Concealing somatic gestures with Sleight of Hand or Deception?

[UberMagus]

Years ago, I played some Darksun(sometimes it's fun playing OP characters against OP baddies) and one of the mechanics I loved was the idea of concealing spellcasting for non-obvious magic. The idea of slipping a Detect Thoughts or other similar spells was always fascinating and seemed fun.

I was wondering if anyone had some cool ideas on it, or if it would just be too game-breaking or otherwise unbalanceable...

This is primarily theorycrafting, as I'm not DMing at this time. :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

The only non-DM-fiat way to do it is Subtle Spell Metamagic for the Sorcerer.

[UberMagus]

Yeah, I know it would be DM fiat, since Subtle Spell is only available to Sorcs(or MC Sorcs), I'm just looking for a discussion on whether or not it would be game-breaking/cool ideas on how to go about it.

[Tanarii]

To be clear, D&D 5e Skills are all about DM-fiat. But how possible/effective it is, the ability score and skill involved, and the target DC or opposed check involved, are going to vary wildly from DM to DM. I wasn't trying to shut you down.

My personal preference is that it's not possible, or very very hard, as it lowers the value of Subtle Spell, and makes Sleight of Hand (or whatever) a de facto required skill for casters. OTOH I'm hugely in favor of creative use of skills whenever possible. So ... I end up being conflicted about things like this. ;)

Edit: For a Dark-Sun-esque campaign where arcane spellcasting is outlawed, I think it both should be allowed and should be a required skill for arcane casters.

[JumboWheat01]

You could always just do some finger waggling and arm moving behind a cloak or person. Unless the spell explicitly states something shoots out your hands, there's no reason you couldn't hide them. Though only for less obvious spells. Some somatics can be very dramatic, such as thrusting out your hand or aiming a pointing finger, so on and so forth.

[-Jynx-]

If you set the DC for SoH or Deception relatively high for most spells to pull off a 'subtle' effect I think the cost of investing heavily in said skills to hopefully almost always succeed is worth the trade-off of rendering 'subtle spell' moot.

[Drackolus]

Being able to sleight-of-hand somatic components would reduce the value of subtle spell somewhat, though many of the best spells you want to use quietly also require verbal components. Plus, automatic success shouldn't be underestimated.

However, as in the books, AT's mage hand abilities are largely useless, since the spell requires a verbal component and lasts too short of a time to cast elsewhere and carry with you, unless you assume that verbal components can be whispered. Personally, I'd simply say that the rogue gets the benefit of subtle spell for mage hand when they pick up arcane trickster. I feel that's the intended goal - not much of a "trickster" if everyone knows what the trick is and when you're doing it. Probably an oversight.

[RickAllison]

This seems more like something that is roleplayed. I do like the idea of someone like a bard incorporating his somatic components naturally into conversation, then quietly intoning the phrase and he has a hidden spell if it has neither visible traits and you manage to pass a Sleight of Hand check to conceal somatic and Deception check to conceal verbal. And if you have material components, it might be a little more difficult...

[CantigThimble]

I'd set the DC for the sleight of hand check at the passive perception of whoever might be observing +2 per level of the spell for them to not notice somatic components. Illusion and enchantmrnt spells would just be passive perception +1 per level of the spell. Verbal components would not be hidden at all by this, you'd need another method to hide those.

I'd consider making this standard in anti-magic settings for all casters but otherwise probably just an arcane trickster and maybe enchanter/illusionist feature. Evokers don't have time for this crap, they have people to see* and things to do*.

*explode

Edit: oh yes, bards. They need this too.

[JumboWheat01]

This seems more like something that is roleplayed. I do like the idea of someone like a bard incorporating his somatic components naturally into conversation, then quietly intoning the phrase and he has a hidden spell if it has neither visible traits and you manage to pass a Sleight of Hand check to conceal somatic and Deception check to conceal verbal. And if you have material components, it might be a little more difficult...

Following the Bard idea, if you have material components, you can cover them by playing an instrument which acts as your arcane focus. And as you can use a focus to cover somatics if they have a material cost, you've just hidden your somatics as well.

[JoeJ]

I've considered creating variants of spells like Charm Person and Suggestion that can be cast as rituals and hidden in some kind of performance. This would primarily be for NPCs, but once the PCs discover that these variants exist they could do research to learn them as well.

[UberMagus]

Awesome ideas all around!
And yes, I can see where it could hurt Subtle Spell, but it would still require those Verbal and Somatic components(however concealed), whereas Subtle Spell could be done bound and gagged.

I was kinda thinking the whole "magic is illegal/hated/restricted" idea when thinking of the concealing option. But the Arcane Trickster and Bard ideas are great, too. The whole "Verbal components are spoken loudly and clearly" really ruins a lot of the 'fun' interaction of Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, and similar spells.

I particularly like the idea of Charm worked into a performance by a Bard. :)

I also despise the fact that "they know they've been charmed". Imho, this pretty much removed the spell from my spell list. The combat negatives made sense, but for a spell that works such a subtle effect, it just seems kinda useless now.

[Tanarii]

When a Charm Person spell ends, it knows it has been charmed. It doesn't know it has been charmed by you.

Given its attitude changed (and changed back) towards you, it shouldn't be too hard for it to figure out. But the spell doesn't specify it knows who charmed it.

[SharkForce]

http://dndadventurersleague.org/state-of-mulmaster/#more-2823

specifically:

"Hiding Your Casting

It is possible that your character might decide to cast an arcane spell anyway. In order to distract witnesses from the casting or to make them think a magic item was used, as a Bonus Action a character may attempt a Charisma (Deception) or Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) skill check (player’s choice) with DC equal to 8 + the level of the spell being cast. If the character fails his or her check and the DM rules that there is a witness, the character will be receiving a visit from the Cloaks."

this is not 100% official (unless you're playing in season 2 of the adventurer's league somehow, in which case it is official for you) but it does already provide a guideline.

[hymer]

http://dndadventurersleague.org/state-of-mulmaster/#more-2823

Good find!
It doesn't take observer capabilities into consideration, though that may be acceptable most of the time.
Is it supposed to be used for searching out a semi-private place, and casting without getting caught by anyone who happens by, or is it for casting a spell in a crowd?

[SharkForce]

Good find!
It doesn't take observer capabilities into consideration, though that may be acceptable most of the time.
Is it supposed to be used for searching out a semi-private place, and casting without getting caught by anyone who happens by, or is it for casting a spell in a crowd?

that's the entire mechanical section on the subject. there is also an example of casting magic missile on a thug that is attacking.

[Regitnui]

I'd actually rule that casting a spell in a crowd might have a lower DC than in company; for the same logic that pickpocketing is easier in a crowd than in a sparsely populated room.

[UberMagus]

http://dndadventurersleague.org/state-of-mulmaster/#more-2823

specifically:

"Hiding Your Casting

It is possible that your character might decide to cast an arcane spell anyway. In order to distract witnesses from the casting or to make them think a magic item was used, as a Bonus Action a character may attempt a Charisma (Deception) or Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) skill check (player’s choice) with DC equal to 8 + the level of the spell being cast. If the character fails his or her check and the DM rules that there is a witness, the character will be receiving a visit from the Cloaks."

this is not 100% official (unless you're playing in season 2 of the adventurer's league somehow, in which case it is official for you) but it does already provide a guideline.

Awesome find! Oddly enough, though, doesn't it seem a bit easy? 8+spell level? That doesn't seem difficult, especially if you grab a background with proficiency. Or am I wrong, and that's actually a difficult roll? (I'm kinda new to 5e and bounded accuracy)

Also, I'd never let something so unsubtle as a Magic Missile be concealed(unless, as mentioned, you make it look like it came from an item). It seems way too blatant. :smallbiggrin:

[CantigThimble]

Awesome find! Oddly enough, though, doesn't it seem a bit easy? 8+spell level? That doesn't seem difficult, especially if you grab a background with proficiency. Or am I wrong, and that's actually a difficult roll? (I'm kinda new to 5e and bounded accuracy)

Also, I'd never let something so unsubtle as a Magic Missile be concealed(unless, as mentioned, you make it look like it came from an item). It seems way too blatant. :smallbiggrin:

Well, the projectiles still come from you, they just didn't see you wiggling your fingers to produce the projectiles. Oh crap, you must be a sorcerer, only they can do that! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, THE METAMAGICIANS ARE COMING!

[RickAllison]

Well, the projectiles still come from you, they just didn't see you wiggling your fingers to produce the projectiles. Oh crap, you must be a sorcerer, only they can do that! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, THE METAMAGICIANS ARE COMING!

Hey, just combine a Sleight of Hand to make it seem like its coming from someone with a Deception check to huck the blame on them :smallbiggrin: If you do well, you could be off the hook (though he's screwed!).

[Dalebert]

As someone with a sorcerer with subtle spell, I'm not horribly offended by this being possible considering that most spells have a verbal component and that part is a lot harder to conceal except in some circumstances, like a very noisy tavern.

Bards can already cast spells with performance. Singing satisfies a verbal and playing an instrument would satisfy both S and M (assuming there is an M. Harder if there isn't). I'd say that it's clear they're casting a spell though unless they rolled high on a deception. Otherwise it's just way too easy for them to have subtle spell for free.

One way to balance this is to add a little extra to subtle spell. For instance, some spells just aren't subtle. You still see a pea-sized glowing thingy fly out and explode with a fireball. You could say that even overt spell effects are impossible to connect to the caster with Subtle Spell. So for instance, a fireball just explodes without the pea effect traveling from the caster to the PoO. *shrug*

[SharkForce]

subtle works when you're silenced, when your hands are full, when you're underwater, when you can't breathe, when your hands are tied (literally), etc.

still remains a good pick imo.

[Rhaegar]

One thing you could do in order to provide a little risk, is allow them to make a slight of hand check to get the spell off subtly, but if they fail the check, not only does the person notice you waggling your fingers, the spell doesn't go off at all. The idea being that the spell requires very specific hand motions, and in the process of trying to hide your hand motions, you messed up the motions. It makes it not quite so strong, and doesn't trivialize subtle magic. Then how hard it is is up to the DM and what skill checks he wants to impose.

[Dalebert]

subtle works when you're silenced, when your hands are full, when you're underwater, when you can't breathe, when your hands are tied (literally), etc.

still remains a good pick imo.

I just counted how many times I've had any of those conditions with my sorcerer, now 8th level and the total was zero. Those are highly contextual and by themselves are hard to justify the MM. It's nice to have in case those happen but I justified the opportunity cost with other reasons, e.g. casting a spell and no one knows you cast it is the primary and more common benefit. That's huge for things like maintaining concentration when enemies don't know that they need to target you to end it, especially if you throw in some extra shenanigans to divert attention from yourself like hold the casting to go off on the tank's turn and have him say a magic word and do some gesture.

[SharkForce]

literally guaranteed not to fail the check is also a useful advantage. 8 + spell level isn't impossible by any means, but you'd need either a +12 or a lot of rogue levels to successfully to guarantee pulling it off for a level 5 spell... if you want to pull it off for something like a mass suggestion or dominate person, you'll need even more.

and generally speaking, failing the check to hide your spells is generally going to have some *very* negative consequences (otherwise, why would you be trying to hide it?). even if you have a good modifier (say, a +8), and you want to cast suggestion on the king (so DC 10 because suggestion), there's a fair chance that means a 5% chance of you just getting straight thrown into the dungeon. if you wanted to try something with a bit more oomph (say, animating the suits of armour behind the king and blaming their attack on his vizier), you've got a 20% chance of failure... and yeah, 20% isn't awful by any means, but if you do this often, it will catch up to you eventually. even when you have a high modifier, it generally limits your guaranteed success on the check to hide your spell to being your lowest level spells. unless of course you're a rogue, but i have no problem with arcane tricksters being great at concealing the fact they're casting a spell.

in much the same way those other situations i mentioned may not happen extremely often, but you'll be really glad you have subtle spell when they do, and subtle spell is likely to have a huge impact when it is useful in all situations... it's a very "binary" metamagic... you're not glad you have it extremely often, but when you are glad you have it, you're extremely glad you have it.

really though, i think a big part of the problem is just how limited a sorcerer's metamagic options are. you get 4, and only 2 of those come even remotely early. subtle spell would be a lot easier to justify if you could choose more metamagic techniques.

[UberMagus]

really though, i think a big part of the problem is just how limited a sorcerer's metamagic options are. you get 4, and only 2 of those come even remotely early. subtle spell would be a lot easier to justify if you could choose more metamagic techniques.

To be fair, it seems Sorcs kinda got shorted a bit in this edition, imho. :)

[SharkForce]

To be fair, it seems Sorcs kinda got shorted a bit in this edition, imho. :)

depends on perspective.

you can make a very good equivalent to a 4e sorcerer with the 5e sorcerer. maybe even comparatively stronger than a 4e sorcerer.

you cannot make a 3.x sorcerer out of the 5e sorcerer. it just doesn't work. their spell list is missing important spells that would be used to create certain similar characters, their spells known are tiny, their main advantages have been given away to other spellcasters, and for the most part their class features fail miserably to compensate for those flaws. the only shining light is metamagic, which is quite good to be fair.

so really, if you're coming from 4e, sorcs are great. if you converted a 4e sorcerer to 5e, you'd probably have a few extra tricks up your sleeve to be honest. it's only if you're coming from 3.x that sorcerers feel lacking.

[UberMagus]

depends on perspective.

you can make a very good equivalent to a 4e sorcerer with the 5e sorcerer. maybe even comparatively stronger than a 4e sorcerer.

you cannot make a 3.x sorcerer out of the 5e sorcerer. it just doesn't work. their spell list is missing important spells that would be used to create certain similar characters, their spells known are tiny, their main advantages have been given away to other spellcasters, and for the most part their class features fail miserably to compensate for those flaws. the only shining light is metamagic, which is quite good to be fair.

so really, if you're coming from 4e, sorcs are great. if you converted a 4e sorcerer to 5e, you'd probably have a few extra tricks up your sleeve to be honest. it's only if you're coming from 3.x that sorcerers feel lacking.

Fair enough. I never played D&D WoW edition, so I'm coming from 3.5/PF.

[Rusvul]

I don't think allowing Sleight of Hand or Deception to conceal spells would break anything- Subtle Spell is still better, because it allows you to ignore the components completely, rather than just conceal them. A Bard specialized in Sleight of Hand still can't cast while bound and gagged, a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell. In my games, I would rule Sleight of Hand (rolled against passive Perception) is used for concealing spell components completely, while Deception (rolled against passive Insight) is used for down-playing spell components and making them seem normal and inconspicuous.

[Pex]

Normally I would be supportive of this out of the box thinking, but given the context of 5E this idea steps on Sorcerer's toes hard. Metamagic has been designated Sorcerer only. It's their specialness. Given a DM would allow for it, I opine it should be done with Disadvantage. Certainly the character could be proficient in the Skill, even a wizard, and that helps.

As for the DC, it shouldn't depend on spell level since saving throw DC is not dependent on spell level. It should not become harder the higher the level you gain. The DC could be 19, the highest possible saving throw DC barring magic items or 20 for a round number and just basically being a hard thing to do.

There's also merit in saying it should be an opposed check against an observer's Perception instead of a set DC or Disadvantage. Give the observer Proficiency, even if not proficient, if a spellcaster himself or proficient in Knowledge Arcana or Religion. Give the observer Advantage if actively looking at the caster or otherwise aware the caster is a spellcaster. Modify to taste but be sure it's still a more difficult task than Sorcerer using Subtle Spell. The DM can roll for the player in secret when the player is the observer.

[Zalabim]

The AL example is for avoiding witnesses, so it's probably geared against commoners. Those with appropriate skills might warrant a higher DC. I think a lot of people are also ignoring that it takes a Bonus Action to try it. There's a cost for the attempt, pass or fail. This is also supposed to cover, when you shoot a fireball, making witnesses think your wand shoots fireballs instead of you. It's like loading a gun with blanks to cover the fact that you have mind bullets. The witness still knows you shot the victim.


Fair enough. I never played D&D WoW edition, so I'm coming from 3.5/PF.

I haven't played D&D WoW edition (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/World_of_Warcraft:_The_Roleplaying_Game) either. Can we stop doing this already?

[JackPhoenix]

Normally I would be supportive of this out of the box thinking, but given the context of 5E this idea steps on Sorcerer's toes hard. Metamagic has been designated Sorcerer only. It's their specialness. Given a DM would allow for it, I opine it should be done with Disadvantage. Certainly the character could be proficient in the Skill, even a wizard, and that helps.

I don't think stepping on sorcerer's toes is a problem...it's comparable to shoving enemy prone and Battle Master's Trip Attack: one is something anyone can do as an opposed check instead of an attack, other takes limited use resource (either Superiority Dice or Sorcery Point) and have advantages (extra damage and save instead of opposed check or autosuccess, usability even when restrained and hiding verbal components too)


I haven't played D&D WoW edition (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/World_of_Warcraft:_The_Roleplaying_Game) either. Can we stop doing this already?

Isn't that WoW: D&D edition, though?

[Millstone85]

I've considered creating variants of spells like Charm Person and Suggestion that can be cast as rituals and hidden in some kind of performance.I picture these spells like a Jedi mind trick. The verbal component can be a particular tone of voice slipped in the conversation. The somatic component can pass for an emphatic gesture.


When a Charm Person spell ends, it knows it has been charmed. It doesn't know it has been charmed by you.

Given its attitude changed (and changed back) towards you, it shouldn't be too hard for it to figure out. But the spell doesn't specify it knows who charmed it.Actually, it does specify exactly that. When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.

[Tanarii]

Actually, it does specify exactly that. When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.
That's what I get for trusting an online wiki instead of looking at my PHB. :smallmad:

[Dalebert]

even if you have a good modifier (say, a +8), and you want to cast suggestion on the king (so DC 10 because suggestion),

I don't see how that should be possible at all considering it has a verbal component (other than the suggestion itself). Sleight of Hand makes sense for spells like Minor Illusion and Catapult with somatic only and that seem intended to be subtle.


I don't think allowing Sleight of Hand or Deception to conceal spells would break anything- Subtle Spell is still better, because it allows you to ignore the components completely, rather than just conceal them. A Bard specialized in Sleight of Hand still can't cast while bound and gagged, a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell. In my games, I would rule Sleight of Hand (rolled against passive Perception) is used for concealing spell components completely, while Deception (rolled against passive Insight) is used for down-playing spell components and making them seem normal and inconspicuous.

I'll say it again. It's hard to justify a metamagic slot for extremely circumstantial things like wanting to cast while being bound and gagged. Those situations might come up once or maybe twice in a character's entire adventuring career. Subtle Spell's primary justification is being able to cast spells discreetly. If you get too carried away with this, you're absolutely stepping all over sorcerers. They paid a huge cost for metamagic. Just look at their limited spells known and their extremely limited choices for spells, with their primary benefit being metamagic. If you then let everyone almost have subtle spell, you can't help but drastically devalue it. The existence of Subtle Spell says that spells by default are intended to not be subtle and can't be hidden in most circumstances.

Think about all those times you cast Guidance in a social circumstance. That should be highly suspect. You're trying to persuade someone well in a quiet meeting and you're obviously casting spells. Most DMs overlook that and it's one of the reasons Guidance seems broken. There are many situations when it's just not reasonable to use.

I think if you want this to not be broken, and it would make more sense, you have the spell fail altogether for attempting to cast subtly and failing. And you should make the DC high depending on the context. In a reasonably quiet room trying to discreetly cast a spell with verbal components should just not be possible. In a heated combat it should be possible, but because you're trying to mask your words and gestures, you might simply fail to do them correctly enough for the spell to work at all. Remember, people tend to be hyper-alert to caster types in combat. They're often high on the priority list for being attacked.

[Tanarii]

you might simply fail to do them correctly enough for the spell to work at all.that's a good point. IMO any 'disguise your casting' check should have a chance to cause a failure. Either fail to cast spell (losing action), or fail to cast and lose spell slot. Because you're trying to do make precise Verbal and Somatic that are specific, and you're potentially mucking that up. That'd also justify why concealing would scale harder with level.

If I was dealing with a generic campaign with no social context causing casters to have commonly developed methods of concealing casting, I'd probably allow that trade off as a thought out house rule. I'd be tempted to go with some complicated multiple checks method though.

Something like: each component to be concealed requires a separate check. Deception for V, sleight of hand for S and M. For V and S, if the check result is lower than DC 7+spell level, the spell fails and you lose the spell. For all components, contest the check result against all observers. If the observers passive perception is higher than a check result, they recognize a spell is being cast.

At first level, for an untrained no dex/cha character casting a v/s only, they'd probably lose their spell about 60% of the time. Conversely a high level (prof +6) trained in both with maxed dex/cha casting a level 9 spell with all three components would have a 50% chance of failure, but 0% for level 6 and below spells.

Of course, the whole point of 5e is to make things easy check wise, so as fun as that was for me to think about for the last few minutes, I'd probably just say 'you can't do that it'd mess up your components' in a generic campaign setting while having to make a table ruling on the fly.

[Saggo]

I'll say it again. It's hard to justify a metamagic slot for extremely circumstantial things like wanting to cast while being bound and gagged. Those situations might come up once or maybe twice in a character's entire adventuring career. Subtle Spell's primary justification is being able to cast spells discreetly. If you get too carried away with this, you're absolutely stepping all over sorcerers. They paid a huge cost for metamagic. Just look at their limited spells known and their extremely limited choices for spells, with their primary benefit being metamagic. If you then let everyone almost have subtle spell, you can't help but drastically devalue it. The existence of Subtle Spell says that spells by default are intended to not be subtle and can't be hidden in most circumstances.

In that regard, Subtle Magic is equivalent to auto-succeeding Sleight of Hand and Deception checks for a single sorcery point, in of itself still a significant boost even if every other caster found a way to be proficient in either one. Not many features or spells let you just auto-succeed.

[CantigThimble]

In that regard, Subtle Magic is equivalent to auto-succeeding Sleight of Hand and Deception checks for a single sorcery point, in of itself still a significant boost even if every other caster found a way to be proficient in either one. Not many features or spells let you just auto-succeed.

Not to mention being able to cast while bound and gagged or grappled and in a silence zone. (as long as you don't need your focus of course)

[lebefrei]

I wouldn't mind this as long as the player understands the consequences. The sort of person that you're trying to hide spellcasting from, like in Dark Sun, is going to absolutely try to kill you if you fail. As you can't fail Subtle Spell, I think its power isn't particularly diminished by allowing this.

As another suggested, forcing two skill checks (sleight of hand for somatic, deception for verbal) is a good idea, and also a challenging thing to pull off. I'd make the DC fairly high against someone that hunts wizards. So sure, I'd let you try.

Also, for the sorcerer defenders out there it is important to note that by lore they are very rare in Dark Sun, so metamagic (as it is for sorcerers now in 5e) barely exists in the setting.

[SharkForce]

I wouldn't mind this as long as the player understands the consequences. The sort of person that you're trying to hide spellcasting from, like in Dark Sun, is going to absolutely try to kill you if you fail. As you can't fail Subtle Spell, I think its power isn't particularly diminished by allowing this.

As another suggested, forcing two skill checks (sleight of hand for somatic, deception for verbal) is a good idea, and also a challenging thing to pull off. I'd make the DC fairly high against someone that hunts wizards. So sure, I'd let you try.

Also, for the sorcerer defenders out there it is important to note that by lore they are very rare in Dark Sun, so metamagic (as it is for sorcerers now in 5e) barely exists in the setting.

precisely. when the consequences of failure are extremely high, guaranteed success is a powerful ability.

edit: also, i'd give disadvantage as a bare minimum to anyone attempting this against a subject with the mageslayer feat or some reasonably similar ability.

[Gtdead]

I'd probably ask the player to roleplay.

If he wanted to go to a guard and say "hey, want to see a card trick?", then I'd ask him to roll a sleight of hand to conceal the spell while he does the card trick.

If it was another scenario, like if he wanted to cast a mass suggestion on a crowd as part of a performance, I'd probably use a deception check.

[Theodoxus]

I think I'd make the spell fizzle, if you couldn't make the DC - you tried really hard to hide the finger wiggling... so hard, in fact, you failed at the precise movements. If I was being particularly punitive, they'd lose the slot/spell points as well... but losing the action for the round is probably good enough. Makes Subtle Spell de facto king, but lets everyone have a chance.

[Keltest]

My 2 cents.

I would say that using a deception check has a chance of distracting them from your somatic components. The difficulty would be increased if they were watching you closely for such, and increased a lot more if you had to use verbal components as well.

Using sleight of hand to try and disguise them seems to be a largely futile gesture against anyone who knows youre a magic user though, because they either will know what to look for regardless of your shenanigans, or they WONT know what to look for and will just react because your fingers are twitching and hey, that might be a spell. Against someone who doesn't know youre a magic user, I would say it could work per the deception check above.

[Saeviomage]

I don't see why there's all the care about subtle spell. It's one optional, minor class feature of one class, and even if you allow spells to be concealed with a skill check, subtle spell still beats that ability, plus has other benefits.

Outside of that, it should be a standard deception or sleight of hand check (or some other appropriate skill, depending on the exact situation and spell) and the penalty for failure should be either the spell fails or the spell is detected (probably chosen by the player when they make the attempt, depending on what they want to focus on). Or both if the failure is particularly bad.

[Regitnui]

If trying to hide spellcasting with skill checks treads on the sorcerer's subtle spell metamagic, does letting the fighter charge in and attack in a fury tread on the barbarian's rage?

[hymer]

If trying to hide spellcasting with skill checks treads on the sorcerer's subtle spell metamagic, does letting the fighter charge in and attack in a fury tread on the barbarian's rage?

I'm more worried that Cha casters get an edge over Int (except Arcane Trickster) and Wis. The non-Cha casters may have good Dex, but Cha casters are sure to have high Cha, and they are likely to pump it further.

[Zalabim]

So Sorcerers, Warlocks, Bards, and Paladins would naturally be better at discreetly using magic, assuming either group takes the same relevant proficiency. It doesn't feel like an uncharacteristic ability.

[hymer]

So Sorcerers, Warlocks, Bards, and Paladins would naturally be better at discreetly using magic, assuming either group takes the same relevant proficiency. It doesn't feel like an uncharacteristic ability.

Not just a matter of proficiency. The check is Deception (Cha) or Sleight of hand (Dex). My guess is that the average caster is proficient in neither. It'll come down to their ability score (and the bard will soon get +½ prof at least, right?).

Just musing: This, of course, all hinges on this being relevant for the campaign. But then, so does this whole discussion. I currently play in a campaign where the party sorcerer is an illegal spellcaster, so my druid often pretends (or rather allows people to believe that) she is the source of the party's magic, because druids are known and legal spellcasters. If the other player had played a wizard and dumped charisma, he might be annoyed he didn't know in advance if this rule was brought into the campaign.
Somehow, I think the player of the Stealth-proficient caster may also be a little surprised that their stealthy fellow is not particularly good at actually casting stealthily. *shrug* This is the sort of rule that should be brought up during character creation or while presenting the campaign, so at least you don't surprised.

[Zalabim]

It's absolutely best to cover things like this in advance. Stealth covers when they don't know you're there, and you want to keep it that way. Deception or Sleight of Hand have to be used when you're under observation already to create the distraction or misdirection needed to get a spell off with a little uncertainty about what just happened. I also wouldn't think each caster has the same chance of having proficiency, since different classes have different skill lists as well.

[Dalebert]

Not to mention being able to cast while bound and gagged or grappled and in a silence zone. (as long as you don't need your focus of course)

*facepalm* Third time it's been mentioned and third time I'm saying--these situations are just too rare to justify a precious metamagic slot. Subtle Spell is primary useful, i.e. can be justified, for the purpose of casting discreetly.


If I was being particularly punitive, they'd lose the slot/spell points as well... but losing the action for the round is probably good enough. Makes Subtle Spell de facto king, but lets everyone have a chance.

That's not being particularly punitive. That's being extra lenient. You're making a house rule that lets them do something that normally requires a precious class feature. Absolutely the spell should fail and the slot should be wasted. You started casting and screwed up. You wasted the energy.


If trying to hide spellcasting with skill checks treads on the sorcerer's subtle spell metamagic, does letting the fighter charge in and attack in a fury tread on the barbarian's rage?

If it results in the same benefits? Of course! Anyone can "rage", i.e. be very angry, but only barbarians can get the mechanical benefits--half damage from weapons, +2 to their damage, etc. The mechanical benefit of subtle spell is people don't know you're casting. Thus most spells are highly noticeable by default.


Stealth covers when they don't know you're there, and you want to keep it that way. Deception or Sleight of Hand have to be used when you're under observation already to create the distraction or misdirection needed to get a spell off with a little uncertainty about what just happened. I also wouldn't think each caster has the same chance of having proficiency, since different classes have different skill lists as well.

And casting a spell with any verbal components should reveal you if you're hiding. Period. Hiding somatic components seems like it should be difficult but possible. Hiding verbal is really stretching it for me. It should be extremely difficult at a minimum and highly dependent on the context to even have a chance of success, like being in a very noisy situation where attentions are primarily elsewhere.

[SharkForce]

the checks only let you conceal the fact that you're casting a spell. if casting the spell would make you come out of hiding, the checks do nothing to prevent that.

and actually, getting a 100% chance is, as mentioned, a big deal. if you think it's important to conceal the fact that you're casting a spell, it's probably really important that you not fail to conceal that you're casting a spell. getting caught charming a merchant to give you a discount may get you thrown in jail. getting caught casting a spell in dark sun likely means an angry mob and a bunch of powerful guards and templar are after you. getting caught casting a spell in mulmaster (without being a cloak) can get you banished, imprisoned, or killed.

taking subtle spell means that you can use spells in those situations without fear of failure, which is super important. then, on top of that, it also benefits you when you are in one of those situations where removing the component entirely would be helpful, which also tends to be situations where it is most important to be able to cast a spell.

removing components may not matter extremely often, but when it matters, it reaaally matters.

[Baptor]

I've seen a lot of good suggestions. Mine will be a combination of those offered.

But before I do that, I am in the camp of "Yes, and.." I rarely say "No." without some kind of "but.." at the very least.

In my games, almost anything is possible, but often comes with great risk.

So here's how I'd do it.

You're going to make a deception check. The DC depends on how likely the target thinks you're going to work a spell on him and if he's watching out for one. If he's totally oblivious and you are doing something that might require odd hand movements anyways, such as a card trick, DC 15. If he's cautious or you don't have an excuse for waving your hands around, DC 20. If the target is cautious, watching you closely and you have no suitable excuse, then it is not possible (logic: you cannot hide while being observed). If you fail the DC, the spell fails.

This makes it "possible" while also making it ill-advised in most situations. It provides enough clauses and consequences that the Sorcerer feels that he still has a unique schtick, he can do it anytime and without consequence after all. And if the Sorc runs out of points he too can try his luck like anyone else.

Very reasonable IMO.

[Saeviomage]

*facepalm* Third time it's been mentioned and third time I'm saying--these situations are just too rare to justify a precious metamagic slot. Subtle Spell is primary useful, i.e. can be justified, for the purpose of casting discreetly.

And even with the ability to be able to risk using some skills, having 1 metamagic slot simply automatically handle it is great.

You're making a house rule that lets them do something that normally requires a precious class feature.

A precious sub feature. And one which most sorcerors don't think is worth taking at that. "Class X can do thing Y" is not a reason to deny every other character something that's perfectly reasonable.

Casters can open doors with knock, but other characters can use thieves tools to do the same thing! It's a ridiculous argument that leads to illogical results.


And casting a spell with any verbal components should reveal you if you're hiding. Period.
Well, it might if there were any information in the rules about how loud a spell has to be spoken. But there aren't. If you can speak, you can cast the spell, and whispering a spell is well within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.

If he's totally oblivious and you are doing something that might require odd hand movements anyways, such as a card trick, DC 15.
Just a point - this is really high DC for "totally oblivious target + believable cover". I'd recommend taking the target's perception skill into account, and in the case giving, awarding him disadvantage on his check. And possibly advantage to the caster.

The fact that the caster stands a decent chance of being caught/wasting a slot is probably reason enough not to do it all the time.

[Tanarii]

If subtle spell is already not considered valuable, then stepping on it even more by giving all casters the ability to mimic it's hiding effects is an even worse idea.

Also, Deception is class skill for Sorcs and locks. IMX a commonly taken one at that. So if you rule it as something that can be done with Deception, it's best to rule it as somewhat difficult even for a Proficient max stat character to do.

Sleight of hand is a different matter. Usually only Bards and Arcane Tricksters will benefit from prof & Max stat in that skill. But those will potentially benefit hugely, especially since they can both expertise.

Like I said up thread, aiming for at least a 50% failure for the highest castable level for a max-stat & proficienct character, with a penalty of loss of spell and detection, seems fair to me. The method I used was multiple checks. But if you're going with one check, DC 15+spell level sounds about right, especially for Deception. If you're going for a contest vs Insight or Perception instead of a static DC, give the observers at least a +5 bonus.

[tsotate]

Concealing casting entirely may be difficult, but shouldn't it be easier to at least obfuscate it enough to prevent Counterspell?

Admittedly, that does step on the main use of Subtle Spell (at least for me), but that just means my sorc doesn't have to waste one of his precious metamagic choices on it.

[Baptor]

Just a point - this is really high DC for "totally oblivious target + believable cover". I'd recommend taking the target's perception skill into account, and in the case giving, awarding him disadvantage on his check. And possibly advantage to the caster.

The fact that the caster stands a decent chance of being caught/wasting a slot is probably reason enough not to do it all the time.

I stand by my DC because it is stepping on...what did someone call it..."a precious class ability?" My default answer is just "no you aren't a sorcerer." But that's nasty and I don't do that. So if you want to tap into another class's power for nothing, you are going to have to make one heck of a check and put your money where your mouth is.

Otherwise, and trust me I know my players, they'd be setting that up all the time. If you don't set the DC high, an Arcane Trickster would always make a DC 15. That would mean they just get subtle spell...for free.

Of course Skill DCs are entirely DM fiat, so YMMV.

[SharkForce]

arcane tricksters getting *some* of the benefits for free (edit: assuming you count investing a proficiency and expertise as "free"), *at high levels* mind you, doesn't sound like that big of a problem.

the sorcerer can use subtle spell with mass suggestion. the arcane trickster can use it with regular suggestion at probably a much lower save DC.

i think the sorcerer wins that particular competition.

[Tanarii]

Yeah I don't have a problem with an Arcane Trickster with +17 mod, having spent their Expertise on Sleight of Hand, having automatic success on a DC 17 for a second level spell, balance wise, and if I was implementing this rule at all. If they more reasonable just had proficiency and max dex, since not many rogues are going to Expertise SoH, they'd still have a 25% chance of losing the spell and/or revealing themselves. (Chances all based on using my suggested DC of 15+spell level above)