Red Mantis Magic tells us You have learned limited divine magic from your Red Mantis training. You gain the Cast a Spell activity. You’re a prepared spellcaster, able to prepare two cantrips and one 1st-level spell each day. You prepare these spells from a Red Mantis assassin spellbook, similar to a wizard’s, containing three cantrips and two 1st-level spells. All the spells in your Red Mantis assassin spellbook, from this and later feats, must be either transmutation or illusion spells from the arcane spell list or a spell from the following list: clairaudience, clairvoyance, darkness, dimension door, modify memory, obscuring mist, paralyze, see invisibility, true strike. Regardless of their usual magical tradition, your Red Mantis assassin spells are divine spells, as are any Red Mantis focus spells you gain.
So can they use any arcane spell wand, or just any wand that has their specific spells or arcane illusion/transmutation? Or no wands? Or Divine wands?
Depends on how strict RAW you want to run.
I don't see anywhere in there that it lists giving a spellcasting class feature or equivalent. So by the strictest of RAW you wouldn't be able to use any cast a spell activated items such as scrolls, wands, staves, and spellhearts.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the feat the Red Mantis Assassin spell list is a follows:
"transmutation or illusion spells from the arcane spell list or a spell from the following list: clairaudience, clairvoyance, darkness, dimension door, modify memory, obscuring mist, paralyze, see invisibility, true strike."
So you could use wands of those spells.
You cast these spells as divine spells, but that doesn't matter so much. The list is the list.
Any other spells would require Trick Magic Item or the like.
Even by the strictest: "Basic ... Magic", "You gain the Cast a Spell activity." (general one, not "to cast your focus/innate spell/s"), "You’re a prepared spellcaster", spell slots - is that not enough? Do we really need code words "a spellcasting class feature" that much?Depends on how strict RAW you want to run.
I don't see anywhere in there that it lists giving a spellcasting class feature or equivalent. So by the strictest of RAW
Actually, yes. We do need those specific code words.
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.
It calls for that specific keyword class ability rather explicitly. And separately from using the Cast a Spell activity to activate the item.
Granted, I don't generally run an actual game using that strict of RAW.
Personally I feel that if a spellcaster is able to cast spells from spell slots (not just cantrips, not innate spells, not focus spells), then they have spellcasting ability enough to activate items with those same spell slot spells.
So in practice, I would likely run a game the same way that Ectar said. You have a custom list of spells rather than a full tradition list, so you can only use spellcasting items with those specific spells.
Depends on how strict RAW you want to run.
I don't see anywhere in there that it lists giving a spellcasting class feature or equivalent. So by the strictest of RAW
Even by the strictest: "Basic ... Magic", "You gain the Cast a Spell activity." (general one, not "to cast your focus/innate spell/s"), "You’re a prepared spellcaster", spell slots - is that not enough? Do we really need code words "a spellcasting class feature" that much?
Otherwise it should be as Ectar wrote.
Breithauptclan doesn't accept the interpretation 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.
is a specific rule that overrides the general rule that you need a Spellcasting class feature to use scrolls, wands, and staves.
So they don't believe that any Spellcasting archetypes grant that ability before the Basic Spellcasting Feat is taken.
Trust me that there is no argument that will convince them otherwise, so you might as well just stop trying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Breithauptclan doesn't accept 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.is a specific rule that overrides the general rule that you need a Spellcasting class feature to use scrolls, wands, and staves.
Trust me that there is no argument that will convince them otherwise, so you might as well just stop trying.
LOL. Indeed. Not even game devs on YouTube channels. Errata or it doesn't work.
And mostly because of the second half of that rules quote - the part that wasn't bolded. You really can't just ignore that part. Especially since that half of the sentence was added in errata.
You really can't just ignore that part.
But ignoring the first part is fine?
You really can't just ignore that part.But ignoring the first part is fine?
That first part I interpret as being the archetype as a whole - which includes the Basic Spellcasting feat. So the archetype does allow you to cast from spellcasting items. By taking that second feat, you get the Spellcasting Class Feature needed.
There is no ignoring of that first half of the sentence going on either.
Trust me that there is no argument that will convince them otherwise, so you might as well just stop trying.I'm not trying to :) Just clarifying. Especially when for practical purposes breithauptclan would probably not run it in the strictest version, as they wrote.
And that rule sentence really is ambiguous at least a bit. I hope designers will clarify casting archetypes and magic items rules in the remaster.
Yes, it is ambiguous, but the lead designer Logan Bonner, speaking on behalf of the entire the design team, did clarify that the dedication grants the ability to use scrolls and wands before the Basic Spellcasting feat in this Q&A session.
For the majority of people here, that was sufficient to resolve the issue on the side of not needing the Basic Spellcasting feat. However, breithauptclan doesn't accept errata or clarifications that are delivered in that format as official.
I do agree that they should make the text more clear, though. Without that video I would still be on the fence as to what it means.
Assuming that the developers did intend for the Dedication feat alone to grant the ability to cast from scrolls and wands. They then wrote this into the CRB and APG:
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can.
They then realized that it doesn't actually give the Spellcasting class feature that is needed to activate those items or other Cast a Spell activation items like Spellhearts. So they changed it to:
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.
And for some strange reason they misspelled 'dedication' as 'basic spellcasting' when they were listing out which feat is needed.
And then duplicated that error when writing the Bounded Spellcasting Archetype rules in Secrets of Magic.
So yes. If there is a conflict between the errata given in YouTube and the errata that is actually written into the rulebooks, I am going to go with what is written in the rulebooks.
At least when discussing what RAW actually is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we need a new acronym: RASOY - rules as said on YouTube.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So yes. If there is a conflict between the errata given in YouTube and the errata that is actually written into the rulebooks, I am going to go with what is written in the rulebooks.
At least when discussing what RAW actually is.
Exactly. That's why I said that there isn't any point in debating the issue at this point. The decision as to which methods of information delivery someone will accept as official is purely subjective and so can't be objectively resolved.
I mean if the rulebook says something is true, and the developers have gone on to confirm in a public facing way that it is true, someone saying "actually no it isn't" is a step beyond simply disagreeing about sourcing.
I mean if the rulebook says something is true, and the developers have gone on to confirm in a public facing way that it is true, someone saying "actually no it isn't" is a step beyond simply disagreeing about sourcing.
Are you saying: "the rulebook does not mention needing the 'Basic Spellcasting Feat' in order to have the spellcasting class feature required for casting from items" is a true statement?
Because when I read the rulebook it clearly says 'basic spellcasting feat'. Why else would that particular combination of words be printed there?
Some alternate changes that could have been made to that sentence:
"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 dedication feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature."
"A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and having the archetype counts as having a spellcasting class feature."
But they didn't write either of those. They wrote:
"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."
That was their choice for the clarification to make when they wrote it into the rules.
Wasn't there some other debated topic that was similar - where the rumors and unofficial statements from some of the developers went one way, but then the official changes went the other direction. Combat Maneuvers being or not being attack rolls, if I remember correctly.
Can't both "the dedication is enough to fulfill the requirements of activating scrolls, staves, and wands" and "the basic spellcasting feature counts as having a spellcasting class feature" be true simultaneously?
Having a spellcasting archetype dedication is enough to activate scrolls, staves, and wands, but is not enough for meeting other requirements on the spellcasting feature such as in the feat tupilaq carver. Is this not a case of specific trumps general?
So in this case, it's a bit uncertain if Red Mantis counts as a spellcasting archetype. If you ruled that it was, that would be enough to activate scrolls, staves, and wands.
Can't both "the dedication is enough to fulfill the requirements of activating scrolls, staves, and wands" and "the basic spellcasting feature counts as having a spellcasting class feature" be true simultaneously?
Having a spellcasting archetype dedication is enough to activate scrolls, staves, and wands, but is not enough for meeting other requirements on the spellcasting feature such as in the feat tupilaq carver. Is this not a case of specific trumps general?
I think that is the currently accepted compromise for the rules forum as a whole - so for our theoretical rules debates on these forums.
Most people will go all or nothing one direction or the other though. Either the dedication is enough for all spellcasting items or basic spellcasting is needed for any of them.
So in this case, it's a bit uncertain if Red Mantis counts as a spellcasting archetype. If you ruled that it was, that would be enough to activate scrolls, staves, and wands.
It pretty clearly isn't. the Spellcasting Archetype gives its basic requirements here:
Spellcasting archetypes always grant the ability to cast cantrips in their dedication, and then they have a basic spellcasting feat, an expert spellcasting feat, and a master spellcasting feat.
Red Mantis Assassin archetype doesn't meet almost any of those. The dedication does not give any cantrips, the Basic Red Mantis Spellcasting and Expert Red Mantis Spellcasting feats are both mis-named, and it is entirely missing the Master Red Mantis Spellcasting feat.
As an aside, that list of requirements is also one of the things that I use to justify my stance on the earlier question. The definition of "A spellcasting archetype" includes more than just the dedication feat. So yes, "A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can" is still a true statement even if the Basic Spellcasting feat is required in order to do so.
So in this case, it's a bit uncertain if Red Mantis counts as a spellcasting archetype. If you ruled that it was, that would be enough to activate scrolls, staves, and wands.It pretty clearly isn't. the Spellcasting Archetype gives its basic requirements here:
Spellcasting archetypes always grant the ability to cast cantrips in their dedication, and then they have a basic spellcasting feat, an expert spellcasting feat, and a master spellcasting feat.Red Mantis Assassin archetype doesn't meet almost any of those. The dedication does not give any cantrips, the Basic Red Mantis Spellcasting and Expert Red Mantis Spellcasting feats are both mis-named, and it is entirely missing the Master Red Mantis Spellcasting feat.
Yeah, Red Mantis Assassin clearly doesn't meet the requirements to be a Spellcasting Archetype.
The dedication doesn’t give spellcasting, but the feat Basic Red Mantis Magic definitely does.
The dedication doesn’t give spellcasting, but the feat Basic Red Mantis Magic definitely does.
That's true, but I don't see how that is relevant. Merely granting some spellcasting doesn't make an archetype a Spellcasting Archetype.
But the real question is. This reach the requirements of many items like scrolls, staves, wands and spellhearts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The dedication doesn’t give spellcasting, but the feat Basic Red Mantis Magic definitely does.That's true, but I don't see how that is relevant. Merely granting some spellcasting doesn't make an archetype a Spellcasting Archetype.
What qualifies as a spell casting archetype, if not one that allows for casting spells?
One that meets the definition of a "Spellcasting Archetype". We aren't using that in a generic standard English way. That is a defined subtype of Archetype. Much like Bounded Spellcasting Archetype. It has a specific definition and requirements of things that it contains.
Yes, there are several other Archetypes that provide spellcasting. They aren't all Spellcasting Archetypes.
But the real question is. This reach the requirements of many items like scrolls, staves, wands and spellhearts?
Only scrolls, staves, and wands get special dispensation from the Dedication.
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.
But anyone can use a Spellheart.
What qualifies as a spell casting archetype, if not one that allows for casting spells?The dedication doesn’t give spellcasting, but the feat Basic Red Mantis Magic definitely does.That's true, but I don't see how that is relevant. Merely granting some spellcasting doesn't make an archetype a Spellcasting Archetype.
Here are the rules governing Spellcasting Archetypes. breithauptclan cited the requirements earlier.
Spellcasting archetypes always grant the ability to cast cantrips in their dedication, and then they have a basic spellcasting feat, an expert spellcasting feat, and a master spellcasting feat. These feats share their name with the archetype; for instance, the wizard's master spellcasting feat is called Master Wizard Spellcasting.
Red Mantis Assassin doesn't meet those criteria.
-----
I believe that the current complete list of Spellcasting Archetypes is:
• Bard Multiclass
• Beast Gunner
• Captivator
• Cathartic Mage
• Cleric Multiclass
• Druid Multiclass
• Eldritch Archer
• Magus Multiclass
• Oracle Multiclass
• Psychic Multiclass
• Sorcerer Multiclass
• Summoner Multiclass
• Witch Multiclass
• Wizard Multiclass
In case you are interested, I've got tables showing the spell slot progressions for all of these as well as for a few archetypes like Red Mantis Assassin that grant multiple spells but aren't Spellcasting Archetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the real question is. This reach the requirements of many items like scrolls, staves, wands and spellhearts?Only scrolls, staves, and wands get special dispensation from the Dedication.
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.But anyone can use a Spellheart.
That is very true. Anyone can attach a Five-feather Wreath to their armor in order to get a +1 item bonus to Acrobatics checks and resistance 2 to falling damage. No requirements necessary.
Exactly. But they would need a Spellcasting class feature (like the Basic Spellcasting Feat) to use the Spellheart spells no matter which interpretation of the dedication rules you use.
But we do agree that if a player takes the Basic Red Mantis Magic feat the character is now able to use wands and staves, yes? If so, then it seems rather pedantic on if the archetype as a whole is considered a spell casting archetype. Or is there also an argument against that as well?
Hmm. So CRB pg592 says
“You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.”
And CRB pg597 says
“To cast a spell from a wand, it must be on your spell list. Because you’re the one casting the spell, use your spell attack roll and spell DC. The spell is of your tradition.”
It seems to me that the Basic Red Mantis Magic feat covers both of these requirements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not entirely clear.
It is the Cast a Spell item activation (which both scrolls and wands use) that requires the spellcasting class feature.
Staves may not actually use Cast a Spell item activation. At least - the wording of the item is not nearly as exact.
Casting a Spell from a scroll requires holding the scroll in one hand and activating it with a Cast a Spell activity using the normal number of actions for that spell.
A wand contains a spell that can be cast once per day. Casting a spell from a wand requires holding the wand in one hand and activating the item with a Cast a Spell activity using the normal number of actions for the spell.
Casting a Spell from a staff requires holding the staff (typically in one hand) and Activating the staff by Casting the Spell, which takes the spell’s normal number of actions.
However, at least when I look it up on AoN, scrolls don't have an Activate line at all, Wands have listed Activate: cast a spell, and so does the Staff of Fire that I looked up.
So from the items themselves, both wands and staves use Cast a Spell item activation and would need a spellcasting class feature in order to use.
-----
I am suspecting that at least some of the rules devs consider the Cast a Spell activity for casting from spell slots to be equivalent in all cases to the Cast a Spell item activation. So when you get the Cast a Spell activity from the spellcasting archetype, then they think it should count.
But then there are other rules devs that don't see it that way.
Hopefully the Remaster will clean up the rules language regarding this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully the Remaster will clean up the rules language regarding this.
To this I can fully agree.
Hmm. So CRB pg592 says
“You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.”And CRB pg597 says
“To cast a spell from a wand, it must be on your spell list. Because you’re the one casting the spell, use your spell attack roll and spell DC. The spell is of your tradition.”It seems to me that the Basic Red Mantis Magic feat covers both of these requirements.
Yes it does but you are just reading part of a rule and ignoring the full context. This is the designers not wanting to re-state rules when they add new layers to it, it can be annoying at times but it is understandable seeing as the book is long enough as it is.
The rules for activating an item is placed early in chapter 11 because it covers all kinds of items that needs to be activated (some that cast spells and some that does not).
The rules you quoted is from later on in chapter 11 in the details of those specific kinds of items. And thus they only add the additional requirements/rules that exists for those items, they don't re-state the general rules because you are expected to already know those and...
I just read through chapter 11 and didn’t see anything indicating a conflict to what the rule I posted says. The feat gives the Cast a Spell activity which is the main requirement listed to use items that cast a spell. Perhaps you can show me specifically where the rule is.