Silence Spell Saving Throw

[Nail]

If y'all don't mind, I'm going to skip the "does Silence actually prevent noise" arguement. ...still, I'm tempted to stick my oar in......

...anyway......

As for the power of this spell: This spell is very nasty. Nasty to the point of "always have at least one on hand". As a player of a cleric, I always have the spell; as a DM of NPCs I always have the spell. Why?

In many (if not most) places, space is limited. The typical dungeon has rooms....and those rooms tend to be smallish (maybe 40 ft wide/long). With a silence spell, even if not placed on the spell caster, the caster is gonna be stuck in the AoE. Sure, he might be hiding behind his minions, but otherwise he ain't doin' jack.

A favorite tactic is to put it on the rogue or monk. A mobile spell-suppression platform! I'm not sure how many times I've completely shut down enemy spellcasters that way. It's ridiculous.

Presently, in our game, I've house-ruled it -- I had to: the combats were getting too easy! Spell casters now get a Will save every time the try to cast a spell. If they succeed, they can cast normally ....although the silence effect is still present.

Strangely enough, silence is no longer the most used spell.

 

[KarinsDad]

I dont know what else to say on this thread, it is clear that this is not a true glamor because of the rules for glamors. There really isnt 'anything' illusory about this spell.

It provides protection.
It actually nullifies sound in its area of effect.

The same can be said for Invisibility.

It provides protection.
It actually nullifies the light that should be coming off the target.


You have yet to prove your point.


The absence of sound is no different than the presence of sound. The volume is just a LOT lower.

 

[atom crash]

It provides protection.
It actually nullifies sound in its area of effect.

There is nothing glamor like about the first and the second could be a simple side effect of the first, hence making it an abjuration or a transmutation depending on the flavor text.

Actually, it is more likely that the defense against sonic attacks is a logical secondary effect of the spell's primary effect, which is to stop sound. If the protection against sonic attacks was the primary effect of the spell, it probably wouldn't be included at the end of the spell text, eh?

The school of the spell should not be based on a secondary effect. Take a look at fire shield, for example: "This spell wreathes you in flame and causes damage to each creature that attacks you in melee. The flames also protect you from either cold-based or fire-based attacks (your choice)."

So why isn't this spell an abjuration? It offers protection, no? But its primary effect creates flames that wreathe you and cause damage to creatures that attack you, and this is clearly the province of evocations.

Invisibility can protect you from a gaze attack, if the creature with a gaze attack is invisible. But does that make invisibility an abjuration?

Let's also look at the definitions of abjuration and transmutation.

Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence.

I guess you could argue that hearing is a "physical ability," but that argument doesn't allow silence to give you any protection from sonic attacks either, since normally you'll take damage from sonic burst even if you don't hear.

Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition.

This seems more likely, but hearing isn't really a "condition" in the sense that the game defines "conditions." And when you take a glance at the list of transmutations, you'll find that silence doesn't really fit there either.

I can only guess that the defense against sonic attacks was written into the spell description to ward against possible rules inconsistencies that might arise from spells like sound burst -- which normally even damages targets that don't hear -- within the area of effect. And it is probably an illusion since it was an illusion in earlier editions (I don't have a book handy to verify this; it is my presumption) and it doesn't really fit any better anywhere else.

And I've spent way too much time engaging in a long and drawn out discussion on a silly subject.

 

[atom crash]

Nail, you're absolutely right. Silence can be a really nasty spell in tight quarters. Knowing when to cast it and where can greatly alter the battlefield and change the outcome of the battle.

However, since it is an area effect and makes no distinction between friend and foe, the PCs are going to be facing the same sort of trouble as the NPCs. In that regard it's like the 3.0 version of darkness (which I still use because I refuse to use the "shadowy illumination" version).

When cast in a small confined area, silence pretty much eliminates spellcasting. And it makes the metamagic feat silent spell much more valuable.

But it can also be used as a great way to sneak your entire party -- including those clanky fighters -- through a dungeon or past a dangerous encounter.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Scion,

I'm close to siding with you on the issue, but there's one point that I'm unsure of. You mentioned that if a person shouts on one end of a Silence spell, someone on the other side of it (but not in the area) wouldn't hear anything. But by my reading of the spell, the person would hear it. Silence only suppresses sound in its area of effect, it doesn't destroy any sound waves that enter into it. So a sonic attack could pass through an area of Silence and affect those on the other side, while leaving anyone within the area of effect unharmed.

Is there a FAQ reading or Sage Advice that clarifies that Silence actually serves to destroy sounds/sonics permanently? If so, I could buy into your arguments. That strikes me as a pure Abjuration. But as I read the spell, it merely suppresses sounds for those who are in the area of effect, so that it seems like there's no sound, when in actuality there is, the spell just prevents those within its radius from being affected by it.

 

[atom crash]

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. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object. The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any. Items in a creature’s possession or magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and points in space do not. This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks.

The spell description says that it stops noise from passing through the area. This would possibly block sound if cast in a corridor or room, but sound can always travel around the area of effect on an open battlefield, thus muffling the noise. But I'm pretty sure it would block line of effect for sonic attacks.

 

[Thanee]

The text is there plain as day saying exactly the opposite of the conclusion that thanee is drawing from it.

I dont know what else to say on this thread, it is clear that this is not a true glamor because of the rules for glamors.

You mean the rules that follow the ":" after the "Glamer" right?

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

"changes" and "making it" not "disguises" or "making it seem to"

Or shortened to the most important parts:

"A glamer spell changes ... sound ..."

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Now, you could argue, that Glamers in general are not really illusions... one could certainly make most of those spells into transmutations (still don't see any reason to call it an abjuration, just because of a minor, secondary effect (just take a look at the position of the sentence, which mentions the defense against sonic-based attacks in the spell description ), which is furthermore a direct result of the primary effect of the spell, which is to negate sound (also from the short description of the spell: "Negates sound in 15-ft. radius.")), but anyways, that's not how D&D works... in D&D Invisibility is an illusion and Silence, which is basically the same, just for sound, is also an illusion.

Bye
Thanee