# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Would Eyes of the Runekeeper let you read hidden or invisible writing?

## Segev

They let you read all writing.

Would they reveal invisible writing without a _see invisibility_ spell? What about writing hidden as part of artwork or the like? 

Would they defeat _illusory script_?

I don't think they would let you read writing actually concealed by an obstruction. No reading a book without opening it or the like. But what about damaged writing; would it be clear to the bearer of the Eyes?

----------


## Gale

I assume the intent is that you can "read all writing" that you can _see._ Otherwise, one could argue that you can read any writing, anywhere, anytime; and that's obviously quite silly. I think this works off 5th edition's idea of "natural language." "Read" is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as "to look at words or symbols and understand what they mean." Since we know one must be able to see a word to read it, and the invocation doesn't explicitly exempt us from this, we must conclude our ability to read isn't altered beyond being able to understand all text.

So no, you can't read invisible script or anything that isn't obviously visible to you. Going off of this logic, Eyes of the Rune Keeper shouldn't thwart an Illusory Script either. The description of the spell says that to anyone who isn't permitted to read the script, "the writing appears as if it were written in an unknown or magical script that is unintelligible." If we go off the assumption that the invocation only allows you to read what you can see, then you can't read an Illusory Script because the true words simply aren't visible to you. There is literally an illusion blocking you from seeing what is actually there.

----------


## Psyren

Obligatory "Ask your DM"
Obligatory "I am the DM"
Obligatory "Do what's fun!"

I agree with Gale's warning that too broad an interpretation of "read all writing" can result in your Warlock idly perusing the Library of Alexandria across time from the comfort of their living room. I would limit the invocation to writing you can see.

As for damaged or incomplete writing, I would let you see what's there.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Obligatory "Ask your DM"
> Obligatory "I am the DM"
> Obligatory "Do what's fun!"
> 
> I agree with Gale's warning that too broad an interpretation of "read all writing" can result in your Warlock idly perusing the Library of Alexandria across time from the comfort of their living room. I would limit the invocation to writing you can see.
> 
> As for damaged or incomplete writing, I would let you see what's there.


Ok, I open my eyes after picking that invocation. What do I see? DM: you see nothing except words. You see any word, written at any time, across the entire multiverse. At once. You go permanently mad. Make a new character.

I agree with these limits. 5e rules are not intended to be interpreted literally--instead they're to be taken with a hefty dose of common sense and context, including the context that you're playing a game.

----------


## Sigreid

How fun would it be to have an invocation that let you read any book or other writing you had previously read, regardless of its location but only on the same plane?

----------


## Segev

> How fun would it be to have an invocation that let you read any book or other writing you had previously read, regardless of its location but only on the same plane?


Technically, Keen Mind does that, as long as you've a means of refreshing that once per month.

----------


## Unoriginal

> They let you read all writing.
> 
> Would they reveal invisible writing without a _see invisibility_ spell? What about writing hidden as part of artwork or the like? 
> 
> Would they defeat _illusory script_?
> 
> I don't think they would let you read writing actually concealed by an obstruction. No reading a book without opening it or the like. But what about damaged writing; would it be clear to the bearer of the Eyes?


The Eyes of the Runekeeper let you read all writing, but it doesn't do anything to help you spot writing or read the missing parts of a text.

For the artwork situation,  the person with the Eyes can read the text, but they still have to find where it is on the artwork/have it pointed out to them. If it's "hiden in plain sight" because no one would usually be able that this specific sign means X without knowing the secret code, then the Eyes of the Runekeeper will let the user notice it in plain sight too. 

For the invisibility/illusory script, the person see what is presented, aka nothing or the illusion.

For the damaged writing, IMO as long as the letters/runes/signs/ideograms are recognizable as such they will be able to tell what they are, but, for example, if you see the lower half of a "n" you wouldn't be able to say if it's a "n", a "h", or two "i i" close to each others.

----------


## Sigreid

> Technically, Keen Mind does that, as long as you've a means of refreshing that once per month.


That once a month becomes much more of a limitation after a certain point.  Limited by your speed of reading and time to spend on it and all.  With an invocation like that, you could eventually have access to full libraries, any where any time.  Though it would take you the normal reading time to search for the data.

----------


## BaronCorvo

I think Gale has it right. The invocation is basically just a permanent Comprehend Languages, just as Eldritch Sight is a permanent Detect Magic. In both cases they're slightly better than ritual casting (no concentration, no casting time, no need to refresh, but no increased capabilities).

----------


## kazaryu

> I think Gale has it right. The invocation is basically just a permanent Comprehend Languages, just as Eldritch Sight is a permanent Detect Magic. In both cases they're slightly better than ritual casting (no concentration, no casting time, no need to refresh, but no increased capabilities).


Technucally eldtritch sight isnt permanent. You still uave to cast the spell and iirc are still subject to concentration rules

----------


## BaronCorvo

> Technucally eldtritch sight isnt permanent. You still uave to cast the spell and iirc are still subject to concentration rules


Hmm, you're right. That's lame. Devil's Sight and EotRK don't work that way, they just give you the ability 24/7. New house rule! (I also think Sorcerers should get it by default - if you're born with the innate ability to manipulate magic, you shouldn't be _worse_ at sensing it than just about every other full caster).

----------


## Keravath

> I think Gale has it right. The invocation is basically just a permanent Comprehend Languages, just as Eldritch Sight is a permanent Detect Magic. In both cases they're slightly better than ritual casting (no concentration, *no casting time*, no need to refresh, but no increased capabilities).


Although I will often run Eldritch Sight as an always functioning detect magic (since that is what makes sense to me in that context). RAW, the invocation technically gives you the ability to cast Detect Magic at will and that is all.

"You can cast detect magic at will, without expending a spell slot."

It still takes an action to cast and still requires V,S components. I would have rather had it written that the character with the invocation always has the effect of the detect magic spell on them, but it doesn't. 

As for Eyes of the Runekeeper, as others have said, it lets you read all writing. I interpret that to mean all writing you can see or perceive. You don't need to touch the surface as with Comprehend Languages but if it is written and you can see it then you can read it. 

This would include seeing messages hidden in plain sight. I would also interpret to mean that you can read and understand all writing at least in the literal sense. You might be able to read something, understand the words, but not be able to interpret the meaning or intent. 

In terms of interactions with Illusory Script, it is up to the DM. They would either see the illusory text which is unintelligible thus letting them know that there was writing they could not read which is information that magic is involved since they should be able to read it. Or alternatively, since they can read ALL writing, the illusory script would be insufficient to block the invocation and they would see right through it to the actual writing since they CAN read ALL writing. DM call.

----------


## Segev

A side note on Eyes of the Rune Keeper vs. _comprehend languages_: "All writing" would definitely include ciphers. _comprehend languages_ would only help you understand what you were reading if the text were deciphered; if the text is ciphered, it will show you nothing. Eyes of the Rune Keeper would let you read it clearly, though, because it is still writing.

Eyes of the Rune Keeper will not help you with coded language, however, nor with literary allusions whose cultural context you don't get. A letter comparing two people to Romeo and Juliet vs. one comparing two people to Jekyll and Hyde is implying very different things! But if you don't know those references,  Eyes of the Rune Keeper won't give you the background information to make sense of them. "Darmok and Jillad, at Tenagra," and all that.

Similarly, a coded message that reads, "Dinner for two at dusk," won't have the Eyes tell you that that's a code for how many bodies the assassin who left the note needs cleaned up, nor that "dusk" is the code for "the bodies are in the closet."

----------


## Bobthewizard

Eyes of the Rune Keeper gives you the ability to read all writing, not to see invisible writing. I would allow it to reveal writing hidden in artwork, but not all writing, everywhere. RAW I think you clearly need to be able to see the writing in order to read it. 

That said, its a very circumstantial ability, so as the DM, if a player took it, I'd let them read invisible writing from illusory script. I'd have it appear just to them.

----------


## Psyren

> A side note on Eyes of the Rune Keeper vs. _comprehend languages_: "All writing" would definitely include ciphers. _comprehend languages_ would only help you understand what you were reading if the text were deciphered; if the text is ciphered, it will show you nothing. Eyes of the Rune Keeper would let you read it clearly, though, because it is still writing.
> 
> Eyes of the Rune Keeper will not help you with coded language, however, nor with literary allusions whose cultural context you don't get. A letter comparing two people to Romeo and Juliet vs. one comparing two people to Jekyll and Hyde is implying very different things! But if you don't know those references,  Eyes of the Rune Keeper won't give you the background information to make sense of them. "Darmok and Jillad, at Tenagra," and all that.
> 
> Similarly, a coded message that reads, "Dinner for two at dusk," won't have the Eyes tell you that that's a code for how many bodies the assassin who left the note needs cleaned up, nor that "dusk" is the code for "the bodies are in the closet."


I would have thought a cipher and coded writing meant the same thing. (Wheel of Time example, Verin's notebook)

----------


## Keltest

> I would have thought a cipher and coded writing meant the same thing. (Wheel of Time example, Verin's notebook)


Coded could mean something like Thieves' Cant where the true message is hidden through context understanding, not literal switching of the words and letters. You can read the words, but without somebody who understands the jargon it just sounds like something ordinary, or even nothing.

----------


## Psyren

> Coded could mean something like Thieves' Cant where the true message is hidden through context understanding, not literal switching of the words and letters. You can read the words, but without somebody who understands the jargon it just sounds like something ordinary, or even nothing.


If that's the case, I don't know that Eyes of the Runekeeper will help with either of these. It says you can read all writing, it doesn't say anything about conferring understanding. "Dinner for two at dusk" would appear exactly as written at my table.

----------


## Unoriginal

> If that's the case, I don't know that Eyes of the Runekeeper will help with either of these. It says you can read all writing, it doesn't say anything about conferring understanding. "Dinner for two at dusk" would appear exactly as written at my table.


I think everyone is in agreement on the idea here. 

A cipher is, for example, you replace a letter with another (ex: "a" is now "c", "b" is now "d", etc) or with a specific sign (ex: the Dancing Men code in Sherlock Holmes). Eyes of the Rune Keeper would let you read that kind of things.

The Invocation doesn't grant any new understanding for code phrases that have a different meaning than the direct one, or as said above things dependent on cultural understanding, however.

----------


## Segev

> If that's the case, I don't know that Eyes of the Runekeeper will help with either of these. It says you can read all writing, it doesn't say anything about conferring understanding. "Dinner for two at dusk" would appear exactly as written at my table.





> I think everyone is in agreement on the idea here. 
> 
> A cipher is, for example, you replace a letter with another (ex: "a" is now "c", "b" is now "d", etc) or with a specific sign (ex: the Dancing Men code in Sherlock Holmes). Eyes of the Rune Keeper would let you read that kind of things.
> 
> The Invocation doesn't grant any new understanding for code phrases that have a different meaning than the direct one, or as said above things dependent on cultural understanding, however.


Right. As an example of a cipher:

Aopz pz, mvy puzahujl, h Jhlzhy jpwoly. P ilsplcl Lflz vm aol Ybul Rllwly zovbsk lhzpsf sla fvb ylhk aopz dpaovba ohcpun av lclu zavw av aopur hivba h kljpwolypun tlaovk.

Pm P avsk fvb aoha aol rhukyh pz dvyrpun vu opz zrlslavu, ovdlcly, lclu pm fvb jvbsk kljpwoly aopz, fvb dvbsk ohcl av ruvd zvtlaopun vm Iyhukvu Zhuklyzvu'z Tpzaivyu zlyplz av ruvd lehjasf doha aoha tlhua. Hz fvb zhpk, Lflz vm aol Ybul Rllwly kv uva jvucly buklyzahukpun.

That is a Caesar cipher, for those who don't want to painstakingly decipher it. It would be plainly readable to somebody with Eyes of the Rune Keeper.

----------


## Psyren

> Right. As an example of a cipher:
> 
> Aopz pz, mvy puzahujl, h Jhlzhy jpwoly. P ilsplcl Lflz vm aol Ybul Rllwly zovbsk lhzpsf sla fvb ylhk aopz dpaovba ohcpun av lclu zavw av aopur hivba h kljpwolypun tlaovk.
> 
> Pm P avsk fvb aoha aol rhukyh pz dvyrpun vu opz zrlslavu, ovdlcly, lclu pm fvb jvbsk kljpwoly aopz, fvb dvbsk ohcl av ruvd zvtlaopun vm Iyhukvu Zhuklyzvu'z Tpzaivyu zlyplz av ruvd lehjasf doha aoha tlhua. Hz fvb zhpk, Lflz vm aol Ybul Rllwly kv uva jvucly buklyzahukpun.
> 
> That is a Caesar cipher, for those who don't want to painstakingly decipher it. It would be plainly readable to somebody with Eyes of the Rune Keeper.


Sounds to me that anyone in a D&D world shouldn't rely on simple character substitution to hide anything that needs to be hidden then, they should be using coded language on top of that.

----------


## diplomancer

> They let you read all writing.
> 
> Would they reveal invisible writing without a _see invisibility_ spell? What about writing hidden as part of artwork or the like? 
> 
> Would they defeat _illusory script_?
> 
> I don't think they would let you read writing actually concealed by an obstruction. No reading a book without opening it or the like. But what about damaged writing; would it be clear to the bearer of the Eyes?


Forget invisible writing! I can read Volo's, Mordenkainen's, etc. Canonically, all those books were written by someone in D&D's multiverse, so I can just pull up the book when I'm facing those monsters. Too bad it does not apply to the Monster's Manual... 😎

----------


## Unoriginal

> Sounds to me that anyone in a D&D world shouldn't rely on simple character substitution to hide anything that needs to be hidden then, they should be using coded language on top of that.


I mean ciphers are known to be readable by anyone who figures out the trick anyway, but I don't think that one specific power one specific class can get (or people with one specific feat) would just makes people stop thinking that it is enough protection.

Both the Knock spell and supremely competent lockpickers exist in the DnD world, and people still use locks.

Both Heat Metal and Rust Monsters exist in the DnD world, and people still use metal armor. 

Etc.

----------


## Kane0

If you cant see it, you cant read it. Luckily warlocks have many invocations that enhance their eyesight.

----------


## Segev

> If you cant see it, you cant read it. Luckily warlocks have many invocations that enhance their eyesight.


On that note, I have always found Eldritch Sight underwhelming. The fact you spend an entire Invocation to get a(n admittedly-useful) utility spell at will, but that spell is a ritual that you're only unable to do at will for the price of a spell because warlocks aren't ritual casters (so other full casters are almost as good at it as you are), has always felt like too high a price, when Devil's Sight is Superior Darkvision+. 

Usually, I would agree with suggestions that Eldritch Sight should just make you have _detect magic_ up all the time, no concentration required, but would it be broken if, instead,  it just let you cast _detect magic_ at will (as the official version does), but ALSO let you cast _see invisibility_ at will?

No special rules on either spell other than the lack of need for a spell slot for either.

----------


## diplomancer

> On that note, I have always found Eldritch Sight underwhelming. The fact you spend an entire Invocation to get a(n admittedly-useful) utility spell at will, but that spell is a ritual that you're only unable to do at will for the price of a spell because warlocks aren't ritual casters (so other full casters are almost as good at it as you are), has always felt like too high a price, when Devil's Sight is Superior Darkvision+. 
> 
> Usually, I would agree with suggestions that Eldritch Sight should just make you have _detect magic_ up all the time, no concentration required, but would it be broken if, instead,  it just let you cast _detect magic_ at will (as the official version does), but ALSO let you cast _see invisibility_ at will?
> 
> No special rules on either spell other than the lack of need for a spell slot for either.


The concentration part is also specially hard on Warlocks; having so few slots, being able to cast a long duration spell and keep concentration on it is specially effective.

----------


## Keravath

> On that note, I have always found Eldritch Sight underwhelming. The fact you spend an entire Invocation to get a(n admittedly-useful) utility spell at will, but that spell is a ritual that you're only unable to do at will for the price of a spell because warlocks aren't ritual casters (so other full casters are almost as good at it as you are), has always felt like too high a price, when Devil's Sight is Superior Darkvision+. 
> 
> Usually, I would agree with suggestions that Eldritch Sight should just make you have _detect magic_ up all the time, no concentration required, but would it be broken if, instead,  it just let you cast _detect magic_ at will (as the official version does), but ALSO let you cast _see invisibility_ at will?
> 
> No special rules on either spell other than the lack of need for a spell slot for either.


I don't think it would break anything and it would be a decent upgrade to the invocation that most ritual casters can effectively obtain with a 10 minute delay in casting. So if you want to try it out in your game feel free :)

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> RAW, the invocation technically gives you the ability to cast Detect Magic at will and that is all.
> 
> "You can cast detect magic at will, without expending a spell slot."
> 
> It still takes an action to cast and still requires V,S components. I would have rather had it written that the character with the invocation always has the effect of the detect magic spell on them, but it doesn't.


 Doesn't Detect Magic require concentration to keep active for the ten minutes?  
*Spoiler: Yes. Yes it does.* 
Show

Detect Magic
1st-level divination (ritual)   
Casting Time: 1 action Range: Self Components: V, S   
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes




> As for Eyes of the Runekeeper, as others have said, it lets you read all writing. I interpret that to mean all writing you can see or perceive.


 Yep. 



> Or alternatively, since they can read ALL writing, the illusory script would be insufficient to block the invocation and they would see right through it to the actual writing since they CAN read ALL writing. DM call.


 I go for "reads all writing" so illusory script doesn't work versus that invocation. (Specific over general application).  


> If you cant see it, you cant read it. Luckily warlocks have many invocations that enhance their eyesight.


 +1.

----------


## Segev

> Doesn't Detect Magic require concentration to keep active for the ten minutes?


That is one of the issues with both Eldritch Sight and Drow High Magic: yes, you can cast _detect magic_ at will, but since it still requires concentration, you have to drop any other long-term effects you're keeping up that require it to cast it, so it's not actually, truly "at will." It's still at a potentially-high cost.





> I go for "reads all writing" so illusory script doesn't work versus that invocation. (Specific over general application).


I certainly see the reasoning, here, though I think the justification for the "no, _illusory script_ blocks it" take is that the illusion is literally covering the writing. So you can't see the hidden writing. I'm not sure that's how _illusory script_ works, myself, but if it is, I see the reasoning there.

----------


## Keltest

> That is one of the issues with both Eldritch Sight and Drow High Magic: yes, you can cast _detect magic_ at will, but since it still requires concentration, you have to drop any other long-term effects you're keeping up that require it to cast it, so it's not actually, truly "at will." It's still at a potentially-high cost.


Out of curiosity, how many concentration spells are there that actually last, say, an hour or more? Or even more than 30 minutes? Most of the ones I can think of off hand only last for about 10 minutes.

----------


## Segev

> Out of curiosity, how many concentration spells are there that actually last, say, an hour or more? Or even more than 30 minutes? Most of the ones I can think of off hand only last for about 10 minutes.


The one that comes up most often for me is _pass without trace_.

_Suggestion_ is a big deal - 8 hours, concentration, and if you need to keep that going for a plan to work, you're stuck without _detect magic_ that whole time. Or any ritual spells at all, while we're at this, but not having to cast _detect magic_ as a ritual doesn't help you with _suggestion_ and _detect magic_ at once, either.

_Spider climb_ is great for exploring (lasts an hour), but you have to drop it to check to see if anything is magical while you explore. _Fly_ may not be an hour, but if you fly in and want to check something for magic, you need a second _fly_ spell to get out, even if the duration would normally be fine.

_Mislead_ also lasts an hour, though I acknowledge it's probably less of a big deal to have to drop it if you're in a place to _detect magic_.

If you have _infernal calling_ or _conjure elemental_ or the like up so you can take an extra combatant/bodyguard/whatever into the dungeon, you now also can't cast _detect magic_ without having them turn on you.

----------


## Psyren

Nearly every summon in the game is Concentration up to 1 hour.

----------


## Unoriginal

> That is one of the issues with both Eldritch Sight and Drow High Magic: yes, you can cast _detect magic_ at will, but since it still requires concentration, you have to drop any other long-term effects you're keeping up that require it to cast it, so it's not actually, truly "at will." It's still at a potentially-high cost.


I see it as a feature, personally.

----------


## Segev

> I see it as a feature, personally.


You find _detect magic_ to be that big of a problem?

----------


## Unoriginal

> You find _detect magic_ to be that big of a problem?


I don't. I very much like it the way it is.

----------


## Segev

> I don't. I very much like it the way it is.


Yoy miss the point of my question: you find the ability Detect Magic grants to be so powerful and threatening that it must not be usable while other big buffs are going? Even if it cost a feat or an Invocation to get it?

----------


## Keltest

> Yoy miss the point of my question: you find the ability Detect Magic grants to be so powerful and threatening that it must not be usable while other big buffs are going? Even if it cost a feat or an Invocation to get it?


Eh. I can see some value in opportunity cost of exploring vs going full combat.

----------


## Psyren

> Yoy miss the point of my question: you find the ability Detect Magic grants to be so powerful and threatening that it must not be usable while other big buffs are going? Even if it cost a feat or an Invocation to get it?


I don't have a dog in this fight but just wanted to point out, it doesn't have to be "powerful  and threatening" for the concentration limitation to be meaningful/make sense. Requiring concentration for example encourages multiple people in your party to want it, possibly even picking up Ritual Caster to get it on those characters that don't get it natively, which rewards teamwork.

----------


## Segev

> I don't have a dog in this fight but just wanted to point out, it doesn't have to be "powerful  and threatening" for the concentration limitation to be meaningful/make sense. Requiring concentration for example encourages multiple people in your party to want it, possibly even picking up Ritual Caster to get it on those characters that don't get it natively, which rewards teamwork.


Sure, but makes the "you can do this at will" invocation and feat less valuable, especially to the warlock, who is the one most likely to want the long-duration summon on hand.

----------


## Keltest

> Sure, but makes the "you can do this at will" invocation and feat less valuable, especially to the warlock, who is the one most likely to want the long-duration summon on hand.


Depends on the warlock. Ive seen plenty of them that dont summon anything at all.

----------


## Psyren

> Sure, but makes the "you can do this at will" invocation and feat less valuable, especially to the warlock, who is the one most likely to want the long-duration summon on hand.


I don't disagree with the drawbacks you cite, but the invocation still gives them an advantage, i.e. they can turn it on at a moment's notice when needed without burning a spell slot (which are even more valuable for the warlock) or without taking 10 minutes to cast it like another class would. And keep in mind that Warlocks are not ritual casters natively in 5e either, they need a specific pact boon or a feat to get that privilege, both of which this invocation saves you.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Yoy miss the point of my question: you find the ability Detect Magic grants to be so powerful and threatening that it must not be usable while other big buffs are going? Even if it cost a feat or an Invocation to get it?


It's not a question of it being threatening, but it's an effect I consider useful and significant enough that being able to spam it without consequence would singularly diminish the impact of using it successfully.

----------

