Reading Scrolls in armour

[kreynolds]

At this point, who started it is irrelevant, as you've both broken the Golden Rule - do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

See, that's just the thing. Oh, nevermind.

If you don't want the other guy to be snarky, don't rise to the challenge, ignore the slights.

Always a good point.

If you want an apology from the other guy, offer one yourself.

I'm not looking for an apology though. I apologize only when I'm in the wrong, and I'm not, so it's not forthcoming, but neither do I ask for one in this particular instance.

Honestly, guys. You're reduced to arguing about who started it? Need I tell you what that looks like? It does neither of you any honor.

Yeah. It does look pretty bad.

 

[Artoomis]

You were an ass to me. I'm being an ass to you. Nothing hypocritical in that, especially since I didn't kick off this mess.

*shrug* You started it, so stop whining.

Good Lord - this sounds like my children:

"She started it!!..."

You know - what really counts in life is not who starts a fight (or whatever you want to call it), but who ends it and restores peace. It is the person who can rise above the conflict who deserves praise - not the one who can hit back the hardest.

The inability to do that is what has caused many wars and inconceivable horrors in the world - not that I think you are headed there, of course

Let's be nice, people. Eric's Grandma would approve.

 

[dcollins]

The following exchange appears on page 1.

I don't see the validity of your arguement. Exactly where was I talking about "all first level casters" ? I thought I was talking about a caster in plate mail. Last I checked, that wasn't "all first level casters."

There you go again. I swear, you jump to conclusions and piss-n'-moan more than my own psychopathic mother.

This was the first place in this thread where insults began, and it's an entirely unwarranted response in this case.

Once again -- comments of this sort are not funny, they are irritating and abusive. Putting a smiley-face at the end of an insult does not make the exchange acceptable.

 

[KarinsDad]

I really don't see where it does. A caster's shield has other advantages over a normal scroll. 1/2 material costs is a biggie, its worth the extra 2,000gp by it self.

Yes, it does have other advantages, but those are not pertinent to why it implies somatic components for scrolls.

"This +1 small wooden shield has a small leather strip on the back on which a spellcaster can scribe a single spell as on a scroll. A spell so scribed has only half the normal materials cost. (Experience point and component costs remain the same.) The user can cast the spell scribed on the back of the shield with no chance of arcane spell failure due to the shield."

The first sentence implies that this scribing is the same as scroll scribing (the item gives you this ability). Based on that sentence, the item has to be a spell completion item (note: nowhere in the books TMK does it state that all spell completion items have to be scrolls) since that sentence precludes other types of spell casting.

The last sentence states that although the spell is scribed, the shield's arcane spell failure chance does not apply for this item.

This implies that arcane spell failure chance applies for other scribed or spell completion items. If they explicitly have to call out that arcane spell failure does not apply, then that's a fairly strong implication that it normally does. Why would you need the sentence at all if that is the default behavior? Spell resistance does not apply to the to hit or damage of magical weapons, but you never see is explicitly called out in a magical weapon description. There is no need.

Like I said, in and of itself, this is not overwhelmingly compelling evidence. But, when viewed with the other statements on spell completion, it does support the somatic components required position.

Note that in the description of the item, 80% of the spells scribed on it are divine spells which don't have a spell failure chance anyway.

Again, that is not pertinent to whether spell completion items have somatic components or not.

The reason they put the divine chance so high is that arcane casters rarely (occasionally Bards) use shields. Hence, the item will probably most often be used by a divine caster, hence, they bumped up the chance of any found spell being divine (since mostly divine spell casters would have presumably used the item in the past). But, that is non-sequitur to the somatic discussion.

 

[Zhure]

I have to weigh in with Caliban on this one. Spells from scrolls require somatic components (unless Still or from a spell that doesn't have them, like Feather Fall) and using it provokes an AoO.

It isn't the first time the FAQ was wrong (see the earlier versions which claimed a Quickened spell didn't provoke and now they show that it does).

Greg

 

[KarinsDad]

Once again -- comments of this sort are not funny, they are irritating and abusive. Putting a smiley-face at the end of an insult does not make the exchange acceptable.

Yes, people who use a lot of smiley faces to attempt to soften their harsh comments tend to not understand that they are doing it inappropriately either. They view that as indicating that they made a joke and it has to be taken that way. They are also often the people who get into the shouting matches as well.

Oh no! I just used a

I used a again!

I used a again! Oh no!

 

[Artoomis]

Hmmm....

To activate a scroll, a spellcaster must read the spell written on it....Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll....Activating a scroll spell requires no material components or focus.

Spell Completion

This is the activation method for scrolls. To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can’t already cast the spell, there’s a chance he’ll make a mistake (see Scroll Mishaps for possible consequences). Activating a spell completion item is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.

Hmmm....

Nothing in there about needing to make any gestures - only reading.

Now, of course, two things point to needing to use somtaic compenents - page 176 "flavor" text and the stuff already presented on the shield with the scroll on it. Hardly convincing evidence.

Still, with evidence on both sides, I guess it's a DM decision unless someone cares to get the Sage's opinion.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

In among everything else in this thread, I have seen some good points, I might note. However, the existence of a passage (in the caster's shield) that makes no sense unless reading scrolls requires a somatic component simply means that two parts of the DMG are not mutually consistent. It doesn't really indicate which section is in error. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is an issue that simply wasn't adequately thought out when the book was being written.

I'm not really convinced that the problem of 1st-level multiclass wizards is as great a one as Caliban describes it, either. Whenever you multiclass you're closing off other options that would also have been beneficial (moreso if you're not human and have less flexibility in terms of favored class). More to the point, though, spells like shield and protection from evil have fairly short durations, and most fights don't actually last that many rounds. Caliban, don't you find that your Ftr6/Wiz1 often has to miss half the fight if he's going to charge up like that? And that's only going to get worse the more attacks per round you get.

Besides, many of those spells are available in potions anyway, which remain a pretty modest expense for 1st-level spells and a character of your level, even if you can't craft them yourself anymore. With treasure per encounter around 2,600 gp at 7th level, does it matter that much if you're using 12 gp self-made scrolls or 50 gp market price potions? Of course, you may find Living Greyhawk to be stingy in that regard.

 

[coyote6]

FWIW, it's been my impression that scrolls do indeed suffer arcane spell failure chance. Unfortunately, I have no DMG or PH at work, so I can't look for the references that led me to believe that. I could've sworn someone from WotC (Skip, I thought) had said scrolls do require somatic components (which isn't necessarily the same as "arcane spell failure applies to scrolls", but strongly implies it to me).

Maybe someone should send in a big list of Scroll Questions to the Sage, so he can do a whole column on 'em.

Does arcane spell failure apply? Do you need to gesture at all to activate a scroll? If not, why does the DMG (and the unabridged PH glossary) mention gestures in relation to spell completion items? If you do have to gesture to use a scroll or other spell completion item, why doesn't arcane spell failure apply?

Can you scribe a spell enhanced with the Silent Spell metamagic feat? If yes, can you read that scroll without saying anything aloud?

Are Quickened scrolls possible?

Say you cast invisibility on yourself, then pull out a scroll; can you read & activate that scroll, given that it is also invisible?

PS: Aiee! Not the kreynolds-and-Caliban show again!

 

[Zenon]

Oh no! I just used a

I used a again!

I used a again! Oh no!

On man! You're killing me here! ROFL!

But it is a serious topic. Things sound different when reading them than if we were in the same room talking. Sometimes it's done unintentionally. Othertimes it's done with sarcasm but the receiving party is not in the best of moods. And yet other times, well, it's calculated (I'm not saying in this case it's any one of the above).

KarinsDad and I have gone round & round over a lot of topics, but I would like to think we both try not to be rude over it.

And statements like this don't generate a lot of sympathy on this board either:

by kreynolds:
I'm not looking for an apology though. I apologize only when I'm in the wrong, and I'm not, so it's not forthcoming, but neither do I ask for one in this particular instance.