D&D 4E In D&D 4e, is there any ability by Enemies that will silence a caster?

[UngeheuerLich]

You could easily make monsters with silence (save ends) effects...

it is however difficult to draw a clear line, which spells are prevented:

druidic evocations, but not rages?

I would disallow (give a -5 penalty to) all implement powers, when someone is silenced...
So this would be about the same penalty as beeing disarmed for a weapon user...

The status effect may be applied by putting socks into the mouth of the caster.

 

[CovertOps]

You could easily make monsters with silence (save ends) effects...

it is however difficult to draw a clear line, which spells are prevented:

druidic evocations, but not rages?

I would disallow (give a -5 penalty to) all implement powers, when someone is silenced...
So this would be about the same penalty as beeing disarmed for a weapon user...

The status effect may be applied by putting socks into the mouth of the caster.

Great....my Implement using Monk that's silenced would like a word with you.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Great....my Implement using Monk that's silenced would like a word with you.

Too bad. He's been silenced.

 

[Artoomis]

Our DM is mixing 3.5 with 4.0e (having us use our imaginations for the environments ala 3.5 with D&D 4.0e style minis and board maps and stuff and using D&D 4.0e Classes & Races) , a bit, but I don't think he'd take it as far as throwing up 'anti-magic zones'.. but, even if he did.. I was just making the precaution for my friend who doesn't have a weapon at all on his Cleric and it significantly worried me.

The only real disadvantage of having no weapon is missing out on opportunity attacks. For that reason alone, the cleric should have a weapon.

 

[Artoomis]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking away characters' standard toys for a given encounter as long as there's some accessible way for them to still meaningfully contribute.

This is, generally, counter to the 4e game design.

 

[the Jester]

This is, generally, counter to the 4e game design.

I disagree, based on:

as long as there's some accessible way for them to still meaningfully contribute.

As long as everyone can contribute, that's fine. Heck, there are official 4e monsters that take away your ability to use most of your powers.

 

[CovertOps]

Too bad. He's been silenced.

I know you're being cute and I chuckled, but this is the kind of nonsense where mechanics don't match up to the "imagined expected reality". You'd think that a Monk would be all Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan, but he's more like Gandolf due to being an implement user. This of course makes no sense in the context of a -5 penalty to-hit for being "silenced".

 

[Reigan]

A blanket stoppage of the cleric's powers would be a crude and unfun way of challenging you friend's character. Good encounter design and solid tactics are all your dm needs. You have two defenders in your party as well, they should be able to protect the cleric from too much harm.

 

[eamon]

This is, generally, counter to the 4e game design.

What the Jester said, and furthermore: This is an almost entirely irrelevant argument. We're not trying to write a fake a rule or ruling that looks like it comes from a core book, we're trying to make a good ruling without pretending it comes from the mouth of a 4e designer.

Is it better to have a complex, unfun 4e-esque rule than a simple & reasonable rule? Let's argue based on the merits of the proposal.

Having said that, there are plenty of reasons to be wary of transplanting bits of previous editions without care. The entire context of 3.5 was different; in particular, so were its balance assumptions. Spellcasters were simply more powerful, and there were also various countermeasures. Not all spells available to a caster required vocalization.

I like rules that bring out the distinctions between classes, particularly in 4e since 4e suffers from mechanical sameness and lack of cohesion between fluff and mechanics. Still, I don't think that importing bits of previous editions is likely to work well.

To properly integrate vocal (or somatic) components into powers, you'll need to decide to label every single power that will be used (including monster powers); you'll need to change PC's and monsters to take this new mechanic into account and actually silence things; you'll need to change PC's and Monsters to include countermeasures and you'll need to rebalance classes to account for this new weakness.

Sounds like much more work than it's worth, to me.

 

[Larrin]

There are monster powers that limit you to at will powers, or punish you for using encounter/dailies (see some of the gith from dark sun). These are usually save ends. I think that a power that targets a specific power source or implements and limits them to at wills, save ends, would be acceptable. You could even play around with it being a zone that they could leave instead of save ends, or some other condition, but I would make sure 1) they still get their at wills, 2) there is a way to end it. This gives the flavor of silence and the lack of completely sucking that 4e wants you to have most of the time.