Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2626442" data-attributes="member: 23094">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).Of course, that could be metaphysically explained as the difference between spell trigger and spell completion items, but it's also a way to look at it.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.Could you explain a bit?I think you misread me:and ...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.Well, that's not quite true.An 80 "charge" scroll of CLW would take two days to create.  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 ... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification