Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="atom crash" data-source="post: 1906377" data-attributes="member: 22162">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: &quot;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).&quot;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.&nbsp;I guess you could argue that hearing is a &quot;physical ability,&quot; 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.This seems more likely, but hearing isn't really a &quot;condition&quot; in the sense that the game defines &quot;conditions.&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="atom crash, post: 1906377, member: 22162"] 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 [i]fire shield[/i], 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. I guess you could argue that hearing is a "physical ability," but that argument doesn't allow [i]silence[/i] to give you any protection from sonic attacks either, since normally you'll take damage from [i]sonic burst[/i] even if you don't hear. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification