D&D 5E Scroll of Revivify

[Blue]

Not a bad idea, although I think that if you're going to allow casters of different power sources to use scrolls of spells that aren't usually available to them, you may as well throw it open to non-spellcasters as well.
Probably make it an Arcana check, even for clerical or similar scrolls. Hopefully the rarity of scrolls will prevent it becoming almost a must-have as UMB became in 3.5/PF.
What sort of difficulty do you think, and should a failure destroy the scroll, or just prevent retries?

Hmm, this is fun. Let me play with it a bit.

Let's separate into Arcana and Religion for the different power sources, just because this way the right skills are always on your list. YES, this greatly favors wizards because these are INT-based skills. Other classes now have a reason to boost INT.

Let's increase the DC, and then put some modifiers on it. How about:

Advantage if it's on your spell list or you have the Use Magic Device feature (rogue)
Disadvantage if you don't cast spells of that power source.

(So a cleric would have advantage for revivify, a ranger would have no modifier, and a wizard or a fighter would have disadvantage.)

Before a 1st level cleric with a 16-17 WIS (+3) would have a 50/50 chance of casting a 4th level spell, so let's adjust the base DC for that. With advantage you have a 51% chance to roll a 15, so with Religion skill of +2 and INT of +0 that's 17. So the new DC should be 13 + spell level.

Now that 1st level cleric has the same chance (well, 1% more likely), how about a druid trained in Religion? Well, they need to roll a 15 or higher, so they have a 30% chance of casting that revivify scroll. Not bad for no chance before.

How about a fighter not trained in religion? 17 or higher with disadv turns into about a 4% chance to cast.

How about a wizard with a +3 INT mod trained in religion? Hmm, they need to roll 12 or higher, which is 20% of the time.

Let's look at the middle. +4 proficiency characters trying to read a 5th level scroll. (So base DC 18.)

Cleric can auto-read, since it's on his list and he can cast 5th level spells. (9th level is min for 5th.)

Say it's on the Paladin list. Trained gives +4, needs a 14 or higher with advantage. 58%

Ranger trained with religion has the same 14 or higher but without advantage is 35%.

Bard with religion expertise and +1 INT has +9 to the roll needs a 9, but with disadvantage. 36%. Very close to the ranger.

Barb with -1 INT and no training needs a 19 with disadvantage, leaving a minor 1% chance.

And now, the equivalent of a 3.5 UMD monster: The Cleric (Knowledge) 1 / Wizard 8 with Religion and Arcana expertise and INT +5 would need a lowly 5, and have two different spellcasting lists it could be on. If it's on either (remember, wiz 8 doesn't have 5th level spells) then advantage gives them a 96% chance of success. They will never have disadvantage (since they cast arcane and divine) so if it's not on either list they still have a 80% chance of casting a 5th level spell scroll. (And they cast in medium armor.)

So this does generally work, and it can be abused some which is more of a worry if spell scrolls are something that can be bought or otherwise obtained easily in your setting.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not a bad idea, although I think that if you're going to allow casters of different power sources to use scrolls of spells that aren't usually available to them, you may as well throw it open to non-spellcasters as well.

There really isn't much of a distinction between spellcasters and non-spellcasters in this edition. Even an Eldritch Knight or Ranger is a spellcaster for all intents and purposes of that term. So you could simply ask the interested character to take Magic Initiate feat.

But honestly, I was asking a rhetorical question. I feel this is just one of those issues where people will simply go with what the rules say. It's just not important enough to change around.

So in that regards, I feel the DMG blew it. Restricting scrolls to those with the spell list is one such legacy idea that simply breaks down when every class has its own list.

For instance, you can't insert a Speak with Animals scroll into your forest adventure in the hopes your party will gain valuable clues from the wildlife. Because chances are, you simply don't have a Druid.

Not to mention if your party mage happens to be a sorcerer. Imagine the pain of having to check up each time you want to seed a scroll, that the spell is actually on the Sorcerers spell list (and not just on the Wizard's).

I simply don't see any upside to this strictness. Only minor but pesky downsides.

The issue isn't so great it's worth changing, or even fussing about. I just wish the DMG had gone with the lenient approach from the start.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Meh. I'd let anyone cast it with an appropriate check, myself.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[werecorpse]

Meh I follow the spell list requirement for scrolls.

The fact that some items are restricted to be only useable by those with the spell on their spell list is a feature not a bug IMO. Like wizard or sorcerer only wands, swords attunable only by Paladins etc. making a class or group of classes the special ones able to use the item that emulates their class ability can protect their niche. The restriction doesn't exist for all magic items but I'm happy with scrolls having that restriction.

If I want the players to have an item anyone can use I give them a potion or other item - in fact I have given one party a potion of revivify. It's more valuable to the party because anyone can use it - so they can revive the cleric. Imo the fact that it's different from a scroll in this way adds to the story element of the game.

 

[Lanefan]

I've been prepping to run lost mines of phandelver and I noticed in the Cragmaw Castle there is a Scroll of Revivify (in the owlbear room). So I guess my question is, isn't the chance of a character being able to use this particular item awfully small? Did the designers of this adventure not realize how scrolls would work in 5e? Or is this item and perhaps other treasures meant to be homebrewed to fit the party?

It's there to give the party a choice: either use it here and now at risk of failure, or take it and the corpse back to town and get a higher-level Cleric to use it for you at no risk of failure (but possibly a small cost, depending on circumstance).

Lan-"hey, at least the module designers allow for party death and give a means of mitigation"-efan

 

[werecorpse]

It's there to give the party a choice: either use it here and now at risk of failure, or take it and the corpse back to town and get a higher-level Cleric to use it for you at no risk of failure (but possibly a small cost, depending on circumstance).

Lan-"hey, at least the module designers allow for party death and give a means of mitigation"-efan

Not a choice, a chance. Revivify only works on someone dead for 1 minute or less so unless you're very speedy and have the town cleric on standby you're gonna have to use it yourself.

 

[Lanefan]

Not a choice, a chance. Revivify only works on someone dead for 1 minute or less so unless you're very speedy and have the town cleric on standby you're gonna have to use it yourself.

D'oh! Forgot that part...

 

[Uller]

For instance, you can't insert a Speak with Animals scroll into your forest adventure in the hopes your party will gain valuable clues from the wildlife. Because chances are, you simply don't have a Druid.

Are you talking about designing an adventure with your particular group's PCs in mind or one that is meant for an unknown group?

I guess in either event I'd offer the same advice: I avoid putting problems in an adventure with a limited set of solutions, especially if failing to solve it brings the adventure to a halt. So I wouldn't put information that the PCs need to be only discoverable by speaking to animals. For instance, maybe the goats know of a secret route to through the mountains and speaking to them would let the PCs discover that. But so should a survival, search or history check. And failure to find it should just mean getting to their destination is harder, but not impossible.

Like you said, it's not a huge deal so I presume you already know this.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Spoiler: I'm pretty sure the main purpose of the Scroll of Revivify in the castle is to revive Gundren. The module even mentions reviving him.

 

[CapnZapp]

Are you talking about designing an adventure with your particular group's PCs in mind or one that is meant for an unknown group?

I guess in either event I'd offer the same advice: I avoid putting problems in an adventure with a limited set of solutions, especially if failing to solve it brings the adventure to a halt. So I wouldn't put information that the PCs need to be only discoverable by speaking to animals. For instance, maybe the goats know of a secret route to through the mountains and speaking to them would let the PCs discover that. But so should a survival, search or history check. And failure to find it should just mean getting to their destination is harder, but not impossible.

Like you said, it's not a huge deal so I presume you already know this.

I am actually talking about an old AD&D adventure, which I ran on the fly for 5E.

It was disappointing to learn that nobody in the group could actually use the scroll. The game would have been unequivocally better by giving the spellcasters in the party a chance to use the scroll.

After all - it is the character classes that doesn't have the spell on their lists that need the scroll the most.

---

Besides: nobody has even talked about the real question - how does the game become better by strict list adherence? What does the game actually gain by policing this...?

My answer is, nothing. There is no good reason to have a hard restriction on scrolls. It's just a thoughtless stupid little restriction that might have had a reason in a 3E (where it's easy to create scrolls) but none in 5E.