Casting 'stealthily': our house rules. Thoughts, advice?

[Beelzebubba]

We have several illusion, mind control, and stealth-heavy casters in our party. They are in a lot of situations where they want to use a spell like Silent Image / Suggestion / Thaumaturgy / Druidcraft under observation, and it makes a lot of sense to do so because of how those spells work. But, RAW/RAI say vocal and somatic components are clearly perceptible, but don't specify how much so. There's no clear rules around how to resolve trying to pull off spells like those under varying levels of observation, so we made some rules for it.

Us DMs (three of us) are united in wanting enable player creativity and fun - some of the Suggestion and Detect Thoughts shenanigans have been fantastic - but feel that being too permissive here has a risk of sidelining the 'skill' characters and reduce role-playing in favor of throwing a die.

So, we developed rules that make it possible to pull off spell casting while beign observed, but it can be difficult depending on the environment - and that difficulty is mitigated by other characters getting involved. We also threw in some inherent risk (losing the spell on a '1') to reduce the incentive to spam it every time. I'm curious of what people think.

Our current house rules:


Stealthy Spellasting: To cast a spell without being noticed, the caster needs to make a Dexterity check:

DC 10 for hiding a spell in a noisy place like a pub
DC 15 for hiding a spell in a normal place, like a street
DC 20 for hiding a spell in a quiet place, like a library

The rolls are modified depending on some circumstances:

Roll with Advantage when the observer is in melee combat with someone else
Roll with Disadvantage when the spell has both V and S components
If you roll a 1 on the Dexterity check, the spell will fail and you expend your spell slot


Here's the rationale we used with the group:


We wanted to make this fun and possible, but factor in external circumstances.

We didn’t want to make casting of a spell stealthily easy to pull off. The reason for this: ‘Still Spell’ from the Sorcerer is such a powerful ability it’s limited to a single class. Spellcasting going undetected can foil Counterspell, so it’s really potent to pull this off.

That’s why it’s a raw Dex check, and not related to a specific Skill (like Stealth) or spellcasting ability. If it becomes too easy to pull off, then every spellcaster would be stupid not to try to do this every time to avoid being Counterspelled. If the ease of pulling it off is based on a skill that can an get extremely high bonus - something that happens to some classes innately - then it's unfair and less fun.

We also don’t want to enable spellcasters to single-handedly solve puzzles based on some 4-times-a-day ability that ‘just works’ while everyone else has to roll multiple skill checks against high DCs to work only partly as well. That’s also unfair and less fun.

So, what we’re really hoping to do here: yes, you have a chance to pull it off, but if you don’t back it up with some solid roleplaying that involve other players - shenanigans that will make everyone have a lot of fun in the process - it’s a crapshoot.

So, to make it work in risky circumstances, get Advantage on the roll. The way to do that is here is by other players using ‘Aid Another’, and if more than one person gets in on the action, that could affect the DC as well. Think of the Dex check DC as the threshold of ‘this is your odds if you’re being a basic-ass role player’. If the whole table joins in, with a clever and fun plan, the more likely it is to succeed.

So, first: thoughts about our house rules? How do you handle this at your table? And, if you do, how do you prevent it from being spammed all the time?

Second, I'm still wondering if the approach is wrong, and we invented something that could be handled better with RAW - with a Skill test vs. the observer's Passive Perception. If so, what Skill would you use in that case? Would you use different ones based on the circumstances? What do you do about things like Bards and Rogues being inherently awesome at this trait - is that a problem?

TIA.

[Kane0]

Yeah, seems alright. Your reasoning looks solid to me.

[Honest Tiefling]

So, first: thoughts about our house rules? How do you handle this at your table? And, if you do, how do you prevent it from being spammed all the time?

Many people hate critical fumbles, so I'd like to assume that wasting a precious resource like a spell slot is prohibitive. But what about cantrips, like Minor Illusion or Annoy Someone Really Badly (Prestidigitation)?


Second, I'm still wondering if the approach is wrong, and we invented something that could be handled better with RAW - with a Skill test vs. the observer's Passive Perception. If so, what Skill would you use in that case? Would you use different ones based on the circumstances? What do you do about things like Bards and Rogues being inherently awesome at this trait - is that a problem? .

Why not make it class based? Sorcerers and warlocks use bluff. Bards do it as a performance, so use that skill. Wizards use spellcraft. Problem is, every single one but the last would be charisma, not dexterity.

I also feel like another player making a distraction should be codified as a way to get advantage. Other skillmonkies can show off some skills, or if you don't have one, just rope in someone with a lot of HP or a good running speed. It's a group effort!

[Kane0]

Why not make it class based? Sorcerers and warlocks use bluff. Bards do it as a performance, so use that skill. Wizards use spellcraft. Problem is, every single one but the last would be charisma, not dexterity.


Wouldn't that then be using their casting stat pretty much all the time?

[Honest Tiefling]

Wouldn't that then be using their casting stat pretty much all the time?

It makes thematic sense to use charisma, but yeah, that's an issue. Spellcraft (dexterity) also seems a bit wonky. Still, I think the idea of tying the skill to a particular class is valid.

Also, having bards do the sneaky casting while performing is an idea from 3rd edition, and would actually make that tool proficiency useful for bards. Perhaps everyone could have a focus? Can't take expertise in that, unlike a skill. Bards use instruments, sorcerers use a doodad tied to their origin, wizards use an arcane focus and a warlock something tied to the patron. Most of which would be pretty goofy to keep toying with in plain sight without a good explanation, leading to the rogue jumping in to explain to a suspicious guard that the warlock is just a gambler with a lucky coin, nothing to see here. It'd also mean that if you keep trying to use the same item in front of the same NPC they'll catch on pretty quick.

[Tanarii]

I think you should include a distance rule.

A normal conversation in a quietish (but not silent) place sounds like a whisper at 30ft.
A loud conversation (the kind you'd have in a loud place) sounds like a whisper at no more than 60ft. Of course, it'd be drowned out by ambient background.
A dishwasher or washing machine sounds like a normal conversation at 60ft.

My personal rules for sound are:
DC 10 to hear something loud at 30ft (talking kinda loud counts), or something very loud (fighting) at 60ft.
DC goes up by +5 for each doubling of distance, -5 for each halving. (Roughly. I tend to play this one by ear a bit so it doesn't end up stupid.)
Recent addition: Ambient background noise modifies the listeners check: total silence advantage, noisy (pub or market) disadvantage, extremely loud (forge) automatic failure.
(Note these are just to hear the noise, not to understand it or necessarily have it draw attention. Although in most circumstances IMC it does draw attention.)

Casting a spell in a pub 10ft away from the target would be DC 3 check (at disadvantage) for the target, so DC 8 Passive Perception. Of course, that doesn't resolve the question of if they recognize it as a spell being cast over the rest of the people in the pub making a bunch of noise and having conversations.

Casting a spell against an Orc Guard 60ft away in the darkness via Darkvision: DC 15 at advantage, so DC 10 Passive perception. Assuming he's paying attention. If not, the normal disadvantage for not paying attention would cancel out advantage from total silence, obviously, so DC 15.

[Beelzebubba]

Many people hate critical fumbles, so I'd like to assume that wasting a precious resource like a spell slot is prohibitive. But what about cantrips, like Minor Illusion or Annoy Someone Really Badly (Prestidigitation)?

Well, it is only on a 1. :smallwink:

Also, I neglected to mention: we also use the rule variant of Success At A Cost, so if they fail by 5 or less we can let it succeed while creating some other complication. That works out well for us, and lets us add some real Fawlty Towers escalating comedy / tension to the game.


Why not make it class based? Sorcerers and warlocks use bluff. Bards do it as a performance, so use that skill. Wizards use spellcraft. Problem is, every single one but the last would be charisma, not dexterity.

The problem with that is after a few levels, with stat and proficiency bonus it becomes effortless. It's almost a given after 12th level, even earlier for an Arcane Trickster, Rogue, or Bard. We thought about making higher level casters to be better at it, but if the bonuses players stack too quickly, then they get too much of the Still Spell meta magic for free.

I'm not sure how to make it improve somewhat without introducing something new, like a flat roll and adding Proficiency only. I don't like to introduce mechanics like that without good reason, it feels out of step with the rest of the system.


I also feel like another player making a distraction should be codified as a way to get advantage. Other skillmonkies can show off some skills, or if you don't have one, just rope in someone with a lot of HP or a good running speed. It's a group effort!
...
Bards use instruments, sorcerers use a doodad tied to their origin, wizards use an arcane focus and a warlock something tied to the patron. Most of which would be pretty goofy to keep toying with in plain sight without a good explanation, leading to the rogue jumping in to explain to a suspicious guard that the warlock is just a gambler with a lucky coin, nothing to see here. It'd also mean that if you keep trying to use the same item in front of the same NPC they'll catch on pretty quick.

That's exactly what we intended.

For instance, in one city setting, we needed to interrogate some people. The Bard used Bluff and pointed at something and engaged the targets to start talking about something they were proud of while our Warlock stood behind them casting Detect Thoughts. Then, the other characters asked specific questions to evoke the surface thoughts we were after, and the Warlock fed us the follow-ups with his Awakened Mind. Everyone got involved, and it was fun.

[Beelzebubba]

I think you should include a distance rule.

A normal conversation in a quietish (but not silent) place sounds like a whisper at 30ft.
A loud conversation (the kind you'd have in a loud place) sounds like a whisper at no more than 60ft. Of course, it'd be drowned out by ambient background.
A dishwasher or washing machine sounds like a normal conversation at 60ft.

My personal rules for sound are:
---snip---

Excellent catch, and I like these. I've Slacked them to the other DMs for discussion.

I heard there are some rules for this on the Dungeon Master's screen, but nowhere else. Is that where you got the foundation for these?

[Captn_Flounder]

3.5 had the ability to hide Somatic/Verbal components using Sleight of Hand by either doing the Somatic hand gestures within your sleeves and either mixing the verbal components in with your normal speech or muttering under your breathe. I see no reason for this to change now, especially since Sleight of Hand seems to be criminally underrated.

Would roll Dex (SoH) vs Passive Perception. Advantage for a noisy environment or if a party member distracts with a bluff check. Disadvantage if the person is actively focused on the caster or sees through the distraction bluff.

[gloryblaze]

Excellent catch, and I like these. I've Slacked them to the other DMs for discussion.

I heard there are some rules for this on the Dungeon Master's screen, but nowhere else. Is that where you got the foundation for these?

The "Audible Distance" chart on the newest DM's screen states:



Audible Distance



Trying to be quiet
2d6 x 5 feet


Normal noise level
2d6 x 10 feet


Very loud
2d6 x 50 ft



Tanarii's rules are sort of an inverse to these - the DM screen rules say any given event is automatically audible at a certain distance that the DM rolls for, whereas Tanarii's rules put the onus on the players by having them roll perception to see if they can hear something from where they are.

[mephnick]

Please don't steal the only good thing a Sorc has with a simple skill check.

[Kane0]

Please don't steal the only good thing a Sorc has with a simple skill check.

I wouldn't say only, but agreed. Your opening reasoning got it right, an ability check that stays difficult works much better than a skill.

[Captn_Flounder]

Please don't steal the only good thing a Sorc has with a simple skill check.


Sorc doesn't have the chance of failure with subtle spell. And in most cases, failure on an attempt to sneakily cast a spell will leave you way worse off than if you never attempted it at all. Seems balanced to me as long as there is a reasonable chance of failure.

[Beelzebubba]

Please don't steal the only good thing a Sorc has with a simple skill check.

Scenario 1: Warlock casts Detect Thoughts in the back of a dark, crowded bar, while a Bard is up on stage playing his heart out on a lute and howling a drinking song as loudly as possible. Spellcasting in social situations is frowned upon. How do you determine if people nearby see the casting or not?

Scenario 2: Arcane Trickster is in a party, filled with people that are educated and familiar with spellcasting. The talking is a low but robust murmur, but people's movements are calm and their body language is restrained. She needs to pick the pocket of someone at the party, and notices too late they're leaving and this is their one chance - and needs to cast the Mage Hand cantrip now. Two other party members are there as accomplices, and on cue, cause a distraction - by one spilling a drink on the other and both acting out a boorish spat - and that's evaluated as a Bluff check. What are the odds of the casting being noticed, when a few other people are nearby?

Tell me how to arbitrate those situations in a way that isn't stealing the Sorcerer's thunder.

[mephnick]

Tell me how to arbitrate those situations in a way that isn't stealing the Sorcerer's thunder.

By telling the players how spellcasting works. Verbal components must be vocalized firmly and not whispered. Somatic compenents are generally complex and grandiose. There is no way to subtley cast normally because that's not how spellcasting works. No arbitration needed. They can cast and be noticed or figure something else out.

[hellgrammite]

By telling the players how spellcasting works. Verbal components must be vocalized firmly and not whispered. Somatic compenents are generally complex and grandiose. There is no way to subtley cast normally because that's not how spellcasting works. No arbitration needed. They can cast and be noticed or figure something else out.

Verbal almost impossible to hide, I agree. Very few circumstances I would allow that, like a creature that is clearly deaf.

Somatic can get more interesting. Illusions, invisibility....darkness for a gloomstalker all might have you left undetected I would rule.

[Tanarii]

Excellent catch, and I like these. I've Slacked them to the other DMs for discussion.

I heard there are some rules for this on the Dungeon Master's screen, but nowhere else. Is that where you got the foundation for these?
I made them up based on online research of noise levels (decibel scale) and common examples, and how noise levels change over distance. And adapting the thing already written in the book.

Coincidentally they're really close to the average rolls of the DMg screen for 2d6x5 and 2d6x10.


Tanarii's rules are sort of an inverse to these - the DM screen rules say any given event is automatically audible at a certain distance that the DM rolls for, whereas Tanarii's rules put the onus on the players by having them roll perception to see if they can hear something from where they are.Not at all. I set the DC to 10. In other words, it's automatic for the passive perception score of the average Wis 10 creature. There is no rolling involved.

But this also allows for other things to be accounted for, like what happens if it a different distance, or the listener isn't paying attention, or the background noise level is particularly noisy or loud.

Also this system is something I made up for using the passive of th enemies to detect noise the PCs are making. Specifically battles, and not using stealth /not attempting to ambush.


By telling the players how spellcasting works. Verbal components must be vocalized firmly and not whispered. Somatic compenents are generally complex and grandiose. There is no way to subtley cast normally because that's not how spellcasting works. No arbitration needed. They can cast and be noticed or figure something else out.There's nothing wrong with figuring out what happens if there's a lot of background noise or you're somewhat distant from the target. I mean, trying to cast a spell in a totally quiet room while a guy is reading a book 10 ft away? No question. Casting in a crowded bazaar? The people next to you will notice, but what about someone 30 ft away? 60 ft? 120 ft? All of those are well within various spell ranges, but a V component might not be heard at them. Or might be.

[Beelzebubba]

By telling the players how spellcasting works. Verbal components must be vocalized firmly and not whispered. Somatic compenents are generally complex and grandiose. There is no way to subtley cast normally because that's not how spellcasting works. No arbitration needed. They can cast and be noticed or figure something else out.

Again, example #1. Let's go with your stance, for the sake of argument, which I largely (but don't completely) hold.

Let it happen in a thoroughly distracting environment. Dim light. Loud noise. Everyone is in motion. All eyes and ears focusing on the entertainer, who is in the other direction.

Everyone around automatically, always, and unmistakably sees and understands? Even there?

Or should there be some chance it gets lost in the chaos? If so, how do you arbitrate it?

[Tanarii]

If so, how do you arbitrate it?
The answer to that one is easy. The DM decides if it's automatic, impossible, or requires an ability check of some kind. Or works it out with the players, depending on what kind of table is being run.

Personally I find my rules a little lenient in actual play, making it somewhat easy for the party. Looking at the DM screen rulesposted again, it looks like I'm over half on average, since they are going normal noise at 2d6x5 or about 70ft. That's my loud-ish noise range being detected with passive DC 10. I may need to revisit them.

[mephnick]

Or should there be some chance it gets lost in the chaos? If so, how do you arbitrate it?

I suppose since my stance is that you cannot cast subtly, I would say it has nothing to do with the caster at all and make a perception check on behalf of the target.

[LeonBH]

I think the changing DC and the advantage/disadvantage both applying is redundant. I would set the DC to something fixed, and apply advantage or disadvantage as necessary. A natural DC to use is the other creature's passive perception.

Also, your DCs are not necessarily correct. It is hard to hide noise when the room is quiet, yes. But it is also hard to hide when there are lots of people who might accidentally observe you, which is true in a crowded place.

I would not add scenarios that grant advantage to the check naturally. The casters should supply their own sources of advantage, like inspiration, the Help action, or spells.

I would remove the natural 1 critical fumble because it doesn't add anything much to the nature of the roll. It puts the caster at risk - but the risk of discovery is the focus of this mechanic, not the risk of wasting a spell slot.

So I would simplify your rules into:


Dex check vs Passive Perception or 15, whichever is higher. Make with disadvantage if both V, S components are present, if you're casting in a quiet place, or if you are in a crowded place.

EDIT: For the record, I dislike it when mechanics are given that obsoletes Subtle Spell. You should create a compensating mechanic exclusive to Sorcs, so that they gain an extra class feature of equal strength. Perhaps give them double their Sorcery Points - it seems like an equal compensation.

This mechanic gives all casters unlimited Subtle Spell. And if players need to make a skill check, they will make that skill check with advantage and add various other bonuses apart from what you initially planned. Which means, functionally, this is an auto-pass skill check most of the time for the rolls where it matters. This obsoletes most of Subtle Spell's uses - hence the need to buff the Sorc to offset the buff everyone else is receiving.

Note that bards and clerics will be extra good at these hidden checks. Jack of All Trades, Inspiration, and Guidance go a long way. The Help action theoretically allows all these checks to be made at advantage, so Wizards with familiars and/or homunculi will be stellar at this as well. Magic items also influence ability checks.

[Kane0]

What makes Subtle Spell obsolete? That was stated as something to be avoided. Subtle Spell is a guarantee, these checks are meant to be risky.

[LeonBH]

What makes Subtle Spell obsolete? That was specifically stated as something to be avoided. Subtle Spell is a guarantee, these checks are meant to be risky.

I wrote my answer to this in an edit, so I'll paste the edit here.


For the record, I dislike it when mechanics are given that obsoletes Subtle Spell. You should create a compensating mechanic exclusive to Sorcs, so that they gain an extra class feature of equal strength. Perhaps give them double their Sorcery Points - it seems like an equal compensation.

This mechanic gives all casters unlimited Subtle Spell. And if players need to make a skill check, they will make that skill check with advantage and add various other bonuses apart from what you initially planned. Which means, functionally, this is an auto-pass skill check most of the time for the rolls where it matters. This obsoletes most of Subtle Spell's uses - hence the need to buff the Sorc to offset the buff everyone else is receiving.

Note that bards and clerics will be extra good at these hidden checks. Jack of All Trades, Inspiration, and Guidance go a long way. The Help action theoretically allows all these checks to be made at advantage, so Wizards with familiars and/or homunculi will be stellar at this as well. Magic items also influence ability checks.

It occurs to me also that this mechanic buffs Rangers, Arcane Tricksters, and Dex-based Eldritch Knights, since their main stat (Dex) is getting more powerful.

[strangebloke]

Please don't steal the only good thing a Sorc has with a simple skill check.
Amen.

Now, op, you've done good work here. Most of the time, this check as he's framed it will be very hard to make. A DC 15 DEX check is only going to be achievable like 40% of the time. Failure kind of sucks! Making it a DEX check makes this much harder than if it was sleight of hand.

But subtle is... Expensive. Sorcerers need to invest a metamagic choice and spell selection into being able to use subtle, and even then they need to dump a first level spell every time they want to use it. In other words they need to specialize very heavily in order to do this thing.

It's easy to justify someone making a previously quiet room into a noisy one. ("Come, let's have a dance!") Advantage, too, is easy to finagle. ("The bard got a 34 on his perform check. Surely no one is paying attention to me.)

Why would I invest so much as a sorcerer when I can do the same thing, with a 80% chance of success?

If there are no sorcerers at your table, not a problem. But in general it is a consideration.

3.5 had the ability to hide Somatic/Verbal components using Sleight of Hand by either doing the Somatic hand gestures within your sleeves and either mixing the verbal components in with your normal speech or muttering under your breathe. I see no reason for this to change now, especially since Sleight of Hand seems to be criminally underrated.

Would roll Dex (SoH) vs Passive Perception. Advantage for a noisy environment or if a party member distracts with a bluff check. Disadvantage if the person is actively focused on the caster or sees through the distraction bluff.
Hah... This is too easy. With expertise you could beat pretty much always win by like eighth level or so.

Iirc the sleight of hand truck was to disguise what spell was being cast, not that a spell was being cast.

I'd allow that, by the way.

[JackPhoenix]

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

Source: AL season 2, Mulmaster's Cloak logsheet.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Scenario 1: Warlock casts Detect Thoughts in the back of a dark, crowded bar, while a Bard is up on stage playing his heart out on a lute and howling a drinking song as loudly as possible. Spellcasting in social situations is frowned upon. How do you determine if people nearby see the casting or not?

Scenario 2: Arcane Trickster is in a party, filled with people that are educated and familiar with spellcasting. The talking is a low but robust murmur, but people's movements are calm and their body language is restrained. She needs to pick the pocket of someone at the party, and notices too late they're leaving and this is their one chance - and needs to cast the Mage Hand cantrip now. Two other party members are there as accomplices, and on cue, cause a distraction - by one spilling a drink on the other and both acting out a boorish spat - and that's evaluated as a Bluff check. What are the odds of the casting being noticed, when a few other people are nearby?

Tell me how to arbitrate those situations in a way that isn't stealing the Sorcerer's thunder.

Scenario 1: The bard makes a Performance roll to see if their song covers the noise of the spellcasting.

Scenario 2: The other party members make a Bluff check to see if their manufactured distraction covers the spellcasting.

This doesn't steal the sorcerer's thunder because a sorcerer could have done the spell subtly and therefore wouldn't have needed accomplices to cover for them.

[LeonBH]

This doesn't steal the sorcerer's thunder because a sorcerer could have done the spell subtly and therefore wouldn't have needed accomplices to cover for them.

It steals the Sorcerer's thunder because they have less need to pick up Subtle Spell in the first place. I understand why you would want to resolve it such that spellcasting can be hidden, but fact is, doing so will always steal from the Sorcerer.

Note that Subtle Spell is one of the jewels among metamagic. It's one of the strongest picks. So, take a feature of one class and give a watered-down version of it to all the other casters, and see the effect. For example, give this to everyone:

Free Ritual Casting: if a spell has the ritual tag and it is on your class spell list, you can spend 10 minutes in addition to its normal casting time to cast it as a ritual. There is a chance of failure when casting this way.

The above doesn't step on a class, it steps on a feat. Let me try again, being more class-specific this time.

Mirror of Misty Memory (no attunement): At the end of a long rest, you may appease the Mirror so that you may change your known spells to any other spell within your class spell list. There is a chance that the Mirror will trap you inside it, which decreases as more of your allies help you in appeasing the mirror.

[Kane0]

So what if there aren't any subtle sorcerers in the party? Nobody to step on. And if there is one, just let them do their thing, everyone wins!

As an aside, if you're looking for something cool and special to give sorcs specifically, check my sig for ideas.

[TheUser]

Please don't steal the only good thing a Sorc has with a simple skill check.


My thoughts exactly.

You want subtle casting? Then roll a sorcerer. This would be like me having players roll on a rage table to emulate a barbarian's core feature. Or letting them learn new spells from other people and keep track of them in a spellbook despite the fact they aren't a wizard....

I take issue with this on a balance, immersion and a narrative level.

Spellcasting is a very particular and precise thing. As stated in the PHB:



VERBAL (V)
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.


Pitch and resonance are critical factors here and one thing you'll note about trying to whisper is it doesn't just change the amplitude of a person's voice, it has very distinct changes on how they sound (kind of raspy); someone's pitch and resonance is going to be very different if they are trying to be quiet, in other words, trying to sound quiet whilst also sounding the same is nearly impossible. Trained vocalists will tell you from experience that singing pianissimo whilst keeping the right pitch is extremely difficult, and that's still singing nonetheless, you are trying to be quiet...for a crowd. Whisper casting just seems altogether ridiculous.


Second, and this is the big one, from a narrative perspective, the denizens of the realms are likely highly vigilant for the sounds of spell casting. You know how the human mind keeps track of very specific noises when you're sleeping? If you live by a main street the sound of passing traffic won't do much, but as soon as someone quietly says your name you wake right up? Your mind is trained to hear and listen for certain things and listening for the sounds of spells being cast is 100% on that list when I imagine an immersive fantasy setting. The types of sounds associated with arcane invocations would probably be a huge priority for a person's brain (unless magic is extremely rare), one would think that after being exposed to any person casting they will forever stay highly vigilant for it. Even in a crowded room, as soon as someone starts invoking a spell an entire tavern would fall silent as a quiet hush around the caster would spread outward from them like a ripple in a pond. I would even hazard that some bystanders would either start running or brave ones would try to disrupt your casting.


All of these factors are what contribute to subtle spell being entirely required to pull off these types of shenanigans. You want to cast quietly? Tell your players tough cookies. Roll a sorcerer.

[Talamare]

Could we not get into ANOTHER obnoxious debate about how loud spells have to be?

The fact is the book is 100% VAGUE!

No amount of arguing will EVER change that.

If this guy wants to include this, then he as a DM is fully within his power to do so.

[Blacky the Blackball]

It steals the Sorcerer's thunder because they have less need to pick up Subtle Spell in the first place. I understand why you would want to resolve it such that spellcasting can be hidden, but fact is, doing so will always steal from the Sorcerer.

Note that Subtle Spell is one of the jewels among metamagic. It's one of the strongest picks. So, take a feature of one class and give a watered-down version of it to all the other casters, and see the effect.

I haven't allowed a spell caster to hide their casting, in fact my responses were specifically (and deliberately) worded in a way that meant that didn't happen, and I haven't given anyone a watered-down verison of anyone else's features.

What I've done is allow people to manufacture a situation where co-operation betwen the party has meant that someone's feature is not necessary.

Basically, my stance is:

1) Members of a particular class get the ability to do X, and - by the rules - no-one else can do X.
2) Therefore I won't allow other people to do X just by making a roll to do it; that would be unfair to members of that class.
3) However, if the group contrive a situation where they can achieve their goal without anyone needing to do X, that's fine.

As with everything else, it's a matter of finding a balance between realism and gamism. Too far either way spoils people's fun.

You seem to be pushing completely to the gamism side of things by saying that because one class can do X, no-one should ever be allowed to be in a situation (or contrive to manufacture a situation) where doing X isn't necessary. That's like saying that because only Bards/Sorcerers/Wizards get the Feather Fall spell, no-one in a party should be allowed to work together to lower someone down a pit on the end of a rope, because it's taking a spell given to only a few classes and giving everyone else a "watered down" version of it.

Let's take the Teleport spell as an example. This spell has a verbal component, which we're agreed will be obvious to others - unless you're a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell, you can't cast a Teleport without others hearing you.

So if Wanda the Wizard is in a room with Peter the Perceptive and she casts the Teleport spell, Peter will notice, because she hasn't got Subtle spell. We're both agreed that Wanda can't simply make a roll in order to cast it "quietly" so that Peter doesn't hear her do it, because that wouldn't be fair to sorcerers.

What if the room's really big and she stands at the far end? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if there's a waterfall in the room loud enough to drown out normal speech? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if there's a demon chained up and roaring loud enough to drown out even shouting? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if she moves to an adjacent room and closes the door? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if she leaves the building? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if there's a waterfall and a roaring demon and she leaves the building? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if she casts Deafness on him? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?

You've got to draw the line somewhere. Unless you want to say that magic incantations are super special and can always be heard by everyone in the world regardless of other noise or distance or deafness, at some point you've got to say "okay, there's too much background noise (and/or the caster is too far away) for this person to hear the spell being cast".

What I'm saying - and again, I was careful to word my answers accordingly - is that other characters (not the person actually casting the spell) can be the ones making that noise - and it might require a roll on their part to get the timing right and not make the noise too obviously a cover-up.

[LeonBH]

So what if there aren't any subtle sorcerers in the party? Nobody to step on. And if there is one, just let them do their thing, everyone wins!

As an aside, if you're looking for something cool and special to give sorcs specifically, check my sig for ideas.

If you have a sorcerer in the party, subtle spell becomes a useless option for them, so they can hardly "do their thing."

I think just doubling their Sorc Points is enough to compensate for the nerf.


I haven't allowed a spell caster to hide their casting, in fact my responses were specifically (and deliberately) worded in a way that meant that didn't happen, and I haven't given anyone a watered-down verison of anyone else's features.

What I've done is allow people to manufacture a situation where co-operation betwen the party has meant that someone's feature is not necessary.

Basically, my stance is:

1) Members of a particular class get the ability to do X, and - by the rules - no-one else can do X.
2) Therefore I won't allow other people to do X just by making a roll to do it; that would be unfair to members of that class.
3) However, if the group contrive a situation where they can achieve their goal without anyone needing to do X, that's fine.

As with everything else, it's a matter of finding a balance between realism and gamism. Too far either way spoils people's fun.

The situations you manufactured does not rule out that spell casting is automatically noticed. If a Bard sings while casting, people will notice. And if someone is being distracted by chit chat while the Bard performs, they will notice the moment the Bard begins spellcasting.

Put an enemy caster in that situation who has Counterspell. Regardless of the Bard's performance or the party's distraction efforts, the trigger for Counterspell is always fulfilled the moment the Bard casts a spell, assuming he is within range. Thus, he will always be able to cast a Counterspell.


You seem to be pushing completely to the gamism side of things by saying that because one class can do X, no-one should ever be allowed to be in a situation (or contrive to manufacture a situation) where doing X isn't necessary. That's like saying that because only Bards/Sorcerers/Wizards get the Feather Fall spell, no-one in a party should be allowed to work together to lower someone down a pit on the end of a rope, because it's taking a spell given to only a few classes and giving everyone else a "watered down" version of it.

Feather Fall is one way to lower yourself from a high place. Slow Fall is another. Straight up falling and surviving it is another. So as you can see, there are multiple ways to get to the ground. It is also not a defining class feature, so even if someone was getting robbed of a feature, they're not getting robbed of something important.

However, Subtle Spell is one of the jewels among metamagic, and copying that ability is the same as giving away a major feature of one class to others. The Wizard's immense spell list and spell versatility separates them from every other caster in the game. If you gave the other casters the Wizard's list and spellbook, the Wizard would be nerfed by virtue of all other casters gaining the Wizard's defining power.


Let's take the Teleport spell as an example. This spell has a verbal component, which we're agreed will be obvious to others - unless you're a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell, you can't cast a Teleport without others hearing you.

So if Wanda the Wizard is in a room with Peter the Perceptive and she casts the Teleport spell, Peter will notice, because she hasn't got Subtle spell. We're both agreed that Wanda can't simply make a roll in order to cast it "quietly" so that Peter doesn't hear her do it, because that wouldn't be fair to sorcerers.
What if the room's really big and she stands at the far end? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if there's a waterfall in the room loud enough to drown out normal speech? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if there's a demon chained up and roaring loud enough to drown out even shouting? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if she moves to an adjacent room and closes the door? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if she leaves the building? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if there's a waterfall and a roaring demon and she leaves the building? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?
What if she casts Deafness on him? Does he hear her then? If not, is it still unfair to sorcerers?

You've got to draw the line somewhere. Unless you want to say that magic incantations are super special and can always be heard by everyone in the world regardless of other noise or distance or deafness, at some point you've got to say "okay, there's too much background noise (and/or the caster is too far away) for this person to hear the spell being cast".

What I'm saying - and again, I was careful to word my answers accordingly - is that other characters (not the person actually casting the spell) can be the ones making that noise - and it might require a roll on their part to get the timing right and not make the noise too obviously a cover-up.

Here's an easy metric: if Wanda is within Counterspell range, she is detected by anybody who has Counterspell. To say otherwise is to deny the RAW ability of Counterspellers to negate spells cast within range of them.

If Wanda leaves the Counterspell range, then she needs to visually hide the somatic/material components of her casting (invisibility), or cast behind full cover, since visibility extends out to 2 miles outdoors unless blocked by an obstacle.

Once she is hidden from visible range, outside the Audible Range, and outside Counterspell range, then it is wholly possible for her to cast undetected by Peter. Of course, Bob might still detect her casting unless she also gets out of range of Bob. And then Cindy might still detect her, unless she also gets out of range of Cindy.

[GorogIrongut]

Gotta say that I agree with the faction of responders who disagree with stealthy casting...

That said, I've zero problem ruling that the environment would make it difficult/impossible for other people to see/hear the casting. I'd start with the following:
Sight: Darkness, magical illusions, bodies or concrete items are capable of blocking line of sight to the somatic components of a spell being cast.
Sound: I agree with the previous comment that pitch and tone is a key component of casting a spell and that even the lowest of peasants would be listening out for it subconsciously. As such, I would allow the vocal component to be ignored if something equally as attention grabbing was occurring (i.e. a Dragon roaring, the cocking of a gun, etc.).
I would also allow it if there was sufficient distance (more than you guys have currently allowed... I've got a speaking voice and can easily make myself heard over large distances... When casting you aren't hiding it without special training.
Lastly if the ambient noise levels were approximately at the level of a 120 decibels.

Using those as a starting level, I'd see how much my players tried to take advantage. If they can present a reasoned argument, I might be more lenient. But I would equally be happy to say that their argument is a valid one, but that I felt it stepped on Sorcerors' toes a bit too much and made them a little overpowered.

I would also be happy to create a feat, following extensive in game attempts at modulating their volume while retaining pitch and tone, to show that they'd been working at it which would be akin to their whispering their magic (i.e. minimal chance at hearing it... but still a possibility). This would give a weaker version of Subtle metamagic without needing to use Sorceror Points... and would also confer proficiency in the Performance skill. If proficiency was already had in Performance, then it would confer expertise.

It would essentially be one part ventriloquism, one part whispering that would be much more difficult to perceive than normal casting, but still a possibility. This would be determined by a DC check determined by the DM, potentially using an easier version of the rules posted by the OP. They key point being that the DM needs the player to feel that having put an ASI into the feat, that he was getting his 'money's worth', while still not being an auto success.

[TheUser]

Could we not get into ANOTHER obnoxious debate about how loud spells have to be?

The fact is the book is 100% VAGUE!

No amount of arguing will EVER change that.

If this guy wants to include this, then he as a DM is fully within his power to do so.

You are right Talamere, he can do what he wants in his own games. But we as a community can caution him against trimming the already lean shortcomings of spell casting.


Let's remember for a second that spell casters are already extremely potent; they literally warp reality to their will... And not minor effects either; by level 7 casters have the ability to teleport themself and a friend 400ft, become completely invisible, turn into any other beast with CR 7, bring the dead back to life, dominate the minds of huge beasts, create an impenetrable sphere to isolate/protect creatures etc.

Establishing that casters are already extremely powerful, trying to shoe horn in other abilities because your players complain about one of it's few short comings is removing the challenges that are supposed to be endemic to being a caster. What's wrong with a DM saying "Spells are already very strong, if you want to cast them silently you need to either play a sorcerer or have a competing level of noise to distract so loud it will be audible out to 150ft."

Essentially, stop rolling over for your players whims and make them have to actually work around the shortcomings of their characters instead of writing a whole new set of rules for their shenanigans.

If everyone else was eager to dish out core abilities from other classes I think you'd probably change your tune Talamere:

"I think I'll hand out action surge to players with a successful athletics(constitution) check... I mean they only get it once per short rest obviously...."

"Man I really wish I could run on walls and liquids! [can I have a level 9 monk feature tied to an ability check?]"

"Can my martial character start to do bonus damage if I attack at advantage?"

"can I catch the arrow with a Dexterity save?"

I could do this all day.

If your Nature Cleric and Ranger really want to turn into animals would you start trying to whip up custom rules for lycanthropy (which already exist) or "moon blessed forms" or some other nonsense. or would you just tell them to start splashing levels into druid?

The reason people take issue with this is that it's not "stepping on the toes" of sorcerers, it's straight up stealing one of their unique foundation abilities and making it usable by everyone when the game is specifically balanced around requirements for silent casting.


The classes were designed with specific strengths and weaknesses; casting silent spells is EXTREMELY strong, that's why it's a resource based class unique feature that takes 3 levels to come online. There is a way to cast spells silently and it comes with so many strings attached because it's a very powerful utility that should be gated that way.

[Talamare]

You are right Talamere, he can do what he wants in his own games. But we as a community can caution him against trimming the already lean shortcomings of spell casting.


Let's remember for a second that spell casters are already extremely potent; they literally warp reality to their will... And not minor effects either; by level 7 casters have the ability to teleport themself and a friend 400ft, become completely invisible, turn into any other beast with CR 7, bring the dead back to life, dominate the minds of huge beasts, create an impenetrable sphere to isolate/protect creatures etc.

Establishing that casters are already extremely powerful, trying to shoe horn in other abilities because your players complain about one of it's few short comings is removing the challenges that are supposed to be endemic to being a caster. What's wrong with a DM saying "Spells are already very strong, if you want to cast them silently you need to either play a sorcerer or have a competing level of noise to distract so loud it will be audible out to 150ft."

Essentially, stop rolling over for your players whims and make them have to actually work around the shortcomings of their characters instead of writing a whole new set of rules for their shenanigans.

If everyone else was eager to dish out core abilities from other classes I think you'd probably change your tune Talamere:

"I think I'll hand out action surge to players with a successful athletics(constitution)... I mean they only get it once per short rest obviously...."

"Man I really wish I could run on walls and liquids! [can I have a level 9 monk feature tied to an ability check?]"

"Can my martial character start to do bonus damage if I attack at advantage?"

"can I catch the arrow with a Dexterity save?"

I could do this all day.

If your Nature Cleric and Ranger really want to turn into animals would you start trying to whip up custom rules for lycanthropy (which already exist) or "moon blessed forms" or some other nonsense. or would you just tell them to start splashing levels into druid?

The reason people take issue with this is that it's not "stepping on the toes" of sorcerers, it's straight up stealing one of their unique foundation abilities and making it usable by everyone when the game is specifically balanced around requirements for silent casting.


The classes were designed with specific strengths and weaknesses; casting silent spells is EXTREMELY strong, that's why it's a resource based class unique feature that takes 3 levels to come online. There is a way to cast spells silently and it comes with so many strings attached because it's a very powerful utility that should be gated that way.

MAKING YOUR TEXT BOLD DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT
(but using Caps absolutely is used to emphasis a point!)

There is no community stance, that's an inherent fallacy. A community stance means the entire community agrees, and the community is absolutely split on this. Which is what leads to obnoxious debates. Since neither side is arguing with facts, but both sides are arguing with feelings.

I don't believe spell casters are extremely potent, they can barely alter reality, and a good hit to the face from a high damage martial will easily drop them. Oh look, let's start another debate on how strong casters actually are.

I don't think that verbal component to spell casting isn't inherently intended to be a short coming. It's too minor and it's often rarely significant for it to matter. Oh look, let's start another debate on what are the shortcomings of casters.
(Devil's Advocate)

Doing a Stealth Check to do something Stealthy when there is no information on how loud something should be is not rolling over. Matter of fact, the book does have rules about perception and it's the DMs job to determine the DC of how difficult it is to stealth past something. Which is exactly what's being done here.

WOW
CONGRATULATIONS ON THE TREMENDOUS 5 LINES OF STRAWMAN!
I fully believe you can make fallacious arguments all day. It honestly just destroys your credibility.

It's not stealing the unique foundation of Sorcerers. That's like saying hiding a dagger on your person is stealing the unique foundation of Pact of the Blade Warlocks.
"What's point of having a feature to hide your weapon, if anyone can hide their weapon!"
or that Charming a person with a Persuasion check is stealing the unique foundation of Bards and/or the Charm Spells
"What's the point of having [insert here], if anyone can use a persuasion check to persuade someone!"
(Was that also Strawman?)

Sorcerer's Subtle would still be more powerful than having the high risk of failure that comes associated with this.

[LeonBH]

Since neither side is arguing with facts, but both sides are arguing with feelings.

Then please let us only talk using facts and RAW, nothing else.

Here's a fact. A caster can Counterspell anyone within Counterspell range that they can see. Therefore, regardless of ambient noise level, if you are within 60ft of a Wizard, regardless of your Passive Perception, state of hearing, or current level of distraction, you can Counterspell that spell.

Ergo, ambient noise contributes nothing to the detection of the casting of the spell.


It's not stealing the unique foundation of Sorcerers. That's like saying hiding a dagger on your person is stealing the unique foundation of Pact of the Blade Warlocks.
"What's point of having a feature to hide your weapon, if anyone can hide their weapon!"
or that Charming a person with a Persuasion check is stealing the unique foundation of Bards and/or the Charm Spells
"What's the point of having [insert here], if anyone can use a persuasion check to persuade someone!"

Are you OK with giving Barbarians a 1/SR Action Surge by having them pass an Athletics check, as TheUser asked above?

[Talamare]

Then please let us only talk using facts and RAW, nothing else.

Here's a fact. A caster can Counterspell anyone within Counterspell range that they can see. Therefore, regardless of ambient noise level, if you are within 60ft of a Wizard, regardless of your Passive Perception, state of hearing, or current level of distraction, you can Counterspell that spell.

Ergo, ambient noise contributes nothing to the detection of the casting of the spell.

Now you're bringing up the 'awareness' debate?
From ... http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542852-Acid-Splash&highlight=invisible
A Wizard walks into an empty room and states "I cast Magic Missile on the bad guy."
The Wizard saw that the bad guy ran into the room, but currently sees nothing.
Targeting is vague on the subject and magic missile always hits.

or in your example
A Wizard is in a massive rock concert, next to a construction site, stoned as can be, drunk as can be, but not incapacitated. Someone in the crowd, that he doesn't even see(but isn't blocked by LoS), casts a spell within 60ft BOOM COUNTERSPELL!
That's an off topic debate that has already spawned 10 pages of argument in a different thread. I have no intention of starting it again.


Are you OK with giving Barbarians a 1/SR Action Surge by having them pass an Athletics check, as TheUser asked above?

Come on Leon, Don't follow in his disgusting strawman.
The stuff he listed and this are not equivalent. Attempting to make them seem equivalent is just another of his many fallacies.

[TheUser]

-snip-

Ok capslock, settle down. The bold wasn't for emphasis, it was so people could glean the important points from my wall of text at a glance.

You're right on two fronts. One, there is no indication of how loud the audible verbal components of a spell must be and two there's no chance of failure with subtle spell.

However, nothing about my "strawman" was different. All of those were inherent no risk abilities that work 100% of the time being emulated by a skill check that has a chance of failure.

It's a perfect analogy and not fallacious in the slightest.

I think it's funny how worked up you get though. Do you honestly think expressing such negative emotional tones in your posts makes you any more compelling?

I like how "a good hit to the face from a martial will drop them" is your "argument" that casters are squishy. Probably the best assertion I've seen in a while. The "squishy" casters are also the ones with access to the shield spell, absorb elements and stoneskin btw, and those that don't have those spells have armor proficiency and higher hit dice.

I suppose having 1 sentence mind control by level 3 accessible to all but 1 full caster (suggestion) is somehow tragically underpowered in the scope of reality altering isn't it? (this is sarcasm)

As for your cute concealing a weapon vs pact of the blade example I'd argue it's hardly core to the warlock class and more of a sub-class ribbon feature. Nice try though. I'm sorry you don't think Metamagic is the core feature to sorcerers....maybe if you added some gravity to the verbal components of spells you'd think subtle spell was more worthwhile and iconic.


But let's digress back to verbal components; this stagnant bickering is getting us nowhere and berating fools has never been the purpose of the forum:

If the Verbal components of spells are already close to being inaudible then there's really no point in having them is there. It's perfectly fine for you to hand waive verbal components in your campaigns but those of us with a feel for how strong casters are think that the limitation of "drawing attention to yourself" is important.

I applaud OP for trying to come up with some sort of silent casting rules to appease his players but I'm of the opinion that having unique short comings for powerful abilities like spells is part of the game and while it's a neat idea to try and set up a load of mitigating circumstances to make it doable the fact remains that pitch and tone are extremely hard to maintain while lowering volume in voice and their are rules regarding being perfectly aware that someone is casting a spell within 60ft of you as per counterspell. If you hand waive that then all your spells are going to be quiet in the first place.



OP Have you considered giving them items that emulate spells when activated to try and work around this? Then you can limit what spells and how often they cast them silently.

[LeonBH]

Now you're bringing up the 'awareness' debate?
From ... http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542852-Acid-Splash&highlight=invisible
A Wizard walks into an empty room and states "I cast Magic Missile on the bad guy."
The Wizard saw that the bad guy ran into the room, but currently sees nothing.
Targeting is vague on the subject and magic missile always hits.

The connection is not apparent to me. Magic Missile requires LoS and never misses.


or in your example
A Wizard is in a massive rock concert, next to a construction site, stoned as can be, drunk as can be, but not incapacitated. Someone in the crowd, that he doesn't even see(but isn't blocked by LoS), casts a spell within 60ft BOOM COUNTERSPELL!
That's an off topic debate that has already spawned 10 pages of argument in a different thread. I have no intention of starting it again.

Alright, then I shall let my point stand. So far, I've concluded that ambient noise does not affect spell detection using the Counterspell argument, which I shall continue to maintain is RAW.


Come on Leon, Don't follow in his disgusting strawman.
The stuff he listed and this are not equivalent. Attempting to make them seem equivalent is just another of his many fallacies.

Why is it a fallacy?

[TheUser]

Why is it a fallacy?

Maybe he considers it a false equivalency? Despite the fact it's pretty much the same idea...

or a Strawman, despite the fact it's not me putting words into his mouth....

It certainly isn't misleading.

Then again I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he actually knows what the term fallacy means and what specific logical fallacies exist and how they are named.

I'm not about to engage in any ad hominem but I've never been more tempted in my life ;)

[Talamare]

The connection is not apparent to me. Magic Missile requires LoS and never misses.

Alright, then I shall let my point stand. So far, I've concluded that ambient noise does not affect spell detection using the Counterspell argument, which I shall continue to maintain is RAW.

Why is it a fallacy?
The only thing to conclude is that the debate would spark 10 pages of offtopic arguments.
What is RAW by Xanathar is that if the spell includes a Verbal component the spell is Perceptible
So perhaps...
I don't know
You need a Perception Check, to be able to Counterspell when you're not Perceiving the Person casting the spell?

Let's see what opposes Perception Check... It seems to be Stealth Check
So a Stealth Check to against a Perception Check might actually RAW, go figure!

Maybe he considers it a false equivalency? Despite the fact it's pretty much the same idea...

or a Strawman, despite the fact it's not me putting words into his mouth....

It certainly isn't misleading.

Then again I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he actually knows what the term fallacy means and what specific logical fallacies exist and how they are named.

Strawman isn't just putting words into someone's mouth
It's also when you create exaggerated statements and then argue those points instead of arguing the original points.

You keep quoting the words Strawman, so here you go https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man


I'm not about to engage in any ad hominem but I've never been more tempted in my life ;)
You already have been, but you're passive aggressive.

Ok capslock, settle down.

I think it's funny how worked up you get though. Do you honestly think expressing such negative emotional tones in your posts makes you any more compelling?

I suppose having 1 sentence mind control by level 3 accessible to all but 1 full caster (suggestion) is somehow tragically underpowered in the scope of reality altering isn't it? (this is sarcasm)

this stagnant bickering is getting us nowhere and berating fools has never been the purpose of the forum:

[TheUser]

The only thing to conclude is that the debate would spark 10 pages of offtopic arguments.
What is RAW by Xanathar is that if the spell includes a Verbal component the spell is Perceptible
So perhaps...
I don't know
You need a Perception Check, to be able to Counterspell when you're not Perceiving the Person casting the spell?

Let's see what opposes Perception Check... It seems to be Stealth Check
So a Stealth Check to against a Perception Check might actually RAW, go figure!

Talamere, you need to work on your literacy bud.

"Perceptible" means you perceive it without the need for a check.

Just like you don't need a perception check to hear a thunderwave spell going off within 300ft...

Unless you're afflicted by the blind or deafened condition you'll be aware of their casting.



Strawman isn't just putting words into someone's mouth
It's also when you create exaggerated statements and then argue those points instead of arguing the original points.


part of good argumentation isn't just pointing out a fallacy but also explaining exactly how it is one.

You can't just assert things and come off as convincing, you have to substantiate your claims.

You'll also note that a straw man requires that I attack or refute the constructed idea. I don't really do that. I just create equivalencies and let them stand on their own merits (or lack thereof). That's not a strawman.

[Talamare]

Talamere, you need to work on your literacy bud.

"Perceptible" means you perceive it without the need for a check.

Just like you don't need a perception check to hear a thunderwave spell going off within 300ft...

Unless you're afflicted by the blind or deafened condition you'll be aware of their casting.

per·cep·ti·ble
pərˈseptəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
able to be seen or noticed

capable of being perceived


Not that it has been perceived, but that it is able or capable of being perceived.

[LeonBH]

The only thing to conclude is that the debate would spark 10 pages of offtopic arguments.

I don't understand how the Magic Missile debate is related to this.


What is RAW by Xanathar is that if the spell includes a Verbal component the spell is Perceptible
So perhaps...
I don't know
You need a Perception Check, to be able to Counterspell when you're not Perceiving the Person casting the spell?

Let's see what opposes Perception Check... It seems to be Stealth Check
So a Stealth Check to against a Perception Check might actually RAW, go figure!

Slight correction. It's perceptible if it has a spellcasting component, not just verbal.

XGtE 85: "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. [...] If the need for a spell's components has been removed by a special ability, [...] the casting of the spell is imperceptible."

And no, you don't need a Perception check to Counterspell someone in your spellcasting range. To impose such a check is to nerf Counterspell and go against its RAW trigger.


Strawman isn't just putting words into someone's mouth
It's also when you create exaggerated statements and then argue those points instead of arguing the original points.

You keep quoting the words Strawman, so here you go https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man

I don't see how his statements were exaggerated... or if they were, it's no more exaggerated than casting imperceptibly without removing the V,S,M components of a spell.

[TheUser]

per·cep·ti·ble
pərˈseptəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
able to be seen or noticed

capable of being perceived


Not that it has been perceived, but that it is able or capable of being perceived.

So what you're telling me...is that unless I am blind or deaf; I will perceive it.

No arguments here.

EDIT: I'm getting the feeling Talamere is just trolling now.

[mephnick]

I don't see it as any different than granting Action Surge with a STR or DEX check, so I'd like to know why you think it's not the same.

[Talamare]

I don't see it as any different than granting Action Surge with a STR or DEX check, so I'd like to know why you think it's not the same.

Because accepting that you can't means also accepting that everyone has 100% omniperception of their surroundings.

As long as a Wizard is within 60ft of a spell being cast, then he can counterspell it. This is Leons argument.
Regardless of any factors, and regardless of a Wizard's perception. The trigger has activated, he has the gamefied power to react.

This means that if you don't even know an Assassin exists, but he enters your Reach and you have PAM. Then you're allowed to react, since it has triggered your gamefied ability.
(If these 2 things aren't equivalent Leon, feel free to call me out on it.)


Also, It is not granting Subtle Magic. The spell still made a Perceptible Noise, but the Perceiver failed to Perceive it.

[TheUser]

Because accepting that you can't means also accepting that everyone has 100% omniperception of their surroundings.

As long as a Wizard is within 60ft of a spell being cast, then he can counterspell it. This is Leons argument.
Regardless of any factors, and regardless of a Wizard's perception. The trigger has activated, he has the gamefied power to react.

This means that if you don't even know an Assassin exists, but he enters your Reach and you have PAM. Then you're allowed to react, since it has triggered your gamefied ability.
(If these 2 things aren't equivalent Leon, feel free to call me out on it.)


Also, It is not granting Subtle Magic. The spell still made a Perceptible Noise, but the Perceiver failed to Perceive it.

Both of these actions require sight of the target. If you are heavily obscured then neither goes off.

The same where there can be visual interference a DM can argue for audio interference for verbal spell components but these are more of a result of surroundings as opposed to the skill checks of the players.

EDIT: It's also a lot like splicing actions. You are spending your action casting the spell; you are devoting your focus and concentration into not screwing up this very precise invocation. Spending your action to hide simultaneously is very difficult unless you hide as a bonus action, cast as a bonus action or action surge.

[strangebloke]

Because accepting that you can't means also accepting that everyone has 100% omniperception of their surroundings.

As long as a Wizard is within 60ft of a spell being cast, then he can counterspell it. This is Leons argument.
Regardless of any factors, and regardless of a Wizard's perception. The trigger has activated, he has the gamefied power to react.

This means that if you don't even know an Assassin exists, but he enters your Reach and you have PAM. Then you're allowed to react, since it has triggered your gamefied ability.
(If these 2 things aren't equivalent Leon, feel free to call me out on it.)


Also, It is not granting Subtle Magic. The spell still made a Perceptible Noise, but the Perceiver failed to Perceive it.

You can't make an AoO against a target that you can't see, so bad example.

And sure, I'd allow somebody to get a spell off without anyone noticing him under certain circumstances.

For example, he's targetting someone 100 feet away with a roaring waterfall between them, and the caster is hiding in a bush.

But what OP is suggesting here, I think, is a generally available skill trick a la 3x. You can make the check, you can hide the spell. That is what I take issue with.

[LeonBH]

Because accepting that you can't means also accepting that everyone has 100% omniperception of their surroundings.

I would argue that in the bare bones world of RAW, yes. But for the purposes of this, people don't have to have omniperception. It just means they perceive the casting of spells when it's cast in their vicinity because it calls attention to itself.


As long as a Wizard is within 60ft of a spell being cast, then he can counterspell it. This is Leons argument.
Regardless of any factors, and regardless of a Wizard's perception. The trigger has activated, he has the gamefied power to react.

Yes.

Consider a combat in which a Ranger is 60ft behind you. They make a ranged attack roll against you without advantage, even though you can't see them, because facing isn't a built-in rule.

Consider another combat in which a Wizard is 60ft behind you. They cast Counterspell (an S-only spell) against your own spell, but you can still Counterspell them back even though you didn't hear them (no V component) or see them (no built-in facing rule).


This means that if you don't even know an Assassin exists, but he enters your Reach and you have PAM. Then you're allowed to react, since it has triggered your gamefied ability.
(If these 2 things aren't equivalent Leon, feel free to call me out on it.)

Yes and no.

No, they're different: The Assassin has presumably pre-rolled a successful Stealth check and you have failed to perceive them. Then by the rules of combat, if he approaches you to attack, you are surprised and cannot use reactions until after you take your first turn.

Yes, they're similar: If the Assassin did not roll a Stealth check and they enter your reach, you may use PAM, even if you didn't know they exist before. You certainly know they exist at that moment in which they entered your reach.


Also, It is not granting Subtle Magic. The spell still made a Perceptible Noise, but the Perceiver failed to Perceive it.

If the caster makes an ability check to hide the casting, then they are hiding their spell the way Subtle Spell does. It's one thing for a caster to dance and shout in front of a blind and deaf opponent (in which case, the perceiver truly doesn't notice the casting). But it's another thing for the caster to hide their own casting to downplay the fact that spellcasting is perceptible for as long as it has V,S,M components.

[Blacky the Blackball]

The situations you manufactured does not rule out that spell casting is automatically noticed. If a Bard sings while casting, people will notice. And if someone is being distracted by chit chat while the Bard performs, they will notice the moment the Bard begins spellcasting.

Put an enemy caster in that situation who has Counterspell. Regardless of the Bard's performance or the party's distraction efforts, the trigger for Counterspell is always fulfilled the moment the Bard casts a spell, assuming he is within range. Thus, he will always be able to cast a Counterspell.

You've clearly misread the examples. The bard wasn't casting any spells - they were singing (and encouraging the crowd to sing along) in order to make enough noise to drown out the sound of someone else who was casting a spell.


Feather Fall is one way to lower yourself from a high place. Slow Fall is another. Straight up falling and surviving it is another. So as you can see, there are multiple ways to get to the ground. It is also not a defining class feature, so even if someone was getting robbed of a feature, they're not getting robbed of something important.

Using Subtle Spell is one way to avoid someone hearing you cast a spell. Being somewhere with too much background noise is another way. Deafening the potential hearer is another way. So as you can see, there are multiple ways to prevent someone hearing a spell being cast. One of them is (a particular use of) a class feature, but saying that just because someone has a class feature that (amongst other possible uses) they can use to easily create situation X then it is impossible for situation X to arise via any other means is completely ridiculous.


Here's an easy metric: if Wanda is within Counterspell range, she is detected by anybody who has Counterspell. To say otherwise is to deny the RAW ability of Counterspellers to negate spells cast within range of them.

Incorrect. There's nothing in the RAW of the Counterspell description that says that merely having it prepared lets you automatically detect any spells being cast within 60' even if you can't perceive that casting. There's nothing in the RAW of the Reaction description that says you can react to a trigger even if you aren't aware that the trigger has happened. And there's nothing in the RAW of the Counterspell description that overrides the normal RAW requirement for a caster to have line-of-effect to their target.

But, to get this straight, if that's the metric you're using...

By your metric, a deaf person can automatically - via some unexplained means - know that someone in another room, who they can neither see nor hear and to whom they do not have a line-of-effect, is casting a spell; providing the caster is within 60' of them.

How do they know this? Telepathy? Sense of smell? A Disturbance in the Force? Or just you handwaving it and saying "I don't care - it's RAW"?


If Wanda leaves the Counterspell range, then she needs to visually hide the somatic/material components of her casting (invisibility), or cast behind full cover, since visibility extends out to 2 miles outdoors unless blocked by an obstacle.

Once she is hidden from visible range, outside the Audible Range, and outside Counterspell range, then it is wholly possible for her to cast undetected by Peter. Of course, Bob might still detect her casting unless she also gets out of range of Bob. And then Cindy might still detect her, unless she also gets out of range of Cindy.

Define "audible range".

Does it depend on Peter's hearing ability?

Does it depend on the level of background noise?

Does it depend on whether Wanda (or Peter) is in an enclosed space that will naturally muffle sound?

If it doesn't depend on those things, what is it's value.

If it does depend on those things, what is stopping other PCs from manipulating them (deafening Peter, making noise in the background, etc.)?

[LeonBH]

You've clearly misread the examples. The bard wasn't casting any spells - they were singing (and encouraging the crowd to sing along) in order to make enough noise to drown out the sound of someone else who was casting a spell.

You're right. It still doesn't rule out that spellcasting is automatically noticed.


Using Subtle Spell is one way to avoid someone hearing you cast a spell. Being somewhere with too much background noise is another way.

Not RAW.


Deafening the potential hearer is another way.

Sure, but if they can still see, then you're still detected in the act.


So as you can see, there are multiple ways to prevent someone hearing a spell being cast.

There is Subtle Spell, then there is blinding and deafening the target. The second way does not involve subtlety; the first does.

You are free to blind and deafen someone so you can cast a spell undetected by them. But I think they will have noticed something's going on by that point.


Incorrect. There's nothing in the RAW of the Counterspell description that says that merely having it prepared lets you automatically detect any spells being cast within 60' even if you can't perceive that casting.

I will quote myself.


Consider a combat in which a Ranger is 60ft behind you. They make a ranged attack roll against you without advantage, even though you can't see them, because facing isn't a built-in rule.

Consider another combat in which a Wizard is 60ft behind you. They cast Counterspell (an S-only spell) against your own spell, but you can still Counterspell them back even though you didn't hear them (no V component) or see them (no built-in facing rule).


There's nothing in the RAW of the Reaction description that says you can react to a trigger even if you aren't aware that the trigger has happened. And there's nothing in the RAW of the Counterspell description that overrides the normal RAW requirement for a caster to have line-of-effect to their target.

Obviously, line of effect is assumed. And you're right, you can't Counterspell someone who you don't perceive is casting. That's why Subtle Counterspell cannot be Counterspelled.


But, to get this straight, if that's the metric you're using...

By your metric, a deaf person can automatically - via some unexplained means - know that someone in another room, who they can neither see nor hear and to whom they do not have a line-of-effect, is casting a spell; providing the caster is within 60' of them.

How do they know this? Telepathy? Sense of smell? A Disturbance in the Force? Or just you handwaving it and saying "I don't care - it's RAW"?

No, because Counterspell, like all spells (unless specifically overridden in the spell description), require line of sight/line of effect.

PHB 204: "A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET. To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover."


Define "audible range".

I'll quote someone else.


The "Audible Distance" chart on the newest DM's screen states:



Audible Distance



Trying to be quiet
2d6 x 5 feet


Normal noise level
2d6 x 10 feet


Very loud
2d6 x 50 ft



Tanarii's rules are sort of an inverse to these - the DM screen rules say any given event is automatically audible at a certain distance that the DM rolls for, whereas Tanarii's rules put the onus on the players by having them roll perception to see if they can hear something from where they are.

[strangebloke]

No, they're different: The Assassin has presumably pre-rolled a successful Stealth check and you have failed to perceive them. Then by the rules of combat, if he approaches you to attack, you are surprised and cannot use reactions until after you take your first turn.

Yes, they're similar: If the Assassin did not roll a Stealth check and they enter your reach, you may use PAM, even if you didn't know they exist before. You certainly know they exist at that moment in which they entered your reach.

AoO's require the target to be seen. PAM grants an AoO. So if someone is unseen, PAM does not grant an AoO even if you hear them and know they exist.

Also, for counterspell, I don't have the book on hand, but Roll20 reads "1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell."

There's no such thing as facing rules, and you are correct to say that in combat, if someone someone is able to see something in combat (they aren't blind and their vision isn't obstructed) they do see the target. So in combat, vision is always omnidirectional. In practice (read:out of combat) 'waiting until someone's back is turned' is a perfectly respectable course of action. If an arcane trickster hides, and casts a spell with no verbal component, I see no reason why anyone should be able to notice.

Whether or not it is possible to 'cover up' a spell is not a matter for RAW, it's a matter for rulings. From a balance perspective, there's no reason to allow this. From a hijinks/creativity perspective, there is. If there wasn't a sorcerer at my table, I would allow it. If we were in the character creation phase, I wouldn't. It's a very powerful ability that leads to a lot of silliness. As a general piece of homebrew it will be bad for a lot of tables.

Regardless, 'covering up' a spell should be something with a lot of risk, since, I mean, if there are a lot of people milling about, someone is going to notice. I'd probably require separate checks for seeing and hearing.

[Tanarii]

Also, for counterspell, I don't have the book on hand, but Roll20 reads "1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell."That is correct, you must be able to see the creature casting the spell to trigger the reaction. No S-component or M-component, no Counterspell. It doesn't trigger off of V complements, so it's irrelevant to a debate about the audible range of V components.

[LeonBH]

AoO's require the target to be seen. PAM grants an AoO. So if someone is unseen, PAM does not grant an AoO even if you hear them and know they exist.

I stipulated that the Assassin did not roll a Stealth check, so it was implied that he was seen during his approach. But yes, if he was unseen, no AoO will happen.


Also, for counterspell, I don't have the book on hand, but Roll20 reads "1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell."

There's no such thing as facing rules, and you are correct to say that in combat, if someone someone is able to see something in combat (they aren't blind and their vision isn't obstructed) they do see the target. So in combat, vision is always omnidirectional. In practice (read:out of combat) 'waiting until someone's back is turned' is a perfectly respectable course of action. If an arcane trickster hides, and casts a spell with no verbal component, I see no reason why anyone should be able to notice.

In my view, the world doesn't change in combat or out of combat. Initiative is just a way to slice time into short 6-second bits. But out of combat is made up of short 6-second bits too, so anything that applies to the part should apply to all the parts that make up the whole.

As to your specific example, if the Arcane Trickster hides, he becomes unseen. The requirement of Counterspell is that you can see the caster, but an unseen caster cannot be seen. The same goes for if someone is invisible (ie, Greater Invisibility). That said, your S,M components are still perceptible due to Xanathar's, and the casting will potentially remove you from being hidden.

The case is different for an Arcane Trickster who did not make a Stealth check (or failed their Stealth check), but casts an S,M spell inside the Wizard's Counterspell range. The Wizard is within RAW to negate that casting.


Whether or not it is possible to 'cover up' a spell is not a matter for RAW, it's a matter for rulings. From a balance perspective, there's no reason to allow this. From a hijinks/creativity perspective, there is. If there wasn't a sorcerer at my table, I would allow it. If we were in the character creation phase, I wouldn't. It's a very powerful ability that leads to a lot of silliness. As a general piece of homebrew it will be bad for a lot of tables.

I feel like it would be better to watch the players solve the problem knowing that casting a spell will always draw attention to themselves. Restrictions breed creativity. Also, Sorcerers are the rule breakers, and that's pretty good the way it is.

---


That is correct, you must be able to see the creature casting the spell to trigger the reaction. No S-component or M-component, no Counterspell. It doesn't trigger off of V complements, so it's irrelevant to a debate about the audible range of V components.

This reading implies that Misty Step cannot be Counterspelled.

[Blacky the Blackball]

You're right. It still doesn't rule out that spellcasting is automatically noticed.

Not RAW.

Sure, but if they can still see, then you're still detected in the act.

There is Subtle Spell, then there is blinding and deafening the target. The second way does not involve subtlety; the first does.

You are free to blind and deafen someone so you can cast a spell undetected by them. But I think they will have noticed something's going on by that point.

I will quote myself.

Obviously, line of effect is assumed. And you're right, you can't Counterspell someone who you don't perceive is casting. That's why Subtle Counterspell cannot be Counterspelled.

No, because Counterspell, like all spells (unless specifically overridden in the spell description), require line of sight/line of effect.

PHB 204: "A CLEAR PATH TO THE TARGET. To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover."

I'll quote someone else.

Okay, so if I put together your terse and partial answers to my complex questions (which are often answering different questions to the ones asked), your position appears to be as follows:

The verbal components of a spell are fundamentally different from any other noise. They have a special quality to them that means that no matter how much background noise there is drowning them out (even if that noise is very much louder than those verbal components), that they can still be clearly heard through that other noise. The only possible way that they can go unheard is if the potential hearer is totally deaf. However, this special quality only reaches out to a distance of 60'. Beyond that distance, verbal components are treated just like any other sound and might or might not be heard.

And your reasons for taking that position are:

1) You think that if there is any chance of not hearing the verbal component of a spell being cast, it is unfair to people who have taken the Subtle Spell metamagic option in order to be able avoid using verbal components.
2) Counterspell has a range of 60', and you think that it is unfair to people who have prepared that spell if there is a chance that a spell might be cast within that range and they don't get an opportunity to counter it because they didn't hear the verbal components and therefore didn't realise the spell was being cast.

Whereas my position is:

The verbal components of a spell are sounds just like any other, and can be drowned out by other noise just like any other sound. Verbal components must be spoken in a clear voice (they can't be whispered), but in a situation where you wouldn't hear that clear voice you can't hear the verbal components either.

My reason for taking that position is:

There's nothing in the rules to say that it works any other way.

Is that a fair representation of our two opposing views?

[Beelzebubba]

I don't see it as any different than granting Action Surge with a STR or DEX check, so I'd like to know why you think it's not the same.

Yeah, the main reason we made the spellcaster roll for it was to add the possibility of spell failure with the 1.

If we are more strict, which is what I'm leaning towards (even as the entire thread devolves to howling and throwing poo), then it's more about saying casting a spell is the 'constant' in the skill challenge, and the chance to spot it relies on the surrounding observer's Perception checks. So, it's out of the caster's control, really, and extremely perceptive people get those bonuses they deserve to see it.

That would mean the only way for the party to influence the chances of detection is by doing some kind of other activity that forces some kind of Bluff or Performance or Deception check against the observers to see if they get successfully distracted.

Did I capture that right?

[Demonslayer666]

Counterspell doesn't grant you omniscience where you automatically notice every spell being caste within 60'. You can only counterspell what the DM says you notice. One spell being cast by an obvious opponent during a round, sure, that should be automatic. Completely depends on the situation.

I have no problem allowing characters to accomplish other class features, like trying to disarm someone, as long as it's logically reasonable. You can always attempt to do what a normal person could do. A fighter raging does nothing for them, except maybe make them more intimidating.

Subtling casting under observation is right out in my game. You have to use a normal, clear, talking voice, no whispering. You can't adjust pitch and tone without using your vocal cords. Under observation, you will automatically be noticed. If there is a lot going on, then there is a chance that you will be noticed depending on the situation.

[LeonBH]

Okay, so if I put together your terse and partial answers to my complex questions (which are often answering different questions to the ones asked), your position appears to be as follows:

The verbal components of a spell are fundamentally different from any other noise. They have a special quality to them that means that no matter how much background noise there is drowning them out (even if that noise is very much louder than those verbal components), that they can still be clearly heard through that other noise. The only possible way that they can go unheard is if the potential hearer is totally deaf. However, this special quality only reaches out to a distance of 60'. Beyond that distance, verbal components are treated just like any other sound and might or might not be heard.

No, this is a misrepresentation. All spellcasting components, not just verbal components, are fundamentally different. Due to Xanathar's, if your spell has V,S,M, your spellcasting is perceptible. If they do not have those components, your casting is imperceptible, even if the spell effects themselves can be perceived (in the absence of other evidence).

In the presence of a louder noise than the V components of the spell, the louder noise does not remove the fact that that spell with the V component that was cast is still perceptible, according to Xanathar's.

The distance of 60 feet is not a hard and fast limit. If you cast a spell within 60ft that has V,S,M components, then you should be found out. Beyond that, it is still possible to spot you. In particular, the Audible Distance table tells us that a normal sound can potentially be heard up to 120ft away, but is heard on average is heard only up to 60ft away. Meanwhile, a soft sound can be heard up to 60ft away, but on average is heard only up to 30ft away.

If the perceiver of your V-component spell, which emits a sound of a certain volume, is within Audible Distance from you, you are heard.

Furthermore, unless you are hidden, invisible, or otherwise unseen, your S,M components are seen. Visibility goes out to 2 miles on a fair day, so your S,M components are still visible from a mere 60ft away.


And your reasons for taking that position are:

1) You think that if there is any chance of not hearing the verbal component of a spell being cast, it is unfair to people who have taken the Subtle Spell metamagic option in order to be able avoid using verbal components.
2) Counterspell has a range of 60', and you think that it is unfair to people who have prepared that spell if there is a chance that a spell might be cast within that range and they don't get an opportunity to counter it because they didn't hear the verbal components and therefore didn't realise the spell was being cast.

No. To revise your statements:

1) The Subtle Spell metamagic is powerful and often undervalued. And yes, it is unfair to the Sorcerers. That said, I'm fine with it if the Sorcerers are compensated for the nerf. However, allowing free Subtle Spell is a straight buff to every other class, and it means every caster would be a fool not to cast every one of their spells subtly. Yes, it can fail sometimes, but when it really matters, the players will stack the deck in favor of the spell being cast imperceptibly, such that on balance, it is the same as Subtle Spell on those important rolls.

2) The RAW trigger of Counterspell is fulfilled when someone casts a spell within 60ft of the Counterspeller. To deny them that is breaking RAW.


Whereas my position is:

The verbal components of a spell are sounds just like any other, and can be drowned out by other noise just like any other sound. Verbal components must be spoken in a clear voice (they can't be whispered), but in a situation where you wouldn't hear that clear voice you can't hear the verbal components either.

My reason for taking that position is:

There's nothing in the rules to say that it works any other way.

Is that a fair representation of our two opposing views?

No, you are contradicting RAW by opposing (2), specifically the trigger of Counterspell; and you are ignoring Xanathar's by opposing (1).

EDIT: It is possible for you to cast a spell unnoticed without Subtle Spell, but you need to be unseen and unheard (ie, out of visible range and Audible Distance). Casting a V-component spell spoken in a clear voice does not qualify as unheard while within 60ft of the target, and has a chance of still being heard beyond that.

[strangebloke]

I don't know how you read: "perceptible" as "always percieved."

Those are very different things. An invisible person is imperceptible (by sight.) A hidden person is unseen, but perceptible. A person who is not hiding and is close by is always perceived.

And counter spell requires that you see the target, and that you see him casting a spell. This discussion is about whether or not you can hide the fact that you're casting a spell.

If the casting of the spell is disguised, you would not see someone casting a spell. You would see someone doing a weird interpretive dance and you couldn't (and wouldn't) counterspell it. So counterspell is wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

[Talamare]

No, you are contradicting RAW by opposing (2), specifically the trigger of Counterspell; and you are ignoring Xanathar's by opposing (1).

EDIT: It is possible for you to cast a spell unnoticed without Subtle Spell, but you need to be unseen and unheard (ie, out of visible range and Audible Distance). Casting a V-component spell spoken in a clear voice does not qualify as unheard while within 60ft of the target, and has a chance of still being heard beyond that.

Not opposing Xanathar

Xanathar states it's Perceptible. It does not state that everyone can Perceive it.

Being 'Capable' of being Perceived does not mean everyone automatic Perceives it.

[LeonBH]

I don't know how you read: "perceptible" as "always percieved."

Those are very different things. An invisible person is imperceptible (by sight.) A hidden person is unseen, but perceptible. A person who is not hiding and is close by is always perceived.

And counter spell requires that you see the target, and that you see him casting a spell. This discussion is about whether or not you can hide the fact that you're casting a spell.

If the casting of the spell is disguised, you would not see someone casting a spell. You would see someone doing a weird interpretive dance and you couldn't (and wouldn't) counterspell it. So counterspell is wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

Counterspell is relevant to the extent that it enables the following, as I've stated before:


Consider a combat in which a Ranger is 60ft behind you. They make a ranged attack roll against you without advantage, even though you can't see them, because facing isn't a built-in rule.

Consider another combat in which a Wizard is 60ft behind you. They cast Counterspell (an S-only spell) against your own spell, but you can still Counterspell them back even though you didn't hear them (no V component) or see them (no built-in facing rule).

How is it that the Counterspeller can negate a casting of a spell he did not see or hear? It seems like he can always detect when spells are cast around him, as we can show a legal example of him doing so.

But preparing Counterspell does not provide a special spell-detecting ability to the user, so we must explain it by way of everyone having this ability, and those with Counterspell simply are able to act on it when they perceive a spell being cast.

That is, someone casting a V,S,M spell within 60ft is obvious and noticeable to everyone, not just to Counterspellers. And that is how Counterspellers can negate a casting of a spell they do not see or hear, as with the example I've provided.

The only trigger for Counterspell is they can see the target. A non-hiding caster behind him, but with line of sight to him, is someone he can see.


Not opposing Xanathar

Xanathar states it's Perceptible. It does not state that everyone can Perceive it.

Being 'Capable' of being Perceived does not mean everyone automatic Perceives it.

Yes, but what I'm showing is that "perceptible" leads directly to "perceived" under most normal circumstances, as I said above.

[Talamare]

I want to say
This isn't granting people the Sorcerer's Subtle Metamagic.
You still won't be able to cast in certain conditions, such as a Silence Zone, or if your hands are tied.

After that, I think it might come down to a different style of play.

Some may want to play in a very hard mechanics way, that sometimes causes gamefication to create broken common sense.
While others want to play in a way that is both RAW and makes common sense.

The truth is, the RAW is vague and fuzzy on this point.

Neither side is arguing anything concrete, because there is nothing concrete to argue.
So Arguments and Debates aren't needed.

[LeonBH]

I want to say
This isn't granting people the Sorcerer's Subtle Metamagic.
You still won't be able to cast in certain conditions, such as a Silence Zone, or if your hands are tied.

But you will be able to hide most of your casting outside those conditions, and subtlety is the main attraction of Subtle Spell, not casting inside zones of silence (though that use is also awesome).

It is not replicating the Subtle Spell ability exactly, but it is practically a copy of it. A weaker version of Subtle Spell, if you will, but unbounded by resources.


Some may want to play in a very hard mechanics way, that sometimes causes gamefication to create broken common sense.

This is not a fair statement, considering this "broken common sense" does not lead to a buff being handed out to all the casters.

Like I said, I'm fine with implementing this. If I were at the table though, I would ask for the Sorc to be buffed to compensate.

[strangebloke]

But something becomes imperceptible if there's an obstruction. You may not be blind, but if there's a wall in the way, it's imperceptible. You may not be deaf, but if the sound is smaller than the ambient noise (a waterfall, a concert, a monkey with a pair of cymbals) you can't always hear it.

For sight, we call this obscurement. Hiding is possible in less than total obscurement. By hiding you turn something that is "always perceived" (a person) into something "perceivable but not always."

Similarly, we're talking about "hiding" something that is normally "always perceived" (a spell) in the presence of "obscurement" (loud noise, bad lighting, etc.)

This is not possible by RAW. But then, this is a homebrew discussion. You could say that we're homebrewing a bonus action called "hide spell."

Also, insisting that everyone behaves the same in combat and out of combat is somewhat silly.

It's one thing to claim that in combat everyone is pretty aware of everything happening.

It's another to say that the bored noble who is drunk and currently getting a lap dance while listening to death metal turned up to eleven is able to instantly lock on to the guy sixty feet away chanting in a low voice while he does a strange little dance.

If the rules worked the exact same, why does the "surprise" mechanic exist? How can one be surprised at all if you're always omnidirectionally aware and capable of responding rationally?

[Talamare]

This is not a fair statement, considering this "broken common sense" does not lead to a buff being handed out to all the casters.

Like I said, I'm fine with implementing this. If I were at the table though, I would ask for the Sorc to be buffed to compensate.

Apologies and you're right, that statement was a little callous.

I'm of similar mind that Sorcerer is a Weak Class in DnD. However, I won't get into it in this thread <3.

[Tanarii]

The truth is, the RAW is vague and fuzzy on this point.Like stealth in general, I consider things like perception of visuals and noise in general, and casting components in particular, to intentionally be so. It's in line with rulings, not rules, and they provided a mechanic for if the DM decides additional mechanical resolution is needed: ability checks.


Neither side is arguing anything concrete, because there is nothing concrete to argue.
So Arguments and Debates aren't needed.They can clarify things, for a DM deciding how they want to run it.

For example as a DM, I'm personally not a fan of allowing stealth or slight of hand, as an active skill use by the caster, to hide or disguise casting. It wouldn't occur to me that's a possibility without debates.

Similarly I'm a fan of paying attention to hearing and seeing ranges, environment effects on it, and creatures being distracted (disadvantage) or fully engrossed in something else (no passive perception to notice threats). Discussions like this have helped me figure out ranges I want to use, and bringing up how I do it has shown me various issues with them, like being much shorter than the DM screen ranges for equivalent sound levels.

But I agree insisting we're right and they're wrong doesn't help. (Not that I let that stop me, depending on the topic. :smallwink: )

[LeonBH]

But something becomes imperceptible if there's an obstruction. You may not be blind, but if there's a wall in the way, it's imperceptible. You may not be deaf, but if the sound is smaller than the ambient noise (a waterfall, a concert, a monkey with a pair of cymbals) you can't always hear it.

For sight, we call this obscurement. Hiding is possible in less than total obscurement. By hiding you turn something that is "always perceived" (a person) into something "perceivable but not always."

Similarly, we're talking about "hiding" something that is normally "always perceived" (a spell) in the presence of "obscurement" (loud noise, bad lighting, etc.)

This is not possible by RAW. But then, this is a homebrew discussion. You could say that we're homebrewing a bonus action called "hide spell."

I am making a case that allowing casting to be subtle without Subtle Spell is a buff to all casters. My personal thoughts on it is if this is done, an accompanying buff should be given to Sorcs.

I am also showing evidence that spellcasting is obvious and noticeable so as to emphasize how big of a buff this is to other casters. Along the same vein, I'm refuting any claims that it is not a buff, that it is not similar to Subtle Spell, and that you can naturally hide spellcasting by RAW.

I'm of the opinion that some people genuinely believe RAW allows casters to hide their casting without Subtle Spell, and I'm refuting that, too.


Also, insisting that everyone behaves the same in combat and out of combat is somewhat silly.

It's one thing to claim that in combat everyone is pretty aware of everything happening.

It's another to say that the bored noble who is drunk and currently getting a lap dance while listening to death metal turned up to eleven is able to instantly lock on to the guy sixty feet away chanting in a low voice while he does a strange little dance.

If the rules worked the exact same, why does the "surprise" mechanic exist? How can one be surprised at all if you're always omnidirectionally aware and capable of responding rationally?

With regard to the surprise mechanic, that presupposes that one party is hidden from the other and their Stealth rolls surpass the other party's passive perception. If neither party hides, they automatically detect each other.

Like you said before, the caster should just hide (roll Stealth) and perform a non-V spell. Doing so may bring the caster out of hiding, but it is a way for a caster to hide their magic since they will be unseen. Also, since the noble in your example is drunk, his opposing Perception check will be at disadvantage.

Besides, the drunk noble might see the wacky caster, but he doesn't have to care or do anything about it. All he does is notice it; there doesn't have to be a rational or conscious thought attached to that.

But otherwise, yes, I am claiming that we can extrapolate in-combat and out-of-combat scenarios. In the scenario that I presented, the Counterspeller had no visuals or audio of the other caster, but was still able to detect the casting of that spell. This suggests that it's the act of casting a spell that draws attention to the caster, and this idea is applicable outside of combat and is supported by Xanathar's.

[strangebloke]

I don't actually disagree with you, Leon, in that we both think that this feature is very strong, and that it isn't allowable by RAW.

But. This is a Homebrew thread.

I do disagree with you about combat/out of combat because your reading makes it literally impossible to stealthily tail someone. In combat it's reasonable that everyone is looking around, trying to see everything happening. Out of combat... People don't do that, and many many rules deal with out of combat separately.

But none of that is precisely relevant to this discussion. The discussion is: would you/how would you allow it? My answer is, generally no, but if I would do it, OP has the right idea.

Make it have a high chance of failure even under favorable conditions

[Blacky the Blackball]

No, this is a misrepresentation. All spellcasting components, not just verbal components, are fundamentally different. Due to Xanathar's, if your spell has V,S,M, your spellcasting is perceptible. If they do not have those components, your casting is imperceptible, even if the spell effects themselves can be perceived (in the absence of other evidence).

In the presence of a louder noise than the V components of the spell, the louder noise does not remove the fact that that spell with the V component that was cast is still perceptible, according to Xanathar's.

The distance of 60 feet is not a hard and fast limit. If you cast a spell within 60ft that has V,S,M components, then you should be found out. Beyond that, it is still possible to spot you. In particular, the Audible Distance table tells us that a normal sound can potentially be heard up to 120ft away, but is heard on average is heard only up to 60ft away. Meanwhile, a soft sound can be heard up to 60ft away, but on average is heard only up to 30ft away.

If the perceiver of your V-component spell, which emits a sound of a certain volume, is within Audible Distance from you, you are heard.

Furthermore, unless you are hidden, invisible, or otherwise unseen, your S,M components are seen. Visibility goes out to 2 miles on a fair day, so your S,M components are still visible from a mere 60ft away.

Since we're only talking about verbal components here, I'll ignore the irrelevant stuff about S and M components.

You say: "Due to Xanathar's, if your spell has V [,S,M] your spell is perceptible".

This is NOT what Xanathar's says.

Xanathars says - in these exact words - "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must have a verbal, somatic, or material component."

That does NOT say that if it has components then it's always perceptible (which is your claim - in fact your claim goes further; you don't just say that it's always perceptible, you say it's always successfully percieved). What that says is that if it doesn't have components then it isn't perceptible. Do you see the difference? It's in the logic of the way that statement is constructed. It rules out percieving a spell that has no components, but it doesn't guarantee that a spell with components will be perceptible (and even if it did, that wouldn't guarantee that the spell is actually percieved).

You appear to have changed your mind on the 60' limit. In previous posts, you were saying it must be percieved within 60' so it can be countered, because that's the range of Counterspell, but now you're saying that the (randomly rolled and not taking into account environmental factors) "Audible Range" only averages 60'.

So does that mean you're now happy with a V-only spell being cast by someone 25' away not being heard (and therefore not being noticed) if the die roll for Audible Distance comes up snake-eyes?

If so, we're making progress - and the only stumbling block (other than your misinterpretation of Xanathars) appears to be that you are insisting on a random roll for Audible Range that doesn't take into account any environmental factors.

Would you find it acceptable for the DM to modify the Audible Range roll due to environmental factors? In other words, give it a penalty if there's lots of noise or give it a bonus if everything's so quiet you could hear a pin drop?


No. To revise your statements:

1) The Subtle Spell metamagic is powerful and often undervalued. And yes, it is unfair to the Sorcerers. That said, I'm fine with it if the Sorcerers are compensated for the nerf. However, allowing free Subtle Spell is a straight buff to every other class, and it means every caster would be a fool not to cast every one of their spells subtly. Yes, it can fail sometimes, but when it really matters, the players will stack the deck in favor of the spell being cast imperceptibly, such that on balance, it is the same as Subtle Spell on those important rolls.

2) The RAW trigger of Counterspell is fulfilled when someone casts a spell within 60ft of the Counterspeller. To deny them that is breaking RAW.

Okay, so for number 1 when you say "no" to me asking if your reason is that you think it's unfair to Sorcerers, you actually mean "yes", that is your reason. (I'll ignore your additional comment about "allowing free Subtle Spell" because I've made it repeatedly clear, post after post, that that's not what I'm suggesting.)

For number 2, I've pointed out that nowhere in the RAW does it say that you can take a reaction in response to a trigger that you're unaware of - and in fact you've agreed that I'm correct and you can't counter the casting of a spell if you fail to percieve it. But that means you're wrong about it breaking RAW, so your reason isn't that you think it's unfair to people with Counterspell but that you're misinterpreting the RAW.


No, you are contradicting RAW by opposing (2), specifically the trigger of Counterspell; and you are ignoring Xanathar's by opposing (1).

Except that - as I've described above - you're misinterpreting both of those, so I'm not.


EDIT: It is possible for you to cast a spell unnoticed without Subtle Spell, but you need to be unseen and unheard (ie, out of visible range and Audible Distance). Casting a V-component spell spoken in a clear voice does not qualify as unheard while within 60ft of the target, and has a chance of still being heard beyond that.

And now you're back to using 60' as a hard limit rather than an average again. Make your mind up!

[Kane0]

It's funny, I think a lot of the trouble is because you're getting the caster to do the rolling.
If you reversed the mechanic, ie the caster always casts the same way so it's the constant and the creatures roll perception with DC scaled to conditions like distance and noise and advantage/disadvantage from distractions or other factors, I don't think many people would have reacted so strongly. Same thing in the end, but it's the targets instead of the PCs rolling.

[LeonBH]

Since we're only talking about verbal components here, I'll ignore the irrelevant stuff about S and M components.

You say: "Due to Xanathar's, if your spell has V [,S,M] your spell is perceptible".

This is NOT what Xanathar's says.

Xanathars says - in these exact words - "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must have a verbal, somatic, or material component."

That does NOT say that if it has components then it's always perceptible (which is your claim - in fact your claim goes further; you don't just say that it's always perceptible, you say it's always successfully percieved). What that says is that if it doesn't have components then it isn't perceptible. Do you see the difference? It's in the logic of the way that statement is constructed. It rules out percieving a spell that has no components, but it doesn't guarantee that a spell with components will be perceptible (and even if it did, that wouldn't guarantee that the spell is actually percieved).

It is perceptible and then perceived. Other people have raised this and I've responded to them, don't make me repeat everything. I'm making a case that perceptible leads to perceived.


You appear to have changed your mind on the 60' limit. In previous posts, you were saying it must be percieved within 60' so it can be countered, because that's the range of Counterspell, but now you're saying that the (randomly rolled and not taking into account environmental factors) "Audible Range" only averages 60'.

From where I stand, I've been saying the same thing. Maybe the reverse is true - you now understand me better?


So does that mean you're now happy with a V-only spell being cast by someone 25' away not being heard (and therefore not being noticed) if the die roll for Audible Distance comes up snake-eyes?

If so, we're making progress - and the only stumbling block (other than your misinterpretation of Xanathars) appears to be that you are insisting on a random roll for Audible Range that doesn't take into account any environmental factors.

Scratch that, you still don't get it, but here's a simplification: within 60ft, you are caught. Beyond 60ft, you might still get caught.


Would you find it acceptable for the DM to modify the Audible Range roll due to environmental factors? In other words, give it a penalty if there's lots of noise or give it a bonus if everything's so quiet you could hear a pin drop?

No.


Okay, so for number 1 when you say "no" to me asking if your reason is that you think it's unfair to Sorcerers, you actually mean "yes", that is your reason. (I'll ignore your additional comment about "allowing free Subtle Spell" because I've made it repeatedly clear, post after post, that that's not what I'm suggesting.)

Right, it is reasonable for someone ignore the rest of someone's statement in a discussion. (this is sarcasm)

[LeonBH]

I do disagree with you about combat/out of combat because your reading makes it literally impossible to stealthily tail someone. In combat it's reasonable that everyone is looking around, trying to see everything happening. Out of combat... People don't do that, and many many rules deal with out of combat separately.

It doesn't invalidate tailing someone, because whoever tails another person will roll a Stealth check and be unseen/unheard from their target. If they tail someone but don't roll a Stealth check, then yes, it is impossible for them to be undetected.

I'm assuming for this example that the DM will ask for a Stealth check when you're following someone, because DMs usually ask for dice to be rolled when a task is attempted. Thus, the only way for you to not roll a Stealth check is by saying "No, I don't want to roll Stealth, but I'd like to follow him anyway."

To conclude, under my reading, it is possible for another person to tail another person. The one who tails must roll a Stealth check.


But none of that is precisely relevant to this discussion. The discussion is: would you/how would you allow it? My answer is, generally no, but if I would do it, OP has the right idea.

Make it have a high chance of failure even under favorable conditions

I've already said if it's implemented, I'd like the Sorcs to get a boost to compensate the nerf. It was my first post in this thread. In that post, I also gave my thoughts on how to simplify the complexity of their homebrew, treating it as something to be implemented.

[gloryblaze]

Would you find it acceptable for the DM to modify the Audible Range roll due to environmental factors? In other words, give it a penalty if there's lots of noise or give it a bonus if everything's so quiet you could hear a pin drop?

I think the fact that you're instructed to roll at all (instead of the chart just saying "whisper = 35 feet, normal = 70 feet, loud = 350 feet) is because the variance of the roll is meant to encompass variance in things such as background noise, how well the listeners are paying attention, etc. Rolling snake eyes might mean that the listeners were zoning out or that the ambient noise level was very high, so the noise wasn't heard unless you were within 10 feet. Whereas rolling 12 means that it might have been dead silent, or maybe the acoustics of the room or the wind or whatever carried the noise farther than usual, or maybe the listeners were just having a good day.

[Gardakan]

I've had this situation brought up quite much in Adventurer's League, I've always ran the difficulty check table from the DMG for this requirement.

Your table is comparable to this. With the added note of the Subtle Spell from Sorcerer's metamagic.

[JackPhoenix]

Once again, reminder that there's perfectly RAW way to hide spellcasting with skill check, valid in AL.

[Beelzebubba]

It's funny, I think a lot of the trouble is because you're getting the caster to do the rolling.
If you reversed the mechanic, ie the caster always casts the same way so it's the constant and the creatures roll perception with DC scaled to conditions like distance and noise and advantage/disadvantage from distractions or other factors, I don't think many people would have reacted so strongly. Same thing in the end, but it's the targets instead of the PCs rolling.

Yeah, and the more I think about it, that's the right way to go.

We were making them roll because the '1' failure would lose the spell, and that was a source of tension and risk. To keep the risk, we also made it a roll that was hard for a single class to dominate with their natural skill progression (i.e. Bard/Arcane Trickster Expertise, Bardic Jack of All Trades) and essentially get it for free. That would make the Sorcerer obsolete for sure. But that's still something the party can 'game'.

But, instead, if there's any doubt, it's more RAW/RAI to call it a flat (and relatively low) DC to perceive the spellcasting, mitigated by circumstances like ambient noise, range, intelligence and training of the observers, etcetera, right?

Players can do entertaining shenanigans with Bluff/Perform/etc. to try to mask the casting, and if they're inventive enough and roll well, Rule of Cool (another explicit one at our table) can carry the day.

--

(A bit of a tangent: maybe we can rule stuff like Druidcraft/Prestidigitation/Message are quieter, so those can be more useful and fun. I know the idea that a Druid has to do a bloody interpretive song and dance number to make a tiny animal sound nearby eliminates all possibility of using it for something cool like a distracting noise to aid a Stealth check, which seems like a natural, and thematic use.)

[Kane0]

Indeed, its perfectly fine to rule that certain spells might be less obvious or intrusive than others. The spell entries only tell you what components are present after all, not what those components entail.

Would have come in handy a long while ago for an unfortunate knowledge cleric in our party casting Detect thoughts haha.

Also make no mistake, you can rule whatever you like. The internet is a great place for naysayers, the important thing is that it works for you and your table.

[Blacky the Blackball]

It is perceptible and then perceived. Other people have raised this and I've responded to them, don't make me repeat everything. I'm making a case that perceptible leads to perceived.

You're not addressing the fact that - even if you claim perceptible=perceived (and the case you are making for this isn't justified) - Xanathars doesn't say components = perceptible. It only says no components = imperceptible. By the RAW, therefore, spells with components may or may not be perceptible.


From where I stand, I've been saying the same thing. Maybe the reverse is true - you now understand me better?

Scratch that, you still don't get it, but here's a simplification: within 60ft, you are caught. Beyond 60ft, you might still get caught.

I think I understand you clearly.

Your preference is that the only way for someone to be unable to counter a spell is for a sorcerer to have used Subtle Spell while casting it, and for any non-subtle spell to be able to be countered if within range of a Counterspell regardless of any other factors1. That's fair enough. I think it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy2 but you can play that way if you want to.

However, rather than simply saying that's what you want and having it as a house-rule in your game, you're arguing that the situation you want is the RAW way to play the game - and to do so, you have to misinterpret the text and commit errors of logic3.


Right, it is reasonable for someone ignore the rest of someone's statement in a discussion. (this is sarcasm)

When you ask a question and the person answers it and then goes off on an irrelevant tangent, it's reasonable to ignore the tangent as being irrelevant and just address the answer (this is not sarcasm).

-------------------------


1I'm not sure which side you're approaching this from. It could be "I want Counterspell to be powerful, therefore Subtle Spell needs to be the only thing that can stop it" or it could be "I want Subtle Spell to be powerful, therefore it should be the only thing that can stop Counterspell working".

2There seems to be some circular logic going on here:
Subtle Spell is the only thing that can stop a spell from being Countered.
This makes Subtle Spell very powerful and an important class feature.
Because Subtle Spell is very powerful and an important class feature, we can't let anything diminish that power and importance.
Therefore nothing else can be allowed to stop a spell from being Countered.
Therefore Subtle Spell is the only thing that can stop a spell from being Countered
This makes Subtle Spell very powerful and an important class feature
....
Of course, if other things can stop a spell from being countered, then Subtle Spell isn't that powerful and important, which means that it doesn't matter if other things can stop a spell from being countered.

3Your argument - which you claim to be entirely RAW - appears to be:
Counterspell can be cast as a reaction to a spell being cast within 60'. (This is RAW)
You can only take a reaction to a trigger that you can perceive. (Surprisingly, this is not RAW - but we're agreed that it's RAI and "common sense")
Therefore (from 1 and 2) you must always be able to perceive a spell within 60' or you wouldn't be able to take the reaction to Counterspell it. (You're claiming this to be RAW but it isn't - "You can only take the reaction and Counterspell a spell if you can percieve it, which may not be the case" is equally compatible with RAW)
If a spell has no components it is not possible to perceive it. (This is RAW)
Therefore (from 4), if a spell has components, it is possible to perceive it. (This is not RAW, but a logical error on your part, it does not follow from the above)
Therefore (from 3 and 5) if a spell has components, it will be perceived if you are within 60'. (This is not RAW - the logic is behind it is valid in that it does follow from its premises, but the conclusion is not sound since neither of its two premises are themselves sound)
Therefore (from 6) the verbal component of a spell must be special and able to be heard regardless of background noise . (This is not RAW, but your own fluff based on the conclusion of your flawed argument)

[LeonBH]

Blacky the Blackball, I can see that you've quoted me. I'd like you to know I did not read it aside from your explanation of why you ignored what I wrote.

[Beelzebubba]

Also make no mistake, you can rule whatever you like. The internet is a great place for naysayers, the important thing is that it works for you and your table.

Well, there's a few things going on.

First, my biggest pet peeve about all the D&D I've played were DMs that just arbitrarily changed rules in ways that screwed characters. So I'm trying to be careful.

Second, we're a West Marches style game with multiple DMs. We work hard to stay on the same page with the way we make rulings, and with the flavor of the game we're trying to run. We've had a couple other house rules that we tried before, and later got rid of, after we got more of a handle on the game. These sort of discussions were part of that process.

Third, we strongly embrace 'Rule of Cool', so we're trying to let players pull off wild shenanigans. (Restating the OP a bit) We figured this rule makes some of the riskier uses of mind-warping magic worth trying only if the rest of the party joins in to help. So, even if it's the Warlock's spell, we all get to be creative and participate in an awesome RP moment.

So, point 2 and 3 are still in a bit of conflict for me, and the other DM has indicated she's not at all wedded to this current house rule. It's just us trying to put some structure on the problem because we literally have a Great Old One Warlock, Halfling Illusionist Wizard, and Gnome Lore Bard in the party, and they're all clever players.

As it is now, this only expands the possibilities in some situations - a very small number of opponents, in social, non-combat situations. In many, many others - say, in a room with observant and well-trained guards, or with even one magic-savvy observer that is not the target of the party's bluffing - it's still never going to work. A Still Spell Sorcerer will still do things other characters can only dream of.

Ideally, we will get rid of the house rules. I think it's the right thing to do, and will mean the problem is really about the DM assigning DCs for the observers' Perception checks - which sits much better with me.

So, thanks. This thread (if you ignore some of the inflammatory poo-flinging back and forth) gave me everything I needed.