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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6324864" data-attributes="member: 95493">Quote to prove true. Please.That is what I'm saying as far as the scrolls/wands go too.Does a wizard of 1st level have Wish on his spell list? Why or why not? (I'd say not unless it is in his book.) Divine classes get all divine spells on their list of spells known, but every instance I can find relating to this would imply that applies only when they have spells to prepare they can cast from that list - not for example if they abuse the system into getting a spell slot higher than they should have do they automatically get those spells known. So the spell list component seems specific here and I don't see that the ranger/paladin has it - yet.I mean I find it strange to put "normally X is true" but only under UMD. Why put the "normally to use a wand you must have the spell" part under only UMD? Why not under... wands or magic in general? Maybe both or all three but that is extra space, I understand. Just seems odd to put it under UMD. Basically making a rule harder to find and harder to apply.Player 1: Do I need X to activate the wand?DM looks at wands in the book: Um... nope.Player 2: Actually if you look at UMD they do.DM: Why put it there? What if we never looked at UMD?Right, but I don't feel that is what Greenfield is doing. He seems to have a LOT of these kinds of questions and they're not necessarily related to the same character or type of characters. So one day it is about wands, then about a random combo from one book working with a obscure rule from another. I say this is CharOps types stuff because of the kinds of abuses one usually seeks when doing this - but he seems to be interested in the answer instead of the exploit, that's why I asked because it doesn't match my experience (of characters wanting to go, "aha!"Me neither. I would open up almost all crafting, even wider than what Pathfinder does. Letting non-magicals have magic is a decent way of balancing things out and leveling the playing field. But RAW I don't think it is allowed and so I pointed that out. (Also why I'm advocating throwing out that rule <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />)I would be okay with wizards having access to cure light wound scrolls. It is an extra cost and I wouldn't let them scribe it into their book (that is a completely different aspect of scrolls), just cast it as any equal level arcane spell. I have no problem with that particular abuse since there are easier ways to get healing.Another approach is what you are saying. It is a scroll of X, if you have that on your list then you can use this scroll. I kind of like that better. I never really put thought into either of these - doesn't come up too often in my games but I'm certainly open to modifications of the base rule.See above SRD quote again. Based on the wording they don't need UMD to cast a scroll/wand IF they have it on their spell lists. "Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand’s spell on your class spell list." All UMD does is allow them to treat it as if it IS on their lists. But you don't need UMD if you do have it. Since they lack a list of any kind I would see that RAW they must make a UMD roll or be otherwise incapable of casting that scroll/wand... until they have a list with this spell on it. Feel free to think the rule is stupid but I see no problem in my reading of the rule and don't think it should just be ignored (except to houserule it away) in a RAW discussion. The use of UMD isn't usually applicable for a cleric casting cure light wound wands, but it IS necessary if the cleric doesn't have that spell on their list/or a list at all - a la low leveled paladin.I read the quote. This is what I was saying before, about putting this rule only under UMD being a poor choice. It doesn't discount what the rules say under UMD however.However if you look at the bold part it is a special case for spell-triggers (not what I'm really discussing as far as completion of scrolls and wands). It mentions, "a character who can't actually cast spells," someone who can the game (as far as I know) defines as a "spellcasters" and lists "a 3rd paladin" as someone who is not one. Which is the original question summed up, right? Are paladins spellcasters (before they get spell lists)? "[A] character who can't actually cast spells [spellcaster], such as a 3rd-level paladin," would seem to say No.For spell TRIGGER items - not what I thought we were discussing, if that is what you have been talking about the whole time then I misunderstood, sorry - ANYONE can cast the scroll. A fighter can. I figured you were bringing up the scroll SRD reference in order to try and say that paladins/rangers were spellcasters, the trigger description doesn't seem to agree. Though I'll agree it is still a little vague.Nothing you've said or quoted me so far disagrees with how I've been playing. I'm open to the chance that I have been but we're not there yet.UMD has rules for CASTING a spell, triggered spells aren't casting it. Someone else cast it, a fighter can activate a trigger. No caster check at all for a trigger item. I don't think triggered scrolls are even covered under UMD - why would they be? Just reread both my quotes from the UMD section, and your own quote about scrolls.Yes it still does. When you normally need a thing, otherwise use this skill feature.. then you normally need that thing. This skill feature to allow you to get around that need. You normally also need a stat at a certain number to cast a spell, unless you use the same skill to bypass THAT requirement too. Just because you can get around the req doesn't mean the req wasn't there to begin with - though once again I agree it is strange to seemingly only put it under UMD. But maybe they assumed everyone was on board about casting spell scrolls/wands only on their lists and so though references to this part wouldn't be needed under regular scrolls/wands description. Just like they figure no one is really going to two-weapon fight without the feats and so they put the page look up for TWF under the feat only, instead of under basic combat actions.No it is true they are unclear. I was just wondering about the underlying motives. Like I said, most people I find that do this are trying to cheat the system, not make their knowlege more accurate. It is like someone studying law without any attempt to become a lawyer or otherwise represent themselves but just for fun. I'm sure it could happen but I find it to be a rare exception and so something to question (though not your sincerity)Fair enough.I suspected it might be something more along these lines (stimulation of discussion). Game devs might go further indepth like this but I don't expected it from a more casual gamer.At this point I've answered the question you have as well as I can. If you disagree then that is fine but I can't provide any further justifications. I'm giving the rule as straight as I can for both RAW and RAI as I understand them. If you disagree with either of those that is fine too. I don't plan to add anything else, no replies to correct any other rejections, since I am neither the designer of this game nor one of the 'experts' you are looking to begin this discussion with.</blockquote>

Verification