Again flawed thinking on the Lich reference, Silence is in the Illusion school of magic to transform a Lich that would be either Necromancy or Transformation schools of magic. True Polymorph
Irrelevant to the reductio ad absurdum. However--
You're both wrong. D&D doesn't specify what you can do and forbid everything else (which would be very silly for a role-playing game to do, as the point of such is to not have to), nor does it specify what you can't do and allow everything else (which no sane game designer would ever do, as Tonio's reductio ad absurdum demonstrates). Instead, it provides rules for a large number of things you might do (such as casting a spell to create an area of absolute silence) and relies on the DM to adjudicate everything else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Again flawed thinking on the Lich reference, Silence is in the Illusion school of magic to transform a Lich that would be either Necromancy or Transformation schools of magic. True Polymorph
You're confusing "logic" with "facts". They're two different realms.
"All fleerbles are floogles, some gimbles are fleerbles, therefore some gimbles are floogles" is a perfectly logically correct argument, which contains no facts (since there are no such things as "fleerbles", "floogles" or "gimbles"). "All men are mortal, all dogs are mammals, therefore all men are mammals" is a completely logically incorrect argument, which contains nothing but facts (all men are mortal, all dogs are mammals, and all men are mammals, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises).
In fact, you're actually proving my argument by pointing out that the Silence spell can't transform a Lich. It can't, because there are no rules that say it can. Similarly, there are no rules that say you can move the spell's point of origin, so you can't.
My Logic Here lets apply science using the spell words verbatim: NOT Point in Space , but Center on a Point as per the spell description: A point inside the circle. All points on the circle are equidistant (same distance) from the Center Point. Radius The radius is the distance from the center to any point on the circle..
Ok, and where are you locating that "point" (which is the center of the circle, which, in addition to its radius, defines the circle in space)? As per the rules, you can't locate it on an object that can be moved (the rules for that spell don't provide for that). Therefore, it can only be located in space.
You maybe correct on some rules in the older edition but , I rather have a full list of can do and cannot do vs nothing defined. Specially when it comes to spells that been around for over 25 plus years and worked just fine.
I'm not arguing that the current rules (5e) are "perfect", or "best", or "the most correct". But you cannot argue regarding the rules of 5e using older rules. That'd be like saying it's illegal for women to vote in the USA because there was a time in the past when they couldn't. Currently they can. You can argue as to whether that's good or bad, but you can't claim it's illegal just because it was, at some point in the past.
"D&D 5e describes what you can do. Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden." < Can you please point me to the page in the rules where this is at?
I'll admit I haven't been able to find it, although I haven't really looked very hard. It's commonly accepted to be true, and I'm almost certain Jeremy Crawford has publicly said so.
Finally, though... the DM is obviously the final arbiter. If the DM decides the Silence spell's point of origin can be moved, it can, period. It's not wrong, it's just not RAW (which is fine).
"D&D 5e describes what you can do. Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden." < Can you please point me to the page in the rules where this is at?
I'll admit I haven't been able to find it, although I haven't really looked very hard. It's commonly accepted to be true, and I'm almost certain Jeremy Crawford has publicly said so.
Now - Sage Advice isn't a site that gives official rules clarifications with every response. However the minimum interpretation is that this is the Rule As Intended when you see consistent responses over time. Some of these are compiled into Sage Advice Compendium documents which I think are considered official rulings. This question on silence has never been in a compendium as far as I can tell - but this may be due to the clear cut nature of this question.
Given that the Darkness spell specificities that it can be cast on an object as well as a location and the Silence spell does not, I am inclined to believe that in 5e a Silence spell is cast on a particular location, a "point" in space.
Realizing this would have significantly changed the outcome of a key encounter in last week's game. The bad guy cast Silence on a pebble and tossed it into the party's room. One character was keeping watch, spotted the pebble and tossed it out of the room again negating the silence. I was playing by 1e rules for Silence instead of checking the 5e rules. Having the Silence pebble tossed out of the room allowed the wizard to cat a Sleep spell incapacitating the cultists who were hoping to subdue the party in silence.
As for anything the rules do not allow being prohibited, if that is the case a torch cannot be used to set anything on fire. In the 5e PHB the only things that will ignite flammable objects are the Gnomish fire starter, the tinderbox, and certain fire spells. Torches are not described as having this ability. There for by RAW if you touch a flaming torch to a pool of oil, nothing will happen. Why will nothing happen? because nowhere in the rules does it say that a torch can be used to light things on fire, and if the rules don't say you can do it, you can't.
As for anything the rules do not allow being prohibited, if that is the case a torch cannot be used to set anything on fire. In the 5e PHB the only things that will ignite flammable objects are the Gnomish fire starter, the tinderbox, and certain fire spells. Torches are not described as having this ability. There for by RAW if you touch a flaming torch to a pool of oil, nothing will happen. Why will nothing happen? because nowhere in the rules does it say that a torch can be used to light things on fire, and if the rules don't say you can do it, you can't.
"What do you mean my Bard can't go to the bathroom?"
"Sorry man, I've checked all the books...there's just no mechanic for that."
As for anything the rules do not allow being prohibited, if that is the case a torch cannot be used to set anything on fire.
Not really. The very first rule of the game, in the introduction of the Player's Handbook, is that you tell the DM what you want to do and they tell you what happens. What that does mean is that it's not up to you whether something catches fire.
The rules tell you what you can do reliably, without the DM needing to make a judgment call.
As for anything the rules do not allow being prohibited, if that is the case a torch cannot be used to set anything on fire.
Not really. The very first rule of the game, in the introduction of the Player's Handbook, is that you tell the DM what you want to do and they tell you what happens. What that does mean is that it's not up to you whether something catches fire.
The rules tell you what you can do reliably, without the DM needing to make a judgment call.
But I think what Dave's getting at is that there's an equivocation on 'what you can do'.
If we say the rules tell us 'what we can do', and we use that to say that Spell X can't do effect Y because the spell doesn't specifically say that, then we say "Hmm, there's no specific text that allows me to set things on fire with a torch.
But if we then respond "The rules tell us that we can "tell the DM what you want to do and they tell you what happens", now I can say to the DM "I want to make Spell X do effect Y!" I am just doing what the rules allow--stating what I want to happen and letting the DM decide. And with this new meaning of 'the rules tell us', the DM just decides what happens.
But how does the DM decide? We might circle back around, and say "The DM decides what happens based on what the rules specifically say." But now we're back to the beginning. "Can I set that on fire with my torch?" If the DM decides based on what the rules specifically say, then...no. :)
In other words, the rules either A) allow us to do only what the rules say, or B) allow us to make up and adjudicate plenty of things the rules are completely silent on. If it's A, then I can't light fires with a torch. If it's B, I can light fires, but...now why can't I use Spell X to get effect Y? :)
For the record, I think it is clear that silence is cast on a point is space-time (a point relative to the surface the caster is standing on/over, I'd say--makes the whole boat/floor/planet/collapsing tower problem clear) and not on an object or person. But I don't think it's clear because the rules only allow us to do what the rules explicitly say. I think this one is clear because, as has been mentioned above really well, a 'point' is not an 'object'. Objects exist at points, but the object is not the same thing as the point. There's no need for some general and incredibly restricting rule about only being able to do throughout the entire game what the rules explicitly state. It's enough to say that the target is made very clear in this spell. It's like the target being listed as 'Self' and saying "Can I also cast it on someone else?" No, it says Self.
But if we then respond "The rules tell us that we can "tell the DM what you want to do and they tell you what happens", now I can say to the DM "I want to make Spell X do effect Y!" I am just doing what the rules allow--stating what I want to happen and letting the DM decide. And with this new meaning of 'the rules tell us', the DM just decides what happens.
Sure. But there's a huge difference between a torch and a spell. A torch is implicitly expected to behave like a torch in the real world and obey the laws of physics. A spell by definition causes something to happen purely by magic. You can ask your DM to bend the rules on spells, but your argument is basically going to be "pretty please", not "this is how we all know this thing behaves in real life."
For better or worse, the text of the spell is “For the duration, no sound can be created within or pass through a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on a point you choose within range.", not choose a point within range, for the duration no sound can be created or pass through a 20’ radius sphere centered on that point. It is semantic, and maybe not intended but if that is so it could be written better. Regardless, to the OP don’t forget that readying a spell requires concentration.
But if we then respond "The rules tell us that we can "tell the DM what you want to do and they tell you what happens", now I can say to the DM "I want to make Spell X do effect Y!" I am just doing what the rules allow--stating what I want to happen and letting the DM decide. And with this new meaning of 'the rules tell us', the DM just decides what happens.
Sure. But there's a huge difference between a torch and a spell. A torch is implicitly expected to behave like a torch in the real world and obey the laws of physics. A spell by definition causes something to happen purely by magic. You can ask your DM to bend the rules on spells, but your argument is basically going to be "pretty please", not "this is how we all know this thing behaves in real life."
I'm in agreement with this particular issue, and for the most part with spells in general. (I do think that non-game-effects of the spell are not restricted, there was an interesting discussion lately about V and S components, for example. And there are going to be intersections--does meteor swarm set flammable things on fire? Spell doesn't say so, but it is summoning balls of fire from the sky. Do those act like fire would in the real world, obeying the laws of physics? I bet we'd find people on both sides of that issue.) But the discussion above seemed to be going very general, about 'what the game allows or doesn't allow'. That was what I wanted to respond to.
It is the implicit nature of a torch being able to set things on fire that is why I use it as an example of why it can rapidly become argument ad absurdum to claim that it is only possible to do what the rules specifically state you can do. I think it is better to assume that what is reasonably possible can be done, unless there is a rule which specifically states otherwise. When it is not clear what might reasonably be allowed, such as with spell effects, I think a good first step is to look at other similar spells and see what they say.
In the case of Silence, an area of effect spell, we have spells that specify they are cast on a point, and other spells that can be cast on a point or an object, this leads me to believe that the default for a radius of effect is from a point in space, and that if the spell can be cast on an object for a movable area of effect the spell description will state this.
Meteor Swarm specifies that it will set things on fire, unless they are being worn or carried. Several of the fire spells have this same proviso.
As for anything the rules do not allow being prohibited, if that is the case a torch cannot be used to set anything on fire. In the 5e PHB the only things that will ignite flammable objects are the Gnomish fire starter, the tinderbox, and certain fire spells. Torches are not described as having this ability. There for by RAW if you touch a flaming torch to a pool of oil, nothing will happen. Why will nothing happen? because nowhere in the rules does it say that a torch can be used to light things on fire, and if the rules don't say you can do it, you can't.
"What do you mean my Bard can't go to the bathroom?"
"Sorry man, I've checked all the books...there's just no mechanic for that."
To note, the whole the Book tells you what to do, not what you can't do thing... Has strictly been specified to spells. It doesn't make sense to extrapolate that to every aspect of the book when it was mentioned it was only in regard to spells. And to that extent as people have mentioned before, that's up to DM's discretion.
Except it wasn't specified as only pertaining to spells. It was put as "Some rulesets point out what you can't do. In those, anything that's not explicitly forbidden can be done. D&D 5e is not one those rulesets. D&D 5e describes what you can do. Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden." Read especially the last two sentences. Also by a different poster in another thread " in 5e if something isn’t in the rules then it doesn’t happen."
I'd say it's pretty clear that people are saying if the book doesn't say you can do it then you can't. I have merely posted out the ramifications of saying that by using a pretty clear example.
Except it wasn't specified as only pertaining to spells. It was put as "Some rulesets point out what you can't do. In those, anything that's not explicitly forbidden can be done. D&D 5e is not one those rulesets. D&D 5e describes what you can do. Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden." Read especially the last two sentences. Also by a different poster in another thread " in 5e if something isn’t in the rules then it doesn’t happen."
I'd say it's pretty clear that people are saying if the book doesn't say you can do it then you can't. I have merely posted out the ramifications of saying that by using a pretty clear example.
People are making that statement in response to a spell question. Why should someone clarify that they are specifically referring to the spell effect if that's the whole point of the thread. That's like someone having to clarify that something is there opinion. When inherently what someone is saying is obviously there opinion. It shouldn't require clarification. Either way, every DM can interpret the rules how they see fit and implement them in a way that is most fun for them and their players.
There's a reason the DMG explicitly states that all of the rules should be viewed as a guideline that can be changed as people prefer...
I've seen the argument used in response to other, non-spell, questions.
And it is still mostly a valid argument. To summarise it, for all the questions of the form "Can I do X?" on this rules forum there are only two possible answers:
A - Yes, the rules on page Y paragraph Z allow you to do that (unless the DM overrides those rules in this situation); or
B - No, the rules do not cover that, so any attempt to do that will be up to your DM to allow/dissallow or invent rules for it (and the DM can change that ruling the next time you attempt the same thing).
Sometimes discussions get into complex forms of A, with many competing or interlocking rules involved. Other times they delve deeper into B with people giving their own opinions on how they would rule in a given scenario or a suggested house rule to apply repeatedly. Then people have violently different opinions on what a DM should allow or not, or change or not; but those are opinions about game style not about the actual rules that have been published.
Above, the answer to "can I set things on fire with Meteor Storm?" is A. The answer to "can I set things on fire with a torch?" is B - a reasonable DM would allow it but it is not governed by the ruleset. "Can my bard go to the bathroom?" is also B. Clearly you can urinate (if urination exists in this universe) but what are the in-game effects, does it take an action, is there a skill check or attack roll involved, are all exclusively up to the DM.
Back to the actual topic, "can the silence effect be moved or centred on a movable object?", the answer is not A, it is B - no, the rules don't allow it (but as always a DM can override those rules).
Above, the answer to "can I set things on fire with Meteor Storm?" is A. The answer to "can I set things on fire with a torch?" is B - a reasonable DM would allow it but it is not governed by the ruleset. "Can my bard go to the bathroom?" is also B. Clearly you can urinate (if urination exists in this universe) but what are the in-game effects, does it take an action, is there a skill check or attack roll involved, are all exclusively up to the DM.
Regarding the bolded part--by your A/B delineation, my bard cannot 'clearly' urinate, because it is not written in the rules. What happens when he urinates isn't the issue at all. The issue is whether certain basic functions of the world will work without the DM's explicit say-so. You are interpreting the game as saying in fact No, basic operations of the world will not work unless there is either a rule for it, or the DM specifically allows it. The opposing view is that some things are going to work in the absence of RAW and in the absence of explicit DM permission.
So even my bard's ability to urinate at all, by your take, is completely a DM call. I can ask my DM if my bard has a properly functioning excretory system, and if the DM decides yes, then I can urinate. I can ask the DM if, given that fire burns things, and given that my torch has fire on one end, I can in general light stuff on fire. And the DM will decide whether 'fire burns' + 'torch is on fire' = 'torch can burn things' or whether 'fire burns' + 'torch is on fire' = 'torch still cannot burn things'.
There is no reason why your interpretation should be taken as the 'correct' interpretation. This is a meta rule issue. The rules of the game, afaik, do not say "These are all and only the actions your character can take. Anything else you want to do, from picking your nose to blinking your eyes to cooking jambalaya, must be ruled on by the DM." The rules in the books list A) a bunch of things you can do, and B) a bunch of things you cannot do. The rules are not purely exclusive or purely permissive in nature. There's some of both.
Back to the actual topic, "can the silence effect be moved or centred on a movable object?", the answer is not A, it is B - no, the rules don't allow it (but as always a DM can override those rules).
This would be just a DM call only if a 'creature' or 'object' is in the category of 'point'. Page 204 of the PHB even says:
"Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object."
That seems to indicate to me that the RAW is very clear about Silence. It lists a 'point' as the target, not a creature or object. And 204 indicates that point should be, without other instructions, be taken as 'point in space', as opposed to a creature or object.
You're both wrong. D&D doesn't specify what you can do and forbid everything else (which would be very silly for a role-playing game to do, as the point of such is to not have to), nor does it specify what you can't do and allow everything else (which no sane game designer would ever do, as Tonio's reductio ad absurdum demonstrates). Instead, it provides rules for a large number of things you might do (such as casting a spell to create an area of absolute silence) and relies on the DM to adjudicate everything else.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/21/can-the-5e-silence-spell-be-cast-on-a-person-or-object/ (Clear, concise and 2 years old. Rule as the game designers intended is for this to be stationary. )
Here's another affirmation of this from 2017: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/09/29/silence-the-best-spell-after-counterspell/
2015 was not as clear but was consistent: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/28/silence-on-a-object/
And for a bonus... can you ready silence to stop spellcasting? Yes - https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/11/can-silence-interrupt-a-spell-caster/ but beware that your going to use up that 2nd level slot every turn that you try this due to the rules for readied spells.
Now - Sage Advice isn't a site that gives official rules clarifications with every response. However the minimum interpretation is that this is the Rule As Intended when you see consistent responses over time. Some of these are compiled into Sage Advice Compendium documents which I think are considered official rulings. This question on silence has never been in a compendium as far as I can tell - but this may be due to the clear cut nature of this question.
Yeah, hard to argue with the Lead Designer of D&D
Given that the Darkness spell specificities that it can be cast on an object as well as a location and the Silence spell does not, I am inclined to believe that in 5e a Silence spell is cast on a particular location, a "point" in space.
Realizing this would have significantly changed the outcome of a key encounter in last week's game. The bad guy cast Silence on a pebble and tossed it into the party's room. One character was keeping watch, spotted the pebble and tossed it out of the room again negating the silence. I was playing by 1e rules for Silence instead of checking the 5e rules. Having the Silence pebble tossed out of the room allowed the wizard to cat a Sleep spell incapacitating the cultists who were hoping to subdue the party in silence.
As for anything the rules do not allow being prohibited, if that is the case a torch cannot be used to set anything on fire. In the 5e PHB the only things that will ignite flammable objects are the Gnomish fire starter, the tinderbox, and certain fire spells. Torches are not described as having this ability. There for by RAW if you touch a flaming torch to a pool of oil, nothing will happen. Why will nothing happen? because nowhere in the rules does it say that a torch can be used to light things on fire, and if the rules don't say you can do it, you can't.
"What do you mean my Bard can't go to the bathroom?"
"Sorry man, I've checked all the books...there's just no mechanic for that."
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Not really. The very first rule of the game, in the introduction of the Player's Handbook, is that you tell the DM what you want to do and they tell you what happens. What that does mean is that it's not up to you whether something catches fire.
The rules tell you what you can do reliably, without the DM needing to make a judgment call.
But I think what Dave's getting at is that there's an equivocation on 'what you can do'.
If we say the rules tell us 'what we can do', and we use that to say that Spell X can't do effect Y because the spell doesn't specifically say that, then we say "Hmm, there's no specific text that allows me to set things on fire with a torch.
But if we then respond "The rules tell us that we can "tell the DM what you want to do and they tell you what happens", now I can say to the DM "I want to make Spell X do effect Y!" I am just doing what the rules allow--stating what I want to happen and letting the DM decide. And with this new meaning of 'the rules tell us', the DM just decides what happens.
But how does the DM decide? We might circle back around, and say "The DM decides what happens based on what the rules specifically say." But now we're back to the beginning. "Can I set that on fire with my torch?" If the DM decides based on what the rules specifically say, then...no. :)
In other words, the rules either A) allow us to do only what the rules say, or B) allow us to make up and adjudicate plenty of things the rules are completely silent on. If it's A, then I can't light fires with a torch. If it's B, I can light fires, but...now why can't I use Spell X to get effect Y? :)
For the record, I think it is clear that silence is cast on a point is space-time (a point relative to the surface the caster is standing on/over, I'd say--makes the whole boat/floor/planet/collapsing tower problem clear) and not on an object or person. But I don't think it's clear because the rules only allow us to do what the rules explicitly say. I think this one is clear because, as has been mentioned above really well, a 'point' is not an 'object'. Objects exist at points, but the object is not the same thing as the point. There's no need for some general and incredibly restricting rule about only being able to do throughout the entire game what the rules explicitly state. It's enough to say that the target is made very clear in this spell. It's like the target being listed as 'Self' and saying "Can I also cast it on someone else?" No, it says Self.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Sure. But there's a huge difference between a torch and a spell. A torch is implicitly expected to behave like a torch in the real world and obey the laws of physics. A spell by definition causes something to happen purely by magic. You can ask your DM to bend the rules on spells, but your argument is basically going to be "pretty please", not "this is how we all know this thing behaves in real life."
For better or worse, the text of the spell is “For the duration, no sound can be created within or pass through a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on a point you choose within range.", not choose a point within range, for the duration no sound can be created or pass through a 20’ radius sphere centered on that point. It is semantic, and maybe not intended but if that is so it could be written better. Regardless, to the OP don’t forget that readying a spell requires concentration.
edit: chose is not choose...
I'm in agreement with this particular issue, and for the most part with spells in general. (I do think that non-game-effects of the spell are not restricted, there was an interesting discussion lately about V and S components, for example. And there are going to be intersections--does meteor swarm set flammable things on fire? Spell doesn't say so, but it is summoning balls of fire from the sky. Do those act like fire would in the real world, obeying the laws of physics? I bet we'd find people on both sides of that issue.) But the discussion above seemed to be going very general, about 'what the game allows or doesn't allow'. That was what I wanted to respond to.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
It is the implicit nature of a torch being able to set things on fire that is why I use it as an example of why it can rapidly become argument ad absurdum to claim that it is only possible to do what the rules specifically state you can do. I think it is better to assume that what is reasonably possible can be done, unless there is a rule which specifically states otherwise. When it is not clear what might reasonably be allowed, such as with spell effects, I think a good first step is to look at other similar spells and see what they say.
In the case of Silence, an area of effect spell, we have spells that specify they are cast on a point, and other spells that can be cast on a point or an object, this leads me to believe that the default for a radius of effect is from a point in space, and that if the spell can be cast on an object for a movable area of effect the spell description will state this.
Meteor Swarm specifies that it will set things on fire, unless they are being worn or carried. Several of the fire spells have this same proviso.
To note, the whole the Book tells you what to do, not what you can't do thing... Has strictly been specified to spells. It doesn't make sense to extrapolate that to every aspect of the book when it was mentioned it was only in regard to spells. And to that extent as people have mentioned before, that's up to DM's discretion.
Except it wasn't specified as only pertaining to spells. It was put as "Some rulesets point out what you can't do. In those, anything that's not explicitly forbidden can be done. D&D 5e is not one those rulesets. D&D 5e describes what you can do. Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden." Read especially the last two sentences. Also by a different poster in another thread " in 5e if something isn’t in the rules then it doesn’t happen."
I'd say it's pretty clear that people are saying if the book doesn't say you can do it then you can't. I have merely posted out the ramifications of saying that by using a pretty clear example.
Yeah, I was thinking of Flame Blade and Flame Shield, I just brain farted.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
People are making that statement in response to a spell question. Why should someone clarify that they are specifically referring to the spell effect if that's the whole point of the thread. That's like someone having to clarify that something is there opinion. When inherently what someone is saying is obviously there opinion. It shouldn't require clarification. Either way, every DM can interpret the rules how they see fit and implement them in a way that is most fun for them and their players.
There's a reason the DMG explicitly states that all of the rules should be viewed as a guideline that can be changed as people prefer...
I've seen the argument used in response to other, non-spell, questions.
And it is still mostly a valid argument. To summarise it, for all the questions of the form "Can I do X?" on this rules forum there are only two possible answers:
A - Yes, the rules on page Y paragraph Z allow you to do that (unless the DM overrides those rules in this situation); or
B - No, the rules do not cover that, so any attempt to do that will be up to your DM to allow/dissallow or invent rules for it (and the DM can change that ruling the next time you attempt the same thing).
Sometimes discussions get into complex forms of A, with many competing or interlocking rules involved. Other times they delve deeper into B with people giving their own opinions on how they would rule in a given scenario or a suggested house rule to apply repeatedly. Then people have violently different opinions on what a DM should allow or not, or change or not; but those are opinions about game style not about the actual rules that have been published.
Above, the answer to "can I set things on fire with Meteor Storm?" is A. The answer to "can I set things on fire with a torch?" is B - a reasonable DM would allow it but it is not governed by the ruleset. "Can my bard go to the bathroom?" is also B. Clearly you can urinate (if urination exists in this universe) but what are the in-game effects, does it take an action, is there a skill check or attack roll involved, are all exclusively up to the DM.
Back to the actual topic, "can the silence effect be moved or centred on a movable object?", the answer is not A, it is B - no, the rules don't allow it (but as always a DM can override those rules).
Regarding the bolded part--by your A/B delineation, my bard cannot 'clearly' urinate, because it is not written in the rules. What happens when he urinates isn't the issue at all. The issue is whether certain basic functions of the world will work without the DM's explicit say-so. You are interpreting the game as saying in fact No, basic operations of the world will not work unless there is either a rule for it, or the DM specifically allows it. The opposing view is that some things are going to work in the absence of RAW and in the absence of explicit DM permission.
So even my bard's ability to urinate at all, by your take, is completely a DM call. I can ask my DM if my bard has a properly functioning excretory system, and if the DM decides yes, then I can urinate. I can ask the DM if, given that fire burns things, and given that my torch has fire on one end, I can in general light stuff on fire. And the DM will decide whether 'fire burns' + 'torch is on fire' = 'torch can burn things' or whether 'fire burns' + 'torch is on fire' = 'torch still cannot burn things'.
There is no reason why your interpretation should be taken as the 'correct' interpretation. This is a meta rule issue. The rules of the game, afaik, do not say "These are all and only the actions your character can take. Anything else you want to do, from picking your nose to blinking your eyes to cooking jambalaya, must be ruled on by the DM." The rules in the books list A) a bunch of things you can do, and B) a bunch of things you cannot do. The rules are not purely exclusive or purely permissive in nature. There's some of both.
This would be just a DM call only if a 'creature' or 'object' is in the category of 'point'. Page 204 of the PHB even says:
"Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object."
That seems to indicate to me that the RAW is very clear about Silence. It lists a 'point' as the target, not a creature or object. And 204 indicates that point should be, without other instructions, be taken as 'point in space', as opposed to a creature or object.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)