Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eric Olson1" data-source="post: 9470729" data-attributes="member: 6975382">2014 scroll: &quot; If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible. Casting the spell by reading the scroll requires the spell’s normal casting time.&quot;2024 scroll: &quot;If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast the spell using its normal casting time and without providing any Material components.&quot;Why did they deliberately remove the word &quot;requires&quot;? If they kept the old wording, then the interaction with Fast Hands would be clear. They changed it.Why do 2024 some magic items specifically add &quot;As a magic action you may ...&quot; ? While other 2024 magic items (like scroll) avoid that syntax:&nbsp; &quot;you can expend one charge to cast ...&quot;They were editing and refining the rules, they were not careless. They specifically changed the wording so it would not apply.&nbsp; Pending any official ruling, there is an easy case for a DM to not allow this, both RAW and by intent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eric Olson1, post: 9470729, member: 6975382"] 2014 scroll: " If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible. Casting the spell by reading the scroll[B] requires [/B]the spell’s normal casting time." 2024 scroll: "If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast the spell using its normal casting time and without providing any Material components." Why did they deliberately remove the word "requires"? If they kept the old wording, then the interaction with Fast Hands would be clear. They changed it. Why do 2024 some magic items specifically add "As a magic action you may ..." ? While other 2024 magic items (like scroll) avoid that syntax: "you can expend one charge to cast ..." They were editing and refining the rules, they were not careless. They specifically changed the wording so it would not apply. Pending any official ruling, there is an easy case for a DM to not allow this, both RAW and by intent. [/QUOTE]

Verification