Subtle Spell and Wildshape Casting?

[Cathwar]

Hi, all! Long time reader, first time poster. Played D&D since it came out in the 70's.

Starting up a new 5th edition game; I have been coaxed into being the DM. One of the players asked about a character concept he had, and my gut feeling is that the mechanics do not work the way he'd like. But I appreciate his creativity, and before I say "not a chance" I'd be grateful for any advice you have.

The player is considering a Sorcerer 3/Moon Druid X. His idea is that Subtle Spell metamagic will allow him to cast spells without material components while wildshaped starting at character level 5 instead of waiting until pure Druid at 18 (he dearly misses his 3.5 Natural Spell).

My sense is that the PHB is clear - you can't cast while wildshaped unless you are an 18th level druid. His argument is that this is only because you cannot do the somatic and verbal components while wildshaped; Subtle Spell eliminates that requirement. He also argues that according to the PHB, specific trumps general - the general rule says you cannot cast while wildshaped; Subtle Spell is a specific case that overrides the general rule.

Question 1: Do you think that Subtle Spell would allow a druid to cast while wildshaped?
Question 2: If you believe that RAW would allow it (or that RAW is ambiguous in this case), do you think this would this be too much of a power boost to the character? That is, as a DM, would you permit it from a balance standpoint?

Thank you!

[Shadow]

I'd allow it.
Here's the thing.
1) A three level dip into sorc is no small investment to get this.
2) He has to spend a sorcerey point every time he wants to cast.
3) He still can't cast anything requiring material components. Subtle spell removes the verbal and somatic components, but not the material components. And he can't carry a focus or manipulate components because he doesn't have hands.

So if he wants to dip 3 levels of sorc and blow through spell slots to get enough sorc points to use, and doesn't care that he still can't cast anything with material components.... why not?

[Totema]

Heheh, his argument reminds me of an old debate in Magic the Gathering regarding what happens if a creature has defender and haste at the same time. Defender prevents the creature from being able to attack, but some folks who misread the rules insist that haste would allow it to attack anyway. (the reminder text for haste says: "This creature can attack and use the tap symbol as soon as it comes under your control") The whole "specific vs general" argument was made, but it turns out it still doesn't work that way.

Anecdote aside, wild shape explicitly says "You can't cast spells". It makes no mention of somatic or verbal components until beast spells comes online. Subtle spell merely allows you to ignore somatic and verbal components for spells that you cast, so really, it really oughtn't do anything to bypass the restriction.

If you want to rule that it would work anyway, though, I suppose it wouldn't hurt too much. As Shadow said, you would need to pump a lot of resources into just being able to cast, and it wouldn't be all that often in any case. D&D's a lot more flexible than MTG in this way. :smalltongue:

[Nagalipton]

I could see an arguement both ways, but at my table I'd probably rule no. My ruling is based thusly:

A barbarian who is raging cannot cast spells because he can't actually focus enough to cast the spell, regardless of other casting tricks. I would say transforming into an animal, especially in the manner a druid does floods the mind and body with a whole new array of sensory input and bodily manners. A druid in the form of say...a wolf, would still have a hard time casting even componentless spells because they are too distracted by being able to smell exactly what their opponent ate last.

[Cathwar]

Thank you for the comments; much appreciated! The consensus seems to be that while it's probably not within the rules, it's also not unbalanced due to the investment of three Sorcerer levels. So I think I will let player happiness trump the rules in this case. Although the distraction from smelling what his opponent ate last could have some interesting RP applications...:smallbiggrin:

[Maxilian]

I'd allow it.
Here's the thing.
1) A three level dip into sorc is no small investment to get this.
2) He has to spend a sorcerey point every time he wants to cast.
3) He still can't cast anything requiring material components. Subtle spell removes the verbal and somatic components, but not the material components. And he can't carry a focus or manipulate components because he doesn't have hands.

So if he wants to dip 3 levels of sorc and blow through spell slots to get enough sorc points to use, and doesn't care that he still can't cast anything with material components.... why not?

I agree, i would also let him but i would say that he could carry a focus, i mean... a focus could be something as simple as a necklace or earring, and both could be used by most animals

[Rowan Wolf]

If the animal shape he takes is sacred to his druidic order he might be his own focus.

[Dalebert]

I'd allow it too. Not being able to perform the verbal and somatic components is the most sensible interpretation of why they can't cast spells. It's fine if the DM wants to flavor it differently of course. As Shadow said, dipping three levels, and into a CHA-based caster no less, is a steep price to pay for it so I don't think he's going to break your game. I agree that he could carry a focus as an animal. He could even plan for it. Wild Shape lets you choose whether objects carried are merged or not so you could even incorporate a focus that way, like a necklace (collar?). Normally you would need to hold the focus in your hand and manipulate it as part of somatic components but subtle spell does away with that. Presumably a sorcerer would just have to have the focus on his person and thus so would the animal, such as attached to a collar or even held in its mouth or a bird's claw, etc.

I like this concept though I wouldn't want to pay that price on one of my PCs. I might use it on an NPC. :)

[Once a Fool]

I'd allow it, but, per the rules, it is not allowed: you can't cast a spell that only a verbal component if you choose an animal form that can talk (like a parrot), or spells with only a somatic component (theoretically--can't think of any off the top of my head) or a somatic/material spell if in a form with hands (like an ape), even with a focus.

[Dalebert]

I'd allow it, but, per the rules, it is not allowed:

I won't deny this if you go by a strict, verbatim reading of the RAW. I think a good analogy is being addressed in another thread about Polearm Master and Warcaster. By RAW, you can trigger Warcaster if you're wielding the specified weapon (something with "reach") when clearly the idea is that you're using a reach weapon and bracing for their approach. I wouldn't allow that despite the RAW. I think the idea here is the reason they can't cast spells is because they don't have a human voice box and human hands. So by the same reasoning, I would allow Subtle Spell to override that despite the RAW.


you can't cast a spell that only a verbal component if you choose an animal form that can talk (like a parrot), or spells with only a somatic component (theoretically--can't think of any off the top of my head) or a somatic/material spell if in a form with hands (like an ape), even with a focus.

Right, but that's explained easily enough by the idea that the verbal and somatic components of spells are intricate and complicated enough that those creatures just can't do them well enough. A parrot imitates human sounds to sorta kinda pull off speech-like sounds and an ape would be hard-pressed to, for instance, manipulate something as refined as writing with a quill and ink. Like the parrot's speech, his writing might be understandable but it may be all squiggly and sloppy. Meanwhile, a sorcerer could be tied up and gagged and still cast a subtle spell so being in an animal body should be just as trivial.

Sidenote: Minor Illusion is just somatic and material. :)

[Once a Fool]

I won't deny this if you go by a strict, verbatim reading of the RAW. I think a good analogy is being addressed in another thread about Polearm Master and Warcaster. By RAW, you can trigger Warcaster if you're wielding the specified weapon (something with "reach") when clearly the idea is that you're using a reach weapon and bracing for their approach. I wouldn't allow that despite the RAW. I think the idea here is the reason they can't cast spells is because they don't have a human voice box and human hands. So by the same reasoning, I would allow Subtle Spell to override that despite the RAW.

Well, yeah. Like I said, I'd allow it. Doesn't seem unbalanced and does seem cool.


Right, but that's explained easily enough by the idea that the verbal and somatic components of spells are intricate and complicated enough that those creatures just can't do them well enough. A parrot imitates human sounds to sorta kinda pull off speech-like sounds and an ape would be hard-pressed to, for instance, manipulate something as refined as writing with a quill and ink. Like the parrot's speech, his writing might be understandable but it may be all squiggly and sloppy.

Hey, if an infinite number of monkeys can type the complete works of William Shakespeare, surely an ape can wave a sprig of mistletoe around. :)


Sidenote: Minor Illusion is just somatic and material. :)

It would have to be, wouldn't it?

[Dalebert]

[Minor Illusion] would have to [have no verbal components], wouldn't it?

Thank you! I was so happy to see that. It really bugged me that Ghost Sound had verbal components in 3.5, a game which specifically said spells had to be cast in a loud tone of voice! It was rendered nearly completely useless by that fact. *sigh*

[TheOOB]

If you choose to allow it, fine, but make sure the player knows that's a house rule. Normally the rules do not work like that. You can't cast spells while wild shaped because it says you can't, and by RAW nothing short of an ability the specifically says otherwise can you change that.

You might want to let the player know that his build is pretty terrible though. Half the game he'll be one level behind, and half he'll be two levels behind in spells. He won't be able to cast third level spells, when spells get "good" until level 8. Sure he'll be good at level 20, but it'll be a rough ride between levels 5 and about 16.