In older editions you could have more than 1 spell on a scroll ( up to 7 I believe). I haven’t looked closely at whether 5e still does this as I haven’t been using scrolls that much and mostly for single use situations. But, especially if this is allowed, I would reverse things - do your in turn casting mostly from scrolls/items and save your slots for reactions as much as possible. Again, not sure of the 2024 rules ( or 2014) but as a DM I would treat reading a spell scroll to cast as a “magic action” and you only get 1 of those a turn so no further spell casting until your reaction. You could however, I think, activate a power/limited ability like misty step as long as you don’t cast it as a spell.
So just be sure to scribe many reaction and bonus action spell scrolls as can be life savers.
i wonder, are spell scrolls required to be held in hand when cast? If so, you'd need to already hold a reaction spell scroll in hand before the reaction is triggered, because you don't get an object interaction as part of your reaction (it must be part or your movement or action).
And since all (I think) reaction spells are somatic only, you'd need the scroll in one hand, and the other hand free to perform the somatic components.
If didn't changed, casting from scrolls takes the same type than from slot. So taking the scroll would be part of the reaction casting.
Not sure if they changed it.
Casting from the scroll takes the reaction, yes. What I meant is whether you first need an Object Interaction to take the scroll out from wherever you keep it. Because you can't do that as part of a reaction.
That is how I would read it as well. So yes you can use a reaction scroll as a reaction, you just need a hand to be holding it before the trigger for that reaction.
Scroll: ...If the spell is on your class's spell list, you can read the scroll and cast the spell using its normal casting time and without providing any Material components.
It bypasses the Material component, so have to provide the omitted ones. But there is no mention you cannot use the same hand that holds the scroll. As summary, is just like if you cast from your spells, but not providing material components. In fact, there is no mention you need to hold it, so you could read if it's in front of you in any way.
This is incorrect. I guess the best way to explain why is to just quote the rule again that I already quoted above:
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise.
The debate about Scrolls and whether they need components or not is interesting.
You could argue the 2018 errata in the DMG was meant to say that spells from spell scrolls need Verbal and Somatic components.
But then, you could also argue that the text is just clarifying or reminding us that you don't need any components at all, not even Material.
And finally, we also have this tweet from the Dev (not official ruling; link here):
@DakotaHansen13 Casting from a spell scroll. It doesn't say it requires V/S components, but specifically lists not using M. Does that line override the general rule about not needing V/S/M for any spells from magic items, so you would need V/S? @JeremyECrawford Spell scrolls follow the normal rule for casting a spell from a magic item: you don't need to provide any components to cast the spell (V, S, or M). Spell scrolls have a twist, though: you must read the scroll to cast its spell. This is effectively an ad hoc component.
So what you need is visual contact to be readable.
Interesting so if you want an unnoticed casting in a meeting you could hide a scroll inside a book and activate it doing like if you were reading the book. Or mixing it within papers on the table.
So what you need is visual contact to be readable.
Interesting so if you want an unnoticed casting in a meeting you could hide a scroll inside a book and activate it doing like if you were reading the book. Or mixing it within papers on the table.
Yeah, there's nothing that indicates that it even has to be read out loud. It just has to be read.
Of course, if you were blinded or were otherwise unable to see the scroll then you would not be able to cast the spell.
I find it a little odd that the scroll doesn't have to be held or wielded or something, but that also appears to be the case -- it just has to be somewhere that's within "readable" range.
Taken that a scroll is a roll of paper, logic dictate that it need to be first unrolled to be read, wether by free hands if not already unrolled and held in place by weight or something. If another creature was to do it for you, i'd say it must be within 5 feet of you.
Can use the free interaction for that and nothing indicates you need both hands, if instead rolled you store it folded you can extend it with one single hand. The game is pretty abstract in many points so it just follows the rules to interact as any other item as nothing is specified.
Can use the free interaction for that and nothing indicates you need both hands, if instead rolled you store it folded you can extend it with one single hand. The game is pretty abstract in many points so it just follows the rules to interact as any other item as nothing is specified.
Yeah the abstract nature of it puts a lot of extras like this in the hands of the DM. like i would generally rule unless you have some clever set up you need two hands to unroll a scroll, maybe slight of hand checks to pull something off on the fly. And I'd say it needs to be read out loud. While some may see the vagueness as a positive i do not. New DMs need the guidance, experienced DMs feel more comfortable house ruling as they know their tables.
Reading out loud implies providing Verbal component, which is not required to activate the scroll according the rules.
I'd just use the base rules so it only needs one hand, as is an item that can be held in one hand, and just read, which doesn't implies voice.
I'd not put so emphasis on penalizing this specific thing, and just let it to follow the abstract rules of the game, as we have many other examples many of them even worse:
- Drink a potion would require both hands, to open the bottle. It uses one as item that can be held in one hand.
- Draw a weapon would require both hands, as have to hold the sheath to draw safely in real life, if not would require something like a roll and if <X cannot use the weapon that round.
- Damage in only HP, no matter if are slashes, crashes, burn, acid...which have different consecuences.
- I can be almost dead with 1HP but I can use my full bonuses just like if I was full plenty.
- Can be burnt up to the edge of death, but with just only 8 hours of rest I am plenty again with no wounds.
So D&D is a very abstract game that relies on mechanics used to conclude a situation, then if we want to write it is up to us to put the specifics of the narrative about how it concluded that way based on the gameplay, which is not detailed. For something more realistic I think there are better options.
Then I am not going to penalize specifically to some users as IMO is just not fair for them, looking some of the previous spots. So unless specified, I'd use the rule as is, if and item can be hold with a single hand, then just follow the same rules than for all the others, and etc.
When a scroll requires the user to read it, aloud is not necessary, as long as such creature can understand a written language it can read the script on the scroll and attempt to activate it, silently so if desired.
Except if the scroll spell isn't on your class’s spell list, then the scroll is unintelligible.
Here is the problem - a round is 6 seconds long - just how long is the passage you are reading (aloud or silently) that still gives you the time to specify the location ( of a ranged spell target) and activate the scroll. Treating like a one shot wand makes more sense - target then activation command and off the spell goes to the target. You need the scroll out, you need to specify which spell (if there is more than one on a scroll), target no and activation. That’s really about all you ( barely) have time for in a round.
A spell scroll casting is handled the same way as if it where cast by a magic user, except for the material need unless the spell that is being cast requires material components that have a specific monetary value and or that is consumed by the spell.
A scroll uses the same mechanics and rules as general spell casting.
So, if the spell on the scroll normally has V/S/M requirements, then those requirements except the M component ( unless that component has a specific need in the casting of the spell ) because the scroll itself becomes a focus of sorts and can replace the need for a specific object or component pouch.
But, you still have to do the verbal / somatic portions of the casting. The details for scrolls never explicitly says anything specific to change that fact, it only mentions materials because of the specific requirements of some spells that require material consumption of a specific value.
now if a casting feature allows you to possibly circumvent certain requirements in casting a spell, well a scroll is subject to those same feature abilities.
This is incorrect. I guess the best way to explain why is to just quote the rule again that I already quoted above:
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise.
Almost every movie or tv show has people reading magic scrolls out loud, so I think its reasonable to require that in the game.
I do believe that is the implication, it technically does not specify. Saying not specifying means silent RAW I'd disagree with. It is vague and up to the DM imo on a lot of this. Like I said earlier, I'd go with it needs to be read out load.
Agreed that a casting has the same problem - just enough time to identify the spell, target the spell and activate the spell. But with a spell the time you take to memorize it covers most of the actual casting time so all that is left is the activation. In some ways I like 5e better tHan 1-3e as you keep the memorization, earlier editions you had to memorize each spell separately and then lost them on casting. Now you cast 3 fireballs but no memorize it once and have a couple of other options also memorized. Basically with scrolls you do the same pretty much. You burn the slot as you write the scroll so all you need is the activation and targeting after specifying the spell on the scroll.
Here is the problem - a round is 6 seconds long - just how long is the passage you are reading (aloud or silently) that still gives you the time to specify the location ( of a ranged spell target) and activate the scroll. Treating like a one shot wand makes more sense - target then activation command and off the spell goes to the target. You need the scroll out, you need to specify which spell (if there is more than one on a scroll), target no and activation. That’s really about all you ( barely) have time for in a round.
The time issue. If it was only casting from scrolls OK but… A Fighter with 3 attacks with the new rule that allows to draw/stow a weapon as part of the attack itself, how much can do a person in 6 seconds about draw/stow and attack?. Or those “epic” fights against the legendary creature lasting a minute.
Really, D&D could be anything but a realistic or detailed system, so I didn’t bother much about making sense of the rules or mechanics compared to real life/logic. If something is covered by a rule, just apply it as the rest of the game works the same way. If we want to apply the real life logic to the game, probably should modify the 90% of the game XD
Correct, in order to use the scroll (cast its spell) as a Reaction, it must already be in your hand. You can't use a Free Interact, Bonus Action, or Action to retrieve it during the Reaction that's casting the spell.
If you have a Shield spell on a scroll, you can cast it as a Reaction ONLY if it is already in your hand.
Correct, in order to use the scroll (cast its spell) as a Reaction, it must already be in your hand. You can't use a Free Interact, Bonus Action, or Action to retrieve it during the Reaction that's casting the spell.
If you have a Shield spell on a scroll, you can cast it as a Reaction ONLY if it is already in your hand.
But does the free interact with object rules still apply if you never use it during your turn, and thus still available to use if you have to react?
if that free interact ability is still available in using a reaction, then would it not be within the rules to allow a player to use the free interact to retrieve the scroll and the reaction to read and use the scrolls magical abilities?
Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I interpret the rules, it seems the intent for object interaction is to happen on your turn, so it wouldn't be allowed on another creature's turn (e.g., using your Reaction off-turn):
Your Turn
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your Speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. [...]
Interacting with Things. You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe.
And:
Time-Limited Object Interactions
When time is short, such as in combat, interactions with objects are limited: one free interaction per turn. That interaction must occur during a creature’s movement or action. Any additional interactions require the Utilize action, as explained in “Combat” later in this chapter.
Hell, what if the free object interact is used to retrieve the scroll at the very beginning of the turn of the player, just so that player can have it ready in case it might be needed in a reaction? How many are going to try and argue this is an example of Readying a Reaction, when in reality the player is just preparing for a response to an action that might happen later in the combat?
I'd say this is legit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In older editions you could have more than 1 spell on a scroll ( up to 7 I believe). I haven’t looked closely at whether 5e still does this as I haven’t been using scrolls that much and mostly for single use situations. But, especially if this is allowed, I would reverse things - do your in turn casting mostly from scrolls/items and save your slots for reactions as much as possible. Again, not sure of the 2024 rules ( or 2014) but as a DM I would treat reading a spell scroll to cast as a “magic action” and you only get 1 of those a turn so no further spell casting until your reaction. You could however, I think, activate a power/limited ability like misty step as long as you don’t cast it as a spell.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That is how I would read it as well. So yes you can use a reaction scroll as a reaction, you just need a hand to be holding it before the trigger for that reaction.
This is incorrect. I guess the best way to explain why is to just quote the rule again that I already quoted above:
The debate about Scrolls and whether they need components or not is interesting.
You could argue the 2018 errata in the DMG was meant to say that spells from spell scrolls need Verbal and Somatic components.
But then, you could also argue that the text is just clarifying or reminding us that you don't need any components at all, not even Material.
And finally, we also have this tweet from the Dev (not official ruling; link here):
Maybe they'll clear this up in the new DMG.
Meanwhile... choose your own adventure.
So what you need is visual contact to be readable.
Interesting so if you want an unnoticed casting in a meeting you could hide a scroll inside a book and activate it doing like if you were reading the book. Or mixing it within papers on the table.
Yeah, there's nothing that indicates that it even has to be read out loud. It just has to be read.
Of course, if you were blinded or were otherwise unable to see the scroll then you would not be able to cast the spell.
I find it a little odd that the scroll doesn't have to be held or wielded or something, but that also appears to be the case -- it just has to be somewhere that's within "readable" range.
Taken that a scroll is a roll of paper, logic dictate that it need to be first unrolled to be read, wether by free hands if not already unrolled and held in place by weight or something. If another creature was to do it for you, i'd say it must be within 5 feet of you.
Can use the free interaction for that and nothing indicates you need both hands, if instead rolled you store it folded you can extend it with one single hand. The game is pretty abstract in many points so it just follows the rules to interact as any other item as nothing is specified.
Yeah the abstract nature of it puts a lot of extras like this in the hands of the DM. like i would generally rule unless you have some clever set up you need two hands to unroll a scroll, maybe slight of hand checks to pull something off on the fly. And I'd say it needs to be read out loud. While some may see the vagueness as a positive i do not. New DMs need the guidance, experienced DMs feel more comfortable house ruling as they know their tables.
Reading out loud implies providing Verbal component, which is not required to activate the scroll according the rules.
I'd just use the base rules so it only needs one hand, as is an item that can be held in one hand, and just read, which doesn't implies voice.
I'd not put so emphasis on penalizing this specific thing, and just let it to follow the abstract rules of the game, as we have many other examples many of them even worse:
- Drink a potion would require both hands, to open the bottle. It uses one as item that can be held in one hand.
- Draw a weapon would require both hands, as have to hold the sheath to draw safely in real life, if not would require something like a roll and if <X cannot use the weapon that round.
- Damage in only HP, no matter if are slashes, crashes, burn, acid...which have different consecuences.
- I can be almost dead with 1HP but I can use my full bonuses just like if I was full plenty.
- Can be burnt up to the edge of death, but with just only 8 hours of rest I am plenty again with no wounds.
So D&D is a very abstract game that relies on mechanics used to conclude a situation, then if we want to write it is up to us to put the specifics of the narrative about how it concluded that way based on the gameplay, which is not detailed. For something more realistic I think there are better options.
Then I am not going to penalize specifically to some users as IMO is just not fair for them, looking some of the previous spots. So unless specified, I'd use the rule as is, if and item can be hold with a single hand, then just follow the same rules than for all the others, and etc.
When a scroll requires the user to read it, aloud is not necessary, as long as such creature can understand a written language it can read the script on the scroll and attempt to activate it, silently so if desired.
Except if the scroll spell isn't on your class’s spell list, then the scroll is unintelligible.
Almost every movie or tv show has people reading magic scrolls out loud, so I think its reasonable to require that in the game.
Here is the problem - a round is 6 seconds long - just how long is the passage you are reading (aloud or silently) that still gives you the time to specify the location ( of a ranged spell target) and activate the scroll. Treating like a one shot wand makes more sense - target then activation command and off the spell goes to the target. You need the scroll out, you need to specify which spell (if there is more than one on a scroll), target no and activation. That’s really about all you ( barely) have time for in a round.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This is incorrect. I guess the best way to explain why is to just quote the rule again that I already quoted above:
I do believe that is the implication, it technically does not specify. Saying not specifying means silent RAW I'd disagree with. It is vague and up to the DM imo on a lot of this. Like I said earlier, I'd go with it needs to be read out load.
Agreed that a casting has the same problem - just enough time to identify the spell, target the spell and activate the spell. But with a spell the time you take to memorize it covers most of the actual casting time so all that is left is the activation. In some ways I like 5e better tHan 1-3e as you keep the memorization, earlier editions you had to memorize each spell separately and then lost them on casting. Now you cast 3 fireballs but no memorize it once and have a couple of other options also memorized. Basically with scrolls you do the same pretty much. You burn the slot as you write the scroll so all you need is the activation and targeting after specifying the spell on the scroll.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The time issue. If it was only casting from scrolls OK but… A Fighter with 3 attacks with the new rule that allows to draw/stow a weapon as part of the attack itself, how much can do a person in 6 seconds about draw/stow and attack?. Or those “epic” fights against the legendary creature lasting a minute.
Really, D&D could be anything but a realistic or detailed system, so I didn’t bother much about making sense of the rules or mechanics compared to real life/logic. If something is covered by a rule, just apply it as the rest of the game works the same way. If we want to apply the real life logic to the game, probably should modify the 90% of the game XD
Correct, in order to use the scroll (cast its spell) as a Reaction, it must already be in your hand. You can't use a Free Interact, Bonus Action, or Action to retrieve it during the Reaction that's casting the spell.
If you have a Shield spell on a scroll, you can cast it as a Reaction ONLY if it is already in your hand.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I interpret the rules, it seems the intent for object interaction is to happen on your turn, so it wouldn't be allowed on another creature's turn (e.g., using your Reaction off-turn):
And:
I'd say this is legit.