D&D 5E Some recent tweets.

[EzekielRaiden]

So instead of one item category with some shared general rules, you'd establish numerous item categories of a much narrower scope?

So like if you decided that rings could only allow duplication of spell effects like a ring of invisibility, and any piece of jewelry that had a different effect like +1 AC and saving throw bonus would actually be some non-ring thing like an earring of protection?

I don't see how that adds anything to the game but more chances for players to get confused.

Nah. I'd just do it for this one specific thing, because it's easily confused. Only create new terms when old terms are confusing--not before.

Also, my suggestion would not mean that these things would stop being "scrolls" generally. "Scrolls" would be a catch-all term for anything written on paper coiled around at least one rod. Within the category "scrolls," you could have things like map scrolls, which are generally (but not always!) non-magical items that simply depict a territory or relationship between objects in some way; spell scrolls, which are the recorded rites, symbols, and notes necessary for a particular kind of caster to cast, or learn, a spell (with subcategories for divine, arcane, etc.); glyph scrolls, which are "imbued" with the power of a spell such that all you have to do is say a command word and tear them (or something of that nature) to create that effect (much more expensive to make than mere spell scrolls!); information scrolls which contain written accounts of something (perhaps not factual!); art scrolls for things like calligraphic art, watercolors, or the like; etc.

Since there is no confusion about whether a ring of invisibility works similar to, or different from, a ring of protection, there is no need to employ anything more specific than "rings." However, if (for some reason) there were a confusion, I would probably recommend creating particular adjectives to separate them, e.g. "imbued" rings are rings which possess a castable spell effect, while "enchanted" rings are those which provide a constant, passive benefit. Alternative words could be used for either term; I selected "imbued" mostly to match my earlier description of "gylph scrolls" as being "imbued" with a spell effect that anyone could activate. But, like I said, I see no need for these extra terms, so I wouldn't actually use them myself. Since it's quite clear that I am not the only person who thinks it strange that the category term ("scroll") is the same as just one subcategory within it, there is a call for clearer terms.

I am confused as to how that isn't what WotC did. "protection scroll" and "spell scroll" are different names, just like "ring of protection" and "ring of invisibility" are different names.

I was assuming that not all of these items would need to be protection alone, and could in fact produce essentially any magical effect that isn't already a specific, well-defined spell. So you could have a "protection" scroll of raining fire (which would produce an effect similar to the spell Fire Storm or Flame Strike) and a "spell" scroll of Protection from Poison This is why having a clear, distinct term which doesn't specifically reference whether it is "protection" or not, but does make it clearly distinct from a "spell," would be useful.

Edit:
To give a real-world analogy, one could call all pictorial depictions of buildings "drawings." However, there is a distinct difference between urban landscape drawings, which are artistic in nature, and architectural layout drawings, which are created by draftsmen to facilitate precision construction. The former would be useful to anyone, if they wanted to see what the building would look like; the latter would be useless to most laypeople, as architectural drawings tend to be in 'exploded' and 'layered' views, but would be profoundly useful to an architect, burglar, engineer, or other (semi-)professional individual who could glean useful information from them. Then you'd also have several other categories of drawings, like figure sketches, anatomical drawings, cartoons...again, all of these things could simply be called "drawings" or "building drawings," but it is much more useful to have specific words, or as English is wont to do, specific noun-phrases or adjectives which single out a particular kind within the substantial category of "drawings."

 

[CapnZapp]

So instead of one item category with some shared general rules, you'd establish numerous item categories of a much narrower scope?

So like if you decided that rings could only allow duplication of spell effects like a ring of invisibility, and any piece of jewelry that had a different effect like +1 AC and saving throw bonus would actually be some non-ring thing like an earring of protection?

I don't see how that adds anything to the game but more chances for players to get confused.

You're setting up straw men.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You're setting up straw men.

Actually, I'm not.

In fact, what I was doing, if I were doing it anywhere but an internet forum dedicated to gaming, is called asking clarifying questions to better understand something someone said that didn't actually make any sense to me at the time.

 

[MG.0]

The entire idea of protection scrolls was to give a one-shot magical effect a non-spellcaster could use.

Solution:

Decide on a case by case basis whether any individual scroll characters find is usable by the appropriate type of spellcaster, or whether it was crafted in such a way as to allow anyone to unlock its power. All the hand-wringing over whether or not the scroll duplicates a PHB spell effect is pointless. Just consider who made the scroll and why.

I even allow crafting of scrolls to proceed in either direction...but making a scroll castable by anyone is slightly more difficult and expensive, making them somewhat rarer, and of course more prized by characters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Actually, I'm not.

In fact, what I was doing, if I were doing it anywhere but an internet forum dedicated to gaming, is called asking clarifying questions to better understand something someone said that didn't actually make any sense to me at the time.

Well, ascribing the ring thing to me as though it was something I would do, technically does count as setting up a straw man. I never said anything about rings, or any other items but the scrolls that were at issue, so arguments (in the philosophical sense) which center on rings, or any item other than scrolls, are not actually arguments addressed at my points. The presentation created the appearance that my original argument was equivalent to your new one, and then argued that that new one was ridiculous and thus should be ignored--which is exactly what the "strawman argument" informal fallacy entails.

You may not have intended to ascribe this argument to me, but directly saying "'d establish numerous item categories of a much narrower scope" is ascribing an argument to me that I did not make. A better way to present this, if you want to avoid the problem while still highlighting the potential issue, would be something like:

"I'm not sure I understand. Does this mean you want to create numerous item categories of a much narrower scope? Are you expecting to generalize this to all item types? That would be unwise--it could have some very weird results and make things even more confusing. As an example, defining 'rings' as 'duplicating a magic spell' would then make the ring of protection no longer a 'ring,' which is very counter-intuitive."

This way, instead of *telling* me what I would do, you would be *asking* me what I want--while still preserving (what seems to be) your central point. You would also be providing an example of how, if I wanted that, I could be creating far more problems than I solve.

 

[77IM]

I think the better fix would be if the DMG included 3-4 types of non-spell-scrolls instead of just scrolls of protection. For example if the DMG included scroll of analyze dweomer, scroll of protection, scroll of revealing, scroll of transportation, and spell scroll, then it would have been much more obvious that some scrolls store spells and others don't.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Well, ascribing the ring thing to me as though it was something I would do, technically does count as setting up a straw man.

That's not a thing that I did.

I asked you a question about if you were meaning that you'd establish more item categories with a narrower scope.

I then used rings as an illustrative example of how I was meaning that, ascribing absolutely nothing to you while doing so by never saying that what I was saying was what you were saying.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think the better fix would be if the DMG included 3-4 types of non-spell-scrolls instead of just scrolls of protection. For example if the DMG included scroll of analyze dweomer, scroll of protection, scroll of revealing, scroll of transportation, and spell scroll, then it would have been much more obvious that some scrolls store spells and others don't.

That, I certainly agree with.

Even just changing the names so that they appeared next to each other when sorted alphabetically (i.e. scroll of protection and scroll of spell) would likely have prevented most of the confusion I've seen on the matter.

 

[Mercule]

So a spell scroll must have a spell from the PH on it.

While a scroll of blah blah, can blah blah for anyone, provided blah blah isn't a spell in the PH.

Yes?

Yes. It's a really simple flow chart.

 

[darjr]

Other than scroll of protection what other non spell scrolls are there? Can I get a specific example?