"The Ultimate Sneak Mage" or why the community woefully under utilizes Sorcerers [Archive]

TheUser

2017-01-08, 11:17 AM

I'm going to preface this by saying there was a prior thread discussing the "bad rap" that sorcerers get:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510279-Sorcerer-s-get-a-bad-rap-Is-it-deserved

The discussion veers off topic a few times, with random discussions like:
1: the word "Gish" and its origins.
2: What Wizard schools do specific things better than a Sorcerer, without even acknowledging that the different schools are all mutually exclusive and really can't be compared fairly in that context to the abilities of a sorcerer.
3: Not nearly enough mention off NO OTHER FULLCASTER RECIEVES FREAKING SUBTLE SPELL

EDIT: As an aside I've wanted to make this post for the community for a long time. I've been a long time abuser of subtle spell, and in games where I don't play a subtle spell sorcerer I've -never- seen or heard of other players coming close to the level of shenanigans I have pulled with this metamagic.

On the surface, most inexperienced players really don't grasp the completely overpowered possibilities by making it so that spells do not need to be cast with verbal or somatic components on a consistent basis. Realistically, a sorcerer can cast at least half of their spells using subtle spell without burning additional spell slots for sorcerery points (it becomes more later). I'm going to do my best to outline in a few short scenario's/points to maybe give you a small idea of the infinite possibilities.

**DISCLAIMER:Subtle Spell is not designed for use with Wild Mages; which is to say wild surges can blow your cover and makes being a sneaky wild mage borderline impossible. While some of the best campaigns are for sheer entertainment and fun, it's not very optimal to attempt to be a sneaky wild mage, hence forth assume all discussion beyond this point is in reference to Dragon Sorcerers.

With that in mind here is WHY SUBTLE SPELL IS AMAZING

* Super hard to pin down or stop from casting spells.
I want you to imagine for a second that your DM is a ruthless, cutthroat, son of a gun, and for whatever reason, an enemy has restrained your casting appendages and/or covered over your mouth, or maybe an assassin has cast a silence spell on you before grappling you. Most casters are going to have to either spend an action attempting to escape the grapple (which means they may have trouble disengaging only to get regrappled from an AoO....), or look to their team for some kind of assistance before their next turn occurs, since casting a spell to save yourself isn't really an option at the moment. You know what we call that? A goddamned liability. Every caster suffers this...well... except for a subtle spell sorcerer that is... You don't need words, or waving, just a pre-existing focus somewhere equipped. Misty Step was my go to for a while; pretty much a fail safe to prevent just that kind of situation. I got ambush grappled by a patient Otyugh and had a guaranteed escape with a bonus action. Even got to shoot back at it from an elevated position on the same turn. Further more, counterspell is almost virtually impossible to use against you as a caster has to see the spell being cast to counter it (I got cheesed by detect thoughts this one time though...I didn't want to argue with my DM about RAW, just stay over 30ft away and it's a non-issue)

* When spells just happen without anyone casting incantations or rituals, it comes off as legit acts of god/actual magic; for instance Illusions are far more real if you don't see someone casting them

Have you ever disguised yourself as a cult priest of Tiamat and turned an entire cult against it's old leader? Because screaming something like "TIAMAT GRANT ME THE POWER TO DESTROY MY ENEMIES!" And a having giant raging inferno spawned forth from you is a pretty compelling show of force that the god favors you and the entire cult is left either divided or completely swayed that Tiamat has indeed blessed this course of action. You're obviously not a wizard because that sort of thing would require arm-waving and magic words. You just prayed to a god openly and had your prayer's answered without it looking like it was you who cast that Wall of Fire spell. Minor illusion becomes 99% more believable because nobody saw a person waving their arms about and chanting before the weird stuff happened. You're actually freaking magic bro.

* Literally the master infiltrator
Perhaps casting spells in a King's throne room isn't really going to be an acceptable practice. In fact, one could surmise that most royalty will have trained crossbowmen ready to shoot down anyone who tries to cast magic in the King's court. Or maybe that NPC you want to charm/suggestion/dominate/phantasmal force isn't alone but is in a public area or with friends. None of this matters with subtle spell.

It should be noted that Suggestion by itself is already a very powerful spell. But because there are obvious verbal and somatic components even random strangers, who do not really know they have been charmed, might be pretty suspicious if you cast a bunch of malarky in their face before they co-incidentally do exactly what you tell them to do despite it going against their best interest. Meanwhile with Subtle spell it's a breeze, and even in front of other people. "It's real important I know the password to get into the secret base, if you don't tell me people will die! Tell me the safest route and password to get into the compound?" It's like they were so compelled by your high charisma score their conscience got the better of them briefly :P Even if they succeed on the save, they aren't aware you tried to compel them with magic, only that they weren't swayed by your words or you weren't convincing enough.
Secondly Subtle Spell can be used much like other level 2 spells that require concentration:
-Detect Thoughts "Tell me everything you know about ______"
-Hold Person "Go keep that guy pinned to the ground for me would you? Oh and keep a hand over his mouth!" (except it occupies 2 targets instead of one with no auto-crits).
-Blindness/Deafness "Go cover that fellow's ears/eyes for me would you?"
-Even Scorching Ray! "The Queen has conspired to betray the king and plots to kill him, you should kill her while she's sleeping this evening before her plans come to fruition."

The sheer volume of utility this one spell offers makes up for part of the reduced spell list.

Disguise/Alter Self, Tongues, Suggestion, Mass Suggestion, Dominate Person, Sleep. With Subtle Spell these spells become Game Breakingly Strong and Sorcerers have access to any of them (not realistically all of them).

The one time I tried to switch characters and play an Enchanter I realized that not being able to enchant people to their face before level 14, was pretty lame, and even at that I pretty much had to have them alone for it to be good. Sure, free twinned spell was great, but not being able to subtly beguile someone was infuriating after experiencing that freedom.

* In combat, by the time the enemies have assessed you as a threat, you've done an enormous amount of irreparable damage
So, most wizards carry a staff, have a big pointy hat, or at least an arcane focus and a spell book at their side. Some wizards give themselves away as a big bad caster that needs to be neutralized before combat even starts. Either way, if you go around openly casting big flashy spells, any enemy with 2 brain cells to rub together will understand that your character needs to be eliminated very quickly. However, if all you do is have a hand ready at your dagger(arcane focus), dress in some commoner clothes and cower in a corner or behind some 3/4 cover, you don't really come across as very threatening. Dominate someone's mind, spawn ice storms on people, or any number of spells that don't have rays or projectiles; you're pretty much going to have a few rounds of breathing room to have free reign of the fight before the enemy has clued into just how much of a problem you are to keep alive; and then once they have, it's probably too late, or you have the tools to stop yourself from being shut down (weave some component pouches into your clothes so getting disarmed of your arcane focus isn't a huge problem either :D).

* Greater Invisibility is now Greater Invulnerability
Can't see it coming, can't hear it coming, can't really even track down a source. Moving quietly requires a stealth check, but not the Hide action specifically. If you get quicken spell you can subtle a minor illusion for footsteps in another direction while you actually stay in place still invisible. Cheese cheese and more cheese.

* You are the only class that can point blank annihilate someone Vegeta Styles
Uhm, need I say more? Raise Open Palm towards someone: BURNING HANDS WALL OF FIRE SUNBEAM. This is clearly the best selling point of the metamagic.
Not really possible to dodge a disintegrate if you don't hear it being invoked and it only involves someone placing a finger on you...

The one limitation that continually came up in the afforementioned thread at the beginning of this piece was the limited spells known that the sorcerer has. While I've obviously just detailed a pretty significant reason as to why that is indeed, a very necessary balancing factor, I do have some

SOLUTIONS TO THE LIMITED SPELLS KNOWN PROBLEM(because I'm not some jerk who only knows how to criticize)

* Quicken Spell
Once/If you get Quicken Spell (I prefer to get it at 10 when I have more points to spend) your spell list frees up so much!
It opens up spellcasting in conjunction with actions you could never do on the same turn.
-Hide (Poor mans invisibility!)
-Disengage (Poor mans misty step)
-Dash! (Expeditious Retreat)
-Use an Object (one that may already mimic a spell)
-Help (Poor mans wildsurge)
-Attack after Shapeshifting
-Fully Control another Target's turn with the dominate spell.
-Use a feature granted by a spell (double sunbeam turn 1 followed by sunbeam + spells thereafter, telekinesis, witchbolt and crown of madness also work this way)

* Dragon Sorcerer gives some spells known relief
Dragon AC (mage armor), 1 Bonus HP and the Ability to FLY (another spell known saved) without concentration, their have been enough corners cut to allow for decent utility/blasting and flexibility. Despite wings coming late into the game, this is also one of the points where spells known starts to plummet and is a welcome boon in dark times. (BTW once you can fly without concentration, you really do become EXCEEDINGLY strong).

* Level 3 spells are your friend.
This is a big one to consider with mid level sorcerers.

To put things in perspective, I currently have a level 10 sorcerer with the following level 3 spells.

Fireball, Fly, Counter Spell, Dispel Magic

Why? Well for starters I have Subtle and Empower Spell....but more to the point, because even though these spells constitute almost half of my spells known, I can actually cast any of these spells up to a total of 8x a day; I can still use my level 4 and 5 slots to cast them if I need them and while it's not always a fantastic use of a higher spell slot, it certainly makes me more flexible than I normally would be if I tried to have 2 spells known of each level +1.

Think of it like this: I will only use my 5th level spell slot twice a day...why would I want to devote 20% of my spells known to something I can do so rarely? While it's still possible to synthesize a spell slot for 7 sorcerery points; it's hardly worth conceding that one fifth level spell is worth two third level spells and a first level one, or even 7 empowers. Conversely, while level 1 options are nice to have, they don't really represent a good use of my turn in combat. Even something like Chromatic Orb isn't really useful for it's level 1 slot once you reach level 11 (cantrip firebolt does more damage), so why keep it around? Sure you can upcast it for some more damage but it's not going to scale that well, and single target damage isn't really your job. Shield and Disguise Self have their utility, but using a level 1 slot for damage in the mid levels doesn't really make for a great use of a turn when fighting, so you can afford to swap a lot of your lower level blasting spells as you get higher up.

This leaves you with a smattering of low level utility spells, a few high level spells, and whole smack of mid-level spells to make good uses of your combat turn as well as have lots of flexibility. (You don't feel so bad running out of level 3 slots anymore).

* Beg your group for Items that let you cast spells
Getting that hat of disguise was a lot more effective for me than it was for the wizard, or the rogue. Sure I had access to it, but after one level I could swap out the spell and pray to the makers I don't lose that hat (really no worse than losing a spell book as a Wizard).

These solutions won't make you feel diverse the way a Wizard does, heck probably not even a bard. But that's the freaking point! Metamagic is so bonkers good they need to limit the casting diversity that Sorcerers have so that they don't overshadow everyone else.

TL:DR Sorcerer's are the only option for anyone who wants to remotely consider a sneak mage. Subtle Spell is laughably strong in any context which entirely justifies the limited spells known. Furthermore there are some band-aid solutions to the limited spell list.

The only "issue" that sorcerers have is that they are insanely complex to min-max and that there are some DM's who don't really create strong/compelling social encounters for their tables, moreover most players don't have the cerebral fortitude/experience to play a Sorcerer to it's fullest.

Sorcerers get a bad rap because you're all plebs. There I said it.

Sir cryosin

2017-01-08, 11:46 AM

JNAProductions

2017-01-08, 12:03 PM

How often is your caster being grappled, and more than that, FULLY RESTRAINED? Because a regular grapple doesn't stop spellcasting. At all.

And yes, you can use subtle spell in combat. A few times per day. It's not unlimited by any means.

Greater Invisibility is a neat combo. But you're limited to now only non-concentration spells, and that requires a good Stealth score, so any enemy with a good Perception will notice you around 50% of the time.

Overall, I do agree Sorcerers aren't as bad as people say. But they're not as awesome as you make them out to be. And you're being rude, so I'm less inclined to listen to you.

Coffee_Dragon

2017-01-08, 12:23 PM

TheUser

2017-01-08, 12:27 PM

Oh great master I have always be drawn to the sorcerer but I am ignorant in how to work them. If thee would be so benevolent and impart your knowledge upon thy followers.

Would you be so kind as to share you're experien, tactics, combos, ect... On how to get the most out of a sorcerer.
Most of the grunt work is in designing your sorcerer. You should have a clear idea of what spells you want combo'd with what metamagics and how much your party can fill in the gaps in your casting abilities. You can't do everything, so do a few things REALLY well.

Consider the limitations of a metamagic before selecting it; the more limited the requirements of the metamagic and the costlier the sorcery points the less likely you are to use it and the more it will conflict with your other metamagics as well as your spell selection and contentment. Why do you think Subtle Spell is so good? 90% of the good spells you cast have Verbal and Somatic components and it costs 1 sorcery point to use.

(I'm going to take a lot of heat for this next one)
I regard Twinned Spell as a trap!
Sure it's super cheap levels 1-5 (when spells cost 1-3 points to twin), but later on, throwing 4 Sorcery points into one level 4 spell (6 if you want to empower them both!) Is hosing a lot of resources in one go. It's the only metamagic that has a super strict requirement and ALSO increases in cost with higher level use. So either you have a really costly metamagic later, or one you don't really use to it's fullest frequently...

Not only that it requires the spell to have only one target (no potential for other targets) to be usable which puts a big limiter on the spells you're going to be putting in your list to use the metamagic lots.

There are certain cool things you can do with high level Twinned Spells; haste, g-invis, dominate, polymorph etc. unfortunately it's not sustainable in the slightest since you'll either have to start burning spell slots of equal level to keep doing it or not do it very often.

Don't get me wrong, it's actually still a great metamagic, but damn does it suck blowing 5-6 sorcery points in one go. I'd rather have cheap and spammable metamagics that I use often. It's a stylistic preference I guess.

Lastly a neat combo with Quickened Spell:
If you use quicken spell while using your Standard action to fully control another humanoid with dominate person, you get to use their reaction too! Using an enemies spell slots to counter spell is sublime...

TheUser

2017-01-08, 12:33 PM

So it doesn't matter that sorcerers are behind on spells known because they get class features that make up for it. (While everyone else just gets class features on top of what they already had.)

And sorcerers aren't underpowered because they can convince the rest of the party to give them all the magic item support because they need it the most. (Assuming there is any... and the other players are in a good mood.)

But in such campaigns where stealth sorcerers are viable and desirable, they get to be good at this thing. Well, sounds pretty much like what no one was contesting.

1) the class features are tremendously strong. Sure bards can get any 2 spells here and there, and wizards get some nice icing on a specific set of spells, but never can they effectively re-write the rules of magic. It's a feature which practically dwarfs other casters class features.

2 )Saying "all magic loot" is a misrepresentation of what I said. Loot that replicates spells. This is a very different thing my friend. The # of items that replicate spells is very small indeed and will probably embody anywhere from 5-10% of all loot. You can't very well steal from your allies but if they understand that you can make the most use out of the item because it gives you far more variety they'll want to maximize their own success by helping you. (If all your loot is loot that replaces spells your DM is -very- unique).

3) As for "stealth sorcerers" being "viable and desirable" this not even remotely a niche situation. This is completely player dependant on how creative you are. Like I said, you're plebs.

Coffee_Dragon

2017-01-08, 12:39 PM

3) As for "stealth sorcerers" being "viable and desirable" this not even remotely a niche situation. This is completely player dependant on how creative you are. Like I said, you're plebs.

There are various legitimate combinations of setting, theme, mood etc. where the stealthiness of a sorcerer would be either mostly redundant or a tiresome gimmick. I assume you're being flippant with the "plebs" thing, but fact remains that it shouldn't be necessary to invoke this niche potential built on one specific metamagic option to justify the class design as a whole.

JNAProductions

2017-01-08, 12:41 PM

1) the class features are tremendously strong. Sure bards can get any 2 spells here and there, and wizards get some nice icing on a specific set of spells, but never can they effectively re-write the rules of magic. It's a feature which practically dwarfs other casters class features.

2 )Saying "all magic loot" is a misrepresentation of what I said. Loot that replicates spells. This is a very different thing my friend. The # of items that replicate spells is very small indeed and will probably embody anywhere from 5-10% of all loot. You can't very well steal from your allies but if they understand that you can make the most use out of the item because it gives you far more variety they'll want to maximize their own success by helping you. (If all your loot is loot that replaces spells your DM is -very- unique).

3) As for "stealth sorcerers" being "viable and desirable" this not even remotely a niche situation. This is completely player dependant on how creative you are. Like I said, you're plebs.

I bolded the bit that makes people less likely to listen to you. Manners cost nothing.

1-The class features are highly limited. Wizards get more spells, Bards get more spells known, Clerics get a poopton of things, and above all, NONE OF THEIR CLASS FEATURES COMPETE WITH SPELLS. Sorcerers' do.

2-That's really DM dependent.

3-Again, DM dependent.

Nifft

2017-01-08, 12:53 PM

Great post, you have made me reconsider the Sorcerer.

I think it's a fantastically insightful observation that Dragon Sorcerer is good because it gives you features that relieve the need for some key spells. I think this points to an easily applied design direction for future Sorcerer archetypes.

TheUser

2017-01-08, 12:59 PM

I bolded the bit that makes people less likely to listen to you. Manners cost nothing.

1-The class features are highly limited. Wizards get more spells, Bards get more spells known, Clerics get a poopton of things, and above all, NONE OF THEIR CLASS FEATURES COMPETE WITH SPELLS. Sorcerers' do.

2-That's really DM dependent.

3-Again, DM dependent.

You're probably right about the manners thing. Respect is free and affords so much. But I need the community to feel my frustration.

See when you do things like actually not listen (to the bulk of my post), or fail to use words properly. I'm inclined to use words like pleb.

1. Saying that having the option to turn spell slots into more class features is like saying paladins smite is bad because it COMPETES WITH SPELLS. It's an option, a flexibility to use the feature more, not a liability (unless you're a pleb and burn a whole mess of spell slots on inefficient metamagics, this would mean that the feature can backfire if you're dumb...essentially the whole premise of my piece).

2. Either the DM is throwing no spell replacement items at you or only spell replacement items is that correct? That is the DM dependancy you wish to bank as a contigency to some sort of logical fallacy on my part? The point is that those items help you out more than any other caster. They can choose to not give you that gear, and the DM can choose to never have it drop, but if both of those circumstances are going on, you'll still be a-ok. It's mostly a tip to help alleviate the strain of low spells known. You only have 3 attunement slots anyway so it's not a complete solution, it's a piece of the puzzle.

3. Is not DM dependant. If you're only cruising through dungeons full of monsters with 5 intelligence or less, even then you can do things like REMAIN HIDDEN while casting spells. GET GRAPPLED/RESTRAINED AND NOT CARE. God it's like I write things and people don't even read them... maybe if your sensibilities weren't so crushed by jokingly being referred to as a pleb your literacy would improve :P

JNAProductions

2017-01-08, 01:04 PM

You're probably right about the manners thing. Respect is free and affords so much. But I need the community to feel my frustration.

See when you do things like actually not listen (to the bulk of my post), or fail to use words properly. I'm inclined to use words like pleb.

1. Saying that having the option to turn spell slots into more class features is like saying paladins smite is bad because it COMPETES WITH SPELLS. It's an option, a flexibility to use the feature more, not a liability (unless you're a pleb and burn a whole mess of spell slots on inefficient metamagics, this would mean that the feature can backfire if you're dumb...essentially the whole premise of my piece).

2. Either the DM is throwing no spell replacement items at you or only spell replacement items is that correct? That is the DM dependancy you wish to bank as a contigency to some sort of logical fallacy on my part? The point is that those items help you out more than any other caster. They can choose to not give you that gear, and the DM can choose to never have it drop, but if both of those circumstances are going on, you'll still be a-ok. It's mostly a tip to help alleviate the strain of low spells known. You only have 3 attunement slots anyway so it's not a complete solution, it's a piece of the puzzle.

3. Is not DM dependant. If you're only cruising through dungeons full of monsters with 5 intelligence or less, even then you can do things like REMAIN HIDDEN while casting spells. GET GRAPPLED/RESTRAINED AND NOT CARE. God it's like I write things and people don't even read them... maybe if your sensibilities weren't so crushed by jokingly being referred to as a pleb your literacy would improve :P

1-Not really. You simply DO NOT have enough Sorcery Points base to use your metamagic that effectively, an issue no one else has. (Besides Paladin-I did forget about them, but they're a martial-leaning gish rather than a full caster.)

2-Why can you use them more effectively than anyone else? You didn't really explain that.

3-You know, if you're fighting an intelligent enemy, they're going to assume EVERYONE THERE has an important role. So when firestorms appear from nowhere, and there's just one guy who hasn't done anything standing there, well, 2+2=4, that guy must be the cause.

In addition, grappling does not stop you from casting spells. Nor does being restrained.

TheUser

2017-01-08, 01:08 PM

There are various legitimate combinations of setting, theme, mood etc. where the stealthiness of a sorcerer would be either mostly redundant or a tiresome gimmick. I assume you're being flippant with the "plebs" thing, but fact remains that it shouldn't be necessary to invoke this niche potential built on one specific metamagic option to justify the class design as a whole.

Glad to see you've caught on ;)

See when you do things like...give a hypthetical example of a setting, theme, mood etc without actually detailing a specific circumstance your argument carries little weight. I'm inclined to believe that there is a setting where being a sneak mage is not an asset, but you've done nothing to give me a concrete example of one. Can you honestly tell me you've conducted campaigns repeatedly where no social interactions were available to you? Would you want to be in a campaign that is 100% hack and slash like a video game?

TheUser

2017-01-08, 01:21 PM

1-Not really. You simply DO NOT have enough Sorcery Points base to use your metamagic that effectively, an issue no one else has. (Besides Paladin-I did forget about them, but they're a martial-leaning gish rather than a full caster.)

2-Why can you use them more effectively than anyone else? You didn't really explain that.

3-You know, if you're fighting an intelligent enemy, they're going to assume EVERYONE THERE has an important role. So when firestorms appear from nowhere, and there's just one guy who hasn't done anything standing there, well, 2+2=4, that guy must be the cause.

In addition, grappling does not stop you from casting spells. Nor does being restrained.

1. When you use the metamagics that have 1/2 sorcery point costs (subtle and empower baby!) it's very easy to use metamagic a majority of the time when it's NEEDED. (Twinned Spell is a sorcery point hog and Heightened is strong enough to merit the reduced # of times).

2. I guess I viewed it as rather implicit; When you only have 7 spells known compared to 9 or 11 in the case of a bard or wizard/cleric having one more feels much more impactful (it's the largest % increase in number of spells). If you get quickened spell you can also use the item and still cast in the same turn, the others can't.

3. If you're just standing out in the open during a combat, you're definitely a pleb, and not maximizing your strategy nor are you thinking creatively enough. If you say, wear some fake shackles on yourself and look like a prisoner who's scambling and hiding while casting that subtle firestorm nobody's the wiser. Disguise self as someone 1 ft shorter and poke your invisible head above cover to cast. Like seriously pull your head outta your butt and start constructing creative scenarios for yourself.

In addition spell casting while grappled is entirely DM dependant; if a DM says "the enemy has cupped a hand over your mouth for their grapple because they know you are a wizard." that's the DM's perogative. Like I said, maybe you are all playing D&D on easy mode, but when an enemy with a lot of muscle and an ounce of brains ever gets close to you their either going to restrain your arms or restrain your mouth or try to strip your arcane focus; it's just common sense.

JNAProductions

2017-01-08, 01:32 PM

1. When you use the metamagics that have 1/2 sorcery point costs (subtle and empower baby!) it's very easy to use metamagic a majority of the time when it's NEEDED. (Twinned Spell is a sorcery point hog and Heightened is strong enough to merit the reduced # of times).

2. I guess I viewed it as rather implicit; When you only have 7 spells known compared to 9 or 11 in the case of a bard or wizard/cleric having one more feels much more impactful (it's the largest % increase in number of spells). If you get quickened spell you can also use the item and still cast in the same turn, the others can't.

3. If you're just standing out in the open during a combat, you're definitely a pleb, and not maximizing your strategy nor are you thinking creatively enough. If you say, wear some fake shackles on yourself and look like a prisoner who's scambling and hiding while casting that subtle firestorm nobody's the wiser. Disguise self as someone 1 ft shorter and poke your invisible head above cover to cast. Like seriously pull your head outta your butt and start constructing creative scenarios for yourself.

In addition spell casting while grappled is entirely DM dependant; if a DM says "the enemy has cupped a hand over your mouth for their grapple because they know you are a wizard." that's the DM's perogative. Like I said, maybe you are all playing D&D on easy mode, but when an enemy with a lot of muscle and an ounce of brains ever gets close to you their either going to restrain your arms or restrain your mouth or try to strip your arcane focus; it's just common sense.

Okay. At level 8, you can do Subtle 8 times per day, assuming you want all your spell slots. If you really want to be sneaky, that's the most you get without dipping into your spells per day. By level 8, you also have 12 spells. So alright, point taken-if you decide to ignore everything but Subtle, you can do it pretty well.

2-By that logic, a Barbarian uses it best. They have 0 spells known.

3-You advocate Draconic over Wild Magic, yis? That's what your posts seem to indicate.

"Hey, boss, every time that scaly bloke pokes his head out behind cover, magic happens!"

"Then go kill him-he's clearly the cause, nitwit!"

And sure, but that's getting into DM Fiat territory. Pretty damn reasonable fiat, but since most enemies have mutliattack rather than Extra Attack, if you follow the rules, it's going to take them at least two turns and several successful checks to do it.

TheUser

2017-01-08, 01:44 PM

Okay. At level 8, you can do Subtle 8 times per day, assuming you want all your spell slots. If you really want to be sneaky, that's the most you get without dipping into your spells per day. By level 8, you also have 12 spells. So alright, point taken-if you decide to ignore everything but Subtle, you can do it pretty well.

2-By that logic, a Barbarian uses it best. They have 0 spells known.

3-You advocate Draconic over Wild Magic, yis? That's what your posts seem to indicate.

"Hey, boss, every time that scaly bloke pokes his head out behind cover, magic happens!"

"Then go kill him-he's clearly the cause, nitwit!"

And sure, but that's getting into DM Fiat territory. Pretty damn reasonable fiat, but since most enemies have mutliattack rather than Extra Attack, if you follow the rules, it's going to take them at least two turns and several successful checks to do it.

1. Or any other metamagic that costs 1 sorcery point (omg careful and empower are both so gooooood).

2. A barbarian doesn't get quickened spell and is the least likely person to want to use their turn to actively cast a spell (instead of doing barbarian things like smashing people or grappling folks). The opportunity cost of not casting a spell and being the kind of character in an advantageous position to cast a spell is what matters. Sorcerers can still quicken out spells and will likely be positioned in a way to be able to cast spells safely. They get the most out of these items. (What is the CR stat for a barbarian? isn't pre-existing casting ability required for most items that mimick spells?).

3. 2 turns of no aggro is more than enough time. Like I said in the post...irreparable damage. And that's still ignoring my disguise self gimmick to not be seen while peering over cover.

JNAProductions

2017-01-08, 01:49 PM

TheUser

2017-01-08, 02:43 PM

1-Careful is only good for BFC spells (which are, admittedly, quite good)-it sucks on toast for actual damage spells, since you still hit your buddies. (Unless all your friends have evasion, in which case, go nuts!)

Empower... It's okay? Higher damage floor, on average. But probably not worth the Sorcery point.

2-Then your logic fails to hold up. You say Sorcerers get better use because they have less spells-following that to its logical conclusion, someone with NO SPELLS should get the best use out of it. And sure, you can Quicken a spell, but that's now 2 Sorcery Points you're dropping on it, which is that much less for later.

3-That will consume a first level slot every hour. Assuming you don't want to waste a 2nd or better slot on it, even at higher levels, that's 4 hours of adventuring with that safety net. If you DO want to waste 2nd+ level slots... Well, that's your choice, but I wouldn't.

Not to mention, you'll have to make Stealth checks to actually be hidden. You still breathe, you move around, you make noise...

You really don't do much for your credibility by calling empowered "Ok"
We all know that for 1 spell point it's a bargain on AoE damage and avoids Flub rolls on big spells.

2. You misunderstand, quicken let's you use the item AND quicken a spell. Essentially 2 spells in 1 turn. Nobody else can do this.

3. Not thinking about it from the subtle spell lense; if you have any time to prepare for a fight you can disguise self 1 ft shorter no concentration and without giving away your position or starting combat.

So it consumes a 1st level spell slot for 1 hour of combat you can anticipate..not a huge cost.

JNAProductions

2017-01-08, 02:45 PM

You really don't do much for your credibility by calling empowered "Ok"
We all know that for 1 spell point it's a bargain on AoE damage and avoids Flub rolls on big spells.

2. You misunderstand, quicken let's you use the item AND quicken a spell. Essentially 2 spells in 1 turn. Nobody else can do this.

3. Not thinking about it from the subtle spell lense; if you have any time to prepare for a fight you can disguise self 1 ft shorter no concentration and without giving away your position or starting combat.

So it consumes a 1st level spell slot for 1 hour of combat you can anticipate..not a huge cost.

1-It's not that good, in my opinion. You are free to have a differing one.

2-Then focus on that, not the spells known.

3-And if you get surprised by combat? Say, ambushed in the middle of the night? Or what if some reinforcements come from the rear, where you are? Or what if it was a lure?

Coffee_Dragon

2017-01-08, 03:12 PM

I'm inclined to believe that there is a setting where being a sneak mage is not an asset, but you've done nothing to give me a concrete example of one.

Let's say I'm too lazy to type any of them out - you're still calling everyone out for failing to use the sorcerer in this one way among what is apparently a host of false options. That's what people are complaining about, not that sorcerers cannot shine under just the right circumstances or that people can't have a blast playing one, but that they're lacking design-wise and have a lower baseline compared to other classes. (And specifically, people often point out that it allows other spellcasting classes to grab Subtle Spell among other things for a 3-level dip and be stealthy whatever.)

Kane0

2017-01-08, 03:15 PM

Now I feel compelled to make a Kobold dragon sorc just to run around the battlefield cowering and screaming "Save me master!" while using Subtle Spell to bring in illusions of a dragon doing stafing runs with fireball, cone if cold, etc.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-08, 03:20 PM

. (And specifically, people often point out that it allows other spellcasting classes to grab Subtle Spell among other things for a 3-level dip and be stealthy whatever.)

Exactly, this is the problem that people have with sorcerers. There's not that much they can do that can't also be done by a Sorlock who puts most of their levels in warlock.

TheUser

2017-01-08, 04:16 PM

1-It's not that good, in my opinion. You are free to have a differing one.

2-Then focus on that, not the spells known.

3-And if you get surprised by combat? Say, ambushed in the middle of the night? Or what if some reinforcements come from the rear, where you are? Or what if it was a lure?

At this point you're not even trying. I brought up quicken in my initial rationale, it means you're better off with Sorcerers having it and I figured it was implicit, this means it naturally eases up on spells known.

I gave an example of a strong use for disguise self and all you're doing is nitpicking with scenario's where something doesn't work. I never said or implied it always works. It's clear to me you're either illiterate, trolling or both.

TheUser

2017-01-08, 04:19 PM

Exactly, this is the problem that people have with sorcerers. There's not that much they can do that can't also be done by a Sorlock who puts most of their levels in warlock.

Stalling out higher level spells/features by 3 levels is very costly. You also don't have enough sorcery points to use metamagic without undercutting your casting power by splashing 3 levels.

JNAProductions

2017-01-08, 04:23 PM

At this point you're not even trying. I brought up quicken in my initial rationale, it means you're better off with Sorcerers having it and I figured it was implicit, this means it naturally eases up on spells known.

I gave an example of a strong use for disguise self and all you're doing is nitpicking with scenario's where something doesn't work. I never said or implied it always works. It's clear to me you're either illiterate, trolling or both.

I would ask you to not be rude, thank you very much. I am neither illiterate nor a troll.

But I would like to commend the others who've said words much better than I. A Sorcerer can be done well. It can also be done horribly. Most other classes have a higher floor, and a similar ceiling.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-08, 04:50 PM

Stalling out higher level spells/features by 3 levels is very costly. You also don't have enough sorcery points to use metamagic without undercutting your casting power by splashing 3 levels.

The very use of metamagic you are mentioning here is, while useful, also not going to be used very often - there just aren't enough instances to justify it; so not having a lot of sorcery points is ok. Also a warlock's primary damage output is through Eldritch Blast - and cantrips level up from total level, not level in a class. If you go Tomelock and pick the book of ancient secrets invocation you can learn ritual spells, an option denied to sorcerers which will help counter falling behind in total spell level by compensating with width rather than depth.

Say I go two levels in Warlock, then go sorcerer (draconic) for three levels then back to warlock. I will have Eldritch Blast with Agonising Blast and two beams, which is very respectable damage at will. Yes a lot of my good features will be delayed but my third warlock level will garner me my tome and my two rituals, with the chance of more. I'm not doing too badly and I will only get better, rather than leveling off fairly steeply. Warlocks also have better health, so if something goes wrong on a sneaking mission I'm also better off than the sorc.

TheUser

2017-01-08, 05:07 PM

The very use of metamagic you are mentioning here is, while useful, also not going to be used very often - there just aren't enough instances to justify it; so not having a lot of sorcery points is ok. Also a warlock's primary damage output is through Eldritch Blast - and cantrips level up from total level, not level in a class. If you go Tomelock and pick the book of ancient secrets invocation you can learn ritual spells, an option denied to sorcerers which will help counter falling behind in total spell level by compensating with width rather than depth.

Say I go two levels in Warlock, then go sorcerer (draconic) for three levels then back to warlock. I will have Eldritch Blast with Agonising Blast and two beams, which is very respectable damage at will. Yes a lot of my good features will be delayed but my third warlock level will garner me my tome and my two rituals, with the chance of more. I'm not doing too badly and I will only get better, rather than leveling off fairly steeply. Warlocks also have better health, so if something goes wrong on a sneaking mission I'm also better off than the sorc.

No feat, no level 3 spells...big cost if you ask me.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-08, 05:12 PM

No feat, no level 3 spells...big cost if you ask me.

Only in the short term. In the long term you've actually got ritual casting, you can pick up an extra feat inbetween Warlock levels if you really need one, you've got the best cantrips in the game to tide you over, and you're not stuck in a dead end class that people keep trying to defend for no adequate reason...

MrStabby

2017-01-08, 05:58 PM

I don't think sorcerers are underused or tend to be disliked by those that actually play them.

Sure a lot of people do criticise them - but they are either the fanboys that want the sorcerer to be better than every other class or the people who have no interest in playing them anyway.

I don't think many people who have played in campaigns alongside one would knock them - at least not next to those people who have used careful and subtle spell.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-08, 06:04 PM

I don't think many people who have played in campaigns alongside one would knock them - at least not next to those people who have used careful and subtle spell.

I agree with this, at least. Our party sorcerer is a hugely valuable team member and probably our best DPS. But he's a wild mage and the DM lets him make full use of tides of chaos. The actual class as designed is not brilliant, I affirm.

Specter

2017-01-08, 09:33 PM

One of the "recurring villains" in my campaign was an Assassin/Favored Soul (of Nerull) with Subtle Spell. That meta was responsible for so much player whining I almost shed tears of joy.

Abjurer: "but I should have been told he cast a spell so I could counter it!"
Me: "But he didn't. Did he? *smugface*"

Paladin: "what do you mean, he disappeared? Did he teleport? Did he run away? Did he *gets stabbed in the heart* oh, crap..."

Cleric: "it's not fair!" *grumpingly starts piling dice*

Good times.

TheUser

2017-01-08, 10:41 PM

Only in the short term. In the long term you've actually got ritual casting, you can pick up an extra feat inbetween Warlock levels if you really need one, you've got the best cantrips in the game to tide you over, and you're not stuck in a dead end class that people keep trying to defend for no adequate reason...

Uhm no...In the long term you're always 1-2 spell levels behind and a feat down. By the time you get level 3 spells the pure sorcerer is casting level 4 spells and is 1 level from fifth level spells.

Edit: or you catch up on the feat to fall behind another spell level. You might think the class is a dead end because you've only seen it played by plebs, but despite the high skill floor on crafting good sorcerers the creativity ceiling is through the roof.

Naanomi

2017-01-09, 12:09 AM

Subtle is fun sometimes... nothing annoys another spell caster like repeated subtle counterspells. However it's general combat utility (while present) is often unimpressive, especially since one's limited spell list means one can only have so many exploitable tricks in this vein (especially at lower levels)

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-09, 10:11 AM

Uhm no...In the long term you're always 1-2 spell levels behind and a feat down. By the time you get level 3 spells the pure sorcerer is casting level 4 spells and is 1 level from fifth level spells.

Edit: or you catch up on the feat to fall behind another spell level. You might think the class is a dead end because you've only seen it played by plebs, but despite the high skill floor on crafting good sorcerers the creativity ceiling is through the roof.

You know what, I have seen the class played by a guy who does it really well. He also doesn't call people plebs when they disagree with him. I just think that the sorcerer was badly designed because since it shares a casting stat with a class that fulfills very similar roles only better, and because it lacks things like Ritual Casting for no good reason.

If you don't stop insulting people for not holding your opinions you're not going to have very many people to discuss with.

EDIT: and like I said, the main damage output of Warlocks is Eldritch Blast, which trades off total level so being a little behind otherwise is something that can be lived with.

Quoxis

2017-01-09, 12:32 PM

Though a bit less rudeness would be fitting (you're not Treantmonk with his famous god wizard guide, one of the few people deserving to talk down from a high horse), i have to admit countless ideas using the sneakmage come to mind.
A halfling life cleric/sorcerer, hiding in plain sight while casting subtle healing and buffs on the tank ("Damn it, why won't he go down?!"), a sorlock converting short-rest-resetting spell slots into countless uses of undetectable eldritch blasts ("We're under attack!" - "From where?" - "I DON'T ****ING KNOW!"), and the enchanter or illusionist sorzard/wizerer getting the best of both worlds just being a few of them. Thanks for bringing subtle spell into the spotlight.

Naanomi

2017-01-09, 12:47 PM

Quoxis

2017-01-09, 12:55 PM

Another fun subtle spell trick: make others look like spell casters. In a magic-unfriendly town, guy is accusing you of witch craft... when he points accusedly at you, subtle misty step into an nearby water trough! (Deception) clearly he's the witch!

Or give the non-magical party tank a pointy hat and a spellcasting focus, making him scream random magic sounding words (EXPELLIWHATEVER! WINGARDI SOMETHING-OSA! YOU SHALL NOT PASS!)while disguising yourself as a random NPC, leaving the enemy in awe because they can't stomp a simple sorcerer into the ground or at least break his concentration.

Naanomi

2017-01-09, 01:04 PM

Or give the non-magical party tank a pointy hat and a spellcasting focus, making him scream random magic sounding words (EXPELLIWHATEVER! WINGARDI SOMETHING-OSA! YOU SHALL NOT PASS!)while disguising yourself as a random NPC, leaving the enemy in awe because they can't stomp a simple sorcerer into the ground or at least break his concentration.
If you are trying this route, may I recommend the lightfoot halfling: disguised as human child 'torchbearer'?

CursedRhubarb

2017-01-09, 01:52 PM

Well this thread turned into a convention of Vice Admirals of the Narrow Seas rather quickly.

Subtle spell is a nice Metamagic and does get overlooked quite often. I've always thought it tends to get passed over as many tend to build their characters for maximum damage output and other Metas tend to add more to numbers while Subtle works wonders in social encounters and when you want to sneak something into the mix.

Subtle+Illusions is brilliant, really sells the illusion without the words or motions. Some spells though don't seem like they would be as sneaky. While Subtle makes them silent to cast and you don't have to wave your arms about using it on things like Fireball, Eldritch Blast (if MC or feat), or others that have a ray, projectile, or cone; then you give away yourself as the caster as they will visibly come from you and might give off light as well. So if being sneaky it's something to keep in mind.

While RAW it should work, Subtle always seemed strange to me that it works for spell like Suggestion. This is mainly because I've always read it as the Verbal component for the spell was you trying to compelled them to do something and Subtle would make it so you try to get them to do something without telling them what you want them to do, and seemed like it would negate the spell itself. (Side thought: would a Sorcerer/ GOO Lock MC be able to use suggestion in an area under a Silence effect?)

Now, the amount of people tossing around the word "Plebe" is just sad. That word is reserved for the sad people that are PC Master Race GamerZ and you are all better than that. Now chin up and stop acting like yaldsons and we can put this fustilarian prattle behind us.

Yay old words are fun! Thought I'd toss in some that are more fun since plebe has been used so abysmally.

Slayn82

2017-01-09, 03:46 PM

I think that the whole point of being a sorcerer is trying to break the action economy, either by being sneaky with Subtle Metamagic, being fast with Quickened Metamagic or bruteforcing with Twin and Heightened.

On this sense, a sorcerer with two metamagic talents actually knows 3 versions of each spell. Quickened really allows some strong options in the action economy, as you pointed, like using items, dodging, moving.

Favored soul is in my opinion better than Draconic bloodline, specially if you choose a versatile domain full of utility like trickery. Medium armor isn't bad. Or you take something offensive as light or tempest, and choose utility spells. Personally, I think cantrips +3 blasting spells is more than enough, so I like Trickery.

Fishyninja

2017-01-09, 03:54 PM

To move slightly off topic but along the lines or Sorcerers.

I have built a Sorcerer, but have had yet a chance to build him. Now from looking at the two PHB backgrounds, Wild Magic seems more interesting to me but I have been told by the DM I can use favoured soul. Now this obviously gives me more spells are nice as well as being healed when spell casting.

Opinion of the thread?

Isaire

2017-01-09, 04:54 PM

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-09, 05:13 PM

I agree that Favoured Soul solves one of the most pressing problems of the sorcerer - the lack of spells known. Some of the domain spells are absolutely fantastic as well - War domain will get you Spirit Guardians, for example, a spell of great utility and power. Pick the right domain and you'll really stand out as a caster.

Vaz

2017-01-09, 06:18 PM

a sorlock converting short-rest-resetting spell slots into countless uses of undetectable eldritch blasts ("We're under attack!" - "From where?" - "I DON'T ****ING KNOW!")

As a heads up, you will be able to see where the beams of energy for EB are coming from. The spell isn't invisible.

Zene

2017-01-09, 06:20 PM

Favored soul is ridiculously good. If the DM allows it, it's (by far) the optimized choice. That said, if wild (or for some reason dragon) would be more fun for you to play, they are still great choices, so go for it.

To TheUser: Fantastic thread, thanks so much for posting. I have a dragon sorcerer that just picked up Subtle; I knew it had a ton of potential, but after researching the various forums I found there wasn't really all that much written on it. I figured I'd have to just figure it all out myself, til I saw this post. Nice job! I got tons of new tips/ideas from your initial post and some of your follow-up comments. Hope you don't mind if I link to this in a metamagic guide/thread someone's building on another site.

:::And I took your "plebs" comment as being totally tongue in cheek. As you mentioned-- this is a very complex class to play well (especially if you're multiclassing--goddamn does that get hard to figure). No one is going to have figured out every little detail right out of the gate. Sharing ideas and learning from others is exactly what we should be doing :) :::

LVOD

2017-01-09, 07:02 PM

I love it when people are subtly jerks and then act really high and mighty when you respond in kind. "Please don't be rude right after i berated your idea for being stupid."

Anyway, the OP was pretty great. The point (i believe) is that in a roleplaying game, things like subtle spell are as effective as your creativity allows rather than being directly mathematically better. I think he did a great job explaining new uses for an underused ability.

jas61292

2017-01-09, 07:23 PM

The point (i believe) is that in a roleplaying game, things like subtle spell are as effective as your creativity allows rather than being directly mathematically better.

This is so true, and I think most people know it, but get so caught up in their math that they forget about how things work in practice. I mean, across the internet, every time I see someone asking for optimization help with a sorcerer, the only metamagics that ever get mentioned in response are Quicken, Twin, and sometimes Heighten. Yet, whenever there is a thread asking people about actual play experience and what they think are the best metamagics, 75% or more of the responses seem to be about Subtle spell.

We love to crunch numbers, and in the setting where we are focused on that, things that cannot be expressed in such a way are not valued highly, regardless of their value in actual play.

Slayn82

2017-01-09, 07:58 PM

Yeah. The look of surprise of your enemy when he watches his men turn on him because they have been charmed before combat broke out and want to save the sorcerer is priceless.

TheUser

2017-01-09, 08:18 PM

This is so true, and I think most people know it, but get so caught up in their math that they forget about how things work in practice. I mean, across the internet, every time I see someone asking for optimization help with a sorcerer, the only metamagics that ever get mentioned in response are Quicken, Twin, and sometimes Heighten. Yet, whenever there is a thread asking people about actual play experience and what they think are the best metamagics, 75% or more of the responses seem to be about Subtle spell.

We love to crunch numbers, and in the setting where we are focused on that, things that cannot be expressed in such a way are not valued highly, regardless of their value in actual play.

Agreed. Too many number crunchers with an opinion who haven't played the builds in a compelling RP environment.

Quicken isn't for early levels IMHO (too costly) and twinned gobbles up Sorc points at high level spells. Empower is far better for damage from AoE and "feels" good, because now all your damage spells are worth it. Careful for CC is sublime, Web, Stinking Cloud, Fear, Reverse Gravity; so underrated.

Naanomi

2017-01-09, 10:00 PM

Agreed. Too many number crunchers with an opinion who haven't played the builds in a compelling RP environment.

Quicken isn't for early levels IMHO (too costly) and twinned gobbles up Sorc points at high level spells. Empower is far better for damage from AoE and "feels" good, because now all your damage spells are worth it. Careful for CC is sublime, Web, Stinking Cloud, Fear, Reverse Gravity; so underrated.
I'm not sure I agree with that entirely (I'm unimpressed in general by Empower, and most parties can navigate themselves without Careful in the mix), but I do agree that Subtle is great... and has at least some utility for almost every spell (unlike many picks, which you are lucky for them to effect 3+ spells of your arsenal) for most concepts in my first three picks.

Of all the metamagic options, only Extend (and to a lesser degree, Distant) are rarely of interest to me. Most spells have duration that are really 'lasts this fight', 'lasts a few fights', or 'lasts most of the day'... extend is really only useful for that middle category. Distant is similar in a way... but it does open up 'extreme sniping' (especially with a sorclock) that is unique to the concept, which is neat.

SharkForce

2017-01-10, 01:02 AM

done some thinking for extend. if you made it work somewhat like empower (as in, it doesn't exclude other metamagics and you can use it *after* deciding you need it... as in, if a spell is about to run out you can extend the spell just before that) i feel like it would be a lot more interesting.

but mostly i think the maximum time allowed should go away. it would still be something you only pick rarely, but at least it wouldn't be something you only pick if you're looking to get more efficient healing out of heal over time spells.

Quoxis

2017-01-10, 10:04 AM

As a heads up, you will be able to see where the beams of energy for EB are coming from. The spell isn't invisible.

The spell isn't, but unless someone was already facing the direction where you hid and blasted from, it's impossible to know the range you're in, and whether the NPC can determine the exact direction is up to the DM. You can get hit in the back from a rather wide angle (why yes, i like dirty tricks, my profile picture is a rogue).
Also, if you exchange EB for non-missile-like spells (chill touch?) it doesn't matter if they see the effect as it doesn't give away your position.

Dalebert

2017-01-10, 11:04 AM

I actually had a DM tell me Subtle Spell was OP when I used it exactly as it's intended. I cast Haste on our fighter right before a dual with the chosen champion of a magic-averse barbarian tribe. I used it all throughout that game to mess with the barbarians. He got it though when I explained to him the opportunity cost I had paid in terms of other class features and access to more spells specifically so I can do shenanigans like that.

SilverStud

2017-01-10, 12:09 PM

I just wanted to point something out about the "taking the argument to its logical conclusion."

It was said:

2-Then your logic fails to hold up. You say Sorcerers get better use because they have less spells-following that to its logical conclusion, someone with NO SPELLS should get the best use out of it.

So if you say that having fewer spells known means more punch per metamagic, then it looks like this:

Let "'Subtle' castings" be 'A' and "Spells Known" be 'B', while 'C' is "Punch per Subtle Casting"

A/B = C

As B gets smaller, C gets larger. This is can be demonstrated with real values: 10/10 = 1, 10/8 = 1.25, 10/6 = 1.666, 10/5 = 2, 10/2 = 5, and so on.

But when you say silly reducto ad absurdum arguments like the above quote, what you have done is this:

A/0 = C

And as everyone knows, you cannot divide by zero.

Now I'm not saying that the premise (less spells known somehow empowering your subtle spell?) is true. Now you might be thinking "Well that's exactly why the logic doesn't hold up!" But that isn't true. Since division by zero is an impossibility, it cannot be considered a logical conclusion. Thus, our A/B = C is only true when B>0. Since the smallest possible number of spells slots possible is 1, Barbarians cannot be included in these considerations.

You can't use skewed logic to identify other skewed logic.

I'm one of them
the logic debaters....

Slayn82

2017-01-10, 12:37 PM

Honestly, I think unless you are playing a Wizard, who has a Grimoire an can try to catch it all, spells from levels 7 -9 aren't a good investment of limited spells know. There's so few slots to actually cast them per day, you aren't very far from the Warlock. At least, it's how I feel with my Lore Bard.

With a Sorcerer, I would pick one spell of each level in the 7 -9 range + Wish, 4 good and distinctive spells. 3 spells on level 5-6, and focus the remaining spells in levels 1-4, who I feel are the most important.

Addaran

2017-01-10, 12:37 PM

I just wanted to point something out about the "taking the argument to its logical conclusion."

It was said:

So if you say that having fewer spells known means more punch per metamagic, then it looks like this:

Let "'Subtle' castings" be 'A' and "Spells Known" be 'B', while 'C' is "Punch per Subtle Casting"

A/B = C

As B gets smaller, C gets larger. This is can be demonstrated with real values: 10/10 = 1, 10/8 = 1.25, 10/6 = 1.666, 10/5 = 2, 10/2 = 5, and so on.

But when you say silly reducto ad absurdum arguments like the above quote, what you have done is this:

A/0 = C

And as everyone knows, you cannot divide by zero.

Now I'm not saying that the premise (less spells known somehow empowering your subtle spell?) is true. Now you might be thinking "Well that's exactly why the logic doesn't hold up!" But that isn't true. Since division by zero is an impossibility, it cannot be considered a logical conclusion. Thus, our A/B = C is only true when B>0. Since the smallest possible number of spells slots possible is 1, Barbarians cannot be included in these considerations.

You can't use skewed logic to identify other skewed logic.

I'm one of them
the logic debaters....

Theorically, if you go with higher level of math, when you divide by zero, it tends toward infinity. Thus giving a way better punch. =P

SharkForce

2017-01-10, 12:44 PM

I just wanted to point something out about the "taking the argument to its logical conclusion."

It was said:

So if you say that having fewer spells known means more punch per metamagic, then it looks like this:

Let "'Subtle' castings" be 'A' and "Spells Known" be 'B', while 'C' is "Punch per Subtle Casting"

A/B = C

As B gets smaller, C gets larger. This is can be demonstrated with real values: 10/10 = 1, 10/8 = 1.25, 10/6 = 1.666, 10/5 = 2, 10/2 = 5, and so on.

But when you say silly reducto ad absurdum arguments like the above quote, what you have done is this:

A/0 = C

And as everyone knows, you cannot divide by zero.

Now I'm not saying that the premise (less spells known somehow empowering your subtle spell?) is true. Now you might be thinking "Well that's exactly why the logic doesn't hold up!" But that isn't true. Since division by zero is an impossibility, it cannot be considered a logical conclusion. Thus, our A/B = C is only true when B>0. Since the smallest possible number of spells slots possible is 1, Barbarians cannot be included in these considerations.

You can't use skewed logic to identify other skewed logic.

I'm one of them
the logic debaters....

that isn't the premise.

the premise is that someone with fewer spells known can make better use of magic items that let you cast spells because it is a comparatively larger increase in the variety of effects you can make.

famousringo

2017-01-10, 12:59 PM

I have pulled a few good tricks with Subtle:

1. Yes, Subtle Suggestion to blow away social encounters. I don't think it was actually necessary, but it did expedite things.

2. Hasting an ally in a "no interference" duel. I probably did win that duel for him.

3. Hasting myself in an area of Silence. Kept myself from getting murdered in a fight and the Silence kept our scouting mission from drawing unwanted attention. The shadow monk and I make a decent ninja team.

Now that I have three levels of Arcane Trickster, Subtle allows me to plug the only remaining weakness in Mage Hand and use Message almost like telepathy, and more enchantment/illusion spells to cast on the sly, though none of this has come in useful yet.

Subtle isn't exactly God mode. My use of Suggestion has been severely curtailed by language barrier, sometimes the DM simply rules your Suggestion wording ineffective, and there are some creatures with which illusions and enchantments simply don't get you very far. And it's always more efficient to get what you want with skills rather than a spellcast.

Edit: Also, how effective Subtle is depends greatly on the DM's attitude to spellcasting. Some are content to allow enchantments and illusions in full public view without social repercussions for the sake of fun, and others allow deception or stealth checks to conceal a spellcast. If sharp-eyed enemies aren't picking up on spellcasting, Subtle becomes devalued.

Edit Edit: And three notable uses of Subtle in eight levels of play make it a decent class feature, not an OMG-every-sorcerer-that-doesn't-take-Subtle-is-noobsauce feature.

Georlik

2017-01-10, 01:03 PM

NO OTHER FULLCASTER RECIEVES FREAKING SUBTLE SPELL

Druid capstone.

CursedRhubarb

2017-01-10, 01:31 PM

1. Yes, Subtle Suggestion to blow away social encounters. I don't think it was actually necessary, but it did expedite things.

I figure Subtle+Suggestion probably looks like a staring contest until the target wanders off.
I know it should work by RAW, but it makes no sense how you would get them to do something specific without telling them what to do so it seems rather awkward.

I shall now always picture the creepy guy in the corner of the pub with the cho-mo-stache, that always seems to be staring at the Halfling barmaid, is actually a Sorcerer trying to Subtle Suggestion his way into a very creepy fantasy.

AvatarVecna

2017-01-10, 01:44 PM

The spell isn't, but unless someone was already facing the direction where you hid and blasted from, it's impossible to know the range you're in, and whether the NPC can determine the exact direction is up to the DM. You can get hit in the back from a rather wide angle (why yes, i like dirty tricks, my profile picture is a rogue).
Also, if you exchange EB for non-missile-like spells (chill touch?) it doesn't matter if they see the effect as it doesn't give away your position.

I think the Sorcerer is pretty cool, and I think Subtle Spell is pretty cool, but I feel a need to address this point out of fairness: my recollection was that making a ranged attack while hidden automatically revealed your position; sure, if you had Greater Invisibility up, you're still invisible, but the blast still originated from a particular square. Now, you could move away from that square after firing, but without a Stealth check they still know where you are (and just have disadvantage to hit you due to the invisibility). Now, if your DM is nice, they might pretend that 5e has facing rules by default, and that enemies facing away from the blast don't get to automatically know where it came from, but that's not the default; alternatively, if your DM is nice, they'll let you automatically make a Stealth check to immediately re-hide after firing if you're invisible, but again that's not the default; finally, your DM might be nice and force their NPC to guess (read: roll randomly) to see which square they think they should target to hit the invisible mage (admittedly I'm unsure if being invisible and on-the-move lets you stealth again without taking the Hide action, but my group has tended to allow it on a "it makes sense to me" basis).

Again, not dissing the sorcerer or sneaky tactics in general, just pointing out some potential flaws. My IRL group has an illusion who pulls BS like this all the time, and it's always wonderful to see (especially when he buffs my Rogue/Fighter so that I can pull off BS too :smallbiggrin:).

EDIT: Also, in regards to the "no other class receives Subtle Spell", I'll point out that an Illusionist 6 gets an ability that lets them change the specifics of an active illusion spell as an action (essentially letting them "recast" the spell without actually casting the spell. It's not nearly as universal as Subtle Spell, of course, and it only affects later "castings" of the spell and not the first casting, but it also doesn't really cost resources to use.

Naanomi

2017-01-10, 01:54 PM

I figure Subtle+Suggestion probably looks like a staring contest until the target wanders off.
I know it should work by RAW, but it makes no sense how you would get them to do something specific without telling them what to do so it seems rather awkward
My guess it is more like I ask you to do something and you do it without me being obvious about it being magic 'look into my eye!' commands

Fishyninja

2017-01-10, 02:02 PM

Most importantly, what do you want to play as?

The main problem people have with sorcerer is the small number of spells known. In that sense, favoured soul is op as you gain more spells known, and medium armour is also very good to have for free. So if you want to be a very powerful character, go favoured soul (note - when discussing balance of sorcerer, favoured soul is never included, as its too good!). But Wild Magic may well be more fun - make sure to talk to DM about how surges will be triggered, as it rather depends on the DM for Wild Magic to be effective.

Ideally I would like to be a bit of an all rounder not too shabby in the fornt or back but I am not interested in optimising, I have other characters for this. The premise of this charcters background is no memory (there is a bit more built in to that but that's for anohter day) so he doesn't actually realise he has magic until he used it in his past so now he has no idea what he can or cant do, for that reason alone Wild Magic seems better but favoured soul is a good mix.

I have suggested to the DM is that he picks out my spells, in secret, places them on index cards and numbers them, when I cast a spell on my round he rolls a dice corresponding to the numebr of spells I have and I have to cast that spell.

famousringo

2017-01-10, 02:34 PM

I figure Subtle+Suggestion probably looks like a staring contest until the target wanders off.
I know it should work by RAW, but it makes no sense how you would get them to do something specific without telling them what to do so it seems rather awkward.

I shall now always picture the creepy guy in the corner of the pub with the cho-mo-stache, that always seems to be staring at the Halfling barmaid, is actually a Sorcerer trying to Subtle Suggestion his way into a very creepy fantasy.

I believe Sage Advice has clarified how Suggestion works. There is a language component, and Subtle doesn't get rid of that, but it does get rid of the mumbo-jumbo you need to utter before you suggest a course of action.

It's nice, but it does mean that the target needs to hear and understand the Suggestion, so you can't really cast it from stealth and stay hidden, for example. It also means that if the Suggested action is way out of character, an observer may still suspect foul play on the part of the caster, rather than nobody having a clue why the target is taking a that course of action. They may not immediately suspect a spell's involved, though.

A generous DM might let you combine Subtle Suggestion with the Message cantrip or GOOlock telepathy, I suppose.

Specter

2017-01-10, 02:38 PM

Zorku

2017-01-10, 02:41 PM

if they understand that you can make the most use out of the item because it gives you far more variety
So you tell the party that this particular thing is what starts to make you broken (or rather, fixes your class and makes your meta start to become ludicrous,) and the warlock just gives up on wanting the same kind of thing because you can spend sorc points for it...

This whole line of argument has been kind of weak, but where 5e doesn't really let us zero in on specific items... I'll cut some slack.

Manners cost nothing.I find it to be terribly ill mannered to spend half of a page setting this tone of offense over an obvious parting joke. I'll exercise my own manners by not proceeding to tell you what emotional reaction you had reading this and how you let that reaction provoke this response against somebody that hadn't fully earned it. I'm only even bringing up that kind of response (and you surely recognize that almost automatic internet behavior, right?) to emphasize how similar it is to what you've done just now and that it would be my tit for tat move if I wanted this thread to enter a plummeting spiral.

Instead, I suggest that you brush up on your manners, particularly the parts where you keep criticism brief, unless elaboration is really warranted.

The back and forth insistence that you are correct, struck me as utterly obscene, when talking about manners. As such, I want to make it clear that I've not just written this because I'm overly infatuated with irony. Please invest some consideration into this matter, regardless of whether that means responding to me here.

While RAW it should work, Subtle always seemed strange to me that it works for spell like Suggestion. This is mainly because I've always read it as the Verbal component for the spell was you trying to compelled them to do something and Subtle would make it so you try to get them to do something without telling them what you want them to do, and seemed like it would negate the spell itself. (Side thought: would a Sorcerer/ GOO Lock MC be able to use suggestion in an area under a Silence effect?)
Much like the beams on eldritch blast, I don't think that the suggestion itself is the (entire) verbal component of casting suggestion. Otherwise it is already rather too subtle of a spell. Spells don't tend to say anything about what actual words are uttered to cast them, partially to be setting neutral. The implication seems to be that you're not just shouting "fireball!" to imolate a bunch of cultists, but rather some latin (or otherwise fancy sounding key words,) before you talk in the living language of those around you.

The spell description doesn't say that you can't give the suggestion telepathically, but again, I don't read the verbal component to be the same thing as the suggestion phrase itself. If you want to do a subtle spell suggestion via the awakened mind class feature while in a silence'd area, I'd allow that at my table.

I don't particularly trawl for tweets regarding this though, so don't take my interpretation too strongly.

The spell isn't, but unless someone was already facing the direction where you hid and blasted fromThere aren't facing rules in 5e. The best you get is that little line about sneaking where it suggests some DM fiat calls if you want your buddies to draw their attention. That sounds a lot like a combat if you're using motivated reasoning, but in combat enemies are assumed to be extremely alert to what's going on around them, unless you've got some particular effect or feature that declares otherwise.

AvatarVecna

2017-01-10, 02:48 PM

Much like the beams on eldritch blast, I don't think that the suggestion itself is the (entire) verbal component of casting suggestion. Otherwise it is already rather too subtle of a spell. Spells don't tend to say anything about what actual words are uttered to cast them, partially to be setting neutral. The implication seems to be that you're not just shouting "fireball!" to imolate a bunch of cultists, but rather some latin (or otherwise fancy sounding key words,) before you talk in the living language of those around you.

I think the Suggestion spell's verbal component is just the thing you're suggesting, but there's other noticeable signs that give away that you're casting something. It's only not-obvious to the person you're casting the spell on, since you're manipulating their mind - but somebody else present could notice. Think of it like Jafar in Aladdin: whenever it was just him and the sultan, he could hypnotize him just fine...but as soon as he did it with people present, Aladdin noticed what as going on (although Jasmine didn't, admittedly, so that's likely Aladdin being more perceptive).

TheUser

2017-01-10, 03:21 PM

Zorku

2017-01-10, 04:44 PM

I think the Suggestion spell's verbal component is just the thing you're suggesting, but there's other noticeable signs that give away that you're casting something. It's only not-obvious to the person you're casting the spell on, since you're manipulating their mind - but somebody else present could notice. Think of it like Jafar in Aladdin: whenever it was just him and the sultan, he could hypnotize him just fine...but as soon as he did it with people present, Aladdin noticed what as going on (although Jasmine didn't, admittedly, so that's likely Aladdin being more perceptive).

You're free to run it however you want, but if the words of the suggestion are the verbal component itself then the only other written requirement requires you to keep a hand in your pocket. If the fellow with the long gray beard and thematically matching pointy hat twists his hands over a spell focus orb while he gives somebody a direct command... then sure, other people are going to notice that. If the scruffy looking farm boy makes an impassioned plea and makes his way roundabout to "I don't have much money, but please; Take these copper and send your men up the river to attack that awful place." as he jams his hand in his pocket for most of that phrase, then pulls his hand back out to present a few coins in his open hand, then you're kind of getting a class feature for free, and as a DM I'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason that there's any roll involved in this, except maybe a DC5 sleight of hand check, with advantage, to get your fingers on the component while your moving hand clinks the chump change you had in your pocket for just such an occasion.

If there was a somatic component then the Jafar thing would be fine, but where you want it to just be the command phrase and getting your hand on a component or spell focus... aint no reason people are going to recognize that as magic. They might recognize it as a weird and sudden change of heart, but if the character doesn't stink of magic then there's no reason to expect this was magic.

Slayn82

2017-01-10, 05:41 PM

I think that's why people common people are instinctively afraid of stranger who deal with magic.

But, at least to common folk, if Jaffar's eyes pulse red, if his cape moves despite there's not being any wind, and he starts singing with a chorus and making objects of your desire appear and disappear, as far as they know that guy is always working magic (and you never know when exactly you were ensorcered). Meanwhile, the caster used prestidigitation, minor illusion and suggestions.

Unless you have enough Knowledge to identify that magic or recognize it, you just know: that guy did some magic, since there's no visible effects. Casters should be doing it all the time. Also, being discrete and subtle usually means you are surprising the target. If it works, he won't even remember it happened. And Jaffar is just speaking to me while holding his serpentine staff (arcane focus), like he does all the time. He is always carrying that thing. Sure, Jaffar is getting uncomfortably close and smiling strangely, but what he says makes perfect sense. It's a good thing Jaffar is such a great man, a great Vizzir.

Alatar

2017-01-10, 09:16 PM

I can see how Subtle Spell would be really effective in a politically, socially oriented campaign, but less effective in a militaristic, combat heavy campaign. It could still be used to good effect, I am sure. But, hey, that guy on the battlefield with no armor who appears to be doing nothing? Kill him. That's what my battlemaster would do. Yes, he would. The battlegrid is his workplace and he knows funky when he sees it.

I'm about to introduce a sorcerer into an ongoing campaign. He'll be 11th or 12th level, depending on when that right moment arrives. He won't be subtle. His three metamagic options (an awkward phrasing, but true to the text) will be Quickened Spell, Twinned Spell and Distant Spell. He'll have two feats, Alert and Spell Sniper.

It's a large party, consisting of a life cleric, an oath of devotion paladin, a bladesinger wizard, a blade pact warlock, a swashbuckler, a champion and a battlemaster. The sorcerer will replace the battlemaster. He'll be the only soft target in a party of seven. The campaign will go the full 20.

The sorcerer will focus on buffs and spell sniping. Round 1 will be buff delivery. Subsequent rounds will feature twinned and/or quickened cantrips from range. He's got quite an assortment of attack cantrips, including Eldritch Blast, acquired via the Spell Sniper feat.

The buff will be, in order of frequency, twinned Haste, twinned Greater Invisibility or Fly cast at 6th level on 4 targets. In all three cases, the sorcerer himself will be one of the recipients of the buff. In the case of Greater Invisibility, the cleric will be the second target. The champion, a dwarf, will get Haste. I'm not sure about how I'll divvy up Fly. Fighter, paladin and rogue, perhaps.

Distant Spell allows me to cast touch spells at a range of 30 feet. Fly is a touch spell. It also extends counterspell to 120 feet, though I could see debates about detecting spellcasting at that distance.

So, spammed cantrips, even three per round, might be considered a sub-optimal offensive strategy. And if cantrip spamming is what you want to do, then why not play a warlock? His cantrips get extra punch.

Well, legendary resistance and spell resistance doesn't do squat against an attack cantrip. In fact, nothing I cast will invite a saving throw. And we already have a warlock. Introducing a second warlock at 11th or 12th level would be rude. "Here, let me show you how that's done properly." Plus there's that patron dealio.

This all works by converting spell slots to sorcery points in a wholesale fashion, leaving only what is necessary for the buff spells. That makes for heaps of meta-cantrips. The mass Fly is a bit over budget, but it won't be at tier 4, when it will be most useful.

All the above is to point out that there is more than one way to approach playing the sorcerer. Making the spell slots and metamagic options fungible via the medium of sorcery points introduces a great deal of flexibility. Yes, more sorcery points would be better. More is always better. But making it work well within the limits set forth is what a game is all about, and at 11th or 12th level, these limits don't seem terribly limiting.

Edit:

Now chin up and stop acting like yaldsons and we can put this fustilarian prattle behind us.

I'd give an xp award for that.

TheUser

2017-01-10, 10:30 PM

I can see how Subtle Spell would be really effective in a politically, socially oriented campaign, but less effective in a militaristic, combat heavy campaign. It could still be used to good effect, I am sure. But, hey, that guy on the battlefield with no armor who appears to be doing nothing? Kill him. That's what my battlemaster would do. Yes, he would. The battlegrid is his workplace and he knows funky when he sees it.

Yeah, ok. A prisoner who's shackled up running for cover is soOooOo fishy. Or that unarmed bloke dressed in commoners clothes seeking cover is legit a huge threat! /s
I think it's all well and good to say in hindsight (as in, after I've disclosed the strategy)
"I would totally kill that guy over the full plate wearing paladin that's closer and not behind cover."
I love how every illiterate pleb that starts trying to say subtle is primarily for social settings completely ignores the first piece of rationale over why subtle spell is amazing: You can't be grappled/restrained/counterspelled to stop you from casting. This is a purely combat advantage and is the first point I make because it's actually the best part of the metamagic. So even if you do see through the helpless bystander facade, there's nothing you can do to stop this guy from casting spells save for strip them of their arcane focus, and their hidden component pouches.

I'm about to introduce a sorcerer into an ongoing campaign. He'll be 11th or 12th level, depending on when that right moment arrives. He won't be subtle. His three metamagic options (an awkward phrasing, but true to the text) will be Quickened Spell, Twinned Spell and Distant Spell. He'll have two feats, Alert and Spell Sniper.

It's a large party, consisting of a life cleric, an oath of devotion paladin, a bladesinger wizard, a blade pact warlock, a swashbuckler, a champion and a battlemaster. The sorcerer will replace the battlemaster. He'll be the only soft target in a party of seven. The campaign will go the full 20.

The sorcerer will focus on buffs and spell sniping. Round 1 will be buff delivery. Subsequent rounds will feature twinned and/or quickened cantrips from range. He's got quite an assortment of attack cantrips, including Eldritch Blast, acquired via the Spell Sniper feat.

You want 20 Charisma ASAP. Also if you really plan to be an eldritch blaster just take the 2 levels in warlock, get your level 1 spells from warlock and put none of your sorcerer spells there (take 0 level 1 spells with sorcerer levels) and get Eldritch Spear and Agonizing Blast Invocations (300ft Eldritch blast range and +Cha to damage). By not getting the warlock levels you're losing out on up to 15 damage per round. Then you can distant spell and spell sniper for 1200ft (or just not take spell sniper since you'll be able to get off 600ft Eldritch blasts anyway).

All the above is to point out that there is more than one way to approach playing the sorcerer. Making the spell slots and metamagic options fungible via the medium of sorcery points introduces a great deal of flexibility. Yes, more sorcery points would be better. More is always better. But making it work well within the limits set forth is what a game is all about, and at 11th or 12th level, these limits don't seem terribly limiting.

Edit:
I'd give an xp award for that.

I never said there's only one way to play a sorcerer, but based on what I've read on these forums, the majority of the community has never seen just how insane subtle spell is in the hands of a creative player.

SharkForce

2017-01-10, 10:44 PM

Yeah, ok. A prisoner who's shackled up running for cover is soOooOo fishy. Or that unarmed bloke dressed in commoners clothes seeking cover is legit a huge threat! /s
I think it's all well and good to say in hindsight (as in, after I've disclosed the strategy)
"I would totally kill that guy over the full plate wearing paladin that's closer and not behind cover."
I love how every illiterate pleb that starts trying to say subtle is primarily for social settings completely ignores the first piece of rationale over why subtle spell is amazing: You can't be grappled/restrained/counterspelled to stop you from casting. This is a purely combat advantage and is the first point I make because it's actually the best part of the metamagic. So even if you do see through the helpless bystander facade, there's nothing you can do to stop this guy from casting spells save for strip them of their arcane focus, and their hidden component pouches.

typically, you can't be grappled/restrained/counterspelled to stop you from casting whether you use subtle spell in any reasonable time frame regardless. i mean, counterspell is a concern. theoretically. if there's even an enemy around that can cast it. which there usually isn't.

as to restrain and grapple, those don't stop you from casting by default (and restrain isn't that widely available, and certainly doesn't typically allow for much follow-up when it is). frankly, considering how squishy even a draconic sorcerer is, i'd be more worried that if something actually manages to get close enough to grapple, they might decide to just straight up kill you. especially if this is happening so often that it makes subtle an amazing option, because that should mean you're already not at your max HP for some of these attempts and you're probably running out of defensive spell slots that aren't severely limiting your offense.

i'm not saying subtle is bad. i'm especially not saying i don't like subtle. it's a great trick to have available, it makes it nearly impossible to keep you from casting spells, and it has good utility in non-combat situations. in situations where subtle is good, it is not just good but almost godlike, and on top of that it doesn't eat up a lot of SP. but it really should not be consistently amazing, because the situations where it is good outside of social encounters are more often than not situations where something has gone horribly wrong to begin with.

Alatar

2017-01-10, 10:49 PM

Naanomi

2017-01-10, 10:51 PM

Yeah, ok. A prisoner who's shackled up running for cover is soOooOo fishy. Or that unarmed bloke dressed in commoners clothes seeking cover is legit a huge threat! /s
I think it's all well and good to say in hindsight (as in, after I've disclosed the strategy)
"I would totally kill that guy over the full plate wearing paladin that's closer and not behind cover.Depends on the circumstance... in a dungeon setting, where a group of guys are invading my lair... I would definitely be immediately suspicious of the unarmed guy accompanying these famous heroes; especially after the first 'sourcessless' magic effect went off. As a PC if I was fighting a group, the GM described one prisoner in the mix, I would target them when weirdness started happening. Obviously, Deceptions check may help that on a 'VS NPC' basis

I love how every illiterate plebnot cute anymore, was barely cute to begin with

that starts trying to say subtle is primarily for social settings completely ignores the first piece of rationale over why subtle spell is amazing: You can't be grappled/restrained/counterspelled to stop you from casting. Grappled doesn't stop casting anyways (as has been pointed out), we don't get to add effects onto combat actions because we think it would be cool.

This is a purely combat advantage and is the first point I make because it's actually the best part of the metamagic.Probably a marginal combat benefit in 90%+ of circumstances, and from a 'only combat matters' perspective I wouldn't support the claim it is worth a Metamagic slot (from a general utility, and once in a while combat bonus perspective I always find a place for it).

So even if you do see through the helpless bystander facade, there's nothing you can do to stop this guy from casting spells save for strip them of their arcane focus, and their hidden component pouches.And there are more than enough 'no material component' spells to pick up a few and really go to town with subtle (my own sorcerer, for obscure reasons, took *only* spells with no material component... subtle spell opens up my whole spell list any time I am conscious)

TheUser

2017-01-10, 11:05 PM

That's just rude. Someone should teach you some manners.

It means ordinary, or average, which statistically speaking, is a compliment for 50% of you.

Naanomi

2017-01-10, 11:08 PM

It means ordinary, or average, which statistically speaking, is a compliment for 50% of you.
It also implies lower socio-economic class status, which isn't impossible but (given we all have internet access) not a safe assumption; and definitely the word (in its full form) carries the connotation of implied insult

SharkForce

2017-01-10, 11:11 PM

It means ordinary, or average, which statistically speaking, is a compliment for 50% of you.

you know, it's not helping your claim that you don't mean it rudely when you pair it with another insult, like calling us all illiterate for example.

subtle (along with a variety of other metamagic techniques) is a great ability. but it isn't so great that it compensates for all the disadvantages that sorcerers have relative to other casters, and it certainly doesn't entitle you to insult anyone.

TheUser

2017-01-10, 11:41 PM

you know, it's not helping your claim that you don't mean it rudely when you pair it with another insult, like calling us all illiterate for example.

subtle (along with a variety of other metamagic techniques) is a great ability. but it isn't so great that it compensates for all the disadvantages that sorcerers have relative to other casters, and it certainly doesn't entitle you to insult anyone.

It's not an insult, it's a factual statement at this point; if the first piece of rationale behind my "subtle is amazing" piece is a combat application, and he proceeds to say it's not really that useful in combat, clearly he's not reading properly.

The point is that it's great for combat, it gives counterspell control! Even if a caster knows it's you counterspelling them, they can never counterspell you and you can always counterspell them. And that's after they have to first deduce that is indeed you counterspelling them. If you went to cast something and you hear: "Your spell fails."
"What why?"
*shrug* "Some errant abjuration magic got jammed into your casting and the spell fizzled...."
"I was counterspelled?"
"Roll an arcana check."
*some high number*
"Yeah you think you might've been counterspelled but you never heard or saw anyone cast it."
"....So it could be anyone who saw me casting the spell?"
"Yes."

People are too butthurt over being called ordinary to realize that what I am saying is indeed true; subtle spell, in the hands of an experienced player, is the differentiating feature between good sorcerers and god sorcerers.

SharkForce

2017-01-11, 12:03 AM

Naanomi

2017-01-11, 12:10 AM

Subtle counterspell can be a fun way to embarrass NPCs in non-combat situations as well...

'I open the gate to the realms beyond!'
*fizzle*
'Umm... I swear this never happens...'

TheUser

2017-01-11, 12:42 AM

1) counterspell is not exactly common. in fact, enemy spellcasters in general are fairly rare. enemy spellcasters with counterspell even more so.

2) it is entirely possible that we are all perfectly capable of reading what you write, and disagree with you. your opinion is not the one true way that everything must be viewed by, and being insulting is a great way to make sure nobody cares enough to listen to you. frankly, at this point you're well on your way to being someone i don't want to ever have another conversation with again. the fact that when people point out you're being needlessly offensive your response is to double down on being offensive really doesn't go a long way towards persuading me that i should give your opinion much weight. my personal experience is that if you consider "you're stupider than i am" to be a good argument seldom have anything to say worth listening to.

1) DM dependant. I find combat with enemy casters both as a player and DM to be much more involved and exciting especially at mid-high levels when counterspell and dispel magic are available.

2) listen, if I give an argument and then I list a bunch of reasons why my argument is valid, and someone comes into the thread and just says "nah" and doesn't really back up their assertion of "subtle spell isn't that great in combat" without trying to deconstruct what I've said or come up with new arguments, it's not really contributing. Over the course of this entire thread I've given examples of how it's absolutely amazing in combat, while this person's not even contributing to the discussion at large. The rudeness may not be necessary, but it has been earned.

Am I being a **** by calling people illiterate, average and uncreative? Sure. But at least I'm putting forth creative options and proper argumentation to generate meaningful discussion.

They could always say something along the lines of "My DM never really contests our casters in that way, he/she let them pretty much cast as much as they want, with no counterspells, no complex grapples and no silences."

Fine, cool, your DM doesn't want to frustrate/challenge you in that way, I get it.

"Because my DM doesn't really make it difficult for our casters to cast with any sort of pressure, being able to conceal my potential from my opponents isn't really an asset since most of my enemies have int scores less than 7."

Which may be the honest truth of the matter; a player can only flourish as much as their DM puts in front of them, if they never have any sort of restrictions put on their ability to do what they want, then some of subtle's utility goes right out the window. But I can't be the one to start trying to argue against myself here.

Coming to a thread and saying "it's not really for combat." and leaving it at that, doesn't even demonstrate that you are reading the thread and responding to any of the points. It's a waste of all our time and merits my cheeky dismissal.

SharkForce

2017-01-11, 01:09 AM

TheUser

2017-01-11, 02:16 AM

reasons why subtle is not the ultimate in combat power have already been given. but whatever, if your attitude is that you're entitled to insult other people because you're right and they're stupid and their opinions aren't important, i'm not going to bother to continue speaking with you.

Best. Strawman. Ever.

Let's be very clear about what I communicated earlier:
The poster whom I insulted, came into the thread, plopped out an assertion, didn't back it up and then talked about his theoretical level 11/12 sorcerer that uses eldritch blast without forceful cantrip (making it worse that a draconic empowered firebolt), which while an interesting build, isn't really relevant to the discussion at large. I think it's nice he tried to demonstrate an alternative build but even if other posters have given reasons as to why subtle "isn't that great in combat" then posting you agree with these specific reasons might even be considered a contribution, but not even that happened.

I questioned this persons literacy because they clearly aren't engaging with what has been written, they are simply dropping on by to give their stance on the topic without any explanation.

I can see how Subtle Spell would be really effective in a politically, socially oriented campaign, but less effective in a militaristic, combat heavy campaign.

The point I'm trying to make is that just saying: "Subtle spell is awesome!" Wouldn't be much of a contribution either unless clear reasoning and rationale is employed. This guy just sort of states "Subtle spell isn't that great in militaristic, combat heavy campaigns" when much of the original post would seem to contradict that statement. If you're going to come into a thread and be taken seriously start actually engaging with the discussion instead of using it as a mechanism to subversively draft your mid-level sorcerer builds.

Vaz

2017-01-11, 07:49 AM

Dude, stop insulting people by calling them plebs. It doesn't make you a better person by getting around the swear filter, stop being a ****ing scrote.

Slayn82

2017-01-11, 09:17 AM

@TheUser: While I'm agreeing with your side of the debate in the viewpoint of metamagics and the Subtle spell, I also think that in order to continue the debate, you should take a more respectiful treatment with those that disagree.

Zorku

2017-01-11, 12:38 PM

It's not an insult, it's a factual statement at this point; if the first piece of rationale behind my "subtle is amazing" piece is a combat application, and he proceeds to say it's not really that useful in combat, clearly he's not reading properly.

People are too butthurt over being called ordinary to realize that what I am saying is indeed true; subtle spell, in the hands of an experienced player, is the differentiating feature between good sorcerers and god sorcerers.
Make up your mind, are you calling people plebs to associate them with the lowliest social class or are you using it in the still insulting manner of insisting that this entire community of relatively creative people are actually just very mundane? I'm going to tell you that this is rhetorical, because I can already plainly see that it's both ways, and apparently you're not advanced enough to recognize that other people are actually pretty good at picking up on connotation, even when you try to distract them with plebian definitions. I'm also going to point out that I'm using that word both ways, as well as a third way, except all in the same sentence, because that's clever on a plebian kind of level. Well, it would be clever in a non-plebian way if I weren't spelling it out, but we can't have nice things like that around here.

Oh and while we're at it,

Best. Strawman. Ever.
Plebs name fallacies as if that means they've won an argument.

You have not been nearly so delicate about which particular person you call illiterate. Up to this point I thought you meant to apply it to everyone that has disputed the combat utility of your NPC ruse, wherein there are some large issues that- I will address outside of this spoiler block.

if the first piece of rationale behind my "subtle is amazing" piece is a combat application, and he proceeds to say it's not really that useful in combat, clearly he's not reading properly.
You're not adjusting anything you say to what people are telling you. I'll break your claim up into individual statements here just to make it really clear what words you need to stop using:
"With subtle spell I don't care about being grappled!" You didn't care about it before. It only mattered in a white room scenario where you're grappled and in a silence spell, and while some people minmax to make their characters do that sort of thing, if your DM is specially tailoring their combat encounters to your party like that you probably shouldn't stay at that table. If they put together combat encounters with these kinds of complex combinations but agnostic to what adventuring party will actually be facing them, then that's fine but you're not going to encounter this one very often.
"With subtle spell I don't care about being restrained!" Happens a little bit on the battlefield, but basically only via spells that you're expected to break out of after a couple of turns. Restrained is only a speed bump in or out of combat, and frankly I don't feel like it's that amazing to just chill in the entangle, with what rarity that comes up.
"With subtle spell I have power overwhelming in counterspell fights!" Yup. As long as your DM wasn't the type to grapple you in a silence spell you don't have to worry about a detect thoughts wizard counterspelling you.

Right now it looks like you're the one that hasn't been reading. I'm giving you more credit than that, but that credit will run out really quickly if you don't make any adjustment here.

My overall critique is that the primary concept of this thread is an interesting pitch for creative solutions in the same way that illusion spells are god mode. They aren't really, and you have very little idea how much bang you'll get for your buck until you've seen how your DM adjudicates these things and generally pick up on what kinds of situations they present to you, but with fairly common outcomes of those two checks, you can use this like a crowbar to pry open a pretty big crack in the setting you're playing in. To an extent, this is rebutting an argument that nobody was making, and overselling one oddly specific way to roll with combat that's run with a heavy and inflexible tactics emphasis, but that still works as an example of what you can get away with at your own table.

Pleb is apparently a much more insulting word than I took it to be, or maybe this is just a bad reputation following the author across multiple threads, but the continued use of the term along with a general lack of integrating any corrections anyone else has offered (or simply altering a phrase here and there to head off interpretations that don't align with the intent behind your words,) gives an impression of deafness and the lack of genuine interaction that entails.

I like the concept here as an option for getting more bang out of sorcerers, albeit a subtle bang, but I don't think that this is a broad enough treatment for an entire character class. Being able to do one kind of thing well doesn't rescue a class from having poor options, and stretching your resources further is something every optimization guide has you doing anyway.

Quoxis

2017-01-11, 12:48 PM

This thread:
20% "you're wrong"
20% "No i'm not"
10% "pleb"
40% "stop calling me pleb, rude ****ing son of a *****"
8% "yeah, i see your point"
2% this analysis

Dr.Samurai

2017-01-11, 12:51 PM

Quoxis

2017-01-11, 01:19 PM

There aren't facing rules in 5e. The best you get is that little line about sneaking where it suggests some DM fiat calls if you want your buddies to draw their attention. That sounds a lot like a combat if you're using motivated reasoning, but in combat enemies are assumed to be extremely alert to what's going on around them, unless you've got some particular effect or feature that declares otherwise.

Interpreting a lack of RAW to your advantage Is basically half this thread's content.
Huge discussions whether excluding the verbal component of a spell that allows you to speak a command to a creature makes it work in total silence.
The OP's assumption that every opponent automatically ignores a hero if they don't look like a stereotypical Tolkien character.
Of course everything is up to the DM, but having a reasonable idea about how your strategy looks like and the fact that neither RAW nor RAI disagree to it are certainly not making it as impossible to pull off as you make it look.

You pleb :P

Vaz

2017-01-11, 01:46 PM

The number of people getting triggered by the word "pleb" in this thread is surprising.

If you want to discuss/debate the topic with TheUser, but his use of the word "pleb" bothers you, try... ignoring it lol.

Try ignoring people being upset about other not enjoying being insulted (regaddless of the word) for simply telling the OP they're talking through their Brown eye.

You're a moron, but hey, just ignore it and move on with your life mate.

Fishyninja

2017-01-11, 04:08 PM

there's nothing you can do to stop this guy from casting spells save for strip them of their arcane focus, and their hidden component pouches.

Being torn apart by the Tarrasque?

typically, you can't be grappled/restrained/counterspelled to stop you from casting whether you use subtle spell in any reasonable time frame regardless.

You need to speak to my DM he's always trying to stop the bard from casting spells by Grappling him.

Going back to the OP.
The concept of a 'sneaky' mage pulling at the strings of society is interesting and I can see the advantages as well as the disadvantages, however, like many interpretations it appears DM dependant.

TheUser

2017-01-11, 04:23 PM

Make up your mind, are you calling people plebs to associate them with the lowliest social class or are you using it in the still insulting manner of insisting that this entire community of relatively creative people are actually just very mundane? I'm going to tell you that this is rhetorical, because I can already plainly see that it's both ways, and apparently you're not advanced enough to recognize that other people are actually pretty good at picking up on connotation, even when you try to distract them with plebian definitions. I'm also going to point out that I'm using that word both ways, as well as a third way, except all in the same sentence, because that's clever on a plebian kind of level. Well, it would be clever in a non-plebian way if I weren't spelling it out, but we can't have nice things like that around here.

Oh and while we're at it,

Plebs name fallacies as if that means they've won an argument.

You have not been nearly so delicate about which particular person you call illiterate. Up to this point I thought you meant to apply it to everyone that has disputed the combat utility of your NPC ruse, wherein there are some large issues that- I will address outside of this spoiler block.

You're not adjusting anything you say to what people are telling you. I'll break your claim up into individual statements here just to make it really clear what words you need to stop using:
"With subtle spell I don't care about being grappled!" You didn't care about it before. It only mattered in a white room scenario where you're grappled and in a silence spell, and while some people minmax to make their characters do that sort of thing, if your DM is specially tailoring their combat encounters to your party like that you probably shouldn't stay at that table. If they put together combat encounters with these kinds of complex combinations but agnostic to what adventuring party will actually be facing them, then that's fine but you're not going to encounter this one very often.
"With subtle spell I don't care about being restrained!" Happens a little bit on the battlefield, but basically only via spells that you're expected to break out of after a couple of turns. Restrained is only a speed bump in or out of combat, and frankly I don't feel like it's that amazing to just chill in the entangle, with what rarity that comes up.
"With subtle spell I have power overwhelming in counterspell fights!" Yup. As long as your DM wasn't the type to grapple you in a silence spell you don't have to worry about a detect thoughts wizard counterspelling you.

Right now it looks like you're the one that hasn't been reading. I'm giving you more credit than that, but that credit will run out really quickly if you don't make any adjustment here.

My overall critique is that the primary concept of this thread is an interesting pitch for creative solutions in the same way that illusion spells are god mode. They aren't really, and you have very little idea how much bang you'll get for your buck until you've seen how your DM adjudicates these things and generally pick up on what kinds of situations they present to you, but with fairly common outcomes of those two checks, you can use this like a crowbar to pry open a pretty big crack in the setting you're playing in. To an extent, this is rebutting an argument that nobody was making, and overselling one oddly specific way to roll with combat that's run with a heavy and inflexible tactics emphasis, but that still works as an example of what you can get away with at your own table.

Pleb is apparently a much more insulting word than I took it to be, or maybe this is just a bad reputation following the author across multiple threads, but the continued use of the term along with a general lack of integrating any corrections anyone else has offered (or simply altering a phrase here and there to head off interpretations that don't align with the intent behind your words,) gives an impression of deafness and the lack of genuine interaction that entails.

I like the concept here as an option for getting more bang out of sorcerers, albeit a subtle bang, but I don't think that this is a broad enough treatment for an entire character class. Being able to do one kind of thing well doesn't rescue a class from having poor options, and stretching your resources further is something every optimization guide has you doing anyway.

Edit: I didn't just name a fallacy to win an argument. I called out the Strawman fallacy and clarified what I communicated earlier so as to deconstruct the strawman. Maybe if you knew what a Strawman was and/or read all of the post properly you'd understand that's what transpired.

You left out the part where I said subtle makes it hard for enemies to determine your location/threat level but let's discuss what you did bring up.

The whole "grapple doesn't stop casting" is entirely DM dependant. It's not a white room. If any enemy decides to clamp a hand over your mouth, then a sizeable number of spell options are cut off. My DM's not entirely a ****, but in a universe where spells are a thing, even semi-intelligent humamoids are going to try these kinds of tactics and may invariably get the drop on you/get close. This isn't cruelty or dickishness this is compelling role play and strategy.

Being restrained a couple of turns is not a "speedbump" especially if your DM has ruled out casting during those turns (telekinesis and web being good examples of restraint that would limit casting). In many cases it can be lethal since anyone who wants to take a swing at you will do so at advantage and knowledge that you are a caster makes you a solid target.

The word pleb has consistently been used by me only in this thread and always to mean average (the average person doesn't read perfectly or creatively use subtle spell). The fact that folks let it ruffle their feathers is not my problem (practicing good reading comprehension will only enhance their experience here). The fact you would think my tone is somehow implying an attack on a person's socioeconomic standing is contextually fabricated based on your own misinterpretations.

If you don't see the exploit potential of the subtle spell niche it likely means your D&D experiences are less challenging on your casters or involve less enemy casters than mine do. I'm willing to accept that.

If any of you run your own campaigns see how your caster players react to an enemy rogue with Athletics Specialisation using a main hand grapple to the mouth from behind followed by a bonus action offhand sneak attack, disallow them verbal spells until they break the grapple. If they genuinely get upset over something pretty iconic and conceivably a common strategy in a fantasy setting, they've probably been coddled for much of their D&D playtime and probably held would probably hold the opinion that Subtle spell sucks in combat.

JNAProductions

2017-01-11, 07:32 PM

You've had it explained to you why using pleb is insulting. Please stop, unless you are intentionally being rude. Even if you disagree with it being insulting, understand that it is to a lot of people here.

As for grapples... it stops you from moving. Nothing more. Yes, they can clamp a hand on your mouth. But all it takes is a second or two of breaking free of that hand to cast a spell. Not hard to imagine a battle trained sorcerer could manage that when the enemy grappled them literally two seconds ago, so likely does not have them perfect grip.

Mellack

2017-01-11, 07:54 PM

It is good if they cover your mouth? So if your DM uses certain house rules, then subtle spell is good against those house rules. How does that matter to my game that doesn't use your house rules?

famousringo

2017-01-12, 01:49 AM

JakOfAllTirades

2017-01-12, 04:20 AM

It means ordinary, or average, which statistically speaking, is a compliment for 50% of you.

Statistically speaking, you just confused Average with Median, so... nope.

AvatarVecna

2017-01-12, 09:35 AM

If grappling actually inhibited spellcasting, it would note so in the condition description...but hey, maybe most DMs run with a more RAI approach. So let's do a little experiment: cover your own mouth your own hand and then say "Avada Kadavra". You may notice that clamping your hand over your own mouth did not prevent you from saying the words (since your lips, tongue, vocal cords, and ability to make mouth-sounds is not being suppressed), it prevented them from being understandable to anybody listening - but spellcasting does not work based on what other people can understand, it's based on whether you can say it or not. If you were to shove your fist into their mouth, that would stop them from verbalizing their spells in my book...but that's a very odd maneuver that neither grappling nor restrained feels quite right for (and something tells me the designers are never going to add a "Fisting" combat maneuver or a "fisted" condition, just a hunch).

Subtle Spell is good in a social setting, nobody is disputing this, but most fights people assume the participants are hostile in one way or another. Dodging around behind cover and peeking out to do nothing is believable at low levels (when even mages tend to have some kind of backup weapon just in case they get caught in melee), but at the higher levels, an unarmed, unarmored dude who never fights is a mage, even if he's pretending to be a commoner. Sure, this becomes a little harder to figure out if the adventurers are say defending the city, but if they're raiding the dungeon, or the villain's castle, or it's a battlefield setting? Unarmored unarmed dudes who don't fight are rarely anywhere near this. The number of groups I've seen IRL or online that take much lower-level NPCs around with them is super-low, and even that's still a higher number of parties than the number of parties I've seen go without a mage. When you're RPing the enemies, and they see the party of "dwarf in full plate with a big hammer", "elven acolyte", "sling-wielding halfling hiding behind the elf", and "Joe the Commoner", the kobolds might not realize Joe is actually a sorcerer, but they'll still be trying to kill him along with everybody else...and of course, 10 levels later, when Joe is still pretending he's totally a commoner, the demons and dragons and fae and monstrous wild animals that make up the party's foes with either know enough to take him seriously, or will be indiscriminatory enough in their targeting that his facade is wasted on fooling them.

TheUser

2017-01-12, 10:19 AM

Statistically speaking, you just confused Average with Median, so... nope.

Pretty sure we're going to see a bellcurve shaped distribution...so 50%

TheUser

2017-01-12, 10:43 AM

Very heavily houseruled indeed. In addition to the lack of a "muffle" maneuver, by RAW you can't make an offhand attack without an Attack action that includes a weapon attack, so grapple + offhand can't be done by a rogue. Even a dual wielding fighter would have to attack with the main hand weapon, then drop it to gain a free hand for the grapple attack before attacking with the offhand. Kind of a goofy maneuver.

Doesn't really make sense from verisimilitude, either. If all you have is one hand over a mouth, you aren't controlling the target at all. They can duck out or spin and push away because without a grip on something, you have no control over their movement. Perhaps I'd allow somebody to grab and cover the mouth, but it would take two free hands to do.

I'll also note that the iconic move is actually either to instantly kill the target at the exact moment the mouth is covered to maintain stealth, or use the threat of violence at that same moment to gain compliance. Neither situation is well represented by a grapple, since the target either stops struggling due to a cut throat or the fear of a cut throat. Insta-kills being rare in DnD, this move seems better suited to an Intimidation check than a combat move.

Have you ever had someone with 50lbs of weight and 2 years of training try and grab hold of you by the mouth from behind? Sure it's not a perfect grab (and you can throw in whatever kind of modifiers you like) but when the blade gets lodged into your back/spine/side it creates the part of the sandwich where "spinning out" isn't much of an option, nor is "ducking" since any movement at all could conflate your injury seeing as the knife may very well still be inside you.

Serious question, if a Rogue in your party wanted to perform this maneuver would you tell them they can't do it because it's now RAW? It's great that you think this is not RAW, we know it's not RAW, but the thing is, this should be a very doable thing by like....anyone. And since you've not offered an alternative that -is- adherent to RAW my only conclusion is that you just wouldn't allow this at all.

Verisimilitude holds up. You're trying to keep them quiet while you stab them. Only difference is the stab might not kill them so you might have to do it a few more times.

Naanomi

2017-01-12, 10:59 AM

Mechanistically, I'm not sure assuming 'autosilence/auto restrain limbs whenever I decide to mention it on a contested athletics check' is really balanced with the rest of the system; and definitely would have been mentioned somewhere if that were the intent of grappling rules.

As for verisimilitude... I have the unfortunate job duty of physically managing aggressive people (adults and teenagers) every day in my job. Now, I'm no 'adventurer', but for the purposes of 'grappling' I'm likely proficient in Athletics (I succeed in the vast majority of those resisted checks every day).

However, even controlling a single limb well (and in my situation, usually with another adult assisting in the restraint) is extremely challenging. Attempting to control someone's mouth is just a recipe to get bitten, if even that: the head and neck are strong and it is fairly simple for a resisting person to maneuver it away from someone trying to get at it (as I've had experience trying to remove things from people's mouths). I have a hard time imagining how you are keeping someone from making noise, holding down both arms, to prevent gestures (I assume you also allow grapples to prevent melee attacks then?) while also doing all the other things a grapple does (preventing movement).

Zorku

2017-01-12, 11:25 AM

Interpreting a lack of RAW to your advantage Is basically half this thread's content.
Huge discussions whether excluding the verbal component of a spell that allows you to speak a command to a creature makes it work in total silence.
The OP's assumption that every opponent automatically ignores a hero if they don't look like a stereotypical Tolkien character.
Of course everything is up to the DM, but having a reasonable idea about how your strategy looks like and the fact that neither RAW nor RAI disagree to it are certainly not making it as impossible to pull off as you make it look.

You pleb :PI'm not a pleb you pleb.

Anyway, you've erred in your description of suggestion, and that topic is hardly a large part of this thread. Moreover, it's very RAW, so pick on one of the other frivolous rabbit holes we're all chasing each other down.

Edit: I didn't just name a fallacy to win an argument. I called out the Strawman fallacy and clarified what I communicated earlier so as to deconstruct the strawman. Maybe if you knew what a Strawman was and/or read all of the post properly you'd understand that's what transpired.
Except that you don't clarify anything. You restate the same phrases quite a bit, as if people will read them again and interpret them differently... except that your go to response is that nobody was literate enough to read it the first time. So far in this thread I seem to be about the only person that's filled in any of the gaps in your arguments to make them stronger, but as I do that I'm still not telling you that they are good. This kind of majority doesn't automatically mean that you're wrong, but if every single person that you talk to is a pleb, and plebs don't understand what you're saying, maybe you need to change how you're communicating.

You left out the part where I said subtle makes it hard for enemies to determine your location/threat level but let's discuss what you did bring up.Yeah, enemies have eyes.

I find it really weird that every combat you're in is a party of adventurers vs an inferior party of adventurers that have no knowledge of what's going on in your campaign. As soon as you ditch that unspoken assumption, that others can't tell you're casting the spells stops mattering real quick. A LOT of potential opponents specifically want to kill the target least able to defend itself and then take off, others don't really chose their target so much as wait to ambush the first person that walks into melee range, and still others are going to have heard about how you're the chosen one of Tiamat and see if they can't pick you off just so those local kobolds will stop being so feisty.

Like I said before, if you've got a bad DM that you shouldn't be playing games with, this might be a good way to take advantage of a flaw in how they run their game. Since you're so bright I'll just let you read between the lines instead of bloating this with another paragraph that spells everything out yet still fails to penetrate that skull of yours.

The whole "grapple doesn't stop casting" is entirely DM dependant. It's not a white room. If any enemy decides to clamp a hand over your mouth, then a sizeable number of spell options are cut off.That's not the grappled condition and most opponents don't have hands made out of fly paper.

My DM's not entirely a ****, but in a universe where spells are a thing, even semi-intelligent humamoids are going to try these kinds of tactics and may invariably get the drop on you/get close. This isn't cruelty or dickishness this is compelling role play and strategy.Idiot. Anyone with two brain cells would know that's not what I was saying. Or maybe you've got a few extra brain cells but you're strawmaning me.

Go back up and read that sentence a second time. I accomplished a lot there, didn't I? Really took the conversation in a healthy direction, and certainly achieved agreement that you did a bad thing.

Less facetious, I was talking about grappling you in a silence spell, not some jerk shoving his fingers down your throat while he pins you. I don't get how an opponent is managing to lock down both of your arms, death grip your jaw area with his much weaker hand muscles, remains standing, can drag you around at half his move speed, and is still free to take actions without breaking the condition. Although the grappler feat in 5e is a trap and written into the book with a reference to playtest grappling rules (yes, I read the same guide as you, back in the day (did they ever officially errata this one?)) it gives you access to exactly the kind of casting shut down I described there (minus any explicit reference to shutting down verbal components, but it's much more reasonable there,) because you are explicitly restrained if they move to turn the grapple into pinning you to the floor. If these enemies are not also restrained by what they are doing then your DM is handing out something that's better than a feat that's meant to cover this situation, but for free. If it's not clear to everyone that this is a strange house rule that breaks the regular balance of the game, I don't know what kind of argument could ever convince them as much.

Being restrained a couple of turns is not a "speedbump"
S t r a w m a n[/jazzhands]

I've just gone over it, but again, the restrained condition is different from the grappled condition.

especially if your DM has ruled out casting during those turns (telekinesis and web being good examples of restraint that would limit casting). In many cases it can be lethal since anyone who wants to take a swing at you will do so at advantage and knowledge that you are a caster makes you a solid target.Going off of the false rules you're working with that would be a big deal if there were high CR spiders or every combat features crowd control casters. Going off of the actual game rules, restrained is still a nasty condition for more casters, but not one that nearly every intelligent creature has easy access to.

The word pleb has consistently been used by me only in this thread and always to mean average (the average person doesn't read perfectly or creatively use subtle spell).Except when you said 'I don't know if that's even an insult so much as a statement of fact at this point,' and in the context I brought up where it actually is a step down to refer to the people here as average/mundane. You can escape the second issue by referring to the local average, but that's not any recognized definition of pleb.

Speaking of definitions, you've ignored the word connotation. If you're not a pleb you are already familiar with that word and why it matters when people through around definitions.

The fact that folks let it ruffle their feathers is not my problem (practicing good reading comprehension will only enhance their experience here). The fact you would think my tone is somehow implying an attack on a person's socioeconomic standing is contextually fabricated based on your own misinterpretations.Except for that time that you did it, and all of those times when people suggested that you were doing it and then did not buy into the definition you've provided.

Just take a moment to imagine that I wrote up a thread where I worked the word "******" into most of my posts. (I wonder if the forum is going to star that one out...) People express some outrage but I insist that it's not really that offensive, even as most of the thread turns into talk about that word, and I provide that definition where it refers to old people being a burden. A quick glance through the thread doesn't strongly confirm which way I mean the word, and only a few short lived voices speak up to say "yeah, his shoulders must be tired from carrying all of you." Almost everyone else keeps telling me to stop using the word, and I insist that it is their fault if they have a negative reaction to it.

Whether you agree that the word is offensive or not, you know that most of society has agreed that the word causes a lot of damage, and that you can't get away with using it in ambiguous situations. If that particular word features strongly in your lexicon, maybe you selectively forget that when you feel like it, but you don't forget so strongly that you expect to get social buy-in from the people telling you that you need to stop using that word.

I chose a strong example, but we're looking at a weak version of the same situation right now, with pretty much the same consequences.

So... if you actually wanted to submit content and promote discussion when you made this thread, you need to stop using that word. If you think that bigotry or bullying or [placeholder for a third b-word that I didn't bother to actually think up] are more important than that, then go ahead and keep calling people plebs until everyone decides you're not worth talking to. This is the internet, so they'll be fairly slow to ignore you, but that is the inevitable result here.

If you don't see the exploit potential of the subtle spell niche it likely means your D&D experiences are less challenging on your casters or involve less enemy casters than mine do. I'm willing to accept that.Or actually understand the difference between grappled and restrained...

Its a fairly major revelation that you both house rule in a grapple-silence and that most of your combats don't merely include some plan for how to deal with the casters in your party but specifically do so by restraining them at the earliest possible juncture. If you've got darkmantles dropping on your head instead, then this is somewhat less of an "I win!" button.

If any of you run your own campaigns see how your caster players react to an enemy rogue with Athletics Specialisation using a main hand grapple to the mouthNo. Besides all of the reasons I've already raised for that being a bad house rule, I also don't stat up monsters using character generation rules. I don't want to outshine the party, the MM suggestion for CR adjustments if you give creatures class levels isn't fine grained enough, and my party comes up with enough min max gimmick builds without me making them deal with invisible gnome warlocks shooting them while carried by an imp familiar.

from behind followed by a bonus action offhand sneak attack, disallow them verbal spells until they break the grapple. If they genuinely get upset over something pretty iconic and conceivably a common strategy in a fantasy setting, they've probably been coddled for much of their D&D playtime and probably held would probably hold the opinion that Subtle spell sucks in combat.
Ok, you're caught in an ambush and the enemy cast feeblemind on everyone that doesn't meet some combination of heavy armor, two handed weapons, or dual wielding swords. Should be fine, int's not your primary stat, even if you're now too stupid to realize you've got subtle spell metamagic. What? Why wouldn't a enemy party with about as many casters as your group do that when they encounter adventurers? They've got class levels and this is the only fight I'm putting them in today so if it's not this then it's as many fireballs on the first round. Hey, where are you guys going?

Pretty sure we're going to see a bellcurve shaped distribution...so 50%Common plebian error. You often see distributions other than bellcurves. Look up bimodal distributions for the simplest examples.

Isaire

2017-01-12, 12:16 PM

1. Suggest has a vocal component, whereby anyone around you will hear you mumble some magic words before issuing the suggestion you wish to give. The use of subtle is to prevent anyone knowing you are casting any sort of magic.
Now, rules are a bit sketchy on this. Presumably with a normal casting of suggestion, the victim you cast suggestion on is not aware of you mumbling some odd sounding words before they decided to do something that you suggested. But everyone else would be. With subtle spell, the only thing anyone knows is that you suggested a course of action and the victim agreed.

2. Grapple vs spell casting.
This is full of house rules, but a lot of DMs would argue that grapple prevents somatic components in spells (seriously, get a friend to hold your arm and tell him to stop you lighting a cigerette. You try to light a cigerette. Reckon you can do it in 6 seconds?). Perhaps a more fair interpretation would be that you can't fulfil a material and a somatic requirement at the same time if grappled, but that is even more specific and house-ruley. All that the grapple rule suggests is that speed is reduced to 0, and hence movement is impossible, but movement isn't necessarily equivalent to being able to move parts of you freely.
Thinking about it further, if you can't cast spells in armour that you aren't proficient in (because it messes with concentration), how is being grappled less distracting? So to argue that grappling has no affect on spell casting seems a little odd, but it is still RAW by some interpretations. In that case, subtle wouldn't help you out though, as you still need to be able to concentrate.
There's nothing in the rules to suggest that grappling can prevent vocal components to spells, and to both grapple and prevent vocal components would require two hands. And presumably therefore two actions. Sure, you could prevent vocal components, but that won't stop the guy just running away from you on his turn, or maybe autu-escaping on use of an action.

So in essence, RAW, grappling would not necessarily prevent somatic spell components. RAI (as interpreted by a lot of DMs) would suggest that grappling does prevent somatic components. Therefore how useful subtle spell is in this context is entirely DM dependent, but in games I play it would certainly be very useful.

famousringo

2017-01-12, 12:26 PM

Have you ever had someone with 50lbs of weight and 2 years of training try and grab hold of you by the mouth from behind?

No, have you ever been grabbed from behind and stabbed?

I've watched enough martial arts competition to know that the parts of a person's body that allow you to control them with the one-handed grip that DnD grapple rules are meant to represent are wrists, ankles, hair, and clothing. Face grabs are typically used to break posture and generate space either before the grapple is engaged or after it's deeply engaged. The former is a defensive maneuver and the latter requires additional limbs to maintain the grapple.

It's important to keep in mind that the grapple rules are meant to allow you to trade one hand for control of the target's movement, and that's all. Trips and stabs are distinct attacks that typically neither receive advantage from the grapple, nor provide an advantage to the grapple. Even something as simple as a pin requires special training.

Giving grapplers free bonus attacks or using the weapon as a factor in the grapple (I would argue that a knife being drawn back for a stab is obviously incapable of controlling somebody's movement) begs the question: Why not just let the stab establish the grapple. That's what you're arguing happens here, the stab is controlling the target's movement, not the face grab. Keep stacking the deck in favour of martials and let them have a free grapple with every hit if they want. Call it impalement.

Naanomi

2017-01-12, 12:34 PM

Whatever grappling represents, it doesn't prevent the use of a halberd or two whips at the same time; I doubt it is doing much to control limbs at all

TheUser

2017-01-12, 01:17 PM

I'm not a pleb you pleb.

Idiot. Anyone with two brain cells would know that's not what I was saying. Or maybe you've got a few extra brain cells but you're strawmaning me.

Go back up and read that sentence a second time. I accomplished a lot there, didn't I? Really took the conversation in a healthy direction, and certainly achieved agreement that you did a bad thing.

I'm most fond of this part because you actually make zero reference to what sentence I'm getting wrong. I couldn't argue even if I wanted to because I have no idea what sentence you're talking about. It's made with so much vitriol and contempt for my intelligence and just fails to even connect with anyone who might be reading this.

Edit: while I understand you're trying to mimic me in an attempt to make fun of me or show me how I sound, I don't do this.

Less facetious, I was talking about grappling you in a silence spell.

ahh but I wasn't. I started the conversation. I said you -could- get grappled in a silence spell, or just restrained of your casting limbs and later discussed a hand over the mouth. I'm not saying it's always going to happen, but if it's something your DM's never do to you, fine. I've already stated that lots of DM's just give casters free reign to cast ad infinitum.

not some jerk shoving his fingers down your throat while he pins you. I don't get how an opponent is managing to lock down both of your arms, death grip your jaw area with his much weaker hand muscles, remains standing, can drag you around at half his move speed, and is still free to take actions without breaking the condition.

Is all you ever do strawman? Is it your go to argumentation style? Actually read that sentence over and tell me if I have even come close to describing this situation (having a gelatinous cube falling on you might do the trick though).

S t r a w m a n[/jazzhands]

I've just gone over it, but again, the restrained condition is different from the grappled condition.

The irony is that you strawman me right here.
I never say once that grappled always equals restrained. I think I mention that your casting appendages can be restrained by a grapple, not always, and the restrained condition is not what I meant to imply (but I figured that was obvious from the language I used). The examples I use are web and telekinesis later. For all your high and mighty talk you can't even read and go after my arguments, you just sort of... I dunno, get mad and put words in my mouth.

Going off of the false rules you're working with that would be a big deal if there were high CR spiders or every combat features crowd control casters. Going off of the actual game rules, restrained is still a nasty condition for more casters, but not one that nearly every intelligent creature has easy access to.

So here we have this common horrendous logical leap wherein I give examples of things that -can- happen and people think it's at all useful to fire back "BUT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN IT DOESN'T WORK/HAPPEN 100% OF THE TIME YOU GUYS, THIS MEANS THE EXAMPLE IS BUNK."

Edit: the point is that if the person doesn't state that it happens all the time or is 100% certain, then you aren't even engaging with their argument.

I don't even need to deconstruct this further, if you can't see why this is a ****ty way to argue with someone you need to go back to school.

Just take a moment to imagine that I wrote up a thread where I worked the word "******" into most of my posts. (I wonder if the forum is going to star that one out...) People express some outrage but I insist that it's not really that offensive, even as most of the thread turns into talk about that word, and I provide that definition where it refers to old people being a burden. A quick glance through the thread doesn't strongly confirm which way I mean the word, and only a few short lived voices speak up to say "yeah, his shoulders must be tired from carrying all of you." Almost everyone else keeps telling me to stop using the word, and I insist that it is their fault if they have a negative reaction to it.

I honestly don't care what words you use Zorku. You can call me whatever names you want. I don't have catastrophically low self-esteem such that any insult or name calling that someone uses towards me in online forums shatters my will and destroys any potential for a meaningful discussion, especially when it's in an internet forum for Dungeons and Dragons....

Or actually understand the difference between grappled and restrained...

Oh man, yah got me. I totally use them interchangeably throughout my discourse. /s

Its a fairly major revelation that you both house rule in a grapple-silence and that most of your combats don't merely include some plan for how to deal with the casters in your party but specifically do so by restraining them at the earliest possible juncture. If you've got darkmantles dropping on your head instead, then this is somewhat less of an "I win!" button.

Just to demonstrate how easy it is to interfere with the verbal component of a spell I'll reference the PHB:
Page 203

"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component."

So while you technically could still form a muffled version of the spell with a hand over your mouth odds are the precise pitch and tone is not being elocuted.

I'm not saying it's a 100% common occurrence, but hey, subtle spell sorcerers can cast verbal spells underwater too! I guess I'll just keep bringing more to the table for you to criticize.

Let's follow the rabbit hole DEEPER!

No. Besides all of the reasons I've already raised for that being a bad house rule, I also don't stat up monsters using character generation rules. I don't want to outshine the party, the MM suggestion for CR adjustments if you give creatures class levels isn't fine grained enough, and my party comes up with enough min max gimmick builds without me making them deal with invisible gnome warlocks shooting them while carried by an imp familiar.

Ok, you're caught in an ambush and the enemy cast feeblemind on everyone that doesn't meet some combination of heavy armor, two handed weapons, or dual wielding swords. Should be fine, int's not your primary stat, even if you're now too stupid to realize you've got subtle spell metamagic. What? Why wouldn't a enemy party with about as many casters as your group do that when they encounter adventurers? They've got class levels and this is the only fight I'm putting them in today so if it's not this then it's as many fireballs on the first round. Hey, where are you guys going?

Good ol' hyperbole.
I describe a situation that involves locking 1 player, out of one component of their spells and you equate this to some impossible ambush. I think you're a little too angry and worked up to be on the forums, is it your nap time?

Zorku, the reason I end up re-stating things is the countless strawmans that get used in this forum. I never once said grappled=restrained=silenced=no somatic spells, but that seems to be what you think I said based on that grapple example you gave earlier (3rd quote). I have to restate myself in different words so there's absolutely zero confusion and so I don't let people like you strawman me all day. While it's great to try and put words in my mouth like: every combat involves a group of inferior adventurers, or all grapples cause silence, this is not what I'm saying. I'm even conceding in a backhanded manner that most DM's just don't challenge casters. What you call "bad DM" I call, "compelling and strategic."

I hope you can take a chill pill and relax a bit ehh? I'm sure getting called a pleb in public wouldn't have you this enraged so why are you letting it get the better of you now?

P.S. Bimodal distributions often create situations where being average puts you above 50% of the distribution....so yeah.

Edit: @ Esaire I think the lighting a cigarette analogy is the best thing I've ever heard with regards to grappling an arm+ spells, specifically "can you do it in 6 seconds?"

TheUser

2017-01-12, 01:42 PM

No, have you ever been grabbed from behind and stabbed?

I've watched enough martial arts competition to know that the parts of a person's body that allow you to control them with the one-handed grip that DnD grapple rules are meant to represent are wrists, ankles, hair, and clothing. Face grabs are typically used to break posture and generate space either before the grapple is engaged or after it's deeply engaged. The former is a defensive maneuver and the latter requires additional limbs to maintain the grapple.

It's important to keep in mind that the grapple rules are meant to allow you to trade one hand for control of the target's movement, and that's all. Trips and stabs are distinct attacks that typically neither receive advantage from the grapple, nor provide an advantage to the grapple. Even something as simple as a pin requires special training.

Giving grapplers free bonus attacks or using the weapon as a factor in the grapple (I would argue that a knife being drawn back for a stab is obviously incapable of controlling somebody's movement) begs the question: Why not just let the stab establish the grapple. That's what you're arguing happens here, the stab is controlling the target's movement, not the face grab. Keep stacking the deck in favour of martials and let them have a free grapple with every hit if they want. Call it impalement.

Yes and I've competed in enough of those competitions to know that grabbing directly onto someone's face from behind is a great way to manage them and is also explicitly forbidden. You want to know how to fight in real life go look at all the rules you can't break in a martial arts competition. If you really want to control someone it's by the face and neck and ironically those are the two areas that are big no-no's in a competition. But it doesn't really afford either of us additional insight into getting stabbed.

What I've said is that having a hand pulling someone closer via cupping it over the mouth, coupled together with the dagger being stabbed into their rear chest area is what cements the hold. Not the knife alone. It is a combination of having the hand holding them and the blade in them which creates this effect, not a singular component.

Naanomi

2017-01-12, 01:51 PM

I know in the abstraction of HP and whatnot this can be lost but... how are you cupping your hand/arm over someone's mouth without getting savagely bitten. I have enough scars from bites even when I intentionally avoid the mouth let alone if I intentionally attempted to cover it.

((Incidentally I have been stabbed by a client in a restraint, I didn't even notice until afterwards))

TheUser

2017-01-12, 02:06 PM

Naanomi

2017-01-12, 02:31 PM

If I had to choose between a few bites and a destructive wave spell I'll take the bites. (are any of your clients equipped with shortswords?)
Nope... steak knives, pencils, nail files (that is the one that got me good)... and bludgeons like lamps and chairs... garden tools... probably 1d4 improvised weapons with (given some of my students) a few points in strength bonus sometimes. More than enough to threaten an NPC like my own's meager HP total :smallwink:

Anyways, my point is that although I know the combat rules don't go into this detail, I know from experience it is very hard to maintain a hold when bitten (or clawed, or ears pulled, etc) even if there are serious risks for releasing it

famousringo

2017-01-12, 02:59 PM

Yes and I've competed in enough of those competitions to know that grabbing directly onto someone's face from behind is a great way to manage them and is also explicitly forbidden. You want to know how to fight in real life go look at all the rules you can't break in a martial arts competition. If you really want to control someone it's by the face and neck and ironically those are the two areas that are big no-no's in a competition. But it doesn't really afford either of us additional insight into getting stabbed.

What I've said is that having a hand pulling someone closer via cupping it over the mouth, coupled together with the dagger being stabbed into their rear chest area is what cements the hold. Not the knife alone. It is a combination of having the hand holding them and the blade in them which creates this effect, not a singular component.

Well I'm glad you were able to pull through.

Face and neck are fair game in MMA, and grabbing the neck from behind is great for control leverage, but it's not going to prevent speaking unless you bring in the second hand for a proper chokehold. Alas, no chokehold mechanics in the DnD rules. Face attacks are used as I described before, to make space and interfere with breathing, but you seem to agree that the mouth on its own is not a good target for control leverage from behind.

By making the dagger a requirement for control, you're admitting that a single hand isn't enough to control the target. It's also implied that if the dagger attack misses or is drawn back for a subsequent attack, control is lost. And what if the offhand weapon is something non-stabby?

So lets codify the houserules we have so far, if we can:

- If you use your Attack action to grapple, you may make an offhand attack as a bonus action.

- A grappled target my not produce somatic components (or retrieve material components?). Although they can still draw weapons and hit you with them just fine or do anything else they might want to do with their hands.

- If you make a grapple attack, you may choose to muffle the target so they cannot produce vocal components, but only if you have a second hand free or if you also make an offhand attack against the target, and your attack should probably succeed because a deflected weapon won't give you leverage on anything, and maybe that offhand attack should be stabby.

Have I missed anything?

Isaire

2017-01-12, 05:57 PM

With regards grapple, only going by how my DMs have ruled, and what I think about it. The issue is, how delicate is the movement you need to carry out to cast a spell? Until you have an idea of that, you can't really say whether grappling would affect it, so I guess here is where the disagreements lie. Wild movements with a weapon will still hurt, will a screwed up movement produce the spell?

It is definitely more interpretation than RAW. But most people, when they play, will logically reach one of two conclusions by thinking through the problem. So, it is DM dependent, but a pretty common interpretation nonetheless.

Spellbreaker26

2017-01-12, 06:20 PM

Naanomi

2017-01-12, 06:24 PM

We know that just wearing armour that you're not familiar with is restricting enough for mages to prevent spellcasting. If just wearing boiled leather can screw up your movements being put in a full nelson sure is.
And yet you can accurately wield a whip, shoot a long bow with accuracy, and reload a crossbow in either case...

Draco4472

2017-01-12, 07:46 PM

I always thought of making a sorcerer focused entirely on enchantment spells using subtle spell.

Currently I'm playing one meant to be a spell casting menace underwater.

SharkForce

2017-01-12, 08:47 PM

We know that just wearing armour that you're not familiar with is restricting enough for mages to prevent spellcasting. If just wearing boiled leather can screw up your movements being put in a full nelson sure is.

all a grapple (in the D&D sense) does is make it so you can't move your entire body around freely. it isn't a full nelson. it isn't even an arm lock. i'm honestly not sure what i would describe it as in RL wrestling terms, but it's a one-handed grip on a person that means they can't move around on their own, but you can drag them around if you want.

if you want to introduce more complex wrestling rules, go ahead... but bear in mind, they should be worse than using a weapon in pretty much any case, as i'm pretty sure the number of armies that voluntarily used their bare hands IRL would be zero.

Naanomi

2017-01-12, 09:03 PM

if you want to introduce more complex wrestling rules, go ahead... but bear in mind, they should be worse than using a weapon in pretty much any case, as i'm pretty sure the number of armies that voluntarily used their bare hands IRL would be zero.
Although, if there were more complex wrestling rules I'd expect to see a fighter, barbarian, or monk subclass making it as good as a weapon at least

Isaire

2017-01-13, 10:36 AM

if you want to introduce more complex wrestling rules, go ahead... but bear in mind, they should be worse than using a weapon in pretty much any case, as i'm pretty sure the number of armies that voluntarily used their bare hands IRL would be zero.

I mean, how relevant is that to any of D&D though? We don't know how combat would develop with regards magic. If you can neutralise the enemy artillery with wrestling, you can bet your ass there would be people effective at wrestling. I'm really not sure any weapon in D&D can be compared to real-life effectiveness either.

Also, monks literally use their bare hands..

Isaire

2017-01-13, 10:37 AM

And yet you can accurately wield a whip, shoot a long bow with accuracy, and reload a crossbow in either case...

You can't accurately use a weapon in armour that you aren't proficient in. You take disadvantage on all Dex and Strength related checks (attack rolls, skills, saves) and can't cast spells.

Naanomi

2017-01-13, 10:55 AM

You can't accurately use a weapon in armour that you aren't proficient in. You take disadvantage on all Dex and Strength related checks (attack rolls, skills, saves) and can't cast spells.
Ah, right you are. Well, I can still shoot a longbow or use a whip with moderate accuracy anyways when wearing nonproficient armor. Which means, mechanically, being grappled is *less* restrictive than that in regards to some of my action choices

Isaire

2017-01-13, 10:59 AM

Ah, right you are. Well, I can still shoot a longbow or use a whip with moderate accuracy anyways when wearing nonproficient armor. Which means, mechanically, being grappled is *less* restrictive than that in regards to some of my action choices

Agreed. I wouldn't argue that grappling prevents all spellcasting, spells like misty step don't involve somatic components (which seemed intentional at the time, as a way of spellcasters escaping grapples...)

famousringo

2017-01-13, 01:14 PM

We know that just wearing armour that you're not familiar with is restricting enough for mages to prevent spellcasting. If just wearing boiled leather can screw up your movements being put in a full nelson sure is.

The only part of the grapple rules that come close to simulating a full nelson are the Grappler feat, and even the restrained condition allows you to attack or spellcast. It's outside the purview of the rules.

If the designers had wanted grapple to mess with spellcasting, they had every opportunity to say so in the rules. They decided that neither the grappled condition nor restrained condition should impact spellcasting. Grapple rules are deliberately simplified and limited in what they can accomplish. They're designed for easy game flow, because previous grapple rules were cumbersome as heck, and they're balanced around what they can accomplish.

Grappling is already considered strong enough that people make entire builds around it. If you expand how easy it is to grapple and what grappling can accomplish, you buff grapple builds, shift the balance of power between martials and casters, and create conditions where an ability like Subtle Spell is considered a god-like, almost essential class ability that maybe every caster should consider dipping sorcerer for.

Now, maybe I'd let somebody tie up a caster so the caster has difficulty casting, but this is going to be harder than a regular grapple because it's trying to accomplish more than a regular grapple, so I'd at least place additional requirements on the grappler, such as requiring two hands (you're trying to control multiple, specific parts of the target's body, not just movement), applying disadvantage (trying to control the spellcasting parts of a target's body means you're less focused on controlling the movement of his body, making the grapple overall easier to escape), or multiple checks (you might get a good grip on the collar of the target to control movement, but fail to obstruct the opponent's mouth).

I sure wouldn't be expanding a rogue's ability to mount offense while grappling and giving away suppression of spellcasting for free with every grapple. That's a straight up buff of rogues and grapplers, and a nerf of all casters, even Subtle Sorcerers, because they'd be paying a sorcery point tax more often than they do under RAW grappling rules.

SharkForce

2017-01-13, 01:16 PM

I mean, how relevant is that to any of D&D though? We don't know how combat would develop with regards magic. If you can neutralise the enemy artillery with wrestling, you can bet your ass there would be people effective at wrestling. I'm really not sure any weapon in D&D can be compared to real-life effectiveness either.

Also, monks literally use their bare hands..

you can neutralise enemy artillery with wrestling. but, just like getting to a wizard, it's getting up next to the crew to do that which causes the problem. and while i'm sure some basic unarmed combat training is standard in many modern armies, the focus is by far on the use of weapons. in our time, those weapons are generally some form of automatic rifle, grenades, and for some soldiers heavier automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, RPGs, etc. in various times in history, it would have meant spears, slings, javelins, darts, swords, axes, clubs, pikes, bows, and a whole host of other weapons. which are generally used because they work better than bare hands.

and yes, monks use their bare hands. and when it comes time to deal damage, they're much worse than a fighter, barbarian, or paladin (and maybe even ranger, not as sure there). monk offensive power comes primarily from ki, which is basically magic. sure, their fists will do sort of decent damage at high levels, but the real threat is stunning strike. which, for the record, can be done with a weapon :P and even then, their offense is comparatively lower. monks are not valued for their offensive power, they're more valued for mobility, targeted control, defensive strength, and sometimes stealth.

(incidentally, mobility and stealth help a lot in terms of getting to the artillery, which is why monks are the preferred class for taking out wizards and similar pesky enemies... but if you could put a fighter next to a wizard and back out again just as easily, fighters would be much better).

Naanomi

2017-01-13, 01:48 PM

There is some indiciation that a garrote (or at least an ettercap's garrote) could stop breathing and thus verbal components

EDIT: Monster Manual page 131

Fishyninja

2017-01-13, 02:04 PM

If we are assuming the "Assassination" tool and not the execution method, if there is a wire thin enough and with enough force it is conceivable to crush the layrnx and damage the wind pipes for ever changing the persons speech or ability to speech (dependant on damage).

Zorku

2017-01-13, 07:21 PM

I'm most fond of this part because you actually make zero reference to what sentence I'm getting wrong. I couldn't argue even if I wanted to because I have no idea what sentence you're talking about. It's made with so much vitriol and contempt for my intelligence and just fails to even connect with anyone who might be reading this."Go back and read that sentence" refers to the one I wrote immediately before it. I'm making the very point that vitriol and contempt impede that kind of connection.

Edit: while I understand you're trying to mimic me in an attempt to make fun of me or show me how I sound, I don't do this.Most of a thread seems to think you do. Even if you don't think that's your fault you probably need to recognize it and make some kind of adjustment to deal with it.

ahh but I wasn't. I started the conversation. I said you -could- get grappled in a silence spell, or just restrained of your casting limbs and later discussed a hand over the mouth. I'm not saying it's always going to happen, but if it's something your DM's never do to you, fine. I've already stated that lots of DM's just give casters free reign to cast ad infinitum.And I specifically made my statements about minmax-y abuse combos. Not recognizing that isn't a mistake on your part; I was simply trying to clarify what I meant.

Before you open our eyes to the amount of homebrew that you treat like the de facto ruleset, that was the only way I could think of that grapple was relevant to spellcasting, and you clearly had a lot of other people that didn't understand why you thought grapple mattered.

Is all you ever do strawman? Is it your go to argumentation style? Actually read that sentence over and tell me if I have even come close to describing this situation (having a gelatinous cube falling on you might do the trick though).We've already gone over how crying fallacy doesn't win arguments, so in a conversation it's your burden to explain exactly what you object to about my characterization here.

As best as I can tell from the RAW, you need to shut down both arms to prevent somatic and material components of spells, and you need to pin the tongue or interrupt the flow of air to prevent verbal components. That seemed to be the kind of thing you were advocating, but given your outrage I will try and do some of your work for you. Is your idea of preventing spellcasting closer to holding onto somebody's collar with one hand while you other hand slaps at their hands and moves up to sit on their speech so that their words are ever so slightly muffled?

I'm stretching (contorting) the rules to even get to that conclusion, but it's really the most generous I can be. If this does not align with what you meant then you're going to have to go into some heavier detail because I really don't see how a default grapple is supposed to both control movement and lock down any one type of spellcasting component at the same time.

The irony is that you strawman me right here.
I never say once that grappled always equals restrained.Then it doesn't interfere with any component of spellcasting. I wasn't strawmanning you, I was steelmanning you. Your entire position on what's great about subtle spell during a grapple is nonsensical without this.

I think I mention that your casting appendages can be restrained by a grapple, not always, and the restrained condition is not what I meant to imply (but I figured that was obvious from the language I used). The examples I use are web and telekinesis later. For all your high and mighty talk you can't even read and go after my arguments, you just sort of... I dunno, get mad and put words in my mouth.Ok, no more improving your positions. Grapple doesn't interfere with spellcasting even if you grab somebody by the arm and you are bad at reading rules and bad at communication.

So here we have this common horrendous logical leap wherein I give examples of things that -can- happen and people think it's at all useful to fire back "BUT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN IT DOESN'T WORK/HAPPEN 100% OF THE TIME YOU GUYS, THIS MEANS THE EXAMPLE IS BUNK."
You've made the mistake of thinking that this was a logic argument with the conclusion "your idea is invalid." What people have been saying to you is "you have oversold the usefulness of this idea." Nobody has ever told you that being able to cast spells while you are forcibly silenced isn't useful, but as much as you complain about when I'm insufficiently poetic in my portrayals of you and your claims, you keep doing a bigger disservice to all of the criticism against you by acting like it is all the most absolute form a claim can take.

My errors blind you because of pride, and your errors blind you because of arrogance. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that subtle spell doesn't do anything about lifting the limitation of having to see your targets to cast spells on them. Ba-dump-tsh.

Edit: the point is that if the person doesn't state that it happens all the time or is 100% certain, then you aren't even engaging with their argument.If you wrote that the way you actually meant it that's just silly. As I have vowed to stop fixing your arguments for you, I have nothing else to say about this lest you amend it.

I don't even need to deconstruct this further, if you can't see why this is a ****ty way to argue with someone you need to go back to school.The closest school gets to teaching you about effective ways to argue with people is debate, but that's only effective when a relatively unbiased judge is present to award you points. This only has any relation to our discussion because of that bit about me not doing extra work to close gaps in your arguments.

I honestly don't care what words you use Zorku. You can call me whatever names you want. I don't have catastrophically low self-esteem such that any insult or name calling that someone uses towards me in online forums shatters my will and destroys any potential for a meaningful discussion, especially when it's in an internet forum for Dungeons and Dragons....The frequency with which you insist that people only disagree with you because they are stupid seems to indicate otherwise.

Oh man, yah got me. I totally use them interchangeably throughout my discourse. /sNo, you assign the mechanical effects of the restrained condition to creatures that are merely grappled. That much is clear after this far into the quote.

Just to demonstrate how easy it is to interfere with the verbal component of a spell I'll reference the PHB:
Page 203

"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component."A gag is not merely a bit of duct tape over somebody's mouth, but a tight bit of cloth that forces their jaw open and pins their tongue. As such, forcing your fingers down somebody's throat was a rather apt description of what a grapple would have to entail.

Edit: There seems to be a muzzle sort of definition for a gag, but where the search results seem to be entirely BDSM related, I can't exactly look into the details of that while at work.

So while you technically could still form a muffled version of the spell with a hand over your mouth odds are the precise pitch and tone is not being elocuted.I don't follow you. Are you saying that your house rule just imposes disad- oh right, I'm not proposing ways to make you make sense right now.

I'm not saying it's a 100% common occurrence, but hey, subtle spell sorcerers can cast verbal spells underwater too! I guess I'll just keep bringing more to the table for you to criticize. Is there an official ruling on if you can speak underwater when you're under the effect of the water breathing spell?

Anyway, I'm happy to acknowledge that subtle spell kicks ass if you've looking at an underwater trip. Those are really rare in games as far as I can tell (but I'm a fan of a lot of ocean stuff so I wish they were more common.) Narrow circumstance, big effect.

Let's follow the rabbit hole DEEPER!k

Good ol' hyperbole.Is that not something that would be a common tactic in this sort of setting?

I describe a situation that involves locking 1 player, out of one component of their spells and you equate this to some impossible ambush. I think you're a little too angry and worked up to be on the forums, is it your nap time?This is the first damn time that you've stated that the grapple is only supposed to block one component of spellcasting at any given time. wtf man?

Let's dig into that last bit though. Would you say that you insulted me, by asking if it was my nap time?

Zorku, the reason I end up re-stating things is the countless strawmans that get used in this forum.Again, we've been over this. You don't fix that situation by calling something a strawman unless you actually explain how statement A is different from statement B. Unless you are under the misconception that restating statement A somehow accomplishes that, you have to be doing this on purpose to infuriate everyone. (<- That is what hyperbole actually looks like, btw.)

Come on. Work with me at least a little bit here.

I never once said grappled=restrained=silenced=no somatic spells, but that seems to be what you think I said based on that grapple example you gave earlier (3rd quote).This is completely accurate. I get now that you're somehow not saying that, but what you think grapple does seems to constantly shift. You can blame that on me being an idiot if you want, but you're still going to have to explain this at some point if you want anybody to understand what you've been talking about.

I have to restate myself in different wordsYES! FINALLY!

so there's absolutely zero confusion and so I don't let people like you strawman me all day.Oh. Scratch that last one from the record.

While it's great to try and put words in my mouth like: every combat involves a group of inferior adventurers, or all grapples cause silence, this is not what I'm saying. I'm even conceding in a backhanded manner that most DM's just don't challenge casters. What you call "bad DM" I call, "compelling and strategic."Speaking of putting words in mouths, I didn't call anyone a bad DM here. I called a house rule bad, although now it seems like the house rule is something different than it was before.

So, let's reformat this into individual claims:
"Not every combat involves grapples." I didn't really expect even every combat against humanoid opponents to involve grapples. That was more about how many opponents have this tactic available.
"Not every combat involves silence." Ok. How many do? If it's anything like the number I've seen that involve silence then ignoring silence is very nearly as niche as underwater spellcasting.
"Not every combat involves an inferior party of adventurers." I should hope not. Even if every combat was other adventurer parties I'd hope they were superior at least once in awhile. Mostly this seems to hurt your argument by making the useful circumstances even rarer, but w/e.

You've said a lot about what your combats are not, but not very much about what they are. "Compelling and Strategic" are words that sound güd, but I doubt anybody thinks of the same things when they try to picture a varied set of combat encounters that they could ascribe those words to.

I hope you can take a chill pill and relax a bit ehh? I'm sure getting called a pleb in public wouldn't have you this enraged so why are you letting it get the better of you now?Eh, I'll turn this into direct statements too:

"You're upset." Nawp.
"Being called a pleb upset you." Very nawp. If you look back to my first post I was actually one of the slim few voices here saying that it's not a very insulting word.
"Being called a pleb in public would have less weight that being called a pleb on the internet." This one is harder to judge because both scenarios seem to be real far along an asymptote that approaches zero.

Since I'm already doing this, here's a fairly isolate claim from me: Something else about our interaction has been undesirable.

I'm interested to see how capable you are of identifying what that was. I've got a specific idea in mind, and nobody ever hits the bullseye when I ask them what's going on in my head, but there's a real clear delineation between pass and fail, and you should be able to get into pass territory about as easily as I could shoot the broad side of a barn.

P.S. Bimodal distributions often create situations where being average puts you above 50% of the distribution....so yeah.Or just as easily below 50%. When it comes to knowing the difference between mean and median this doesn't appear to help your case.

Edit: @ Esaire I think the lighting a cigarette analogy is the best thing I've ever heard with regards to grappling an arm+ spells, specifically "can you do it in 6 seconds?"Since it's in the post quoted at me I'll give the smartass response I thought of when I first read it after all.

Yes, I grab my lighter and light the cigarette using my free hand.