Protections from the Blasphemy spell ?

[ElectricDragon]

In 3.5, they've removed the "creatures that hear" condition from the first set of effects. But they didn't bother to change the wording of the latter half of the spell. It's still true, but it's actually unnecessary now.

That is your interpetation. Mine differs. If this is how you wish to "House Rule" it in your campaigns, so be it. But realize, that my interpetation is just as valid as yours. You say it is an extraneous sentence and should be ignored. I say that it is a needed sentence and should be heeded.

You mean like Dominate Monster (9th level attack) vs Protection from Evil (1st level defence)?

No, the dominate monster does not have a sonic effect. Dominate Monster is not a virtual opposite of Protection from Evil. Though Dominate Monster is language-dependant and deafness or Silence would protect one from it.

How about this for an example, instead: Greater Shout (8th, sonic) 10d6 sonic damage (average roll 35 hp) versus Resist Energy (2nd) (sonic) maximum protection 30 points. Doesn't stop all the damage on even an average roll. But even these examples are not virtual opposites of each other.

This should be as evident as the [light] and [darkness] spell descriptors and how they work against each other: "A light spell (one with the light descriptor) counters and dispels a darkness spell (one with the darkness descriptor) of an equal or lower level." Sonic has a descriptor, and although silence does not, it is its opposite and should be treated accordingly.

Where does it say what you are pushing, that:

Sonic effects that require the subject to be able to hear are generally noted as such.

Websters Dictionary says sonic is defined as: Of or relating to audible sound.

Not audible = not heard = unaffected.

Sonic is noise and unless the noise is strong enough to be physically damaging (shattering fragile objects and such), I don't see how it can affect a deafened individual. The spell, silence, allows for a magical "deafness" that also provides protection from sonic effects (but not, it is important to mention, damage in some cases: e.g. Sound Burst). Resist energy and protection from energy provide protection from sonic damage, but not sonic effects.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Hypersmurf]

You say it is an extraneous sentence and should be ignored.

No no... I'm saying it's an extraneous sentence, but that it's accurate.

I'm not claiming the line is erroneous. The effect takes place whether or not the creature can hear it. But so do the others, becaus there's nothing to say they don't.

No, the dominate monster does not have a sonic effect. Dominate Monster is not a virtual opposite of Protection from Evil.

"Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)."

Protection from Evil (1st level) blocks Dominate Monster (9th level), because the spell says so.

You can't say "Even though it says it does, a 9th level attack should beat a 1st level defence, so I'll ignore that" without house rules.

Greater Shout cannot penetrate Silence because the spell says so. Nothing to do with "virtual opposites", or relative power levels. It doesn't work because the Shout text says it doesn't work.

Sonic is noise and unless the noise is strong enough to be physically damaging (shattering fragile objects and such), I don't see how it can affect a deafened individual. The spell, silence, allows for a magical "deafness" that also provides protection from sonic effects (but not, it is important to mention, damage in some cases: e.g. Sound Burst).

There's a big difference between "I can't see how" and "the rules say".

Silence does not allow for magical deafness; Silence actually stops sound.

Sonic, in D&D, is a type of energy. The dictionary definition tells us that it's related to sound, but you can't extrapolate from that that a deaf person is immune to sonic effects. The sonic energy doesn't require you to be able to hear it to affect you; a wine glass cannot "hear" the high-pitched note that shatters it, but it occurs nonetheless.

In an area of magical silence, however, that high-pitched note is stopped, so the glass is not broken.

"I can't see how" is a wonderful basis for a house rule, and good luck with that. But it's not Core.

-Hyp.

 

[ElectricDragon]

SONIC ATTACKS
Unless noted otherwise, sonic attacks follow the rules for spreads; the range of the spread is measured from the creature using the sonic attack. Once a sonic attack has taken effect, deafening the subject or stopping its ears does not break the effect. Stopping one’s ears ahead of time allows opponents to avoid having to make saving throws against mind-affecting sonic attacks, but not other kinds of sonic attacks (such as those that inflict damage). Stopping one’s ears is a full-round action and requires wax or other soundproof material to stuff into the ears.

3.0 SRD

Sonic Attacks got axed in 3.5. It isn't listed or described as far as I can find.

Thunderstone: You can throw this stone as a ranged attack with a range increment of 20 feet. When it strikes a hard surface (or is struck hard), it creates a deafening bang that is treated as a sonic attack. Each creature within a 10-foot-radius spread must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or be deafened for 1 hour. A deafened creature, in addition to the obvious effects, takes a –4 penalty on initiative and has a 20% chance to miscast and lose any spell with a verbal component that it tries to cast.
Since you don’t need to hit a specific target, you can simply aim at a particular 5-foot square. Treat the target square as AC 5.

This is a 3.5 sonic attack that doesn't specifically say that deafened creatures are immune to it. But it is obvious that they are.

On a related note:
Creatures blinded by darkness cannot use gaze attacks and are immune to gaze attacks.

Why not:
Creatures deafened by any means have a 20% chance to miscast any spell with a verbal component and are immune to sonic attacks unless specifically stated otherwise.

Sounds just as viable.

Ciao
Dave

 

[ElectricDragon]

It is as "core" as yours.

If you can't find the rule, make it up. That is "House Rules."


Ciao
ED

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sonic Attacks got axed in 3.5. It isn't listed or described as far as I can find.

That's right. And it wouldn't have made any difference to Blasphemy anyway - Blasphemy isn't a Mind-Affecting effect, and it's doesn't allow a save anyway... which is all stopping one's ears protected against in 3E.

This is a 3.5 sonic attack that doesn't specifically say that deafened creatures are immune to it. But it is obvious that they are.

Why?

Why not:
Creatures deafened by any means have a 20% chance to miscast any spell with a verbal component and are immune to sonic attacks unless specifically stated otherwise.

Sounds just as viable.

... except that you're making it up. Like I say - it's a fine house rule. But when you make it up, it isn't Core.

If you can't find the rule, make it up. That is "House Rules."

Exactly my point. We have a whole forum for it. Through that door, and hang a left at General Discussion - you can't miss it.

-Hyp.

 

[ElectricDragon]

This is a 3.5 sonic attack that doesn't specifically say that deafened creatures are immune to it. But it is obvious that they are.

You ask why. Because the effect deafens its victims. Duh. If you are already deaf, how can it make you more deaf? More "House Rules" from you?

You still haven't answered my question (or are you ignoring it?). Where is it stated that:

Sonic effects that require the subject to be able to hear are generally noted as such.

This is your "House Rule" upon which you are basing your arguments that my answers are "House Rules."

This is a hold-over from 3.0. It does not exist in 3.5.

except that you're making it up. Like I say - it's a fine house rule. But when you make it up, it isn't Core.

Your "sonic effects statement" is nothing more than a "House Rule" that you are trying to pass off as "Core," otherwise, you would tell me where it could be found in the SRD.

Again, I restate, since WotC/TSR/Hasbro says interpetation is up to us, mine is as valid as yours and as "Core" as yours.

Take that left, yourself.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Hypersmurf]

You ask why. Because the effect deafens its victims. Duh. If you are already deaf, how can it make you more deaf? More "House Rules" from you?

Hmm?

If you're blind for 6 rounds as the result of a spell, and someone casts Blindness on you, you're now blind permanently. The effects overlap.

If you're deafened for six rounds as the result of a spell, and someone sets off a thunderstone, on a failed save you're deafened for an hour. The effects overlap.

Where is it stated that "Sonic effects that require the subject to be able to hear are generally noted as such"?

That's not a quote, that's a statement.

There are three types of spells that deafness protected you against.

1. Language-dependent spells.
2. Mind-Affecting Sonic spells that allow a save. (This rule does in fact exist in 3.5 - the wording is almost identical to 3E.)
3. Other exceptions that specifically say so in the text of the spell.

If a Sonic effect is not mind-affecting does not state that deafness provides a defence, it does not. If the spell says "The subject is stunned", then it doesn't mean "The subject is stunned unless he is deaf", because there is no rule that states deafness protects him against stunning.

Your "sonic effects statement" is nothing more than a "House Rule" that you are trying to pass off as "Core," otherwise, you would tell me where it could be found in the SRD.

If a spell states "The target takes 1d4+1 points of damage", then in the absence of any rule that would override this statement, the target takes 1d4+1 points of damage. If the target is immune to magic, he might not take the damage. If the target has a magic item that counters the spell in question, he might not take the damage. If there's a rule that says he doesn't take the damage, he might not take the damage. But if there's no such rule, the spell has the listed effect.

Greater Shout says "creatures are stunned for one round". There is no rule to say that a deaf creature is immune to Greater Shout, or to Sonic attacks in general, or to all magic. Greater Shout is not language-dependent.

Therefore, it is irrelevant whether or not the creature is deaf; he's stunned for one round.

I'm not making up any rules here. The spell has an effect; there is no rule that says the effect does not apply; therefore the effect does not apply.

Your position requires the addition of a non-existent rule - "Deaf creatures are immune to sonic effects". That's the difference between Core rules and House Rules - making stuff up.

-Hyp.

 

[ElectricDragon]

If you're deafened for six rounds as the result of a spell, and someone sets off a thunderstone, on a failed save you're deafened for an hour. The effects overlap.

But if you are permanently deaf in the first place (as the result of a spell or otherwise) it can have no effect on you. If you have no eyes, how can a spell or effect blind you? If you are permanently paralyzed (as by a lich) can you be further paralyzed? Would it need to be separately dispelled? Overlapping works sometimes, but not all the time.

Changing Gears:

Invisible: Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).

By this statement, an invisible creature gains a bonus to attack all sighted opponents (whether they can see them or not) and ignores their Dex bonuses to AC (whether they can see them or not).

The See Invisibility spell description states nothing about negating these things. So, every sighted creature is +2 to be hit by an invisible creature and doesn't get a Dex bonus to AC versus them even if they can see them. Because the spell doesn't state that the bonuses or penalties are removed.

Is this true? Wow, Invisibility just got better...

Back to Blasphemy:

The effects are cumulative and concurrent.
No saving throw is allowed against these effects.
Dazed: The creature can take no actions for 1 round, though it defends itself normally.
Weakened: The creature’s Strength score decreases by 2d6 points for 2d4 rounds.
Paralyzed: The creature is paralyzed and helpless for 1d10 minutes.
Killed: Living creatures die. Undead creatures are destroyed.

Straight from the SRD. Notice the line stating no save.

Furthermore, if you are on your home plane when you cast this spell, nonevil extraplanar creatures within the area are instantly banished back to their home planes. Creatures so banished cannot return for at least 24 hours. This effect takes place regardless of whether the creatures hear the blasphemy. The banishment effect allows a Will save (at a –4 penalty) to negate.

This separate paragraph explains the banishment effect (which does allow a save unlike the previous effects). Notice the wording: This effect (not: this spell, but just: this effect) takes effect regardless of whether the creatures hear the blasphemy.

Again, I contend that since they didn't remove this sentence and even in fact added another sentence to the end of this paragraph (about the save) that this means the first part of the spell needs hearing to work. Only the second part works regardless of hearing.

Your answer that the sentence was supposed to be removed can be nothing more than supposition. This spell mentions that hearing has no effect on one effect of the spell; meaning that hearing does have an effect on the other parts of the spell. By not specifically clairfying that the previous effects do not rely upon hearing either; they left the idea that the dazed, weakened, paralyzed, and killed effects do require hearing to work. It can be read that way without it being a "House Rule". It can also be interpeted the way you have without it being a "House Rule". If the writing is ambigous, differing interpetations will happen. If they don't intend to errata it; I can go on claiming that I was right and so can you.

If they errata it, we'll probably both be wrong.

Ciao
ED

 

[Hypersmurf]

But if you are permanently deaf in the first place (as the result of a spell or otherwise) it can have no effect on you.

You gain a deafened condition that, for one hour, overlaps your existing deafened condition.

The overall result is, in this case, of no import... but if someone dispelled the spell that had caused the original permanent deafness within that hour, you would still be deaf.

If you are permanently paralyzed (as by a lich) can you be further paralyzed? Would it need to be separately dispelled?

Most assuredly. It's why people sometimes cast two copies of the same Buff spell, even though there's no tangible benefit to having two running simultaneously - if they get caught in an area dispel, only one of them can possibly be stripped.

Is this true? Wow, Invisibility just got better...

3.5 hasn't fixed all the issues with invisibility and total concealment. Strictly as written, the Blind Fight feat doesn't allow you to retain your dex bonus while fighting blind; it only allows you to retain your Dex bonus against invisible attackers, and in 3.5, you no longer treat attackers as invisible while you're blind.

So yeah, See Invisible is poorly worded, and behaves as you describe by the rules as written.

This spell mentions that hearing has no effect on one effect of the spell; meaning that hearing does have an effect on the other parts of the spell.

But that's where you're taking the wrong turn. You're inferring a rule that doesn't exist. It used to, but not in 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[ElectricDragon]

Okay, let's try this another way:

Under the Ethereal Plane description:
No magical attacks cross from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane, including force attacks.

Under Etherealness description:
Gaze effects and abjurations also extend from the Material Plane to the Ethereal Plane. None of these effects extend from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane.

Under the Invisibility description:
Ethereal creatures are invisible.
Invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks.

Under the Ghost description:
Corrupting Gaze (Su): A ghost can blast living beings with a glance, at a range of up to 30 feet. Creatures that meet the ghost’s gaze must succeed on a Fortitude save or take 2d10 points of damage and 1d4 points of Charisma damage.

Nowhere does it state that the ghost must first manifest to use its gaze ability on material opponents, but I rule it so. Otherwise, the gaze is only useful against other ethereal opponents. Is that a house rule? True Seeing and See Invisible can both see the ethereal ghost, but the rules say that no attacks can pass from the ethereal to the material, that invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks, and that ethereal creatures are invisible. Am I reading things into the SRD? Am I making things up? How does this work in your campaign? This isn't house rules, it is just plain interpretation of the rules. Ambiguous writing allows for multiple interpretations.

I feel sorry for you if you can not see it by now. Your interpretation of the rules is not the "only" one nor is it the only right one.

Ciao
Dave