Removing Arrows, Damage, & Silence


Rules Questions


Hey everyone,

I am wondering on some opinions on removing arrows after they have impacted the target dealing "hit" point damage. Would is be a move action/Standard action to remove the arrow? Would it cause any damage? (This would be occurring during combat).

The reason I ask is because silence is being cast on arrows and constantly shutting down spell casters because they are firing the arrow on subsequent rounds at the spell caster(s), silencing them. Now, obviously the spell caster is not going to start attack with a dagger, and of course, I could include feats such a Metamagic Silence, but what other solutions are there? How would other GM/s rule this?

Regards,

RB


My GM apparently ruled that it was either a move or free action and didn't cause any significant additional damage.

Us the players were not happy with that.


It all depends on where that arrow hit really. If a person got shot in, say the shoulder, it won't really do all the much more damage coming out. Realistically, that shoulder would already be damaged enough as it is, and unless he arrow was barbed, it would probably come right out. Doesn't mean it won't hurt like hell though.

Now if it were someplace else, like the stomach, that's a different story. There's lots of squishy bits in the stomach region, from intestines, to kidneys. They may have not been damaged going in, but coming out, you could tear them and start internal bleeding that would kill you.

Me? If this came up in my game? I'd say it was a move action to remove it carefully, taking 1d4 points of nonlethal damage (the pain). If they want to remove it quickly, 1d4 points of lethal damage (from additional tearing).

[Edit] If it matters, I think James Jacobs said that if you cast a spell such as light, or silence on an object, and then that object is cut in half, the spell is ended. If you went with that method, you could just reach up and break the arrow off at the entry point, and end the silence spell.


Tels wrote:

It all depends on where that arrow hit really. If a person got shot in, say the shoulder, it won't really do all the much more damage coming out. Realistically, that shoulder would already be damaged enough as it is, and unless he arrow was barbed, it would probably come right out. Doesn't mean it won't hurt like hell though.

Now if it were someplace else, like the stomach, that's a different story. There's lots of squishy bits in the stomach region, from intestines, to kidneys. They may have not been damaged going in, but coming out, you could tear them and start internal bleeding that would kill you.

Me? If this came up in my game? I'd say it was a move action to remove it carefully, taking 1d4 points of nonlethal damage (the pain). If they want to remove it quickly, 1d4 points of lethal damage (from additional tearing).

[Edit] If it matters, I think James Jacobs said that if you cast a spell such as light, or silence on an object, and then that object is cut in half, the spell is ended. If you went with that method, you could just reach up and break the arrow off at the entry point, and end the silence spell.

Interesting on the arrow breaking in half, The problem is they specify they are casting it on the Arrow "tip" or "head". I was thinking the same thing along the damage lines, something generic to accommodate all situations.


The way that I interpret hit points is usually highly abstract, this can vary highly from person to person though. Generally IMO just because the arrow caused HP damage it doesn’t necessarily mean the arrow is sticking out of the target. The target could have pulled a muscle while dodging the arrow, or became more fatigued making the final blow possible.

Even if the arrow is sticking out of the target I would allow a Will save as if it were a as if the spell had been cast on the creature although that’s probably more fiat than anything.


U was going to say standard, but like i James Jacobs answer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Ammunition is destroyed when it hits.

Core Rules page 141 wrote:

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.
Core Rules page 149 wrote:
Masterwork ammunition is damaged (effectively destroyed) when used.

Every DM I've ever had rules that this breaks whatever magic had been cast on it. Some would allow you to intentionally "miss" if you just wanted to get that arrow with light cast on it into a particular square, but even then you had a 50% chance of botching it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

.
..
...
....
.....
Step 1: Buy some marbles.
Step 2: Cast silence on one of the marbles in the bag.
Step 3: Chuck the whole bag at the spellcaster.

There's actually a Free RPG Day module where a very similar tactic is used against the PCs.


ChaiGuy wrote:

The way that I interpret hit points is usually highly abstract, this can vary highly from person to person though. Generally IMO just because the arrow caused HP damage it doesn’t necessarily mean the arrow is sticking out of the target. The target could have pulled a muscle while dodging the arrow, or became more fatigued making the final blow possible.

Even if the arrow is sticking out of the target I would allow a Will save as if it were a as if the spell had been cast on the creature although that’s probably more fiat than anything.

So if I cast Silence on the Rogue's cloak, and he crept up behind the Wizard, does the Wizard get a Will save vs the Silence?

What about light? Say you've got an archer with See Invisibility on. He spots the Greater Invisbility Rogue and shoots him with an arrow with a light spell cast on it. Now there is a glowing arrow stuck in the invisible Rogue. Does the Rogue get a Will Save to turn off the light?

How about Darkness? I have Darkvision, but I cast Darkness on my arrow, and shot it into the group of bandits we're ambushing. Do the bandits get a Will save to negate the Darkness?

You don't want to allow something like a save vs a spell cast on an item, or you set the precedent to allow similar things in the future. You need to keep your rulings consistent, so you should avoid things like saying, "You get a Will save vs the Silence, but not the Darkness, or Light or *insert spell name here*".

@Flipper: He said something like the magic of the spell permeates the whole object, not just one part of it. So you couldn't cast it on just the arrow head, the spell would be cast on the arrow period. I personally agree with that because it stops people from trying to do nit-picky stuff like that.


Well, firstly:

An arrow is an arrow.. I'd not allow it to be cast on any specific part anymore than yuo can cast a spell on a sword's blade vs the pommel or any other specific bit.

Secondly:
The victim has to have some method of removing the arrow. I think a free action is probably abit too generous but a full round action is probably abit too vicious. I'd likely rule it to be a move action that either:
1) provoked but did no damage itself or
2) didn't provoke but did d4 damage on the way out.

This would reflect the difficulty involved in ripping an arrow out quickly while trying not to get stabbed by someone or more carefully removing it by opening yourself to getting stabbed.

All of which are houserules.. I didn't think the rules addressed it until i read Slim's post. We've. basically ignored that, I think, so far.
hrm. much to ponder.

-S

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Until we're in houserule territory, silence explicitly does not grant a save if you cast it on an unattended object or even a point in space. Additionally, you could always cast it on your buddy and let him voluntarily fail the save and then run up and do unseemly things to the enemy caster with no fear of retribution.

EDIT: Ninja'd.


Tels wrote:
ChaiGuy wrote:

The way that I interpret hit points is usually highly abstract, this can vary highly from person to person though. Generally IMO just because the arrow caused HP damage it doesn’t necessarily mean the arrow is sticking out of the target. The target could have pulled a muscle while dodging the arrow, or became more fatigued making the final blow possible.

Even if the arrow is sticking out of the target I would allow a Will save as if it were a as if the spell had been cast on the creature although that’s probably more fiat than anything.

So if I cast Silence on the Rogue's cloak, and he crept up behind the Wizard, does the Wizard get a Will save vs the Silence?

What about light? Say you've got an archer with See Invisibility on. He spots the Greater Invisbility Rogue and shoots him with an arrow with a light spell cast on it. Now there is a glowing arrow stuck in the invisible Rogue. Does the Rogue get a Will Save to turn off the light?

How about Darkness? I have Darkvision, but I cast Darkness on my arrow, and shot it into the group of bandits we're ambushing. Do the bandits get a Will save to negate the Darkness?

You don't want to allow something like a save vs a spell cast on an item, or you set the precedent to allow similar things in the future. You need to keep your rulings consistent, so you should avoid things like saying, "You get a Will save vs the Silence, but not the Darkness, or Light or *insert spell name here*".

@Flipper: He said something like the magic of the spell permeates the whole object, not just one part of it. So you couldn't cast it on just the arrow head, the spell would be cast on the arrow period. I personally agree with that because it stops people from trying to do nit-picky stuff like that.

I agree consistancy is important for DMs and can quickly become a complicated issue. So concerning your questions:

Silenced cloak, no since the object of the silence spell is not "on" the caster.

Light spell arrow, yes.

Darkness, if it's supposed to be embedded in one of the bandits yes, if not no. Unless the rest of the PCs have darkvision too, it's probably not even that advantageous IMO.

Having the amunition destroyed is a lot simpler though ;P.


So, per your ruling. I could cast Darkness on an arrow, stab it into my leg, and make my Will save, then I can see through the Darkness, but no one else can because Darkness doesn't allow for a Will save?

Hmm, sounds like Rogues would have a blast in your games. Get a Wand of Deeper Darkness, and stab themselves with an arrow. Go to town sneak attacking the hell out of everyone, because you can see, but everyone else can't see at all through Deeper Darkness unless they have something like Trueseeing or the monster ability See In Darkness (which allows them to see through all Darkness, regardless of it's source) or the Darkness Domain which allows you to see through all Darkness too.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SlimGauge wrote:

Ammunition is destroyed when it hits.

Core Rules page 141 wrote:

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.
Core Rules page 149 wrote:
Masterwork ammunition is damaged (effectively destroyed) when used.
Every DM I've ever had rules that this breaks whatever magic had been cast on it. Some would allow you to intentionally "miss" if you just wanted to get that arrow with light cast on it into a particular square, but even then you had a 50% chance of botching it.

There is a type of arrow called a 'Durable Arrow' which doesn't break when it hits, so unfortunately you still have to come up with a ruling just to account for those.

...Unless you rule that since enchantments on a Durable Arrow only last for one use, Silence spells and such also break when the arrow hits.


Does anyone have a link to James Jacobs Previous explanation as explained above?

I tried to find it to no avail.

Regards,

Ryan B

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tels wrote:
So, per your ruling. I could cast Darkness on an arrow, stab it into my leg, and make my Will save, then I can see through the Darkness, but no one else can because Darkness doesn't allow for a Will save?

I'm not sure to whom you're replying, but what will save is it that you're making when you stab an arrow into your leg?


Tels wrote:

So, per your ruling. I could cast Darkness on an arrow, stab it into my leg, and make my Will save, then I can see through the Darkness, but no one else can because Darkness doesn't allow for a Will save?

Hmm, sounds like Rogues would have a blast in your games. Get a Wand of Deeper Darkness, and stab themselves with an arrow. Go to town sneak attacking the hell out of everyone, because you can see, but everyone else can't see at all through Deeper Darkness unless they have something like Trueseeing or the monster ability See In Darkness (which allows them to see through all Darkness, regardless of it's source) or the Darkness Domain which allows you to see through all Darkness too.

Deeper darkness cannot be overcome with darkvision, so it wouldn't help most PCs, the whole party would more than likely need to be built around the tactic. Also not so great with any enemy that can dispell magic, daylight ect.

Also do you need to be so antagonistic, I probably made a bad off the cuff rule call, no need to beat me over the head with it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Okay, I've totally lost track of this thread. I can't tell what are suggested house rules and what are people's actual (mis)interpretations of the spells being discussed.


Jiggy, my posts were in response to ChaiGuys posts. He said that if one were to cast a spell on an arrow, and shoot it into someone else, they would get a save to resist the effects of that spell. My point was, you could then see Rogues stabbing themselves with arrows with Darkness/Deeper Darkness, and making a Will Save. If they succeed, they can then see normally, while no one else can (unless they have some means of seeing through the Darkness).

Sorry, wasn't trying to be antagonistic, and in looking over my posts, I see that's how they come off. I was trying to point out the consequences of such a ruling, but I guess I came off as a dick.

I'm a big advocate of taking a moment to think about the any advantages/disadvantages before making a ruling on a situation. I try and look for ways that a ruling could be used to be abused before I give my decision. It just seemed to me that, allowing a caster to save vs the spell on the Arrow, could be easily abused.

Not only that, there is, essentially, no difference between a spell on an arrow, and a spell on a rock occupying the same space as someone else. Either way, the spell isn't actually on the caster, it's on an object that is near the caster.

Regardless, I'm sorry for being antagonistic. That wasn't my intention and I apologize.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wait, so ChaiGuy actually thinks that an enemy brought into the area of darkness/silence/etc gets a save?


Jiggy wrote:
Wait, so ChaiGuy actually thinks that an enemy brought into the area of darkness/silence/etc gets a save?

I was ruling (fiat?) that if a silence spell was cast on an arrow and then shot into an enemy they would get a save since it's effectively a targeted silence, the PCs are in this case trying to get around the save that a targeted silence spell usually brings. It may not have been a good call in retrospect.


Tels wrote:

Jiggy, my posts were in response to ChaiGuys posts. He said that if one were to cast a spell on an arrow, and shoot it into someone else, they would get a save to resist the effects of that spell. My point was, you could then see Rogues stabbing themselves with arrows with Darkness/Deeper Darkness, and making a Will Save. If they succeed, they can then see normally, while no one else can (unless they have some means of seeing through the Darkness).

Sorry, wasn't trying to be antagonistic, and in looking over my posts, I see that's how they come off. I was trying to point out the consequences of such a ruling, but I guess I came off as a dick.

I'm a big advocate of taking a moment to think about the any advantages/disadvantages before making a ruling on a situation. I try and look for ways that a ruling could be used to be abused before I give my decision. It just seemed to me that, allowing a caster to save vs the spell on the Arrow, could be easily abused.

Not only that, there is, essentially, no difference between a spell on an arrow, and a spell on a rock occupying the same space as someone else. Either way, the spell isn't actually on the caster, it's on an object that is near the caster.

Regardless, I'm sorry for being antagonistic. That wasn't my intention and I apologize.

No worries Tels, you made good points and I will certainly be more careful when house ruling during games I run.


Jiggy wrote:
Wait, so ChaiGuy actually thinks that an enemy brought into the area of darkness/silence/etc gets a save?

No, he didn't at all.

ChaiGuy wrote:

The way that I interpret hit points is usually highly abstract, this can vary highly from person to person though. Generally IMO just because the arrow caused HP damage it doesn’t necessarily mean the arrow is sticking out of the target. The target could have pulled a muscle while dodging the arrow, or became more fatigued making the final blow possible.

Even if the arrow is sticking out of the target I would allow a Will save as if it were a as if the spell had been cast on the creature although that’s probably more fiat than anything.

Now, he uses damage as abstract. That means, if a guy gets attacked by a bowmen and gets 'shot' 17 times, he doesn't look like a pin cushion. It just means that he may have an arrow or two in him, but most of his damage came from falling, dodging, tearing muscles, arrows slicing flesh but not sticking, etc.

But, if an arrow were to stick out of someone, and that arrow were to have a spell such as Silence cast on it, he would give the victim of the arrow a Will save to resist the Silence.

Now I extrapolated that to mean if one were to cast Darkness on an arrow, they'd get a Will save. It also means that, logically, a spell cast on an object that has an area effect, such as Light, Darkness, Silence etc, could be saved against.

Then I took that idea and proposed a Rogue that would cast Darkness on an arrow, stab it into his leg and then makes a Will save vs the Darkness. If he makes the save, then he can see through the Darkness, but everyone else is still affected by it. That means he can run around and sneak attack everyone, but no one can sneak attack him unless they can see through the Darkness, because he has concealment.

I was attempting to point out the flaw in a ruling, but I ended up coming off as a jerk and confusing the thread instead.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

It's called using a spell intelligently, in the way people living in a magic-filled world would realistically do.

In

Spoiler:
Dawn of the Scarlet Sun
an evil cleric/rogue initiates an ambush by casting silence on a pebble, tossing said pebble around the corner toward a singled-out PC (which for reasons I won't divulge here, will almost always be a PC caster with no party members in sight), then proceeding to cut the PC's heart out while they try ineffectually to call for help.

There's enough DPR-philia among Pathfinder players. Skillful use of control spells should be encouraged, not punished.

EDIT: Double-ninja'd.


Just because an object is destroyed does not mean it no longer exists. Otherwise how can spells like mending and make whole repair it?

So on the basis that a destroyed arrow still exists as an arrow but in a destroyed condition (like destroyed armor) we have the following:

I cast silence on a destroyed arrow. This works since the destroyed arrow is an object.

I cast silence on an undestroyed arrow. This works since the undestroyed arrow is an object.

There is nothing in RAW stating that a spell cast upon an object goes away when it's status changes from undestroyed to destroyed. The object still exists.

Thus, silence on an arrow, shoot arrow, arrow is now destroyed, silence is still on arrow (for simplicity state you cast it upon the arrowhead). Then enemy spends an action (not sure if I would vote move or standard action).

- Gauss


Tels: No worries, I followed your line of thought. :)


Gauss wrote:

Just because an object is destroyed does not mean it no longer exists. Otherwise how can spells like mending and make whole repair it?

So on the basis that a destroyed arrow still exists as an arrow but in a destroyed condition (like destroyed armor) we have the following:

I cast silence on a destroyed arrow. This works since the destroyed arrow is an object.

I cast silence on an undestroyed arrow. This works since the undestroyed arrow is an object.

There is nothing in RAW stating that a spell cast upon an object goes away when it's status changes from undestroyed to destroyed. The object still exists.

Thus, silence on an arrow, shoot arrow, arrow is now destroyed, silence is still on arrow (for simplicity state you cast it upon the arrowhead). Then enemy spends an action (not sure if I would vote move or standard action).

- Gauss

I understand that, I merely proposed that James Jacobs gave that advice once in his thread. It was merely an idea he uses in his games if I recall. I've been trying to find the post myself, but I'll be damned if it isn't a pain in the ass to search for words like Arrow, spell, object etc, in his thread and not get 10,000 hits.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Mending can indeed be used on a destroyed object, but it does not restore the magic abilities.

Core Rules page 459 wrote:
A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost.

How is a mundane item with a spell cast on it different from a magic item (besides the fact that it does not get improved hardness/hit points) ?

There is actually an equipment trick for a sun-rod to stick it to a target as a ranged touch attack. The target can remove it as a move action. See Equipment Tricks. So if you're going to house-rule sticking magic arrows in things and having to remove them, then use that.

I'm going to stick with "destroying an object causes most magic that the object has (inherent or applied by a limited duration spell) to cease working until it is repaired". Otherwise you get sillyness like casting silence on a piece of wood and burning it. What's silenced now ? The ashes ? The smoke ?


Tels:
The post I think you are looking for

James Jacobs wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Jaçinto wrote:

Jaçinto First off, if silence is cast on a bullet and I fire it at an enemy, are they silenced as long as the bullet sticks in them?

LazarX Unless you're taking down their last few hit points, the assumption is that bullets, arrows, etc. aren't "stuck " in the target.

James Jacobs Isn't the assumption that ammunition is destroyed, though? (at least 50% of the time) In which case, silence goes away anyway.

Note: I added the bolded name tags for clarity.

- Gauss


SlimGauge: How are magic spells and magic items the same? They arent.

A magic item's abilities are stated to go away after the item is destroyed.

However, a destroyed item can be subject to spells cast upon the item. Also, there is no statement that a spell on an item goes away if the item is destroyed.

Your example of ashes does not apply. That is no longer an item. It has gone from being whole (the stick) to destroyed (stick with all of its hitpoints gone) to distintegrated (dust). Distintegration effects do not leave an item. They leave dust.

- Gauss


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Gauss wrote:
SlimGauge: How are magic spells and magic items the same? They arent.

A magic item is an item with a magic spell functioning on it, usually permanent. How is a weapon with "magic weapon" cast on it otherwise different from a +1 magic weapon ? I contend that they are (nearly) the same, the primary difference being harness and hitpoints. Destroy either one and the magic stops working.

If James Jacob's statement above doesn't convince you, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Grognard out.


SlimGauge:

Regarding JJ's statement, we do not know if he was making a ruling or his opinion on how he would run it. If it is his opinion that is great. If ruling then my previous statement about destroyed items still being items still applies. I can find nothing in the rules that state 'spells cast upon an item before it is destroyed go away if the item is destroyed'.

As for your difference between Magic Items and items with spells upon them. There are a lot more differences than that. items with spells upon them (permanent or otherwise) are subject to being permanently dispelled. The rules do not state they qualify as magic items.

IF we go with your idea that they do qualify as magic items then all sorts of brokenness can ensue. There have been threads where people tried to do just that.

- Gauss


Continual Flame anyone?


Exactly Tels :)

- Gauss


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I didn't say they qualify as magic items (for all purposes), but I am claiming that the magic on them fails when they are destroyed AS IF they were magic items.

If I take an everburning torch and destroy it (break it into multiple pieces), do all the pieces continue giving light as a torch ? Great, now I can get half-price everburning torches by busting them all in half. I cast silence on a stick and break it into pieces to give to each member of the party.

We're not going to convince each other.


Flipper wrote:

Hey everyone,

I am wondering on some opinions on removing arrows after they have impacted the target dealing "hit" point damage. Would is be a move action/Standard action to remove the arrow? Would it cause any damage? (This would be occurring during combat).

The reason I ask is because silence is being cast on arrows and constantly shutting down spell casters because they are firing the arrow on subsequent rounds at the spell caster(s), silencing them. Now, obviously the spell caster is not going to start attack with a dagger, and of course, I could include feats such a Metamagic Silence, but what other solutions are there? How would other GM/s rule this?

Regards,

RB

In the Advanced Players Guide, under Searing Arrow, it says that it is a DC 10 Heal check to remove the arrow to prevent further damage from the arrow and the DC increases to 15 if one were to remove it from him or herself. In our game, we just take this as universal for all arrows.


Necromancy!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Removing Arrows, Damage, & Silence All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.