PDA

View Full Version : Explosive runes in other languages



Studoku
2008-10-05, 05:30 PM
In a recent 4e game:

Our party, consisting of a wizard (me) and 6 other characters encountered a secret door. The door had no visable keyhole or handle and throwing things at it had no effect. There were some draconic runes on the door and detect magic revealed them to be explosive runes.

The DM had been allowing characters to examine the runes without setting them off because, in our interpretation of the rules, 'reading' the runes required understanding draconic, which only my character was able to do.

My plan was:
One of the characters who couldn't read Draconic copied the runes onto paper (in character). My character read the paper which contained the password and opened the door.

Should reading explosive runes without being able to understand it set off the spell?

monty
2008-10-05, 05:35 PM
Well, I don't know about 4E, but the 3.5 version says, "The runes detonate when read...", implying that you have to be able to read them to set them off.

As for the password, did you try "I prepared Explosive Runes this morning"?

Glyde
2008-10-05, 05:36 PM
My guess would be that yes, it will still detonate. I don't think the runes care if you can read them or not, they cares about protecting what it's meant to protect. Only people specifically singled out by the caster or the caster himself can read them without getting blasted.

Studoku
2008-10-05, 05:40 PM
As for the password, did you try "I prepared Explosive Runes this morning"?
Yes.

The runes were just random words in Draconic that opened the door when read aloud.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-05, 06:08 PM
The way I figure, you can still read runes in a foreign language, you just can't comprehend their meaning. And since the explosion triggers on reading, not comprehension, well... boom!

Carrion_Humanoid
2008-10-05, 06:46 PM
I Agree with Kurald, though it would make sense, its magic-think of the Catgirls.

Collin152
2008-10-05, 07:21 PM
Draconic uses a differant alphabet, doesn't it?

Here, try reading some Japanese:
(For the sake of people who are silly and did not install Asian characters, I won't actually type it.)
(Aw, forget it, sure I will.)
これはにほんごです。

Now, assuming you can see it, you couldn't read it, could you? You could see it, sure, but you couldn't even sound it out.

Even if I don't know what the words meant, however, I know the alphabet, so I could read it out.

So, yeah, I wouldn't have the runes detonate if they don't know Draconic or a language using the same alphabet.

Chronos
2008-10-05, 09:00 PM
To expand on Colin152's argument: I can't do anything I would remotely classify as reading Japanese. But I could copy those characters down on a piece of paper, and (assuming my art skills aren't too lousy), a person who did know Japanese could them read them. I would allow the OP's plan to work.

Who_Da_Halfling
2008-10-05, 10:24 PM
Draconic uses a differant alphabet, doesn't it?

Here, try reading some Japanese:
(For the sake of people who are silly and did not install Asian characters, I won't actually type it.)
(Aw, forget it, sure I will.)
これはにほんごです。

Now, assuming you can see it, you couldn't read it, could you? You could see it, sure, but you couldn't even sound it out.

Even if I don't know what the words meant, however, I know the alphabet, so I could read it out.

So, yeah, I wouldn't have the runes detonate if they don't know Draconic or a language using the same alphabet.

I guess it sort of comes down to your interpretation of the word "read." I don't remember enough Japanese to "sound out" the hiragana characters (which is not a great term to use for non-phonetic languages like Chinese, where symbols represent words rather than sounds), but I can certainly, having seen them, write them down for you. Why should that not count as having read them?

I think it all depends on whether you have to comprehend something to read it. Of course, there are probably infinite lines of semantics here (for instance, I, a native English speaker, can pick up an English astrophysics book, flip to a random page, pick a random paragraph, and attempt to "read" it without fully comprehending much of anything. I can understand what the characters mean, but not what the words they form mean. Does that mean I'm comprehending or not?). But ultimately, the onus is on the DM to decide what "reading" really means. I like to debate things, so I'd probably bring this up if it came up in a game I was playing in, but I wouldn't protest heavily if, after such discussion, we decided to let the plan work.

-JM

Collin152
2008-10-05, 10:36 PM
I guess it sort of comes down to your interpretation of the word "read." I don't remember enough Japanese to "sound out" the hiragana characters (which is not a great term to use for non-phonetic languages like Chinese, where symbols represent words rather than sounds), but I can certainly, having seen them, write them down for you. Why should that not count as having read them?


Do you read paintings?

Aquillion
2008-10-05, 10:51 PM
Where is the 4e version of explosive runes, again? I can't find it in my PHB, so I can't say the exact rules...

tyckspoon
2008-10-05, 10:51 PM
Do you read paintings?

No, but if you asked me to inspect the original of Leonardo's Man With Exploding Nostrils I would still expect it to blow up in my face. I think one must consider the intent and purpose of the spell here, as well: it's meant to blow up people who are looking at things you don't want them to. To that end, it's probably not language-specific; anybody who is looking at the runes closely enough to go 'hey, I can't tell what this stupid thing says' is trying to read them well enough to set off the spell. It's a far less useful protection device if it can be bypassed by any idiot who doesn't know enough about magic or languages to know he's looking at a bomb.

There's no reason to assume the runes are written in any readable language, even. The spell only refers to 'mystic runes', which may or may not resemble any kind of real language. Maybe it's a completely distinct written magic language, in which case the only people who could 'read' well enough to set it off would be other mages. Maybe it's Draconic, that's pretty popular as the magic language.. maybe it is actually Common. That's a setting detail, but the only way to make the spell work the same way with all of those options is that you don't have to understand it to read it.

..oh, hey. Maybe this helps? From Symbol of Death:

In this case, “reading” the rune means any attempt to study it, identify it, or fathom its meaning.

Edit: Of course, this is all 3.5, but if Explosive Runes is still meant as a written protective trap in 4E than it should still blow up on people who poke it too closely, regardless of whether they know what it says.

Who_Da_Halfling
2008-10-05, 10:52 PM
Do you read paintings?

Paintings are not language, generally. If you do not make comprehension of meaning a prequisite for "reading," then being able to tell that a string of random symbols is in fact a language should count as "reading" them.

Then again, another argument FOR the prequisite of comprehension: when you teach a child to read, do you just show them the alphabet? OR, do you teach them what the symbols mean, or even how they form words? Wouldn't that suggest that reading is more than just recognition of the characters?

-JM

Prometheus
2008-10-06, 08:22 AM
I think RAW has an answer for this. I doesn't have the magical phrase "language-dependent" therefore it is not language-dependent.

bosssmiley
2008-10-06, 08:39 AM
I think RAW has an answer for this. I doesn't have the magical phrase "language-dependent" therefore it is not language-dependent.

I like this answer. It also allows for added bilingual bonus hilarity.

"Elaboré runas explosivas esta mañana."
...
:smallconfused:
...
:smalleek:
...
*KABOOM!*

Jayabalard
2008-10-06, 09:14 AM
The way I figure, you can still read runes in a foreign language, you just can't comprehend their meaning. And since the explosion triggers on reading, not comprehension, well... boom!I agree; it doesn't matter if you can't sound them out or comprehend them, just that you can see them.

Personally I don't agree that you can write them in any particular language... Nothing about the spell implies that you can make them language dependent.

Magnor Criol
2008-10-06, 09:20 AM
I think the two RAW answers here (Symbol of Death's definition of "read" and the lack of [Language-Dependent]) give us both a RAW and RAI answer. They're both 3.5, not 4E, but honestly I can't imagine the RAI changing.

Plus, think about it from a spellcaster's perspective. Why would I want to spend time and energy on a defense that depends on the enemy being able to understand me? That's just stupid. If they're an enemy, I don't want them in my domain, whether they can read my language or not.

BRC
2008-10-06, 09:33 AM
On a related note, could you write Explosive Runes onto a Scroll, and then hold it up in front of an enemy mid-battle, causing them to read it and therefore detonate it.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-06, 09:41 AM
On a related note, could you write Explosive Runes onto a Scroll, and then hold it up in front of an enemy mid-battle, causing them to read it and therefore detonate it.

Sure, although I'd argue this requires a bluff check to get the enemy's attention.

LibraryOgre
2008-10-06, 10:22 AM
What you do is you put a scroll with explosive runes in with your regular scrolls.

I would not allow you to hold up a piece of parchment with explosive runes on it to trap an enemy... he's more likely to hit the paper.

Mina Kobold
2008-10-06, 10:30 AM
where would you guys get time to write a scroll mid-battle. (attack of oportunity)

monty
2008-10-06, 10:35 AM
Not to mention that you're holding an exploding piece of paper. You're probably more squishy than the bad guy. Bad idea.

vicente408
2008-10-06, 12:38 PM
Not to mention that you're holding an exploding piece of paper. You're probably more squishy than the bad guy. Bad idea.

So put it on a long stick and dangle it in front of you.

only1doug
2008-10-06, 02:19 PM
If I were GMing I would Interpret the "Read" to mean an intelligent creature deliberately examines the Runes.

If you wave them at an enemy during the battle he is unlikely to examine them, if you try to copy them you have to examine them.

Khanderas
2008-10-07, 01:45 AM
So put it on a long stick and dangle it in front of you.

That would REALLY call for a sense motive check, plus bluff to read.
"The enemy wizard pulls out a 10 ft pole from his portable hole. It has a piece of paper. What do you do ?"
"Im so NOT reading that paper, I walk past that note and pole and stab the wizard.":smallamused:

Heliomance
2008-10-07, 06:46 AM
The only game I've ever DMed, the players fond a piece of paper that detected as magical. They got the Barbarian to copy it down so they could see what it said.

Blackfang108
2008-10-07, 02:40 PM
The only game I've ever DMed, the players fond a piece of paper that detected as magical. They got the Barbarian to copy it down so they could see what it said.

Which should work, as he is illiterate, and, by definition, CANNOT read.


If I were GMing I would Interpret the "Read" to mean an intelligent creature deliberately examines the Runes.

I would change it to a "Literate creature" instead of intelligent.