PDA

View Full Version : Explosive Runes



Dresil
2010-03-26, 11:08 PM
What creative uses for Explosive Runes have you come up with, i.e. folding a piece of paper into an airplane after casting on the wing.

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-26, 11:17 PM
1. Get a book.

2. Fill it with explosive runes.

3. Throw it at an enemy.

4. Dispel magic, and voluntarily fail.

5. ???

6. Profit!

ryzouken
2010-03-26, 11:17 PM
rubber ball + drop trap with the Trapsmith PrC.

We now have a trap that can dispense instant death with DC's set by the trapsmith's Craft:trapmaking check result. +30 competence item, max int, skill focus, masterwork tool, next thing you know we're looking at a DC around 85 or so (lv 20) for spotting and disabling said trap. Include a lead lined box for said rubber ball and our explosive runes trap of death can't even be foiled by detect magic or comparable spells.

Probably don't need the Trapsmith PrC, but the PrC makes it so the party rogue can't actually find it unless HEAVILY optimized for trapfinding.
6(x)d6 force damage, no save where x=number of explosive runes castings you choose to imbue said ball with.

Rinse and repeat as needed.

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-26, 11:39 PM
We ruled (players and DM alike after we were pulling some lame explosive runes stuff) that the first explosive runes spell destroys the other pieces of paper, thus disallowing multiple explosive runes spells from going off in the same space. In the event that multiple go off for other reasons, the overlap is still treated as being hit by only one spell.

That having been said, we wad them into tiny balls and wrap them around slingstones. Everyone in the party has a few and when we need an explosion, they lob one at a square and my wizard fails a dispel. Works pretty well. Not optimal by a longshot but fun.

My wizard's spellbook in this game is comprised of a bunch of loose papers stuffed into a haversack (addle-minded wizard, classic style). Amidst those papers are numerous pages of explosive runes. The party knows this. Nobody else rummages through his spellbook. Did get in trouble for blowing up a pickpocket once... :D

obnoxious
sig

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-27, 12:06 AM
Moons o' Runes: An absolutely massive explosive runes on a sheet of paper big enough to cover the moon (cast while in space, where there's no gravity, and thus the paper weighs less than the max for the spell) with Explosive Spell applied. Now everyone close enough to read the rune takes full damage (no save), and is blown far away. So far away that they can no longer see a moon-sized explosive runes. And because moons tend to be rather largish, that would be a good long way. Oh, and everybody takes 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet traveled. IE, more d6's than you can roll in a year.

So, basically, you destroy the moon and obliterate half the planet's surface.

Makes the locate city bomb seem rather tame by comparison, really.

(Also, Yuki, I came up with the Big Book o' Runes. Just so's you know. :smallwink:)

Seffbasilisk
2010-03-27, 12:38 AM
I've thought out casting it on a mooring rope, but have yet to implement it in any games to date.

@Lycanthromancer: I thought of casting it on page after page of a book the first time I read the spell in the PHB. Might want to tone down that ego some.

lyko555
2010-03-27, 12:43 AM
i think most devious minded mages have came up with the book idea. My last mage had 5 fake spell books filled with nothing but pages upon pages of explosive runes with a spellclast that cast a badly cast dispell on the book when opened

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-27, 12:51 AM
One idea I always liked as well was a 'shaman' (read: 'sorcerer' or 'wizard') in a barbarian tribe. Now, barbarians (per the class) can't typically read and so the shaman protects his village with totems covered in explosive runes. Should outsiders come near, they will typically inspect the totems or signs and boom!. Damage to outsiders (in the 'not one of us' sense, not the creature type, obviously) coupled with a warning (assuming you rule that explosive runes make a sound when they blow up. Alternately coupled with an alarm spell for 0 XP cheap traps).

Of course, this doesn't protect against enemy tribes, but I still like the idea because the illiterate barbarians are in no danger of setting off the traps and it likely will further enhance for them the mysticism of the written word.

obnoxious
sig

Superglucose
2010-03-27, 12:53 AM
1. Get a book.

2. Fill it with explosive runes.

3. Throw it at an enemy.

4. Dispel magic, and voluntarily fail.

5. ???

6. Profit!
This fails at step4.

But statistically only a certain portion will be dispelled (think about it this way, you need to roll an 11 to dispel your own things), which gives you about 55 explosive runes on a 100 page book. Not 600d6 no-save force damage, but 330d6 no-save force damage is still pretty dead.

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-27, 12:55 AM
This fails at step4.

But statistically only a certain portion will be dispelled (think about it this way, you need to roll an 11 to dispel your own things), which gives you about 55 explosive runes on a 100 page book. Not 600d6 no-save force damage, but 330d6 no-save force damage is still pretty dead.Prep dispel magic at a lower caster level.

Also, I'd never seen, nor heard, of a book of explosive runes prior to coming up with it, and I even did a Google search at the time.

Not my fault that nobody else can claim it, since there's no proof. :smallcool:

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-27, 12:57 AM
We ruled (players and DM alike after we were pulling some lame explosive runes stuff) that the first explosive runes spell destroys the other pieces of paper, thus disallowing multiple explosive runes spells from going off in the same space. In the event that multiple go off for other reasons, the overlap is still treated as being hit by only one spell.

I agree with that one,


Here's one I did to my PC's, the ranger opens a safe, inside the door is an explosive runes trap. BOOM! At the back of the safe is a beat up metal scroll case.
The ranger pulls it out hoping to find the vital information the party is looking for inside. He opens the case and pulls out the scroll and read its.
"Sorry the information you require is not here, BOOM!"
Another explosive runes.

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-27, 01:10 AM
I agree with that one,


Here's one I did to my PC's, the ranger opens a safe, inside the door is an explosive runes trap. BOOM! At the back of the safe is a beat up metal scroll case.
The ranger pulls it out hoping to find the vital information the party is looking for inside. He opens the case and pulls out the scroll and read its.
"Sorry the information you require is not here, BOOM!"
Another explosive runes.

That's just mean.

Funny though, they never learn, do they? Even when they have a rogue.

obnoxious
sig

Superglucose
2010-03-27, 01:14 AM
Prep dispel magic at a lower caster level.
Minimum CL for Dispel Magic is 5, 6 for sorcs. So yeah, that's not really going to help you pull off this trick at anything below level 14 without CL boosts, which are rare in core-only.

Seffbasilisk
2010-03-27, 01:20 AM
I know you can intentionally fail saves, skill checks, attack rolls, and negate your AC for touch attacks...

Is there anything RAW prohibiting deliberately failing caster level checks for dispelling?

Godskook
2010-03-27, 01:28 AM
Minimum CL for Dispel Magic is 5, 6 for sorcs. So yeah, that's not really going to help you pull off this trick at anything below level 14 without CL boosts, which are rare in core-only.

Yes, but nobody here is assuming 'core-only'.

Also, all you need is one feat. Arcane Mastery. With that, you start the fun the moment you can cast the relevant spells.

Kylarra
2010-03-27, 01:38 AM
Moons o' Runes: An absolutely massive explosive runes on a sheet of paper big enough to cover the moon (cast while in space, where there's no gravity, and thus the paper weighs less than the max for the spell) with Explosive Spell applied. Now everyone close enough to read the rune takes full damage (no save), and is blown far away. So far away that they can no longer see a moon-sized explosive runes. And because moons tend to be rather largish, that would be a good long way. Oh, and everybody takes 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet traveled. IE, more d6's than you can roll in a year.

So, basically, you destroy the moon and obliterate half the planet's surface.

Makes the locate city bomb seem rather tame by comparison, really.
Unfortunately... that involves making a spot check at a -126116496 penalty (on average, not counting the modifier for colossal+ sized object since I can't find it offhand) and explosive runes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiverunes.htm) doesn't have an area, so no explosive spell shenanigans.

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-27, 02:17 AM
Unfortunately... that involves making a spot check at a -126116496 penalty (on average, not counting the modifier for colossal+ sized object since I can't find it offhand) and explosive runes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiverunes.htm) doesn't have an area, so no explosive spell shenanigans.

I think he's basing it on the idea that the spell goes off centered on the reader and the range determines the area or something. Which is incorrect, though I like the idea of blowing up the moon.


You trace these mystic runes upon a book, map, scroll, or similar object bearing written information. The runes detonate when read, dealing 6d6 points of force damage. Anyone next to the runes (close enough to read them) takes the full damage with no saving throw; any other creature within 10 feet of the runes is entitled to a Reflex save for half damage. The object on which the runes were written also takes full damage (no saving throw).

The part which seems to cause a problem is the "anyone close enough to read them". That's parenthetical, however. I don't know how that's considered by RAW. I think RAI is pretty clear that it means "to read normal writing from a normal reading distance of less than five feet".

In that case, it actually appears that if one can read the runes from more than 10 feet away, one can set them off remotely. Very interesting. Who needs dispel magic when you have a spyglass?

obnoxious
sig

The Pressman
2010-03-27, 02:30 AM
Would explosive runes be useful for a divine caster to prep with, say, greater anyspell?

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-27, 02:50 AM
Would explosive runes be useful for a divine caster to prep with, say, greater anyspell?

If he happens to have a need for it. The great thing about explosive runes is that one can prepare scraps of parchment with the runes whenever one has downtime as they are permanent until dispelled or triggered.

As far as being useful to prepare... hardly ever. Far better to carry some around in an extradimensional space and paste them where needed rather than waste a slot while adventuring.

obnoxious
sig

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-27, 03:46 AM
There's a problem.

You can cast Explosive Runes at CL 30, and Cast Dispel Magic at CL 5. You're still gonna dispel it.

You don't get the option to automatically succeed on dispel checks vs your own spells. It's written as a requirement. If you cast a dispel in such a way as to include a roll vs another spell you cast, it's automatically dispelled.


Unfortunately... that involves making a spot check at a -126116496 penalty (on average, not counting the modifier for colossal+ sized object since I can't find it offhand) and explosive runes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiverunes.htm) doesn't have an area, so no explosive spell shenanigans.

Spot is opposed by hide. Hide checks cannot be made without cover or concealment. Spot checks automatically succeed without cover or concealment. In other words? RAW? You don't make spot checks vs anything in direct LOS, without cover or concealment.

olentu
2010-03-27, 03:54 AM
There's a problem.

You can cast Explosive Runes at CL 30, and Cast Dispel Magic at CL 5. You're still gonna dispel it.

You don't get the option to automatically succeed on dispel checks vs your own spells. It's written as a requirement. If you cast a dispel in such a way as to include a roll vs another spell you cast, it's automatically dispelled.

Presumably as one is given to choice to automatically succeed one does not have to choose to succeed automatically on the area dispel version.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-27, 04:12 AM
Presumably as one is given to choice to automatically succeed one does not have to choose to succeed automatically on the area dispel version.

That would be true, if one was given the choice.

However, it just says: "You automatically succeed on your spell check to dispel any spell you cast yourself."

You get the choice of: "Targeted, Area, Counterspell".

You do not get the choice of "I don't wanna nuke myself with my own dispel"

AslanCross
2010-03-27, 04:13 AM
A bit extreme due to the backlash damage from the destroyed homunculus, but you could have a homunculus holding a scroll or book with explosive runes cast on it. Send the homunculus toward an unsuspecting opponent (mine would be in the form of a cute doll). The doll walks up to the target and offers the book.

Also, I thought the "voluntarily failing a check" was debatable. I can't remember exactly what the arguments were.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-27, 04:19 AM
A bit extreme due to the backlash damage from the destroyed homunculus, but you could have a homunculus holding a scroll or book with explosive runes cast on it. Send the homunculus toward an unsuspecting opponent (mine would be in the form of a cute doll). The doll walks up to the target and offers the book.

Also, I thought the "voluntarily failing a check" was debatable. I can't remember exactly what the arguments were.

The "voluntarily failing a check", in this instance, directly contradicts RAW. RAW for dispel magic states that you automatically succeed.

In other words, for the purpose of dispelling, when you try to beat yourself, you always win. Always.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-27, 04:21 AM
That's just mean.

Funny though, they never learn, do they? Even when they have a rogue.

obnoxious
sig

You should have seen the zombies with explosive runes T-Shirts.

Or when the wizard tried to buy a scroll of explosive runes from a known trickster.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-27, 04:26 AM
The "voluntarily failing a check", in this instance, directly contradicts RAW. RAW for dispel magic states that you automatically succeed.

In other words, for the purpose of dispelling, when you try to beat yourself, you always win. Always.
That's why you get a cohort, or possibly familiar through shared spell, or dominated NPC, to do the dispel.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-27, 04:27 AM
That's why you get a cohort, or possibly familiar through shared spell, or dominated NPC, to do the dispel.

And then the NPC's do it to you TPK the entire party and the player agrees never to use that trick again with future characters.

2xMachina
2010-03-27, 04:29 AM
That's why you usually have 2 casters in a group.

Cleric: Dispel at min CL!

EDIT: NINAJED!

olentu
2010-03-27, 05:00 AM
That would be true, if one was given the choice.

However, it just says: "You automatically succeed on your spell check to dispel any spell you cast yourself."

You get the choice of: "Targeted, Area, Counterspell".

You do not get the choice of "I don't wanna nuke myself with my own dispel"

Under the sub-header Targeted Dispel it says "You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself". Under the sub-header Area Dispel it says "You may choose to automatically succeed on dispel checks against any spell that you have cast".

So as I said presumably as one is given to choice to automatically succeed one does not have to choose to succeed automatically on the area dispel version.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-27, 05:09 AM
Under the sub-header Targeted Dispel it says "You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself". Under the sub-header Area Dispel it says "You may choose to automatically succeed on dispel checks against any spell that you have cast".

So as I said presumably as one is given to choice to automatically succeed one does not have to choose to succeed automatically on the area dispel version.

...Fair enough, I stand corrected. This text reading has yielded valuable fruit for me, on a completely unrelated tangent, so thanks for calling my attention to Dispel magic.

olentu
2010-03-27, 05:13 AM
...Fair enough, I stand corrected. This text reading has yielded valuable fruit for me, on a completely unrelated tangent, so thanks for calling my attention to Dispel magic.

I am glad that I could inadvertently be of help.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-27, 05:18 AM
I am glad that I could inadvertently be of help.

No problem. I just realized that Spell Turning renders you immune to being counterspelled.

olentu
2010-03-27, 05:27 AM
No problem. I just realized that Spell Turning renders you immune to being counterspelled.

Hmm, so it does. That is rather neat.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-27, 05:34 AM
Hmm, so it does. That is rather neat.
And rather potent.

The real question is: What happens when the spell is turned back?

For dispel, it's obvious: The spell is wasted without effect. There's nothing to counter, and that's the option you selected.

What about if you were Countering a Hold Monster with another hold monster?

Kylarra
2010-03-27, 09:13 AM
Spot is opposed by hide. Hide checks cannot be made without cover or concealment. Spot checks automatically succeed without cover or concealment. In other words? RAW? You don't make spot checks vs anything in direct LOS, without cover or concealment.Actually...


Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.

So the [paper on the] moon isn't specifically hiding, it's just trying really far away, so noticing it is hard.

SSGoW
2010-03-27, 10:24 AM
My first time as a DM the players (who never played before) stopped reading all together XD they started hating explosive runes but laughed everytime one went off... One time it was a tattoo on a bar wenche's cleavage it read "If you can read this then the girls upstairs are the ones you want" (all the bar wrenches had a ring that allowed them to not take damage from the blast)

They wanted to know if they could use skill points to become iliterate lol

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-27, 10:45 AM
I was gonna mention the targeted vs area effects of dispel magic, but someone beat me to it. :smallfrown:

Godskook
2010-03-27, 10:50 AM
Actually...


So the [paper on the] moon isn't specifically hiding, it's just trying really far away, so noticing it is hard.

Except arguing that anything the size of the moon is 'hard to see' is kinda ridiculous, considering we can see the moon.

DementedFellow
2010-03-27, 10:57 AM
Except arguing that anything the size of the moon is 'hard to see' is kinda ridiculous, considering we can see the moon.

It's not the paper that is hard to see, but the writing on it. If you get one rune that covers the entire page, MAYBE people can read it. And explosive runes need to be read if you're counting on people to look up and get exploded.

Shiva asori
2010-03-27, 11:00 AM
I'm guessing people have forgot the Dispel ward spell in Spell compendium, A first lvl spell dispel magic that only applies to wards, like explosive runes.

Kylarra
2010-03-27, 11:30 AM
Except arguing that anything the size of the moon is 'hard to see' is kinda ridiculous, considering we can see the moon.By RAW, we don't have a size category greater than Colossal+ and distance modifiers to spot are -1 per 10', so taking that into account, no, you can't see the moon by RAW.

When the thing I'm countering is patently more ridiculous than not being able to see the moon, I'm not sure why "ridiculous" is coming into play.

Godskook
2010-03-27, 11:37 AM
By RAW, we don't have a size category greater than Colossal+ and distance modifiers to spot are -1 per 10', so taking that into account, no, you can't see the moon by RAW.

When the thing I'm countering is patently more ridiculous than not being able to see the moon, I'm not sure why "ridiculous" is coming into play.

Because by RAW, there's no way of establishing what's 'difficult to see', so we must resort to real-world measures. And in the real-world, a full-moon is typically large enough that someone standing on the ground would be able to read a single-character long message written upon the entire visible surface. And saying 'ridiculous' was to avoid having to spell that out.

DementedFellow
2010-03-27, 11:46 AM
if it is a single character then it's not the MASSIVE DAMAGE that people proclaim it to be. To me that is one casting. 6d6 damage. It wouldn't kill everything. Besides, if it is a single character, doesn't that go against the Runes part about Explosive RuneS?

Kylarra
2010-03-27, 12:05 PM
Because by RAW, there's no way of establishing what's 'difficult to see', so we must resort to real-world measures. And in the real-world, a full-moon is typically large enough that someone standing on the ground would be able to read a single-character long message written upon the entire visible surface. And saying 'ridiculous' was to avoid having to spell that out.One could easily argue that being several hundred thousand miles away should be something that's "difficult to see" given RAW size modifiers and RAW distance penalties, but sure, if you want to believe that the rune will be visible and explode, that's your prerogative.

Note that finding 9479807 square kilometers of fabric with a total mass of approximately 4.53kg may prove detrimental to your efforts to try this out. :smallyuk:

Also note that hitting anyone other than the first reader is also an interpretation, and not the only possible RAW reading of the text.

Godskook
2010-03-27, 12:29 PM
One could easily argue that being several hundred thousand miles away should be something that's "difficult to see" given RAW size modifiers and RAW distance penalties, but sure, if you want to believe that the rune will be visible and explode, that's your prerogative.

Thing is, while I'm arguing that you can read and trigger the moon-runes, I'd also argue that you can't take damage from them, since you're not in their RAW blast range.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-27, 12:46 PM
By RAW, we don't have a size category greater than Colossal+ and distance modifiers to spot are -1 per 10', so taking that into account, no, you can't see the moon by RAW.

When the thing I'm countering is patently more ridiculous than not being able to see the moon, I'm not sure why "ridiculous" is coming into play.

And if you're using the "sometimes objects are hard to see" clause, you're exclusively in the realm of DM fiat, where the DM must decide if a moon-sized object is hard to see. Otherwise, that doesn't apply.

In other words, in order to have a plain-sight item listed hard to see, you need a DM ruling. If you're basing your argument on DM Fiat, you can't really claim anything is definite, by RAW.

Evard
2010-03-27, 12:56 PM
If you are a DM that says you can't see the moon (or the sun for that matter since i've heard that argument also) then you really don't need to be a DM...

Sliver
2010-03-27, 01:13 PM
If you are a DM that says you can't see the moon (or the sun for that matter since i've heard that argument also) then you really don't need to be a DM...

I thought the sun has massive circumstance bonuses to hide.. Or some kind of mental compulsion aura that causes an illusion of discomfort when looked at..

Evard
2010-03-27, 01:26 PM
As a DM I usually let a bit of real world seeps into my games, looking at the sun and the moon are examples of it. Of course if you look at the sun directly you will be blinded for a few rounds. Sometimes dnd rules don't make sense and you shouldn't abide by them.

Dr Bwaa
2010-03-27, 01:50 PM
@Lycanthromancer: I thought of casting it on page after page of a book the first time I read the spell in the PHB. Might want to tone down that ego some.

Egos cannot be contained :smalltongue:

I personally (as a chaotic/possibly fugitive wizard) like the idea of going into an adventurers'/bounty hunters guild and posting a few of them to the wall with the other wanted ads. You're guaranteed to hit someone. :smallbiggrin:

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-27, 01:51 PM
As a DM I usually let a bit of real world seeps into my games, looking at the sun and the moon are examples of it. Of course if you look at the sun directly you will be blinded for a few rounds. Sometimes dnd rules don't make sense and you shouldn't abide by them.

I think most of us do, but we tend to talk about RAW because once one starts bringing house-rules in, we lose our common ground for rules discussions. If you want to allow an explosive runes from the moon to blow things up on the ground, that's a house-rule AND screwing around with the RAW:

House-rule: You can read things on the moon from the ground without making omniscifier-esque spot checks.

Bad RAW: The runes explode on anyone 'close enough' to read them.

If you read the full description it says that anyone directly next to the runes takes the damage (no save). If one is going to use 'real-world' applications in place of those rules that don't make sense, then one ought to similarly decide that it is the runes that blow up when read, not the person, and therefore EVEN IF one could read writing on the moon, the explosion would only extend 10' from the runes themselves, arguably reshaping the visible surface that the runes covered, but certainly not hitting people ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH with a level 3 spell.

Back on topic: I've seen the runes used as a self-destruct device on a note intended for higher-level adventurers. The damage is unlikely to kill characters above a certain level. At the end of a page filled with sensitive information, there was a line of runes that said something along the lines of "this message will self-destruct"... Inspector Gadget-style.

Edit: @the wanted posters
A DM recently tacked on "I prepared explosive runes today" at the bottom of a bounty poster our characters were reading. Everyone dove for cover. Of course, it was just a line of text. The poster had been put up by a trickster mage who needed someone to go get some component or another while he completed some device he was constructing. We were amused.

obnoxious
sig

Kylarra
2010-03-27, 02:11 PM
And if you're using the "sometimes objects are hard to see" clause, you're exclusively in the realm of DM fiat, where the DM must decide if a moon-sized object is hard to see. Otherwise, that doesn't apply.

In other words, in order to have a plain-sight item listed hard to see, you need a DM ruling. If you're basing your argument on DM Fiat, you can't really claim anything is definite, by RAW.Strictly speaking, your argument is about the same as purporting that someone outside of a castle can read a book held by someone in a tower because, hey, you've got line of sight and it's an object in plain sight. :smallwink: But, hey, "ridiculous" right?

It's not DM fiat to apply distance penalties to read objects far away from you.

The moon-bomb is an amusing suggestion, but not RAW in the slightest.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-03-27, 03:14 PM
Strictly speaking, your argument is about the same as purporting that someone outside of a castle can read a book held by someone in a tower because, hey, you've got line of sight and it's an object in plain sight. :smallwink: But, hey, "ridiculous" right?

It's not DM fiat to apply distance penalties to read objects far away from you.

The moon-bomb is an amusing suggestion, but not RAW in the slightest.

More like reading a large sign on the side of a tall building whilst standing quite far away. Of course you couldn't read a book held by someone atop a tall tower, but you could probably read a single character the size of the person in question. It is possible to see the moon (or where the moon was anyway). Shouldn't you therefore be able to see something that covers one surface of the moon?

Edit: Damnit, wrong thread. Both start with an "e".

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-27, 03:37 PM
Strictly speaking, your argument is about the same as purporting that someone outside of a castle can read a book held by someone in a tower because, hey, you've got line of sight and it's an object in plain sight. :smallwink: But, hey, "ridiculous" right? Yes. Ridiculous. Could never happen in real life. Just like people don't come back from the edge of death by drowning.

Then again, a character with Far shot and true strike can launch an arrow through a 1' x 1' corridor 1795 feet long, to hit a character 1800 feet away. For this to be possible in real life, that arrow would need to be travelling about... 10,000 mph. That's roughly Mach 14. Heck, let's divide that by 4, to allow for aerodynamics and slowing of standard free fall rates. Mach 3.6. Ridiculous, right?

Yeah, RAW can be that way.


It's not DM fiat to apply distance penalties to read objects far away from you. That depends. Does it have cover or concealment? Those are the only RAW solid guidelines determining visibility (outside of water, of course). All others require the DM to introduce penalties not laid out in the Rules.

That is DM Fiat. Is it bad? No. So many people see "house rule" and "DM mediation" as dirty. They're not.

They're just not pure RAW, that's all. They rely on the introduction of standardized rules not set forth in the rules, and also, that those rules are exactly what you need to support your argument. And any claim otherwise is... what's the word? Ridiculous.

Arakune
2010-03-27, 03:48 PM
if it is a single character then it's not the MASSIVE DAMAGE that people proclaim it to be. To me that is one casting. 6d6 damage. It wouldn't kill everything. Besides, if it is a single character, doesn't that go against the Runes part about Explosive RuneS?

You can write a rune in the form of a single letter that mean something. Now, use the tiny ER to create a larger "rune" with the exact same meaning.

Yay.

Godskook
2010-03-27, 04:20 PM
Strictly speaking, your argument is about the same as purporting that someone outside of a castle can read a book held by someone in a tower because, hey, you've got line of sight and it's an object in plain sight. :smallwink: But, hey, "ridiculous" right?

It's not DM fiat to apply distance penalties to read objects far away from you.

The moon-bomb is an amusing suggestion, but not RAW in the slightest.

.....

People write things (http://ubiquity-design.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/billboard.jpg) on things that are far away (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/images/2009-03/airplane-banner.jpg) all the time (http://images.watoday.com.au/2009/05/02/501166/kimberely-people-420x0.jpg). But hey, ridiculous, right?

Kylarra
2010-03-27, 04:32 PM
.....

People write things (http://ubiquity-design.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/billboard.jpg) on things that are far away (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/images/2009-03/airplane-banner.jpg) all the time (http://images.watoday.com.au/2009/05/02/501166/kimberely-people-420x0.jpg). But hey, ridiculous, right?Hey, strawman. :smallwink:

I'm getting you and phoenixrivers confused while responding so I'll point out that RAW isn't realistic. Spot penalties due to distance are RAW as far as I'm concerned, they're in the book, but I acknowledge that RAW is sketchy at best and multiple interpretations can exist. I also acknowledge the fact that taking RAW to its logical conclusion leads to really freakish things, but that was the whole point I was trying to make in the first place. If you're trying to abuse RAW to come to a cheesy conclusion, be prepared for RAW to be used against you. I do not support the idea that the moon should be invisible due to distance from an actual game point of view, but in this hypothetical TO realm where RAW is being tortured and abused, I have no qualms about puncturing it with other so-called RAW issues.

Godskook
2010-03-27, 04:49 PM
Hey, strawman. :smallwink:

I'm getting you and phoenixrivers confused while responding so I'll point out that RAW isn't realistic. Spot penalties due to distance are RAW as far as I'm concerned, they're in the book, but I acknowledge that RAW is sketchy at best and multiple interpretations can exist. I also acknowledge the fact that taking RAW to its logical conclusion leads to really freakish things, but that was the whole point I was trying to make in the first place. If you're trying to abuse RAW to come to a cheesy conclusion, be prepared for RAW to be used against you. I do not support the idea that the moon should be invisible due to distance from an actual game point of view, but in this hypothetical TO realm where RAW is being tortured and abused, I have no qualms about puncturing it with other so-called RAW issues.

RAW on spot checks is this:

1.Whenever the rules are silent, we're to assume that normal physics apply in D&D. DMG 136

2.Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.

However, that's as far as RAW goes. Since #2 is vague on determining if something is 'difficult to see', we use #1 to determine that. I gave several examples in my previous post where text, written on something quite far away, could still be read. Thus, a small enough number of runes written largely enough can be 'read' off the moon's surface without a spot check.

If you want to 'strike down' this piece of TO, I suggest you focus on the wordings about who takes damage, since that seems rather clear that damage is only dealt within 10' of the runes.

Evard
2010-03-27, 04:52 PM
Taking distance into the equation without taking size is the problem. Looking at something with the surface area of 39.7 million sq kilometers (1/2 would be 19.85 million sq kilometers the viewable surface) at a distance of 384,403 km (238,857 miles) (earth to moon) is about the same as looking at a billboard about 200 feet away -_-;;;;

Toliudar
2010-03-27, 05:37 PM
Want a RAW reason for the moon-bomb-blows-up-the-world to not work? The first person to look up at the right moment to trigger the explosive runes, does so, and dies horribly. Discharging the runes. As we have established, RAW D&D is a world where people act in a turn-based manner in dangerous situations, and clearly a bomb that can kill you is placing you in danger. So, the movement of the paper onto the moon is an action that happens on the surprise round.

Fineous Orlon
2010-03-27, 09:59 PM
Note that finding 9479807 square kilometers of fabric with a total mass of approximately 4.53kg may prove detrimental to your efforts to try this out.



This would be difficult. Someone earlier mentioned doing this in space so one could have a piece of paper that weighed less than 10 pounds that could cover the moon. This is a good start, because pounds are a function of weight, which is due to the force of gravity. Things do weigh less the farther they are from the source of gravity that gives it weight. Unfortunately, the moon's gravity would cause the paper to weigh more the closer you got to the moon, so this would still be quite difficult.

Kilograms, on the other hand, are a measure of mass, and thus independent of gravity. It would be harder to find [or make] a piece of paper massing 4.53 kg or less to cover the moon than to find or fashion a piece weighing 10 lbs or less.

Newtons, on the other hand, are the SI or metric equivalent of pounds for force. A piece of paper weighing 44.48 N or less is fairly equivalent to one weighing 10 lbs or less.

Yukitsu
2010-03-28, 12:26 AM
Be good aligned, sanctify them, and read them aloud as a near to melee AoE.

Thajocoth
2010-03-28, 02:03 AM
Could an evil character etch explosive runes into the face of the last survivor of some attack they made, and leave them there so when the PCs come and see the guy, and decide to ask him what happened (as the only survivor), then when they see the runes etched across his face it causes the guy to blow up?

I'm not entirely sure I didn't fail my grammar check there... But, you get the idea.

pingcode20
2010-03-28, 02:19 AM
.....

People write things (http://ubiquity-design.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/billboard.jpg) on things that are far away (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/images/2009-03/airplane-banner.jpg) all the time (http://images.watoday.com.au/2009/05/02/501166/kimberely-people-420x0.jpg). But hey, ridiculous, right?

That just gave me a strange idea - if people lying on the ground to spell out letters is 'writing', and you cast explosive runes on it, would someone reading the message blow them up?

Yukitsu
2010-03-28, 10:39 AM
Could an evil character etch explosive runes into the face of the last survivor of some attack they made, and leave them there so when the PCs come and see the guy, and decide to ask him what happened (as the only survivor), then when they see the runes etched across his face it causes the guy to blow up?

I'm not entirely sure I didn't fail my grammar check there... But, you get the idea.

No, you have to write it on a form of paper, which a face isn't.

Thajocoth
2010-03-28, 10:50 AM
No, you have to write it on a form of paper, which a face isn't.

I assumed from the comic here that it could be on other surfaces, like coffee mugs or holy symbols/phylacteries. Oh well... This adds the extra step of using some sort of magical staples...

Sliver
2010-03-28, 10:53 AM
I assumed from the comic here that it could be on other surfaces, like coffee mugs or holy symbols/phylacteries. Oh well... This adds the extra step of using some sort of magical staples...

Get a wand of Stick.. Or make an item of unlimited Stick per day and call it a stapler...

Sir_Elderberry
2010-03-28, 11:02 AM
cast while in space, where there's no gravity, and thus the paper weighs less than the max for the spell
Uh, there's definitely, definitely gravity in space. That's why the moon stays there. Between the moon's gravity (1/6 of Earth, I believe) and the Earth's gravity (I don't feel like working out the proportion of it you'd still feel that far out. Admittedly much less than on the surface, but it's still there.) I think some definition of "weight" applies.

TheMadLinguist
2010-03-28, 03:05 PM
You have weight. You're just in freefall.

Otherwise all you'd need to do to bypass weight limits on spells would be jump off a cliff.

Flickerdart
2010-03-28, 03:07 PM
That just gave me a strange idea - if people lying on the ground to spell out letters is 'writing', and you cast explosive runes on it, would someone reading the message blow them up?
If those people were objects that weighed less than 10lbs total, then yes.

malaspina
2010-03-29, 08:03 AM
Dunno if you guys are done deciding if you can see the moon, but I'd like to point out that even if you rule that one can read an explosive rune on the moon, and that the explosion damages the reader, then he'd still take only 6d6 damages.

You scribe the runes on a single object: 1 object, one instance of ERs. If you make a single sheet of paper as large as the visible surface of the moon, you'd scribe a HUUUUUUGE rune, but it'll still be one. Sure, you can split the surface, but you need to put a limit on the number of runes that remain visible, otherwise one could argue that every object that is readable at a foot distance remains readable at any distance, provided you move it towards the moon.

So you will have expended a few billion gp for raw materials, and you will (probably) have killed only the first (or the first few) literate guys that looks up. Not awesome.

waterpenguin43
2010-03-29, 08:18 AM
I have an evil kobold sorcerer cast it on letters of his to his foes. Ususally near the end of the letter.

EasilyAmused
2010-03-29, 01:09 PM
What if you had a very "artistic" spellcaster on the moon?

Would it be possible for the spellcaster to arrange the runes for ER over and over again until they created a giant (and for the sake of argument) readable from the neighboring planet, explosive rune? It would be like ascii art, where an image of the Mona Lisa is made of dashes and exclamation points.

This is to satisfy my own curiosity. Technically, would reading the large rune activate the millions even billions (if he/she has small enough handwriting) of ERs or would only the large one go off?

It was just a thought. :smallsmile:

Thanks!

Sliver
2010-03-29, 01:52 PM
Even then, won't it just blow everything right next to the runes, not really accomplishing anything?

What does a Rogue do to disable moon runes? :smallconfused:

Sneak attack the moon!

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-29, 02:03 PM
Even then, won't it just blow everything right next to the runes, not really accomplishing anything?

What does a Rogue do to disable moon runes? :smallconfused:

Sneak attack the moon!By the wording of the spell it can hit anyone that is close enough to read the rune(s), and if large enough, you can affect someone hundreds of miles away.

On that note, for use in mass battles: Get yourself some flying monkeys with sky-writing, and cast the spell on that. If all else fails, paint some runes on some big banners, and have the bards on your side (with big megaphones) inform the opposing army that they best not look up to see what's about to attack them.

When they inevitably do, they set off the runes, and the bards demoralize the remaining forces by singing "I told you so!" and questioning their collective lineage.