Was "Bad GM Rulings?", Now Silence spell

[azhrei_fje]

My emphasis is on the three sections that have been clarified by the house rule.

First clarification: the two sentences in the middle are to be taken independently. So... The spell can be cast on a creature and the effect is thereby mobile. As a separate situation, any unwilling creature coming under the effect of silence can attempt a Will save to negate the spell.

If they spend time analyzing and studying the effect - not by merely walking into the area. It is not an automatic save attempt.

That's your opinion. There are plenty of spell effects that offer a save as soon a reature enters their area. And I did say that they get their save when they enter the AoE, so they have interacted with it -- after all, they would suddenly turn deaf.

But an illusion of a wall will block sight to the other side correct? So technically what is the difference?

How about invisibility? Also a glamor. But the target of invisibility is still invisible even if someone who didn't see the spell being cast walks into the area (and they do not get a save to disbelieve).

The illusion of a wall (such as a figment produced by silent image) blocks sight by creating a false vision of a wall in front of you, not by directly blocking the light. Here's proof that the light is not actually blocked:

Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can.

Glamers, such as silence, work the same way: they cannot produce a real effect, so they cannot block sound (or light, or whatever) that merely passes through the area, regardless of what the spell description says. Or at least, that's how I rule it. You are, of course, free to ignore the definition of "illusion (glamer)" and rule as the spell description says. As I pointed out, there's no effective difference between sound passing through or not. In fact, it's probably better if sound does pass through since that allows party spellcasters to hear enemy spellcasters on the other side of the silence effect.

You don't have to agree. I'm just explaining my rationale and yours might be different. (I also have a magic system that relies on the eddies and currents of blood flowing through a creature's body. Think of magnetic lines of force on a micro scale and apply that to magic. Not germane to this discussion, though. )

 

[irdeggman]

That's your opinion. There are plenty of spell effects that offer a save as soon a reature enters their area. And I did say that they get their save when they enter the AoE, so they have interacted with it -- after all, they would suddenly turn deaf.

Nope, not just my opinion.

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief ): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

The illusion of a wall (such as a figment produced by silent image) blocks sight by creating a false vision of a wall in front of you, not by directly blocking the light. Here's proof that the light is not actually blocked:

Glamers, such as silence, work the same way: they cannot produce a real effect, so they cannot block sound (or light, or whatever) that merely passes through the area, regardless of what the spell description says. Or at least, that's how I rule it. You are, of course, free to ignore the definition of "illusion (glamer)" and rule as the spell description says. As I pointed out, there's no effective difference between sound passing through or not. In fact, it's probably better if sound does pass through since that allows party spellcasters to hear enemy spellcasters on the other side of the silence effect.

Or by redirecting light (like in bending it) the give the image of an illusion. Sort of like how invisibility works - especially since it works even if you do not see the spell being cast. It specifically does not make light invisible, but the source is.

It makes more sense to treat silence the same way - a flase sound (like white noise) being in place.

Your ruling sort of makes invisible doors pretty much moot if there is any light on the back side.

You don't have to agree. I'm just explaining my rationale and yours might be different. (I also have a magic system that relies on the eddies and currents of blood flowing through a creature's body. Think of magnetic lines of force on a micro scale and apply that to magic. Not germane to this discussion, though. )

I thought that Lucas got rid og that meta-chlorine thing

 

[moritheil]

I do feel I should point out that this has never been solved to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[irdeggman]

I do feel I should point out that this has never been solved to everyone's satisfaction.

True enough - goes waay back to why is invisibility an illusion spell and not a transmutation spell.

 

[mvincent]

From the 3.5 FAQ (if desired):
"Older editions of the game listed the silence spell in the
Alteration school, but now silence is part of the Illusion
school. Does this mean that anyone in the area of effect can
try to disbelieve the spell, negating most of its effect for
enemy spellcasters?
No, if you could disbelieve a silence spell, its save listing
would be “Will disbelief.” Silence removes all noise in its area
and nobody gets a save against that. If the spell is actually
targeted on a creature or on a creature’s equipment, that
creature gets a Will save to negate the spell. If the save
succeeds, the spell fails and the area is not silenced."

and:
"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."

 

[azhrei_fje]

I do feel I should point out that this has never been solved to everyone's satisfaction.

Yep, agreed.

From the 3.5 FAQ (if desired):

Thanks.

But no thanks.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Or by redirecting light (like in bending it) the give the image of an illusion. Sort of like how invisibility works - especially since it works even if you do not see the spell being cast. It specifically does not make light invisible, but the source is.

Actually, that's a very good point. And I think it favors my interpretation.

If silence is like invisibility (and they are both glamers), then they should work similarly. So sound should bend around the AoE of silence the same way that light bends around an invisible object. And that means the descriptive text of the silence spell should not include the restriction against sound passing through the area.

The whole thing about light and invisibility is another discussion, though. I don't like how a light source (such as a magical sword) can be tucked into a scabbard and the light disappears, but if I don't rule it that way, it makes invisibility pretty much useless for anything that your typical scout might want to use it for.

Your ruling sort of makes invisible doors pretty much moot if there is any light on the back side.

True. And yes, an invisible door would be moot -- it can't block light so anything on the other side can be seen. It still blocks sound as a normal door would and it is really there, so it might be somewhat startling to a creature to try to walk through it and find a solid object.

I thought that Lucas got rid og that meta-chlorine thing

I would love to say he stole my idea, but alas, we thought of it at about the same time. I was playing 1st Ed in high school when I got this concept. That was the 1977-78 school year. Of course, the comics were out much earlier, but the first movie was released in 1977 and I hadn't heard of Lucas prior to that.

Maybe I can get some kind of royalties? What'd'ya think?

 

[eamon]

It makes little sense for an area to be completely silent, but certain creatures within it to still be able to make sound. Can others then hear the sound they make? Can they hear others? If a creature saves, would it be subject to sonic attacks, despite being in the area of a silence spell? If silence isn't actually stopping sound itself, but merely it's perception, all creatures inside should still be subject to sonic attacks, and spells with verbal components should merely have miscast chance (as deafened 20%). If silence is actually stopping sound production, then creatures should still be subject to sonic attacks, and should be able to hear sounds coming from outside the area. Neither of these options nor their combination makes sense.

The simplest interpretation of silence is that it does what it says: it actually creates silence. Spell descriptions, as a rule, use their school description as a starting point, but each spell's text is always the final definition. The only consistent interpretation of silence is that, once successfully cast, it suppresses all sound without saving throw or spell resistance. A target that can save may do so, but a target that is merely within the radius of the emanation cannot. He can, however, leave the area.

 

[azhrei_fje]

It makes little sense for an area to be completely silent, but certain creatures within it to still be able to make sound. Can others then hear the sound they make?

The glamer suppresses sound within the AoE. You don't get a Will save unless you interact with the spell, ie. study it or enter the AoE. So if you haven't succeeded on a Will save, the answer is "no", you can't hear it.

Can they hear others?

Ditto.

If a creature saves, would it be subject to sonic attacks, despite being in the area of a silence spell?

Yes. if it saves, the illusion does not affect it.

If silence isn't actually stopping sound itself, but merely it's perception, all creatures inside should still be subject to sonic attacks, and spells with verbal components should merely have miscast chance (as deafened 20%). If silence is actually stopping sound production, then creatures should still be subject to sonic attacks, and should be able to hear sounds coming from outside the area. Neither of these options nor their combination makes sense.

If you have not succeeded on the Will save, you treat the spell effect as real and the sound doesn't get to you so sonic attacks will not work. Is that our physical reality? No. But neither is shooting grey rays that destroy things. At some point you have to suspend disbelief in our physics because in a magical world spells change the way physics works.

The simplest interpretation of silence is that it does what it says: it actually creates silence. Spell descriptions, as a rule, use their school description as a starting point, but each spell's text is always the final definition. The only consistent interpretation of silence is that, once successfully cast, it suppresses all sound without saving throw or spell resistance. A target that can save may do so, but a target that is merely within the radius of the emanation cannot. He can, however, leave the area.

Then would you recommend changing the school to transmutation (it changes the local environment)? Abjuration perhaps, since it protects from sonic attacks? Maybe conjuration (summoning) since it summons a field of null energy (sonic energy, in this case)? (Nah, not very likely.) How about evocation, since the SRD says that evocation spells "manipulate energy"? My point is that the game designers knew that they had all of these schools available, and I can only hope that they weighed the pros and cons of each one and settled on illusion. While I don't think they were "all-knowing" by a longshot, I have to accept their choices unless there is substantial evidence that they were wrong.

Does silence protect from sonic attacks that merely pass through the area? How does your answer compare to antimagic shell? Are your two answers consistent?

While I like consistency very much, I also think that some attributes of the default game world are a bit messed up. I consider silence to be one of them. I have not completely nerfed the spell, but I have brought it more in line with other 2nd level spells.

Now if you wanted to argue that silence could keep all of its attributes if it were a 3rd level spell, I'd be more inclined to agree. I might still want to change the school. Perhaps I should give this option to my players? I wonder how often spell immunity would be used against silence, though?

 

[irdeggman]

I think you missed something about illusions.

The only time you get a saving throw when you interact is if the spell has a Will (Disbelief) entry for the saving throw.

Not all Illusion spells have that entry.

Invisibility does not, neither does silence.

Illusory Wall, Silent Image (and Minor Image), do.

Mirror Image does not, but has the text entry about any successful attack against an image destroys that image.