|
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through some of the forum's old threads on the silence spell, I remain unconvinced that it is a miraculous panacea for one's ills caused by enemy spell casters.
If you need quick refreshing on the spell, link is here.
I have some difficulty believing that a 2nd level spell, cast upon a pebble, will suddenly become doom incarnate when used as a readied action against a spell caster. Why even bother with the pebble, coin, etc, hell, cast it on a tanglefoot bag and then laugh when they can't escape even after making a successful save against the goo (and at half speed to boot).
My major issues are:
A: The spell allows unwilling creatures a saving throw. I don't feel it is a balanced view on this spell to say that casting it at a cleric allows a save, but casting it at a rock near his boot nails him with no save.
B: The spell allows spell resistance. So spell resistance nearly always applies (even against many spells that don't allow saves), but not against this second level spell unless it specifically targets the person, no, I'm not buying it. You want to sneak your party of clanking fighters past the Drow guards, more power to you, but if you come within 20' of one, I expect them to resist that spell (or, if this is overcome, get a save), suddenly hear the massive cacophony of noise your party is making, and bring every guard within a mile down on your collective heads.
I'm bringing this up again because I don't feel a strong enough argument against the 'no save, no resistance' group has been made regarding this spell, and while I hope for many insightful counter-arguments and concurrences, I'd love to get some sort of closure from a Paizo guru (one way or the other, since I don't use the tactic myself as I consider it cheese but would have that particular hangup off my shoulders were I convinced I was wrong).
|
There are lots of ways for casters to bypass silence:
It's one of those things that's only nasty because it's not used that much, if everyone tossed silence all the time all the above options would be more common on characters and NPCs.
|
|
Let's see, first for Melissa, silence has had some significant changes made to it in Pathfinder, most relevant being it now lasts 1 round per level and takes 1 entire round to cast. Also, I do realize this actually reinforces your argument as these appear to be nerfs to rein in somewhat the negative effects I'm discussing here.
Now for Ogre, while I fully agree with what you say, I don't feel you properly address my primary concern with the spell, which is not the spell's consequences but the method through which one is affected by them, primarily by side-stepping the save/resistance by using an object instead.
Being a glamer effect, one generally would expect a save when interacting with it (a la disguise self, hallucinatory terrain, or veil). I would have written resistance in the previous line as well, but in veil I found a line indicating spell resistance doesn't help with interaction, only if originally targeted by it, so that's one thing down (thanks Melissa for putting me on the right track).
This isn't very clear, though, because blur is also a glamer, but an enemy that attacks you certainly doesn't get a save to cancel your blur effect (of course, blur only allows a harmless save, so different case).
Thus, at the moment I would consider a silenced pebble thrown your way or a silenced monk attempting to put you in a head lock would indicate you are interacting with the glamer, and thus deserving of a saving throw (but not SR).
Relevant rule check:Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
By this token, the DC 10 wisdom check to notice the glamer seems a cute house rule, but wrongly applied as I see the rules as intended.
If silence (or other spells) is cast on an object which is destroyed, many GMs rule that the spell is lost. If darkness was cast on an arrow, the arrow is considered destroyed when it hits: The spell is gone. If silence is cast on a tanglefoot bag, it goes away when the bag hits.
|
Let's see, first for Melissa, silence has had some significant changes made to it in Pathfinder, most relevant being it now lasts 1 round per level and takes 1 entire round to cast. Also, I do realize this actually reinforces your argument as these appear to be nerfs to rein in somewhat the negative effects I'm discussing here.
Now for Ogre, while I fully agree with what you say, I don't feel you properly address my primary concern with the spell, which is not the spell's consequences but the method through which one is affected by them, primarily by side-stepping the save/resistance by using an object instead.
Being a glamer effect, one generally would expect a save when interacting with it (a la disguise self, hallucinatory terrain, or veil). I would have written resistance in the previous line as well, but in veil I found a line indicating spell resistance doesn't help with interaction, only if originally targeted by it, so that's one thing down (thanks Melissa for putting me on the right track).
This isn't very clear, though, because blur is also a glamer, but an enemy that attacks you certainly doesn't get a save to cancel your blur effect (of course, blur only allows a harmless save, so different case).
Thus, at the moment I would consider a silenced pebble thrown your way or a silenced monk attempting to put you in a head lock would indicate you are interacting with the glamer, and thus deserving of a saving throw (but not SR).
Relevant rule check:Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves...
If an NPC had blur up, would you allow the PC's a save vs blur to counter act it?
Same with displacement.
Both of these are also glamer spells.
|
|
Mostly I was addressing this comment:
"I remain unconvinced that it is a miraculous panacea for one's ills caused by enemy spell casters."
Since that seemed to be the root of your concerns.
As for the issues with the spell, it is definitely a little odd. I figure the spell
"Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear."
In spite of the fact that they are illusion, glamers actually make substantive changes to appearances or sounds. This is why undead and constructs are NOT immune to them, they are not mind affecting. Similarly Invisibility does not make people think you are gone, but actually erases all visual evidence you were there, this is why there is also no save to see an invisible creature.
Silence doesn't create the illusion of silence that affects people's minds, it actually deadens the sounds within the area affect.
Verbal components must be audible for there to be an effect so no audible sound, no spell effect. Since the spell isn't affecting the caster, it's affecting the sounds they make there is no SR or save, your sounds are 'unattended objects'.
Ok... I'm not 100% onboard with all of that but that is why it works within the framework of the rules. You can argue that it should be a higher level spell but within the existing rules it is relatively consistent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Alright, some good stuff in the last few replies, so not so good, let's see:
Sir Wulf: Let's not go there in this thread, simply because that whole mess is pure GM fiat (I could easily see a player argue that they cast the silence on the goo inside the bag and thus it would still be in effect).
Happler: Really, I did specifically address blur in my post to indicate the exact point you make, while also indicating that as they only allow a saving throw (harmless), they are in a different category than the glamers I'm addressing here.
Reefwood: Now we're talking. Your first point, dead-on, no argument. Your second, though, harkens back to my issue with this spell, that being that I target the individual, they get save/resistance, but if I target a rock near their toe, they're boned with no save/SR. If they move away, I just toss it after them as a readied action and that's another spell ruined. This does not strike me as how silence was intended to work.
Another way to look at this might be darkness vs. daylight, where when one comes into the area of another, the stationary one doesn't simply reign supreme, but the overlapping area is cancelled out and the otherwise existing state of light would exist (my idea being that someone walking into a silenced area isn't automatically silenced (they get a will save), perhaps similar to someone walking onto a pit trap getting a reflex save and not simply getting hammered).
Ogre: I'm glad you're in on this, good thinking. Now invisibility I'd agree with you on, though I would also point out that's another save (harmless) spell (like blur/displacement) and thus operates differently to how saves here would. I, heh, get the feeling you also think the idea of the spell targeting the sounds someone makes and thus not the caster but their voice (an unattended object) is a bit weak, and I'd agree. I do see where you're going with that line of reasoning, but again I don't feel it properly gives silence the ability to affect someone entering its area of effect without allowing a save.
A good sum up would be that I see silence as an excellent spell, but that maintaining that unwilling creatures brought into its area of effect receive no save vs its effects seems a blatant disregard for rules as intended, especially given this is a second level spell.
|
|
Ogre: I'm glad you're in on this, good thinking. Now invisibility I'd agree with you on, though I would also point out that's another save (harmless) spell (like blur/displacement) and thus operates differently to how saves here would. I, heh, get the feeling you also think the idea of the spell targeting the sounds someone makes and thus not the caster but their voice (an unattended object) is a bit weak, and I'd agree. I do see where you're going with that line of reasoning, but again I don't feel it properly gives silence the ability to affect someone entering its area of effect...
To be honest I'm kind of ambivalent on the spell. It does seem a bit off whack but I also see that it is largely consistent with the game rules as written and you'd already seen my comments on balance.
Hope the caster doesn't pick the pebble up and throw it at you -- or doesn't simply move.
|
|
Silence is a really good spell. If it became a "In the area of the spell, you must make a Fort save every round. If you make this save, you are unaffected by the silence this round" or something along those lines, that would work. I'd take the SR off of that part though, except there's not really a mechanic for that, and I don't think the SR should apply to the AOE part of the silence.
Now this I could deal with as it would bring it somewhat more in line with other spells like hold person, grease, or glitterdust (for the blinding effect). Also, thanks to reading veil closely I'm on board with nixing SR (though I'd likely keep it for creatures specifically targeted by the spell).
I like the example you bring up, though I don't think it provides the best example of just how nasty a no-save silence spell could be, and I want to bring some of those up again just to be clear:
A: Character moves into caster's range carrying a silenced object, readies action to toss it at caster if they move away and then attempt to cast. Caster is no-save screwed, uses a move action to escape, and gets no-save screwed again and probably loses the spell they were trying to cast.
B: Character with silenced object or silenced itself moves into range of caster, and readies move action to follow caster if they attempt to escape. Caster is shut down with no save.
C: Silenced character grapples caster. A grappled caster is generally already in pretty bad shape (though Ogre did earlier point out some good escape options, though some of the better abilities he mentions aren't available till level 8 and silence kicks in at level 3) but a no-save silenced caster is in an impressively pathetic situation.
Again, I don't see this as attempting to nerf silence (a good spell in its own right), but to end what I consider an entirely too broad acceptance of the spell as only allowing unwilling targets that are the primary target a save, when it seems extraordinarily more reasonable to me that this second level spell would allow any unwilling creature a save upon entering, or having forced upon it, the spell's area of effect.
I'm fine with failing a save resulting in being all kinds of screwed, a la hold person, web, glitterdust, etc like other spells at this level, but no-save screwed seems a nefarious dodge of the rules as intended for the silence spell.
|
|
I don't follow how the "darkness vs daylight" spells relate to this situation. I understand how "spell #1a vs spell #1b" cancel each other out in their overlapping area, but "spell #1 vs no spell or special ability"... well, spell #1 wins. It's just like "darkness vs nothing" or "darkness vs torch"... the darkness wins. Creatures don't get a chance to making a Saving Throw or SR against the dark, so why should they be able to do it against the quiet? I know these are different schools of magic, but it is magic and all of it doesn't have to work the same and exceptions are spelled (*pun unintentional*) out in spell descriptions.
--
Therefore, it seems like a Will save or SR can be used to stop the magic from coming into place, but once an area is silenced, it stays silent until it expires, is dispelled, or those in the area have some other means to avoid the magic (i.e. lesser globe of invulnerability). So, a Will save or SR won't let you hear in a location that is already silenced.
Sorry for being vague, I was using the darkness vs. daylight example in response to the above line, my intention being to compare how even though darkness may currently reign in an area, when a same spell level light effects arrives the darkness doesn't win out despite being first. Not a great example, a better one might be made with zone of truth, which just sits in an area, but once a creature enters it immediately gets a save vs. the effects, which is something I see being much more reasonable for how silence should work.
The pebble example doesn't quite cover all the options, though, because sure one can throw it back, but if it is tossed at them as a readied action to interrupt their spell, then under the no-save view that spell is borked and the caster is out a spell and standard action that turn at best. This seems exceedingly unreasonable.
I also don't buy the "just toss it back" line of reasoning because it cherry picks from the list I provided earlier which situations it is reasonable in. Pebble lands at the caster's feet, sure, toss it back, but if a silenced monk comes in to grapple, or a silenced fighter moves nearby and readies an action to follow you if you try to move away, you're toast with no save, and you won't be tossing those two away (unless you are packing a silenced version of the telekinesis spell, which in that situation would be pretty spectacular).
Melissa: I like your example and it sounds like we're on the same page here. I'm not looking for a nerf really, just would like to provide a firm example for people looking this up in the future that silence is excellent, but not so excellent that it is a no-save win spell against a caster. I really like your example with glitterdust, it was OP in 3.5, and the new option for repeat saves for blindness is a nice way to tone it down. In a similar fashion I'm fine with leaving silence as is, as long as it is understood unwilling subjects brought into its area of effect at least receive a saving throw.
Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature. The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. Include any adjustments to your caster level to this caster level check.
The Spell Resistance entry and the descriptive text of a spell description tell you whether spell resistance protects creatures from the spell. In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place.
The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by such spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check.
|
|
Good to see where the basis for what I read in the veil spell comes from, I don't think I ever read closely that line you put in and it's good to know. However, we did nail down the SR part a fair bit earlier in the thread, but being that you're pretty active here do you have any insights to share on the saving throw aspect?
Heres a concept, change the spell so that when cast upon an object, the object is silent, but not the area around it, much as if you cast it on a creature. So now, that pebble can be thrown, and will make no noise, but to silence the caster, it needs to be cast on it, allowing a save, or on a point, letting it move away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to see where the basis for what I read in the veil spell comes from, I don't think I ever read closely that line you put in and it's good to know. However, we did nail down the SR part a fair bit earlier in the thread, but being that you're pretty active here do you have any insights to share on the saving throw aspect?
I gave it some thought earlier and didn't come up with anything (or else I would have posted it).
Even now, all I can offer is a bit of logic: Saving throws are very personal things. They don't effect anything but your character. If you save against a fireball, it means that YOU take half damage (or no damage if you have evasion). The fireball doesn't suddenly not happen for anyone else caught in its area (nor do they take no/half damage) because of YOUR save*.
The same goes for the silence spell. It being cast on the rock has nothing to do with its effects on you. You don't get a save against it because it is not targeting you, the same way that, that fireball tossed at Todd** wasn't targeting you.
* Unless you are a halfling with the Lucky Halfling feat.
** I don't know who "Todd" is. He died a fiery death before I could get to know him. :P
Silence is a really, really, perhaps unfairly good spell -- if you're a party that's relatively un-spellcaster-heavy fighting humanoid spellcastery NPCs that aren't prepared to deal with silence in fairly close quarters.
But that's a lot of 'if's'.
I'm playing in one game in which we're about 2/3 of the way through an AP, with one of the casters in the party always having Silence ready to go since he was high enough level to cast it. We've had one encounter so far that it broke open in a really bad way, and a lot of encounters in which it either wasn't helpful at all or wasn't very relevant.
For a different adventure it might come up a lot more. Food for thought.
|
|
So... why don't players prep this every session?
Because
#1 they don't come against casters in every session
#2 it's so easy to work around unless the situation is perfect.
Essentially it's the perfect spell for some situations but it's hard to predict when you will bump into those situations. So clerics don't prep it on a normal basis. Bards, inquisitors, and oracles don't take it as a known spell since it's so situational.
It's nice as a scroll or as a wand to shut someone down for three rounds (at the cost of one) but considering how few of these I see in play (either PFS or at home) I really don't think it's a big problem.
So... why don't players prep this every session?
Because
#1 they don't come against casters in every session
#2 it's so easy to work around unless the situation is perfect.Essentially it's the perfect spell for some situations but it's hard to predict when you will bump into those situations. So clerics don't prep it on a normal basis. Bards, inquisitors, and oracles don't take it as a known spell since it's so situational.
Hard to predict? You wait until someone casts a spell against you and your party mates. Then you cast silence on the fighter's helmet or the monk's belt and let him grapple the spellcaster to death.
It's nice as a scroll or as a wand to shut someone down for three rounds (at the cost of one)...
I agree with you on this point though, it does make more sense to have it on a scroll than having it prepared all the time.
|
Essentially it's the perfect spell for some situations but it's hard to predict when you will bump into those situations. So clerics don't prep it on a normal basis. Bards, inquisitors, and oracles don't take it as a known spell since it's so situational.
Actually, my cleric does prepare it almost every day. But that may be because we run into enemy casters all the time in our particular campaign.
One of our more memorable combats began with the party rogue and my cleric sneaking out of a building just before our party was going to ambush a bunch of baddies. The rest of the party was all "WTH?" because we didn't tell them of our intentions. While outside, I cast Silence on the rogue, who then proceeded to go in and sneak attack the guards one by one. Since he basically one-hitted the guards, the Silence spell prevented their screams from alerting anyone else. The memorable part was that the enemy sorcerer was hit by some sort of obscurement spell, so she kept running in random directions...right into the area of effect of the Silence spell. It was pretty fortuitous, as the rogue couldn't see her either, so he was actually not trying to keep her silenced.
Oh, and our GM did give the enemies a Perception check (don't know the DC) to figure out that they were being silenced.
|
|
Nice to come back and find some good stuff waiting, let's get right to it:
Ravingdork: I see where you're going with the fireball example, but I disagree with it because you are comparing the effects of a duration instantaneous spell to one with a lasting duration. I would prefer a comparison to web, grease, or zone of truth, because they better align with silence's properties with respect to duration (non-instant) and how creatures entering the affected area after the casting are handled, though in this case all of them allow for a save or check of some sort to negate the negative effect.
Hence my annoyance, because each of the three above are clear on the effects of those entering (especially for zone of truth), but silence is left just vague enough that it is commonly interpreted as a disturbingly potent second level spell. I do appreciate that in Pathfinder it is now 1 round casting time spell, so even if one busts out a scroll or wand of it you can't just auto shut a caster down, but regardless, not allowing a save against silence's effects when one enters the spell's area seems a blatant neglect for the rules as intended for this second level spell (with, you'll recall, a long range (400 feet + 40 per level)).
|
|
Hard to predict? You wait until someone casts a spell against you and your party mates. Then you cast silence on the fighter's helmet or the monk's belt and let him grapple the spellcaster to death.
That isn't predicting, that is responding. You aren't predicting when you are going to encounter a caster, you've already bumped into one.
Predicting is waking up in the morning and knowing you will be fighting a caster in the afternoon so you prepare a silence spell.
I think that this spell does allow a save in any way or form it is introduced. It's really not clearly written and is subject for GM interpretation but I think the intention was to allow an initial save for ALL characters affected by it and that it should only automatically affect unattended objects (no save).
That means - If you cast silence on a pebble and then throw a pebble at the enemy cleric, the cleric should receive a free saving throw to shake away the effects of the spell.
In addition, I think it works the same way if you cast in it on a friendly fighter. When he approaches enemy spellcasters, they receive a save.
The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves.<<<>>> An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any. Items in a creature's possession or magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and points in space do not.
If you center it on an area than there is no sound in that area and no save. Bascially if you cast it on a creature and the save is made the spell goes away. They get save because the spell travels with them. When the spell is centered on a point in space it is easier to get away from, plus how do you save against it. Even if you can make noise your sound still has to escape the silenced area which it can't. The thing to remember is that if it is cast on a point in space or on an unattended object the spell is not making you silent. It cancels all sound in that area.
PRD:Items in a creature's possession or magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and points in space do not.
PRD:no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. <----point in space or unattended object.
Has there been any "official" comment on this?
My answer was official since it quotes the actual rules.
Here is a ruling by Jason Bulmahn.
The only thing that changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder was that the spell does not last as long. If the wording of the spell is the same, then the meaning is the same.
Essentially it's the perfect spell for some situations but it's hard to predict when you will bump into those situations. So clerics don't prep it on a normal basis. Bards, inquisitors, and oracles don't take it as a known spell since it's so situational.
my 4th level N-energy cleric has all of his second level spell slots as slience. it really is that good.