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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Twowolves" data-source="post: 4946325" data-attributes="member: 18093">Yeah, special rules do apply. That's how everyone else has been reading the spell the way I (and you as well, until this thread came along) have been using Silence in their games. Will neg (as read in the text) doesn't negate the spell for the one not-targeted-but-instead-centered, it negates the entire spell.Or the entire spell is negated as per this quote:Doesn't say "negates for that one non-target", it says "negates the spell". As in kaput.I agree completely. I think what happened here was the 3rd ed designers were trying to shoehorn every spell into their Unified Spell Theory, and Silence was so particular about how it works it did not translate well. I think it should have been worded more clearly, but then the problem arises where the PRPG designers, building on the established 3.5 rules, probably never gave this textbook spell a second thought. Silence does allow SR. It says to three times in the spell description.Well, IMO, the great answer is the same it's been for over 30 years. Allowing only one save for the "center-but-not-a-Target" to negate isn't a non-standard definition of "negate" either, really. The subject of a Ghoul Touch doesn't exude a cloud of noxious gas if he makes his "Fortitude: negates" save. Silence is like that, only more flexible since you can cast it in space or on objects. The only time a save is waranted for Silence is when you try to "stick" the source of the emanation on a creature or magic object.I think we can both agree that the translation to 3rd ed was clunky, and was not addressed with the Pathfinder version either. I'm wonder if this ever came up for 3.0, and if it was answered by Sage Advice or beat to death in the old Rules forum here on ENWorld.</blockquote>

Verification