Dirge of Doom casting

[Ivy Thiven]

I saw a video that recommended Dirge of Doom for bards, so I looked it up and am confused if it can actually be used effectively. It's a cantrip 3 with the focus trait, but only lasts one round. Since focus points don't come back until after a short rest, this seems to be of limited use most of the time. You can make enemies frightened 1 for one round. Based on this interpretation, this doesn't seem like it would be a good use of a feat and a focus spell.

However, as a cantrip, it also has the "at will" trait. So is the "at will" only as long as the focus points hold out/refresh or is it "as many times as you want", regardless of focus points?

If it's my original interpretation, I will probably not waste the feat on something with such limited usefulness. So, any clarification or advice would be helpful before I cast it in stone.

[Ivy Thiven]

Since it's a concentration spell, can it be continued without using additional focus points? I think that's my real question.

[HammerJack]

1. Dirge of Doom doesn't cost a focus point.

2. The concentrate trait doesn't mean anything like that. It has nothing to do with keeping spells going. It is just a trait with no direct effects of its own that other rules can trigger off of (like barbarian's Rage preventing Concentrate actions, or inventor's Distracting Explosion being trigger by an enemy using a concentrate action.)

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

To add to Hammerjack's excellent and accurate start, Bards gain both Composition Spells (which are Focus spells) and Composition Cantrips (which are not). In many ways "Spells (using slots)", "Focus Spells" and "Cantrips" are treated as three distinct but very similar things.

As far as I know, no cantrip requires a focus point to cast--and for that matter I don't actually see that Dirge of Doom has the Focus trait at all.

[Easl]

Whether you think it's worth it is entirely up to you.

Most other forms of Fear-giving spells and abilities target only one enemy and give them a save. This one targets every enemy within 30', no save. It's also one action, whereas most spells (including the comparable focus spell Spiral of Horrors) are two. Being a one action cantrip, it doesn't need to be sustained because recasting it every round is exactly the same action cost as sustaining it would be.

[Ivy Thiven]

Thanks for the great answers. Looks like I'll be keeping it. This isn't actually for my own character, though. It's for a minion assigned to the party as their "face" in a tough AP. I'm probably building the character too well, but he's become a beloved party member.

[Finoan]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

As far as I know, no cantrip requires a focus point to cast--and for that matter I don't actually see that Dirge of Doom has the Focus trait at all.

Indeed. That is something that I hadn't noticed before. I checked a couple of the Witch Hex Cantrips as well. Focus Cantrips don't seem to have the Focus trait.

Which makes sense because the Focus trait says that it is for spells that cost a focus point to cast, and Cantrips don't cost resources.

Also, specifically for Bard:

Composition Cantrips wrote:

Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus Points, so you can use them as often as you like.

Even if Focus Cantrips did normally require a focus point to cast, Bard specific rules would override that.

[Baarogue]

Search, Archives of Nethys: "focus cantrip"
Showing 0 of 0 results

So, I know they're introduced in the composition spells and hex spells sections of bard and witch, which are focus spells, and they're described in the focus spells section of the spells chapter of the book, but they're not called "focus cantrips" anywhere I could find. I feel like calling them that instead of what they're called in the books has the potential to cause more confusion and delay rather than relieve it. Just sayin'

[Finoan]

Baarogue wrote:

So, I know they're introduced in the composition spells and hex spells sections of bard and witch, which are focus spells, and they're described in the focus spells section of the spells chapter of the book, but they're not called "focus cantrips" anywhere I could find. I feel like calling them that instead of what they're called in the books has the potential to cause more confusion and delay rather than relieve it.

I think that also causes a lot of confusion. Mostly when trying to talk about these types of spells in general rather than for a specific class.

If B is of type A, and C is of type B, then C is also of type A. That is the transitive property, which is used in math and logical reasoning.

Composition Spells wrote:

Composition spells are a type of focus spell.

Composition Cantrips wrote:

Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus Points

So according to what the book calls them, Composition spells are a type of Focus Spell, and Composition Cantrips are a type of Composition spells. So Composition Cantrips are a type of Focus Spell. They just don't cost Focus Points to cast.

So while calling them a Focus Spell Cantrip may be a bit more accurate, calling them a Focus Cantrip is pretty much equivalent. It is a generalization of Composition Cantrip, Hex Cantrip, and any future Focus Spells that have the Cantrip trait - so that we can talk about these spells as a category rather than having to list out each class's specific name for them.

[Easl]

Baarogue wrote:

Search, Archives of Nethys: "focus cantrip"

Showing 0 of 0 results

So, I know they're introduced in the composition spells and hex spells sections of bard and witch, which are focus spells, and they're described in the focus spells section of the spells chapter of the book, but they're not called "focus cantrips" anywhere I could find. I feel like calling them that instead of what they're called in the books has the potential to cause more confusion and delay rather than relieve it. Just sayin'

Summoner also has link cantrips.

I kinda agree and kinda don't. You're right that calling them focus cantrips could confuse players because they don't use focus points. However, it would have been nice if Paizo had made one name for all these things (maybe "class-specific cantrips") and had one entry for it in PC1. That might have been both clearer and even possibly saved some dead tree space. And then when they add more classes with their own similar cantrips, you just refer to the common name and everyone knows how to use and GM it.

[Baarogue]

The point I'm trying to make, Finoan, is that you should think critically about how changing what you call something in the name of "logic" and simplification might confuse how you and others think about it. If you did not call them "focus cantrips" in your head or to other people, you and they might not be confused about how they don't cost focus points

Simplification is only productive when it doesn't cause confusion and delay. "Logic" is not a good reason for it. It is a bad excuse

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Well, in this case the problem of assuming an oft-called 'focus cantrip' might take a focus point occurred independently of the term's appearance in this thread, and while I can't vouch that Ivy has never seen it elsewhere on the forums, it seems likely that this was not the cause for the confusion. Rather, the confusion between class-specific 'focus spells' and class-specific cantrips being listed in the same block, and indeed being placed together on the Archives of Nethys under the "[Class] Focus Spells" headers for each class is more likely to blame than what feels to me like a relatively intuitive term.

Because while we could collectively call them "hex cantrips, composition cantrips, etc." or "class-specific cantrips granted to you often by the same ability that grants you your focus spells," the reality is that 'focus cantrip' is easy to remember and in my experience, the people who use it are more likely to think 'cantrip therefore no cost' than 'focus, therefore cost'.

It seems to me that Finoan quoted my post to say he didn't realize that so-called "focus cantrips" don't actually have the focus trait, not because using the name "focus cantrip" confused him into believing they cost focus points. This doesn't seem like it actually has caused any added confusion about play, only about technical minutiae. And certainly, it seems like there's no reason to believe not calling them focus cantrips will erase the confusion that OP already had coming into this thread.

[Dr. Frank Funkelstein]

As a maestro you could spend a focus point on lingering composition to get a duration of 3 or 4 turns (on a success/crit success).

[NorrKnekten]

Honestly I think theres larger confusion to be had if we didnt call them focus cantrips as opposed to all these other variations of "Feature-name" cantrips. Just looking at psychic who has regular cantrips as psi-cantrips. or other places where we have non-focus point spells presented in the format of "Feature-name" spells. Like Curriculum Spells or Cleric Spells. Neither of which are to be confused with the class's actual focus spells, School spells and Domain spells

The real confusion likely is just the whole "are cantrips spells" which they absolutely are, Similar to how they are presented in the book

On the very same page
Cantrips -> Spells that are cast at-will(at-will is defined as no-cost without a usage limit)

Focus spells -> Spells that stand outside your usual spellcasting, costing focus points instead of spellslots.

Quote:

The maximum number of points in your pool is equal to the number of focus spells you know or 3, whichever is lower. This counts only spells that require Focus Points to cast. For example, a bard's composition cantrips don't count toward the size of the pool.

Even when looking at Witches, psychics and playtest Necromancer they all present their focus spells and cantrips in this manner.

Feature-Name spells: Focus spells,often with additional rules.
Feature-Name cantrips: Feature-Name spells with no focuspoint cost.