Absurdly Foolish Question about Sorcerers

[Hypersmurf]

"Activating a spell completion item is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."

That's the description of the activation method, not the item description.

The item is "Scroll", and the item description is found under the heading "Scrolls", not "Spell Completion".

Activating a spell completion item is a standard action... except that the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, whether it’s a scroll, a wand, or a pair of boots, unless the item description specifically states otherwise.

This is a difference between 3.5 and 3rd edition.

No, it's not. I'm quoting 3E. 3.5 is the same, except that instead of saying "whether it's a scroll, a wand, or a pair of boots", 3.5 says "regardless of the type of item".

Since we're talking about scrolls, there's no difference.

However, in 3.5 a Scroll of Awaken still takes hours and hours to read...

Just as in 3E.

... while a scroll of feather Fall is done in a free action.

Just as in 3E.

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

In 3rd edition you could put Awaken onto a Scroll and activate it as a Standard Action (allowing you to Awaken yourself in conjunction with Shapechange).

From my understanding (if memory serves), a scroll would need the same time as the spell but at least a standard action in 3E.

Bye
Thanee

 

[FrankTrollman]

From my understanding (if memory serves), a scroll would need the same time as the spell but at least a standard action in 3E.

Bye
Thanee

It doesn't exactly say that.

Keep in mind that this is one of the great debates of 3e - like whether or not there were named "Shield Bonuses" or whether you could take more than one attack of opportunity against the same enemy if they took more than one action that provoked one and you had Combat Reflexes.

And like those other debates - the "answers" from official types were never consistent.

Page 175 of the 3e DMG unambiguously states that using a scroll is a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity. But it also states unambiguously that it is the normal casting time "unless it states otherwise". Whether you believe the immediately proceeding statement is it "stating otherwise" or not has no clear answer.

Suffice to say, eating an infusion "worked like a scroll" and was explicitly a standard action regardless of casting time - thus strongly implying that Scrolls were also a flat-rate standard action.

-Frank

 

[KarinsDad]

The item description of Wands, for example, does specifically state otherwise. It says it's a standard action to activate a wand, or the casting time of the spell if it's longer than a standard action. So a Wand of Feather Fall - casting time not longer than a standard action - takes a standard action to activate.

The item description of Scrolls, on the other hand, makes no mention of activation time. So, it does not specifically state otherwise, and the general rule - the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item - remains in place. So, a Scroll of Feather Fall can be activated as a free action.

Ok, I buy your other rationale (thanks for clarifying it for me, I was reading that sentence backwards), but I don't buy this one.

Wands state on page 206 that it is usually a standard action because it uses the spell trigger method. That does not mean that a Wand of Feather Fall disregards the rule you quoted:

"Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item indicates otherwise. However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, whether it’s a scroll, a wand, or a pair of boots, unless the item description specifically states otherwise."

The wand general item description (there are no wand specific item descriptions) does not specifically state the casting time, it states what it usually is. And, this sentence would not include wands if they did not follow that rule as well.

Both of these types of items work exactly the same with regard to casting time, regardless of the fact that they omitted the casting time information from the Scrolls item description. They omitted the casting time information from the Wands item description for spells that have a casting time less than one action. If they had wanted a free action spell to not follow the general rule for items in the Wand section, they would have explicitly called it out. They didn't. They have the default rule that covers wands as well.

"Activating a spell completion item is a standard action…"

"Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action…"

Both of these are standard actions unless the casting time of the spell is different.


So, from this I conclude that it is still difficult to use a scroll of Feather Fall since you have to have the scroll in hand, and be able to read it while falling. Not exactly an easy thing to do, it would probably mean that you would have to use both hands to open the scroll and prevent it from making reading difficult.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The wand general item description (there are no wand specific item descriptions) does not specifically state the casting time, it states what it usually is.

... and then it clarifies when it is not.

What is the activation time of a wand? Usually a standard action.
Wait, usually? Well, yes. If the spell has a casting time longer than one action, that's how long it takes.

So that covers everything. Longer than one action? Activation time equals casting time. Otherwise (which includes free action and standard action spells)? Activation time is a standard action.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

... and then it clarifies when it is not.

What is the activation time of a wand? Usually a standard action.
Wait, usually? Well, yes. If the spell has a casting time longer than one action, that's how long it takes.

So that covers everything. Longer than one action? Activation time equals casting time. Otherwise (which includes free action and standard action spells)? Activation time is a standard action.

-Hyp.

Total semantics and not a literal interpretation of what is written.

Usually means usually. It does not mean always except what is written in the parenthesis after the sentence.

"Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item indicates otherwise. However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, whether it’s a scroll, a WAND, or a pair of boots, unless the item description specifically states otherwise."

"Wands use the spell trigger activation method ("Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action…"), so casting a spell from a wand is USUALLY a standard action..."

Sorry, just because it clarifies that spells longer than a standard action take more time, it does NOT explicitly state what spells with a shorter time take to cast. So, shorter times MUST default back to the general rule is they are not explicitly called out in the item description.

If they had wanted wands to not follow the general rule for shorter casting times, they would have stated so in the wand item description. If they had wanted wands to not follow the general rule, they would have not included them in the general rule as an example.


Just like none of the activation times are called out in the Scroll item description, so they default back to the general rule.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If they had wanted wands to not follow the general rule for shorter casting times, they would have stated so in the wand item description.

They did.

Usually a standard action; longer casting time takes longer.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

They did.

Not explicitly, they didn't. You are inferring that from two sentences which do not explicitly discuss the missing case.

This is just another case of them trying to put the rules into multiple places for ease of use and forgetting some of the rules some of the times they try to do that.

For example, all over the place (Monks stunning, Sonic Burst, etc.), there are rules for Stunned creatures can't take any actions, not getting their Dex bonus and opponents being +2 to hit them. However, in all of these places (including the description of Stunned in the DMG), they forgot to mention that stunned creatures drop anything they are holding (which is mentioned in the glossary of the PHB). However, it IS mentioned in one location, so that one location takes precedence over the places that they forgot to mention it.

No different than this example. They forgot to mention the shorter caster times. They did not say "always except", they said "usually except". They missed an exception. Oh well.

Usually a standard action; longer casting time takes longer.

That does not state "Always a standard action except longer casting times" and no amount of wishing on your part will make it state that.

Sorry Hyp, but it is obvious that they intended both scrolls and wands to follow the general rule. They even gave both scrolls and wands as examples of the general rule. Without scrolls and wands being examples in the general rule, your ambiguous ruling could hold some water. But with them there, their intent (and what they actually wrote) is crystal clear.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Sorry Hyp, but it is obvious that they intended both scrolls and wands to follow the general rule.

I would just like to point out that this is in no way obvious. In fact, what - if anything - the "general rule" is for such things is also not obvious.

There is plenty of room for interpretation on both sides of this - and it is tangential to the basic thrust of the thread: whether Sorcerers should have to use Material Components.

In an effort to get this thread back on topic, I will make the following inflamatory remarks:

1> Noone should have to use Material Components. Not even Costly Material Components. That's right - Stone Skin should be free. After all, it's just a glorified Protection From Arrows. 2 levels higher to function against melee attacks as well as ranged attacks is plenty. There's no reason to pay 250 yen for the upgrade after you are already giving up a 4th level spell slot.

2> Sorcerers should get new spell levels faster than they do. Right now they suck.

3> Even that isn't enough. Spell Preperation is a fundamentally superior way to cast spells at high levels - the trade-off of having to rely on a more limited number of spells known for having more spells per day is always a bad trade at the high end.

-Frank

 

[KarinsDad]

I would just like to point out that this is in no way obvious. In fact, what - if anything - the "general rule" is for such things is also not obvious.

Sure it is. Hard to argue with it written in black and white, even for you.

1> Noone should have to use Material Components. Not even Costly Material Components. That's right - Stone Skin should be free. After all, it's just a glorified Protection From Arrows. 2 levels higher to function against melee attacks as well as ranged attacks is plenty. There's no reason to pay 250 yen for the upgrade after you are already giving up a 4th level spell slot.

Agreed.

2> Sorcerers should get new spell levels faster than they do. Right now they suck.

I agree with the first sentence, but not enough to agree with the second sentence.

3> Even that isn't enough. Spell Preperation is a fundamentally superior way to cast spells at high levels - the trade-off of having to rely on a more limited number of spells known for having more spells per day is always a bad trade at the high end.

Everything is situational dependent.

For example, a party with one Specialist Wizard and one Sorcerer closely working together is often inherently superior than a party with two Specialist Wizards of the same level.

The reason is that they can both significantly shore up the weaknesses of the other. The Wizard can supply the Sorcerer with scrolls which in turn supplies the Wizard with money to craft scrolls and purchase more spells for himself.

The Sorcerer can buff up the Wizard so that the Wizard does not need to take as many or any buff spells and can concentrate on other spells. So between them, they have not only the boatload of high utility spells, but they also have a lot of the more specific situation spells.

Two Specialist Wizards can also attempt this, but they still do not have the ability to cast the high utility spells on the spur of the moment over and over again. They can do it if they saved spells slots and take the 15 minutes out to get the spell they need, but they cannot do it as well on the spur of the moment without using scrolls (or wands, etc.).

I would put my money on a party with a well designed Specialist Wizard and a well designed Sorcerer every time over a party with two same level well designed Specialist Wizards, even at high level.