D&D 5E Using Scrolls

[CapnZapp]

Why wouldn't you call them scrolls?
Some scrolls contain Arcane spells, some Divine spells, some have generic effects anyone can access, and others are just mundane writing of variably usefull info.

I'm having trouble discerning if this is a serious question.

Re-process the OP of this thread, and then ask yourself how good the idea was to bring back non-spell scrolls and the confusion it brings.

Alternatively: is the concept of having clear and unambiguous terminology unfamiliar to you? is the design idea that all "scrolls" work alike a surprise to you?

The question reads as if every previous post in this thread has gone you by, and that could of course be because you're just pretending to not understand, but it would be impolite to make that assumption. On the other hand, it's hard to give a straight answer without restating the obvious, so... Anyway, here goes.

The reason you would want to reserve the term "scroll" for magic items that are consumables that contain spells is because that's what the majority of players are accustomed to; that the notion of other kinds of scrolls was abandoned several editions ago.

Sure you can talk about scrolls in the general sense, but that's not what the DMG does. It introduces scrolls that aren't spell scrolls but still are magic items, and it makes spell scrolls only a subset of scrolls, so there are general scroll rules and specific spell scroll rules.

All of this is entirely unneccessary and confusing. The single non-spell scroll could just as easily have been named "volute of protection" or something similar.

This would have simplified the rules and would have avoided this and other threads.

Hope that explains it.

 

[Satyrn]

Sure I could houserule it, but I don't want to have to.

My players actually like not having houserules.

Adhering to RAW is a quality of its own.

And unlike some other things, this issue simply isn't important enough to fight for.

So I will use the rule as written here, all the while hoping that in some future revision of the DMG
1) if it's a "scroll", it holds a spell
2) there's an outlet for others to cast the spell. Could be something the Rogue is good at, as long as everyone has a shot.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

If you're okay with creating magic items (homebrew, not houserule) you could also homebrew a magic item that functions much like a spell scroll but is usable without knowing the spell on the scroll.

Call it a spell papyrus.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure I could houserule it, but I don't want to have to.

 

[Oofta]

I can see it now. After numerous postings by people indignant about the confusion between scrolls and spell scrolls, they reissue the DMG and rename scrolls as flummels.

DM Bob: Looking through the treasure pile, you find a rolled up piece of parchment with arcane writing on it. After a bit of examination you realize it's a Flummel of Protection.

Joe: Wouldn't a rolled up piece of paper just be a scroll?

DM Bob: No. It's a flummel ...

Joe (looking at his phone): according to the dictionary a scroll is "a roll of parchment, paper, copper, or other material, especially one with writing on it". Seems to fit the bill.

DM Bob: Right, but people got confused ...

Joe: Why? I mean it's literally a rolled up piece of paper with writing on it. A generic scroll. They specifically call out Spell Scrolls as something different.

DM Bob: But the text is confusing...

Joe: OK, so they should have added a line to clarify the difference between a generic scroll and spell scrolls

DM Bob: That still wouldn't have been enough ...​

I agree that the text on scrolls could have been a little clearer. Unfortunately no set of rules will ever be 100% clear or complete, and one person's clear explanation is another's confusing mess. Once you realize there's a difference between generic magical scrolls and spell scrolls it's not an issue.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Add 1 to me thinking "it's irritating how WotC made it outright *impossible* to cast spells not on your own list" too

After all, it's the spells nobody in the party can cast that you need the most

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

That's always been the case, except perhaps for 4e. Don't have the book handy. But AD&D through 3.5e allowed you to only cast scroll spells from your list.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm having trouble discerning if this is a serious question.

Re-process the OP of this thread, and then ask yourself how good the idea was to bring back non-spell scrolls and the confusion it brings.

Alternatively: is the concept of having clear and unambiguous terminology unfamiliar to you? is the design idea that all "scrolls" work alike a surprise to you?

The question reads as if every previous post in this thread has gone you by, and that could of course be because you're just pretending to not understand, but it would be impolite to make that assumption. On the other hand, it's hard to give a straight answer without restating the obvious, so... Anyway, here goes.

The reason you would want to reserve the term "scroll" for magic items that are consumables that contain spells is because that's what the majority of players are accustomed to; that the notion of other kinds of scrolls was abandoned several editions ago.

Sure you can talk about scrolls in the general sense, but that's not what the DMG does. It introduces scrolls that aren't spell scrolls but still are magic items, and it makes spell scrolls only a subset of scrolls, so there are general scroll rules and specific spell scroll rules.

All of this is entirely unneccessary and confusing. The single non-spell scroll could just as easily have been named "volute of protection" or something similar.

This would have simplified the rules and would have avoided this and other threads.

Hope that explains it.

It only took a sentence in AD&D: "Protection scrolls can be read by any class or race of character even without a magic spell."

Seems pretty straightforward to me. There doesn't seem to be a problem understanding that a Rod of Resurrection can only be used by a cleric, druid or paladin, yet all other rods in the DMG can be used by any class.

It seems to me that if they had said: "Unless otherwise noted, any creature that can understand a written language can read the arcane script on a scroll and attempt to activate it" then when you got to Spell Scroll, you'd know it was the exception.

 

[SkidAce]

I consider "Protection" scrolls to be a type of ritual scroll, and consider any spell written as a ritual on a scroll (tablet, inscribed on bark, etc.) to be castable by anyone with a chance of failure.

The Protection Scrolls are finely tuned and standardized, and have no chance of failure.

So now my players have a third type of scroll to consider.

They can handle it.

 

[Satyrn]

Sure I could houserule it, but I don't want to have to.

Yes. I read that the first time. That's why I suggested making up your own magic items. I don't consider that as using a houserule.