Foiling the Silence spell

[KarinsDad]

I am also getting slammed by this spell and consider it way too powerful. Here's the house rule I will be adopting in the next campaign:

Compare invisibility and silence - there are both glamers, a subset of the illusion school.

Invisibility creates an illusion to others that you are not there, but you really are there. You can see yourself, read scrolls, etc.

So why shouldn't the sound in a silenced area really exist, just not heard?

The implications are that all spellcasters in the area are deaf with a flat 20% SF chance. Language dependent, mind affecting spells are still negated, but sonic energy is not (you can still use protection from energy against sonic attacks).

You can still use the silence spell to sneak around with this interpretation.

I think this is a good compromise. I've always wondered why the Silence Illusion was a real effect and not an illusion.

 

[Bad Paper]

Invisibility creates an illusion to others that you are not there, but you really are there. You can see yourself, read scrolls, etc.

No, you can't see yourself, and you cannot read (invisible) scrolls. If your scroll was in a scroll case when you turned invisible, then you can remove it from its scroll case. It becomes visible (to everyone), but now you can read it.

Invisibility and Silence are both glamers, not figments. Silence should not be defeatable with a Will save any more than Invisibility. I'm not saying that I'm happy with Silence as written (it is too powerful). Perhaps a reduction in area is in order?

 

[two]

Discussion of this spell are always interesting.

Typically, you get a lot of responses from people saying "it's a 2nd level spell, big deal, yawn." Most often these people have only had silence used rarely (if ever) in game play.

Then you get the responses from people who have actively used and abused the spell in combat.

Myself and, it sounds like, Nail are in the second category.

I know for a fact Silence is much too powerful. I played a silence-loving bard for about 15 levels. Between "readied" silence casting (cast silence at a point is space near an enemy who starts casting a spell) and "readied" shooting of arrows, my lowly bard was an enemy wizard's nightmare.

A readied "silence" stymies the most powerful wizard, at least for an action or two (and, really, what more do you want).

A readied "silence" cast after "my buddy casts Evard's Tentacles" ended MANY a battle far too soon (anyone caught in Evard's can't escape because of silence).

If I was GM, I would allow a will save in all cases vs. this 2nd level spell.

 

[KarinsDad]

Invisibility and Silence are both glamers, not figments. Silence should not be defeatable with a Will save any more than Invisibility. I'm not saying that I'm happy with Silence as written (it is too powerful). Perhaps a reduction in area is in order?

The real problem is that WotC did not follow its own rules with this spell, hence, one of the reasons it is broken.

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

Negating / removing all of the sound in the area sounds pretty real to me.

You'll note that the Darkness spell (even the 3E version) is Evocation, not Illusion.


Even Invisibility can be detected with a DC 20 Spot check.

Silence should a) only affect when a Will save is failed and b) since it is illusionary, it should deafen targets while they are in the area, it should not actually remove the sound and should not affect Sonics. The reason Silence should have a Will save and Invisibility should not is due to the fact that Silence is generally used as an offensive spell.


There should be a "Personal Silence" or "Muffled" spell with no saving throw which allows a creature to sneak around. A DC 20 Listen would allow someone to hear a creature affected by this.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If your scroll was in a scroll case when you turned invisible, then you can remove it from its scroll case. It becomes visible (to everyone), but now you can read it.

I don't agree, there - if the scroll (in its scroll case) is in your possession when you cast the spell, then the scroll (in the scroll case) is invisible.

If the scroll was on the table when you cast the spell, and then you put the (visible) scroll in the (invisible) scroll case, it would disappear from sight, but would still be visible when you later removed it from the case, as you described.

-Hyp.

 

[DM_Jeff]

Wow, I love it, away for a few hours and over 20 responses, thank you all!

I've cut and pasted the best suggestions and will do a little homework tonight. As it is, I don't really consider the spell broken as much as suddenly being used frequently because the players think they found an easy out. They're challenging me a bit, that's all.

We've always played that once a spellcaster realizes he hears nothing, most wizards get what happened and know the area of a silence spell. Simply move at least 20 feet in a direction, and once your hearing is restored, you can react by casting a spell after the movement with no additional penalties. What I'm getting however are really canny players who corner the spellcaster. I don't want to houserule this in the middle of the campaign (and as is don't really consider it broken, been using it for years without too much hassle!).

I already tried looking up wands and the like, they all require a spoken activation word. Curses! Ventriliquism would be tough too. It already has a V component. And if you;'re curious I'm running Red Hand of Doom, which specifically handles reporting PC actions to others, so my future folks will be ready for this tactic, I just didn't want to completely nerf it with every sdpellcaster having the same bizarre items to cancel it.

Here's one to wrap your head around: I almost ruled a Mindbender with telepathy could cast his "command" in a silenced area by saying the verbal component, the command, telepathically to the target! But I didn't.

These suggestions are great, thanks again!!

-DM Jeff

 

[Mistwell]

I am wondering about the use of Silence as the ultimate counterspell. Your cleric readies an action to cast silence on the opponant spellcaster the next time they start to cast a spell. Assuming the opponant spellcaster misses their save, won't this stop pretty much counter any spell? And if you cast it on a rock in front of the spellcaster, doesn't it counter the spell even without a save?

 

[Archade]

Hey all!

Don't forget an enemy spellcaster has a chance to identify the spell being cast if they witness it (Spellcraft DC 15 + spell level?).

The point that Silence is an illusion (glamer) spell is a very good one - I've fired off an email to Sage Advice asking if people in the area are permitted a disbelief Will save.

 

[anon]

Seems like an easy fix is to allow a Save to any (possibly) affected creature, even if they are not the target. No more 100% certainty when casting it on the fast-moving monk, or on the poor-willed mook next to the BBEG, or on the non-saving rock next to him.

 

[kerbarian]

Compare invisibility and silence - there are both glamers, a subset of the illusion school.

Actually, that's a pretty good comparison. What if silence were changed from Area: 20-ft.-radius emanation to, like invisibility, Target: You or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lb./level.

An affected creature couldn't be heard, couldn't cast with verbal components, and would be immune to sonic and language-based effects. You'd probably also need some language about how this works for move silently -- your footsteps don't make noise, but opening a creaky door would, etc.

For solutions within the rules... if silence is a known powerful anti-caster measure, it changes the D&D metagame, so to speak. Spellcasters would react by hiring a 2nd-level bard henchman to follow them around, continually concentrating on Joyful Noise.