Post/Author/DateTime	Post
soonerpat 03-05-07, 12:56 PM	Today's "Ask Wizards" question deals with something I have been given conflicting information on. I have wanted to craft a scroll with more than one spell before (eg, 3 first level spells on a single scroll, costing 37.5 GP and 3 XP). Today's says that this is legal, you can create scrolls like this, and do it in less than a day. Is this legal in Greyhawk? May a spell caster scribe a scroll with more than 1 spell on it? Is there a limit? Can't find anything about this in the LGCS. Thanks - pat Smith
Howie23 03-05-07, 05:23 PM	Today's "Ask Wizards" question deals with something I have been given conflicting information on. I have wanted to craft a scroll with more than one spell before (eg, 3 first level spells on a single scroll, costing 37.5 GP and 3 XP). Today's says that this is legal, you can create scrolls like this, and do it in less than a day. Is this legal in Greyhawk? May a spell caster scribe a scroll with more than 1 spell on it? Is there a limit? Can't find anything about this in the LGCS. Thanks - pat Smith There used to be a restriction on putting only one spell on a scroll. That appears to have gone away in the new LGCS (I can't find it either). There are a number of quiet changes that have taken place that will take a while for people to get used to. In particular, campaign specific rules that have now returned to core rules have just quietly been deleted. David
Arvagor 03-05-07, 07:19 PM	I would suggest, however, that even if the LG "rule" no longer appears to be in place, that it is still a good idea to keep it at one spell per scroll. Otherwise, I can see having issues with some DMs when you try to use the "Right Scroll for the Job" rewards card. More importantly, which would you rather have destroyed/sundered -- a scroll with one spell on it, or a scroll with up to 5 spells on it? :eek:
soonerpat 03-05-07, 07:43 PM	No doubt there is more risk with multiple spells per scroll... However if the choice is there, there might be times where it's something I want to do. For example, a scroll with 5 buff or protection spells for that one time when you know everyone's going to be facing fire in the next encounter... Right now I'm just trying to find out what's kosher. It would be fine with me if there's a dispel confusion or official ruling made.. but in light of the Wizards official ruling I'd recommend some kind of ruling, or else it will be a point of contention. pat
Jay_Ibero_911 03-05-07, 08:31 PM	Is there any benefit to scribing multiple spells onto a single scroll? Costs the same and takes the same ammount of time right?
Howie23 03-05-07, 08:50 PM	Is there any benefit to scribing multiple spells onto a single scroll? Costs the same and takes the same ammount of time right? Three possible benefits off the top of my head: 1) weight (scroll cases are 0.5 lbs each). 2) reduced number of move actions spent on retreiving scrolls 3) a scroll is a single item, regardless of how many spells are on it. Each takes 1 day per 1000gp base price (but could be multiple spells). That means that a single TU of scribing could produce many, many more scribed spells than currently. David
ShinAkuma2 03-05-07, 08:54 PM	You're supposed to keep track of weight...More scrolls means more weight. Also, it's fewer move actions to expend drawing if you need multiples.
Timlagor 03-05-07, 09:20 PM	The big one is the crafting time. http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11677418&postcount=308
Jay_Ibero_911 03-05-07, 11:22 PM	Three possible benefits off the top of my head: 1) weight (scroll cases are 0.5 lbs each). 2) reduced number of move actions spent on retreiving scrolls 3) a scroll is a single item, regardless of how many spells are on it. Each takes 1 day per 1000gp base price (but could be multiple spells). That means that a single TU of scribing could produce many, many more scribed spells than currently. David So basically it lets you scribe more than 5 spells at a time. Total number of TU's would be the same though, as that is based on price. You could make a virtual wand in scroll form for slightly greater price...Scroll of 50 lesser vigors CL1, 50x1x1x25=1250gp, so 625gp cost to the scriber...slightly cheaper than buying a wand...Or to get the most out of your TU, a scroll of 200 lesser vigors=200x1x1x25=5000, 2500gp for the scriber....PLENTY of out of combat healing there....Nice for those clerics with the Rune domain...
Gwumph 03-06-07, 12:21 AM	This question came up a little while ago. The circle was quite clear on this. 5 scribed spell per TU They were hazy on if you could have multiple spells on a single scroll. But they were quite clear that you could do a maximum 5 scribed spells/5000 gp for your 1 TU. They specifically addressed the multiple low level spells per day and stated that it did not apply. (But then again i'm not a circle member, so feel free to ignore what i just wrote)
Howie23 03-06-07, 12:00 PM	This question came up a little while ago. The circle was quite clear on this. 5 scribed spell per TU They were hazy on if you could have multiple spells on a single scroll. But they were quite clear that you could do a maximum 5 scribed spells/5000 gp for your 1 TU. They specifically addressed the multiple low level spells per day and stated that it did not apply. (But then again i'm not a circle member, so feel free to ignore what i just wrote) The old LGCS FAQ ruled that 1day = 1 scroll= 1 spell. This has been eliminated from the new LGCS, leaving us with the core rules, unless there is a surviving LG specific ruling about this. The DMG rules for scroll creation do not have this limit. Does anyone know of a ruling that survives the new LGCS that keeps the LG-specific one-scroll=one-spell limit in place? David
bhale187 03-06-07, 12:25 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=759998&page=11 post 309
Timlagor 03-06-07, 12:37 PM	Britt seems to think that we're back to the Core rules.. Any volunteers to double-check all the old DCs?
soonerpat 03-06-07, 12:49 PM	I checked them all. Nothing in any of them that says you can't do multiple spells/scroll. Combine this with Britt's answer that we fall back to Core rules, and the Wizards official answer and it looks like it's good, until there is a DC that covers it. Thanks all. pat
bhale187 03-06-07, 12:50 PM	It's in the D&D FAQ, that's the only place I know of that addresses it.
Timlagor 03-06-07, 01:15 PM	There is one restriction that may well prevent the 40-spell scroll. You must have the spell prepared for each time you put it on a scroll. I see no reason you shouldn't use your own PoPs to increase this number but 40 is still pushing it. (no reason you can't add some higher level spells though)
pedr 03-06-07, 01:26 PM	I'd also view the fact that the DMG table only offers the possibility of scrolls with six spells on them (the largest random value is 1d6 spells) as a hard limit to the number of spells that could be put on a scroll. Still, it's useful.
chesspiece 03-06-07, 01:33 PM	LGCS596 forbade this in the LG FAQ. It may have been in an earlier version. Apparently this goes back at least to LGCS3.0. It appears this was drawn from a posted Circle ruling on L_G Y!. (Jason Bulmahn back in 2002.) AFAIK, any official post made by a Circle member is binding until revoked by the Circle. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_Greyhawk/message/40894 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_Greyhawk/message/40890 So the big questions - if a Circle member posts a ruling, what would it take to rescind it? Does incorporating & then deliberately removing it from the LGCS count (otherwise there are a boatload of old posts out there to be dredged up)? Or must another Circle member officially post to revoke it? Is LG bound by lost / forgotten posts (and the Eeeevil of Iuz)?
Dragon9 03-06-07, 05:47 PM	Multiple spell scrolls != less weight. Adding an extra spell to the scroll adds "...an extra foot or so... for each extra spell." You still have the weight of an extra scroll for the extra spell. A 40-spell scroll will weight the same as 40 scrolls (extra parchment and reinforcing structures to hold such a monster togeter). A DM would be within their rights to rule that a scroll that huge, if it contained more than a single spell over and over, took extra time to find the right spell "page". It can take a while to sift through 40 feet of spells to find the right one.
bhale187 03-06-07, 05:56 PM	Multiple spell scrolls != less weight. Adding an extra spell to the scroll adds "...an extra foot or so... for each extra spell." You still have the weight of an extra scroll for the extra spell. A 40-spell scroll will weight the same as 40 scrolls (extra parchment and reinforcing structures to hold such a monster togeter). . Do you have a reference point for that?
Dragon9 03-06-07, 06:14 PM	Do you have a reference point for that? Under physical description in Scrolls in the MIC section of the rules: "A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper. An area about 8 ½ inches wide and 11 inches long is sufficient to hold one spell. The sheet is reinforced at the top and bottom with strips of leather slightly longer than the sheet is wide. A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8 ½ inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each extra spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simple strips of leather." The longer it is, the more "sheets" are included and the more reinforcing material is needed. To say that a scroll with 100 spells weighs the same as a single one is preposterous.
Timlagor 03-06-07, 08:50 PM	Actually a post made by a Circle member has absolutely no binding force whatsoever. They are a useful precedent and indication of likely official rulings though. The Circle are pretty careful about this stuff now. The LGCS is the official Rules source for the campaign. The LGCS makes DC and FAQ also binding as well as specifying books with rules in. Nowhere does it give Circle Members the power to make rulings binding on the campaign except through publication of the LGCS and now the Dispel Confusions. ..of course it also never allowed authors to put Restricted Spells into their modules 'offscreen' but that didn't stop them putting it in the writers guidelines (which had/have no overt standing at all) and several modules. Nonetheless it is definitely helpful to have everyone doing the same thing and when a Circle Member posts as a Circle Member we should heed them (and not only because that's how it will be ruled if it does appear in a future DC/LGCS). They have been very good about putting their rulings into the DCs since DCs began. LGCS596 forbade this in the LG FAQ. It may have been in an earlier version. Apparently this goes back at least to LGCS3.0. It appears this was drawn from a posted Circle ruling on L_G Y!. (Jason Bulmahn back in 2002.) AFAIK, any official post made by a Circle member is binding until revoked by the Circle. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_Greyhawk/message/40894 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_Greyhawk/message/40890 So the big questions - if a Circle member posts a ruling, what would it take to rescind it? Does incorporating & then deliberately removing it from the LGCS count (otherwise there are a boatload of old posts out there to be dredged up)? Or must another Circle member officially post to revoke it? Is LG bound by lost / forgotten posts (and the Eeeevil of Iuz)? A later post by another Circle member would certainly wipe out such a post.
chesspiece 03-07-07, 12:33 AM	Timalgor, I agree with you except for your suggestion that "a post made by a Circle member has absolutely no binding force whatsoever." I'm actually hoping there will be a DC / Circle ruling that will say that all non-DC posts pre-2007 can be considered 'unofficial advice' unless reposted. Even better would be if they just trusted everyone to use Common Sense. :eek: My brain is hurting from this paradox of LG rules. LGCS doesn't allow for Circle postings to be official rules of the campaign. But based on history and recent posts, I believe that Circle posts are official - even though the LGCS doesn't say so. Other than the post on UMD and crafting, all the answers in here are safe to use as official answers. The safe answer is they are only official when we say "this is official". That said, this thread is 99% official. I think there was one post I made early on that was not an actual ruling. If I say "I think", it's not official. Also, if I take out my signature, that is a pretty good indicator that it is unofficial. There will probably be times where we don't say "this is official", but you will be able to tell from context that it is. In an effort to keep proper context, these posts were pre-LGCS597. So maybe the above was changed and Official posts are no longer Official. (Ow, my brain.) Frankly, I feel that even if it isn't stated in the LGCS, it is evident that the Circle must be able to make official rulings as required (and not be limited to publishing DCs). Going back to the Common Sense thing. I know that there used to be an LG rule against multiple scrolls on a spell. Until I hear it's rescinded (or a Player shows me a post to that effect), I won't allow multi-spell scrolls to be MIC'd. OTOH, I've seen recent posts that confirmed rules were deliberately removed from LGCS (bows with +4Str max, CL prereq's for MIC, etc.) so I'm not going to worry if there are old "official Circle posts" on these. ... unless Britt & Co over-rule me.
Britt 03-07-07, 12:52 AM	Official and binding are two completely different things. An official clarification is basically a way of telling people that they are reading something incorrectly. A binding ruling is usually needed when an errata is in order. A clarification is something you can use to say "no, idiot, you're misreading that. The Circle made an official post on that." A binding ruling is something you use to say "no, that's not the rule anymore (or no, the correct interpretation is xxx) according to the latest DC." A clarification is effectively what we think the rule says, not a change to the rules or a choice of two equally valid interpretations.
King Kashue 03-07-07, 01:31 AM	I.e., an "official clarification" means Britt is correct because he can explain the difference between modus tollens and modus ponens ;) Actually, I don't know what that has to do with anything, I just wanted to write "modus tollens" :D
Britt 03-07-07, 01:45 AM	I.e., an "official clarification" means Britt is correct because he can explain the difference between modus tollens and modus ponens ;) Actually, I don't know what that has to do with anything, I just wanted to write "modus tollens" :D Ahh, that brings a proverbial tear to my cold, calculating, logician's eye...
Gwumph 03-07-07, 01:53 AM	LOL I love it when Britt comes on like that. Everything goes dead quiet afterwards!!! Ok Britt Having read the various arguments and your post about following core rules..... In your (opinion/Circle answer/your choice) are you allowed to scribe multiple spells on a scroll? Things that are set in stone: 1. 1 scroll per day maximum 1000 gp 2. Must be able to prepare and cast said number of spells (i.e. 1st level wizard with 18 Int could only scribe 2 first level spells per scroll) 3. must be able to meet xp and gp cost before scribing Things that are murky: ? Multiple spells per scroll ? if above is yes....How many? maximum amount allowed by DMG is 6 (sounds like a good number to me) Britt, I know this might fall under "Circle does not comment on core rules" bit and I understand that. But as the Senior Rep for my region (Iuz Borderlands) it would be great to know your opinion. Cheers Gwumph
Britt 03-07-07, 02:13 AM	The D&D FAQ implicitly allows for the creation of multiple spell scrolls. Whether there is a limit is left unclear by the core rules, so I can't say if there is one. It seems to be implied that there is a limit of 6 per scroll, but that isn't nearly as clear. If I were a player, I definitely wouldn't scribe scrolls with more than 6 spells, as it seems like it might be against the spirit of the rules AND it could wind up causing me many headaches in the future; it just seems like a bad idea to try to do it.
Japangirl 03-07-07, 02:20 AM	Ahh, that brings a proverbial tear to my cold, calculating, logician's eye... Undeads can cry? Sheesh, they keep making them better and better. Maybe a Libris Mortis thing?
Gwumph 03-07-07, 02:22 AM	can anyone direct me to that page in FAQ? I have looked through it twice and can't seem to spot it. (regarding mulptiple spells per scroll) Cheers Gwumph
Britt 03-07-07, 02:25 AM	Page 46, bottom of left column.
Britt 03-07-07, 02:29 AM	Undeads can cry? Sheesh, they keep making them better and better. Maybe a Libris Mortis thing? Undead? Phshaw, I'm sidhe. I mean, half-vampire I could understand, but undead?
Gwumph 03-07-07, 02:34 AM	Thanks Britt I never would have thought to look under equipment.
Britt 03-07-07, 02:41 AM	I just searched for scroll and went through every question that mentioned it. There are some odd categorizations in there :/
Japangirl 03-07-07, 02:59 AM	Undead? Phshaw, I'm sidhe. I mean, half-vampire I could understand, but undead? But you said you were undead! Earlier, when we were talking about BK and likes and dislikes of home region. Alpha_Nerd said something about Death Cultists and you said it brought a tear to your cold, undead eye. So are you a half vampire sidhe now? RUN FOR THE HILLS!
Timlagor 03-07-07, 12:03 PM	You think he's a half-vampire sidhe and you expect him to tell you the truth?! The only source for the "6 spells limit" is the table for random treasure. I really don't think anyone should be reading that as a restriction (much as LG fatuously loves those tables, the last thing we want to do is encourage it :P).
Britt 03-07-07, 12:08 PM	The only source for the "6 spells limit" is the table for random treasure. And the fact that the FAQs examples use 6 spell scrolls. If the designer thought that more than 6 was possible, he might have used something higher than that. It's not definite, by any means, but it's questionable enough to stay away from it.
Rerednaw 03-07-07, 12:24 PM	Just to make sure I am interpreting this thread correctly. In 1 TU of crafting (5 days), if the total cost of the spells in question is <= 5000 gp, the you could craft 5 scrolls of 6 spells each?
Jay_Ibero_911 03-07-07, 12:31 PM	Just to make sure I am interpreting this thread correctly. In 1 TU of crafting (5 days), if the total cost of the spells in question is <= 5000 gp, the you could craft 5 scrolls of 6 spells each? You would also need to be able to cast all 6 spells on the scrolls in a single day, so it seems.
Gwumph 03-07-07, 02:10 PM	not only would you have to able to cast 6 spells a day you would have to be able to cast whatever spell for each time scribed. i.e. domain spell once per day, can only be scribed once per scroll Also the total gp amount of the scroll cannot exceed 1000 for that day (higher gp scrolls must use 2 days) and Britt is right, in the FAQ 6 spells to a scroll is mentioned and in the DMG the maximum amount of spells on a scroll is 6. Hey 6 spells per scroll is a damn fine number, lets not get to greedy folks. Remember the adage "You break it, they ban it - You use it, it stays!!" :D
Jay_Ibero_911 03-07-07, 02:58 PM	Ok, so as an example, a 4th level cleric with scribe scroll could spend 1 TU to scribe 5 scrolls, each with 6 lesser vigors on them, for a total of 30 lesser vigors, a market value of 750, scribing cost of 375, xp cost of 30. Sure you get a better deal out of craft wand, but you don't usually get craft wand for free...
Howie23 03-07-07, 03:19 PM	Ok, so as an example, a 4th level cleric with scribe scroll could spend 1 TU to scribe 5 scrolls, each with 6 lesser vigors on them, for a total of 30 lesser vigors, a market value of 750, scribing cost of 375, xp cost of 30. Sure you get a better deal out of craft wand, but you don't usually get craft wand for free... Well, clerics don't usually get scribe scroll for free either... ;) The phrase going through my mind today has been, "scrolls are now six charge wands that provoke." David
Jay_Ibero_911 03-07-07, 03:23 PM	Well, clerics don't usually get scribe scroll for free either... ;) The phrase going through my mind today has been, "scrolls are now six charge wands that provoke." David Well there is the rune domain...might be a little more attractive now. But yeah, scrolls are now slightly less efficient wands in certain circumstances.
Gaelforcwynd 03-14-07, 08:22 AM	I don't know if a circle member has added to this thread, but clarification on how many spells you can scribe between adventures is pretty important. Someone needs to address this and set it in stone for us.
pedr 03-14-07, 09:25 AM	Except that it is a core rules issue. The core rules strongly imply that you can scribe scrolls with more than one spell. The main reference to this, the DMG random items table, suggests that it is impossible to randomly find a scroll with more than six spells on it. Some people think this is a useful limit, others don't. I'm not sure the Circle is going to rule on this, so the probable way forward is this: Some players will think you can scribe only one spell per scroll, as before; some will think that you can scribe up to six spells per scroll; and some will think that you can scribe as many as you like. The decision will be made by: a) how each player presents a MIC sheet and then describes things at subsequent tables; b) how the judge rules at the time of scribing and c) how a judge rules on each table. Players wanting to do this should be completely certain about the basics of scribing: note that you have to be able to cast the spell once for each time you want it on a scroll, you can only scribe one scroll a day, and that only if the cost is <=1,000 gp. If it is >1,000 gp it will take more than one day, and a scroll costing 1,200gp will take two days. You can only scribe two 1,200gp scrolls per adventure, not 4, as the 'extra time' on days 2 and 4 is wasted. You can't start crafting the second scroll until day 3. Anyone doing this (and my wizard will be one of them) needs to realise that there might be judges who will disallow the use of such scrolls. They might be wrong, but they have every right to make that ruling and I doubt many senior GMs would overrule them. I'm going to follow Britt's advice and keep to six spells per scroll, anyway.
kjenks 03-14-07, 09:27 AM	I don't know if a circle member has added to this thread, but clarification on how many spells you can scribe between adventures is pretty important. Someone needs to address this and set it in stone for us. Well, it's not set in stone, but Britt (of the Circle) says... And the fact that the FAQs examples use 6 spell scrolls. If the designer thought that more than 6 was possible, he might have used something higher than that. It's not definite, by any means, but it's questionable enough to stay away from it.
JamesMaissen 03-14-07, 12:35 PM	The main reference to this, the DMG random items table, suggests that it is impossible to randomly find a scroll with more than six spells on it. Some people think this is a useful limit, others don't. It also suggests that one cannot find 3rd level scrolls of magic missle. The harm doesn't seem to be there, but like many new things to people there's alot more smoke than fire. Someone makes a very large scroll.. so what? It's a consumable, costs nearly as much as purchasing a wand outright and is alot more restrictive on it's use than one. But I really dislike the idea of 'a judge may not like it and disallow it from being usable at the table'. Another judge signed off on the MIC, so either the judge in question needs to report it to triad and the like or they simply need to accept it. There shouldn't be any 'this doesn't work at my table' with item creation. Such variation is bad enough when it's not avoidable. -James
Timlagor 03-14-07, 03:40 PM	Except that it is a core rules issue. The core rules strongly imply that you can scribe scrolls with more than one spell. They say outright that such scrolls exist and Scribe Scroll lets you create scrolls. The main reference to this, the DMG random items table, suggests that it is impossible to randomly find a scroll with more than six spells on it. Some people think this is a useful limit, others don't. There are two different things here. 1) The text which make no mentionwhatsoever of any sort of limitation with no hint that one is intended. 2) The random loot table which also implies nothing of the sort. The biggest scroll on the table has 6 spells but we know how grosly incomplete those tables are. 6 just happened to a be a convenient number for random loot tables that happened to fit the amount of wealth they wanted it to represent. Anyone doing this (and my wizard will be one of them) needs to realise that there might be judges who will disallow the use of such scrolls. They might be wrong, but they have every right to make that ruling and I doubt many senior GMs would overrule them. I'm going to follow Britt's advice and keep to six spells per scroll, anyway. I strongly disagree that they have the right to make such a ruling. If I were the senior GM (not likely I know) then I would overrule this one. Having said that I don't see a huge number of scrolls with more than 6 spells htting the campaign anyway: the people they would be most useful for (very low level wizards) don't have enough slots to put that many down on a single day.
Howie23 03-14-07, 04:09 PM	I strongly disagree that they have the right to make such a ruling. If I were the senior GM (not likely I know) then I would overrule this one. I think the more likely scenario is going to be actions charged to manipulate the item if very extensive in size. That, and weight. David
chesspiece 03-14-07, 04:15 PM	What gets me even more is that there's a double standard for Judges over-ruling. In LG the most restrictive ruling always wins. Player #1 scribes a 6-spell scroll when playing under Judge A - who believes you can put up to 6 spells per scroll. Later he plays under Judge B - who believes that you can only put 1 spell / scroll. So he temporarily loses the use of the other 5 spells that he crafterd & paid for. Player #2 is playing with Judge B and Scribes a 1-spell scroll. Later he plays under Judge A. Why can't Player #2 pay the difference and retroactively gain 5 more spells on his scroll (usable when playing under Judge A but not with Judge B)? At what point does Player #1 have to refund the 5 "illegal" spells? Does he regain the XPs he spent during MIC?
Timlagor 03-14-07, 09:36 PM	I think the more likely scenario is going to be actions charged to manipulate the item if very extensive in size. That, and weight. David Weight is clearly laid out (iirc one 6-spell scroll weighs the same a 6 1-spell scrolls). You'd certainly be entitled to put some sort of action penalty on this within reason: I imagine such scrolls being mostly multiple copies of the same spell which would take no extra time to find on the scroll.
Gaelforcwynd 03-16-07, 07:07 AM	I don't think that scrolls with more than six spells should exist. I think six is a good limit. The fact that the random scroll table in the DMG shows scrolls with up to six spells should be enough for the Circle to set that number as the limit. Otherwise you will have people writing their maximum spells per day times five before every adventure. I think that would be unbalancing. Five scrolls each with six spells is even a bit too much. Having thirty scribed spells for a single adventure is a bit of overkill, but I would accept that if I were making the rules.
cycloptic_squirrel 03-16-07, 07:35 AM	Hmmmm... OK, so I can fit a scroll of forty first level magic missles, but can only memorize four in one day, and with my two pearls... I got it! I'll just use this level 1 wand of magic missile. I must be a genius or something! (On a more serious note, I'd agree with the six spell limit. Arguing for anything more and I'd worry we might be back to one spell per scroll per day.:( )
Gaelforcwynd 03-16-07, 08:07 AM	What will no doubt happen is that WoTC will release some splat material with the rules on it and cash in on the whole question.
Timlagor 03-16-07, 08:09 AM	1) The Circle can rule anything at all. 2) I don't object to having a 6 spell limit. I do object to a Judge imposing a 6 spell limit that has no basis in the rules. 3) Scroll ownership is limitted by gold and not scroll size. I'd expect the change in scroll size to have very close to no effect whatsoever on the number of scroll-spells people carry.
Gaelforcwynd 03-16-07, 08:25 AM	3) Scroll ownership is limitted by gold and not scroll size. I'd expect the change in scroll size to have very close to no effect whatsoever on the number of scroll-spells people carry. Even though D&D is a fantasy game, let's be realistic. A scroll has to be a manageable size for it to be practical. You should be able to hold the top and bottom of it in either hand and be able to make out the writing on any part of it at a glance. If you weren't going to set a limit for the number of spells that could be scribed onto a single scroll, you would have to introduce time penalties based on encumbrance, unsheathing, unrolling and locating the desired spell, which would ultimately be restrictive to the concept. What's next, scroll cases with wheels? Six spells per scroll is a good deal, let's not get greedy. ;)
Timlagor 03-16-07, 12:49 PM	it has nothing to do with greed. It has to do with not allowing Judges to make up rules just because they feel like it.
bitznarf 03-16-07, 01:40 PM	it has nothing to do with greed. It has to do with not allowing Judges to make up rules just because they feel like it. :clap:
Gaelforcwynd 03-16-07, 03:11 PM	it has nothing to do with greed. It has to do with not allowing Judges to make up rules just because they feel like it. Because D&D is a game with rules supposedly designed to promote some sort of balance, the idea of creating a scroll with every spell of a 15th level caster on it just seems to me a bit outside the spirit of the rules. Six spells per scroll is fine, without grossly violating the spirit of balance, in my humble opinion. If the DM decides to rule that the maximum number of spells scribed is limited to one spell per scroll per day, well then it's a bit conservative, but fair enough, I can accept that.
trollbill 03-16-07, 04:27 PM	Because D&D is a game with rules supposedly designed to promote some sort of balance, the idea of creating a scroll with every spell of a 15th level caster on it just seems to me a bit outside the spirit of the rules. Six spells per scroll is fine, without grossly violating the spirit of balance, in my humble opinion. There are other ways of balancing it, such as applying rules to the amount of time it takes to use a scroll with more than X number of spells because he has to find the one he's looking for, or it taking a full round just to pull the scroll due to it's size, or there is a percentage chance per adventure equal to #spells-5 that the party fighter mistakes it for a roll of TP. Albeit, limiting it to 6 would probably be one of the simplest.
Gwumph 03-16-07, 04:28 PM	While I firmly believe that the 6 spells per scroll is a fine self-governing limit. I understand there are some people with no self-disipline and must push every rule until it breaks!!! lets not worry about those people.... Why? First: 1000 gp limit, which effectivly limits a higher level caster to 4 third level spells, 3 second level spells and 2 first level spells per scroll (minimum caster level) which equals 9 spells now lets say he wants to do make missles. maximum memorized will likely be 6 (unlikely 7) even if he does have 6 pearls of power thats 12 spells. Lets say he casts them at 5th level so thats 900 gp for 12 5th level magic missles. Can't empower them (over gp limit) So who wants a wizard that pulls out a scroll and shoots 3 magic missles per round (yawwwwnn) when he is (assume) 11 level. or he can scribe one 6th level spell per scroll or one 5th level spell and one 4th level spell per scroll. Again none of these are metamagic since over the 1000gp per day. So all these cheesewhezzels crowing about 40 spells per scroll, haven't read the feat properly or either dreaming again!!! I have few worries about this becoming out of hand. Also if they max out each scroll per TU, they will be spending twice what they earn (5,000 gp) do that 2 or 3 times and no money for those upgraded pearls or such. Gwumph
Jay_Ibero_911 03-16-07, 04:36 PM	While I firmly believe that the 6 spells per scroll is a fine self-governing limit. I understand there are some people with no self-disipline and must push every rule until it breaks!!! lets not worry about those people.... Why? First: 1000 gp limit, which effectivly limits a higher level caster to 4 third level spells, 3 second level spells and 2 first level spells per scroll (minimum caster level) which equals 9 spells now lets say he wants to do make missles. maximum memorized will likely be 6 (unlikely 7) even if he does have 6 pearls of power thats 12 spells. Lets say he casts them at 5th level so thats 900 gp for 12 5th level magic missles. Can't empower them (over gp limit) So who wants a wizard that pulls out a scroll and shoots 3 magic missles per round (yawwwwnn) when he is (assume) 11 level. or he can scribe one 6th level spell per scroll or one 5th level spell and one 4th level spell per scroll. Again none of these are metamagic since over the 1000gp per day. So all these cheesewhezzels crowing about 40 spells per scroll, haven't read the feat properly or either dreaming again!!! I have few worries about this becoming out of hand. Also if they max out each scroll per TU, they will be spending twice what they earn (5,000 gp) do that 2 or 3 times and no money for those upgraded pearls or such. Gwumph Well as far as being able to memorize enough of whatever spell you want...you CAN use higher level spell slots to prepare lower level spells. A 15th level specialist wizard with 28 INT could use all 48 of his 1-8th level spell slots to prepare magic missile, and therefore create a scroll of 48 magic missiles with 1 TU.
Gwumph 03-16-07, 04:46 PM	Sure he can!!! and then he can spend 48 rounds in combat doing 1d4+1 points of damage. Which I am assuming again is not the most effective use of his time.
trollbill 03-16-07, 04:59 PM	Sure he can!!! and then he can spend 48 rounds in combat doing 1d4+1 points of damage. Which I am assuming again is not the most effective use of his time. Well, a cleric doing it with Lessor Vigor would probably be more effective. But even at that, considering he is 15th level, and this is only 2 shy of what he'd get with a wand, and more expensive to make, I don't see a loss of balance.
Howie23 03-16-07, 05:25 PM	Well as far as being able to memorize enough of whatever spell you want...you CAN use higher level spell slots to prepare lower level spells. A 15th level specialist wizard with 28 INT could use all 48 of his 1-8th level spell slots to prepare magic missile, and therefore create a scroll of 48 magic missiles with 1 TU. He can create a scroll with up to 40 CL1 magic missiles in one day. The daily xp limit is 1000gp, and CL goes against that limit in calculating values. However, while 1000gp is a daily limit, there is nothing to say that a scroll cannot be made over the course of several days. A scroll of raise dead would take 2 TU, for example. David
bitznarf 03-16-07, 05:33 PM	Because D&D is a game with rules supposedly designed to promote some sort of balance, the idea of creating a scroll with every spell of a 15th level caster on it just seems to me a bit outside the spirit of the rules. Six spells per scroll is fine, without grossly violating the spirit of balance, in my humble opinion. If the DM decides to rule that the maximum number of spells scribed is limited to one spell per scroll per day, well then it's a bit conservative, but fair enough, I can accept that. In a home game, that works for me. Not in LG however.
Gaelforcwynd 03-17-07, 09:01 AM	I asked one of our DM's what his ruling on scribed spells per scroll is. This is what he had to say: "According to the DMG (page 238, tables 7-21 and 7-22) until you reach caster level 3, all scrolls that you create are considered "minor scrolls" and therefore can contain no more than three spells each. At caster levels 3 up to 6, you can have up to four spells on one scroll. At caster level 7 and higher, you can have up to six spells per scroll. I base my ruling on the reasoning that Table 7-21 does not permit minor scrolls with more than three spells and Table 7-22 only allows for medium and major scrolls at caster levels 3 and 7 respectively."
kjenks 03-17-07, 09:22 AM	And what would such a DM rule when confronted by a PC who had a scroll of more spells?
Timlagor 03-17-07, 10:46 PM	"According to the DMG (page 238, tables 7-21 and 7-22) until you reach caster level 3, all scrolls that you create are considered "minor scrolls" and therefore can contain no more than three spells each. At caster levels 3 up to 6, you can have up to four spells on one scroll. At caster level 7 and higher, you can have up to six spells per scroll. I base my ruling on the reasoning that Table 7-21 does not permit minor scrolls with more than three spells and Table 7-22 only allows for medium and major scrolls at caster levels 3 and 7 respectively." Once again invoking the fallacy of the random loot table. THERE IS NO SUCH RULE IN THE DMG. All it says is that when you roll for random loot on the table they gave you because you can't be bothered to draw up your own or decide for yourself, that is what those rolls give. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what someone can craft. Once again: I have no objection to a rule saying you can only have x spells on a scroll; I object strongly a an LG judge imposing such a rule because they happen to think it's reasonable or they can't understand what a random loot table is.
pedr 03-17-07, 11:02 PM	For clarity, as an LG judge I'd sign an MIC record with however many spells someone wanted on each scroll, once I'd ascertained that they could, actually, scribe those scrolls given their spell-slots and after checking that each day's scribing was accounted for correctly (a 1,200gp scroll taking two whole days to scribe, etc). As a player of a Wiz 2, I'm planning to scribe up to six spells per scroll from my next module. I'm not going to try to put more on as I see it as stretching the rule further than a home-game GM would allow and potentially setting me up for problems in the future.
Samwise 03-17-07, 11:38 PM	I'm wondering . . . What happens if a DM doesn't like your multiple spells on a scroll? Do you just not get to use it for that game? Are you forced to sell it for the value but lose the xp and TU? As Gwumph noted, I think number of spell slots, costs, and simple effectiveness should keep everything reasonable (I think I'm going to sell most of my unused 1st level scrolls, I doubt I'll ever Right Scroll for the Job enough magic missiles into whatever), but just in case, I'd like to know what would happen if I made some other scrolls.
pedr 03-18-07, 08:57 AM	I don't think any DM can force you to sell something. That's a campaign-level decision which he has no control over. I think that equipment which doesn't exist but you have bought by mistake (e.g. Potions of Shield) should be pointed out to you by a DM, disallowed from use, and you should be referred to your triad or the circle for how to fix the situation. If I disagreed with a DM over whether something existed or was purchasable or not, I'd accept that I couldn't use it, under most circumstances, but I'd not accept having to sell it. I don't see how, mechanically, a DM could enforce a requirement that I sell it, anyway. I don't see how a DM can fail to 'like' up to six spells on a scroll. If you're worried, print Britt's answers which quite clearly say that LG no longer limits a scroll to one spell. You then have to have a discussion about the D&D core rules but it's one where there is significantly more evidence on the side of multiple spell scrolls being available and scribeable than against.
Samwise 03-18-07, 05:29 PM	I don't think any DM can force you to sell something. That's a campaign-level decision which he has no control over. I think that equipment which doesn't exist but you have bought by mistake (e.g. Potions of Shield) should be pointed out to you by a DM, disallowed from use, and you should be referred to your triad or the circle for how to fix the situation. The last I recall, you were required to sell items that have become Closed, or sell or pay the difference for items whose prices have changed, as soon as possible. That would certainly include if you overlooked something and a DM pointed it out to you. If I disagreed with a DM over whether something existed or was purchasable or not, I'd accept that I couldn't use it, under most circumstances, but I'd not accept having to sell it. I don't see how, mechanically, a DM could enforce a requirement that I sell it, anyway. The most direct way would be for the DM to "correct the error" on your new AR. If you have a scroll of 6 spells, it "obviously" took you 2 TU's to create it rather than 1, so he would add that to the AR, with a note. A bit of an extreme I'm sure, but that's why I'd like to see some clarification on DM rules only applying at the table.
pedr 03-18-07, 05:44 PM	Right, but the first only applies if the campaign declares that something doesn't exist or has become Closed in some way. If the DM can't point to a campaign decision, rather than a core rules issue, he can't force you to do a campaign act, such as selling something. I wouldn't let a DM 'correct the error' on an AR. If he wouldn't sign an AR that I believe was filled in correctly, I'd escalate it to the Senior GM, and/or take it away unsigned and refer the matter to the triad. I think that it's only a DM with whom you have probably already had problems who would see it as within his power to force you to accept his interpretation of something unclear beyond the end of his table.