In 5e if it doesn't explicitly say something, it's not there. Crawford has made that abundantly clear several times.
It does not explicitly say that you can move it when you can't see it. Adding the ability to not have to see it makes it a house rule. It's reasonable, but then so is adding that you can't move it if you can't see it, inferring that limitation from the general spell rules.
It says explicity that you can move it with a bonus action. That is explicit and being able to see it is irrelevant to that. Now if you can't take bonus actions that is a different story.
Maybe. The text does not explicitly say that, and in 5e the lack of explicit language means that it is not in the RAW.
The text explicitly says you can move it with a bonus action. There is nothing about seeing it mentioned.
Crawford also said that they use the phraseology that you need to see something when you in fact need to see it and he pointed out that being blinded eliminates a lot of spells because of that specific (and explicit) verbiage.
Let me ask you these questions:
Can I move it while wearing armor?
Can I move it while charmed?
Can I move it while frightened?
Can I move it while prone?
Can I move it while holding a weapon?
Can I move it while wearing clothes?
Can I move it while deafened?
Can I move it while underwater?
Can I move it while exhausted?
Can I move it in combat?
Can I move it if I am a Halfling?
Why is being unable to see it any different than any of these, some of which are actual conditions? The spell says nothing about them "specifically".
Last edited: