PDA

View Full Version : Silence....



Edhelras
2010-10-04, 06:16 AM
So, the party is up against a priestess who is casting Sound Burst at them. They made up a plan to cast Silence and Invisibility on the party Rogue, to have her sneak past the Cleric's meatshields and silence her.
Unfortunately, the Cleric Will-saved against the Silence effect. As I interpret the spell, that means that she willed her voice to carry out of the silenced area, her willpower stronger than the magical silence that the party Cleric had been able to create.

But then question arose: It's one thing that a character can Will save against being affected by the Silence (for instance, like in this case that another character emanating Silence comes up to you). But can a spellcaster also Will her sound-based spell to take effect in a Silenced area, away from herself?

Trying to make it clearer: Can a Cleric cast Sound Burst on a group of Silenced adventurers, and overcome the Silence through a Will save so that the Sound burst cacaphony is still heard in that area, and damages the adventurers?

I would think that at least that would require for instance a Caster level check or something, but the spell description mentions nothing like that.

But I thought saves were something you did to prevent an effect of affecting you and your own person. A bit strange that you can make a save kind of on behalf of an area away from yourself.

Asheram
2010-10-04, 07:04 AM
Now, as I interpret the spell, the will save is only allowed if the spell is centered upon an unwilling subject. But I could be mistaken there.

Cog
2010-10-04, 07:08 AM
Concurring with Asheram.

The way you can defend against being a victim of Silence depends on what form is used. If it's cast on you, you get the save and SR; if it's cast on something near you, you have the opportunity to move out of the emanation.

senrath
2010-10-04, 07:09 AM
Yeah, Silence only allows a save if it's being cast upon an unwilling target. There is no save allowed if you're just in the area of the spell, and it mostly stops any [Sonic] spells from working in the area (and stops any spells with verbal components from being cast within it).

Frosty
2010-10-04, 07:10 AM
The priestess gets no save. She's in the field, so she's Silenced.

Have the Rogue ready a Standard action to follow the Priestess where-ever she goes.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-04, 07:23 AM
The priestess gets no save. She's in the field, so she's Silenced. This. The spell only offers the save/srd to the subject of the emanation, not to those inside the emanation. Mister Silenced Rogue would shut her up easy. From there it's just a matter of following around.

Edhelras
2010-10-04, 03:00 PM
Huh. That's... almost a bit cheesy. Almost like a wandering Antimagic field, at party lvl 3. Seems like an almost fool-proof way to neutralize an enemy caster, especially in confined places where the person emanating Silence can possibly affect more than one caster.

I still find it strange, though, that a caster should be thusly affected, losing almost all his spellcasting abilities, without even a save. Spell resistance is rarely available at those low levels.

It kinda seems like a loophole to me, and frankly, reading the spell description, I think it would be only fair that anyone not directly targeted by the should get some chance of overcoming the effect. If not a Save, then as I mentioned perhaps opposed Caster lvl checks or something like that.

Come to think of it, a low-lvl couple of wizard&cleric could in this fashion cast Silence and Invisibility on a tiny creature, the wizard's familiar or even a trained flea, and order it to stay close to an enemy wizard of 10 lvls above them. Only if the caster had true seeing or see invisibility already in place could he hope to get rid of the disabling silencing.

If the target is so high and mighty - shouldn't he be able to overcome such puny resistance? Should his mighties offence/defense be crippled so easily?

Snake-Aes
2010-10-04, 03:04 PM
It's not cheesy at all. It has the same vulnerabilities AMF does and spells without verbal components / silent spell metamagic can be cast normally.

Ignition
2010-10-04, 03:10 PM
Huh. That's... almost a bit cheesy. Almost like it's magic, we don't have to explain crap

Fixed that for you :smallbiggrin:

Really, creative uses of magic destroy challenges because, well "It's Magic" (tm). Silence is the Screw You, Unprepared Spellcaster spell. That said, metamagic allows you to work around Silence by taking out the somatic components. So it's kinda balanced like that.

Ultimately, the only way to get around magic-ing your way out of a situation is to... well, not have magic. Again, because It's Magic (tm). It's better than you. If it were real, we'd use it just like this too (and don't lie, just because you didn't think of it first :smallwink: ). The party should get away with anything they can figure out; anything they can do, something else can do better. Keep that in mind.

Edhelras
2010-10-04, 03:14 PM
Yeah, but AMF is a lvl 6 or 8 spell. As for Silent metamagic, it would generally require the caster (unless he's a sorcerer or other spontaneous caster) to prepare ahead to be utterly silenced, which might be debilitating in the long run. And non-verbal spells - well, I'm sure there's a list of those some place, but most of the commonly used & useful spells do have a verbal component. Even Wands have a command word.

When reading the text in the PHB, I can't really see that it specifically states what you guys are saying here. It says no save for objects. I agree that the save option for an unwilling creature is mentioned just after the text mentions that a single, moving person can be targeted. But it doesn't say explicitly that people inside the zone of silence don't get any chance of resisting or overcoming the effect.

Again, I feel this might be a loophole as an effect of the combined silence and invisibility spells. But of course I defer to the opinions of those more experienced than myself...:smallsmile:

Edit: An actually, I think it's a great idea. Only that it seems like a sure win to be applied in each and every situation, at least on lower levels. Kind of takes away some of the excitement, could as well build encounters with no casters (or a whole bunch of them, he-he...).

Fax Celestis
2010-10-04, 03:16 PM
Because of the way the turn-based system works, it is completely avoidable. Wizard goes "oh noes I can't hear anything", walks 30' in a random direction, and is now outside the radius. Wizard goes "hooray I can hear" and casts a spell. Rogue takes his turn, moves the wizard back into the field, repeat ad nauseum. All it really does is force the wizard to move every turn, which means no full-round spells (mostly, no summons).

Edhelras
2010-10-04, 03:18 PM
Because of the way the turn-based system works, it is completely avoidable. Wizard goes "oh noes I can't hear anything", walks 30' in a random direction, and is now outside the radius. Wizard goes "hooray I can hear" and casts a spell. Rogue takes his turn, moves the wizard back into the field, repeat ad nauseum. All it really does is force the wizard to move every turn, which means no full-round spells (mostly, no summons).

Good points there, only this was taking place in a confined area with not much room for the caster to move. So, it's not for each and every encounter, obviously.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-04, 03:20 PM
That's because saves are done only on the primary subjects of the spells. When a secondary effect has a save it is specified as such. (Example: amf's clause on summoned creatures). Silence's saves and SR are to resist being the emanation point.

Eloel
2010-10-04, 03:23 PM
Because of the way the turn-based system works, it is completely avoidable. Wizard goes "oh noes I can't hear anything", walks 30' in a random direction, and is now outside the radius. Wizard goes "hooray I can hear" and casts a spell. Rogue takes his turn, moves the wizard back into the field, repeat ad nauseum. All it really does is force the wizard to move every turn, which means no full-round spells (mostly, no summons).

Readied actions. AoOs.
Not that easy to avoid.

JonestheSpy
2010-10-04, 03:25 PM
Because of the way the turn-based system works, it is completely avoidable. Wizard goes "oh noes I can't hear anything", walks 30' in a random direction, and is now outside the radius. Wizard goes "hooray I can hear" and casts a spell. Rogue takes his turn, moves the wizard back into the field, repeat ad nauseum. All it really does is force the wizard to move every turn, which means no full-round spells (mostly, no summons).

Yeah, that might work if this was a boardgame we're discussing, but DnD has a bit more in the way of options. There's no reason the above-mentioned plan of the rogue using a prepared action to stay near the caster wouldn't work.

That said, it seems to me that anyone gets a save within the spell effect, not just if it's cast directly on that person. The sonic burst would definitely fizzle if cast within the silence effect though.

edit: dang those pesky ninjas

Snake-Aes
2010-10-04, 03:28 PM
Readied actions. AoOs.
Not that easy to avoid.

This makes the silencer's only use to be nullifying the caster. Still a good trade though.
Maybe I can cast silence on that Spiritual Weapon...

Fax Celestis
2010-10-04, 03:37 PM
Readied actions. AoOs.
Not that easy to avoid.

...which means silencer is taking silencee out of the fight. Wizards do this starting at first level with sleep and upwards through high levels with Save or Lose spells like irresistible dance, temporal stasis, maze, insanity, forcecage, solid fog, wall of force, and dominate person. Silence, at the very least, can be escaped.

EDIT: Tangentially related, but still illuminating:


The entries for all the golems in the MM say that golems have magic immunity, which is supposed to allow golems to completely resist most magical and supernatural effects except for specific ones listed in each golem’s description. (Most of those heal, slow, or damage the golem.) Can you cast beneficial spells on a golem? For example, can you turn a golem invisible? Can you teleport one? Could you cast darkness on a golem? How about fly or reverse gravity? To put it another way, if you are not trying to directly cause damage or drastically alter the golem (such as with polymorph), will the spell work? Clearly, if you cast darkness on yourself and the golem attacks you, once it moves into the area of darkness, it can no longer see you. But can you cast darkness on the golem? Could a golem use a magic item, such as a ring of invisibility?

As noted in each golem’s entry, a golem resists any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. (In previous versions of the D&D game, golems were impervious to most supernatural effects as well, but that is no longer the case.) In most cases, you can tell if a spell or spell-like ability works on a golem simply by looking up its spell resistance entry. Let’s take a quick look at the effects you’ve listed:
[...]
Darkness: You can’t cast a darkness spell on yourself, on a golem, or any other creature—only on an object (see the spell description). Golems have no special ability to see through darkness (and the spell resistance entry is “no”). The silence spell provides a better example of how a golem’s magic immunity (and spell resistance in general) works. You can cast silence on a creature, and when you do so, spell resistance applies (see the spell description). A silence spell automatically fails if you try to cast it on a golem.

Once a silence spell is operating, silence reigns throughout the emanation the spell creates. If a golem moves into the emanation, the golem still cannot hear or make any noise.

Edhelras
2010-10-04, 03:39 PM
That said, it seems to me that anyone gets a save within the spell effect, not just if it's cast directly on that person. The sonic burst would definitely fizzle if cast within the silence effect though.

That was my "sound logic" interpretation as well. Anyway - thanks a lot everybody for useful and interesting contributions! :smallsmile:

Thefurmonger
2010-10-04, 03:47 PM
Seriously, this is the reason for the metamagic Silent spell.

Its a +1 meta, prepare 1 or 2 spells a day with it (Mostly get out of jail free type spells).

that is hardly a problem, and its a good reason that Wiz get bonus meta feats every 5 lvls.

Tukka
2010-10-04, 04:19 PM
...which means silencer is taking silencee out of the fight. Wizards do this starting at first level with sleep and upwards through high levels with Save or Lose spells like irresistible dance, temporal stasis, maze, insanity, forcecage, solid fog, wall of force, and dominate person. Silence, at the very least, can be escaped.
Of course, but a big part of the complaint about the "brokenness" of this spell combo is that it allows no save. An invisible, silent familiar effectively neuters a single magic user while allowing no save.

Sure it can be escaped, but it seems like escaping in many scenarios would not be possible, unless you've got a specific counter prepared. The most effective counters that I can think of really don't kick in until level 5-7 at the earliest, and even then come at a pretty high cost in terms of daily resources. That seems a bit much, considering that it's a pair of level 2 spells that are neutering you.

I don't think I'd say that it's broken, but it's definitely one of the more fearsome low-level combos I can think of.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-04, 07:49 PM
Of course, but a big part of the complaint about the "brokenness" of this spell combo is that it allows no save. An invisible, silent familiar effectively neuters a single magic user while allowing no save.

Sure it can be escaped, but it seems like escaping in many scenarios would not be possible, unless you've got a specific counter prepared. The most effective counters that I can think of really don't kick in until level 5-7 at the earliest, and even then come at a pretty high cost in terms of daily resources. That seems a bit much, considering that it's a pair of level 2 spells that are neutering you.

I don't think I'd say that it's broken, but it's definitely one of the more fearsome low-level combos I can think of.

At those levels, "a pair of level 2 spells" is also a significant investment. Especially considering that the guy that prepared silence may not needing it, while the guy that don't want to be silenced always has a reason to be prepared against it.

Jarveiyan
2010-10-05, 04:51 PM
So, the party is up against a priestess who is casting Sound Burst at them. They made up a plan to cast Silence and Invisibility on the party Rogue, to have her sneak past the Cleric's meatshields and silence her.
Unfortunately, the Cleric Will-saved against the Silence effect. As I interpret the spell, that means that she willed her voice to carry out of the silenced area, her willpower stronger than the magical silence that the party Cleric had been able to create.

But then question arose: It's one thing that a character can Will save against being affected by the Silence (for instance, like in this case that another character emanating Silence comes up to you). But can a spellcaster also Will her sound-based spell to take effect in a Silenced area, away from herself?

Trying to make it clearer: Can a Cleric cast Sound Burst on a group of Silenced adventurers, and overcome the Silence through a Will save so that the Sound burst cacaphony is still heard in that area, and damages the adventurers?

I would think that at least that would require for instance a Caster level check or something, but the spell description mentions nothing like that.

But I thought saves were something you did to prevent an effect of affecting you and your own person. A bit strange that you can make a save kind of on behalf of an area away from yourself.

Did the party caster have silent spell? Otherwise this doesn't work, invisibility has a verbal component. and if invis was cast first how could they see the rogue?

Lothmar
2010-10-05, 05:01 PM
This is why if im playing a caster, I carry around a weapon of spell storing with Dispel Magic or Joyful noise that I can activate as a free action. *Chuckle*

But yeah, Joyful Noise (smaller radius then silence) + Silence (larger radius then JN - so there's a silence zone outside of that which the party can talk within) + Invisibility sphere + Greater invisibility (self - in case someone has to do something) + Backup scrolls of invisibilty in case people have to reveal themselves and dispel invisibility sphere for themselves ; Has got to be my favorite bard/Caster combo for a stealth caster firing squad.

DeltaEmil
2010-10-05, 05:03 PM
Did the party caster have silent spell? Otherwise this doesn't work, invisibility has a verbal component. and if invis was cast first how could they see the rogue?I'd guess the rogue wouldn't try to evade the caster's silence spell on himself.

tyckspoon
2010-10-05, 05:27 PM
I'd guess the rogue wouldn't try to evade the caster's silence spell on himself.

You can also just cast the spell on a coin or a rock or a weapon or.. anything and have the rogue carry that around. The option to target Silence on an object makes it a very easy spell to deliver (more fun options: cast it on a Net, Harpoon, Tanglefoot Bag, or other item whose use explicitly makes it stick on the target. Entangle/impale annoying spellcaster. Laugh.)

Forged Fury
2010-10-05, 05:41 PM
Did the party caster have silent spell? Otherwise this doesn't work, invisibility has a verbal component. and if invis was cast first how could they see the rogue?
You should be able to target via touch if necessary. Cast invisibility first (which requires a touch), then cast Silence on the creature you're touching.

Frosty
2010-10-05, 06:55 PM
Because of the way the turn-based system works, it is completely avoidable. Wizard goes "oh noes I can't hear anything", walks 30' in a random direction, and is now outside the radius. Wizard goes "hooray I can hear" and casts a spell. Rogue takes his turn, moves the wizard back into the field, repeat ad nauseum. All it really does is force the wizard to move every turn, which means no full-round spells (mostly, no summons).
True. It does take the silencee out of the fight, but often it is worth it to completely neutralize an enemy caster. It's another tool to bring casters back in line, and works especially well with my houserule of the top two spell levels of a caster requiring full-round action to cast (the magic equivalent of a full-attack).

With some AoO feats and vs a "normal" enemy caster (i.e the DM isn't throwing broken caster crap and Cindys at you), it's a great way to reward teamwork.

Curmudgeon
2010-10-05, 07:49 PM
Because Silence can be cast on objects, one good plan is to do so on multiple pebbles and hand one out to each party member. They can toss their pebble up to 50' (improvised weapon, 5 10' range increments), or 100' with Far Shot, thus covering a larger area.

ericgrau
2010-10-05, 08:28 PM
The ability to effectively neutralize casters with silence is fully intentional, especially by casting it in space or on an object. This has its roots all the way back in 2e. It is perhaps the main use of the spell. There are ways around it, mostly involving moving, but it's supposed to be well worth the action.

For that matter it is right in the wizard's class description that he is powerful when prepared, and weak when caught of guard. IMO DM's pitying them has led to a lot of the power complaints surrounding casters (and not just wizards). Instead, the battle cry of every monster should be "kill the mage". He's flimsy, squishy, and lets out devastating effects, it makes sense. A great deal of what makes a game fun comes from counters, counters to counters, etc. Ya, you can beat that if you have this, but you might screw up or forget or I might hit you with that other thing instead. There have got to be at least 30 different ways (if not way more) to neutralize a caster, and half of those are spells. Even within silence there are options. Please, please use these and don't nerf them. Then players and monsters strategize in-game ways to use and deal with the other guys using them. This is what is called fun. Leveling everything unusual to be "nice" to the point where it doesn't matter much what you do? Boooring.