Reading Scrolls in armour

[Grazzt]

Can't we all just get along? I mean the "he said, she said" stuff (or rather I guess "he said, he said" in this case) should just go away. Let's just deal with the topic on hand, shall we?

 

[KarinsDad]

Untill it runs into the Metaphorical Brick Wall of the FAQ.

Reading Scrolls do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

On what page of the FAQ are the "does not need somatic" and "does not provoke AoOs" statements?

I just read the Magic Item section of the June FAQ and couldn't find anything on this (course, that doesn't mean it isn't there, it could just mean that I sometimes skim through real quickly).

 

[kreynolds]

Can't we all just get along? I mean the "he said, she said" stuff (or rather I guess "he said, he said" in this case) should just go away. Let's just deal with the topic on hand, shall we?

Agreed.

OK. So we have the DMG that states "gestures", and we have the FAQ that states that scrolls are not subject to arcane spell failure chances, and we have no official source (such as PH, DMG, etc) that states that scrolls require "somatic" components.

I gotta agree with mikebr99 in that "final gestures" is flavor text, such as pointing your finger to fire off that magic missile scroll.

It is possible that the FAQ is in error on this, but I doubt it. I just see a big difference between "gestures", especially "final gestures", and "somatic components". It's a road bump that I can't get around.

EDIT: If you caught it, darn.

 

[kreynolds]

On what page of the FAQ are the "does not need somatic" and "does not provoke AoOs" statements?

I don't believe either of those are there. The only thing I know of in regards to this topic is the entry posted earlier which states that scrolls are not subject to arcane spell failure chances. Also, if scrolls required somatic components, they would definately be subject to arcane spell failure chances, so that's another point of contention. Lot of road bumps.

 

[mikebr99]

On what page of the FAQ are the "does not need somatic" and "does not provoke AoOs" statements?

I just read the Magic Item section of the June FAQ and couldn't find anything on this (course, that doesn't mean it isn't there, it could just mean that I sometimes skim through real quickly).

Hey KD... I posted the quote on the 1st page of this thread.

 

[Ristamar]

From the FAQ:
Is an armor-clad character who can use arcane scrolls subject to the spell failure chance from armor when using an arcane scroll? What about other magic items?

Arcane spell failure doesn't apply when you're activating a magic item, not even a scroll.

 

[Caliban]

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.

It seems to me that the text on page 176 of the DMG, in the spell completion description, agrees with the statement in the Caster's Shield description. I don't see any contradiction.

I think the Sage may be contradicting the DMG in this instance.

I actually e-mailed him about this, pointing out the text in the DMG. All he would say is that activating a magic item doesn't have an arcane spell failure penalty. (It was originally an answer in the Sage Advice column in Dragon.)

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).

In my case, I only lost +1 BAB and will have to wait until 9th level instead of 8th level to get "Improved Critical Axe". I didn't even lose any hit points, since I got a Toad familiar, and the Con boost gave me +7 hit points, plus the 4 from the wizard level for a total of +11 hit points. (A fighter level would have netted me +9 hit points, total.)

And the con boost will keep giving him +1 hit point per level more than he would have had otherwise.

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.

Nope. I usually don't bother with the Protection from Evil, but one round spent casting Shield while they close with me is more than enough. If we start a large distance apart, I can cast Expeditious Retreat, and then Shield, and still get to the fight faster than if I hadn't cast at all.

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.

Shield is not available for sale in potion form in Living Greyhawk.

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.

I usually gain about 1,200 GP when playing a module that is appropriate to my level. Of course, the only thing you get at the end of the module is cash. Any items found in the module are automatically converted to gold and split between the party members. You have to buy any magic items out of that gold, or make them yourself.

 

[mikebr99]

I gotta agree with mikebr99 in that "final gestures" is flavor text, such as pointing your finger to fire off that magic missile scroll.

It is possible that the FAQ is in error on this, but I doubt it. I just see a big difference between "gestures", especially "final gestures", and "somatic components". It's a road bump that I can't get around.

Sure... the FAQ COULD be wrong... but it has gone through a least 5 revisions... without this item being changed.

 

[kreynolds]

Quick-Hand Ristamar strikes again. Very quick FAQ retrieval. Most impressive.

 

[Grazzt]

Just to keep the peace I emailed the Sage about it to see what his take is on it....