Deafened uses in combat - should there be more?

[Amnestic]

Partially inspired by another thread talking about how good the Blindness/Deafness spell is. I don't disagree on the Blindness part, that's good, it's a good spell. But Deafened is arguably the weakest detrimental condition in the game when it comes to combat. The sum total of the condition is as follows:


A deafened creature can’t hear and automatically fails any ability check that requires hearing.

Off the top of my head the negative impact of this in combat is that it makes hiding from creatures slightly easier - if they can't see you (for whatever reason) then you automatically succeed on Hide checks. Nice.

However, unless you're facing a lot of bonus action hiders, that's usually not going to be a big deal. Not to say it'll never happen, just that it's not common (at least in my gameplay experiences). Conversely there's a number of spells and effects, primarily charm/enchantment based, that deafened creatures can ignore. These include (but are not limited to) banshee wails, (Mass) Suggestion, Dissonant Whispers, Enthrall, Compulsion, Geas, Divine Word and Vicious Mockery. At least a few of these are more likely to show up in combat situations, I expect, than bonus action hiders who you can't see at all.

Given this it seems like - at least in combat - deafening yourself is the ideal scenario mechanically. It saves you from a number of effects and has no significant impact on your performance, either as a martial or a spellcaster. Casting the Deafness portion on a friendly creature seems more optimal than on an enemy, but you can't choose to fail saving throws in 5e as standard (though it's a common enough houserule) meaning it might not even succeed and you will active be praying to roll 'poorly', which is weird and incongruous with how the game's designed.

In 3.5 the Deafened condition gave spells a 20% spell failure chance for spells with verbal components (and a -4 to initiative checks). While I don't necessarily think a straight port of that is a good idea, I do think that as a condition it's currently in a weird space where it's got more positives in combat application than negative.

Now outside of combat, being deafened is a bigger deal for perception checks, but I'm not aware of many things that can cause Deafened outside of the B/D spell and the duration on that is too short for it to be that impactful. I could be overlooking spells/effects though for sure.

Do you think this is a problem, and if so, (how) should it be fixed?

[Segev]

There's another weird bit regarding senses other than sight: some creatures have "keen smell" that gives them advantage on perception checks where they can use their sense of smell. Do only these creatures have the ability to make smell-based perception checks? Does this NOT give them the ability to detect a person based solely on smell, since those without this feature aren't expected to be able to do so? Do ALL creatures who don't explicitly lack a sense of smell get to make smell-based perception checks to locate/notice hiders, and those with Keen Smell only get advantage?

When senses other than sight are in play, the perception rules get very muddy. I post this mostly to add some food to your cauldron of consideration as you try to muse on ways to make this more solid.

[Amnestic]

I did consider mentioning scent with regards to hiding (which really only makes deafness worse!) but unless a creature has keen scent I'd usually discount it as being used in combat to detect hiding, absent a specific situation (eg. the hider is covered in foul smelling stuff). In the majority of cases I'd assume sight+sound would be usually the only combat senses for detection.

Unless the players start trying to lick everything I suppose.

[Lord Vukodlak]

If deafness was a separate spell from blindness it’s be a problem but it’s not so it isn’t. Deafness is an option because people would ask about it and it’s not strong enough so stand on its own so it’s an option for the blindness spell. Blindness is going to be your go to choice in most situations but many monsters don’t rely on sight and blindness would do nothing. Being blind is a lot worse then being deaf, and there’s no reason to pretend otherwise.

[Amnestic]

If deafness was a separate spell from blindness it’s be a problem but it’s not so it isn’t. Deafness is an option because people would ask about it and it’s not strong enough so stand on its own so it’s an option for the blindness spell. Blindness is going to be your go to choice in most situations but many monsters don’t rely on sight and blindness would do nothing. Being blind is a lot worse then being deaf, and there’s no reason to pretend otherwise.

All well and good but as written now I'm struggling to see the Deafness side satisfy the 2nd level spell slot. In fact if you presented to me "Deafness" as a cantrip I'd have to seriously question if I'd take it.

This is a question born out of ignorance, I'm not intending it to be snide, but are there any creatures in 5e that are blind and either don't have blindsight or have a blindsight that explicitly relies on sound? Put short, are there any creatures out there where Deafness does effectively 'blind' them?

[Segev]

All well and good but as written now I'm struggling to see the Deafness side satisfy the 2nd level spell slot. In fact if you presented to me "Deafness" as a cantrip I'd have to seriously question if I'd take it.

This is a question born out of ignorance, I'm not intending it to be snide, but are there any creatures in 5e that are blind and either don't have blindsight or have a blindsight that explicitly relies on sound? Put short, are there any creatures out there where Deafness does effectively 'blind' them?

Bats lose blindsight if deafened.

I think deafness blinds grimlocks, but I could be wrong there.

[clash]

Just some suggestions using common sense:
* deafened creatures should automatically fail stealth checks because they don't know how loud they are
* attacks agaisnt a deafened creature have advantage of they have a different creature within 5 feet of them as it is hard to keep track of multiple opponents solely based on sight
* resist checks agaisnt deafened spellcaster wield are made with advantage if the spell has vocal components. The spell is not as powerful because they say it slightly wrong

[DwarfFighter]

To be fair, when facing an invisible enemy, detection by sound is just an opposed Perception/Stealth check to determine the location, which goes a long way to make fights vs, unseen enemies playable.

Deafened is a major power balance shift. What else are gonna use if not sight and hearing? Smell? Touch? Try taste! :)

[Segev]

To be fair, when facing an invisible enemy, detection by sound is just an opposed Perception/Stealth check to determine the location, which goes a long way to make fights vs, unseen enemies playable.

Deafened is a major power balance shift. What else are gonna use if not sight and hearing? Smell? Touch? Try taste! :)

Smell, potentially. If you don't permit smell to work, then that means Keen Senses: Smell doesn't do anything, since all it does is give advantage on checks using smell. If smell is never used....

[DwarfFighter]

Very few effects cause anosmia or anything equivalent, I guess :)

I'd rule that using smell to locate an invisible creature next to you should get that roll!

[Mellack]

To be fair, when facing an invisible enemy, detection by sound is just an opposed Perception/Stealth check to determine the location, which goes a long way to make fights vs, unseen enemies playable.

Deafened is a major power balance shift. What else are gonna use if not sight and hearing? Smell? Touch? Try taste! :)

Another point is that the creature might be invisible, but that doesn't mean their surroundings are. For example, an invisible creature walking through snow would probably still be able to be located. Blindness would stop that where invisibility does not.

[Tanarii]

Partially inspired by another thread talking about how good the Blindness/Deafness spell is. I don't disagree on the Blindness part, that's good, it's a good spell.
Except it isn't. Blindness/Deafness is a terrible spell. Most DMs don't have blindness do anything other give disadvantage on attack rolls. Darkness (assuming inky blot interpretation) is far superior most of the time, and even then it's not actually that good unless you're working with a DM that adds other interpretations to blindness, like having to guess where targets beyond a certain range are.

[Valmark]

It's true that Deafness is on average a buff in combat- I feel like it doesn't need changing though in this case. The ability of choosing between conditions means that you're never going to actually waste the spell.

That said, Deafness should really have more drawbacks. If I remember my biology lessons right a sudden lack of hearing should **** up somebody's motor skills for example- there again, realism isn't something one looks for in D&D (usually).


Except it isn't. Blindness/Deafness is a terrible spell. Most DMs don't have blindness do anything other give disadvantage on attack rolls. Darkness (assuming inky blot interpretation) is far superior most of the time, and even then it's not actually that good unless you're working with a DM that adds other interpretations to blindness, like having to guess where targets beyond a certain range are.

The blinded condition alone is a pretty nasty effect on any attacker or person getting attacked- it shines more on spellcasters though, since many spells become useless.

It's kind of a weird comparison between Darkness and Blindness/Deafness- you're comparing an AoE capable of friendly fire (kind of) against a single target debuff. You don't tipically have a situation where both spells work well.

[Ganryu]

Personally I think it should give spell casters chance to fail verbal spells. They can't hear what they're saying.

But as is, Deafness is pretty useless.

[Hal]

Personally I think it should give spell casters chance to fail verbal spells. They can't hear what they're saying.

But as is, Deafness is pretty useless.

There aren't a lot of spells that don't have Verbal components, so that would make it a very strong way to shut down casters. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it changes the dynamic considerably.

That said, there are plenty of spells and effects where the stipulations are for targets that can hear and/or understand you (such as Vicious Mockery, or Bardic Inspiration.) I feel like you have to read carefully to find those instances, but it would certainly impact a Bard to have deafness floating around the battlefield.

[Amnestic]

There aren't a lot of spells that don't have Verbal components, so that would make it a very strong way to shut down casters. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it changes the dynamic considerably.

In fact literally every cleric spell (not counting domains) has verbal components (which is why locking them inside a Silence is so powerful). I don't think any other class has a similar situation where all their spells use one of the components.

I think I'd prefer using the adv/disadv mechanic for spells-with-verbal-components-while-deaf rather than a straight chance of failure personally, if only because it feels more in line with 5e's design philosophy.

[Catullus64]

I find that a lot of combat circumstances in my games involve player characters having to split up to deal with different threats. In an example from my game last night, on one initiative, the barbarian was busy grappling a big enemy, the paladin was trying to hold a chokepoint against a horde of incoming weaker enemies, and the druid was pinned down in a sniper duel with an enemy archer. All of these were taking place around corridors and different rooms, so being able to call out for help or communicate changes in the situation was pretty vital.

In a different game earlier in the week, we were all spread out in a wood collecting large rocks (long story), when several party members came under attack. In that case, Deafened would have been devastating, as it means two party members would each have to handle an entire encounter by themselves.

I'm not saying that's the norm for combat, but it happens reasonably often such that I often think about including deafness-inducing traps to serve as a threat in such scenarios. There are a lot of combat scenarios where the player characters' ability to communicate quickly and effectively is important. If any of the party members in last night's game had been deafened going into that combat, somebody probably would have died. So the impact deafness is less in combat itself than it is combat-adjacent.

[Democratus]

In a previous edition (3.5) of D&D, the Deafened condition gave you a -4 penalty on Initiative, auto fail of listen checks, and a 20% failure chance casting any spell with verbal components.

[Segev]

In fact literally every cleric spell (not counting domains) has verbal components (which is why locking them inside a Silence is so powerful). I don't think any other class has a similar situation where all their spells use one of the components.

In previous editions, Bard spells specifically, as a design characteristic all had verbal components. I have not done a run-down of 5e's Bard list to see if they do, there, though.

[PhantomSoul]

In previous editions, Bard spells specifically, as a design characteristic all had verbal components. I have not done a run-down of 5e's Bard list to see if they do, there, though.

It's still a strong trend -- only 6 spells on the bard's PHB list have no V component, and three of them are cantrips.

[Man_Over_Game]

To be fair, when facing an invisible enemy, detection by sound is just an opposed Perception/Stealth check to determine the location, which goes a long way to make fights vs, unseen enemies playable.


Kinda. Invisibility states that checks to perceive you are done with Disadvantage, and my belief is that all Invisibility does is make you invisible (that is, it doesn't also make you imperceptible beyond that), so it makes sense to have that (Disadvantage on opposing Perception rolls) be a blanket effect of all invisibility. If it's impossible to see the target, you make your Perception check with Disadvantage. Which is a decent buff to the Hide action, although not all tables might rule it the same way.

Just for some diversity and interesting scenarios, I say having two valid senses to detect someone is made at a normal roll, and only having one results in Disadvantage for your check. Humanoids can't really detect someone with their sense of smell by default (unless it's really smelly), so you're generally stuck with Sight and Sound. Blocking one of the two makes them worse at detecting a hidden threat.

For something like Keen Sense: Smell, that rule still applies and it would allow Smell to be a valid form of detection. So if a Dog can both smell and hear you then they roll with Advantage, but if they can only smell you then they roll with both Advantage and Disadvantage (and make a normal roll).

This doesn't fully work with the actual rules, with how Pass Without Trace and Invisibility both have their own ways of modifying stealth rolls, but it's sort of a house-canon.

We have to get used to the fact that not all of 5e wasn't made by the same people at the same time, so not everything will make sense. We can make it make sense, though.

[Amnestic]

In previous editions, Bard spells specifically, as a design characteristic all had verbal components. I have not done a run-down of 5e's Bard list to see if they do, there, though.

Not quite all of them, however it's almost all.

The bard spells that don't have a V component are:

Cantrips: Minor Illusion, Thunderclap, True Strike
1st: Illusory Script
3rd: Catnap, Hypnotic Pattern
5th: Mislead
9th: Psychic Scream

[Man_Over_Game]

spells that don't have a V component are:
...
Psychic Scream
K
10 character limit

[Amnestic]

K
10 character limit

Yeah, kinda surprised at first glance but it's 'cos it's your brain screaming not your mouth I guess.

[Tanarii]

Kinda. Invisibility states that checks to perceive you are done with Disadvantage, No it doesn't. Nor does the Invisible condition.

Against an Invisible Perception checks based on sight fail automatically. Those based on hearing work normally, as do those based on smell. Although what range you can hear something or smell something at is DM dependent.

You're probably thinking of the Cloak of Elvenkind, which doesn't make you invisible. It gives you advantage of stealth checks to hide, and opponents disadvantage to see you. What that means is if they can hear you they roll without disadvantage, but you still get advantage to stealth checks, so the cloak is actually superior to invisibility. On obvious oversight.

Boots of Elvenkind are also similarly poorly written.

[Man_Over_Game]

No it doesn't. Nor does the Invisible condition.

Against an Invisible Perception checks based on sight fail automatically. Those based on hearing work normally, as do those based on smell. Although what range you can hear something or smell something at is DM dependent.

You're probably thinking of the Cloak of Elvenkind, which doesn't make you invisible. It gives you advantage of stealth checks to hide, and opponents disadvantage to see you. What that means is if they can hear you they roll without disadvantage, but you still get advantage to stealth checks, so the cloak is actually superior to invisibility. On obvious oversight.

Boots of Elvenkind are also similarly poorly written.

Sorry, got it mixed up. The Invisibility Condition states that attacks from the bearer are made with Advantage and against them has Disadvantage, but then it also states the bearer is Heavily Obscured, which is either redundant or it's two different effects.

But you're right, it has nothing to do with the stealth/perception checks, my bad!

[YoungestGruff]

Realistically speaking (though that's a dangerous phrase in this game) Blind would be massively more powerful than Deafen. Humans navigate through sight over sound, and you're generally facing off with Humanoid creatures. If you were jumped by a group of CR 1/4 Thugs in real life, Deafness would mildly inconvenience them if they even noticed. Blindness is a game stopper, essentially being a single target Devil's Sight/Darkness combo in one spell.

And since they both have the same spell, there's not a huge problem if Deafness isn't worth the 2nd level slot - you can still use the spell to cast Blindness and not have wasted taking it. Now, if you were in the specific scenario where, say, a Sending Stone operator was relaying orders, Deafness would be an absolute showstopper. At that niche it might be worth 2nd level.

[Samayu]

I'd like there to be a Mass Deafen spell, for when we're sailing past the Sirens.

[DwarfFighter]

I'd like there to be a Mass Deafen spell, for when we're sailing past the Sirens.

...Silence?

-DF

[Valmark]

...Silence?

-DF

Would it move with the ship though? I think the point in space stays fixed if the platform moves. I've never really wondered though.

[Evaar]

I'd like there to be a Mass Deafen spell, for when we're sailing past the Sirens.

Upcast Blindness/Deafness is a Mass Deafen spell.

[Democratus]

Would it move with the ship though? I think the point in space stays fixed if the platform moves. I've never really wondered though.

They changed Silence for 5th edition. It appears that you are right. Silence is cast at a point, not on an object. Good catch!

[Man_Over_Game]

Problem with setting it to a static point like that is that it's impossible to determine whether it'd work on a planet, which most of us envision our worlds to be. Either it needs to be anchored to something, or it just kinda drifts away while we perceive everything to be standing still.

They don't want to let it be anchored to an object, so that the victim has a chance to escape, but it gets weird when it can't. I'd just say that it's anchored to a 5ft solid square of material (generally a floor). 5ft of anything is too big to really maneuver in combat.