Maybe it is just me but Magic Scrolls should only be able to be used by corresponding class and not just any character.

This has been brought up many times. No comments from Larian if they want it that way or when it's going to be fixed. Then again they also gave Rogue's Cunning Action to everyone and DOS has a classless class system so they just might hate D&D's distinctive classes.

It does undermine spellcasting classes and also multiclassing as those classes to get this ability. Fighters with 8 Intelligence vocalizing the spell incantations also does a really good job of making magic seem nothing special in Forgotten Realms. Anyone can be a mage and read that stuff.

My thought is in the back end of the mechanics and whatnot of the code, this part of the game as not been developed as of yet because DOS was used as the base.

I am hopeful that they will update this because it just seems too much out of place.

Its too early to assume what Larian will do with the feedback we have given, so far they proven to check what the community brought up. A lot of the arguments made a lot of sense and I’m sure in time they will make adjustement.

I do like the ability for non-casters (and casters who don't have that spell on their spell list) to be able to read scrolls, but it definitely should be a difficult skill check. There's no "Use Magic Device" in 5e, so maybe an Arcana check with DC = 15 + spell level? A failure results in the loss of the scroll.

A 12-Int, level-5 fighter with proficiency in Arcana would then have a ~45% chance to successfully cast a 1st-level spell, which seems fair. Limiting enough that you wouldn't regularly do it, but in certain scenarios taking the risk might be worth it. A rogue with arcana expertise would have an even better chance, which allows them to benefit more from their skill-monkey role.

But there is the Magic Initiate feat and Multi-classing which mechanically represent just that: dabbling with magic.

Arcana refers to knowing about magic, not actual skills with it, and it would be good to keep it that way so things don't get mixed up.

That's why I'd want the DC to be high-ish, so that this doesn't replace that feat or multi-classing. The description of a spell scroll is: "a spell scroll bears the words of a single spell, written in a mystical cipher" and that the spell not being on your list makes the scroll "unintelligible." I'd argue that Arcana (knowing about magic) is the appropriate skill to be able to read that cipher. Perhaps you, in your academic studies of magic, came across that cipher/those words and are able to read them correctly.

The spell is already in the scroll; so as long as you can read it, you can cast it. You basically just are following a recipe.

Actually even Wizards and Clerics have to roll an Int or Wis check in 5e if the scroll level is higher than they can normally cast. DC13 Int check for a Fireball before you can cast it yourself so only 60% chance for a level 4 Wizard to get it off the scroll. I'm not saying BG3 should be as strict unless they really plan to shower the player with scrolls. But that's the spirit of the magic system.

I'm not warming up to allowing non-magical classes cast spells by just rolling skill checks. Wizard spells are written in an obscure language they spend a long time learning, it's not english as we can hear when spells are cast. Hearing Lae'zel cast spells like Gale or Shadowheart just feels off. The difficulty and mystery surrounding Arcane spellcasting is what makes it cool and interesting in the setting. If any farmer can cast Fireballs from scrolls magic becomes mundane.

Oh, I misread the "scroll with level higher than can normally can cast" check. I knew that they had to make a roll, but I didn't realize that it was a pure ability modifier check and doesn't get proficiency. That makes the check much more difficult.

I still want all characters to be able to attempt to use scrolls with an Arcana check, but the DC would have to be higher or else it'd be unfair to casters. DC 18+spell level maybe? That would still be possible, but we're getting close to the "difficult enough that it would never be used" territory, in which case why bother?

At the very least, I'd prefer requiring Arcana checks over just allowing everyone to freely use scrolls. But if Larian also implements the higher-level-spell-scroll rules, then I suppose I'm fine with also preventing non-casters from using scrolls at all.

+1

I'd prefer the actual D&D rules on this, as with many other things Larian have changed.

I don't think Larian fully understand that what makes the class based system work is that other classes can't steal your shtick. Wizards are special because Fighters and Rogues can't cast spells or use scrolls. Clerics are unique because Wizards can't learn their spells. Rogues are cool and distinctive because no one else can Hide or Disengage as a Bonus Action.

And D&D has all the rules to blend these class perks and allow customized character builds in a balanced way already. They don't need to add any freebies. I wish they would just... stop.

Because like, 80% of tables homebrew it to be this way.

AND the magical tattoos introduced by Tasha's work this way, so a magic item that functions exactly like how scrolls are working right now in Baldur's Gate 3 is according to the developers of 5e... a balanced mechanic.

Every class being able to use scrolls is fine, and thats the way it should have always been.

I agree about the spell scrolls - and my expectation is that this is just not been implemented yet rather than they are planning to just let everybody use scrolls.

Following on what you were saying - I understand the scrolls themselves are written in Draconic, Celestial, Netherese and Demonic - its not just a recipe written in common like making chicken soup. If you don't pronounce that shit right you may catch fire, explode, or be polymorphed into a slug - like rolling on the Wild Magic table but only negative outcomes.

Larian is aware that it's an error, but I think that they just haven't put changing the code for that high enough on the priority list. At least that's what makes the most sense to me. I obviously don't know how the code for scroll usage works, so maybe it's more complicated than I think it is.

work i progress reasons ? No feedback on that as of yet. i'm sure they now by now it's to good.

Another homebrew suggestion which sucks.

This is like 6 posts old in the specific conversation chain, but alright. Do you not like the concept of UMD at all, or do you think that it only made sense in previous D&D editions but not in 5e ('s lore, classes, magic system)?
This question is also to you @1varangian.

Scrolls are "written in a mystical cipher," which may be Draconic+etc, sure. And I agree that it's dangerous if you get it wrong, but it's possible you get it right. The more familiar you are with mystical ciphers (arcana) and languages (intelligence), the higher chances of being able to pronounce it correctly.

So would you want a penalty (roll on a negative-only WM table) if you fail the arcana check to use a scroll? Or for simplicity, if the spell is harmful just have it go off in your face and if it's a buff spell (Bess), make it a negative effect (Bane).

I am fine sticking with RAW and saying you just can't use them unless you are a class that can use them or have multiclassed into a class that can.

"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."

There is also some stuff about Spell DC to cast a scroll with a higher spell level than you have. I'd be content if we just got the spell list limitations implemented.

+1 this needs to be fixed, along with Wizards learning every spells.

And less scrolls in the world overall, especially in random crates or illogical places please.

+ a Scroll Case button for casters in the main UI that would automatically sort all scrolls. Next to Potion Belt and Quiver buttons which would sort the other type of consumables.

I will say that I feel as though other classes shouldn't be able to use Cleric spell scrolls at all. A difficult arcana skill check for other classes to use a wizard scroll would make sense since technically anyone can learn to be a wizard with enough dedication and study. Cleric spells however are supposed to require the backing of a god to use, aren't they? Do tell me if I'm wrong.

Well, the issue with that is there are very few spells that are ONLY spells one class can cast. There is typically a lot of overlap between classes for the majority of spells in 5e, with only a handful of spells that are actually unique to one class.

One class or archetype that gets completely shafted by everyone being able to use scrolls is the Eldritch Knight.

EK doesn't begin to compare against a Battlemaster who gets access to the same spells in addition to their superiority die combat moves. Using spells should be the EK's unique class ability inside the Fighter class and a reason to pick it over something else.

Letting everyone cast spells from scrolls kills flavor as much as it kills balance. Why aren't they correcting this?

People that had the corresponding skill could use scrolls if they passed there skill check in 3.5. I don't know how it is in 5e though, where's Niara when you need her/him.

@Gray Ghost - You don't need faith to cast from a scroll, its just a spell turned into a tool. Artificers used to be tool masters as most of there class features were just that, but that was in 3.5 though.

@1varangian - I'm guessing they'll adjust spell casting when the matching classes come out, they did this for ranger when they were brought out druid. Figuring Bard or sorcerer well see changes to how spells are handled, this is just me guessing though.

@Nation - thx for the fast reply below.

lol, upon request though niara can add further clarity if needed - this was pulled from the recent thread that was discussing throwing healing potions to heal which waded briefly into the who can use scrolls and scroll/spell scroll discussion, altho idk if larian is intending to observe these 5e rules and class specific spell lists or to incorporate more homebrew.

Thanks for that <.< >.>
Just to add some extra background:

Without a special class feature, you can only a spell scroll (that is, a scroll with a specific spell on it, from a particular class list), if you have that spell on your class list. If you DO, then you can cast the spell from the scroll automatically, using the Spell's casting time - so a scroll of feather fall would be used as a reaction, as odd a mental picture as that makes. If the spell is of a level higher than you can cast normally (say a 4th level spell when you can only cast 3rds) you can make a check using your spellcasting ability modifier (Not an Arcana check; a cleric, for example, would roll a d20 + wisdom modifier to use a high level cleric scroll) against a DC equal to 10 + the level of the spell (So a low-level cleric trying to cast Raise Dead off a scroll would need to roll against a DC 15, as Raise dead is 5th level). If you're interrupted, the spell and scroll are not lost, but if you cast it and fail the check then it is. Material costs are not required for a spell scroll - they were already paid when the spell scroll was created. This is also why others who might not be faithful to the same god, or in edge cases not have any clerical ability at all, can still cast such spells without a divine connection, if the spell is otherwise on their list (divine soul sorcerers, theurgist wizards, cheeky bards, etc).

There are a handful of situations that allow characters to cast spells from scrolls in unexpected circumstances. The most common is when you add spells to your class spell list from a feature. Spells on the cleric list "count as sorcerer spells" for a divine soul sorcerer, for example. Spells a bard takes with magical secrets "count as bard spells" for that bard. Beyond that thief rogues can also get 'Use Magic Item', which allows them to ignore certain requirements on magic items, one of which is class - so a thief rogue could use any spell scroll, but they'd have to make the check, and their spellcasting ability modifier, since they don't have any spellcasting ability, is +0.

There is work still being done on the magic and casting system, and they've shown a willingness to bring things into 5e form over time, so hopefully when the magic rework comes out this will be rectified with that.

(I respond to any term of reference, and it's no big problem, but female terms are accurate in you're uncertain fallen ^.^ no biggie)

Freaking hope they will change this crap to PHB rules. : /

I'm just wondering why they have such fundamental base rules wrong here. Something that has also persisted for 5 major patches and a full year since EA release.

I mean.. they had to code in scroll use somehow already, and they chose to implement it against D&D rules. That leads me to believe they don't like the D&D system and are intentionally going against it or testing the waters to transform 5e towards a more classless system like DOS. (also disengage and hide as BA for everyone etc.)

They could always just come out and say "don't worry, scrolls for everyone is a remnant of the Divinity engine we just haven't gotten around to fixing yet because it's planned further down the line". But they're not going to do that because they don't share information. They have time to dress up as druids and make LARP videos, I wish they had some time to communicate as well. Because in the end we are more interested in how the game will play.

@Niara Thanks and gotcha

I've assumed that allowing everyone to cast from scrolls was a device to compensate for the limited choice of classes and subclasses and our inability to multiclass during early access. We also have a limited choice of companions. If anyone can still cast from any scroll at release, I'd see that as a problem, but for now it really doesn't upset me.

I could see Larian going either way with this. On the one hand it seems like it should be a relatively easy fix and they have already made adjustments to other parts of the game in response to feedback. On the other hand Larian has a longstanding preference to giving players flexibility and options to be creative, so I could see them leaving something like this to the modding community.

+1 Completely agree. It should be exclusive to spell casters. There are other things too that I feel should be limited to a specific class or classes such as picking locks.

Actually, it shouldn't, I'd rather not get stuck with one character on the team just because he can open locks.

I'm ok with Avyna's suggestion as long as there are other ways to solve the problem, like breaking the door, chest etc that is locked or casting the spell Knock.

But, I can understand you Rhobar too. Unlike trying to understand a scroll in a language you're not proficient with, trying to pick a lock is something everyone can do. But unless they're experienced with that kind of activity. they shouldn't expect to succeed very often.

Is that even a thing in tabletop 5e?

No, it is not ^.^

I can understand that but one of the traits of a rogue is lock picking, it's common in every rpg. It's even in the DnD Player's Handbook, where only the rogues have the thieves tool.

Yes, but I guess it depends on your DM if they want to be explicit or they homebrew it.

No, Lady, Rogues being the only ones to pick locks is NOT part of 5e in any way. Please don't spread misinformation.

I see you have started again, Niara. Stop accusing me of things because you don't agree. I'm not doing this with you. What I wrote is based from the Player Handbook. Every class has hit points and proficiencies on the chapter about classes but only the rogues says thieves kit on tools. The other classes don't have that.

Rogue is the only class with proficiency with Thieves Tools. Any class can use them, but without proficiency.

Exactly, I feel like rogues should be favorited in that aspect. Even if they make everyone able to pick locks but it should be way easier for a rogue.

Lady: "There are other things too that I feel should be limited to a specific class or classes such as picking locks."
Ranxerox: "Is that even a thing in tabletop 5e?"
Lady: "Yes, but I guess it depends on your DM if they want to be explicit or they homebrew it."

I'm not putting words in your mouth, Lady, that is what you said, and you are incorrect.

You say it's in the player's handbook, well, cite me a source. Show me a quote.

Anyone, literally anyone, regardless of their race or class or anything else about them, can begin the game with proficiency in thieves' tools and a set of them on their person. This is not homebrew, it's right there in the PHB in plain text. Shall I cite the source for you? I'd be happy to, if you want. There is nothing, anywhere in the whole book that ever says or even remotely implies that only rogues can attempt to pick locks - not one thing. Cite me a source if you think there is.

Rogues innately come with proficiency in thieves' tools because it's considered to be a core skill for their class, to some degree. Yes, it's traditional. However, trying to say that that means that they are the only ones who can is incorrect, and acting as though the handbook supports that is disingenuous. I'll say again: as per the handbook, literally anyone can create a character that has proficiency in thieves' tools - anyone. Thieves' tools allow you to add your proficiency bonus to checks you make to attempt to pick locks or disarm traps. These are actions that anyone can attempt. A DM might decide that proficiency is required to make the attempt at all in some circumstances, or that a check cannot be made without a proper tool kit, but that is always a DM call - a not a rule.

Why are you always so confrontational? I already said why and where. What the moderator said is correct and I agree. In my personal opinion, I feel like the rogue should be favored in that aspect. I'm used to other rpgs where they make it exclusive to the rogue as that has been a big trait with rogues. Whether you agree with it or not, that's your opinion and that's fine.

I get firm in my language when people spread direct misinformation to others - it's a personal annoyance of mine, and I apologise for that. If you'll just admit that you initially said that lock picking is restricted by class, told someone else that it was when they asked if it was that way in 5e, and that you are in fact mistaken in that claim and would like to retract it, I'll be quite content.

I believe the perception comes from these exerpts:

Afaik, you don't choose your proficiencies in raw in that way. The class you choose dictates some proficiencies, per quote:


However the background you choose etc can let the player choose additional proficiencies, which I suppose may include an alternative that gives proficiency in Thieves Tools. (It's been a while, so pardon me for errors, correct me if there are.)

Purely on the basis of classes, only Rogues have Thieves Tools assigned as a proficiency as baseline.

Edit: There's also this on page 125:


So if a player chooses Rogue as their class, and a background that also includes Thieves Tools, the Rogue gets to choose another proficiency instead.

First of all your twisting what I said, nowhere in my response to Ranxerox did I say the word "restricted". They asked if that is a thing in 5e and I said "yes" based on what I have read. Only the rogue has a proficiency on Thieves tool and only the rogue has the archetype of thief. It even says in the TPH that Rogues can refine their skills in climbing, disarming traps and opening locks. {If the DM wishes to give everyone that proficiency so be it but if you want a rogue to be unique it would be better if they are the only ones with that proficiency and all the other classes should have a disadvantage (my opinion)}.

THANK YOU!

You said "Limited", which is functionally a synonym for restricted. An ability being limited to a subset of people is the same as it being restricted to that subset of people.

Regardless:

((Edit: Spoiler tagging the quote block since this is not really pertinent to the original topic of the thread at this stage))


The Phb tells you, clearly and openly throughout the course of character creation, that anyone, regardless of their race or class can have proficiency and access to any set of tools or skills that suites their character, including thieves' tools... one class gets them from a class bonus, but that is only one source, and it is in no way, at any point, ever implied to be limited to them in any way. I would very much appreciate it if you would acknowledge that, and that your previous statement - when you said you wanted it limited, and someone asked you if it was a thing in 5e, and you told them that yes, it was, unless the dm homebrewed, was a (perhaps unintentional) mislead.

Niara, again you seem to be acting confrontational, playing semantics and you are twisting what I said. This is what I said if you go back and read it again "There are other things too that I feel should be limited to a specific class or classes such as picking locks"

Notice the key word term "I feel". You should know that whenever someone uses the term "I feel", that's an opinion.


P.S: Don't try to "educate" me on terms, that's condescending.

Yes, and I'm not denying that... and you're welcome to your preference... but then someone asked if that was a thing in 5e, and you said it was, and I corrected you, because it isn't. That's all this is.

Did you not see what the moderator posted? There is nothing to correct. I feel like you are ignoring my other comments and picking on just one.

So, you're happy to say then, that picking locks is not implied to be limited to just rogues in the 5e Phb? That, indeed, anyone of any race or class can, by the core rules, begin a character with that proficiency and equipment, perfectly legitimately?

Depends of your character. Like the moderator said, it's only if your characters has the option to pick an extra proficiency but Rogues have it regardless as it's part of their class. It even says that rogues can refine those skills.

I'm done with both of yours' bickering. Don't care which one of you feel more right or vindicated, you keep butting heads from what I can only pin on an imprinted dislike due to impressions of one another, and I perfectly understand that's a very normal and human thing to do. Try to shake those feelings, please. I really don't want to have my hand forced at giving either of you a temporary break from posting. And do please have a look at this short sentiment.

I apologize for feeding the flames with Niara but I do get tired of the way she answers me, maybe I'm wrong in perceiving it that way but I feel like she started being a little confrontational. My initial response was to someone else and I feel like she came in to stir the pot with my response. I will just ignore her from now on.

Edit: redacted, with my apologies... I'm letting this aggravate me and I shouldn't. Sorry, I'll say no more.

Thank you Niara for posting all this info! I always find your posts extremely helpful and thorough. I have learned so much about DnD rules in this forum (my favorite part of being here), and alot of it comes from you and a few others. Also appreciate your thorough analyses! 😊

Having said all that…I do personally wish rogues had more specialized skills in the game. And in general that all the classes were more distinct from one another. This is purely because I enjoy managing encounters and thinking thru party for rach mission. At the moment, the game is so easy, I just bring who I like. I hope Larian makes the classes more distinct…even if it technically goes against some 5e rules.

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words... I did let this discussion get away from me though...

At any rate, Hopefully they'll give Rogues their Expertise at some point - that goes a long way to creating the 'super-specialist' feeling that they often embody. A rogue with a +17 to Stealth and with Thieves' Tools is definitely far more specialist a those things than even someone else who has dedicated their character to it, but without expertise.

As far as thieves' tools and RAW are concerned, I want to point out a couple of things which, I believe, have not been mentioned yet.


This is clearly RAW, but admittedly this class is not in the Players' Handbook (PHB), so let me bring up information from the PHB. There is a paragraph called "Customizing a background" on p125, which states that player groups are free to create any Background they want, giving their custom Background a total of two tool proficiencies or languages. But that sounds like it may be considered homebrew territory for some purists. The following is not.



So, according to the rules, being good (in particular, proficient) at picking locks and disarming traps is not exclusive the the Rogues class.

Now, do I personally feel happy with this ? Yes, for three reasons.

• I feels right to me. Picking lock or disarming traps isn't exactly difficult. There is nothing super advanced about it. Playing a particular instrument without any proficiency in any instrument (no musical training at all) sounds near impossible to me. But studying a mechanism until figuring out how it works sounds like something most of us have done in real life. Of course, one might say, 5E isn't mean to be a real-life simulator (even for life in a fantasy world). Which brings me to the second point.
  
• In a video game, that is a lot more likely to feature many locks and traps than a tabletop campaign (some of which may forego these altogether), being able to use thieves' tool well will be a fairly important skill to have in the party. I don't want to feel forced to include a Rogue.
  In BG1-2, I always made sure I had a half Thief in my party (multi-class */Thief or dualed-out-of Thief). Because the older editions required a Thief for traps and locks to even attempt to remove them, and BG1-2 contained a lot of traps and locks. (Yes, I know, I could do without. But sending summons or tanks on traps, and using the Knock spell on locks leads to a very tedious gameplay.)
  
• I'm very happy for 5E's Rogues to be characterised by Sneak Attack and Cunning Action. I don't feel they need more.

Coming back to the original topic of the thread, I hope that Larian will restrict the possibility of using certain scrolls to certain classes. Again, for similar reasons as above.

• I feels right to me (even though, to start with, I find the concept of casting from one-use-only scrolls very stupid, but that's whole other topic). Reading a scroll requires reading skills. Not every one character can do that. And we're talking about reading complicated shit (otherwise Wizards wouldn't spend years mastering magic).
• Not restricting scrolls usage by classes decreases the identity of classes. 5E classes are already not as strongly-differentiated as they may have been in the past (and I like it fine that way). If Larian wants to make classes even less differentiated, I'm going to start wondering why they bother keeping classes at all (and I know they're on the record saying that classes are restrictive).

So, I hope they'll get round to implementing class-restricted usage of spell scrolls.

I appreciate your input. Isn't the Artificer a different type of rogue, like a subclass? I know in DnD they have them separate but in fantasy settings, I've usually see them as a subclass of Rogue. To me personally, I wouldn't want other classes to do what a Rogue is mostly known for because then it defeats the purpose of having a rogue in your group if everyone can do everything. It's the same for any class. I would like each class to remain unique. This would go back to the whole spell scroll situation. It should remain with only spell casters.

Tks for answering. I've never played 5e tabletop, in fact to give away my advanced age the last TT I played was AD&D!

The level 2 transmutation spell "Knock" negates the need for lockpick and even opens magical locks/barriers for 10 minutes. The only caveat is that "knock" creates a HUGE audible knock sound that can be heard for 300ft. Sneak and lockpick are functions of the rouge and they always have both skills by default. Any other class wanting to perfrom these skills normally muct sacrifice something potentially more valuable to their specific calss attributes.

The rouge using the arcane tricktser subclass is a master at avoiding traps, opening locks, stealth etc. using a combination of skill and arcane magic. Currently the arcane trickster in BG3 is missing half of its kit and spells. His mage hand can pick locks, pick pockets, disarm traps and he/she can use knock, invisibility, greater invisibility etc.

As far as I am aware (unless it changed) scrolls are class AND level specific and not "generic" spells anyone can cast. There are exceptions, at 13th level the generic rouge gets the "use magical item" skill which allows them to decipher and use spells of any calss or level. There are other classes/subclasses that can use them this is just an example.

I mean these rules are ok for EA as you can only get to level 4 but later on to levels 5-6-7-8-9.... it will become a mess of balance issues and create one size fits all classes doing the game a great diservice.

It all goes back to "We need a rule system more faithful to 5e."

Bottom line. The game needs it.

Otherwise, it's a mess.

I'm actually more hopeful that we'll get it than others seem to think. EA is a test zone. So, I wonder if we're not getting 5e so much because they're testing a bunch of homebrew to see what works and what doesn't.

Here's hoping anyway.

No, the Artificer is it's own full class, and it is a crafter/inventor wizard-engineer themed archetype. It's subclasses are Alchemist, Armourer, Artillerist, and Battlesmith.

+1 Exactly

I also think that Rogues should get their Expertise and proficiency in Thieves Tools added. The last time I checked, picking locks instead used Sleight of Hand. I feel like that tying lockpicking proficiency to SoH instead of TT acts as a bit of a skill tax on the Rogue. Admittedly Rogues do get more skills than others, but I see no reason why they shouldn't get TT proficiency.

That said, I think I've also seen some descriptions which suggest that other types of tools will be added, like herbalism kits, so perhaps when tools are added, Rogues will gain proficiency in the Thieves Tools.

I think the best solution would be to give Rogues proficiency in Thieves Tools and keep Sleight of Hand also granting proficency with Thieves Tools. That is homebrew, but it allows for more classes to have access to proficiency in Thieves Tools without tying themselves to that background, while also not being a skill tax on the Rogue which goes against the PHB.

***

I also think that with the exception of Revivify scrolls, classes should only be able to use scrolls with spells from their class spell lists. I think this will be in eventually, but right now it apparently isn't high enough priority or is more complicated to implement than expected.

On the other hand why bother with limiting this scroll for Cleric and maybe Druid if you have ressurecter in camp.

By the way, they might have solved it better