Is it just me, or is Read Magic an annoying spell (for a gm)?

[MonkeySage]

I'm starting to hate this spell, and I'm wondering if its because of the actual mechanics, or just an abusive interpretation by players. read any magical text! intentional obfuscations by the writer and foreign languages be damned... I take time and effort putting together a unique spellbook written by a madman in a code known only to him... Read Magic decodes it, no effort required. Is this just a poor interpretation of the spell description, an abuse by the players, or is this actually how the spell is intended? in any case, I'm strongly considering banning the spell from my campaigns, and the only reason I haven't is because something tells me that would be a bad idea.

[ColorBlindNinja]

By means of read magic, you can decipher magical inscriptions on objects—books, scrolls, weapons, and the like—that would otherwise be unintelligible. This deciphering does not normally invoke the magic contained in the writing, although it may do so in the case of a cursed scroll. Furthermore, once the spell is cast and you have read the magical inscription, you are thereafter able to read that particular writing without recourse to the use of read magic. You can read at the rate of one page (250 words) per minute.

I mean, you could always tell them it's still hard to read and ask for a Decipher Script check.

[Deophaun]

Let's look at that first sentence:

By means of read magic, you can decipher magical inscriptions on objects—books, scrolls, weapons, and the like—that would otherwise be unintelligible.
Otherwise be unintelligible. So, if it wasn't for read magic, no way are you understanding it.

In the case of your madman, if you had the madman's cipher, you could understand it. So, using this otherwise method, it is intelligible. Read magic doesn't get past it.

[Malphegor]

Just vecause it’s readable doesn’t mean it has to make sense. Your Madman might have Lewis Carroll-esque prose where you understand the meaning somewhat and the words look like Common thanks to the spell, but it’s all wrong.

Twas turumbled in the air, perfectly poised to perpetuate, motives of the elements that incite, mouldering ever so swiftly, making all under its reign.

I sort of described a fireball in the least helpful language possible- it’s sort of ball like, it moves through tge air, a pea shape, it burns, it is quick, it is an AoE, which might make sense to the madman, or it could just be random bad poetry in the middle of broken spell research attempts.

[Deophaun]

Just vecause it’s readable doesn’t mean it has to make sense.
Read magic uses the words "decipher" versus "unintelligible." So, yes, it actually does have to make sense.

[Segev]

I actually hate read magic because, so far as I can tell, it either does nothing, or makes a binary gate on whether you can read "magical writings." The only things we know for sure qualify are spells in spellbooks, and spells on scrolls. Why you need a spell to read spells always seemed silly, to me. That's not really even writing, at that point. It's a disk you need a drive to "read."

The easy way around the OP's problem is this: "Oh, that's not magical writing."

Note that you need Spellcraft checks to parse other mages' spellbooks, even with read magic.

It's an air-breathing mermaid spell. Or would be, if it weren't there from the get-go. It fills the same niche, though, of just being in the way.

[Lapak]

Using Read Magic to decode writing that's indecipherable in any way other than "this is a magic spell, what does it do?"

I think you meant to post this in the 'what is the most permissive shenanigans your DM has ever allowed" thread in the General RPG forum. ;)

Which is to say, that is hilariously over-generous, regardless of how the spell reads by RAW.

(Whether the spell is worthwhile is another question entirely. I phased it out completely in favor of Spellcraft checks IMC.)

[umbergod]

Using Read Magic to decode writing that's indecipherable in any way other than "this is a magic spell, what does it do?"

I think you meant to post this in the 'what is the most permissive shenanigans your DM has ever allowed" thread in the General RPG forum. ;)

Which is to say, that is hilariously over-generous, regardless of how the spell reads by RAW.

(Whether the spell is worthwhile is another question entirely. I phased it out completely in favor of Spellcraft checks IMC.)

I agree with this interpretation. Sure you can read magical text, such as a scroll. However, spellbooks arent inherently magical, so translating a foreign spellbook would require spellcraft and/or decipher script, not read magic. Just my 2 coppers

[liquidformat]

there is already precedence with spell books that you need read magic + spell craft check to understand a spell from someone else's spell book. So I am not seeing an issue if the madmage wrote his book in code that you would need read magic + spell craft + Decipher script not in that order. I think the above description of needing a driver to read the disk and then you still need to understand the programming language is a decent way to describe the process. Read magic is your driver and spell craft is your understanding of the programming language, decipher script is your ability to understand the goofy way the program created their program.

[tyckspoon]

I'm starting to hate this spell, and I'm wondering if its because of the actual mechanics, or just an abusive interpretation by players. read any magical text! intentional obfuscations by the writer and foreign languages be damned... I take time and effort putting together a unique spellbook written by a madman in a code known only to him... Read Magic decodes it, no effort required. Is this just a poor interpretation of the spell description, an abuse by the players, or is this actually how the spell is intended? in any case, I'm strongly considering banning the spell from my campaigns, and the only reason I haven't is because something tells me that would be a bad idea.

Read Magic exists almost specifically and entirely for the purpose of figuring out what spells are in scrolls and spellbooks. So yes, it doesn't matter how weird the spellbook is, Read Magic will allow a player to figure out the spells. And only the spells. Notes in the margins about unexpected side effects to be aware of with that experimental spell? Not translated. The two-page panel in the middle where he wrote down all his passwords for the various wards and traps in his lab? Not translated. A completely non-magical message written to the (beholder/dragon/other big gribbly thing he was working with toward some probably lunatic end), written in the same code but does not contain a spell at all? Not translated. Read Magic isn't going to tell you what the code is, just what the spell it's trying to obscure is. There's a major difference there.

[Boci]

So, what would players do with your unique spell book written in a madmans code without read magic? Throw it away because they judge its not worth the effort and they would rather focus on getting treasure they can actually use?


Let's look at that first sentence:

Otherwise be unintelligible. So, if it wasn't for read magic, no way are you understanding it.

In the case of your madman, if you had the madman's cipher, you could understand it. So, using this otherwise method, it is intelligible. Read magic doesn't get past it.

That's just begging for a rules lawyer arms race between player and DM. Read magic now does nothing under the above interpretation, because there will always be another way to understand the text.

[noob]

So, what would players do with your unique spell book written in a madmans code without read magic? Throw it away because they judge its not worth the effort and they would rather focus on getting treasure they can actually use?

Yes in order for the gm to later randomly punish the players for no reason whatsoever from the point of view of the players in order for the players to realize they have a bad dm and leave the group.

[Zaq]

In all my years, I don't think I've ever actually seen read magic prepped, cast, or mentioned in a real group. And I've had several different groups. It's been a complete non-issue.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In all my years, I don't think I've ever actually seen read magic prepped, cast, or mentioned in a real group. And I've had several different groups. It's been a complete non-issue.

Read Magic became relevant when I ran the 3.5 conversion of Tomb of Horrors. The party missed a clue because no one had access to that spell.

[Feantar]

It isn't as powerful as you think.

Let's say that, for our purposes, math is magic and you had read magic. There's many ways you could write the same thing (different symbols and notations). So, when you see this:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/LaplaceTransform/NumberedEquation1.gif
And cast read magic, read magic makes it look like:

The definition of the Unilateral Laplace Transform.

If you don't know what that is, it won't help more. It just translates it to the most accessible level for you. If you wouldn't grasp the concept, it would barely give you an idea - some kind of integration, I guess?

Similarly, since wizards write in personal code, it would translate this:

quioqvm tqdqvo jmvmibp bpm eidma eqbp i abzwvo-aqopbml jtmaaqvo wn uwab mfkmttmvb nijzqk. pwtlqvo bpm nijzqk wdmz gwcz oqtta, gwc ewctl jmoqv bw jzmibpm-lzqvs qba eizx ivl emnb. bpwcop bpm xtivbuibbmz nqjmza qujcm gwcz awct, bpm ezmbkpml xtivsbwv ewctl xwttcbm bpm ktwbp cvbqt qb abivs bw pmidmva wn xzwxpmkg.

To this:

Imagine living beneath the waves with a strong-sighted blessing of most excellent fabric. Holding the fabric over your gills, you would begin to breathe-drink its warp and weft. Though the plantmatter fibers imbue your soul, the wretched plankton would pollute the cloth until it stank to heavens of prophecy.

The rest comes to your players to decipher, either with spell craft, knowledge, or severe medication:P

[Deophaun]

That's just begging for a rules lawyer arms race between player and DM.
Don't see why.

Read magic now does nothing under the above interpretation, because there will always be another way to understand the text.
Let's say that you're correct and that a player will go through a dig out some ability off a PrC that lets you read magic writings without using read magic. I'm wondering what the point of that would be, as it would only be to the player's detriment. Generally in arms races, you're trying to get more firepower than the other guy, not unilaterally disarm while handing your opponent a nuke.

[Florian]

I'm starting to hate this spell, and I'm wondering if its because of the actual mechanics, or just an abusive interpretation by players. read any magical text! intentional obfuscations by the writer and foreign languages be damned... I take time and effort putting together a unique spellbook written by a madman in a code known only to him... Read Magic decodes it, no effort required. Is this just a poor interpretation of the spell description, an abuse by the players, or is this actually how the spell is intended? in any case, I'm strongly considering banning the spell from my campaigns, and the only reason I haven't is because something tells me that would be a bad idea.

D&D works based on the assumption that there is an "arcane language" and spells are some higher form of math/physics/whatever, that is written down in a connotation that will make sense in said language. That, plain and simple, is a legacy of Vance and the whole Dying Earth genre.

That said, if the text is encoded, the spell doesn't help with decoding it.

[noob]

D&D works based on the assumption that there is an "arcane language" and spells are some higher form of math/physics/whatever, that is written down in a connotation that will make sense in said language. That, plain and simple, is a legacy of Vance and the whole Dying Earth genre.

That said, if the text is encoded, the spell doesn't help with decoding it.

That is false.
Each wizard write his spells differently and this is why you have to do a spellcraft check to understand the contents of a spellbook.
And clerics write their prayerbook even more differently.

[Boci]

Don't see why.

Let's say that you're correct and that a player will go through a dig out some ability off a PrC that lets you read magic writings without using read magic. I'm wondering what the point of that would be, as it would only be to the player's detriment. Generally in arms races, you're trying to get more firepower than the other guy, not unilaterally disarm while handing your opponent a nuke.

Players do typically lose arms races with the DM yes, but since reguardless of the victor it will typically sour the gaming expirience for the whole group (baring the few rare cases where both players and DM enjoy arms racing eachother), its a hollow victory compared to avoiding it to begin with, with would entail not sticking to a strict RAW reading to invalidate a spell and thus inviting strict RAW readings over common sense, which is a terrible precedent to set in most game systems, and especially 3.5.

[Feantar]

And clerics write their prayerbook even more differently.

Do you mean archivists, or am I missing some fundamental detail about clerics I kept skipping all these years?

[Pex]

Do you also rage against Comprehend Languages? Tongues? Decipher Script skill?

Work with your players, not against them. In my game (5E but same difference) as a matter of campaign plot point the party encounters various magic runes. Naturally the wizard wants to and does cast Identify on them, but it would ruin the Mystery to have this one spell reveal Everything and spoil the campaign. I choose not to rant and resent the spell's existence. The wizard learns a few pertinent facts and a clue to the runes' meaning. It satisfies the player's curiosity and fulfillment of doing his job as wizard. There's more to the Runes which the party will learn as the campaign develops, but they can now figure out some things on their own because of what was learned by the spell enhancing the fun.

If something is a Campaign Plot Point and one spell ruins it, make the spell facilitate it instead. Read Magic tells you the madman used a code. The scribbles become understood in the alphabet the spellcaster understands. The spellcaster learns there's a cipher. Find the cipher and he can understand the book. Otherwise, it is pointless to have a note you refuse to let players understand as it is to have a secret door in a dungeon you refuse to let players find.

[ericgrau]

Different wizards from around the world write spellbooks in different ways, so yes read magic is a universal translator for spellbooks. Just like spellcraft lets you do the same to figure out which symbol corresponds to which arcane gesture.

As a DM you can totally say "this is coded so well, even read magic doesn't work!" but it's an annoying way to play. Your toy that normally works suddenly doesn't and you wasted time and a slot casting it, haha.

Try this instead: A madman wanted to keep his spellbook secret. Ok, he knows codes don't work. But illusions totally work like illusory script. Hiding it totally works. Pretending it's mad ramblings when it's actually illusory script or a decoy spellbook also works. Etc.

The other problem with making it possible to encode a spellbook is that nearly every mage will start doing it.

[KillianHawkeye]

Note that you need Spellcraft checks to parse other mages' spellbooks, even with read magic.


there is already precedence with spell books that you need read magic + spell craft check to understand a spell from someone else's spell book.

This is incorrect. The read magic spell completely circumvents the need to make a Spellcraft check to decipher a spell in someone else's spellbook. You still need to make a (separate) Spellcraft check to prepare a spell from another wizard's book, but that's another matter entirely.




D&D works based on the assumption that there is an "arcane language" and spells are some higher form of math/physics/whatever, that is written down in a connotation that will make sense in said language.


That is false.
Each wizard write his spells differently and this is why you have to do a spellcraft check to understand the contents of a spellbook.


Also, what noob said. There is no universal language for arcane magic in D&D, or else there would be no need to decipher magical writings in the first place. If a madman tries to encode his spellbook to make things difficult for other people, it's just a sign of his madness that he even thinks that will do anything when Spellcraft and read magic exist.



As a DM, I think that read magic is only useful for low level wizards, as any competent mid-level spellcaster should have more than enough Spellcraft to get by on their own. So if that's the case, what's the issue?

[Crake]

D&D works based on the assumption that there is an "arcane language" and spells are some higher form of math/physics/whatever, that is written down in a connotation that will make sense in said language. That, plain and simple, is a legacy of Vance and the whole Dying Earth genre.


That is false.
Each wizard write his spells differently and this is why you have to do a spellcraft check to understand the contents of a spellbook.

I disagree that the two of these statements are mutually exclusive. Even if there is a universal arcane language, just like in the english language, or in a programming language, there are many ways to say the exact same thing, hence why you need to make a spellcraft check to be able to parse the information that you're reading/hearing/seeing. Imagine spellcraft as being a fluency check in the arcane language when comprehending magic, and it'll make sense.

[ericgrau]

This is incorrect. The read magic spell completely circumvents the need to make a Spellcraft check to decipher a spell in someone else's spellbook. You still need to make a (separate) Spellcraft check to prepare a spell from another wizard's book, but that's another matter entirely.
By "language" it's like the laws of physics or the periodic table. It's not in any particular creature's language, but it's universal in how it works. Each individual mage will write down these same magical juju with different symbols though. Then another mage will say "Oh, that must be how he represents chromium, and that's manganese," but in magical terms. Perhaps representing words, gestures, preparation and so on. Etc.

[rel]

This sounds like a difference in expectations between you and the other players.
Such things are best worked out via conversation out of game.

Figure out what results you want to achieve, talk to the other players about it outside of the game and reach a compromise that everyone is satisfied with.

[icefractal]

I take time and effort putting together a unique spellbook written by a madman in a code known only to him... Read Magic decodes it, no effort required.Ok, I have to ask - what was the intended result? The players just can't read the book? So it might as well be a moldy potato? Because personally speaking, "written by a madman in a code known only to him" doesn't sound like something that's likely to be decipherable at all using normal means. And if it was - what would that be, a skill check? Not really much more dramatic than using Read Magic. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Incidentally, a spellbook is kind of a funny example, because those are assumed to all be written in personalized code/shorthand by each wizard anyway. Hence the skill check for someone else to prepare from them.

[Mordaedil]

I always just treat Read Magic as an identify spell for weaker magic items that are expendable, like wands, scrolls and magic books (with the usual additional rules of needing spellcraft checks to decipher proper).

This all assumes the creator of these things were being fairly straightforward with their process of making the items, legible to himself and others, and the one time I played a wizard prodigy child, I had her disguise her spellbook as a tome of fantasy stories complete with illustrations, and hiding the spells themselves within the text and pictures of the book by using a decipher script check, in order to make it more difficult for other casters to use my book.

I think for your madness book, read magic allows you to bypass the incomprehensible arcaneness of the tome, but the rest requires both spellcraft and decipher script checks to properly piece together, possibly knowledge of a certain language or bypassed by comprehend language or tongues spell.

This isn't illegal for you to do, you are the DM and this book was a special case. Just don't make this a normal thing for every caster.

[noob]

I always just treat Read Magic as an identify spell for weaker magic items that are expendable, like wands, scrolls and magic books (with the usual additional rules of needing spellcraft checks to decipher proper).

This all assumes the creator of these things were being fairly straightforward with their process of making the items, legible to himself and others, and the one time I played a wizard prodigy child, I had her disguise her spellbook as a tome of fantasy stories complete with illustrations, and hiding the spells themselves within the text and pictures of the book by using a decipher script check, in order to make it more difficult for other casters to use my book.

I think for your madness book, read magic allows you to bypass the incomprehensible arcaneness of the tome, but the rest requires both spellcraft and decipher script checks to properly piece together, possibly knowledge of a certain language or bypassed by comprehend language or tongues spell.

This isn't illegal for you to do, you are the DM and this book was a special case. Just don't make this a normal thing for every caster.

Except that each person who writes a spellbook writes it into a different language so it is actually already "coded" which is the reason why spellbooks are so hard to read even with read magic.
Also if you make a spellbook need decipher script then you can as well skip casting the spell since reading a spellbook without read magic can be done with a dc 50 decipher script check.

[Lapak]

By "language" it's like the laws of physics or the periodic table. It's not in any particular creature's language, but it's universal in how it works. Each individual mage will write down these same magical juju with different symbols though. Then another mage will say "Oh, that must be how he represents chromium, and that's manganese," but in magical terms. Perhaps representing words, gestures, preparation and so on. Etc.
That's one way to look at it. Another way is that every magical spell is programming code and Read Magic is effectively a decompiler.

There's dozens of different programming languages and often multiple ways even within the same one to perform a task (say, taking a variable with a value of 1 and giving it a value of 10.) Some methods may be more arcane than others due to the wizard choosing either a bizarre method or an obscure language. Read Magic will always tell you that this block of code takes [Target] and makes one of its values 10 times it's original amount, but understanding the mechanism and the theory behind it so you can actually execute it yourself doesn't come automatically.

[gkathellar]

The good news is that Read Magic is not actually important to the game in any way shape or form, so you can completely ignore it without any repercussions. I know this because I don't think I've ever been in a game where its existence was acknowledged.

But yeah, it does seem pretty annoying, now that I look at it.

[Mordaedil]

Except that each person who writes a spellbook writes it into a different language so it is actually already "coded" which is the reason why spellbooks are so hard to read even with read magic.
Also if you make a spellbook need decipher script then you can as well skip casting the spell since reading a spellbook without read magic can be done with a dc 50 decipher script check.

We're not exactly in an epic campaign, so I don't get how this is relevant. But yes, after a while, obscuring your spellbook is going to be easy enough for certain casters to see through that it isn't going to help. It was mainly for flavor.

[johnbragg]

I'm starting to hate this spell, and I'm wondering if its because of the actual mechanics, or just an abusive interpretation by players. read any magical text! intentional obfuscations by the writer and foreign languages be damned... I take time and effort putting together a unique spellbook written by a madman in a code known only to him... Read Magic decodes it, no effort required. Is this just a poor interpretation of the spell description, an abuse by the players, or is this actually how the spell is intended? in any case, I'm strongly considering banning the spell from my campaigns, and the only reason I haven't is because something tells me that would be a bad idea.

I'm now far from the first to say this but: What exactly do you want to happen? Let's say you ban read magic, or houserule that read magic is only partly successful on your McGuffin Book of Madness. So how do you WANT your players to interact with the McGuffin Book of Madness? A big pitfall of DM'ing is spending a lot of time and effort creating background stuff that has no actual impact on the game at the table, or stuff that has impact, but not in a way that players can engage with. What are the players supposed to DO with the Ultimate Book of Doom, if they can't tell what it says? (And how are they supposed to know what to do?)

Take a 3rd level wizard. Most likely walking around with a +4 Int bonus, 6 ranks in Spellcraft, +2 for synergy with Knowledge (Arcana). So she Takes 10 on Spellcraft for a DC 22--decipher anything of 2nd level or below. Give him and the party a day to prepare, and help from the party cleric (and maybe the bard's Inspire Competence for another +2) and it's pretty trivial to stack enough bonuses to hit a DC 30 Spellcraft check if the Mad Mage is dropping Epic level knowledge.

If you don't want the players to read what's in the book, why is the book in the dungeon?

[denthor]

May I suggest the spell secret page in the future. It makes the reading of a spell book poetry and then you need a 2nd spell to find the correct reading.

[KillianHawkeye]

The thing is, "a unique spellbook written by a madman in a code known only to him" is literally just a description of every spellbook in the world. And that's why read magic exists in the first place.

[Telonius]

By "language" it's like the laws of physics or the periodic table. It's not in any particular creature's language, but it's universal in how it works. Each individual mage will write down these same magical juju with different symbols though. Then another mage will say "Oh, that must be how he represents chromium, and that's manganese," but in magical terms. Perhaps representing words, gestures, preparation and so on. Etc.

This is kind of how it's supposed to work, according to the SRD's section on Arcane Magical Writings (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#arcaneMagicalWritings):


To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it.

To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in written form in another’s spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell’s level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers a magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.

[Powerdork]

Read magic, the 0-level sor/wiz spell that every wizard knows how to prepare from memory, exists as the mechanical representation of the fluff of wizard training, and for the adventuring mage who finds musty old scrolls in the dungeon but can't quite make them out because they couldn't afford ranks in Spellcraft. As a GM, it's perfectly reasonable to rule it doesn't exist in your games, or exists at a higher spell grade, and force characters to use more costly means of identifying it or put time into deciphering it manually. Wizards might learn their spells the same way warmages do, where they're taught the basics for every spell on their spell list (in the PHB) in anticipation of their gaining levels.