D&D 5E Question on reading scrolls

[Ed Laprade]

Did you also change the system so that spell scrolls are no longer written either fully or partially in a magic-based language? This is part of why the rule for having the spell on your spell list exists. If you do not have any training in the relevant spell-casting type/style and related magic words/phrases/language, then you have no chance to understand it or use it properly. Remember poor Ash from Army of Darkness?

Yep. So long as the character knows the language it is written in, which can be any language, they can give it a shot. Of course, if they know the spell, its an auto-success.

 

[Jester David]

It's confusing but it leaves room for more magical scrolls that don't require spellcatsting.
Like ritual scrolls that open portals or banish evil. Scrolls that copy what is written on them and send that to another sheet of paper. Scrolls that turn into birds and deliver messages or fight as origami warriors.

It doesn't limit scrolls and that whole type of item to just duplicating spells.

 

[CapnZapp]

The general rules (as opposed to the specific rules for spell scrolls) also allow for new types of scrolls that are neither spell scrolls nor protection scrolls.

And this is entirely confusing and bad, yes.

 

[CapnZapp]

It doesn't limit scrolls and that whole type of item to just duplicating spells.

Limiting a specific type of magic item to only one usage is generally bad, yes. But nobody expects "cubes" to only contain gates, or "rings" to only contain etherealness.

In contrast, most players werent around before 3e. The notion that there are scrolls that doesn't follow the general rules on spell scrolls is entirely confusing to them.

Bringing back non-spell scrolls is entirely unnecessary. Name your effect and I promise you I will be able to suggest a name of an item that doesn't use the word "scroll"!

 

[CapnZapp]

In fact, in my game anyone can (try to) use any kind of scroll if they can read it.

Actually this is another of my pet peeves

To me the rule that you need the spell on your list is entirely unneeded and unwanted.

Take an old AD&D Dungeon scenario I ran the other year. It places a scroll of Speak with Plants near the start, and later features a tree that might provide some information.

Imagine my frustration and dismay when I realize that in 5e, only Druids can use this scroll.

But Druids are already the only ones that can speak with plants! They don't need the scroll! The scroll is there to allow groups without a Druid to have a chance of talking to the tree!

The same with a high-level adventure where Plane Shift takes you to the next stage of the adventure. Can you make it a short adventure to buy a scroll if your group only contains a Bard spellcaster? No.

Or even the case where the party is given an especially difficult mission, and the questgiver is kind enough to provide a Ressurrection scroll. Does that help the party that needs it - the party without a Bard or Cleric? Noooo. In fact, it is only useful to the party that needs it the least, the party that already have a Cleric! And does it help the party when their Cleric has died? Nooooooo

And does scrolls give poor Sorcerers hope that they might fulfil some of the utility you'd expect from the party's arcane caster, by collecting scrolls of spells they cannot cast and would never have chosen to know even if they could? No......... Instead, the group's fighter stands a better chance of using the scroll than you, simply because she's an Eldritch Knight.

---

Scrolls would have been a great way of providing parties with at least some kind of cross-caster capability, and WotCs senselessly harsh rule blews it.

 

[Caliban]

The general rules (as opposed to the specific rules for spell scrolls) also allow for new types of scrolls that are neither spell scrolls nor protection scrolls.

I find it annoying that the "General Rule" is for the least common type of scroll (I've yet to see one be given out), while the "Specific Rule" that overrides the general rule is for Spell Scrolls - which are far more common in my experience.

It should be the other way around.

 

[CapnZapp]

So you'll see why it is so tempting to simply remove "spell scrolls" and its rule altogether - every problem disappears!

That is, if the rule for "scrolls" were that they contain spells and nothing but spells, and:

"Any [spellcaster] can read the arcane script on a scroll and attempt to activate it."

“If the spell is on your class’s spell list, [and] of a [] level [] you can normally cast, you [automatically] cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise,"

"you must make an ability check using your spellcasting ability to determine whether you cast it successfully. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a failed check, the spell disappears from the scroll with no other effect."

Optionally following this up with

"A creature who tries and fails to cast a spell from a spell scroll must make a DC 10 Intelligence saving throw. If the saving throw fails, roll on the Scroll Mishap table."

 

[Jester David]

Limiting a specific type of magic item to only one usage is generally bad, yes. But nobody expects "cubes" to only contain gates, or "rings" to only contain etherealness.

In contrast, most players werent around before 3e. The notion that there are scrolls that doesn't follow the general rules on spell scrolls is entirely confusing to them.

Bringing back non-spell scrolls is entirely unnecessary. Name your effect and I promise you I will be able to suggest a name of an item that doesn't use the word "scroll"!

It feels like an unnecessary limit. Very 3e where all scrolls had spells, all wands cast one spell and have 50 charges, and all staves cast multiple spells and have 50 charges. It's limits imposed on magic for no good reason (and results in the wand of wonder becoming a rod of wonder because it doesn't cast just one spell). That's boring. I'm yawning and feel tired just thinking about that design. (Or possibly because I haven't had my coffee yet. Either or.)

Why?
Yes, it's slightly confusing for people familiar with scrolls as a receptacle for spells. That is a problem. But it's a fixable problem. It's easy to teach like any other mistaken legacy assumptions. And it doesn't *really* affect play at the table.
Every day the percentage of people who started game in 3e drops. Every single day. I don't see why the design of their game has to be shackled to avoid confusing people who were comfortable with a design element from fifteen years ago...

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't see why the design of their game has to be shackled to avoid confusing people who were comfortable with a design element from fifteen years ago...

The only reason somebody could have come up with the bright idea to suddenly add in non-scroll scrolls is because of people that were comfortable with that element from thirty-five* years ago...

*) actually, I have no clue

 

[SkidAce]

But Druids are already the only ones that can speak with plants! They don't need the scroll! The scroll is there to allow groups without a Druid to have a chance of talking to the tree!

Not debating the merits of it, but usually cases like that were for scenarios where the druid or other spellcaster had not MEMORIZED "Speak with Plants" that day. Or had already used it.