I prepared explosive runes this morning

[TheThan]

So long story short: yesterday our rogue found himself a scroll case. He saw that it was inscribed with runes so he read them. The scroll case was trapped with explosive runes and promptly blew up in his face.

The player had never seen the spell before and doesn’t read OOTS. So the more experienced players (me and the Dm) had to explain to him how the spell worked. Which lead to a discussion on what would happen if you try to tamper with the runes. Such as scratch them out or paint over them.

We came to the conclusion that the spell would probably detonate if it’s tampered with. I imagine that such a spell would be temperamental anyway since it'll go up in smoke when simply read. But I was curious what others thought about such a situation.

This is pathfinder, but I see no reason why this wouldn’t extend to other editions.

[Marnath]

Tell you what, print off a page of text and try to paint over it without inadvertently reading it. It's harder than you think. :smallwink:

[Moriato]

From the spell description:


Note: Magic traps such as explosive runes are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) can use the Search skill to find the runes and Disable Device to thwart them. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 28 for explosive runes.


I'd say that trying to scratch them out or paint over them is probably exactly what a rogue would do to disable explosive runes, so it would require a DC 28 Disable Device check. Fail by 5 or more and it goes off, just like any other trap.

Edit: Didn't notice it was pathfinder. Don't know if they made any changes to disable device or not from 3.5, but I'm sure you can work it out from there.

[Sarco_Phage]

It's a spell, and the trigger specifically states that it must be read to trigger it. Dispel Magic/Erase can also force a detonation if they fail. Otherwise, it's not like a particularly volatile material.

As GM, you can rule that it does detonate if tampered with, but personally I'd rule that if the specific spell trigger isn't tripped, then the spell won't execute.

Curiously enough, a Rogue can disable the runes with a Disable Device check against DC 28. I'm wondering how. Probably scratches them off or something.

[NNescio]

Having Explosive Runes being tripped off by tampering may lead to them being used as offensive weapons.

[Necroticplague]

Having Explosive Runes being tripped off by tampering may lead to them being used as offensive weapons.

They already have, in a device called a boom box.

[lightningcat]

Tamapering with them as in trying to disable them? I would think that they would trigger if you failed your Disable Device check. Same as if you failed to erase or dispel them.

[Sarco_Phage]

Tamapering with them as in trying to disable them? I would think that they would trigger if you failed your Disable Device check. Same as if you failed to erase or dispel them.

I'm wondering how that failure takes place, though. Does the Rogue simply... fail to not read the runes?

[TheThan]

The Dm ad-libbed a will save to avoid accidentally reading the runes on the other two scroll cases the rogue found. Witch works for the time being. Anyway it’s kind of important because we do have a blind oracle in the party. So we could always give him something suspect if the Dm decides to make a habit of using the spell.

I’ve heard of explosive runes being used offensively primarily by casting it on something, sending it at them (say a ball or something) and dispelling it and intentionally failing the attempt, thusly making the runes explode. I totally call shenanigans on this though and I know the Dm won’t let that happen.

[Moriato]

I'm wondering how that failure takes place, though. Does the Rogue simply... fail to not read the runes?

Probably. I mean you can't look at the runes while you're doing it, and there's really only one way to know for sure if you did it right or not. "Ok, I think they're probably all scratched out now. *peek* *BOOM*" "Missed one"

[lightningcat]

Maybe that, or it might be that when you double check the work you didn't do a good enough job messing it up and read it then, or maybe you trigger the same self destruct trick that erase and dispel magic can trigger.
There are several different ways to explain it in game.

[NNescio]

On a related note, how does ER interact with Looking Glasses and scrying spells?

[Flickerdart]

This is why the Barbarian is the best trap-checker. "What is this reading you speak of? Can I kill it with my axe?"

[lightningcat]

To avoid shanagians, I think that they would be unseen (or at least unreadble) by scying. Otherwise you get them acting as offensive spells, but most likey used agaisnt the caster.

[TheThan]

We joked about explosive Braille, for the wizard that really is prepared for ANY eventuality.

[Volthawk]

This is why the Barbarian is the best trap-checker. "What is this reading you speak of? Can I kill it with my axe?"

Hell, they even have an ACF for trap duty. Trapkiller from Dugeonscape, which lets you disarm traps with attack rolls.

[Necroticplague]

Theirs a flaw that grants illiteracy and a skill bonus. Give it to a rogue, put the bonus in disable device. Done. Or an incarnate with thief's gloves and illiteracy trait.

[elonin]

Not being able to see would work here. Maybe use the hood that makes you blind but adds blind sight 30'. Certainly can't see to read there.

[John Campbell]

Note, Barbarians in Pathfinder aren't illiterate by default.

The one I'm currently playing is, because I took the flaw. (I have Ranger levels, so I would've needed the flaw anyway.) The party wizard made a couple of helms of comprehend languages, though, because we keep getting dumped into worlds where we don't speak any of the local languages, and those don't seem to make being able to read in the first place a requirement for their granting the ability to read incomprehensible writing. Incomprehensible is incomprehensible, whether it's because you don't know the language, or because you don't know how to read at all.

My illiterate barbarian tripped a sepia snake sigil in our last session.

Fortunately, my Reflex save is awesome. (I rolled a 4. I still made the save.)

[Darth Stabber]

Explosive runes is a fun spell. The real trick is to put multiple castings on a single item, throw said item into a group of enemies, then cas dispel magic on the item and voluntarily fail the CL check. This detonates each instance of ER, meaning multiple reflex saves, and multiple instances of the damage (this is the aforementioned "boombox"). Boombox is one of the reasons that ER is considered one of the best damage spells, because it let's you stack multiple instances of the spell, from a different days allotment of spells and allows multiple damage spells to trigger on a single action, allowing a massive abuse of action economy at a relatively low level.

[Jeebers]

Explosive runes is a fun spell. The real trick is to put multiple castings on a single item, throw said item into a group of enemies, then cas dispel magic on the item and voluntarily fail the CL check.

Slight problem. While the rules do not mention it, there would be a limit as to which objects were large enough to have runes on them, and a limit as to how many copies one could have on a single object because of space restriction. Human beings can only write so small, y'know?

[Marnath]

Slight problem. While the rules do not mention it, there would be a limit as to which objects were large enough to have runes on them, and a limit as to how many copies one could have on a single object because of space restriction. Human beings can only write so small, y'know?

That's why the actual boombox has many sheets of paper in it, each with a rune. Set a glyph of warding on it that fires a CL 1 Dispel Ward when the target race/alignment/etc steps on it. Statistically, it fails to dispel 19 of the 20 runes in the box.

[cfalcon]

The oracle by the rules isn't blind, it's a clouded vision, and doesn't obscure reading.

Of course, your oracle could actually be blind for another reason.

[TurtleKing]

I'm curious how does a rogue know to disable the Explosive Runes trap without having read it?

Edit: Grammar.

[Safety Sword]

I'm curious how does a rogue know to disable the Explosive Runes trap without having read it?

Edit: Grammar.

Search check?

I know there's a trap. Doesn't mean I've set it off. Just like a mechanical trap would work, really. Except I'm a rogue, and I can do it for magical traps as a class feature.

[tyckspoon]

Search check?

I know there's a trap. Doesn't mean I've set it off. Just like a mechanical trap would work, really. Except I'm a rogue, and I can do it for magical traps as a class feature.

Basically. If you're going to find and disarm magical traps, you have to grant some level of magic to a Rogue's Search and Disable Device skills as well. At least Explosive Runes has a physical representation that you could theoretically disable; an Alarm spell and several other magical trap effects has no physical source and no practical way to get to the origin of the effect without setting it off, but a Rogue can still Search for it and Disable it. Just throw it on the pile of things that are more trouble than they're worth to think about, like HP.

[Xuc Xac]

For most of human history, recognizing that marks were actually written words and understanding what they said were very separate. Punctuation, line breaks, and even spaces between words are a relatively recent invention (that some languages still don't have). In order to "read" a text, you had to speak the individual sounds out loud to distinguish the words. Before the 10th century, being able to read silently was like being able to recite Pi to 500 places. Even after the 10th century, it was still seen as kind of weird and even when reading silently, people would still move their lips and tongues to vocalize to themselves.

In a pseudo-medieval D&D setting, it's entirely reasonable that even a highly literate wizard would be able to look at a page of writing and recognize that it's writing, but not know what it says until he makes a real effort to read it. Explosive runes don't make sense as "symbols that explode when a literate person looks at them". Either they explode when anyone looks at them (which is rather potent and a little absurd) or they explode when someone tries to understand what they say (by voicing the sounds they represent and triggering the spell).

A rogue can look at a bunch of writing and think "Hey, there's some writing here. Hmm. There doesn't seem to be any ink here, just a difference in color. I think this is a magic trap. Nobody read these words. I'm going to get my chisel and scrap them off."

[Marnath]

For most of human history, recognizing that marks were actually written words and understanding what they said were very separate. Punctuation, line breaks, and even spaces between words are a relatively recent invention (that some languages still don't have). In order to "read" a text, you had to speak the individual sounds out loud to distinguish the words. Before the 10th century, being able to read silently was like being able to recite Pi to 500 places. Even after the 10th century, it was still seen as kind of weird and even when reading silently, people would still move their lips and tongues to vocalize to themselves.

In a pseudo-medieval D&D setting, it's entirely reasonable that even a highly literate wizard would be able to look at a page of writing and recognize that it's writing, but not know what it says until he makes a real effort to read it. Explosive runes don't make sense as "symbols that explode when a literate person looks at them". Either they explode when anyone looks at them (which is rather potent and a little absurd) or they explode when someone tries to understand what they say (by voicing the sounds they represent and triggering the spell).

A rogue can look at a bunch of writing and think "Hey, there's some writing here. Hmm. There doesn't seem to be any ink here, just a difference in color. I think this is a magic trap. Nobody read these words. I'm going to get my chisel and scrap them off."

Everyone except barbarians who don't want to spend the skillpoints is literate in D&D. Even the lowest peasant. So reading the runes isn't a problem.

[MarkusWolfe]

Tell you what, print off a page of text and try to paint over it without inadvertently reading it. It's harder than you think. :smallwink:

Ask the barbarian to paint it. Problem solved.

[faceroll]

Curiously enough, a Rogue can disable the runes with a Disable Device check against DC 28.

The same way a rogue disables any other magical trap, or avoids a fireball while trapped inside a 5x5x5 box. He does something rogue-y.

[true_shinken]

Explosive runes is a fun spell. The real trick is to put multiple castings on a single item, throw said item into a group of enemies, then cas dispel magic on the item and voluntarily fail the CL check.

You can't do that by RAW.

[Xuc Xac]

Everyone except barbarians who don't want to spend the skillpoints is literate in D&D. Even the lowest peasant. So reading the runes isn't a problem.

{Scrubbed}

[faceroll]

You can't do that by RAW.

Using that feat that lets you take ten on your CL checks and casting at the minimum CL of dispel magic would, however.

[Marnath]

{Scrubbed the post, scrub the quote.}

No, I read it. It's not true though, you can't look at something written in a language you know without reading it, the brain works too fast for that.

[Xuc Xac]

No, I read it. It's not true though, you can't look at something written in a language you know without reading it, the brain works too fast for that.

You think so?

ifyoureallythinksothentryreadingthisitsveryeasybut onlyifthelanguageusesspacesandpunctuationandlinebr eakstomakethewordsstandoutclearlybutifthelanguaged oesntworkthatwaythenitsmuchmoredifficultyoucouldlo okatapageoftextandnotseeanythingexceptabunchoftext unlessyouspendsomeefforttoreadit

Then scribes started doing what's called "per cola et commata":

ifyoureallythinksothentryreadingthis
itsveryeasybutonlyifthelanguageusesspacesandpunctu ationandlinebreakstomakethewordsstandoutclearly
butifthelanguagedoesntworkthatwaythenitsmuchmoredi fficult
youcouldlookatapageoftextandnotseeanythingexceptab unchoftext
unlessyouspendsomeefforttoreadit

Then they started using capital letters and slashes:

Ifyoureallythinksothentryreadingthis/itsveryeasybutonlyifthelanguageusesspacesandpunctu ationandlinebreakstomakethewordsstandoutclearly/butifthelanguagedoesntworkthatwaythenitsmuchmoredi fficult/youcouldlookatapageoftextandnotseeanythingexceptab unchoftextunlessyouspendsomeefforttoreadit

In the 10th century, some scribes started using punctuation to make things much easier to read without having to sound them out:


Ifyoureallythinkso,thentryreadingthis. Itsveryeasy,butonlyifthelanguageusesspaces&punctuation&linebreakstomakethewordsstandoutclearly.Butifthela nguagedoesntworkthatway,thenitsmuchmoredifficult.Y oucouldlookatapageoftext&notseeanythingexceptabunchoftext,unlessyouspendsom eefforttoreadit.

After another few hundred years of development:

If you really think so, then try reading this. It's very easy, but only if the language uses spaces and punctuation and line breaks to make the words stand out clearly. But if the language doesn't work that way, then its much more difficult. You could look at a page of text and not see anything except a bunch of text, unless you spend some effort to read it.

Not every language is as easy to read as modern English printed in Helvetica. Sometimes even a language you know (like modern English) can be hard to read if it's a handwritten note with densely packed letters or printed in a very decorative font. The gap between recognizing writing and reading what it says is often quite large.

[Sarco_Phage]

I read the clumped text easily, but only because I have been trained to recognize blocks of text as individual entities, just like most people, ever since grade school.

I assume of course that a medieval peasant, even a literate one, would not have such an advantage.

[Gorgondantess]

No, I read it. It's not true though, you can't look at something written in a language you know without reading it, the brain works too fast for that.

Your brain does. That's because you live in the 21st century, where you can't go a few hours without reading something. You have years upon years of practice reading.
In D&Dverse? Not so much. Even assuming circa 1600 or so, most people suck at reading compared to your average person in the 21st century. Like, kindergarten level reading.

[Xuc Xac]

I read the clumped text easily

Did you read it instantly? Medieval peasants couldn't do it but medieval scholars couldn't do it either. The scribes could do it because they usually had the text almost memorized anyway. If you didn't already know what it said, then reading was a slower process. It was also much noisier because people didn't read silently.

The history of silent reading (http://www.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Manguel/Silent_Readers.html)

[Sarco_Phage]

Did you read it instantly? Medieval peasants couldn't do it but medieval scholars couldn't do it either. The scribes could do it because they usually had the text almost memorized anyway. If you didn't already know what it said, then reading was a slower process. It was also much noisier because people didn't read silently.

The history of silent reading (http://www.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Manguel/Silent_Readers.html)

Instantly? No. And I'm fairly certain I missed some words along the way, but I got the general idea of the sentence in the first run.

I imagine the barely literate peasant would take a while to do so.

[NNescio]

You think so?

ifyoureallythinksothentryreadingthisitsveryeasybut onlyifthelanguageusesspacesandpunctuationandlinebr eakstomakethewordsstandoutclearlybutifthelanguaged oesntworkthatwaythenitsmuchmoredifficultyoucouldlo okatapageoftextandnotseeanythingexceptabunchoftext unlessyouspendsomeefforttoreadit

Then scribes started doing what's called "per cola et commata":

ifyoureallythinksothentryreadingthis
itsveryeasybutonlyifthelanguageusesspacesandpunctu ationandlinebreakstomakethewordsstandoutclearly
butifthelanguagedoesntworkthatwaythenitsmuchmoredi fficult
youcouldlookatapageoftextandnotseeanythingexceptab unchoftext
unlessyouspendsomeefforttoreadit

Then they started using capital letters and slashes:

Ifyoureallythinksothentryreadingthis/itsveryeasybutonlyifthelanguageusesspacesandpunctu ationandlinebreakstomakethewordsstandoutclearly/butifthelanguagedoesntworkthatwaythenitsmuchmoredi fficult/youcouldlookatapageoftextandnotseeanythingexceptab unchoftextunlessyouspendsomeefforttoreadit

In the 10th century, some scribes started using punctuation to make things much easier to read without having to sound them out:


Ifyoureallythinkso,thentryreadingthis. Itsveryeasy,butonlyifthelanguageusesspaces&punctuation&linebreakstomakethewordsstandoutclearly.Butifthela nguagedoesntworkthatway,thenitsmuchmoredifficult.Y oucouldlookatapageoftext&notseeanythingexceptabunchoftext,unlessyouspendsom eefforttoreadit.

After another few hundred years of development:

If you really think so, then try reading this. It's very easy, but only if the language uses spaces and punctuation and line breaks to make the words stand out clearly. But if the language doesn't work that way, then its much more difficult. You could look at a page of text and not see anything except a bunch of text, unless you spend some effort to read it.

Not every language is as easy to read as modern English printed in Helvetica. Sometimes even a language you know (like modern English) can be hard to read if it's a handwritten note with densely packed letters or printed in a very decorative font. The gap between recognizing writing and reading what it says is often quite large.

In Europe:

Per cola et commata: 4th century.

Punctuation: 6th century, 'though still unreliable. 7th century, punctuation developed further; Points and dashes -> Full stop. Raised point -> comma. Semicolon -> Same as present day semicolon.

Capitalization (Mix of lower and upper case letters): Common after the development of the Carolingian minuscule. 9th century.

Spaces: 9th century, regulations forbidding scribes from speaking become common place in the scriptorium. Spacing became common. Independently, Irish scribes began to isolate the parts of speech in sentences, including grammatical constituents.

Coloured text: 10th century, the first few lines of principal texts and rubrics(footnotes) are written in red.

References. (http://www.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Manguel/Silent_Readers.html)

It didn't take all that long for text to become legible. Really, if the scribes were able to do it, I'm sure that wizards with INT 14 and above can silent read perfectly fine.

[Marnath]

Not every language is as easy to read as modern English printed in Helvetica. Sometimes even a language you know (like modern English) can be hard to read if it's a handwritten note with densely packed letters or printed in a very decorative font. The gap between recognizing writing and reading what it says is often quite large.

I didn't have much trouble, but I see what you mean. However, doesn't it seem at all likely to you that a person writing a text for the specific purpose of having it blow up in someones face when read would use a font/writing style maximized for readability for the largest group?

I PREPARED EXPLOSIVE RUNES THIS MORNING

or maybe just

SURPRISE!

[NNescio]

Did you read it instantly? Medieval peasants couldn't do it but medieval scholars couldn't do it either. The scribes could do it because they usually had the text almost memorized anyway. If you didn't already know what it said, then reading was a slower process. It was also much noisier because people didn't read silently.

The history of silent reading (http://www.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Manguel/Silent_Readers.html)

Were you reading the same thing?


The avatars of punctuation continued. After the seventh century, a combination of points and dashes indicated a full stop, a raised or high point was equivalent to our comma, and a semicolon was used as we use it today. By the ninth century, silent reading was probably common enough in the scriptorium for scribes to start separating each word from its encroaching neighbours to simplify the perusal of a text -but perhaps also for aesthetic reasons. At about the same time, the Irish scribes, celebrated throughout the Christian world for their skill, began isolating not only parts of speech but also the grammatical constituents within a sentence, and introduced many of the punctuation marks we use today. By the tenth century, to further ease the silent reader's task, the first lines of the principal sections of a text (the books of the Bible, for example) were ordinarily written in red ink, as well as the rubrics (from the Latin for "red"), explanations independent of the text proper. The ancient practice of beginning a new paragraph with a dividing stroke (paragraphos in Greek) or wedge (diple) continued; later the first letter of the new paragraph was written in a slightly larger or upper- case character.

Also, scribes include people who copy municipal documents. I'm sure they don't know the contents until they began to read them.

And really, if we want pictures of actual medieval manuscripts:

http://ompldr.org/vODRldw/KellsFol309r.jpg

Book of Kells, c. AD 800.

http://ompldr.org/vODRmMQ/Minuscule_caroline.jpg

Carolingian Gospel Book, c. AD 820~830. Text is Vulgate translation of Luke 23:15-26.

http://ompldr.org/vODRleg/475px-Freising_manuscript.jpg

Freising Manuscripts, c. AD 972~1039.

I see punctuation, spacing, and paragraphing all over the place. And capitalization in two out of the above examples.

Really, it didn't take all that long for text to become legible.

[TheThan]

The problem is that we’re not talking about 10 century Europe. We’re talking about a dnd game where there’s dragons, and wizards and spells and stuff like that. Simply considering wizardry in a typical fantasy setting, if reading and writing were that hard, then there would be far less wizards and far more sorcerers in the world.
Besides that, the Dm has already established that there are several great libraries spread throughout the world. The Dm already has ad-libbed a will save to avoid accidentally reading the runes anyway, so that aspect is covered.
As for the oracle, all I have to go by is what the player and DM tell me, and they tell me he’s blind.

[Tyndmyr]

Slight problem. While the rules do not mention it, there would be a limit as to which objects were large enough to have runes on them, and a limit as to how many copies one could have on a single object because of space restriction. Human beings can only write so small, y'know?

Personally, I use a deck of cards. A card is large enough to hold plenty o' runes on it, and you can pack a LOT of them into a small space. Also, it lets me play Gambit, and therefore is awesome.

[Darth Stabber]

Everyone except barbarians who don't want to spend the skillpoints is literate in D&D. Even the lowest peasant. So reading the runes isn't a problem.

Whenever literacy comes up, everyone forgets my main man totemist, as the other class with illiteracy as a class feature. It's not just for barbarians any more. Plus you can still be illiterate in gestalt. Now if only the dual progression prestige class the two share had illiteracy as well, then we could make more typical pc with 2 base classes and a prestige class, and still be illiterate.

[2xMachina]

Were you reading the same thing?



Also, scribes include people who copy municipal documents. I'm sure they don't know the contents until they began to read them.

And really, if we want pictures of actual medieval manuscripts:


Book of Kells, c. AD 800.



Carolingian Gospel Book, c. AD 820~830. Text is Vulgate translation of Luke 23:15-26.


Freising Manuscripts, c. AD 972~1039.

I see punctuation, spacing, and paragraphing all over the place. And capitalization in two out of the above examples.

Really, it didn't take all that long for text to become legible.

Is it for, or against Reading by just seeing?

Cause at 1st sight, it's all gibberish to me (stupid fonts). Even when I attempt to read it, it's all Greek to me.

(Yes, I know the sounds. But I'm certain they ain't Modern English)
EDIT: Oh wait, was Captain Obvious there.

[Feytalist]

You can read without understanding. You can also scan without reading.

Whether you can examine without reading is another question. That's where Decipher Script comes in I guess.

[2xMachina]

I thought reading meant understanding it at least. For example, when shown a foreign script, I can't read it even when I can see it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/read

Seems to imply interpretation and understanding.

[Feytalist]

Heh, never underestimate the power of a dictionary. ><

Oh, rephrase: you can look at a block of text without the intention of understanding it.

Atleast, I think so...

Dammit, you made me doubt myself :smalleek:

[2xMachina]

Heh, never underestimate the power of a dictionary. ><

Oh, rephrase: you can look at a block of text without the intention of understanding it.

Atleast, I think so...

Dammit, you made me doubt myself :smalleek:

Yeah, I guess so?

My quote is actually different. I think you mean look without understanding. I just said if you don't understand it, you're not reading it.

[Feytalist]

Yeah that's why I rephrased. I stupidly misused the definition of "read".

Suffice to say, you're right, heh.