Willingly cloaked in silence

[ogre]

A PC in my campaign recently had a magic item made that uses the 'silence 15' radius' spell. I treated it like a ring of invisibility for cost etc. since they are both the same level, but that's besides the point. The issue we had in game was:
When she activates the 15' silence, what happens when she closes on someone. The text of the spell description is rather vague about wether an unwilling subject gets a save for this or only gets a save if the spell is cast on them. SR would apply in either case right? If so, how weird is it to have someone hearing things in an area that produces no sound?
The ruling I made, pending further investigation was, if anyone saves vs the spell, the spell is negated. I agree, it's a stretch and rather harsh, which is why I'm posting this. Is there any clearification on this point in the rules?
Thanks for any input.

 

[Pax]

The spell only allows Saves or SR rolls, if it is cast on teh creature/object making said rolls.

IOW, the ring generates silence in a 15' radius, allthe time, tough luck.

HOWEVER ... any creature standing around, or walking along, which finds itself SUDDENLY in an UTTERLY quiet place -- not even able to hear it's own breathing or heartbeat -- will know SOMETHING is not right. Surprise woudl be lost, and if the creature is smrt enough to put it's back to a wall and look around ... sneak attack opportunities would be lost also.

The above would happen the MOMENT the edge of that 15-foot-radius circle "enveloped" them, IOW, the INSTANT the creature was afected by the spell in any way.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

It's not vague at all. There is no save unless the spell is cast on the creature or an item in her possession. In this case, the silence simply happens. Those in the area receive no save against it.

 

[jgbrowning]

it is vague

It's not vague at all. There is no save unless the spell is cast on the creature or an item in her possession. In this case, the silence simply happens. Those in the area receive no save against it.

but its been errata'ed to be as he says.

technically its an illusion (glamer) and should allow a will save to disbelieve like it says in PH 158. but the errata says the spell's "special" instead of just making it a different school.

personally i hate the errata'ed silence spell. I dont think it should be an illusion spell if it acts that way, but thats my opinion.

but of course, i dont know why the HELL its not also a wiz/sor spell either.....

joe b.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Surprise still applies Stand 20 feet from your target, and use a ranged sneak attack. Surprise!

Of course, if you close to 15 feet or less, then they get a check (Spot check?).

Yeah, the victim knows something is wrong, but you know something is wrong if you're flat-footed. You just can't do anything.

Even if surprise is negated, there should still be a chance for flat-footedness.

Is there something preventing a rogue from using this item and a Ring of Invisibility at the same time?

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Nothing at all prevents this combo, unless the ring is voice activated.

If the rouge was really sneaky, he would have made the ring to only silence a 5' radius.

 

[Christian]

Aren't area spells negated for creatures with SR (on a failed caster level check) when the enter the area? What would that mean for a Silence spell?

Hmmm ...

 

[Henry]

Concept #1 - monk who has the party cleric cast silence on him. Said monk then uses tumble to close ranks with the enemy mage, and then grapples with him.

Concept #2 - monk has a lockable iron wrist manacle. Monk has party cleric cast silence on the manacle. Monk closes with mage and makes a grapple check to put the manacle on the mage. The monk is then free to beat the mage senseless, or run away to avoid enemy fighters.

question - would medieval-style manacles automatically lock like modern ones, or am I thinking a little too far ahead here?

 

[IceBear]

Re: it is vague

but its been errata'ed to be as he says.

technically its an illusion (glamer) and should allow a will save to disbelieve like it says in PH 158. but the errata says the spell's "special" instead of just making it a different school.

personally i hate the errata'ed silence spell. I dont think it should be an illusion spell if it acts that way, but thats my opinion.

but of course, i dont know why the HELL its not also a wiz/sor spell either.....

joe b.

Please read Sean K Reynold's rant on Invisibility being an illusion and apply for silence as well and you will see that it's not as hard to swallow being an glamer.

From the SRD:

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

where subject in this case is the sound in the area.

IceBear

 

[ogre]

Thanks for the replys, but I still find myself with the original confusion ;-(
It just seems odd that a creature with SR would be automatically affected by silence, but that same creature could walk through a wall of fire or someother area effect (are there any acceptions?) Are there any other area effect spells that would ignore SR?
The rings power of silence seems powerful enough for sneaking and getting around, with never having to make MS rolls. But to have it also hinder every combatant (albeit equally) and severly hinder enemy casters just seems too powerful for an always on, 2nd level spell.
Do you think I'd be wrong to keep the ruling I made about allowing a WILL save and SR to apply? I have already established the affect it has on NPCs who suddenly don't hear, they get scared and suspicious. But, at a full charge, those last 15' won't take more than 2 seconds before the surprise attack occurs. Unless someone is expecting something like this, how could they react in time? Hell, by the rules, a partial charge, even in full plate would enable you to charge 20' and still attack before the opponent could react. hmmm, well even the SR and WILL save wouldn't stop the surprise attack, assuming a successful hide the previous round or invisibility.