What you are looking for is Hallow it can create silence until dispelled.
No, Hallow simply creates a boundary sound cannot cross in either direction. One can still speak clearly within the effect, it just can't be heard from outside.
No, I don't think that's right. The spell's "silence" effect clearly states "no sound can emanate from within the area." If you're trying to speak from within the area, you're not making sound.
Compare it to the description for Silence, which specifically says "no sound can be created" within the AoE. "Emanate" means "to spread out from a source" and if "within the area" is the source, then it follows that sound that originates within the area is only stopped at the boundary.
No, that doesn’t follow at all. It says no sound can emanate from within the area, not that no sound can pass the border of the area. If you and I are five feet apart and both within the area, sound must emanate from me to you in order for you to hear me. The text explicitly states that that can’t happen.
Then why wouldn't they simply re-use the same wording from Silence? The fact that they chose a completely different way of describing the effect suggests that it's not the same effect.
Then why wouldn't they simply re-use the same wording from Silence? The fact that they chose a completely different way of describing the effect suggests that it's not the same effect.
The fact that they label the effect 'silence' argues that it's meant to be the same thing.
Then why wouldn't they simply re-use the same wording from Silence? The fact that they chose a completely different way of describing the effect suggests that it's not the same effect.
The fact that they label the effect 'silence' argues that it's meant to be the same thing.
I dunno. They took the time to reiterate the pertinent effects of Darkness for Hallow's "Darkness" effect. One would expect them to do the same for the "Silence" effect if it was supposed to replicate the spell effect.
What you are looking for is Hallow it can create silence until dispelled.
No, Hallow simply creates a boundary sound cannot cross in either direction. One can still speak clearly within the effect, it just can't be heard from outside.
No, I don't think that's right. The spell's "silence" effect clearly states "no sound can emanate from within the area." If you're trying to speak from within the area, you're not making sound.
Compare it to the description for Silence, which specifically says "no sound can be created" within the AoE. "Emanate" means "to spread out from a source" and if "within the area" is the source, then it follows that sound that originates within the area is only stopped at the boundary.
No, that doesn’t follow at all. It says no sound can emanate from within the area, not that no sound can pass the border of the area. If you and I are five feet apart and both within the area, sound must emanate from me to you in order for you to hear me. The text explicitly states that that can’t happen.
Then why wouldn't they simply re-use the same wording from Silence? The fact that they chose a completely different way of describing the effect suggests that it's not the same effect.
Probably because a different designer wrote the spell? 5e doesn't really make any effort at all to consistently use the same language to mean the same thing throughout all the rules.
I agree that the Silence effect from Hallow effectively mutes all sound within its boundaries. The wording is annoying since it could have been more consistent, but the obvious pattern is that the extra effects are emulating existing effects/spells by the same name.
If the designers intended the Silence effect to be more like a shell, then that would have warranted further explanation, since it would be introducing a new mechanic.
What you are looking for is Hallow it can create silence until dispelled.
Oh good find! Thank you! With this spell, there is a chance that someone could make their CHA roll because of this feature of the spell:
When a creature that would be affected enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it can make a Charisma saving throw. On a success, the creature ignores the extra effect until it leaves the area.
If I really want the Silence to take grip, I can make the DC for the CHA saving throw super high (25+). Thanks for this, this is great!
I agree that the Silence effect from Hallow effectively mutes all sound within its boundaries. The wording is annoying since it could have been more consistent, but the obvious pattern is that the extra effects are emulating existing effects/spells by the same name.
If the designers intended the Silence effect to be more like a shell, then that would have warranted further explanation, since it would be introducing a new mechanic.
I agree, the wording is problematic when it comes to interpretation. Ace of Rogues makes a fair argument. If only they hadn't written the words "from within" instead of simply "within". It would be crystal clear if not for that. Interpretation of what meanings words are meant to convey vs. what meanings they do convey is exactly why we have lawyers in this world, so really, each POV could be argued justly. That said, I think it should be DM discretion what interpretation is to be had. Here's why: the name of the spell is "Hallow", which when described it goes on to say "You touch a point and infuse an area around it with holy (or unholy) power." This spell is meant to sanctify (aka hallow) an area, such as would priests would do for a church or temple. It stands to reason that these priests intended for no sound or conversations that emanate from within the temple to escape its doors for those outside to hear. But for those standing inside the temple, priests and followers could talk freely to one another without the possibility of being heard by outsiders (e.g. infidels, non-believers, uninitiated, etc). It also stands to reason that the priests could have a vow of silence they wish to be enforced magically so that no one within the hallowed area can truly utter a sound. IRL, I create and interpret contracts for a living, so whenever a "gray" area of a contract is encountered, it is generally accepted that the particular clause is subject to interpretation, otherwise, more concise and clear wording should have been utilized. So all of that to say, I think you're both right. In my campaign, I'm going to leave it up to the spellcaster to decide what exactly is intended by their "Silence" and go with that. After all, the spell does say "Choose the effect from the following list, or choose an effect offered by the GM." Great convo!!
I am not talking about monster and their abilities but NPC's which should be, logically be, built like PC's.
This isn't applicable at all. All NPCs, including monsters and non-monsters, are built with their own stat blocks. You don't have a PC-statted wizard, you have an Evoker Wizard or similar.
I am not talking about monster and their abilities but NPC's which should be, logically be, built like PC's.
This isn't applicable at all. All NPCs, including monsters and non-monsters, are built with their own stat blocks. You don't have a PC-statted wizard, you have an Evoker Wizard or similar.
Well, to be fair, they used to be built more like Wizards, complete with actually being customizable, but that got tanked in MotM.
I am not talking about monster and their abilities but NPC's which should be, logically be, built like PC's.
This isn't applicable at all. All NPCs, including monsters and non-monsters, are built with their own stat blocks. You don't have a PC-statted wizard, you have an Evoker Wizard or similar.
Well, to be fair, they used to be built more like Wizards, complete with actually being customizable, but that got tanked in MotM.
Every statblock is infinitely customizable. MotM didn't change that at all.
I am not talking about monster and their abilities but NPC's which should be, logically be, built like PC's.
This isn't applicable at all. All NPCs, including monsters and non-monsters, are built with their own stat blocks. You don't have a PC-statted wizard, you have an Evoker Wizard or similar.
Well, to be fair, they used to be built more like Wizards, complete with actually being customizable, but that got tanked in MotM.
Every statblock is infinitely customizable. MotM didn't change that at all.
Sorta-kinda, but it's a lot messier to tweak spellcasters' spells now. It used to be that a proper spellcaster had spells know and slots, and you could simply trade out the known spells for another one of the same level. Now everyone is using innate spellcasting, which it infinitely less modular since the balance is now more strongly predicated on which specific spells they're given by default, and not the level they're casting at.
Sorta-kinda, but it's a lot messier to tweak spellcasters' spells now. It used to be that a proper spellcaster had spells know and slots, and you could simply trade out the known spells for another one of the same level. Now everyone is using innate spellcasting, which it infinitely less modular since the balance is now more strongly predicated on which specific spells they're given by default, and not the level they're casting at.
To be fair, balance was always heavily dependent on the spell list a given caster had, it's just explicit now.
Sorta-kinda, but it's a lot messier to tweak spellcasters' spells now. It used to be that a proper spellcaster had spells know and slots, and you could simply trade out the known spells for another one of the same level. Now everyone is using innate spellcasting, which it infinitely less modular since the balance is now more strongly predicated on which specific spells they're given by default, and not the level they're casting at.
Like Pantagruel alluded to, trading out a known spell for another one of the same level risks dramatically altering the creature's challenge rating. It was always messy. Your supposition that it was spell level and not spell selection that determined the balance is just false.
I think The_Ace_of_Rogues has the best idea. Use the rules for producing magic items in XGtE.
So first they would need to get the formula for such a spell which might be immediately available to them, given by someone they can contact, required research or found by performing an advanture.
Next the formula will specify that they need certain things, and that it will take a certain number of weeks, work to implement. But the certain things could be creatures they need to hunt and collect part or essence from. For example, you might decide they need certain rare herbs, the tongue of an Oni and the essence of a Rakshasa. Maybe for every 20m radius they will need another Oni tongue.
Effectively you'd be following the guidelines for an artifact but constructing the permanent spell into a room or some fixture in the room that powers it.
Sorta-kinda, but it's a lot messier to tweak spellcasters' spells now. It used to be that a proper spellcaster had spells know and slots, and you could simply trade out the known spells for another one of the same level. Now everyone is using innate spellcasting, which it infinitely less modular since the balance is now more strongly predicated on which specific spells they're given by default, and not the level they're casting at.
Like Pantagruel alluded to, trading out a known spell for another one of the same level risks dramatically altering the creature's challenge rating. It was always messy. Your supposition that it was spell level and not spell selection that determined the balance is just false.
Challenge rating has always been a soft number, not a hard one. Yes, changing out the spells impacts the precise DPR averaging and suchlike, but you can also generalize that by class and spell level and get a calculation about as meaningful. And, more importantly, the slot structure allows you to build characters for things besides straight combat using something more fixed than "as the DM I decide this character was able to cast this spell at this time, even though it doesn't appear anywhere on their list of allowed daily casts". This new setup just means a DM has to work from scratch to construct a real caster, as opposed to a bot that's meant to have three or four actions and then die.
Challenge rating has always been a soft number, not a hard one. Yes, changing out the spells impacts the precise DPR averaging and suchlike, but you can also generalize that by class and spell level and get a calculation about as meaningful. And, more importantly, the slot structure allows you to build characters for things besides straight combat using something more fixed than "as the DM I decide this character was able to cast this spell at this time, even though it doesn't appear anywhere on their list of allowed daily casts". This new setup just means a DM has to work from scratch to construct a real caster, as opposed to a bot that's meant to have three or four actions and then die.
Honestly, CR is mostly a tool for trash fights, not signature enemies. Some game systems distinguish between named enemies and nameless, which is a somewhat useful concept: if this villain is supposed to play a significant narrative role rather than being a faceless enemy to cut down, it should probably get a higher detail character writeup.
Challenge rating has always been a soft number, not a hard one. Yes, changing out the spells impacts the precise DPR averaging and suchlike, but you can also generalize that by class and spell level and get a calculation about as meaningful. And, more importantly, the slot structure allows you to build characters for things besides straight combat using something more fixed than "as the DM I decide this character was able to cast this spell at this time, even though it doesn't appear anywhere on their list of allowed daily casts". This new setup just means a DM has to work from scratch to construct a real caster, as opposed to a bot that's meant to have three or four actions and then die.
Honestly, CR is mostly a tool for trash fights, not signature enemies. Some game systems distinguish between named enemies and nameless, which is a somewhat useful concept: if this villain is supposed to play a significant narrative role rather than being a faceless enemy to cut down, it should probably get a higher detail character writeup.
Agreed! I do the very same thing. I write up entire character sheets for signature enemies. It takes some time but it's worth it by adding so much more depth to the game!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then why wouldn't they simply re-use the same wording from Silence? The fact that they chose a completely different way of describing the effect suggests that it's not the same effect.
The fact that they label the effect 'silence' argues that it's meant to be the same thing.
I dunno. They took the time to reiterate the pertinent effects of Darkness for Hallow's "Darkness" effect. One would expect them to do the same for the "Silence" effect if it was supposed to replicate the spell effect.
Probably because a different designer wrote the spell? 5e doesn't really make any effort at all to consistently use the same language to mean the same thing throughout all the rules.
I agree that the Silence effect from Hallow effectively mutes all sound within its boundaries. The wording is annoying since it could have been more consistent, but the obvious pattern is that the extra effects are emulating existing effects/spells by the same name.
If the designers intended the Silence effect to be more like a shell, then that would have warranted further explanation, since it would be introducing a new mechanic.
Oh good find! Thank you! With this spell, there is a chance that someone could make their CHA roll because of this feature of the spell:
If I really want the Silence to take grip, I can make the DC for the CHA saving throw super high (25+). Thanks for this, this is great!
I agree, the wording is problematic when it comes to interpretation. Ace of Rogues makes a fair argument. If only they hadn't written the words "from within" instead of simply "within". It would be crystal clear if not for that. Interpretation of what meanings words are meant to convey vs. what meanings they do convey is exactly why we have lawyers in this world, so really, each POV could be argued justly. That said, I think it should be DM discretion what interpretation is to be had. Here's why: the name of the spell is "Hallow", which when described it goes on to say "You touch a point and infuse an area around it with holy (or unholy) power." This spell is meant to sanctify (aka hallow) an area, such as would priests would do for a church or temple. It stands to reason that these priests intended for no sound or conversations that emanate from within the temple to escape its doors for those outside to hear. But for those standing inside the temple, priests and followers could talk freely to one another without the possibility of being heard by outsiders (e.g. infidels, non-believers, uninitiated, etc). It also stands to reason that the priests could have a vow of silence they wish to be enforced magically so that no one within the hallowed area can truly utter a sound. IRL, I create and interpret contracts for a living, so whenever a "gray" area of a contract is encountered, it is generally accepted that the particular clause is subject to interpretation, otherwise, more concise and clear wording should have been utilized. So all of that to say, I think you're both right. In my campaign, I'm going to leave it up to the spellcaster to decide what exactly is intended by their "Silence" and go with that. After all, the spell does say "Choose the effect from the following list, or choose an effect offered by the GM." Great convo!!
This isn't applicable at all. All NPCs, including monsters and non-monsters, are built with their own stat blocks. You don't have a PC-statted wizard, you have an Evoker Wizard or similar.
Well, to be fair, they used to be built more like Wizards, complete with actually being customizable, but that got tanked in MotM.
Every statblock is infinitely customizable. MotM didn't change that at all.
Sorta-kinda, but it's a lot messier to tweak spellcasters' spells now. It used to be that a proper spellcaster had spells know and slots, and you could simply trade out the known spells for another one of the same level. Now everyone is using innate spellcasting, which it infinitely less modular since the balance is now more strongly predicated on which specific spells they're given by default, and not the level they're casting at.
To be fair, balance was always heavily dependent on the spell list a given caster had, it's just explicit now.
Like Pantagruel alluded to, trading out a known spell for another one of the same level risks dramatically altering the creature's challenge rating. It was always messy. Your supposition that it was spell level and not spell selection that determined the balance is just false.
I think The_Ace_of_Rogues has the best idea. Use the rules for producing magic items in XGtE.
So first they would need to get the formula for such a spell which might be immediately available to them, given by someone they can contact, required research or found by performing an advanture.
Next the formula will specify that they need certain things, and that it will take a certain number of weeks, work to implement. But the certain things could be creatures they need to hunt and collect part or essence from. For example, you might decide they need certain rare herbs, the tongue of an Oni and the essence of a Rakshasa. Maybe for every 20m radius they will need another Oni tongue.
Effectively you'd be following the guidelines for an artifact but constructing the permanent spell into a room or some fixture in the room that powers it.
Challenge rating has always been a soft number, not a hard one. Yes, changing out the spells impacts the precise DPR averaging and suchlike, but you can also generalize that by class and spell level and get a calculation about as meaningful. And, more importantly, the slot structure allows you to build characters for things besides straight combat using something more fixed than "as the DM I decide this character was able to cast this spell at this time, even though it doesn't appear anywhere on their list of allowed daily casts". This new setup just means a DM has to work from scratch to construct a real caster, as opposed to a bot that's meant to have three or four actions and then die.
Honestly, CR is mostly a tool for trash fights, not signature enemies. Some game systems distinguish between named enemies and nameless, which is a somewhat useful concept: if this villain is supposed to play a significant narrative role rather than being a faceless enemy to cut down, it should probably get a higher detail character writeup.
Agreed! I do the very same thing. I write up entire character sheets for signature enemies. It takes some time but it's worth it by adding so much more depth to the game!