Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CalculatedTHAC0 07-21-05, 10:43 PM	Strange tactic suggested by a player: A cleric and a halfling rogue confront a wizard. A player wants the cleric to cast Silence into a brittle glass vial of water, and then have the halfling thief hurl the vial at the wizard, breaking the vial on the wizard's clothes. In the player's mind, there is now a Silence spell cast upon the water that is now on the wizard's clothes, thereby negating the possibility for the wizard to cast any spell requiring a verbal component until he takes his cloak off and gets away from it. Although I gave him a B- for creativity, I am doubting that this is possible. What are your thoughts? Thanks!
Unca_Laguna 07-21-05, 10:47 PM	this just seems like a cheap way to get around the will save the wizard is entitled to. I wouldn't allow it. I ask thouse more experienced than I: would this be what is called "munchkin" behavior?
Wookie1120 07-21-05, 10:57 PM	I would deam that the spell was cast on the vial, when you toss the vial it breaks, thus destroying the magic item and the spell. "Nice try, but not this time" if they insist the spell is on the water, the water being thus dispersed, disperses the spell as well. seen a lot of variations on this, it is definately a munchkin thing to do.
Escef 07-21-05, 11:00 PM	The best comprimise would be to cast it on a bola or net.
createvmind 07-21-05, 11:07 PM	Cast silence on a stone and toss it wiz way, the wiz will notice if the halfling doesnt do it right. Right way, engage wiz up close and then drop it and try to circle behind wiz so wiz is between halfling and rest of party. Wrong way is just throw it, wiz see's and moves out of range, 20 ft radius , wiz can move and still get off a spell.
kliate 07-21-05, 11:11 PM	1. Cast silence on party member who voluntarily fails save. 2. Have said party member grapple wizard.
celtredleg 07-21-05, 11:26 PM	When I was playing !E we used both the silenced rock, and the silenced arrow. Nobody has rules for pulling the arrow out of you, not even PCs. Seems ethier really crafty or really cheap. interesting that it keeps poping up over the years.
celtredleg 07-21-05, 11:28 PM	Sorry for sidetracWookie seems to have the best idea, either way the item is broken, and the magis disperses.
Escef 07-21-05, 11:30 PM	When I was playing !E we used both the silenced rock, and the silenced arrow. Nobody has rules for pulling the arrow out of you, not even PCs. Seems ethier really crafty or really cheap. interesting that it keeps poping up over the years. Don't remember about previous editions, but under 3e/3.5 rules an arrow is destroyed when it strikes its target. This prevents the silenced arrow crap from working. Besides, the way the hp system works, an attack that deals damage may not actually physically strike the target. (The damage may represent the physical exertion required to dodge, thus hp damage also is a form of exhaustion as well as defensive combat tricks and physical hardiness.)
The Almighty Dru 07-21-05, 11:44 PM	The last couple of posters misunderstand the question, I think. But anyway, no, the Silence spell would not affect the wizard. The spell was cast on the water. Just having something on you with the spell on it does not transfer it to you. You must cast the spell on the wizard, not his hat, his robe, or some water you can pour on him. While thinking and creative, it would not work. All this player would accomplish is a bottle breaking without hearing the sound that we break bottles for in the first place.
20goingon1232 07-21-05, 11:52 PM	The last couple of posters misunderstand the question, I think. But anyway, no, the Silence spell would not affect the wizard. The spell was cast on the water. Just having something on you with the spell on it does not transfer it to you. You must cast the spell on the wizard, not his hat, his robe, or some water you can pour on him. While thinking and creative, it would not work. All this player would accomplish is a bottle breaking without hearing the sound that we break bottles for in the first place. But the spell has a 20ft spread. The wizard is not magicked. The water is and the magical effect is Silence in a 20ft spread. But since it is stuck on the wizard, the wizard gets pinged too. I won't allow it for the same reason that broken magic items cease to work or blow up spectacularly (see Staff of the Magi). When you break it, it's gone. Same with water getting dispersed. It is not munchkin-like, though. It is great lateral thinking. Like using an illusion spell that creates the illusion of a pit across a corridor that cleverly disguises a REAL pit somewhere within its effect. A pit within a pit, as it were. I'd give bonus XPs for that type of thinking, even though I'd shoot it down.
lonesoldier 07-21-05, 11:55 PM	The water is silent, indeed, but it doesn't silence the spellcaster because the magic is not concentrated, on the other hand, if the 'caster falls into a tub of silenced water, then...perhaps. It might make them angry that you got their robes wet and they might place Delayed Fireball's in... :( You get the idea Vote: No
Palin the Wizard 07-21-05, 11:59 PM	I suggest you check the spell. "Area: 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space" Emphasis mine. 20goingon1232 is correct. On a different note, what is it they are trying to accomplish? Even if the water was silenced and thus affected the wizard (who is within the 20-ft.-radius emanation), he's still allowed his save (as are anyone else within the area of effect).
The Almighty Dru 07-22-05, 12:00 AM	On re-reading the Silence spell, it seems somewhat plausible (by the rules). I wouldn't allow it though, since the bottle is broken and the water is dispersed. However, why bother to do this? Even in the way the player presented, the caster would still recieve a saving throw to beat the spell. All you're doing is complicating the process by casting it on the bottle of water.
celtredleg 07-22-05, 12:04 AM	Actualy, as it is now writen, you could certainly cast it on a rock at the wizards feet. The radius takes care of the wiz until he moves. Silencing a fighter who then grapples looks as if it should work also.
CalculatedTHAC0 07-22-05, 12:10 AM	It is not munchkin-like, though. It is great lateral thinking. Like using an illusion spell that creates the illusion of a pit across a corridor that cleverly disguises a REAL pit somewhere within its effect. Thanks very much for everyone's advice. I'll let him know that he needs to think of something else. Personally, I agree with 20goinon1232, that it was "creative." However, some people might see it as "munchkinny." This particular player isn't a power-gamer though; he usually wants to do things that make sense and are creative. I mean, isn't that what role-playing in a fantasy world is? Not just running up to someone and rolling some dice -- imagination is a good thing :) (even if it doesn't work sometimes ;) ) (I like the illusion idea!)
celtredleg 07-22-05, 12:11 AM	The last couple of posters misunderstand the question, I think. But anyway, no, the Silence spell would not affect the wizard. The spell was cast on the water. Just having something on you with the spell on it does not transfer it to you. You must cast the spell on the wizard, not his hat, his robe, or some water you can pour on him. While thinking and creative, it would not work. All this player would accomplish is a bottle breaking without hearing the sound that we break bottles for in the first place. I understood the OP just fine. Also understood why it would not work from followup posts, and agreed with them. I was simply presenting an alternativew that has been around about as long as the silence spell. But thank you fro your concern.
20goingon1232 07-22-05, 12:31 AM	I suggest you check the spell. "Area: 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space" Emphasis mine. 20goingon1232 is correct. On a different note, what is it they are trying to accomplish? Even if the water was silenced and thus affected the wizard (who is within the 20-ft.-radius emanation), he's still allowed his save (as are anyone else within the area of effect). Actually the Wiz don't get the save. The spell only allows a save if you cast it on an attended object or a person. If it makes the save, the spell just fizzles. On an unattended object or someone deliberately failing the attended object save, anything that passes within 20ft of the object is silenced. Period. There is no more saves.
SnowbearK 07-22-05, 01:00 AM	While 20goingon1232 is literally correct, once an object is broken into pieces, it is no longer an object, it is now many objects -- thus no longer satisfying the parameters of the spell. Spell goes away the moment the water disperses or the vial breaks, whichever the spell was cast on. Now, if they wanted to use Craft Wondrous Item, or perhaps Brew Potion (as an oil, which would disperse and cover the target, though he'd still get a save), that's something else entirely.
Alynn 07-22-05, 01:12 AM	Don't remember about previous editions, but under 3e/3.5 rules an arrow is destroyed when it strikes its target. This prevents the silenced arrow crap from working. Besides, the way the hp system works, an attack that deals damage may not actually physically strike the target. (The damage may represent the physical exertion required to dodge, thus hp damage also is a form of exhaustion as well as defensive combat tricks and physical hardiness.) Actually, the way I understand it, it becomes unrecoverable, IE you can't remove the arrow without destroying it, all misfires have a 50% chance of being recovered, which I think was a way to keep people from not having to buy new arrows, and bullets... Which is why casting light on an arrow (or sling bullet) and shooting it into a room is a very good tactic. But thats just an aside to the current coversation.
Escef 07-22-05, 01:26 AM	On a different note, what is it they are trying to accomplish? Even if the water was silenced and thus affected the wizard (who is within the 20-ft.-radius emanation), he's still allowed his save (as are anyone else within the area of effect). As has been already mentioned, this is incorrect. When the spell is cast a target is chosen. If the target is an unwilling recipient, an item held by an unwilling recipient, or a sound producing magic item there is a saving throw and possible spell resistance to overcome. Once the spell is in place it alters reality around itself in such a manner as to make sound not exist. This is a 20-foot emanation, and can be blocked by anything that would grant 100% cover (such as a door, or ducking behind an overturned table). There is no save against the spell's emanation as it does not affect you (unless you are composed of sound). This is similar to the way Reverse Gravity has no save.
Arklich 07-22-05, 01:27 AM	As i see it, you can cast the spell on an unatended object and move it close to the wizard. As stated before, after the spell is cast, it's there, no save for you if you enter the area (i agree with this part too). What the players did was: Think of a different way to do something that is attainable by other not-so-witty ways. The wizard would obviously think of removing the robes, he's smart after all. (most of the water would be there, so the effect would stay with the robes) So he would just waste a full-round moving out of the area instead of a move-equivalent. For a spellcaster, a full round wasted can mean his life, but thats hardly unbalancing on my opinion, thats what i'd call tactics. Good ideas that don't unbalance the game should always be rewarded, not discouraged.
SnowbearK 07-22-05, 01:33 AM	Think of how it's going to be abused in the longterm, rather than in the moment, Arklich, and you'll see why it has to be handled carefully. ;)
Arklich 07-22-05, 02:26 AM	I guess... I spent about 45mins thinking of so many ways to say that players and DM should come to an agreement, in wich using stuff the DM allowed in the past for broken effects is wrong and should be awarded with a swift kick in the groin, but we all know that there is no perfect world and some players are just orc-headed...
nephtis 07-22-05, 02:34 AM	I don't see this as dangerously unbalancing the game. It's a creative use of the characters sources. You might argue, that the spell is broken the moment the bottle is distroyed and the water is no longer the single 'object' the spell was cast on (severeal drops instead one body) but I would see this as punishing a good idea. It's a tactic our group has made use of many times. Silence an area in combination with an entagle spell. If it happens too often give a spellcaster Silent spell (or an wonderous item that allowes him to use that feat) or have him use wands that are not triggered by word but with an elegant gesture (stupid wandwaving ;) ). Having him prepared dispell magic silently should do the trick nicely. A good tactic doesn't need to be a bullet proof way to dispatch every spellcaster but every once in a while it should work. Why should PC come up with new ways to solve a problem if they know it's not going to work anyway.
Chobemaster 07-22-05, 09:15 AM	cast it on a tiny pebble, which you then put in a vial of greek fire, which by rule adheres to the target. if you hit, the pebble is now adhered to the wizard. Gets around the "a hit might not be a real hit" because there's no way there would be "round 2" damage or the potential to light it in a later round from something that didn't contact you, greek fire "hit" is a true hit. Gets around the "not an object" because the pebble is still an object.
Maerdash 07-22-05, 09:43 AM	I really like Chobemasters idea, however take that a step further, use a vial of sovereign glue to really make the wizards day a bad one. :D On the subject of the original post no I wouldn't allow that tactic, there are better ways for the players to do what they want to do and the water just seems, well, not right to me.
celtredleg 07-22-05, 10:14 AM	cast it on a tiny pebble, which you then put in a vial of greek fire, which by rule adheres to the target. if you hit, the pebble is now adhered to the wizard. Gets around the "a hit might not be a real hit" because there's no way there would be "round 2" damage or the potential to light it in a later round from something that didn't contact you, greek fire "hit" is a true hit. Gets around the "not an object" because the pebble is still an object. I needed something extra for an encounter tonight. The badguys know what the party is, and are prepared for them.... This sounds like one of the finishing touches.
Dave Stebbins 07-22-05, 10:14 AM	What makes anyone think all, or even most, of the water in a thrown vial would stay on the wizard? In my opinion, I would give the wizard a reflex save (DC 10 or 15) to see if the "silenced" portion of the water was on him or the floor. If it's on the floor, it's now a stationary effect. How about casting silence on a tanglefoot bag?
Escef 07-22-05, 10:17 AM	cast it on a tiny pebble, which you then put in a vial of greek fire, which by rule adheres to the target. if you hit, the pebble is now adhered to the wizard. Gets around the "a hit might not be a real hit" because there's no way there would be "round 2" damage or the potential to light it in a later round from something that didn't contact you, greek fire "hit" is a true hit. Gets around the "not an object" because the pebble is still an object. The only arguement one could counter with is that there is no gaurentee that the entire contents of the flask will hit, some might splash past the target (or fall short) with the possibility that the pebble was in the part of it that missed. (I'd probably roll a percentile or d20 modified by how much damage the alchemists' fire did to determine if the pebble really clung to the poor bastard.) Overall, that's reasonably clever, and quite nasty.
Escef 07-22-05, 10:19 AM	How about casting silence on a tanglefoot bag? The bag "explodes" on impact, so I'd say that woudn't work. But then again, the bag also can interupt casting on its own anyway, so the bag is usually a good idea anyway.
Unca_Laguna 07-22-05, 10:19 AM	really, if there was any circumstance that allowed you to effectively attach a silence spell to a person, the target is intitled to a save.
celtredleg 07-22-05, 10:23 AM	cast it on a tiny pebble, which you then put in a vial of greek fire, which by rule adheres to the target. if you hit, the pebble is now adhered to the wizard. Gets around the "a hit might not be a real hit" because there's no way there would be "round 2" damage or the potential to light it in a later round from something that didn't contact you, greek fire "hit" is a true hit. Gets around the "not an object" because the pebble is still an object. I needed something extra for an encounter tonight. The badguys know what the party is, and are prepared for them.... This sounds like one of the finishing touches. How did this happen???? I NEVER double post!!!! cant say that again.
Escef 07-22-05, 10:34 AM	really, if there was any circumstance that allowed you to effectively attach a silence spell to a person, the target is intitled to a save. Therein lies the bueaty of attaching a silenced item to the enemy. No save involved. Far better than trying to get through a caster's high Wil save.
Alynn 07-22-05, 02:25 PM	Or you cast it on the fighter there to protect the caster, easier will save...
Disturbed1 07-22-05, 02:38 PM	cast silence on a small pebble or soemthing. rogue goes up to 'engage' wizard in melee. rogue sleight of hands the pebble, thus dropping it, unnoticed into teh wizards pocket. rogue then takes his time hacking the wizard to bits as wizard fails to realize why he cant cast spells with verbal components.
Leewei 07-22-05, 05:23 PM	I agree with those saying that the spell ends if the object is destroyeed or drastically altered. A vial of water is an object. Water itself is not an object because it has no set form unless it freezes. Water is a substance. Yes, atomic water or a chunk of ice can be objectified, but how far do you want to take this in a fantasy game? Once the vial breaks, the effect fades. Silence cast on water should fade as soon as the water is shaken, mixed, or otherwise disrupted. The PCs could conceivably cast Silence on a single mote of pollen which is then placed into the vial of water and launched at the enemy. The pollen might stick to the wizard or might splash off (maybe roll this in secret?). Freedom of Movement or a similar effect would cause it to fall off. After this happens, a PC who steps in the area might pick up the effect. It may actually be quite fun to secretly keep track of who is carrying the Silence spell to keep the players guessing.
Chobemaster 07-22-05, 05:45 PM	The only arguement one could counter with is that there is no gaurentee that the entire contents of the flask will hit, some might splash past the target (or fall short) with the possibility that the pebble was in the part of it that missed. (I'd probably roll a percentile or d20 modified by how much damage the alchemists' fire did to determine if the pebble really clung to the poor bastard.) Overall, that's reasonably clever, and quite nasty. Good point. I like your solution. You could also do something with by "how much" you hit...that's not really consistent with other metrics in the game, though...other than critting, hitting "by 10" doesn't imply better "contact" than hitting by 5.
Chobemaster 07-22-05, 05:46 PM	really, if there was any circumstance that allowed you to effectively attach a silence spell to a person, the target is intitled to a save. In lieu of the save is the attack roll. It's still not "automatic."