Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rillek_Denar 03-09-07, 02:37 PM	The silence spell (PH 279) states in its description that "An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell". Is this referring only to the case in which silence is cast on a creature? Or does anyone in a field of magical silence get a save? Thanks, in advance, for the help.
olshanski_home 03-09-07, 02:47 PM	The will save is for casting it directly on a creature, or on a creature's attended posessions. If a creature walks into a zone of silence, then there is no will save. Silence is very powerful. I do not allow the trick of casting silence on an arrow and then firing it into somebody. I do allow casting silence on a rock or non-ammunition projectile weapon. Tanglefoot bags are especialy useful, but I rule that when the tanglefoot bag dissolves, the silence spell is dispersed as well. Basically, I rule that if an object with a spell is destroyed, the spell is also destroyed.
Rillek_Denar 03-09-07, 02:52 PM	I plan to have the party wizard cast it on my ranger, then sneak up on the enemy sorc (no move silently check needed) and attack him. Unless he has silent spell, I should cut him to ribbons.
Marcus Majarra 03-09-07, 03:11 PM	Awesome tactic, this works wonders too with a trip specialist, since it's basically a reasonable guarantee of your opponent staying in the silence field.
Empiro 03-10-07, 09:27 PM	Yes, silence is very powerful, but also don't forget that a rod of silent spells is only 3000gp for the lesser version, and only 11000 for the regular version (which will allow you to easily escape via Dimension Door or Teleport). I don't think you even need to have the rod in hand for it to function.
Vanulf 03-10-07, 09:54 PM	that tactic was one of the reasons I had to nix the Whisper Gnome
Marcus Majarra 03-10-07, 11:52 PM	Rods require that they be wielded, meaning you need to have it in hand to use it. Certain rods affect their possessor without needing to be wielded, such as the rod of splendor, which grants its possessor a +4 enhancement bonus to Charisma as long as she holds or carries the rod.
WinDReiN 03-11-07, 07:32 PM	I really don't like the power given to the Silence spell. At least there should be a spell of a similar lvl to counter it, sth like Vocalize from Baldurs Gate. There are a few spells hidden over the books that do that, but not available to all spellcasting classes.
Lerysh 03-11-07, 07:54 PM	Silence has always been a wonky spell. Like, say you cast it on a corridor, can sound pass through the silence area or does silence simply negate all sound, not allowing sound to pass through to the other side.
FriendoftheDork 03-11-07, 08:23 PM	The will save is for casting it directly on a creature, or on a creature's attended posessions. If a creature walks into a zone of silence, then there is no will save. Silence is very powerful. I do not allow the trick of casting silence on an arrow and then firing it into somebody. I do allow casting silence on a rock or non-ammunition projectile weapon. Tanglefoot bags are especialy useful, but I rule that when the tanglefoot bag dissolves, the silence spell is dispersed as well. Basically, I rule that if an object with a spell is destroyed, the spell is also destroyed. There is no guarantee the ammunition will stick into the opponent on a hit. No more than a thrown dagger will. Thus, there is no need for such a house rule. There are no rules on missile weapons getting stuck in people, but my house rule is that on a critical hit the projectile weapon is stuck within the target (no special penalties). I'd allow it to get unstuck with a move-action.
DrMorganes 03-11-07, 08:34 PM	There is no guarantee the ammunition will stick into the opponent on a hit. No more than a thrown dagger will. Thus, there is no need for such a house rule. There are no rules on missile weapons getting stuck in people, but my house rule is that on a critical hit the projectile weapon is stuck within the target (no special penalties). I'd allow it to get unstuck with a move-action. Actually, there is. Projectiles which strike an opponent are destroyed. Those missing have a 50% chance of being destroyed. Casting Silence on an arrow and shooting it into that enemy wizard destroys the arrow, and therefore ends the spell. Silence has always been a wonky spell. Like, say you cast it on a corridor, can sound pass through the silence area or does silence simply negate all sound, not allowing sound to pass through to the other side. No wonkiness about it. The spell's description specifically states 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. Emphasis is mine. that tactic was one of the reasons I had to nix the Whisper Gnome Meh. Whisper Gnomes are largely one-trick ponies. They make wonderful rogues, but aren't much good at much else. Toss in a limited number of uses per day, enforce duration, and play up PC reputation (I believe there are variant rules in Unearthed Arcana) and suddenly such things aren't nearly so awful as they seem at first.
FriendoftheDork 03-12-07, 03:55 PM	Actually, there is. Projectiles which strike an opponent are destroyed. Those missing have a 50% chance of being destroyed. Casting Silence on an arrow and shooting it into that enemy wizard destroys the arrow, and therefore ends the spell. It's right, projectiles are considered ruined after a successful hit on an enemy. But where does it say that broken or nonfunctional objects with spells cast on them makes the spell end? And, in any case, that the missile is rendered inoperable after hitting it's target does not mean it's stuck in it anyway.
Marcus Majarra 03-16-07, 12:55 PM	There's only one problem: projectiles that hit the target aren't broken or nonfunctional; they are destroyed. In game terms, this means the projectile doesn't exist anymore. As such, something that doesn't exist cannot radiate a silence spell.
mvincent 03-19-07, 02:17 PM	There's only one problem: projectiles that hit the target aren't broken or nonfunctional; they are destroyed. In game terms, this means the projectile doesn't exist anymore.In games terms, 'destroyed' actually means 'broken'. From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingAndEntering): "Damaged Objects A damaged object remains fully functional until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed. Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill." I believe that it's possible for spells to continue on items that are broken (i.e. the rules do not state that the spell ends), but that is likely a DM call. I'm not currently aware of any ruling implying that the spell ends. Do you know of one?
Marcus Majarra 03-20-07, 04:41 PM	Your own quotation implies that items are functional until destroyed. If an arrow is destroyed, it becomes no longer functional.
mvincent 03-20-07, 05:43 PM	Your own quotation implies that items are functional until destroyed. If an arrow is destroyed, it becomes no longer functional.Correct: the arrow isn't useable (other than perhaps as an improvised weapon), but the spell on it does not necessarily cease. Being non-functional does not mean you cease to exist. I'm guessing you don't understand what I was getting at. Here's another example: If you have a light spell cast on something, and that item is damaged beyond functioning, the light spell would normally still be considered active. Same if you cast a light spell on someone and then killed them (in fact, I believe almost all spells continue on a creature after it dies, and could still be useful if their duration is long enough to continue after the characer is raised).
Downtym 03-20-07, 06:11 PM	I plan to have the party wizard cast it on my ranger, then sneak up on the enemy sorc (no move silently check needed) and attack him. Unless he has silent spell, I should cut him to ribbons. Keep in mind the following: The silence extends past the ranger if the spell is directly on him. So, there will be a time when he's sneaking up behind the sorcerer and the sorcerer will suddenly go deaf. One could argue that the sorcerer would become immediately suspicious (And maybe make the DC 20 + spell level Spellcraft skill check to recognize exactly what's going on).
Marcus Majarra 03-21-07, 01:19 AM	Correct: the arrow isn't useable (other than perhaps as an improvised weapon), but the spell on it does not necessarily cease. Being non-functional does not mean you cease to exist. I'm guessing you don't understand what I was getting at. Here's another example: If you have a light spell cast on something, and that item is damaged beyond functioning, the light spell would normally still be considered active. Same if you cast a light spell on someone and then killed them (in fact, I believe almost all spells continue on a creature after it dies, and could still be useful if their duration is long enough to continue after the characer is raised). I understand where you're going (in fact, I did so before I even replied), but my peeve with your argument is that you're assuming that a destroyed object still exists in any functional form (including that of a recipient for a spell). The fact that item breakage rules associate lack of function to destruction (not to mention that destroyed items are beyond conventional means of repair) correlates to ending any spell effects on an object the moment it's destroyed. If you cast light on a pebble, and something grinds that pebble to dust (or, to use game terms, reduces it to 0 hp), there's no more light. The moment the silence spell is cast on the arrow, radiating silence becomes one of the arrow's functions. If the arrow is destroyed, it becomes non-functional and no more silence is radiated.
mvincent 03-21-07, 12:27 PM	you're assuming that a destroyed object still exists in any functional form (including that of a recipient for a spell). That was not what I was assuming. I'm merely contending that a broken object still exists period. I acknowledged that the arrow no longer functioned, but the rules to not address what happens to spells that are on a damaged-beyond-functioning object. Absent rules, declaring that the spell stops does not seem like a truism. I could actually agree with your conclusion, I just desired to see some sort of rules or backing on the subject
Downtym 03-21-07, 03:56 PM	I understand where you're going (in fact, I did so before I even replied), but my peeve with your argument is that you're assuming that a destroyed object still exists in any functional form (including that of a recipient for a spell). The fact that item breakage rules associate lack of function to destruction (not to mention that destroyed items are beyond conventional means of repair) correlates to ending any spell effects on an object the moment it's destroyed. If you cast light on a pebble, and something grinds that pebble to dust (or, to use game terms, reduces it to 0 hp), there's no more light. The moment the silence spell is cast on the arrow, radiating silence becomes one of the arrow's functions. If the arrow is destroyed, it becomes non-functional and no more silence is radiated. To be fair, he has an interesting point because of a "ruling" made quite a while back. I'm too lazy to find the exact quote in the FAQ, but I believe the statement was to the effect that: "Spells only check for the legality of targetting at time of casting. If some situation or event causes the target to change such that it would not be a legal target, then the spell functions despite this change." For example, if someone casts Dominate Person on a human and then that human polymorphs or shapechanges into a Dragon, their type changes. By the rules, they are no longer a legal target for Dominate Person. However, the FAQ makes it clear that because Dominate Person was *already* applied before the Type change came into effect, the spell still works. Now, obviously, this begs the question of "What happens to a spell on an object that is 'destroyed'?" - and mind you, I'm talking of cast spells with a duration, not enchantments created through the use of Craft *. This also begs questions like: Polymorph Any Object to turn a chair into a human and then cast Dominate Person, then dispell the Polymorph Any Object, is the "chair" still dominated? What if I turn the chair into a dragon a day later (Assuming the Dominate has a duration of greater than 1 day)? Will the dragon I polymorphed from a chair be dominated? If I dispell the polymorph yet again and then "destroy" the chair by breaking it into little twigs, what happens if I cast fabricate on all the little twigs to make a chair - the same chair even! When I polymorph that chair into a chicken, is the chicken dominated? That's, essentially, the question that's being danced around. As a DM, I'd have to say that I really would have to think about it.
mvincent 03-21-07, 04:07 PM	To be fair, he has an interesting point because of a "ruling" made quite a while back. I'm too lazy to find the exact quote in the FAQI had actually searched (very hard) in the FAQ for that exact answer before posting, but couldn't find it until gave me another clue to search with (i.e. the word "legal"). Thank you. The 3.5 FAQ says: "A spell only checks to see if you are a legal target when it is cast. If you become an illegal target later (such as via the polymorph spell), the spell remains in effect."
ryryguy 03-21-07, 07:40 PM	The moment the silence spell is cast on the arrow, radiating silence becomes one of the arrow's functions. If the arrow is destroyed, it becomes non-functional and no more silence is radiated. Can somebody cast silence on an arrow which has already hit a target and thus been destroyed? It's hard to see why not if the destroyed arrow still exists as some sort of object...
weasel0 03-21-07, 08:19 PM	But then if the arrow is stuck in someone it could be "in their possession" (and would get a saving throw).. heehee "in"... but anyway, just cast the spell 5' behind the casters, or beside them, or 15' to the left. Granted the caster can simply walk out of the but they're at least annoyed that they had to move at all. I would personally let the rock dust keep shedding light. It would simply be reduced as well as friggin hard to try and keep it all in one's possesion to be worth anything.
Marcus Majarra 03-22-07, 03:57 PM	I had actually searched (very hard) in the FAQ for that exact answer before posting, but couldn't find it until gave me another clue to search with (i.e. the word "legal"). Thank you. The 3.5 FAQ says: "A spell only checks to see if you are a legal target when it is cast. If you become an illegal target later (such as via the polymorph spell), the spell remains in effect." This involves whether or not something or someone could qualify as a legal target for the spell (as opposed to an illegal target). There still remains the issue as to whether a destroyed object can even be a target for a spell and whether or not something that's destroyed can still radiate an effect cast prior to its destruction.
ryryguy 03-22-07, 05:23 PM	But then if the arrow is stuck in someone it could be "in their possession" (and would get a saving throw).. Just to clarify, my question on casting silence on a destroyed arrow wasn't meant to suggest doing it while the arrow was stuck in somebody. More a philosophical question - the "destroyed" arrow still exists as an object, like a broken stick, right? And you can cast silence on a broken stick whether it used to be an arrow or not, right? I don't know though, it's probably cleaner to do as Marcus Majarra suggests and say if the object is "destroyed" in game terms, the spell ends. Even though "destroyed" here doesn't mean completely obliterated from existence so there's a bit of a loss of versimilitude... but probably a small price to pay for the headaches avoided.
mvincent 03-22-07, 05:46 PM	I don't know though, it's probably cleaner to do as Marcus Majarra suggests and say if the object is "destroyed" in game terms, the spell ends. Yup. As mentioned earlier, I could agree with this, but it might have to be a house rule (i.e. I can't find anything that says or implies this in RAW). Also: if using this rule, would it imply that if someone is killed then resurrected, any permanent spells on him will have ended?
Warric 03-22-07, 09:56 PM	As DM, I would let the silence spell remain intact if the arrow is stuck in the caster... In the PHB p.113, it states that "generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while normal ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destoyed or lost." In this case, I believe the word "destroyed" implys that the projectile is of no more use as an arrow, especially since it is followed by the phrase "or rendered useless." The arrow still exists, however it ceases to function effectively as an arrow. I personally would have the problem solved by creative play, as it makes the experience more memorable and entertaining. For instance, the caster could try to pull out the arrow (move action coupled with a DC 10 Str check?), or perhaps he could simply break the arrow... would that ruin the spell? I suppose it would, since I don't think the silence spell could now be on each piece simultaeously. And if you, as DM would rule that it would be on each piece simultaneously, why not have the caster throw the broken off piece into the midst of the offending party? Now their casters would be in a similar predicament.;)
mvincent 03-23-07, 12:08 PM	I don't think the silence spell could now be on each piece simultaeously.Correct. I imagine that if the spell remained, it would be on the largest remaining piece.