Explosive runes and dispel - a problem that has been overlooked


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I was looking at Explosive Rune and Dispel combo and it appears that this is a very popular low spell combo. Unfortunately, this doesn't work if the caster of the runes and the caster of the dispel are the same caster.

I checked 10's of sites on this to find out if anyone else caught this, but it appears a simple thing has been very much overlooked.

If you, the caster, writes the runes, and then you, the caster who wrote the runes attempts a dispel, the dispel is automatic - you can't just choose to fail the dispel.

"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dispel-magic

This would apply to explosive runes you write yourself. So... not sure why this has become such a popular duo to use, but sadly, it won't work unless someone else (someone other than who is attempting the dispel) writes the runes for you. In all the threads I checked, there was no mention of this problem.

I am pretty sure I am reading this correctly between dispel and the runes, but I'd be curious if there was a different take on this that I am not seeing?


This comes up in many threads discussing the combo, yeah.


I thought so. I have read a number of threads on this but have failed to see someone point this out.

It makes me curious though...

Prestidigitation allows you to "erase" something - "color, clean, or soil." Granted it's a 10' range so that is not optimal, but could you, if the range were extended, use Prestidigitation to "clean" or otherwise "erase" the rune and activate the explosion?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You can deliberately fail anything you attempt to do. Not only is that common sense, the concept is generally supported in several places within the rules (such as saving throws).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
You can deliberately fail anything you attempt to do.

I'm not aware of this general rule. Can you cite it? The existence of specific clauses allowing you to fail saving throws suggests there isn't a general one.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
You can deliberately fail anything you attempt to do.
I'm not aware of this general rule. Can you cite it? The existence of specific clauses allowing you to fail saving throws suggests there isn't a general one.

Yeah, I need to see that ruling only because of the word "automatic" - which insinuates that you don't have a choice - it just happens. It would be different if it didn't use the word "automatic." Thus why I had to post the thread because I am interpreting that as "sorry - no dice on auto-failing your own dispel."


The one Explosive Runes/Dispel combo I know of was the backpack nuke, consisting of a book with each page inscribed with an Explosive Rune. But you didn't cast Dispel on the book, you summoned a creature that could cast Dispel Magic as a spell-like, and ordered him to dispel the book, once he carried it next to whatever you want to reduce to component atoms.

EDIT: Greater Dispel Magic, I meant, so it could do an area dispel.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I personally would just rule that the first failed dispel activates the first explosive runes and destroys the rest before they can be dispelled. Thus you only ever get the first 6d6 damage.

Edit: Or more simply put, "No."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cornbreadx wrote:

I was looking at Explosive Rune and Dispel combo and it appears that this is a very popular low spell combo. Unfortunately, this doesn't work if the caster of the runes and the caster of the dispel are the same caster.

I checked 10's of sites on this to find out if anyone else caught this, but it appears a simple thing has been very much overlooked.

If you, the caster, writes the runes, and then you, the caster who wrote the runes attempts a dispel, the dispel is automatic - you can't just choose to fail the dispel.

"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dispel-magic

This would apply to explosive runes you write yourself. So... not sure why this has become such a popular duo to use, but sadly, it won't work unless someone else (someone other than who is attempting the dispel) writes the runes for you. In all the threads I checked, there was no mention of this problem.

I am pretty sure I am reading this correctly between dispel and the runes, but I'd be curious if there was a different take on this that I am not seeing?

I've done how many posts on this and you didn't come across even one of them? Nalfeshnee summon is the correct answer since they act on your initiative and cannot succeed at dispelling your runes if you properly raised your caster level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:


I've done how many posts on this and you didn't come across even one of them? Nalfeshnee summon is the correct answer since they act on your initiative and cannot succeed at dispelling your runes if you properly raised your caster level.

Nothing came out glaringly. Keep in mind, some of these threads have several pages of posts. It's likely I just didn't see it because after page two or three, I didn't see any new valuable information aside from regurgitation of the same info in the previous two or three pages (or 10 or 20 posts). Bottom line - instead of a post that countered it, I saw posts approving it more-so. It's not your fault your post(s) were buried by other praises of the combo :-p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cornbreadx wrote:

I was looking at Explosive Rune and Dispel combo and it appears that this is a very popular low spell combo. Unfortunately, this doesn't work if the caster of the runes and the caster of the dispel are the same caster.

I checked 10's of sites on this to find out if anyone else caught this, but it appears a simple thing has been very much overlooked.

If you, the caster, writes the runes, and then you, the caster who wrote the runes attempts a dispel, the dispel is automatic - you can't just choose to fail the dispel.

"You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself."

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dispel-magic

This would apply to explosive runes you write yourself. So... not sure why this has become such a popular duo to use, but sadly, it won't work unless someone else (someone other than who is attempting the dispel) writes the runes for you. In all the threads I checked, there was no mention of this problem.

I am pretty sure I am reading this correctly between dispel and the runes, but I'd be curious if there was a different take on this that I am not seeing?

You missed a couple because it was mentioned.

One solution if DM disallowed choosing to fail is scrolls which are crafted at minimum caster and this lower than your own.

Or the Erase spell which auto-blows up them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Greater Dispel Magic" wrote:
You may choose to automatically succeed on dispel checks against any spell that you have cast.

The important spell for this trick. You can choose to succeed. It is not automatic without your control. So I would expect you have a choice to also fail. The degree of control you have clearly is greater than the normal dispel magic enough to grant such a choice.


Yes... I get that I missed a few posts. Geez... is that the main subject or is it the dispel being automatic vs. not. #getoverit

Yeah, greater dispel seems to be the choice to use then vs. using low level dispel, or as been mentioned previously - erase.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I personally would just rule that the first failed dispel activates the first explosive runes and destroys the rest before they can be dispelled. Thus you only ever get the first 6d6 damage.

Edit: Or more simply put, "No."

Except an area dispel would affect them all simultaneously. Sure, you could rule it any way you want, but it's not RAW to do so.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Isonaroc wrote:
Except an area dispel would affect them all simultaneously.

Where's your RAW for order of dispelling?

There isn't one.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Except an area dispel would affect them all simultaneously.

Where's your RAW for order of dispelling?

There isn't one.

RAW is it affects everything in a 20' radius burst. No order is specified, therefor there is no order. It's simultaneous.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You say there is no order, and then say it is simultaneous. Where is your RAW that they all resolve at the same time?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You say there is no order, and then say it is simultaneous. Where is your RAW that they all resolve at the same time?

Wouldn't the fact that the duration of Greater Dispel Magic is Instantaneous mean that all of the affected spells are dispelled at the same moment?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You tell me.

Instantaneous wrote:
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
Instantaneous Effects wrote:
Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.

I see no text specifying the method of determining the order of the results. So the claim that all effects are resolved at the same time has exactly as much backing in the RAW as my ruling that the first one resolves and destroys the rest.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

You tell me.

Instantaneous wrote:
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
Instantaneous Effects wrote:
Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
I see no text specifying the method of determining the order of the results. So the claim that all effects are resolved at the same time has exactly as much backing in the RAW as my ruling that the first one resolves and destroys the rest.

Hypothetically then, how do you choose what effect is affected first? Is it based on which spell was cast first? Is it based on a whim? Do you role percentiles? What happens if you are casting the area dispel on some other effect?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Deadbeat Doom wrote:
Hypothetically then, how do you choose what effect is affected first?

GM call, unless someone can provide a rules quote.

Silver Crusade

There is no rule for determining order because there is no order.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Then it is a GM call and I am perfectly justified in my decision. Thank you.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

You tell me.

Instantaneous wrote:
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
Instantaneous Effects wrote:
Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
I see no text specifying the method of determining the order of the results. So the claim that all effects are resolved at the same time has exactly as much backing in the RAW as my ruling that the first one resolves and destroys the rest.

Wouldnt exploding them count as an attempt to erase them triggering them all?

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Then it is a GM call and I am perfectly justified in my decision. Thank you.

Instantaneos means there is not time between the resolution of the effects.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I quoted the rules. That is not what they say.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dispel Magic affects ONE and only ONE effect. Greater ups that to two. if the multiple effects are of equal level than it's up to the GM to make the call. So as for the book of explosive runes... one effect is dispelled. The rest of the book runes are simply burned away with the pages, as the writing surface was destroyed without anyone triggering the runes, nor were they dispelled.

At which point you realise that you were better off simply casting one fireball spell.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

You tell me.

Instantaneous wrote:
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
Instantaneous Effects wrote:
Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
I see no text specifying the method of determining the order of the results. So the claim that all effects are resolved at the same time has exactly as much backing in the RAW as my ruling that the first one resolves and destroys the rest.

Thanks, that's clarifying.


Erase would only effect one too.

Really it's the best example of why readied counter spell is viable. When you see a guy run in with a giant pile of pamphlets it's just smart to think ahead, kids.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Dispel Magic affects ONE and only ONE effect. Greater ups that to two. if the multiple effects are of equal level than it's up to the GM to make the call. So as for the book of explosive runes... one effect is dispelled. The rest of the book runes are simply burned away with the pages, as the writing surface was destroyed without anyone triggering the runes, nor were they dispelled.

At which point you realise that you were better off simply casting one fireball spell.

Uh, how do you figure? I suppose if you treat a book as a single object you are right, then the obvious solution is to have the tunes on loose leaf, each one being a discreet object and each one being targeted individually per the spell description

Greater Dispel Magic wrote:
Area Dispel: When greater dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot-radius burst. Roll one dispel check and apply that check to each creature in the area, as if targeted by dispel magic. For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, apply the dispel check as with creatures.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

You tell me.

Instantaneous wrote:
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
Instantaneous Effects wrote:
Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
I see no text specifying the method of determining the order of the results. So the claim that all effects are resolved at the same time has exactly as much backing in the RAW as my ruling that the first one resolves and destroys the rest.

I think given there is no ruling that it is implied to be simultaneous, BECAUSE it is instantaneous. If the effect was supposed to be one at a time then it would state this fact like Dispel Magic does with the Targeted dispel moving onto the next effect when it fails to dispel. But a Greater Dispel just hits everything at once. So you would be justified with Dispel Magic but not its greater version.

Basically, yes, you can rule anything as a GM in your own games. But you can't just make a statement of how something works and proclaim it to be justified by the absence of rules to back up your ruling. That's absurd. What you think justifies a home ruling might not be justified for someone else in their game. And since there is no rules, anything that could be said about this is merely an opinion until correctef by FAQ. And I highly doubt the precise order of an instantaneous effect needing to be explained in high detail is ever going to find its way into a rules FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair to TOZ his entire point is that, as there are no rules in place to handle this particular subject, the fallback is to rely on the GM running the game to make a call; he then proffered the ruling he would personally make as a GM.

He never said that his decision was the only one that could be made, he just said that the rules don't cover it, so it's GM's call, and his call would be to fix it so as to avoid exploding books being the most powerful weapon in existence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).

Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.


Ravingdork wrote:

Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).

Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.

I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadbeat Doom wrote:

To be fair to TOZ his entire point is that, as there are no rules in place to handle this particular subject, the fallback is to rely on the GM running the game to make a call; he then proffered the ruling he would personally make as a GM.

He never said that his decision was the only one that could be made, he just said that the rules don't cover it, so it's GM's call, and his call would be to fix it so as to avoid exploding books being the most powerful weapon in existence.

To be somewhat less fair to TOZ, his entire point reeks of blatant intellectual dishonesty, regardless of whether the ultimate goal (ruling out explosive rune bombs) is justified. That sort of dubious, lightning fast flipping between RAW and baseless mental gymnastics in order to give legitimacy to a preconceived notion that was not going to be deviated from ever no matter what the rules say is exactly what I would expect from a stereotypical munchkin or a stereotypical bad GM.

EDIT: I should probably make my self clear here - explosive rune bombs are so broken that saying "this is going to do horrific damage to the game and I am not going to permit it, regardless of what the rules say" isn't unreasonable. The jumping through mental hoops to give rules justification to what should be a "sake of the game" ruling is what I think is intellectually dishonest, especially since I can right away think of a method to bypass that ruling and get the bomb working again and the GM would need to do further mental gymnastics (and possibly quite a lot of it) to justify stopping the bomb. It is a totally detrimental way of approaching Gamemastering. You shouldn't be using the rules as a shield to hide behind when you are taking a very specific and weakly justified interpretation solely to enforce a preconceived notion. That isn't the purpose of the rules, and that isn't the behavior of a GM who believes they are responsible for what happens in their game. It is the mark of someone who creates whatever feeble justifications they can so that they can pretend they aren't responsible when their dubious decisions have a detrimental effect.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
RDM42 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).

Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.

I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.

That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.


Snowblind wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:

To be fair to TOZ his entire point is that, as there are no rules in place to handle this particular subject, the fallback is to rely on the GM running the game to make a call; he then proffered the ruling he would personally make as a GM.

He never said that his decision was the only one that could be made, he just said that the rules don't cover it, so it's GM's call, and his call would be to fix it so as to avoid exploding books being the most powerful weapon in existence.

To be somewhat less fair to TOZ, his entire point reeks of blatant intellectual dishonesty, regardless of whether the ultimate goal (ruling out explosive rune bombs) is justified. That sort of dubious, lightning fast flipping between RAW and baseless mental gymnastics in order to give legitimacy to a preconceived notion that was not going to be deviated from ever no matter what the rules say is exactly what I would expect from a stereotypical munchkin or a stereotypical bad GM.

It was more the intellectual dishonesty that I took most offense with rather than any insinuation about his GM'ing style. Arrogantly acting like as though being completely contradictory has somehow proven yourself right is just being unhelpful and self-gratifying.

But if you want an opinion, I am absolutely with you in that it sounds pretty much like the worst way to achieve a fairly simple solution.

Tell the player not to do that before they have even begun. Tell them you will accept at most a single rune with this strategy. Nothing else. And this is mostly through the 'gentlemen's/gentleladies/gentlepeople's agreement' of fair play and being a participant in a fun game between friends. Rather than being a hardass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hold up here...

there can be a limitation on greater dispel magic that is GM justifiably:

Quote:
This spell functions like dispel magic, except that it can end more than one spell on **a** target and it can be used to target multiple creatures.

In essence, this is saying that it responds as if it were dispel magic, lesser, but that it targets more than one thing - which is all well and good and to that part of the argument, you are all correct in that it would affect multiple targets all at once.

HOWEVER....

The ruling would need to be based on the following question:

Is the book considered 1 item... or is the book considered multiple items (i.e. multiple pages)? In that instance, its effect would be determined through GM discretion. The GM could rule that the "book" is one item - a single book - and not to be considered as separate pages within a single book (or single object). Yet if you were to hand over a bunch of scrolls or parchments, they would, and should be counted as individual items without question of course.

Quote:
Area Dispel: When greater dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot-radius burst. Roll one dispel check and apply that check to each creature in the area, as if targeted by dispel magic. For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, apply the dispel check as with creatures.

Thus I feel that in book form - yes, it could potentially count as a single item with the result of a single explosion... but in parchment form, it would be counted as multiples as if you had multiple letters in your hand as if you were a postal worker about to become shredded postal worker soup. If you stacked the runes though on a single parchment, according to how this is worded, it would only activate once.

I think that's the key to utilizing GM discretion in this instance. Personally, I would say the book is a single item, despite the fact that I believe in cellular biology where we are billions of individual cells that make up the person, not a person made up of billions of cells. I know that sounds quirky to switch, but I can quickly see this type of thing being exploited on a regular basis.

On the other hand, if a GM still had an issue with this, they could opt to house rule that you can't auto dispel your own spells which would make the attempt to try this trick obsolete by the fact that you would more than likely (unless rolling a true failure of a 1) dispel your own stuff based upon your skill level as a caster in spellcraft. By the time you get greater dispel, your spellcraft should be something like 15 or 18 anyways.... so you would be rolling against an 18 to dispel which would mean you are likely going to succeed nearly every time.

Another way to bypass the situation is to also house rule that explosive runes by the same caster, in proximity, would harmonically resonate to the point of explosion if within a certain distance of each other - say 6" or less. Thus, you couldn't get away with stacking this up in a book, nor give out multiple parchments. I think that also would work for a viable control method by flavoring it as some kind of "time cop" situation where "two identical things can't occupy the same space at the same time" sorta deal because the magical energies would be competing and would "somehow" counter react with each other and explode. It's an idea for those that want to control this kind of thing.

Furthermore, I appreciate the comments on this thread, but please - there is no need to get all up in everyone's grill about how they perceive or play. I want to keep this a friendly discussion - not a hate fest on one person or another. Reading and responding to text online is not as eloquent in speaking and you often miss tone or inflection and it is easy to take words and phrases out of context or imply anger or other such things where it isn't necessarily due.


Ravingdork wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).

Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.

I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.
That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.

I suspect you know that they won't make a faq, but if they did, it pretty much would be exactly what I said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cornbreadx wrote:
Another way to bypass the situation is to also house rule that explosive runes by the same caster, in proximity, would harmonically resonate to the point of explosion if within a certain distance of each other - say 6" or less. Thus, you couldn't get away with stacking this up in a book, nor give out multiple parchments. I think that also would work for a viable control method by flavoring it as some kind of "time cop" situation where "two identical things can't occupy the same space at the same time" sorta deal because the magical energies would be competing and would "somehow" counter react with each other and explode. It's an idea for those that want to control this kind of thing.

This doesn't stop it being used as bombs, it just changes the method.

1. Put several explosive runes in an extradimensional space, shaped to have a small entrance (such as a long cylinder, or putting obstacles to reduce the "nearest open space")
2.Dispel extradimensional space, shunting all of the runes into a small space.
3.the runes react with one another, exploding.

Really, it's just a magic nuke (a very similar procedure is used to detonate plutonium).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).

Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.

I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.

I think Ravingdork is correct on this ruling. It's legit to say that multiple pebbles would affect the wall and create 2d4 x each pebble of damage. However, it would be a ruling of how many pebbles can you hold and you would have to make a successful hit roll for each pebble from a distance of X feet - assuming 20' or less?

1) Most people that have thrown pebbles know that there is a max distance of flight based on the object's size and weight so trying to toss pebbles that are 1/4" in size or less would likely not bridge a 40-50' toss so there is likely a distance limitation here.

2) There is no real accuracy in tossing pebbles at a distance. Try throwing some into a lake or other larger body of standing water and notice the pattern at a close distance of 10-20' vs. anything beyond that. The scatter is incredible once you attempt to toss further distances.

3) Following up on point 2, I'd wager that only a percentage would hit the target and a GM could allow for a percentage roll on anything beyond a 10' distance. For every additional 10' away, decrease the percentage by 10% x distance away. Meaning, at 20', it's percentage roll -20%. At 30' it's percentage roll -30%. At 40', it's percentage roll -40%. Etc. Then DC check to hit all successful attempts that could have bridged the distance. I'd personally rule it a ranged touch attack or thrown object which unless you have weapon finesse, you are using your dump stat of STR to hit with a caster. In theory you could have your tank toss the pebbles, but then that's a full round action for them and would require forethought or a successful teamwork roll in my opinion.

4) Don't be a gnome or other small creature. You will likely only fit 10 pebbles in your hand, thus making it pointless to even attempt this trick. GMs could limit the number of potential pebbles to throw, and terrain would play into this - do you have adequate terrain pebbles to throw? If not, do you happen to be carrying 20lbs of pebbles on your person?? Who does that and it better be on your character sheet. If they are using bags of holding to carry around pellets - full round action to get pellets (in multiple form) - oh... Enemy sees your trick - enemy moves 20' away. oops.

Personally, I just gave this idea to the bard in our group so we will give it a go and see how it pans with our GM. I will bring up the limitations though during the combat phase if he does actually try this and go from there. Even as a player, I like to keep things legitimate vs. attempting to pull the wool over the GM's eyes with these kinds of things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Cornbreadx wrote:
Another way to bypass the situation is to also house rule that explosive runes by the same caster, in proximity, would harmonically resonate to the point of explosion if within a certain distance of each other - say 6" or less. Thus, you couldn't get away with stacking this up in a book, nor give out multiple parchments. I think that also would work for a viable control method by flavoring it as some kind of "time cop" situation where "two identical things can't occupy the same space at the same time" sorta deal because the magical energies would be competing and would "somehow" counter react with each other and explode. It's an idea for those that want to control this kind of thing.

This doesn't stop it being used as bombs, it just changes the method.

1. Put several explosive runes in an extradimensional space, shaped to have a small entrance (such as a long cylinder, or putting obstacles to reduce the "nearest open space")
2.Dispel extradimensional space, shunting all of the runes into a small space.
3.the runes react with one another, exploding.

Really, it's just a magic nuke (a very similar procedure is used to detonate plutonium).

I don't think this is true. On page 272 of the core rulebook (I believe) it says under Dispel Magic that an inter-dimensional opening (like a bag of holding)is closed. Thus, the items would just remain in the dimensional space upon dispel, but would not just shunt into each other. Even if they did, they would explode in the extradimensional plane, not the material one.

If I am wrong on that, please feel free to correct me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I admit I may be remembering this wrong, but I think most spells that create extradimensional spaces shunt their contents when their duration expires.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
It was more the intellectual dishonesty that I took most offense with rather than any insinuation about his GM'ing style. Arrogantly acting like as though being completely contradictory has somehow proven yourself right is just being unhelpful and self-gratifying.

I apologize for my previous interactions with Isonaroc coloring my response. I've hidden this thread to prevent any further derailment.

Silver Crusade

The Sideromancer wrote:
I admit I may be remembering this wrong, but I think most spells that create extradimensional spaces shunt their contents when their duration expires.

Some do, some don't. Sometimes the objects are lost, sometimes they are expelled into adjacent squares or the square the effect was in...it really depends on the effect in question. I can't think of any that could be used like described offhand.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
It was more the intellectual dishonesty that I took most offense with rather than any insinuation about his GM'ing style. Arrogantly acting like as though being completely contradictory has somehow proven yourself right is just being unhelpful and self-gratifying.
I apologize for my previous interactions with Isonaroc coloring my response. I've hidden this thread to prevent any further derailment.

Don't go blaming your behavior on me.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Isonaroc wrote:
Don't go blaming your behavior on me.

Not blaming, explaining. So stop responding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd never heard of this strategy before.

It looks like dispel magic automatically succeeds on spells you have cast, while greater dispel says you may choose to automatically succeed.

So you would have to be casting greater dispel magic (or have someone else make the runes) to have a chance of failing.

Even then, you would be level 11, rolling against 11+11=22 for your dispel check at d20+11. So a 45/55 chance of it working.

That said, I'd agree with TOZ. You don't get to sum up all the pages. Simply because the spell is a burst and has an origination point, I'd say the page closest to that point goes off first, and would deal damage to farther away pages before they are dispelled.

Quote:
Burst, Emanation, or Spread: Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell's point of origin and measure its effect from that point.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Perhaps treat it like d20 Modern's explosive rules? For every doubling of runes, add +1 die of damage.

So one page is 2d4 damage, three pages is 3d4, seven pages if 4d4, fifteen is 5d4, thirty-one pages is 6d4, sixty-three pages is 7d4, etc.


Ravingdork wrote:

Perhaps treat it like d20 Modern's explosive rules? For every doubling of runes, add +1 die of damage.

So one page is 2d4 damage, three pages is 3d4, seven pages if 4d4, fifteen is 5d4, thirty-one pages is 6d4, sixty-three pages is 7d4, etc.

I think that's fair, but you would have to start with the spell base damage of 6d6. thus, it would be 6d6 for one, 7d6 for three, 8d6 for seven, etc.


Isonaroc wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Dispel Magic affects ONE and only ONE effect. Greater ups that to two. if the multiple effects are of equal level than it's up to the GM to make the call. So as for the book of explosive runes... one effect is dispelled. The rest of the book runes are simply burned away with the pages, as the writing surface was destroyed without anyone triggering the runes, nor were they dispelled.

At which point you realise that you were better off simply casting one fireball spell.

Uh, how do you figure? I suppose if you treat a book as a single object you are right, then the obvious solution is to have the tunes on loose leaf, each one being a discreet object and each one being targeted individually per the spell description

Greater Dispel Magic wrote:
Area Dispel: When greater dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot-radius burst. Roll one dispel check and apply that check to each creature in the area, as if targeted by dispel magic. For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, apply the dispel check as with creatures.

How do I figure? Because it's the interpretation that goes with me forestalling a crack cheesemonkey maneuver that would otherwise allow someone to setup a 600d6 explosion..

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Explosive runes and dispel - a problem that has been overlooked All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.