Silence only allows a save and/or SR when it is specifically targeted at a creature. This is why Silence is usually targeted on a point in space nearby an enemy spellcaster, as the caster's Will bonus probably gives it a good chance of negating the Silence.
I have always played that the silence affects all in the radius with no save if the target has no save; ie a plain rock; but now that I think about it, this is just plain silly. This could be abused to no end and make this minor spell way overpowered. Granted a move action could probably get the caster out of the area depending on the situation, but I am thinking a fairly low level caster, like 5th level, could really inhibit a very high level caster, like 15th level, very easily with this spell on a rock trick. There is no counterspell or such and you would have to leave the area to dispel without a no verbal feat. I am going to have to give this some thought as I believe a 15th level caster should be able to use his magic muscle to get a chance of overcoming such a low level effect by a low level caster. I do not believe that the intention of this spell is to be have that great an effect. This could get crazy; arrows with silence on them; hit a caster; he is screwed; summoned or charmed things holding rocks with silence to just go stand over by their caster a bit; heck, stealth and stay behind them; just stay close. Bolas and nets of silence, this could soon get out of hand, rocks telekinesised by the caster; there is no end in sight.
I am thinking anyone should get a save from any spell effect when he enters the area of the effect and it shouldnt make any difference if you target a rock or the person as the effect is still trying to overcome the target. Be very wary of thing that don't allow savings throws. The game has built in saving throws for a purpose and you should get to use them. I am going to have to give this some more intense thought and do some research.
Not everything in the game is built on saves. If Silence had a bigger radius, I would agree with you that it's too powerful. But like you said, it takes a mere move action to leave the spell's area. This makes Silence one of those spells that must be used creatively, instead of just another 'blow-it-up' spell. Silencing a hedged-in caster, silencing an ally with a held action against an enemy caster and such are all perfectly balanced applications of Silence. Also keep in mind that Silence can only be used by clerics and bards, spellcasters that are supposed to be more creative than your basic save-dependant evoker. Also, if Silence always allows a save, how many spellcasters would ever take the Silent Spell feat? It's already one of the less popular ones; with every caster knowing that he gets a will save against Silence, Silent Spell would never be bothered with again. There are a lot of things in the game that aren't quite right, but Silence isn't one of them.
|
I used to be involved in the Wizards Character Optimization Arena, and the silence spell was thoroughly abused as an automatic counterspell. Imagine a mounted cleric readying an action to cast Silence in response to any of a mage's spells, continuing this trend till they were in melee and the wizard got thwomped...
Yea, I now run silence as hindering the detection of sound, not its passage, as this is an illusion, not transmutation like control sound. A save is incurred for all individuals within the area, with failure resulting them in being treated as deafened (20% miscast), while any individuals outside the area must make saves to hear sounds created within the spell's radius- it effectively forces everyone to make a save to detect the sounds in its area, and I kept it's protection vs. the blasphemy spell and its ilk, since that seemed to be a critical defensive measure.
People get way too uptight over Silence. Its a great spell and its part of the game. If it becomes too big of a problem, there is of course the silent spell metamagic ability.
As some other posters have noted, Silence has a limited radius, so its pretty easy for the spellcaster to just move out of the spell's radius.
I threw a cleric lich at my players once, in a relatively small crypt that opened into a larger temple, and I was worried that he would devestate them with his spells. The cleric silenced him on the first round, and they hedged him in so he couldn't retreat and wait it out.
As is was, he still put up a good fight with his paralysis touch and his unholy mace, but the player's used good tactics to attack him, so why penalize them?
Of course, they never found his phylactery, so the next time they run into him, a few silenced spells may indeed be in order, just to show he learned from the encounter.
This sort of thing is exactly what I am thinking about; there is no friggin way that anyone should overcome an arcane nightmare like a lich with a piddly silence spell. In his history a lich should have had countless magical duels and shouldnt have to learn this lesson so late in his monstrous career. There has to be a way to overcome this supposedly minor spell effect without resorting to buying a feat; items could help, but can you imagine the powerlevel and time spent, not to mention xps, of someone who had to set up an item to specifically counterspell a silence spell. Just because you MAY be able to move out of the area; with clever players or a gm using it on players; you certainly will not be able to move out of the area. This spell should be on the order of a 4th level spell or higher. Still giving it some thought be am liking this spell less and less. I could literaly kill my entire 18th level party with this spell and a couple good melee types and it wouldnt even be a challenge using mobs lower in CR than my group. I dont run screw you encounters so I dont do this sort of thing. If my pcs start doing this, I guess I will have to pull out the gm screw the players stuff like gold bugs and book worms and the like - am being sarcastic; I dont believe in that sort of low brow playing. Guess I am just lucky my players have respect for the game and don't do this sort of thing. Am just thinking this spell is can be very munchkin. No need for rules if no one abuses.
So not using a spell the way it was intended is abusing the rules?
The party monk almost died trying to keep the lich grappled, and the druid used a staff two handed and swung with all his might to disarm the lich of his unholy mace.
The party cleric had to do most of the damage, so the druid was the "stabilizer" for anyone that was out of the fight, since the monk was busy grappling.
The lich was a skelatal undead with armor and a mace in an ancient temple . . . it could have been just about anything skelatal, but the cleric had guessed that it might have been a lich because he had been paying attention to the various chambers of the temple and what they were used for.
On top of this, it was a cleric lich that was 11th level, who had essentially been dominating bedine nomads that were outcast from their tribes into serving him, and had switched gods from Jergal to Cyric after spending centuries not actively worshipping Jergal for abandoning him.
I really didn't want to "DM Screw" the players for reading the clues right and taking a few gambles.
The lich in question wasn't suppose to be Larloch, Aumvor, or even Szas Tam . . .
Ah well . . . that's just how I see it. As I said, its not even the last word since he is still out there. I think it would be a good object lesson to run into him again and have him foil their silence attempts this time.
Sometimes the players should get to use powers like this, or else they don't really mean anything. Once in a while, things should work the way they are meant to work. I know when I was playing an Mystic Theurge in a friends campaign, I was VERY frustrated when were fought two flesh golems in a wild magic zone, as I couldn't reliably buff, or heal, or even have a chance to harm the enemy.
|
|
Knight, you are correct to a point, but what if your NPC had been "simply" a 13th level cleric? No paralyzing touch, no immunities, no damage reduction, just a man in armor equipped with 13 HD of unneeded undead-rebuking, and little else, thanks to a 2nd level spell?
I agree, unconventional methods are wonderful, but I've heard of mage-hunting parties loading up with multiple silence spells and casting them on allies, arrows, animal companions, you name it. I think it's a shame Silent Spell's main purpose is to allow someone to avoid the DC 10 Listen check that casting incurs (though this becomes a factor in an invisible caster remaiing undetected) and little else, but this feat's weakness should not justify the "caster-killer" that silence can become.
For my part, it was not the strength of the spell that caused me to alter its function, but the fact that it is a glamer. As a recent article on the D&D Wizard's page notes, a glamer is an illusion that can be used to mask an object or sound, not eliminate its presence. After all, an invisible chaarcter is still wholey physical, and their blade can still pierce you even though you can't see it.
In the same way, silence masks the travel of sound in the target area, but that doesn't really prevent the sound from being made- just heard. Sure, a caster affected by silence is going to be treated as deafened and that can interfere with their abilities, but it doesn't become the spell that cripples casters and makes the Move Silently skill utterly useless. I like the spell, but I'd be more inclined to see control sound gets its proper time in the spotlight, and let this second-level spell maintain its proper position as a minor nuisance and potential stealth tool.
I’d say I have to concur with Knighterrent Jr on this one. The silence spell works just fine and is not overpowered. Take Megagumo’s example of the mounted cleric using a readied action to cast silence near a wizard casting a spell, while he’s charging in for the kill. Any wizard worth his salt could overcome this easily. First of all, unless I’m incorrect, a readied action occurs just before the action of the person you are readying an action against. Therefore, the wizard with a simple Spellcraft check would realize the cleric had cast silence near him, and on his turn would be able to move 20’ and cast a spell unhindered. If the cleric is mounted, then the battle is occurring in an open area with lots of room to roam and it would be easy leave the area of effect of the spell. Even if by some means the cleric were to reach the wizard, if we assume the wizard was able to move out of the area of the silence spell, the cleric choosing to thump the wizard would no longer be able to ready an action (because he’s attacking). If the wizard survives the one attack, a concentration check on his turn allows him to cast on the defenseive, and a simple 2nd level spell such as invisibility allows him to disappear an move out of the clerics range, and on the next turn he can blast him. Doesn’t seem to powerful a spell in that instance….
I’ve also found the silence spell to be a double edges sword in tight quarters. A few weeks ago, we encountered an undead spell caster underground and my cleric, Whaylen, cast silence near the caster, rendering him ineffective. “Great” I thought, “Now I can just walk in and thump him.” An unfortunate side effect was that I cancelled out the bards use of his song, as he was standing in the silenced area (granted it still lasted for 5 more rounds). Furthermore, the caster had a tank in front of him who was going toe to toe with our tank. Wham, wham, wham, down went our tank, unconscious. Opps, I cant go revive him because the area is silenced! Okay, I can dismiss it, but then the caster can attack again on his turn. Furthermore, if you get a caster in such a tight quarter that he can’t leave the area of a silence spell, he’s not going to last to long against a tank or two anyway; he’s already beaten
I take your point, but I will also note this as well . . . the lich was prone to wandering its abandoned temple alone, since all that ever came there were magic fearing Bedine nomads. It wasn't really primed for a spellcaster to visit it. I doubt I would have a single 13th level cleric of Cyric sitting in a crypt by himself with no minions or means of escape, but it made sense for a lich that has been sitting in the desert since Netheril fell, wondering if he should keep worshipping Jergal, until he finally converted to worshipping Cyric. In other words, it was an in character moment.
I know what you are saying about PCs that are optimized for mage killing, and I'm not saying that if it is a problem in the campaign that the PCs should not have some abused abilities tweaked. I guess for me if falls into the same category as the recent "controversy" at WOTC's site over polymorph. I've never really had a player abuse the spells before, so I never knew it was such a problem.
Anyhow, if the players are optimized for mage-killing, presumably they've left weaknesses for other types of enemies to exploit. Unless they took improved munchkinly invincibility feat from the latest WotC supplement, anyhow! ;)
And if my PCs start to abuse the tactic too much, they're liable to find NPC casters frequently armed with metamagic rods of silent spell, or the feat. Predictability makes it easy to counter their tactics. But in the case mentioned by Knight Errant Jr., it sounds to me like the PCs earned their victory.
I am beginning to wonder what the arch villians in your world are; an 11th level lich is unheard of to me; guess I am too old school where they were minimum 18th level mages. As M pointed out; it is a glamer; why would undead that are not affectect by illusions be affected? Is there still a spell, silence 15' radius?; it was the higher level version in the old game. I have no problem with peeps using spells creatively, but am just thinking that this low level spell should not be the end all of spell combat; if it is; it is to low level. I noticed that you guys havent considered it; are you really comfortable as a player with a spell affecting you that you dont get a save for? What is fair for pc's is fair for the monsters. That is the abuse I am talking about, specifically, if a spell affects you and is not harmless, you should get a save; that is why you have saves, it shows that magic effects are not unfallible.
From the SRD:
Each lich must make its own phylactery, which requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The character must be able to cast spells and have a caster level of 11th or higher. The phylactery costs 120,000 gp and 4,800 XP to create and has a caster level equal to that of its creator at the time of creation.
Liches have always started out, from 1st edition, being able to be 11th level+. Most long term NPC liches that get the limelight (Larloch, Szass Tam, Alokkair, Aumvor, Azalin in Ravenloft, Vecna before he was a god) are higher level than that, but its no stranger than Strahd Von Zarovich being a 16th level necromancer and not being representitive of what level most vampires are.
The archvillain in that particular adventure wasn't the lich, it was a Shadovar diplomat, who would not have been foiled by that particular tactic. I don't want to sidetrack this too much, but you seem to think that because they ran into a lich, I should have killed them off or let the lich keep casting spells regardless of the tactics that they used.
This same group, when attacked by Grodd Goblins in the Stonelands of Cormyr manged to get trapped in a net of shadows, reduced, and cursed by a goblin spellcaster, so they didn't run roughtshod over spellcasters, trust me.
|
|
Hmm, with regards to readying an action, the PHB notes that you can ready an attack against an opponent casting a spell, and that these actions can disrupt the spell if they connect and deal enough damage to cause a failed Concentration check. Thus, the wizard doesn't get to choose to stop casting his spell as the silence envelops him. It's identical to using a bow to disrupt spellcasting, in essence, but current thoughts model silence as an automatic success.
Undead are only immune to mind-affecting spells, like phantasms, but can still be fooled by figments and glamers- such things are actually very good against the mindless undead.
I am not suggesting your lich should have killed them off; I was just wondering about the scale of your adventures; having the lich at that low level and encountered more or less alone and not able to call his undead forces to bear just made me wonder what your more powerful villains would be and how you would use them, but perhaps that would be a good topic for another thread. Actually I think this archvillain thread already exists and it seems the end opponent in many peoples worlds are outsiders like demons, devils and godlings. It also makes me wonder the escalating scale of accomplishment that all players and gms face.
My only point for this whole discussion is that this spell if cast directly on you gives you a save; therefore, if you enter into the area affect of this spell, you should still get a chance to save. To do otherwise is to munchkin this spell.
Absolutely. Ray of Enfeeblement allows no save, and I would hardly call it harmless. Likewise, all of the core Power Words disallow saving throws. Scorching Ray, a potentially devastating spell in single combat, falls into the same camp, as does the higher level Polar Ray. Holy Word and its equivalents, too -- and they have the potential to kill lower level creatures outright. Heck, even more annoying than getting killed, Geas allows no save.
Heck, there's a damaging spell in Heroes of Battle whose name currently escapes me, but it does acid damage to an area with no save or spell resistance allowed.
Saving Throws are an important part of the game, but while magic effects aren't infallible, you have to remember the counterpoint to that argument: sometimes things happen, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Those example are logical errors in arguementation; you cannot shoot a ray of enfeeblement at a rock near someone and have it affect them or a scorching ray. Those are specific spells that give no save as part of the game mechanic not, as in the case with a silent spell area; a probable oversight that takes the spell beyond its planned parameters. As in most cases; we who gm will just call it in our games as we see it; my players see both sides and dont care one way or the other.
Those example are logical errors in arguementation; you cannot shoot a ray of enfeeblement at a rock near someone and have it affect them or a scorching ray.
Huh. Could've fooled me. I would've sworn their was no incongruity in associating spells which deny saving throws.
Obviously, as you said, you can't shoot a ray at a rock near someone and affect them, but why would you want to? All that is, really, is flavor. Frankly, a Silence spell centered on a rock is, for the majority of the game, significantly weaker than Scorching Ray (another second level spell). Certainly, a clever group of players can (on occasion) corner a spellcaster and use silence to beat the tar out of him while keeping him from casting spells. Or they can have their spellcaster cast Scorching Ray and, assuming average damage and average HP, knock the other guy into negative HP. A third level Scorching Ray should deal 14 damage, enough to knock out the typical fifth level NPC Wizard with no save allowed. By the time the PC gets his second ray (7th level), that bumps his average damage output (assuming that he hits with both) to 28, easily enough to drop the average 11th level Wizard. Granted, a touch attack or two is required, but the fighter trying to attack the Silenced Wizard in melee has to make attack rolls anyway. (And if your PC is worried about it, he can almost guarantee that the first ray at least will hit by casting True Strike)
Those are specific spells that give no save as part of the game mechanic not, as in the case with a silent spell area; a probable oversight that takes the spell beyond its planned parameters.
Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object. 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...
Sounds to me like the writers meant exactly what they said: that a creature unwilling to be the point of origin for the zone of silence can try and shake it off, but that a creature merely passing into one is affected normally. In other words, a spellcaster can alter the environment without hindrance, but can't necessarily tie that effect to an individual.
Of course, as you said, we'll call it as we see it, but realistically, Silence is on the bottom of my list of No Save spells to worry about.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Those are specific spells that give no save as part of the game mechanic not, as in the case with a silent spell area; a probable oversight that takes the spell beyond its planned parameters.Sounds to me like the writers meant exactly what they said: that a creature unwilling to be the point of origin for the zone of silence can try and shake it off, but that a creature merely passing into one is affected normally. In other words, a spellcaster can alter the environment without hindrance, but can't necessarily tie that effect to an individual.SRD wrote:
Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object. 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...
The no save/area of effect feature of silence has been around (and used in this manner) since at least 2e, so I agree with White Toy that it is not an oversight or a case of a spell being taken beyond its original planned parameters. Plus, silence is a staple spell. If the lack of a save was an error, it could have been corrected in 3.5 or any of the subsequent errata.
Personally, I don't think allowing a save against a non-targeted silence would make sense from any game viewpoint other than pure mechanics. I mean, sure, some epic characters should be able to ignore stuff like this, but it just wouldn't make sense for ordinary (or even most extraordinary) folks to do so.
My 2cp,
TK
Also: White Toy? At least call him Toymaker... sheesh. ;-P
Well, there you go Menefist; some points for you to consider, hope that was what you were looking for. **puts away his bad guy efreeti advocate hat and smirks off to other discussions :)**
|
There are spells like this against pretty much each class, silence just happens to focus on your spellcasters. There are reasons that there are so many ways to disrupt a spell, over the short term they can have the most devistating effects on a party.
But just to bring up points of balance I don't see the ability to silence an area any more unbalancing then spells that affect others. For instance if you are fighting a ranged fighter throwing up an entropic shield or protection from arrows renders all those feats they took useless. Want to slow down a thief? Hit them with glitterdust and tuck yourself in a corner. Sure they can save vs blindness but they still take a -40(-40!!!!) on hide checks. Fighters have their share of weaknesses too, in a cavern of any size spider climbing to the ceiling and raining a few magic missiles down upon them is going to take out any low level warrior, and that is ignoring their likely abyssmal will saves(You've got to love Tasha's Hideous Laughter).
It really ends up amounting to what it always does with spell casters, and that is how prepared they are for the current threat. Silence is a great spell against other casters and should be treated as one because it comes with all the drawbacks of being pretty worthless against noncasters.
|
|
I actually just had one other note I wanted to add to that. I always thought this spell was great for rogues for obvious reasons, being able to take the move silently check out of the mix is a wonderful thing.
My question is this:
If you feel that if silence is cast on someone(in this case the rogue) and others in the area get to make a check against it, wouldn't that remove even this obvious use of the spell since the rogue is much more likely to have a good move silently then the enemies are likely to fail a save vs a low level spell?
Hasn't it always been that if you dont want to resist a spell you do not have too and it automatically affects you; this used to be a rule but not sure if it still is. All I can suggest is that you try my first post of having lots of silence items and see how it affects the game; you will be able to destroy casters way above your level. This is much like who psionics in 1st ed had lots of problem; you could as a 1st level guy; psionic blast a hill giant and kill him; your first; he is 11 HD. I just happen to think that kind of thing; even if creative and judgemental is unbalanced. All I can suggest is that you try it out; I do find it true that this spell is so used so very little as most peeps prefer outright damaging or healing things; but if used and used intelligently; this spell can change the complete face or your game and game balance. All I am suggesting in this post is that you try it out; run some simulations with silent arrows; dagger; and rocks using familiars and pets and whatnot as suggested above., it is not overtly obvious until you do that. I think you will draw the same conclusion as I.
Interesting debate. Honestly, I've never had a problem with the silence spell over the course of my 25 years of DMing, but if I did then I think Magagumo's idea of treating those in the area as being deafened would be a balanced solution to abusive players (or DMs). Admittedly the rules clearly state the effects of the spell, and for most cases it shouldn't be necessary to change the given rules, but D&D has a long tradition of house rules that individual DMs have adopted to solve problems unique to their games (or players). Just remember, any rule that can be and is consistently applied equally to all participants is a fair rule.
|
|
Silence works just fine the way it is. While sound cannot enter or leave the area of a silence spell, it doesn't block sound from passing around it. So, it is really only in confined quarters that this spell is truly effective. Otherwise anyone can simply move out of the area.
To get the most use of this spell, it works best to cast it on a target. The target, if they fail the save, cannot leave the area of effect.
If they pass the save, the spell fails utterly, wasting the spell slot for the caster.
If the caster targets an object, they avoid the saving throw aspect, but someone must keep it in close proximity to the target. If you cast it on a stone you can lob it in your enemy's direction, but they can leave the area of effect without much difficulty in most cases.
It doesn't work well on ammunitition. If you cast it on an arrow, and the arrow strikes its target, the arrow is destroyed (thus ending the spell effect on it). Shooting an arrow near the caster still suffers a 50% chance of the item being destroyed.
While Silence is often an effective tactic, it is not undefeatable. While most spells include verbal components, not all do. A caster should consider whether they'll have access to all of their spells in various situations they might encounter. Silence isn't the only reason they might not be able to use verbal components. Being underwater also has that effect. Likewise, there are many situations they may not have access to somatic components (like in a grapple) or material components (when stripped of their equipment). This doesn't have to make casters useless.
Feats are their best choice for making sure these are minor inconveniences (Eschew Materials, Still Spell and Silent Spell come to mind, as well as Spell Mastery) but that is quite expensive. Being prepared for every contingency is also difficult for other classes.
Smart spell preparation and planning overcomes most of the advantages of this spell. It is a good spell, but it isn't the best spell in all situations. And while it might be particularly effective against casters, it does very little against most other monsters you might meet.
So, while a good utility spell, I don't consider it overpowered, unbalanced or game breaking.
Silence is an illusion (glamer).
From the SRD ..."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."
and the spell itself ..."Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object) Spell Resistance: Yes; see text or no (object)
"
The conclusion I draw from this is any unwilling creature specifically targeted by silence that makes its save or SR will completely negate the spell. If targeted on an object then the spell is negated only for those that make their save or SR.