Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Reading Scrolls in armour
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 275406" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>Yes, it does have other advantages, but those are not pertinent to why it implies somatic components for scrolls.</p><p></p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The last sentence states that although the spell is scribed, the shield's arcane spell failure chance does not apply <strong>for this item</strong>.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, that is not pertinent to whether spell completion items have somatic components or not.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 275406, member: 2011"] 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 [b]for this item[/b]. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Reading Scrolls in armour
Top