Talk: Silence (spell)

Mind-affecting?

This is listed as a Will save (as well as being affected by SR). If you cast this on yourself and your opponent is immune to mind-affecting (epic Monk, Protection: alignment, etc.) and walks into the area of effect, does it negate the effect?

I know "Allows a Will save" != "Immune to mind-affecting prevents it" but I was wondering if anyone has tested it. --68.110.201.64 22:08, 22 October 2007

Move silently

Does a silence zone affect the Move Silently skill checks in any way? If so, how? Bromium 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Creature affected by silence cant be detected by listen check, but! Creature with silence can still use listen check... wierd. i tested it and its true. -> ILKAY 17:25, 21 December 2007

Praetor's tests

I made a few tests about casting it on yourself then walking up to the mage:

• Immunity to Mind spells do not work - enemy will be silenced
• Spell Mantles does work - but you only need to get a little away from the mage (so he will be outside the AoE) then walk up to him again. This costs him another 2 levels of spell mantle. You can do this until it eates up all the mantles. Sure it takes a little time and that can be deadly...
• Strangely, Globe of Invulnerability does NOT protect the enemy (Silence is lvl 2 spells so enemy should be immune to it)

Seems like clerics can kill mages at last? :)

A minor thing: if you cast Silence then walk through an area transition the visual effect is removed, but the spell is still on. Praetor 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stealthy Silence

Does the effect of Silence on Spell Mantle disrupt Stealth at all? i.e. if a Rogue is Silenced, can he just Stealth through a room into range of a Spell Mantled creature thus draining 2 levels, walk a little away, walk back draining another 2 levels, and rinse and repeat until it's gone without the creature noticing?

lol this would make one potential "tell" of a stealthed Rogue hiding in the room in some PVP areas: hows your Spell Mantle holding up? --63.230.1.242 01:56, 19 May 2012

• Yes this is known exploit, you can do this also with any other harmful mobile aoe spell like Dirge and Battletide. 77.92.213.119 08:51, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

"mistreat allies"

Revision 62375 was made with the summary "the note said nothing about saving throw". While it is true that the note does not use the word "save" or any synonym of that, it did say "mistreat allies". However, the only special treatment this spell claims to give to allies is the lack of saving throws and spell resistance. So "mistreat allies" means nothing if it does not refer to the lack of saving throws and spell resistance. (The edit summary also has a nonsensical claim that "PvP setting doesnt (sic) matter" when the note in question explicitly states "unless no-pvp area".) The justification for undoing my edit is bogus. --The Krit (talk) 19:52, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

• Revision 62375 consisted of undoing new note from revision 61841. That undoing was justified with similar bogus. Truth is that the note I added was already there and I missed it, thats why I rewritten it shortly after. I will continue to clarify this below. 77.92.213.119 23:15, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

• Revision 61841 (by you) did add a note, but that was undone by 62288 (by me), not 62375 (by you). The edit summary for 61841 was "allies may take SR/save", which is wrong as allies do not roll saves. The edit summary for the undoing (62288) was justified with "[testing revealed] casting on an ally did not trigger a saving throw", which is true (not bogus). So of the three edits in question, the two by you have bogus justifications, while mine is fully justified. --The Krit (talk) 15:55, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

• Ok so you undone this again and you haven't added the relevant information I added. Now, when I think about it, maybe it wasn't understandable. What I meant is that allies are excluded from the area of effect's effects (unless they are considered as hostiles by the targetting scheme). Clear enough now? 77.92.213.119 03:08, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

• No, either still not clear enough or flat-out wrong. The targeting scheme does not consider allies to be hostiles. It can consider allies to be valid targets, but that is not the same thing as considering them hostile. Drop your ludicrous assumption that the spell only affects hostile creatures. --The Krit (talk) 18:36, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Targeting scheme

Why was the reference to the standard targeting scheme replaced by some nonsense about allies being treated as hostiles? --The Krit (talk) 19:55, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

• Because this nonsense actually describes what really happens, while this "standard hostile" targetting scheme says nothing to the normal player. There are two issues. 1) the aura does not affect allies at all. 2) the aura treats allies as hostiles at D&D or higher difficulty and so they are forced to take spell mantle check, spell immunity check and lastly spell resistance check. I failed to see that from the previous note. I suggest to describe the standard hostile in new article if you want to use it because its much more difficult than to take into consideration PvP settings and its not described by game anywhere. 77.92.213.119 23:23, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

• Have you read what you wrote? You start with the assertion that the aura does not affect allies. Then you observe that the aura does in fact affect allies, but instead of concluding that your assertion is wrong, you conclude that the spell is messed up. Typical. You get an idea in your head, and nothing can dislodge it, not even evidence to the contrary. The sole valid point you have is that the old note failed to link to the detailed explanation of "standard hostile". --The Krit (talk) 16:05, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

• The aura doesn't affect allies - thats a fact. It does affect enemies, those are defined by the standard hostile theme so in some circumnstances allies might be affected - that doesn't mean that aura affect allies, only that aura mistreat allies and consider them to be hostiles. 77.92.213.119 16:29, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

• Blatant contradictory nonsense. You assert both that the aura does not affect allies and that allies might be affected. So if allies are not affected by the aura, who or what is affecting them? --The Krit (talk) 17:20, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

• Distort my words as you want. I already told you that there are two issues, issues that the previous notes haven't described or weren't understandable. Stop nitpicking about what I have written and rather rewrite the new informations I added into article in the way it pleases you and other grammar pedants. 77.92.213.119 17:54, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

• I did not distort your words. Your words are contradictory. If you had something sensible to express, the distortion is of that something by your own words. This is not nitpicking, but pointing out egregious flaws. I gave you a second chance to explain what you meant, but you chose not to. So I will proceed under the assumption that you have nothing sensible to add, and disregard your "two issues" as inconsistent figments of your imagination. --The Krit (talk) 18:34, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

• My words are not contradictional. Allies means friendlies and members of party. (Standard) hostiles means neutrals and enemies. This spell does not affect allies, it affect hostiles. 77.92.213.119 08:25, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

• Four sentences, only one of which is true. Your definition of "allies" is reasonable, but "hostile" and "neutral" are mutually exclusive. "Hostiles" most certainly does not mean neutrals. This spell does affect allies -- you have even stated as much yourself. Hence, your words are contradictory. I do not know how you got it in your head that this spell only affects hostiles, but that is flat-out false with no basis in reality. It is easy to demonstrate that it is false: just cast the spell in a full PvP area and observe it affecting allies. What evidence do you have for your delusion? --The Krit (talk) 18:51, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

• Actually this sounds like the poster is using the terminology defined in the area of effect article.  "Allies" targeting scheme is not used, but allies can be affected under "Standard hostile" targeting scheme.  The fact that he/she also uses  allies, neutrals, and hostiles by reputation/PvP setting in this discussion just adds confusion. 76.9.104.225 22:09, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

• That is somewhat plausible, and does fit with 77.92.213.119's history of reading comprehension failure (in this case failing to realize that "standard hostile" describes a scheme for selecting targets, not the targets selected). I suppose that would suggest "allies are treated as hostiles" was supposed to mean "allies are included in the targeting scheme"? Which is how most hostile spells operate. I suppose the next question should be why 77.92.213.119 thinks normal behavior warrants a special note, but I would prefer being able to go back to ignoring that individual. --The Krit (talk) 21:44, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Spells cast by items

Do the spells cast by items default to the original spell's component constraints (verbal and/or somatic) or are they subject to a discrete set of rules when used by a silenced user of that item? I believe AoOs are handled differently for casting via items (at least they are are not addressed within the Attack of opportunity article's list of causes), so there is at least that distinction and I am trying to discern any other nuances in the casting of spells this way. TIA for any clarification. --Iconclast (talk) 14:02, September 12, 2014 (UTC)

• When thinking about spells cast by items, think of having a big, red "Easy" button. Press the button, and the spell is cast. This requires no spell slots, no components, not even the ability to cast spells. Just press the button. Easy. (This thought even works for scrolls, as PCs can read a scroll while blinded and in darkness.) The one exception I can think of is drinking a potion, as that does provoke an attack of opportunity (but then again, that is specifically mentioned in the attack of opportunity article). --The Krit (talk) 01:25, September 13, 2014 (UTC)