[Artificer] UMD with multiple spells on the same scroll & when to make the roll

[Saeviomagy]

Yeah, I'm willing to buy that; like I said earlier, I'm not entirely sold on the "1 spell / preparation per 'charge'" reading. Perhaps a better way would be to look to wands, which require (at low-levels, anyway) one expenditure of MM (CL1) for 50 charges of MM (CL1).

Well, yes, there are - check the magic item section on scrolls, and you'll see that the vast majority of randomly generated scrolls have more than one spell on them, and the vast majority of those won't have the same spell multiple times.

Sure, but there's nowhere written "here's how you actually do it". There are only rules for CREATING a single-spell scroll.

Could you explain a bit?

There are no rules on how to create a scroll with multiple spells upon it - there are examples of scrolls that have multiple spells, so clearly they exist. There's a section that says 'scrolls may be made with multiple spells', but nowhere does it say "here's how you do it..."

Both of us have assumed that it's possible to do, and that we end up combining the price of scribing each spell into a single run of enchanting, and that failing at that run of enchanting ruins the entire scroll.

You've assumed that creating a multiple spell scroll requires each spell on the scroll to be cast during it's creation. You believe that each spell you write out wipes that spell from your memory at the time it is written out - so if you want to write it out twice, you have to memorise it twice.

I agree with that for the purpose of two different spells - however I believe that the same does not apply for scribing multiple copies of a spell - I believe that when you design the scroll, you write up a 'prerequisites' block, including each spell to be on the scroll, and then you must cast each of those during the creation process

So, no starting out attempting to make a 5 "charge" scroll and ending with a partially successful 3 "charge" scroll. It's an all or nothing affair. My way makes it easier to make a 1 "charge" scroll than to make a 3 "charge" scroll.

Ah, see here's where I got confused. I thought that you were partially breaking up the enchanting process spell-by-spell because, frankly, that's the only way I could imagine it working. Once you've written out each spell, the spell is erased from your mind, and at that point you've succeeded at placing that spell on the scroll.

Otherwise you're doing a single creation process for the whole thing, and you're back to my process of producing a prerequisites line for the entire item, and emulating any given spell a single time.

Well, that's not quite true.

An 80 "charge" scroll of CLW would take two days to create.

Ah, well I sort of messed up my market and base prices there. I was actually talking about a scroll with enough CLWs on it that it would take 1 day to craft - 40.

Accordingly, the guy making one roll for the entire CLW prereq would need to succeed on either day 1 or day 2, and if he failed, could try once more on day 2. He's got three chances to fail.

Under mine, he'd get 80 chances on day 1 to fail, would get a second shot on the spells he didn't succeed at on day 1 on day 2, and would get a last-ditch attempt on day 2 to complete any he hadn't made yet.

As an example, let's assume he's got a 10% chance to fail any given roll.

Under your methodology, the artificer can make an 80 "charge" scroll ~99% of the time.

Under my methodology, the artificer can make an 80 "charge" scroll ~48% of the time.

At 15% chance of failure, he's successful 98% of the time under your method, and only 20% of the time under my method.

At a 50% chance of failure, he's successful 80% of the time under your method, and is so certain to fail under my method it's statiscally ignorable.

I like the way my numbers work better ...

I prefer my players to make use of feats that they have. Currently most players never scribe scrolls due to the time involved, not to mention the XP costs. Making a multi-part scroll only take a single day makes things a bit more manageable. Not to mention the fact that it lets a 1st level artificer actually use one of his major class features (his craft reserve).

 

[Shadowlore]

Hmmm... A scroll is a spell (or collection of spells) that has been stored in written form. That little sentence is taken from the SRD, and I think it implies that the part of a scroll that holds the magic is the actual writing of the spell itself, not the material it was written on. So multiple spells is really a question of " Is the magic of the scroll held in all of the spells together, or each one individually? " If the answer is all together, either you succeed on the item or you fail, all or nothing. But if the answer is individually, it means that if you fail spells A and C of a scroll with spells A, B, C, D and E, you still have a scroll with spells B, D and E.

All together makes no sense. One, because each spell is self-contained. Each spell put on the scroll incurrs costs, XP and GP-wise. If it were one scroll of a whole magic unit, as opposed to a collection of atomics, there would indeed be a single roll for the item but it would also have a single price, not a cumulative one. It would be a "paper wand".

But since each spell put into the scroll is paid for atomically, each one must be accounted for atomically.

I think that the *real* contradiction about scrolls, and something perhaps worth houseruling, is that if you have a one page scroll with a 9th level spell on it, it takes nine pages to scribe it into a spellbook, and vice versa. Now that, as written, truly makes no sense.

Unless you remember or realize a scroll can be more than a single "page" in length. Consider a scroll to be like a web page. It is one "scroll" (webpage) that "transcribes" (prints) into multiple pagers (print the webpage on the printer). When you think about it that way, it makes perfect sense. Granted, tha tisn't RAW, but then again, there is nothign that says a scroll's writigns are the same as a spell book's writings. Indeed, I'd say they are not. The Spell book tells you how to cast the spell. It is a set of instructions, not a copy of the spell. This is why it requires spellcraft to transcribe it: it takes an understanding of how magic works to figure out the whys and hows of a spell on a scroll. it also explains why it takes a spellcraft check to know what a spell is (or read magic) and why just anyone can't look and say "oh a scroll of Ray of Enfeeblement": each scroll is different based on how the caster implemented it.

When looked at from that point of view, it is easy to see how a single page of scroll an occupy many pages of spell book. After all, a printout of the source code for say, Mozilla, takes up more space than a CD of it; similarly the source code (the how, or spellbook) takes up more HD space than the Mozilla binary does.

Creating magic items with multiple abilities is just a slippery slope in general. If time is not an issue, by the RAW, you should always create you items one component at a time, because I do not believe it says anywhere that when you try to improve an existing item you run the risk of ruining the existing item. If time is an issue, well, the risks are greater, period.

Except with scrolls, you have to have "virgin parchement" in the sense that the parchment used for the scroll can not be used. According to the Making Magic Items articles at WoTC anyway. Thinking about it, this makes sense to me. That is what you pay for in "normal" costs (that and ink). It would be an example of why you can't add spells to a scroll: the parchment has already been used. Granted, that is not RAW, but it does make sense. More spells on a scroll means more parchment and ink. This is also why you get no savings in cost to doing mulitples per scroll.

Now, as to artificer and UMD checks here is how I see it. The checks are not ruinous to the scroll unless there is only one check needed (to attempts) and they all fail.

Say you attempted to put 10 castings of CLW on a scroll. That is 250gold, and 10 xp total. Since you are not making a wand, and are paying for each one individually, the abject failure to emulate CLW one time (both checks) can not destroy the whole scroll. It can only affect a given "item", which is one casting of the spell. Anything else and you are talking about charges to an item. Funny thing there is that you only need to emulate the power one time for that. A Wand of CLW only requries one successful CLW emulation check. IMO this supports the one-per-casting check interpretation.

When thinking about scribing a scroll as an Artificer, it can be thought of like this: you *know* what to write but it isn't the writing that makes the effect, it is the "weaving" (to borrow a phrase) of the threads of energy that make the scroll powerful. You get two attempts to "weave" the threads to the symbols: before you start and after you finish inscribing the symbols.

Each "scroll" (spell) is not a "charge". can't be. Otherwise it would be more cost effective to put more spells on a single scroll than make multiple scrolls. Since there is no benefit costwise, each one must be an isolated "thing": an atomic unit.

Remember that the UMD is an attempt to emulate having the spell prepared. If a cleric wants to put 5 castings of CLW on a single parchment she is still making 5 scrolls. There is no reason in RAW to assume any different for the Artificer doing the same thing. The only difference is he has a chance to fail because he has to emulate the spell instead of knowing he has it. But it still only affects that single casting.

The only benefit to multiple spells per physical scroll is that you don't need as many scroll cases, and can categorize your scrolls if you ar the one making them, well that and if you have a scroll with 5CLW on it you only retrieve it one time.

Some observations and viewpoints to consider at least. Clearly I am in the "20 checks to make a 10 CLW scroll" camp. Not to mention if you flub both checks for a given casting you lose that castign only. So if that happened twice you'd wind up with 8.

 

[Shadowlore]

Sure, but there's nowhere written "here's how you actually do it". There are only rules for CREATING a single-spell scroll.

There are no rules on how to create a scroll with multiple spells upon it - there are examples of scrolls that have multiple spells, so clearly they exist. There's a section that says 'scrolls may be made with multiple spells', but nowhere does it say "here's how you do it..."

Both of us have assumed that it's possible to do, and that we end up combining the price of scribing each spell into a single run of enchanting, and that failing at that run of enchanting ruins the entire scroll.

You've assumed that creating a multiple spell scroll requires each spell on the scroll to be cast during it's creation. You believe that each spell you write out wipes that spell from your memory at the time it is written out - so if you want to write it out twice, you have to memorise it twice.

...
I prefer my players to make use of feats that they have. Currently most players never scribe scrolls due to the time involved, not to mention the XP costs. Making a multi-part scroll only take a single day makes things a bit more manageable. Not to mention the fact that it lets a 1st level artificer actually use one of his major class features (his craft reserve).

For what it is worth, here is what the Official FAQ has to say:

A scroll with multiple spells counts as a single item for the
purpose of determining the time to create it. A divine scroll
with six castings of cure light wounds (market price 150 gp)
would take 1 day to scribe; a divine scroll with six castings of
heal (market price 9,900 gp) would take 10 days to scribe.
You'd need to expend (and prepare, if that's required by
your class) the spell once for each time it appears on the scroll.
The act of scribing cure light wounds the first time onto a scroll
expends cure light wounds, which means you'd need to have
another one prepared to scribe it again.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Making a multi-part scroll only take a single day makes things a bit more manageable.

Well, here's the trick - neither your method nor mine changes the in-game time required to make the scroll.

Both your method and mine take 2 days, exactly (or exactly 1 day when the change you mention is made). The only thing that's different is the chances of success. Your reading posits that it's as easy to make a 1 charge scroll as a 10 charge scroll. Mine says that it's easier to make a 1 charge scroll than a 10 charge scroll.

In other words, I don't understand this particular objection.

 

[Denaes]

I'm still following this... just not a whole lot of imput I can offer rules wise (what does RAW mean? Rules as Written? odd term).

Of the two methods, one role for multiple spells feels, in my heart of hearts, cheesy. I'm a GM normally - but a player here. I think rolling for each spell would be the "right" way to do it.

This is going on the fact that you're both saying it isn't explicity spelled out, so it's just feels right to me.

Now, feeling right, I might be willing to go with partial successes, just crossing off the flubbed spells and still paying their costs. But thats just my feeling.

It does seem like the latest FAQ doe support the 1 cost per spell on a scroll. I'm not sure how that works over a multiple day period and casting spells though.

Like if you're a Wizard making a scroll with 6 castings of heal (like in the example). This will take 10 days. Now since this is going on multiple days, do you have to have 6 slots of Heal ready or do you just need 1 and cast that one on seperate days?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

RAW = Rules as Written, as distinct from, say, house rules.

The FAQ seems to be saying that you'd need to expend it 6 times per day, for a total of 60 "castings."

Which brings us to question why anyone would want to do it that way ...

 

[Denaes]

RAW = Rules as Written, as distinct from, say, house rules.

Ahh... I'm used to people just saying "official", Canon or an abbrebiation of the book if it's a reference. Just never came across RAW before Enworld

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ahh... I'm used to people just saying "official", Canon or an abbrebiation of the book if it's a reference. Just never came across RAW before Enworld

That's because there's a difference between "Official" (generally meaning from WotC) and "RAW" (generally meaning WotC primary sources [but not necessarily things like th FAQ] and 3rd-party sources) which is sometimes important to the discussion.