Has there ever been an official answer to the existance of a swift action Scroll?

[Oryan77]

Just wondering if there is an official answer as to whether a swift action scroll can exist and be cast as a swift action?

[Snowbluff]

Just wondering if there is an official answer as to whether a swift action scroll can exist and be cast as a swift action?

Pages 8 and 9 of the rules compendium. It's yes.

[sideswipe]

a swift action scroll probably needs only a single word or gesture to complete. maybe not even needing to draw it. just dissolving in your pocket.

thats the way i thought of it.

[animewatcha]

For the longest time, thought the swift action thing applied only to wands. However, you still have to deal with the nuance of having the scroll already out, arcane spell failure chance ( if casting as arcane ), etc. This is after having to hunt through the rules compendium for stuff other than page 8 and 9.

[Vogonjeltz]

Just wondering if there is an official answer as to whether a swift action scroll can exist and be cast as a swift action?

According to core, scrolls are spell completion items: "Activating a spell completion item is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."


Pages 8 and 9 of the rules compendium. It's yes.

The core rules never changed to this, and the RC doesn't have the authority to overrule those, as it isn't errata. This is likely an editing error on the part of the associate editor who singlehandedly did the compilation, if it's not an error it has no precedent and doesn't make any sense at all.

Edit: not just core, here's the same rule from the Spell Compendium (side note, these are from the recent reprint versions, so they are also more current than the rules compendium.)

"Activating a spell completion item, activating a spell trigger item, or drinking a potion is a standard action even if the spell from which the scroll, potion, or item is made can be cast as a swift action. In other words, it takes a standard action to drink a potion of quick march(page 164), even though casting the spell itself requires only a swift action."

[Curmudgeon]

Pages 8 and 9 of the rules compendium. It's yes.
That "yes" presupposes three things:

Your game uses Rules Compendium.
You accept RC's self-proclaimed authority.
You don't have any of the Premium core books, published after Rules Compendium. Following its own rules, it can only override "a preexisting core book or supplement". All of the RC changes to the core rules were dropped from the new core books.

[sideswipe]

That "yes" presupposes three things:

Your game uses Rules Compendium.
You accept RC's self-proclaimed authority.
You don't have any of the Premium core books, published after Rules Compendium. Following its own rules, it can only override "a preexisting core book or supplement". All of the RC changes to the core rules were dropped from the new core books.


it is true what curmudgeon says, but still wizards released the rules compendium with the intention for it to over-ride other rules if you have it. rules compendium has been the authority at all the tables i have played at.

they forgot there own rule

[Curbstomp]

So for the OP:

No... but sometimes yes depending on which books your group plays with and their order of precedence.

[Curmudgeon]

it is true what curmudgeon says, but still wizards released the rules compendium with the intention for it to over-ride other rules if you have it.
I really, really doubt that.

There's never been any confirmation, outside of the book itself, that Rules Compendium was supposed to be anything other than a collection of existing rules. Nothing in interviews, nothing in press releases, nothing on the Wizards web site. No official mention of any rules changes.
The Primary Sources Errata Rule has been cranked out repeatedly in multiple errata files, each time proclaiming that an official errata file is necessary to override a primary source rule.
The Premium core books, reprinted with some rule revisions (beyond original text plus errata), contain none of the Rules Compendium changes. (The Spring Attack feat has a useful clarification, for instance.) But the newest 3.5 rules source still says completing a spell from a scroll takes a standard action.

[georgie_leech]

it is true what curmudgeon says, but still wizards released the rules compendium with the intention for it to over-ride other rules if you have it. rules compendium has been the authority at all the tables i have played at.

they forgot there own rule

Not a terribly uncommon occurrence with 3.5, mind you. Strictly speaking, Curmudgeon is correct; ask your DM anyway, because this is a strange set of rules interaction that will likely need adjudication one way or the other anyway.

[Killer Angel]

spell compendium, Magic Items:
Activating a spell completion item, activating a spell trigger item, or drinking a potion is a standard action even if the spell from which the scroll, potion, or item is made can be cast as a swift action.

[animewatcha]

I really, really doubt that.

There's never been any confirmation, outside of the book itself, that Rules Compendium was supposed to be anything other than a collection of existing rules. Nothing in interviews, nothing in press releases, nothing on the Wizards web site. No official mention of any rules changes.
The Primary Sources Errata Rule has been cranked out repeatedly in multiple errata files, each time proclaiming that an official errata file is necessary to override a primary source rule.
The Premium core books, reprinted with some rule revisions (beyond original text plus errata), contain none of the Rules Compendium changes. (The Spring Attack feat has a useful clarification, for instance.) But the newest 3.5 rules source still says completing a spell from a scroll takes a standard action.


There a list of what these corrections were? Cause I wasn't aware that recent re-sells revised a few things.

[Curmudgeon]

There a list of what these corrections were? Cause I wasn't aware that recent re-sells revised a few things.
No, not to my knowledge. I just happened upon the Spring Attack change. I didn't buy any of the updated core books myself, so this was in someone else's copy of the Premium Player's Handbook.

[HighWater]

There is indeed no listing of what they changed in the Premiums.

Another neat little change: the premium 'Monster Manual I' killed the Choker's Quickness(Su) that would turn into absolute brokenness when it fell into the hands of a player or DM that wasn't afraid of a little cheese.
You will not find any separate errate that removed it though, so the SRD still has it. :smallsigh:

As for the OPs question: confer with your DM on which ruling will be instated in this campaign. Present some of the arguments from both sides, but most importantly just use your own judgement to see which ruling seems more fair to you guys/gals.

[Snowbluff]

I really, really doubt that.

There's never been any confirmation, outside of the book itself, that Rules Compendium was supposed to be anything other than a collection of existing rules. Nothing in interviews, nothing in press releases, nothing on the Wizards web site. No official mention of any rules changes.
The Primary Sources Errata Rule has been cranked out repeatedly in multiple errata files, each time proclaiming that an official errata file is necessary to override a primary source rule.
The Premium core books, reprinted with some rule revisions (beyond original text plus errata), contain none of the Rules Compendium changes. (The Spring Attack feat has a useful clarification, for instance.) But the newest 3.5 rules source still says completing a spell from a scroll takes a standard action.
Then I am enlightened. I'll tend to side on the swift action use side, though.

[Curmudgeon]

Then I am enlightened. I'll tend to side on the swift action use side, though.
There's really nothing wrong with that; I use it when I'm DMing. I just label it as a house rule that I didn't need to write up myself.

[SiuiS]

it is true what curmudgeon says, but still wizards released the rules compendium with the intention for it to over-ride other rules if you have it.

Yes. There is only so much"but the rules say...!" That's acceptable in this instance. Either you accept that the book does it's job or you don't, but justifying by most recent printing or arcane rules on what's most canonest is, frankly, stupid.

[Vogonjeltz]

it is true what curmudgeon says, but still wizards released the rules compendium with the intention for it to over-ride other rules if you have it.

It's far more likely that the RC was written in error given that the most recently released premium materials maintain the preexisting rule.

[Aquillion]

It's far more likely that the RC was written in error given that the most recently released premium materials maintain the preexisting rule.I don't agree. It seems equally likely to me that the Premium books were written by people who didn't even know the RC existed, and who mostly only referenced the original core books because they wanted to produce a nostalgia thing.

Likewise, it's clear that part of the purpose of the RC was to go into pedantic detail on the rules in a way that wasn't appropriate for the reprinted core; that's what it's saying by claiming that it has precedence when it comes to the rules.

Note that this is allowed under the errata rules. Those rules say that when books contradict, you go to the primary source. The question is then whether the core book or the Rules Compendium are the primary source when it comes to the rules. I would argue that it is at least arguable that the Rules Compendium takes precedence here -- the core is a general overview of how to play the game, but the Rules Compendium is meant to go into more depth, and is therefore the most authoritative book when it comes to rules decisions. Under this interpretation it even overrides later publications of the core (like the Premium ones) because it is a primary source by virtue of being about the rules specifically while core books are about the game in general.

(People argue that the primacy rules specifically say that the Player's Handbook takes primacy over the DMG for player-related rules, which means it's always intended to be primary; but I don't think that that's what that means -- I think that that's just asserting that the PHB is primary relative to the DMG on the topic, because it is specifically about the game for players and the DMG is about the game for DMs. The Rules Compendium, as the book specifically about the rules, trumps both when it come to rules questions.)

[Curmudgeon]

The question is then whether the core book or the Rules Compendium are the primary source when it comes to the rules. I would argue that it is at least debatable that the Rules Compendium takes precedence here ...
Here's the rule:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. There are exactly three primary source books, and the Player's Handbook gives all the rules for playing the game.

[Aquillion]

Here's the rule: There are exactly three primary source books, and the Player's Handbook gives all the rules for playing the game.No, those are just examples; it's talking about "book and topic precedence", which I read as meaning "the book specifically about a topic has precedence about that topic." Therefore, it gives the PHB precedence over the DMG when it comes to rules for playing the game, because the PHB is the specifically about "playing the game" and the DMG is not. That's why the part you bolded just says "for example."

However, when the Rules Compendium was published, it took precedence over the rules by virtue of being the book most specifically dedicated to that topic.

You're reading it as saying "these three books have ultimate precedence, and nothing else has any precedence at all", but that's clearly not what it's intended to say (it wouldn't say "for example" if they were the only ones!) It's just listing them as an example of the fact that a book specifically about a topic takes precedence over books about other topics.

[Vogonjeltz]

No, those are just examples; it's talking about "book and topic precedence", which I read as meaning "the book specifically about a topic has precedence about that topic." Therefore, it gives the PHB precedence over the DMG when it comes to rules for playing the game, because the PHB is the specifically about "playing the game" and the DMG is not. That's why the part you bolded just says "for example."

However, when the Rules Compendium was published, it took precedence over the rules by virtue of being the book most specifically dedicated to that topic.

You're reading it as saying "these three books have ultimate precedence, and nothing else has any precedence at all", but that's clearly not what it's intended to say (it wouldn't say "for example" if they were the only ones!) It's just listing them as an example of the fact that a book specifically about a topic takes precedence over books about other topics.

When it comes to a head to head competition, that is exactly correct. Every supplement is wrong where it disagrees with the Core books.