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

[tburdett]

And when you target a flask of holy water with invisibility, does only the flask turn invisible, or is both the flask AND the water inside affected? Silence can target an object. A flask of holy water is an object. Heck, you could even target the water without targeting the flask if you wanted too (freeze the water, target the ice cube, melt the water back into the flask).

There isn't an easy way to lawyer your way out of it, you just have to admit it's silly and disallow it on those grounds.

The water is invisible BECAUSE it is inside the flask. Pour the water out and it becomes visible. And, as others have mentioned, break the flask and it possibly breaks the magical effect on the flask.

I don't have my books here, but any spell that requires that you be able to see the target would require that the flask in question be clear or translucent, or the water could not be targetted, as you would be unable to see it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Ki Ryn - can you give me some way in which a spell ceasing to affect an object which has been broken since the spells casting is a particularly devestating ability? I can think of some ways in which it is very useful (ie, if I want the darkness/silence/whatever to stop, I can destroy the object - but I can already cover the object - those spells are emanations). I'm thinking it through, and I can't imagine a situation in which it gives one party or the other a massive advantage.

 

[0-hr]

The water is invisible BECAUSE it is inside the flask.

So you are treating invisibility like a thing coating that covers the target object? If you cast invisibility on a character and he talks, can you see the inside of his mouth? If he is cut, can you see the "inside" of the character through the wound? Invisibility affects the entire object, through and through, and a flask of holy water is an object. If you consider the flask a separate object from the water, then the water is still an object; just open the flask to target the water specifically.

Look, just admit it's silly already and get on with your lives! I'm not going to argue to support a position that I disagree with, so I will bow out of this now. You can twist and misinterpret the rules to pretend like they cover every possible scenario, or you can accept that some things just require the DM to say "No, it doesn't work that way, regardless of what is (or is not) in print."

 

[Numion]

As a tangent to this thread I somehow got really annoyed when I read a thread on Wizards boards where someone had destroyed a lich by thowing it into a pit of lava without a saving throw. How?

He used Telekinesis on the Lich's bracers, which by the DM weren't allowed a save or the lich's SR.

Why I got super-annoyed? I don't know. The game happened thousands of miles from here, and will have no impact on my game in anyway. It just annoyed.

But that sorta had something to do with this thread. It would be neat to use TK on a fighters plate. Bwahahahahaa!!

EDIT: While it would be undeniably funny to use TK on the fighters dinner plate, I'd rather use it on his full plate. A small but important distinction.