Rule Question Cast a Spell

[Furansisuco]

Hi People, I need your help.

I have a Monk Elf Seer Elf, i buy a flaming Star
My intention was to use it as a secondary attack in case I needed ranged options, or to enhance it for melee attacks. The problem is that it needs to be activated using Cast a Spell.
And here's the issue:
Since I'm a Seer Elf, I innately have Detect Magic, which in theory should grant me Cast a Spell, but my GM says it doesn't.
Does Seer Elf give you access to Cast a Spell?

[HammerJack]

Innate spells only give you the ability to cast the innate spell you have as an innate spell. They do not qualify you to use Cast A Spell in any other way for anything.

[Furansisuco]

and Qi Spell feat monk?

[HammerJack]

Non casters with focus spells ALSO do not qualify to do caster stuff. Including Cast A Spell item activations.

Player Core page 298 wrote:

If you get focus spells from a class or other source that doesn’t grant spellcasting ability, the ability that gives you focus spells also provides your proficiency for your spell attack modifier and spell DC, as well as the magical tradition of your focus spells. Though you can cast your focus spells, you don’t qualify for feats and other rules that require you to be a spellcaster or have a spellcasting class feature—those require you to have spell slots.

If you want to cast from a spellheart as a monk, you either need to take a multiclass archetype for a caster class, or use Trick Magic Item.

[Furansisuco]

Thank you

[Finoan]

HammerJack wrote:

If you want to cast from a spellheart as a monk, you either need to take a multiclass archetype for a caster class, or use Trick Magic Item.

It is still a bit debatable what specific "spellcasting ability" from a Spellcasting Archetype is being referenced. But that is what is needed for a non-spellcaster to use Cast a Spell item activation.

It is clear that innate spells and focus spells do not give a character the ability to use Cast a Spell item activation.

Trick Magic Item is also an option.

[NorrKnekten]

We do know now that non-innate cantrips might be enough, Both from a hint an errata to Minor Magic and by a few other sources. More importantly, They removed the text about the Basic Spellcasting Feat counting as a spellcasting feature for the remaster.

We also have Logan Bonner Clarifying that the dedication alone is sufficient and after this the text has changed to include all items with cast a spell activations, not just staves, wands and scrolls.

There are still a few conflicts within the RAW that is questionable. Such as the text within Innate spells saying that you do not qualify as a spellcaster because those requires spellslots(They might be talking about feats that require you to be able to cast spells from spellslots).

[Finoan]

NorrKnekten wrote:

More importantly, They removed the text about the Basic Spellcasting Feat counting as a spellcasting feature for the remaster.

Making it more ambiguous isn't helping. They didn't remove the requirement of having a spellcasting class feature from the Cast a Spell item activation rules.

Previously it was rather clear that the Basic Spellcasting feat was needed in order to use Cast a Spell activation because that was what was defined as providing the spellcasting class feature needed. Logan's statements in a YouTube video are in error in addition to not being official errata/clarifications. His statement actually contradicted the RAW of the time when the video came out.

Now there is literally nothing that actually says that it gives the spellcasting class feature. Only the vague and unspecified 'spellcasting ability'. Which would most likely be either the ability to cast non-innate cantrips, or the feat literally named 'Basic Spellcasting'. Which one is intended isn't specified.

Like I said. It is debatable.

[NorrKnekten]

The RAW was that you need a spellcaster archetype for wands and scrolls, Full stop. The importance of removing "basic spellcasting counts as a having the feature" was due to it being in the same scentence as the ability use Cast a Spell activations instead of just being separate, Leading to questions regarding wands being intended as needing just the archetype or the spellcasting feat. Which is what Logan was clarifying by essentially saying its a list of items that are excempt.

Core Rulebook pg. 219 3.0 wrote:

Some archetypes grant you spellcasting abilities, albeit delayed compared to a character from a spellcasting class. In this book, the spellcasting archetypes are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard, but future books might introduce spellcasting archetypes that aren't multiclass archetypes. 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.

You gained an archetype by

Quote:

Applying an archetype requires you to select archetype feats instead of class feats. Start by finding the archetype that best fits your character concept, and select the archetype’s dedication feat using one of your class feat choices.

It was clear that you still needing the basic spellcasting to qualify as a spellcaster for other items and especially feats. But considering how mentions of spellcasting class feature or "you are a spellcaster" are removed in favor of "you can cast spells from spellslots" in the remaster it seems like they just don't want to use the term at all but it slipped through in the texts where basically no changes were needed.

You are right that the RAW is.. debatable at best, conflicting at worst. But we do have atleast one view of developer intention from someone who worked rather closely to the core rules. So I dont think anythings really changed since then.

I'm also only aware of two mentions of 'Spellcasting Class Feature' that survived into the Remastered ruleset. and one entirely new which outright states that in order to be considered a spellcaster or to have a Spellcasting Class Feature, you need to have spellslots. The text is placed rather horribly, along with focus spells for non casters. As usual for some of the 2e rules lasagna.

I absolutely hate it and wish they actually put this intention somewhere else, literary anywhere else where its relevant.