My character was plunged into darkness in a recent game. Fortunately, I had a scroll of darkvision. Unfortunately, the GM said I couldn't activate it, since I couldn't read it in the dark.
Is there a "must be able to read to activate" requirement for magical spell scrolls?
Nothing explicit that I could find, but I think it's safe to assume that you do need to read it. Otherwise, calling these things scrolls is just meaningless, which I don't think is the world building intention.
The whole point of the Vancian System is that you fire and forget stuff. The scroll will be the thing with the knowledge and power to cast spell.
The spell being "Darkvision" just make it ironic, rather than helpful, I'm afraid.
If you didn't need to read it, then it would just lead us to a rabbit hole of madness, that would end up with players only needing to have it in their body, which means no need to draw it.
See here for previous discussion about Quipu of Magic Missile.
Maybe the runes on the scroll glow with magical power? :P
What if I memorized the runes on all my scrolls and used the Cast a Spell action while holding the (unseen) scroll? Reading it in advance in other words.
I would allow activating the scroll if you knew you had it already. I would however require two flat checks for being blind. One for the interact action and one for the cast a spell action to target yourself.
If it were in your backpack however I would flat say no.
The way I picture scrolls is magic being imbued into the scroll and just requiring the PC to know how to activate it, so assuming they store their scrolls sensibly it is reasonable that someone can activate it without actually needing to read it. It isn't the reading alone that does the magic after all.
A scroll is just like preparing magic, but rather than storing the magic in your own body and remembering the activation steps for that stored magic, you are storing it in a scroll instead. I would assume people would know the activation steps aren't hugely extensive if they can be done in under 6s, so anyone who can cast normally should sensibly be able to cast without needing to see the scroll (surely they would memorise what activation steps will be necessary for any scrolls they have)
I think the default assumption is you have to read it. As mentioned, that's simply how scrolls work, so much so one wouldn't need to point it out in the rules. BUT, take for example Inuyasha and other Asian fantasy media where priests often use scroll-like magic items, paper charms which hold written spells. Except they're typically activated with a prayer rather than by reading the spell, and often they're throwing the scroll as they activate it. So in a Tian-themed campaign, I'd likely allow it, opening the door to considering it in standard games too, though for now I wouldn't allow it in PFS games, expecting full support from the local officers.
Reading it in advance in other words.
Uhm... isn't that what memorising a spell in a spell slot is in vancian casting?
Reading it in advance in other words.Uhm... isn't that what memorising a spell in a spell slot is in vancian casting?
I'm sure it is closely related.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would allow activating the scroll if you knew you had it already. I would however require two flat checks for being blind. One for the interact action and one for the cast a spell action to target yourself.
If it were in your backpack however I would flat say no.
The way I picture scrolls is magic being imbued into the scroll and just requiring the PC to know how to activate it, so assuming they store their scrolls sensibly it is reasonable that someone can activate it without actually needing to read it. It isn't the reading alone that does the magic after all.
A scroll is just like preparing magic, but rather than storing the magic in your own body and remembering the activation steps for that stored magic, you are storing it in a scroll instead. I would assume people would know the activation steps aren't hugely extensive if they can be done in under 6s, so anyone who can cast normally should sensibly be able to cast without needing to see the scroll (surely they would memorise what activation steps will be necessary for any scrolls they have)
Ugh. Requiring flat checks to target yourself is the apex of bad use of RAW, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. Requiring flat checks to target yourself is the apex of bad use of RAW, IMO.I would allow activating the scroll if you knew you had it already. I would however require two flat checks for being blind. One for the interact action and one for the cast a spell action to target yourself.
If it were in your backpack however I would flat say no.
The way I picture scrolls is magic being imbued into the scroll and just requiring the PC to know how to activate it, so assuming they store their scrolls sensibly it is reasonable that someone can activate it without actually needing to read it. It isn't the reading alone that does the magic after all.
A scroll is just like preparing magic, but rather than storing the magic in your own body and remembering the activation steps for that stored magic, you are storing it in a scroll instead. I would assume people would know the activation steps aren't hugely extensive if they can be done in under 6s, so anyone who can cast normally should sensibly be able to cast without needing to see the scroll (surely they would memorise what activation steps will be necessary for any scrolls they have)
Definitely. I don't think we need to have proprioception mentioned in the rules.
Ugh. Requiring flat checks to target yourself is the apex of bad use of RAW, IMO.
I have seen people fumble to locate objects on their body (wallets and keys) and buttons on clothes in the dark.
I haven't seen someone apply a bandage in the dark, but I doubt it would be easy. Doable all the time with patience and time, but not easy.
As far as I am concerned there is nothing to indicate that spell casting is less fiddly than bandage application.
So targeting yourself with a spell in the dark while in combat or expecting danger, and doing so as quickly as you can... I don't think the flat checks are that unreasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. Requiring flat checks to target yourself is the apex of bad use of RAW, IMO.I have seen people fumble to locate objects on their body (wallets and keys) and buttons on clothes in the dark.
I haven't seen someone apply a bandage in the dark, but I doubt it would be easy. Doable all the time with patience and time, but not easy.
As far as I am concerned there is nothing to indicate that spell casting is less fiddly than bandage application.
So targeting yourself with a spell in the dark while in combat or expecting danger, and doing so as quickly as you can... I don't think the flat checks are that unreasonable.
And yet you don't need flat checks to target yourself with Treat Wounds because you're never Concealed from yourself, only other creatures. So you can, in fact, bandage yourself blind with 0 problems.
As for the other points, things that happen to real world people have 0 bearing for Pathfinder rules, where not only can I find a backpack that fits 10 bucklers as easily as it does a single shield, but no matter how much stuff I have in it, retreiving a item from it only takes me 1 action. Which is also how long it takes me to draw a sword. Or to readjust my grip on a staff.
The scroll holds the magic that the character draws from in lieu of a spells slot. The character that is of level and already knows that spell or has it in their repertoire meets the requirements to cast it. The words runes symbols have power themselves and dont need to be read to release them. These are spells your character knows and can recite any necessary incantations by heart.
At least thats my understanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. Requiring flat checks to target yourself is the apex of bad use of RAW, IMO.I have seen people fumble to locate objects on their body (wallets and keys) and buttons on clothes in the dark.
I've also seen people struggle and outright fail to create blasts of fire, walk on the surface of water, and Treat diseases with crystals.
What does any of that have to do with game mechanics?
And yet you don't need flat checks to target yourself with Treat Wounds because you're never Concealed from yourself, only other creatures. So you can, in fact, bandage yourself blind with 0 problems.
As for the other points, things that happen to real world people have 0 bearing for Pathfinder rules, where not only can I find a backpack that fits 10 bucklers as easily as it does a single shield, but no matter how much stuff I have in it, retreiving a item from it only takes me 1 action. Which is also how long it takes me to draw a sword. Or to readjust my grip on a staff.
For hidden, if you are in darkness you are blinded and hidden from yourself. Crb 448, CRB 619, CRB 621 for darkness, blinded and hidden respectively. If I have missed a rule or specific rule interacrion please cite it.
Not sure if you decided to read from my post only, or just like ignoring context. My point isn't that I would rule that way because of real world mechanics, it is that this is how I would rule it for a scroll that was withdrawn in the dark and then the real world examples are because someone suggested that following RAW would be ridiculous.
Perhaps the reason you've never seen it done has less to do with any perceived difficulty, and more because it's difficult to see anything when it's, you know, dark.
Ha ha... my point was "doable all the time with patience" but hey you and the other person can continue with selective reading. GG.
The point is that even with something as simple as applying a bandage, in a 6 second period that also includes finding it, unwrapping it and being aware of danger... in an environment entirely robbed of your sight... fumbling is not some ridiculous possibility, and again, spellcasting is more complex than applying a bandaid.What does any of that have to do with game mechanics?
Again, because the topic was that game mechanics require the flat checks, and people were saying that it is ridiculous to follow RAW... r_r
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not ridiculous to follow RAW.
It is ridiculous to insist that RAW states that scrolls must be read when the rules in fact make no claim of that. The rules don't specify being read - they specify making a tradition-specific skill check, and even that is only in order to identify them, not to cast them. They don't have traits that require vision or language understanding. Only the flavor text of certain things of 'this is what a scroll is often described as' even hints at being read.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet you don't need flat checks to target yourself with Treat Wounds because you're never Concealed from yourself, only other creatures. So you can, in fact, bandage yourself blind with 0 problems.
As for the other points, things that happen to real world people have 0 bearing for Pathfinder rules, where not only can I find a backpack that fits 10 bucklers as easily as it does a single shield, but no matter how much stuff I have in it, retreiving a item from it only takes me 1 action. Which is also how long it takes me to draw a sword. Or to readjust my grip on a staff.
For hidden, if you are in darkness you are blinded and hidden from yourself. Crb 448, CRB 619, CRB 621 for darkness, blinded and hidden respectively. If I have missed a rule or specific rule interacrion please cite it.
Not sure if you decided to read from my post only, or just like ignoring context. My point isn't that I would rule that way because of real world mechanics, it is that this is how I would rule it for a scroll that was withdrawn in the dark and then the real world examples are because someone suggested that following RAW would be ridiculous.
I mean yes, you've completely missed how those rules actually work:
Darkness: "A creature or object within darkness is hidden or undetected unless the seeker has darkvision or a precise sense other than vision (Special Senses are on page 465)."
Under Detecting Creatures: "There are three conditions that measure the degree to which you can sense a creature: observed, hidden,
and undetected." and later, in the same section "With the exception of invisible, these conditions are relative to the viewer—it’s possible for a creature to be observed to you but hidden from your ally.
The rules for detecting things applies to other creatures or objects, never to yourself. You are never Hidden from yourself, or Undetected, or Unnoticed. All of those apply to creatures or objects that aren't you, which is what makes the most sense. If we follow your train of logic, an invisible spellcaster would be entirely unable to target themselves with spells (after all, they're Undetected) which is, to put it simply, absolutely bananas.
But furthermore, Blinded states:
"You can’t see. All normal terrain is difficult terrain to you. You can’t detect anything using vision. You automatically critically fail Perception checks that require you to be able to see, and if vision is your only precise sense, you take a –4 status penalty to Perception checks. You are immune to visual effects. Blinded overrides dazzled."
This only cites you can't detect anything using vision. Which, again, only applies to other creatures, not to you.
So I reiterate: you can 100% use Treat Wounds on yourself in the dark with 0 trouble, no flat check required.
And since I forgot to answer OPs question: no, the requirements to activate a scroll are clear, and reading isn't one of them.
It's not ridiculous to follow RAW.
It is ridiculous to insist that RAW states that scrolls must be read when the rules in fact make no claim of that. The rules don't specify being read - they specify making a tradition-specific skill check, and even that is only in order to identify them, not to cast them. They don't have traits that require vision or language understanding. Only the flavor text of certain things of 'this is what a scroll is often described as' even hints at being read.
Honestly, I see the case for needing to see the scroll to actually read it. I even see the case for a flat check to draw the item in the dark. I dont see a need to roll a flat check to target yourself, especially when the spell defaults to only being able to target yourself anyway. My perspective on the rules tends to put the fiction first. Does this reading make sense in the narrative? I'm pretty good at finding justifications for things, but if I can't because the RAW makes no narrative sense? Then I rule something that does.
I think both approaches are valid, provided you're consistent. But I wouldn't want to play in a game that treats RAW as gospel, personally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. Requiring flat checks to target yourself is the apex of bad use of RAW, IMO.I have seen people fumble to locate objects on their body (wallets and keys) and buttons on clothes in the dark.I've also seen people struggle and outright fail to create blasts of fire, walk on the surface of water, and Treat diseases with crystals.
What does any of that have to do with game mechanics?
Ugh. No offense, but this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to create verisimilitude in a fantasy world. "Because magic" doesn't mean mundane things should/can work differently than they do in the real world. Quite the opposite, actually -- the familiarity of the mundane lends credence to the fantastic.
That said, a flat check to target oneself seems silly to me. I certainly wouldn't require one.
Trying to guess a designer's intent is always kinda iffy, and harkens back to the worst of the "do you need a hand to provide first aid?" arguments of yore. Perhaps the designer didn't feel the need to specify that of course your character needs to read a scroll to activate it, any more than they felt the need to specified that Golarion has to have gravity to avoid characters floating off into space. It's just understood because that's how things work. On the other hand, perhaps the designer deliberately didn't apply the visual trait because they specifically intended that one needn't read a scroll to activate it. Absent a clear statement of intent, it's basically impossible for us to be sure.
Which leaves us with the GM making a ruling so we can have a functioning game. As for scrolls, I can see a GM ruling either way. Even if one assumes that the scroll must be read, perhaps the runes glow slightly as suggested up thread? The important thing is the GM makes a ruling and is consistent in the future.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anyone've given the quote, so there it is:
"Casting a Spell from a scroll requires holding the scroll in one hand and activating it with a Cast a Spell activity using the normal number of actions for that spell."
If you hold a scroll and can Cast a Spell from it (spell lists any everything), you just do it. It's very simple. Cast a Spell doesn't require reading anything.
And to be fully complete: The Cast a Spell item activity.
If an item lists “Cast a Spell” after “Activate,” the activation requires you to use the Cast a Spell activity to Activate the Item. This happens when the item replicates a spell. You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation component. If the item can be used for a specific spell, the action icon for that spell is provided. If it's an item like a staff, which can be used for many spells, the icon is omitted, and you must refer to each spell to determine which actions you must spend to Activate the Item to cast it.
In this case, Activate an Item gains all the traits from the relevant components of the Cast a Spell activity.
Still nothing about reading.
As for game justification of a scroll that doesn't need to be read - it would probably be one that doesn't look like the stereotypical parchment with words on it. Though it could also be the magical equivalent of setting off a mousetrap. Those have words on them too that the mouse doesn't need to be able to read in order to activate the item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. No offense, but this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to create verisimilitude in a fantasy world. "Because magic" doesn't mean mundane things should/can work differently than they do in the real world. Quite the opposite, actually -- the familiarity of the mundane lends credence to the fantastic.
So you are saying that in the real and mundane world you know what a magic scroll looks and works like? Because you personally in the real world are familiar with them and have used one to cast actual magic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to guess a designer's intent is always kinda iffy, and harkens back to the worst of the "do you need a hand to provide first aid?" arguments of yore. Perhaps the designer didn't feel the need to specify that of course your character needs to read a scroll to activate it, any more than they felt the need to specified that Golarion has to have gravity to avoid characters floating off into space.
And of course Raising a shield is obviously supposed to have the Manipulate trait. You are physically moving the shield around, after all.
This argument works reasonably well if the rules are completely unspecified. But when the rule is specified and just happens to not include something that you feel should be there, the argument falls a bit flat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. No offense, but this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to create verisimilitude in a fantasy world. "Because magic" doesn't mean mundane things should/can work differently than they do in the real world. Quite the opposite, actually -- the familiarity of the mundane lends credence to the fantastic.So you are saying that in the real and mundane world you know what a magic scroll looks and works like? Because you are familiar with them and have used one to cast actual magic?
Don't be obtuse.
I'm saying the plausibility of someone fumbling in the dark is completely unrelated to existence of magic. Did you read the post to which I was replying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did I read the post... that I wrote? Granted, it was under an alias, so...
I'm not being obtuse. I'm stating that the process of activating a magic scroll item may not actually need to involve reading. And may be a magical process rather than a mundane one - hence the need for having a spellcasting class feature in order to do it.
Consider: My car key fob has words on it too. But I don't need to see or read the item in order to use it to unlock my car door from 30 feet away. Something that would be considered quite magical to people in 1985.
Finding the right scroll among several scrolls in your pack might be hard to do if the scroll doesnt have tactile or olfactory means of distinguishing it and your in darkness.
If it is the only scroll in your bag it would probably be easily distinguished.
But is this something to get into and have checks on?
Now if you pulled the wrong scroll cant see which it is and attempt to cast darkvision but you actually pulled out something else, that could be a funny moment
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also just the "feels bad" argument. Someone buying a scroll of darkvision and then not being allowed to use it in the dark... I'd feel some sort of way about it. Maybe this particular apell "glows in the dark," or otherwise appears as it would if you were reading the scroll with darkvision.
Did I read the post... that I wrote? Granted, it was under an alias, so...
I'm not being obtuse. I'm stating that the process of activating a magic scroll item may not actually need to involve reading. And may be a magical process rather than a mundane one - hence the need for having a spellcasting class feature in order to do it.
Consider: My car key fob has words on it too. But I don't need to see or read the item in order to use it to unlock my car door from 30 feet away. Something that would be considered quite magical to people in 1985.
First of all, if you weren't being obtuse, then a question about "real magic" only leaves snarky. So stop being snarky, it was uncalled for.
Second, I agree with everything else you wrote. If you believe that I disagree with you about scrolls, you're mistaken.
What I was objecting to was the implication that if reading WERE required, one would not need light to do it.
This was implied when someone asserted that people fumble for things in the dark in the real world, and someone else (you?) replied with a comment about people being unable to walk on water in the real world. My point was simply that THOSE TWO THINGS AREN'T REMOTELY THE SAME.
Finding the right scroll among several scrolls in your pack might be hard to do if the scroll doesnt have tactile or olfactory means of distinguishing it and your in darkness.
If it is the only scroll in your bag it would probably be easily distinguished.
But is this something to get into and have checks on?
And does this apply to all other item types too?
Nothing says that bottled potions have any tactile or olfactory means of distinguishing them either.
If you have three daggers at your belt that are made of different metals and have different runes on them, can you tell which one is which in the dark?
This was implied when someone asserted that people fumble for things in the dark in the real world, and someone else (you?) replied with a comment about people being unable to walk on water in the real world. My point was simply that THOSE TWO THINGS AREN'T REMOTELY THE SAME.
Fair enough. My apologies. I think we are talking past each other on that point.
My understanding of your response was more that using a scroll was not a magical or fantastical event, but was just a mundane one.
Fair enough. My apologies. I think we are talking past each other on that point.This was implied when someone asserted that people fumble for things in the dark in the real world, and someone else (you?) replied with a comment about people being unable to walk on water in the real world. My point was simply that THOSE TWO THINGS AREN'T REMOTELY THE SAME.
Agreed. I apologize as well. I may or may not have a tendency to overreact to things I perceive as snarky. ;-)
My understanding of your response was more that using a scroll was not a magical or fantastical event, but was just a mundane one.
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the designer's intention was, and so I'd rule in favor of the player. I'd also be inclined to think that disallowing a blind character from using scrolls wasn't Paizo's intent.
That said, this is a game that has evolved from a lineage of games where reading a scroll was explicitly required, so that can be hard to let go of.
By the way, I liked your key fob analogy; it was clever.
Finding the right scroll among several scrolls in your pack might be hard to do if the scroll doesnt have tactile or olfactory means of distinguishing it and your in darkness.
If it is the only scroll in your bag it would probably be easily distinguished.
But is this something to get into and have checks on?
And does this apply to all other item types too?
Nothing says that bottled potions have any tactile or olfactory means of distinguishing them either.
If you have three daggers at your belt that are made of different metals and have different runes on them, can you tell which one is which in the dark?
Interesting.
If we really want to get that specific, I'd say the daggers are your belt are a clear exception. They are presumably sheathed and don't move around. The other items might be "loose" in a bag and tend to get jumbled up.
In practice I think I'd very likely just rule in favor of the player, unless, say, the contents of their bag had been dumped out and they had to sift through them to find what they were looking for.
"When in doubt, rule in favor of the player" has generally served me well as a GM. :-)
Finding the right scroll among several scrolls in your pack might be hard to do if the scroll doesnt have tactile or olfactory means of distinguishing it and your in darkness.
If it is the only scroll in your bag it would probably be easily distinguished.
But is this something to get into and have checks on?
And does this apply to all other item types too?
Nothing says that bottled potions have any tactile or olfactory means of distinguishing them either.
If you have three daggers at your belt that are made of different metals and have different runes on them, can you tell which one is which in the dark?
Interesting.
If we really want to get that specific, I'd say the daggers are your belt are a clear exception. They are presumably sheathed and don't move around. The other items might be "loose" in a bag and tend to get jumbled up.
In practice I think I'd very likely just rule in favor of the player, unless, say, the contents of their bag had been dumped out and they had to sift through them to find what they were looking for.
"When in doubt, rule in favor of the player" has generally served me well as a GM. :-)
I feel that way too.
Those questions actually make me think about pulling out items in bright light. In 2 seconds. It makes me think players are not looking in their bags to retrieve an item, they reach in, its just assumed they get the intended item and thats it. In that case darkness makes no difference.This is a simplification for gameplay but its probably a good one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someonewho roleplays with the blind, I know that when it comes to selecting the right page, blind people have all sorts of tricks for preventing mishaps. Thing like folding the corners in certain ways, tearing an edge, or adding a paperclip or some other tactile tell.
It's not a big leap to think that an experienced adventurer known for going into dark places would do something similar to prevent mishaps in the dark--especially those who think ahead well enough to bring darkvision scrolls.
Maybe this particular apell "glows in the dark," or otherwise appears as it would if you were reading the scroll with darkvision.
Oh don't get us started on dwarves not being able to read in the dark with darkvision or how you can't Stealth with a flavor-only aura of light.
We've had LONG fruitless thread debates about both.
|
Oh don't get us started on dwarves not being able to read in the dark with darkvision or how you can't Stealth with a flavor-only aura of light.
We've had LONG fruitless thread debates about both.
It's crazy to think back nearly thirteen years when we were just STARTING to beat the now long-dead horse of how to interpret PF1 double slice and arguing about natural attacks? You know, way back in the day when your old group was openly plotting to kill Hama (the 1st)? Whatever happened with that anyway?
Man alive... anyhow, FILTHY POWERGAMER!
You know, way back in the day when your old group was openly plotting to kill Hama (the 1st)? Whatever happened with that anyway?
Upon realizing that her plans for world domination would never come to fruition thanks to her treacherous former party, the original Hama disappeared into the desert and was never seen again. (I quit the campaign due to irreconcilable playstyle differences.)