Silence Spell Saving Throw

[Scion]

If you touch and invisible object it still hurts.

If you are hit by a sonic spell, but are fooled into thinking that you do not hear it, then you are still hurt.

The entity is not changed, merely the perception of it.

 

[Thanee]

If you touch and invisible object it still hurts.

Certainly... it's just invisible not intangible after all.

If you are hit by a sonic spell, but are fooled into thinking that you do not hear it, then you are still hurt.

The entity is not changed, merely the perception of it.

Sure, if there was such a spell, which only fooled you into thinking you did not hear anything...

With Silence you are not fooled, the sound is actually changed.

Same as with Invisibility, you do not only think that the person is invisible, the person actually is.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

With Silence you are not fooled, the sound is actually changed.

Same as with Invisibility, you do not only think that the person is invisible, the person actually is.

You will not convince Scion that he is wrong Thanee.

After reading quite a few of his posts, I have come to the conclusion that he is nearly incapable of ever admitting that he is wrong.


"A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear"

The word "seem" in this case means "has the appearance of" or "looks like". It does not mean "may or may not be that way based on observer".

The word "subject" in this case means "the target or area of the spell". It does not mean "any observer".

The target of the spell ACTUALLY looks, feels, tastes, smells, or sounds the way the glamer states. The sensory qualities of that target ACTUALLY change. Period.


That sensory quality is totally real to all observers. An invisible guy is invisible to ALL observers unless they have a magical (i.e. special ability, spell, or supernatural power) to penetrate that invisibility. Same for Silence. Same for Seeming. Same for Disguise Self. Same for Veil. Same for Zone of Silence.

For a Glamer, only magic can penetrate it (i.e. an observer no longer perceives it) for the sensory quality being affected . There are no saving throws (like some other illusions such as figments) to perceive a difference. Either the spell is up for everyone, or it is not. There may be a save for it to not affect someone when cast, but once cast and up, it affects everyone who perceives it.


And changing a sensory quality can lower it as well as raise it or modify it in some other manner.

 

[Scion]

::shrugs:: yet again, the text itself says in plain english what is going on and yet you draw a conclusion completely opposite to it.

That is your perogative of course. For myself, I will go with what the rules say as opposed to some other randomness.

Sensory qualities can be fooled, but the truth is still the same. It is only an illusion.

something can appear to be invisible (haha) and yet it is still there. The sound can seem to be inaudible, yet it is still there.

An illusion cannot change physical facts, although some shadow magic can get around that partially, but this is because of its own special properties.

Figments and glamors do not actually change what is there, they only make it 'seem' to be different.

If you wish to change the rules for illusions in your games feel free, but there is no need to claim it is raw. Especially when the quotes are there saying the opposite which are straight from the rules.

An invisible creature can hurt you, an inaudible sound can kill. It may be a crazy world of magic, but that is unimportant. figments and glamors make things seem to be other than what they are, but they still are what they were.

 

[Hypersmurf]

::shrugs:: yet again, the text itself says in plain english what is going on and yet you draw a conclusion completely opposite to it.

Well, we have an example of a glamer that states in plain english that it protects against sonic attacks

But there's example of school crossover in other spells. Fire Shield is an evocation, but it could be labelled an abjuration just as easily. Word of Chaos is an evocation that includes necromantic and enchantment effects. Prismatic Spray is an evocation that includes conjuration, transmutation, and enchantment effects.

What's wrong with a Glamer that also has a minor abjuration effect - not enough to get it labelled as an abjuration rather than an illusion, but a little bit of school crossover?

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

something can appear to be invisible (haha) and yet it is still there.

See? Your argument is so silly you even laugh about it yourself!

I still don't get how invisible means "not there" to you...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

yet again, the text itself says in plain english what is going on and yet you draw a conclusion completely opposite to it.

You mean like...

The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight, even from darkvision.

Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area.

Where is that "appears to" or "seems to" you are always talking about!?

Maybe this?

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Well, as has been said... if someone becomes invisible (see above) it seems like that someone has disappeared, but this is not what happened, it just seems to have happened. What happened is, that someone turned invisible. But it does not seem like someone turned invisible, someone actually did.

Bye
Thanee

 

[atom crash]

I agree with Thanee. "Invisible" = "not visible." The invisible object or creature is still there, just not seen. Invisibilty makes an object or creature seem to disappear, but it really just becomes not visible. Seems clear enough.

And notice that the definition of glamer spells reads:

"A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear."

NOT:

"A glamer spell seems to change a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to be invisible."

What is somewhat confusing is that Silence blocks spells like Sound Burst, a sonic-based attack that does damage regardless of whether or not the target can hear.

 

[Scion]

But there's example of school crossover in other spells. Fire Shield is an evocation, but it could be labelled an abjuration just as easily. Word of Chaos is an evocation that includes necromantic and enchantment effects. Prismatic Spray is an evocation that includes conjuration, transmutation, and enchantment effects.

What's wrong with a Glamer that also has a minor abjuration effect - not enough to get it labelled as an abjuration rather than an illusion, but a little bit of school crossover?

What, exactly, about this spell is a glamor then? If the protection part is a bit of abjuration that protects what is left? The part that is protecting stops the sound, hence it is protected against, and the area of effect isnt really 'illusion' so much as any spell can have an area of effect.

There just isnt any need for the glamor descriptor. The spell itself blocks sound. It doesnt just muffle it, or make it sound like something else, but it actually kills it. Hence a person on one side of a corridor could not hear the person on the other side even though neither of them are in the area of silence. It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that the sound is killed by the illusion so completely that it is no longer there. Especially when it is a glamor.

Also, to atom crash, I havent said anything against the invisible = not visible, it really comes down to semantics on whether something is invisible or cloaked in invisibility. I personally do not treat them as transparent, merely cloaked in invisibility. They are still there but cannot be seen. Just like a sound would be inaudible but still there. Exactly the same thing and yet thanee and a few others believe that even though you cant see one it is ok to interact with it but the other being masked as well somehow makes it go away entirely. Conflicting results with the same initial condition, one of the two must be wrong. Since silence actually goes against its own descriptor then that must be the wrong one.

In addition to that though, changing what someone can percieve with their senses and changing what is actually there are two completely different things. Illusion is all about making things seem to be something else, not destroying things entirely.

 

[Thanee]

Exactly the same thing and yet thanee and a few others believe that even though you cant see one it is ok to interact with it but the other being masked as well somehow makes it go away entirely.

You just don't understand me, that's all.

Silence changes sound. Invisibility changes look. Both do the same, just with a different sensory quality.

In addition to that though, changing what someone can percieve with their senses and changing what is actually there are two completely different things. Illusion is all about making things seem to be something else, not destroying things entirely.

Not in D&D, there illusions can make changes to sensory qualities. Those illusions are called Glamers.

There are others with quite real effects... like Phantasmal Killer, which really kills a target, it doesn't just seem to be dead, or Shadow Evocation/Shadow Conjuration.

Bye
Thanee