With the wording change to spellcasting archetypes:
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.The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands).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 druid's master spellcasting feat is called Master Druid Spellcasting.
From what I am seeing, Spellhearts are now available to cast from along with scrolls and wands. But you do need the level 4 basic spellcasting feat to do it with.
Now, whether you think that is a nerf or a clarification is not what I am asking (I expect people will discuss that anyway, and that is fine). My question is:
Does anyone have a rules argument to say that you only need the archetype Dedication to cast from scrolls?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note the wording change.
It changed from "A spellcasting archetype" to "The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype".
It is now saying very clearly that it is one of the abilities inside the archetype that allows the Cast a Spell activation. Not simply 'having' the archetype.
From what I remember, that was always the core of the debate previously. That line indicated that simply having the archetype at all allowed using those items. Now it doesn't. Now you have to have the spellcasting ability from the archetype.
That is how it reads and was RAI identified by a designer earlier in the year (don't have the link to it right now, but could dig it out).
So yeah. Go dig that link out. I'd like to see it.
Especially from the perspective of someone who has always felt that it was RAI from the developers that "the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature" so the level 4 basic spellcasting feat has always been required. At that point, the errata is a strict buff.
It is only considered a nerf if you were thinking that the ruling was that the dedication alone was sufficient.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is only considered a nerf if you were thinking that the ruling was that the dedication alone was sufficient.
Well, that's what I was thinking because Logan Bonner said so.
(This might be the thing that Red Griffyn was referring to.)
Yeah, I was thinking this was going to be something said recently. Preferably about this errata.
Not a YouTube video from two years ago.
And if "The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype" doesn't mean the basic spellcasting feat, what is it referencing?
The Cast a Spell item activation still very clearly says that you need "a spellcasting class feature" in order to use it.
You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation.
So what part of the spellcasting archetype gives you a "spellcasting class feature"?
In the current wording of the rules as-written. Not an RAI argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what part of the spellcasting archetype gives you a "spellcasting class feature"?
E.G., from Sorc dedication:
...You cast spells like a sorcerer. You gain access to the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with two common cantrips from the spell list associated with your bloodline, from the spells granted by your bloodline, or any other cantrips of that tradition you learn or discover. You’re trained in the spell attack modifier and spell DC statistics. Your key spellcasting attribute for sorcerer archetype spells is Charisma, and they are sorcerer spells of your bloodline’s tradition.
EDIT: My understanding is that the "you need the basic spellcasting benefits feat" is a PFS ruling, not actually the RAW, which directly said "A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can" prior to errata.
I mean its in the errata rationale. They said why they made the change. You can argue about whether the wording they picked worked but they explained they wanted an all inclusive non limiting non bespoke list VS the list they provided being interpreted as a bespoke list. The errata rationale text is now part of RAW of that associated paragraph and it can't be read in isolation of the rationale.
That's beside the point.
Yes, that rationale is valid. It is definitely intended that Spellhearts are available to be cast as an archetype spellcaster.
What isn't determined - and definitely isn't part of that rationale that you are continually mentioning - is whether you can do so with only the archetype dedication or if you need the basic spellcasting feat.
That hasn't been settled for 2 years. Not by RAW. Because it wasn't written. Like I keep saying, if it isn't written, then it isn't RAW - by definition since that is what the acronym means.
It was actually more settled in the other direction 2 years ago when the spellcasting archetype rules had a bit of rules text in the basic spellcasting feat that said 'the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature'.
The rules argument for needing the basic spellcasting feat is pretty solid by the rules as written now.
Cast a Spell activation requires a spellcasting class feature.
The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items
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.
The only weak point in the argument is if the 'spellcasting ability' is the same as the 'basic spellcasting feat' or not. But if it isn't, then what is it?
If anyone has an alternative rules argument, let me know.
If you just want to run the game with dedication only casters using scrolls and such, feel free. I'm not trying to stop you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean its in the errata rationale. They said why they made the change. You can argue about whether the wording they picked worked but they explained they wanted an all inclusive non limiting non bespoke list VS the list they provided being interpreted as a bespoke list. The errata rationale text is now part of RAW of that associated paragraph and it can't be read in isolation of the rationale.That's beside the point.
Yes, that rationale is valid. It is definitely intended that Spellhearts are available to be cast as an archetype spellcaster.
What isn't determined - and definitely isn't part of that rationale that you are continually mentioning - is whether you can do so with only the archetype dedication or if you need the basic spellcasting feat.
That hasn't been settled for 2 years. Not by RAW. Because it wasn't written. Like I keep saying, if it isn't written, then it isn't RAW - by definition since that is what the acronym means.
I'm really confused about why you think this isn't settled when the errata explicitly says it. This is not vague:
The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands).
They're literally changing the definition of "spellcasting archetype" to grant that. You get the archetype when you take the dedication.
It's 100% settled now aside from trying to be incredibly literal in reading it and then using that to come up with a more complex interpretation. In plain English that is perfectly clear.
It was actually more settled in the other direction 2 years ago when the spellcasting archetype rules had a bit of rules text in the basic spellcasting feat that said 'the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature'.
Did it? The only thing I see there is the PFS ruling that it required Basic Spellcasting Benefits. That was useful to provide a direction for folks, but it's not RAW per your own definition.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean its in the errata rationale. They said why they made the change. You can argue about whether the wording they picked worked but they explained they wanted an all inclusive non limiting non bespoke list VS the list they provided being interpreted as a bespoke list. The errata rationale text is now part of RAW of that associated paragraph and it can't be read in isolation of the rationale.That's beside the point.
Yes, that rationale is valid. It is definitely intended that Spellhearts are available to be cast as an archetype spellcaster.
What isn't determined - and definitely isn't part of that rationale that you are continually mentioning - is whether you can do so with only the archetype dedication or if you need the basic spellcasting feat.
That hasn't been settled for 2 years. Not by RAW. Because it wasn't written. Like I keep saying, if it isn't written, then it isn't RAW - by definition since that is what the acronym means.
I'm really confused about why you think this isn't settled when the errata explicitly says it. This is not vague:
The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands).They're literally changing the definition of "spellcasting archetype" to grant that. You get the archetype when you take the dedication.
It's 100% settled now aside from trying to be incredibly literal in reading it and then using that to come up with a more complex interpretation. In plain English that is perfectly clear.
It was actually more settled in the other direction 2 years ago when the spellcasting archetype rules had a bit of rules text in the basic spellcasting feat that said 'the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature'.Did it? The only thing I see there is the PFS ruling that it required Basic Spellcasting Benefits. That was useful to provide a direction...
I see how you read it.
And I also see how Finoan reads it.
Trust me on this : not crystal clear.
Else there would be no disagreement.
Before errata was : "A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can."
People interpreted it to mean the dedication was enough for this. And the PFS note strengthened this take.
After errata is : "The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands)."
Why change the beginning of the sentence ?
If it was only meant to expand on the list mentioned before the errata, why not just keep "A spellcasting archetype" instead of adding "the spellcasting ability from" ?
Why the difference ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was always under the impression the Dedication was enough for item activations because it gives you Cast a Spell as a general use Activity, plus cantrips, and they all start with "You cast spells as a X".
I guess you could argue you don't have proper "spellcasting ability" until you can cast from slots, but that's not actually defined anywhere that I could find. So to me, "spellcasting ability" is having access to Cast a Spell as a general activity, which the Spellcasting class features and the Dedications give you.
But I agree it's still unclear. I think it would be much better if the sentence changed to either:
"The Dedication Feat from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands)."
or
"The Basic Spellcasting Feat from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands)."
Depending on which of the interpretations is the desired one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trust me on this : not crystal clear.
Else there would be no disagreement.
Eh, not really. Someone having a weird position on a topic doesn't necessarily mean that position is valid just because they have it. That's just circular reasoning, but sometimes people are just wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see how you read it.And I also see how Finoan reads it.
Trust me on this : not crystal clear.
Else there would be no disagreement.
Disagreement over things that are clearly written happens all the time, for many different reasons. One of those can be that some people read rules in a more literal formal language way, and some read them in a more plain language way.
In other cases, it can be because someone is simply wrong. The explanation that came along with the errata is pointing in the same direction as the errata itself, so unlike the staff investing one (which was quickly sorted), this is pretty clear.
Before errata was : "A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can."
People interpreted it to mean the dedication was enough for this. And the PFS note strengthened this take.
The PFS note says literally the opposite of that:
Gaining the basic spellcasting feats from a spellcasting archetype counts as having a spellcasting class feature for the purpose of activating an item with a Cast a Spell activation.
That says you need the Basic Spellcasting feat from the archetype to count, NOT that the archetype itself does it. That was one of the sources of support for "the archetype alone doesn't do it", because while PFS rulings are not errata, they are widely used and are often aligned with eventual errata (see: Oracle spellcasting).
It'll be interesting to see if PFS removes that ruling now that the errata has come down the other way, or if they keep it and have what amounts to a PFS house rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really confused about why you think this isn't settled when the errata explicitly says it. This is not vague:
The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands).They're literally changing the definition of "spellcasting archetype" to grant that. You get the archetype when you take the dedication.No, this is still not clear and yes this is still vague. I'm frankly rather irritated that they've made an erratum and haven't explicitly answered the main question stated by Finoan. Because: which 'spellcasting ability'? When in the archetype? Why not "Cast a Spell activity given by spellcasting archetype dedication feats"? This would have been actually and finally clear. But no, we have what we have. They cleared that items have universal demands, but not cleared what those demands are.
And they have not removed that sentence "You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation" from activating items with Cast a spell. There's no even such thing in the rules anymore apart from this place. 'Clear' would be make it 'You must have Cast a Spell activity to Activate an Item with this activation.' But again that's not what we have.
I now kind of understand what they want to tell us and will just allow (including myself) to use all items with just dedication. But no, still not clear.
IMO, the PFS ruling that it required Basic Spellcasting Benefits is the only thing that muddles things. As otherwise, nothing would lead me to think that 'spellcasting ability' was anything other than the ability to Cast a Spell [it doesn't say ability to cast from slots or anything like that]. Tossing that PFS rule out the window leaves this pretty straight forward IMO. If they meant you needed a specific feat, like you needed the Basic Spellcasting Feat, they could of said that easily enough but it's worded that "A spellcasting archetype allows" it and they are an official listed sub-category: I'm not sure why listing them is any less specific than "spellcasting archetype dedication feats" as it would be interchangeable [being in the archetype means you have the dedication and taking the dedication means you have the archetype]. That and 'Why not "Cast a Spell activity given by spellcasting archetype dedication feats"' might not have fit in the space that the other rule did [errata has to fit in the same book space after all].
Thing is PFS rulings benefit from a close contact with the Devs team that we just do not have.
True, but PFS rulings can be made for purely organized play reasons and not for general reasons, so the fact that PFS made a ruling doesn't translate into that ruling applying to normal play. As such, I'm comfortable it tossing it in the circular filing cabinet as there is no way I can tell that it has the least bit of impact in the wording of the rule for non-organized play. In essence, PFS has its own house rules and the fact that they can have some communication with the devs doesn't change the fact that they are house rules.
I agree that the PFS ruling is a red herring. That is either going to be seen as redundant with the rules, or as a houserule. Both interpretations are valid. The PFS ruling is not authoritative.
IMO, the PFS ruling that it required Basic Spellcasting Benefits is the only thing that muddles things.
For me the only thing that muddles things is that YouTube video featuring Logan. As otherwise nothing indicates that the spellcasting class feature shouldn't still be granted with the Basic Spellcasting feat like it was from day 1.
If they meant you needed a specific feat, like you needed the Basic Spellcasting Feat, they could of said that easily enough but it's worded that "A spellcasting archetype allows" it
That's the thing though.
That isn't how it is worded any more.
It is now worded that "The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype also allows" it.
Which to me means that it requires more than just having the archetype in general.
And still nothing in any of this thread is successfully addressing the rule in Cast a Spell activation that you need a Spellcasting class feature. Caster classes have a class feature named <Class> Spellcasting. But nothing in the Spellcasting archetype gives that any more. That used to be given very clearly with the Basic Spellcasting feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me the only thing that muddles things is that YouTube video featuring Logan. As otherwise nothing indicates that the spellcasting class feature shouldn't still be granted with the Basic Spellcasting feat like it was from day 1.
IMO, Logan is stating in the video that the Basic Spellcasting feat requirement was an error and/or they changed their mind on the requirement. If anyone would know how it's meant to work, it's the lead designer.
It is now worded that "The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype also allows" it.
Which to me means that it requires more than just having the archetype in general.
Does it though? Take Bard Dedication: It says "You cast spells like a bard and gain the Cast a Spell activity", "You gain a spell repertoire with two common cantrips from the occult spell list", "You’re trained in the spell attack modifier and spell DC statistics", "Your key spellcasting attribute for bard archetype spells is Charisma, and they are occult bard spells." These are all VERY strange things to gain if you don't gain "spellcasting".
And still nothing in any of this thread is successfully addressing the rule in Cast a Spell activation that you need a Spellcasting class feature. Caster classes have a class feature named <Class> Spellcasting. But nothing in the Spellcasting archetype gives that any more. That used to be given very clearly with the Basic Spellcasting feat.
It doesn't need to. "The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands).” Did you take a dedication in a spellcasting archetype? Yes? Then you have "The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype". What other definition would there be? By your own admission, they specifically removed the requirement for a specific feat for spellcasting so, IMO, it's pretty clear that just having the archetype give it.