Subtle spells without metamagic

[Stygofthedump]

I'm liking a bard diplomat/spy concept who is desperate to restore his family's wealth and power by any means. I also liked the idea of casting spells where others were not aware of or at worst, appear like Saruman's voice power. Minor illusion, illusionary script (aka pass to anywhere) read thoughts etc. any link to all spells with no verbal compendnt? Any more ideas? BTW we don't do multi class so enchanters and sorcs are on their own.

[Addaran]

I'm liking a bard diplomat/spy concept who is desperate to restore his family's wealth and power by any means. I also liked the idea of casting spells where others were not aware of or at worst, appear like Saruman's voice power. Minor illusion, illusionary script (aka pass to anywhere) read thoughts etc. any link to all spells with no verbal compendnt? Any more ideas? BTW we don't do multi class so enchanters and sorcs are on their own.

https://donjon.bin.sh/5e/spells/
With that you can set search parameters to have only bard spells without verbal component.

[CaptainSarathai]

Whenever players want to Subtle Cast in my campaign, it's a Sleight of Hand for Somatic, and a set DC for whispering the Verbal portion, using old Listen rules:

DC15 for Whisper
+1 for every 10' away from listener
+5 behind a door
+15 behind a stone wall
+5 if listener is distracted


Then I make an active or passive Perception check for the enemy, depending on the situation. One roll counts against both DCs. If the caster is Hidden, or otherwise out of sight, then Sleight of Hand is not needed, as the observer wouldn't be able to see it anyway.

Those with "Subtle Spell" at my table (in this case, a Sorcerer) complained that this was unfair and that by letting everyone cast stealthily, I was nerfing Subtle Spell. But I'm not. Compared to the method above, Subtle Spell still has major advantages.
Firstly, it always succeeds, with no need for rolling.
Secondly, it allows the caster to ignore the components of a spell. So even if you have lost your Focus/Pouch, or are bound, or gagged, or otherwise prevented from casting normally, you can still force through a Subtle Spell.

[Dalebert]

Don't forget magic items. When you cast a spell from an item, unless it specifies otherwise, it requires no components. It's got Subtle Spell feature built in. Maybe look into a Ring of Spell Storing. That way you can get SS benefit for any spell if you've planned ahead. They've become one of my favorite items.


Those with "Subtle Spell" at my table (in this case, a Sorcerer) complained that this was unfair and that by letting everyone cast stealthily, I was nerfing Subtle Spell.

I and many others agree with them. I took a substantial hit in opportunity costs for metamagic in terms of what I gave up had I gone wizard or bard instead. That's only justifiable because metamagic is that awesome. I allow sleight of hand for non-verbal spells.

I strongly suggest you not do this at all. As a rule, spellcasting should be noticeable as long as its in the immediate vicinity. It's powerful and doing so should both give away your location and make others immediately aware you're a caster. However, if you insist on doing it, there should be a very decent chance of the spell failing altogether and wasting a slot because you didn't speak it loudly and/or clearly enough.


Secondly, (Subtle Spell) allows the caster to ignore the components of a spell. So even if you have lost your Focus/Pouch, or are bound, or gagged, or otherwise prevented from casting normally, you can still force through a Subtle Spell.

First, it doesn't ignore material components so doesn't help with a lost focus. The others are EXTREMELY rare circumstances that do not justify a MM slot by themselves. The primary benefit of SS is discretion that is not otherwise possible.

[RSP]

Seconding Dale on this: I wouldn't allow a Sleight of Hand check to mimic Subtle Spell anymore than I'd allow an Arcana check to mimic Twin Spell.