Saving throw against Silence

[The Morphling]

If I cast Silence directly on a person, I understand that they get a saving throw.

What if I cast it simply on a point in space adjacent to them? The wording of the spell is unclear - do they get a save just for being near the spell? What if they enter the spell's area after it's been cast?

If they save, what happens?

[SlimGauge]

A creature only gets a save if you cast the silence on them. If you cast it on an item in their possession (such as a bard's musical instrument), that item gets a save. In either of these cases, a save means the spell has no effect (and the target knows that they resisted something). Simply being in the area of effect of a silence spell cast on an unattended object or a point in space does not allow a creature a save.

The difference is if you cast on the creature, the creature cannot leave the area of effect because that area moves with them, but if you cast on a point in space, the creature can leave the area of effect (assuming it is capable of movement and there is somewhere outside the AoE to move to).

[Gilfalas]

The Morphling wrote:

If I cast Silence directly on a person, I understand that they get a saving throw.

What if I cast it simply on a point in space adjacent to them? The wording of the spell is unclear - do they get a save just for being near the spell? What if they enter the spell's area after it's been cast?

If they save, what happens?

In the case of Silence, if you cast it on a creature, they get a save and SR check as appropriate. If you don't (say you target a point in space or on the ground) then the spell automatically works in that area.

If a creature enters a silenced area, they are in an area of silence and must suffer the consequences of that. But they can simply move out, if they can logic the area of effect, unlike if the spell was targeted on them and they failed. In that case the spell would move with them and they could not simply leave the AOE.

Edit: I am too slow.

[Deylinarr]

so if you cast it on an arrow and then shoot your target in the chest....?

no save, damage, and a need to take some kind of action to remove the arrow, right?

[Jiggy]

Deylinarr wrote:

so if you cast it on an arrow and then shoot your target in the chest....?

no save, damage, and a need to take some kind of action to remove the arrow, right?

A few things:

First, what if you miss?

Second, how do you know that a hit embeds in the target rather than shredding through their arm and out the other side?

Third, ammunition is destroyed when it hits, likely meaning either (A) the target of silence no longer exists, or at least (B) there's nothing left to pull out, and whatever fragment carries the effect is now on the floor.

[Are]

The arrow will break if it hits, so no action will be required to remove it.

[Edit: Jiggy said it better :)]

[Ravingdork]

Better to cast it on your fighter friend and have him go after the enemy spellcaster, or take it with you on a mobile item which you keep close to the would-be victim of silence.

[Tinalles]

Okay, so ammunition is destroyed on a hit per RAW. The relevant passage is:

Quote:

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

And that's as far as I'm inclined to go with RAW. From here on in, the post is nothing but how I would run it in MY game. YMMV.

To use the silenced arrow trick, specify that you're casting silence on the arrowhead, not the arrow as a whole.

The arrowhead is made of a much more durable material than the shaft, generally metal. Even if the arrow as a whole ceases to be an arrow, and is no longer usable as ammunition, the arrowhead will still be an arrowhead.

Unless the GM insists that the arrowhead ceases to exist upon impact, I suppose.

If you miss, the arrowhead is still silenced, and should be treated as silence emanating from an object wherever the arrow landed, in which case the GM has to determine where it is and if it's close enough to still factor in the battle.

If the arrow hits the enemy but passes through, then it should be treated exactly as if the arrow missed, only the enemy takes the damage.

If the arrow hits the enemy and embeds in them, then they're just SOL. Since, per RAW, the arrow itself is destroyed, they'll need to excise the arrowhead. I'd make it a heal check with a DC of 10+the damage dealt, and causing bleed 1 after it's out.

Honestly, a silenced arrow is clever, but not especially OP. It's just like casting it on a stone and throwing it at someone, only with a bit more range and damage.

[fretgod99]

Ravingdork wrote:

Better to cast it on your fighter friend and have him go after the enemy spellcaster, or take it with you on a mobile item which you keep close to the would-be victim of silence.

You could be a deaf Oracle, cast it on yourself, and then Grace your way next to the enemy spellcaster. That can be pretty effective, too.

[kinevon]

For the arrow, just buy Durable arrows, from the Elves of Golarion book, since they are not destroyed on a hit.

Would Silence be an imbuable spell for an Arcane Archer?

[Tinalles]

Sure. It's an area spell, and imbue arrow works with area spells. A bard with 2 levels of Arcane Archer could do that easily.

[David knott 242]

Ravingdork wrote:

Better to cast it on your fighter friend and have him go after the enemy spellcaster, or take it with you on a mobile item which you keep close to the would-be victim of silence.

Casting Silence on melee happy allies is a tactic I am looking forward to trying out soon. I briefed the rest of the party on that tactic recently, but so far we have not been in a battle where it made sense to do that.

[Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan]

Silenced grappling monks are a caster's worst nightmare!