Author Topic: Explosive Runes Ruling  (Read 6027 times)

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2231
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Explosive Runes Ruling
« on: March 01, 2013, 08:50:00 PM »
I'm playing a caster in a new campaign, and I'm planning on taking Explosive Runes.  The DM and I have already talked about it, and have come to an agreement regarding the spell, that it will discharge when the object it is put on is broken, because otherwise it would be easily bypassed by PCs just smashing everything it's on when the DM wants to use it as a trap.  But we also agreed that it should be limited to only a single casting per object, to prevent OP abuse.

He also knows I'll be planning on putting it on crossbow bolts, and empowering them at higher levels when I can do so, during downtime.  Considering that ammo is destroyed whenever it hits its target, and a 50% chance on a miss, it should be quite effective, even with only one Explosive Runes per bolt.  I'm also considering putting it on splash weapons, too.  I know it could get a bit cheesy if we had a dedicated archer in the party, but we don't.  Instead, we have 2 casters, a spiked chain fighter, and a soulknife, so I'll likely be the only one using these with any regularity.  Also, I know that safe storage will be a priority, or the resulting kaboom will reduce my PC to chunky salsa, so the bolts will be kept in a Quiver of Elhonna and the splash weapons in a Heward's Handy Haversack, which will keep me down to using just 1 per round of either (light crossbow or Launch Bolt spell for crossbow bolts and regular toss or Launch Item spell for splash weapons, feats are all focused on improving casting).  The only time I could see potential abuse is if we're laying a trap, and I put multiple flasks in a sack triggered to fall on the victim...

Does this sound like a good ruling for the spell, or is there some kind of cheese still present with it that we haven't considered?  I want the spell to be effective, but not overpowering, because I believe in the Gentleman's Agreement.  Also, what do you think of this ruling for the spell?
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.

Offline Garryl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4503
    • View Profile
Re: Explosive Runes Ruling
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2013, 10:46:46 PM »
I don't think flasks and bolts are normally valid targets for Explosive Runes. The spell does say you have to trace them on an object bearing written information. There are plenty of ways around that, though (like casting it on the flask's warning label which will undoubtedly get shredded when the glass breaks and burned away when the acid/alchemist's fire comes out).

I think the real source of any problems that may come up is letting the runes be triggered when the object is destroyed. It's a lot easier to destroy an object than it is to make sure that runes are read (and the spell strongly implies that you have to be next to the runes to read them). That makes things a heck of a lot easier to abuse. Normally to trigger the runes, you have to read (or trick some dope into reading) each rune, and unless you're dealing with a creature that can read multiples runes at once, the explosion damage is likely to destroy the objects that the other nearby runes are on, and even if it doesn't, the maximum number of explosions is still limited to how many the reader (with no Reflex save) can take before falling unconscious.

That said, if all you're doing is turning bolts and flasks into precast 6d6 force-based fireballs, I can hardly see any issues. Maybe at level 7 and below where 6d6 is still a significant amount of damage to throw around willy-nilly on top of whatever else the attack does, but it is still just level-appropriate damage. If that's all you're doing with your turn as a caster, it's not an issue.

Offline Captnq

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Haters gonna hate. Dragons gonna drag.
    • View Profile
    • Ask the Captain
Re: Explosive Runes Ruling
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2013, 10:50:13 AM »
For bonus fun, use baleful polymorph to turn someone into a tiny animal. Use animal messenger to send the animal to an enemy with a message that reads, “I prepared explosive runes today.” Boom.

As for your question...

Does this sound like a good ruling for the spell, or is there some kind of cheese still present with it that we haven't considered?  I want the spell to be effective, but not overpowering, because I believe in the Gentleman's Agreement.  Also, what do you think of this ruling for the spell?

Let us consider the spell in question

Quote from: EXPLOSIVE RUNES
- PLAYER’S HANDBOOK (3.0)
- PLAYER’S HANDBOOK 1 (3.5)
Abjuration [Force]
Level: Court Herald 3, Magewright 3, Rune Domain 4, Sorcerer/Wizard 3
Target: One touched object weighing no more than 10 lb.
You trace these mystic runes upon a book, map, scroll, or similar object bearing written information.

Here's your problem.

The target line says one thing, the text says another. Now, as a DM, I believe the intent is not to write the explosive runes, but to have writing that you turn into explosive runes. So, can you write on a wall then cast this spell? Well, technically, no. The wall is over ten pounds. A kind DM might say the brick is seperate from the wall, but by the rules, there are no bricks, just 10x10 foot sections of wall.

Now, how does this apply to your arrows? Well, First of all, we must determine if you are correct in that you can simply disrupt the writing and detonate the spell.

Quote from: EXPLOSIVE RUNES
Another creature can remove them with a successful dispel magic or erase spell, but attempting to dispel or erase the runes and failing to do so triggers the explosion.

So, any attempt to erase the words would trigger the explosion, unless the person doing it is a thief and makes a disable device roll. Destroying the words by breaking the object it is on is a valid way to attempt to "erase" something, so this is actually right on the money.

Now, can you put writing on an arrow? Certainly. Mystical runes of power are written on magic items all the time. The arrow is under 10 pounds. It should work, no problem. Nothing in the spell indicates the font size, so technically, if you had monks write the entire bible on a grain of rice, you could put explosive runes on it.

Now here's the tricky part, does breaking the arrow count as "erase". That's your gray area.

Quote from: SRD
Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while normal ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

Destroyed certainly counts for an attempt to erase something, but rendered useless? The arrow could be bent, the feathers sheered off, or just the tip could be stuck in someone and the shaft turns out to be fine. It's that last part that causes me some concern. I would suggest then that there is a 50% chance that the arrow is destroyed and 50% rendered useless. If it's rendered useless, it is still readable, and thus the runes do not detonate. That said, if the bad guy acts all macho and snaps the arrow off while it's stuck in him, well... Boom.

As for adding it to flasks, tough call. "Do Not Drink: External Use Only" certainly counts as writing. Here's the problem that I see.

I throw the flask. The flask breaks. The Explosive runes explode. The fluid takes 6d6 points of damage. The fluid has exactly 1 hit point. The poison/acid/holy water/alchemist's fire is destroyed in the blast and never has time to connect with the target.

Now, throwing JUST the flask should have the desired effect, and be a ranged touch attack as well, but I see no means putting anything inside and having it take effect. The explosive runes simply go off first. Now, if you wanted to slather up your flask with contact poison, (Not injury, the flask would never do damage as a ranged touch attack) then it being on the outside of the runes, it would take effect first, then the explosion.

Now, if you had something that exploded, say... a black powder Bomb or something like that, I would say explosives would stack, but beside that crap from eberron, I know of no explosive devices that is "standard"

I hope that answers your question and I welcome counter arguments, since I plan on adding this to the explosive runes entry of The SpellBook.
If you have questions about 3.5 D&D, you might want to look at the:
Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis

Currently: Podcasting

Offline Captnq

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Haters gonna hate. Dragons gonna drag.
    • View Profile
    • Ask the Captain
Re: Explosive Runes Ruling
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2013, 11:00:28 AM »
Having reviewed my notes on flasks, I believe that flasks are considered ammunition, therefore are subject to the sames rules as arrows or bolts, which means I would have to rule that it's a 50% chance the flask shatters in a way where the runes remain intact and thus does not detonate.


Sorry. This is a games mechanic ruling, not a "what makes sense" ruling. It doesn't make sense that a bolt made out of adamantine is "destroyed" and cannot be recovered when you shoot someone with it. But that's how the rules work. The game mechanics require that all ammunition be treated the same, so flasks would have a 50% chance of failure.
If you have questions about 3.5 D&D, you might want to look at the:
Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis

Currently: Podcasting

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2231
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: Explosive Runes Ruling
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2013, 04:09:22 PM »
Having reviewed my notes on flasks, I believe that flasks are considered ammunition, therefore are subject to the sames rules as arrows or bolts, which means I would have to rule that it's a 50% chance the flask shatters in a way where the runes remain intact and thus does not detonate.


Sorry. This is a games mechanic ruling, not a "what makes sense" ruling. It doesn't make sense that a bolt made out of adamantine is "destroyed" and cannot be recovered when you shoot someone with it. But that's how the rules work. The game mechanics require that all ammunition be treated the same, so flasks would have a 50% chance of failure.

What about the rules for thrown splash weapons on page 158 of the PHB?  You determine whether you hit your intended target or space, then if you don't, you roll scatter.  Then, once you have determined where it has landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in adjacent squares.  This is automatic, and separate from normal ammunition rules.  Considering that the contents (fire, acid, or what have you) are going to do at least 1 point of damage to the label, that will destroy the runes, would it not?
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.