7
\$\begingroup\$

If I can cast silence on the ground below me before falling, with the thunder damage immunity replaced with bludgeoning, and we land from the fall inside the sphere of silence, do my party and I take no damage from the fall? And land on our feet?

A gnome with the Mark of Scribing (Eberron p. 47) has the 2nd level silence spell on their wizard spell list because "the spells on the Mark of Scribing Spells table are added to the spell list of your spellcasting class".

When you are a Scribes wizard casting a wizard spell you can "temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook … of the same level …".

The silence spell creates a 20 ft sphere of silence up to 120 ft away, in which:

Any creature or object entirely inside the sphere is immune to thunder damage

When falling (Player's Handbook, p. 183):

At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.

\$\endgroup\$
1

2 Answers 2

20
\$\begingroup\$

Silence has no damage

When you are a Scribes wizard casting a wizard spell you can "temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook … of the same level …".

This is not applicable to Silence (as either of the spells) because it doesn’t do damage.

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, the only sensible interpretation of "a spell's damage type" is "the type of damage a spell does", not "the type of damage a spell prevents". It'd open a very big can of worms if this wasn't the case. \$\endgroup\$
    – biziclop
    Jul 22, 2023 at 23:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @biziclop I'm learning this seems to be the consensus. Although in some other features, "damage type" seems to be worded in both senses at once. Like the Drakewarden Drake Companion's draconic essence has a damage type which is then applied to both immunity and damage. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 22, 2023 at 23:51
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @yeastgoblin Yes, but neither of those is a spell's damage type. They are the damage type of one of the creature's abilities, which also happens to be that creature's immunity type. But abilities that allow you to modify a spell's damage type are limited to spells that actually do damage. Otherwise you could "upcycle" for example the 2nd level spell Protection From Poison into the 3rd level spell Protection From Energy. \$\endgroup\$
    – biziclop
    Jul 23, 2023 at 0:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @yeastgoblin one can argue the Earth is flat too. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dale M
    Jul 23, 2023 at 10:27
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Without this answer, I wouldn't have been able to understand the theory OP was operating upon. That interpretation is so strange it would never have occurred to me. I get that there is value in applying RAW; but seriously, the rules generally do at least try to make sense and provide a model intended to satisfy most intuitions - rather than a legal framework for exploitation. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 23, 2023 at 11:08
2
\$\begingroup\$

RAW, yes. In practice, no.

When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook, which magically alters the spell's formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.

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. Any creature or object entirely inside the sphere is immune to thunder damage, and creatures are deafened while entirely inside it. Casting a spell that includes a verbal component is impossible there.

In 5e there are no hidden rules. Spells don't have some category of damage type and need to be in that category to count for XYZ type of effect. Awakened Spellbook says you can replace the type of damage of a spell (generally abbreviated to damage type throughout the rules) and it does not say this is limited to when the spell deals damage to a creature. Ergo, by RAW, you can apply it to any spell that uses as part of its rules text a single type of damage (as there is no plural), and change it to any other type of damage that 'appears' in another spell in your spellbook.

This will never work at the table. It goes against the intuitive understanding people will generally form about this rule to the point that many people will strongly believe the text specifies damage dealt even if they have read it in recent memory. It will be 'read as', houseruled, or otherwise made to not be used in this manner, almost universally. Likely game designer tweets or errata or w/e will concur.

Weirdly, the author of this ability may have intended it to work with non damaging spells (such as spells that allow you to resist a form of energy). It bends over backwards to avoid saying 'deal damage' and is quite awkward about doing so - that typical wording is used in a lot of other places in the text and would naturally fit into the sentences of this ability.

Regardless, any use related to anything but switching damage types of damaging spells will likely be looked at very askance, and creative uses of silence's damage immunity etc will almost certainly be shut down via fiat.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ if anyone can do it, Scribing Scribes the Gnome can, she is so bookish she plays an Instrument of Scribing at parties \$\endgroup\$ Jul 24, 2023 at 15:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .