In past editions, skills like Use Magic Device or Arcana might let a non-caster use a spell scroll that their class couldn't ordinarily use. There isn't any rule specifically for that in 5e (other than the Rogue (Thief)'s 13th level feature), but I kind of feel like its baked enough into everyone's core D&D expectations at this point that the "Improvising an Action" sidebar in Chapter 9 can and should allow a character to at least attempt to use Spell Scrolls with an Arcana check :)
I'd say a wand would be best, mostly because on average they have multiple charges (which can be used to cast multiple times or, in many cases, allowing to cast at higher levels), and some are even capable of casting multiple spells. The main downside is that a lot of them require attunement, or might be restricted to specific classes or spellcasters. And as an added bonus they function as spellcasting focuses for the rest of the spells you know.
So wands are clearly the most versatile and reliable, but they're virtually impossible to craft on your own in-game without your DM giving you months of downtime. Scrolls are relatively easy to prepare, but they're all one-time use items. So they're inferior mechanically to the other two options, but have the benefit of being much easier to find or craft.
In past editions, skills like Use Magic Device or Arcana might let a non-caster use a spell scroll that their class couldn't ordinarily use. There isn't any rule specifically for that in 5e (other than the Rogue (Thief)'s 13th level feature), but I kind of feel like its baked enough into everyone's core D&D expectations at this point that the "Improvising an Action" sidebar in Chapter 9 can and should allow a character to at least attempt to use Spell Scrolls with an Arcana check :)
The Thief feature doesn't let the thief use spell scrolls either. There is a rule specifically for this in 5e. That rule is "just how spell scrolls work": "If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible."
Obviously, a DM is welcome to change how that works, but at that point the thread kind of becomes pointless. Clearly wands are the best, because at my table they never run out of charges and any dice rolled as part of their casting are maximized, etc. etc.
(Although, sincere answer, wands are still the best)
Spell gems also require you to be a spellcaster to use them (and not just for attunement). That leaves wands. Most wands require attunement by a spellcaster, but a small number don't.
This question is kind of funny because it is basically: "which weapon is best for a melee fighter longbow, shortbow, or crossbows?"
The "improvising actions" rule in Chapter 9 is not a house rule, it is a RAW mechanic which allows a player to request that they be allowed to do something which is not otherwise described in the rules. I get not using it as a catch all to override rules provided elsewhere, but asking to decipher and cast a spell scroll as a non-caster isn't quite the same thing as asking to wield a greatsword one handed or take an extra action on your turn or add your proficiency modifer to non-proficient weapons or other such "against the rules" stuff; like i said, it's something that is arguably baked into D&D DNA in the same way that grappling, opportunity attacks, and initiative rolls are.
I won't go so far as to say that "RAW, you can always use a spell scroll as a noncaster by making an improvised action check with Intelligence (Arcana)", but it certainly falls within the scope of something that is possible RAW, if your DM allows it.
The "improvising actions" rule in Chapter 9 is not a house rule, it is a RAW mechanic which allows a player to request that they be allowed to do something which is not otherwise described in the rules. I get not using it as a catch all to override rules provided elsewhere, but asking to decipher and cast a spell scroll as a non-caster isn't quite the same thing as asking to wield a greatsword one handed or take an extra action on your turn or add your proficiency modifer to non-proficient weapons or other such "against the rules" stuff;
It is "against the rules." Explicitly so. "Improvising actions" is there to allow for things that aren't covered by existing rules. Using spell scrolls is covered by an existing rule. I quoted it. It's very clear :p
RAW, a spell scroll is "unintelligible" to a character who doesn't have that spell on their class spell list. There is no rule in the books about what (if anything) a character can do to decipher an unintelligible spell. If I tell my DM "I want to decipher the unintelligible spell scroll and try to cast it," we are in a situation that the rules do not provide for, and it could be appropriate for the DM to allow me to attempt that, and to decide that Intelligence (Arcana) is the most appropriate attribute check to apply to the situation.
The spell scroll rules don't say "a character must have the Spellcasting feature from one of their classes to be able to use a spell scroll;" I concede that that would be an example of the rules providing that something is "against the rules" in a way that it wouldn't be appropriate to improvise around.
RAW, a spell scroll is "unintelligible" to a character who doesn't have that spell on their class spell list. There is no rule in the books about what (if anything) a character can do to decipher an unintelligible spell. If I tell my DM "I want to decipher the unintelligible spell scroll and try to cast it," we are in a situation that the rules do not provide for, and it could be appropriate for the DM to allow me to attempt that, and to decide that Intelligence (Arcana) is the most appropriate attribute check to apply to the situation.
The spell scroll rules don't say "a character must have the Spellcasting feature from one of their classes to be able to use a spell scroll;" I concede that that would be an example of the rules providing that something is "against the rules" in a way that it wouldn't be appropriate to improvise around.
I was really hoping this wouldn't devolve into a conversation about what "unintelligible" means, but somehow I knew it would. Anyway, if you can decipher it, then it's not unintelligible. If it's unintelligible, you can't decipher it. That is literally what the word means. And with that, I am definitely done with the conversation :p
Unintelligible. Adjective. Definition: impossible to understand. Synonyms: indecipherable, unfathomable. Source: Oxford English dictionary.
The item says: if the spell is on your class list, you can cast the spell. If the spell is not on your class list you cant read the scroll.
Even if you decipher it (which is unlikely to take less than several hours, days, or longer and is therefore not an action, but a downtime activity), you still couldn't cast it.
Spell scrolls don't require spell slots, or for a spell to be known or prepared. Them being unintelligible seems to be the only real obstacle provided to casting them. And "deciphering the unintelligible scroll to cast it" is certainly not a nonsensical English phrase that causes the Oxford English dictionary to burst into flames, it both makes sense in the context of the meaning of those words and is something that has been around since at least AD&D.
Spell scrolls don't require spell slots, or for a spell to be known or prepared. Them being unintelligible seems to be the only real obstacle provided to casting them. And "deciphering the unintelligible scroll to cast it" is certainly not a nonsensical English phrase that causes the Oxford English dictionary to burst into flames, it both makes sense in the context of the meaning of those words and is something that has been around since at least AD&D.
But it isn't in 5e. A lot of things have changed since ad&d.
The scroll doesn't require you to be able to read it to cast the spell, it requires that spell to be on your class spell list for you to be able to read and cast it.
1) "If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components."
2) "Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible."
Doesn't say that "otherwise, you cannot cast its spell," though that's certainly the logical conclusion of being unable to read it. But what if you were under the effect of Eyes of the Rune Keeper (or, succeeded an improvised Arcana check approved by your DM), so that it wasn't unintelligible any longer? Specific beats general, just because a Spell Scroll is ordinarily unintelligible and cannot be read/cast by a character of your class, that isn't to say that you specifically might not be able to do otherwise if under the effect of another superseding rule?
That is part of 5e's ambiguity problem. The rules only tell you what you can do, not what you can't. The fact that the spell needs to be on you class spell list in order to cast the scroll is all they needed to put.
Weapons are the same way "You add your proficiency bonus to your attack roll when you attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency." It doesn't say you don't get to add your proficiency bonus if you aren't proficient, because that isn't needed. The requirement to get the benefit is already stated.
Obviously, you can house rule around it, but that doesn't change the RAW.
I generally agree with you that its undesirable and unncessary for the rules to spell out all of the many things that you can't do, but it isn't the case that everything that isn't explicitly provided is "against the rules" or "something you can't do" RAW. The Chapter 9 "Improvising an Action" rules are just as RAW as bashing someone with a goblin's severed arm as an improvised weapon, and provide a clear rule (ask the DM if it's possible, and if so, have them identify an analagous ability check from Chapter 7'). It isn't a non-RAW house rule when the DM decides that a severed goblin arm is a 1d6 improvised weapon that functions as a club, and it wouldn't be a non-RAW house rule for the DM to decide that magical studies might allow you to attempt to decipher and use a spell scroll with an Intelligence (Arcana) despite not knowing the spell.
I generally agree with you that its undesirable and unncessary for the rules to spell out all of the many things that you can't do, but it isn't the case that everything that isn't explicitly provided is "against the rules" or "something you can't do" RAW. The Chapter 9 "Improvising an Action" rules are just as RAW as bashing someone with a goblin's severed arm as an improvised weapon, and provide a clear rule (ask the DM if it's possible, and if so, have them identify an analagous ability check from Chapter 7'). It isn't a non-RAW house rule when the DM decides that a severed goblin arm is a 1d6 improvised weapon that functions as a club, and it wouldn't be a non-RAW house rule for the DM to decide that magical studies might allow you to attempt to decipher and use a spell scroll with an Intelligence (Arcana) despite not knowing the spell.
The improvised action rules say this:
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
The action of "casting a spell from a scroll" is detailed in the rules. So it does not qualify without house ruling.
The improvised weapons rule was left very open about what can be an improvised weapon. Spell scroll rules are not open about who can cast them, they are specific.
spell gems are really nice since you can cast the spell within it for an action. So if the spell would normally take 10min and hour etc to cast you get to do it with a single action. Its a pretty powerful effect if used correctly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
which is best for a spell caster or non-caster to use spell scrolls, wands or spell gem?
I can see advantages in all of them but if you say only use one which would be best
wand (e.g. Wand of Magic Missiles) recharges
spell scrolls easy to make
spell gem can hold any spell below the gem LV
He who fight and runaway live to fight another day
Non-casters can’t use scrolls, so that one’s obviously worst :p
In past editions, skills like Use Magic Device or Arcana might let a non-caster use a spell scroll that their class couldn't ordinarily use. There isn't any rule specifically for that in 5e (other than the Rogue (Thief)'s 13th level feature), but I kind of feel like its baked enough into everyone's core D&D expectations at this point that the "Improvising an Action" sidebar in Chapter 9 can and should allow a character to at least attempt to use Spell Scrolls with an Arcana check :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'd say a wand would be best, mostly because on average they have multiple charges (which can be used to cast multiple times or, in many cases, allowing to cast at higher levels), and some are even capable of casting multiple spells. The main downside is that a lot of them require attunement, or might be restricted to specific classes or spellcasters. And as an added bonus they function as spellcasting focuses for the rest of the spells you know.
So wands are clearly the most versatile and reliable, but they're virtually impossible to craft on your own in-game without your DM giving you months of downtime. Scrolls are relatively easy to prepare, but they're all one-time use items. So they're inferior mechanically to the other two options, but have the benefit of being much easier to find or craft.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
The Thief feature doesn't let the thief use spell scrolls either. There is a rule specifically for this in 5e. That rule is "just how spell scrolls work": "If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible."
Obviously, a DM is welcome to change how that works, but at that point the thread kind of becomes pointless. Clearly wands are the best, because at my table they never run out of charges and any dice rolled as part of their casting are maximized, etc. etc.
(Although, sincere answer, wands are still the best)
Spell gems also require you to be a spellcaster to use them (and not just for attunement). That leaves wands. Most wands require attunement by a spellcaster, but a small number don't.
This question is kind of funny because it is basically: "which weapon is best for a melee fighter longbow, shortbow, or crossbows?"
The "improvising actions" rule in Chapter 9 is not a house rule, it is a RAW mechanic which allows a player to request that they be allowed to do something which is not otherwise described in the rules. I get not using it as a catch all to override rules provided elsewhere, but asking to decipher and cast a spell scroll as a non-caster isn't quite the same thing as asking to wield a greatsword one handed or take an extra action on your turn or add your proficiency modifer to non-proficient weapons or other such "against the rules" stuff; like i said, it's something that is arguably baked into D&D DNA in the same way that grappling, opportunity attacks, and initiative rolls are.
I won't go so far as to say that "RAW, you can always use a spell scroll as a noncaster by making an improvised action check with Intelligence (Arcana)", but it certainly falls within the scope of something that is possible RAW, if your DM allows it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It is "against the rules." Explicitly so. "Improvising actions" is there to allow for things that aren't covered by existing rules. Using spell scrolls is covered by an existing rule. I quoted it. It's very clear :p
Wand of Smiles is the best, hands down. Outside of that, it's situational, but wands are a strong contender since they are usable by non-casters.
RAW, a spell scroll is "unintelligible" to a character who doesn't have that spell on their class spell list. There is no rule in the books about what (if anything) a character can do to decipher an unintelligible spell. If I tell my DM "I want to decipher the unintelligible spell scroll and try to cast it," we are in a situation that the rules do not provide for, and it could be appropriate for the DM to allow me to attempt that, and to decide that Intelligence (Arcana) is the most appropriate attribute check to apply to the situation.
The spell scroll rules don't say "a character must have the Spellcasting feature from one of their classes to be able to use a spell scroll;" I concede that that would be an example of the rules providing that something is "against the rules" in a way that it wouldn't be appropriate to improvise around.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I was really hoping this wouldn't devolve into a conversation about what "unintelligible" means, but somehow I knew it would. Anyway, if you can decipher it, then it's not unintelligible. If it's unintelligible, you can't decipher it. That is literally what the word means. And with that, I am definitely done with the conversation :p
Unintelligible =/= Undecipherable :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Unintelligible. Adjective. Definition: impossible to understand. Synonyms: indecipherable, unfathomable. Source: Oxford English dictionary.
The item says: if the spell is on your class list, you can cast the spell. If the spell is not on your class list you cant read the scroll.
Even if you decipher it (which is unlikely to take less than several hours, days, or longer and is therefore not an action, but a downtime activity), you still couldn't cast it.
Spell scrolls don't require spell slots, or for a spell to be known or prepared. Them being unintelligible seems to be the only real obstacle provided to casting them. And "deciphering the unintelligible scroll to cast it" is certainly not a nonsensical English phrase that causes the Oxford English dictionary to burst into flames, it both makes sense in the context of the meaning of those words and is something that has been around since at least AD&D.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But it isn't in 5e. A lot of things have changed since ad&d.
The scroll doesn't require you to be able to read it to cast the spell, it requires that spell to be on your class spell list for you to be able to read and cast it.
1) "If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components."
2) "Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible."
Doesn't say that "otherwise, you cannot cast its spell," though that's certainly the logical conclusion of being unable to read it. But what if you were under the effect of Eyes of the Rune Keeper (or, succeeded an improvised Arcana check approved by your DM), so that it wasn't unintelligible any longer? Specific beats general, just because a Spell Scroll is ordinarily unintelligible and cannot be read/cast by a character of your class, that isn't to say that you specifically might not be able to do otherwise if under the effect of another superseding rule?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That is part of 5e's ambiguity problem. The rules only tell you what you can do, not what you can't. The fact that the spell needs to be on you class spell list in order to cast the scroll is all they needed to put.
Weapons are the same way "You add your proficiency bonus to your attack roll when you attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency." It doesn't say you don't get to add your proficiency bonus if you aren't proficient, because that isn't needed. The requirement to get the benefit is already stated.
Obviously, you can house rule around it, but that doesn't change the RAW.
I generally agree with you that its undesirable and unncessary for the rules to spell out all of the many things that you can't do, but it isn't the case that everything that isn't explicitly provided is "against the rules" or "something you can't do" RAW. The Chapter 9 "Improvising an Action" rules are just as RAW as bashing someone with a goblin's severed arm as an improvised weapon, and provide a clear rule (ask the DM if it's possible, and if so, have them identify an analagous ability check from Chapter 7'). It isn't a non-RAW house rule when the DM decides that a severed goblin arm is a 1d6 improvised weapon that functions as a club, and it wouldn't be a non-RAW house rule for the DM to decide that magical studies might allow you to attempt to decipher and use a spell scroll with an Intelligence (Arcana) despite not knowing the spell.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The improvised action rules say this:
The action of "casting a spell from a scroll" is detailed in the rules. So it does not qualify without house ruling.
The improvised weapons rule was left very open about what can be an improvised weapon. Spell scroll rules are not open about who can cast them, they are specific.
spell gems are really nice since you can cast the spell within it for an action. So if the spell would normally take 10min and hour etc to cast you get to do it with a single action. Its a pretty powerful effect if used correctly.