Maybe it is something that isn't in the audible range normally, but is something that exists on a vibration level of some sort. This is why a creature knows which way the spell came from and thus can run away from it. Point in favor of sound=/=vibrations.
On the other hand, it's magic which is something that we don't have a whole bunch to base off of in real life, and this it's unexplainable without further study or explanation from someone who knows more. Meanwhile, it's finding like Democrats and Republicans trying to convince each other that their economic policies are the best, when at best, those policies are actually best under the right circumstances.
Maybe it is something that isn't in the audible range normally, but is something that exists on a vibration level of some sort. This is why a creature knows which way the spell came from and thus can run away from it. Point in favor of sound=/=vibrations.
On the other hand, it's magic which is something that we don't have a whole bunch to base off of in real life, and this it's unexplainable without further study or explanation from someone who knows more. Meanwhile, it's finding like Democrats and Republicans trying to convince each other that their economic policies are the best, when at best, those policies are actually best under the right circumstances.
And like political policies, it might all just be grounded on fundamental assumptions that we make that aren't themselves based on anything other than 'seems good to me', which makes it hard to actually argue for in the end :D
Part of the problem is that we, at least I, sometimes fall into the trap of expected everything to fit together just perfectly, when in reality, even for a big game like D&D, the creating process is just people trying to make a ton of little moving parts all fit together as best as possible. I used to do a tiny bit of writing for an RPG years ago, and I found then that it's not like every single small sentence written in every book is taken into account when a new rule is written :) So sometimes things get written that conflict with two different other rules in two different ways. Oh well.
It's like building all of a jigsaw puzzle except for one part that just won't fit in the only spot available. So you just hammer it in there and call it a day, lol.
I think people think of sound as vibrations, right up until the point that they don't. There's a leaf gently blowing on the end of that branch--does it make a sound? Because it sure makes vibrations in the air.
If the vibrations are in the audible range, then yes. Otherwise, no.
It's not a pedantic point for that simple reason--that 'sound=vibrations' only works right up until the point where it doesn't, and then you have to make the distinction.
It is a pedantic distinction because it flies in the face of how the word is used conversationally. If you have to get philosophical or technical about a word instead of taking it at face value, then your definition is most likely not what the authors intended.
Take the Silence spell. No sound can be created in or pass through a 20' radius sphere. Ok. Now let's say for argument's sake that 'Sound=Vibrations', and not the perception of those vibrations.
...
So if you just put an = between 'vibrations' and 'sound', you fairly quickly will spiral down into Silence being equivalent to a Time Stop spell. You would be stopping all vibrations in matter inside the AoE.
No. Not all vibrations are sounds, and the Silence spell is magic, so it can be as picky as it needs to be. If the vibrations are audible, then Silence stops it. That's what the spell does. If the vibrations aren't audible, then Silence doesn't stop it, because the spell's description doesn't say it stops all vibrations.
I think people think of sound as vibrations, right up until the point that they don't. There's a leaf gently blowing on the end of that branch--does it make a sound? Because it sure makes vibrations in the air.
If the vibrations are in the audible range, then yes. Otherwise, no.
The audible range of what creatures?
It's not a pedantic point for that simple reason--that 'sound=vibrations' only works right up until the point where it doesn't, and then you have to make the distinction.
It is a pedantic distinction because it flies in the face of how the word is used conversationally. If you have to get philosophical or technical about a word instead of taking it at face value, then your definition is most likely not what the authors intended.
We're just disagreeing about how the word is used, then. My claim is that it's commonly used in multiple and conflicting ways. People commonly use 'sound' to refer to vibrations, but also commonly use 'sound' to refer to the perception. The only time that dictionaries are really worthwhile is exactly when we try to figure out common usage--because that's what dictionaries capture. So take a look at dictionary definitions:
Here's Websters:
a: a particular auditory impression :
b: the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (such as air) and is the objective cause of hearing
Here's Oxford:
Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
Sound produced by continuous and regular vibrations, as opposed to noise.
So just there, from common usage, we have two that talk about the physical manifestation (vibrations, and energy) and three that talk about something produced by (and thus not identical to) those vibrations. When people get hit on the head really hard, they commonly talk about 'hearing sounds', even though they know there are no vibrations in the air at the time. And they commonly talk about sound 'traveling' slower than light, i.e. the vibrations.
People use the word both ways in common language. This happens all the time, with all kinds of words. And you're saying that it's 'pedantic' to try to make a clarification for the rules of a game? It's just false that there is some settled 'common' usage of the word that I'm flying in the face of.
It's also difficult to raise a charge of pedantism in a game that often uses words in very precise ways. That's the problem with D&D (and a lot of games, not to point fingers just here). There are times when the writers want words to be used casually, and times when they want them to be used incredibly precisely. You are claiming that this instance is one in which we should be using a word casually--just, you know, whatever you think people commonly take it to mean. But what's your evidence that this is not a moment when the writers are trying to be very precise?
Something like spell interactions is historically, in this edition and the last couple of editions, a place where words tend to get used very precisely, just because there are so many interactions to manage.
Take the Silence spell. No sound can be created in or pass through a 20' radius sphere. Ok. Now let's say for argument's sake that 'Sound=Vibrations', and not the perception of those vibrations.
...
So if you just put an = between 'vibrations' and 'sound', you fairly quickly will spiral down into Silence being equivalent to a Time Stop spell. You would be stopping all vibrations in matter inside the AoE.
No. Not all vibrations are sounds, and the Silence spell is magic, so it can be as picky as it needs to be. If the vibrations are audible, then Silence stops it. That's what the spell does. If the vibrations aren't audible, then Silence doesn't stop it, because the spell's description doesn't say it stops all vibrations.
Audible to who? Does Silence work against animals? Would it work against Superman? Would it work against a bat, or a dolphin?
All creatures, presumably. Or whatever creatures the DM decides are applicable to the current situation. It's magic! It doesn't have to obey the laws of physics and it can be exactly as selective and magical as it needs to be to accomplish whatever effect the rules are telling you this spell creates.
We're just disagreeing about how the word is used, then. My claim is that it's commonly used in multiple and conflicting ways.
There's only one way the word could possibly be used in the context of the Silence spell. The spell says sound can't pass through the area and creatures within the area are immune to thunder damage, so it's painfully clear we're not talking about the sensations produced by your brain.
There are times when the writers want words to be used casually, and times when they want them to be used incredibly precisely. You are claiming that this instance is one in which we should be using a word casually--just, you know, whatever you think people commonly take it to mean. But what's your evidence that this is not a moment when the writers are trying to be very precise?
All creatures, presumably. Or whatever creatures the DM decides are applicable to the current situation. It's magic! It doesn't have to obey the laws of physics and it can be exactly as selective and magical as it needs to be to accomplish whatever effect the rules are telling you this spell creates.
If you want to wave your hands and say 'it's magic', that's fine. I'm just pointing out that the decision about what happens is still importantly arbitrary at some level in that case.
'All creatures' would include moles, which have specialized organs for detecting seismic vibrations through the ground. So you either include vibrations through the ground, or you arbitrarily don't include them.
Importantly, I'm not 'casting judgment' or saying that those sort of rules would be unplayable or a bad idea or anything like that. :) I'm just pointing to the lack of clarity.
We're just disagreeing about how the word is used, then. My claim is that it's commonly used in multiple and conflicting ways.
There's only one way the word could possibly be used in the context of the Silence spell. The spell says sound can't pass through the area and creatures within the area are immune to thunder damage, so it's painfully clear we're not talking about the sensations produced by your brain.
Well, given that I am able to interpret them in the way that I am, and I'm not stupid, there isn't only one way. There is only one way you would like to interpret them. The fact that it's Thunder damage doesn't help, as Thunder damage is terribly vaguely defined itself.
There are times when the writers want words to be used casually, and times when they want them to be used incredibly precisely. You are claiming that this instance is one in which we should be using a word casually--just, you know, whatever you think people commonly take it to mean. But what's your evidence that this is not a moment when the writers are trying to be very precise?
I'm not saying they are trying to 'trick' me. I'm saying they are unclear at times, vague at times, ambiguous at times, and confusing at times. That's very different from saying they are purposefully that way.
You, again, can't rely on 'what the word normally means' when a word is used multiple ways normally.
There is no one idiomatic use of 'sound'.
And it's great that Crawford says that we should use words idiomatically unless they specifically restrict/define/redefine the word. The problem is that, when they do restrict/redefine, they don't (and can't) always say "We are specifically redefining a word here". Sometimes that restriction comes by way of the context. Sometimes they are obvious, bolding certain words when they are defined. Other times they are less than clear--people get confused for example about how they use 'spell' (does it always refer to cantrips in every usage?), 'attack' (are they talking about the Attack Action or the thing you do when you take the attack action?), 'point' in spellcasting (location in space, or creature, or both?). Even something like 'hand' leads them to problems (a spell requires a 'free hand'--can a Beholder cast it? Can a dragon cast it? Should we just go with the idiomatic use of hand? Okay...what is that use? Is a dragon's front claw/foot thing idiomatically a hand?).
The fact is that the writers are not perfect, they're human. And they have often included things they wanted to be specific, but were unclear about. That's half of why Sage Advice exists. Saying "if it's not clear from the text, then use the word 'how everyone uses it'" doesn't help when A) there have been times the writers thought something would be clear, and B) there is no one idiomatic use of the word.
If you want to wave your hands and say 'it's magic', that's fine. I'm just pointing out that the decision about what happens is still importantly arbitrary at some level in that case.
Ok, but so what? 99% the nuances in the Silence spell that you bring up simply don't matter. What the rules don't say is just as important as what they say. Playtesting has shown time and again that adding unnecessary details produces worse rules; the inconsequential corner cases start to distract from the meat of what something is supposed to do, and past a certain length people just refuse to read it. Leaving some details up to DM discretion also let the DM decide what's the most appropriate way to interpret the rules for whatever situation is currently happening or whatever outcome is more fun for their group.
'All creatures' would include moles, which have specialized organs for detecting seismic vibrations through the ground. So you either include vibrations through the ground, or you arbitrarily don't include them.
And the rules account for that that by giving the relevant creatures tremorsense. Also, area effects can't extend through the ground. So again, what does it matter?
You, again, can't rely on 'what the word normally means' when a word is used multiple ways normally.
Yes, you can; you just need to establish what definition you're using with context. That's how language works in general. Most of the words I've written in this post have multiple meanings, but you understand me just fine. If you poll 100 people on what "sound" means in the sentence "sounds can't pass through this area", I'd bet money the vast majority will agree on what the word means.
If you want to wave your hands and say 'it's magic', that's fine. I'm just pointing out that the decision about what happens is still importantly arbitrary at some level in that case.
Ok, but so what? 99% the nuances in the Silence spell that you bring up simply don't matter. What the rules don't say is just as important as what they say. Playtesting has shown time and again that adding unnecessary details produces worse rules; the inconsequential corner cases start to distract from the meat of what something is supposed to do, and past a certain length people just refuse to read it. Leaving some details up to DM discretion also let the DM decide what's the most appropriate way to interpret the rules for whatever situation is currently happening or whatever outcome is more fun for their group.
Again, not saying that 'it's magic' as the limits of the explanation won't work. I think these things are important to consider in part because there are players out there who will get terribly upset by particular arbitrary rulings. The wrong kinds of Rules Lawyers. That's why I like to bring up these possibly problematic issues before there's a player griping at me from across the table :)
The depth that our discussion is going belies the fact that I don't think this is some game-breaking sort of issue. It's not. But it still is unclear.
'All creatures' would include moles, which have specialized organs for detecting seismic vibrations through the ground. So you either include vibrations through the ground, or you arbitrarily don't include them.
And the rules account for that that by giving the relevant creatures tremorsense. Also, area effects can't extend through the ground. So again, what does it matter?
Because you have just arbitrarily ruled out the mole as 'hearing sound'. So now, that player who is upset by arbitrariness will be upset. Again, not saying you can't say that, just saying that you have two options:
Try to create a ruling based on a single use of a word. This apparently results in moles hearing vibrations in the ground...up until you don't want them to.
At which point the decision is arbitrary. The point at which you cut off what 'hears' and what does not, what sound is and what isn't, will be an arbitrarily decided line.
If you're happy with that, they you're happy :) It still doesn't make the issue clear, it just means that you've decided to draw a line somewhere. That's fine.
You, again, can't rely on 'what the word normally means' when a word is used multiple ways normally.
Yes, you can; you just need to establish what definition you're using with context. That's how language works in general. Most of the words I've written in this post have multiple meanings, but you understand me just fine. If you poll 100 people on what "sound" means in the sentence "sounds can't pass through this area", I'd bet money the vast majority will agree on what the word means.
You're misinterpreting me. Your claim before was "we can simply use 'sound' how it is used idiomatically, and it is used in one way idiomatically." My claim is that it is not used in only one way, therefore, you can't rely on 'what the word normally means' to indicate one definition.
If you're now saying "we can interpret in a case by case basis what the word means", then yes. You're now agreeing with me that the word is used multiple ways in common speech, and deciding which definition to use in a particular case is not done by simple appeal to that one way (e.g. sound=vibrations). That's what I was saying before, so I'm cool with that.
Because you have just arbitrarily ruled out the mole as 'hearing sound'. So now, that player who is upset by arbitrariness will be upset.
Do you have a real world scenario where the Silence spell would cause problems? The mole example is frivolous and a player that acts in bad faith will always act in bad faith; the solution is not to play with them.
The rules aren't designed to account for every stupid little corner case a pedant could bring up; D&D is a game run by humans by design and the DM is explicitly the arbiter for the weird little corner cases that sometimes come up. There's little point in discussing "but what if my player gets irrationally angry at my judgement as the DM?"
Because you have just arbitrarily ruled out the mole as 'hearing sound'. So now, that player who is upset by arbitrariness will be upset.
Do you have a real world scenario where the Silence spell would cause problems? The mole example is frivolous and a player that acts in bad faith will always act in bad faith; the solution is not to play with them.
The rules aren't designed to account for every stupid little corner case a pedant could bring up; D&D is a game run by humans by design and the DM is explicitly the arbiter for the weird little corner cases that sometimes come up. There's little point in discussing "but what if my player gets irrationally angry at my judgement as the DM?"
I actually think there's a lot of importance in thinking in advance about what to do when players get upset. I mean, there are posts here every week from DMs asking for advice to deal with players getting upset about things. Because it's a game run by humans, thinking about how to deal with those humans is an important part of running campaigns where everyone enjoys themselves.
The PCs won't be fighting moles, no. At least not normal sized ones. But I've seen giant ones, and Ant Lions. There are plenty of subterranean creatures, including ones who will 'hear' via vibrations. I had a DM throw 'Tremors' sort of worm graboid things at one party years ago. No one had Silence in that party, iirc, but if we did, there would very likely have been a debate about whether the AoE would penetrate the ground, and if those vibrations would have counted. And if I had been the DM, frankly I'd probably allow that one based on the Rule of Cool (for the ground penetration), and on my tendency to view it as affecting the perception of creatures, not the vibrations themselves.
But then I'd just have to keep in mind that I would have opened up the discussion later--why did silence make that thing not detect those vibrations, but then you ruled this way in this case? And you can just say "just because". But be prepared for that not to appease everyone.
There are plenty of subterranean creatures, including ones who will 'hear' via vibrations. I had a DM throw 'Tremors' sort of worm graboid things at one party years ago. No one had Silence in that party, iirc, but if we did, there would very likely have been a debate about whether the AoE would penetrate the ground, and if those vibrations would have counted.
The spellcasting rules tell you area effects are blocked by total cover, so Silence ends where the ground starts and therefore it's not going to affect tremorsense.
There are plenty of subterranean creatures, including ones who will 'hear' via vibrations. I had a DM throw 'Tremors' sort of worm graboid things at one party years ago. No one had Silence in that party, iirc, but if we did, there would very likely have been a debate about whether the AoE would penetrate the ground, and if those vibrations would have counted.
The spellcasting rules tell you area effects are blocked by total cover, so Silence ends where the ground starts and therefore it's not going to affect tremorsense.
I know, but I still very likely would have allowed that one. And then had to deal with the consequences :)
(can't use Green-Flame Blade, since that can target a second target, and War Caster requires the spell to only target the creature that generated the Opportunity Attack).
Is there a sage advice interpetation of this? I agree that that a second target can't be hit, but saying you can't use the spell at all seems to be a bit much. Its like saying you can't use Eldritch Blast in the same circumstance because of multiple bolt that could hit multiple targets. I dont see anything that says you Must do so. It only says "a second target of the casters choice" in which in an AoO case is restricted to "no one." It's not like you cannot use the spell on a single target.
Not disagreeing that Booming Blade isn't better damage wise, but i might not have it on the list.
You could also argue that GFB does only target one target. I'm not sure it's a successful argument, tbh. But this is what I'm thinking. The text of the spell says that you must make a melee attack "against one creature". It then says that on a hit "the target" suffers the attack's normal damage and that the flame jumps to "a different creature". It doesn't say "a second target".
Think of Armor of Agathys. You are the target of the spell, even though the spell clearly harms other creatures. You could argue that those other creatures are still not the 'spell's target'. At least, that's one way to interpret it. 'Target' actually isn't clearly defined in the rules. The PHB text under 'Targets' doesn't define what a target is, it just says you sometimes have to pick them. It does say "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic." Does that mean that anything 'affected by the magic' is a 'target'? That sounds reasonable, except for this:
"lf a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or speciticallya creature other than you. lf you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself."
lf it were true that 'anything affected by a spell is a 'target', then of course you would 'target yourself' if you were inside the AoE. :) What that shows is that 'target' seems to be used as 'focus' or 'initial location' or 'initial casting target' or 'thing you're aiming at when you cast the spell'.
I maybe want to think about this in terms of rules of just warfare. If you put your munitions factory next to a school, many people will say that I can blow up your school, but only if I was targeting the factory.
But...for GFB, you are actively picking and aiming at the second creature, unlike the school. So it's still not entirely clear.
Tl/dr: One way to read 'target' is 'anything affected by the spell. Another way to read target is 'initial aiming focus of the spell'. An AoE spell has an area, not a specific creature, when the spell is cast. But GFB has one specific creature when the spell is cast. Then you add another one after. So...anyway, it could be read that way.
(can't use Green-Flame Blade, since that can target a second target, and War Caster requires the spell to only target the creature that generated the Opportunity Attack).
Is there a sage advice interpetation of this? I agree that that a second target can't be hit, but saying you can't use the spell at all seems to be a bit much. Its like saying you can't use Eldritch Blast in the same circumstance because of multiple bolt that could hit multiple targets. I dont see anything that says you Must do so. It only says "a second target of the casters choice" in which in an AoO case is restricted to "no one." It's not like you cannot use the spell on a single target.
Not disagreeing that Booming Blade isn't better damage wise, but i might not have it on the list.
You could also argue that GFB does only target one target. I'm not sure it's a successful argument, tbh. But this is what I'm thinking. The text of the spell says that you must make a melee attack "against one creature". It then says that on a hit "the target" suffers the attack's normal damage and that the flame jumps to "a different creature". It doesn't say "a second target".
Think of Armor of Agathys. You are the target of the spell, even though the spell clearly harms other creatures. You could argue that those other creatures are still not the 'spell's target'. At least, that's one way to interpret it. 'Target' actually isn't clearly defined in the rules. The PHB text under 'Targets' doesn't define what a target is, it just says you sometimes have to pick them. It does say "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic." Does that mean that anything 'affected by the magic' is a 'target'? That sounds reasonable, except for this:
"lf a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or speciticallya creature other than you. lf you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself."
lf it were true that 'anything affected by a spell is a 'target', then of course you would 'target yourself' if you were inside the AoE. :) What that shows is that 'target' seems to be used as 'focus' or 'initial location' or 'initial casting target' or 'thing you're aiming at when you cast the spell'.
I maybe want to think about this in terms of rules of just warfare. If you put your munitions factory next to a school, many people will say that I can blow up your school, but only if I was targeting the factory.
But...for GFB, you are actively picking and aiming at the second creature, unlike the school. So it's still not entirely clear.
Tl/dr: One way to read 'target' is 'anything affected by the spell. Another way to read target is 'initial aiming focus of the spell'. An AoE spell has an area, not a specific creature, when the spell is cast. But GFB has one specific creature when the spell is cast. Then you add another one after. So...anyway, it could be read that way.
The spell says "..a different creature of your choice..." and that is functionally a target, and I could choose "No creature." It doesn't say I can't. It doesn't say I MUST have two creatures nearby to use the spell. I don't think that if a player attacked with GFB a creature, and that the only other creature nearby is your helpful rogue, that a DM would rule that you must target the rogue as the second target.
This is one of those interesting examples of where "plain English isn't plain." In the spirit of "keep it simple" the 2nd target would be optional in my mind. But again the original question was is there really an official ruling, or are we debating because we like to debate :)
The spell says "..a different creature of your choice..." and that is functionally a target, and I could choose "No creature." It doesn't say I can't. It doesn't say I MUST have two creatures nearby to use the spell. I don't think that if a player attacked with GFB a creature, and that the only other creature nearby is your helpful rogue, that a DM would rule that you must target the rogue as the second target.
This is one of those interesting examples of where "plain English isn't plain." In the spirit of "keep it simple" the 2nd target would be optional in my mind. But again the original question was is there really an official ruling, or are we debating because we like to debate :)
It's not just for fun (although it is fun :) because this is a common cantrip and common feat, right? The 'functionally' a target thing is the key--they really aren't clear on what a target is, so a DM is going to have to decide what that function is. I do think it might make some sense to restrict Target to mean the 'thing initially targeted'.
But for this specific instance, if you could select 'no creature' with GFB, then GFB would only target one creature, and the War Caster could use it :)
Just to throw more confusion into your evaluation, silence is an Illusion spell. so is darkness. Darkness blocks all light in or out (or inside for that matter). So is the illusion blocking the ABILITY to see in or out, or actually blocking the light waves. Devil's sight would indicate the first.
Maybe it is something that isn't in the audible range normally, but is something that exists on a vibration level of some sort. This is why a creature knows which way the spell came from and thus can run away from it. Point in favor of sound=/=vibrations.
On the other hand, it's magic which is something that we don't have a whole bunch to base off of in real life, and this it's unexplainable without further study or explanation from someone who knows more. Meanwhile, it's finding like Democrats and Republicans trying to convince each other that their economic policies are the best, when at best, those policies are actually best under the right circumstances.
And like political policies, it might all just be grounded on fundamental assumptions that we make that aren't themselves based on anything other than 'seems good to me', which makes it hard to actually argue for in the end :D
Part of the problem is that we, at least I, sometimes fall into the trap of expected everything to fit together just perfectly, when in reality, even for a big game like D&D, the creating process is just people trying to make a ton of little moving parts all fit together as best as possible. I used to do a tiny bit of writing for an RPG years ago, and I found then that it's not like every single small sentence written in every book is taken into account when a new rule is written :) So sometimes things get written that conflict with two different other rules in two different ways. Oh well.
It's like building all of a jigsaw puzzle except for one part that just won't fit in the only spot available. So you just hammer it in there and call it a day, lol.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
If the vibrations are in the audible range, then yes. Otherwise, no.
It is a pedantic distinction because it flies in the face of how the word is used conversationally. If you have to get philosophical or technical about a word instead of taking it at face value, then your definition is most likely not what the authors intended.
No. Not all vibrations are sounds, and the Silence spell is magic, so it can be as picky as it needs to be. If the vibrations are audible, then Silence stops it. That's what the spell does. If the vibrations aren't audible, then Silence doesn't stop it, because the spell's description doesn't say it stops all vibrations.
The audible range of what creatures?
We're just disagreeing about how the word is used, then. My claim is that it's commonly used in multiple and conflicting ways. People commonly use 'sound' to refer to vibrations, but also commonly use 'sound' to refer to the perception. The only time that dictionaries are really worthwhile is exactly when we try to figure out common usage--because that's what dictionaries capture. So take a look at dictionary definitions:
Here's Websters:
So just there, from common usage, we have two that talk about the physical manifestation (vibrations, and energy) and three that talk about something produced by (and thus not identical to) those vibrations. When people get hit on the head really hard, they commonly talk about 'hearing sounds', even though they know there are no vibrations in the air at the time. And they commonly talk about sound 'traveling' slower than light, i.e. the vibrations.
People use the word both ways in common language. This happens all the time, with all kinds of words. And you're saying that it's 'pedantic' to try to make a clarification for the rules of a game? It's just false that there is some settled 'common' usage of the word that I'm flying in the face of.
It's also difficult to raise a charge of pedantism in a game that often uses words in very precise ways. That's the problem with D&D (and a lot of games, not to point fingers just here). There are times when the writers want words to be used casually, and times when they want them to be used incredibly precisely. You are claiming that this instance is one in which we should be using a word casually--just, you know, whatever you think people commonly take it to mean. But what's your evidence that this is not a moment when the writers are trying to be very precise?
Something like spell interactions is historically, in this edition and the last couple of editions, a place where words tend to get used very precisely, just because there are so many interactions to manage.
Audible to who? Does Silence work against animals? Would it work against Superman? Would it work against a bat, or a dolphin?
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
All creatures, presumably. Or whatever creatures the DM decides are applicable to the current situation. It's magic! It doesn't have to obey the laws of physics and it can be exactly as selective and magical as it needs to be to accomplish whatever effect the rules are telling you this spell creates.
There's only one way the word could possibly be used in the context of the Silence spell. The spell says sound can't pass through the area and creatures within the area are immune to thunder damage, so it's painfully clear we're not talking about the sensations produced by your brain.
Fortunately, when the D&D writers want to be precise, they give you their definition; otherwise, the word just means whatever it normally means. "Sound" isn't defined anywhere in the rules, so it means whatever it normally means, taking context into consideration. The rules aren't trying to trick you.
If you want to wave your hands and say 'it's magic', that's fine. I'm just pointing out that the decision about what happens is still importantly arbitrary at some level in that case.
'All creatures' would include moles, which have specialized organs for detecting seismic vibrations through the ground. So you either include vibrations through the ground, or you arbitrarily don't include them.
Importantly, I'm not 'casting judgment' or saying that those sort of rules would be unplayable or a bad idea or anything like that. :) I'm just pointing to the lack of clarity.
Well, given that I am able to interpret them in the way that I am, and I'm not stupid, there isn't only one way. There is only one way you would like to interpret them. The fact that it's Thunder damage doesn't help, as Thunder damage is terribly vaguely defined itself.
I'm not saying they are trying to 'trick' me. I'm saying they are unclear at times, vague at times, ambiguous at times, and confusing at times. That's very different from saying they are purposefully that way.
You, again, can't rely on 'what the word normally means' when a word is used multiple ways normally.
There is no one idiomatic use of 'sound'.
And it's great that Crawford says that we should use words idiomatically unless they specifically restrict/define/redefine the word. The problem is that, when they do restrict/redefine, they don't (and can't) always say "We are specifically redefining a word here". Sometimes that restriction comes by way of the context. Sometimes they are obvious, bolding certain words when they are defined. Other times they are less than clear--people get confused for example about how they use 'spell' (does it always refer to cantrips in every usage?), 'attack' (are they talking about the Attack Action or the thing you do when you take the attack action?), 'point' in spellcasting (location in space, or creature, or both?). Even something like 'hand' leads them to problems (a spell requires a 'free hand'--can a Beholder cast it? Can a dragon cast it? Should we just go with the idiomatic use of hand? Okay...what is that use? Is a dragon's front claw/foot thing idiomatically a hand?).
The fact is that the writers are not perfect, they're human. And they have often included things they wanted to be specific, but were unclear about. That's half of why Sage Advice exists. Saying "if it's not clear from the text, then use the word 'how everyone uses it'" doesn't help when A) there have been times the writers thought something would be clear, and B) there is no one idiomatic use of the word.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Ok, but so what? 99% the nuances in the Silence spell that you bring up simply don't matter. What the rules don't say is just as important as what they say. Playtesting has shown time and again that adding unnecessary details produces worse rules; the inconsequential corner cases start to distract from the meat of what something is supposed to do, and past a certain length people just refuse to read it. Leaving some details up to DM discretion also let the DM decide what's the most appropriate way to interpret the rules for whatever situation is currently happening or whatever outcome is more fun for their group.
And the rules account for that that by giving the relevant creatures tremorsense. Also, area effects can't extend through the ground. So again, what does it matter?
Yes, you can; you just need to establish what definition you're using with context. That's how language works in general. Most of the words I've written in this post have multiple meanings, but you understand me just fine. If you poll 100 people on what "sound" means in the sentence "sounds can't pass through this area", I'd bet money the vast majority will agree on what the word means.
Again, not saying that 'it's magic' as the limits of the explanation won't work. I think these things are important to consider in part because there are players out there who will get terribly upset by particular arbitrary rulings. The wrong kinds of Rules Lawyers. That's why I like to bring up these possibly problematic issues before there's a player griping at me from across the table :)
The depth that our discussion is going belies the fact that I don't think this is some game-breaking sort of issue. It's not. But it still is unclear.
Because you have just arbitrarily ruled out the mole as 'hearing sound'. So now, that player who is upset by arbitrariness will be upset. Again, not saying you can't say that, just saying that you have two options:
If you're happy with that, they you're happy :) It still doesn't make the issue clear, it just means that you've decided to draw a line somewhere. That's fine.
You're misinterpreting me. Your claim before was "we can simply use 'sound' how it is used idiomatically, and it is used in one way idiomatically." My claim is that it is not used in only one way, therefore, you can't rely on 'what the word normally means' to indicate one definition.
If you're now saying "we can interpret in a case by case basis what the word means", then yes. You're now agreeing with me that the word is used multiple ways in common speech, and deciding which definition to use in a particular case is not done by simple appeal to that one way (e.g. sound=vibrations). That's what I was saying before, so I'm cool with that.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Do you have a real world scenario where the Silence spell would cause problems? The mole example is frivolous and a player that acts in bad faith will always act in bad faith; the solution is not to play with them.
The rules aren't designed to account for every stupid little corner case a pedant could bring up; D&D is a game run by humans by design and the DM is explicitly the arbiter for the weird little corner cases that sometimes come up. There's little point in discussing "but what if my player gets irrationally angry at my judgement as the DM?"
I actually think there's a lot of importance in thinking in advance about what to do when players get upset. I mean, there are posts here every week from DMs asking for advice to deal with players getting upset about things. Because it's a game run by humans, thinking about how to deal with those humans is an important part of running campaigns where everyone enjoys themselves.
The PCs won't be fighting moles, no. At least not normal sized ones. But I've seen giant ones, and Ant Lions. There are plenty of subterranean creatures, including ones who will 'hear' via vibrations. I had a DM throw 'Tremors' sort of worm graboid things at one party years ago. No one had Silence in that party, iirc, but if we did, there would very likely have been a debate about whether the AoE would penetrate the ground, and if those vibrations would have counted. And if I had been the DM, frankly I'd probably allow that one based on the Rule of Cool (for the ground penetration), and on my tendency to view it as affecting the perception of creatures, not the vibrations themselves.
But then I'd just have to keep in mind that I would have opened up the discussion later--why did silence make that thing not detect those vibrations, but then you ruled this way in this case? And you can just say "just because". But be prepared for that not to appease everyone.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
The spellcasting rules tell you area effects are blocked by total cover, so Silence ends where the ground starts and therefore it's not going to affect tremorsense.
I know, but I still very likely would have allowed that one. And then had to deal with the consequences :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
D&D
gotta love it!
Crawford has officially stated that loving the game is optional, but goes along with RAI.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Well we all know his tweets are not official ...
btw I thought this was witty. good job :)
You could also argue that GFB does only target one target. I'm not sure it's a successful argument, tbh. But this is what I'm thinking. The text of the spell says that you must make a melee attack "against one creature". It then says that on a hit "the target" suffers the attack's normal damage and that the flame jumps to "a different creature". It doesn't say "a second target".
Think of Armor of Agathys. You are the target of the spell, even though the spell clearly harms other creatures. You could argue that those other creatures are still not the 'spell's target'. At least, that's one way to interpret it. 'Target' actually isn't clearly defined in the rules. The PHB text under 'Targets' doesn't define what a target is, it just says you sometimes have to pick them. It does say "A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic." Does that mean that anything 'affected by the magic' is a 'target'? That sounds reasonable, except for this:
"lf a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or speciticallya creature other than you. lf you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself."
lf it were true that 'anything affected by a spell is a 'target', then of course you would 'target yourself' if you were inside the AoE. :) What that shows is that 'target' seems to be used as 'focus' or 'initial location' or 'initial casting target' or 'thing you're aiming at when you cast the spell'.
I maybe want to think about this in terms of rules of just warfare. If you put your munitions factory next to a school, many people will say that I can blow up your school, but only if I was targeting the factory.
But...for GFB, you are actively picking and aiming at the second creature, unlike the school. So it's still not entirely clear.
Tl/dr: One way to read 'target' is 'anything affected by the spell. Another way to read target is 'initial aiming focus of the spell'. An AoE spell has an area, not a specific creature, when the spell is cast. But GFB has one specific creature when the spell is cast. Then you add another one after. So...anyway, it could be read that way.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
The spell says "..a different creature of your choice..." and that is functionally a target, and I could choose "No creature." It doesn't say I can't. It doesn't say I MUST have two creatures nearby to use the spell. I don't think that if a player attacked with GFB a creature, and that the only other creature nearby is your helpful rogue, that a DM would rule that you must target the rogue as the second target.
This is one of those interesting examples of where "plain English isn't plain." In the spirit of "keep it simple" the 2nd target would be optional in my mind. But again the original question was is there really an official ruling, or are we debating because we like to debate :)
It's not just for fun (although it is fun :) because this is a common cantrip and common feat, right? The 'functionally' a target thing is the key--they really aren't clear on what a target is, so a DM is going to have to decide what that function is. I do think it might make some sense to restrict Target to mean the 'thing initially targeted'.
But for this specific instance, if you could select 'no creature' with GFB, then GFB would only target one creature, and the War Caster could use it :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Just to throw more confusion into your evaluation, silence is an Illusion spell. so is darkness. Darkness blocks all light in or out (or inside for that matter). So is the illusion blocking the ABILITY to see in or out, or actually blocking the light waves. Devil's sight would indicate the first.
Yet it stops real Thunder damage.......
Interesting point
silence is the illusion of no sound that has the ability to negate real Thunder damage.
it's a game :)