Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Maesto 01-31-08, 08:05 PM	Hi guys, So, if I UMD a scroll, can I put it through the eldritch tapestry of a warweaver, assuming the spell qualifies to be put through the weave? The wording on the ability isn't the best in this regards; just after a few opinions. Thanks, Jolyon
Jay_Ibero_911 01-31-08, 08:13 PM	Hi guys, So, if I UMD a scroll, can I put it through the eldritch tapestry of a warweaver, assuming the spell qualifies to be put through the weave? The wording on the ability isn't the best in this regards; just after a few opinions. Thanks, Jolyon It sounds like it only applies to spells you cast. Activating a scroll and actually casting a spell a different things...
MwaO 01-31-08, 08:14 PM	So, if I UMD a scroll, can I put it through the eldritch tapestry of a warweaver, assuming the spell qualifies to be put through the weave? The wording on the ability isn't the best in this regards; just after a few opinions. I'd rule no. You don't get to use your own personal casting stat when using a scroll - why would you get to use a more esoteric ability?
Maesto 02-01-08, 07:10 AM	Alrighty then - how about a staff?
MwaO 02-01-08, 09:36 AM	Alrighty then - how about a staff? Same basic problem - you're not allowed to apply most things except for stats/feats for DC and you get to use your caster level.
copperwyrmling 02-01-08, 03:06 PM	I'm not sure it's as unambiguous as you think, MwaO. The warweaver class ability is Eldritch Tapestry and you can send spells that you cast through the tapestry: the spells themselves are not modified. When you cast a spell off a scroll you are considered the caster of the effect, although you don't use your casting stat and CL. It's basically the same question as whether you can use Share Spell with spells from scrolls, which is a known gray area iirc (and one that I've seen a lot of table variation on). It also seems similar to the question of whether you can cast spells from scrolls into a Contingency, which I've seen allowed on most tables.
Timlagor 02-01-08, 03:22 PM	I'm not sure it's unambiguous but I wouldn't allow it and I certainly wouldn't expect to be allowed to use it. Contingency is the one example of CuWyrmling's that I'd probably allow. I think Shared Spells are generally agreed not to work from Scrolls.
MwaO 02-01-08, 03:56 PM	When you cast a spell off a scroll you are considered the caster of the effect, although you don't use your casting stat and CL. How does that relate to it being a spell cast by you? You're using a scroll, you're not casting a spell. They may be very similar in many ways, but you're not actually casting a spell, you're completing a mostly cast spell. As an example, a scroll may perform exactly as if it were prepared and cast, but that doesn't mean you can use a Pearl of Power on it afterwards... Contingency doesn't specify how the spell would be placed. Share Spell is a spell cast by you on you. I wouldn't let it work either. Also, from the FAQ, an archmage with mastery of shaping or elements can't use them on a staff.
copperwyrmling 02-01-08, 05:31 PM	How does that relate to it being a spell cast by you? You're using a scroll, you're not casting a spell. They may be very similar in many ways, but you're not actually casting a spell, you're completing a mostly cast spell. As an example, a scroll may perform exactly as if it were prepared and cast, but that doesn't mean you can use a Pearl of Power on it afterwards... Contingency doesn't specify how the spell would be placed. Share Spell is a spell cast by you on you. I wouldn't let it work either. Also, from the FAQ, an archmage with mastery of shaping or elements can't use them on a staff. But "the contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time". If you're not actually casting a spell from a scroll, you're doing something completely different (completing a mostly cast spell), then do you meet this requirement of Contingency? Sure, you can't change the characteristics of a spell cast from a scroll or staff using your own feats and abilities. At most tables, however, you can put a scroll spell into a Contingency, or a spell storing weapon (even though the spell storing description says "a spellcaster can cast any targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it"). At some tables you can share it with your familiar (at those tables Share Spell is treated as a property of the caster and familiar, not an alteration to the spell), and I'm pretty sure that at some tables a warweaver will be allowed to cast it through the eldritch tapestry. And none of these GMs will be wrong. You can't recall it with pearls because you unambiguously did not prepare the spell. Whether or not you cast the spell is more ambiguous. See for example the PHB text on Scribe Scroll, "You can create scrolls, from which you or another spellcaster can cast the scribed spells". Or on DMG p.211, "A scroll of searing light allows a cleric to cast searing light once", or on p.237, "Using a scroll is basically like casting a spell". I think the correct answer is ETV. I think this is a gray area in the rules and thus there will be table variation, same as casting Personal scroll spells on familiars.
MwaO 02-01-08, 05:42 PM	At some tables you can share it with your familiar (at those tables Share Spell is treated as a property of the caster and familiar, not an alteration to the spell), and I'm pretty sure that at some tables a warweaver will be allowed to cast it through the eldritch tapestry. And none of these GMs will be wrong. The FAQ is clear - an Archmage can use mastery of shaping on a spell he casts. He can't use it on a spell cast from a staff. Care to explain how a War Weaver can do something that an Archmage with a very similar ability can't do? You can't recall it with pearls because you unambiguously did not prepare the spell. Whether or not you cast the spell is more ambiguous. "A scroll successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way."(pg. 238 of DMG) You can't have it both ways - either it is prepared and cast the normal way or it isn't. If you're right and you are the 'actual' caster, then it is unambiguous that you also 'actually' prepared it. And therefore, you can Pearl it back. Just because a result is silly doesn't mean you can disregard it.
bitznarf 02-01-08, 07:10 PM	Hence the table variation MwaO.
RanielK 02-05-08, 11:35 AM	The FAQ is clear - an Archmage can use mastery of shaping on a spell he casts. He can't use it on a spell cast from a staff. Care to explain how a War Weaver can do something that an Archmage with a very similar ability can't do? See, I look at it like this, the Archmage warps and alters the spells to create a new effect (shaping it or changing its elemental effects). A war weaver creates this effect (the eldritch tapestry) which can be used to deliver spells through. You are not altering the spell to conform to new parameters, you are casting the spell on this new creation which then uses that spell energy in new ways. After all quiescent weaving points out that you cast a spell on the tapestry and the tapestry holds the spell until released. There is no talk of altering the spell until you get to 5th level and are now able to change the range at which a spell is cast (something that wouldn't fly with a scroll, wand or the like). The one thing I'd rule against is using a scroll of a spell with expensive components (like stoneskin) in the eldritch tapestry. I don't see anything that lets you be selective on who gets effected by spells in the tapestry (though I may just be blind) and I don't feel you can use a scroll and somehow sub in extra components to meet the tapestry's requirement of one set of pricey components per person affected. "A scroll successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way."(pg. 238 of DMG) You can't have it both ways - either it is prepared and cast the normal way or it isn't. If you're right and you are the 'actual' caster, then it is unambiguous that you also 'actually' prepared it. And therefore, you can Pearl it back. Just because a result is silly doesn't mean you can disregard it. Not really, after all how does a piece of parchement use a pearl to recover the spell that was on it in the first place. Cause the spell wasn't in the wizzy's head and the PoP can only return spell energy to the place from which it came. Now an intelligent spellstoring weapon might get to use a PoP, but I wouldn't count on it.
MwaO 02-05-08, 07:12 PM	See, I look at it like this, the Archmage warps and alters the spells to create a new effect (shaping it or changing its elemental effects). A war weaver creates this effect (the eldritch tapestry) which can be used to deliver spells through. You are not altering the spell to conform to new parameters, you are casting the spell on this new creation which then uses that spell energy in new ways. You are modifying a spell that you cast. If casting from a scroll is just the same thing as casting a spell, then an Archmage should be able to modify it. Archmage unambigiously cannot do that. Therefore, a War Weaver can't, because casting from a scroll is not considered the same thing as actually casting - and only if they are exactly the same thing does the War Weaver trick work. Not really, after all how does a piece of parchement use a pearl to recover the spell that was on it in the first place. Cause the spell wasn't in the wizzy's head and the PoP can only return spell energy to the place from which it came. Now an intelligent spellstoring weapon might get to use a PoP, but I wouldn't count on it. Right. It puts the writing back on the scroll. "A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way." "Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast." Look, I think it is absolutely silly that it could do that - but you can't decide to take the half of the text you like and make a ruling then take the other half of the text and ignore it because you don't like the consequences or you think they're too silly. Either the possessor of the pearl prepared and cast the spell or they did neither.
RanielK 02-06-08, 10:17 AM	You are modifying a spell that you cast. If casting from a scroll is just the same thing as casting a spell, then an Archmage should be able to modify it. Archmage unambigiously cannot do that. Therefore, a War Weaver can't, because casting from a scroll is not considered the same thing as actually casting - and only if they are exactly the same thing does the War Weaver trick work. Okay, the War Weaver "trick" (namely both the eldritch tapestry and quiescent weaving) specifically describes how you target the tapestry with the spell. The tapestry then distributes the spell to all those tied into it. You craft this tapestry each morning. This isn't metamagic. This isn't a "warp the spell to do X weird thing." This is creating a new, viable target for a spell and that target then carries the spell out. There are limitations. Namely at 5th you get to extend the range of spells. Ah no go as far as things like scrolls are concerned in my opinion. Also is the issue of costly spell components and scrolls. A scroll only has the cost of one component. The tapestry requires one component be expended per person attached to the tapestry. There is no way to tack on extra components to casting a scroll, so no casting stoneskin off of a scroll on to the tapestry. Right. It puts the writing back on the scroll. "A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way." This deals with the outgoing energy from a scroll. Scrolls don't have some weird/unique resolution system for how their effects are resolved on the battlefield. If it is a scroll of fireball, its effects are resolved just like the fireball spells as cast by the wizard who scribed the scroll. In the case of generic scrolls found in a treasure hoard, this is the minimums unless stated otherwise. "Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast." This works with retrieving spell energy that was cast by the user of the pearl. Since the scroll was created by some other dude at some other time and the scroll itself isn't a caster, then neither the slot used up in creating the scroll nor the scroll itself are replenished. The first was some time in the past and not the here and now. The second is an item that can't make use of another item. Since the scrolls energy was never "in the head" of the user (or however you visualize spell slots), it can not go back into the head of the user. Thus a PoP doesn't recover the spell. To put it another way, a scroll is just like a prepared spell in one way. In Vancian magic, spells are prepped by casting them to near completion with trigger components to allow them to be cast in seconds instead of the minutes that casting such magic requires "in the raw." A scroll is such a hung spell where the bottom reads "wave your hands *so* and say *such* and you'll get *spell effect*. Have fun!" It is a hung spell set such that it doesn't disipate and can be traded between those capable of using them. The spell energy is either someone else's or your own from many moons ago. In either case it wasn't today's allotment and can't be jammed back into todays spell load. Look, I think it is absolutely silly that it could do that - but you can't decide to take the half of the text you like and make a ruling then take the other half of the text and ignore it because you don't like the consequences or you think they're too silly. Either the possessor of the pearl prepared and cast the spell or they did neither. And I think it is not a matter of either selectively reading or cherry picking rules. It is a matter of seeing the intent and carrying it out. Intent, scrolls are spells "hung" on a portable device for the purposes of expanding your daily repretoire. Intent, Scrolls are not your personal spell energy from your daily allotment. Intent, Pearls of Power are meant to return the personal spell energy used up from your daily allotment of the day they are used. Result, you can't use a PoP to get back a scroll. So no conflict, no weird "edge cases" or conflicts to cause the system to "crash." It is also, not relevant to the discussion at hand. The tapestry is a valid target for spells which either allow a save of (harmless) or require a willing creature be the target. This tapestry then takes the energy and divies it out amongst those connected to it (the party). There is no alteration of the spell in either preperation or casting. The only exceptions to the abover are in line with expensive spell components (one per person attached to the tapestry) and shifting the range of spells up one "notch" (touch to close, etc) at 5th level. The Archmage's High Arcana are the alteration of the spell energy much in line with metamagic. Changing the range, changing the shape or changing the energy type are all modifying the spell itself. The War Weaver does none of these things using the tapestry. He casts a spell he would normally cast on Ed. Instead of casting it on Ed he casts it on the tapestry. In the process, the War weaver touches Ed, Julie, Mike, Richard and Rachael. They all get affected by the single spell that would have otherwise only affected Ed due to the target's (the tapestry's) more efficient use of the spell energy affecting it.
MwaO 02-06-08, 11:02 AM	And I think it is not a matter of either selectively reading or cherry picking rules. It is a matter of seeing the intent and carrying it out. Intent, scrolls are spells "hung" on a portable device for the purposes of expanding your daily repretoire. Intent, Scrolls are not your personal spell energy from your daily allotment. Intent, Pearls of Power are meant to return the personal spell energy used up from your daily allotment of the day they are used. Result, you can't use a PoP to get back a scroll. Right, and that's exactly why a War Weaver shouldn't use a scroll in the weave - because as you just roundabout noted, despite it saying that "A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way.", that's not actually the intent of the line. And there are multiple instances of that lack of intent being made - PoPs and Archmages. And given that an Archmage can't do it despite that line strongly suggesting an Archmage could, we should assume that other interpretations that appear strong are probably not.
RanielK 02-06-08, 05:33 PM	Right, and that's exactly why a War Weaver shouldn't use a scroll in the weave - because as you just roundabout noted, despite it saying that "A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way.", that's not actually the intent of the line. And there are multiple instances of that lack of intent being made - PoPs and Archmages. And given that an Archmage can't do it despite that line strongly suggesting an Archmage could, we should assume that other interpretations that appear strong are probably not. See here you go comparing Fighters to Flumphs. I state time and again "Archmage can't because of rules effect X" "War weaver can because of rules effect Y". In this case X = spell alteration at time of casting whereby the very energy of the spell is altered. Y = spell spread about multiple targets because class feature turns whole adventuring party into one single target, the spell itself is not altered. Not sure what isn't clear about that. You still point at what I say and say "Look! Right there you said Archmages can so since they can't you're wrong!" You keep missing the n't at the end of that can in regards to Archmages. Not to mention the reason the n't should be there with the Archies and not the War Weavers (two different, unrelated roads to two not even vaguely related outcomes). As far as PoPs are concerned, you pretty much brought it out of left field and said "You can't have your argument be true if a PoP can't restore a spell to a scroll." In regards to scrolls, I merely point out that a spell cast from a scroll gets cast on a legal target. The eldritch tapestry is a legal target. Once targeted the eldritch tapestry distributes that one spell worth of energy and effect over multiple targets. The spell is not altered. The target of the spell just does funky things to the spell. It would be more appropriate to compare the eldritch tapestry to a spellwarped creature from MM3. Both do funky things with a spell. The first does funky things with said spell when it is cast successfully. The second does funky things with said spell when it fails to crack SR. You would be closer to refuting my argument if you could prove that scrolls do not power the spellwarped creature's Spell Absorption powers than trying to tie my argument into some contrived PoP example. Prove that a caster who fails the SR check from a scroll doesn't fuel the Spell Absorption ability of a spellwarped creature and I'll admit defeat.
MwaO 02-06-08, 07:25 PM	See here you go comparing Fighters to Flumphs. I state time and again "Archmage can't because of rules effect X" "War weaver can because of rules effect Y". In this case X = spell alteration at time of casting whereby the very energy of the spell is altered. Y = spell spread about multiple targets because class feature turns whole adventuring party into one single target, the spell itself is not altered. Not sure what isn't clear about that. You still point at what I say and say "Look! Right there you said Archmages can so since they can't you're wrong!" You're not actually quoting rules. You're paraphrasing your interpretation of intent as if they were rules. It doesn't actually describe you targeting the tapestry with the spell as an example, it describes how you "can send your spells across the life-force strands to your allies." And the spellwarped creature example is absolutely irrelevant - you're targeting a creature with an ability that reacts to any spell - it doesn't care if you're the actual caster. Which is not the case of both War Weaver and Archmage's abilities(as my actual rules quote above shows). Clearly, Archmage's ability cares that it uses its own spells, not that of something that is the equivalent of its spells. And as War Weaver has language that specifically states that it use its own spells, it just shouldn't happen.
RanielK 02-07-08, 03:02 AM	You're not actually quoting rules. You're paraphrasing your interpretation of intent as if they were rules. It doesn't actually describe you targeting the tapestry with the spell as an example, it describes how you "can send your spells across the life-force strands to your allies." Actually it does state the tapestry is targeted. When using the quiescent weaving, you TARGET the tapestry with the spell (as stated by the rules). You then later release that spell out into those attached to the tapestry. And the spellwarped creature example is absolutely irrelevant - you're targeting a creature with an ability that reacts to any spell - it doesn't care if you're the actual caster. Which is not the case of both War Weaver and Archmage's abilities(as my actual rules quote above shows). See with the Archmage's abilities you warp, change and mutate spells from their original "shape". To do this you sacrifice spell slots permanently to power this change. To be able to play with the amount of energy, it has to come from you. A spell storage device (like a scroll or wand) has very fixed, very immutable energy. With the War weaver you take a spell and fire it across this thing called the tapestry. The tapestry doesn't change the amount of spell energy. It uses the existing spell energy very efficiently. It uses what energy is there in new ways. In a similar nature, the Spellwarped creature takes what is already there (x levels of spell energy) and uses it in new ways. X levels of spells gives X levels of effect, such as X times 5 temp HPs or X times 5 feet in speed boost. Clearly, Archmage's ability cares that it uses its own spells, not that of something that is the equivalent of its spells. And as War Weaver has language that specifically states that it use its own spells, it just shouldn't happen. Well, I look at the quiescent weaving, which does not specify such things. It says you target the tapestry and the spell is now in a dormant state, ready to be released later. While the language "your spells" is there, I must admit I see it as specifying that some one else can not make use of the tapestry you have woven. The party cleric can't fire his cure spells through your tapestry just because he is connected to that tapestry. Likewise, your enemies can't target this tapestry and effect all of your allies with a single spell just because they have been made one creature for the sake of your spellcasting. The fact a scroll takes effect as if cast by the person reading it leaves me to believe you treat it as if the reader was the caster and thus it can be used in the tapestry created by the reader, just like any other spell done by the reader. Since a war weaver can cast spells at the tapestry and have them effect everyone connected, casting the scroll (which acts just like his spells) means that spell goes in the tapestry just like any of his other spells. The Archmages abilities are about changing the spell from what it is. As the spell is set when put in a wand or on a scroll and can't be changed, the Archmage is specifically barred from making those changes.
Hapycamper 03-22-08, 10:09 PM	I had the same question and searched here to stumble upon the discussion. I also agree it is a grey area and could go either way. While I play a War Weaver and would like to use scrolls with it, my gut feeling is that it isn't "official". The main arguments I'd use: 1) Casting a scroll is like casting a spell "in the normal way" - I'd argue casting a spell into the weave isn't casting in the normal way... 2) Spells put in the weave multiply their material components by the number of recipients. Scrolls don't have material components (they've already paid for them.) Thus, you would be gaming the system by making a stoneskin scroll and then casting it on the party.... clearly a broken rule unless you add in some kludge to fix it (like a scroll w/ a material component doesn't work when put into the tapestry...) However, I might still petition the DM to allow it on a spell by spell basis... we'll see how free he is with the rules...
RanielK 03-24-08, 02:24 PM	I had the same question and searched here to stumble upon the discussion. I also agree it is a grey area and could go either way. While I play a War Weaver and would like to use scrolls with it, my gut feeling is that it isn't "official". The main arguments I'd use: 1) Casting a scroll is like casting a spell "in the normal way" - I'd argue casting a spell into the weave isn't casting in the normal way... 2) Spells put in the weave multiply their material components by the number of recipients. Scrolls don't have material components (they've already paid for them.) Thus, you would be gaming the system by making a stoneskin scroll and then casting it on the party.... clearly a broken rule unless you add in some kludge to fix it (like a scroll w/ a material component doesn't work when put into the tapestry...) See that is the one place I'd agree (and did elsewhere in this thread IIRC) breaks down and can't be done. Otherwise a spell cast into the weave doesn't matter. You've created this tapestry to more efficiently distribute spell energy. You aren't casting spells with more energy to get the effect. You're casting a 1st level spell with 1st level amount of spell energy and then more efficiently dividing it up amongst the party to get all of them affected by that spell. Since a wand or scroll have that level of spell energy and no more (thus no altering a scroll with a metamagic feat after the fact like the Archmage's ability), then it can run through the tapestry just like any other spell of its level. However, I might still petition the DM to allow it on a spell by spell basis... we'll see how free he is with the rules... Yep, definitely expect table variation and even as you note spell by spell variation at the same table.
katrick 03-26-08, 04:17 PM	I would have to say yes after a reread of the War-weaver block text. But, as you may not have noticed, you can only affect the Modifier in persons. eg min casting stat; ergo you and 2, unless you have access in LG. And even that will co$$t you big time, except for Death ward. katrick Disregard that, can you cast a scroll through a metamagic rod is the real question you are asking??
RanielK 03-27-08, 11:51 AM	I would have to say yes after a reread of the War-weaver block text. But, as you may not have noticed, you can only affect the Modifier in persons. eg min casting stat; ergo you and 2, unless you have access in LG. And even that will co$$t you big time, except for Death ward. katrick I've read it that the number of people you can affect with your tapestry is a function of the class. The tapestry is created each morning after 15 minutes of work. The number of folks affected is set then. After that the spells you feed through or set into the tapestry as a quiescent weaving are divied out based on that initial weaving. The wording doesn't seem to imply checking each time to see if someone has dropped out ouf the weave for that casting (least in regards to your relavant bonus). People may or may not be affected based on their relative distance to you and the spell's range. Course, with that said, if some guy doned a stat boost item +X to get the extra 1-3 people in the tapestry and then took it off to wear cooler item Y, I'd definitely hit him up as not being able to maintain the tapestry at the level he's at now (current bonus). I'd justify it saying he's found the tapestry too stressful because the power level he made it at (bonus+(X/2) with the item) is too much for his normal ability and someone gets dropped.