Mearls ruling on Silence - doesn't move

[Shining Wrath]

So I tweeted Mearls & Crawford, and Mike informs me that the Silence spell cannot be cast on a creature or an object - the idea is to ensure the Stealth ability is not replaced by Invisibility + Silence.

There's still applications - knocking down a door, or forcing a spellcaster to move in order to cast spells - but this is a serious nerf.

[solidork]

It certainly makes the ritual hard to use, but it was pretty obvious to me from the spell description that it works the way it does.

[Demonic Spoon]

So I tweeted Mearls & Crawford, and Mike informs me that the Silence spell cannot be cast on a creature or an object - the idea is to ensure the Stealth ability is not replaced by Invisibility + Silence.

There's still applications - knocking down a door, or forcing a spellcaster to move in order to cast spells - but this is a serious nerf.

There was no nerf, it was always clear (to me, anyway) that it worked this way.

Allowing Silence to work that way would be broken beyond measure for a variety of reasons (one of which you brought up).

[Finieous]

Likewise - no nerf, always clear. It's a 2nd-level spell that can shut down an enemy spellcaster with no save.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So I tweeted Mearls & Crawford, and Mike informs me that the Silence spell cannot be cast on a creature or an object - the idea is to ensure the Stealth ability is not replaced by Invisibility + Silence.

There's still applications - knocking down a door, or forcing a spellcaster to move in order to cast spells - but this is a serious nerf.

This is how I've always read the rules in 5e. There hasn't been a problem with it in any games I've seen it used.

It makes the spell balanced compared to using it in 3e. Way way way more balanced.

The rock of trapfinding my 3e Crusader used will be missed (50lbs boulder with silence on it... Used to check for traps by throwing/rolling it) but I think it's for the best.

[Nu]

This doesn't seem like a nerf. The Darkness spell, for example, specifies it can be cast on an object and moved around. Silence has no such wording.

[KorvinStarmast]

So I tweeted Mearls & Crawford, and Mike informs me that the Silence spell cannot be cast on a creature or an object - the idea is to ensure the Stealth ability is not replaced by Invisibility + Silence.

There's still applications - knocking down a door, or forcing a spellcaster to move in order to cast spells - but this is a serious nerf. Since it shuts down ALL spell casting in its area, it likely needed the limitation of being bound by local in order to remain a second level spell. It is still handy in a variety of tactical situations.

here is an example: You can cast in right next to a door that is locked/barred. your beefy fighter and barbarian can now beat the crap out of it and not make a sound as they break it down ... and your party can get a surprise out of that if they bust it down and bust through in one round ... on the other hand, you may not if the enemy sees the door coming apart.

You'd use that in selected spots, when you need that tactical advantage, not on every door

[MaxWilson]

So I tweeted Mearls & Crawford, and Mike informs me that the Silence spell cannot be cast on a creature or an object - the idea is to ensure the Stealth ability is not replaced by Invisibility + Silence.

There's still applications - knocking down a door, or forcing a spellcaster to move in order to cast spells - but this is a serious nerf.

Is there really anyone who wasn't running it that way already? Seems obvious from the PHB text.

The spell is more useful if a DM is using proactive dungeon mobs and rules for hearing things. E.g. Shadow Monk casts Silence on the doorway behind the guards to ensure that reinforcements will not come running when you take out these guards, no matter how much the guards yell.

You can also get up next to a spellcaster and cast Silence, then attempt Stunning Strike with your opportunity attack if he tries to move away. (And he has to guess which direction to move, unless your DM rules that the Silence spell's boundaries are somehow visible to him. And you can arrange it so he has to move toward the party to get out of Silence.)

[Dalebert]

No ruling was necessary. As has been pointed out, this was very clear in the spell description. I agree it would be to powerful to have essentially a mobile anti-magic shell that a melee could bring around with them to shut down casters completely.

[MeeposFire]

People probably did not realize that it changed in 5e from what it was previously.

[KorvinStarmast]

People probably did not realize that it changed in 5e from what it was previously.What, like necromancers being evil?

(heh, grenade tossed, I am diving for cover!) :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

No ruling was necessary. As has been pointed out, this was very clear in the spell description. I agree it would be to powerful to have essentially a mobile anti-magic shell that a melee could bring around with them to shut down casters completely.

The funny thing is that Silence is generally perceived as weak (see: threads on Shadow Monks) but the moment you talk about making it mobile, everyone jumps on it as "too powerful." I agree that making it mobile would be inappropriate and too powerful, but here's the thing: a Shadow Monk comes in a whole party of PCs, any one of whom besides the monk can knock the enemy prone and/or grapple him so he cannot escape from the region of Silence. If a Mobile Silence would "shut down enemy casters completely," isn't a spell which does half the work of shutting down enemy casters completely worth something?

[Dalebert]

Someone is actually saying Silence is weak? That's very surprising. I believe you but I'm surprised. Are there a lot of people who feel that way?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Since it shuts down ALL spell casting in its area, it likely needed the limitation of being bound by local in order to remain a second level spell. It is still handy in a variety of tactical situations.

Slight correction.

It shuts down all spells that rely on thunder damage, the target hearing you, and spells that have Verbal components.

Many spells can get around this. A Sorcerer with Subtle Spell is especially fun.

But I think silence in 4e was a ritual that worked the same way, it being a stationary effect, but I really didn't mess with rituals much in 4e so I'll check my books when I get home tomorrow.

[MaxWilson]

Someone is actually saying Silence is weak? That's very surprising. I believe you but I'm surprised. Are there a lot of people who feel that way?

It's hard to say for sure, but for sure it tends to get underestimated when monks and the Shadow Monk in particular are being discussed.