D&D 5E Unfortunate Wording

[maimonidesvii]

It's brilliantly worded so that each gaming group will play it exactly the way they want to.

What other way is there to interpret it? It seems completely straightforward and unambiguous to me.

 

[dbm]

Bear in mind there is nothing stopping a Wizard from picking up a magical two handed sword and clocking someone with it, either.

5e seems to be much more about saying 'some people are better at this than others' rather than saying 'you cannot even attempt this'. The only items with a 'barrier to entry' are class features, and even then you can usually buy a little with a feat if you want to invest.

 

[Quartz]

It's also an opportunity:

So the cleric's dead, and so is the mage but we have a scroll of Raise Dead. But lo, there just happens to be an altar dedicated to <insert appropriate deity>, so the fighter and the rogue lay the cleric on it, pray, and try to cast the spell from the scroll. Game-wise they'd probably get Advantage from the altar and an Inspiration from a successful Cha check in the prayer. Or they fail but the cleric gets raised anyway and the party are landed with a nice quest.

 

[Jer]

What other way is there to interpret it? It seems completely straightforward and unambiguous to me.

Ask a DM who wants a low magic campaign and I'm sure you'll get the OP's interpretation of how the rule should have read - that only spellcasters that don't have the spell on their spell list get to make the check. Better ask two or three DMs who want low magic campaigns, though, because I'd bet at least one would read the rule the way folks here are (that you don't need to be a spellcaster to use the scroll) and think of ways that it's brilliant for a low magic campaign to have spellcasters that aren't spellcasting classes but instead martial classes that mostly rely on scrolls. And probably one who reads the rule the way folks here read it and thinks its crap. So better find three

I can squint and see an interpretation that would allow that reading actually - you could read it as only talking about spellcasters and specifically excluding anyone that didn't have a spell list to begin with. I don't think that works, but that doesn't necessarily mean that wasn't the intent. It may be a poorly worded rule. That said as a DM I like the idea and have allowed non-spellcasters to do that with a skill check as far back as in 3e, so it was either an optional rule somewhere back then (UA?) or perhaps something that our group just thought was cool. So I wouldn't be surprised if it was the intent.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ask a DM who wants a low magic campaign and I'm sure you'll get the OP's interpretation of how the rule should have read - that only spellcasters that don't have the spell on their spell list get to make the check. Better ask two or three DMs who want low magic campaigns, though, because I'd bet at least one would read the rule the way folks here are (that you don't need to be a spellcaster to use the scroll) and think of ways that it's brilliant for a low magic campaign to have spellcasters that aren't spellcasting classes but instead martial classes that mostly rely on scrolls. And probably one who reads the rule the way folks here read it and thinks its crap. So better find three

Yeah, if I was going low-magic, I'd definitely read this as Fighters (etc.) CAN cast the spell from the scroll, with the INT check - because I'd already have banned Wizards and Sorcerers, who clearly don't fit in a low-magic campaign (possibly also Clerics, Bards and maybe even 5E Paladins - but probably not Warlocks - they'd be the "default Caster" or a low-magic world).

I can squint and see an interpretation that would allow that reading actually - you could read it as only talking about spellcasters and specifically excluding anyone that didn't have a spell list to begin with. I don't think that works, but that doesn't necessarily mean that wasn't the intent. It may be a poorly worded rule. That said as a DM I like the idea and have allowed non-spellcasters to do that with a skill check as far back as in 3e, so it was either an optional rule somewhere back then (UA?) or perhaps something that our group just thought was cool. So I wouldn't be surprised if it was the intent.

I think it's a huge stretch to try and say it's "spellcasters only", myself, because it doesn't say that, it just talks about if it's on your classes spell list - if you don't have a spell list, it can't be on it, but you're apparently introducing "and if you don't have a spell list..." which is something that would be in the rule if it was intended! There's no such thing as a "spellcaster" in 5E, nor is "spellcaster" mentioned in the rule, I note - Feats give spells to potentially any class, too.

 

[SilverBulletKY]

A fighter could cast it. It's a one-time use, so why not? He's not learning how to cast the spell at will like a wizard. He may fail the check and it gets used up with no results though.

 

[Plaguescarred]

The wording for Spell Scrolls is a bit different in the Starter Set, not allowing casting if the spell is not on your spell list;

 

[Jer]

I think it's a huge stretch to try and say it's "spellcasters only", myself, because it doesn't say that, it just talks about if it's on your classes spell list - if you don't have a spell list, it can't be on it, but you're apparently introducing "and if you don't have a spell list..." which is something that would be in the rule if it was intended! There's no such thing as a "spellcaster" in 5E, nor is "spellcaster" mentioned in the rule, I note - Feats give spells to potentially any class, too.

Oh yeah - I agree. I don't think that rule as written says that at all. But I could see an argument being made that the rule is poorly written and assumes that the character making the Arcana check has a spell list (which is the closest thing that 5e has to being a "spellcaster") and that a character not having a spell list at all is different from a character attempting a spell that "doesn't appear on their spell list". I'm not terribly sympathetic to that reading myself and I don't think the text supports that position, but I could see getting into arguments over it

The fact that they apparently changed the rule from the Starter Set is interesting - is it a last minute change to the DMG rules for scrolls? I'd be curious as to how scrolls were handled in the open playtest.

 

[dbm]

Upon reflection, I don't think the problem with a permissive reading would be Fighters using scrolls, but Wizards casting Cleric / Druid / etc. spells with a very high probability of success. It would further expand their already broad repertoire.

 

[CM]

Upon reflection, I don't think the problem with a permissive reading would be Fighters using scrolls, but Wizards casting Cleric / Druid / etc. spells with a very high probability of success. It would further expand their already broad repertoire.

You could always require a Religion check for divine scrolls, or Nature for druid scrolls.