"sleeper" spells you didn't realize were so good

[buzzard]

I have to go whith silence. Cast it on a copper piece and drop it in a pouch of copper pieces that you toss near some enemy spell casters and just try to figure out which one it is coming from.

Pure evil.

Umm, who cares which copper piece it is? Spell casters always move away when hit by silence if they have any sense. The proper treatment is to cast silence on the arrow that thet archer is about to lodge into the enemy spellcaster.

buzzard

 

[Hypersmurf]

Umm, who cares which copper piece it is? Spell casters always move away when hit by silence if they have any sense. The proper treatment is to cast silence on the arrow that thet archer is about to lodge into the enemy spellcaster.

Firstly, the hit point mechanics don't really make any provision for "lodging" arrows. Even an arrow that deals 15 damage might only nick someone who still has 85 hit points.

Secondly, an arrow that successfully hits is destroyed.

-Hyp.

 

[Storminator]

I'll also throw in Command, with my favorite command word: swim. It isn't universally applicable, but when it is, it's devastating.

PS

 

[buzzard]

Firstly, the hit point mechanics don't really make any provision for "lodging" arrows. Even an arrow that deals 15 damage might only nick someone who still has 85 hit points.

Secondly, an arrow that successfully hits is destroyed.

-Hyp.

I'd say you're quibbling. The 'destroyed' arrow is still there. If I cast silence on a rock, and then crush the rock, the silence does not go away.

Of course the fact that arrows are 'destroyed' when they hit something is just a convenience to avoid having a mechanic for arrow breaking in targets (and arrow removal, barbs, etc.)

One other option which might satisfy your rules meticulous approach is silence on a tanglefoot bag.

buzzard

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd say you're quibbling. The 'destroyed' arrow is still there. If I cast silence on a rock, and then crush the rock, the silence does not go away.

Of course the fact that arrows are 'destroyed' when they hit something is just a convenience to avoid having a mechanic for arrow breaking in targets (and arrow removal, barbs, etc.)

One other option which might satisfy your rules meticulous approach is silence on a tanglefoot bag.

buzzard

How about silence on a cup of water? Or a vial of water? When exactly DOES the spell stop working?

If I silence a cup of water, then pour it into two different cups, do I now have two silence spells working? Or do I have two silence spells running at half effectiveness?

I think that when something changes state in such a way (being broken, heavily distorted etc), you really have to say "it's not affected by the spell any more" otherwise things get far too confusing.

 

[buzzard]

How about silence on a cup of water? Or a vial of water? When exactly DOES the spell stop working?

If I silence a cup of water, then pour it into two different cups, do I now have two silence spells working? Or do I have two silence spells running at half effectiveness?

I think that when something changes state in such a way (being broken, heavily distorted etc), you really have to say "it's not affected by the spell any more" otherwise things get far too confusing.

OK, if I cut the leg off an animated chair, does the spell end? I'd say no. The DM decides that the larger piece is still animated and moves on. In you water example the DM decides that one cup has a bit more water, and it keeps the silence.

I guess a chair isn't the best example. How about an animated statue, and you use a vorpal sword to remove the head. The statue will keep moving. If this were not the case, then animate object would be one useless spell.

Though just to satisfy the quibblers, cast silence on the arrowhead. It is generally made of steel and it doesn't break. Anyone who tries to convince me that arrowheads break on impact is going to have a tough row to hoe.

buzzard

 

[Hypersmurf]

Though just to satisfy the quibblers, cast silence on the arrowhead. It is generally made of steel and it doesn't break. Anyone who tries to convince me that arrowheads break on impact is going to have a tough row to hoe.

You mean like shuriken?

-Hyp.

 

[buzzard]

You mean like shuriken?

-Hyp.

Now is it nice to make me think the rules are really stupid?

I actually went into the SRD to see exactly what you were implying. I found it fairly hard to believe that the game would be so stupid as to say that a metal object like a shuriken gets destroyed when thrown. Of course it does say just that, but I'll say this- when I DM, and a player tries to use a rule example like you are, I will disregard what he says as illogical rules-laywering. In my games people will be able to shoot silenced arrows.

Not that I've seen anyone bother using them, but I'll also dispense with disposable shuriken.

Though just to make all the rules lawyer types happy, for the sake of argument our fighter will toss a javelin with silence on it. Or maybe a bola. Ignore the fact that I have silly notions that arrowheads and shuriken aren't made of self destructing metal.

The initial point was the usefulness of silence cast on something that would travel with the target. Deciding to quibble on this for repeated posts is ludicrous. My meaning was apparent.

buzzard

 

[Hypersmurf]

Though just to make all the rules lawyer types happy, for the sake of argument our fighter will toss a javelin with silence on it. Or maybe a bola.

The initial point was the usefulness of silence cast on something that would travel with the target.

Bola works for this, since it grapples the target.

Javelin doesn't. Just because it deals hit point damage doesn't mean it's "sticking out" of the target. If the opponent, after being hit by the Silenced javelin, moves 20 feet, he'll be twenty feet away from the javelin that hit him, and outside the radius of Silence.

Just like an arrow or shuriken, even if you rule that the Silence continues after the arrow is "destroyed". It's not sticking out of him, so it doesn't travel with him.

-Hyp.

 

[Felon]

OK, if I cut the leg off an animated chair, does the spell end? I'd say no. The DM decides that the larger piece is still animated and moves on. In you water example the DM decides that one cup has a bit more water, and it keeps the silence. I guess a chair isn't the best example. How about an animated statue, and you use a vorpal sword to remove the head. The statue will keep moving. If this were not the case, then animate object would be one useless spell.

In both of those examples, that's relatively minor damage, and is not destroyed in either a technical sense, or by way of common sense (I wager few people would describe a chair missing one leg or a headless statue as "destroyed"). Once you reduce the animated object to 0 HP, it is then destroyed and the object is no longer animated. The little bits of pulverized chair or shattered statue do not come after anyone. The ramification of carrying this analogy over to the crushed rock or destroyed arrow are clear.

And that's your analogy, btw, not mine, so spare me your hasty "rules-lawyer" labeling if you would be so kind.

Of course it does say just that, but I'll say this- when I DM, and a player tries to use a rule example like you are, I will disregard what he says as illogical rules-laywering. In my games people will be able to shoot silenced arrows.

Yes, you do seem to be the gruffly dismissive sort when presented with logical counter-arguements. It is not "quibbling" or "rules-lawyering" to point out that an arrow or javelin does not always imbed itself in a target to a degree that it travels with him. It's a cute, if shopworn, strategem, but it's hardly flawless in terms of feasibility--unless you're the DM and just arbitrarily deem it flawless, using authority as an easy means of overruling a perfectly reasonable point of order.