Campaign Conundrum 1 - Silence

[Rkhet]

On the bright side, it's a perfect opportunity to sneak up on the enemy, too. No need for move silently.

 

[Jhulae]

This might just be overthinking things, but silence has a range of 400 ft. + 40 ft./caster level. It can be centered on a creature (which gets a save), an object, or a point in space (the latter two getting a save only if in a creature's possession).

So, why bother with the arrow?

You stated it specifically in your reply.

If you want to Silence the enemy spellcaster and not have him just walk out of the range, the spell has to remain with him. Silence allows a Will save, and most spellcasters have good Will save bonuses.

However, if the spell is cast on ammunition and that ammunition lodges in the caster, it circumvents the saving throw by having the archer to make a to-hit roll. Odds are that it's easier to hit the caster than depend on the spell's Will save DC.

 

[Shadowdweller]

As a DM, I tend to let the PCs (and enemy!) get away with the silenced arrow thing. Seems to be reasonable, and decent tactics on their part.

Not to mention that even the strictest ruling of "the arrow absolutely disappears when it hits" is absurdly easy to circumvent. Example: Aside from Patryn of Elvenshae's cast the spell on the arrowhead, one might alternately attach a tiny bead behind the arrowhead...or a stamp...or spot of paint...and cast the spell on said item. Arrow disappears somehow, leaving a silenced bead inside said enemy.

 

[Mark Chance]

However, if the spell is cast on ammunition and that ammunition lodges in the caster, it circumvents the saving throw by having the archer to make a to-hit roll. Odds are that it's easier to hit the caster than depend on the spell's Will save DC.

But there is one glaring assumption above: That an arrow necessarily sticks in its target. Even if it does, so what? The caster just needs to pull the arrow out and toss it away.

I get the impression reading this thread and the thread about entangle that too many players are used to enemies who blithely cooperate with their best laid plans.

"By Lloth!" thinks the drow sorcerer. "They've stuck a silenced arrow in me! There's nothing I can do to counter this!"

 

[Jack Simth]

But there is one glaring assumption above: That an arrow necessarily sticks in its target. Even if it does, so what? The caster just needs to pull the arrow out and toss it away.

Yes, but is it a move, standard, full round, or free action to un-stick an arrow from your person? Are there consequences for pulling an arrow out hastily?

 

[Mark Chance]

Yes, but is it a move, standard, full round, or free action to un-stick an arrow from your person? Are there consequences for pulling an arrow out hastily?

Which just further emphasizes the silliness of the initial assumption that an arrow necessarily sticks in its target.

I would never allow the "arrow sticks in the target" tactic to begin with, but, if I did, here're my answers to your questions:

It is a move action to unstick and toss the arrow away. No, there are no consequences for pulling an arrow out hastily. Why? Because I said so.

 

[Jhulae]

Which just further emphasizes the silliness of the initial assumption that an arrow necessarily sticks in its target.

I would never allow the "arrow sticks in the target" tactic to begin with, but, if I did, here're my answers to your questions:

It is a move action to unstick and toss the arrow away. No, there are no consequences for pulling an arrow out hastily. Why? Because I said so.

Well, I've got an actual bow and I've done a lot of target shooting. Arrows do in fact stick in their targets and sometimes it's almost impossible to get them out. It's not a 'silly assumption'. In fact, honestly, the sillier assumption is that arrows just fall out of targets on their own or don't penetrate if they hit.

I'd also like to see someone just 'pull out' a broadhead or barbed arrow with 'no consequences'.

 

[cmanos]

The reason I'd make the ground AC9 is this ... targeting a square is normally AC 5, but with an arrow or crossbow shooting strait to hit a flat surface far away, I'd give the +4 AC granted to prone targets.

um, unless you are in an area with a low ceiling....shoot up at an angle. We used to lay the targets down facing up at the sky and shoot up in the air trying to hit them. There is no rule that you have to shoot straight at the target. Gravity works in fantasy settings too.

 

[azhrei_fje]

The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any.

It occurs to me that the silence spell says that unwilling creatures get a Will save. It doesn't say that the unwilling creature must be the target of the spell. I noticed that the second sentence doesn't use any pronouns to refer to the first sentence, so they're not related, right? I mean, it doesn't say, "the creature" or "it" when referring to creatures in the second sentence...

If true, then any creature in the area of effect gets a Will save, which seems more in keeping with other area effects. The spell resistance mentioned in the description relates to the individual creature only; unless that creature is the target of the spell, in which case spell resistance would completely negate the spell.

But Scion won't like that the text says that an "unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell". That sounds like anyone in the area of effect who makes a Will save negates the spell completely!?

So what am I missing? Is there something else here?

PS: How does an illusion stop sound? I can see an illusion clouding the minds of creatures in the area so that they don't think there's any noise, but how can an illusion stop sound from passing through the area!?