|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The silence spell definitely keeps the gong from producing a sound. It says so very explicitly right in the description. It doesn't interfere with a creature's hearing ability, it just stops the sound itself.
As for whether the vibrations in the air are still produced, that's completely GM's call, but whatever is produced definitely isn't sound. If you want my take on it, the physical vibrations are still there, but the fundamental properties of that area of the universe have been changed so that they're no longer the sort of thing that can be detected. How? Magic. Sort of like an invisibility spell, but for sound.
In fact, your whole question is sort of like asking "Does the invisibility spell keep a creature from being visible (reflecting light)? Or does it keep creatures that can see from seeing the image that is produced?"
The answer being that the GM can make up whatever weird half-science they want with particles or waves of light, but the spell is definitely making a creature no longer have a visible image, not just interfering with the eyesight of others.
CrystalSeas wrote: I'm trying to understand 'production of the sound".
If I have a gong hanging from a tree branch and I hit it with a stick, a sound is produced. The vibrating metal produces the sound which is carried on sound waves to the "ears" of creatures that can hear.
If I hit the same gong with the same stick while it is in the area of a Silence spell, is a sound produced? The same vibrations are produced and the air around the gong still moves and produces sound waves.
Does the silence spell keep the gong from producing a sound (the sound waves)? Or does it keep creatures that can hear from hearing the sound waves that are produced?
It's a tough one on certain levels. It definitely doesn't make a sound, but you are still ringing/banging/hitting the gong.
As for vibrations, let's look at Tremorsense. Tremorsense clearly works by a creature sensing tremors (or vibrations) from other creatures in contact with the ground. A silence spell doesn't seem to counter tremorsense by the way it's written however. As long as a creature is in contact with the ground (and has line of effect) a creature with tremorsense knows where it is, even if we say silence stops the vibrations. Even the aquatic version of tremorsense would appear to work as written.
Similarly, if you have silence on one side of a door and a creature in the effect knocks on the door, does someone on the other side hear the knock? The silence effect doesn't extend to the other side of the door. The door still shakes and vibrates from the impact, so shouldn't there be a sound? Or does the fact that the field touches one side of the door or wall mean that the whole entire object counts as being silenced?
That's some debatable and problematic (for some) situations. That's getting a bit away from the main thread topic though, but since you had brought up vibrations and whether silence stops them I wanted to share my thoughts. I mean, just because you're silenced a scream is still scream. It still stretches your muscles, you technically could scream yourself hoarse from vocal cord strain even in silence. You still expel air that someone nearby could feel, it's just a silent scream.
I don't intend this particular post to sway anybody else, but if it helps you in anyway with some insight, great.
Pizza Lord wrote: That's getting a bit away from the main thread topic though, but since you had brought up vibrations and whether silence stops them I wanted to share my thoughts. That also helps. I was trying to work out if the air going over your vocal cords was "producing a sound".
So, I'd like Avoron, Rysky, and CampinCarl9127 (if they can be tempted back) to come at this from another angle.
Namely, can you each make a few positive statements about when you would be forced to suffer the full effects of howling agony?
Maybe by throwing out a few examples you can better understand each other's mental model of the spell.
Ridiculon wrote: So, I'd like Avoron, Rysky, and CampinCarl9127 (if they can be tempted back) to come at this from another angle.
Namely, can you each make a few positive statements about when you would be forced to suffer the full effects of howling agony?
Maybe by throwing out a few examples you can better understand each other's mental model of the spell.
How about like when specifically mentioned, such as when the subject doesn't have a mouth or otherwise is physiologically incapable of producing something that can be termed a scream.
"creatures that cannot scream (such as creatures without the natural ability to communicate or vocalize)"
makes sense, so a spell combo that could produce the effect the op is going for would be more like baelful polymorph + howling agony?
Can we all stop pretending that the "vocalization" in the Howling Agony description ISN'T referring to someone going "OWOWOWOWOWOW!" when you stub your toe? Shouting helps you deal with the pain. It doesn't matter if I can't hear myself, or the person next to me can't hear me, my body's impulse is to shout, and I do that, and it helps. Any rational GM would follow this logic and say the Silence effect doesn't change anything, despite any Rules Lawyering or Transitive reasoning the player presents them with. But this is the Rules Board, so consider this, anyway:
The most important piece of this argument is the last sentence of the Howling Agony description: Howling Agony wrote: creatures that cannot scream (such as creatures without the natural ability to communicate or vocalize) suffer the full effect of the spell. The bolded part defines what "cannot scream" means. A Human affected by Silence still has the natural ability to communicate AND vocalize. This spell was likely intended for creatures like Giant Centipedes, and other Vermin, who don't have the natural ability to communicate or vocalize.
If the benchmark is physical ability what happens if you paralyze them?
Well, first, it's actually not just "one stubborn person" that believes this works, because I still do.
The fundamental definition of a "scream", per the text of the spell, is "includes any vocalization of pain or its telepathic equivalent;".
It doesn't say "move your lips and stress your voice box".
It says "vocalize your pain".
Not really sure how you're getting that you can vocalize while sound is completely stopped.
Also, the paralysis example isn't really a good one, because they're paralyzed. Whatever penalties that may apply are already overwhelmed by the paralysis penalties.
Regardless, I don't think you can make sound at all while paralyzed, as sound does require movement...but, paralysis. So.
Edit: @Cuup, it doesn't say "(only such creatures without the natural ability to communicate or vocalize)". You can't use that to mean that only those creatures suffer the full effect for not screaming, as that's not what the part you bolded says. Also, I would argue that giant centipedes do have the capacity for vocalization, but that's not really the point here.
Yeah, all of my knowledge of biology (not insignificant as a biomedical engineer) tells me that the body reacting to dull the stimuli from nocireceptors is not dependent on actually making noise, but physically going through the pain pathways that would relieve the stimuli. Which is why screaming into a pillow still works, even if that pillow is somehow completely soundproof.
Hold person or any form of paralysis would work. Maybe an alternate curse from a bestow curse spell.
While I respect all that knowledge you have, and do hate to be the one to pull this, all of that doesn't really apply here.
Because, ya know, **magic**.
It doesn't say "must do something to make itself feel better" or "jump around on one foot with both hands holding the other one you just kicked on the side of a toolbox", it says "must spend a move action each turn vocalizing its pain".
You can't vocalize anything if you can't make sound.
The magic argument only works when normal logic doesn't. It's the fallback when the rules of the game don't make sense with our natural understanding of the world. Why doesn't a fireball set everything on fire, and somehow produce no force when it explodes? Since it's impossible to generate heat extreme enough to burn and kill people with zero risk of setting flammable materials on fire, we must fall back to the magic argument. This is not one of those cases, we have a deep understanding of how nocireceptors and pain pathways work so we do not need to fall back on the magic argument. Frankly, it's lazy to refuse learning about how biology is relevant in lieu of an easy "Well magic" answer.
Another way to make it work is suffocation. If they can't breath they can't scream. Although once again, that condition is a little more extreme than the spell itself.
Ridiculon wrote: If the benchmark is physical ability what happens if you paralyze them? Well, not really valid in this case. Regardless of whether being paralyzed would give worse penalties than howling agony... you can't spend the move action it requires to 'scream as loudly as possible', whether you could scream or not.
I can't help but find some humor in the concept that most of the methods used to prevent the target from screaming for Howling Agony are usually far more debilitating than Howling Agony itself.
For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with Cuup's reading. It feels more like it's the action that counts.
And yes, I'd probably let a giant centipede do whatever passes for a centipede scream, too.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
bigrig107 wrote: It doesn't say "must do something to make itself feel better" or "jump around on one foot with both hands holding the other one you just kicked on the side of a toolbox", it says "must spend a move action each turn vocalizing its pain". Actually, in all honesty... it doesn't say what you quoted either.
Taken from Original post at top wrote: ...if an affected creature spends a move action screaming as loudly as possible, it can act without any other penalties for the remainder of its turn. “Screaming,” for the purposes of this spell, includes any vocalization of pain or its telepathic equivalent. It says 'screaming' 'includes any vocalization of pain or its telepathic equivalent'. Include, not requires. This seems to imply 'for purposes of this spell' that screaming and vocalizing are not the same thing.
That means while spending your move-action you can vocalize your agony into intelligible words. "By the Gods it hurts so much!" or "Only expending this move-action to try and say this sentence as loudly as possible is helping me feel better!" (bad roleplaying penalty notwithstanding). Or they could just try and scream out a non-vocalized howl of pain. As long it's as loud as they can be, it does make them feel better, as evidenced by the fact they can ignore the penalties for being in agony for the rest of their turn.
This means a coyote can howl out it agony. A centipede might be able to if the DM believes centipedes make sounds to express agony. (I once tried to crush one of those inch-long red velvet ants. It started shrieking, surprised the heck out of me.) A mute person could scream out in agony, even if the sound was a gurgling moan that no one would recognize as a scream.. or even just a frantic expulsion of air. It may be comical (not trying to downplay anyone in agony) but I think you can tell someone crying out in agony even if they aren't making a sound you can hear.
bigrig107 wrote: Edit: @Cuup, it doesn't say "(only such creatures without the natural ability to communicate or vocalize)". You can't use that to mean that only those creatures suffer the full effect for not screaming, as that's not what the part you bolded says. Also, I would argue that giant centipedes do have the capacity for vocalization, but that's not really the point here. Fair enough. I think at this point, we can all agree that the wording of Howling Agony could be clearer. However, I'd like to attack this from a different angle. Namely, the wording from Howling Agony that says: Howling Agony wrote: However, if an affected creature spends a move action screaming as loudly as possible, it can act without any other penalties for the remainder of its turn. Why include "as loudly as possible"? The sentence could have instead read "However, if an affected creature spends a move action screaming, it can act without any other penalties for the remainder of its turn." My interpretation is this spell is meant to be a stealth-breaker. You have some considerable penalties, but you can negate them by screaming at the top of your lungs. What's more important - negating the penalties, or NOT alerting the other outfit of guards several rooms over? To that logic, adding a silence effect to the mix to make it more debilitating goes against the spell's intended design. With this in mind, even interpreting the Spell Description's imperfect wording to say Silence prevents a creature from ignoring these penalties is pointless, because the spell was obviously not intended to work that way.
Ridiculon wrote: So, I'd like Avoron, Rysky, and CampinCarl9127 (if they can be tempted back) to come at this from another angle.
Namely, can you each make a few positive statements about when you would be forced to suffer the full effects of howling agony?
Gladly.
Creatures that cannot vocalize sounds of pain (or telepathically communicate the equivalent) cannot scream, and thus suffer the full effects of the spell.
This includes creatures that are naturally unable to vocalize sound, creatures that are normally able to vocalize sound but are prevented from doing so by the circumstances, and creatures that can vocalize sound but not in a way that expresses or exhibits any sort of pain.
Saldiven wrote: How about like when specifically mentioned Yeah, like the way it specifically mentions "creatures that cannot scream"
Cuup wrote: Can we all stop pretending that the "vocalization" in the Howling Agony description ISN'T referring to someone going "OWOWOWOWOWOW!" when you stub your toe? Okay, let's instead agree that it's referring to "using the voice." Because that's, you know, what vocalization means.
Cuup wrote: despite any Rules Lawyering or Transitive reasoning the player presents them with ...did you just try to make one of the building blocks of logic sound like a bad thing?
CampinCarl9127 wrote: Yeah, all of my knowledge of biology (not insignificant as a biomedical engineer) tells me that the body reacting to dull the stimuli from nocireceptors is not dependent on actually making noise, but physically going through the pain pathways that would relieve the stimuli. Which is why screaming into a pillow still works, even if that pillow is somehow completely soundproof. ...what?
None of this is the least bit relevant to the topic at hand. You aren't trying to scream as a part of some personal pain or stress relief therapy, you're trying to scream because it would fulfill the specific magical conditions required to free you from a specific magical effect, and the magical effect specifically requires vocalization.
Cuup wrote: My interpretation is this spell is meant to be a stealth-breaker. There are two problems with this.
1. It makes absolutely no sense. This isn't an alarm spell. In order to target anyone with the spell the caster must be aware of their presence, be able to see or touch them, and be within close range. Spending a standard action for a chance at forcing the target to either scream or accept minor penalties would be enormously less effective at revealing the target's presence than a)screaming yourself, b)pointing at them and shouting "Look!" or c)doing pretty much anything else.
2. It really doesn't matter. Summoning spells were clearly not intended to bring creatures that walk blindly in front of you to trigger traps, but that's a perfectly acceptable use of the spell. A use not being intended in no way suggests that it doesn't work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It seems to me the intent of the spell is that you have to be communicating your pain the loudest way possible to avoid the penalties. Most creatures communicate pain by screaming, hence the screaming reference. The reference to telepathy is for those creatures that communicate via telepathy.
So unless the target has telepathic abilities to broadcast his pain, it is prevented from screaming when magically silenced, so therefore the negative effects apply.
No sound or no telepathy = No communication of pain = No screaming
therefore
penalties take effect.
Avoron wrote: You aren't trying to scream as a part of some personal pain or stress relief therapy, you're trying to scream because it would fulfill the specific magical conditions required to free you from a specific magical effect, and the magical effect specifically requires vocalization. I see the problem here. Spirit versus words.
On this note, I would like to mention that the spell does not actually mention that knowledge of the spell's effects are required in order to know you can scream to negate it. (Contrast Ill Omen, which specifies you need to know the spell and its effects in order to know its specific countermeasure.)
I think the intent of the spell literally is 'screaming as pain relief'. By showing a vocal expression of your pain, you can focus well enough to do the rest of your turn.
If it's part of some magical condition, how would you resolve it with creatures that cannot make the Spellcraft check to know you are, in fact, casting Howling Agony? Are they unaware enough of the spell to not know how to make the pain not hurt? Or are they also magically notified by the spell that if they yell loudly, they are somehow more able to make and dodge attacks than if they hadn't?
Could a mindless creature (that nevertheless possessed the natural ability to vocalize pain) know enough to know it could scream for the sake of the spell?
Avaron wrote: ...what?
None of this is the least bit relevant to the topic at hand. You aren't trying to scream as a part of some personal pain or stress relief therapy, you're trying to scream because it would fulfill the specific magical conditions required to free you from a specific magical effect, and the magical effect specifically requires vocalization.
Sorry, normally I try not to make things too complicated in my arguments but I couldn't rely on any high-school level biology for this question.
If your answer is "Because magic", then that's a fine (if lazy) interpretation. I would rather go by the interpretation that makes more sense and doesn't have to fall back on the "Because magic" argument. I consider the act of screaming more important (and much more importantly, the spent action economy). You consider the sound of screaming more important.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I agree with Saethori and Carl and anybody else who takes the position that it is the effort of screaming itself that is important, not the audibility of the scream. It isn't a specific kind of Dispel Magic, but a reaction to the pain with a specific way of alleiviating it. If this was not the case, the spell would not need to call out the specific examples of the kinds of creatures that do not have the ability to alleviate the pain effect.
"Creatures without the natural ability to communicate or vocalize" suffer the full effects of the spell. That means creatures with the natural ability to communicate or vocalize can avoid the full effects of the spell with a move action. A creature who can naturally vocalize can still do it regardless of whether anybody else can hear it or not.
Saethori wrote: I think the intent of the spell literally is 'screaming as pain relief'. By showing a vocal expression of your pain, you can focus well enough to do the rest of your turn. Emphasis on "vocal." We can guess all we want about what aspects of the screaming were intended to be the most important, but we know that vocalizing is essential to benefiting from a scream because the spell went out of its way to define it as such.
CampinCarl9127 wrote: If your answer is "Because magic", then that's a fine (if lazy) interpretation. I would rather go by the interpretation that makes more sense and doesn't have to fall back on the "Because magic" argument. Frankly, I don't really care why screaming is important. The spell tells us that it is, and you can feel free to make up whatever you want for the rest.
I am concerned with under what conditions screaming is important, because this is essential to determining the effects of the spell. And nocireceptors or not, the spell clearly states that one of those conditions is vocalization.
Stone Dog wrote: Creatures without the natural ability to communicate or vocalize" suffer the full effects of the spell. That means creatures with the natural ability to communicate or vocalize can avoid the full effects of the spell with a move action. A creature who can naturally vocalize can still do it regardless of whether anybody else can hear it or not. Crucially inaccurate quotation and wildly inaccurate interpretation.
Howling Agony wrote: creatures that cannot scream (such as creatures without the natural ability to communicate or vocalize) suffer the full effect of the spell Any creature that cannot scream, regardless of the reasons, suffers the full effect of the spell. Lack of natural ability is just one example of why a creature might not be able to scream.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Avoron wrote: Frankly, I don't really care why screaming is important. The spell tells us that it is, and you can feel free to make up whatever you want for the rest. Well luckily I don't have to make up anything because biology makes sense. But you can feel free to make up whatever you want to justify your "Because magic" answer ;)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: Any creature that cannot scream, regardless of the reasons, suffers the full effect of the spell. Lack of natural ability is just one example of why a creature might not be able to scream. Crucially pedantic and wildly uncompelling interpretation.
Stone Dog wrote: Crucially pedantic and wildly uncompelling interpretation. Sorry, I was unnecessarily combative and rude. But there is a significant difference between those two quotes.
spell text: "creatures that cannot scream (such as creatures without the natural ability to communicate or vocalize) suffer the full effect of the spell"
your interpretation: "Creatures without the natural ability to communicate or vocalize" suffer the full effects of the spell. That means creatures with the natural ability to communicate or vocalize can avoid the full effects of the spell with a move action. A creature who can naturally vocalize can still do it regardless of whether anybody else can hear it or not."
by way of analogy:
equivalent spell text: "Fruits, such as apples, taste good."
equivalent interpretation: "The spell says that apples taste good. This means fruits that are not apples do not taste good. Therefore, oranges do not taste good."
Do you see how your "freedom for natural vocalizers" interpretation and the "unpleasant oranges" interpretation could be similarly problematic?
Avoron you're not being combative or rude at all. Just not compelling :P
Oh Avoron, that is one very disappointing strawman argument. I expect better of you.
Really? I think that serves as a very accurate analogy. The interpretation made by Stone Dog is directly contrary to the text of spell.
spell text: All things A, including A.1, have quality B.
interpretation: The spell says that things A.1 have quality B. This means that things not A.1 do not have quality B. Therefore, A.2 does not have quality B.
Avoron wrote: ...did you just try to make one of the building blocks of logic sound like a bad thing? I'm merely stating that transitive reasoning can't answer every question. This is a case of simply using common sense. Let's pretend for a moment that I'm in the vacuum of space (where I have no problem surviving for the purpose of this analogy), and receive a hearty dose of pain. My body would tense up, and my train of thought would get jumbled up, due to the shock of the pain (these symptoms can very easily be connected to the penalties from the Howling Agony spell, btw). My body's natural impulse to scream helps alleviate that shock, and with it, those symptoms. In space, however, no one can hear you scream. That's OK, though, because my body's physical reaction is all that matters. The accompanying sound (while perhaps satisfying to some) isn't a factor in my body's reaction, and isn't necessary to alleviate the shock.
It's glaringly obvious that this scenario (minus being in space) is what this spell is attempting to replicate. You're using the Spell Description's unfortunately poor wording and transitive reasoning to make your argument when every ounce of logic should be telling you it shouldn't work that way, and I'm sorry, but if you honestly don't agree, then I believe you're lying to yourself for the sake of being correct.
Yup, complete misrepresentation. Sorry Avoron, I think you simply don't understand where we're coming from. We are saying x and you are trying to disprove y.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ok, so, from what I am reading, there's really no question here
Silence 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. 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. Creatures in an area of a silence spell are immune to sonic or language-based attacks, spells, and effects. For this, we can determine that Silence stops sound from being *perceived*. We can write off the spellcasting to the lack of accuracy in the sounds because, really, if you can't hear yourself, the odds are you won't be able to tune your voice to accurately create the sounds required for spellcasting which should by any rights be fairly complex.
Does Silence stop you from screaming? No. Does it stop sound from being perceived? Yes. Why this conclusion? Because it prevents sound from *travelling*, hence it stops the vibrations that carry the sound, thus preventing the perception of that sound. It does not prevent the sound from actually being created.
As a sidenote; Good job on keeping things civilised :)
A Silence spell is fundamentally the same thing as an Antimagic Field. They are both "anti-Blah zones" where Blah is suppressed. In one, the Blah is sound, in the other, the Blah is magic.
So let's take a look at the Antimagic Field and how it operates to see a parallel to the Silence.
Let's say I have a Bull's Strength spell running on my person and I go into an Antimagic Field. I stay there for five minutes and the Bull's Strength lasts six minutes. How much longer do I have with the Bull's Strength after I walk back out? Six minutes or one?
The Antimagic Field specifically says that spell durations continue to expire even while they are being suppressed, so the answer is one. The spell still happens. Where Blah is magic, in this anti-Blah zone, the basic fact of this particular Blah's existence is still true. It's effect is suppressed and I don't get +4 to Strength, but I am still under that spell.
So this situation is analogous to a situation where some manner of effect is keyed to recognize (leaving aside for the moment the exact mechanics for how this hypothetical effect can recognize the continued existence of a spell inside an Antimagic Field) the existence of a spell (whether working or not, it doesn't matter as long as it's there) in order for something to happen. Bull's Strength is accomplishing nothing, but it's still considered there.
Why does changing the Blah change how it works? The scream is there. It's suppressed, but it's there. The basic fact of its existence is acknowledged. And all Howling Agony cares about is 1) was there a scream? and 2) was a move action taken to create said scream?
"Was the scream instantaneously then suppressed?" is an extra step outside of the pass-fail conditions of the spell.
Also:
Silence wrote: All sound is stopped. This is equivalent to a runner at a start line. Him being stopped, even stopped at the source, is merely him not making it any further than the start line. Which is entirely different from "he was never there in the first place".
The runner was at the start line. The sound wave was created. The runner was stopped. The sound wave was stopped. But both still existed in the first place.
Can a mute Oracle scream?
If so...
Axolotl wrote: Can a mute Oracle scream?
If so...
As this is a different situation (and I haven't seen a curse that makes the Oracle mute), it's beyond the point. Were the Oracle, for whatever reason, not able to produce any kind of sound, AT ALL (and mute people can still moan and create sound), I would say that yes, he would by default take the full effect. Again, only in the very unlikely event he would not, under normal circumstances, be able to emit some form of sound (or mental communication) to signal that he is suffering.
Ivalios wrote: Does Silence stop you from screaming? No. Does it stop sound from being perceived? Yes. Why this conclusion? Because it prevents sound from *travelling*, hence it stops the vibrations that carry the sound, thus preventing the perception of that sound. It does not prevent the sound from actually being created. I honestly cannot believe that you're arguing that sound can be created and exist in a silence spell. I mean, look at the text you quoted.
Silence 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. This is as clear as anything in Pathfinder gets; it would be difficult work for the writers to make it any more unambiguous. Silence is one of those spells that does exactly what it says on the label: it creates an area of silence, where all sound is stopped.
"Stopped from doing what?" you seem to be asking. Not just from being percieved - nowhere does the spell text ever indicate, suggest, or imply that it interferes with the perceptions of any creature. Nor simply from traveling, because the spell creates "complete silence" that prevents sound from being "issued." No, the wording of the text in context is pretty clear, and I think most other posters here agree. Silence prevents sound from coming into existence.
stop wrote: prevent (an action or event) from happening Ivalios wrote: Were the Oracle, for whatever reason, not able to produce any kind of sound... I would say that yes, he would by default take the full effect. The conditions you are describing are exactly what the spell silence does.
Cuup wrote: You're using the Spell Description's unfortunately poor wording and transitive reasoning to make your argument when every ounce of logic should be telling you it shouldn't work that way, and I'm sorry, but if you honestly don't agree, then I believe you're lying to yourself for the sake of being correct. The writers of Howling Agony went out of there way to provide a precise and specific definition of the word "screaming," for its use in the context of the spell. Much like the definition of "attack" provided in the spell invisibility, dismissing this definition as "unfortunately poor wording" is defeating the point of the spell.
This definition clearly and explicitly states that, barring telepathy, screaming requires vocalization. And vocalization requires sound - that's just what the word "vocalization" means.
You seem to be appealing to my intuition, or "common sense," to tell me that the spell silence shouldn't prevent creatures from screaming to end Howling Agony's effect.
But my intuitions about how required behavior works, my "transitive reasoning," the direct text of the spells, and "every ounce of logic" I have are all telling me the exact same thing:
Silence prevents the creation of sound. Vocalization requires the creation of sound. Screaming requires vocalization. Therefore, silence prevents screaming.
So yes, I do honestly disagree. And if I'm lying to myself, I am a very, very good liar. I've laid out my argument in the simplest and most obvious form I can think of, my logic and intuition are perfectly content with it, and even if the whole word persists in disagreeing with me, there's nothing more I can say in its defense.
Avoron is not being intellectually dishonest, and any accusations so directed at him are completely uncalled for. I disagree with him, but he is clearly arguing in good faith. Please keep things civil.
Avoron wrote: nowhere does the spell text ever indicate, suggest, or imply that it interferes with the perceptions of any creature. Silence wrote: School illusion (glamer) Illusion wrote: Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
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.
Fair enough, I'll concede that the implication is there.
But glamer spells don't interfere with the perceptions of creatures, they change the sensory qualities of the things themselves. Invisibility doesn't interfere with any creature's eyesight to prevent them from seeing the target, it changes the sensory qualities of the target so that it no longer has a visible appearance to be perceived. Sound itself is a sensory quality, so if a glamer spell takes away the sound from a sound, you're left with... no sound.
In fact, this nicely pinpoints the idea I was referencing earlier in the discussion of sound waves as vibrations in the air. We've all agreed that silence doesn't change the physical movements of a creature, and it seems plausible that the air continues to move normally as well. But silence, being a glamer spell, removes the "sensory quality" that the vibrations have and prevents them from being the sort of thing that can be heard.
At this point the discussion just sort of dissolves into the semantics and metaphysics of a fictional magic system, but none of that really matters to the actual functioning of the spell.
Silence says it stops sound, so it does.
So the question comes back to this: does your scream have to be able to be heard in order to count? I say no.
Does it have to be able to be heard? No.
Does it have to make a sound? Yes.
Even by your logic, no it doesn't. They must scream as loudly as possible. If the loudest they can scream is silently, then they are still screaming. Silently.
Ordinarily, your argument would be fairly effective. But in this case, the spell states exactly what happens if you are unable to vocalize: you "suffer the full effects of the spell."
If a flame is only capable of making zero light, then it is not capable of making light. If a person is only capable of performing zero jumping jacks, then they are not capable of performing jumping jacks. Being able to do zero of something is the same thing as not being able to do it.
So if the character in silence is only capable of vocalizing zero sound, then they are not capable of vocalizing - and they automatically suffer the full effects of the spell, regardless of whether or not they are vocalizing "as loudly as possible."
I need you to make an explosion as large as possible.
The largest possible explosion I can make is no explosion.
Therefore, no explosion = the largest possible explosion = success.
Pretty basic logic there.
I cast sculpt sound on you and your screams come out like a soft, warm, sleepy kitty. No matter how loudly you try to scream, the only sound you can make is a soothing 'purr-purr-purr.'
Oh god, make them change into a rabbit. If you ever hear a rabbit scream, it will haunt your dreams for weeks.
CampinCarl9127 wrote: I need you to make an explosion as large as possible.
The largest possible explosion I can make is no explosion.
Therefore, no explosion = the largest possible explosion = success.
Pretty basic logic there.
I disagree with your second premise.
If you can make no explosion, you can't make an explosion.
"No explosion" does not belong into the class of "things that are an explosion".
--------------------------------------------------------
This is as if I was argueing something like this:
"I need you to define a sphere as small as possible"
"I define a point as sphere with diameter of 0"
"I need you to define a cube as small as possible"
"I define a point as a cube with a length, width and height of 0"
"I need you to define a pyramid as small as possible"
"I define a point as a pyramid with..."
Therefore, a point is a sphere is a cube is a pyramid.
Therefore, a sphere can be a cube can be a pyramid.
...see the problem?
CampinCarl9127 wrote: I need you to make an explosion as large as possible.
The largest possible explosion I can make is no explosion.
Therefore, no explosion = the largest possible explosion = success.
Pretty basic logic there.
You're logic is missing something.
Howling Need to Explode wrote: Creatures that cannot make an explosion suffer the full effects of the spell. If the largest possible explosion you can make is no explosion, then you cannot make an explosion. That clause then forces you to suffer the full effects of the spell, regardless of whether or not "no explosion" is the largest you can make.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
But what does the Buffy episode "Hush" tell us about this.
A bad metaphor.
The creature is still screaming. They can scream so hard their throat splits and bleeds. But according to your logic, that's not good enough for the spell because it doesn't read on the decibel scale.
I think it's time to agree to disagree here because I have a "Science explains this" answer and you have a "Because magic" answer.
Silence Spell wrote: "Creatures in an area of a silence spell are immune to sonic or language-based attacks, spells, and effects." The screaming part of Howling Agony is to alleviate the spell's effect. It stands to reason that if magically silenced people are immune to sonic effects, that would include screaming to avoid the penalties of this spell.
|
