Strawpoll: Concealed casting.

[TheUser]

I have my own ardent opinions on concealed casting (which I would happily launch into later) but for now I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on the idea of DM's allowing players to cast "quietly" or somehow mask their spell's.

https://www.strawpoll.me/16040261

Feel free to comment with your rationale behind your vote.

Edit: my vote and why in the spoiler.

My answer is a hard No.
There are a few core reasons why I never allow this, even when bards and arcane tricksters want to do so.
Before that, I should elaborate a bit; because of Counterspell and how it is worded my interpretation is one such that if a creature within 60ft of you, has line of sight and the spell has a vocal component they 100% know you cast a spell but maybe not what the spell was (this is RAW). Counterspell provides us with sufficient context that even in the throws of battle a spell being cast is obvious enough within 60ft that no check is required to notice the caster doing so.

Ok so why No?

1. The PHB and the spirit of the rule
The verbal, material and somatic components of the spell are implemented for both flavor and balance. The PHB even describes verbal components as "chanting" with careful respect to pitch and resonance; not amplitude (volume)? Uhm yes amplitude... resonance and pitch with respect to humanoid vocal chords means if you were supposed to chant it then you cannot maintain the same pitch and resonance without the same volume (you can't just mouth the spell and say nothing; an amplitude of zero is also a resonance of zero). If you think vocal component as part of a spell then think "chanting" (PHB 203). Xanathar's expanded on this further with a direct ruling that casting a spell is noticeable to everyone in your presence (more on this later).


2. Subtle Spell
Narratively, many class features -should- be offered as an ability check or circumstance bonus but are not.
Sneak Attack or the Assassinate feature come to mind; attacking someone when their guard is down should provide more damage but only rogues have sneak attack dice. If DM's offer up sneak attack dice/auto crit surprise rounds to any player attacking at advantage with finesse weapons and passing some **arbitrary check**, then it would make it so playing a rogue is almost pointless. The same too can be said of a sorcerer and subtle spell; if everyone can do it then why limit yourself to such a restricted class? Don't hand out class features as skill/ability checks.

3. You just buffed Skill monkeys
This is one I only recently just unearthed in discussion but as a DM when you decide on the skill check for something like...masking a vocal component and you think "Ok Deception seems appropriate, maybe performance" BAM Charisma based casters just got a leg up on wisdom and intelligence casters.

"Ok ok maybe arcana then?" So Wizards, EK's and Arcane Tricksters?

"Stealth?" Now Bards and Arcane Tricksters.

No matter what you choose you favor a casting class over the others.

(If it's a straight ability check then Bards become favored again)

Ok so you pick one, no big deal.

What's the DC?
15+ Spell level? 15+2x Spell level?
A flat 15 or 20?
A contested check against perception by all nearby creatures?
The point is that once you start assigning arbitrary DC's one of two things happens.
Either the DC is easy enough that those with expertise can attempt it with very little risk or the DC is so high that only those with expertise can even think about pulling it off.

Lastly, if you don't have a margin of failure such that the spell can fail entirely it's all reward and no risk so to speak. You're going to cast a spell? May as well try to conceal the cast if I still get to cast the spell anyway even if I fail.


4. Spellcasting is already amazing and implementing limitations is important
Spell casters literally tug and pull at the weave of existence on the material plane. Even a martial class has to give up their position from doing so much as launching an arrow from a bow at 600ft.
Let casters and their insanely strong tool kit have some restrictions and grow a spine as a DM.

5. Double Edged Sword
Probably the biggest factor in the permissiveness of my rulings as a DM has to do with how the players will respond to the same rules applying to them. If the player were to say
"I counter the spell"
And I as a DM say
"Nope. Sorry but they invoked it quietly and used sleight of hand for the somatic components the same way you can so you didn't notice."
Now I'm dancing on the grave of counterspell rules and cheated my player of a spell they specifically prepared/learned. No thanks.

6. There are other ways to work around it.
Just because people know you've cast a spell doesn't mean they know which one. Get the target in private to charm them, pretend you are about to cast something else and say it failed. There are lots of workarounds for creative players.

[Cybren]

This is what subtle spell is for. Take a sorcere level or something

[Naanomi]

A few exceptional circumstances might allow something like this, but definetly not something that is a regular expectation casters should have

[JackPhoenix]

How about "Maybe, under specific circumstances, but not as a general rule"?

[TheUser]

Maybe if you could provide us of an example of a special circumstance where you would allow it?

[Unoriginal]

Spells can't normally be concealed. That's what Subtle Spell is for.

Removing one of the Sorcerer's advantages is not a good idea.

Now it doesn't mean that everyone can always perceive spells. If you're in the middle of a crowd fleeing in a panic from an attack, you might not notice a spell being cast. But it's not because the caster can suppress the signs of the casting, it's just the situation makes it hard for you to notice.

Also, just to say, there is no skill check in 5e. Just a bit of pedantic terminology, I know.

[ErrantNonsense]

To those saying no: is the sorcerer the only class you would allow to secretly use charm or illusion spells in social situations without tipping everyone off? Because if so, it would seem to tread on the feet of arcane tricksters, illusion and enchantment wizards, and bards more than allowing it impacts on sorcerers. And if you would allow other classes to get away with it sometimes, how would you adjudicate it other than with a skill check?

Certainly it shouldn’t be a default expectation that anyone can do it any time, and it’s the sorcerer’s advantage that they can, but it seems like the game expects you to be able to manage it in some circumstances.

[Boci]

Spells can't normally be concealed. That's what Subtle Spell is for.

Removing one of the Sorcerer's advantages is not a good idea.

Since its already a houserule, its reasonable the DM could also be giving the sorceror something. I'm a bit wary of telling a player no on the rational that a badly designed class needs to keep that ability, even if its thematically appropriate. I mean, an arcane trickster could logically have some ability to cast concealed right? And it would still be a down to a dice roll, which has a chance to fail, whilst sorcerors can do it automatically.

[Lunali]

About the only one I would consider for verbal components would be if a bard mixed it into a performance since bards use music based magic. Even then anyone with experience with bardic magic would get a chance to notice it.

Somatic components you could probably get away with on a sleight of hand check as long as there was some reason for you to be making motions with your hands/arms, depending on what spell it is. You might get away with charm person, (at least until the spell ends) but throwing a fireball will still be traced back to you.

[Dragonkingofth]

The thing is: Subtle only negates the somatic and vocal parts of a spell, if a character could work around those parts then I say: Yes.

If a spell it had no vocal component, then just doing it out of line of sight would do the trick.

If a spell has no Somatic Component then doing it out of ear shot would do the trick.

Additionally there is no reason one must SHOUT ONE VOCAL COMPONENTS so one could easily see a wizard whispering in a busy tavern the words for a spell, while fiddling the somatic part under the table. I might call for deception in this case, and give an arcane roll for anybody to understand what he's saying, if they can hear him over a busy D&D Tavern!

[Lunali]

Additionally there is no reason one must SHOUT ONE VOCAL COMPONENTS so one could easily see a wizard whispering in a busy tavern the words for a spell, while fiddling the somatic part under the table. I might call for deception in this case, and give an arcane roll for anybody to understand what he's saying, if they can hear him over a busy D&D Tavern!

You don't have to shout them, but you do have to speak them clearly, with "specific pitch and resonance" so whispering doesn't work.

[GorogIrongut]

You don't have to shout them, but you do have to speak them clearly, with "specific pitch and resonance" so whispering doesn't work.

And for anyone who has children a fair distance from you, you know that it's the pitch, resonance and cadence that helps you get their attention even though they're 100 feet away from you, upstairs, with 10 walls between you and more than likely with their music on.

[Dragonkingofth]

You don't have to shout them, but you do have to speak them clearly, with "specific pitch and resonance" so whispering doesn't work.

My bad: but still while you have to speak with a "specific pitch and resonance", good luck being overheard while the teifling is using Thaumaturgy to sing death metal karaoke . . . ok that's character concept I should write down, death metal teifling bard. . . hummm

Eh anyway my point still stands: if you can think of and invent ways around these restrictions then in some situations you should be able to pull it off and cast hidden.

[Anymage]

My bad: but still while you have to speak with a "specific pitch and resonance", good luck being overheard while the teifling is using Thaumaturgy to sing death metal karaoke . . . ok that's character concept I should write down, death metal teifling bard. . . hummm

Eh anyway my point still stands: if you can think of and invent ways around these restrictions then in some situations you should be able to pull it off and cast hidden.

That depends on somebody else making a distraction, not on you being intrinsically less noticeable.

Somatic components require "forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures", and requires moving enough of the body that armor could potentially impede you. (So not just wiggling your fingers surreptitiously.) Verbal components, as mentioned, require a specific pitch and resonance.

More over, the vast majority of enchantment spells allow the victim to know that they were affected after the fact. Bypassing that is explicitly an enchantment subclass feature. Knock is noteworthy for being very noisy. "Magic is noticeable" seems to be very much a design choice in 5e. Enchanters use their subclass feature, although they're still not smart if they cast spells in front of a wide audience. Illusionists either set things up ahead of time, or count on the fact that this is a magical world where conjurations also exist to leave people wondering whether or not this new threat is safe to ignore. Bards can justify weaving magic in with their music because that's what bards do, although specific spells are again not wise to cast in front of a large audience. I'd allow some sort of check if someone else were providing a distraction of some sort, but doing things quietly is the domain of mundane skills and maybe characters who invest in Subtle Spell.

[Tubben]

To those saying no: is the sorcerer the only class you would allow to secretly use charm or illusion spells in social situations without tipping everyone off?

Lv 20 Druids can do that also.

[Quoxis]

To those saying no: is the sorcerer the only class you would allow to secretly use charm or illusion spells in social situations without tipping everyone off?

Yes, that’s why subtle spell metamagic exists. There are also non-spell methods of applying charm etc. to NPCs, like the first level feylock feature, second level enchanter wizard feature and ninth level swashbuckler feature (probably tons more, but those just came to mind) which don’t need verbal or somatic components. Giving what’s basically undetectable casting to each caster is greatly devaluing those features, and although JC has shown to like making the masses happy at the cost of the few with certain sage advices, i don’t.


Because if so, it would seem to tread on the feet of arcane tricksters, illusion and enchantment wizards, and bards more than allowing it impacts on sorcerers.

It weakens strong classes that abuse non-specific rules while strengthening otherwise worthless class features - that’s bad for anyone who doesn’t know beforehand, but if you plan accordingly you can get around it. Sacrificing three levels for sorcerer to get subtle spell is not different from sacrificing three levels for fighter to get maneuvers.



And if you would allow other classes to get away with it sometimes, how would you adjudicate it other than with a skill check?
Certainly it shouldn’t be a default expectation that anyone can do it any time, and it’s the sorcerer’s advantage that they can, but it seems like the game expects you to be able to manage it in some circumstances*.

*emphasis mine


You pretty much answered the question: under certain circumstances i would totally allow subtle casting. If you’re concealed or covered, an NPC wouldn’t see your somatic components. If they’re deafened or >20ft away from you in an area with appropriate background noise (weekly market, bardic concert with cheering fans, arena fight with a booing crowd...) they can’t hear your verbal components. Of course the crowd directly around the caster would probably give it away, as they can still hear them.
If you can’t provide either, you‘re detectable, but assuming your party members aren’t morons, they should be able to help - get the attention of the victim before the wizard casts their spell, let the bard provide noise with thaumaturgically enhanced death metal, whatever.
Still: stealth/sleight of hand/performance roll depending on the situation, and against (advantaged?) passive perceptions of bystanders.

[Laserlight]

De juris, no, although I suppose if the bystanders are sufficiently distracted (during a fight with storm priests in a bell factory, say), I'd make allowances.

De facto...my DMs ignore my casting Guidance during negotiations; and when I'm DMing, I don't remember an occasion of "Hey, that player just cast a spell during a Friendly Discussion, everyone would notice that", although that may be because my players have had a habit of moving straight for "ask nicely" to "hit someone" without pause for an answer.

I don't think any of the sorcs at our table have ever taken Subtle, because Twinned and Quickened come first.

[MrStabby]

Allow conceiled casting? Well I would allow somatic components to be hidden by a successful hide check (opposed) assuming that the caster found something to hid behind.

For verbal components no way. If someone is close enough to hear someone speaking in a clear voice then they hear someone casting. Maybe they don't notice if they are over 30ft away and there is a background noise (although other people making noise to hide the casting may be itself be suspicious), maybe further distances in quieter conditions. Very much in the camp of not freely giving out specific class perks to everyone.

[Tanarii]

Spells can't normally be concealed. That's what Subtle Spell is for.

Removing one of the Sorcerer's advantages is not a good idea.

Now it doesn't mean that everyone can always perceive spells. If you're in the middle of a crowd fleeing in a panic from an attack, you might not notice a spell being cast. But it's not because the caster can suppress the signs of the casting, it's just the situation makes it hard for you to notice.Thats exactly how I feel. No way to intentionally "hide" casting with a check. But like anything else that is not hidden, it still may not be perceived.


The thing is: Subtle only negates the somatic and vocal parts of a spell, if a character could work around those parts then I say: Yes.

If a spell it had no vocal component, then just doing it out of line of sight would do the trick.

If a spell has no Somatic Component then doing it out of ear shot would do the trick.

Additionally there is no reason one must SHOUT ONE VOCAL COMPONENTS so one could easily see a wizard whispering in a busy tavern the words for a spell, while fiddling the somatic part under the table. I might call for deception in this case, and give an arcane roll for anybody to understand what he's saying, if they can hear him over a busy D&D Tavern!Nothing says it is possible to whisper V components. In fact, it's pretty strongly implied you have to speak them at some reasonable volume.

Also it should not be a check on the behalf of the character casting to conceal. A check on the part of the potential perceiver against a fixed DC would be appropriate if they may overlook something.

For reference, the decibel scale for speaking works something like: talking normally sounds like a whisper at 30 ft. Talking loudly (like you would at a mall or sporting event) can double or that. (Which matches my RL experiences fairly well.)

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

I make it DC 10 to hear non-stealthy things at 30ft with no significant ambient noise. In terms of gameplay, I've found that's a little bit short, but I'm not going to change a fixed ruling the players have all used for a while now. Better would probably be 60ft.

[lperkins2]

So, the basic answer should probably be 'depends on the spell'. The general rule is that verbal components must be spoken aloud, and that somatic components involve fairly complex and large motions with a single hand. These cannot be concealed except in very limited circumstances (like by breaking LoS to the caster). Some spells, however, have specific rules for their verbal or somatic components, which may allow them to be concealed.

Assuming you have some way for the verbal component to be unnoticed, Burning Hands is one that could generally be concealed (of course, the effect of the spell won't be particularly concealable, given it will be bright, and warm). The somatic component for Burning Hands is given in the spell description: thumbs touching, fingers spread, in-line with each other, fire springs from your fingertips in a thin sheet. Put your hands under the table, anyone not able to see your hands can't see the somatic component.

[Tanarii]

Some spells, however, have specific rules for their verbal or somatic components, which may allow them to be concealed.
IIRC JC commented something like, I believe in regards to suggestion, the components are not to anything described in the spell. They are in addition to the V and S components. (So many conditionals in that sentence. :smallamused: )

Personally that makes little sense to me. At a first glance, the S component of True Strike seems to be just pointing at someone. Burning hands is a good example too.

[Theophilus]

For characters attempting to conceal spellcasting, terrain and circumstance are their allies. Skills like Deception and Sleight of Hand don't conceal spellcasting by RAW; however, they are the tools to get a character in position to cast from a concealed or noisy location. As others have said, putting your wizard in a crowd can mask the verbal and somatic components from the intended target; however, you risk having others notice.

A simple fix would be to cast the spells from a booth with a screen in a middle of a crowded bazaar. Or from behind a curtain on a covered balcony. Stealth may apply, but only with circumstantial advantages of noise, distraction, concealment, and distance. Slipping up on the wizard in his study may only get the advantage of surprise, but he is going to know someone has begun casting a spell at his back (That he did not have a glyph of Hold Monster waiting for you probably means he is a bad wizard).

[mgshamster]

Magic is strong enough as it is. Do you really need to add in extra rulings and rules to make it even better?

If you allow this, do you also give martials something extra? Maybe the chance to kill an opponent with a single surprise attack - or do you say, "if you want that, take a level in assassin"?

[Tanarii]

Magic is strong enough as it is. Do you really need to add in extra rulings and rules to make it even better?

If you allow this, do you also give martials something extra? Maybe the chance to kill an opponent with a single surprise attack - or do you say, "if you want that, take a level in assassin"?
Eh. My ruling that non-hidden things are DC 10 at 30ft, with +5 per doubling of distance, helps Martials as much as casters. quite a lot for melee martials, since it means if they declare an attempt to ambush they're starting at 30ft unless their opponent has Passive Perception 15+, even if they fail to get surprise. (Edit: So much so that'd I recommend to others that they make it 60 ft if they want to use the idea.)

But allowing Slight of Hand to cast without being noticed? No bueno for balance.

[Contrast]

I voted no but with one caveat.

I would rule that spells like charm person and the like include as part of their magic a haze which means on a failed save they don't register the preceding magic (at least until the spell ends).

If they pass the save or there's someone standing next to them who saw you and is inclined to warn them, you're out of luck.

[Tanarii]

I would rule that spells like charm person and the like include as part of their magic a haze which means on a failed save they don't register the preceding magic (at least until the spell ends).
No particularly necessary IMO. Unless they used their reaction, they've no idea what you just cast. And you're a friendly acquaintance. Why would you have cast a bad spell on them? I mean, they might be curious to know what you just cast, in which case they'll ask. Good thing you just got advantage on Deception checks ...

[Contrast]

No particularly necessary IMO. Unless they used their reaction, they've no idea what you just cast. And you're a friendly acquaintance. Why would you have cast a bad spell on them? I mean, they might be curious to know what you just cast, in which case they'll ask. Good thing you just got advantage on Deception checks ...

Except a shop keep would be somewhat suspicious of people casting spells in his shop, imposing disadvantage and cancelling out the advantage you just managed to get...

I'd just rather not have every instance of casting the spell (or the Friends cantrip for instance) immediately require a skill check to pull off (before you even get to the skill check you cast it in order to try and get an improvement on) in addition to a failed save. Kind of defeats the purpose, particularly when the downside for failing (or even succeeding in the longer term) is already pretty bad.

[bid]

Shades of Ars Magica: Upcast 1 level to be subtle.

A level 5 FIREBALL does 10d6.
A level 5 fireball does 9d6 and might not be noticed.

[CantigThimble]

I voted yes, but I'll give the caveat that there needs to be some kind of distraction or cover involved.

Casting under the table while sitting alone in a noisy bar? Roll a check.
Casting a buff while hidden in the treeline before rushing the enemy camp? Roll a check.
While the party is in a normal conversation? No chance.
In combat? Nope.

The sorcerer can cast a fireball while a hundred eyes are on him and still feign complete innocence and surprise. He also has zero risk of botching it.

One thing I really hate about games with lots of specific abilities is that as soon as an ability exists that does a thing, people start saying that it should be completely impossible to do that thing unless you have that specific ability. Which means that adding another book with new abilities doesn't expand the options available to players, it constricts them.

[Tanarii]

Except a shop keep would be somewhat suspicious of people casting spells in his shop, imposing disadvantage and cancelling out the advantage you just managed to get...

I'd just rather not have every instance of casting the spell (or the Friends cantrip for instance) immediately require a skill check to pull off (before you even get to the skill check you cast it in order to try and get an improvement on) in addition to a failed save. Kind of defeats the purpose, particularly when the downside for failing (or even succeeding in the longer term) is already pretty bad.
We're probably saying the same thing. I consider it part of the attitude adjustment that being supicious of you having just cast a spell isn't likely to happen. Sounds like you're saying that should be explicit.

[Luccan]

Make it a high DC ability check. Sorcs with Subtle Spell get advantage on the check.

[JoeJ]

I'm not inclined to make it any harder than it already is to operate a casino or a chariot racing arena, so no.

[Pex]

To those saying no: is the sorcerer the only class you would allow to secretly use charm or illusion spells in social situations without tipping everyone off? Because if so, it would seem to tread on the feet of arcane tricksters, illusion and enchantment wizards, and bards more than allowing it impacts on sorcerers. And if you would allow other classes to get away with it sometimes, how would you adjudicate it other than with a skill check?

Certainly it shouldn’t be a default expectation that anyone can do it any time, and it’s the sorcerer’s advantage that they can, but it seems like the game expects you to be able to manage it in some circumstances.

Too bad for illusionists and enchanters then. Illusionists can make the unreal real. Enchanters can divert attacks against him to attack someone else. Diviners make people autofail saving throws. Transmuters can raise the dead. I'm not crying for them only Sorcerers can cast a spell with no one noticing.

[JackPhoenix]

So, the basic answer should probably be 'depends on the spell'. The general rule is that verbal components must be spoken aloud, and that somatic components involve fairly complex and large motions with a single hand. These cannot be concealed except in very limited circumstances (like by breaking LoS to the caster). Some spells, however, have specific rules for their verbal or somatic components, which may allow them to be concealed.

Assuming you have some way for the verbal component to be unnoticed, Burning Hands is one that could generally be concealed (of course, the effect of the spell won't be particularly concealable, given it will be bright, and warm). The somatic component for Burning Hands is given in the spell description: thumbs touching, fingers spread, in-line with each other, fire springs from your fingertips in a thin sheet. Put your hands under the table, anyone not able to see your hands can't see the somatic component.

That's not the somatic component, though. There are non-S component spells that describe certain action (like Destructive Wave) in the text, and Burning Hands' description would make it impossible to cast with one hand, unlike any other S spell. It's just fluff. Just like, say, Command, which has V component separate from the order itself. Or Suggestion.

[Naanomi]

One thing I really hate about games with lots of specific abilities is that as soon as an ability exists that does a thing, people start saying that it should be completely impossible to do that thing unless you have that specific ability. Which means that adding another book with new abilities doesn't expand the options available to players, it constricts them.
I don’t see subtle in this light, but I do get frustrated with this phenomenon (especially when caused by newly released products). My Water Genasi was a hermit who lived on the bottom of the ocean... until Tritons were released with an explicit ability to survive ocean depths, so my Genasi couldn’t anymore

[Unoriginal]

There is a difference between "this ability exist, so no one else can do anything remotely the same" and "the ability allows to do something no one else can".

[JackPhoenix]

There is a difference between "this ability exist, so no one else can do anything remotely the same" and "the ability allows to do something no one else can".

There's also "This ability exists, but it makes [the thing] easier/better, anyone can still try it". See Battlemaster: Trip Attack allows you to cause damage and knock the opponent prone at the same time. Anyone else can do one or the other, and it's opposed check for the later. Or Assassin: anyone can establish a secret identity with some effort, Assassins can do it automatically, without any checks, and with just a small gold investment.

[sithlordnergal]

Yes, I would 100% allow concealed casting in certain circumstances. For example, to me it makes sense that illusion and enchantment spells would be difficult to notice. You could easily make a stealth and slight of hand check to cast Charm Person or Silent Image without anyone noticing. Illusions tend to be nerfed too much already by DMs who either ignore illusion effects, or ignore the parts of spells that directly tell them a creature will believe the illusion and will rationalize anything the illusion does. -cough-PhantasmalForce-cough-

Also, if you are hidden and you cast a spell without verbal components, no-one will notice you. If you are over 60 feet away, the range of Counterspell, then people won't notice verbal components.

As for Subtle Spell, that would allow you to cast things like Evocation or Necromancy without anyone ever noticing. It would also allow you to bypass any stealth or slight of hand checks to hide your illusion or charm spell

[CantigThimble]

There is a difference between "this ability exist, so no one else can do anything remotely the same" and "the ability allows to do something no one else can".

Sure, but I think the thing it lets you do that no one else can is cast spells that have somatic and verbal components without those components.

I don't think sorcerers should have exclusive rights to casting spells without everyone noticing and therefore everyone must notice all spells when they are cast by people other than sorcerers.

[Quoxis]

For example, to me it makes sense that illusion and enchantment spells would be difficult to notice. You could easily make a stealth and slight of hand check to cast Charm Person or Silent Image without anyone noticing.

Why though? There’s no indication to any of that in the rules, and everything that does is making subtle spell useless, and furthermore shoehorns PCs with the intent of being a „face“ character into preferring stealth and sleight of hand over actual social skills - what’s better: a +3 on one skill or advantage on each and any of 3 different ones?



As for Subtle Spell, that would allow you to cast things like Evocation or Necromancy without anyone ever noticing. It would also allow you to bypass any stealth or slight of hand checks to hide your illusion or charm spell

Again: why? What’s the school of magic got to do with how noticeable it is?

Subtle spell, i think that we can all agree on, enables you to cast spells subtly enough to not be noticed.
If a spell description mentions a line of fire, like a ray of whatever, maybe one of enfeeblement, a necromancy spell by coincidence, it would probably not break stealth, but anyone with an intelligence score above 1 would know where the ray came from. Plenty of evocation spells work the same way.

[TheUser]

My Original Post was updated with a spoiler tag about why my answer is no.

[sithlordnergal]

Why though? There’s no indication to any of that in the rules, and everything that does is making subtle spell useless, and furthermore shoehorns PCs with the intent of being a „face“ character into preferring stealth and sleight of hand over actual social skills - what’s better: a +3 on one skill or advantage on each and any of 3 different ones?



Again: why? What’s the school of magic got to do with how noticeable it is?

Subtle spell, i think that we can all agree on, enables you to cast spells subtly enough to not be noticed.
If a spell description mentions a line of fire, like a ray of whatever, maybe one of enfeeblement, a necromancy spell by coincidence, it would probably not break stealth, but anyone with an intelligence score above 1 would know where the ray came from. Plenty of evocation spells work the same way.

First, it doesn't shoehorn them into preferring stealth and slight of hand. Sure, they'll want those abilities, but they'll still want those social skills to be high. Why? Because the charmed condition only gives you advantage to any social check you make, and it prevents the target from attacking you while it is charmed. Which, let's be honest, you can get that advantage with someone providing the Help Action just as easily. The Charmed condition is...pretty bad in this edition...

The only spells that I would allow for you to make such checks on are Illusion and Enchantment, as those spells tend to be about deception and/or making subtle changes. It makes sense that you could hide them being cast, or work the components into casual conversation. Other spell schools, such as evocation spells like fireball, are flashier and you can't really hide them. Besides, if you are automatically noticed every single time you cast something like Silent Image, Greater Illusion, Charm Person, or nearly any illusion or enchantment spell, then what's the point of casting them? If you're casting an illusion spell, and everyone knows you're casting such a spell, then there's no reason for them to believe an illusion. If you're casting a charm spell to subtly help someone to your cause, then everyone else in the room is instantly alerted. It makes the entire set of spells you might use in a social setting worthless because if you cast them, everyone knows you cast them, and everyone will react accordingly.

And no, it doesn't make Subtle Spell useless at all. Take a look at it's effect:

"Subtle Spell: When you Cast a Spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any somatic or verbal Components."

Subtle Spell lets you completely bypass the need to make any sort of check in the first place because you don't have to hide anything to cast the spell.

Also for the final thing about hiding: Yes, people will notice where the ray comes from. At the same time, people will notice where an arrow comes from if a Rogue fires an arrow from hiding. Does the fact that people notice where those things come from prevent the Rogue, or Arcane Trickster, from hiding again in a different spot? Not at all.


EDIT: Also about Stealth skills. Now, I play AL and I know there are a lot of differences between a home game and AL, but at the same time I generally find that the only classes who don't try to get stealth as a skill are the classes in Heavy Armor with no dex. So most wizards and Bards are going to have Stealth anyway.

[Nifft]

No, I wouldn't allow spellcasters to arbitrarily cast spells without components.

There are classes with features that allow that sort of casting, for some spells (Warlock invocations) or any spell (Sorcerer). Arbitrary concealed casting also diminishes the value of non-spell abilities, like skill expertise (or like skills in general, I guess).

[JoeJ]

Besides, if you are automatically noticed every single time you cast something like Silent Image, Greater Illusion, Charm Person, or nearly any illusion or enchantment spell, then what's the point of casting them? If you're casting an illusion spell, and everyone knows you're casting such a spell, then there's no reason for them to believe an illusion.

Everybody knows that you're casting a spell, not that it's an illusion or enchantment spell.

[Dragonkingofth]

May I add another layer to this: can one conceal the casting of a spell by making it look like another? Say a Warlock who knows that eldritch blast is something only warlocks can do, and so can they conceal it to look like magic missile or scorching ray or some other spell to try and keep there warlock-ness hidden?

[TheUser]

May I add another layer to this: can one conceal the casting of a spell by making it look like another? Say a Warlock who knows that eldritch blast is something only warlocks can do, and so can they conceal it to look like magic missile or scorching ray or some other spell to try and keep there warlock-ness hidden?

Given that spells have very precise components that require years of training and mastery to even perform I think you already know the answer to this question.

[MrStabby]

Everybody knows that you're casting a spell, not that it's an illusion or enchantment spell.

Also look at the spells: minor image doesn't need verbal components. Silent image can be cast 10 minutes away and moved into place. Disguise self lasts hours. Or other illusions like fear or hypnotic pattern don't care about whether the victim or their party knows you have cast a spell, it's effects happen anyway. There are still ways to use these spells - they are far from useless.

On the other hand consider the upside - a charm at the right moment can get someone to send an order before they work out they have been charmed, you can use spells whilst disguised to make enemies... the potential campaign level power of the spells are enormous, that alone should warrant them not being trivial to use to their full potential.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Given that spells have very precise components that require years of training and mastery to even perform I think you already know the answer to this question.

And also that the vast majority of people won't know what spell you're casting anyway since that requires an Intelligence (Arcana) check of DC 10+spell level and a reaction. Thus, even identifying a cantrip has a 45% failure rate for a commoner. At least while you're casting it--looking at the bolt of fire might tell you something :smalltongue:.

They know you're casting something, but what, and what school and target, etc are unknown unless they can make the check. Or until it produces clearly visible results.

[Quoxis]

First, it doesn't shoehorn them into preferring stealth and slight of hand. Sure, they'll want those abilities, but they'll still want those social skills to be high. Why? Because the charmed condition only gives you advantage to any social check you make, and it prevents the target from attacking you while it is charmed. Which, let's be honest, you can get that advantage with someone providing the Help Action just as easily. The Charmed condition is...pretty bad in this edition...


Again: a +3 for most of the estimated time a character will play vs. the better of two rolls (in three different kinds of ability check involving a stat that half of all full casters and all of the socially inclined characters will pump anyways, providing a bonus regardless of proficiency). Advantage seems much more favorable. You can use persuasion for persuading and that’s about it, while you can use stealth in combat both for offense and defense, in exploration, in espionage, does it need the upgrade to influence spellcasting?



The only spells that I would allow for you to make such checks on are Illusion and Enchantment, as those spells tend to be about deception and/or making subtle changes. It makes sense that you could hide them being cast, or work the components into casual conversation. Other spell schools, such as evocation spells like fireball, are flashier and you can't really hide them. Besides, if you are automatically noticed every single time you cast something like Silent Image, Greater Illusion, Charm Person, or nearly any illusion or enchantment spell, then what's the point of casting them?

Combat uses of the charmed condition etc. aside - most spells you mentioned don’t have a time limit of „instantly vanishes“, but of at least a minute. Most also have a range of more than touch. Cast an enchantment before you enter hearing range, cast an illusion to hide behind while you’re setting up an ambush, run from the city guard and put up an illusory wall to hide behind as soon as you’re out of sight (making them think you are invisible, teleported away, transformed into a bird and flew away or whatever else these magical demigods can do!)... it’s more difficult for non-subtle casters, but that’s the point of the metamagic - it makes it easier to do something, it makes sorcerers better at a thing that has to do with magic, as all metamagics do.


If you're casting an illusion spell, and everyone knows you're casting such a spell, then there's no reason for them to believe an illusion.

Assuming they have a basic intelligence and a grasp of the concept of object permanence (excluding most beasts and generic undead - bad chances to get the int check against your casting DC if they‘ve got a -4 int mod), assuming they can tell it’s an illusion spell (which contradicts the description of phantasmal force - that’s right, i do love that spell too - because it clearly says „it’s the objective reality for that creature and they do believe it’s true“), because it might as well be real flames that just dealt psychic damage to them, assuming they know how magic works in the first place...



If you're casting a charm spell to subtly help someone to your cause, then everyone else in the room is instantly alerted. It makes the entire set of spells you might use in a social setting worthless because if you cast them, everyone knows you cast them, and everyone will react accordingly.


So you’re saying that because spellcasters can already be vastly superior to martials* in a plethora of situations, they deserve a boost to become more powerful in social situations? Seems about right.
(*8d6 fireball in an area vs. 4d6 slashing damage at level 5, and it gets worse the higher we go)

As i said before in this thread, there are class features that have similar effects, and furthermore: some classes are better at casting certain spells than others. Nobody’s complaining about draconic sorcs getting more damage out of elemental spells, nobody yammers about necromancy wizards raising more and better zombies, but making subtle sorcs better at subtle casting is out of line for some reason.



And no, it doesn't make Subtle Spell useless at all. Take a look at its effect:

"Subtle Spell: When you Cast a Spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any somatic or verbal Components."

Subtle Spell lets you completely bypass the need to make any sort of check in the first place because you don't have to hide anything to cast the spell.

Also for the final thing about hiding: Yes, people will notice where the ray comes from. At the same time, people will notice where an arrow comes from if a Rogue fires an arrow from hiding. Does the fact that people notice where those things come from prevent the Rogue, or Arcane Trickster, from hiding again in a different spot? Not at all.

Nowhere did i say that, but your point about „you can cast any spell and nobody will ever know“ is wrong. That’s all i meant to express with the ray example.



EDIT: Also about Stealth skills. Now, I play AL and I know there are a lot of differences between a home game and AL, but at the same time I generally find that the only classes who don't try to get stealth as a skill are the classes in Heavy Armor with no dex. So most wizards and Bards are going to have Stealth anyway.

Let’s give a skill that everyone uses anyway another use that makes it invaluable for any caster, nothing wrong with that, amirite?


Look, i get the feeling that the problem is something else: you argue that illusions and enchantment need a buff because they’re useless anyway, but that seems like a bass-ackwards approach to the problem. If your GMs misinterpret the rules to the point of making phantasmal force useless, then that is the problem, not that adhering to the rules benefits certain builds in certain situations.

[Honest Tiefling]

I don't think sorcerers should have exclusive rights to casting spells without everyone noticing and therefore everyone must notice all spells when they are cast by people other than sorcerers.

I think I agree with this, but at the same time I don't want to diminish the sorcerer. So getting loud sounds to cover your casting or to distract people sounds like a good solution. Also, it enables the party members, such as the party Barbarian, to contribute to the situation which I always like. Heck, I would probably be okay with a custom feat to allow it in a way a little different from the sorcerer's ability or even just yoink some class features. Of course, this comes with the caveat that the rest of the table has to agree and be allowed to do so...Even NPCs.

In the case of the Triton, I don't really see why the Undine was affected. I mean, most DMs would rule that the pressure would be an issue, (else you tend to get weird shenanigans anyway) and if the ocean was shallow enough, I'd rule that the Undine can do as they please, personally. That seems more like a case that the Undine was expected to have an ability (to withstand pressure) that they never had.

[Kane0]

I voted yes. Sorcerers have the option of doing it with no chance of failure, and I dont make it easy.
Besides, not every face caster wants to be a sorcerer, and if there isnt one in the party then there are no toes to step on.

[sithlordnergal]

Here is the issues that I have with the idea that "people know you cast a spell, they don't know what spell you cast".

1) The majority of DMs, in both AL and Home games, ignore the fact that you don't know what spell is being cast since you have to tell the DM what are casting. Every DM I have played with, except for one, have had eveything from stone giants to common guards automatically go "Hey, he just cast Suggestion/Charm Person/<insert illusion or enchantment spell here>, get him!"

2) With all those DMs who had people automatically realize I cast a spell like that, their reasoning was "Well there wasn't some sort of flashy effect. So everyone, including that untrained peasant over there, knows you cast an illusion or enchantment spell. They're all your enemies now. Roll initative and be ready to be locked up."

Having people be able to hide subtler spell schools like enchantment or illusion spells prevents that from occurring and allows players and NPCs to use them in more circumstances. Suddenly captured by some corrupt guard captain? Now the enchanter wizard can use their spells despite everyone being there.

Need to create a sudden distraction with illusions? Now with a check the Illusionist Wizard and Arcane Trickster can now attempt to do that without being automatically noticed. But the trick is they can still fail their check and be noticed. Or just as bad, they can succeed on their check, only for their target to succeed on their saving throw.

And if the Sorcerer wants to use Subtle Spell? Perfectly fine, they automatically succeed any checks needed to hide their spell because they don't have to hide their verbal or somatic components at all.

Allowing for a skill check lets the wizards, bards, and arcane tricksters to use their magic that is specifically meant for misdirection and subtle manipulation to do just that without stepping on the Sorcerer's toes because the Sorcerer doesn't need to make those checks in the first place.

Here's a good comparison: A Rogue can have expertise in Slight of Hand and Thieves Tools. They can easily pick a lock with a simple skill check. A Wizard can cast Knock for the same effect and even bypass magical locks. Since the Rogue can choose to be proficient in those skills, does that mean Knock should be removed? Not at all. It's different ways to achieve the same goal, and one just has an easier time of it then the other.

This is the exact same thing. The Wizard, Bard, and Arcane Trickster can all use skill checks to try and achieve the same effect the Sorcerer can do without a checi.

[Quoxis]

What about a feat in the sense of „martial adept“, giving a character a limited use of one or more metamagics without the chance to get sorcery points?
Sorcerers keep their mastery of magic, while everyone can have one or two uses of subtle, twinned, or any other altered spell per day.

[Quoxis]

Here is the issues that I have with the idea that "people know you cast a spell, they don't know what spell you cast".

1) The majority of DMs, in both AL and Home games, ignore the fact that you don't know what spell is being cast since you have to tell the DM what are casting. Every DM I have played with, except for one, have had eveything from stone giants to common guards automatically go "Hey, he just cast Suggestion/Charm Person/<insert illusion or enchantment spell here>, get him!"

2) With all those DMs who had people automatically realize I cast a spell like that, their reasoning was "Well there wasn't some sort of flashy effect. So everyone, including that untrained peasant over there, knows you cast an illusion or enchantment spell. They're all your enemies now. Roll initative and be ready to be locked up."


Again: why not try to change the mistake that is your DMs‘ misinterpretations of the rules instead of altering the rules?
At least try to weasel your way out of such situations like „aw, my spell failed“, „i just have to telepathically call my mother everyday at this exact time, i didn’t want to cause trouble, i forgot people around here don’t regularly do that“, „i just farted and cast prestidigitation to mask the smell, i‘m terribly sorry, if you want i can dispel it again (and then actually cast prestidigitation to make fart smells, inverting the whole situation)“ - with a skill check that’s both appropriate to the situation and useful for a social character: deception.

[Danielqueue1]

Can people conceal verbal and somatic components? Yes. Absolutely. Can you cast without those components? Only if you are a level 20 druid or are spending sorcery points on subtle spell. That being said. You need a way to do so. A rogue cannot hide if they are standing right in front of someone. A spellcaster can't conceal components without there being a good reason to be able to do so.

If the target cannot see the caster, then somatic components are automatically concealed from the target. Any dm who says otherwise needs to reconsider.

If the caster is standing behind a horse there's a good chance the target cannot see the caster's hands moving, I'd rule a sleight of hand vs perception with cover bonus. (Make sure not to hit the horse though)

If the caster is in a crouded area, people could probably see him casting, but if the target is on the other side of the croud i would allow the target a perception check to spot it.

If the caster is in the middle of an open region, and the target knows they are there, not a chance. They know you are casting.

-----------

If there is a zone of silence between the caster and target, the verbal components are automatically concealed. Any DM who says otherwise needs to reconsider.

If a dragon us attacking a city, people are screaming in the streets and half the place is on fire, then verbal components will be pretty easy to conceal.

In a loud busy bazaar with hawkers calling out their wares, exotic animals making strange noises from crates, and guards yelling and shoving their way through the crowd to try and catch a thief. It is quite reasonable that people wont notice the verbal components of a spell.

Bard putting on a rock concert nearby? Roll to see if the target notice.

In a quiet dungeon where the target knows you are there. Not a chance. No roll.
-----------

Of course if the spell has visual effects those can completely overrule any of the above.

Only subtle spell automatically succeeds in all of the above situations. And subtle spell lets you cast from a zone of silence. No amount of sneakiness can let you do that.

Concealing components does not replace a feature that lets you completely ignore them. No you should not be allowed a roll to ignore components any more than a rogue should be able to hide in the middle of a brightly lit room with no cover. Yes there are situations whether natural or created where components can be concealed, but the ability to conceal those components is entirely dependant on the capability of the "cover" to actually conceal.

[MrStabby]

Just to note that silence in between a source of sound and a listener does not necessarily mean they won't be heard. In an open plain sure, in a room with a hard ceiling and walls that reflect sound it will just be a bit more distant, muffled and indistinct.

I would also allow a degree of lip reading to identify spells that couldn't he heard - of course the PC/NPC would have to be on the lookout for it and couldn't be too far away (I would use 30 ft as the limit for this), and probably not working in dim light conditions.

[Eragon123]

I saw this on reddit the other day and I think it applies here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8v6wxb/the_next_time_your_players_want_to_cast_a_spells/e1l1vco

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

It doesn't make them worthless. You just have to put some effort to be subtle. Don't cast illusions where someone's watching you. Don't try to charm someone in a room full of people. Charm Person has 30' range and a duration of an hour. That should be enough leeway to use it before the meeting, from far enough that it isn't obvious what you did. Just like you shouldn't be using the Knock spell to unlock the door to the treasury if there are guards in hearing range.

[sithlordnergal]

Again: why not try to change the mistake that is your DMs‘ misinterpretations of the rules instead of altering the rules?
At least try to weasel your way out of such situations like „aw, my spell failed“, „i just have to telepathically call my mother everyday at this exact time, i didn’t want to cause trouble, i forgot people around here don’t regularly do that“, „i just farted and cast prestidigitation to mask the smell, i‘m terribly sorry, if you want i can dispel it again (and then actually cast prestidigitation to make fart smells, inverting the whole situation)“ - with a skill check that’s both appropriate to the situation and useful for a social character: deception.

Because it just makes more sense to me to make it so you can hide the fact that you're casting such spells rather then have everyone automatically realize you're casting a spell.

And to be honest, it doesn't automatically have to be a stealth or slight of hand check to hide the rolls. You can use deception, just like you're suggesting...only you use Deception to hide the fact that you cast a spell in the first place rather then using deception after you've been caught. Actually, Deception would make a better skill check for charm spells then stealth or slight of hand since you are trying to trick people into thinking you didn't cast a spell.

Again, think of it like this: Does the fact that a Wizard can cast knock and automatically open any locked thing, unless the lock specifically calls out that it can't, step on the toes of any Rogue or Bard that took Expertise in Thieve's Tools? No, it does not, because the Rogue and Bard will be able to unlock things as long as they have the tools.

Does the ability to let a spell caster use some sort of check, be it deception, stealth, or slight of hand, to hide them casting an illusion or enchantment spell step on the toes of a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell? No it does not, because Subtle Spell lets you cast such spells without having to make any check at all since it erases the need to use verbal or somatic components, which in turn erases the need to make a check to hide those components.


EDIT: Heck, there's even a monster in Mordenkainen's that uses the idea that people do not automatically know if an Enchantment spell is being cast. The Oblex oozes use deception, such as creating perfect body doubles, as well as spells like Charm Person and Dominate Person to lure people over. If, by what you're saying, everyone notices when these spells are being cast, then those spells are rendered nearly useless because everyone will automatically know if a party member has failed their save against a Dominate Person spell. They may not automatically know what spell was just cast, but they'll know a spell was just cast on the fighter from someone hidden in the room. Where as with my method, it is perfectly possible for the entire party to be unaware that the fighter is now under the Oblex/My control, and it will catch them off guard when I call for a surprise round and the fighter sinks their greatsword into the Wizard's back.

[MaxWilson]

I have my own ardent opinions on concealed casting (which I would happily launch into later) but for now I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on the idea of DM's allowing players to cast "quietly" or somehow mask their spell's.

https://www.strawpoll.me/16040261

Feel free to comment with your rationale behind your vote.

I couldn't vote "yes" or "no" because my answer is "it depends on the spell components and circumstances, not just on an ability check." It seems clear for instance that Friends is supposed to be possible to cast subtly (SM components, with the S component being the act of applying makeup to face), and Suggestion seems likewise to be intentionally unobtrusive judging by components (VM) and spell description. Minor Illusion is a bit less clear (SM components but it doesn't say what the S components are) but seems likely to be possible to cast unobtrusively, especially if you're hidden (since there are no V components). Perhaps a few others.

I wouldn't allow unobtrusive casting as a general rule for all spells, but I'd allow it for some.

I couldn't figure out if that would be a "yes" or a "no" under your poll so it seemed safer not to answer.

[Quoxis]

Again, think of it like this: Does the fact that a Wizard can cast knock and automatically open any locked thing, unless the lock specifically calls out that it can't, step on the toes of any Rogue or Bard that took Expertise in Thieve's Tools? No, it does not, because the Rogue and Bard will be able to unlock things as long as they have the tools.

Does the ability to let a spell caster use some sort of check, be it deception, stealth, or slight of hand, to hide them casting an illusion or enchantment spell step on the toes of a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell? No it does not, because Subtle Spell lets you cast such spells without having to make any check at all since it erases the need to use verbal or somatic components, which in turn erases the need to make a check to hide those components.

Knock - costs a slot, is loud, takes up one spell known/prepared (not a ritual)
Thieves‘ tools - no cost, can be acquired via background/class/downtime

Knock loses. Barely.

Subtle spell - costs sorcery points, takes up one of two (!) metamagic choices you‘ll play with for most of your career as a sorc
Skill cheating - no cost, can be picked up with background, race, class, feats

Subtle loses. Crushingly.

[JackPhoenix]

Knock - costs a slot, is loud, takes up one spell known/prepared (not a ritual)
Thieves‘ tools - no cost, can be acquired via background/class/downtime

Knock loses. Barely.

Subtle spell - costs sorcery points, takes up one of two (!) metamagic choices you‘ll play with for most of your career as a sorc
Skill cheating - no cost, can be picked up with background, race, class, feats

Subtle loses. Crushingly.

Note: Knock was specifically designed that way to avoid the old "Anything you can do, wizard can do better." problem from 3.x. The same problem doesn't exist for Subtle spell.

[Quoxis]

EDIT: Heck, there's even a monster in Mordenkainen's that uses the idea that people do not automatically know if an Enchantment spell is being cast. The Oblex oozes use deception, such as creating perfect body doubles, as well as spells like Charm Person and Dominate Person to lure people over. If, by what you're saying, everyone notices when these spells are being cast, then those spells are rendered nearly useless because everyone will automatically know if a party member has failed their save against a Dominate Person spell.

Don’t get angry at me for something your DMs don’t handle correctly.

I don’t have Mordenkainen‘s tome, so i can’t really say anything about the oblex, but i own Xanathar’s guide, which states that people don’t automatically know which spells are being cast, just that there’s magical tomfoolery going on (and they can try to determine which kind by rolling arcana). You, your DM, your players or anyone else going meta like „huh, that must’ve been a dominate person spell“ isn’t my fault or anyone else’s, it’s how the person in question handles the situation. Talking to them and calmly explaining how they’re wrong and grossly devaluing certain classes with good intentions is a favorable approach imo.

[TheUser]

And also that the vast majority of people won't know what spell you're casting anyway since that requires an Intelligence (Arcana) check of DC 10+spell level and a reaction. Thus, even identifying a cantrip has a 45% failure rate for a commoner. At least while you're casting it--looking at the bolt of fire might tell you something :smalltongue:.

They know you're casting something, but what, and what school and target, etc are unknown unless they can make the check. Or until it produces clearly visible results.

30%
It's 15+spell level. I would also house rule that untrained you can't attempt it unless you are also a caster

[PhoenixPhyre]

30%
It's 15+spell level. I would also house rule that untrained you can't attempt it unless you are also a caster

Ah. I'm AFB, so I guessed. So even less likely. I wouldn't house rule it, since a thief rogue with expertise may be a great magical scholar who can't cast a spell to save his life. Academic understanding and practical skills are completely separate. I'm a trained physicist, but don't ask me to build anything. At least if you want it functional.

[TheUser]

Ah. I'm AFB, so I guessed. So even less likely. I wouldn't house rule it, since a thief rogue with expertise may be a great magical scholar who can't cast a spell to save his life. Academic understanding and practical skills are completely separate. I'm a trained physicist, but don't ask me to build anything. At least if you want it functional.

Yeah, and I never considered the idea that adventurers observe and see spells cast all the time so maybe they can recall from memory spells they've already seen cast.

[Anymage]

Note: Knock was specifically designed that way to avoid the old "Anything you can do, wizard can do better." problem from 3.x. The same problem doesn't exist for Subtle spell.

The biggest addition to Knock was that it became noisy. It's just one spell, but it sets precedent that magic can have any effect you want, but that it's noticeable as well as consuming a resource.

Which drives my philosophy. Magic can have more impressive effects than any mundane skill. Making magic noticeable is a decent drawback to keep skill users from being completely outclassed by magic users.

I'd be fine with mental manipulations keeping the subject from putting two and two together for the duration. I'd also be okay with a feat allowing one metamatic and one sorcery point (I.E: one use per day of a metamagic that only requires one point), if you really want your clutch subtle spell. I'm even down with having teammates make a distraction so that people are looking the other way as your spell is cast, since that requires that the party works together. What I'm not cool with is magic users encroaching even more into the skill users territory.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, and I never considered the idea that adventurers observe and see spells cast all the time so maybe they can recall from memory spells they've already seen cast.

The flip side is this:

Why should a hermit druid, raised miles from civilization be capable of identifying that wizard's spell when a rogue who grew up with wizards everywhere not be able to?

If you want to gate-keep, do it based on Arcana proficiency, not on spell-casting ability.

[TheUser]

The flip side is this:

Why should a hermit druid, raised miles from civilization be capable of identifying that wizard's spell when a rogue who grew up with wizards everywhere not be able to?

If you want to gate-keep, do it based on Arcana proficiency, not on spell-casting ability.

My first caveat was "untrained" which means if you don't have proficiency you can't but even then I am backpedaling on that due to adventurers being untrained in arcana probably seeing loads of spells and might be able to recall it from experience.

[sithlordnergal]

Knock - costs a slot, is loud, takes up one spell known/prepared (not a ritual)
Thieves‘ tools - no cost, can be acquired via background/class/downtime

Knock loses. Barely.

Subtle spell - costs sorcery points, takes up one of two (!) metamagic choices you‘ll play with for most of your career as a sorc
Skill cheating - no cost, can be picked up with background, race, class, feats

Subtle loses. Crushingly.

You forget that you can easily fail such a skill check. Especially if you don't have a set DC, give the NPCs advantage/disadvantage as the situation calls for, and roll perception checks for all the guards in the room with their DC being set by the player's deception roll. At which point the players are in even more hot water cause they were just caught trying to cast a spell in a way people wouldn't notice

[TheUser]

You forget that you can easily fail such a skill check. Especially if you don't have a set DC, give the NPCs advantage/disadvantage as the situation calls for, and roll perception checks for all the guards in the room with their DC being set by the player's deception roll. At which point the players are in even more hot water cause they were just caught trying to cast a spell in a way people wouldn't notice

The problem here becomes three fold.
What is the skill check and the DC?
No matter what skill you choose you now favor a set of spell casting classes based on the ability tied to that skill.
Do they risk failing the spell entirely if they botch the check hard enough? By how much do they have to screw up now?

Either the skill check DC is so high only skill monkeys attempt it and so expertise casters start to dominate subtle rolls OR the check is low enough for plebs to attempt it and you just gave expertise casters free subtle spell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My first caveat was "untrained" which means if you don't have proficiency you can't but even then I am backpedaling on that due to adventurers being untrained in arcana probably seeing loads of spells and might be able to recall it from experience.

A related note: "untrained" and "not proficient" are not identical in 5e.

Proficiency can come from natural talent for a specific topic as well as formal training. So someone can be "untrained" but proficient. Or, I guess, if you had a very poor student you could theoretically have "trained" but not proficient.

[sithlordnergal]

The problem here becomes three fold.
What is the skill check and the DC?
No matter what skill you choose you now favor a set of spell casting classes based on the ability tied to that skill.
Do they risk failing the spell entirely if they botch the check hard enough? By how much do they have to screw up now?

Either the skill check DC is so high only skill monkeys attempt it and so expertise casters start to dominate subtle rolls OR the check is low enough for plebs to attempt it and you just gave expertise casters free subtle spell.

What is the skill check and the DC?

The answer to that is sort of twofold. The skill check greatly depends on the spell being cast and the situation it is being cast in. If you're trying to trick someone into thinking you aren't casting a spell as you talk to them, Deception. If you're trying to remain hidden as you cast the spell, then stealth or slight of hand. The DC is set to be whatever the caster rolls on the skill check. Meaning if they roll a 1, and only get a total of 5 then the DC is 5. And if they roll a 20 and get 25, the DC is 25. But most of the time the DC is going to be somewhere between those two extremes.


No matter what skill you choose you now favor a set of spell casting classes based on the ability tied to that skill.

I can see why it does feel like I am favoring a set of spell casting classes, but these rolls would only come up in specific circumstances. Such as if you're trying to charm or dominate the town guard with their guards around them because you got caught doing something. The other spell schools are still just fine, I'm just giving a small boost to the social encounters so that the spells can be more widely applied to social encounters. As far as I can tell, my method increases the application of such spells and allows players to effect social encounters in ways they may not normally have done so.


Do they risk failing the spell entirely if they botch the check hard enough? By how much do they have to screw up now?

They would never botch up the spell and lose it. The check only lets them cast the spell without being noticed. If the people beat the DC set by the caster then it means they have simply noticed a spell was cast. The people don't have to automatically know what spell was cast, they just know someone cast something. And if the people trying to notice the spell fail their check, then they simply don't know a spell was cast at all. Which makes sense for most enchantment and illusion spells since their effects are not flashy. It is entirely possibly to not realize your friend was hit by Charm Person, because the only thing you'd notice is that they're friendly to this random guy.


EDIT:
Either the skill check DC is so high only skill monkeys attempt it and so expertise casters start to dominate subtle rolls OR the check is low enough for plebs to attempt it and you just gave expertise casters free subtle spell.

I forgot about this bit. It can favor a caster with expertise, but since the checks are done on a case by case basis then they would have to be built for each and every one of those cases. Bards and Arcane Tricksters would need to put their limited expertises in Deception, Stealth, Slight of Hand, or whatever other checks you may use. This is really no different then a Sorcerer using one of their limited Metamagics to take Subtle Spell. They get a bonus to their checks, where as a Sorcerer can avoid the check entirely. And even then there is no guarantee that expertise will let them automatically succeed.

[TheUser]

They would never botch up the spell and lose it. The check only lets them cast the spell without being noticed. If the people beat the DC set by the caster then it means they have simply noticed a spell was cast. The people don't have to automatically know what spell was cast, they just know someone cast something. And if the people trying to notice the spell fail their check, then they simply don't know a spell was cast at all. Which makes sense for most enchantment and illusion spells since their effects are not flashy. It is entirely possibly to not realize your friend was hit by Charm Person, because the only thing you'd notice is that they're friendly to this random guy.

If there is no risk associated with failure then why wouldn't I just attempt this EVERYTIME I cast a spell, especially in combat where giving up your location can be life threatening?

EDIT: Now I've bogged down every round I cast a spell with an additional roll (as does every other caster).



EDIT:
Either the skill check DC is so high only skill monkeys attempt it and so expertise casters start to dominate subtle rolls OR the check is low enough for plebs to attempt it and you just gave expertise casters free subtle spell.

I forgot about this bit. It can favor a caster with expertise, but since the checks are done on a case by case basis then they would have to be built for each and every one of those cases. Bards and Arcane Tricksters would need to put their limited expertises in Deception, Stealth, Slight of Hand, or whatever other checks you may use. This is really no different then a Sorcerer using one of their limited Metamagics to take Subtle Spell. They get a bonus to their checks, where as a Sorcerer can avoid the check entirely. And even then there is no guarantee that expertise will let them automatically succeed.

Except that it's not. Because when a Sorcerer picks subtle spell it is with the express intent of doing one thing; cast spells subtly. When a rogue/bard takes expertise in these skills they have other uses outside this niche. False Equivalency.

[MaxWilson]

If there is no risk associated with failure then why wouldn't I just attempt this EVERYTIME I cast a spell, especially in combat where giving up your location can be life threatening?

Attempting sneaky casting could have other downsides, e.g. giving disadvantage on initiative checks on the round you cast it, under DMG Speed Factor initiative or something like it.

[Rebonack]

I allow attempts to conceal a spell cast. DC 10 plus spell level, Slight of Hand for somatic components and Stealth for vocal.

If you flub one check, you waste your action. If you flub both, you waste your Action and your spell slot. Because there's significant risk involved, it isn't something that a PC would choose to do lightly.

[Nifft]

A related note: "untrained" and "not proficient" are not identical in 5e.

Proficiency can come from natural talent for a specific topic as well as formal training. So someone can be "untrained" but proficient. Or, I guess, if you had a very poor student you could theoretically have "trained" but not proficient.

Is there any game mechanical meaning for "untrained" in 5e?

[Pex]

Sure, but I think the thing it lets you do that no one else can is cast spells that have somatic and verbal components without those components.

I don't think sorcerers should have exclusive rights to casting spells without everyone noticing and therefore everyone must notice all spells when they are cast by people other than sorcerers.

Why can't Sorcerers have nice things? Why can't they have something exclusive? Diviners make others autofail saving throws. Illusionists make anything they want really exist. Evokers can cast Fireball in the middle of battle and all party members are unharmed. Why should Sorcerers be forbidden from exclusivity of having Something Cool?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is there any game mechanical meaning for "untrained" in 5e?

No. Not that I've found, anyway.

There are a few things that hinge on proficiency, usually with tools (Thieves' Tools being a primary case). But I don't know of any use of "untrained" as a mechanical term.

[JoeJ]

Is there any game mechanical meaning for "untrained" in 5e?

Not for skill proficiencies. Languages and tool proficiencies require a character to actually have them in order to attempt the tasks they cover.

[sithlordnergal]

If there is no risk associated with failure then why wouldn't I just attempt this EVERYTIME I cast a spell, especially in combat where giving up your location can be life threatening?

EDIT: Now I've bogged down every round I cast a spell with an additional roll (as does every other caster).



Except that it's not. Because when a Sorcerer picks subtle spell it is with the express intent of doing one thing; cast spells subtly. When a rogue/bard takes expertise in these skills they have other uses outside this niche. False Equivalency.

There are two reasons not to do it every time:

There is no reason not to try it in every social encounter, I will admit that. However, if everyone notices you casting a spell the consequences are the same as if you had cast the spell without trying to hide it. Sure, people don't know what spell you cast, but they know you cast a spell. You had best be ready to explain why you just tried to hide the fact that you just cast a spell, and your reasons had better be good.

You wouldn't attempt it every round of combat for the same reason every class but Rogues choose not to hide before making an attack every round. Using a skill in combat is an action, and this is no different. If you want to hide the spell you're casting, feel free to. But now you can only cast bonus action spells for the rest of that turn, and if you do cast your bonus action spell then you've just cast the spell you were trying to hide

Fair enough, the expertise would be more useful outside of just hiding a spell being cast. It still allows players and NPCs to use those spells without people noticing as easily.

[TheUser]

Fair enough, the expertise would be more useful outside of just hiding a spell being cast. It still allows players and NPCs to use those spells without people noticing as easily.

So you want to arbitrarily favor Arcane Tricksters who bonus action hide?

[ZorroGames]

And for anyone who has children a fair distance from you, you know that it's the pitch, resonance and cadence that helps you get their attention even though they're 100 feet away from you, upstairs, with 10 walls between you and more than likely with their music on.

I thought was your parent using you whole name or at least your middle name:

“Thomas Thorton Smith, the Third!”

“Josephine Marie Small!”

That sort of thing...

[Rebonack]

So you want to arbitrarily favor Arcane Tricksters who bonus action hide?

Arcane Tricksters being more adept at arcane trickery is a feature, not a bug.

[ZorroGames]

Voted no.

KISS principle.

[sithlordnergal]

So you want to arbitrarily favor Arcane Tricksters who bonus action hide?

And the issue with letting Arcane Tricksters be able to use their arcane stuff to trick people is bad beaaaause? As Rebonack said, "Arcane Tricksters being more adept at arcane trickery is a feature, not a bug."

And besides, an arcane trickster is going to hide anyway. It's what Rogues do. Their Cunning Action doesn't let them make any skill check as a bonus action, just hide checks. And as near as I can tell, most people are of the thought that if there's no line of sight then you can cast a spell without verbal components without being noticed.

[ZorroGames]

And the issue with letting Arcane Tricksters be able to use their arcane stuff to trick people is bad beaaaause? As Rebonack said, "Arcane Tricksters being more adept at arcane trickery is a feature, not a bug."

And besides, an arcane trickster is going to hide anyway. It's what Rogues do. Their Cunning Action doesn't let them make any skill check as a bonus action, just hide checks. And as near as I can tell, most people are of the thought that if there's no line of sight then you can cast a spell without verbal components without being noticed.

This last can be accommodated now without more complexity.

[Tanarii]

A related note: "untrained" and "not proficient" are not identical in 5e.


Is there any game mechanical meaning for "untrained" in 5e?
Ability Scores explicitly includes training.

PHB page 173, first paragraph under Ability Scores and Modifiers, second sentence:
An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability.

Meanwhile Proficiency is a "focus" on a specific aspect of an Ability score. PHB 175, under Skills, second sentence:
A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect.

[Naanomi]

I allow attempts to conceal a spell cast. DC 10 plus spell level, Slight of Hand for somatic components and Stealth for vocal.

If you flub one check, you waste your action. If you flub both, you waste your Action and your spell slot. Because there's significant risk involved, it isn't something that a PC would choose to do lightly.
So many Bards will auto succeed with no risk, and no resource expenditure at level 5+? Sounds fair to sorcerers who gave up 1/4 of their lifetime unique class features and at least 1/10th is their special limited resources to do so

[CantigThimble]

Why can't Sorcerers have nice things? Why can't they have something exclusive? Diviners make others autofail saving throws. Illusionists make anything they want really exist. Evokers can cast Fireball in the middle of battle and all party members are unharmed. Why should Sorcerers be forbidden from exclusivity of having Something Cool?

They do have exclusice rights to something, as I said in that post. They have exclusive rights to casting spells without verbal or somatic components.

I do not think that should make it impossible to prevent people from noticing spells being cast with verbal or somatic components.

[LudicSavant]

Note: Knock was specifically designed that way to avoid the old "Anything you can do, wizard can do better." problem from 3.x.

The irony, of course, is that Knock isn't the best door opening spell. It's not even the best door opening spell that takes up a level 2 spell slot.

[Kane0]

So many Bards will auto succeed with no risk, and no resource expenditure at level 5+? Sounds fair to sorcerers who gave up 1/4 of their lifetime unique class features and at least 1/10th is their special limited resources to do so

How do you figure the auto-succeed?

[Naanomi]

How do you figure the auto-succeed?
DC 10
Roll a 1
DEX 16 (+3)
Expertise in both skills (+6 at level 5)

[sithlordnergal]

DC 10
Roll a 1
DEX 16 (+3)
Expertise in both skills (+6 at level 5)

Hence why I set the DC to be whatever the players rolled. That way if they roll well, then they have a better chance of hiding it. But if they roll poorly, the guards have a higher chance of noticing it. The best part is I've noticed that monster perception bonuses tend to increase in order to give them a chance at spotting hidden players. So there's almost always a risk that you'll be seen

[Tanarii]

DC 10
The post you quoted said DC 10 plus spell level.

[Rerem115]

Yeah, he quoted it to show the flaws in that system. His system would have the DC be set by the caster's rolls. i.e., the wizard tries to do something all sneaky-beaky like, and gets a respectable total of 18 on his Sleight of Hand check to to be sneaky with his magic. Everyone in the room then can make a Perception/Arcana/Insight/Take your pick skill check with a DC of 18 to notice the spell being cast. If one of them is say a polymorphed dragon with a Perception bonus of +16, there's a solid chance that the wizard won't get away with being sneaky.

*EDIT* Also, by law of averages, even unproficent Commoners would spot him if there were enough in the room.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, he quoted it to show the flaws in that system. His system would have the DC be set by the caster's rolls.The post quoted didn't say anything about that. It was two checks against DC 10+spell level, with one failure meaning loss of action, and two meaning loss of spell.

However, it does heavily favor casters with 3 levels of Bard or one of Rogue, who invested their Expertise specifically in the needed skills. And given one is stealth, it's not like that's a niche investment.

[sithlordnergal]

Yeah, he quoted it to show the flaws in that system. His system would have the DC be set by the caster's rolls. i.e., the wizard tries to do something all sneaky-beaky like, and gets a respectable total of 18 on his Sleight of Hand check to to be sneaky with his magic. Everyone in the room then can make a Perception/Arcana/Insight/Take your pick skill check with a DC of 18 to notice the spell being cast. If one of them is say a polymorphed dragon with a Perception bonus of +16, there's a solid chance that the wizard won't get away with being sneaky.

*EDIT* Also, by law of averages, even unproficent Commoners would spot him if there were enough in the room.

There we go =D You have it perfectly. Since the DC is set by whatever the caster rolls, then most casters aren't going to be able to automatically succeed. And as you said, if there is someone with a +16 perception, then there's a high chance the caster will be noticed no matter what. It may not tell the people who make the check what spell was cast, unless they used Arcana of course, but they'd be able to alert everyone to the fact that the caster just cast something.

[Kane0]

Ah, so you are investing your Expertise in Stealth and Sleight of Hand. That sounds a bit more like you have dedicated resources to be able to cast without being noticed. Even then, the DC will often be higher than 10.

Edit: Actually, this sounds pretty good for an Arcane Trickster. Right up their alley.

[Naanomi]

Ah, so you are investing your Expertise in Stealth and Sleight of Hand. That sounds a bit more like you have dedicated resources to be able to cast without being noticed. Even then, the DC will often be higher than 10.

Edit: Actually, this sounds pretty good for an Arcane Trickster. Right up their alley.
80% would have taken Expertise in Stealth anyways; and the person I quoted specifically said DC 10

Edit: even at 10+ spell level, going to get pretty much a sure thing with just a few more levels

Arcane Tricksters wouldn’t even need expertise, Reliable Talent would have it more than covered

[Kane0]

I allow attempts to conceal a spell cast. DC 10 plus spell level, Slight of Hand for somatic components and Stealth for vocal.

If you flub one check, you waste your action. If you flub both, you waste your Action and your spell slot. Because there's significant risk involved, it isn't something that a PC would choose to do lightly.
So many Bards will auto succeed with no risk, and no resource expenditure at level 5+? Sounds fair to sorcerers who gave up 1/4 of their lifetime unique class features and at least 1/10th is their special limited resources to do so

We're all human :smallsmile:

I wouldn't be so dismissive of Stealth as a given for Expertise. If you only get a few of them Stealth might not always be a first choice, especially if going for a Face role.

Reliable Talent comes online at 11th, I think a skilled man's Subtle Spell nine levels later than the Sorcerer is pretty fair. If there even is one in the party, as I said before.

[Nifft]

We're all human :smallsmile:

:thog: thog find thogself lacking

[Quoxis]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of Stealth as a given for Expertise. If you only get a few of them Stealth might not always be a first choice, especially if going for a Face role.

All the more weird to make a face character with expertise in sleight of hand and stealth instead of persuasion and deception/intimidation/insight just because it’s plain better to get advantage on a good skill than to get a modifier to make it a great skill that can still fail.

And again: if you use your proficiency/expertise on social skills, they’re used up for that.
If you instead choose stealth, you A) use one skill for ALL social skill checks instead of three, and you B) get more mileage out of it because you can also use it in combat, for following people, for scouting, for ambushes, for sneaking out past your bedtime and 72814 other things.

[TheUser]

I think all this argument over the minutia of a hidden casting skill or ability check favors those opposed. The fact that balancing a check like this requires the consideration of so many factors and that none of those who are pro-concealed casting have really explained how one can quietly chant (the very first antonym to "chant" is "keep quiet" (http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/chants)) kind of sinks this whole debate. Resonance is part and parcel to amplitude when vocal chords are in use.

[Beelzebubba]

A bit late to this party, but IMO there is no 'concealed casting'. Casting is casting, cannot be altered in volume or motions by the caster.

In my campaign it's resolved by the target's Perception. If they're looking anywhere in the same direction, within 30', etc. it's automatic. If they're not necessarily aware of it (ie facing the other way), they it via their Perception, and the DC is affected by the environment. It starts at 5 in a quiet place, and goes up from there based on circumstances. I use the perception rules on the DM's screen as reference.

Here's where 'concealing' comes in: the other characters can distract the target from the casting. And, this is where I use 'rule of cool': the more fun, clever, interesting, or involved the scheme, the better the odds of it succeeding. That's because if other members join in, then it is no longer 'the spellcaster solo casting I WIN', it's the being a team and the skill folks helping the spellcaster pull off a better result than any of them could have done on their own.

[JackPhoenix]

The irony, of course, is that Knock isn't the best door opening spell. It's not even the best door opening spell that takes up a level 2 spell slot.

Well, that entirely depend on what state you want to leave the door in, doesn't it?

[Naanomi]

Reliable Talent comes online at 11th, I think a skilled man's Subtle Spell nine levels later than the Sorcerer is pretty fair. If there even is one in the party, as I said before.
For free, without giving up any class build resources (the sorcerer gave up 1/4 of their class-defining metamagic choices) or daily resources (1 sorcery point per spell adds up) still doesn’t feel right

[Honest Tiefling]

Reliable Talent comes online at 11th, I think a skilled man's Subtle Spell nine levels later than the Sorcerer is pretty fair. If there even is one in the party, as I said before.

I don't think this is the right way to see things. Even if there was a sorcerer, the sorcerer might not care if they want Super Fun Blasty Time. And if there isn't a sorcerer, it should be more about sharing the spotlight and making sure everyone feels like they are contributing enough to feel engaged, regardless of class. Letting a feylock spam subtle spell might make a face rogue feel useless, after all, but might work better in a heavy intrigue campaign with a wizard that isn't feeling up to snuff for whatever reason.

But I agree with the wise Naanomi, I do think that the skill system does favor skill monkeys bit over the actual class it is tied to, which to me, presents problems thematically and mechanically. I do wonder if putting a roleplaying limit on the spell (in that you need a distraction) would make the use of the skill useful, but unable to out-compete an actual sorcerer.

[LudicSavant]

Well, that entirely depend on what state you want to leave the door in, doesn't it?

I guess you could use Knock if you wanted to open up the front door on your Wizard tower without ruining the Arcane Lock, instead of just opening the door.

[Spiritchaser]

I’m a bit late in here and nothing terribly new to say, however, I’ll throw my weight on “very seldom” would I allow casting to be concealed.

No verbal component? You’re hidden behind a shrubbery? Ok this one is fine. How couldn’t it be. Go for it. If there are reasons to suspect that the somatic component might generate additional noise, I might have the spell impose a disadvantage on stealth. Probably not, but maybe.

You’re in a crowded noisy place with other people chanting other things? Tough call. How far away is the observer? I can imagine places I’d allow this, but chanting in an otherwise ordinary noisy marketplace is still going to sound strangee from a long way away. Pro tip: try hide your casting near crazy new age hippo worshipers.

You want to pretend it’s part of a performance and everyone is staring at you? No.

Displacing the value of subtle spell is also an important consideration, but I think even without that consideration, concealed casting has to be quite limited.

[JackPhoenix]

I guess you could use Knock if you wanted to open up the front door on your Wizard tower without ruining the Arcane Lock, instead of just opening the door.

Ah, but I never said anything about *my* wizard tower. Why would I be breaking into my own house?

[Honest Tiefling]

Ah, but I never said anything about *my* wizard tower. Why would I be breaking into my own house?

1) To test the security of your wards.

2) To test the servants and guards.

3) If you need to grab something from it, but you MIGHT have gotten into a wee-bit of trouble with the guards.

4) After you faked your own death to frame someone.

5) Because you are a wizard and YOU CAN.

[CantigThimble]

I think all this argument over the minutia of a hidden casting skill or ability check favors those opposed. The fact that balancing a check like this requires the consideration of so many factors and that none of those who are pro-concealed casting have really explained how one can quietly chant (the very first antonym to "chant" is "keep quiet" (http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/chants)) kind of sinks this whole debate. Resonance is part and parcel to amplitude when vocal chords are in use.

It's not a matter of making no noise, it's a matter of making the noise in such a way that people won't immediately notice it.

If we say that on a normal day you can clearly hear someone speaking 30 feet away, then what about if they're 60 feet away? Would you still automatically hear them or would you need a listen check? What if there was wind or ambient noise? In the hubub of a crowded market you could probably chant without anyone noticing. What if I have a thick cotton cloth draped over my mouth? What if I time my chanting to synchronize with the loud half orc at the bar starting to talk?

I don't see the skill check as deleting spell components, it just means performing them in a way that is less likely to be noticed by others in the given situation.

[TheUser]

It's not a matter of making no noise, it's a matter of making the noise in such a way that people won't immediately notice it.

If we say that on a normal day you can clearly hear someone speaking 30 feet away, then what about if they're 60 feet away? Would you still automatically hear them or would you need a listen check? What if there was wind or ambient noise? In the hubub of a crowded market you could probably chant without anyone noticing. What if I have a thick cotton cloth draped over my mouth? What if I time my chanting to synchronize with the loud half orc at the bar starting to talk?.

We're not talking about "clearly speaking" 30ft away, we're talking about chanting an invocation (do you need a dictionary definition of what chanting is?)

If you drape a cloth over your mouth then you aren't resonating and the spell fails... how is this....have you even read what a vocal component requires? Like a mouth gag serves the same purpose; to muffle the sound of your voice and Jeremy Crawford himself has said that a mouth gag will stop verbal components (though I am sure this is not what you mean).

Additionally if you time your chanting with the loud half orc at the bar, you'll fail the spell because you aren't hitting the resonant tones at the proper time and are instead trying to match the timing of some random who isn't invoking a spell...not to mention that the loud half-orc is speaking/yelling whilst you are intoning a chant, which sounds very different I'd assume.

[CantigThimble]

We're not talking about "clearly speaking" 30ft away, we're talking about chanting an invocation (do you need a dictionary definition of what chanting is?)

If you drape a cloth over your mouth then you aren't resonating and the spell fails... how is this....have you even read what a vocal component requires? Like a mouth gag serves the same purpose; to muffle the sound of your voice and Jeremy Crawford himself has said that a mouth gag will stop verbal components (though I am sure this is not what you mean).

Additionally if you time your chanting with the loud half orc at the bar, you'll fail the spell because you aren't hitting the resonant tones at the proper time and are instead trying to match the timing of some random who isn't invoking a spell...not to mention that the loud half-orc is speaking/yelling whilst you are intoning a chant, which sounds very different I'd assume.

Chant: say or shout repeatedly in a singsong tone
So it could be shouted or it could be said, it isn't necessarily any easier to hear than a normal clear speaking voice.

A gag prevents you from moving your mouth in a way that even produces clear syllables, so naturally that prevents it but a cloth drape lets you pronounce clearly while making it more difficult for others to hear. What if you're standing behind a thick curtain? You can speak clearly but the sound is muffled for anyone outside the curtain. How far do you think sound needs to go from your mouth for the spell to work?

I'm not saying 'match the pattern of his speech' I'm saying 'the half orc is a bout to start yelling again, I'll start chanting now.

If a half orc yelling in your vicinity prevents spells from being cast then how do any wizards cast spells in combat? Can I shut down wizards by yelling in their face more loudly than they can chant?

[TheUser]

-snip-


I think we're crossing wires here. I am not trying to say a yelling orc interferes with a spell but I do not think relying on outside interference constitutes a skill check on behalf of the caster either; it's more luck.

[CantigThimble]

I think we're crossing wires here. I am not trying to say a yelling orc interferes with a spell but I do not think relying on outside interference constitutes a skill check on behalf of the caster either; it's more luck.

Taking the fullest advantage of interference is exactly what stealth is in many cases.

I would not allow something like: DC 15 stealth check, your spell requires half as much movement and noise, DC 20 requires one fourth as much movement and noise.

However, if there are reasonable distractions in the area then I think a skill check is the best way to determine if you are able to perform the motions and sounds you need to in a way that doesn't draw attention.

This is the same as not allowing a hide check unless there's something that the rogue could feasibly hide behind, just applied to both noise and movement.

[MrStabby]

Well a hide stealth check is about making no sound.

Making a stealth check whilst casting is a check to see if you can make no sound whilst making a sound. DC for that is gonna be off the scale.



If there is a certain level of sound needed for a verbal component then that isn't something a player can change. If anything the action is on the listener to see if they can notice that level of noise in the circumstances.

[CantigThimble]

Well a hide stealth check is about making no sound.

Making a stealth check whilst casting is a check to see if you can make no sound whilst making a sound. DC for that is gonna be off the scale.



If there is a certain level of sound needed for a verbal component then that isn't something a player can change. If anything the action is on the listener to see if they can notice that level of noise in the circumstances.

I disagree that stealth = not making noise.

Let's say I wan't to assassinate someone with a gun during a performance of the 1812 Overture. If I perfectly time my firing of the gun to match a cannon blast, then people are much less likely to notice. I'm not magically making the gun less noisy, I'm just making it less likely that people will notice due to interference. I would have someone roll stealth to pull something like that off effectively.

I think a similar thing can be done with spellcasting in areas with sources of ambient noise. You try to cast when ambient noise and distractions are most likely to keep attention away from you, you orient yourself so that your voice is more likely to be absorbed than echo or be heard directly.

[Nifft]

I disagree that stealth = not making noise.

Let's say I wan't to assassinate someone with a gun during a performance of the 1812 Overture. If I perfectly time my firing of the gun to match a cannon blast, then people are much less likely to notice. I'm not magically making the gun less noisy, I'm just making it less likely that people will notice due to interference. I would have someone roll stealth to pull something like that off effectively.

That's not Stealth, that's a Tool Proficiency (Musical Cannon).

[Rerem115]

Stealth checks are not necessarily total silence. They're more than a little abstract in their function. The quintessential example of that is actually a racial feature, the one where Halflings can hide behind Medium creatures. Pretty much all enemies would know more or less where the Halfling is, since it's pretty obvious that they're just behind another creature. However, since there are no hard and fast "This is what Stealth means" rules, they're allowed to get away with it because something something distraction in the heat of battle.

Long story short, 5e skills are incredibly flexible in their interpretation and scope, and the combination of this flexibility with the lack of hard rules for casting (Seriously, most of this thread is going over interpretations of the word "Chant" and the rules of Counterspell, a notoriously finicky piece of work. Hard rules, these ain't), which is why I'm on the side of allowing skill checks to make casting less noticeable. Besides, it's rule of cool, and gives your players another chance to make fools out of themselves should they fail while also allowing more flexibility from the DM.

[CantigThimble]

That's not Stealth, that's a Tool Proficiency (Musical Cannon).

....If my player has that proficiency in that situation then they pass automatically. Then I'll buy them a beer.

[MrStabby]

I disagree that stealth = not making noise.

Let's say I wan't to assassinate someone with a gun during a performance of the 1812 Overture. If I perfectly time my firing of the gun to match a cannon blast, then people are much less likely to notice. I'm not magically making the gun less noisy, I'm just making it less likely that people will notice due to interference. I would have someone roll stealth to pull something like that off effectively.

I think a similar thing can be done with spellcasting in areas with sources of ambient noise. You try to cast when ambient noise and distractions are most likely to keep attention away from you, you orient yourself so that your voice is more likely to be absorbed than echo or be heard directly.

Firstly this isn't stealth This would be performance if anything, probably performance (int) to accurately remember when the cannons go off.

More importantly I would be pretty unlikely to allow this at one of my tables off the cuff (with appropriate preparation maybe) simply because it seems a pretty naked grab of another classes ability. An absolute NO would be forthcoming if the plan was being pushed by someone who "just happened" to have proficiency in stealth.

[Cybren]

Timing a loud action to a loud occurrence feels textbook stealth to me. You're not performing, you're using someone else's performance.

[CantigThimble]

Firstly this isn't stealth This would be performance if anything, probably performance (int) to accurately remember when the cannons go off.

More importantly I would be pretty unlikely to allow this at one of my tables off the cuff (with appropriate preparation maybe) simply because it seems a pretty naked grab of another classes ability. An absolute NO would be forthcoming if the plan was being pushed by someone who "just happened" to have proficiency in stealth.

The ability that sorcerer's have is the ability to cast spells without verbal or somatic components. No one is taking that away from them, no one is casting a spell without moving their hands or without speaking. The question is, does anyone take notice of the fact that you are moving your hands and speaking? I don't think that avoiding other people noticing your hand movements and speech is the same as stealing subtle spell.

However, like I've said, I would only allow anyone to even attempt this if there was circumstantial justification. If there's enough ambient noise, something to hide your hand movements behind and people don't already have attention focused on you then you might be able to pull it off. And if you're doing anything you might be able to pull off, then you should probably roll a skill check to see how well it goes.

[MrStabby]

The ability that sorcerer's have is the ability to cast spells without verbal or somatic components. No one is taking that away from them, no one is casting a spell without moving their hands or without speaking. The question is, does anyone take notice of the fact that you are moving your hands and speaking? I don't think that avoiding other people noticing your hand movements and speech is the same as stealing subtle spell.

However, like I've said, I would only allow anyone to even attempt this if there was circumstantial justification. If there's enough ambient noise, something to hide your hand movements behind and people don't already have attention focused on you then you might be able to pull it off. And if you're doing anything you might be able to pull off, then you should probably roll a skill check to see how well it goes.

The ability, in terms of game impact is casting a spell with out other people knowing. Adding mechanisms to make this less unique is not improving the game.

[CantigThimble]

The ability, in terms of game impact is casting a spell with out other people knowing. Adding mechanisms to make this less unique is not improving the game.

It's also casting spells while restrained. Or gagged. Or choking. Or underwater. Or being watched carefully. Or while maintaining a normal conversation. Or when you're bad at stealth. Etc. etc.

I just do not buy the argument that because sorcerers have an ability that makes their spellcasting undetectable all other spellcasting must be noticed 100% of the time. It's just not reasonable. Spellcasting requires you to make noise and move your hands in weird patterns. Okay, that's pretty noticeable most of the time. However, there are circumstances where people wouldn't notice that and it makes perfect sense that people can work to make those circumstances happen.

[Naanomi]

It's also casting spells while restrained. Or gagged. Or choking. Or underwater. Or being watched carefully. Or while maintaining a normal conversation. Or when you're bad at stealth. Etc. etc.

I just do not buy the argument that because sorcerers have an ability that makes their spellcasting undetectable all other spellcasting must be noticed 100% of the time. It's just not reasonable. Spellcasting requires you to make noise and move your hands in weird patterns. Okay, that's pretty noticeable most of the time. However, there are circumstances where people wouldn't notice that and it makes perfect sense that people can work to make those circumstances happen.
Are there times you may not be noticed? Sure... perception checks or the like may be called for. I just don’t buy that you should have skills that meaningfully play into making that happen... your spellcasting is what it is, environment and their perceptive skills/Arcane knowledge are the relevant factors; not how good a pickpocket you are

[Segev]

As long as the DM doesn’t make Friends and Charm backfire just because the victim noticed the spell being cast, I am okay with it being seem. But I still would like to be able to cast it from hiding or the like if I’m going to approach a group. And all too often, Charm is only useful against people in groups.

[CantigThimble]

Are there times you may not be noticed? Sure... perception checks or the like may be called for. I just don’t buy that you should have skills that meaningfully play into making that happen... your spellcasting is what it is, environment and their perceptive skills/Arcane knowledge are the relevant factors; not how good a pickpocket you are

Personally I think skill would come in when it comes to selecting a location where people aren't likely to look at you and see what you're doing, a location and direction to face where sound will carry as little as possible and choosing a moment where people have most of their attention elsewhere.

I'd abstract that to a stealth roll (possibly with an ability score other than dex) but I can see arguments for sleight of hand or performance are both of those are dependent on your ability to track people's attention and make sure their attention is where you want it to be.

Also I'd just rather have my players roll a check against a DC rather than having NPCs roll, but that's purely personal preference.

[Kane0]

Sometimes you roll when acting, sometimes NPCs roll as a reacion to your action. There is precedent for both, Spell attack vs DC for example.

Some DMs might ask you to roll to conceal your casting, some DMs might roll for the NPCs to notice you casting. Same concept.

[Rebonack]

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


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.

For example, Wilse is a 5th-level wizard who attempts to cast a magic missile at a thug that has jumped him in the Zhent Ghettos. He wants the spell to have a little extra punch, so he casts it using a 3rd-level spell slot. Not wanting anyone to rat him out to the Cloaks, he tries to do it without anyone realizing he used magic. The DC for his check is 11 (8 + 3).

Here are some rules for concealing spell casting directly from AL. I personally find them a little too lenient, but that's just me.

[Kane0]

Here are some rules for concealing spell casting directly from AL. I personally find them a little too lenient, but that's just me.

Agreed

10char.

[TheUser]

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



Here are some rules for concealing spell casting directly from AL. I personally find them a little too lenient, but that's just me.

These are endemic to the module under the pretext that casting is "illegal" and not AL wide. This would be like saying the rules surrounding the death curse are useable in all modules when they are constrained only to the ToA modules and characters that play them.

EDIT: It's a terribly designed rule to boot...It allows hiding any and all casting with a sleight of hand check or deception check, player's choice.
Not just somatic or material components for sleight of hand check.
A spell with only a verbal component? Sleight of hand check to conceal it.....this rule is made 100% for convenience of the player to help them deal with this draconian setting.

[Tanarii]

EDIT: It's a terribly designed rule to boot...It allows hiding any and all casting with a sleight of hand check or deception check, players choice.
Not just somatic or material components for sleight of hand check.
A spell with only a verbal component? Sleight of hand check to conceal it.....this rule is made 100% for convenience of the player to help them deal with this draconian setting.
Not to mention you've concealed the fact that a bunch of Magic Missiles originated from you and flew to strike the target with a Deception check.

That's some serious "who me?" innocent expression!

[JackPhoenix]

These are endemic to the module under the pretext that casting is "illegal" and not AL wide. This would be like saying the rules surrounding the death curse are useable in all modules when they are constrained only to the ToA modules and characters that play them.

EDIT: It's a terribly designed rule to boot...It allows hiding any and all casting with a sleight of hand check or deception check, player's choice.
Not just somatic or material components for sleight of hand check.
A spell with only a verbal component? Sleight of hand check to conceal it.....this rule is made 100% for convenience of the player to help them deal with this draconian setting.

AL can't afford to antagonize certain players just because they picked a certain class, so they try to have their cake and eat it too: the setting keeps its anti-spellcaster flavor, but the players aren't much impacted by it.

[Nifft]

Not to mention you've concealed the fact that a bunch of Magic Missiles originated from you and flew to strike the target with a Deception check.

That's some serious "who me?" innocent expression!

Igglwiv's Innocent Whistle.

[Rebonack]

These are endemic to the module under the pretext that casting is "illegal" and not AL wide. This would be like saying the rules surrounding the death curse are useable in all modules when they are constrained only to the ToA modules and characters that play them.

Not really. The death curse is a pretty specific magical effect. Concealing one's spell casting doesn't require a world-spanning curse to be relevant, just a desire to keep casual observers from recognizing that you just cast a spell.


EDIT: It's a terribly designed rule to boot...It allows hiding any and all casting with a sleight of hand check or deception check, player's choice.
Not just somatic or material components for sleight of hand check.
A spell with only a verbal component? Sleight of hand check to conceal it.....this rule is made 100% for convenience of the player to help them deal with this draconian setting.

This I agree with, however. The rule is awful, and concealing that you just cast a spell like Magic Missile would be pretty close to impossible given the spell description. My point was simply to make it clear that there exists a precedent in official rules for allowing spell casting to be concealed regardless of its application or crunch.

On the flip-side, can you point me to any official rules or ruling which state that a caster can't conceal their spell? I've yet to be able to find any. And if vocal and somatic components are always obvious as spell-casting, then the casting of a spell should call for Initiative just as surely as drawing a weapon and charging does. And if casting any sort of spell is enough to kick off hostilities, then Friends should be impossible to cast if someone sees you cast it and Charm Person should always be cast at disadvantage. At the very least, the V/S components of some spells are subtle enough for casual observers to miss.

[TheUser]

On the flip-side, can you point me to any official rules or ruling which state that a caster can't conceal their spell? I've yet to be able to find any. And if vocal and somatic components are always obvious as spell-casting, then the casting of a spell should call for Initiative just as surely as drawing a weapon and charging does. And if casting any sort of spell is enough to kick off hostilities, then Friends should be impossible to cast if someone sees you cast it and Charm Person should always be cast at disadvantage. At the very least, the V/S components of some spells are subtle enough for casual observers to miss.

expressio unius est exclusio alterius n. [New Latin, the explicit mention of one (thing) is the exclusion of another] : a principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.

This is a latin expression in law that pretty much means if you explicitly mention something included in a list or subsection then that which is not mentioned is excluded and that subsections which do not mention it in the future exclude it. The same can be said that if a module takes special care to create a custom rule skill check for the module all others are excluded.

EDIT: (meaning unless you make a custom rule for casting to not be noticed within a module then you can't)

[Segev]

Honestly, I'd be much more inclined to let somebody get away with casting a spell without it being noticed if it had no visible manifestations that originate from the caster.

Charm person, silent image, and the like which don't originate obviously from the caster would be easier to hide than magic missile or fireball.

[Honest Tiefling]

Honestly, I'd be much more inclined to let somebody get away with casting a spell without it being noticed if it had no visible manifestations that originate from the caster.

Charm person, silent image, and the like which don't originate obviously from the caster would be easier to hide than magic missile or fireball.

I genuinely think that if people are arguing to make fire ball effectively a subtle spell, either they are power gaming a bit too much or a bit of a hilarious pyromaniac.

Through reading this thread has made me wonder if limiting bardic ability to gain subtle spell (not that it would be free) to instruments/skills they are proficient in would be thematically appropriate.

[TheUser]

I genuinely think that if people are arguing to make fire ball effectively a subtle spell, either they are power gaming a bit too much or a bit of a hilarious pyromaniac.

Through reading this thread has made me wonder if limiting bardic ability to gain subtle spell (not that it would be free) to instruments/skills they are proficient in would be thematically appropriate.

What exactly is the cost? They don't have sorcery points; is it a use of bardic inspiration?

[unusualsuspect]

I voted yes.

Believe it or not, I actually like some of the AL's rules for it, particularly because it balances what I see as the problematic issue of "Everyone is utterly incompetent at casting with any subtlety whatsoever except (some) Sorcerers, who do so effortlessly" with "A free skill check that doesn't cost resources but can do some of what Subtle Spell does without risk of failure is too much to give universally". Note that it's only SOME of what Subtle Spell can do, as that seems to get glossed over by the anti-concealment crowd.

And that's what AL does. Lots of immediate complaints, but no one is commenting on the fact that it requires a BONUS ACTION to make that check. For some casters, that might be a resource they have plenty of, but for most, that's something they might want to spend on something else.

Upping the DC a bit might be worthwhile (I'd prefer DC 15 + Spell level - difficult to do for anyone except those EXTREMELY SKILLED AT BEING DECEPTIVE, SLEIGHT OF HANDS, STEALTHY, AND/OR PERFORMATIVE, as is appropriate) if you're not just concealing that you cast a SPELL (remember, the AL rule provides you may be disguising your casting as the use of a magic item - noticeable, and important for the AL module's setting, but not making you any less conspicuous mid-discussion with a king when you seem to use a magic item on him).When you're busy learning how to make reality your *****, learning how to do so with subtlety and nuance is going to take extracurricular studies.

Another issue is player choice - that seems inappropriate. It should be based on the circumstances, whether you're trying to be clandestine (Sleight of Hand for Somatic, Stealth for Vocal) or trying to hide in plain sight (Deception for Somatic, Performance for vocal).

Making it 4 skills instead of 2, and making them set instead of allowing player choice, means a caster has to dedicate a SIGNIFICANT amount of resources to become consistently capable of concealed casting (alliteration for the win!), instead of taking 1 skill they probably would have anyway.

There are going to be complaints about how Arcane Tricksters can almost automatically become extremely good at casting spells with subtlety because Expertise is built into their class. They should, they're Arcane goddamn Tricksters, and they're half-casters to boot - they gave up true dedication to magical mastery and got other things in return, including a better (and sometimes automatic, preferably only for low-level spells) chance to succeed in hiding (but not removing the need of) somatic and verbal components.

There are going to be complaints about how Bards can almost automatically become reasonably good at casting spells with subtlety because Expertise is built into their class. They should, they're the goddamn Jack-of-all-Trades class (they have it as a class feature, FFS) and their magic is performance based to the point they can substitute some components with a strum on their lute. Aside from people for whom magic is literally in the blood and a class with "arcane" and "trickster" in their class title, bards should be reasonably good at concealing their actual actions (by cliche, through hiding in plain sight).

There are going to be complaints about how Wizards will become reasonably good at casting spells with subtlety when they take a level of Rogue for Expertise. They should, they just delayed their spellcasting (i.e. lost a resource, and as people are so fond of pointing out, arguably the most POWERFUL RESOURCE IN THE GAME) to become good at it!

An earlier poster made an excellent point that, psychologically, giving a mechanic for an action apparently has this weird exclusionary effect - as soon as something that didn't have rules now has rules (but only in a particular place), it either makes that action the exclusive property of that mechanic (if it really only can be done in ANY WAY through that mechanic) or the mechanic is meaningless because anyone can do it.

But that's binary thinking, particularly in this case, where the supposedly infringed-upon mechanic:

A. Remains exclusive in some ways - it REMOVES the components' requirements, it doesn't merely conceal them from sight. Concealing your casting is the shallow end of the pool of possibility that is Subtle Spell.

B. Automatically works - There is no skill check, no disadvantage that can get imposed by the DM, no penalties that can be applied.

And that's the key. There's room in between the binary of Utterly Exclusive and Everyone Can Do It where failure is possible, other resources are required (proficiency/expertise/advantage in multiple skills, requiring a Bonus Action to perform), and it leaves an exclusive niche for Subtle Spell to shine (being tied up or gagged or in a Silent spell's range - Subtle Spell works, and +10000 on your Stealth check can't do ****).

Re: the Statutory Construction argument, it seems... unsavory... to translate principles of legal rule construction verbatim to principles of 5e design. If we're going to do that, though, we should take the broader view. 5e rule mechanics as statutes is not that far off - it is designed to be broad, to go into enough detail to guide execution of the rules, but by nature of what it covers, it can't be so specific that every interaction of rule and reality has a citation in the law.

Specific regulations are generally delegated lower in the chain, mostly to fill in any gaps that the inevitably vague statute left.

Let's move on to your metaphor. A rule constructed to fill in the gap left by the rules for "say, can you chant and wave your arms around in a way that doesn't make it obvious you're casting a spell without removing those components entirely (via Subtle Spell or high-level Druid)" in a way that addressed the specific issues encountered in that setting.

Presumably for most settings, the need for that sort of detailed spell concealment mechanic was deemed sufficiently unimportant that the designers didn't bother filling in that gap. It takes up space to include those mechanics, so for streamlining purposes, why bother? The presumption is that the DM will fill in that gap only if it becomes relevant to the players and the campaign, and I think its fair to say that a principle of 5e statutory construction is that one should first look to official sources for balanced mechanics.

We're here in this thread, trying to fill this gap in 5e's legislation (either with a mechanic that allows subtle spellcasting, or a void that prevents it entirely without dedicating yourself to a class). Part of making that initial determination is going to involve looking at official 5e rule sources.

Saying "there is no general rule for it, and therefore there shouldn't be rules for it" begs the question, because that bypassed the very nature of our inquiry: SHOULD that gap be filled with mechanics or a void?

It's perfectly reasonable to think that gap should never be filled if that's how you or your DM envision spellcasting. But the 5e designers didn't consider that a question worth answering (because not every question is worth answering when you're trying to model a game as free-form as D&D) until they were directly confronted with it via the setting, and when they were, they answered by filling that gap.

I'm going with the designers on this one, because without filling that gap with mechanics, the range of spellcaster focuses gets reduced, and what could be a choice becomes a funnel.

[Honest Tiefling]

What exactly is the cost? They don't have sorcery points; is it a use of bardic inspiration?

That, or burning a feat or class features. I get the idea that bards can be subtle manipulators of the mind and heart, but I don't know how to implement it to be fair to a standard group.

[Rebonack]

expressio unius est exclusio alterius n. [New Latin, the explicit mention of one (thing) is the exclusion of another] : a principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.

This is a latin expression in law that pretty much means if you explicitly mention something included in a list or subsection then that which is not mentioned is excluded and that subsections which do not mention it in the future exclude it. The same can be said that if a module takes special care to create a custom rule skill check for the module all others are excluded.

EDIT: (meaning unless you make a custom rule for casting to not be noticed within a module then you can't)

It's no more making custom rules than answering the question 'What's the DC for climbing this tree?' or 'What's the DC for intimidating some mostly routed bandits into surrendering?'. Or even better, for figuring out how far away a PC has to be from a creature that isn't being stealthy before they can pinpoint it whilst in combat time.

There isn't a specific skill for every imaginable thing and spreadsheets for determining difficulty. 5e lays out a few general guidelines and then it's up to the DM to make rulings. Yes, you can attempt that. Yes, you automatically succeed. No, you can't do that, don't even bother. There are some situations where I would allow someone to try to cover up their spell casting, like trying to covertly Charm someone in the middle of a party. In other situations it would be impossible, like when the bandit has a crossbow shoved into the small of your back and is watching for shenanigans (which a Sorcerer could automatically succeed at, using Subtle Spell).

Remember, the player doesn't announce they're making a skill check. They simply say what they're wanting to do and the DM informs them whether or not its possible in a given situation.

[sightlessrealit]

It's a very very very very hard yes for me.

[Astofel]

When you make an attack, you reveal your position as well as the fact that you just made an attack. Why should spellcasting be any different?

[Kane0]

When you make an attack, you reveal your position as well as the fact that you just made an attack. Why should spellcasting be any different?

Theres a feat for that.

[Tanarii]

Theres a feat for that.
Sounds like a reasonable "solution" to me.

[Naanomi]

What skill checks to emulate the other metamagic choices? Investigation for careful? Acrobatics for twin?

[Kane0]

Sounds like a reasonable "solution" to me.

That said we did have a big thread not long ago about a metamagic and 2-3 sorcery points as a feat, so probably no less controversial.

[ZenBear]

So I’m coming in to this really late and don’t feel like reading 6 pages of back and forth, but I’ll still throw in my 2 cents.

There are dozens if not hundreds of examples in D&D fiction of spellcasters hiding their spellcasting through whispering the incantation, gesturing under a table, etc. It makes sense to be able to do this, even if some people interpret RAW a bit too stringently to assume the general examples of V/S components are wrought-in-stone facts of every spell ever.

In particular, I simply do not understand how you guys run Charm Person with any kind of viability or verisimilitude if every time you cast it you gesticulate wildly and bark an arcane stanza right in the face of your target and everyone else in the room. Bull**** will you be able to bluff that it was some unrelated spell that had absolutely no apparent effect or purpose, especially when there are other people in the room who aren’t Charmed. The way I see it, Charm Person works like a Jedi mind trick, with simple gestures like a wave of the hand and the verbal component consisting of smooth talking flattery or flirtation. Otherwise it is a useless spell outside of isolated interrogations, and only dubiously effective at that. Furthermore, what is the point of specifically stating in the Friends cantrip that your target will know they’ve been had once it wears off, if the exact same thing happens with a Charm spell?

I don’t see this ruling as somehow taking spellcasters over the top in OPness when they already get to Wish whatever the **** they want into existence.

[Rebonack]

What skill checks to emulate the other metamagic choices? Investigation for careful? Acrobatics for twin?

What skill do you use when you wish to do something that would typically be loud, but instead you feel like being quiet? There's a skill for that.

What skill do you use when you want to misdirect someone's attention so they don't pick up on what you're doing? There's a skill for that, too.

Now, which skill is used to make a single target effect into a double target effect?

Answer these questions, and your question will be answered.

[TheUser]

-snip-



Gimme a second guys, I have to re-balance Rangers and Drow because of a few Forgotten Realms books I read.

For starters, if Drow spend a few weeks/months staring at the sunrise/sunset and have special purple eyes they now can ignore Sunlight Sensitivity.

Dark Vision is going back to Infravision(heat vision) obviously.

Next is dual-wielding, because this book showed me that if you are truly ambi-dexterous you can always off-hand when you main-hand attack so that's coming into my games as well.

Oh! There was a Swashbuckling Rogue who seemed to have no limit to the amount of items he could attune to so I am scrapping the need for Swashbuckler and thief rogues to attune.

Do you see how ridiculous I sound trying to balance my game around book lore? Yeah...maybe don't do that.

[sightlessrealit]

Gimme a second guys, I have to re-balance Rangers and Drow because of a few Forgotten Realms books I read.

For starters, if Drow spend a few weeks/months staring at the sunrise/sunset and have special purple eyes they now can ignore Sunlight Sensitivity.

Dark Vision is going back to Infravision(heat vision) obviously.

Next is dual-wielding, because this book showed me that if you are truly ambi-dexterous you can always off-hand when you main-hand attack so that's coming into my games as well.

Oh! There was a Swashbuckling Rogue who seemed to have no limit to the amount of items he could attune to so I am scrapping the need for Swashbuckler and thief rogues to attune.

Do you see how ridiculous I sound trying to balance my game around book lore? Yeah...maybe don't do that.

Ridiculous? Nope, you sound fine. I like those ideas.

[JackPhoenix]

Theres a feat for that.

Feat is only for ranged attacks (well, obviously, hard to stay hidden and attack in melee), and only for when you miss. And the attack itself will be noticed, but the source will stay hidden.

[JackPhoenix]

So I’m coming in to this really late and don’t feel like reading 6 pages of back and forth, but I’ll still throw in my 2 cents.

There are dozens if not hundreds of examples in D&D fiction of spellcasters hiding their spellcasting through whispering the incantation, gesturing under a table, etc. It makes sense to be able to do this, even if some people interpret RAW a bit too stringently to assume the general examples of V/S components are wrought-in-stone facts of every spell ever.

In particular, I simply do not understand how you guys run Charm Person with any kind of viability or verisimilitude if every time you cast it you gesticulate wildly and bark an arcane stanza right in the face of your target and everyone else in the room. Bull**** will you be able to bluff that it was some unrelated spell that had absolutely no apparent effect or purpose, especially when there are other people in the room who aren’t Charmed. The way I see it, Charm Person works like a Jedi mind trick, with simple gestures like a wave of the hand and the verbal component consisting of smooth talking flattery or flirtation. Otherwise it is a useless spell outside of isolated interrogations, and only dubiously effective at that. Furthermore, what is the point of specifically stating in the Friends cantrip that your target will know they’ve been had once it wears off, if the exact same thing happens with a Charm spell?

I don’t see this ruling as somehow taking spellcasters over the top in OPness when they already get to Wish whatever the **** they want into existence.

And I'm sure all those "examples" actually follow the rules of the game, and are based on the current edition of rules, right?

I don't know about others, but I run Charm Person with enough viability and versimilitude by discouraging its use in front of a crowd of witnesses, if you want to keep it secret. You know, as it was intended. Hit the victim from a distance, wait until he's all alone, or even use it in combat to negate one opponent's deadly intent, doesn't matter. The victim itself has its behavior influenced by magic, so their opinion doesn't really matter, and when the spell ends, your action will be revealed to them regardless.

It's like asking "how do you keep murder a secret, when you stab the victim in plain view of everyone?"

[Tanarii]

And I'm sure all those "examples" actually follow the rules of the game, and are based on the current edition of rules, right?Has it ever been possible to conceal casting Charm Person? It certainly wasn't in BECMI or AD&D. It was a brute force spell.

In fact, I can't ever remember concealing casting being possible before 5e Subtle Spell made it possible, although I assume there was a 3e Subtle Spell metamagic feat in one of the books too.

I just assumed "whisper casting" started coming up in 5e, specifically because Charm Person and Suggestion were changed from being brute force spells to something that required a lighter touch.

[Cybren]

Has it ever been possible to conceal casting Charm Person? It certainly wasn't in BECMI or AD&D. It was a brute force spell.

In fact, I can't ever remember concealing casting being possible before 5e Subtle Spell made it possible, although I assume there was a 3e Subtle Spell metamagic feat in one of the books too.

I just assumed "whisper casting" started coming up in 5e, specifically because Charm Person and Suggestion were changed from being brute force spells to something that required a lighter touch.

Subtle spell was broken into its component parts in 3.x There was silent, still and also the non-metamagic eschew materials

[Tanarii]

Subtle spell was broken into its component parts in 3.x There was silent, still and also the non-metamagic eschew materials
Ah right, thanks for jogging my memory. So in 3e, the answer was "take feats", not "make a skill check".

[Segev]

Ah right, thanks for jogging my memory. So in 3e, the answer was "take feats", not "make a skill check".

In 3e, identifying a spell being cast required a skill check, too. This leads to a gray area (and thus arguments) over whether one can "disguise" the spellcasting gestures and words as part of normal conversation, at least to any observers who don't make the Spellcraft check to identify, "Hey, he's casting charm person, not just slightly awkwardly calling you his friend!"

Also, "take a feat" was a lot more open than "take a 3-level dip in one particular class."

And, yes, 5e's Charmed condition is far less potent than normal. Upside, the description of what a "good friend" will do can be hunted down in the books somewhere, and thus what you can convince him of doing with an Easy or Medium Persuasion or Deception check is reasonably possible to determine. Downside, the fact you obviously cast a spell still means anybody watching knows that Bob is only agreeing with you because you Charmed him. Upside, "mass Charm" is now just a simple upcast of 1 level per target, so if you really need to whammy a group, do it at higher level.

[JackPhoenix]

Has it ever been possible to conceal casting Charm Person? It certainly wasn't in BECMI or AD&D. It was a brute force spell.

In fact, I can't ever remember concealing casting being possible before 5e Subtle Spell made it possible, although I assume there was a 3e Subtle Spell metamagic feat in one of the books too.

I just assumed "whisper casting" started coming up in 5e, specifically because Charm Person and Suggestion were changed from being brute force spells to something that required a lighter touch.

Silent Spell in 3e removed verbal component, Still Spell removed somatic component, Eschew Material removed non-costly material component. All from PHB, and the first two increased the level of the spell slot required by 1 each.

[Tanarii]

In 3e, identifying a spell being cast required a skill check, too. This leads to a gray area (and thus arguments) over whether one can "disguise" the spellcasting gestures and words as part of normal conversation, at least to any observers who don't make the Spellcraft check to identify, "Hey, he's casting charm person, not just slightly awkwardly calling you his friend!"Thats the same in 5e, at least now that XgtE has clarified its a reaction and an Arcana Check to identify the spell being cast.

[Segev]

Thats the same in 5e, at least now that XgtE has clarified its a reaction and an Arcana Check to identify the spell being cast.

Cool. It seems like Xanathar's Guide is really what the DMG should have been. >_<

Though I bet there's still plenty of room to argue whether you can actually disguise the spellcasting (verbal and somatic components, specifically) as something innocuous or not.

Possibly even material components, since you must present them. Does that mean you can or cannot present them "subtly" or disguise what you're doing with them?

Not really trying to START that argument, here. Just pointing out that I expect the argument can happen, and you'd find people who supported either side of it, and both would feel justified by the RAW. (I could be wrong, of course. I haven't read Xanathar's, but even when I think the RAW are clear, I find plenty of people who disagree with me.)

[Tanarii]

Though I bet there's still plenty of room to argue whether you can actually disguise the spellcasting (verbal and somatic components, specifically) as something innocuous or not.
As far as I know, there's nothing anywhere in any of the books outside the Subtle Spell that says or even implies you can disguise the V and S components as anything.

The XtgE rule is about what it takes to identify which spell is involved, when you can percieve a spell in the process of being cast, or percieve the effects of one after casting. Not identify that a spell is being cast vs a spell is not being cast.
(Edit: I'd have to review the 3e skill, but I thought it was the same. Identify which spell, not that a spell is being cast. The latter was automatic without a feat, right?
Edit2: yup, that looks right to me. The XtgE rule looks like the Spellcraft rule revised, although the DCs and actions are different.)

An important distinction here is nothing says that you can percieve a spell being cast when you can't percieve it. Personally I don't think you can reduce the minimum perceptibility of a spell being cast below the level of "not trying to hide". So opposed rolls are never appropriate. But you can try to sneak it under ambient effects, not being as easily seen or heard. Which would be Perception checks by the perceiver vs a fixed DC for the environment.

[Segev]

As far as I know, there's nothing anywhere in any of the books outside the Subtle Spell that says or even implies you can disguise the V and S components as anything.

The XtgE rule is about what it takes to identify which spell is involved, when you can percieve a spell in the process of being cast, or percieve the effects of one after casting. Not identify that a spell is being cast vs a spell is not being cast.
(Edit: I'd have to review the 3e skill, but I thought it was the same. Identify which spell, not that a spell is being cast. The latter was automatic without a feat, right?
Edit2: yup, that looks right to me. The XtgE rule looks like the Spellcraft rule revised, although the DCs and actions are different.)

An important distinction here is nothing says that you can percieve a spell being cast when you can't percieve it. Personally I don't think you can reduce the minimum perceptibility of a spell being cast below the level of "not trying to hide". So opposed rolls are never appropriate. But you can try to sneak it under ambient effects, not being as easily seen or heard. Which would be Perception checks by the perceiver vs a fixed DC for the environment.

Indeed, that would seem to be a valid reading of the rules as described (and as I know they're written in 3.5). My point was that there will be argument over whether needing to identify the spell is required to identify THAT it's a spell.


To illustrate the argument: Imagine Farmer Fred goes into town and sees Crazy Wizard William standing in the middle of the square, waving his arms and chanting gibberish again, while wearing a robe and pointy hat festooned with poorly-sewn-on stars and crescent moons. Nobody in town has ever seen Wizard William's gibberish and gesticulation do anything obvious. But he's friendly and harmless enough.

Without making a successful Spellcraft check, can anybody in town tell whether Crazy Wizard William is actually a wizard, blatantly casting spells that have no visible effect, or is just a crazy Commoner with delusions of magecraft who is chanting gibberish and waving his arms pointlessly?

Assume they know that magic and wizards do exist; Brad the Bard regularly uses prestidigitation to amuse the local kids, and may have some magical assistance with his legendary ways with women. But if Brad knows whether William is really a mage or not, he's not telling, and nobody has anything but William's habit of "spellcasting" in town to go off of.

Can they tell if he's actually casting spells, or just acting like it? (Maybe everybody in town is amused by and likes him because he's casting a lot of charm person spells. Maybe he just is an affable and amusing old coot with a harmless delusion.)

[Tanarii]

How is that relevant to making your casting not noticable?

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Not without obvious spell effect or Arcana check to identify specific spell being cast.

But just because people ignore his "madness" doesn't mean he doesn't look like he's trying to cast a spell.

And if he Charms them, they'll know in a hour that he actually *did* used real magic. Cue torches and pitchforks.

[Honest Tiefling]

And if he Charms them, they'll know in a hour that he actually *did* used real magic. Cue torches and pitchforks.

Not to mention, if a player wanted to bend the rules for the same purpose I think most DMs would give a hard no...

However, the idea of a bard using entertainment to disguise casting could introduce another downside: time. Perhaps in order to complete the spell in such a way, the listener has to be paying attention to the song for a certain amount of time. It's still quite powerful and thematic, but it isn't as flexible as the sorcerer's ability which can be used in an emergency.

[ZenBear]

Gimme a second guys, I have to re-balance Rangers and Drow because of a few Forgotten Realms books I read.

For starters, if Drow spend a few weeks/months staring at the sunrise/sunset and have special purple eyes they now can ignore Sunlight Sensitivity.

Dark Vision is going back to Infravision(heat vision) obviously.

Next is dual-wielding, because this book showed me that if you are truly ambi-dexterous you can always off-hand when you main-hand attack so that's coming into my games as well.

Oh! There was a Swashbuckling Rogue who seemed to have no limit to the amount of items he could attune to so I am scrapping the need for Swashbuckler and thief rogues to attune.

Do you see how ridiculous I sound trying to balance my game around book lore? Yeah...maybe don't do that.

I see no issue with allowing a Drow character to earn the ability to overcome Sunlight Sensitivity if they put in the effort to roleplay the progression. The change from infravision to darkvision is a positive change imo so no, I won’t change it back. There’s nothing about dual wielding that needs be changed to allow this. Who knows what magic items on his person require attunement, he’s probably more a Thief than Swashbuckler anyway.

See how easy it is to make character concepts work when you’re literally god?


And I'm sure all those "examples" actually follow the rules of the game, and are based on the current edition of rules, right?

I don't know about others, but I run Charm Person with enough viability and versimilitude by discouraging its use in front of a crowd of witnesses, if you want to keep it secret. You know, as it was intended. Hit the victim from a distance, wait until he's all alone, or even use it in combat to negate one opponent's deadly intent, doesn't matter. The victim itself has its behavior influenced by magic, so their opinion doesn't really matter, and when the spell ends, your action will be revealed to them regardless.

It's like asking "how do you keep murder a secret, when you stab the victim in plain view of everyone?"

A range of 30ft isn’t what I would call “at a distance” since it’s still completely within earshot. Can you cite the place where Gary Gygax explicitly stated it was intended to be used away from witnesses? I’m not part of the old guard so I haven’t read the AD&D rule books. As I said, when played with your limitations CP is relegated to isolated interrogations and niche combat utility. I prefer a Bard to be able to Jedi Master James Bond their way through a party and actually make use of their spells in such circumstances.

[Segev]

How is that relevant to making your casting not noticable?It's the start of a logic chain; sorry for not completing it.

Assuming the answer is, "No, Fred can't tell if William is actually casting spells or not at all," then we start getting into just how well Fred can recognize whether Sorceress Sally is casting spells, or just happens to speak loudly and make grand gesticulations as part of her everyday speech.

Note that nothing in the spellcasting rules in any edition of D&D that I know of specifies what language the Verbal component must be in. It may well be possible to have it be in Common. If the Verbal component of charm person, for example, is "You see me as your good and dear friend," and involves a particular wiggle-of-the-fingers motion over the caster's field of view that includes the target's eyes, Sorceress Sally could conceivably do something like proclaim, "I am glad you see me as your good and dear friend, brave leader of the bandits!" while raising her hand and making that finger-wiggle as part of a broad sweep to bring her hand around to rest convivially on his shoulder.

Now, some DMs will be fine with that kind of thing. It's a Deception check, or Bluff, or Perform, or something to make sure people see it as quirky-but-natural, perhaps. Or maybe it requires observers who are suspicious to make Insight checks, instead, asking for them to indicate that they actually do think something is up.

Other DMs will scoff and say that magic is never something that could possibly be hidden in conversational exchanges, no mater how formal, informal, or quirky they may be.

But the starting point that it may not be possible to tell, just by observation, whether a given set of "spellcasting" behavior is actually casting a spell, or just working in gibberish, allows for the possibility that a spell whose casting is not obviously "spellcasting" to those who don't recognize the spell being used. Which is where, despite not hiding the spellcasting itself, and despite perhaps speaking clearly and making obvious intricate gestures, it may be possible for a Sorcerer to cast a spell without any of the observers realizing he's done so, since they don't have the knowledge to recognize that the gesture and words he chose included the spellcasting components.


Not without obvious spell effect or Arcana check to identify specific spell being cast.

But just because people ignore his "madness" doesn't mean he doesn't look like he's trying to cast a spell.

And if he Charms them, they'll know in a hour that he actually *did* used real magic. Cue torches and pitchforks.In 5e, yes, charm person does specify that. But (though I could be wrong) I don't think 3e and earlier were clear on whether the targets knew, either during or after the spell ended, that they'd been influenced by magic.

Arguably, too, if the spellcaster doesn't do anything to make the people mad, and makes it clear while they're Charmed that he respects them and just needed to get a chance for them to listen to him rather than outright assuming he's a jerk to be scorned, he MIGHT be able to sway them into persisting a positive thought about him.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is SA to the fact that the verbal component is

a) arcane in nature (so not common language)
b) separate from whatever words are used.
c) dependent on particular cadences and intonations (including sounds)

So no, you can't hide it in normal language. At least by RAI.

[Segev]

There is SA to the fact that the verbal component is

a) arcane in nature (so not common language)
b) separate from whatever words are used.
c) dependent on particular cadences and intonations (including sounds)

So no, you can't hide it in normal language. At least by RAI.

Well, that answers that, then.

Pick up Sorc levels, or make sure you're hiding physically from sight/notice when you cast your spells, if you need your targets not to know you cast them.

[Telok]

I say yes because, if I recall correctly, NPC non-sorcerers are allowed to do it at least twice in adventures. Tho there's always a perception or other check to notice it.

[Occasional Sage]

Those poll results surprise me.

[TheUser]

Those poll results surprise me.

I'm surprised it's been so consistent over time. It's been 2:1 from the get go lol

[Spiritchaser]

Quite apart from apparent rules, there’s a play balance issue.

My PCs spend a LOT of time slinking around. One of the defining limits to what they can do (subtle spell notwithstanding) is that if they want to cast most things, they’ll need to break stealth, or break contact with the enemy.

Deciding ahead of time if this is a “pass without trace kind of day” is important, and if it is, then in an hour, they’ll need to find a way to recast that.

The swashbuckler, with expertise in stealth, doesn’t have that problem. That’s a big deal for a class who’s features are often matched by the right spell.

Subtle spell is awesomely powerful and versatile because, not only does it allow social casting, but it it upends this stealth limitation on casting. It’s a metamagic that feels like it just might almost compensate for that absurdly limited spell choice.

Allowing concealed casting robs (edit: at least) two classes of something special, and changes encounter playbalance for the whole party.

I’m sure I could still make this work... I could change how the encounters are set up to create different tactical problems, I could limit how many spells the wizard can ever copy, and I can find other ways to give the rogue an opportunity to shine... but it works pretty well the way it is...

[EvilAnagram]

If a character is hidden, as per the stealth rules, I have no problem letting them cast without being noticed until the spell goes off. Of course, that would mean most casters would have to take two turns to accomplish this, which I'm fine with.

[Honest Tiefling]

Quite apart from apparent rules, there’s a play balance issue.

My PCs spend a LOT of time slinking around. One of the defining limits to what they can do (subtle spell notwithstanding) is that if they want to cast most things, they’ll need to break stealth, or break contact with the enemy.

Your post has made me wonder if those more inclined to allow it with minimal investment are those who run campaigns where social situations with a subtle cast of a spell just doesn't come up much. If you are doing a wilderness exploration campaign with supernatural locations and vistas, and fighting against powerful demons, yeah, not exactly the time to bust out this ability, is it?

Personally, my players are very fond of spying/assassination/general slinking about, so it would be quite a powerful ability.

[Naanomi]

If a character is hidden, as per the stealth rules, I have so problem letting them cast without being noticed until the spell goes off. Of course, that would mean most casters would have to take two turns to accomplish this, which I'm fine with.
That is fine for somatic components (for me); but do you let hidden characters talk to eachother and stay hidden?

[EvilAnagram]

That is fine for somatic components (for me); but do you let hidden characters talk to eachother and stay hidden?

I want to be clear, the act of casting the spell reveals the character no matter what. However, Counterspell requires that the caster see the target casting a spell. You can't see a hidden creature, so you can't Counterspell it.

And I'm fine with hidden characters talking in a whisper so long a little they're near each other. It's going to make it harder to stay hidden, though.

[sightlessrealit]

That is fine for somatic components (for me); but do you let hidden characters talk to eachother and stay hidden?
If they were near the radios edge for the silence spell while hidden than yes.

[Naanomi]

I want to be clear, the act of casting the spell reveals the character no matter what. However, Counterspell requires that the caster see the target casting a spell. You can't see a hidden creature, so you can't Counterspell it.

And I'm fine with hidden characters talking in a whisper so long a little they're near each other. It's going to make it harder to stay hidden, though.
Oh, yeah... I mean... the Arcane Trickster ability implies you can cast a spell while hidden to some degree; the question at hand (for most of the post anyways) is can you conceal that you ever cast a spell at all, which I say (with a few situation specific exceptions, like all things) no

[Spiritchaser]

Oh, yeah... I mean... the Arcane Trickster ability implies you can cast a spell while hidden to some degree; the question at hand (for most of the post anyways) is can you conceal that you ever cast a spell at all, which I say (with a few situation specific exceptions, like all things) no

Something I’ve always wanted to try (but never have) is MC a sorcerer with AT.

After casting a spell which your foe is at disadvantage to save, you could potentially remain hidden (a straight AT generally cannot), and with carefully selected spells, possibly continue to Cast.

You could lurk unobserved for some time and make a real mess.

Though again, I’ve never actually tried this.

[Segev]

Hm. If you start by casting mage hand or prestidigitation or the like, then, the next round, cast charm person and claim the hand or the effect you just kind-of will the ongoing prestidigitation to perform is the result of casting it, would your DMs let you fool people into believing your spell effect is the Cantrip's, and not the invisible Charm whammy you just laid on somebody?

[EvilAnagram]

Oh, yeah... I mean... the Arcane Trickster ability implies you can cast a spell while hidden to some degree; the question at hand (for most of the post anyways) is can you conceal that you ever cast a spell at all, which I say (with a few situation specific exceptions, like all things) no
I would say not in combat unless something enables you to do so. Out of combat, sure. If you take steps to conceal what you're doing, go for it, but it's going to be a roll.

[Tanarii]

If a character is hidden, as per the stealth rules, I have no problem letting them cast without being noticed until the spell goes off. Of course, that would mean most casters would have to take two turns to accomplish this, which I'm fine with.Making a loud noise automatically 'breaks' hiding.

Are you saying that V components arent loud enough noises to break hidden, only (some) spell effects? Or the noise doesnt break hiding until the end of the spell casting.

The difference is between allowing spells without flashy effects to stay hidden, and all spells giving you away but gettin advantage on the attack (if any).

The latter sounds reasonable to me. Especially given AT's Magical Ambusher. The former doesn't.

[EvilAnagram]

Making a loud noise automatically 'breaks' hiding.

Are you saying that V components arent loud enough noises to break hidden, only (some) spell effects? Or the noise doesnt break hiding until the end of the spell casting.

The difference is between allowing spells without flashy effects to stay hidden, and all spells giving you away but gettin advantage on the attack (if any).

The latter sounds reasonable to me. Especially given AT's Magical Ambusher. The former doesn't.

See my above post in which I say that I treat casting a spell as breaking the hidden condition.

[Naanomi]

Hm. If you start by casting mage hand or prestidigitation or the like, then, the next round, cast charm person and claim the hand or the effect you just kind-of will the ongoing prestidigitation to perform is the result of casting it, would your DMs let you fool people into believing your spell effect is the Cantrip's, and not the invisible Charm whammy you just laid on somebody?
I’d go with that in many settings, but highly depends... some places are so anti-magic that casting a spell in public, even without a harmful effect, is basically rolling initiative as people flee from you or charge you. Others, with more frequent casual magic use, you might get away with this pretty easily. Concealing that a spell has been cast at all is my concern, not using skills to deal with the aftermath of doing so

[Segev]

I’d go with that in many settings, but highly depends... some places are so anti-magic that casting a spell in public, even without a harmful effect, is basically rolling initiative as people flee from you or charge you. Others, with more frequent casual magic use, you might get away with this pretty easily. Concealing that a spell has been cast at all is my concern, not using skills to deal with the aftermath of doing so

Most of the situations where I can think concealing the spellcasting is crucial, it is because the consequences of others knowing you cast it - or at least something unknown - will undermine the spell’s effectiveness. What situations are you looking to apply this stealthcasting to?

[Rebonack]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be inclined to allow a player to use 'concealed casting' to blow monsters up while hiding and remain hidden (though a sorcerer with Subtle Spell would be able to pull that off, depending on spell selection). Casting a spell, like making an attack, will reveal you if the game is in combat time. You're still speaking and waving your arms around. The use-case I allow for is mostly social and cloak-and-daggery situations. The one that comes up most often would be covertly dropping Charm Person or Suggestion on someone out of combat.

I'll reiterate, if Charm Person is always obvious, then it should always be cast at disadvantage since casting it should trigger an Initiative roll.

[Naanomi]

For charm person specifically, I assume the target assumes you are a friendly acquaintance and thus isn’t worried you just cast a spell around them... it is other observers who would be suspicious

[Segev]

For charm person specifically, I assume the target assumes you are a friendly acquaintance and thus isn’t worried you just cast a spell around them... it is other observers who would be suspicious

I have almost never been in a situation where charm person would be useful and there weren't other observers around. I can't say "never," but it's close enough that it would be like picking up a spell called "ace the 8th grade math final." The one time I'm taking my 8th grade math final, it's great, but...is it really worth a spell slot?

[Naanomi]

I have almost never been in a situation where charm person would be useful and there weren't other observers around. I can't say "never," but it's close enough that it would be like picking up a spell called "ace the 8th grade math final." The one time I'm taking my 8th grade math final, it's great, but...is it really worth a spell slot?
Getting the target alone is a big part of making them effective... tricking the guard to come visit you in the cell because you are 'sick' or waiting for the employees to go to the back room before beguiling the merchant... sneaking up to the princess' bedroom after the ball... catching the lone scout in an ambush

[Segev]

Getting the target alone is a big part of making them effective... tricking the guard to come visit you in the cell because you are 'sick' or waiting for the employees to go to the back room before beguiling the merchant... sneaking up to the princess' bedroom after the ball... catching the lone scout in an ambush

A lot of those would fail, too, because of the inherently suspicious nature of separating somebody from a group and them coming back...changed.

Now, I may be off base here, but it just seems to me that, if you can secretly cast the spell (i.e. make it so the guard's buddies don't notice) while he's with the other guards, and then you just make your pitch to the group, and he happens to agree and push on your side, that seems a lot less suspicious than him going in to talk to you privately, and only agreeing with you and pushing for your side of things when he comes back.

Now, if you're out to woo a princess or have caught a lone scout, that works fine, yeah.

Though wooing that princess for more than an hour might be important, unless you can use the social system to make her like you enough that she STILL likes you after the magic wears off.

That's probably a different thread's topic, though.

[Naanomi]

Well, and charm works for all social skills (including intimidation and deception); killing a group of monsters, spare the dying one guy, charm him when he wakes up to act as a guide or just pump for information... totally valid

[Tanarii]

Charm Person and Suggestion, and for that matter Friends, are scalpels in 5e, not bludgeons. They require a bit of careful thought on how, or even if, you should use them.

If you want a social bludgeon, that's Glibness. A level 8 spell.

[Cybren]

Charm Person and Suggestion, and for that matter Friends, are scalpels in 5e, not bludgeons. They require a bit of careful thought on how, or even if, you should use them.

If you want a social bludgeon, that's Glibness. A level 8 spell.

Or Dominate Person, which is this metaphor is, iunno, a shotgun?

[Segev]

While “scalpel, not bludgeon,” is not bad advice, the scalpel had best still be useful often enough to justify the spell known or prepared slot it occupies.

[TheUser]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be inclined to allow a player to use 'concealed casting' to blow monsters up while hiding and remain hidden (though a sorcerer with Subtle Spell would be able to pull that off, depending on spell selection). Casting a spell, like making an attack, will reveal you if the game is in combat time. You're still speaking and waving your arms around. The use-case I allow for is mostly social and cloak-and-daggery situations. The one that comes up most often would be covertly dropping Charm Person or Suggestion on someone out of combat.

I'll reiterate, if Charm Person is always obvious, then it should always be cast at disadvantage since casting it should trigger an Initiative roll.

I'm trying to take myself through the same mental gymnastics you are using to retain your stance and hitting a few hurdles.

Can you perhaps clarify for me 2 things? 1) what exactly is the differentiating context that allows concealed casting in a social environment vs a combat one? I honestly feel the opposite is more likely because the din of combat would generally be louder than the din of a social setting; the effect of a crowd of people disrupting sound means there are likely that many more ears nearby to notice a vocal component. Not to say there aren't out of combat phenomenon that could drown out a vocal component (a loud band playing to a cheering crowd for instance), but steel on steel met with warcries and other people firing off spells seems a bit more easy to lose track of spells.

2) I see the potential for announcing you will cast a spell and just using charm person instead as a very likely scenario; straight up casting with no prompt might trigger combat but announcing you are intent to cast a different spell and stating "the spell failed" or "I am going to summon my familiar" and have it crawl from your robe/pocket/backpack while you actually cast charm person or whatever. I like the idea of prompting this level of creativity from my players.

[Tanarii]

While “scalpel, not bludgeon,” is not bad advice, the scalpel had best still be useful often enough to justify the spell known or prepared slot it occupies.
For sure. I mean, that's why Rituals and Scrolls are a thing. Not all spells have equal value.

OTOH judicious use of Charm Person cuts VERY well when it comes into play. It changes targets to friendly, which is a +10 to +20 bonus to your check if they were previously Indifferent or Hostile respectively (see DMG p245). Or depending on your PoV, opens up previously impossible results. And that's before you get Advantage on your check. So I for one am not particularly upset that it's somewhat limited, especially given it is a 1st level spell.

[furby076]

If only the game makers would have added more rules to the game. You know, tables showing what can be done and what the dcs are. Something akin to 3.0

Frankly, a table that says (making it up)
20 ft = dc 10 perception to detect the casting
30 ft = dc 15
40 ft = dc 20
+5 dc in noisy room
-5 dc in quiet room

Oh look, a table; bestill my heart.

This is my pet peeve with 5e...lack of rules for common situations.

[Kane0]

If only the game makers would have added more rules to the game. You know, tables showing what can be done and what the dcs are. Something akin to 3.0

Frankly, a table that says (making it up)
20 ft = dc 10 perception to detect the casting
30 ft = dc 15
40 ft = dc 20
+5 dc in noisy room
-5 dc in quiet room

Oh look, a table; bestill my heart.

This is my pet peeve with 5e...lack of rules for common situations.

That doesn't look like a rule so much as a set of examples. That said there are plenty of people that agree with you.

[Tanarii]

If only the game makers would have added more rules to the game. You know, tables showing what can be done and what the dcs are. Something akin to 3.0

Frankly, a table that says (making it up)
20 ft = dc 10 perception to detect the casting
30 ft = dc 15
40 ft = dc 20
+5 dc in noisy room
-5 dc in quiet room

Oh look, a table; bestill my heart.

This is my pet peeve with 5e...lack of rules for common situations.
Mine is Passive Perception DC 10 at 30ft, +5 per doubling of distance, disadvantage if distracted or noisy. I use it for detecting noise that's not concealed. Basically anything that's not a creature using Stealth when moving. Let's non-stealthy party members stay 30ft behind a stealthy party member, acting as a "separate group".

It's actually a bit short. I'd recommend 60ft to anyone implementing it for their games. Or just start with DC 5 at 30ft.

Personally I'm glad they game me leeway to make my own ruling, using the tools they provided.

[furby076]

That doesn't look like a rule so much as a set of examples. That said there are plenty of people that agree with you.

That is definitely a rule and not an example. An example would have been "You are sitting in a noisy bar trying to eavesdrop on the evil wizard who is sitting the opposite side of the bar. Since the target is 30 feet away, and the bar is noisy, the DC is 20"

Now, I only wish Wizards created a table of rules (examples also help in case the rule is written poorly). Those that disagree could ignore it. Im sure many AL players would like it to help prevent DMs who make crazy DCs for simple stuff

[Tanarii]

That is definitely a rule and not an example. This is why I'm glad 5e didn't publish tables of example DCs for every ability check & skill. Because then people would insist they were rules.

[Beelzebubba]

I rule pretty stringently on it, but I also know the game is meant to be flexible and home-brewable. I don't have a problem with tables that allow skill checks for stealthy casting per se.

The problem is when they don't understand the game as it is written enough realize how much that co-opts the Sorcerer's core class ability, boosts all other spellcasters, and then later complain that the Sorcerer just sucks and refuse to give it some other boost. So they just accidentally obsoleted a cool class. Or, they complain how skill characters are so useless because they don't do enough encounters per day, so spellcasters can use those skill-obsoleting spells to solve every problem.

It's a system. Change one thing, you tend to affect several others. Nothing is in a vacuum.
Spellcasting is supposed to involve high risk to merit the high reward. It's also supposed to be a precious, expendable resource, that requires careful management.

IMO:

Skill classes are the ones that can attempt a thing, sorta blow it, then bluff or charm their way out of consequences.

Spellcasters can be much more powerful and far-reaching, so the circumstances to pull off a spell should be more stringent, the risks of doing it in civilized circumstances should be higher, and it really should be the thing of last resort - because once it's used, it either works wonderfully or all hell breaks loose.

Giving spellcasters the power of spells with the mitigation of their biggest risks with skill checks is too much.

[Segev]

I do think that calling Subtle Spell a “core sorcerer ability” to the point that letting other casters have a copy of it can make the difference between sorcerer being unique and special or weak and underwhelming is essentially admitting that sorcerer is badly designed. Subtle Spell is not a power every sorcerer is even expected to have. The class is not built around it. If it is singularly so far and away the best choice that it carries the class, that suggests that the class is, in fact, lacking.

[Spiritchaser]

I do think that calling Subtle Spell a “core sorcerer ability” to the point that letting other casters have a copy of it can make the difference between sorcerer being unique and special or weak and underwhelming is essentially admitting that sorcerer is badly designed. Subtle Spell is not a power every sorcerer is even expected to have. The class is not built around it. If it is singularly so far and away the best choice that it carries the class, that suggests that the class is, in fact, lacking.

As a design goal, all metamagics should have allowed the sorcerer sorcerer to feel special. Quicken and twin depend on player spell choice, but with correct selections, generally are.

Extended and distant are also very Spell choice dependent but *generally* are not (I toyed with the idea of bundling them, but I think more and different Spell options would be a better fix)

Subtle spell depends on how the DM constructs social encounters and interprets casting in terms of stealth as much as it does on player agency. On its own, the desire to keep sorcerer build choices appropriate and appealing is just a solid argument for reading stealth a given way. Combine it with how the gameplay works and I find it very strong.

[Beelzebubba]

I do think that calling Subtle Spell a “core sorcerer ability” to the point that letting other casters have a copy of it can make the difference between sorcerer being unique and special or weak and underwhelming is essentially admitting that sorcerer is badly designed. Subtle Spell is not a power every sorcerer is even expected to have. The class is not built around it. If it is singularly so far and away the best choice that it carries the class, that suggests that the class is, in fact, lacking.

That's an exaggeration that focuses in on one detail so much it misses the point completely.

If people house-rule to ignore lighting, then the Wood Elf, Shadow Monk, and Skulker feats become sub-optimal so they're not chosen.

If people house-rule that female characters get a penalty to strength, then certain classes are no longer options for them.

In those cases, it doesn't mean Wood Elves, Skulker, Shadow Monks, etc. are badly designed. It means a house rule that adds more 'sensible' options to some characters can tip the balances in others to sub-optimal, and very few people making these kinds of home rules ever think that through - they just bitch about the 'badly designed' qualities in the things that used to be just fine.

So, no, as much as you want it to be, it's not a referendum on Sorcerers. It's bigger than that.

[TheUser]

ITT:
"Subtle casting is a very strong ability and considered a part of sorcerer identity both narratively and mechanically, giving it away as a skill check diminishes those sorcerers who choose to take it."
VS
"Sorcerers are poorly designed for having an ability I think everyone should be able to emulate. I don't care about how much it unbalances the game or favors skill specialists; I see nothing wrong with a bard or rogue being a better quiet caster than the wizard, a class entirely devoted to the mastery of the arcane arts..."

[Segev]

As a design goal, all metamagics should have allowed the sorcerer sorcerer to feel special. Quicken and twin depend on player spell choice, but with correct selections, generally are.

Extended and distant are also very Spell choice dependent but *generally* are not (I toyed with the idea of bundling them, but I think more and different Spell options would be a better fix)

Subtle spell depends on how the DM constructs social encounters and interprets casting in terms of stealth as much as it does on player agency. On its own, the desire to keep sorcerer build choices appropriate and appealing is just a solid argument for reading stealth a given way. Combine it with how the gameplay works and I find it very strong.Absolutely. The Sorcerer, in theory, should be perfectly playable without Subtle Spell at all. That doesn't mean it's wrong to hold up Subtle Spell as something that should be unique to the Sorcerer, but it does mean that trying to conflate the desire to see other spellcasters able to cast without necessarily being obvious with inevitably leading to Sorcerers feeling like an underpowered class choice if that desire is indulged is a bad choice.

It's hanging far too much importance on Subtle Spell, and it's also tacitly claiming that the Sorcerer class is poorly designed.


That's an exaggeration that focuses in on one detail so much it misses the point completely.

If people house-rule to ignore lighting, then the Wood Elf, Shadow Monk, and Skulker feats become sub-optimal so they're not chosen.

If people house-rule that female characters get a penalty to strength, then certain classes are no longer options for them.

In those cases, it doesn't mean Wood Elves, Skulker, Shadow Monks, etc. are badly designed. It means a house rule that adds more 'sensible' options to some characters can tip the balances in others to sub-optimal, and very few people making these kinds of home rules ever think that through - they just bitch about the 'badly designed' qualities in the things that used to be just fine.

So, no, as much as you want it to be, it's not a referendum on Sorcerers. It's bigger than that.I'm actually trying to point this very thing out. I was initially responding to somebody intimating (if not outright saying) that there is a bit of hypocrisy or blindness to those who wish, on one hand, to allow people other than Sorcerers-who-have-chosen-the-Subtle-Spell-metamagic the ability to conceal their casting, and on the other complain that Sorcerer is not a strong enough class.

That position makes this issue a referendum on Sorcerers. I agree: it shouldn't be. My comment is meant to highlight that making the argument, "You can't let others have Concealed Casting of any sort without making Sorcerers underpowered as a class," is a bad argument.

Now, you bring up wood elves and other races with darkvision as being underpowered if lighting is house-ruled away as an issue. Those are poor arguments for you (though the feat is a better one); Subtle Spell is not a class feature that every Sorcerer will get. If you in any way hang a "The Sorcerer is a viable and competitive class" argument on "because it has exclusive access to Subtle Spell," you are inherently arguing that any Sorcerer without Subtle Spell is underpowered, and that the class would be underpowered without that metamagic.

Since the class does not require you to select that metamagic at all, the only consistent way to interpret that is as an argument that Sorcerer is a poorly-designed class due to the fact that you can easily build a Sorcerer 20 without Subtle Spell. Since the argument indicates this would be an underpowered character compared to any other spellcaster, this is bad design.

I therefore am calling out those who attempt to over-exaggerate the importance of Subtle Spell to the Sorcerer.

It doesn't mean that exclusive access to Subtle Spell isn't important to the uniqueness of Sorcerers (though I would argue otherwise, that's not what I'm doing when I point out the flaw in this particular 'you're making Sorcerers unviable if you give others Concealed Casting rules' argument). It just means that the hyperbole is actually damaging to the case against concealed casting being available to non-Sorcerers.


ITT:
"Subtle casting is a very strong ability and considered a part of sorcerer identity both narratively and mechanically, giving it away as a skill check diminishes those sorcerers who choose to take it."
VS
"Sorcerers are poorly designed for having an ability I think everyone should be able to emulate. I don't care about how much it unbalances the game or favors skill specialists; I see nothing wrong with a bard or rogue being a better quiet caster than the wizard, a class entirely devoted to the mastery of the arcane arts..."
This, if I am interpreting it as TheUser intended, is a perfect example of how the argument I'm decrying does exactly what Beezlebubba was saying is a problem: it tries to turn concealed casting into a referendum on the Sorcerer by over-exaggerating Subtle Spell's importance to the class's viability.

Sorcerers are not ever painted in anything as being the masters of subtle casting. They happen to have one optional class feature that, if chosen, lets them drop either the verbal or somatic component. (Note that, even with Subtle Spell, you can't drop both; there is no character in 5e that can do the equivalent of 3e's Still+Silent. I suspect this is intentional.) The fact that nobody else can do it is most likely part of a larger design goal of having metamagic in general be a unique Sorcerer class feature, not to restrict any particular metamagic effect as signature to the Sorcerer.

It certainly doesn't back up a claim that "Subtle casting is...considered a part of sorcerer identity both narratively and mechanically."

Insisting overmuch that Sorcerers are rendered undesirable compared to other casters by this one metamagic being in any way diminished in its uniqueness is a (perhaps unintentional) claim that this metamagic is the only thing that makes Sorcerers competitive. That's a problem, since it's not, by itself, a core feature.

That's my sole point, here: stop trying to make this a referendum on Sorcerers. You can, of course, point out that it slightly diminishes their uniqueness; that is an important consequence. But trying to work it into a huff over the gall of evil powergamers to try to make the Sorcerer class useless compared to any other class is not just over-the-top hyperbole, but actively suggesting (if one wishes to be in any way logically consistent) that the Sorcerer is already a broken (in an underpowered sense) class.

[TheUser]

"The Sorcerer is a viable and competitive class" argument on "because it has exclusive access to Subtle Spell," you are inherently arguing that any Sorcerer without Subtle Spell is underpowered, and that the class would be underpowered without that metamagic.

I've been saying this for a long time.... seriously, if you read my guide it's been S tier since the get go.

But this is like saying a skill check to knock prone with an attack that does damage is a-ok because it's just one of the battlemaster's features that they aren't obligated to take. It's a resource and it's part of a pre-existing class kit; ergo replicating it with a skill is a nono.



Sorcerers are not ever painted in anything as being the masters of subtle casting. They happen to have one optional class feature that, if chosen, lets them drop either the verbal or somatic component. (Note that, even with Subtle Spell, you can't drop both; there is no character in 5e that can do the equivalent of 3e's Still+Silent. I suspect this is intentional.) The fact that nobody else can do it is most likely part of a larger design goal of having metamagic in general be a unique Sorcerer class feature, not to restrict any particular metamagic effect as signature to the Sorcerer.


Are you still learning english? I'm being 100% serious. This is the kind of error an ESL student would make:



Subtle Spell
When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to
cast it without any somatic or verbal components.

If a waiter offers you a Salad without any nuts or seeds that would mean that both nuts and seeds are absent from the salad, not one or the other.... It's prefaced by without any


I think you are missing the point here. If something like...casting an evocation spell without hurting your friends, were reduced to a skill check would this be any different?

Sure it's not part and parcel to the Wizard class, but it's one feature of many they can choose to take. It's not a referendum on Sorcerers it's DM's giving away class features as ability checks.

[Segev]

Are you still learning english? I'm being 100% serious. This is the kind of error an ESL student would make:Only in the sense that you never stop learning language. I sincerely hope I speak it quite fluently; it's the only language in which I am fluent. :smalleek:


If a waiter offers you a Salad without any nuts or seeds that would mean that both nuts and seeds are absent from the salad, not one or the other.... It's prefaced by the word anyGenerally - and this is unfortunate, because you're right, logically "or" means what we usually now say "and/or" to mean - colloquial use of "or" means "exclusive or." For the construction here, I do see now that you point it out how that could be read to mean "neither of them," especially since the use of "nor" has fallen out of practice. But it would definitely have been clearer to say, "with neither verbal nor somatic" if that's what was meant.

Regardless, making it eliminate both is more powerful and more useful, and I do see how it can work with the RAW now that you point it out. (I initially, upon reading it, went looking for whether I could just apply it twice, and was disappointed that I could not, precisely because I read it as eliminating either verbal or somatic, but not both.)


I think you are missing the point here. If something like...casting an evocation spell without hurting your friends, were reduced to a skill check would this be any different?

Sure it's not part and parcel to the Wizard class, but it's one feature of many they can choose to take. It's not a referendum on Sorcerers it's DM's giving away class features as ability checks.
No, I get the point and the concern.

I'm coming at it from a different perspective, though: I don't see the only function of Subtle Spell being to allow one to cast said spell without people noticing. That's a function, sure. And the fact that it can be done without risk makes it a valuable function over any skill-based chance.

But its core function, to me, is that it overcomes being paralyzed, bound, wearing armor you're not proficient with, being gagged, silenced, muted, or otherwise prevented from using either or both of verbal and somatic components. The fact that it ALSO lets you do so without anybody noticing you spellcasting is a nice perk in addition, but having others able to also hide their casting, but less reliably, doesn't make Subtle Spell a worthless choice, to me.

[Derpaligtr]

I have my own ardent opinions on concealed casting (which I would happily launch into later) but for now I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on the idea of DM's allowing players to cast "quietly" or somehow mask their spell's.

https://www.strawpoll.me/16040261

Feel free to comment with your rationale behind your vote.

Edit: my vote and why in the spoiler.



My vote is for no.

There is already rules for it and you probably shouldn't give something that takes 3 levels of Sorcerer to gain.


Now, if you was making a spell casting system from scratch, I would love to see a system that allowed for such flexibility. I would also love to see the Wizard actually have rules for the player to create their own spells. Leave the sorcerer to be the arcane spell caster that has a spell list, I guess, but the Wizard shouldn't have a set list... Just a bunch of rules on how to create spells and what level they would be based on those rules.

Well, I guess I would let an Arcane Trickster. They don't have a lot of spells and it is thematic... Maybe if we didn't have any sorcerers or full casters?

Nah, just make a casting system surrounding the skill lists and all that jazz.

[Segev]

It takes 3 levels of Wizard to get spider climb. Does this mean Strength(Athletics) shouldn't let people climb?

I still think people are overfocusing on the fact that Subtle Spell can be used to conceal casting, and then pretending that's all it's good for.

[mephnick]

It takes 3 levels of Wizard to get spider climb. Does this mean Strength(Athletics) shouldn't let people climb?

Strength (Athletics) doesn't let people walk along the roof or up a glass wall while leaving their hands free, so..that's a really bad comparison.

[TheUser]

It takes 3 levels of Wizard to get spider climb. Does this mean Strength(Athletics) shouldn't let people climb?

I still think people are overfocusing on the fact that Subtle Spell can be used to conceal casting, and then pretending that's all it's good for.


Do you think you should be able to use Strength (Athletics) to stick to a ceiling/wall that is completely smooth and featureless?

What about the skill check to increase/reduce my size by one category? I mean enlarge reduce still works on objects and when it does affect creatures it still increases or reduces their damage so it's not a complete rip off of the spell....

Can I use a stealth check to turn completely invisible or teleport from shadow to shadow? I know there are feats and racial features for hiding while only lightly obscured but I have expertise in stealth; that's gotta be worth something...

Nono wait, I got it. Can I use persuasion to give a 1 sentence command that they are compelled to follow? It can be a contested ability check to make it more fair I guess....

This is fair and balanced right?

[Segev]

Strength (Athletics) doesn't let people walk along the roof or up a glass wall while leaving their hands free, so..that's a really bad comparison.
And the proposals for concealing casting won’t let you cast while your hands are tied, you’re under water and holding your breath, or in a silence field. Subtle spell does as much more than any proposed concealed casting skill checks as Spider Climb does for climbing compared to using Athletics.

So, yes, it is a very good analogy, as your own examples help to illustrate.

[Kane0]

On a completely unrelated note, I really think Gecko Climb would have been far more descriptive.

[JoeJ]

For those who allow concealed casting with a skill roll, how would you deal with the effect of that on the larger world? Do you assume that spellcasters of any kind are extremely rare, or is there some way for merchants, athletes, judges, rulers, etc. to protect themselves from dishonest casters?

In my world, low level magic is fairly common but sorcerers, all of whom are descended from dalliances between gods and mortals, are rare. Sorcerers who have the subtle spell metamagic and are also dishonest are, of course, only a subset of all sorcerers and are therefore even rarer. Very wealthy or very powerful people can also have amulets that detect magic, but the vast majority of people are not at significant risk. That's my solution, but it depends on most casters not being able to hide the fact that a spell is being cast.

[Kane0]

For those who allow concealed casting with a skill roll, how would you deal with the effect of that on the larger world? Do you assume that spellcasters of any kind are extremely rare, or is there some way for merchants, athletes, judges, rulers, etc. to protect themselves from dishonest casters?

Somewhat rare, and the clear adventuring bias of the spell lists notwithstanding if you can conceal a Suggestion I can conceal a Zone of Truth. I also feature a smattering of magic items such as the notably popular Monocle of Magic Detection amongst the high nobility. Your average peasant never sees it coming though, unless they are particularly perceptive or the PC screws the pooch.

[CantigThimble]

For those who allow concealed casting with a skill roll, how would you deal with the effect of that on the larger world? Do you assume that spellcasters of any kind are extremely rare, or is there some way for merchants, athletes, judges, rulers, etc. to protect themselves from dishonest casters?

Well, magic is going to be screwing with those things regardless of whether casting is concealed. Enhance ability can be cast up to an hour in advance of a sporting event or trial. Invisibility allows easy screwing over of merchants and nondetection even allows people to bypass detect magic against that. On top of that Fabricate allows any wizard of 7th level to annihilate economies easily.

How does anyone deal with all that in worldbuilding? I don't think concealed casting makes that much more complicated than it already is.

[igor140]

I definitely didn't read all 8 pages of this, but here's my two cents:

Because the vast majority of spells require a verbal and/ or somatic component that also entails some kind of visible energy (fire, lightning, light, etc), spells cannot be hidden unless the caster has specifically studied strategies for that purpose.

I'm assuming some one has brought this up in the past 8 pages, but note that the wording of Subtle Spell is "without any somatic or verbal components", which directly implies that those are the components that get you "noticed"; that is the mechanism of casting while sneaking. This also provides other uses for the metamagic (e.g., being bound and gagged), but that's different.

Arcane Tricksters are different because they are specifically skilled and trained in the art of sneak-casting. Whatever justification you use to explain why clerics can't use Eldritch Blast or why monks are not allowed to trained with greatswords will suffice as a justification for why only Arcane Tricksters can innately cast spells and maintain their sneakiness; if it helps, you can throw in the justification (or even make the rule) that they can only use two schools of magic (while sneaking).

As for the other casters, I would allow sneak casting only in special circumstances. In all cases, the target would have to be completely unaware of the caster's presence and the caster is already sneaking. Off the top of my head, the only two that comes to mind would be if the caster is already invisible and sneaking (by virtue of a potion, a class feature, a previously cast spell, etc), or if the target is engaged in combat or some other focus-demanding activity.

[JoeJ]

Well, magic is going to be screwing with those things regardless of whether casting is concealed. Enhance ability can be cast up to an hour in advance of a sporting event or trial. Invisibility allows easy screwing over of merchants and nondetection even allows people to bypass detect magic against that. On top of that Fabricate allows any wizard of 7th level to annihilate economies easily.

How does anyone deal with all that in worldbuilding? I don't think concealed casting makes that much more complicated than it already is.

None of those create difficult problems, though. Sports arenas simply know not to let the public have access to the athletes before an event, and only authorized participants speak at trials. Merchants with goods worth casting invisibility to steal have doors on their shops, and nondetection only blocks divination, not ordinary senses. Fabricate is not low level, and it doesn't exempt a wizard from guild regulations regarding prices.

[CantigThimble]

None of those create difficult problems, though. Sports arenas simply know not to let the public have access to the athletes before an event, and only authorized participants speak at trials. Merchants with goods worth casting invisibility to steal have doors on their shops, and nondetection only blocks divination, not ordinary senses. Fabricate is not low level, and it doesn't exempt a wizard from guild regulations regarding prices.

So how does concealed casting change this?

[JoeJ]

So how does concealed casting change this?

For a few examples, charm person, command, suggestion, enthrall, friends, bestow curse, detect thoughts, illusions of any kind, and mage hand shenanigans all become massively easier to get away with. Or guidance while gambling, and hold person from the stands during a sporting event.

It would undoubtedly be fun to allow PCs to get away with many of these things, but not at the cost of wrecking the world.

[Spiritchaser]

Absolutely. The Sorcerer, in theory, should be perfectly playable without Subtle Spell at all. That doesn't mean it's wrong to hold up Subtle Spell as something that should be unique to the Sorcerer, but it does mean that trying to conflate the desire to see other spellcasters able to cast without necessarily being obvious with inevitably leading to Sorcerers feeling like an underpowered class choice if that desire is indulged is a bad choice.

It's hanging far too much importance on Subtle Spell, and it's also tacitly claiming that the Sorcerer class is poorly designed.
.

I’m not sure that’s necessarily the way to look at it.

I think it’s more accurate to look at metamagic as a very large part of the strength of the sorcerer. A very large portion of what they get is tied up in their metamagic.

That any given option is weaker than others, or more DM dependent than others, or more spell list restrictive than others could be a useful discussion to have, but I don’t think it’s critical to this discussion.

What is critical is that each metamagic choice is a very large part of what a sorcerer gets, far more costly than a few skills, and should, in very general terms, only be replicated by similarly specialized characters.

That doesn’t mean that another caster can’t have the option, but it’s going to have to be a speciality.

There is, for example, no reason that the trickery cleric couldn’t have had a feature that permitted subtle casting, provided other features were reduced to suit.

I could imagine a whispers bard too could have been engineered around this.

Of course, neither were. Many sorcerers aren’t either.

As I mentioned earlier, on its own, I think this is just a solid argument to limit subtle casting. On its own it would not be overwhelming.

[Segev]

I’m not sure that’s necessarily the way to look at it.

I think it’s more accurate to look at metamagic as a very large part of the strength of the sorcerer. A very large portion of what they get is tied up in their metamagic.

That any given option is weaker than others, or more DM dependent than others, or more spell list restrictive than others could be a useful discussion to have, but I don’t think it’s critical to this discussion.

What is critical is that each metamagic choice is a very large part of what a sorcerer gets, far more costly than a few skills, and should, in very general terms, only be replicated by similarly specialized characters.

That doesn’t mean that another caster can’t have the option, but it’s going to have to be a speciality.

There is, for example, no reason that the trickery cleric couldn’t have had a feature that permitted subtle casting, provided other features were reduced to suit.

I could imagine a whispers bard too could have been engineered around this.

Of course, neither were. Many sorcerers aren’t either.

As I mentioned earlier, on its own, I think this is just a solid argument to limit subtle casting. On its own it would not be overwhelming.
My point remains that Subtle Casting does more than simply conceal who's doing the casting. It not only does it perfectly (barring a poor choice of spell; the blast of flame coming from you might be a clue, for example), but it also enables you to cast under conditions other casters simply could not. Gagged, silenced, under water, tied up, wearing armor with which they're not proficient, missing limbs, paralyzed...

All of that makes Subtle Spell stand out as a powerful and useful ability even if other casters can, with a skill check or some other means, hide the fact that they're casting or have just cast a spell in some other innocuous action.

Add in that Subtle Spell is an option that not every Sorcerer need take to be a powerful and useful caster, and the "it infringes on the Sorcerer!" argument loses a lot of weight.

[Malkavia]

My point remains that Subtle Casting does more than simply conceal who's doing the casting. It not only does it perfectly (barring a poor choice of spell; the blast of flame coming from you might be a clue, for example), but it also enables you to cast under conditions other casters simply could not. Gagged, silenced, under water, tied up, wearing armor with which they're not proficient, missing limbs, paralyzed...

All of that makes Subtle Spell stand out as a powerful and useful ability even if other casters can, with a skill check or some other means, hide the fact that they're casting or have just cast a spell in some other innocuous action.

Add in that Subtle Spell is an option that not every Sorcerer need take to be a powerful and useful caster, and the "it infringes on the Sorcerer!" argument loses a lot of weight.

What else seems reasonable to you? Can I use sleight of hand and my incredible dexterity to quicken a spell with only somatic components by moving my arms and fingers faster? Quicken metamagic is still useful, right? I mean, it's guaranteed and doesn't even require a skill check! This seems akin to what you're saying with using skills to emulate subtle metamagic, though not 100% the same.

If it's not clear, I disagree with using skills to emulate powerful class features that require both a level investment and resource expendature. On top of that, spells have rules like cast time, duration, range, save DC, and components (V,S,M). Sorcerers are unique in their ability to alter these using metamagic, and I don't think it's right to start allowing others to do the same thing at near zero cost. I do agree that arcane tricksters should be able to do something akin to subtle spell given their flavor, and if I were a DM, I'd likely house rule a feat akin to the martial adept feat and give them 1 metamagic ability and 3ish sorcery points that a player could choose to invest into and still have to spend resources the way sorcerers do.

It's not that I don't empathize with wanting to be able to do this. I just made a post for character help to be able to do a nearly the same thing you and the OP want to do. I have a social manipulator who would love nothing more than to be able to cast suggestion in a room full of people without being noticed. Only, instead of trying to find ways to bend the rules to do something that I shouldn't be able to do, I was asking to see if there were any other ways to obtain subtle metamagic by RAW. Given that there aren't any, I'll make the investment and go sorcerer.

[Tanarii]

Right. A "better" argument is: it's not intended.

I don't think it's intended that you can intentionally cast quieter or make smaller S component movements to make them less noticible.*

Of course, that argument may have a huge hole in it. I'm not sure there is any proof. :smallamused: Has anyone provided a RAI comment by JC yet? Because the ability check system is provided for anything the DM judges it is needed for resolving. Which could include the character making a check (against fixed DC or opposed) to make their casting less noticeable. I don't like it, I wouldn't run it as possible, but I think the system is designed to allow such things at the DMs judgement.


------
*I'm distinguishing here from caster not being noticed because of ambient effects, as opposed to intentionally reduced by the caster. In other words, casters declaring intent and then making an ability check to actively do try to conceal it. But potential observers might need to make ability checks vs a fixed DC for the ambient effects / environment / distance to notice it.

[Segev]

What else seems reasonable to you? Can I use sleight of hand and my incredible dexterity to quicken a spell with only somatic components by moving my arms and fingers faster? Quicken metamagic is still useful, right? I mean, it's guaranteed and doesn't even require a skill check! This seems akin to what you're saying with using skills to emulate subtle metamagic, though not 100% the same.

You're still ignoring about 45% of my argument, making your counter-example invalid. Specifically, that Subtle Spell does more than make your casting go unnoticed.

As well, Subtle Spell specifically lets you cast the spell as an act of will. Nobody has suggested a skill check or anything of the sort which would allow you to do that.

And no, I would no more allow a skill check to cast a spell with a normal action casting time as a bonus action than I would allow a skill check to make an attack as a bonus action instead of a normal action.

I might, however, allow a skill check to disguise that you're the source of an attack, particularly if you're taking advantage of environmental features such as distractions and noise and positioning.

[CantigThimble]

For a few examples, charm person, command, suggestion, enthrall, friends, bestow curse, detect thoughts, illusions of any kind, and mage hand shenanigans all become massively easier to get away with. Or guidance while gambling, and hold person from the stands during a sporting event.

It would undoubtedly be fun to allow PCs to get away with many of these things, but not at the cost of wrecking the world.

Charm Person isn't any more powerful than enhance ability and much riskier to actually use. (If you can cast charm person during a trial you'd be much better off casting enhance ability on yourself up to an hour before) On top of that suggestion and charm person work on shopkeepers regardless, you just need to wait until they're alone in their shop. I don't actually see how command would be that useful socially. Hold person during a sporting event would be pretty obviously grounds for restarting the event and hunting down the cheaters. And again, enhance ability is better and easier to use than guidance, even without concealed casting.

On top of that, these are all very risky. Even if you're using the WotC rules for concealed casting (which most people agree are WAY too lenient) there's still a decent chance of failure and presumably there would be harsh, possibly draconian laws regarding using magic to cheat people.

You don't need to have pickpocket-proof coinpouches to deal with theft, locking thieves up every time you notice them also works pretty well.

Edit: In addition to that, suggestion and charm person wear off eventually. You could just have judges render judgement the day after the trial and merchants reporting people who cheated them with magic after the fact.

[JoeJ]

Charm Person isn't any more powerful than enhance ability and much riskier to actually use. (If you can cast charm person during a trial you'd be much better off casting enhance ability on yourself up to an hour before) On top of that suggestion and charm person work on shopkeepers regardless, you just need to wait until they're alone in their shop. I don't actually see how command would be that useful socially. Hold person during a sporting event would be pretty obviously grounds for restarting the event and hunting down the cheaters. And again, enhance ability is better and easier to use than guidance, even without concealed casting.

On top of that, these are all very risky. Even if you're using the WotC rules for concealed casting (which most people agree are WAY too lenient) there's still a decent chance of failure and presumably there would be harsh, possibly draconian laws regarding using magic to cheat people.

You don't need to have pickpocket-proof coinpouches to deal with theft, locking thieves up every time you notice them also works pretty well.

Edit: In addition to that, suggestion and charm person wear off eventually. You could just have judges render judgement the day after the trial and merchants reporting people who cheated them with magic after the fact.

Charm person doesn't just give you advantage, it also changes the target's attitude to friendly, which would make it good on merchants but even better on the city watch when the come to investigate. It's also a first level spell, which requires a much lower investment than a second level spell like enhance ability. Friends requires an even lower investment. Waiting until somebody is alone is a bit tricky when most merchants have apprentices and/or family members who work with them, and there's no mass production, meaning that shops aren't filled with premade merchandise you can spend half an hour browsing.

Command has at least one very powerful use (that I stole from another thread). Give a 30 second spiel for your religion, or a sob story about orphans, and then order "donate."

And for hold person, I think you're missing that the caster doesn't have to maintain it for the full period. Just making somebody hesitate for a second can throw a match, and wouldn't obviously look like they'd been subject to a spell. In a chariot race, it could easily make somebody lose control and crash.

And beyond all the small details of specific spells, the fact that magical crime is already a problem is not a good argument for making it much easier for many more people to get away with. My world is not medieval; it's based on the ancient world. There are great cities with hundreds of thousands of residents, and fully developed organized crime guilds. That's not a setting I'm comfortable adding concealed casting to.

[CantigThimble]

And beyond all the small details of specific spells, the fact that magical crime is already a problem is not a good argument for making it much easier for many more people to get away with. My world is not medieval; it's based on the ancient world. There are great cities with hundreds of thousands of residents, and fully developed organized crime guilds. That's not a setting I'm comfortable adding concealed casting to.

Just to be clear, my argument is not that magical crime should be easier to get away with, my argument is that there are circumstances where it logically makes sense that people wouldn't notice a spell being cast and there are things people can do to engineer those circumstances.

You think you would have a hard time fitting the possibility of magical crime into your setting, and fair enough, but I don't think that's the case for all settings.

Also, if your setting has highly organized guilds and organizations for everything from merchants to thieves wouldn't there be something similar for spellcasters? I'd think that would be the FIRST thing people would start trying to regulate.

[dejarnjc]

I voted No although I would allow it under certain circumstances such as:

Caster is in a noisy such a waterfall
Caster is pretending to recite some ancient poem but is instead casting (would require a performance or deception check though)
Target is stunned or incapacitated in such a way as to reduce hearing
Caster is of sufficient distance away AND there is sufficient environmental noise so as to make the caster unheard or at least unnoticed.



I imagine others have said this but my reasoning has little to with balance and more to do with the fact that I believe the vocal components of a spell require that the spell be in-canted at a certain decibel level the minimum of which being somewhat above normal speaking volume.

[JoeJ]

Just to be clear, my argument is not that magical crime should be easier to get away with, my argument is that there are circumstances where it logically makes sense that people wouldn't notice a spell being cast and there are things people can do to engineer those circumstances.

You think you would have a hard time fitting the possibility of magical crime into your setting, and fair enough, but I don't think that's the case for all settings.

Also, if your setting has highly organized guilds and organizations for everything from merchants to thieves wouldn't there be something similar for spellcasters? I'd think that would be the FIRST thing people would start trying to regulate.




I agree there are situations where casting a spell would not be noticed, but not where verbal components don't require speaking in a loud, clear voice or where somatic components don't require broad gestures (except for subtle spell metamagic).

A guild structure to regulate spell casting for hire is in place. The temples are also organized, and there's an established hierarchy of druids. But regulating everybody who's learned a cantrip or two, or even knows how to case a single first level spell, would be pretty hard to do. Those people number maybe 1-2% of the population overall, but higher in urban areas. (I got bored with low-magic worlds and decided to go the other direction.)

[CantigThimble]

I agree there are situations where casting a spell would not be noticed, but not where verbal components don't require speaking in a loud, clear voice or where somatic components don't require broad gestures (except for subtle spell metamagic).

A guild structure to regulate spell casting for hire is in place. The temples are also organized, and there's an established hierarchy of druids. But regulating everybody who's learned a cantrip or two, or even knows how to case a single first level spell, would be pretty hard to do. Those people number maybe 1-2% of the population overall, but higher in urban areas. (I got bored with low-magic worlds and decided to go the other direction.)

Fair enough, but a cantrip or two isn't going to mess much up (cheating at cards using guidance is at least as difficult as just cheating normally, and probably less effective). Friends and Charm person both guarantee that your crime will be discovered within the minute/hour, if not sooner as you always have the risk of botching the concealment. That doesn't sound like that great a deal to me, and merchants dealing with big-ticket items could easily have a policy of leaving things in escrow for an hour or two before completing the sale. (Same for judges) Command seems like a spell that would be very obviously experienced as magical compulsion to the target.

If we're treating 2nd level spells as uncommon enough that we don't need to worry about their impact, then I don't think that even the WotC 'DC 15 to have no spell components' idea (which again, I'm not in favor of) would break too much. Especially considering that most people would have a lot of trouble with a mid-dc skill check.

[Tanarii]

Charm Person isn't any more powerful than enhance ability and much riskier to actually use.If the person you cast it on starts off hostile or neutral, Charm Person a LOT more powerful for Cha checks. Because it shifts their attitude to friendly, which is +10 for neutral and +20 for hostile. As well as opening up impossible possibilities, unless your DM extended the charts.

[JoeJ]

Fair enough, but a cantrip or two isn't going to mess much up (cheating at cards using guidance is at least as difficult as just cheating normally, and probably less effective). Friends and Charm person both guarantee that your crime will be discovered within the minute/hour, if not sooner as you always have the risk of botching the concealment. That doesn't sound like that great a deal to me, and merchants dealing with big-ticket items could easily have a policy of leaving things in escrow for an hour or two before completing the sale. (Same for judges) Command seems like a spell that would be very obviously experienced as magical compulsion to the target.

If we're treating 2nd level spells as uncommon enough that we don't need to worry about their impact, then I don't think that even the WotC 'DC 15 to have no spell components' idea (which again, I'm not in favor of) would break too much. Especially considering that most people would have a lot of trouble with a mid-dc skill check.

Sure, friends and charm person wear off and the crime will be detected, but the criminal will be long gone by then. I don't know what putting things in escrow is supposed to do, so I can't comment on that.

I didn't say that 2nd level spells are nothing to worry about, just that they are less common than 1st level spells because the investment is higher. As I said earlier, the fact that magical crime is already a problem is not a reason to make it easier to pull off. Every step in that direction makes it that much harder to justify cities still being able to exist.

[Segev]

I just discovered that friends isn't in the SRD. Weird.

Anyway, I don't recall if that one requires a target, or just that you cast it and then go interact with somebody. If the latter, you can probably get away with casting it in private before interacting. But its 1 min. duration does make your interaction potential sharply limited before he's going to be mad at you...

[JoeJ]

I just discovered that friends isn't in the SRD. Weird.

Anyway, I don't recall if that one requires a target, or just that you cast it and then go interact with somebody. If the latter, you can probably get away with casting it in private before interacting. But its 1 min. duration does make your interaction potential sharply limited before he's going to be mad at you...

It's an odd one in that you cast it on yourself, but it only affects interaction with one creature of your choice. Concealed casting would make it ideal for telling the leader of a city watch patrol, "We're not the rogues you're looking for, but I think I saw them going that way. if you hurry you can probably catch them." Which IMO would be awesome and fun if used sparingly, but would get old real fast.

[Segev]

It's an odd one in that you cast it on yourself, but it only affects interaction with one creature of your choice. Concealed casting would make it ideal for telling the leader of a city watch patrol, "We're not the rogues you're looking for, but I think I saw them going that way. if you hurry you can probably catch them." Which IMO would be awesome and fun if used sparingly, but would get old real fast.

Concealed casting would make that work well for charm person, but because friends can be cast by you on yourself while you're in the next room, with the intent to use it on the guard captain as you pass by, you don't need it as badly for friends.

[JoeJ]

Concealed casting would make that work well for charm person, but because friends can be cast by you on yourself while you're in the next room, with the intent to use it on the guard captain as you pass by, you don't need it as badly for friends.

If you have the opportunity to prepare in the next room, sure. If you're trying to evade the watch out on the street, or even get past them at a public gate, it would require ingenuity and a bit of luck to pull off friends without concealed casting.

[Telok]

Here's an alternate question: When you DM, do you ever have the PCs not automatically know when anyone within line of sight or within hearing casts a spell?

If the only way to cast a spell without announcing to everyone what you're doing, is to use a sorcerer class metamagic ability, do you give that ability to non-sorcerer NPCs "because plot"? Do NPCs get to climb walls "because plot" where PCs have to roll for it? Do bandits get battle master maneuvers "because plot" where PCs have to take 3 levels of fighter?

[Jama7301]

If the only way to cast a spell without announcing to everyone what you're doing, is to use a sorcerer class metamagic ability, do you give that ability to non-sorcerer NPCs "because plot"? Do bandits get battle master maneuvers "because plot" where PCs have to take 3 levels of fighter?

Yes. NPCs don't follow PC creation rules. If the NPC is designed to be a sneaky mage, I could write a line stating they have Subtle Spell, or these bandits are trained enough to get a superiority die and a few maneuver options.