Another example to think about is can an Eldritch Knight cast Counterspell as a reaction if they are holding a sword and shield?
That example gives a perfect illustration of the exact opposite point from the one you're trying to make.
If an Eldritch Knight has counterspell in their known spells (with only a V component), then sure, they can cast it while their hands are full, since they just need to be able to speak.
If they don't know it and have to cast it from a scroll... how the heck are they reading the scroll while holding a sword and shield?
Huh, when I check Counterspell on DnDBeyond I see 'S' as the only listed spell component.
If I am mistaken and Counterspell only has a Verbal component then you are totally right and I chose a poor spell for my example.
Concerns like these are why my Bard pasted an unrolled scroll of Feather Fall to the back of her Instrument of the Bards, which had a strap to keep it on her hands-free. Then at least a minor posture shift would make it readable. Maybe the backside of a shield would do as well for a martial character?
I believe one would have to use the free object interaction during their turn to have the scroll ready to use.
Wouldn't it be funny if the scroll had instructions that said to cast the counterspell one has to follow the somantic component as such:
using the hand that is used in the casting, face directly the creature casting. draw a circle with a line passing though it at a 45 degree angle. then the caster using the hand that drawn the glyph, makes a middle finger and presses it to the glyph toward the opposing caster.
The scroll would also have drawings showing the glyph, and hand application.
Concerns like these are why my Bard pasted an unrolled scroll of Feather Fall to the back of her Instrument of the Bards, which had a strap to keep it on her hands-free. Then at least a minor posture shift would make it readable. Maybe the backside of a shield would do as well for a martial character?
Yes, my bard had a scroll of Feather Fall sewn into the lining of the cloak he wears over one arm. He just has to look under his arm to read it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If an Eldritch Knight has counterspell in their known spells (with only a V component), then sure, they can cast it while their hands are full, since they just need to be able to speak.
Huh, when I check Counterspell on DnDBeyond I see 'S' as the only listed spell component.
Yes Counterspell is a "Somatic" only spell so it was a good example.
That said I don't agree with your argument. Not allowing a scroll to be "drawn" as part of a reaction might make such scrolls for some spells a bit more difficult to use but that is a part of normal action economy restrictions, the rules don't allow you to draw a weapon or equip a shield during a reaction either. What you have ready and available at the end of your turn is an active decision that matters.
You cant draw a scroll as part of the reaction to cast the spell anymore than you can draw a weapon as part of the reaction to make an opportunity attack, because free item interaction happen on your turn as part of your move or action rather than off turn reaction.
There are definitely some spells which are just not worth having on a scroll - all reaction casting time spells being one set.
I could make an argument for feather fall and shield (being used as a parachute or a shield respectively).
Counterspell and absorb elements are less likely to trigger, thus less reliable as scrolls, but I could see very niche application. If you know you are going against a spellcaster, it might not be a bad idea to have one in hand.
Another example to think about is can an Eldritch Knight cast Counterspell as a reaction if they are holding a sword and shield?
That example gives a perfect illustration of the exact opposite point from the one you're trying to make.
If an Eldritch Knight has counterspell in their known spells (with only a V component), then sure, they can cast it while their hands are full, since they just need to be able to speak.
If they don't know it and have to cast it from a scroll... how the heck are they reading the scroll while holding a sword and shield?
Huh, when I check Counterspell on DnDBeyond I see 'S' as the only listed spell component.
If I am mistaken and Counterspell only has a Verbal component then you are totally right and I chose a poor spell for my example.
Oops, you're right. I think I was thinking of silvery barbs as the V-only reaction spell
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You cant draw a scroll as part of the reaction to cast the spell anymore than you can draw a weapon as part of the reaction to make an opportunity attack, because free item interaction happen on your turn as part of your move or action rather than off turn reaction.
Again this is a general rule you are saying here. Magic does not follow general rules, they follow specific rules which p.7 of the player handbook wins over generals. Such as featherfall as a material component in it but it can be still get in the component pouch as part of the reaction.
Also for scrolls in reaction it's the same thing and here is another BIG reason why. BEFORE, the wording to use a scroll was:
Whatever the nature of the magic contained in a scroll, unleashing that magic requires using an action to read the scroll.
They did an errata (definition of errata : a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal.), because they wanted it to be same time as casting the spell. Which comes to New use a spell scroll wording as follow :
Casting the spell by reading the scroll requires the spell’s normal casting time.
If they wanted to include the fact that a scroll needs to be ready in hand before to read it they would have included it with that same errata which they did not. Otherwise we would have a phrase that would look something like this:
Prior to using the spell scroll, you must have it ready in hand.
Also p141 of the DMG states this:
If a magic item requires an action to activate, that action ISN'T a function of the use an objet action.
Again Magic in DND have multiple specific rules and creates a lot of exception but specific beats general.
I do agree that some action seems impossible to pull out in our head refering to real world but that's the beauty of Dnd. Like a rogue evasion that's let's him avoid all damage from a fireball that cover a whole room... wording at the end of the day is the only thing that matter. Using a scroll is the same it says what it does, you use it as the spell casting time and that's it.
Also with the New wording only caster can use spells and reaction scroll are only defensive, to avoid death in most cases. Do you really want to kill your player that bad??
Also for scrolls in reaction it's the same thing and here is another BIG reason why. BEFORE, the wording to use a scroll was:
Whatever the nature of the magic contained in a scroll, unleashing that magic requires using an action to read the scroll.
They did an errata (definition of errata : a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal.), because they wanted it to be same time as casting the spell. Which comes to New use a spell scroll wording as follow :
Casting the spell by reading the scroll requires the spell’s normal casting time.
If they wanted to include the fact that a scroll needs to be ready in hand before to read it they would have included it with that same errata which they did not.
They errata'd it because the previous wording made reaction spells impossible, and nerfed bonus action spells by having them cast as actions. Neither of which was the intent, thus that was changed. They didn't need to add that the scroll needed to be in your hand or otherwise ready for use, because that was already covered by other rules and in effect even since before the errata.
Otherwise we would have a phrase that would look something like this: "you may retrieve the scroll from your inventory as part of the same action or reaction as reading the scroll." They didn't add that specific exception, so it has to follow the same rules as retrieving any other item.
By comparison, casting spells with a material component have a specific exception that lets them retrieve the component (and possibly to retrieve a focus, depending on interpretation) as part of casting the spell.
If spell scroll had specific rules overiding the general rules on item interaction, it would say so. An exemple that specifically overide such rules are ammunition rules for exemple.
Never the scroll rules say one can be drawn as part of using it.
Concerns like these are why my Bard pasted an unrolled scroll of Feather Fall to the back of her Instrument of the Bards, which had a strap to keep it on her hands-free. Then at least a minor posture shift would make it readable. Maybe the backside of a shield would do as well for a martial character?
Yes, my bard had a scroll of Feather Fall sewn into the lining of the cloak he wears over one arm. He just has to look under his arm to read it.
Both of which require some explanation as to materials used, how the scrolls do not rip or tear in combat, worn like that, how they are immune to things like rain, etc. and how you replace them after using them.
I guess if you want to be a wet blanket about it, sure.
Are there ways it could be done? Perhaps, but they take rather more than simply "I have the scroll somewhere convenient." At some point, a spellwrought tattoo is much more likely what you were looking for....
I mean I came up with the tactic before spellwrought tattoos were a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The spell wrought tattoo is how this should be done. Not everything needs to be useful as a scroll.
Just as making a potion of fireball is a stupid thing to do, making a scroll of any reaction spell does not make sense (except for a Wizard to scribe it into his book).
There was a thread months ago with someone running a one-shot asking if they should let a player get away with essentially papering the back of their shield with post-it note sized scrolls for reactions spells. Sewing just one scroll into your cloak lining seems downright restrained in comparison
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
They errata'd it because the previous wording made reaction spells impossible, and nerfed bonus action spells by having them cast as actions.
Wrong... bonus action spells can't be cast a an Action...they can only be cast as a Bonus Action. Therefore before even bonus action spells were impossible with scrolls...
The spell wrought tattoo is how this should be done. Not everything needs to be useful as a scroll.
Just as making a potion of fireball is a stupid thing to do, making a scroll of any reaction spell does not make sense (except for a Wizard to scribe it into his book).
Yes those tattoos are awesome and as you said I guess New DND with tattoos is the way to go... since it does the same as a scroll without the debatable in hand prior or not discussion.
Again, I am still trying to understand how you are reading a scroll that is neither unrolled or even necessarily in line of sight.
I've never said you don't have to have it in sight...nor that you don't need to 'unroll' or have it hand to use it... the question is with a reaction if it needs to be in hand prior or not...
They errata'd it because the previous wording made reaction spells impossible, and nerfed bonus action spells by having them cast as actions.
Wrong... bonus action spells can't be cast a an Action...they can only be cast as a Bonus Action. Therefore before even bonus action spells were impossible with scrolls...
Ok then. All the more reason to fix this glaring oversight. I assume that was the only thing about my comment you disagreed with since you snipped it out all my references to item interaction rules and aren't arguing with them?
They errata'd it because the previous wording made reaction spells impossible, and nerfed bonus action spells by having them cast as actions.
Wrong... bonus action spells can't be cast a an Action...they can only be cast as a Bonus Action. Therefore before even bonus action spells were impossible with scrolls...
Ok then. All the more reason to fix this glaring oversight. I assume that was the only thing about my comment you disagreed with since you snipped it out all my references to item interaction rules and aren't arguing with them?
I sniped this yes because that's an obvious mistake, the rest is still debatable.
The reason being again, why do an errata to make something like you said impossible before to possible just to have it still pretty much impossible to do....
I read people strapping or glue the scroll to their instrument/shield. So to use the reaction scroll you would strap a bunch of spell scroll in your shield which to me make even less sense then pulling out the scroll as the reaction...
At the end of the day the character still uses the scroll either way...
They errata'd it because the previous wording made reaction spells impossible, and nerfed bonus action spells by having them cast as actions.
Wrong... bonus action spells can't be cast a an Action...they can only be cast as a Bonus Action. Therefore before even bonus action spells were impossible with scrolls...
Ok then. All the more reason to fix this glaring oversight. I assume that was the only thing about my comment you disagreed with since you snipped it out all my references to item interaction rules and aren't arguing with them?
I sniped this yes because that's an obvious mistake, the rest is still debatable.
The reason being again, why do an errata to make something like you said impossible before to possible just to have it still pretty much impossible to do....
I read people strapping or glue the scroll to their instrument/shield. So to use the reaction scroll you would strap a bunch of spell scroll in your shield which to me make even less sense then pulling out the scroll as the reaction...
At the end of the day the character still uses the scroll either way...
Because, it is not impossible anymore, it just takes a tiny bit of foresight and preparation.
I'm not going to go into everyone else's improvised shenanigans to bend the rules without breaking them.
Using the scroll was never the issue, granting additional object interactions outside your turn is. If it is ok to draw a scroll as a reaction, why not a weapon? Or why not be able to put away a weapon or wand to cast a spell with an empty hand? These are all things that the rules disallow. That is the issue.
I am trying to figure out how and why someone feels pulling a scroll out of a bag and using it is different to pulling a sword from a scabbard and using it. Some things have never been spelled out in minute detail, because some things are painfully obvious. Examples include needing a weapon in hand to execute an OA, or having a scroll in hand in order to read it. Using the logic that it's all part of the casting means all wands and staves that have a spell stored in them can be pulled from a bag and fired, not using up object interaction. This has made for an amusing read, as people post RaW regarding object interaction rules, action economy and more, all essentially verifying that you can use a scroll as a reaction in you have it in hand.
Wouldn't fly at our table I know for sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Huh, when I check Counterspell on DnDBeyond I see 'S' as the only listed spell component.
If I am mistaken and Counterspell only has a Verbal component then you are totally right and I chose a poor spell for my example.
Concerns like these are why my Bard pasted an unrolled scroll of Feather Fall to the back of her Instrument of the Bards, which had a strap to keep it on her hands-free. Then at least a minor posture shift would make it readable. Maybe the backside of a shield would do as well for a martial character?
I believe one would have to use the free object interaction during their turn to have the scroll ready to use.
Wouldn't it be funny if the scroll had instructions that said to cast the counterspell one has to follow the somantic component as such:
using the hand that is used in the casting, face directly the creature casting. draw a circle with a line passing though it at a 45 degree angle. then the caster using the hand that drawn the glyph, makes a middle finger and presses it to the glyph toward the opposing caster.
The scroll would also have drawings showing the glyph, and hand application.
Yes, my bard had a scroll of Feather Fall sewn into the lining of the cloak he wears over one arm. He just has to look under his arm to read it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes Counterspell is a "Somatic" only spell so it was a good example.
That said I don't agree with your argument. Not allowing a scroll to be "drawn" as part of a reaction might make such scrolls for some spells a bit more difficult to use but that is a part of normal action economy restrictions, the rules don't allow you to draw a weapon or equip a shield during a reaction either.
What you have ready and available at the end of your turn is an active decision that matters.
You cant draw a scroll as part of the reaction to cast the spell anymore than you can draw a weapon as part of the reaction to make an opportunity attack, because free item interaction happen on your turn as part of your move or action rather than off turn reaction.
There are definitely some spells which are just not worth having on a scroll - all reaction casting time spells being one set.
I could make an argument for feather fall and shield (being used as a parachute or a shield respectively).
Counterspell and absorb elements are less likely to trigger, thus less reliable as scrolls, but I could see very niche application. If you know you are going against a spellcaster, it might not be a bad idea to have one in hand.
Oops, you're right. I think I was thinking of silvery barbs as the V-only reaction spell
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Again this is a general rule you are saying here. Magic does not follow general rules, they follow specific rules which p.7 of the player handbook wins over generals. Such as featherfall as a material component in it but it can be still get in the component pouch as part of the reaction.
Also for scrolls in reaction it's the same thing and here is another BIG reason why. BEFORE, the wording to use a scroll was:
Whatever the nature of the magic contained in a scroll, unleashing that magic requires using an action to read the scroll.
They did an errata (definition of errata : a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal.), because they wanted it to be same time as casting the spell. Which comes to New use a spell scroll wording as follow :
Casting the spell by reading the scroll requires the spell’s normal casting time.
If they wanted to include the fact that a scroll needs to be ready in hand before to read it they would have included it with that same errata which they did not. Otherwise we would have a phrase that would look something like this:
Prior to using the spell scroll, you must have it ready in hand.
Also p141 of the DMG states this:
If a magic item requires an action to activate, that action ISN'T a function of the use an objet action.
Again Magic in DND have multiple specific rules and creates a lot of exception but specific beats general.
I do agree that some action seems impossible to pull out in our head refering to real world but that's the beauty of Dnd. Like a rogue evasion that's let's him avoid all damage from a fireball that cover a whole room... wording at the end of the day is the only thing that matter. Using a scroll is the same it says what it does, you use it as the spell casting time and that's it.
Also with the New wording only caster can use spells and reaction scroll are only defensive, to avoid death in most cases. Do you really want to kill your player that bad??
They errata'd it because the previous wording made reaction spells impossible, and nerfed bonus action spells by having them cast as actions. Neither of which was the intent, thus that was changed. They didn't need to add that the scroll needed to be in your hand or otherwise ready for use, because that was already covered by other rules and in effect even since before the errata.
Otherwise we would have a phrase that would look something like this: "you may retrieve the scroll from your inventory as part of the same action or reaction as reading the scroll." They didn't add that specific exception, so it has to follow the same rules as retrieving any other item.
By comparison, casting spells with a material component have a specific exception that lets them retrieve the component (and possibly to retrieve a focus, depending on interpretation) as part of casting the spell.
If spell scroll had specific rules overiding the general rules on item interaction, it would say so. An exemple that specifically overide such rules are ammunition rules for exemple.
Never the scroll rules say one can be drawn as part of using it.
I guess if you want to be a wet blanket about it, sure.
I mean I came up with the tactic before spellwrought tattoos were a thing.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The spell wrought tattoo is how this should be done. Not everything needs to be useful as a scroll.
Just as making a potion of fireball is a stupid thing to do, making a scroll of any reaction spell does not make sense (except for a Wizard to scribe it into his book).
There was a thread months ago with someone running a one-shot asking if they should let a player get away with essentially papering the back of their shield with post-it note sized scrolls for reactions spells. Sewing just one scroll into your cloak lining seems downright restrained in comparison
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Wrong... bonus action spells can't be cast a an Action...they can only be cast as a Bonus Action. Therefore before even bonus action spells were impossible with scrolls...
Yes those tattoos are awesome and as you said I guess New DND with tattoos is the way to go... since it does the same as a scroll without the debatable in hand prior or not discussion.
I've never said you don't have to have it in sight...nor that you don't need to 'unroll' or have it hand to use it... the question is with a reaction if it needs to be in hand prior or not...
Ok then. All the more reason to fix this glaring oversight. I assume that was the only thing about my comment you disagreed with since you snipped it out all my references to item interaction rules and aren't arguing with them?
I sniped this yes because that's an obvious mistake, the rest is still debatable.
The reason being again, why do an errata to make something like you said impossible before to possible just to have it still pretty much impossible to do....
I read people strapping or glue the scroll to their instrument/shield. So to use the reaction scroll you would strap a bunch of spell scroll in your shield which to me make even less sense then pulling out the scroll as the reaction...
At the end of the day the character still uses the scroll either way...
Because, it is not impossible anymore, it just takes a tiny bit of foresight and preparation.
I'm not going to go into everyone else's improvised shenanigans to bend the rules without breaking them.
Using the scroll was never the issue, granting additional object interactions outside your turn is. If it is ok to draw a scroll as a reaction, why not a weapon? Or why not be able to put away a weapon or wand to cast a spell with an empty hand? These are all things that the rules disallow. That is the issue.
I am trying to figure out how and why someone feels pulling a scroll out of a bag and using it is different to pulling a sword from a scabbard and using it. Some things have never been spelled out in minute detail, because some things are painfully obvious. Examples include needing a weapon in hand to execute an OA, or having a scroll in hand in order to read it. Using the logic that it's all part of the casting means all wands and staves that have a spell stored in them can be pulled from a bag and fired, not using up object interaction. This has made for an amusing read, as people post RaW regarding object interaction rules, action economy and more, all essentially verifying that you can use a scroll as a reaction in you have it in hand.
Wouldn't fly at our table I know for sure.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.