Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1905960" data-attributes="member: 5777">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scion, post: 1905960, member: 5777"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification