Xplain that Mail bomb thingie to me plz...

[Kerilstrasz]

From time to time, i read a thread about a build or a trick that you create
a letter that explodes when you try to open it...
if i recall correct it's a combination of expl.runes , dispel magic & smthing else..

can someone plz,
explain the process of doing that in great detail (or link to a guide)
and tell me if it's RAW &/or RAI legal?

thnx a lot.

[Planar]

You cast Explosive Runes on every page of a book (it has no expensive components). Then you cast Dispel Magic on it while your barbarian buddy throws it at your enemy and fail all caster level checks voluntarily; explosive runes go off and you deal N x 6d6 force damage, (Ref half for all within 10 ft.) where N is the number of pages in the book.

[Kerilstrasz]

You cast Explosive Runes on every page of a book (it has no expensive components).
Then you cast Dispel Magic on it while your barbarian buddy throws it at your
enemy and fail all caster level checks voluntarily; explosive runes go off and you
deal N x 6d6 force damage, (Ref half for all within 10 ft.) where N is the number of
pages in the book.

that part was bypassed by another spell (the 1 i dont recall at my 1st post) ,
that acts as a trigger when you open the envelop (on your case the book)...

anyways... thnx for your help
i ll w8 more if someone has a more detailed guide .

[Ashtagon]

It all relies on voluntarily failing a dispel check (caster level check) when dispelling your own spell. It's RAW that you can choose to automatically succeed on that check against your own spell, but I've yet to see a cite that shows you can choose to automatically fail the check.

[Planar]

that part was bypassed by another spell (the 1 i dont recall at my 1st post) ,
that acts as a trigger when you open the envelop (on your case the book)...


Umm.. does it have to be a spell?

Also in retrospect you can cast near-infinite explosive runes on one sheet of paper (spell doesn't say anything about the size of the runes) and put it in the envelope and they detonate when the envelope is opened without dispel magic shenanigan.

[Gandariel]

Umm.. does it have to be a spell?

Also in retrospect you can cast near-infinite explosive runes on one sheet of paper (spell doesn't say anything about the size of the runes) and put it in the envelope and they detonate when the envelope is opened without dispel magic shenanigan.

Well, in combat you can't expect monsters to OPEN an envelope you give them. this is meant for combat use.

Also, on the voluntary failing a dispel check, Srd states that you can voluntarily fail any check (so even dispel checks)

the whole trick is not exactly raw legal. it says YOU get blasted for failing the dispel check.
of course it doesn't make any sense, the bomb just detonates on the spot RAI.

the other discussion is wether it offers a save or not.
everyone within 30 feet gets a save for half, but the one who reads doesn't get a save.
it's debatable wether the enemy who is thrown a book gets a save or not.

[Venusaur]

If you don't allow voluntarily failing dispel checks, just get a wand at a very low caster level, so it will never work.

[Planar]

Well, in combat you can't expect monsters to OPEN an envelope you give them. this is meant for combat use.

Also, on the voluntary failing a dispel check, Srd states that you can voluntarily fail any check (so even dispel checks)

the whole trick is not exactly raw legal. it says YOU get blasted for failing the dispel check.
of course it doesn't make any sense, the bomb just detonates on the spot RAI.

the other discussion is wether it offers a save or not.
everyone within 30 feet gets a save for half, but the one who reads doesn't get a save.
it's debatable wether the enemy who is thrown a book gets a save or not.

OP asked about a trick involving an envelope and i reckon a situation where caster is not present, so envelope is about that.

Also in the spell description it says; failing to dispel the runes triggers the explosion, doesn't say anything about caster getting blasted. And since dispel magic can be cast from Medium range i don't see any problem.

Lastly, I would rule that every creature gets a save since nobody is actually reading the runes.

[Gandariel]

OP asked about a trick involving an envelope and i reckon a situation where caster is not present, so envelope is about that.

Also in the spell description it says; failing to dispel the runes triggers the explosion, doesn't say anything about caster getting blasted. And since dispel magic can be cast from Medium range i don't see any problem.

Lastly, I would rule that every creature gets a save since nobody is actually reading the runes.

Whops, misread on my part for the "caster gets blasted" part

Anyway, the OP asked for a trick.
Using a spell for its only intended purpose is not really a trick :P

Actually, on the saves thing,
Anyone next to the runes (close enough to read them) takes the full damage with no saving throw

If i throw you a book in the head you're close enough to read it, so no save (i guess)

[Planar]

Actually, on the saves thing,

If i throw you a book in the head you're close enough to read it, so no save (i guess)

I would have a hard time reading a rune on a book that is being thrown at me:smallsmile:. However spell apparently does not require anyone to read it, only being next to it is enough for no save damage.

[BowStreetRunner]

Also, on the voluntary failing a dispel check, Srd states that you can voluntarily fail any check (so even dispel checks)

I have seen this stated many times in the forums, but never actually found the reference in the SRD or any actual rule book. I have found rules for voluntarily failing a save, voluntarily lowering SR (as a standard action), but never voluntarily failing a skill check, ability check, caster level check, or anything similar.

Can anyone point me to the actual reference? Or is this just another urban legend that has been repeated so many times that no one realizes it isn't actually true?

[Kansaschaser]

We had a Warforged ally in one of our games and my DM allowed me to take the Relicguard metamagic feat.

Adding Relicguard to a spell makes it so that the spell doesn't affect objects and constructs. So, we then placed Explosive Runes all over the Warforged's armor, weapons, and shield. We put hundreds of them on him over time. Then, in combat, he would just walk toward his opponents. Unless his opponents were blind, they would have to look at him in order to block his attacks or have any kind of defense. Thus, the runes would start going off. Our DM rolled randomly to determine how many went off per round.

This was great until the DM used the same trick against us, but without Relicguard. The Necromancer villain used unintelligent skeletons(that can't read), and put Explosive Runes on them. In a Maze where melee combat is your only option, it was used to full effect. It didn't matter that the skeletons died.

[LTwerewolf]

I have seen this stated many times in the forums, but never actually found the reference in the SRD or any actual rule book. I have found rules for voluntarily failing a save, voluntarily lowering SR (as a standard action), but never voluntarily failing a skill check, ability check, caster level check, or anything similar.

Can anyone point me to the actual reference? Or is this just another urban legend that has been repeated so many times that no one realizes it isn't actually true?

According to RAW you can only intentionally fail saves. However most if not every dm i've talked to/played with has altered the rule so you can fail whatever you want to intentionally.

[Ashtagon]

If you don't allow voluntarily failing dispel checks, just get a wand at a very low caster level, so it will never work.

It's still something about your fundamental nature that is powering the spell. The clue here is in the fact that non-casters can't use the wand.

[Doug Lampert]

It all relies on voluntarily failing a dispel check (caster level check) when dispelling your own spell. It's RAW that you can choose to automatically succeed on that check against your own spell, but I've yet to see a cite that shows you can choose to automatically fail the check.

AFAIK you can't. You can choose to cast a spell at a lower caster level (down to a minimum of the minimum needed to cast the spell), so you cast dispell at CL 5. If the explosive runes are CL 15 you automatically miss all the dispell checks (20 does not autosucceed on a check), and everything goes off. Drop the CL of the runes to CL 5 (the lowest they can be), and your success rate drops, but you'll still be doing roughly (N/2) x 6d6 damage.

Half of Nx6d6 nearly unavoidable damage is still more damage than a sane GM will allow for this stunt.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't think you can voluntarily fail, either.

That said, the low CL wand option should help a lot, and for added gusto you could use the feat that lets you take 10 on CL checks (arcane mastery?) to auto-fail all of them. That feat's plenty good used for trying to *win* CL checks as well, so it's not even like you're wasting a feat just for this tactic.

[BowStreetRunner]

According to RAW you can only intentionally fail saves. However most if not every dm i've talked to/played with has altered the rule so you can fail whatever you want to intentionally.

While most GMs I know would not have problems with a house-rule that is apparently harmless, as soon as you try to use that rule to create a trick like this the majority of them would likely call foul and disallow it. I would consider them fully justified in doing so.

For instance, I have encountered a house-rule allowing a player to take "1" on a skill check that they can't fail rather than rolling. This is used in instances where by rule you cannot take 10 (threatened or distracted) and where the outcome of the roll is irrelevant because you would still automatically succeed even rolling a 1. However, taking "1" here is just a matter of avoiding an unnecessary die roll and therefore not wasting time. If someone were to attempt to use it to fuel a trick where you gain a benefit by rolling a 1 instead of a different result, the DM would not hesitate to block it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Maybe the letter is a Dispel Magic trap that activates on the nearest dispellable thing when opened?

[TuggyNE]

The only ways I know of to get it to work are

Area dispel, which has a different provision for auto-success.
Get someone or something else to cast dispel magic (such as a wand) and ensure your caster level is high enough it won't work.
Abuse negative levels and a wand of glyph of warding with dispel magic inside.
Dispel ward (Clr 1) for similar fun.

[Gavinfoxx]

Wasn't it a Fire Trap, which counts as attempting to mar the runes?

[Eugenides]

It all relies on voluntarily failing a dispel check (caster level check) when dispelling your own spell. It's RAW that you can choose to automatically succeed on that check against your own spell, but I've yet to see a cite that shows you can choose to automatically fail the check.

But at the same time, think about the actual act of what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to dispel your own spell. By RAW, you know exactly what to do to dispel your own spell every time, no questions asked. By logic, therefore, you also know everything else is what not to do to dispel your own spell. So you can purposely fudge it.

Think in terms of electronics. If you make a bomb, you know which wire to cut to defuse it, but you also know which wires will immediately make it go boom. You can(for whatever reason you choose) cut that wire whenever you want.

Yes, technically this is still RAI, but it's not even a slight stretch of the imagination to argue it. If you know how to do something perfectly right, you also know how to NOT do it right.

[Qwertystop]

Hey, there's crazier things to do with Explosive Runes. Put massive ones on the side of the mountain, close enough that they can be read a mile away if there's no obstruction.

If they can be read a mile away, everybody within a mile is close enough to read it. Therefore, no save.

[Arcanist]

It all relies on voluntarily failing a dispel check (caster level check) when dispelling your own spell. It's RAW that you can choose to automatically succeed on that check against your own spell, but I've yet to see a cite that shows you can choose to automatically fail the check.

Apparently it has something to do with how checks in general work. Since you can willingly botch a skill check, you can supposedly botch any kind of check by association.

[ZeroNumerous]

As far as a letter bomb goes: Wouldn't it be easier to just write all the runes inside the envelope itself? Then when you cut/rip it open it'd count as an attempt to destroy the runes.

As far as using it in combat: A book thrown at someone followed by an arrow on the book would be easier and cheaper than getting wands.

[Marnath]

It's called the Boom Box, and it works by putting a bunch of paper sheets with the runes on them in a box, on top of the box is a glyph of warding(which a dip into geometer can get you) with a CL1 dispel ward in it set to dispel the box if a creature walks over it. Then you bury it like a landmine.

[BowStreetRunner]

Put massive ones on the side of the mountain, close enough that they can be read a mile away if there's no obstruction.

If they can be read a mile away, everybody within a mile is close enough to read it. Therefore, no save.

Just make sure it is a very light mountain.

"Target: One touched object weighing no more than 10 lb."

[beforemath]

The spell description doesn't say that the runes go off if they're destroyed, only if they're unsuccessfully Erase'd or Dispell'd. I'd suppose your DM could just rule that the first one goes off and the rest are destroyed, resulting in a weak, roundabout way of casting fireball.


Well, assuming that the spell *does* trigger if the item is destroyed...

It seems like exploiting this would just be asking your DM to put an explosive rune on a ceramic arrowhead, arrow shaft, and on the feathers, and then shoot your mage with it (breaks upon hit, right?).


...Or maybe attach about 10 small slips of paper to a vial of alchemist's fire and throw it at the party.


...Or maybe write some runes on strategic parts of the ground and have someone read it with a spyglass as the party walks by.


...Or maybe have goblin suicide bombers, packed with parchment, be ready to charge the party and read a page (or be struck by a slashing weapon, destroying a rune).


...Or maybe have someone slip a party member a "bad torch."


...Or maybe have the party fight a red dragon who *really* prepared for being attacked by acquiring, preparing, and scattering a library around his lair (he's immune to fire, eh?)



Bad can of worms to open, in my opinion.

[Marnath]

...Or maybe have the party fight a red dragon who *really* prepared for being attacked by acquiring, preparing, and scattering a library around his lair (he's immune to fire, eh?)


Explosive runes is force damage, not fire.

[Gavinfoxx]

Explosive runes is force damage, not fire.

Which is why you use Fire Trap instead.

[beforemath]

>> Explosive runes is force damage, not fire.

So it is. I guess it would kill the dragon as well as everyone else and their ghosts.


...


It occurs to me at this moment how badly the opening scene from Ghostbusters could have gone.

[Ashtagon]

Yes, technically this is still RAI, but it's not even a slight stretch of the imagination to argue it. If you know how to do something perfectly right, you also know how to NOT do it right.

I have a sledgehammer for hands and a nail that is sticking out slightly. I know exactly how to hammer it down. I can't pluck it out.


Apparently it has something to do with how checks in general work. Since you can willingly botch a skill check, you can supposedly botch any kind of check by association.

[Cite Needed]

[Qwertystop]

Just make sure it is a very light mountain.

"Target: One touched object weighing no more than 10 lb."

Huh... That's odd. Never noticed that before, and apparently neither did the people in the other threads I've mentioned that idea in...

Wait... Is the target the object you write on, or the writing?

What if you Shrink Item-ed it, then enlarged it after writing? Would the writing remain?

[TuggyNE]

Huh... That's odd. Never noticed that before, and apparently neither did the people in the other threads I've mentioned that idea in...

Wait... Is the target the object you write on, or the writing?

What if you Shrink Item-ed it, then enlarged it after writing? Would the writing remain?

You might run into the "non-magical object" targeting of shrink item, although I'm not sure that's an obstacle by RAW.

[Eugenides]

I have a sledgehammer for hands and a nail that is sticking out slightly. I know exactly how to hammer it down. I can't pluck it out.


You still know exactly how to remove said nail. Also, you're going in the wrong direction with your comparison. We're not trying to undo spellcasting, we're just failing at something on purpose.

So in your statement, it should be "I have a sledgehammer for hands, and a nail that is sticking out slightly. I know how to hammer it down and I purposely miss the nail with my hammer."

Not hammering the nail in right is not the same as pulling the nail out.

[Arcanist]

[Cite Needed]

I meant Saving Throw. Stop me if you've heard this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow) before, but...


A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

So the idea is that you can supposedly fail any roll of a d20.

[nyjastul69]

I meant Saving Throw. Stop me if you've heard this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow) before, but...



So the idea is that you can supposedly fail any roll of a d20.

How does your reference relate to skill checks, or any d20 roll not referenced by your citation? It seems very specific to me.

[Ashtagon]

I meant Saving Throw. Stop me if you've heard this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow) before, but...



So the idea is that you can supposedly fail any roll of a d20.

Yes, I've heard it before. It appears to be talking about saving throws only, not to any other d20 roll.

[Arcanist]

Yes, I've heard it before. It appears to be talking about saving throws only, not to any other d20 roll.


How does your reference relate to skill checks, or any d20 roll not referenced by your citation? It seems very specific to me.

Hey, I never said I drank the kool-aid on the matter, Just saying where I believe most people are getting the idea from... :smallannoyed:

[nyjastul69]

Hey, I never said I drank the kool-aid on the matter, Just saying where I believe most people are getting the idea from... :smallannoyed:

I apologize. I thought that was your supposition, not you speaking for others. I like drinking Kool-Aid, Oh, Yeah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z4uIGZ5l-w) :smallbiggrin:

[Arcanist]

I apologize. I thought that was your supposition, not you speaking for others. I like drinking Kool-Aid, Oh, Yeah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z4uIGZ5l-w) :smallbiggrin:

Ugh... When I was growing up, my Dad had me watch his old Transformer tapes, occasionally I saw that commercial... scared the living crap right out of me :smalleek: ... But my childhood traumas aren't the main focus of the topic so lets get back on topic. :smallsigh:

I saw this old trick on the old WoTC board. Hope this helps you come up with a trick to trigger your explosive book :smallsmile: (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19566842/Choosing_to_fail_a_d20_check:_need_reference&post_num=19#332596586)

Another trick is using Amanuensis to trigger the Explosive runes (It's a friken Cantrip... matter as well prep it)

[Hirax]

"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm)"

[TuggyNE]

"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm)"

Technically, that only applies to dispel magic's targeted dispel function. There are various more or less cheesy ways around that, which have already been detailed for the most part.

[Arcanist]

"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm)"

「Default to Amanuensis since it requires no check and just triggers it flat out... There is also the idea of crafting a contingent spell on the thing and then mailing out blessed books that go nuclear on whoever is unfortunate enough to pop them open」

[Andezzar]

If you use a wand (that was crafted by someone else) would you dispel your own spell?

[Heatwizard]

Is there some reason why we're using Dispel to trigger the runes rather than Erase? Is the range really worth the higher-level slot?

[Andezzar]

Is there some reason why we're using Dispel to trigger the runes rather than Erase? Is the range really worth the higher-level slot?"Magic writing must be touched to be erased" according to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/erase.htm).