Hiding spell casting vs subtle spell

[Fuzzy Logic]

So I decided to make this thread rather than derail the thread about the spell suggestion which is what triggered this following question.

My fellow Dms, how do you rule when a player tries to cast a spell without the people around them noticing? My players have asked to use sleight of hand etc, but so far I have ruled no because it takes too much away from the sorceror's subtle spell metamagic.

[Discord]

What I would say is for Sorcerers using subtle spell they automatically make the deception of hiding the spell. I would let people make a slight of hand to try to hide the spell with the respective DC depending on the situation.

[MasterMercury]

The main draw of subtle spell is the it allows you to cast spells without a free hand or saying anything at all. You can be wielding a dagger in one hand and drinking ale in the other, and still cast spells
If you try to conceal it, you are still using your hands and still saying words, but you are just trying to make it "subtle". You still need to do the hand motion and say the magic words.

They are similar, but the metamagic is so much better that if a caster plans on doing it a lot, they should just be a sorcerer.

[Dalebert]

I'll let someone use sleight of hand for spells that have no verbal component like Minor Illusion or Catapult. If it has a verbal component it's going to require absolutely ideal conditions to have a chance of concealing it, like perhaps in a very crowded tavern with so much white noise you have trouble hearing the person right next to you. And definitely not in combat situations. I know people like to think of combat as being noisy but it's not the same unless it's a gigantic battlefield of dozens of people. It's bursts of noise but you can hear speech. Also, people are hyper-alert to threats like spell-casting in fights. Spell-casting is supposed to be obvious generally.

It's usually in combat situations when someone wants to try to hide spell-casting and if it has verbal the answer is just "no". If you're one of those "never say no" DMs, then fine. "Sure. The DC is 150". You essentially chant spells with a very specific intonation. Get it wrong and the spell fails. Good luck whispering it or trying to make it sound like natural speech. Take 3 levels of sorcerer if you want that benefit. I'm not going to let them do it anymore than I'm going to let someone hide as a bonus action without 2 levels of rogue.

[RickAllison]

I would say other casters can attempt to hide it with Deception and Sleight of Hand, so long as no one is focused on them. In battle, with someone suspicious, or even just when they are drilled into the caster somehow (like giving a speech). They probably won't be successful (barring a Bard or Arcane Trickster with appropriate Expertise), but they can attempt it!

Of course, I've found the best solution is not to try to hide it! Say something like "As the fairies/dragons/angels say, [insert spell words that sound like they are coming from the appropriate language]," and make your hand gestures.

[Paeleus]

I'm glad this is a thread, as this has been on my mind the past couple months.

At my table most of the players who play/ have played non-sorcerer casters have, at least once, said they whisper the vocal part and hide their hands. The DM required a sleight o' hand check. Kinda rubbed me the wrong way once I started thinking about the Subtle Spell metamagic. Kinda takes away from the awesomeness and perceived complexity of mortals harnessing the arcane/divine powers that be.

To throw another angle on the topic, how would the 2nd level spell Detect Thoughts be treated. Would the target be aware that the Sorcerer (using subtle spell) was probing his thoughts or just that their thoughts are being read?

[Slipperychicken]

My fellow Dms, how do you rule when a player tries to cast a spell without the people around them noticing? My players have asked to use sleight of hand etc, but so far I have ruled no because it takes too much away from the sorceror's subtle spell metamagic.

I'd tell him no, the gestures and incantations of magic are never subtle. Anyone can clearly hear and see that he is casting a spell.

Besides, magic is already OP. He already gets to cast like three spells a round while moving and getting smacked in combat, and half the spell effects in the book make martials look like jokes in comparison. It's like, one guy can shoot fire from his fingers and raise the dead to fight on his behalf, and the other guy gets a bonus to hurting people with a spear. We don't need to let magic-users rule the whole game, so I'm okay with letting martials keep stealth for themselves.

[Fuzzy Logic]

@Rick Allison
It was actually your post in the suggestion thread about shopkeepers singing to hide casting suggestion that got me to make this thread. In your suggestion to not hide it, would you as a player be annoyed if I ruled that an npc would try and counterspell, or that people would know you cast a spell? Effectively you're saying " as the faeries say SHAGGA NORSTRUM APPALOS!" while waving your arms or preparing material components. That would at the very least need a deception check no?

@Paeleus
Thanks! Glad I wasn't the only one bothered. It's always good to know your first thread wasn't a waste of space. In regards to your question on detect thoughts I'd say they knew, as it's in the spell's description. Maybe flavour it as they feel an intruding pressure in their mind that emanates from the sorceror.

In general it seems pretty divided so far. I'm still leaning towards a flat no if you don't have subtle spell

[RSP]

I think allowing a skill check to duplicate Subtle Spell takes too much from the Sorcerer. I wouldn't allow it anymore than if someone asked if they could make an Arcana check to Maximize a spell.

In addition to stepping on the Sorcerer's toes, allowing this nerfs Counterspell, as if you don't see the casting you can't counter it.

If allowing it, I'd suggest adding in a clause that if the sleight of hand check fails, the spell automatically fails as well, otherwise, why wouldn't you just do this all the time (and Lore Bards would probably just Expertise in it as well to never have to worry about Counterspell).

[XmonkTad]

We don't need to let magic-users rule the whole game, so I'm okay with letting martials keep stealth for themselves.

I agree with this very much. Stealth via skill check is very much the providence of mundanes.

Personally, I do wonder though about arcane trickster sort of ruining their own niche though. You're a rogue, so your stealthy, but you're a spell caster, which can't be stealthy without subtle spell. I believe the 3.5 beguiler got still/silent spell as bonus feats, so I feel like an arcane trickster at least should have some way of concealing their casting.

But yes, if casters want stealth, they have silence and (Greater) invisibility for that. I wouldn't dream of giving, say, a paladin the ability to make their spells silent with a skill check.

[RickAllison]

@Rick Allison
It was actually your post in the suggestion thread about shopkeepers singing to hide casting suggestion that got me to make this thread. In your suggestion to not hide it, would you as a player be annoyed if I ruled that an npc would try and counterspell, or that people would know you cast a spell? Effectively you're saying " as the faeries say SHAGGA NORSTRUM APPALOS!" while waving your arms or preparing material components. That would at the very least need a deception check no?

Do note that I never said you could disguise material components :smallwink:. In my case for Suggestion, I considered using a blend of bergamot oil and other essential oils as a perfume for the shop, but other material components are... less subtle.

As for the people there, I would say it depends on the situation. If someone is high enough level to know Counterspell, recognizes the spell, and is suspicious enough to think he would be casting a spell, I would think he has very good reason to Counterspell. A crowd shouldn't know he is casting a spell unless they have reason to think it is magic. If you heard someone saying "As Hestia declared, Pax intrantibus, salus exeuntibus," and talked with his hands, would the average peasant assume he is casting a spell rather than reciting scripture?

[Fuzzy Logic]

. If you heard someone saying "As Hestia declared, Pax intrantibus, salus exeuntibus," and talked with his hands, would the average peasant assume he is casting a spell rather than reciting scripture?

Wouldn't the average peasant get an insight check vs your deception as your intent is to cast a spell rather then recite scripture?

[RSP]

RAW you can only Counterspell when you see someone casting a spell (not pretending to cast a spell).

Personally, I'd consider rule of cool to override the RAW if it was a good one-off idea to fool someone into casting Counterspell by pretending to cast a spell, but in general, the resource cost of casting Counterspell isn't something I'd want anyone, PCs or NPCs, wasting on fake castings.

Fluff-wise I'd probably go with "you attempt to cast Counterspell but since no magic was actually being used, you did not have to expend any of your magical energy (that is, you didn't waste a spell slot)."

[Citan]

So I decided to make this thread rather than derail the thread about the spell suggestion which is what triggered this following question.

My fellow Dms, how do you rule when a player tries to cast a spell without the people around them noticing? My players have asked to use sleight of hand etc, but so far I have ruled no because it takes too much away from the sorceror's subtle spell metamagic.
I consider the movements (somatic) and words (verbal) of a magic incantation requiring to be very present (aka really moving your arms, putting power in your words thus requiring you to speak at least normally).
So I would only allow a "hidden" cast if the situation is really in favor of the caster (as other said, much noise to cover the words, or caster partly hidden from view so arms are not visible, etc). Although that's speaking generally, if a player really have a great crafty idea that justifies being able to cast "silently" I'll let him try.

Another way to go at it could have been to let him cast but have to succeed on a specific DC or instantly fails the spell: reasoning behind being that because you tried to make more subtle movements and words, you risk putting too few "power" in your incantation.
But I found this most frustrating for my players, losing a slot because of a bad roll, in non-combat situation... It's acceptable imo, but my players usually prefer having to do away with people being able of the cast, than wasting a slot. Not sure I understand why but well... ^^

So for me that keeps the Subtle metamagic a very strong feature of the Sorcerer, and it's better like this imo. ;)

[Dalebert]

Personally, I do wonder though about arcane trickster sort of ruining their own niche though. You're a rogue, so your stealthy, but you're a spell caster, which can't be stealthy without subtle spell.

So? Their attacks can't be stealthy either, not once they've made them. What I mean is they can get sneak attack from hiding but once they've attacked, they reveal themselves. ATs get an ability eventually that lets them impose disadvantage on saves if they cast a spell from hidden. This is what they can do. They get this amazing benefit from stealth but then it reveals them. I don't see why they should be able to make their spellcasting subtle any more than they can attack someone without revealing themselves. No rogue can do that no matter how stealthy they are.

If they're using magic for subterfuge, they just have to use tactics. Go a little down the street and around the corner before casting Invisibility or Silent Image. Minor Illusion is already sort of subtle and this seems to be intentional. It's intended for subterfuge. That's why it has no verbal components. No one will see your somatic components if you're hidden, and as I said earlier, I'd allow a sleight of hand to conceal in some contexts. I think I'd allow specific people to not see it so the difficulty would go up with more people with the idea being that you're doing a gesture when people are distracted and looking another way. In a crowded room SOMEONE almost certainly would see it right before the ghostly moaning suddenly starts. That said, you could delay the ghostly moaning since the spell lasts a minute and maybe you'd get away with it. Maybe go just around the corner, cast Minor Illusion, then step back around and you can make any sounds you want for a minute.

But verbal components which almost all spells have? Fagetaboutit. Or dip sorcerer.

[Slipperychicken]

Wouldn't the average peasant get an insight check vs your deception as your intent is to cast a spell rather then recite scripture?
I wouldn't make them roll insight. They'd just assume the guy was casting a spell regardless. The fancy gestures and material/focus components are also a dead giveaway regardless.


Even if my setting's peasants are somehow blisteringly ignorant of magic despite how common it is in 5e (when was the last time you actually saw a priest who couldn't cast spells?), I'd have them err on the side of "she's a witch, she cast a spell on me cow, burn the witch!".

[XmonkTad]

Their attacks can't be stealthy either, not once they've made them. What I mean is they can get sneak attack from hiding but once they've attacked, they reveal themselves.

I agree with this to a certain extent. Mundane stealth is broken by mundane attacks, so mundane stealth should also be broken by magical attacks. I just feel like a character who gives up a lot of magical talent in order to be really good at stealth (ATs are 1/3rd casters after all) should also be really stealthy with the magic they do have. I suppose they just have to be smarter about spell selection/usage rather than relying on class features. That makes sense.

I guess this is one spot where I feel like metamagic might be better off as feats rather than as a class feature for only one class.

[Fuzzy Logic]

Thanks everyone! I'm glad to know most people agree with my gut instinct. If you want to cast spells subtly, get subtle spell!

[Dalebert]

But don't forget the poor man's subtle spells--Minor Illusion and Catapult--already don't have verbal components. Catapult is a nice one for wizards to prepare so they have something they can damage the caster of Silence with.

[RickAllison]

Wouldn't the average peasant get an insight check vs your deception as your intent is to cast a spell rather then recite scripture?

You don't "get" an Insight check, you decide to make one (at least that is how it is supposed to be; telling a player to roll Insight is a big red flag :smallbiggrin:). Thus, the DM must decide how likely it is that a given peasant will doubt the speaker enough to deconstruct their manner to decide if they were lying. Also, if they don't have a great grasp of magic, even a successful check wouldn't necessarily give them anything barring having a pretty good connection if some magic voodoo occurs.



I wouldn't make them roll insight. They'd just assume the guy was casting a spell regardless. The fancy gestures and material/focus components are also a dead giveaway regardless.

People talk with their hands all the time, sometimes in nonsensical ways. Especially if a character is known for doing so, why would the use of such automatically indicate a spell? As for material components, I have already stated my piece on that such is highly dependent on what components and the situation. Someone using bergamot oil could be casting Suggestion, or using the oil as a perfume, a flavoring for tea, or any number of reasons. Bat guano? Not so much.


Even if my setting's peasants are somehow blisteringly ignorant of magic despite how common it is in 5e (when was the last time you actually saw a priest who couldn't cast spells?), I'd have them err on the side of "she's a witch, she cast a spell on me cow, burn the witch!".

I see the opposite side of things. The priest is one of the few people they work with who actually use magic, but to them it is as much the divines working. To the average peasant, a priest isn't necessarily doing magic so much as performing miracles.

As for the witch burnings, do they assume every wandering preacher of the gods is a witch? Every snake oil salesman? Those are both groups of people who are likely enough to be spouting large and unknown words (to speak in the gods' tongue or to deceive) and waving their arms to attract people.

Mages and Druids tend to keep to themselves, while clerics tend to be performing the work of the gods and so are not likely to be analyzed for spellcasting processes. Magic can be in the world, and peasants can definitely know about it, but I hardly think they are capable of instinctively and perfectly discerning whether someone is talking loudly, with fancy words, and powerful arm movements as a spell, of just as someone trying to gather attention. Maybe in a super-high magic setting like the Tippyverse or Eberron where every other person is using magic, but not in a world where the average person rarely sees non-divine magic.

[Dalebert]

The way they describe spell-casting is almost like singing or at least chanting. It would not sound like regular speech. At the very least it would look kind of ritualistic. For wizards, I picture an almost demonic ritual type of chanting. For good clerics, I imagine some of those monks chanting in Latin.

[RickAllison]

The way they describe spell-casting is almost like singing or at least chanting. It would not sound like regular speech. At the very least it would look kind of ritualistic. For wizards, I picture an almost demonic ritual type of chanting. For good clerics, I imagine some of those monks chanting in Latin.

I always liked the image of spell words being based off an ancient language, like the Shouts of Skyrim. My favorites are draconic (draconic sorcerers, also my default language since naturally spellcasting dragons can learn any spell), sylvan (Druid and ranger, wild magic sorcerer, feylock), primordial (storm sorcerers, elemental Druid spells, other elemental spells), celestial (cleric and paladin spells, favored soul sorcerer, theurgist), abyssal and infernal (just as a stand-in for evil magic source).

[Telok]

In one of the WotC adventure books an NPC shaman/witch gets to cast hidden and it's up to the PCs to make percepction checks to spot it. Of course even if they do nobody believes them.

[Zalabim]

I recall hearing that one of the AL locales, maybe Mulmaster, has a sort of no-unlicensed-magic law, and PCs there can use a bonus action and make a check to create a distraction to hide that they cast a spell or pretend that they're using a magic item and not spellcasters themselves. This would be an example of hiding magic from superstitious peasants. Perhaps that rings a bell with someone else.

[SharkForce]

I recall hearing that one of the AL locales, maybe Mulmaster, has a sort of no-unlicensed-magic law, and PCs there can use a bonus action and make a check to create a distraction to hide that they cast a spell or pretend that they're using a magic item and not spellcasters themselves. This would be an example of hiding magic from superstitious peasants. Perhaps that rings a bell with someone else.

this topic comes up semi-regularly. and yes, that is a thing. it's no more popular than the idea of allowing skill checks to conceal casting when it isn't mentioned in an AL guide though.