I think you're the only one seeing an argument, Robert. I'm definitely not intending to argue - just clarify opinions and support with information. No ill-will is intended here.
The way you wrote and worded something about led me to interpret something you were trying to say incorrectly, and that's fine; you clarified and we're clear on that score now and I didn't see any further need to interject. As long as what you're saying is that the literal only use for cantrip scrolls is or should be a character for whom the cantrip is on their spell list casting it (and destroying the scroll in the process), then we're on the same page.
Here's anther quick piece of clarification:
Originally Posted by robertthebard
4. Cantrip scrolls do have a valid function, in that an arcane caster that doesn't have that cantrip castable, or simply wants to save that slot for later, can/should be able to use the scroll.
Cantrips do not cost spell slots - they can be cast infinitely with no expenditure of resources, so cantrip spell scrolls can never be about saving slots. For spell scrolls of 1st level or higher, though, saving on slots is very much a valid (and arguably even the main intended) use of them.
When you're debating, each position you state is an argument. There's no negative connotation implied or intended. My use of slot in this context was trying to oversimplify what I was trying to say, because just saying it was evidently confusing. So, I did choose my words poorly for that. Even that isn't getting the point across, however. As we can see from the post immediately following my last post. I once again pointed out that a class that doesn't have access to using a specific item should not be using it, and yet, we are being dragged back to that "ultimate fighter build". Even after clearly stating that it shouldn't work, it's being used as a cudgel. It's not the first time, or the first topic, where this has come up.
It's starting to seem like it's the only valid point in the position, and so it has to be hammered on repeatedly to beat others into submission, including those that agree that it shouldn't work that way. Now, I did use some caveats, such as in the absence of a skill, or a background that enables it, but on it's face, I agreed, and yet, here we are. With backgrounds, of which I'm not sure there are any that would enable that "ultimate fighter build", that's about as 5e as one can get. Given that UMD is rogue-centric in 5e, I still think it should be bards, but meh, it would make a skill highly unlikely as well. I'd be willing to bet that a fighter that "splashes" rogue for Arcane Trickster would short circuit GM completely. Assuming, of course, that that's even possible in 5e.
