It may not be immediately obvious, but provided one is not exceeding the gp-limit of what one's False Focus can cover, it can also be used to freely replicate alchemical power components - they may be optional, but they are costly material spell components just the same.
My question is: Could someone with False Focus spontaneously replicate its choice of a 0 (12.5 gp) or 1st-level (25 gp) scroll to apply to parchment swarm? In that spell's case, a scroll, too, is an optional material component.
If so, would there be any reason such a mage could not potentially mock-up a scroll from a spell list other than its own?
For what it's worth, this is with Organized Play in mind.
EDIT: What about contingent scroll, which actually REQUIRES a scroll as material component?
False Focus covers the basic material component cost required for casting. It does not cover additional, optional, or alchemical (power) components/foci or their costs.
You can interpret it expansively but I don't think many GMs will agree. It's a feat and not carte blanche.
Its most efficient use would be for Stoneskin.
Blood Money spell was banned in PFS for WBL concerns with Raise Dead (LoL, how often do PCs die in PFS? Very rarely.).
Once the game progresses to APL>10 where Fifth Spl Lvl spells are common castings even 250gp costs become common book keeping.
I will have to disagree somewhat with Azothath. The False Focus feat states "By using a divine focus as part of casting, you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component." Nowhere does it claim or imply any sort of restriction that this feat only applies to the basic material component cost or that it does not cover additional, optional, or alchemical components. Therefore, such a restriction does not exist. It would indeed not cover foci, however, as foci are not the same as material components.
As such, this feat does indeed allow you to cover cover any total component cost up to 100gp without needing that component. Since these are indeed material components used to cast a spell and the feat only cares about the final, total cost, you could use it to replicate the effect of any 1st-level or 0th-level scroll to apply to Parchment Swarm. The same would apply for Contingent Scroll. Personally, I do not think using a 5th level spell to replicate 1st-level or 0th-level spells is a particular issue either, truth be told.
However, not every GM would be keen on this sort of usage so it may be better to ask your GM. Some of them would likely houserule some restrictions on these interactions.
My question is: Could someone with False Focus spontaneously replicate its choice of a 0 (12.5 gp) or 1st-level (25 gp) scroll to apply to parchment swarm? In that spell's case, a scroll, too, is an optional material component.
If so, would there be any reason such a mage could not potentially mock-up a scroll from a spell list other than its own?
For what it's worth, this is with Organized Play in mind.
Yes, they could. And it could be any scroll. Parchment swarm itself doesn't require you to be able to cast the spell on the scroll, so neither would using False Focus to provide a suitable scroll. As you are probably aware in Organized Play all scrolls are assumed to be minimum caster level, so you can't use False Focus to replicate a 1st level scroll at CL4. And of course at minimum DC, so the DC for a 1st-level spell is 11.
Quote:
EDIT: What about contingent scroll, which actually REQUIRES a scroll as material component?
You can use False Focus, but in this case the spell contained on the scroll explicitly has to be on your spell list.
I'm more ambivalent about False Focus as a game mechanic than it appears Azothath is. It breaks WBL (Wealth by Level), which I don't generally like. But it's not by a huge amount, just by enough that players may be encouraged to use an unusual spell they would ordinarily avoid because of the gold cost. I do like players trying different things. There just aren't that many arcane spells with a material component less than or equal to 100gp that can be game-changers. If it was 250 gp and you could cast stoneskin for free... yeah, that would be too much.
I don't like the idea of a player adding a dose of black powder, a flask of liquid ice, and 4 doses of urea to every cone of cold for free but I don't see a rules-based reason to draw a distinction between "required material components" and "optional material components" for False Focus.
False Focus is from Innr Sea Magic 07-2011. That's very early. The only thing around was basic components. Benefit: By using a divine focus as part of casting, you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component.
So writers/designers knew about the 250gp cost for stoneskin and said too much. The spell description of spell's material components versus 'DF'(divine focus) is what they were working with. Otherwise it's a case of 'future proofing' and taking the feat in context at the time.
I don't expect PPC line writers to know RAW interactions and they have errors aplenty. The RPG line is a bit better especially past 2014. It all means to expect table variance.
Org Play specific:
In Org Play it will force Venture Captains to make a ruling for their area; either back the table GM allowing normal table variance to control the feat, or issue a rule for PF1 play in their area. I don't know that RVCs or Org Play Lead will get involved.
Again, Blood Money provides a good example of an outcome. Personally I can see the simplicity but it was a bit much.
I'll add some practical commentary-
False Focus feat is thematic to Razmir. Razmir does not qualify for worship in PFS, only venerate. There's the alignment issue in PFS of non-Evil PCs that runs counter to the razmir theme (it draws GM attention).
Overall the sor archetype and PrC are problematic in a PFS setting. It's doable but expect extra scrutiny.
I've shown the sorcerer arch is not as powerful as a specialist wizard varisian priest multiclass.
False Focus is from Innr Sea Magic 07-2011. That's very early. The only thing around was basic components. ...
Belafon pointed out some consumable item issues.
so yes, I am drawing a distinction between required components(what's in the spell description) and later optional components to reflect the context at the time and hedge on later PPC content. I'm just being sensibly conservative for the Rules Forum and I'm familiar with how PFS executes PF1 for actual play. I did not address the RAW interactions with later spells/feats as that's going to depend on your GM and his approach as the feat is the core issue as to how those will resolve. I could have easily posted a "as written" opinion like Belafon's but I chose to be a bit more historical in context.
In a Home Game I can see a GM hand waiving the non-magic item non-alchemical components to 100gp. The two previous exceptions are going to be very GM dependent. Note Belafon's displeasure.
Comment: I'm probably the most frustrated player when it comes to these kind of RAW interpretations as I'm clearly in the "you published this [redacted] and it's legal" camp. Don't expect good technical writing or professional RAW as it's just a creative work of art. Yes, artists are a mess. You just have to put on your adult GM hat and try to figure out what's sensible. I do think context is important.
Benefit: By using a divine focus as part of casting, you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component. For example, if you use a silver holy symbol worth 25 gp, you do not have to provide material components for an arcane spell if its components are worth 25 gp or less. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than the value of the divine focus, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.
False focus does not provide a material component; it allows you to cast the spell without the material component. False focus does not replicate anything it removes the need for the component. Since the spell no longer has a material component the option to use a magic scroll as the component is no longer valid.
False focus does not provide a material component; it allows you to cast the spell without the material component. False focus does not replicate anything it removes the need for the component. Since the spell no longer has a material component the option to use a magic scroll as the component is no longer valid.
There's a hole in that interpretation. By that logic, any spell that uses the (required) material component for a specific purpose fails.
In those (and many others) you are doing a specific thing with the material component. Turning it into bullets, painting it on a creature, etc. If, thanks to False Focus, the spell "no longer has a material component" then it wouldn't do anything. Similar problem with Mythic Eschew Materials.
Or how about pellet blast? If you are casting the base (no expensive material component) version and using Eschew Materials, does it fail? If not, then how come False Focus would fail if you tried to cast the cold iron version?
Just because the feat does not work with all spells does not mean I am wrong. RAW false focus does not provide a material component, so any effect relying on a specific material does not work when using those feats.
The way I would handle those feats would be to allow the spell to be cast using the base component, but not using any optional components. Since you are not required to use either of those feats it does not prevent the spell caster from casting the spell with those options if they provide the required component. That may not be RAW, but it seems to be RAI for those feats.
In my first post I said that I'm ambivalent about False Focus. I don't like things which allow players to skirt WBL expectations. But - for the most part - what players do with False Focus is cast spells they would ordinarily avoid because of the component cost. I like seeing more diverse builds. So. . . ambivalent.
It's perfectly reasonable for a home game GM to limit False Focus to specific uses. Or, simpler yet, ban it entirely. But the original poster was asking about Organized Play. Where False Focus is legal and GMs can't put their own arbitrary limits on spells.
I'm going to stick with pellet blast for a moment. I think everyone is in agreement that if there were four different spells with component lines like:
Quote:
Basic Pellet Blast
Components V, S, M (a handful of metal pellets)
Cold Iron Pellet Blast Components V, S, M (a handful of cold iron pellets worth 50 gp)
Silver Pellet Blast Components V, S, M (a handful of silver pellets worth 20 gp)
Adamantine Pellet Blast Components V, S, M (a handful of adamantine pellets worth 100 gp)
then False Focus would work with any of them. But the argument being made is that it only works with the basic version because the actual spell has components of
Quote:
Pellet Blast
Components V, S, M (a handful of metal pellets or handful of cold iron, silver, or adamantine pellets; see descriptions for cost)
That's twisting language and jumping through linguistic hoops to try to make the rules reach a desired outcome. What False Focus can do doesn't change just because a spell's writer put detailed info in the text instead of the component line.
If it were four different spells that would be a lot different. First and most importantly a spontaneous caster would only know one of them. Second a prepared caster would have to memorize the specific version they wanted and if they choose the wrong one it would not overcome the DR. This greatly reduces the versatility and usefulness of the spell.
Azothath, what you are presenting is a house-ruler's sort of reasoning. Your initial position is that the feat did not consider any sort of restriction when omitting them (which is, if anything, confirmation that it lacks such restrictions), so you have taken it upon yourself to introduce these restrictions because you believe it should have them so you are essentially producing your own update/errata to the feat so that it incorporates these unconsidered restrictions (which is essentially a house rule). The core of your "sensibly conservative" ruling, then, is "I have an issue with it letting you do [x] as written and I don't think it should let you do [x] even though the text enables and does not contradict doing [x] so I am not letting you do [x]" which is neither a Rules As Written nor Rules As Intended sort of reasoning but more the house ruler's "rules as I consider balanced" line of reasoning. So to me, this all looks very much like a house rule, rather than any rules interpretation stemming from the feat itself.
Mysterious Stranger makes the interesting point that a spell cast through False Focus does not have the actual material component and asserts that therefore spell effects based on material components would not function. This line of reasoning has some merit to it, but I lean more to Belafon's side of the argument, because I think this is undermining and subtly contradicting the text "you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component" by causing the player character to nevertheless need that expensive component of 100gp or less in order to cast the spell as it would work with a material component of that cost, at least if you are casting spells with effects based on their components. It has a certain ring of a "the text says yes but sometimes yes still means no" line of reasoning in my view, which is why I do not share this interpretation. It creates a conundrum as follows:
Player: "Can I cast pellet blast with False Focus?"
DM: "Yes."
Player: "Does False Focus let me cast a spell with a component cost of 100gp or less without needing the component?"
DM: "Yes."
Player: "So I can cast pellet blast that would require an adamantine bullet component cost of 100gp using False Focus instead?"
DM: "Yes."
Player: "Do I get the benefit of the adamantine bullet component?"
DM: "No, because you didn't use the adamantine bullet component. You need the expensive component for that."
Player: "So if I want it to work with the 100gp component cost that is within range of False Focus in order to make the spell function as it would with a material component costing 100gp I still need the actual component?"
DM: "Correct. You need that component."
Player: "Even though the feat explicitly says I don't need the component to cast a spell with that category of component?"
DM: "Correct. You don't need the expensive component to cast the spell with that expensive component but you do need the expensive component if you want to cast the spell like you would with the expensive component."
Player: "So for all practical purposes, I cannot cast this spell as I would with a component cost of 100gp unless I use the actual component?"
DM: "Correct. Thanks to False Focus you can cast it with a component cost of 100gp without needing the component but practically speaking you cannot cast the spell with a component cost of 100gp with the False Focus feat because you do need the expensive component anyway."
I hope this explains why I find this rules interpretation somewhat doubtful as being in line with the RAW or RAI of the feat.
Oddly, looks like fabricate bullets should actually require 2 pounds of metal: 1 pound as material component and 1 pound as target. Obviously, that just illustrates how the lines blur with magic. Although I don't see a huge issue with the feat working with any mundane materials, I would personally probably rule along the lines of Mysterious Stranger's and just let players understand that the feat isn't compatible with ALL possible material components.
These spells maybe should have been written like Bullet Ward, with destroyed foci (which goes against normal rule for focus). Of course, the other approach would be to make the material of the false focus determine the effects of these type of spells.
However, back to the original question with scrolls, I could see a GM asking if the player also had scribe scroll and the spell prepared or known, requesting a spellcraft roll (or craft(calligraphy)/profession(scribe)), and then saying the spell takes a day to cast. No one expects the Magic Item Creation Rules in the middle of combat!
:)
Though this does recall other confusing spells like Storm of blades that expects an actual sword as material component, but lacks a cost or M notation indicating that it has an expensive component material - so by RAW is included in spell components pouch.
It is not about the expense of the component; it is about the focus needing to have a specific property that produces a different effect based on the focus. Using false focus to cast Fire Trap would not be a problem.
In the case of some Transmutation spells that alter the focus as the primary effect of the spell the feat is also useless. Fabricate is the best example of that type of spell.
In all honesty he proposed use of false focus to give the character the ability to attach any spell cantrip or 1st level spell without even having to know the spell is abusive.
It has a certain ring of a "the text says yes but sometimes yes still means no" line of reasoning in my view, which is why I do not share this interpretation. It creates a conundrum as follows:
Player: "Can I...
I feel like this deserves an '80s BBC Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-style animation!
Anyway, it seems like this discussion is at an impasse; what am I to do going forward?
Anyway, it seems like this discussion is at an impasse; what am I to do going forward?
Since you are planning this character for Organized Play, the default answer of "ask your GM" isn't as helpful as usual. However, if you are planning to play with the same Lodge a lot, it wouldn't hurt to go over it with some of the more active GMs before taking the feat.
I'm not sure what the overall vibe of PFS1 games are these days. Back when PFS1 scenarios were being released and I was a very active GM (yes, I'm a 5-star) the large majority of GMs had a similar viewpoint to me: If a player's interpretation of a mechanic was reasonably possible (even if doubtful), we'd allow them to use it. We may not like it, and we may think the player is stretching, but that's not a reason to shut down their character. Your use of False Focus is nowhere near the most dubious reading players try. If you need it for your character idea, go ahead and take the feat.
Spoiler:
On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd put your interpretation at around an 8 or 9.
1: The player is deliberately ignoring a published rule
2. The player is not aware of a contradicting rule
3. The player is using Pretzel Logic and a lot of "it doesn't say I can't!" reasoning
4-5: Highly dubious reasoning, but it's an argument that can't be absolutely ruled out
6: There are multiple reasonable interpretations, but the player is probably wrong
7: There are multiple reasonable interpretations
8: There are multiple reasonable interpretations, and the player is probably right
9: The player is almost certainly right, but a logical argument can be made against them
10: There is a published rule that explicitly says that is allowed
I would generally allow anything four or above. 3 is the breakpoint where I would say no. 4-5 requires extremely generous assumptions that almost certainly are not intended. That's the range where I would roll my eyes and maybe give a lecture about how other GMs might not be as accomodating.
I think if GMs are being intellectually honest even those opposed to the feat would rank your reading at 6 or better. Not always, though. Sometimes you run into that GM who sees anything that doesn't exactly agree with the way he thinks it should be as "unreasonable."
And here's the key takeaway – if you are a fair PFS GM, it doesn't matter whether you rank the player's interpretation at a 6 or a 9. For Organized Play purposes they are equally valid.
No, not really. You're adding a first level spell that only takes affect if they fail the reflex save and even then is CL1, DC11.
Even with those limitations, are there still spells you might want to add? Sure. Ill omen has no save. But parchment swarm is a 5th level spell. By the time you can cast that, 25 gp each for a bunch of ill omen scrolls is peanuts.
Parchment swarm's best use (other than a cool visual) is with a 2nd level scroll. That can turn the spell into a physical (not energy) damage fireball with a 15d6 cap.
I am of the thought (so this is just my musing from reading the discussion, not strictly Rules or Organized play) that I am leery about allowing False Focus to be completely malleable. While I am of the mind that there's the fact that it should do what it says it can do, I am also aware that some things allow potential abuse or cause strange interactions with some spells (maybe because of the spell's poor design when it comes to materials).
That said, do I think a few oddball cases should gut a feat? Probably not. The issue is always whether the feat is easy to get and isn't really a trade off. In this case, 1 Rank of Knowledge and being able to cast arcane spells is not a high bar. Level 1, flat. The second issue I usually have is just how much better it is than someone 'following the normal rules' so to speak.
Mostly this is just me going down a rabbit hole, fair warning.
Musings Space Saver:
----------------------------------------
At the basics, you spend a 1st-level feat and buy a holy symbol, working your way up to a 100 gp holy symbol, which is doable by level 2 easily. After that, you ignore material components up the value of the holy symbol (max 100 gp). The closest equivalent is Eschew Materials. False Focus is about ... 100 times better, which we can knock down to 90 times after considering you have to buy a holy symbol, but even a 1 gp holy symbol matches Eschew Materials with the slight difference that your spell now has a DF component, but ignoring 100 gp of material components (granted arcane spells only) is a noticeable leap above 1 gp.
1. Masterwork Transmutation
I can't speak to Organized Play (I don't know the rules), maybe you can't buy or sell things, or maybe all the problematic spells like masterwork transmutation don't work, so I will mostly be sticking to it from an ordinary game view. Though my (likely outdated) research seems to say you can cast masterwork transformation but can only carry one such item over. It also seems to allow selling items for half price, which I assume means they aren't carried over.
I would think that even using a basic artisan's tool as an example, you could use False Focus (with at least a 50 gp holy symbol), and turn a 5 gp common tool into a 55 gp masterwork tool. Which you would sell for 27.5 gp and make 22 gp profit each. Which means you'd only need three castings (just barely more than two) to pay off your holy symbol, five to pay off a 100 gp symbol. That's something a caster can in two days even at 3rd level. I am sure there's rules in Organized Play to stop that, but I am just sussing out problem areas in a regular game.
2. Storm of Blades
Then you have a spell like storm of blades where the material component is 'a sword'. That leaves a very broad power disparity. Normal caster has to buy a sword, lug it around, cast storm of blades and it's gone (as Material Components are wont to do). Then you get your one blade per 2 levels. A False Focus could under some interpretations just let the caster choose any sword they can think of, and not have to have it (up to 100 gp, which is about every sword other than some obscure exotic, angel blade or something).
This means a spell that normally would have a costly restriction is ignored (but let's set that aside, since that's ostensibly the purpose of the False Focus feat), but also a weight limit and carry limit, since swords do have to be put somewhere and aren't just in some spell component pouch. But that caster becomes about 100 times more versatile, they don't have to worry about running out of swords. Nor are they limited to the sword type, if they can just say "greatsword" and get 2d6 damage with a 19–20 crit range, why wouldn't they? Whereas to even compete with that, a normal user would have to buy and carry a 50 gp greatsword (and most casters are not made for carrying 8 pound weapons on a whim, and they would need two, three, maybe even four of those just to cast the same number of spells.
Now the spell also says,
Storm of Blades wrote:
each attack has the same threat range and critical modifier and deals the same damage as a standard sword of the type expended.
You could rule that 'standard' means Medium-sized or steel, but that doesn't really make sense, since who's to say that Medium is standard (the GM, but different ones can vary. If your game world is all or centered around Small-sized creatures...). I think that just means the base, non-magical damage a sword would deal (in case you used a magical sword or temporarily buffed sword with magic weapon or something. I can see you claiming that steel might be 'standard', but if that's the case, what would stop a normal caster from just having a rusty, or cheap. or miniature ("It's still a sword, just a Fine or Diminutive sword!") or wooden replica sword and then getting Medium-sized steel damage, which is not the case. Just like a caster sacrificing a bone or bronze blade should have their conjured swords deal damage as though bone or bronze, not steel.
I would say that if you use a broken or rusty sword, your weapons may only crit on a 20 (or cause tetanus), and if you used a masterwork weapon (which you couldn't do with False Focus) or a silver weapon, your created blades would count as those and deal 'standard' damage for those weapon (not an issue for mw, but –1 damage for silver slashing). And this would all be fair. Normally. Since the caster normally has to pay and lug around the specific sword they want to create a storm of. And most GMs would think it fair that if they spent 100 gp for a blade to cast one spell, then their one per two levels summoned blades should copy them, as stated. The issue is that a False Focus user throws this all out the window.
Now a False Focus used could claim their 'sword' was a silver shortsword (10 gp + 90 silver), and they're whacking through DR. Or they claim their false material focus was a Large-sized greatsword (50 gp doubled), and now all their blades are 3d6. And that's all perfectly fair and normal to what would happen for a normal caster using them, no different... except the normal caster would have to actually have and be carrying 16 pound greatswords or have a 100 gp silver shortsword (which is then lost). That's the cost of the 100 gp holy symbol in one casting and, that just seems excessively better than any other option available to anyone else. Literally just one 2nd-level spell, with one casting, blows every other option out of the water.
3. Animal Aspect/Beast Shape
These spells require a piece of the animal you are emulating. Granted, they don't list a material cost, but that doesn't mean they don't (otherwise 'a sword' (storm of blades) or 'a potion of bull's strength' (transformation) would be eschewable, and we all know that that would be absurd just because they didn't write a price in a material component line. Just like a GM shouldn't allow a player to pull out unlimited 'drops of holy water' (display aversion) from a spell component pouch until the player has a flask (1 pint, about 9,464 drops).
It is well within fairness for a GM to say there's no frogs in 2,000 miles or that because of that frog's legs cost 1 gp each (for components or fancy cuisine) or that velociraptor parts are rare and have a cost. Not only does a normal caster need to acquire the parts to fully utilize the spells' versatility, possibly questing or making an effort, the False Focus just lets the caster do it without such consideration. Again, there's no listed cost to the material, but that doesn't mean they don't have costs or a GM rules some creatures are extinct (not nonexistent or never existing) and their parts are almost unheard of without effort.
4. Curse Terrain
Similar to #3, curse terrain requires '(the heart of a creature that dwelled in the area and powdered onyx worth 700 gp)'. False Focus can't do anything about the powdered onyx, but unlike a normal caster, they can just cast it without having the heart of a creature that lived in the target area. Do they even have to guess? Can they just say, "a bird or something" and assume a bird lived there? Or nothing at all. Again, is it a huge deal? No, but when compared to every other option, even Eschew Materials, a GM should not be forced into absurdity, that a spell component pouch contains the heart of not only every single possible creature (and granted, some are small, like a chicken or lizard or something, it doesn't have to be human, fist-sized), but also that the heart comes from a creature that just happened to live 'right here', out of everywhere in the entire world, if not universe or entire planar cosmology. The spell is intended to require at least a little work and preparation. But here, we are expected that the False Focus user either entirely subverts the intention... or on the flip side, must accurately determine and 'choose' the creature whose heart they don't have? Do they need the specific creature. Because just any goblin heart won't do, do they have to know the specific creature whose heart they're falsifying?
-------------------------------------------
Anyway, do I think any one of those (and I didn't go through every spell obviously) is going to break a game? Probably not, but those first two are just 2nd-level spells that basically pay off the feat in two uses. I am not so much worried about the material cost being ignored, but the broad scope and parameters of a spell. Does that mean I would ban it? No, probably not, but I would definitely reserve the right (which I understand Organized GMs cannot do) to state that any particular spell without an actual variable component, functions at a basic level (like, a steel shortsword or longsword for storm of blades) for balance purposes. It still wouldn't stop masterwork transformation for creating a lot of mw tools, which are sold for half price and aren't carried over between sessions, and thus don't break the rule (at least the one I saw with a quick search).
TL/DR I am not ruling for Organized Play, but for parchment swarm, I (meaning in my game) would not allow it to be used to 'tag in' every possible spell that could be a scroll (of 100 gp or less). I would have it work at base, blank parchment level. Again, this would purely be for balance purposes and to prevent abuse.
I suppose, if I wanted to try and be lenient or more forgiving (while adhering to the ruling I would make), I might be persuaded (for certain spells) to let the False Focus user substitute an open-ended material component if they had the material component. I know that suddenly sounds counter-intuitive or invalidating the feat, but, I wouldn't have it lost. For balance sake it would at least require that character to obtain the item one time, and then they can use the spell with that. Rather than just conjuring Large-sized greatswords and never having to acquire or carrying one or more around, they have one, and as long as they have it, it's like a focus. If they want to do a parchment swarm as though they had a chill touch scroll, as long as they have the scroll the can do it (but they don't lose it like normal with the spell), or they can cast it at baseline. Same with that bullet spell that takes materials. They can get an adamantine bullet, and now it's basically a spell focus. Otherwise, the feat works as normal, except for a few specific abusable or too powerful spells.
Again, only my thoughts, not really basing it on rules, since that's been covered pretty well.
I do not play in organized play so I might be mistaken, but I believe that in organized play characters are not allowed item creation feats. From what I understand this is due to keeping game balance so that one character does not gain the ability to gain more gear than they should. It seems like the fact that if false focus can in fact create any 0 or 1st level spell without needing either the feat (which is not allowed) or the gold it would likewise not be allowed. Allowing it to create a scroll of a spell you did not know would make it even more questionable.
Taking my reading above and applying it to Parchment Swarm:T5 means you could consider a magic scroll as part of the components of the spell AS parchment or a magic scroll are listed in the spell as components.
The feat and $100 Holy Symbol cover up to $100 in value. You must also hold and present the holy symbol.
In PFS you have fixed choices; Scroll:{spell}:K1@1 is $25 with DC11, Scroll:{spell}:K2@3 is $150{exceeds $100} with DC13. You cannot scribe a scroll in PFS.
Note: {spell name}:{school}"2@3" means Scnd SplLvl at 3rd CstrLvl
personally Parchment Swarm:T5 is a poor choice for spells. Try Acidic Spray:C5, Walk the Plank:C5, Mind Fog:E5, Suffocation:N5...
As the VA for this lodge, I'm going to say it's a legal combination.
Largely because it is ambiguous, which is why we're having this discussion.
And not unbalancing. Adding a cantrip or 1st level spell effect to a 5th level spell, especially one that uses the base 1st level spell save DC is rarely going to do much.
I will note that for the Contingent Scroll option the spell does have to be on your spell list.
I will also point out that the spell used by False Focus has to be an arcane spell so while the spell used doesn't have to be on your list it has to be on an arcane spellcaster's list. So, nothing that is only on the Cleric or Druid or Occultist lists.
