Explosive Runes - RAW problem

[SilverLeaf167]

According to the spell's description...

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.
Do note that is uses the term "next to", instead of the actual game-mechanical term "adjacent".
With the definition of "next to" being "close enough to read them", when exactly is someone close enough to read the runes? If someone used a very powerful telescope and viewed the runes from a hundred miles away, would the runes detonate and deal damage to him? And as this would technically be "close enough to read", though only with the right equipment, would everyone within a 100 mile radius take the damage, or only those with a similar telescope (those with no telescope would have to be within 10 ft.)?

Yes, I know this is silly. :smallbiggrin:

[Alleran]

I do believe that in theory, it would indeed explode and deal damage from hundreds of miles away, since in this case "next to" is defined as being close enough to read them. This is why hilarity-seeking archmages write it in giant letters on the surface of the moon.

[MysticMind]

To make things clearer, the runes are activated only by the first being that reads them, and then everything in the spell radius take damage as well, so reading it from miles away doesn't deal damage. But D&D is a creative game so your DM can tell you what happens if you read it via ''Scry'' or ''Arcane Eye'' :smallwink: Or you could cast the spell on a wall, read it with a telescope, and let your enemies take damage :smallbiggrin:

[KillianHawkeye]

You'd be better off using the dictionary definition of "next to", which is functionally identical to adjacent.


next to,
a. adjacent to: He sat next to his sister.
b. almost; nearly: next to impossible.
c. aside from: Next to cake, ice cream is my favorite dessert.

[lesser_minion]

I do believe that in theory, it would indeed explode and deal damage from hundreds of miles away, since in this case "next to" is defined as being close enough to read them. This is why hilarity-seeking archmages write it in giant letters on the surface of the moon.

We've already discussed that one. Like several other famous tricks, it doesn't actually fly. In this case, it's because the moon is too heavy to cast the spell on (and no, the argument that it's 'weightless' doesn't fly -- it's the moon's weight that keeps it in orbit, after all).

[SilverLeaf167]

You'd be better off using the dictionary definition of "next to", which is functionally identical to adjacent.
Well, sure, but in D&D RAW, if something requires you to be adjacent to something (in game terms), it pretty much always says "adjacent", not something else like "next to" or "nearby". If it doesn't say "adjacent", the exact meaning is left open to interpretation. The same applies to most other game terminology.

I definitely know how to do this in my games, and I guess it's not actually a problem, just a funny little thing I haven't heard anyone mention before :smalltongue:

[Myou]

We've already discussed that one. Like several other famous tricks, it doesn't actually fly. In this case, it's because the moon is too heavy to cast the spell on (and no, the argument that it's 'weightless' doesn't fly -- it's the moon's weight that keeps it in orbit, after all).

Mass and weight are not the same thing. The moon is weightless by definition, as it's in free-fall.

[SilverLeaf167]

Mass and weight are not the same thing. The moon is weightless by definition, as it's in free-fall.
Ahem.
Something in free-fall does have a weight.
Weight is a measure of an object's mass and a gravitational force affecting it. The moon stays in Earth's orbit thanks to our planet's gravity. Thus, the moon is under the effect of a gravitational force; ergo, it has a weight, and that weight is definitely more than 10 pounds.

[Myou]

Ahem.
Something in free-fall does have a weight.
Weight is a measure of an object's mass and a gravitational force affecting it. The moon stays in Earth's orbit thanks to our planet's gravity. Thus, the moon is under the effect of a gravitational force; ergo, it has a weight, and that weight is definitely more than 10 pounds.

Well OK, it depends on your frame of reference.

The weight at the apogee is 1.77x10^17Kg in our frame of reference.

[jindra34]

Well OK, it depends on your frame of reference.

It always depends on frame of reference. If nothing else is right about special relativity that is. Which is why having limits as weight makes no sense because it changes with reference frame where mass does not.

[Myou]

It always depends on frame of reference. If nothing else is right about special relativity that is. Which is why having limits as weight makes no sense because it changes with reference frame where mass does not.

No on, it's fine, we just need to houserule in the the Lorentz transform. :smalltongue:

[Garan]

To make it simpler, I modified the spell for my campaigns as only can be read from 10 feet away or closer, and that it doesn't need to be understood, just seen. In other words, if you see it from less then 10 feet away, it explodes. Boom. No science to it, just (in the words of my chemisty/physics teacher) maaagic.

[lesser_minion]

It always depends on frame of reference. If nothing else is right about special relativity that is. Which is why having limits as weight makes no sense because it changes with reference frame where mass does not.

Well, there are also the rules for planes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#gravity), which seem to alternate between suggesting that the writers are misusing terms and really meant mass, and suggesting that they really are talking about weight.

Did anyone bring a scroll of Summon Curmudgeon IX?