Scrolls: why such a high chance of doing nothing?

[Merudo]

Spell scrolls are rare and costly. For example, in Tomb of Annihilation, a level 2 spell scrolls costs 550gp - quite a high sum for the adventure.

You'd think that given their price and rarity, spell scrolls would at least be guaranteed to work. Unfortunately, that is not the case:



If the spell is on your class’s spell list but of a higher level than you can normally cast, you must make an ability check using your Spellcasting Ability to determine whether you cast it successfully. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a failed check, the spell disappears from the scroll with no other effect.

[...]

A Wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as Spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell’s level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed.


Whether it is used to cast a spell or to copied in a spellbook, the spell scroll has a high chance of vanishing without effect, wasting the scroll among with the time spent casting / copying the spell.

I wonder what is the purpose of this mechanic? It is very punishing and frustrating for a player to spend a pricy consumable for no effect.

I would suggest the following change: on a failed check, the scroll is not expended, but cannot be cast or copied again until 24h have passed.

[stoutstien]

Both checks are pretty easy to buff up to the point that failure is a rarely or even an impossibly.

[PhantomSoul]

Maybe I'm just a grouch, but I like that it's not guaranteed: it makes the rewards more interesting, and means that scrolls aren't just free spell slots without risk to throw out during a combat. (It also gives more room for making scrolls to potentially be less broken.)

[LudicSavant]

Some of the text for scrolls looks like it might have been copied from a previous edition without respect for the context that mitigated those lines in previous editions. Which might be why we have the weirdness of learning a spell from a scroll costing more than learning a spell normally.

[MaxWilson]

I wonder what is the purpose of this mechanic? It is very punishing and frustrating for a player to spend a pricy consumable for no effect.

I would suggest the following change: on a failed check, the scroll is not expended, but cannot be cast or copied again until 24h have passed.

What is the purpose? That is an excellent question indeed.

TSR (A)D&D has an interesting mechanic, wherein every time you try to learn a new spell, you have to roll a percentile check governed by your intelligence (ranging from 35% with Int 9 and 55% with Int 14 up to 85% with Int 18) to see whether you can. One purpose this serves is to make spells more esoteric: not every wizard will be able to cast Shield even if they find a spellbook with Shield in it; not every wizard will be able to Fireball even if another wizard in the party knows Fireball; because sometimes the dice are unfriendly. This is especially noteworthy in high-turnover parties because, just like rolling stats, it makes Wizard B who replaces Wizard A after A's death likely to be interestingly different from A even if the player intentions are to make them identical. It increases variety and replayability.

But as stoutsien points out, in 5E it is relatively easy for some parties to render the check irrelevant via Bardic Inspiration/Lucky feat/arguably-Guidance/etc., so is the purpose to reward investments in those abilities? Or is it merely a vestigial allusion to AD&D-style spell learning, stripped of its context and purpose?

This is a great example of a mechanic whose original concept is good but execution is bad (DC [10 + spell level] ability check), perhaps because the designers didn't understand the original concept.

As for your question Merudo, the change you suggest is not terrible, but I personally feel that 24 hours is too short, and the ability check is too swingy. (DC 11 for 1st level and DC 19 for 9th level is not a good model, IMO.) If it were up to me it would be DC (10 + 5 * [levels over your max casting level]) and the duration is "until the DC changes for you." E.g. if you can cast 4th level spells, a 5th level scroll is DC 15 for you and a 6th level scroll is DC 20, and if you fail you can't try again until you can cast 5th level spells.

[Merudo]

Both checks are pretty easy to buff up to the point that failure is a rarely or even an impossibly.

I disagree.

Without spells or class features, the maximum bonus to the casting check is +5. That's not much - casting a 6th level spell has 50% chance of working.

There are a number of spells and abilities that can help, but a party is not guaranteed to have any of them:


Guidance
Enhance Ability
Foresight
Bardic Inspiration
Jack of all Trades
Magical Guidance


Only by stacking multiple of these can the caster have a low chance of failing the check.

Even then the success is not assured: a character with a +5 spellcasting modifier, affected by both Guidance and Enhance Ability, still has a 14.375% chance of wasting a level 6 scroll.

[Hytheter]

Note that in the case of using the scroll to cast, you only need to make a check if you're casting at a higher level than you can actually cast. The intent here is obvious; it inhibits characters from punching above their usual weight class.

[LudicSavant]

What is the purpose? That is an excellent question indeed.

TSR (A)D&D has an interesting mechanic, wherein every time you try to learn a new spell, you have to roll a percentile check governed by your intelligence (ranging from 35% with Int 9 and 55% with Int 14 up to 85% with Int 18) to see whether you can. One purpose this serves is to make spells more esoteric: not every wizard will be able to cast Shield even if they find a spellbook with Shield in it; not every wizard will be able to Fireball even if another wizard in the party knows Fireball; because sometimes the dice are unfriendly. This is especially noteworthy in high-turnover parties because, just like rolling stats, it makes Wizard B who replaces Wizard A after A's death likely to be interestingly different from A even if the player intentions are to make them identical. It increases variety and replayability.

But as stoutsien points out, in 5E it is relatively easy for some parties to render the check irrelevant via Bardic Inspiration/Lucky feat/arguably-Guidance/etc., so is the purpose to reward investments in those abilities? Or is it merely a vestigial allusion to AD&D-style spell learning, stripped of its context and purpose?

This is a great example of a mechanic whose original concept is good but execution is bad (DC [10 + spell level] ability check), perhaps because the designers didn't understand the original concept.

As for your question Merudo, the change you suggest is not terrible, but I personally feel that 24 hours is too short, and the ability check is too swingy. (DC 11 for 1st level and DC 19 for 9th level is not a good model, IMO.) If it were up to me it would be DC (10 + 5 * [levels over your max casting level]) and the duration is "until the DC changes for you." E.g. if you can cast 4th level spells, a 5th level scroll is DC 15 for you and a 6th level scroll is DC 20, and if you fail you can't try again until you can cast 5th level spells.

I suspect several of 5e's worst-thought-out mechanics can be attributed to copying stuff over from older editions without taking into account the full design context of why they were there in said editions.

[stoutstien]

I disagree.

Without spells or class features, the maximum bonus to the casting check is +5. That's not much - casting a 6th level spell has 50% chance of working.

There are a number of spells and abilities that can help, but a party is not guaranteed to have any of them:


Guidance
Enhance Ability
Foresight
Bardic Inspiration
Jack of all Trades
Magical Guidance


Only by stacking multiple of these can the caster have a low chance of failing the check.

Even then the success is not assured: a character with a +5 spellcasting modifier, affected by both Guidance and Enhance Ability, still has a 14.375% chance of wasting a level 6 scroll.

It's a good thing players do have class features and spells to help out. No, they aren't guaranteed but neither are the spell scrolls in questions so that's mostly irrelevant. We're talking about a gate for up casting spell they don't have slots for yet. It should take some teamwork to pull off.

In the wizards spell look version adding proficiency/expertise allows for even higher minimum values.

If all else fails bring an artificer. FoG for a static boost to both checks and they can bypass all restrictions in T3.

Your complaint isn't actually about spell scrolls it's how 5e handles shoving the entire effort of something into a single roll. hence the reason why players really want to get as many modifiers to that single role as possible. If it was the best of out of 3 or something then it wouldn't be so stark but as is the D20 is to random to rely on.

[Valmark]

Note that in the case of using the scroll to cast, you only need to make a check if you're casting at a higher level than you can actually cast. The intent here is obvious; it inhibits characters from punching above their usual weight class.

This. Especially in later levels you'll be able to use most scrolls without an issue- when you do need to make a check like others say you should rely on teamwork or on your own buffs if any, otherwise it makes sense that using a spell you aren't fully capable of handling yet will be difficult.

[ATHATH]

What is the purpose? That is an excellent question indeed.

TSR (A)D&D has an interesting mechanic, wherein every time you try to learn a new spell, you have to roll a percentile check governed by your intelligence (ranging from 35% with Int 9 and 55% with Int 14 up to 85% with Int 18) to see whether you can. One purpose this serves is to make spells more esoteric: not every wizard will be able to cast Shield even if they find a spellbook with Shield in it; not every wizard will be able to Fireball even if another wizard in the party knows Fireball; because sometimes the dice are unfriendly. This is especially noteworthy in high-turnover parties because, just like rolling stats, it makes Wizard B who replaces Wizard A after A's death likely to be interestingly different from A even if the player intentions are to make them identical. It increases variety and replayability.

But as stoutsien points out, in 5E it is relatively easy for some parties to render the check irrelevant via Bardic Inspiration/Lucky feat/arguably-Guidance/etc., so is the purpose to reward investments in those abilities? Or is it merely a vestigial allusion to AD&D-style spell learning, stripped of its context and purpose?

This is a great example of a mechanic whose original concept is good but execution is bad (DC [10 + spell level] ability check), perhaps because the designers didn't understand the original concept.

As for your question Merudo, the change you suggest is not terrible, but I personally feel that 24 hours is too short, and the ability check is too swingy. (DC 11 for 1st level and DC 19 for 9th level is not a good model, IMO.) If it were up to me it would be DC (10 + 5 * [levels over your max casting level]) and the duration is "until the DC changes for you." E.g. if you can cast 4th level spells, a 5th level scroll is DC 15 for you and a 6th level scroll is DC 20, and if you fail you can't try again until you can cast 5th level spells.
I think that these scroll mechanics are trying to emulate UMD (use magic device) checks from 3.5 more than they are trying to emulate spell learning failure chances from 2e.

[Keravath]

Note that in the case of using the scroll to cast, you only need to make a check if you're casting at a higher level than you can actually cast. The intent here is obvious; it inhibits characters from punching above their usual weight class.

This :)

Rolling to cast a spell from a scroll only applies if:
1) The spell is ON your character's spell list
2) The spell is of a level you can't cast yet

The DC11 for a first level spell only ever comes into play for 1/2 or 1/3 casters and only at level 1 or 2 for example. Full casters never have to roll for 1st level spell scrolls.

-----

If I was going to change the mechanic at all it would be to adjust the DC to incorporate the level difference between what the character can already cast and the level of the scroll. As a result, a character who can cast 5th level spells would have a DC of 11 to cast a 6th level spell. While a character who couldn't cast spells yet (but it is on their class list) would have a DC of 16 to cast that same spell.

I think it a bit odd that a first level spell caster and a ninth level spell caster with the same intelligence would have the same chance to successfully cast a 6th level spell from a scroll.

-----

I'd probably extend the same mechanic to the DCs for dispel magic and counterspell by setting the roll to be the level difference between the spell slot used to cast counterspell/dispel magic and the level of the spell effect to be dispelled/countered. It is occasionally irritating that upcasting dispel magic or counterspell is an auto-success if you meet or exceed the level of the targeted effect but otherwise upcasting has no effect on the DC required to dispel/counter.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

This :)

Rolling to cast a spell from a scroll only applies if:
1) The spell is ON your character's spell list
2) The spell is of a level you can't cast yet

The DC11 for a first level spell only ever comes into play for 1/2 or 1/3 casters and only at level 1 or 2 for example. Full casters never have to roll for 1st level spell scrolls.

-----

If I was going to change the mechanic at all it would be to adjust the DC to incorporate the level difference between what the character can already cast and the level of the scroll. As a result, a character who can cast 5th level spells would have a DC of 11 to cast a 6th level spell. While a character who couldn't cast spells yet (but it is on their class list) would have a DC of 16 to cast that same spell.

I think it a bit odd that a first level spell caster and a ninth level spell caster with the same intelligence would have the same chance to successfully cast a 6th level spell from a scroll.

-----

I'd probably extend the same mechanic to the DCs for dispel magic and counterspell by setting the roll to be the level difference between the spell slot used to cast counterspell/dispel magic and the level of the spell effect to be dispelled/countered. It is occasionally irritating that upcasting dispel magic or counterspell is an auto-success if you meet or exceed the level of the targeted effect but otherwise upcasting has no effect on the DC required to dispel/counter.

I agree that caster level should play a part. Adding proficiency would accomplish much the same thing.

Though to the OP, I do agree with other responses that scrolls could become overpowered without some mechanic to limit their use. It seems more reasonable to me that they work 100% of the time for casters of appropriate level and not for others. Frankly I think some of the failures should be backfires or random results. Just because something is expensive doesn't make it designed for everyone's use; not all characters could pick up a +1 Greatsword and use it effectively, much less a Holy Avenger.

[Dork_Forge]

Spell scrolls are rare and costly. For example, in Tomb of Annihilation, a level 2 spell scrolls costs 550gp - quite a high sum for the adventure.

You'd think that given their price and rarity, spell scrolls would at least be guaranteed to work. Unfortunately, that is not the case:



Whether it is used to cast a spell or to copied in a spellbook, the spell scroll has a high chance of vanishing without effect, wasting the scroll among with the time spent casting / copying the spell.

I wonder what is the purpose of this mechanic? It is very punishing and frustrating for a player to spend a pricy consumable for no effect.

I would suggest the following change: on a failed check, the scroll is not expended, but cannot be cast or copied again until 24h have passed.-+

I think this is overlooking a couple of key things:

-The amassing of large amounts of gold is a problem that is discussed fairly regularly, turning scrolls into a reliable way of converting gold into in game/in combat power is going to skew things quite a lot.

-PCs making the casting check are casting spells above their level, the check is there to keep things somewhat... in check. But PCs can also make spell scrolls, if the check became trivialised then suddenly you can have scrolls being scribed and passed around the party. Like a Wizard scribing for an Artificer, a Cleric scribing for a Paladin or an Artificer scribing for a bunch of people since their spell list is such a mash of other lists and they can craft them cheaply. Making it easier would make it a significant point to exploit, and even if it's a minority, there will be people that would do it.

[Amdy_vill]

Spell scrolls are rare and costly. For example, in Tomb of Annihilation, a level 2 spell scrolls costs 550gp - quite a high sum for the adventure.

You'd think that given their price and rarity, spell scrolls would at least be guaranteed to work. Unfortunately, that is not the case:



Whether it is used to cast a spell or to copied in a spellbook, the spell scroll has a high chance of vanishing without effect, wasting the scroll among with the time spent casting / copying the spell.

I wonder what is the purpose of this mechanic? It is very punishing and frustrating for a player to spend a pricy consumable for no effect.

I would suggest the following change: on a failed check, the scroll is not expended, but cannot be cast or copied again until 24h have passed.

the checks are rather easy for most casters, tho ranger, paladin, cleric, and eldritch knight will have problems. these mechanics are mostly about stopping the snowballing from extra spell slots. having extra casts and spells access is really powerful. Tho the cost is a problem at least in the crafting area, I think it should be more cantrip 50gp, 1st 75gp, 2nd 150gp, 3rd 250gp, 4th 500gp, 5th 1,000gp, 6th 2,000gp, 7th 5,000gp, 8th 10,000gp, 9th 25,000gp

[Composer99]

Scrolls of spells whose levels you can already cast are guaranteed to work. Scrolls of higher level spells aren't.

Apart from quibbling over the DC, I don't see the problem.

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe I'm just a grouch, but I like that it's not guaranteed: I hate it. And I hate it because in OD&D and AD&D 1e they were a great boon; you could get a single chance at a higher level spell if you found a scroll.

The first time we had to use raise dead in 5e (our bard had fallen off of a 200 foot cliff, level 6, dead dead dead) I got out the raise dead scroll we'd found after beating the quest boss two sessions previous. I had not read the DMG rules on that stuff, first campaign, mostly PHB focused on my tempest cleric.

When the DM said I had to roll for it I went off on him.
*What do you mean? Cleric scroll, I am a cleric!*

I had no idea 3.x had established that DC thing on scrolls years before and it ported in to 5e from there. (I later apologized to him. I was relying on TSR era knowledge, which was just not correct).

But I still hate it. But I now accept it as a mechanical thing that's different in these WoTC editions.

[Valmark]

I hate it. And I hate it because in OD&D and AD&D 1e they were a great boon; you could get a single chance at a higher level spell if you found a scroll.

The first time we had to use raise dead in 5e (our bard had fallen off of a 200 foot cliff, level 6, dead dead dead) I got out the raise dead scroll we'd found after beating the quest boss two sessions previous. I had not read the DMG rules on that stuff, first campaign, mostly PHB focused on my tempest cleric.

When the DM said I had to roll for it I went off on him.
*What do you mean? Cleric scroll, I am a cleric!*

I had no idea 3.x had established that DC thing on scrolls years before and it ported in to 5e from there. (I later apologized to him. I was relying on TSR era knowledge, which was just not correct).

But I still hate it. But I now accept it as a mechanical thing that's different in these WoTC editions.

I played 3.5 and I didn't know it either, color me surprised. Although to be fair reading the rules it was much easier back then- the DC was the required caster level +1 and you added your own level to the roll, so unless there was an outstanding difference it wasn't as hard as in 5e.

Also 3.5 scrolls didn't destroy on a failed use and you could try again, unless you were really unlucky.

[Yakk]

If I was going to change the mechanic at all it would be to adjust the DC to incorporate the level difference between what the character can already cast and the level of the scroll. As a result, a character who can cast 5th level spells would have a DC of 11 to cast a 6th level spell. While a character who couldn't cast spells yet (but it is on their class list) would have a DC of 16 to cast that same spell.

I think it a bit odd that a first level spell caster and a ninth level spell caster with the same intelligence would have the same chance to successfully cast a 6th level spell from a scroll.
The 9th level caster should have more resources to cheat with.

Enhance ability is on a lot of spell lists, so being 3rd level and being able to burn a 2nd level slot and concentration is a huge boon.

And a 9th level spell caster is likely to have 20 intelligence, while a 1st is likely to have 1. So the 9th level character is rolling 2d20dl+5 against DC 16 (75% chance of success), while the 1st level caster is rolling 1d20+3 vs DC 16 (40% chance of success).

If that 9th level spellcaster isn't alone, and that 6th level spell is important (it better be), that 9th level spellcaster might also have guildance (more cantrips on allies) and inspiration (1d10), making it a near certainty that the 6th level spell goes off.

Those same resources are harder to come by at level 1.

[DwarfFighter]

Can ability check boosts that have a shorter run-time than an activity even affect the check?

Guidance lasts for a minute. Is the Cleric constantly massaging the Wizard's shoulders while they are working on copying a spell?

-DF

[Dork_Forge]

Can ability check boosts that have a shorter run-time than an activity even affect the check?

Guidance lasts for a minute. Is the Cleric constantly massaging the Wizard's shoulders while they are working on copying a spell?

-DF

I'm not sure on the RAW but this comes up regularly in one of my games where two PCs have Guidance. I don't allow it for extended activities, I feel that's a bridge too far when the skill system isn't terribly challenging to begin with (hilarious side note, it took that same party 5 attempts to get an adequate sleight of hand roll for binding a prisoner).

[quindraco]

Can ability check boosts that have a shorter run-time than an activity even affect the check?

Guidance lasts for a minute. Is the Cleric constantly massaging the Wizard's shoulders while they are working on copying a spell?

-DF

We don't know, but that's only important for consumed things, like a Peace Cleric's Emboldening Bond. Guidance is free, so the cleric can spam it, so whenever the check occurs, it's available - i.e. the cleric can guarantee that on every turn the wizard has for an entire day, Guidance is up, if necessary. That's more time than even a 9th level spell takes to copy.

Now, if your wizard is multiclassed into Stars Druid and the Guidance cleric is a Peace cleric applying the Bond, you'll need a ruling on the Bond and the Dragon constellation - both are duration 10 minutes and both consume a consumable resource (pb/long rest and 2/short rest, respectively).

[Tanarii]

Can ability check boosts that have a shorter run-time than an activity even affect the check?

Guidance lasts for a minute. Is the Cleric constantly massaging the Wizard's shoulders while they are working on copying a spell?

-DF
Yeah guidance definitely would not work for that check. Nor would enhance ability, since it only lasts for an hour.

[CapnWildefyr]

I hate it. And I hate it because in OD&D and AD&D 1e they were a great boon; you could get a single chance at a higher level spell if you found a scroll.

The first time we had to use raise dead in 5e (our bard had fallen off of a 200 foot cliff, level 6, dead dead dead) I got out the raise dead scroll we'd found after beating the quest boss two sessions previous. I had not read the DMG rules on that stuff, first campaign, mostly PHB focused on my tempest cleric.

When the DM said I had to roll for it I went off on him.
*What do you mean? Cleric scroll, I am a cleric!*

I had no idea 3.x had established that DC thing on scrolls years before and it ported in to 5e from there. (I later apologized to him. I was relying on TSR era knowledge, which was just not correct).

But I still hate it. But I now accept it as a mechanical thing that's different in these WoTC editions.

Actually, there was a table based on caster level needed - your level. You not only could have the spell fail, there was also an increasing percentage of backfire. There's a table in the DMG where they describe spell scrolls.

Personally I don't have a problem with some kind of check. I mean, if you hand out too much cash, do you need a 2nd level wizard using Power Word Kill and Meteor Swarm? Because if there's no check, that's what I would be doing. Or at least fireball, force cage, etc.

The problem it seems we have it that we want more granularity in the check, but they wrote the rules using the KISS principle. If you don't mind a little math slowing things down -- or better yet if you have your players calculate and record their success chances ahead of time -- then go off of the caster level difference, like in the "good ol' days." [or, OK days? or We had fun anyway days?] That way, a 1st level PC using PWK has a DC of 10 + 17 -1 = 26. A 14th level has 10+17-14=13 DC. If you just use the spell level, the curve is less steep. And as others have said, when you add a probable Int bonus in there at 14th, you're like what? DC9? 60%?

[x3n0n]

The problem it seems we have it that we want more granularity in the check, but they wrote the rules using the KISS principle. If you don't mind a little math slowing things down -- or better yet if you have your players calculate and record their success chances ahead of time -- then go off of the caster level difference, like in the "good ol' days." [or, OK days? or We had fun anyway days?] That way, a 1st level PC using PWK has a DC of 10 + 17 -1 = 26. A 14th level has 10+17-14=13 DC. If you just use the spell level, the curve is less steep. And as others have said, when you add a probable Int bonus in there at 14th, you're like what? DC9? 60%?

I think I'd prefer a world where it's a hybrid between this and MaxWilson's suggestion above: low DC if you only need a single additional "caster level" to get there, rising more steeply than 1 per level.

Something like DC = 7 + 3 x (minimum number of additional character level advancements needed to learn the spell naturally in a (sub-)class in which you already have one level).
(That is, if you only need one more level, the DC should be 10, and should rise steeply. 3 is very steep; 2 might be good enough, or maybe 2.5 rounded down, which is basically 5 * spell level.)

Character has 2 Wizard levels and is trying to cast a 2nd-level Wizard spell, learned as a 3rd-level Wizard? 1 more Wizard level needed, DC 7+3=10.
Paladin 3, 2nd-level Paladin spell (learned at Paladin 5)? 2 more levels, DC 7+6=13.
Arcane Trickster 3, 2nd-level Wizard Enchantment/Illusion spell? 2nd-level spells come at AT 7, so 4 levels needed, DC 7+12=21 (or 8+8 for 16, if multiplier is 2).
AT 3/Wiz 1, 2nd-level Wizard spell? Wiz 3 *or* AT 7, Wiz 3 is closer, DC 7+6=13.
Wiz 1, 9th-level spell (Wiz 17): 16 levels needed, DC 7+48=55. (Good luck with that; maybe the 2 8+32=40 is fairer.)

As long as I'm making house rules, a Magic Initiate can scroll-cast cantrips or 1st-level spells with a DC 10 check (i.e. one additional caster level needed; not sure if I'd extend it to higher-level spells.)

I like how this interacts with multiclassing: a Wiz 1/Cleric 16 doesn't get easy Wishes, unless they're an Arcana Cleric.

Edit: also, I'd keep Max's wording for the conditions after failure: you can't try again until your DC changes, which will be the next time you gain a level in one of the relevant (sub-)classes.

[Keravath]

Yeah guidance definitely would not work for that check. Nor would enhance ability, since it only lasts for an hour.

Decided that an alternate reading of the guidance spell wording really didn't make much sense so I deleted the response :)

[SharkForce]

I hate it. And I hate it because in OD&D and AD&D 1e they were a great boon; you could get a single chance at a higher level spell if you found a scroll.

The first time we had to use raise dead in 5e (our bard had fallen off of a 200 foot cliff, level 6, dead dead dead) I got out the raise dead scroll we'd found after beating the quest boss two sessions previous. I had not read the DMG rules on that stuff, first campaign, mostly PHB focused on my tempest cleric.

When the DM said I had to roll for it I went off on him.
*What do you mean? Cleric scroll, I am a cleric!*

I had no idea 3.x had established that DC thing on scrolls years before and it ported in to 5e from there. (I later apologized to him. I was relying on TSR era knowledge, which was just not correct).

But I still hate it. But I now accept it as a mechanical thing that's different in these WoTC editions.

a chance of failing to use a spell scroll above your level was a thing in AD&D 2nd edition too. I can't be 100% certain of any edition earlier than that, as I haven't really played them, but I suspect they were the same. it isn't something even remotely new, unless you've been learning from video games that are only *based* on the rules.

on a side note, don't buy spell scrolls to learn spells. worst-case scenario, the wizard you're learning from will need a few hours and a much smaller amount of gold to make a spare spellbook with only that one spell in it, and you can then use that to learn the spell instead. the wizard you learned from can keep the spare spellbook both as a spare and as something they can reuse if they ever sell spell knowledge again, making it better for them too; they can charge less total gold and make the same (or greater) profit.

it is cheaper and easier and better for everyone involved.

the only reason to scribe a spell from a scroll is that you don't have anywhere else you could learn it from.

[Tanarii]

on a side note, don't buy spell scrolls to learn spells. worst-case scenario, the wizard you're learning from will need a few hours and a much smaller amount of gold to make a spare spellbook with only that one spell in it, and you can then use that to learn the spell instead. the wizard you learned from can keep the spare spellbook both as a spare and as something they can reuse if they ever sell spell knowledge again, making it better for them too; they can charge less total gold and make the same (or greater) profit.

it is cheaper and easier and better for everyone involved.

the only reason to scribe a spell from a scroll is that you don't have anywhere else you could learn it from.
I really hate that you can learn spells from other casters spell books. At the very least it should be harder than a scroll.

[stoutstien]

I really hate that you can learn spells from other casters spell books. At the very least it should be harder than a scroll.

Agreed. I personally allow it as written if the original publisher of the spell book is available to help you translate it but if you just find a book and try to copy it the difficulty varies.

I also added a few trap spells that don't do what they say they do. Paranoid wizards will be paranoid yo.

[CapnWildefyr]

Agreed. I personally allow it as written if the original publisher of the spell book is available to help you translate it but if you just find a book and try to copy it the difficulty varies.

I also added a few trap spells that don't do what they say they do. Paranoid wizards will be paranoid yo.

Yeah, buying a spell book and then using it like a scroll, and it's cheaper than the scroll would be?... something's wrong. But if you buy the spell, you do have to spend the hours and money to copy it down into your spellbook, right? So purchase price + copy price + time, and you still have to come up with the material components too.

Paranoid wizards... I remember one put a disintegrate on every page. Every. Page. And don't forget contact poison in the ink, and ingestible poison on the page corners and edges (y'know, so when you lick your fingers to turn a page...).

[noob]

Yeah, buying a spell book and then using it like a scroll, and it's cheaper than the scroll would be?... something's wrong. But if you buy the spell, you do have to spend the hours and money to copy it down into your spellbook, right? So purchase price + copy price + time, and you still have to come up with the material components too.

Paranoid wizards... I remember one put a disintegrate on every page. Every. Page. And don't forget contact poison in the ink, and ingestible poison on the page corners and edges (y'know, so when you lick your fingers to turn a page...).
What is important is not protecting the pages: it is protecting the book as a whole.
Like a ten tons book that fly around and breath fire at opponents(the only issue is convincing the book to stay still long enough for the paranoid wizard to prepare its spells)
Or a book entirely made of magically reinforced(through wish) voidstone that thanks to the reinforcement is immune to magic (and because it is voidstone you can not really grab it or touch it with anything) that the paranoid wizard reads by looking through it because they are attuned with the void.

[SharkForce]

I really hate that you can learn spells from other casters spell books. At the very least it should be harder than a scroll.

why? their spellbook is *literally* their record of how they learned the spell and understand it.

*not* being able to learn a spell from a list of instructions on how to use the spell would be the weird thing.

frankly, if learning a spell from any source is weird, it is learning it from a scroll, which is basically just a single-use spell stored on paper. you are taking something that usually requires a bunch of experimentation and figuring it out from a single casting of the spell... it *should* be hard to learn spells from scrolls.

[Tanarii]

why? their spellbook is *literally* their record of how they learned the spell and understand it.

*not* being able to learn a spell from a list of instructions on how to use the spell would be the weird thing.My personal assumptions from a in-universe perspective:
Because it's in the casters own personal special code, unlike a spell scroll, which is in universal code that anyone can read and trigger the spell. And on top of that the caster gets additional information from triggering the scroll's spell energy. From that they get to figure it out. So to copy from a spell book they have to decipher a code AND don't get to analyze the magical energy. At the very least, that should be more difficult.

My personal assumptions, from a DM perspective:
Wizards already get suffice t spells even before they find a single additional spell. They don't need it to be simple to find additional spells, turning over a small amount (for adventurers) of gold. They need it to be fairly difficult, and to require delving into ancient ruins looking for power and secrets. Even if easily buying Wizard spells is a thing, at the very least they should be priced as a permanent Magic item, since they're forever. Pricing them as a scroll is already cheap. Making it dirt cheap per spell book copying costs makes Wizards OPer than they already are.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I hate it. And I hate it because in OD&D and AD&D 1e they were a great boon; you could get a single chance at a higher level spell if you found a scroll.


a chance of failing to use a spell scroll above your level was a thing in AD&D 2nd edition too. I can't be 100% certain of any edition earlier than that, as I haven't really played them, but I suspect they were the same.

A chance of failure when using a scroll to cast a spell beyond your caster level, has existed since 1e AD&D. The scroll could even be miscast and 'rebound' and affect the caster.

Ahh the joys of placing a scroll of Fireball, scribed at 20th level....a 20d6 Fiery explosion that expands to fill 33K Cubic Feet....with 2nd level characters....what can go wrong?🃏

From the 1e AD&D DMG, (Efreet Cover):
Magic Spell Failure: If a spell-user acquires a scroll with a spell(s) of a level(s) not yet usoble by the character, the spell-user may still attempt to use the spell; the chance of failure, or other bad effect, is5% per level difference between the character's present level and the level of magic use at which the spell could be used. For example, a 1st level magic-user finds a scroll with a wish spell inscribed upon it. The chance of failure is 85%, as wish is a spell of 9th level magic attained at 18th level of magic use- 18- 1 = 17 X 5% = 85%. Dice are rolled, and any score of 85 or less indicates failure of some sort, and the following table is consulted:

[SharkForce]

My personal assumptions from a in-universe perspective:
Because it's in the casters own personal special code, unlike a spell scroll, which is in universal code that anyone can read and trigger the spell. And on top of that the caster gets additional information from triggering the scroll's spell energy. From that they get to figure it out. So to copy from a spell book they have to decipher a code AND don't get to analyze the magical energy. At the very least, that should be more difficult.

My personal assumptions, from a DM perspective:
Wizards already get suffice t spells even before they find a single additional spell. They don't need it to be simple to find additional spells, turning over a small amount (for adventurers) of gold. They need it to be fairly difficult, and to require delving into ancient ruins looking for power and secrets. Even if easily buying Wizard spells is a thing, at the very least they should be priced as a permanent Magic item, since they're forever. Pricing them as a scroll is already cheap. Making it dirt cheap per spell book copying costs makes Wizards OPer than they already are.

they already have their top 4+ spells of each level. they're probably going to prepare mostly the same ones all the time anyways, which means they've already got their "standard" spell list and one or more backups at most levels.

I think your concerns may be overblown. yes, they'll be able to pick up the next best option. maybe they'll even pick up the occasional ritual. but mostly not.

wizard ability to transform money into power primarily comes from stuff like glyph of warding and planar binding and simulacrum. stuff that potentially adds to their total resources and active options. that stuff that lets them say "hold on, if we take a rest for a day I can come back tomorrow with something that is ever-so-slightly better in this situation" is comparatively minor.

also, just because a wizard *can* sell spell knowledge for a tiny fraction of the scroll cost doesn't mean they aren't still going to charge as much as they can get away with. sure, they *could* sell a level 1 spell for as little as 60ish gold without losing money. but that doesn't mean they won't charge a lot more if they can get away with it.

as to the spells all being in code, it can't be that complicated or the wizard wouldn't be able to read it. in earlier editions when it was 10 minutes per spell level to memorize a spell, and a level 15 wizard basically had to spend a whole day getting spells back if they spent everything, I could believe there's some exceptionally complex code that can't be broken with a little effort. when it's basically as much time as it takes a warrior to catch their breath... that's a bit of a stretch for me.

[DwarfFighter]

why? their spellbook is *literally* their record of how they learned the spell and understand it.


If it's anything like a journal or study-notes, I'm sure the author is going to skip parts of the instructions that they thinks is self-evident, based on their subjective understanding of the spell. Having the author at hand to explain what they meant when they wrote "make the thing that does the thing" should be pretty helpful.

[Valmark]

Wasn't there a decifering check needed to even be able to read someone else's spellbook?

[Amnestic]

Wasn't there a decifering check needed to even be able to read someone else's spellbook?

Not that I can find. Just time and gold.


Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.

For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.

Ritual Caster also notes you can copy stuff from spellbooks without any sort of check:


Ritual Caster

Prerequisite: Intelligence or Wisdom 13 or higher

You have learned a number of spells you can cast as rituals. These spells are written in a ritual book, which you must have on hand when casting one of them.

When you gain this feat, choose one of the following classes: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. You acquire a ritual book holding two 1st level spells with the ritual tag, which must be on the list of the chosen class. Your casting ability for these rituals are the same as the chosen class (Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid; Intelligence for wizard).

If you come across a spell in written from, such as a magical scroll or a wizard's spellbook, you might be able to add it to your ritual book. The spell must be on the spell list for the class you chose, the spell's level must not be higher than half your level (rounded up), and it must have the ritual tag. The process of copying the spell into your ritual books takes 2 hours per level of the spells, and costs 50 gp per level of the spell. This cost represents material components spent on practicing the spell, as well as the fine inks you must use to record it.

[JonBeowulf]

Ritual Caster also notes you can copy stuff from spellbooks without any sort of check:
Yeah, but there are only 34 spells with the ritual tag (in PHB and XGtE) and you're further limited by the list of the chosen class. Best case is go Wizard, start with 2, and hope to find a few of the other 17... of which only a few are worth the effort.

[greenstone]

…the spell scroll has a high chance of vanishing without effect
Not high at all. It is an ability check (bless, bardic inspiration, guidance, jack of all trades, etc all apply) on your spellcrafting ability (already high).

[Merudo]

Not high at all. It is an ability check [...] on your spellcrafting ability (already high).

The spell casting ability is at most 5, that's not really high at all...

[Dork_Forge]

The spell casting ability is at most 5, that's not really high at all...

It's a decent chance at casting magic more powerful than you're normally capable of, if you already are capable then it's basically free slots of a spell you may not even know. I'd argue that the check if anything may be on the easy side for what scrolls can achieve.

[Tanarii]

It's a decent chance at casting magic more powerful than you're normally capable of, if you already are capable then it's basically free slots of a spell you may not even know. I'd argue that the check if anything may be on the easy side for what scrolls can achieve.
Keep in mind that the point of comparison is a single spell spell book, which is both cheaper than a scroll to produce, and 100% success rate.

I don't like it but that's the natural result of the PHB copy a spell book rule.

Of course, it depends on the DM including NPCs that use spell books in their world, who are also willing to spend some time and money to make cash. (Edit: to be clear, I'm referring to NPCs not automatically using PC rules.)

[Chauncymancer]

I suspect several of 5e's worst-thought-out mechanics can be attributed to copying stuff over from older editions without taking into account the full design context of why they were there in said editions.
My take away from everything I've consumed about the 5e playtest is that these artifacts were originally removed, but the alpha play testers' response was overwhelmingly negative.

[Dork_Forge]

Keep in mind that the point of comparison is a single spell spell book, which is both cheaper than a scroll to produce, and 100% success rate.

I don't like it but that's the natural result of the PHB copy a spell book rule.

Of course, it depends on the DM including NPCs that use spell books in their world, who are also willing to spend some time and money to make cash. (Edit: to be clear, I'm referring to NPCs not automatically using PC rules.)

But a spell book (assuming we're talking Wizards here) doesn't allow you to just cast anything, and when you do learn it you have to prepare and expend a slot as normal.

To clarify I was talking specifically about the check to cast from scrolls that contain a higher level spell then you can normally cast, so I'm unsure what the comparison is?

Edit: Just in case you are talking about the copying rules, that's an Arcana check not a casting check, so that's even easier to pass, but since Merudo was talking about a casting mod in the post I replied to I assumed it was for casting from a scroll of higher level.

[Tanarii]

To clarify I was talking specifically about the check to cast from scrolls that contain a higher level spell then you can normally cast, so I'm unsure what the comparison is?
Oops, good clarification, I wasn't following the convo properly. I was thinking of the check to copy it into a new spell book.

Edit: and following the chain back, I'll note the OP hasn't posted to acknowledge since it was clarified that the casting check only applies to higher level spells than the PC can cast, which they apparently weren't aware of from the phrasing of their 2nd post.

[Sigreid]

If you're not doing AL or open table etc. and you don't like the rule, talk to your group. See if you can all agree to just let the scrolls work. Not going to hurt anybody or anything.