Scroll use by PCs?

[AcadiusLost]

Default behaviour of scroll use by PCs only limits casting by class (UMD checked excepted)- a 1st level ranger can use a cure moderate wounds scroll, for example, with no chance for failure. Likewise, a level 1 wizard can cast a Meteor Swarm scroll with similar success.

Is this something we want to work into the ACR? Seems to me the UMD checks for using scrolls that would be otherwise unusable are pretty much in line with PnP rules for now, but secondary caster classes (rangers, paladins) are getting a free pass at spellcasting off scrolls, when they don't really have spellcasting abilities at all until 4th or higher level.

At the low-level end, there is little denying that adding scroll-cast healing for 2 more base classes from day one will help level 1 PC survivability. Requiring the caster level checks to use scrolls above a PC's casting ability restricts healing abilities more to the core healing classes, but also minimizes the ability of a few higher-level scrolls to break the power curve for low-level casters.

Thoughts on this?

[dergon darkhelm]

Are you talking about "caster level" checks for PCs that have a spell on their list but are lower caster level? If so then....yes ---please add it in.

As for the rangers and pallys---

To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.)

The user must have the spell on his or her class list.

The user must have the requisite ability score.

If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell’s caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell’s caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll’s caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps, below). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers.

I think that by reading this a person could claim that a ranger or pally under the level of 4 would have a caster lvl of 0 but be able to attempt to read from a scroll with a CL check........i'm not sure I like it, but that's how i'm reading it.


UMD only comes into play if the PC doesn't meet the criteria above.....I *think*

[AcadiusLost]

Caster level for secondary spellcasters (Rangers, Paladins) is supposed to work as 1/2 their class level, from 4th level on (when they start to get spells).

So, their CL progression looks like this:

Level: CL
1st : 0
2nd: 0
3rd: 0
4th: 2
5th: 2
6th: 3
7th: 3
8th: 4

And so on. The question would be, does a potential scroll user with a CL of 0 get that CL check anyway (with a +0 bonus), or are they barred from attempting to activate scrolls? (autofailure). Since they don't have any spellcasting abilities at all during those first 3 levels, seems to me it's a bit like a fighter who plans to take a cleric level at 4th- those first 3 levels of fighter shouldn't be granting scroll use just because he is /going/ to have spellcasting abilities down the line.

One could counterargue that paladins already receive divine abilities (lay on hands, divine health, divine grace), so their dieties may offer a shot at divine scroll activation, even if they aren't accomplished enough to manage their own spells yet. If one looks at the ranger's class abilities as being divine gifts from their nature-type dieties, that could extend, though it's a tougher sell for the rangers than the paladins IMHO.

Personally, I could go either way on the "0th level casters" for scroll use, but it's only fair to treat Rangers and Paladins the same way for this.

Also, can we pick up and interrupt / handle scroll use via the acr_spelltrack.nss?

[Runestaff]

I'd vote for barring them from using scrolls until they actually get spellcasting abilities (in other words, at level 4). It's doesn't seem logical that a low level paladin or ranger can understand the magical glyphs on a scroll but not yet have sufficient comprehension of their own magical abilities.

I suppose the counter to that position is that reading a scroll is akin to following someone else's instructions. Personally I favor the interpretation that the concepts represented on the scroll are too foreign to use until one has sufficient devotion to their deity/has studied long enough.

In other words, treat scroll use like a skill that requires training to use.

[AcadiusLost]

Since they both happen to be divine casters, understanding isn't so important as "divine permission" by some ways of looking at it- but it certainly makes sense to have spellcasting and scroll use go hand in hand.

I'll see whether I can hook the use of scrolls in my test module this weekend.

[Inaubryn]

Well, look at it this way. Say, a person takes two levels of Ranger then never again goes back to the ranger class, e.g. they take barbarian for the rest of the character's career.

Why would that person be able to use scrolls? They don't have an spellcasting ability whatsoever and never will with the above progression.

[AcadiusLost]

Made some good progress on this over the weekend. I've got a basic framework that checks all a PC's classes, and uses them to determine if a caster level check is necessary, and rolls one, if so. Failure results in a DC 5 wisdom check to avoid mishap, which can be one of the following:

1. 1d6 damage to caster per spell level of the scroll

2. Random visual effect applied to caster for 2-20 minutes

3. Spell is applied to intended target 1d12 hours later

4. Spell changes target location (enemy to caster, or position modified by +/- 12.0f x and y).

The code still needs a bit of work, trying to code it so the scroll is not destroyed on an unsuccessful (nonmishap) use attempt. Also, haven't accounted for UMD checks yet.

I am confident we can have a solid system in place soon, though. I've modified acr_spellhook.nss to add the hook, (and block DB spellogging for scrolls and potions), and added the scroll functions to acr_spelltrack_i - not the best place, but seemed at least thematically correct, and already #include'd in acr_spellhook.

Also- after consultation with rules guru SpiderJones, I've gone ahead and allowed the +0 caster level check for paladins and rangers trying to use scrolls of spells that exist on the paladin and ranger spell lists. The PhB gives them a caster level of "0" through 3rd level, which to me seems distinct from having no caster level at all. Easy enough to change it back before Live if there is a compelling reason to.

[Veilan]

The only compelling reason for restriction seem to be multiclass worries. You still need the ability score, though, so I think it's rather limited, going with the proposed system seems fine.

I don't like mishap 3 and 4, since they can come out more beneficial than intended or instead cause all kind of weird unforeseen issues affecting the target player, other players or a DM.

Instant and caster only effects would be preferable, though admittedly not as funny.

[AcadiusLost]

I don't like mishap 3 and 4, since they can come out more beneficial than intended or instead cause all kind of weird unforeseen issues affecting the target player, other players or a DM.

These are drawn directly from the DMG, and are very much outside of the caster's control. The extreme case (level 1 mage with 19 INT casting a 9th level Meteor Swarm scroll) involves failing a caster level check of 17 or better on a d20 (d20+1 vs DC1+17), but then also failing a DC5 wisdom check in order to get a mishap result. The mishaps are a random pull off the table. None of them will "affect" DMs, and the target switch mishap is biased towards affecting the caster (if the original target was an enemy, the effect is redirected vs. the caster. If not, it centers on another nearby creature or object near the target.

Mishaps still consume the scroll in question, and are quite rare occurances under normal situations.

[Veilan]

Of course getting teleported behind a wall or getting killed during an odd ooc happening, or at an inappropriate time because it was comic booked, and the spell suddenly taking effect will affect a DM. Those are just some examples, another point is that due to the nature of PW-ALFA there could be a lot of other unforeseen consequences we're not aware of yet.

Those effects may be fun for PnP where a DM is always around to arbitrate such stuff, but I'm not convinced they offer any advantages in atmosphere that we can't simulate through some creative other effects that have less potential to produce unintended problems (or just use the first two). Better safe than sorry, I guess - self only, instantly are within the realm of where we can foresee effects relatively predictable and where we can mostly assure the effect will matter when it fits IC.

If we need more than two, some replacement suggestions could be raising the difficulty of scroll use for the next hour or two, applying a daze effect to the caster, summoning a hostile dire badger, or a knock-effect on all clothing's buckles and straps, leaving that bard to show just what his charisma score is worth under the hood... possibilities for fun are rather endless .

[AcadiusLost]

Of course getting teleported behind a wall or getting killed during an odd ooc happening, or at an inappropriate time because it was comic booked, and the spell suddenly taking effect will affect a DM. Those are just some examples

None of the mishap possibilities involve causing teleportation of PCs or objects, only swithcing of targets (or target position, for location-based spells,) The only chance for a suprise "kill" would be the delayed effect, which isn't at all OOC, really- it's a legitimate, canon mishap effect. A DM could rule it OOC and tech rez on the spot if they wanted, but it would be a consequence of failure in using the scroll, just like aiming a fireball too close to the party. I suppose one could split hairs about the possibility of things like a botched fireball taking effect on the wrong side of an interior wall or something, if needs be we could add a LOS test or the like. I'm not seeing how "comic book time" means a delayed spell effect is OOC- if a DM wants to say "a day has passed and everthing is OK now" while a misfire is pending, they can fix things up after the detonation without too much fuss. I've yet to see any way these mishaps could be game-breaking.

[edit: I realize the syntax of "Changes Target Location" can be read two ways now. What I mean is, the spell changes it's aim, to point at something other than it's original target. If it was aimed at an enemy, it will likely aim at the caster instead. If it was aimed at a door, it might hit the lampost to the right instead. If aimed at x45.4 y67.3, it might hit x24.2, y68.4 instead. No "switching places" of PCs or objects involved, apologies for any misunderstandings.]

[Veilan]

[edit: I realize the syntax of "Changes Target Location" can be read two ways now. What I mean is, the spell changes it's aim, to point at something other than it's original target. If it was aimed at an enemy, it will likely aim at the caster instead. If it was aimed at a door, it might hit the lampost to the right instead. If aimed at x45.4 y67.3, it might hit x24.2, y68.4 instead. No "switching places" of PCs or objects involved, apologies for any misunderstandings.]

Ah, a rather important clarification.

What if the delayed spell triggers after being logged out etc., does it keep track?

I've yet to see any way these mishaps could be game-breaking.

I think that's a given, considering we don't have a server up and running with a real playing environment.

I've got no more reservations about the target thing then - swapping with your target can be fun, still come out more positive than the actual spell, but that's just how it is, I guess. The possibility is low enough.

You've not yet laid out what advantages the delayded casting mishap has over other possible ones, "it's how it is at the gaming table" isn't an advantage in itself, especially not if it could cause possible attention deserving issues.

[Rusty]

The delay-type mishaps seem like a suitable candidate for testing. Go with the DMG and if it causes problems, we can pull them?

[AcadiusLost]

The delay is just one of the few off the DMG options list that we can actually manage by scripting. The technical implementation actually makes the target "cast" the spell on itself, after 1d12 ingame hours, using script switches to get around the fact that the target likely doesn't have the spell to cast in the first place. It's active and in place on the OAS2 for testing now, though may have some downtime tonight while I switch over to Teric's new version of the module, and re-integrate my ACR work.

I'd be interested to know if there were unintended consequences to this method (armor arcane spell failure checks blocking the delayed casting, corresponding spell attributed to the target by the spelltracking DB, caster level effects based on target's level, etc). We could certainly drop the delay if it's unworkable.

Also- if the target is offline or despawned when the DelayCommand fires, naturally nothing is going to happen. There is no system that tracks "pending" spell effects to whack someone with on next login.

[Runestaff]

What I mean is, the spell changes it's aim, to point at something other than it's original target.

Suppose the spell target happens to be another PC. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume this PC was just happening by, spawning into the area, etc. If the miscast spell kills this PC, is this going to be ruled a legitimate IC death, or one subject to appeal/tech raise? I realize this should be extremely rare, but is still something that needs to be thought through.

Speaking of edge cases, suppose the delayed spell effect kills a monster in battle with another PC. Who gets xp for the kill? If it's the original caster and he or she is logged off, does the xp get awarded on next log in, or is it lost?