There are 2 types of magic scrolls: Generic scrolls, which are magic items but don't involve spells (like scroll of protection), and spell scrolls
Anyone can read a generic scroll, but only spellcasters can read and use a spell scroll, and only then if the spell in question is on their spell list. Some DMs don't fully bother with this though, and simplify the rules
There isn't an official version of a "non-magical" or "read-only" spell scroll to my knowledge, so any you have encountered are likely homebrew by your DM. Usually you need a full spell scroll to be able to copy the info into a spellbook, not just a "read-only" version
The two scrolls in IDRotF are pretty much the same as the Scroll of Protection; they may be different items that do different things, but they work the same way, not worth calling them a different "type."
The two "types" are scrolls you cast a spell from, and scrolls that do a magic thing that isn't a specific spell from a spell list. Spell Scroll comes with a specific spell on it, and you need to be a Spellcaster, and of the correct class, in order to use it. And Scroll of Protection (and the two in Rime) is the other type, with no special class requirements
But reading closer, I think you're asking if there's a third type of scroll: one that you can read a spell off of, but which doesn't let you cast the spell. Yeah probably. If you tear a page out of a Wizard's spellbook (or, several pages for higher level spells), that doesn't cause the writing to disapear. That's a written record of that spell, and a Wizard has rules that allow them to copy that spell into their own spellbook. But, those torn out pages are not a Spell Scroll, and don't let a Wizard cast that spell without a slot or material components just by reading it. You probably don't have to go around shredding dead Wizards' spellbooks to make that version of mundane "spell writing," I'm sure that Wizards probably routinely exchange them in order to learn new spells.
The two scrolls in IDRotF are pretty much the same as the Scroll of Protection; they may be different items that do different things, but they work the same way, not worth calling them a different "type."
The two "types" are scrolls you cast a spell from, and scrolls that do a magic thing that isn't a specific spell from a spell list. Spell Scroll comes with a specific spell on it, and you need to be a Spellcaster, and of the correct class, in order to use it. And Scroll of Protection (and the two in Rime) is the other type, with no special class requirements
I really just wanted to point out that spell scrolls are a specific type of magic scroll that has additional rules, but is not a separate category.
To say "there are 2 types of scrolls: spells scrolls and everything else," is the same as saying "there are 2 types of weapons: flame tongue and everything else."
It is true that there are very few magic scrolls compared to other categories of items, and there are infact more types of spell scrolls than of other scrolls, but it is still an incorrect use of categorization.
Which of these is a helpful way to categorize magic items?
"There are two broad types of magic items: those that have class or race-based pre-requisites to use or attune to, and those that do not. Spell Scroll and Wand of Web are examples of the type with prerequisites, while Scroll of Protection and Cloak of Arachnida are the other type that any character can use."
or
"There are 724 types of magic items." (unless you count each Spell Scroll variation as a separate magical item, in which case that's something like 1239).
Well, according to the DMG there are 9 categories of magic items: armor, potions, rings, rods, scrolls, staffs, wands, weapons, and wondrous items.
Though in my opinion it is really more like 6: armor, consumables, spellcasting foci, weapons, wearables, and other.
Actually, only 5 types in your definition, since armor is wearable. Also, there aren't that many spellcasting foci, so why not lump them into "other" as well, then you only have 4 types.
From what i understand their are 2 types of "spell scrolls" ones that cast the spell and ones that don't
my question is would spell scrolls that are read only cost less than ones that allow someone to cast the spell
Regardless of all this talk of types of magic object, there exists a magic object called a Spell Scroll, which can be used for a single casting of a spell by the right caster, or for a risky attempt at transcribing by a wizard into their spellbook.
I think then you are asking about a non-magical object in the form of a rolled up piece of paper with the details of a wizard spell written on it - existing for the purposes of one wizard handing such information to another wizard. One might also refer to that as a spell scroll because it is a scroll with a spell on it. This object is not really described much in the books, and no price is given for it - that would be up to the wizard selling it. Personally, I wouldn't make this object any cheaper than a castable scroll, because although this one doesn't have that magical use, it can be used to scribe into a spellbook without any risk of failure.
Well, according to the DMG there are 9 categories of magic items: armor, potions, rings, rods, scrolls, staffs, wands, weapons, and wondrous items.
Though in my opinion it is really more like 6: armor, consumables, spellcasting foci, weapons, wearables, and other.
Actually, only 5 types in your definition, since armor is wearable. Also, there aren't that many spellcasting foci, so why not lump them into "other" as well, then you only have 4 types.
Armor has distinct rules that not all wearables (like rings, cloaks, hats, etc) have, so I put them separate.
Didn't know >60 wasn't "that many" (especially when compared to only 4 scrolls...), but again categorization is about distinctly different rules. And it is still better than how WotC did it.
I don't like how "wondrous item" that currently exists includes wearables (besides rings), consumables (besides potions and scrolls), and spellcasting foci (besides rods, staffs, and wands). And especially when all consumables have essentially the same rules besides optional crafting requirements, and same for all foci and wearables (except when a weapon or armor).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From what i understand their are 2 types of "spell scrolls" ones that cast the spell and ones that don't
my question is would spell scrolls that are read only cost less than ones that allow someone to cast the spell
There are 2 types of magic scrolls: Generic scrolls, which are magic items but don't involve spells (like scroll of protection), and spell scrolls
Anyone can read a generic scroll, but only spellcasters can read and use a spell scroll, and only then if the spell in question is on their spell list. Some DMs don't fully bother with this though, and simplify the rules
There isn't an official version of a "non-magical" or "read-only" spell scroll to my knowledge, so any you have encountered are likely homebrew by your DM. Usually you need a full spell scroll to be able to copy the info into a spellbook, not just a "read-only" version
Currently there are 4 types of magic scrolls (2 from DMG, 2 from IDRotF). Spell scrolls are 1 specific type of scroll and has extra rules to it.
I don't understand what you are asking. A scroll that you can read but can't cast is not magical. Non-magic scrolls are cheaper than magic ones, yes.
The two scrolls in IDRotF are pretty much the same as the Scroll of Protection; they may be different items that do different things, but they work the same way, not worth calling them a different "type."
The two "types" are scrolls you cast a spell from, and scrolls that do a magic thing that isn't a specific spell from a spell list. Spell Scroll comes with a specific spell on it, and you need to be a Spellcaster, and of the correct class, in order to use it. And Scroll of Protection (and the two in Rime) is the other type, with no special class requirements
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But reading closer, I think you're asking if there's a third type of scroll: one that you can read a spell off of, but which doesn't let you cast the spell. Yeah probably. If you tear a page out of a Wizard's spellbook (or, several pages for higher level spells), that doesn't cause the writing to disapear. That's a written record of that spell, and a Wizard has rules that allow them to copy that spell into their own spellbook. But, those torn out pages are not a Spell Scroll, and don't let a Wizard cast that spell without a slot or material components just by reading it. You probably don't have to go around shredding dead Wizards' spellbooks to make that version of mundane "spell writing," I'm sure that Wizards probably routinely exchange them in order to learn new spells.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I really just wanted to point out that spell scrolls are a specific type of magic scroll that has additional rules, but is not a separate category.
To say "there are 2 types of scrolls: spells scrolls and everything else," is the same as saying "there are 2 types of weapons: flame tongue and everything else."
It is true that there are very few magic scrolls compared to other categories of items, and there are infact more types of spell scrolls than of other scrolls, but it is still an incorrect use of categorization.
Which of these is a helpful way to categorize magic items?
"There are two broad types of magic items: those that have class or race-based pre-requisites to use or attune to, and those that do not. Spell Scroll and Wand of Web are examples of the type with prerequisites, while Scroll of Protection and Cloak of Arachnida are the other type that any character can use."
or
"There are 724 types of magic items." (unless you count each Spell Scroll variation as a separate magical item, in which case that's something like 1239).
or
"There is one type of magic item."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, according to the DMG there are 9 categories of magic items: armor, potions, rings, rods, scrolls, staffs, wands, weapons, and wondrous items.
Though in my opinion it is really more like 6: armor, consumables, spellcasting foci, weapons, wearables, and other.
Actually, only 5 types in your definition, since armor is wearable. Also, there aren't that many spellcasting foci, so why not lump them into "other" as well, then you only have 4 types.
Regardless of all this talk of types of magic object, there exists a magic object called a Spell Scroll, which can be used for a single casting of a spell by the right caster, or for a risky attempt at transcribing by a wizard into their spellbook.
I think then you are asking about a non-magical object in the form of a rolled up piece of paper with the details of a wizard spell written on it - existing for the purposes of one wizard handing such information to another wizard. One might also refer to that as a spell scroll because it is a scroll with a spell on it. This object is not really described much in the books, and no price is given for it - that would be up to the wizard selling it. Personally, I wouldn't make this object any cheaper than a castable scroll, because although this one doesn't have that magical use, it can be used to scribe into a spellbook without any risk of failure.
Armor has distinct rules that not all wearables (like rings, cloaks, hats, etc) have, so I put them separate.
Didn't know >60 wasn't "that many" (especially when compared to only 4 scrolls...), but again categorization is about distinctly different rules. And it is still better than how WotC did it.
I don't like how "wondrous item" that currently exists includes wearables (besides rings), consumables (besides potions and scrolls), and spellcasting foci (besides rods, staffs, and wands). And especially when all consumables have essentially the same rules besides optional crafting requirements, and same for all foci and wearables (except when a weapon or armor).