I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream

[Theconiel]

darth_borehd wrote:

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.

Ooooh...

I like that reasoning.
+1

[Shadowlords]

On one side of the table we have the argument:

The act of screaming, the muscle tension, the breath exhalation, the clenching fists and all the other physical aspects your body undergoes when it screams is enough to suite the requirements to negate the penalties of the spell. This is what they have based the logic of this side of the arrangement on, and weather or not the scream can be heard or not is irrelevant as long as all those other physical actions have been taken (as that move action) that would normally produce a scream, then the spell penalties are negated.

The other side of the argument:

Regardless of the physical actions your body undergoes while producing a scream is relevant, it is the actual scream and that it is capable of being measured on some scale, that is the only way to meet the requirement of the spell.

The first argument is how a lot of people would rule it because that seems logical to most.

The second Argument is on the strict RaW side of things and looking for exact clauses, the spell says you must scream and make noise you have not met that requirement so you take penalties regardless of any attempt you have made

This ruling will change from table to table i seriously doubt any devs will weigh in on this

[MendedWall12]

Shadowlords wrote:

This ruling will change from table to table i seriously doubt any devs will weigh in on this

This. It's been argued back and forth with enough reasonable logic on both sides, so that when all is said and done the answer is: "whatever your table has decided." Let that be that, and move on.

[Avoron]

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

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.

Here's the problem with that: it's not my logic that makes screaming require sound, it's the definition explicitly provided by the spell.

Any previous definitions of "screaming" you may have had are replaced by the spell's requirement for "vocalization." A scientific definition of a scream doesn't matter for Howling Agony any more than a legal definition of an attack matters for Invisibility.

According to the spell itself, "screaming" requires vocalization. If your scientific definition disagrees with that, then you have to set it aside.

[Tectorman]

Derrick Winters wrote:

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?

The problem with this line of thinking is this:

Howling Need for the Letter 'K' wrote:

While under this spell, the target suffers Blah penalties. The target can alleviate these penalties for one turn by spending a move action pronouncing a word that has the letter "K".

Two characters are suffering from this spell. Both of them spend a move action. One of them says "night"; the other says "knight".

Phonetically, those two words are identical, as identical to each other as a point is to a 0 diameter sphere. One because the "K" is silent (still there, just silent), the other because the "K" is nonexistent.

Obviously, the guy who said "night" will suffer the penalty of the spell this turn. What about the guy who said "knight"?

[Claxon]

I think this is a situation where the spell is poorly written.

The idea is that the character is spending a move action to negate to the penalty, with the flavor of doing so being to "scream". Due to the wording, the specify vocalizing the scream and it becomes the actual sound that is required not the action. And while this is RAW, it's also an overly strict reading of the rules in my opinion.

To me, it should be as simple as "spend the move action". Scream in agony whether silent or not is unimportant, only the action expenditure.

[nennafir]

Claxon wrote:

I think this is a situation where the spell is poorly written.

The idea is that the character is spending a move action to negate to the penalty, with the flavor of doing so being to "scream". Due to the wording, the specify vocalizing the scream and it becomes the actual sound that is required not the action. And while this is RAW, it's also an overly strict reading of the rules in my opinion.

To me, it should be as simple as "spend the move action". Scream in agony whether silent or not is unimportant, only the action expenditure.

The only problem with this is: (1) Why did they bother talking about not having a mouth? (2) Why did they bother talking about telepathy?

They very easily could have said expend a move action but didn't. PRESUMABLY THEY DIDN'T WANT MOUTH-LESS AND TELEPATHIC-LESS PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO EXPEND A MOVE ACTION TO AVOID ANY EFFECT, OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THEM. What is still uncertain is whether or not they wanted people under a spell of silence to be able to expend a move action to avoid the effect.

I have the same issue with people who say that the muscle tension etc etc of trying to scream is enough. If so, why does the spell mention telepathy? Presumably, one could utter a telepathic scream while being completely relaxed, so I am not sure of the relevance of maintaining muscle tension to scream but not actually vocalizing a scream. When I read it, the RAI seems to be that they have to be able to communicate their agony in either a verbal or telepathic way.

That said: I agree there will probably never be a ruling on such a minor issue, and I agree that both sides have presented good arguments.

[darth_borehd]

MendedWall12 wrote:

Shadowlords wrote:

This ruling will change from table to table i seriously doubt any devs will weigh in on this

This. It's been argued back and forth with enough reasonable logic on both sides, so that when all is said and done the answer is: "whatever your table has decided." Let that be that, and move on.

I agree, we are at an impasse. I read the other side with campincarl and others and I remain unconvinced. They likewise remained unconvinced. I think this is just going to have to be one of those vague areas that each GM will have to decide.

[Merm7th]

I say as far as this spell goes, you can not vocalize a scream when silenced. It specifically calls out the vocalization of pain, not going through the motions. It might be the sounds or telepathy of agony that counters the effect. It's magic, not physics. I had someone insist that freedom of movement cast on someone swimming causes them falling damage as they fall to the bottom of the river due to the removal of resistance.

[darth_borehd]

Merm7th wrote:

I say as far as this spell goes, you can not vocalize a scream when silenced. It specifically calls out the vocalization of pain, not going through the motions. It might be the sounds or telepathy of agony that counters the effect. It's magic, not physics. I had someone insist that freedom of movement cast on someone swimming causes them falling damage as they fall to the bottom of the river due to the removal of resistance.

You can't hide behind the laws of physics after you have already broken them.

[zainale]

if your in a silenced room with a mind reader. can he still hear your thoughts?
no he can't hear your thought because he is not using his ears to "hear" your thought.

same with screaming its a movement/mental thing for that spell. you may be able to block the physical but there is no way you can block the mental scream.

[Avoron]

zainale wrote:

you may be able to block the physical but there is no way you can block the mental scream

According to the definition provided by the spell, if it's only mental, it's not a scream.

[Saldiven]

Personally, I think focusing on the -2 penalties aspect of the spell is missing the strongest part of the spell.

I'd rather let them scream as a move action. That leaves them with only a standard action per turn. No full attacks. No charges. No move and attack. No coupe de grace. No run or withdraw.

I'd far rather let the opponent scream it out and have reduced action economy. I think that's will more often be the stronger application of the spell.

If you're looking for a strict negative modifier pain based de-buff, Inflict Pain is the superior choice. Though, one could argue they have different preferred targets since Howling Agony is a Fortitude(negates) save while Inflict Pain is a Will(partial) save.

Inflict Pain:

You telepathically wrack the target’s mind and body with agonizing pain that imposes a –4 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and ability checks. A successful Will save reduces the duration to 1 round.

[Tectorman]

darth_borehd wrote:

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.

So, screaming is considered a "sonic effect"? And presumably, other common, mundane sounds such as everyday speech? Wouldn't that mean that creatures immune to sonic effects are effectively deaf?

There's a significant problem with that:

Yrthak wrote:

Immune: gaze attacks, visual effects and illusions, sight-based attacks, sonic

Yrthak wrote:

Blind (Ex)

A yrthak sees and senses exclusively through its blindsight ability, which is based on sound and movement—beyond 120 feet, it is considered blind. A deaf yrthak is effectively blinded as well except against adjacent foes—its weak eyesight functions enough for it to attack targets this close, although in such cases these creatures still gain the benefit of concealment (20% miss chance) because of the creature’s poor vision. It is invulnerable to all sight-based effects and attacks, including gaze attacks.

Either the Yrthak has the single most useless Blindsight in the game (being immune, for good or ill, to "sonic effects", including such things as everyday speech including spoken Draconic (which yrthaks are supposed to be fluent in), and other mundane sounds, effectively means they automatically act as though deaf in all circumstances, Silence spell or no), or mundane sounds aren't supposed to be considered as "sonic effects".

That might sound counter-intuitive, so let me repeat that: sounds are not "sonic effects" or yrthaks are always deaf.

Which is actually no more counter-intuitive than "spells continue to exist and occur in Antimagic Fields" or "Silenced Vocalizations still count as Vocalizations".

[nennafir]

Let me say that:

(1) I am no longer going to choose these spells at 6th level (4th level mesmerist).

but

(2) A literal rules interpretation seems to support that silence+howling agony = no move action. Yes, this no longer applied to me because I will choose a different spell selection. And yes, it doesn't make logical sense. But lets be honest, most of pathfinder makes absolutely no logical sense, so we are left with the RAW interpretation.