Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4945979" data-attributes="member: 15538">"See text" is not a qualifier on "Will negates." It is a notation, in this case, parallel to "none (object)." All that tells us that special rules apply. We know already that a Will save negates the spell for a person on whom the spell is centered and that special rules apply for objects. Incidentally, Will negates means the spell does not affect the subject. If, indeed, only the centered creature gets a save, then we get the curious circumstance that the person on whom the spell is centered is unaffected while everyone else is. Again, since the person on whom the spell is centered is not the Target, but the center of an area, their being unaffected does not mean the spell ends. All of this to say, the spell is probably not written up properly. If centered on a creature, it should target the creature in order to work properly, if it is intended to radiate an absolute silence. Incidentally, since the silence allows no SR, it would probably make sense, too, for the spell to be a conjuration effect otherwise it's, well, cheating. Just for kicks, I looked up the AD&D 2.5 version of silence, 15' radius. It allows no save. However, it allows a save for an unwilling target and uses the same language as the 3.5/Pf versions, implying the conventional, "you get no save" was likely the intention of someone. However, the saving throw designation was changed to "Will negates; see text or none (object)" rather than simply no saving throw. Further, if the unwilling creature makes the save, the silence appears approximately one foot behind them. That is certainly not how the Pathfinder version operates, so extrapolating the Pathfinder version from the AD&D version is problematic, at best. From a design standpoint, adding "negates" to the saving throw for a spell originally provided a save only to be avoid being stickied by the spell was a bad idea. The result is neither fish, nor foul...There is probably no really great answer to this one, since either way you interpret the spell departs from previous versions, and allowing a save for everyone in the area raises weird issues (and apparently has little pedigree) while allowing one only for the creature on whom a spell is centered also works strangely unless you use a nonstandard definition of "negates."</blockquote>

Verification