D&D 5E A contradiction in spell scroll entries in the DMG?

[machineelf]

I have another question about spell scrolls. There seems to be a contradiction between what's said on Page 200 in the "Spell Scroll" entry, and Page 140 in the "Scroll" entry in the DMG.

On Page 200, it seems to indicate that in order to cast a spell from a spell scroll, the spell must be on your class's spell list, "otherwise, the scroll is unintelligble." But on Page 140, it says "any creature that can understand a written language can read the arcane script on a scroll and attempt to activate it."

Am I misunderstanding something, or does it seem like they made a change to the rules between the two sections? How would you run it?

 

[MerricB]

There are protection scrolls in addition to spell scrolls. I'd say that the description on page 200 trumps that on page 139 - a case of the specific overriding the general.

EDIT: Ah, found where the protection scrolls are hiding!

Cheers!

 

[the Jester]

In previous editions, there were protection scrolls in addition to spell scrolls. I'd say that the description on page 200 trumps that on page 139 - a case of the specific overriding the general.

Cheers!

Yep. Not only that, scrolls of protection have returned in 5e- they're in the magic item list.

So, specific trumps general, aye.

 

[Athinar]

Here is my take on this:
On Page 200, it seems to indicate that in order to cast a spell from a spell scroll, the spell must be on your class's spell list, "otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible." But Rogues can try to cast them with "Use Magic Device" - Roll Investigate first to decipher the Spell; Roll the DC + spell level to cast the spell

Page 140, it says "any creature that can understand a written language can read the arcane script on a "Protection" scroll and attempt to activate it."
no Ability Check needed (my checks bounce anyway)

and the Words "written language" is the Key; Spells Scrolls are written in a Mystical Cipher (not a language); Protection Scroll - Using an action to read the scroll encloses you in a ....

you read a language and you decipher a Mystical Cipher

 

[CapnZapp]

This thread is an excellent illustration of why it was a bad idea to introduce "scrolls-that-really-aren't-the-kind-of-scrolls-many-players-expect".

Non-spell scrolls should not have been called scrolls. It is confusing to a lot of gamers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This thread is an excellent illustration of why it was a bad idea to introduce "scrolls-that-really-aren't-the-kind-of-scrolls-many-players-expect".

Non-spell scrolls should not have been called scrolls. It is confusing to a lot of gamers.

maybe if they went with scroll in general, and spell-scroll as a type of scroll...

 

[SkidAce]

This thread is an excellent illustration of why it was a bad idea to introduce "scrolls-that-really-aren't-the-kind-of-scrolls-many-players-expect".

Non-spell scrolls should not have been called scrolls. It is confusing to a lot of gamers.

I'n not sure I agree, we had no confusion in 1st edition with protection scrolls.

 

[holyground]

The real confusion is that this changed between the release of the PHB and the DMG. It used to be ANYONE could make an arcana check to cast a scroll, protection or not. Now spell scrolls can only be used by those who have the spell on their list.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'n not sure I agree, we had no confusion in 1st edition with protection scrolls.

And that's why I said "a lot of gamers" rather than "all gamers".

Like it or not, a huge share of players will have cut their teeth on 3rd and 4th edition. These players will be confused. Just like this thread amply illustrates.

Put simply, a "scroll" for many players is something simple and straightforward. Trying to wind back time, to make us call scrolls "spell scrolls" so other magical scrolls can exist is simply a bad design decision.

Quite a needless one too, since I'm sure you would still be here even if your precious whatevers of protection were called something other than "scrolls".

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I'd rule that page 200 is correct. If they can't be bothered to put all the information about something in one place /and/ make it clear, I can't be bothered to try and figure out what they ment. Besides, I prefer rules that make the PCs more Heroic. After all, I can always use more monsters, or whatever.