| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a debate about the Psychic class on Reddit, I got down voted into oblivion for stating the following facts. So now I'm fact checking them here.
True or false?
- Courageous anthem is a cantrip.
- The Psychic doesn't have focus spells at all. It has cantrips that it can amp with focus points. That doesn't make them focus spells. They're just modified cantrips.
- Cantrips all have the cantrip trait, focus spells all have the focus trait, and psi cantrips have the cantrip trait, but lack the focus trait.
- The Psi Cantrips and Amps class ability of the Psychic even says "you don't gain focus spells that cost Focus Points to cast."
These all seem self evident to me because I read the rules. If you answer "false" to any of the above, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why you interpret the rules that way.
You're correct on all counts, don't let people on reddit getting things wrong get to you.
If the spell doesn't say "Focus X" on the name, doesn't have the [Focus] trait, and doesn't require that you spend a Focus point to cast it, then it isn't a Focus spell, simple as.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
These points are correct, but because you are you I wonder if you then tried to take those facts somewhere unsupportable. But in isolation, yes, you’re right.
Yes, is this getting at why Psi Development doesn't give you a focus point if you already have one? And also why gaining an actual focus spell later wouldn't increase your number of focus points*?
*Because unless your class overrides it, you have one focus point per focus spell you know up to three. Psychics know zero focus spells and thus have their own progression, and Animists can't have more than one at any moment by default so they also have an alternate progression
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a debate about the Psychic class on Reddit, I got down voted into oblivion for stating the following facts.
Yeah, Reddit is a weird place. Being right is often hated. I had to stop posting there entirely for my own mental health.
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
These Cantrips like Courageous Anthem or Evil Eye do not have the Focus trait and they are not called "Focus Cantrips" in the rules. Courageous Anthem (to continue using the one example) is a "Composition Cantrip".
-----
However, colloquially - and with some transitive property support - these Cantrips are commonly thought of as a type of Focus spell. It makes them easier to talk about in general terms to call them 'Focus Cantrips' rather than having to remember and individually list out every specific name each class gives to them.
The transitive property argument comes from the fact that a Composition Cantrip (or Hex Cantrip, or Psi Cantrip, etc) is a type of Composition spell. And a Composition spell is a type of Focus spell.
Composition spells are a type of focus spell.
Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus Points
So since a Composition Cantrip is a type of Composition Spell, and a Composition Spell is a type of Focus spell... Then wouldn't a Composition Cantrip be a type of Focus spell??? Even if it doesn't cost a Focus Point to cast.
-----
As a hypothetical:
If an Archetype dedication has a Prerequisite 'ability to cast Focus Spells', would Psychic be expected to qualify by virtue of their Amps and Amp Cantrips?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So since a Composition Cantrip is a type of Composition Spell, and a Composition Spell is a type of Focus spell... Then wouldn't a Composition Cantrip be a type of Focus spell??? Even if it doesn't cost a Focus Point to cast.
As NorrKneten pointed out in the post above yours, these are Focus spells but they don't add to your Focus pool because they don't require a Focus point to cast.
Which is something new I learned looking into this topic, so that's nice.
For those of you willing to risk your mental health for additional context, here is the original Reddit discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, pretty much what some of us guessed.
Just adding my two cents on the subject;
The basic rule is that you have a number of focus points equal to the number of focus spells you know that aren't cantrips. This is why many feats that give you focus spells no longer say they increase your focus pool- see Blessed One Dedication for a good example.
Now, Psy Cantrips and Amps break that rule. A Psychic has three psy cantrips each with their own unique amp at level 1, but a psychic only has two focus points at level 1. A psychic can even take feats to get more amps, but they don't get their third focus point until their class says they do at 5th level. Likewise, a fighter who takes psychic dedication and psy development only has one focus point, even though they now know two psy cantrips with their own amp. The intent is clear- How many focus points you have is independent of how many psy cantrips and amps you know.
This does have some unfortunate side effects, though. For one thing, learning focus spells won't give a psychic new focus points unless they learn three "true" focus spells*. And then there's psy development, which won't increase the number of opcus points you have if you already have one. And not only that, if psy development was the source of your only focus point, the first time you take a feat to gain a focus spell (let's say blessed one dedication), you don't get a second focus point, because you only know one focus spell! The reason psy development says it gives you a focus pool if you don't have one is so because otherwise you'd have 0 focus points and be unable to use your new amps.
Now, a lot of people, especially the reddit portion of the Pathfinder playerbase, probably through up their hands while reading that and said it was dumb. And to be honest? If the paizo devs had had free reign during the dark archive remaster, I bet they'd have found a way to fix that. But because the dark archive remaster is basically a reprint, and had to keep the page count and alignment of the legacy version, there was only so much they could do, and the current way things are written breaks the fewest things. Now, if you still don't like it, go ahead and homebrew it! Just making psy development increase your focus pool by 1 up to a maximum of three won't break anything. To be honest, if a player of mine asked outside of PFS, I'd tell them to go ahead!
*Given my final statement endorsing homebrew fixed for the complaint, I think I should also mention that it's fine to let Psychics who take an archetype that gives them a focus spell get their third focus point a little early. Human clerics (or a cleric of the Rivethun in a free archetype game) can have 3 focus points by level 2, so if you, as GM, have the freedom to slap down stupid arguments while still letting your psychic have an early third focus point, go for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it's that and then also the opposite, because "The title of a focus spell's stat block says “Focus” instead of “Spell”, and the spell has the focus trait."
So it's just a contradiction in the rules – composition cantrips are focus spells because they are composition spells, but they're also not focus spells because they lack the focus trait.
The "Composition Cantrips are focus spells because they are Composition Spells" is the transitive property argument.
The flaw in that argument is that nothing in the game rules says that the transitive property holds.
Composition Spells that cost a focus point are listed separately from Composition Cantrips. They each have separate class feature sections: named "Composition Spells" and "Composition Cantrips".
So it could very well be the intent that Composition Spells that cost a Focus point are Focus Spells, but Composition Spells that don't cost a Focus point are not Focus Spells, but are still Composition Spells. The term "Composition Spell" is a grouping and categorization term that means that the spell is specifically for the Bard class, not for general spellcaster use.
Similarly a Hex Spell would be a spell that is specifically for a Witch. Most Hex spells would be Focus Spells because they cost a Focus point to cast, but other Hex spells are Cantrip spells and not Focus spells because they do not cost a Focus point to cast.
With that intent and understanding, it would be possible to create Composition Spells that are spell slot spells specifically for the Bard class that would not be able to be learned by other spellcasters because they would not be part of a general purpose spellcasting tradition list. But they would still be put in Repertoire and cast like a spell slot spell. Those would also be Composition spells that are not Focus Spells.
Human clerics (or a cleric of the Rivethun in a free archetype game) can have 3 focus points by level 2, so if you, as GM, have the freedom to slap down stupid arguments while still letting your psychic have an early third focus point, go for it.
Human Witch can also get 3 Focus Points by level 2 with Cackle at level 1 and Basic Lesson at level 2.
Legacy Oracle started with 2 Focus Points and could easily pick up a 3rd at level 2 with Domain Acumen.
So I don't think it would be a game breaking houserule to give Psychic the standard rules for quantity of Focus Points and let them start with 3 points at level 1 by counting each Amp as a Focus Spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Psychic and Animist change that. Specific overrides general. But nothing about psychic says, "If you learn one regular focus spell, you now have three focus points". So, if you're sticking to plain rules, the only way for a psychic to get more focus points is to reach level 5 or learn 3 focus spells. Like I said, if you think that's dumb, house rule it. I would.
As for the page count argument... All I can say is that they acounted for the issue with the Animist's [urlhttps://2e.aonprd.com/Practices.aspx?ID=2]Medium[/url] Practice and Circle of Spirits Feat, where there wasn't such a constraint.
I feel like this discussion is kind of missing the plot a bit. Lots of arguing over whether or not certain things count as focus spells but as near as I can tell whether or not Courageous Anthem is a type of focus spell both doesn't actually matter (nothing changes either way) and isn't directly related to the issue with psychics (because amps are weird).
I could have sworn they were focus cantrips, but now I can't find the term "focus cantrip" anywhere in the rules. Where did I get that notion?...
I could have sworn they were focus cantrips, but now I can't find the term "focus cantrip" anywhere in the rules. Where did I get that notion?...
That is what they are called colloquially here on these forums.
I feel like this discussion is kind of missing the plot a bit. Lots of arguing over whether or not certain things count as focus spells but as near as I can tell whether or not Courageous Anthem is a type of focus spell both doesn't actually matter (nothing changes either way) and isn't directly related to the issue with psychics (because amps are weird).
You did read the title of the thread - and Ravingdork's OP that mentioned Courageous Anthem specifically, yes?
Anyway... The reason that most of this discussion is focusing (pun intended) on whether 'Focus Cantrip' is an accurate term or not is because spells like Composition Cantrips are not as weird as Amps are. So if we can't even figure it out for Composition Cantrips, then we have no hope of figuring it out for Amps.
Has anyone thought more on my hypothetical scenario for Psychic yet?
If an Archetype dedication has a Prerequisite 'ability to cast Focus Spells', would Psychic be expected to qualify by virtue of their Amps and Amp Cantrips?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does any such archetype exist? If there is an official archetype, that question deserves discussion, but if not, I'd say that the appropriate answer is, "The writer would be better served by the prerequisite 'One or more foucs points'".
Does any such archetype exist? If there is an official archetype, that question deserves discussion, but if not, I'd say that the appropriate answer is, "The writer would be better served by the prerequisite 'One or more foucs points'".
That is why I described this as a hypothetical scenario.
And the point is, can you answer the question as stated? If not, then there is a lot of confusion caused by a mismatch of expectations regarding the definitions of Focus Spell and Amp.
That confusion regarding existing game terms isn't going to be fixed by rewording future Archetype prerequisites.
Does any such archetype exist? If there is an official archetype, that question deserves discussion, but if not, I'd say that the appropriate answer is, "The writer would be better served by the prerequisite 'One or more foucs points'".That is why I described this as a hypothetical scenario.
And the point is, can you answer the question as stated? If not, then there is a lot of confusion caused by a mismatch of expectations regarding the definitions of Focus Spell and Amp.
That confusion regarding existing game terms isn't going to be fixed by rewording future Archetype prerequisites.
Of course there's confusion, hence this thread and the reddit post. The most useful things we can do is point out a place where an FAQ/errata entry might be helpful (I think I'll do the latter now, so... mission accomplished?) and leave a warning for potential 3rd party writers.
Of course there's confusion,
Heh. You say that as though I haven't several times in the last few days been pointedly told that something that is confusing is instead completely clear and unambiguous.
|
Well it's that and then also the opposite, because "The title of a focus spell's stat block says “Focus” instead of “Spell”, and the spell has the focus trait."
So it's just a contradiction in the rules – composition cantrips are focus spells because they are composition spells, but they're also not focus spells because they lack the focus trait.The "Composition Cantrips are focus spells because they are Composition Spells" is the transitive property argument.
The flaw in that argument is that nothing in the game rules says that the transitive property holds.
Composition Spells that cost a focus point are listed separately from Composition Cantrips. They each have separate class feature sections: named "Composition Spells" and "Composition Cantrips".
So it could very well be the intent that Composition Spells that cost a Focus point are Focus Spells, but Composition Spells that don't cost a Focus point are not Focus Spells, but are still Composition Spells. The term "Composition Spell" is a grouping and categorization term that means that the spell is specifically for the Bard class, not for general spellcaster use.
Similarly a Hex Spell would be a spell that is specifically for a Witch. Most Hex spells would be Focus Spells because they cost a Focus point to cast, but other Hex spells are Cantrip spells and not Focus spells because they do not cost a Focus point to cast.
With that intent and understanding, it would be possible to create Composition Spells that are spell slot spells specifically for the Bard class that would not be able to be learned by other spellcasters because they would not be part of a general purpose spellcasting tradition list. But they would still be put in Repertoire and cast like a spell slot spell. Those would also be Composition spells that are not Focus Spells.
Composition trait does not mean those are Bard-only spells. It is the Bard trait that carries this meaning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Lifts blindfold and stares down in wide-eyed disbelief at his open palm, where the grenade used to lay.*
By no reading would they qualify for an archetype requiring the ability to cast Focus spells.
And is anyone satisfied with that answer - that one of the two ultimate Focus Point casters (the other being Oracle and primarily Legacy Oracle) doesn't qualify for things that require casting Focus Spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And is anyone satisfied with that answer - that one of the two ultimate Focus Point casters (the other being Oracle and primarily Legacy Oracle) doesn't qualify for things that require casting Focus Spells.
Ehh. It's no worse than saying that the best blaster caster in the game - Kineticist - doesn't cast spells at all.
|
|
By no reading would they qualify for an archetype requiring the ability to cast Focus spells.And is anyone satisfied with that answer - that one of the two ultimate Focus Point casters (the other being Oracle and primarily Legacy Oracle) doesn't qualify for things that require casting Focus Spells.
Considering we are in the Rules forum, people's satisfaction is not really a factor though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original post was talking about being downvoted on the internet at large.
A lot of the time, being correct is still hated. People often get emotionally attached to their own way of thinking and want to believe that their own conclusions are the only right conclusions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By no reading would they qualify for an archetype requiring the ability to cast Focus spells.And is anyone satisfied with that answer - that one of the two ultimate Focus Point casters (the other being Oracle and primarily Legacy Oracle) doesn't qualify for things that require casting Focus Spells.
It sounds straight out of the "RAW is a troll ruling" department, doesn't it?
Most folks who looks at this at the table making a ruling are going to go "Psychics have a focus pool and spend focus points to cast their amps, so they can cast focus spells."
Sometimes stuff just works better if you read it like a ten year old.
The bigger problem comes when we agree that the RAW is a troll ruling, but we still can't even agree on what the Strict RAW is.
Are Composition Cantrips a Focus Spell because they are Composition spells and Composition Spells are Focus Spells?
Or are they not Focus Spells because the Focus trait spells are "A spell you can cast by spending a Focus Point," and not only do Composition Cantrips not cost a Focus Point to cast, but they also don't have the Focus trait, and the Composition Cantrips section of the Bard abilities doesn't directly say that they are Focus Spells like they do in the Composition Spells section?
Or is it like light. The Photoelectric Effect says that light behaves like a particle. The double-slit experiment shows that light behaves like a wave. And no matter how many times you run one of those experiments and how thoroughly sound your logic and reasoning used prove your favored interpretation to be true, it never disproves the opposing interpretation.
Science eventually gave up and simply declared that light is both a particle and a wave.
So it looks to me like Composition Cantrips are both a Focus Spell and not a Focus Spell at the same time.
I don't know if it's useful to maintain a distinction between "Focus Spells" and "Spells that cost Focus points."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes stuff just works better if you read it like a ten year old.
My brain immediately went to childhood cowboys versus Indians imagination games. XD
"My psychic casts his focus spell at you!"
"No he doesn't! Psychics don't have focus spells. You missed!"
The bigger problem comes when we agree that the RAW is a troll ruling, but we still can't even agree on what the Strict RAW is.
Are Composition Cantrips a Focus Spell because they are Composition spells and Composition Spells are Focus Spells?
Or are they not Focus Spells because the Focus trait spells are "A spell you can cast by spending a Focus Point," and not only do Composition Cantrips not cost a Focus Point to cast, but they also don't have the Focus trait, and the Composition Cantrips section of the Bard abilities doesn't directly say that they are Focus Spells like they do in the Composition Spells section?
Or is it like light. The Photoelectric Effect says that light behaves like a particle. The double-slit experiment shows that light behaves like a wave. And no matter how many times you run one of those experiments and how thoroughly sound your logic and reasoning used prove your favored interpretation to be true, it never disproves the opposing interpretation.
Science eventually gave up and simply declared that light is both a particle and a wave.
So it looks to me like Composition Cantrips are both a Focus Spell and not a Focus Spell at the same time.
I think you had it right way back here:
In a debate about the Psychic class on Reddit, I got down voted into oblivion for stating the following facts.Yeah, Reddit is a weird place. Being right is often hated. I had to stop posting there entirely for my own mental health.
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
These Cantrips like Courageous Anthem or Evil Eye do not have the Focus trait and they are not called "Focus Cantrips" in the rules. Courageous Anthem (to continue using the one example) is a "Composition Cantrip".
-----
However, colloquially - and with some transitive property support - these Cantrips are commonly thought of as a type of Focus spell. It makes them easier to talk about in general terms to call them 'Focus Cantrips' rather than having to remember and individually list out every specific name each class gives to them.
The transitive property argument comes from the fact that a Composition Cantrip (or Hex Cantrip, or Psi Cantrip, etc) is a type of Composition spell. And a Composition spell is a type of Focus spell.
Composition spells are a type of focus spell.Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus PointsSo since a Composition Cantrip is a type of Composition Spell, and a Composition Spell is a type of Focus spell... Then wouldn't a Composition Cantrip be a type of Focus spell??? Even if it doesn't cost a Focus Point to cast.
Compositions are focus spells. Composition cantrips are focus spells with an extra property that they don't cost a focus point (because Bard says so) and don't add to your focus pool (because the focus rules say so).
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.
The fact that it mentions this exact example in the focus point rules, in a paragraph talking about focus spells, is a pretty good hint. Likewise, they're in the "focus spells" section of the rulebook with the other focus spells.
That said, it is making a distinction between "focus spells that cost focus points" and "focus spells that don't cost focus points". This is a lot like how Cantrips are spells, but spells from a spell slot are a different thing sometimes.
So that adds up pretty effectively to me.
As a hypothetical:
If an Archetype dedication has a Prerequisite 'ability to cast Focus Spells', would Psychic be expected to qualify by virtue of their Amps and Amp Cantrips?
Depends on what "ability to cast focus spells" means, lol.
- Has a focus pool? Yep.- Actually has a focus spell they're capable of casting? Nope.
- Could theoretically cast a focus spell if they got one? Well, they have a focus pool and cast a spell.
The variance in how you interpret the question helps create different answers, and thats why these things are often easier to answer in context than in hypotheticals.
The fact that psychics are focus casters without any focus spells is certainly one of the quirkier aspects of the system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes stuff just works better if you read it like a ten year old.My brain immediately went to childhood cowboys versus Indians imagination games. XD
"My psychic casts his focus spell at you!"
"No he doesn't! Psychics don't have focus spells. You missed!"
"Nyah, I hit. And your armor that you said blocked focus spells doesn't work because you just said its not a focus spell!" :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compositions are focus spells. Composition cantrips are focus spells with an extra property that they don't cost a focus point (because Bard says so) and don't add to your focus pool (because the focus rules say so).While that is true it say that i dont cost focus points, it never calls them Focus Cantrips or even Focus spells. it just say that
Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus Points, so you can use them as often as you like.
Even the composition Trait separates them into either Cantrips or Focus spells, never both.
To cast a composition cantrip or focus spell, you use a type of Performance. ....
Same with Hexes neither of them are implicitly Focus spells but they can be.
The extra text on Composition Cantrips is just to make it clear they don’t cost a focus point since the class just talked about Focus compositions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychic sadly dont have any Focus spells it even say that in its class entry
"However, unlike other spellcasters, you don't gain focus spells that cost Focus Points to cast. Instead, you use your Focus Points to boost or modify your psi cantrips by applying amps"
They should have given Psychic a free action Focus spell named Amp instead then it would be clearer.
-Composition spells are a type of focus spell.
-Composition cantrips are a special type of Composition spell
Again, that is the transitive property argument. But there are things where the transitive property doesn't hold (for example 'less than' in math doesn't have the transitive property).
Like I pointed out earlier, it is also possible to think of 'Hex' and 'Composition' to be a category of spell, like 'Primal', 'Divine' or 'Elemental' spells.
So thinking of it like that, "Elemental Spells are spell slot spells" is a statement that is true generally. But "Elemental Cantrips" are also a thing and would not technically be spell slot spells because they don't take a spell slot to cast.
And it would work identically for Compositions. "Composition spells are a type of focus spell" is true generally, but "Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus Points" would mean that they are Cantrips and not Focus Spells since Focus Spells (by definition of the Focus trait and the Focus Spell rules) do cost a Focus Point to cast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have little to add to the semantic argument, but now you are talking math.
Again, that is the transitive property argument. But there are things where the transitive property doesn't hold (for example 'less than' in math doesn't have the transitive property).-Composition spells are a type of focus spell.
-Composition cantrips are a special type of Composition spell
The Less Than relation, a < b, has a transitive property: if a < b and b < c, then a < c. A better example would be Does Not Equal: if a does not equal b and b does not equal c, then a might or might not equal c.
I had been bothered by the rule word "action" before the Remastering. Action was a general category for a character doing something. The four types of actions were activity, action, free action, and reaction. The Remastering corrected the ambiguity in the second type of action by carefully calling it "single action."
A similar ambiguity exists in spellcasting. Spell is a general category of ways invoke magic. The three types of spells are cantrips, focus spells, and spells. I usually refer to that last type as "slotted spells" to avoid ambiguity.
For added flavor, Pathfinder 2nd Edition also assigns an adjective to the spells specific to a class rather than to a tradition. Champions have devotion spells, all of which are focus spells. Magi have conflux spells, which are focus spells that recharge spellstrike. Bards have compositions of which "composition cantrips" are cantrips and "composition spells" are focus spells. Remastered wizards have curriculum spells, some which are cantrips and some which are slotted spells, and they also have school spells, which are focus spells. Psychics have psi cantrips, which can be "amped" by spending focus points.
These class-adjective spells vary by class. We cannot generalize. Focus spells have no tradition, so they have to be class-specific spells, which gives them a class adjective, but the class adjective does not force spells to be focus spells.
The Less Than relation, a < b, has a transitive property: if a < b and b < c, then a < c. A better example would be Does Not Equal: if a does not equal b and b does not equal c, then a might or might not equal c.
I'll defend the example. There are also counterexamples in the less than relation. It isn't fully transitive.
a < b and c < b
but then a <? c : We don't know one way or the other.
Examples aside, the point is that not everything has the transitive property.
So is there anything that shows that the 'spell category' relation in the Pathfinder2e rule set holds the transitive property? Is there any evidence that saying "Composition Spells are a type of Focus Spell, and Composition Cantrips are a type of Composition spell, therefore Composition Cantrips are a type of Focus Spell" is valid logic due to the transitive property of 'spell category'?
Again, that is the transitive property argument. But there are things where the transitive property doesn't hold (for example 'less than' in math doesn't have the transitive property).-Composition spells are a type of focus spell.
-Composition cantrips are a special type of Composition spell
This isn't one of those things.
The rules say explicitly that Composition spells are focus spells. The rules also say explicitly that composition cantrips are composition spells. Composition spells are focus spells, therefore something that is a composition spell is a focus spell.
Nothing in the rules contradicts that. You're asking for evidence of something that the rules say is true while claiming it's not, yet you're offering nothing in the rules that actually says its not.
Where in the rules does it say "focus spells that don't cost a focus point are not focus spells"?
Like I pointed out earlier, it is also possible to think of 'Hex' and 'Composition' to be a category of spell, like 'Primal', 'Divine' or 'Elemental' spells.So thinking of it like that, "Elemental Spells are spell slot spells" is a statement that is true generally. But "Elemental Cantrips" are also a thing and would not technically be spell slot spells because they don't take a spell slot to cast.
And it would work identically for Compositions. "Composition spells are a type of focus spell" is true generally, but "Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus Points" would mean that they are Cantrips and not Focus Spells since Focus Spells (by definition of the Focus trait and the Focus Spell rules) do cost a Focus Point to cast.
The very focus spell rules you're citing cover this:
Casting any of your focus spells costs you 1 Focus Point. You automatically gain a focus pool the first time you gain an ability that gives you a focus spell. 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.
The fact that this is in the focus rules themselves shows that these are focus spells. I mean, the case we're talking about is literally the example in the rulebook.
No part of that says "these aren't focus spells." It says "these don't count toward the size of your focus pool." That's it.
The very focus spell rules you're citing cover this:
Casting any of your focus spells costs you 1 Focus Point. You automatically gain a focus pool the first time you gain a focus pool the first time you gain an ability that gives you a focus spell. 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.The fact that this is in the focus rules themselves shows that these are focus spells. I mean, the case we're talking about is literally the example in the rulebook.
No part of that says "these aren't focus spells." It says "these don't count toward the size of your focus pool." That's it.
No, that is the example of the rule. And it is a bad example.
What that section defines is that Focus Spells cost focus points to cast.
you cast focus spells using a special pool of Focus Points
Casting any of your focus spells costs you 1 Focus Point.
And it defines that Focus Spells have the Focus trait.
The title of a focus spell's stat block says “Focus” instead of “Spell”, and the spell has the focus trait.
A Composition Cantrip such as Courageous Anthem does not cost a Focus Point to cast. And it does not have the Focus trait.
So Courageous Anthem is not a Focus Spell by the definition of a Focus Spell. Its inclusion as an example and illustration of a Focus Spell that should not add a Focus Point to your Focus Pool is an error in the example. It is not proof that a Composition Cantrip can violate the rules that define a Focus Spell and still be considered a Focus Spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are the practical implications of this distinction?
I had been bothered by the rule word "action" before the Remastering. Action was a general category for a character doing something. The four types of actions were activity, action, free action, and reaction. The Remastering corrected the ambiguity in the second type of action by carefully calling it "single action."
It's less clear to me in the Remaster.
Previously I understood Action to mean a single action, and activity to mean 1 or more actions, or a longer duration.
Now action and activity appear to be used interchangeably, which muddles their definitions more than ever.