|
That wouldn't help much. According to the rules, an arrow/bolt that hits the target is destroyed, and I'd rule any spell affecting object ending with the objects destruction.your NPCs just need to move...Not always.
My group is found of putting silence on an arrow or bolt.
and even if it didn't the caster could just yank it out and drop it, then move away.
Also that would be a good time for the dude to toss up a wind wall or a prot from arrows.
** slight thread jack ** Protection from arrows is a rather pathetic spell... maybe if the degree of protection it provided increased as caster level increased it would be worthwhile, however with any magical weapon bypassing it the use you get from this spell ends around level 5.
See,
My read is this : The spell stops all sound if it succeeds at being cast. If it's cast on an unattended object, there is no saving throw (see the description above), and thus it works. If you are in the radius, tough luck. However, you can move out of the area. If it is targeted on you then you get a will save against it. If you succeed, then the spell FAILS and it doesn't stop any sound at all, not yours, not your friends. Silence has always been to me an all or nothing spell. The section about your objects in your posession is to keep people from squinking the system by saying 'Oh, I'm not casting it on the wizard, I'm casting it on his belt buckle!'. You can do that, but the item get's your saves or spell resistance, just as if you had been the target of the spell.
I disagree.
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes; see text or no (object)
Saving throw Will negates, see text, that is the important part. The see text. See I get a Will save unless the text says otherwise. Where in the text does it say I do not get a save if caught in the AoE?
Look at the save for Meteor Swarm:
Saving Throw: None or Reflex half; see text
The see text part is the critical part, see this time it tells you you reieve no save if hit with the meteor ball after a ranged touch attack but otherwise you recieve a save. It specifies when you do and don't get a save.
The silence spell does too, but that only pretains to objects. Objects get a save if they are attended. If unattended they do not. Objects are specified but no where does it imply or state that a character would ever be denied a save. Thus since it doesn't specify a time you wouldn't get the save the "see text" part was pertaining only to objects, characters always get a Will save to negate it's effect. Thus me and my buddy would both get saves if in the AoE, he may make it while I fail it, I am silenced he is not.
That's how I read it.
I disagree.Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes; see text or no (object)Saving throw Will negates, see text, that is the important part. The see text. See I get a Will save unless the text says otherwise. Where in the text does it say I do not get a save if caught in the AoE?
Look at the save for Meteor Swarm:
Saving Throw: None or Reflex half; see text
The see text part is the critical part, see this time it tells you you reieve no save if hit with the meteor ball after a ranged touch attack but otherwise you recieve a save. It specifies when you do and don't get a save.
The silence spell does too, but that only pretains to objects. Objects get a save if they are attended. If unattended they do not. Objects are specified but no where does it imply or state that a character would ever be denied a save. Thus since it doesn't specify a time you wouldn't get the save the "see text" part was pertaining only to objects, characters always get a Will save to negate it's effect. Thus me and my buddy would both get saves if in the AoE, he may make it while I fail it, I am silenced he is not.
That's how I read it.
Ok, let's look at the spell :
SILENCE
School illusion (glamer); Level bard 2, cleric 2
CASTING
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S
EFFECT
range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point
in space
duration 1 min/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object);
Spell resistance: yes; see text or no (object)
DESCRIPTION
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. 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. This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks.
See the bolded section above? The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates fromthe 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. It says very clearly that you can target it on a creature and it will move with the creature, and that creature may make a will save. It doesn't say 'If you are in the area of effect you can make a will save' it says 'if you are the target, you may make a will save'. That is entirely two different things.
See the bolded and italiced section above? Items in a creature's posession or magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and points in space do not. This section is a continuation of the 'targeted creature' section, it is there to keep someone from saying 'Oh, I don't target the wizard, I target his staff' or 'I don't target the wizard, I target his floating sword of singing' (intelligent item). It specifically says that no saving throw is allowed for unattended objects or points in space. If the spell negates all sound in the area, and no saving throw is allowed for unattended objects or points in space, then if it is cast on the boulder next to you, you are in the area of effect and you cannot speak aloud. It's not stopping you from speaking, it's stopping the sound you are making from propogating outwards.
The only time you get a save is if someone is targeting you or something in your inventory. Why? Because then it's a spell specifically targeted at you, and it follows you.
If you are not the target, you do not get a saving throw because you are not the target, you are merely in the area of effect. You may leave the area of effect none the worse for wear. If you are the target, you get a saving throw, and if you succeed, the spell fails, because you saved against it.
The only time you get a save is if someone is targeting you or something in your inventory. Why? Because then it's a spell specifically targeted at you, and it follows you.
If someone targets you you get a save and if you make it the spell fails completely. But nowhere does it say you don't get one if caught in the AoE. Look at the save line one more time.
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object)
The none line there applies to objects only. Characters always get a save, if you are targeted though your save means the spell fails completely. It's an AoE spell, like fireball. Why would you not get a save. It is after all an illusion, a successful Will save means you are not fooled and you don't need to be the target of it to be not fooled. The advantage of targeting someone is they will carry it with them making it hard for them to shake it off, the disadvantage is if they make it the spell compeltely fails. The advantage of targeting an area or unattended object is there is no why for it to completely fail. It is after all a second level spell with no to hit needed, why would it make sense a spell of that level does not allow a save to those caught in its AoE?
Again it never states a condition for which a player would not get a save, it only gives you that if a player is the target and he makes the save the spell fails. That is your "see text" part, the other part is Will negates which covers situations when you are simply caught in the AoE of it.
The only time you get a save is if someone is targeting you or something in your inventory. Why? Because then it's a spell specifically targeted at you, and it follows you.
If someone targets you you get a save and if you make it the spell fails completely. But nowhere does it say you don't get one if caught in the AoE. Look at the save line one more time.
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object)
The none line there applies to objects only. Characters always get a save, if you are targeted though your save means the spell fails completely. It's an AoE spell, like fireball. Why would you not get a save. It is after all an illusion, a successful Will save means you are not fooled and you don't need to be the target of it to be not fooled. The advantage of targeting someone is they will carry it with them making it hard for them to shake it off, the disadvantage is if they make it the spell compeltely fails. The advantage of targeting an area or unattended object is there is no why for it to completely fail. It is after all a second level spell with no to hit needed, why would it make sense a spell of that level does not allow a save to those caught in its AoE?
Again it never states a condition for which a player would not get a save, it only gives you that if a player is the target and he makes the save the spell fails. That is your "see text" part, the other part is Will negates which covers situations when you are simply caught in the AoE of it.
I'm sorry, you're taking a short blurb that by definition is only a descriptor and using it to trump the plain reading of the spell. The spell specifically states it stops all sound in the area, not 'stops all sound in the area that doesn't make a saving throw'. If it were intended the way you say it would read :
Anyone in the area of effect may make a will save to avoid being affected by the spell. By your interpretation, what happens if I cast silence in a corridor halfway between us if we are 60 feet apart. Do you get a saving throw to be able to cast a sonic spell through the area of effect? Do you get a saving throw to speak normally on your side and have your words go through the area of effect? If you walk forward into the area of effect once it's cast, do you get a will save to ignore it once it's in effect? This really negates the entire idea of the area of silence.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as your interpretation makes no sense to me, and neither WoTC nor Paizo has said anything on the subject.
It is after all an illusion, a successful Will save means you are not fooled and you don't need to be the target of it to be not fooled.
Sorry,
One last thing. The spell does not allow a disbelief save. You can't disbelieve the silence. If it did, the save would say Will (Disbelief, if interacted with), like it does for every other illusion spell that allows a disbelief save (see silent image, minor image, major image, etc).
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as your interpretation makes no sense to me, and neither WoTC nor Paizo has said anything on the subject.
Agreed, I don't find logic in your interpretation either. So we seem at an impass. Oh well, at least we gave each other a listen and tried, no harm in coming to different interpretations of it.
I guess I am going with it being an illusion that anyone effected by can save against, because it is after all not real, sound is being made you just don't think it is. In Pathfinder it's just a glamer. It isn't really suppressing sound at all, you just believe it is, that to me is the key point. Why does it simply allow no save if it's effect isn't even slightly real? Surely someone caught in the AoE who wasn't the target should be able to overcome the glamer.
Again sound is being made, but those who failed their save do not believe it is being made.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as your interpretation makes no sense to me, and neither WoTC nor Paizo has said anything on the subject.
Agreed, I don't find logic in your interpretation either. So we seem at an impass. Oh well, at least we gave each other a listen and tried, no harm in coming to different interpretations of it.
I guess I am going with it being an illusion that anyone effected by can save against, because it is after all not real, sound is being made you just don't think it is. Second level illusions are not semi-real in anyway. In Pathfinder it's just a glamer. It isn't really suppressing sound at all, you just believe it is, that to me is the key point. Why does it simply allow no save if it's effect isn't even slightly real? Surely someone caught in the AoE who wasn't the target should be able to overcome the glamer.
Again sound is being made, but those who failed their save do not believe it is being made.
See,
That's what I don't agree with. The spell specifically states : 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 description doesn't match that, it describes it as stopping all sound inside the area, even sound that starts somewhere else and enters the area, and it doesn't pick back up again on the other side.
I don't understand how it can affect someone OUTSIDE the area of effect by your logic, I'm out of the area, but it still stops the sound passing through (back to that 60 foot corridor with the silence spell in the middle, and I can't hear you at either end, even though I'm not in the area of the spell).
Honestly, I think it's more a case of WoTC putting it in Illusion school when it should have been Evocation [sonic] instead.
Honestly, I think it's more a case of WoTC putting it in Illusion school when it should have been Evocation [sonic] instead.
But the school they put it in matters in this case. An evocation or even conjuration spell would really stop the sound, but an illusion, espcially a glammer does not really stop the sound it just tricks those effected into thinking it did.
I take the discription meaning that is how those effected percieve what is happening.
Change the school and it changes the effect. By making it a glammer they make it significately weaker then if it were an evocation. And I suppose for a spell of second level that was on purpose.
On whole I think it is a poorly written up spell. Open to many differing but still fair interpriations. Which either ramp it's power way up or lower it a lot.
On whole I think it is a poorly written up spell. Open to many differing but still fair interpriations. Which either ramp it's power way up or lower it a lot.
I agree whole heartedly with that.
Honestly, I think it's more a case of WoTC putting it in Illusion school when it should have been Evocation [sonic] instead.But the school they put it in matters in this case. An evocation or even conjuration spell would really stop the sound, but an illusion, espcially a glammer does not really stop the sound it just tricks those effected into thinking it did.
I take the discription meaning that is how those effected percieve what is happening.
Change the school and it changes the effect. By making it a glammer they make it significately weaker then if it were an evocation. And I suppose for a spell of second level that was on purpose.
On whole I think it is a poorly written up spell. Open to many differing but still fair interpriations. Which either ramp it's power way up or lower it a lot.
Ok, if it's an illusion, why does it stop SONIC spells? An illusion doesn't get rid of the sonic spell's sonics, it just confuses you into thinking they don't exist (if we take that route).
Yet, it specifically says it protects against sonics. This is backed up by WoTC's website
WoTC
* Sonic: Sonic is a type of energy in the D&D game, and most spells with this descriptor deal sonic damage. As you'd expect, sonic immunity makes the spell's recipient immune to sonic damage from the spell. Sonic resistance reduces sonic damage from the spell.The silence spell description says that the spell provides protection against sonic effects. For all practical purposes, this means that a silence spell blocks line of effect for a sonic spell. The sonic spell's area cannot extend into the area that a silence spell's emanation fills, and neither can a sonic spell be cast through a silence spell's emanation to affect something on the other side.
Also, something else I found digging around.
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment
that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).
Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these
spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly. A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.
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.
So, glamer actually does make a change to the sensory qualities of the subject. The silence spell is an emination that glamers sound, causing it to disappear. It's not creating a figment that there is no sound, it's actually changing the sound to not be sound. It's a very subtle distinction, but the figment specifically says it's a false impression, so a glamer seems to be a real change to the subject (the subject of the silence in this case is the sound entering the emmination, not the object it's cast on).
This is sort of born out by this other entry :
WoTC
Spread: A spread is similar to a burst, except that it can turn corners. When line of effect from the point of origin is blocked, just go around the obstacle, tracing a path that's as long as the spread's radius.The rules don't tell you what to do when whatever blocks the spread's line of effect isn't a solid object (for example, an antimagic field). In this case, just the treat the antimagic field like a solid obstacle. A spell with a spread area and the sonic descriptor will spread around a silence spell.
A pure illusion, with no effect except on a persons perceptions, shouldn't affect a sonic spread spell at all.
Anyway, like we agreed, the spell is very poorly designed, based on all the powers they list for it, it just doesn't fit where they put it. Not without a lot of shoe-horning.
But the school they put it in matters in this case. An evocation or even conjuration spell would really stop the sound, but an illusion, especially a glamer does not really stop the sound it just tricks those effected into thinking it did.
Honestly, I think it's more a case of WoTC putting it in Illusion school when it should have been Evocation [sonic] instead.
Hmm, but if they were simply tricked into thinking there was no sound, they wouldn't be immune to spells like Sound Burst or Greater Shout. Those spells affect deaf creatures (and objects actually), but don't penetrate the area of a Silence spell. Do the spells fail their Will saves too?
Besides, Glamers do affect the world around you. Invisibility bends light around you (or some such thing), Dancing Lights really does make glowy torches (insubstantial glowy torches, but still glowy torches). Glamers are *not* mind-affecting. They do not "trick" you, they make the audio-visual world around you different than what it normally should be.
That may trick you into walking off a cliff where you think there is a bridge, but the trick is in changing what you *literally* see.
Also - check your Meteor Swarm saving throw line: "None or Reflex Half; see text". The see text refers to what comes before. Silence: "Will Negates; see text or None (object)". "See Text" refers to the Will Negates for explanation. The text then supplies the conditions when you can make that Will save.
Hmm, but if they were simply tricked into thinking there was no sound, they wouldn't be immune to spells like Sound Burst or Greater Shout. Those spells affect deaf creatures (and objects actually), but don't penetrate the area of a Silence spell. Do the spells fail their Will saves too?But the school they put it in matters in this case. An evocation or even conjuration spell would really stop the sound, but an illusion, especially a glamer does not really stop the sound it just tricks those effected into thinking it did.
Honestly, I think it's more a case of WoTC putting it in Illusion school when it should have been Evocation [sonic] instead.
Exactly, this spell is very poorly written/defined. Blech.
Also - check your Meteor Swarm saving throw line: "None or Reflex Half; see text". The see text refers to what comes before. Silence: "Will Negates; see text or None (object)". "See Text" refers to the Will Negates for explanation. The text then supplies the conditions when you can make that Will save.
Even if it does apply to the Will Save part it never tells you when you don't get the save, Meteor Swarm says you don't if you are targeted and hit with the ranged touch part. This spell only says if your targeted and you save the spell completely fails. It doesn't say if you aren't targeted you get no save.
Poorly written. What can I say.
Also - check your Meteor Swarm saving throw line: "None or Reflex Half; see text". The see text refers to what comes before. Silence: "Will Negates; see text or None (object)". "See Text" refers to the Will Negates for explanation. The text then supplies the conditions when you can make that Will save.
Even if it does apply to the Will Save part it never tells you when you don't get the save, Meteor Swarm says you don't if you are targeted and hit with the ranged touch part. This spell only says if your targeted and you save the spell completely fails. It doesn't say if you aren't targeted you get no save.
Poorly written. What can I say.
Well, I think we all agree with that. But I am curious about your reasoning of how a pure illusion spell can affect line of effect sonic spells and area effect sonic spells.
|
Okay, I just lost a nice long post I typed on this...let me try a shorter version.
The fact that silence is a glamer has no affect on how the spell works; there are no mechanics tied specifically to glamers, except perhaps for this bit from the beginning of the Spell Descriptions chapter:
Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements.
Emphasis mine. Silence does none of these things.
As mdt has already pointed out, any illusion allowing a save for disbelief has it written in the saving throw line of the spell.So, since being a glamer has no affect on how the spell works, look at it without the school attached to it. Imagine it's a universal spell or something. How do you think it should work?
To make a similar point, look at invisibility. Invisibility is also a glamer. If you bump into an invisible wizard, you know he's there and that you should (probably) normally be able to see him. Shouldn't you be able to make a save to disbelieve the glamer? Why or why not?
To make a similar point, look at invisibility. Invisibility is also a glamer. If you bump into an invisible wizard, you know he's there and that you should (probably) normally be able to see him. Shouldn't you be able to make a save to disbelieve the glamer? Why or why not?
In 1st ed you had a chance to spot invisible things based on level and int. It wasn't a save per-say but in practice it really was one.
Actually reading Pathfinder the same is really true again.
Although invisibility provides total concealment,
sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to
notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible
character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving,
or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving
(even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure
out where you are from other visual clues).
It gives not penalty to hit them or lists none once you've spotted an invisible target. Interesting, I would say you get the -2 from blinded but it lists none. Basically they replace int/level with a perception roll. It's again not a save per-say but will function as one.
Also - check your Meteor Swarm saving throw line: "None or Reflex Half; see text". The see text refers to what comes before. Silence: "Will Negates; see text or None (object)". "See Text" refers to the Will Negates for explanation. The text then supplies the conditions when you can make that Will save.
Even if it does apply to the Will Save part it never tells you when you don't get the save, Meteor Swarm says you don't if you are targeted and hit with the ranged touch part. This spell only says if your targeted and you save the spell completely fails. It doesn't say if you aren't targeted you get no save.
Poorly written. What can I say.
Well, I think we all agree with that. But I am curious about your reasoning of how a pure illusion spell can affect line of effect sonic spells and area effect sonic spells.
....no good answer for that. It seems to throw logic out the window. An illusion could not do that.
To make a similar point, look at invisibility. Invisibility is also a glamer. If you bump into an invisible wizard, you know he's there and that you should (probably) normally be able to see him. Shouldn't you be able to make a save to disbelieve the glamer? Why or why not?In 1st ed you had a chance to spot invisible things based on level and int. It wasn't a save per-say but in practice it really was one.
Actually reading Pathfinder the same is really true again.
Although invisibility provides total concealment,
sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to
notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible
character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving,
or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving
(even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure
out where you are from other visual clues).It gives not penalty to hit them or lists none once you've spotted an invisible target. Interesting, I would say you get the -2 from blinded but it lists none. Basically they replace int/level with a perception roll. It's again not a save per-say but will function as one.
That's because it's considered Concealment. You basically can't attack a fully concealed opponent. What you can do is attack their 5 foot hex blindly and hope to score a hit. But, even if you do score a hit against them, there's a 50% miss chance.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
So, from the above, you could make an attack into the square you suspected him to be, if he had a 24AC, you'd make an attack vs 24AC, and if you manage to hit, you only get a 50% chance of actually hitting.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as your interpretation makes no sense to me, and neither WoTC nor Paizo has said anything on the subject.
Agreed, I don't find logic in your interpretation either. So we seem at an impass. Oh well, at least we gave each other a listen and tried, no harm in coming to different interpretations of it.
I guess I am going with it being an illusion that anyone effected by can save against, because it is after all not real, sound is being made you just don't think it is. In Pathfinder it's just a glamer. It isn't really suppressing sound at all, you just believe it is, that to me is the key point. Why does it simply allow no save if it's effect isn't even slightly real? Surely someone caught in the AoE who wasn't the target should be able to overcome the glamer.
Again sound is being made, but those who failed their save do not believe it is being made.
Invisibility is an illusion as well, and allows no save, with a much larger affected area (horizon to horizon). If you try to cast invisibility on an unwilling target (or attended object) it gets a saving throw. Not to disbelieve, but to halt the spell in its entirety.
It is because it is a glamer that you do not get a saving throw against it. "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."
Yes the school is illusion, but as a glamer, the spell is changing the quality of sound in the affected area, attenuating it to zero.
To make a similar point, look at invisibility. Invisibility is also a glamer. If you bump into an invisible wizard, you know he's there and that you should (probably) normally be able to see him. Shouldn't you be able to make a save to disbelieve the glamer? Why or why not?In 1st ed you had a chance to spot invisible things based on level and int. It wasn't a save per-say but in practice it really was one.
Actually reading Pathfinder the same is really true again.
Although invisibility provides total concealment,
sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to
notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible
character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving,
or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving
(even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure
out where you are from other visual clues).It gives not penalty to hit them or lists none once you've spotted an invisible target. Interesting, I would say you get the -2 from blinded but it lists none. Basically they replace int/level with a perception roll. It's again not a save per-say but will function as one.
Yes, there is a penalty to hit them once you've spotted them as even if you can pinpoint them through perception, they still have total concealment.