Fixing Scrolls

[Anubis]

I remember back in 3.0 when anyone could use a scroll of the same type as the spell they cast. At least, that's how I understood it. I could have been wrong.

Nonetheless, I think in 3.5 they're goofed up. Spells have to be of the right type AND on the class's spell list, and I think this is silly. What's the difference between scrolls and wands in that case aside from how to activate and the attack of opportunity? Since scrolls are spells completely written out, I think they should be usable by anyone who cast cast the correct type of spell.

This means divine scrolls should be usable by all clerics, druids, rangers, and paladins while all arcane scrolls should be usable by all wizards, sorcerers, and bards. There should still definitely be a caster level check, of course, but that's all. If it's not done like this, what use are scrolls?

What happens if the cleric dies? Who brings the cleric back to life? The paladin or the ranger should be able to do this with true resurrection from a scroll. It's only fair and gives more versatility to scrolls. Without this, there's no reason to ever make scrolls as wands and staves trump them in all ways.

 

[DreamChaser]

The use for scrolls is to give casters back ups of spells they'd rather not prepare/learn but still wish to cast. The idea of a cleric casting entangle (unless of course they have the Plant domain) is just silly, IMO.

And, IIRC, the same limitation applied in 3.0. They are spell completion items which require the spell to be on your class's spell list.

DC

 

[DreamChaser]

What happens if the cleric dies? Who brings the cleric back to life? The paladin or the ranger should be able to do this with true resurrection from a scroll. It's only fair and gives more versatility to scrolls. Without this, there's no reason to ever make scrolls as wands and staves trump them in all ways.

The rogue or bard with UMD could use the scroll to bring back the cleric.

Scrolls cost less.

Scrolls can go up to 9th level, wands can't.

Staves cost a HUGE amount more than either scrolls or wands.

DC

and of course, keeping in mind that scrolls, wands, and staves all use the casting time of the spell in question so ressurection is still 10 minutes to cast so you may as well wander back to the city and have cleric raise your cleric.

 

[Anubis]

Then I guess it would be natural always for monsters to continually target clerics, since a party is screwed without them. I don't think that's how it should be. Versatility is a very important thing when it comes to using things. The point of scrolls should be to allow some spellcasters to cast spells they normally could not, and of course to give wizards something to scribe in their spellbooks if possible.

 

[Anubis]

The problem I have with the "going back to town" thing is that it doesn't allow for events that have time limits. What if the party is racing to stop an evil wizard from bringing back an evil god and only has one day left to do it? Going back to town would mean certain doom for the world.

You don't play very epic games, do you? My campaigns revolve around the story aspect, not the adventuring aspect. I play heavily epic games. (By the way, I don't mean epic levels necessarily, just epic in general.)

In addition, the "going back to town" routine slows down play WAY too much and cuts into the gaming experience.

 

[DreamChaser]

You don't play very epic games, do you? My campaigns revolve around the story aspect, not the adventuring aspect. I play heavily epic games. (By the way, I don't mean epic levels necessarily, just epic in general.)

Please don't get personal. It only weakens your position. You know nothing of my games, how I run them, or what (if anything) that has to do with my response.

Whether the game revolves around story or combat doesn't matter: if you wish to have any character able to cast a spell from a scroll, do so. Know that it will make scrolls much more valuable and completely ruin any reason to get a wand (which has tons of limitations).

If the issue is that the characters are constantly saving the world and have only a day to do it, then make sure that they have lots of support, or (like I said above) change the rule for your game. I have a feeling (just my opinion) that most people won't agree with you. I know I don't. But you have the option.

I tend to look at a new rule from this angle:
Is this rule designed to deal with a major issue that affects gameplay on a nightly basis or does it deal with a minor or singular issue that comes up a couple times a year? If it is the former, I will go with the alternate rule. If the latter, I will generally not.

Part of your response seems linked into the Resurrection thread and less related to this one.

And in answer to your question, the cleric has a d8 HD, heavy armor, and pretty good weapons, plus a bunch of defensive spells to deal with the fact that every monster might well want to do them in.

Of course, during the majority of scenarios I run, the monsters are not seeking a total party kill but are simply trying to achieve a particular end. Often, the monsters in my more story driven sessions are often out to humiliate, ruin, or simply mock the characters. I personally feel that drama comes not from body count but from style: I guess this is why my players fear the charm spells more than the death spells and raise dead and resurrections are less of issues. This also makes it less necessary for everyone who can say a prayer to be able to use a resurrection scroll.

DC

 

[UltimaGabe]

Then I guess it would be natural always for monsters to continually target clerics, since a party is screwed without them. I don't think that's how it should be.

What kind of an argument is that, if I may ask? Is this not the case already? If not, why not?

The way it is, frankly, Clerics should ALREADY be the target of all monsters capable of intelligent though. After all, if I were spending all of my strength beating a guy down, and then all of a sudden another guy walks up, touches him, and he's back to full vigor, shouldn't my target change? How does the use of scrolls affect this decision at all?

And frankly, if a monster is thinking, "Alright- I'm gonna kill that Cleric, because once he's dead, none of the other characters will be able to use the scroll of True Resurrection that I'm sure he has in his scroll pouch, and they'll be forced to spend their precious time going back to town to get someone else to do it! Huzzah!" then something is seriously wrong with that monster's tactics.

The rules are the way they are for a reason. There's plenty of reasons to use scrolls (which have already been mentioned) and plenty of reasons to use wands (which have already been mentioned) and it makes perfect sense, and, in my opinion, shouldn't affect the game as much as you're saying it does. Many people complain enough about death not being an issue with the Resurrection spells- and yet, you're saying that ANYBODY should be able to use a scroll of True Resurrection, not just the Cleric. (Well, anybody capable of caster Divine spells, but that's beside the point.) What's your reasoning? True, a Druid casts Divine spells, but how is a Druid going to know how to read a scroll of True Resurrection better than a Wizard, with Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Religion) maxed out? Nature doesn't offer True Rez's, last time I checked.

As I said, the rules are the way they are for a reason. That's how it was in 3e, and, again, as I said, it shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is. If the only concern in your game is who's gonna use the scroll of True Resurrection, it sounds like there's a problem.

 

[the Jester]

For the record, 'proper type and on spell list' essentially goes back at least to 1e. Heck, an illusionist couldn't even cast magic-user spells from scrolls back then!