is this a valid tactic for shutting down a caster

[Chu Li]

assuming conditions don't forbid it, a wizard can just take a double move to get out of the silencer's reach (withdrawing or tumbling if need be). the silencer just won't be able to catch up with it, having only one move action to do so.
sure, he delays the wizard, but it's not that uncommon having to deal with sub-par circumstances that keep you from doing what you want to do.

one should also keep in mind, that clerics tend to run around in armor that reduces base speed, whereas a wizard's BS tends to be unchanged (or even increased if the wizard in question was wise enough to cast expeditious retreat earlier), but the again, there are monks and their ilk

but remember that the silencer is silenced, too. which spells does he cast now and whom does he talk and listen to for advice ("look out!"), tactics ("retreat!") or encouragement (e.g. bardic music)? been there, done that and it can really suck.

if you feel especially daring today, you might want to note that being deafened gives a -4 penalty to initiative (by RAW you are not really deaf, but you are likewise unable to hear and communicate by spoken language, so as DM i take the liberty of applying this penalty to anyone who starts combat under the effect of a silence spell)

from my perspective silencing a spellcaster can be an annoyance or even a real PITA, but it's hardly a game breaker that needs any fixing whatsoever

*bows*

Chu Li

 

[Chu Li]

ah, well,... i should have read beyond page 1

ChuLi

 

[moritheil]

It interrupts the action that triggers it, and is resolved before it.

If the cleric is not casting when the readied action takes place, how does the attack force a Concentration check?

-Hyp.

It forces a concentration check because the rules say so. It's a holdover from 2E, where just damaging a caster at some point in the round was good enough to prevent casting.

 

[karechar]

in my oppinion one can hold a spell to cast it at a later rime this has the effect to make an concentration chech wich goes up every round.
but this also means you can then await any other spellcaster as a ready action to auto beat his initiative when he starts casting since you just need to speak the last sylable.

though most casters have a silenced dispel or other spell ready.

though if you realy want to hurt spell casters use anti magic field

clr 8
10' radius centered on you
lasts 10 min / lvl
no saves
no spells or effects can be ued or cast inside

give the clric his armour and mace and he'll beat the mage to a bloody pudle of goo

 

[Hypersmurf]

It forces a concentration check because the rules say so. It's a holdover from 2E, where just damaging a caster at some point in the round was good enough to prevent casting.

The two examples of the trigger "If she starts casting a spell" - readying to distract, readying to counterspell - both take place after casting has begun. You can't use Spellcraft to identify a spell someone hasn't started to cast; you can use Spellcraft to identify a spell that triggers your Counterspell action "if she starts casting a spell", so "if she starts casting a spell" triggering a readied action means that the readied action occurs during the casting - at which point the caster does not threaten.

-Hyp.

 

[Eldragon]

Unless your Silence casting party member is much lower level than the Caster you wish to silence, you are trading the versatility of one of your spell casters for one of the opponents. Its a one for one trade, I usually avoid those situations if I can. So personally I would avoid the tactic from the original post.

A Silenced Benign Transposition can really mess with a caster trying to do this tactic, and its the same level as the "Silence" spell.

When it comes to applying silence to an item and attaching it to the enemy, I've never had a problem with it, Spellcasters get pretty darn powerful at higher levels and its nice to have some means of countering them. You just have to be careful about what you consider "attaching". Personally I would rule an arrowhead embedded in the flesh of the target has its Silence emanations covered by the flesh holding the arrow in.

I love the idea of a silenced tanglefoot bag, consider it stolen.

 

[moritheil]

You can't use Spellcraft to identify a spell someone hasn't started to cast

OK, I'll accept that.

 

[Bagpuss]

By the time he figures out the silence is on the arrowhead, he's screwed.

Some DMs even let me used barbed arrows to do this, which means they take damage in & out before they can rid themselves of the effect.

It wouldn't work if the silence was on the arrowhead, it would need to be on the shaft of the arrow.

If it was on the arrowhead, then the fact it sticks in the person, means the casters mouth, has total cover from the point of emanation the head of the arrow, (unless you shot him in the larynx, in which case you wouldn't need the spell anyway).

 

[moritheil]

If it was on the arrowhead, then the fact it sticks in the person, means the casters mouth, has total cover from the point of emanation the head of the arrow, (unless you shot him in the larynx, in which case you wouldn't need the spell anyway).

Interesting line of reasoning. How much flesh (or body mass) is needed to provide total cover? Are you arguing that any amount of mass would provide total cover as long as the arrowhead was buried in it?

 

[Bagpuss]

It's the same if you cast silence on a pebble then put the pebble in a purse. It loses line of effect to anything else. I suppose technically it has line off effect to the target stuck with the arrow as it is touching him, but I would logically expect it would need a line of effect to the source of the sound. And if enclosed then the an emanation doesn't go beyond the enclosure.