6
\$\begingroup\$

I'm wondering as there's only 1 letter that makes a difference here: is casting the cantrip gained from the elemental wrath Ancestry feat (Lost Omens Character Guide p.26) 1 or 2 actions? Thus are the 2 components that the original spell had transformed into 1 verbal or 2 verbal ones?

You can call to the land to cast the acid splash cantrip as an innate primal spell at will, except the spell has only verbal components and deals the type of damage you chose instead of acid damage;

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It would be helpful to include a page number where this feat can be found, maybe even a quote of the relevant text. \$\endgroup\$ – Szega Jun 15 at 23:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Szega added. hmmm would be intereting why someone voted close....but guess that is one of the mysteries of the universe no one will ever find out \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas E. Jun 16 at 13:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ I am curious, what is the 1 letter you speak of? \$\endgroup\$ – Szega Jun 16 at 14:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ I would guess the "s" on Components where it talks about only having verbal components. It's left plural (which I think is common throughout Paizo's writing, but I'm not motivated enough to find instances) instead of a verbal component. Fortunately, the answer isn't so nebulous. \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Jun 16 at 15:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ I added a link and bold to the section it seems like you're referring to. If I was wrong, you can re-edit or just roll it back. \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Jun 16 at 15:54
8
\$\begingroup\$

2 Actions

Spell Components are usually the same as the number of Actions to cast a spell. Indeed, it was explicitly so during the Pathfinder 2e Playtest. However, there is no longer a rule linking Components to Actions.

Removing Somatic Components still has benefits. You can cast the spell while bound, and you do not provoke most Reactions, notably unmodified Attack of Opportunity, because it does not have the Manipulate trait.


Incidentally, I don't see any reason why you couldn't "consider" it to be two Verbal components if you would like to add flavor and justify the second action. Nothing about the Concentrate trait nor Verbal prevents you from supplying it twice in the same turn or Cast a Spell action.

Your GM would have to make a decision about whether that constitutes two different opportunities for Reactions, though, in the rare case that a creature has a Reaction for Concentrate effects and the ability to use it twice. Fighters with Disruptive Stance and Combat Reflexes is one example of such an enemy.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.