Silence on PC's worn equipment? Need rule fast!

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: Silence on PC's worn equipment? Need rule fast!

Uh-oh. Don't let KarinsDad see that. Also, yes, the boots get a save.

For that PARTICULAR spell.

Cut me a break guys.

I cannot help it that you were all wrong before.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Questions, comments, rulings?

A comment, in fact: you should tell that player that it's not that easy to cheat someone of their saving throw. They better stop acting stupid and start playing....

 

[Rill]

When the issue of 'dividing' an object that is affected by a spell, we have always thought of the situation in much the same way as a pair of magical boots. Wear one, no effect. Wear both, effect is in operation.
In the cases above, a rock wouldn't maintain its magic unless its pieces were held together (duct tape?) and a vial of holy water would lose silence unless it was put back together after breaking (...all the king's horses and all the king's men?).
This seems in line with broken magic weapon rules and the like, and would prevent most of the problems that arise. (And what group hasn't had to reassemble some sword/gem/book/etc. to save the world at some point, eh?)

-Rill

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Silence on PC's worn equipment? Need rule fast!

For that PARTICULAR spell.

But of course.

 

[Magic Rub]

It's sad that the "other" thread got locked, it was just getting stupid enough for me to jump in to. One hell of a match! Good job K.R. & KarinsDad. In my sessions I'm going to roll a d4 to dedcide how to work things when the question comes up.

1 - Kreynolds / Sage are correct deal with prob that way
2 - KarinsDad 'n' Co. are correct deal with prob that way
3 - Magic Rub's way (& not that you care but it is one of the two of your's)
4 - Yell upstairs & ask my wife who will inevitably say "I don't know? Hey, what do you guys want me to bake for you tonight?" Then re-roll

 

[KarinsDad]

1 - Kreynolds / Sage are correct deal with prob that way
2 - KarinsDad 'n' Co. are correct deal with prob that way

Actually, I have no problem with it being done either way. This was an intent (which I could not find in the book) vs. the rule question. This was not a KD thinks it should be run this way question.

The PHB currently states #2, the Sage currently states #1.

If they change the spell in an errata or the FAQ to work as per #1, that's how I'll run it.

But currently, for consistency with other spells that do not talk about items carried, I am going to run it the same way.

 

[dcollins]

Or if you want to confuse your DM, cast Silence on a flask of holy water (in your possession) and then throw it at your vicitm, breaking the flask and dousing him with the silence-bearing liquid. It probably won't work, but it should bring the game to a halt long enough for a quick cigarette break.

An interesting puzzle, and one that I hadn't heard of before (nor the breaking-apart an object with light on it).

However, I think it's pretty efficiently solved by noting that (a) a body of liquid isn't an object, and (b) stuff inside or concealed by a magically obscured object is concealed only "effectively", not by there needing to be magic on it. (DMG p. 79: "An invisible creature can pick up a small item and hide it on his person... and render it effectively invisible.")

Hence, cast silence or invisibility on a flask of water, and the water is undetectable, but apparent as soon as you pour it out again. Similarly, an invisible chest reveals its gold once it's opened up (unless the gold has been independently treated).

The breaking-apart of a lit object is not so easily solved, but I'd propose a "biggest remaining part gets the magic" solution, similar to how I believe regenerating creatures are supposed to function (DMG p. 81: "Severed parts die if they are not reattached."). This would be an additional, supporting argument for an enchanted flask of water spilling out the water in individual particles, and only the flask (or biggest shard of it left) retaining the magic.

If you allow casting a spell on a block of ice, then I would in fact suggest that once the ice melts, the object is entirely disposed of and nothing exists for magic to still be targeted on.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Actually, I have no problem with it being done either way. This was an intent (which I could not find in the book) vs. the rule question. This was not a KD thinks it should be run this way question.

The PHB currently states #2, the Sage currently states #1.

Damn! I missed a perfectly good flame war where I was guaranTEED to annoy either NotSean or KD.

 

[Magic Rub]

Damn! I missed a perfectly good flame war where I was guaranTEED to annoy either NotSean or KD.

Hey why go with one or the other, when you could have had both!

KarinsDad, I wasn't saying that it's "Your" idea Vs. "K.R.'s", it was just the best way to create my LAME! d4 chart, & have every one understand it with as little typing as possible, but now that I've typed all this it's a bit of a lost cause.

I think I'll just stick with #4 on my list, that way Me & the guys will get food out of the deal & be to full to care what my girly pulls out of her A for a rule on the spell. Mmmm... muffins, cakes, & pies oh my!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Hey why go with one or the other, when you could have had both!

<Ridley's Cohort bows deeply before Magic Rub>