PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else noticed this about explosive runes?



Cookiemobsta
2010-06-02, 09:58 PM
So the duration of explosive runes is "permanent" and there doesn't seem to be a cost to cast the spell.

Thus, is there any reason why a caster can't take a week to prepare dozens of pages of explosive runes, and then just rip them out of a book whenever necessary? Or for that matter, why a caster couldn't give everybody in the party a book of pages of explosive runes? It seems like this is rather overpowered, yet it also seems completely within the rules of the game.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-02, 10:00 PM
So the duration of explosive runes is "permanent" and there doesn't seem to be a cost to cast the spell.

Thus, is there any reason why a caster can't take a week to prepare dozens of pages of explosive runes, and then just rip them out of a book whenever necessary? Or for that matter, why a caster couldn't give everybody in the party a book of pages of explosive runes? It seems like this is rather overpowered, yet it also seems completely within the rules of the game.Almost everything broken about 3.5 has been noticed before. It works even better when you throw the book at an enemy and then intentionally fail to dispel the explosive runes. That way they don't have to look at it.

Private-Prinny
2010-06-02, 10:01 PM
No, there is no reason that a mage can't do something like that.

In fact, something that I've seen quite often around here is an Explosive Runes grenade, where you fill a book with runes, throw it, and cast Dispel Magic, causing them all to explode.

Edit: Ninja'd.

Eurus
2010-06-02, 10:02 PM
So the duration of explosive runes is "permanent" and there doesn't seem to be a cost to cast the spell.

Thus, is there any reason why a caster can't take a week to prepare dozens of pages of explosive runes, and then just rip them out of a book whenever necessary? Or for that matter, why a caster couldn't give everybody in the party a book of pages of explosive runes? It seems like this is rather overpowered, yet it also seems completely within the rules of the game.

Yeah, it's been noticed. Those who do notice that fact generally ignore it out of common courtesy, to keep the DM from responding to their book of explosive runes with a chucked book of his own. :smallamused:

Hendel
2010-06-02, 10:02 PM
The problem is getting the bad guy to read your piece of parchment during a battle.

"Here! Read this!" to which the reply would be, "No I think I am just going to stomp your @$$!"

PersonMan
2010-06-02, 10:02 PM
Or a tribe of (illiterate) barbarians who protect their village with Explosive Runes all over tents, poles outside and gear.

@^ All you need is for them to clearly see it. Once you can read, it just happens. Unless you avert your eyes you read something. So you could just shove it in their face of write it on your shirt of something.

Hendel
2010-06-02, 10:03 PM
No, there is no reason that a mage can't do something like that.

In fact, something that I've seen quite often around here is an Explosive Runes grenade, where you fill a book with runes, throw it, and cast Dispel Magic, causing them all to explode.

Edit: Ninja'd.

That would only work if you failed to dispel them. If it is your own runes, then you automatically dispel them according to Dispel Magic.

Private-Prinny
2010-06-02, 10:03 PM
Yeah, it's been noticed. Those who do notice that fact generally ignore it out of common courtesy, to keep the DM from responding to their book of explosive runes with a chucked book of his own. :smallamused:

A chucked book? I would stick them in a library.

Edit:
That would only work if you failed to dispel them. If it is your own runes, then you automatically dispel them according to Dispel Magic.

Actually, you can choose to automatically succeed. Since you only need one failed check to make them all go boom...

Drakevarg
2010-06-02, 10:05 PM
A chucked book? I would stick them in a library.

Edit:

Actually, you can choose to automatically succeed. Since you only need one failed check to make them all go boom...

Yeah, that would only take about a decade or so to set up. :smalltongue:

Defiant
2010-06-02, 10:07 PM
Or a tribe of (illiterate) barbarians who protect their village with Explosive Runes all over tents, poles outside and gear.

@^ All you need is for them to clearly see it. Once you can read, it just happens. Unless you avert your eyes you read something. So you could just shove it in their face of write it on your shirt of something.

Good idea! :smallamused:

Hendel
2010-06-02, 10:11 PM
A

Edit:

Actually, you can choose to automatically succeed. Since you only need one failed check to make them all go boom...

I juste read it as follows:

SRD
"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."

If you want to say that you can choose not to succeed that would be a personal interpretation. Who knows, maybe it is a safety valve to prevent things like dispeling your own Explosive Runes or something...

NEO|Phyte
2010-06-02, 10:12 PM
I juste read it as follows:

SRD
"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."

If you want to say that you can choose not to succeed that would be a personal interpretation. Who knows, maybe it is a safety valve to prevent things like dispeling your own Explosive Runes or something...

That's for a targeted dispel. We want an area dispel, which says this:
"You may choose to automatically succeed on dispel checks against any spell that you have cast. "

PersonMan
2010-06-02, 10:12 PM
Good idea! :smallamused:

I'm imagining a village full of barbarians, wearing shirts that say "I'm part of an elaborate master protection plan and all I got was this stupid T-shirt!" that are explosive runes. Or ones that just say "Hi, I'm Bob." or something. Or just "KABOOM!"

Hendel
2010-06-02, 10:17 PM
That's for a targeted dispel. We want an area dispel, which says this:
"You may choose to automatically succeed on dispel checks against any spell that you have cast. "

True, but that way you will be starting with the spell with the highest caster level and going down from there. Probably a hit and miss strategy at best if you want to specifically dispel something like Explosive Runes. Anyway, it could still be a viable tactic, but like the other comments on the thread, you should then beware of DM retribution! Bwah ha ha ha...

Dust
2010-06-02, 10:20 PM
This realization was the basis for a recent strategy in our last 3.5 game entited 'Explosive Sheep'

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-02, 10:20 PM
Unfortunately, a clever commoner with a telescope can blow up the entire barbarian city from afar.

...

Actually, the text does say the spell affects anyone 'close enough to read them.' Does that mean, by RAW, you could read Explosive Runes through a Scrying spell and get an explosion to the face, no save, from half way across the material plane?

Hendel
2010-06-02, 10:22 PM
This realization was the basis for a recent strategy in our last 3.5 game entited 'Explosive Sheep'

Baa BOOM Baa BOOM!!

Drakevarg
2010-06-02, 10:23 PM
Actually, the text does say the spell affects anyone 'close enough to read them.' Does that mean, by RAW, you could read Explosive Runes through a Scrying spell and get an explosion to the face, no save, from half way across the material plane?

I think it depends on whether or not the DM thinks it would be funny.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-02, 10:25 PM
I think it depends on whether or not the DM thinks it would be funny.I guess so. The intent is obviously that the explosion is limited to 10 feet, though I find it odd that the designers of the spell didn't think of something as simple as someone reading the runes from 15 feet away. Maybe they all wear really thick glasses.

tyckspoon
2010-06-02, 10:35 PM
A chucked book? I would stick them in a library.

Edit:

Actually, you can choose to automatically succeed. Since you only need one failed check to make them all go boom...

Wording's kinda weird. IIRC, you just dispel them if you use Targeted. Area, on the other hand, doesn't have that text, so you check against each one.. which is what you want anyway, since a Targeted dispel will only hit one writing of the Runes.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-03, 12:20 AM
I guess so. The intent is obviously that the explosion is limited to 10 feet, though I find it odd that the designers of the spell didn't think of something as simple as someone reading the runes from 15 feet away. Maybe they all wear really thick glasses.

I suppose you could do that if the print was very large. I personally have difficulty reading 10 point font from 15 feet.
Also, I like to think the spell is smarter than that. I mean, if it knows your reading it, it should at least have someway around you trying to screw with it.

A telescope, Eh? SCORCHING RAY!

2xMachina
2010-06-03, 12:30 AM
I suppose you could do that if the print was very large. I personally have difficulty reading 10 point font from 15 feet.
Also, I like to think the spell is smarter than that. I mean, if it knows your reading it, it should at least have someway around you trying to screw with it.

A telescope, Eh? SCORCHING RAY!

No.

A telescope, Eh? 10 MILE BOMB!

TheOOB
2010-06-03, 12:36 AM
And this is why D&D had a DM to arbitrate things rather then being completely silly :P

Endarire
2010-06-03, 12:48 AM
The spell amanuensis (Spell Compendium 9) copies text between pieces of paper or from one part of a page to another. This sets off explosive runes without dispel magic.

Kaulesh
2010-06-03, 12:48 AM
Unfortunately, a clever commoner with a telescope can blow up the entire barbarian city from afar.

...

Actually, the text does say the spell affects anyone 'close enough to read them.' Does that mean, by RAW, you could read Explosive Runes through a Scrying spell and get an explosion to the face, no save, from half way across the material plane?

By extension, if someone 5,000 miles away is close enough to read, someone only 1,000 miles away is also close enough. Therefore, the explosion must extend to fill the 10,000 mile diameter sphere.

Want to get rid of an enemy capitol? You need two people - the suicide bomber that stands in the center of the city with the "Guess what spell I prepared today" tee-shirt and the sacrificial diviner scrying on him from the outskirts.

I will hang my head in shame now.

lsfreak
2010-06-03, 12:51 AM
The ways of purposely failing a dispel check are:
- Get your cohort to cast dispel magic, since it'll be a lower CL and much more likely to fail
- Cast it from a wand/scroll
- Get the ability to take 10 on CL checks, and make sure that all your previous castings were at CL+11 or higher

The dispel used will have to be an area dispel, I believe, since you're trying to affect multiple things.

Also, on long-range detonation: explosive runes on the moon (idea from Lycanthromancer)

Wonton
2010-06-03, 12:56 AM
You would have to first touch the moon. :smallconfused:

Deth Muncher
2010-06-03, 12:56 AM
I may have some NPCs have a library full of Explosive Rune books in a tower somewhere as a contingency (no, not Contingency or Craft Contingent Spell) plan. This would be more of a plot point than a "Hey, let's kill the PCs!" kind of moment, but yeah.

tyckspoon
2010-06-03, 01:01 AM
The ways of purposely failing a dispel check are:
- Get your cohort to cast dispel magic, since it'll be a lower CL and much more likely to fail
- Cast it from a wand/scroll
- Get the ability to take 10 on CL checks, and make sure that all your previous castings were at CL+11 or higher


-use Dispel Ward (Spell Compendium), which is a 1st level Dispel Magic.. that only affects Abjurations. As a 1st level spell, you can choose to cast it at CL 1.

Zaq
2010-06-03, 01:04 AM
While not nearly as funny as Explosive Runes, the spell Fire Shuriken (Complete Arcane) also has a permanent-until-used duration (it might be worded as "instantaneous," since I don't have my book open, but it's essentially the same as our favorite runes), so you can make a stockpile of them if you care to. They're hardly game-breaking or even that powerful, but if you happen to have a shuriken-user in the party, they might appreciate doing 3d6 instead of 1d2. That, or you can arm an entire village with them, which makes me laugh.

It's a little tricky to GET said spell (it's on the Wu Jen and Assassin lists by default), and like I said it's hardly abusive at all, but I've always thought it might be worthwhile to build up a stockpile just because you can.

There's also Water to Acid (Stormwrack), which has an instantaneous duration and creates a truly large quantity of acid, assuming you have a supply of water (such as, you know, Create Water, or a Decanter of Endless Water, or a good Survival check, or...) You can surely find a use for a Portable Hole filled with acid, right?

lsfreak
2010-06-03, 01:10 AM
You would have to first touch the moon. :smallconfused:

Greater teleport. Done!

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-03, 01:10 AM
If you're going to have a book full of explosive runes, you'll likely want to actually use it at some point. So you have a scroll available (at CL 5) for this purpose, or you'll have a dispel magic available in your personal repertoir, and will have it castable at minimal CL for just this eventuality.

Especially given that you'll have plenty of divinations available to determine what day your book-bomb will be needed. In this case, knowledge really IS power...the power of miniature nuclear detonations.

Also, if you plan on explosive runing the moon, make sure to cast the spell in space, on a gigantic sheet or something. The spell is limited by the weight of the item in question, so cast it where the half-moon-sized sheet is, to put it bluntly, weightless.

And add Explosive Spell and/or Fell Drain for extra fun.

lsfreak
2010-06-03, 01:12 AM
And add Explosive Spell and/or Fell Drain for extra fun.

...I that's the best way yet I've heard to start the wight-ocolypse.

Binks
2010-06-03, 01:21 AM
Technically the RAW is 'next to the runes (close enough to read them)', so no fun 10K mile explosions unfortunately (though it would be hilarious...I especially like the concept of an explosion that affects everyone who could read the runes at that moment, so everyone within 10-15ft or so, people with binoculars and telescopes and good vision, scryers, etc, while missing the nearsighted and blind people right next to it :P)

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-03, 01:24 AM
Technically the RAW is 'next to the runes (close enough to read them)', so no fun 10K mile explosions unfortunately (though it would be hilarious...I especially like the concept of an explosion that affects everyone who could read the runes at that moment, so everyone within 10-15ft or so, people with binoculars and telescopes and good vision, scryers, etc, while missing the nearsighted and blind people right next to it :P)You're 'close enough to read them' if they're 2,000 miles in diameter, and painted across the face of the moon.

Well, a rune, anyway. And the word 'A' is a word, so it's readable.

Binks
2010-06-03, 01:37 AM
You're 'close enough to read them' if they're 2,000 miles in diameter, and painted across the face of the moon.

Yeah, but if you're not adjacent or within 10ft they have no effect on you. And even that big they're still just doing 6d6 damage to the moon unless you write a bunch of them big enough to be read from a distance...

EDIT: I'm also fairly certain the moon weighs more than 10lbs which makes it ineligible for explosive runes. Now if you can get a 2000 mile in diameter object that weighs 10lbs...

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-03, 01:40 AM
Yeah, but if you're not adjacent or within 10ft they have no effect on you. And even that big they're still just doing 6d6 damage to the moon unless you write a bunch of them big enough to be read from a distance...Being 'close enough to read' them means you take auto-damage, with no saving throw. There's no mention of absolute distances regarding that. Unfortunately.


EDIT: I'm also fairly certain the moon weighs more than 10lbs which makes it ineligible for explosive runes. Now if you can get a 2000 mile in diameter object that weighs 10lbs..."In space, nobody can hear your electronic scales scream."

Wonton
2010-06-03, 01:40 AM
Greater teleport. Done!

Damn, I'd never noticed that it has no range limit... I thought it was just Teleport with perfect accuracy.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-03, 01:46 AM
You're 'close enough to read them' if they're 2,000 miles in diameter, and painted across the face of the moon.

Well, a rune, anyway. And the word 'A' is a word, so it's readable.

Or "CHA" I'm going to write "CHA" on the moon.:smallwink:

Kaulesh
2010-06-03, 01:58 AM
EDIT: I'm also fairly certain the moon weighs more than 10lbs which makes it ineligible for explosive runes. Now if you can get a 2000 mile in diameter object that weighs 10lbs...

Says who? If you shuttle the moon out to a piece of space sufficiently far away from everything that it is effectively in a location that has zero gravity (besides its own), your scales have no reference point to weigh the moon from.

[Kaulesh listens to the sweet, sweet sound of cat-girls being slaughtered by the millions.]

2xMachina
2010-06-03, 02:02 AM
To weigh the earth, simply put a weighing machine on the southpole facing the north pole. Supposedly, it looks like earth is sitting on the weighing machine. And since the weigh registered is the weigh of the machine... use a light one.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-03, 02:11 AM
Ah, silly English System. D&D should just go metric. :smalltongue:

5kg is way easier, can't screw that up.

I think.

panaikhan
2010-06-03, 02:26 AM
I hate to put a wrinkle in everyone's exploding T-shirts, but wouldn't they harm the wearer?
Not fun if you're the one wearing them, but great fun if you're selling them at a festival. Just make sure your stall is covered by a sufficient illusion to stop people reading the shirts properly, before they've bought one...

Eldan
2010-06-03, 02:52 AM
Ah, silly English System. D&D should just go metric. :smalltongue:

5kg is way easier, can't screw that up.

I think.

That is because kilograms measure mass, not weight. Newtons (the metric unit of weight) is just as easy to screw with.

In any case, yes, you can measure the mass of a celestial object, but it's weight is rather difficult, since it depends on gravity.

Cogidubnus
2010-06-03, 04:33 AM
Or a tribe of (illiterate) barbarians who protect their village with Explosive Runes all over tents, poles outside and gear.

@^ All you need is for them to clearly see it. Once you can read, it just happens. Unless you avert your eyes you read something. So you could just shove it in their face of write it on your shirt of something.

I REALLY would not scribe Explosive Runes all over my shirt.


...I that's the best way yet I've heard to start the wight-ocolypse.

And that doesn't actually sound like a bad idea for a BBEG's plan to ruin the world...

SlyGuyMcFly
2010-06-03, 04:49 AM
And that doesn't actually sound like a bad idea for a BBEG's plan to ruin the world...

It does have that certain je ne sais quoi that characterize a true supervillain's plans.

jumpet
2010-06-03, 05:34 AM
Would not the first explosive rune destroy all the other pages/books before the others have a chance to detonate ... thanks to the way actions and initiative works in the dnd world. I see nothing to suggest that an explosive rune would detonate if fireballed or thrown in the fireplace.

Now if the pages were made of adamantine ... That might be a different story.

Eldan
2010-06-03, 05:48 AM
Riverine, just to be sure. Though I'm not sure you can write on that.

Ranos
2010-06-03, 06:03 AM
About dispel, I'm pretty sure you can fail any check on purpose. Not sure where this is in the rules though.

hewhosaysfish
2010-06-03, 06:27 AM
- Get the ability to take 10 on CL checks, and make sure that all your previous castings were at CL+11 or higher
The DC for a dispel check is always 11+CL so if you take 10 against someone of equal CL (like yourself) you will always fail.



I see nothing to suggest that an explosive rune would detonate if fireballed or thrown in the fireplace.
IIRC the argument is that destroying the object the runes are written on counts as an attempt to erase them, which does detonate them.

Rannil
2010-06-03, 06:30 AM
Instead of T-Shirt, how about "tattooing" explosive runes on the tongues of barbarians?

Imagine a barbarian charging, grappling and then sticking his tongue out, forcing the grapple-victim to read it and they both explode.
You could train armies of kamikaze barbarians!
I am so going to do that with my next evil character. There is just something deliciously evil in "death by tongue".

Nihb
2010-06-03, 06:30 AM
This was explored and exploited in our winter night-long game as a room. The way explosive runes and dispel magic work :
1. If you have a book filled with pages, each page will be destroyed when the first page explodes.
2. If you dispel the area, it affects the closest rune first, which destroys the others before they can detonate. Also, the area effect is rather limited.

Solution?
1. Trap that launches bolts with inscribed runes, then the kobold shaman just dispel them, failing them willingly. Funny stuff with no saves. Force effect.

2. A circular room with runes with at least 10 ft between them (11 ft), and traps that triggers Area Dispels. The whole room goes up it dust, as the pillars are destroyed, and the ceiling crumbles over the adventurers. Force damage with reflex, reflex to prevent encaving.

I love kobolds.

Bharg
2010-06-03, 06:46 AM
Kinda reminds me of the explosive tags in Naruto. Take a small parchment with an explosive rune, attach it to a missile weapon like a throwing dagger and...

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 07:00 AM
You can always cast a spell at a caster level lower than your own, subject to a minimum caster level requirement (i.e. you can't cast spells at a caster level lower than the level you first become able to cast that spell level).

So you can always cast a CL 5 dispel magic, no matter what.

But yeah, in general, this trick gets avoided like the plague because the DM will use it against you if you try.

Or the DM points out that dispel hits each one one at a time, so one rune goes off and the rest are destroyed by that explosion.

kladams707
2010-06-03, 07:03 AM
Kinda reminds me of the explosive tags in Naruto. Take a small parchment with an explosive rune, attach it to a missile weapon like a throwing dagger and...

Why think small? I've been imagining tying them to different splash weapons.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-03, 07:05 AM
I am suddenly overcome with deja vu (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146858&highlight=%22explosive+runes%22+Moon).

Or the DM points out that dispel hits each one one at a time, so one rune goes off and the rest are destroyed by that explosion.
That's what my group decided, just to keep things from getting silly.

As for using downtime to create a bunch of pages of these or just putting them all over the place, I don't really see a problem with it. We actually had multiple characters carrying around folded-up runes in case they needed them. It was fun but far from game-breaking. (And at times it was hilarious).

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 07:06 AM
"In space, nobody can hear your electronic scales scream."

No, the moon is too massive to be affected. Its mass doesn't drop if you have no way of measuring it.

Also, circular motion. At a known centripetal acceleration and angular velocity.

Why would I want an electronic balance?

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-03, 07:08 AM
No, the moon is too massive to be affected. It is mass doesn't drop because you have no way of measuring it.

It is arguable that its weight might, though. I'd measure the moon's weight by the moon's gravity, though. Even though less than it would be on Earth, it would be easily enough to ruin plans of putting explosive runes on the moon (that would detonate when read and hit everything within 10' of the moon, big whoop).

Gerrtt
2010-06-03, 07:11 AM
Or "CHA" I'm going to write "CHA" on the moon.:smallwink:

Spooooooooon!

Good idea, much better than A.

I have nothing else to contribute.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 07:13 AM
It is arguable that its weight might, though. I'd measure the moon's weight by the moon's gravity, though. Even though less than it would be on Earth, such would still be considerable.

We can work out the centripetal acceleration of the moon thanks to Newton.

We also know its period of rotation, from which we can derive its angular velocity.

As long as we have some idea of how far out it orbits, we can derive its mass, and we know its weight equals its mass times centripetal acceleration.

I suspect that we'll find that the moon weighs a lot more than 45.4 Newtons.

And I think I killed some catgirls there.


By the way, the reason we don't measure the moon's weight by its own acceleration of freefall is because I am in no mood for calculus.

Jack_Simth
2010-06-03, 07:16 AM
I juste read it as follows:

SRD
"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."

If you want to say that you can choose not to succeed that would be a personal interpretation. Who knows, maybe it is a safety valve to prevent things like dispeling your own Explosive Runes or something...

The party Wizard makes the book, the party Fighter throws the book, the party Cleric Dispels the book (and uses the minimum caster level for the spell, which is an option). Problem solved.

The simplest solution for the DM: The explosive Runes spell is primarily intended for keeping text from falling into the wrong hands. The first rune to go boom destroys the rest, so you only get the standard 6d6 damage from an Explosive Runes spell, no matter how many you set up on your sheaf of tied papers (they don't stack).

Ah, silly English System. D&D should just go metric. :smalltongue:

5kg is way easier, can't screw that up.

I think.
Actually, it's a matter of people using things badly. See, Grams and kilograms are a measure of mass, not of weight. To get a measure of weight in Metric, you want Newtons... but most the people who try to use the metric system don't actually know how to use it properly. Likewise, the English system has units for mass as well: Slugs and Grains.

If you ignore the social aspects (scientists keep using it - herd mentality), the only advantage that the Metric System has over the English System is that there's slightly less need for math and memorization (Not everyone knows that there's eight onces in a cup, two cups in a pint, two pints in a quart, four quarts in a gallon; not everyone knows that there's 16 ounces in a pound, and 2,000 pounds in a ton; not everyone knows that there's 12 inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, 5,280 feet in a mile). But then, the need for math and memorization is still there in the Metric system, as well - it's just lesser.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-03, 07:18 AM
*stabs catgirls*

I don't know if you can assume any of those things in D&D, though.


I juste reade it as follows:

SRD
"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."

If you want to say that you can choose not to succeed that would be a personal interpretation. Who knows, maybe it is a safety valve to prevent things like dispeling your own Explosive Runes or something...

The Player's Handbook version says "You can choose".

RandomMerchant7
2010-06-03, 07:41 AM
would lesser globe of invuln negate the explosion if you read it up close? of any globe of invuln. also glyph of warding has almost the same effect but 1d8 per 2 levels up to 5d8 except you can make them explode if someone enters the area

* make the glyph of warding put explosive runes on one of the characters random equipment lol "whats this? BOOOM"

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 08:27 AM
Actually, it's a matter of people using things badly. See, Grams and kilograms are a measure of mass, not of weight. To get a measure of weight in Metric, you want Newtons... but most the people who try to use the metric system don't actually know how to use it properly.

And it's worth pointing out here that D&D falls into the trap of misusing 'weight' for 'mass' - there is no good reason for magic to give a damn what things weigh. There's every reason for it to want to know how much of the thing there is.


If you ignore the social aspects (scientists keep using it - herd mentality)

It has nothing to do with herd mentality and everything to do with:

The metric system being designed with science in mind (the Imperial system is not).
The metric system being based on universal constants (e.g. a metre is defined in terms of the speed of light).


I don't know if you can assume any of those things in D&D, though.

The Dungeon Master's guide explicitly states that, as far as possible, the laws of physics apply, the world is round, and so on.

It's up to the DM to change it if she wants, and if she does, that's a houserule.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-03, 08:47 AM
-- The metric system being based on universal constants (e.g. a metre is defined in terms of the speed of light).

The speed of light isn't a constant. >.>

Also:

Item the first
Item the second[/closing list tag here]

Makes

[list] Item the first
Item the second

<.<

Curmudgeon
2010-06-03, 08:58 AM
-- The metric system being based on universal constants (e.g. a metre is defined in terms of the speed of light).
Yes, but that has nothing to do with how it started.
Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole Since D&D worlds aren't defined in terms of distance from pole to equator, even this sort of measure is anachronistically "modern" and less useful than a small multiple of the length of a common booted foot.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 09:00 AM
The speed of light isn't a constant. >.>

Also:

Item the first
Item the second[/closing list tag here]

Makes

[list] Item the first
Item the second

<.<

I know lists, I was just too lazy to use them. It's actually the speed of light in a vacuum. I know.

Morph Bark
2010-06-03, 09:21 AM
Yeah, it's been noticed. Those who do notice that fact generally ignore it out of common courtesy, to keep the DM from responding to their book of explosive runes with a chucked book of his own. :smallamused:

"I take one of the books off the shelf and open it."

"It reads, 'welcome to the Library of Explosive Runes'." :smallamused:

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-03, 09:28 AM
No, the moon is too massive to be affected. Its mass doesn't drop if you have no way of measuring it."Pounds" is not a measure of mass.


Why would I want an electronic balance?The only way to actually, physically weigh the moon is to put a scale beneath it. If you use the right scale, this is less than 5 pounds.


Would not the first explosive rune destroy all the other pages/books before the others have a chance to detonate ... thanks to the way actions and initiative works in the dnd world. I see nothing to suggest that an explosive rune would detonate if fireballed or thrown in the fireplace.

Now if the pages were made of adamantine ... That might be a different story.Wouldn't the book be considered a single object? You area-dispel the entire book, and every single rune on the book detonates simultaneously.

Optimystik
2010-06-03, 09:32 AM
Damn it, someone clean up these dead catgirls. What on earth is going on in here??


would lesser globe of invuln negate the explosion if you read it up close?

Yes, because ER is an "SR: Yes" spell.

Eldan
2010-06-03, 09:37 AM
Well, then we know how to survive the exploding moon.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-03, 09:38 AM
Damn it, someone clean up these dead catgirls.No. They lend ambiance.

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 09:39 AM
No one who's a respectable person likes catgirls anyway.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-03, 09:49 AM
What about using repeated castings of transcribe symbol to move a bunch of castings of explosive runes onto one piece of paper, and then using amanuensis to set them all off?

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 09:51 AM
"Pounds" is not a measure of mass.

Actually... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lbf)

You have to specify what you're talking about, and if you don't, then mass should be assumed.

There's also the whole thing about mass being constant, but weight not being constant, the fact that magic has no business giving a damn about weight and every business caring about mass, and the fact that you can calculate the moon's centripetal acceleration (which comes from its weight) and use that to get its weight in pounds, which is a lot more than five.



The only way to actually, physically weigh the moon is to put a scale beneath it. If you use the right scale, this is less than 5 pounds.

No, that's doctoring the scale so that it has a force of 5 lbf on it.


Wouldn't the book be considered a single object? You area-dispel the entire book, and every single rune on the book detonates simultaneously.

There'd still be a rune that gets triggered first and wipes out the book. I believe the reason you put a separate rune on each page is as a premature way around DMs who (intentionally or not) apply the Glyph of Warding restrictions to the spell. While they shouldn't interfere with each other, it's not completely clear cut.

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 09:54 AM
You have to specify what you're talking about, and if you don't, then mass should be assumed. See also the point about mass being constant across worlds whereas weight wouldn't be, and there being no obvious reason for magic to care about mass and every reason for it to care about weight.

I think you accidentally inverted your last sentence there.

While I agree with you as far as Rules As Make Sense, shenanigans never care about those.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 10:01 AM
I think you accidentally inverted your last sentence there.

Thanks.

In any event:

a = (omega)2r

w = ma

a comes out as about 0.00244

So basically, if the moon's mass is so much as half a tonne, then its weight is more than 10 lbf

Binks
2010-06-03, 10:27 AM
Being 'close enough to read' them means you take auto-damage, with no saving throw. There's no mention of absolute distances regarding that. Unfortunately.


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.

Straight from the SRD. Close enough to read is a descriptor, not a rule. It's like saying "Anyone 8ft tall (taller than shaq)...". That doesn't mean it applies to anyone taller than shaq (so no shenanigans with making him shorter) it means it applies to anyone more than 8ft tall. Same for the runes.

SlyGuyMcFly
2010-06-03, 10:34 AM
If you ignore the social aspects (scientists keep using it - herd mentality), the only advantage that the Metric System has over the English System is that there's slightly less need for math and memorization (Not everyone knows that there's eight onces in a cup, two cups in a pint, two pints in a quart, four quarts in a gallon; not everyone knows that there's 16 ounces in a pound, and 2,000 pounds in a ton; not everyone knows that there's 12 inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, 5,280 feet in a mile). But then, the need for math and memorization is still there in the Metric system, as well - it's just lesser.

On the contrary. Scientists invented SI because it made things easier. Multiplying 2.345687 cubic decimetres (Litres, in SI) by one thousand to get cubic centimetres (Mililitres, in SI) is easy. You run the . three spots to the right. Done.

Multiplying the same number of gallons to get cups? You'd better have a calculator handy.

Metric exists because it's decimal, the same base as regular numbers come in. This makes converting units very, very easy, which is important in science. Imperial is pretty much even with Metric for everyday stuff, but SI exists for a very good reason.

Forever Curious
2010-06-03, 10:44 AM
Get your science out of my fantasy roleplay! :smallannoyed: :smalltongue:

Radar
2010-06-03, 11:32 AM
(...)
There'd still be a rune that gets triggered first and wipes out the book. I believe the reason you put a separate rune on each page is as a premature way around DMs who (intentionally or not) apply the Glyph of Warding restrictions to the spell. While they shouldn't interfere with each other, it's not completely clear cut.

There is this little gem called Relicguard Spell (a +0 metamagic from Dragon Magazine 347 - an obscure source, yes), that makes your spells harmless to objects and other nonliving targets. Exactly the thing needed for the E-bomb to work. :smallsmile:

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 11:35 AM
There is this little gem called Relicguard Spell (a +0 metamagic from Dragon Magazine 347 - an obscure source, yes), that makes your spells harmless to objects and other nonliving targets. Exactly the thing needed for the E-bomb to work. :smallsmile:

Yes, I know about Relicguard spell. We usually avoid Dragon material unless it made it into one or more compendia.

By the way, you'd use Erase over Dispel Magic - you can drop your CL further than with dispel magic, and it has no autosuccess clause IIRC.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-03, 11:51 AM
There's also the whole thing about mass being constant, but weight not being constant, the fact that magic has no business giving a damn about weight and every business caring about mass, and the fact that you can calculate the moon's centripetal acceleration (which comes from its weight) and use that to get its weight in pounds, which is a lot more than five.


Um, magic cares about weight. Otherwise the text would says grams not pounds.

NEO|Phyte
2010-06-03, 11:54 AM
By the way, you'd use Erase over Dispel Magic - you can drop your CL further than with dispel magic, and it has no autosuccess clause IIRC.

It also leaves you in spitting range of the runes.
:edit: specifically, touching range.

Magic writing must be touched to be erased

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 11:59 AM
Um, magic cares about weight. Otherwise the text would says grams not pounds.

Pounds unspecified can be pounds-mass or pounds-force. D&D never uses metric measurements. Why would it do so there? It also never respects the distinction between weight and mass, but only one of those is even remotely meaningful.

See also the Dungeon Master's Guide, which describes weights as effectively doubling. Basically, by the D&D rules, 'weight' is constant, and 'effective weight' varies with acceleration of free-fall.

And, again, the moon weighs too much as well.

@NEO|Phyte: Whoops. OK, so you wouldn't.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 12:15 PM
How much the moon weighs is a completely moot point.

You CAN NOT put an explosive rune on the moon itself. The spell clearly states that "You trace these runes upon a book, map, scroll, or similar object bearing written information."


The last time I checked the moon bears no resembilance to a book, map or scroll.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 12:16 PM
How much the moon weighs is a completely moot point.

You CAN NOT put an explosive rune on the moon itself. The spell clearly states that "You trace these runes upon a book, map, scroll, or similar object bearing written information."

You can inscribe any of those -- especially a map -- in a variety of media, so the only important bit is that the object bears written information.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 12:20 PM
You can inscribe any of those -- especially a map -- in a variety of media, so the only important bit is that the object bears written information.

That doesn't fix the problem of the moon being nothing like a book, map or scroll.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 12:22 PM
That doesn't fix the problem of the moon being nothing like a book, map or scroll.

Then draw a few squiggly lines that enclose different regions. There, it's now a map.

As I said, the 'similar' part is completely meaningless, because any of those objects can take a vast number of different forms. In particular, 'map' is very loosely defined.

Alternatively, write out the text of "A Tale of Two Cities" on the surface of the moon. It's now a book.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 12:24 PM
Then draw a few squiggly lines that enclose different regions. There, it's now a map.

Mapping out the moon on the moon does not make it a map. Saying the moon is like a map is like saying a raven is like a writing desk. I just doesn't work.

Doug Lampert
2010-06-03, 12:25 PM
The metric system being based on universal constants (e.g. a metre is defined in terms of the speed of light).

So is the Inch. The Meter was originally SUPPOSED to be 1/10,000,000th the distance along the surface of the Earth from the pole to the equator, but they got it wrong. It's not inherently any more scientific than furlongs.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 12:28 PM
Mapping out the moon on the moon does not make it a map. Saying the moon is like a map is like saying a raven is like a writing desk. I just doesn't work.

Yes, it does. You can inscribe a map on the moon, so you can make it qualify for explosive runes.

Likewise, you can inscribe a book onto the moon and trap that.

Map: "A visual representation of an area". Can be inscribed on whatever you want.


So is the Inch. The Meter was originally SUPPOSED to be 1/10,000,000th the distance along the surface of the Earth from the pole to the equator, but they got it wrong. It's not inherently any more scientific than furlongs.

There's nothing wrong with changing your mind because you screwed up.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-03, 12:28 PM
There is this little gem called Relicguard Spell (a +0 metamagic from Dragon Magazine 347 - an obscure source, yes), that makes your spells harmless to objects and other nonliving targets. Exactly the thing needed for the E-bomb to work. :smallsmile:

That's awful. I would either hit that player with a book or buy him pizza.

Doug Lampert
2010-06-03, 12:28 PM
Um, magic cares about weight. Otherwise the text would says grams not pounds.

Or slugs, or grains, or pounds-mass.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 12:31 PM
Or slugs, or grains, or pounds-mass.

See also the DMG which makes it clear that real world weight is "effective weight" in DnD-speak.

And the fact that 'pounds' can refer equally to lbf and lbm, and that D&D doesn't assume that people even know the difference.

Doug Lampert
2010-06-03, 12:32 PM
Pounds unspecified can be pounds-mass or pounds-force.
But the default is that pounds are force. Pounds mass should always be specified just as Kilograms-force should always be specified (and yes, I've seen rocket designs that specified kilograms-force as a unit, it is used).

Pounds are DEFINED as a force, -mass is a misuse unless specified. Slugs are the English mass unit.

Kilograms are DEFINED as mass, newtons are the force unit.

You can use ANY force unit as mass and ANY mass unit as force if you declare one g to be the conversion factor, but the units are defined for one use or the other and the other use is wrong unless specified.

And pounds are force.

DougL

Doug Lampert
2010-06-03, 12:36 PM
See also the DMG which makes it clear that real world weight is "effective weight" in DnD-speak.

And the fact that 'pounds' can refer equally to lbf and lbm, and that D&D doesn't assume that people even know the difference.

Well, to be more precise it's likely that the writers didn't know the difference, but they failed to specify, and pounds are a unit of force, so it's reasonable to assume they meant force. This requires no special readings or claims that pounds-mass is meant and that they got it WRONG. And it is very definitely wrong to use pounds as a unit of mass without specifying pounds-mass.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 12:41 PM
Yes, it does. You can inscribe a map on the moon, so you can make it qualify for explosive runes.

Likewise, you can inscribe a book onto the moon and trap that.

Map: "A visual representation of an area". Can be inscribed on whatever you want.


It would still be breaking both the RAI and RAW since "the moon" is not generally seen as an "object bearing written information" and attempting to argue it as one is assinine and rediculous.

Binks
2010-06-03, 12:42 PM
Even using the 'pounds are pounds force' definition the moon still 'weighs' significantly more than 10lbs in earth's gravity. And if you're moving the moon outside of earth's gravity well (and far enough from the sun to reduce its weight in the sun's gravity well to 10lbs) then who cares? You're basically epic at this point, so why not just make an epic version of exploding runes that works on massive objects?

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 12:43 PM
But the default is that pounds are force. Pounds mass should always be specified just as Kilograms-force should always be specified (and yes, I've seen rocket designs that specified kilograms-force as a unit, it is used).

Pounds are DEFINED as a force, -mass is a misuse unless specified. Slugs are the English mass unit.

No, it is not, because people misuse it too much. Pounds, in American Customary Units, are DEFINED as a unit of mass. In the UK, lb == lbm.

It's unspecified and the game doesn't respect the distinction. Go with what makes sense (and actually fits with current definitions, not what you think those definitions are).


And pounds are force.

Actually, no. In American Customary Measurements, the pound is a unit of mass unless otherwise specified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units#Units_of_mass

It's even defined in terms of the kilogram.

The international standard for the pound is also a unit of mass.


Well, to be more precise it's likely that the writers didn't know the difference, but they failed to specify, and pounds are a unit of force, so it's reasonable to assume they meant force. This requires no special readings or claims that pounds-mass is meant and that they got it WRONG. And it is very definitely wrong to use pounds as a unit of mass without specifying pounds-mass.

Except that it's been established that the pound is recognised in the US and internationally as a unit of mass.

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-06-03, 12:45 PM
After reading this thread (okay, only about half or so of it, but meh) I really want to get into a gestalt game with a Wizard//Dread Necromancer so I can keep summoning undead stapling papers with explosive runes on them to their foreheads...

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 12:47 PM
It would still be breaking both the RAI and RAW since "the moon" is not generally seen as an "object bearing written information" and attempting to argue it as one is assinine and rediculous.

Erm, no. If the moon bears written infromation, it's an "object bearing written information".

How the hell is that 'asinine' or 'ridiculous'?

Fax Celestis
2010-06-03, 12:49 PM
That doesn't fix the problem of the moon being nothing like a book, map or scroll.

Sure it is. It's a 1":1" scale map of the moon.

Claudius Maximus
2010-06-03, 12:50 PM
The idea was to create a giant sheet of paper and lay it over the moon, so whether the moon itself counts is kind of moot.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 12:54 PM
Erm, no. If the moon bears written infromation, it's an "object bearing written information".

How the hell is that 'asinine' or 'ridiculous'?

Because you're taking something that does not generally bear written information and claiming that simply because you're writing something on it that it is now a map or book and thus qualifies for the spell.

You can not use "Polymorph" to turn a writing desk into a raven because the raven qualifies as a "living creature".

Certainly somebody could go out and write a story on the hood of my car... that doesn't mean I drive a book...


The moon is not a book, map, or scroll and bears no resembalance to them in any way. These are items that people use as portable means of written information, the moon is... THE FRICKING MOON.

Nidogg
2010-06-03, 12:55 PM
@WildPyre
No one is EVER going to try and blow up the moon with explosive runes, the tides are safe. Its a bit like the Locate city bomb. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE DM WILL DO IT!!!

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-06-03, 12:56 PM
Because you're taking something that does not generally bear written information and claiming that simply because you're writing something on it that it is now a map or book and thus qualifies for the spell.

Forgive me for butting in, but um... isn't the moon made of stone? And wasn't stone the earliest "writing" medium? Cave paintings, hieroglyphs, that sort of thing?

hamishspence
2010-06-03, 12:59 PM
A cave wall might not count as an object though.

Suppose you inscribed something on a cave wall- does that make the planet "an object with written information on it"?

Can Explosive Runes on a cave wall, blow up the whole planet?

Now explosive runes on a stone tablet- that's reasonable. A tablet makes sense as "an object".

a planet though, is a bit much.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 12:59 PM
Because you're taking something that does not generally bear written information and claiming that simply because you're writing something on it that it is now a map or book and thus qualifies for the spell.

A wall can bear written information. If it's a surface and something can be used to write on it, it's a potential medium for written information.

Whether it's 'normal' or not is irrelevant.

The real issue with writing on the moon is that it's not easy to write in letters 2000 km high in the first place.



Can Explosive Runes on a cave wall, blow up the whole planet?

The planet is not going to be blown up by any number of instances of 5d6 force damage.

The energy required to blow up a planet is about 100 times the Death Star's rest-mass energy, if I recall correctly.

In contrast, 110 J can mean as little as 1 point of damage in a few cases.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 01:01 PM
Forgive me for butting in, but um... isn't the moon made of stone? And wasn't stone the earliest "writing" medium? Cave paintings, hieroglyphs, that sort of thing?

There is still a vast differance between a cave wall or carved hieroglyph and a vast orbiting satilite. Do you honestly look up into the sky on a clear night and expect to get the latest sports updates, or a funny limerick on the face of the moon?



@WildPyre
No one is EVER going to try and blow up the moon with explosive runes, the tides are safe. Its a bit like the Locate city bomb. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE DM WILL DO IT!!!

The discussion isn't about IF it will be done, it's about CAN it be done.


A wall can bear written information. If it's a surface and something can be used to write on it, it's a potential medium for written information.

Whether it's 'normal' or not is irrelevant.


Actually it's extremely relevant. You're stating that the moon can be considered as a similar item to a book, map or scroll. A book a map and a scroll are all things people generally expect to see writing on because they are portable media that commonly contain words.

The moon is neither portable, commonly written on, or seen as media by the general populous.

Nidogg
2010-06-03, 01:01 PM
Lets not forget tryiing to not asphixiate whilst doing it....

Tiki Snakes
2010-06-03, 01:01 PM
Sure it is. It's a 1":1" scale map of the moon.

1:1 scale Globe of the moon, perhaps? :smallsmile:
Either way, this.

A Raven is exactly like a writing desk, in several senses, as they are both carbon based, exist physically in 3 dimensions and existentiallly in up to several more. They both contain cellular structures, are living matirial at certain points along the axis of time (and not at others) and can both likely be found in the study of the narrator of the poem 'The Raven'.

Barely any differences at all, if you look at it in the right frame of mind. :smallwink:

Dr.Epic
2010-06-03, 01:01 PM
So the duration of explosive runes is "permanent" and there doesn't seem to be a cost to cast the spell.

Thus, is there any reason why a caster can't take a week to prepare dozens of pages of explosive runes, and then just rip them out of a book whenever necessary? Or for that matter, why a caster couldn't give everybody in the party a book of pages of explosive runes? It seems like this is rather overpowered, yet it also seems completely within the rules of the game.

Yes that would be possible and I've thought about making a caster with a fake spell book with nothing but explosive ruins in it so that should I ever get captured and they take my stuff they also get that and go KABOOM!

Escheton
2010-06-03, 01:03 PM
Harpoon, with banner/rolled up parchment on it. Explosive runes on it stating: "should'nt have done that" or an actually funny line.

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-06-03, 01:05 PM
There is still a vast differance between a cave wall or carved hieroglyph and a vast orbiting satilite. Do you honestly look up into the sky on a clear night and expect to get the latest sports updates, or a funny limerick on the face of the moon?

Actually I expect to see advertising on it. But really, I think it's just as silly as you do. I just thought I'd point out that an (admittedly very loose) argument could be made that the moon is a writing surface. I figured the ludicrous nature of the discussion itself would help to absorb some of the facepalmery, if you will, of the argument.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 01:10 PM
A Raven is exactly like a writing desk, in several senses, as they are both carbon based, exist physically in 3 dimensions and existentiallly in up to several more.

"Amino-carboxylic" might be a bit better than carbon-based. Especially since you're talking about the sci-fi term 'carbon-based life'.

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-06-03, 01:10 PM
Yes that would be possible and I've thought about making a caster with a fake spell book with nothing but explosive ruins in it so that should I ever get captured and they take my stuff they also get that and go KABOOM!

I had a somewhat similar "in case I get captured plan" with a Wizard/Sand Shaper. I made a copy of my spellbook and kept in the DMs world's version of a safety deposit box. (Only better, because the "banks" had teleporting magic so that you could access your box form any one of them.) Updating it wasn't an issue since I was still advancing Sand Shaper. I then made a Spellbook out of sand, which was the book that I prepared from and kept with me in my travels. So, if I ever got captured and enemy spellcasters tried to look in my book, viola, it's a pile of sand. :smallbiggrin:

megabyter5
2010-06-03, 04:06 PM
Actually, there is one way you can use Erase instead of Dispel Magic to set off the runebomb... If you're 11th level or up and you have a familiar, they can deliver the touch part of Erase, and their SR will protect them from the explosion, provided you can fail a CL check voluntarily in this situation, which IIRC may be the case... Possibly.

Also, if I was picking runes to write on the moon, I'd probably say "X/((Y^0)-1)" and say it would explode as soon as someone figured out what it was really saying and went "OH SH--"

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-06-03, 04:31 PM
Actually, there is one way you can use Erase instead of Dispel Magic to set off the runebomb... If you're 11th level or up and you have a familiar, they can deliver the touch part of Erase, and their SR will protect them from the explosion, provided you can fail a CL check voluntarily in this situation, which IIRC may be the case... Possibly.

Also, if I was picking runes to write on the moon, I'd probably say "X/((Y^0)-1)" and say it would explode as soon as someone figured out what it was really saying and went "OH SH--"

Hmm... Does an inanimate object count as a "willing subject" for Craft Contingent Spell? Then you could craft a contingent erase and have it set off by you screaming High five!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYntYEt-CwQ")

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 04:47 PM
Actually, there is one way you can use Erase instead of Dispel Magic to set off the runebomb... If you're 11th level or up and you have a familiar, they can deliver the touch part of Erase, and their SR will protect them from the explosion, provided you can fail a CL check voluntarily in this situation, which IIRC may be the case... Possibly.

Also, if I was picking runes to write on the moon, I'd probably say "X/((Y^0)-1)" and say it would explode as soon as someone figured out what it was really saying and went "OH SH--"

Remember that your erase is caster level 1. It only has a 70% chance of working.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-03, 05:31 PM
Who's to say there's even a moon to put explosive runes on??

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 05:31 PM
Who's to say there's even a moon to put explosive runes on??

Practically all of the settings?

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 05:35 PM
Who's to say there's even a moon to put explosive runes on??

Unless the DM decides otherwise, the world is earthlike and the laws of physics apply. So there has to be a moon.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-03, 05:36 PM
Who's to say there's even a moon to put explosive runes on??

That's no moon...

Jack_Simth
2010-06-03, 05:36 PM
And it's worth pointing out here that D&D falls into the trap of misusing 'weight' for 'mass' - there is no good reason for magic to give a damn what things weigh. There's every reason for it to want to know how much of the thing there is.
Most people fall into the same trap; in normal use, the distinction between mass and weight is academic, as we're all affected by a gravity field that's even enough that the distinctions will be negligible for most practical uses. It's really only when you get into particularly fine measurements, or particularly large distances, that the distinction starts to matter. So the platinum/irridium alloy cylinder "weighs" one kilogram in common parlance.

It has nothing to do with herd mentality and everything to do with:

The metric system being designed with science in mind (the Imperial system is not).
Not an actual advantage. You can throw a power of ten on grains just as easily as you can on grams; besides, Metric also includes units that are "close" in terms of how they look and sound, yet are orders of magnitude apart - try distinguishing between someone saying "three decimeters" and "three decameters" in a 'noisy' environment; there's a single letter of difference. Oh yes, and all other units in SI inherit the problem. Inches, Feet, Yards, and Miles are difficult to confuse in communication. Ounces, Cups, Pints, Quarts, and Gallons look and sound nothing alike (although there is the overlap between the weight "ounce" and the volume "ounce" - one discrepancy on different classes, rather than the systemic discrepancy that the Metric system has). My complaint here is a variation on the reason that the military teaches soldiers their Alpha Bravo Charlie's, rather than their A B C's.

Additionally, there's really messy conversion constants on almost everything anyway, except in particular circumstances. They'll be no less messy for using different base units. switching would be painful, due to the number of constants that are already defined and measured, but that's not an advantage of the system of measurement, so much as an advantage of "everyone else is using it".


The metric system being based on universal constants (e.g. a metre is defined in terms of the speed of light).

This also is not an actual advantage. Both systems are utterly arbitrary, and utterly arbitrary is utterly arbitrary. Just as an example, the definition of the meter has been periodically changed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Timeline_of_definition); that's not something you see happening with "universal constants". Also: What's "universal" about 1⁄299,792,458 of a second? Defining a mile as the distance light travels in 1/186,282 of a second (and defining the other English measurements of distance based on that mile) doesn't make it any less arbitrary of a measurement, and doesn't change anything of note.

Zeful
2010-06-03, 05:36 PM
Wouldn't the book be considered a single object? You area-dispel the entire book, and every single rune on the book detonates simultaneously.

If the book were only one object, you could only place one rune on it.

As for blowing up the moon, not possible. Explosive runes deals a very small amount of damage, the Moon, if you went and stated it up would have millions of HP from being several thousand tons of stone.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-03, 05:38 PM
So there has to be a moon.

I hardly think that a moon is mandatory. Unless tidal forces are vital to life on Earth?

EDIT:

If the book were only one object, you could only place one rune on it.

Sadly, I don't see anything that restricts the number of explosive runes you can place on a single object.

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 05:40 PM
You don't usually use deca, deci, hexa, etc. Kilo, Mega, Giga, Tera, Peta, Milli, Micro, etc. "A thousand kilos" is also common. The issue of pronunciation in a heated, noisy environment is a non-issue with that consideration.

It's hard to deny the Imperial system of measurement is more useful for common sizes in day to day life, but the mathematical work /is/ significantly easier.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 05:47 PM
You don't usually use deca, deci, hexa, etc. Kilo, Mega, Giga, Tera, Peta, Milli, Micro, etc. "A thousand kilos" is also common. The issue of pronunciation in a heated, noisy environment is a non-issue with that consideration.

It's hard to deny the Imperial system of measurement is more useful for common sizes in day to day life, but the mathematical work /is/ significantly easier.

In my experience, Imperial tends to be useful in that it's what quite a lot of people are used to.

Most people in Europe mix the two - as long as everyone's on the same page, it's never really a problem.

The biggest example is really Celsius vs. Kelvin - Kelvin is far more useful for scientific work, but Celsius is much more relevant to real life for a lot of people.

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 05:49 PM
In my experience, Imperial tends to be useful in that it's what quite a lot of people are used to.

Most people in Europe mix the two - as long as everyone's on the same page, it's never really a problem.

Most people I know in the US (I know we're the exceptions here) are the same way - we use Imperial for every day life, but when we need to bust out the math, it's Metric. (It's electric! Boogie-woogie-woogie-woo)

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-03, 05:51 PM
Most people I know in the US (I know we're the exceptions here) are the same way - we use Imperial for every day life, but when we need to bust out the math, it's Metric. (It's electric! Boogie-woogie-woogie-woo)

I'm the same way. If I'm driving around town, I'm more concerned with how many miles I've gone. But if I need to solve a physics problem involving distance, I'll probably use kilometers.

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 05:53 PM
In my experience, Imperial tends to be useful in that it's what quite a lot of people are used to.

Most people in Europe mix the two - as long as everyone's on the same page, it's never really a problem.

The biggest example is really Celsius vs. Kelvin - Kelvin is far more useful for scientific work, but Celsius is much more relevant to real life for a lot of people.

There's really no excuse for us not using Celsius/Centigrade over here in the US. Fahrenheit is an amazing temperature scale - when you're at sea. Celsius is much more relevant to daily life.

Celsius is practically SI/Metric, because the units are the same size as the Kelvin, it's just adjusted by a constant 273.15.

TurtleKing
2010-06-03, 06:00 PM
Could a wizard make a book of the Explosive Runes but not chuck the book. Instead throw a sheet (probably requires being balled up), drop it, or even attach to another object like a arrow. Basis behind the arrow idea is when the person goes to pull the arrow out from being struck they likely end up reading the sheet detonating the explosive runes. I am thinking if one of my characters does this with his arrows and having Tongues as a SLA; should he do this with the runes in a language he does not know and have tongues not active? Does Explosive Runes require you to understand the language it is written in?:smallconfused:

Actually that may defeat it by it would have to be in abyssal to keep my character from auto reading it.

Fax Celestis
2010-06-03, 06:02 PM
Could a wizard make a book of the Explosive Runes but not chuck the book. Instead throw a sheet (probably requires being balled up), drop it, or even attach to another object like a arrow. Basis behind the arrow idea is when the person goes to pull the arrow out from being struck they likely end up reading the sheet detonating the explosive runes. I am thinking if one of my characters does this with his arrows and having Tongues as a SLA; should he do this with the runes in a language he does not know and have tongues not active? Does Explosive Runes require you to understand the language it is written in?:smallconfused:

Actually that may defeat it by it would have to be in abyssal to keep my character from auto reading it.

Spell-storing arrows storing erase, maybe? Or perhaps Smiting Spell metamagic for smiting erase on your arrows.

Jack_Simth
2010-06-03, 06:14 PM
You don't usually use deca, deci, hexa, etc. Kilo, Mega, Giga, Tera, Peta, Milli, Micro, etc. "A thousand kilos" is also common. The issue of pronunciation in a heated, noisy environment is a non-issue with that consideration.

Ah, so it's a problem of SI having a bundle of effectively useless units defined. My bad.
[/QUOTE]

It's hard to deny the Imperial system of measurement is more useful for common sizes in day to day life,Yes... the system that was developed over time by people using it in everyday life for their own convenience works very well in everyday life... funny, that.
but the mathematical work /is/ significantly easier.Some aspects of it are (converting meters to kilometers for instance), but most of it is only noticeably easier because your references are already in SI units. If you need to figure out how many rolls of wallpaper you need, and the rolls of wallpaper each have fifty feet of wallpaper in them, you're probably going to measure the room in feet, rather than meters (because the math is easier - you don't need to stop and convert between meters and feet) - your materials supplier is giving you the reference (number of feet in a roll).

If you're trying to calculate the amount of time needed for the space shuttle to orbit the earth on a particular pass, you're probably going to be using SI units for your measurements - because you already have G sitting there in SI units as a long decimal, and converting to Imperial units would be an extra (and painful) step. If G was instead pre-defined for you as a long decimal in Imperial units, you would get quite the headache in changing it over to SI units - so you'd be calculating in Imperial units, instead.

You're doing physics problems in SI units because everyone else is doing physics problems in SI units... and that's the single biggest reason.


In my experience, Imperial tends to be useful in that it's what quite a lot of people are used to.

Most people in Europe mix the two - as long as everyone's on the same page, it's never really a problem.
Agreed. The Imperial system is also heavily used due to herd mentality. One is not actually significantly better than the other. Which was my point all along.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 06:34 PM
So long as we're talking about the differances between European and American measurments...

I've always found it odd that in America our units of measure is often based off of 12 and our money runs on basic 10's...

While in England it's inverted, measurements running on 10 and money based on 12s.

bebecatty
2010-06-03, 06:43 PM
While in England it's inverted, measurements running on 10 and money based on 12s.

It is? Damn I've been getting short changed for years!:smallwink:

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 06:43 PM
While in England it's inverted, measurements running on 10 and money based on 12s.

Hold on, I've apparently been stuck in some kind of time paradox. What millennium is this :smalleek:?

We haven't had shillings, half-crowns or guineas since 1972...

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 06:45 PM
Some aspects of it are (converting meters to kilometers for instance), but most of it is only noticeably easier because your references are already in SI units. If you need to figure out how many rolls of wallpaper you need, and the rolls of wallpaper each have fifty feet of wallpaper in them, you're probably going to measure the room in feet, rather than meters (because the math is easier - you don't need to stop and convert between meters and feet) - your materials supplier is giving you the reference (number of feet in a roll).

That's a good one.

Now start messing with shifting dimensions. This really becomes evident in chemistry, where a lot of metric units for volume, density, calorie and mass have their base value defined in relation to water, which is a very, very important substance for a lot of chemical reactions, versus the highly arbitrary Imperial components.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-03, 06:47 PM
Some aspects of it are (converting meters to kilometers for instance), but most of it is only noticeably easier because your references are already in SI units. If you need to figure out how many rolls of wallpaper you need, and the rolls of wallpaper each have fifty feet of wallpaper in them, you're probably going to measure the room in feet, rather than meters (because the math is easier - you don't need to stop and convert between meters and feet) - your materials supplier is giving you the reference (number of feet in a roll).

Actually, at least in my experience, wallpaper is usually sold by the yard in the us (though it has, admittedly, been well over a decade since I last wallpapered something-- I prefer a fresh coat of paint).

That's more a matter of dealing with the system you're given. If you have the option of a wallpaper supplier offering rolls measured in yards and rolls measured in meters, using the decimalized option will make the math easier should your wall not end exactly at one yard or one meter.

The basis point is that, if everything were equally available in Imperial or SI, the SI would be easier because we use a decimalized math system.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 06:51 PM
Hold on, I've apparently been stuck in some kind of time paradox. What millennium is this :smalleek:?

We haven't had shillings, half-crowns or guineas since 1972...

Aww that's a shame... your country is slightly less interesting now. :smallfrown:

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-03, 06:55 PM
Aww that's a shame... your country is slightly less interesting now. :smallfrown:

..Did you seriously only just find this out?

We've been using metric money for longer than you've been alive. By four years.

Edit: Yes I know "decimalised money" is the more widely-used term but damnit 'metric money' is funny.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 07:00 PM
..Did you seriously only just find this out?

We've been using metric money for longer than you've been alive. By four years.

And I've been to England and really cared about their money all of... never. Sorry for the confusion about currency that I never use, from a place I've never been, and isn't discussed all that much in America. I know you use pounds... I think... do you still use pounds? Though really I'm more intrested to know if you still have those guards with the big fuzzy hats. Those guys are called Beefeaters right? Or is that some other guard? Maybe the ones with the really fancy coats and funny pants.

Hell I've BEEN to mexico and I still have no idea how the peso works, and I've watched anime and have no clue how Yen work.

Sue me. *shrugs*

**EDIT** I agree, the term "Metric Money" sounds way cooler.

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 07:06 PM
..Did you seriously only just find this out?

We've been using metric money for longer than you've been alive. By four years.

Edit: Yes I know "decimalised money" is the more widely-used term but damnit 'metric money' is funny.

I assumed they were still in currency, just disfavored. >_> It's not like I pick up books and read about modern English currency often.

Also, I am now 2% less interested in going to Britain for my honeymoon.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 07:08 PM
I assumed they were still in currency, just disfavored. >_> It's not like I pick up books and read about modern English currency often.

Also, I am now 2% less interested in going to Britain for my honeymoon.

AMERICA F*** YEAH! :smallbiggrin:

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 07:10 PM
AMERICA F*** YEAH! :smallbiggrin:

YEAH!

But seriously, modern money in books just goes straight for Dollars/Pounds/Euros/Francs/Marks/Pesos/Won/Yen, etc. The only time you hear about the minor change is when it's interesting (see: Narnia's The Magician's Nephew, which is the most modern thing I can think of that I've read which discussed British money to any great detail.)

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 07:12 PM
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Cameron dropped pennies and replaced them all with shillings. When the idea of a 99p coin actually makes sense, you know a massive chunk of your currency is worthless.

But yeah, the only old coin that even partially exists is the 'shilling', and then nobody uses the name any more. It's just a five pence piece these days.

Binks
2010-06-03, 07:14 PM
versus the highly arbitrary Imperial components.

Everything's arbitrary from a certain viewpoint. How much of the water used for SI units is heavy water? Why that ratio? As for the ease of multiplying by 10 try doing that in binary sometime and then tell me it's easier than, say, multiplying by 2. That's an artifact of most people being taught an arbitrarily chosen base of 10 for their math from a young age, if base 12 were more popular then inches -> feet conversions would be just as easy.

AstralFire
2010-06-03, 07:15 PM
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Cameron dropped pennies and replaced them all with shillings. When the idea of a 99p coin actually makes sense, you know a massive chunk of your currency is worthless.

But yeah, the only old coin that even partially exists is the 'shilling', and then nobody uses the name any more. It's just a five pence piece these days.

I really think Korea and Japan should introduce a new base unit of currency since the subunits for the Won and Yen are absolutely non-existent and the numbers on both pieces of currency are so high now.


Everything's arbitrary from a certain viewpoint. How much of the water used for SI units is heavy water? Why that ratio? As for the ease of multiplying by 10 try doing that in binary sometime and then tell me it's easier than, say, multiplying by 2. That's an artifact of most people being taught an arbitrarily chosen base of 10 for their math from a young age, if base 12 were more popular then inches -> feet conversions would be just as easy.

We're talking about how they are arbitrary in relation to each other, while the SI units on the other hand, were explicitly designed for conversion to one another across different dimensions (length v. width v. mass, etc.)

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 07:15 PM
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Cameron dropped pennies and replaced them all with shillings. When the idea of a 99p coin actually makes sense, you know a massive chunk of your currency is worthless.

But yeah, the only old coin that even partially exists is the 'shilling', and then nobody uses the name any more. It's just a five pence piece these days.

Actually I think America had tossed around the idea of a 99 cent piece at one time. Though yeah, pennies are becoming rather pointless.

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 07:18 PM
Contrast with Tunisia, where each Dinar is split into millimes. They are so worthless that including small change in a tip is considered to be an insult.

Jack_Simth
2010-06-03, 07:47 PM
That's a good one.

Now start messing with shifting dimensions. This really becomes evident in chemistry, where a lot of metric units for volume, density, calorie and mass have their base value defined in relation to water, which is a very, very important substance for a lot of chemical reactions, versus the highly arbitrary Imperial components.
Funny how all your constants are defined in terms of SI units... which makes actually trying what you suggest a headache, irrespective of actual use of the unit system itself. The effort in switching the pre-established constants (or re-establishing them) in the other system is a headache which will mask any results, to the point where the attempt for purposes of argument is useless in terms of "which system is better".

Oh yes, and the imperial system does not yet have an equivalent to the calorie, candela, or amp, so it would be a relatively simple matter to define equivalents around the Imperial system so that things that tend to come out cleanly in SI units of chemistry also come out cleanly in Imperial units of chemistry (the Imperial system, ultimately, was primarily about convenience - an Acre was based on how much field could be tilled in a day, for instance - so doing that to replace missing units isn't a problem).


Actually, at least in my experience, wallpaper is usually sold by the yard in the us (though it has, admittedly, been well over a decade since I last wallpapered something-- I prefer a fresh coat of paint).

So yards, then; it makes no practical difference to the argument in question.


That's more a matter of dealing with the system you're given. If you have the option of a wallpaper supplier offering rolls measured in yards and rolls measured in meters, using the decimalized option will make the math easier should your wall not end exactly at one yard or one meter.Not really - you just run all measurements in yards and fractions of a yard. Practically speaking, that's the exact same thing you're doing with the meters, as well.

The basis point is that, if everything were equally available in Imperial or SI, the SI would be easier because we use a decimalized math system.Actually, there have been attempts at that in the US, with fuel stations. The ones doling out liters all went out of business for lack of sales, even though they showed the conversion right on the machine, AND ran their fuel slightly cheaper. Given equal availability, the majority of people choose what they're accustomed to.

The SI system attempted to do the same thing with time as it did with other units early on - a 10 month year (four 36 day months, five 37 day months, and an equivalent to February which was either 36 or 37 days, to fix the 365.242465... problem with the solar day / solar year conversion), a ten day week, a ten hour day, that kind of thing - and ran into the same problem: it was too much of a disruption; everyone refused to accept the change.

Every argument used in this thread promoting the International Standard (SI) unit system over the Imperial unit system applies equally well to time... but those who use SI units still use seconds, minutes, hours, and days, with the same sets of conversions. And of course, if they ever do try to redefine time into more of a decimal system, they've got a problem: All of the constants they find so useful will need to be *heavily* re-calculated (and pre-existing contracts will get UGLY).

lesser_minion
2010-06-03, 08:00 PM
Er... what?

The SI unit of time is the second. Everything else is customary.

If they decimalised time, it wouldn't create an issue at all, except with people having no idea what time it was.

And, for future reference, all of those constants are available in a variety of different units. Being in SI does make things a lot more convenient.

See also, 1,000 kg.m-3 -- not difficult in the slightest.

The equivalent in Imperial is a lot nastier.


Sometimes it doesn't matter. But the truth is, it's nice not to have to worry about a whole pile of conversion factors when working with common substances, which is an advantage that Imperial does not have.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-03, 08:14 PM
We have shillings. They're just worth 5p rather than 12d now.

Also, Beefeaters are not the ones with the fuzzy hats.

Also, the ones with the fuzzy hats? Those are real rifles. They're armed. And the safety is off.

Just so you know.

Binks
2010-06-03, 08:30 PM
See also, 1,000 kg.m-3 -- not difficult in the slightest.

The equivalent in Imperial is a lot nastier.

62.428lbs/ft^3? How can a number be 'nasty'? And if your argument is that a integer value in SI looks nicer than its equivalent in Imperial then I'd like to point you to 1 ft, which is 30.48cm. You're cooking a number to look nicer in one format than another, which is just silly to be honest.

And honestly who cares about the SI/Imperial argument. This is a thread about exploding things with pure force when people read them, we're so far divorced from reality that wondering whether the explosions should be measured in SI or Imperial units is just silly :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone
2010-06-03, 08:32 PM
It's more entertaining than the argument about whether you can spray-paint graffiti on the moon to make it count as a 'readable object' and thus a valid Runes target.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 08:34 PM
We have shillings. They're just worth 5p rather than 12d now.

Also, Beefeaters are not the ones with the fuzzy hats.

Also, the ones with the fuzzy hats? Those are real rifles. They're armed. And the safety is off.

Just so you know.

Beefeaters must be the ones with the fancy coat and pants then.

As for the loaded rifle, I've had an M-16 pointed at my head when the guy driving a transport vehicle didn't think he had to stop at a checkpoint on our way to help load a Herc... so yeah, not to put them down or anything but military police are far more intimidating. I never did understand the point of harassing those guards though... really they're performing their duty in a long tradition... lay off the guys you silly tourists.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-03, 08:37 PM
Yes, they're not exactly intimidating, but don't think they're just ceremonial. They're actually soldiers. :smallwink:

Do not punch the Queen's Guard, American tourists.

WildPyre
2010-06-03, 08:41 PM
Ah ha! Google is my friend. Beefeaters are the ones with the fancy jackets. (http://blog.luxuryproperty.com/wp-content/uploads/image/sir-francis-drake-beefeaters.jpg) Awesome fashion sense for guards. Not as good as the nazi fashion sense, but really that was all the nazis had going for them.

And don't get me wrong, I'm sure those guys are totally bad ass in their own right... most people just don't realise it because they just think of them standing there. That's got to take some serious stamina though... standing at attention for long periods of time is a pain, and when it gets hot it's easy to pass out like that.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-03, 08:44 PM
The Yeomen Warders however are not soldiers. Punch away.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-03, 08:45 PM
Pretty sure I've seen at least one Youtube clip of someone deciding to harass a royal guard and promptly getting the crap beat out of him...