happens. Those times when I've had players, I've generally found myself wishing that they'd dig into the rules more rather than less. Attempts to optimize are (at least to me) a form of player engagement, and I just really like player engagement in general. Past that, if the next thing they're arguing for is okay, then that's great, and if it's not okay, then you can say "no" then.
I suppose that if you dislike attempts at rule-bendy CharOp in general and wished to discourage it overall, then that would make sense. I am not that way. I'll happily say "no" if the thing they want is unbalanced, but I don't dislike the attempt, especially if they're willing to be taught reasonable boundaries.
I'm entirely willing to allow all kinds of crazy things in a home game simply because it'd be fun for that particular game.
But I don't buy into this rules lawyering. Anytime you start an argument with "technically it doesn't say...what it probably means, but it doesn't exactly say it again in this particular spot..." you're on thin ice.
Thin ice? I'd agree. If I thought that this combo resulted in anything like a meaningful increase in character power beyond what could be gotten with those same resources by other means, I wouldn't allow it... but I really don't. As such, it's a win for them, and it's not a lose for anyone else, and I prefer to maximize win in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crossblooded at 16 is definitely bad power-wise 99% of the time unless you are going for a really specific spell combination. Divine Access at 8 though, while very limited going strictly by what's written (only a divine sorcerer or summoner could benefit from it), sounds quite better. If there is no official answer about this it is fine by me. Looks like a GM call so I will just ask the GM if it ever comes up and let them decide. (Was thinking that most Psychics would benefit from Fiery Body for the 1 action cantrip).
In the case I'm GMing and a player tries to go for it, I would allow it, honestly. at 16 you have Effortless Concentration, Greater Mental Evolution, Courageous Onslaught... just getting a spell from another spell list is pretty mild in comparison.