Charmed by Sierra Ferrell: A Journey into Musical Delight

Sierra Ferrell is an American singer-songwriter known for her unique blend of genres, including folk, country, blues, and jazz. Her music has been described as "pretty magic spell" due to its captivating and enchanting qualities. Ferrell's music captivates audiences with her soulful vocals and poetic lyrics. She possesses a versatile voice that effortlessly transitions between powerful bursts of energy and tender moments of vulnerability. In each song, she weaves her stories with intricate melodies and heartfelt performances that leave listeners entranced. Ferrell's songs often explore themes of love, loss, longing, and personal growth.

You can manually edit the file that controls spell blocking by adding or removing a spells “spell-id”. It is recommended to only use this option when the game is closed, or it may not accept your updates. See how to locate the “spell-id” in the previous section.

There is no language in the Antimagic Field description that states Lead would block the effects, however because there is no specific language stating an override of Area of Effect Rules, then Total Cover would block the Antimagic Field. Technically the spell rarely if ever works it has a Target one creature line in its description, which means You must be able to see or touch the target.

Ferrell's songs often explore themes of love, loss, longing, and personal growth. She sings with raw emotion, drawing listeners in and immersing them in the world of her music. With every note, she tells a story that resonates deeply within the hearts of her listeners.

How to block Sending spell

I'm a GM and my group is using Sending to find a missing person. It's supposed to be harder than that to find out if this person is alive or not, so how can I block the spell's function? I thought about Mind Blank, but Mind Blank has nothing in its description about blocking messages, just that you can't divine anything about the creature who is mind blanked.

Are there any rules/erratas on this?

Sending will tell you that they're alive, but nothing at all about their location. Not even if they're on the same plane.

Are they personally familiar with the target? Because otherwise it won't work.

Honestly, it seems like a clever use of what is, after all, a 4th/5th level spell.

But if the person receiving the Sending tells them where he is? Which he could well do, since he can reply in 25 words. Assuming he knows, of course.

Also, the best would be if they didn't know he was alive. :P

I get that your first reaction is "Aagh, they broke my plot." But can you work with this instead?

I mean, I see a fascinating rescue scenario on the cards, where they can get extremely limited inside info (very slowly) from their captured friend and try to break them out based on that.

Also, it's usually best to reward cleverness.

Of course, if he's a prisoner, the captors might be able to eavesdrop on what the spell says to him, and what he says back.

Consider that the PCs couse use scrying to see him anywhere he is.

Sending has a chance to fail if the target is on another plane.

1- Eavesdropping
2- Not knowing where he is (bag over head)
3- Lead lining in his "cell". Blocks the communication, like a cage of Faraday :D

• be in some sort of stasis, and unable to respond.
• not know where he is.
• be uncertain if he's dead or not.
• be under a compulsion not to respond, or to give false information.
• be cursed to be incomprehensible.
• be altered to a extend that the caster is no longer familiar with him.
• be convinced the caster is in fact a hostile threat, and respond accordingly.
• be convinced the spell effect is a delusion, and ignore it.

Technically the spell rarely if ever works: it has a "Target: one creature" line in its description, which means: "You must be able to see or touch the target".

I'm pretty sure that the spell in and of itself does not let the caster know if the target is "alive" or not--though that might be determined if the target responds--and even then the target may now be undead.

I see that some people think that this spell works like message creating an audible effect that the target (and possibly others) hear and then consequently the target must respond with his actual voice.

If this is the case (which I don't believe is true), the sending would be impacted if the target is:

• unconscious, stunned, helpless, etc.
  
• gagged
  
• doesn't understand the language of the sending
  

Though its clearly lacking in the rules description, the way I've always viewed it, is the sending is telepathic and works regardless of language (like telepathic bond). Even in this view, an unconscious (or dead) creature couldn't respond and the caster would have no information regarding the target.

Technically the spell rarely if ever works: it has a "Target: one creature" line in its description, which means: "You must be able to see or touch the target".

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

Bear in mind that if the target is on another plane, there's a 5% chance the spell fails, more if local conditions are somehow not conducive to the spell working.

Technically the spell rarely if ever works: it has a "Target: one creature" line in its description, which means: "You must be able to see or touch the target".

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

Oh I realise it would be silly to require Line of Sight or Line of Effect for this spell, but the rules are clear.

Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target.

The spell description of sending has no text that counters the general rule, and so it stands as is.

1. The rules always need to be interpreted and not taken literally.
2. This is really rather a derailment.

Unless you actually get a response, the Sending spell tells you nothing.

If the person is "hard to find", it would have to be that they are under a magical effect that blocks a whole spreadsheet's worth of Divinations, so a DM can easily decide that the Sending is blocked from it's target.

Problem solved. That'll be 5 cents please.

Sender: "Hey man, where are you?"

Prisoner: "I dunno, I think I've been blindfolded."

Oh I realise it would be silly to require Line of Sight or Line of Effect for this spell, but the rules are clear.

Hmm. I guess that would technically be correct. I thought sending's Range of "see text", would offset that, but you're right that it doesn't.

As far as I can find, sending is one of a very small group of spells (demand,discern location)that have a target of one creature and a range that would likely make it impossible to see or touch the target.

Really it could be as simple as hes held prisoner in an antimagic field. I have no idea what level this campaign is, but if I was in a world full of crazy magic and supernatural abilities, I would have a prison locdked down with antimagic just to make sure the prisoners (and their freinds) don't try anything crazy, but that's just me. Obviously if the recipient is in an antimagic field they have no chance of sending working. If he's an especially important prisoner, they probably have him magically rendered unconcious, and cloaked by mind blank. Even if he's not unconcious, he'd still probably be unaware of his current location and at best knows he's alive, but nothing else of use. It could go many different ways, use whatever level of control necessary to prevent the PCs from knowing his location or the status of his life.

it would have to be that they are under a magical effect that blocks a whole spreadsheet's worth of Divinations, so a DM can easily decide that the Sending is blocked from it's target.

Problem solved. That'll be 5 cents please.

I want my money back!

Sending is an Evocation. ;)

Sending is by intent pretty much impossible to block.
It doesn't guarantee a response or let you know if it went through or not.

It would probably be better to assume the sending goes through and let the PCs know that they receive no response. Work from there figuring out the "why" for the PCs to discover later.

This of course, assumes the PCs know the person they are sending to. it does require familiarity to cast ("You contact a particular creature with which you are familiar"). If they don't know them, it wouldn't work.

Target is petrified.
Target is poisoned into unconsciousness.
Target is Int damaged to the point of being unable to speak.

While these would not prevent them from know he was alive or not, it would prevent communication.

And its iffy if the petrified creature would be considered alive.

Thanks guys! Although not all replies were directly helpful they were interesting to read.

The way I interpret Sending, it's telepathic and doesn't require speaking.

The target must be a "known" target, however, if the target is a person the PC hasn't seen since he was a toddler, would he then "know" him well enough to successfully contact via Sending?

Even if that wouldn't be enough I've decided to roll some dice to see if the prisoner is conscious and able to respond at any given time - meaning I will reward PC cleverness eventually, unless the dice really hate the group. ;)

I'm a GM and my group is using Sending to find a missing person. It's supposed to be harder than that to find out if this person is alive or not, so how can I block the spell's function?

I apologize, but I find this to be kind of a sucky attitude. They have the spell, it's normally useless, and they found a great use for it. I don't see why it shouldn't work.

The idea that "it's supposed to be harder" needs to be stricken from your GMing playbook. Things you think are simple will be 59146184 times harder for the players, and things you think are hard will be a cakewalk. It is the nature of things, and they should not be artificially blocked because you didn't think of something they did.

In truth, this is an issue of "high level D&D kind of sucks." And it really does. Spells are insanely powerful for obviating obstacles, so you're left with either arbitrarily blocking their spells (which sucks) or letting their spells run rampant (which also sucks). Ultimately, I think the best solution is to play E6.

Ultimately, I think the best solution is to play E6.

Or, since we're offering "how to be a great DM" advice, there's the solution that involves not hiding McGuffins behind walls foiled by dimension door or on top of towers foiled by fly. Metaphorically-speaking, of course.

Mid-to-high level games are completely practical if the plot doesn't involve "find the X". The difficulty becomes getting to the X, wrenching the X out of its guardians' hands, and getting back home alive. High-level spells don't make those things trivial. They just make. trivial obstacles trivial. So don't make trivial obstacles plot points.

Absent a reply the spell tells nothing.

The solution is for the BBEG (or whoever captured this person) to have them Dominated or Charmed (and then convinced) not to talk to one's friends.

And it doesn't even have to be something the BBEG did "against sending".

Dominate them. "Communicate to no one but me" cures alot of issues.

Charm them into thinking their friends or family will die if they try to escape or find help.

Or just intimidate them into thinking that.

"If you try to escape or communicate with anyone on the outside while you are here my minions.. they have your son. And your son won't enjoy my minions very much without my hand to stay them."

It doesn't even have to be true. (though it can be true.)

Alternatively (or in conjunction with) an Antimagic field which is only 1 level higher than the wizard cast Sending. its certainly something a high level caster would consider especially if sending/scry/fry is an issue. (and lets be honest- at this level it *is* an issue and if the BBEG has two brain cells rattling around upstairs then they know it and will take some means to prevent it.)

Or, since we're offering "how to be a great DM" advice, there's the solution that involves not hiding McGuffins behind walls foiled by dimension door or on top of towers foiled by fly. Metaphorically-speaking, of course.

Mid-to-high level games are completely practical if the plot doesn't involve "find the X". The difficulty becomes getting to the X, wrenching the X out of its guardians' hands, and getting back home alive. High-level spells don't make those things trivial. They just make. trivial obstacles trivial. So don't make trivial obstacles plot points.

In every high level adventure I've read, they are structured exactly the same way as low level adventures, complete with dungeons and towers and all, except they have a laundry list of magical countermeasures.

Junk like, "Most of this fortress is protected by a permanent Mage's Private Sanctum," or "a forbiddance effect blocks all planar travel to and from the tower," or "a permanent dimensional lock wards the dungeon level." (Those are real things from a single location in an AP that I don't want to spoil)

The stories don't change, like you suggest, they stay the same but involve an arms race of countermeasures.

And while your solution of changing the structure and goals of the game sounds nice, not everyone wants to play those sorts of games--I'd argue most, in fact probably don't, which is why the adventures are written the way they are.

I mean, crap, there's an AP that's heavily about investigation and just about everyone that dies has special notes about how their jaw is ruined so as to prevent a Speak with Dead.

Your solution is "there can be no mysteries with PCs capable of third level spells." The conventional solution is "this one 3rd level spell that is only useful for this one specific thing is too useful for this one specific thing, so we must be careful to arbitrarily block it at all costs." My solution would have probably been "maybe Speak with Dead shouldn't be a thing at all if it ruins investigations."

Really, though, you and I are suggesting the same thing.

You say, "X doesn't belong past level Y." Meanwhile, I'm saying, "Because you want to play X, don't level past Y." Same answer :P

There are 3 different ways to use this feature, each having a slightly different use-case. We’ll dive into what each of those are and how they work.

One of Ferrell's notable characteristics is her ability to effortlessly fuse different musical genres. She incorporates elements of folk, country, blues, and jazz into her songs, creating a sound that is both timeless and fresh. This blending of genres adds to the enchanting quality of her music, drawing listeners from various musical backgrounds. Furthermore, Ferrell's performances are known for their intimate and breathtaking nature. Whether she is performing with a full band or by herself, she has a captivating stage presence that holds her audience's attention from the first note to the last. Her live shows are often described as a mesmerizing experience, where her music creates a sense of connection and unity among the attendees. Overall, Sierra Ferrell's music is often described as a "pretty magic spell" for its ability to transport listeners to a different world. Through her captivating vocals, poetic lyrics, and seamless blending of genres, she creates a musical experience that is both immersive and enchanting. Her music has the power to captivate and touch the hearts of her audience, leaving a lasting impression on those who have the pleasure of hearing her perform..

Reviews for "Sierra Ferrell: Conjuring a New Era of Folk and Country Music"

1. John - 2/5 - I'm sorry, but Sierra Ferrell's "Pretty Magic Spell" album just didn't do it for me. Her vocals felt forced and strained, and the songs lacked a certain cohesiveness. The production quality was also quite disappointing, with the instruments often overpowering her voice. Overall, it was a forgettable listening experience for me.

2. Emily - 1/5 - I was really looking forward to Sierra Ferrell's new album, but sadly, it fell flat for me. The songs lacked depth and originality, and her voice didn't have the power or emotion that I was expecting. Additionally, the lyrics felt uninspired and predictable. Maybe it's just not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't recommend "Pretty Magic Spell" to anyone looking for a standout album.

3. Michael - 2/5 - Sierra Ferrell's "Pretty Magic Spell" just didn't live up to the hype for me. The songs all sounded quite similar, and there wasn't enough variation or experimentation to keep me engaged. Additionally, I found her voice to be a bit grating and over-the-top at times. Overall, it was an underwhelming album that I won't be revisiting anytime soon.

4. Sarah - 1/5 - I have to admit, I don't understand the appeal of Sierra Ferrell's "Pretty Magic Spell" at all. The songs lack any sort of memorable hooks or melodies, and her vocals often sound off-key and strained. The album also felt overly long and repetitive, with no real standout tracks. I hate to be harsh, but this is one record that I won't be recommending to anyone.

5. David - 2/5 - I had high hopes for Sierra Ferrell's "Pretty Magic Spell," but unfortunately, it didn't meet my expectations. While I appreciate her unique style, the album as a whole felt disjointed and unpolished. The songwriting lacked depth and the instrumentation often overshadowed her voice. It's a shame because I think she has potential, but this album just didn't showcase it.

The Mesmerizing Aura of Sierra Ferrell's Music