How would certain class features and feats influence and interact with Archetype casting? For example Dangerous Sorcery if gotten through the Archetype Sorcerer at level 4, would it not influence all of your spell slots simply because of the wording of the feat? Or a unique meta-magic from any spell-caster class restricted to their own slots?
Next is there any ruling that stops Wizard Thesis Spell Blending from effecting Archetype or Dual-class spell slots? This leads into a post I replied to about the Summoner's Unlimited Signature Spells, if the others are false and applies to all your slots would Unlimited Signature spell overwrite the general rule for Archetype spell casting since it is a class rule over general rule?
What about Magus Dual-class Wizard with Spell-blending or any any class with bonus spell slots, can those be blending to make additional spell slots? Like the bonus spell slots Magus gets can you spell blend those to get 1 extra spell slot?
Dangerous sorcery applies to all spells cast from spellslots, regardless of the source.
But it is a clear exception: nearly all special abilities like the Spell Blending Arcane Thesis apply only to slots gained from your wizard class. All archetype spellcasting is completely separate from your main-class spellcasting.
If your main class and your archetype both have a spellbook feature, you use the same spellbook. But if either one or both have a spell repertoire, those repertoires are totally separate.
|
It's a bit fuzzy really. I don't see clear text saying all such abilities are by default limited or not limited to the spells of the class they came from.
I think in many cases that's just because it doesn't seem that likely that the question would come up - Dual Class is a niche option that isn't really taken into account in how the rules are written, and you need to take a specific feat to even get more than one spell slot per rank with archetype casting.
If as a GM I have to make a decision about it I'd probably look at how close to the core of the class the ability is.
Something that describes the basic principles of how this class prepares/learns/heightens/signatures spells, I'd say should be seen as pretty tightly scoped to that class.
On the other hand, a metamagic feat like Reach Spell is pretty detached, and shows up in multiple classes, so I'd allow that to cross the fence.
Dangerous Sorcery just by name implies sorcerer spells, as does the flavor text. But mechanically, it just talks about requiring spell slots and not focus/cantrip stuff. A different class could have a feat with a different name and exactly the same mechanics and nobody would think it strange.
I don't see a clear rules reason to forbid Spell Blending with non-wizard slots, but also not definite proof that it's intended to be possible. I guess that's a judgement call for the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't most such abilities state whether they must be kept within class or not? Seems I've seen quite a few that worked one way, and quite a few that worked the other way.
Just pay attention to the specific wording and you should find your answe more often than not.
Don't most such abilities state whether they must be kept within class or not?I don't remember even one that does it.
That is the thing none of them say that other then a very, very few because they don't balance over dual-class so wording can be as open as "You gain +8 damage" and they wouldn't need to worry since when was the last time you thought that +8 Damage would be added to spells? (Even if it were your DC be so low anyways.)
Don't most such abilities state whether they must be kept within class or not?I don't remember even one that does it.
Well, if it doesn't state the scope of the benefit is limited to the class' abilities, then why would you think that?
Well, if it doesn't state the scope of the benefit is limited to the class' abilities, then why would you think that?Don't most such abilities state whether they must be kept within class or not?I don't remember even one that does it.
Balance.
Some class abilities (that don't specify that they only interact with other features and abilities of the same class) would be horribly broken if allowed to apply to other classes.
For example the Everything in your Repertoire is a Signature Spell ability of Summoner.
For example the Everything in your Repertoire is a Signature Spell ability of Summoner.
I hope you have a better example of how it can break the game.
That seems like a poor example to me, in that if it were true, it wouldn't be unbalanced. I dare say it seems underpowered to me.
Reason being that you can't get the Unlimited Signature Spells unless your base class is summoner. That means, under the most open interpretation, you can heighten a handful of additional spells that are 3 levels behind the curve, only reach master proficiency, and end up with only about half the spells of any other caster.
And that takes at least half your class feats just to come up short! To say nothing of the fact that heightening lower level spells tends to be less efficient then just using the higher level spells themselves.
A lot of these problems seem to come from people playing free archetype and even dual class games. So the balance issues might look a lot bigger to some people than to others.
But if you are playing with variant rules, it is really on you and your GM to have these balance conversations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reason being that you can't get the Unlimited Signature Spells unless your base class is summoner.
Yeah. The problem shows up with Dual Class. When you apply the Summoner's class features to a Sorcerer base class also and end up with a Sorcerer's full Repertoire (and spellcasting proficiency) also being considered all Signature Spells because the rules for the Summoner class feature doesn't explicitly limit it to Summoner's Repertoire.
I don't as much agree with Unicore regarding Free Archetype. Nearly any overpowered thing that you can do with Free Archetype you can also do without Free Archetype.
What nearly broken thing?
There used to be this rule:
All spell slots you gain from spellcasting archetypes have restrictions depending on the archetype
I don't know if it's still a thing after remaster, I can't reference it now.
Anyway, I don't think that when a Summoner takes Wizard dedication, the Wizard spells they get should become signature ones... that doesn't even make sense.
There used to be this rule:
All spell slots you gain from spellcasting archetypes have restrictions depending on the archetypeI don't know if it's still a thing after remaster, I can't reference it now.
Anyway, I don't think that when a Summoner takes Wizard dedication, the Wizard spells they get should become signature ones... that doesn't even make sense.
In that specific case, I generally agree; that was probably not the intent.
I don't remember even one that does it.
Effortless Concentration is one.
Though I fail to see how that one would break anything, as sustaining a Druid spell isn't stronger than sustaining a Wizard spell. And due to the level requirement you can't get that feat from a multiclass archetype; and even if you had a similar one from an archetype, like Effortless Captivation, the rules prohibit you from using 2 free actions with the same trigger anyway. It's shutting down sustaining weaker spells (from your archetype or innate ones), which is just weird.
As for the Summoner, it's an easy fix to rephrase that ability to "all your summoner spells are signature spells" instead of making new general rules for archetype interactions. I've had bad experience with supposed fixes via FAQs back in PF1, where new general ruling FAQs often broke more than they fixed.