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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shadowlore" data-source="post: 2628581" data-attributes="member: 9509">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. 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Some observations and viewpoints to consider at least. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification