Elven Trance, Spell Scrolls, Grappling & More: New Sage Advice

Jeremy Crawford's September Sage Advice column has appeared, and it deals with elven traces, thief features, various combat questions, plus a couple of queries about spells and scrolls. As usual, these questions and answers have also been added to the Sage Advice Compendium. "Elven Trance, spell scrolls, grappling, and other rules bits. This month, we touch on several rules questions that have come up quite a few times over the past year." (thanks to Ghost Matter for the scoop)

 

[RobotElder]

Heh, the term spell scroll sounds like that Order of the Stick gag.
Roy: Elan, I found a spell scroll.
Elan: S-C-R-O-L-L.
Roy: ...

 

[ShadoWWW]

sidonunspa: You are wrong.

From rules: "To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher." It applys for all spells.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Based on the rules we already know I don't see why not. You can identify a magic item during a short rest, and you can attune to a magic item during a different short rest. Neither of those activities negates the bonus of a short rest. Therefore, my ruling would be that an elf could identify /attune to up to 4 items per long rest.

Well going by RAW, you can only identify one item per short rest. It doesn't say you it's 1 hour of light activity, it says it needs a short rest, not a long rest. It even goes so far to say that you can't attune to an item on the same rest you identified it, indicating that even if the short rest takes 2 hours you it will still only allow one identify or attunement.

I'd like to understand it as you can use the long rest for it too, but it was never clarified.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

It took me 5 minutes or so to grasp that there are scrolls that are not spell scrolls. That was confusing, based on preconceptions I have from other editions of the game. So if you have a one-time-use magic-item scroll that does X, but it is not a spell scroll anyone can use it. That is a very pronounced and subtle thing to me because of expectations built into me from so much prior experience. Was that a necessary distinction for the edition? I don't know. Perhaps two different words would have been useful rather than the distinction scrolls which have a subset spell scrolls which covers the majority of all scrolls (usually).

there where more people that where confused about it.

@SwipeRightJoe a 'scroll' scroll of protection and a 'spell scroll' scroll of protection (other than how the two scroll types work)
@JeremyECrawford A scroll of protection (DMG, 199) and a spell scroll (DMG, 200) are entirely different types of scrolls.
@SwipeRightJoe so you wouldn't get a scroll of protection that's a spell scroll? (The SA column uses SoP as a normal scroll example)
@JeremyECrawford Correct. They're distinct magic items, just as a frost brand and a flame tongue are distinct but share a category.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468706-Some-recent-tweets/page4#ixzz3mUb6a53v

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well going by RAW, you can only identify one item per short rest. It doesn't say you it's 1 hour of light activity, it says it needs a short rest, not a long rest. It even goes so far to say that you can't attune to an item on the same rest you identified it, indicating that even if the short rest takes 2 hours you it will still only allow one identify or attunement.

I'd like to understand it as you can use the long rest for it too, but it was never clarified.

What does your DM say, or if you are the DM what do you say? That is really the only clarification that matters.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Sage Advice is always just a clarification on how unclear rules are actually meant. It never changes any rules, it just tells you "This is how we meant this rule, if you did it differently, you didn't do it as we intended it to work".

I for example am pretty strict on the rules, so I do everything exactly as written, including Sage Advice. I make sure characters only do one item interaction per turn or tell them they need to use their action for it (though as per official twitter clarification - I now allow dropping items to not count as objecti interaction). I also don't allow my cleric to cast non-material spells without a free hand. I do allow goodberry to stack with disciple of life.

Pretty much the exact opposite of how I like to DM. To each their own I guess! One of the things that makes RPG's so cool... diversity in play.

I ignore 99.9% of all Sage Advice. I just don't need it. There is absolutely nothing they can say that would have me say to my group "Well, we were running it this way, but Sage Advice says we're doing it wrong so I guess we have to change". And as for Twitter... what's a "twitter"? Some kind of new-fangled interweb talkie thing? ...huh... I don't have a "twitter", so...uh... yeah.

There are lots of DM that aren't strict about the rules or even change the ones they don't like, but I personally like to play the game exactly as it's intended. (And I've yet to find a DM I can actually play with without being bothered by his rulings.)

It's that "exactly as it's intended" part that I think you are miss reading. You do realize that the intent of 5e is for the DM (that'd be you) to make up his own rulings and clarifications? You are most definitely not playing the game "as intended" if you adhere so strictly to just the rules published in the books...and Sage Advice...and Twitter ( Really? Twitter? ... ... ). From what it sounds like to me, you are taking 3.x/4e/PF style "a rule for everything, and everything, a rule (and if there isn't one, go buy a book that has it)" and subconsciously applying it to 5e. That is a mistake, IMHO.

One of the main reasons for 5e's success, again IMHO, is that is specifically doesn't adhere to the 3.x/4e/PF design paradigm of "only go to a DM's rulings as a last resort" type of play style. At least, that's how I've seen them and experienced them when playing with other DM's and players with 3.x/PF. With 5e, Miraiah the DM from down the street can rule on some particular interpretation of something, and her ruling has just as much weight as anyone else's... and that includes the actual designers of the game as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the rules are intentionally left "fast and loose" is one the the (if not THE) key reasons me and my group are still playing it after all these months (getting close to a year now I believe; every Sunday, every Month...sometimes with an extra Monday or Tuesday tossed in; a LOT of playing, basically ). I also firmly believe that it is this fast-and-loose play style that has rocketed 5e back up to the #1 RPG spot. I'd bet coppers to platinum that D&D's climb back up to that spot was not because of "strict rules, used exactly as intended".

Anyway, I just wanted to point out the oddness of saying "...exactly as it's intended" when referring to written rules in 5e when one of the big selling points (pushed by WotC back when it was in development, roll-out, and even still) of the game is it is intended to specifically give the DM free reign to interpret rules or make them up as he/she sees fit.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Rulings are there to put a decision to something that isn't clear. Once it's clear, the ruling is no longer intended to be used.

Why that is important is so that when I'm the player, I need something to rely on. I want to think of clever ways to use the rules. If the DM goes along and tells another player he can do something that is completely against the rules or tells me my strategy is no longer allowed because he thinks it's overpowered, I'm instantly losing all enjoyment.

Sage Advice is good because it gives me a tool to prove the DM wrong.

 

[Jiggawatts]

Sage Advice is good because it gives me a tool to prove the DM wrong.

Ugh. I'm not even my groups main DM, but I would never want to play the game with someone who had this mentality.

 

[MG.0]

Rulings are there to put a decision to something that isn't clear. Once it's clear, the ruling is no longer intended to be used.

Not true at all. The rules don't cover billions of possibilities, and never will. Rulings fill the gaps. That is the way the game is intended to work. ALL...and I do mean ALL of the rules are subject to DM interpretation and override.

Why that is important is so that when I'm the player, I need something to rely on. I want to think of clever ways to use the rules. If the DM goes along and tells another player he can do something that is completely against the rules or tells me my strategy is no longer allowed because he thinks it's overpowered, I'm instantly losing all enjoyment.

Try thinking of clever ways for your charcter to accomplish stuff...then worry about what rules are involved.

Sage Advice is good because it gives me a tool to prove the DM wrong.

LOL. The DM cannot be wrong...by definition.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The DM cannot be wrong...by definition.

Sure he can be. And if he's a good DM, then he admits it, and is happy to let his players contribute their own knowledge of the system to the game, increasing the fun for everyone. Even in the case where it's differing rulings, no gamer is an island - DMs can make mistakes, and being surrounded by like-minded folks intent on a good game will only help if you accept their input.