Would subtle spell prevent counterspell if there is a material component?

[holywhippet]

Subtle spell allows the caster to forgo any need for somatic and verbal actions for a spell which suggests it prevents counterspell being used since another character needs to see the spell being cast in order to use countespell. But what if the spell also has a material component cost? Would it depend on how the component is used?

[JumboWheat01]

If you have to pull out the material to use, whether from a component pouch for "cheap" materials or actually digging into your stash for consumed ones, then I can see Counterspell still being allowed to work since you are pulling out something that signifies you're casting a spell. If it's something that can be cast with an Arcane Focus instead of a component pouch, then I can see Counterspell not working, since you don't have to swing the focus around for the somatic component, just hold it, and it's rather unlikely a Sorcerer would ever drop or put their focus away.

[Particle_Man]

Maybe Sleight of Hand vs. Perception?

[sophontteks]

A arcane focus can substitute material components, and most casters are holding their focus at all times. The act of holding a arcane focus has no indication of a spell being cast, just that the person is (maybe) a spellcaster.

Material components are really mundane for the most part, and again it'd be a bit of a miracle to actually know if and when spell is being cast. It'd be akin to casting counterspell if the caster sneezes, or looks at them funny, or "That guy has an acorn. Counterspell, counterspell, counterspell!!!"

The game may be turn-based but its supposed to be played out in real time. The counterspeller has to know the instant that spell is being cast with enough confidence to disrupt the manipulations they are creating in the weave. The caster could grab the material component the instant he casts the spell, but what if he grabs the material components a couple seconds before casting? How stupid would the other caster look when he quickly reacts with a counterspell in those 1-2 seconds before anything arcane even happened? It would seem a wise caster would just have a few material components in his hand well before casting a spell.

Just like the arcane focus, many material components can easily be on your person at all times and be completely indistinguishable from normal behavior. Suggestion's material components are perfumes and waxes, things the caster is probably wearing if he has any good taste. :smalltongue:

[Damon_Tor]

Maybe Sleight of Hand vs. Perception?

I do deception vs insight for subtle spell anyway: there's at least some eye contact going on. The good news is, sorcerers are very good at deception, and the classes that come with counterspell aren't likely to be much good at insight. I didn't do it for the purposes of allowing for counterspells: mostly it was to make one of the PCs think just a smidge before he uses a subtle-cast Crown of Madness to get a guy arrested and his other shenanigans. So far he hasn't failed a single check, but the risk that he might is making him just a little more thoughtful.

[sophontteks]

Is there a need for eye contact though?

[Kornaki]

Deception seems like a reasonable skill check. I disagree on the mundaneness of mundane components; when was the last time you saw someone pull an acorn out of their pocket? It seems like there should be some risk.

[sophontteks]

Deception seems like a reasonable skill check. I disagree on the mundaneness of mundane components; when was the last time you saw someone pull an acorn out of their pocket? It seems like there should be some risk.
I'd be impressed if you would ever know what they were holding unless you were 1 foot away and they were showing it to you.

[Dalebert]

Like an earlier post said, waving around your focus staff would be a somatic component, so there’s no casting to see in most cases. "Seeing" a spell being cast is a reqt of Counterspell. Knowing a spell is being cast is irrelevant. A blind person can’t CS by RAW, even if he hears someone casting 5 ft away.

If you’re house-ruling giving npcs a chance to insight that a spell is being cast because someone squints their eyes in concentration, you should also have such itchy trigger finger npcs misfire lots of Counterspells from false alarms. Roll at the start of the encounter to see how many slots they’ve wasted that day.

The “shenanigans" referred to are the main point of subtle spells imho—sorc assassins that provide no evidence, or convincing the town their mayor is crazy with Phantasmal Force. That they can’t be CSed is icing. FWIW Crown of Thorns has super obvious effects anyway. It’s a poor choice for framing someone.

[Master O'Laughs]

I do deception vs insight for subtle spell anyway: there's at least some eye contact going on. The good news is, sorcerers are very good at deception, and the classes that come with counterspell aren't likely to be much good at insight. I didn't do it for the purposes of allowing for counterspells: mostly it was to make one of the PCs think just a smidge before he uses a subtle-cast Crown of Madness to get a guy arrested and his other shenanigans. So far he hasn't failed a single check, but the risk that he might is making him just a little more thoughtful.

Haha, you know, I was planning on making a sorcerer who used that trick, not to get someone arrested, but to make it seemed like he was possessed by some foul spirit and in the name of my (insert made up deity name here) I would compel the spirit from him.

Basically my sorcerer would worship Banjo the Clown... lol

[Damon_Tor]

Is there a need for eye contact though?

There's not even such thing as having your back turned; everyone in 5e is a beholder with eyes always looking in every direction, and you "can see" someone that's behind you. Of course "eye contact" isn't a thing. But that's also dumb. At my table, anything you do that requires you to see something (most spells do) then it stands to reason you have to look at them.

[Skyblaze]

Subtle spell only negates verbal or somatic, only one. So you have to have something that is only with verbal or somatic components to cast it ensuring no counterspell. Such as suggestion, your own counter spell, dimension door, etc. Using sublte spell on a spell that needs both verbal and somatic, you will be speaking the incantation or making hand gestures still.

[sophontteks]

It cancels both somatic and verbal.

The use of "or" in the description of subtle spell means it is verbal, somatic, and both verbal and somatic. Another word or phase is required to show exclusivity, like "either" as in "Either you can do this or do that."

[Guy Lombard-O]

I'll be honest. Even though I've played multiple caster characters with access to Counterspell, I've never actually taken or used it.

Even without my opponent being a subtle sorcerer, almost everyone uses an arcane focus of some sort or a holy symbol. So for the most part, there's virtually nothing which could realistically be seen during a casting to give me any reasonable idea of what spell the opponent was casting. Could be a cantrip, could be a Finger of Death. I suppose that's a failing on my part as a player, but I just never wanted to mess with it (plus, most of my casters are Cha, and lack the relevant Wis and Int to make skill checks [perception, arcana, religion, insight, whatever] likely to work). Without knowing what spell I might be countering, I'm too resource-aware to want to commit a 3rd level spell slot to prevent it (admittedly, I usually play in tier 1 and 2 games, and never past 12th level).

I'd think that with a subtly cast spell, the chances of having any sort of idea what spell was being cast would go from highly unlikely to actually non-existent. As for spells with a material component cost, I'd expect that a sorcerer bothering to spend the points for a subtle spell is probably just holding the (whatever) in his fist as the spell goes off and it turns to dust, sight unseen. Knowing that a spell was being cast at all would be a major victory, I'd think. That's the point of the ability.

[Skyblaze]

It cancels both somatic and verbal.

The use of "or" in the description of subtle spell means it is verbal, somatic, and both verbal and somatic. Another word or phase is required to show exclusivity, like "either" as in "Either you can do this or do that."

I've generally seen the ruling as one or the other though I could easily be wrong. I actually can't find a ruling by Crawford so, link if you find one on the ruling?

For specific grammar: another word is not required, such as a phrase of "Cancel order 1 or order 2". I can see the description of subtle spell as both ways as a phrase of "no coffee or tea" is telling no to both options but that is also denying two proposed options... basically I can see both sides.

[sophontteks]

I've generally seen the ruling as one or the other though I could easily be wrong. I actually can't find a ruling by Crawford so, link if you find one on the ruling?

For specific grammar: another word is not required, such as a phrase of "Cancel order 1 or order 2". I can see the description of subtle spell as both ways as a phrase of "no coffee or tea" is telling no to both options but that is also denying two proposed options... basically I can see both sides.

In logic, the most obnoxious class I ever took, any statement with OR is true so long as one of the statements are true. If both statements are true, the statement remains true.

The word and, however, implies that both statements must be true.

In plain english, if someone offers you coffee or tea. You can choose coffee, tea, or both. If someone offers you coffee and tea, you must have both.

We normally imply that something with or is exclusive based on context, but technically if someone says "cancel order 1 or order 2" cancelling both is within those isntructions.

But no one cares about logic I. I mean, they've changed their interpetation of how the word 'if' works 3 times in their shield master etteras.

[Skyblaze]

In logic, the most obnoxious class I ever took, any statement with OR is true so long as one of the statements are true. If both statements are true, the statement remains true.

Theres the problem...English has no logic...:smallannoyed:

[Callak_Remier]

In logic, the most obnoxious class I ever took, any statement with OR is true so long as one of the statements are true. If both statements are true, the statement remains true.

The word and, however, implies that both statements must be true.

In plain english, if someone offers you coffee or tea. You can choose coffee, tea, or both. If someone offers you coffee and tea, you must have both.

We normally imply that something with or is exclusive based on context, but technically if someone says "cancel order 1 or order 2" cancelling both is within those isntructions.

But no one cares about logic I. I mean, they've changed their interpetation of how the word 'if' works 3 times in their shield master etteras.


In This Case "or" is being used to link alternatives

You get one or the other. NOT both

The case your refering to is with Regards to Electronic Logic gates And that definition is SPECIFIC to logic gates.

[sophontteks]

In This Case "or" is being used to link alternatives

You get one or the other. NOT both

The case your refering to is with Regards to Electronic Logic gates And that definition is SPECIFIC to logic gates.
Its specific to Logic, which is what logic gates use, but not specific to logic gates. Not even close.

[Chronos]

For the record, when you use a component pouch, you're not fishing bits of saltpeter, gossamer, sand, and so on out of the pouch. You're using the pouch itself as the focus. Think of it as more like a medicine pouch, rather than as a container.

[Callak_Remier]

Its specific to Logic, which is what logic gates use, but not specific to logic gates. Not even close.

Closer than ignoring the Obvious exclusionary nature of the word.
If WOTC wanted you to be able to ignore Verbal "and" Somatic Components to a Spell, they would have Written AND.
Please dont try to pervert the Obvious interpretation in you pursuit of powergaming.

[Lord Vukodlak]

According to sage advice Yes.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/30/verbal-subtle-spell-vs-counterspell/amp/

Furthermore the answer seems to imply that subtle spell effects both verbal and somanic components.

[TheUser]

Subtle spell only negates verbal or somatic, only one. So you have to have something that is only with verbal or somatic components to cast it ensuring no counterspell. Such as suggestion, your own counter spell, dimension door, etc. Using sublte spell on a spell that needs both verbal and somatic, you will be speaking the incantation or making hand gestures still.

I'm afraid your ESL is showing.

If someone goes to a restaurant and wants to order a salad but says they are allergic to olives and capers and asks the waiter if that's a problem and they respond:

"The salad comes without any olives or capers."

This means neither are there.

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

[Skyblaze]

I'm afraid your ESL is showing.

If someone goes to a restaurant and wants to order a salad but says they are allergic to olives and capers and asks the waiter if that's a problem and they respond:

"The salad comes without any olives or capers."

This means neither are there.

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

English is my first language, thanks ****. As discussed above I could see it both ways and have seen it played as picking one or the other.

[TheUser]

English is my first language, thanks ****. As discussed above I could see it both ways and have seen it played as picking one or the other.

You should probably go look up what the word "any" means under the context of "without any"
Because you don't have to remove both given the description of the metamagic. But you are not prohibited from removing both.


If an infomercial said something along the lines of: "Removes caked in stains without any scrubbing or cleaning gloves!"

Does this mean you must now pick which of the two you must include with this cleaning product?

[Skyblaze]

And you just keep going on. My deepest apologies for not remembering the exact wording with my first post, but, again, as I stated, I can see it covering both. Please continue explaining what has already been explained.

[TheUser]

And you just keep going on. My deepest apologies for not remembering the exact wording with my first post, but, again, as I stated, I can see it covering both. Please continue explaining what has already been explained.

I mean how many examples do you need before you admit you're clearly wrong?

How about this.

Let's put the ball in your court since I've already given two examples. How about you craft a sentence using two options and the words "without any" to mean I must choose one or the other under the caveat that the two are not mutually exclusive choices.

[Skyblaze]

Its like English is vague or something. "I can see it covering both", I can see the ability covering both v/s with one use of subtle spell. I already said this before your ******* comments.

[JumboWheat01]

Might I suggest the name calling, arguing and insulting is taken elsewhere so we can return instead to the original discussion of Counterspell vs. Subtle Spell with material components?

[TheUser]

Its like English is vague or something. "I can see it covering both", I can see the ability covering both v/s with one use of subtle spell. I already said this before your ******* comments.

I'm sorry. The vague use of English had me assuming that "both" given the context was both interpretations of subtle spell up for debate, not both verbal and somatic components. And saying "English is vague" only seemed to solidify that you were on the fence about the interpretation.

Regardless I was under the impression that you were still under the impression that interpreting subtle spell to mean you must pick one or the other was still a credible interpretation of the rules. Just to be absolutely abundantly clear....It's not.

[sophontteks]

Closer than ignoring the Obvious exclusionary nature of the word.
If WOTC wanted you to be able to ignore Verbal "and" Somatic Components to a Spell, they would have Written AND.
Please dont try to pervert the Obvious interpretation in you pursuit of powergaming.
Accusatory language because I used first order logic, which was exactly designed to clear up vagueness in language.

[Dalebert]

I could understand interpreting that way if it was worded "you may remove verbal or somatic components from a spell". It says you cast without A or B. If I ask for my burger without ketchup or mustard, that means I want neither; not that they need to leave one or the other off. This is getting silly.

[sophontteks]

Back to topic. I don't see how a material component signifies spellcasting outside of a few specific outliers. If I have the component in my hand, how does the counterspeller know when I am casting the spell? I could have had it in my hand the entire time. I could have my focus in my hand the entire time. What about it gives the casting of a spell away?

[Demonslayer666]

I would say that material components alone to not indicate in any way that you are casting a spell. Gesturing and speaking are dead giveaways, holding a staff, reaching into a pouch, clutching the crystal tied around your neck, all are not.

I think this would be extremely hard to notice on a battle field. Unless the opponent was concentrating on the caster, I would say it would automatically go unnoticed.

[ThePolarBear]

I would say that material components alone to not indicate in any way that you are casting a spell. Gesturing and speaking are dead giveaways, holding a staff, reaching into a pouch, clutching the crystal tied around your neck, all are not.

I disagree, but i can't point out examples since magic, AFAIK, doesn't exist here :D

I simply think that, if holding an acorn in one hand is not a giveaway that someone is casting a spell, so isn't vocalizing in a particular way or gesturing intensely with one hand. I think that the act of spellcasting is, generally, connected to "spending" something. It is usually represented in the spell slot, but for cantrips and many other cases it is not so simple.

It is spending a part of oneself, some energy that it is part of making the extraordinary happen.

That is what is really noticeable when in conjunction with components. And unless all "preparations" are removed from the equation - if there are no components left, it is readily noticeable for everyone that can notice it - something extraordinary is happening.

Essentially, given that we do not know "how", i base my idea on "we do not know, but it must be perceivable somehow" and apply it to all perceivable parts of spellcasting, even if it might seem strange. For the "narrative" how, i simply ask for help of other players - it can end up in great fun.

[TheUser]

I disagree, but i can't point out examples since magic, AFAIK, doesn't exist here :D

I simply think that, if holding an acorn in one hand is not a giveaway that someone is casting a spell, so isn't vocalizing in a particular way or gesturing intensely with one hand. I think that the act of spellcasting is, generally, connected to "spending" something. It is usually represented in the spell slot, but for cantrips and many other cases it is not so simple.

It is spending a part of oneself, some energy that it is part of making the extraordinary happen.

That is what is really noticeable when in conjunction with components. And unless all "preparations" are removed from the equation - if there are no components left, it is readily noticeable for everyone that can notice it - something extraordinary is happening.

Essentially, given that we do not know "how", i base my idea on "we do not know, but it must be perceivable somehow" and apply it to all perceivable parts of spellcasting, even if it might seem strange. For the "narrative" how, i simply ask for help of other players - it can end up in great fun.

The DM must now tell the party whenever a caster "clutches their staff menacingly" to bait counterspells hahahaha

[Arcangel4774]

I think i would rule it that subtle would still prevent counterspell, unless the material is consumed on use. When you see them pull out the material component you arent aware when the spell is cast but just can predict that it is going to be cast.

If a dm were to rule that pulling out the item is enough it would follow that you can get people to waste counterspells by merely pulling out the spell component. If the dm held that consistent, well being a thief would suddenly be much more fun lol

[JumboWheat01]

If a dm were to rule that pulling out the item is enough it would follow that you can get people to waste counterspells by merely pulling out the spell component. If the dm held that consistent, well being a thief would suddenly be much more fun lol

*Rogue pulls out materials for a spell*
*Enemy mage tries to counterspell the rogue*
*Rogue sticks out his tongue, since nothing happened to them*
Party Wizard: Wait, isn't that MY bat guano and sulfur?!
Rogue: I just saved you losing a spell, so thank me.

[holywhippet]

The funny thing is, if you assume subtle spell = nobody knows you are casting, that means spells with a casting time longer than an action can be cast without anyone realising either. Want to open a portal inside an enemy throne room to let in your troops? Just cast teleportation circle with subtle spell and nobody will be any the wiser until it opens up.

[sophontteks]

The funny thing is, if you assume subtle spell = nobody knows you are casting, that means spells with a casting time longer than an action can be cast without anyone realising either. Want to open a portal inside an enemy throne room to let in your troops? Just cast teleportation circle with subtle spell and nobody will be any the wiser until it opens up.
Jeremy ruled that subtle spells don't break stealth either, unless they are an attack spell, or in some other way reveal your position. Speaking of which...

Teleportation circle would not work. The text of the spell has an additional rider which would be very obvious...

"As you cast the spell, you draw a 10-foot-diameter circle on the ground inscribed with sigils that link your location to a permanent teleportation circle of your choice whose sigil sequence you know and that is on the same plane of existence as you."

Jeremy also ruled that verbal and somatic components are seperate from actions the spell describes. The suggestion you make when casting suggestion is seperate from the verbal component, for example.

[Chronos]

On the other hand, there can sometimes be other ways around those secondary actions. For instance, a sorcerer/GOOlock could cast Suggestion subtly, and then tell the target telepathically what to do.

[Dalebert]

I also thought there might be a casting time limit on subtle spell but don't have my book with me.

[Azgeroth]

i would say the use of material components 'could' allow some one to counter spell, but for that happen..

the subtle caster would have to hold the components out in plain view, and the counter-speller time it correctly..

- there is no requirement to 'draw' components, only to hold them, get pockets my friend...
- if the counterspeller sees the components, and is aware of the spell they are used in, that only suggests the spell might be cast, not that it is being cast.

this gets a little more simple with components that are consumed, namely that the thing(s) your holding in plain view, suddenly disappear, in a manner consistent with casting a spell.. totally counterspellable.. unless your holding it in your pocket..

conclussion? easy, always keep your hands in your pockets.. along with your arcane focus, or expensive materials, your doing the 'where are my keys?' dance..

[Demonslayer666]

I disagree, but i can't point out examples since magic, AFAIK, doesn't exist here :D

I simply think that, if holding an acorn in one hand is not a giveaway that someone is casting a spell, so isn't vocalizing in a particular way or gesturing intensely with one hand. I think that the act of spellcasting is, generally, connected to "spending" something. It is usually represented in the spell slot, but for cantrips and many other cases it is not so simple.

...snip...

I disagree that they are not easily discernible from other sounds and gestures. Subtle spell wouldn't exist if it wasn't obvious (if not to everyone, at least other casters). I agree that there is an expenditure, but I don't think it's obvious, it's just concentration.

The logic here is very simple. Wizards are always holding their staff, wizards are not always casting spells. Therefore you cannot tell when a wizard is casting a spell when they are only holding a staff. There must be other indicators like gestures and specific sounds.

[ThePolarBear]

The logic here is very simple. Wizards are always holding their staff, wizards are not always casting spells. Therefore you cannot tell when a wizard is casting a spell when they are only holding a staff. There must be other indicators like gestures and specific sounds.

The logic is however exactly the same for "wizard is always talking, wizard is not always casting spells" and "wizard is always moving, wizard is not always casting spells". A wizard could make the exact same sounds as when casting Power Word Kill AND NOT BE CASTING, and can be making the same gestures for Counterspell AND NOT BE CASTING IT. There is no difference as to "Wizard is holding a material component, but not casting a spell". Providing components is a requisite for casting a spell, not just part of it, and you cannot "accidentally" cast a spell.

It follows that the difference is, in fact, in the casting itself, in the process that is not described and that we have no idea how it is made since it is not part of this world experience. So one cannot discount that a material component is simply being hold and there is nothing else that is going on that screams "yup, a spell is being cast".

[LadyKyrith]

Okay so if I remember right these are optional rules, but isn't this question addressed explicitly in Xanathar's Guide, page 86?

From how I read it, a character can perceive that a spell is being cast as long as the spell in question requires at least one spell component to cast. Xanathar's also explicitly says that the form of the material component doesn't matter. So long as a material component is required to cast the spell, it doesn't matter if the caster is using a spell focus, a component pouch, or the specific required material; it is still possible to perceive the act of spellcasting.

Thus, the Subtle Spell metamagic makes spells like charm person or mirror image imperceptible when cast (though mirror image produces a noticeable effect, so a creature would probably know a subtle mirror image spell was cast after the fact, since it's effects are fairly obvious). However, spells like Suggestion and Hypnotic Pattern are still perceptible even when cast using Subtle spell because, even after subtle spell is applied, these spells still require a material component to cast.

I think it's reasonable to require a perception check or something to see if the character attempting to counterspell notices the material component being used, maybe even having an opposed roll vs. the caster's deception or sleight of hand. But either way I think a character should have some chance of perceiving the casting of a spell, even if it's a subtle spell.

[sophontteks]

The logic is however exactly the same for "wizard is always talking, wizard is not always casting spells" and "wizard is always moving, wizard is not always casting spells". A wizard could make the exact same sounds as when casting Power Word Kill AND NOT BE CASTING, and can be making the same gestures for Counterspell AND NOT BE CASTING IT. There is no difference as to "Wizard is holding a material component, but not casting a spell". Providing components is a requisite for casting a spell, not just part of it, and you cannot "accidentally" cast a spell.

It follows that the difference is, in fact, in the casting itself, in the process that is not described and that we have no idea how it is made since it is not part of this world experience. So one cannot discount that a material component is simply being hold and there is nothing else that is going on that screams "yup, a spell is being cast".
Do we know that a wizard could make the exact same sounds and gestures without actually casting a spell? As far as I'm aware these gestures not only indicate that a spell is being cast, but also give away what the spell is, and as far as we can tell they play a significant part in the spellcasting process that I doubt they can fake. Someone who knows counterspell would surely distinguish talking and handwaving from spellcasting.

And you are saying that a wizard making these precise spellcasting rituals prior to casting is the same as a sorcerer standing motionless?

One has a clear and obvious visual and audiable indication. The other has none.

We already know there must be some indication, because counterspell definately doesn't work on a subtle spell without material components. So the question is how could the material component indicate a spell is being cast?

[Vorpalchicken]

I seem to remember the last time this discussion came up that many agreed that the material component need not even be handled. if there is no somatic component. As in the material component could remain in your pouch. Or at the very least you just have to be holding your focus.

I would rule that if a sorcerer player goes to the trouble of using subtle spell than it's pretty much counter-proof.

[RSP]

The logic is however exactly the same for "wizard is always talking, wizard is not always casting spells" and "wizard is always moving, wizard is not always casting spells". A wizard could make the exact same sounds as when casting Power Word Kill AND NOT BE CASTING, and can be making the same gestures for Counterspell AND NOT BE CASTING IT. There is no difference as to "Wizard is holding a material component, but not casting a spell". Providing components is a requisite for casting a spell, not just part of it, and you cannot "accidentally" cast a spell.

It follows that the difference is, in fact, in the casting itself, in the process that is not described and that we have no idea how it is made since it is not part of this world experience. So one cannot discount that a material component is simply being hold and there is nothing else that is going on that screams "yup, a spell is being cast".

If there’s a noticible “something more” than just the S or V components, why couldn’t you notice that “something more” when a spell with no M component is cast Using Subtle Spell? That is, if the something more exists with M components, why doesn’t it exist without M components?

The “noticible something more” would basically make Subtle Spell pointless in regards to Counterspell.

[holywhippet]

It just occurred to me that the only action required for the true strike cantrip is to point at your opponent. No verbal components, no material either. You could easily justify, in combat, just pointing at someone to indicate "You are next". Since this is a spell, and can be counterspelled, I would have to say that there is more to just visible actions that indicate a spell being cast. I'd say the observer can sense the magical energies being formed which subtle spell manages to suppress.

[ThePolarBear]

If there’s a noticible “something more” than just the S or V components, why couldn’t you notice that “something more” when a spell with no M component is cast Using Subtle Spell? That is, if the something more exists with M components, why doesn’t it exist without M components?

The “noticible something more” would basically make Subtle Spell pointless in regards to Counterspell.

One DM could totally rule so, should the choice be that one. There is no "how", in general, so anything is possible, really. There could be a "how" that doesn't fall under "see" just as easily as one that is noticeable via sight; one that is unbound to components or one that is strictly bount to one of them only.

I personally think that disjointing one of the components form the others "because a staff in hand is just a staff in hand" is a very poor justification and a cop out when faced with similar arguments for other components, and prefer a simple "all or nothing" approach: binding the ability to "see" that "special something" to even a single component and leaving complete un-noticeability of the casting process only in the absence of all of them.

[RSP]

One DM could totally rule so, should the choice be that one. There is no "how", in general, so anything is possible, really. There could be a "how" that doesn't fall under "see" just as easily as one that is noticeable via sight; one that is unbound to components or one that is strictly bount to one of them only.

I personally think that disjointing one of the components form the others "because a staff in hand is just a staff in hand" is a very poor justification and a cop out when faced with similar arguments for other components, and prefer a simple "all or nothing" approach: binding the ability to "see" that "special something" to even a single component and leaving complete un-noticeability of the casting process only in the absence of all of them.

It has nothing to do with rulings. There’s no grey area of how Subtle Spell works, requiring a ruling: “When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any somatic or verbal components.”

Nothing in that states it does anything else to prevent Counterspell; or removes, or otherwise alters, how spells are cast.

You could create a houserule that changes how Subtle Spell works, but in terms of RAW, it’s very straightforward what it does.

[ThePolarBear]

It has nothing to do with rulings. There’s no grey area of how Subtle Spell works, requiring a ruling: “When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any somatic or verbal components.”

Nothing in that states it does anything else to prevent Counterspell; or removes, or otherwise alters, how spells are cast.

You could create a houserule that changes how Subtle Spell works, but in terms of RAW, it’s very straightforward what it does.

Your comment makes no sense.

If you are talking about raw: nowhere there is written that a spell is visible only if there are components. Nothing, and i repeat, nothing, in raw suggests that the act of seeing someone cast or not is bound to seeing a component being used or what movements and sounds are being made while casting. Even loudness of V components is not really touched upon. So, it has everything to do with rulings, since raw is silent and as such it falls on each single DM to make judgement - and can be whatever since there is no clear indication of "how". Subtle Spell doesn't state that makes spellcasting "invisible" and such, so each solution is a possibility.

If you are talking about rai: We know that casting with a material component only is enough to make the spellcasting "visible" enough for counterspelling. So everyone that says otherwise is not really following the "intended" use - and beyond a certain point "who cares", really. We also have some guidance on the intention of loudness and so on, but not every dm has access to this informations, nor those informations are needed to run a game and run it successfully.

If you are talking about my thoughts on the subject: It seems like you didn't even read them.

[RSP]

Your comment makes no sense.

If you are talking about raw: nowhere there is written that a spell is visible only if there are components. Nothing, and i repeat, nothing, in raw suggests that the act of seeing someone cast or not is bound to seeing a component being used or what movements and sounds are being made while casting. Even loudness of V components is not really touched upon. So, it has everything to do with rulings, since raw is silent and as such it falls on each single DM to make judgement - and can be whatever since there is no clear indication of "how". Subtle Spell doesn't state that makes spellcasting "invisible" and such, so each solution is a possibility.

Well, first off, the RAW is not silent on what’s required: there is an entire chapter dedicated to it.

Specifically, the requirements to cast (outside of some exceptions):

having an appropriate spell slot - “When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell’s level or higher...”

the specified casting time - “Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.”

components - “A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it.“

The rules tell us these are what are required. If you’re arguing that “well the rules don’t say you dont also need to run around screaming while casting, so maybe you do need to do that,” then there’s no reason to continue discussing this.

It’s not a grey area - the rules specifically state the components (M, S, and/or V) are the “physical” requirements of the spell. Therefore, anything else in the casting of a spell doesn’t involve any sort of physicality.

The RAW do reference a “mental” aspect as well, “Manipulating the fabric of magic and channeling its energy into even a simple spell is physically and mentally taxing...” However, as the RAW specifically states what the physical aspect is (that is, components), anything mental isn’t going to be “seen,” baring special circumstances (perhaps using Detect Thoughts would allow you to be aware of the mental aspect, but this wouldn’t be “seeing” it).

So are you arguing that character’s can see mental-only exertion that has no physical aspect to it?

Now specific to this thread, Subtle Spell removes the need of S and/or V components. Therefore, there is no physical component to any non-M spell being cast using Subtle Spell.

We know what the physical requirements are for M spells: an object you hold or touch while casting. If it’s a focus, you just need to hold it, which, as pointed out earlier in this thread, holding a staff or rod is not an uncommon situation for arcane casters to be doing the 99.9% of the time they aren’t actively casting.

(Specific to your previous post, if there were an additional physical element to casting not cited in the RAW, Subtle Spell wouldn’t interact with it at all because all it does is what it says: removes the need for S or V components; one would need to houserule a change to Subtle Spell, such as “When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any physical component other than the material component, if the spell being cast requires a material component.” Making that change isn’t a “ruling” it’s a houserule change to the RAW.)

[Demonslayer666]

The logic is however exactly the same for "wizard is always talking, wizard is not always casting spells" and "wizard is always moving, wizard is not always casting spells". A wizard could make the exact same sounds as when casting Power Word Kill AND NOT BE CASTING, and can be making the same gestures for Counterspell AND NOT BE CASTING IT. There is no difference as to "Wizard is holding a material component, but not casting a spell". Providing components is a requisite for casting a spell, not just part of it, and you cannot "accidentally" cast a spell.

It follows that the difference is, in fact, in the casting itself, in the process that is not described and that we have no idea how it is made since it is not part of this world experience. So one cannot discount that a material component is simply being hold and there is nothing else that is going on that screams "yup, a spell is being cast".

OK, the logic is the same, but we aren't talking about bluffing a spell.

Held is held, casting or not, and that's all material components require.

If you want to add other effects to casting a spell, like say your focus glows, the smell of burned feathers, electrostatic energy making your hair stand on end, warbling of time and space distorting vision, the room darkening, colors brighten, faint popping noises - that's perfectly fine to house rule it that way.

[ThePolarBear]

Do we know that a wizard could make the exact same sounds and gestures without actually casting a spell?

First off: Sorry, i missed your reply before.
Second: Considering that you have the option to cast a spell but not the obligation to do so, i'd say "Yes" with certainty. Expecially given since it's not the gestures, the sounds, the materials or the expenditure of the a slot alone that lets you cast a spell: it's the act of someone wanting to do that that is generally the trigger. Obviously, a DM can always say otherwise.


As far as I'm aware these gestures not only indicate that a spell is being cast, but also give away what the spell is, and as far as we can tell they play a significant part in the spellcasting process that I doubt they can fake. Someone who knows counterspell would surely distinguish talking and handwaving from spellcasting.

And i agree. I think that spellcasting is "more" than the sum of the parts, and it's easily recognizeable from "non spellcasting", possibly even for the uneducated. "What" is being cast being a different beast, expecially if the analysis is made as a reaction.


And you are saying that a wizard making these precise spellcasting rituals prior to casting is the same as a sorcerer standing motionless?

One has a clear and obvious visual and audiable indication. The other has none.

I'm saying that if the sorcerer is holding a staff that is integral part of the spell, then the sorcerer is equally recognizable as being in the process of casting a spell. If the staff is not used, then he passes as a bystander in what will happen afterwards.


We already know there must be some indication, because counterspell definately doesn't work on a subtle spell without material components. So the question is how could the material component indicate a spell is being cast?

That is what i meant to say. If you remove all components, for me, you are not perceivable.

"That is what is really noticeable when in conjunction with components. And unless all "preparations" are removed from the equation - if there are no components left, it is readily noticeable for everyone that can notice it - something extraordinary is happening."

...contains a slight error, i see it only now. Let me fix a couple of things...

"That is what is really noticeable when in conjunction with components. And unless all "preparations" are removed from the equation - if there are no components left - it is readily noticeable for everyone that can notice it; something extraordinary is happening."

Makes sense?


Well, first off, the RAW is not silent on what’s required: there is an entire chapter dedicated to it.

Read above, prehaps it will clear up the problems :D

Also, i found out that there are, in fact, RAW rules for Subtle Spell and material components: Xanathar, page 85. Honestly, i did not remember those existing.

And yes, i still stand about the fact that a DM can, if they want, change whatever aspect of spellcasting (not that you ever said otherwise, as a general DM power). Obviously, the part of there not being an "how" is somehow diminished: there is no "how" still, but at least we have a RAW. We still do not know how exactly a material component is used, but its use, whatever it might be, is what distinguishes spellcasting univocally and the presence of a component is what makes the casting apparent.

I hope you see why i couldn't make head or tails of your comment. I was sure i had written something, but it was not readily comprehensible.


OK, the logic is the same, but we aren't talking about bluffing a spell [...]

Again, read above. I honestly think this is all a misunderstanding :D

[RSP]

I'm saying that if the sorcerer is holding a staff that is integral part of the spell, then the sorcerer is equally recognizable as being in the process of casting a spell. If the staff is not used, then he passes as a bystander in what will happen afterwards.
...
Also, i found out that there are, in fact, RAW rules for Subtle Spell and material components: Xanathar, page 85. Honestly, i did not remember those existing.

And yes, i still stand about the fact that a DM can, if they want, change whatever aspect of spellcasting (not that you ever said otherwise, as a general DM power). Obviously, the part of there not being an "how" is somehow diminished: there is no "how" still, but at least we have a RAW. We still do not know how exactly a material component is used, but its use, whatever it might be, is what distinguishes spellcasting univocally and the presence of a component is what makes the casting apparent.


Is this the XGtE rule you’re referring to:

“To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”

Nothing in this changes what we’ve been discussing; holding a staff is perceptible whether it’s being used as a M component or not. The fact that holding the staff is perceptible does not mean the casting of the spell is perceptible.

Certainly having someone use Subtle Spell while casting Revivify is different: one can perceive when the diamond turns to ash (or whatever happens to it).

Otherwise, nothing in XGtE changes the RAW in the PHB: “A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus...” All one must do is hold a focus for it to fulfill the M component.

So if a spell is cast using Subtle Spell, two of the three physical requirements are waived and won’t have anything that’s perceivable so far as S and V are concerned. If there’s an M, then something is perceivable, but that perceived something is not necessarily something that shows a spell is being cast.

[ThePolarBear]

The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object [...] or a spellcasting focus.

[...]

Nothing in this changes what we’ve been discussing; holding a staff is perceptible whether it’s being used as a M component or not. The fact that holding the staff is perceptible does not mean the casting of the spell is perceptible.


You are counting the form of the material component for the purpose of determining visibility. The texts says you shouldn't. So yeah, it changes things.

[RSP]

You are counting the form of the material component for the purpose of determining visibility. The texts says you shouldn't. So yeah, it changes things.

RAW, the form the M component takes doesn’t matter in terms of it being perceptible; however, it does matter in terms of whether it’s known a spell is being cast at that moment.

Again, whether you’re holding a staff or holding a 300gp diamond, both are equal in being perceptible, but one being held is more obvious than the other in terms of determining whether a spell is being cast.

We know the only thing required with the M component is it being held from the PHB. The XGtE passage doesn’t change that.

Think of it this way:

Is “the chanting of mystic words“ perceptible when casting a spell? Yes

Is “a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures” perceptible when casting a spell? Yes.

Is “[holding] a spellcasting focus” perceptible when casting a spell? Yes.

However, you can chant mystic words without casting a spell. You can make an intricate set of gestures without casting a spell. And you can hold a focus without casting a spell.

As we know the physical aspects of casting involve those components, taking away V and S only leaves holding a focus as the perceptible aspect of spellcasting; so it fulfills the requirement of Counterspell in terms of being able to see the casting, however, all that’s perceptible is that the character is holding a staff, which doesn’t give any clue as to when, or even if, the character is casting at any particular time.

In short, a caster holding a focus (or other M component) fulfills the sight requirement of Counterspell, however, it isn’t indicative to a spell being cast on its own (though, one could conclude that if a M component is grabbed in a 6-second span during combat).

[Chronos]

Quoth ThePolarBear:

If you are talking about rai: We know that casting with a material component only is enough to make the spellcasting "visible" enough for counterspelling. So everyone that says otherwise is not really following the "intended" use - and beyond a certain point "who cares", really. We also have some guidance on the intention of loudness and so on, but not every dm has access to this informations, nor those informations are needed to run a game and run it successfully.
Did you just use the argument "everyone knows my interpretation is right, so all other interpretations are wrong"? Because I've got to say, that's not a very persuasive argument.

[ThePolarBear]

RAW, the form the M component takes doesn’t matter in terms of it being perceptible; however, it does matter in terms of whether it’s known a spell is being cast at that moment.

To quote you: X is not needed - in this case knowledge. Knowledge of a spell, spellcasting, that magic exists at all is not needed, apparently, to know that "the act of spellcasting" is being performed. These rules however build up from a assumed base of lore, where "spellcasting" is generally known to be a thing.

"But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn't matter for the
purposes of perception

It is not about the ability to perceive the component itself (if there is an acorn, a staff, a diamond...), but "the casting of a spell". So, yeah, it matters. A lot. You perceive "the casting of a spell" not "what could or could not be the casting of a spell or an impromptu dance with a stick". Your knowledge doesn't factor in: it is the casting of a spell. (The above rule could also hold true if you cannot perceive the component at all, after all, if taking the rule in the void. There's no strict requirement of needing to perceive the components themselves: casting an S only spell with the hands behind a blanket would still qualify as "a spell that involes a verbal, somatic or material component". Not that one should take a rule in the void at all, ever, if there's the intent of making a good ruling.)

Obviously a DM might rule otherwise, because the world is his and all the rules are up for them to be ruled upon, changed, ignored, or adapted to better fit.

But apparently, for you, this kind of thought process is "houseruling". At this point, are you houseruling "knowledge of spells" to be a prerequisite to perceive a spell being cast? Or even you have to know that a spell is being cast to be able to perceive that a spell is being cast? Do you need to foretell all casting of spells to be able to counterspell them?


Did you just use the argument "everyone knows my interpretation is right, so all other interpretations are wrong"? Because I've got to say, that's not a very persuasive argument.

I was trying to make sense of what RSP was criticizing of my ideas. I couldn't make heads or tails of how they reached that conclusions, so i expressed three starting points that i could see they were coming from - and the reasons why i could not make head or tails.

Looking back, what i wrote was EASILY being read as the exact opposite of what i meant due to my mistakes in writing my thoughts. I was trying to understand, but starting from a completely false assumption: that we were on the same page.

You know, if i'm sure i wrote that eliminating components would make a spell unperceptible, reading that Subtle Spell suddenly would not work doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I was even thinking they quoted the wrong person, at that time.

[Dalebert]

If there's a rule that any component at all makes it visible that a spell is being cast, and it appears that there may be, you can always fluff it in a way so that it makes sense. For instance, a caster's focus staff might start glowing as he begins the subtle casting indicating to others he's casting a spell and thus allowing them to counterspell. At this point, I think it's totally reasonable for a DM to decide to rule either way in their games--that it does or does not reveal the casting all depending on how powerful they think subtle spell should be and whether it's balanced.

That said, I'm going to venture into a related question that has come up before. When you cast a spell from a magic item, the DMG says it's cast without any components, so no V, S, OR M. So spells cast from magic items, by RAW, are always subtle (with specific exceptions in some item descriptions). No, the item is not the material component of the spell. It's a magic item that itself is the source of the magic; not a focus for it. So if I decided a focus staff starts glowing in a revealing way as a spell is being cast, a magic staff casting a spell would not.

And that would affect my decision as a DM. I'm inclined to say subtle spell metamagic that costs the expenditure of sorcery points should be competitive with just casting spells from magic items in order to avoid getting CSed.

[RSP]

To quote you: X is not needed - in this case knowledge...


Here’s the XGtE rule, again:

“To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”

I think you’re reading this as “If a Spell has any of M, S or V components, then it’s perceptible.” However, that’s not what it says. It says to be able to perceive a casting there must at least one of M, S, or V; however, it’s not an all inclusive statement. Other things may need to be present. In essence, “to be perceptible, you need S, M, or V; but S, M, or V doesn’t necessarily equal a spell being perceptible.”

The rule is saying “if there aren’t any of S, M, or V, a spell isn’t perceptible.” The add-on regarding the form of the M is immaterial to this point.

If I said, “To be perceptible, fireworks require a clear sky,” that would not mean any time there’s a clear sky, you see fireworks.

This is by design, in my opinion. If the RAW said what you appear to think it says, “if any components, a spell is perceptible” than that blanket statement would mean any time anyone anywhere in the world casts a spell, RAW, everyone in the world would be able to perceive it, so long as it uses a component.

They way they worded it, it means a spell needs at least one component to be perceptible, but allows the DM to implement other factors, such as “anyone who can’t see the caster, can’t perceive the casting of the spell” (for example if the caster is behind total cover).

So, holding a staff means the casting may be perceptible, however, holding a staff doesn’t mean that casting is always perceptible.

[da_chicken]

Here’s the XGtE rule, again:

“To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”

I think you’re reading this as “If a Spell has any of M, S or V components, then it’s perceptible.” However, that’s not what it says. It says to be able to perceive a casting there must at least one of M, S, or V; however, it’s not an all inclusive statement. Other things may need to be present. In essence, “to be perceptible, you need S, M, or V; but S, M, or V doesn’t necessarily equal a spell being perceptible.”

The rule is saying “if there aren’t any of S, M, or V, a spell isn’t perceptible.”

No, any way you read the quote in XGtE is an interpretation. The quoted rule is not concrete. It's not clear if "If the need for a spell’s components has been removed" means all components or at least one. XGtE is 100% ambiguous here. And I'm completely confident that if you asked on Twitter that Crawford would 100% give an ambiguous response or literally just read the book back to you with no explanation.

Further, it's important to note that XGtE is completely optional. Whatever is in that book is not a core rule unless they explicitly state that it overrides or is intended to replace the core rules.

[Ghost Nappa]

No, any way you read the quote in XGtE is an interpretation. The quoted rule is not concrete. It's not clear if "If the need for a spell’s components has been removed" means all components or at least one. XGtE is 100% ambiguous here. And I'm completely confident that if you asked on Twitter that Crawford would 100% give an ambiguous response or literally just read the book back to you with no explanation.

Further, it's important to note that XGtE is completely optional. Whatever is in that book is not a core rule unless they explicitly state that it overrides or is intended to replace the core rules.

Spell requires no Components:
Imperceptible.

Spell requires only Verbal Components:
Only perceptible by Sound.

Spell requires only Somatic Components:
Only perceptible by Sight.

Spell requires only Material Components:
Perceptible by Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).

Spell requires Verbal and Somatic Components:
Perceptible by Sound and Sight.

Spell requires Verbal and Material Components:
Perceptible by Sound, Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).

Spell requires Somatic and Material Components:
Perceptible by Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).

Spell requires Verbal, Somatic, and Material Components:
Perceptible by Sound, Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).



Just because you remove component requirements does not explicitly mean that the other requirements have gone away. If something normally requires VSM and you remove the need for VS, you still need a focus or the Material for it, correct? Otherwise you can't cast the spell.

I don't understand why someone capable of perceiving the material component wouldn't be able to still perceive a spell was being cast. If you had a specific set-up, like the material was in your Pocket out of Line of Sight, that's one thing. But if you stand directly in my face and use Subtle Spell for something like Resurrection, I'd think it was fairly obvious that Diamonds disappeared. The casual observer may not know who cast it from a distance, but it's still obvious that the Diamonds did something cool and vanished.

The bolded categories are modified to be completely imperceptible when using Subtle Spell. The others require a bit more cunning or a buff to Subtle Spell to be completely imperceptible, but perceptible does not necessarily know you mean who did it.

tl;dr Just because you remove the obvious connection to you the caster does not mean people can't tell that magic something happened.

To directly address the OP: No. It would not in the strictest sense prevent Counterspell, but it raises the requirements from "any dingus who knows Counterspell" to "Person who is actively looking to see you do something with a material focus." You would still need to hold a wand or have bat guano, but an astute and learned mage who was paying attention to your Subtle actions could feasibly react if your reactions were too obvious.

[RSP]

No, any way you read the quote in XGtE is an interpretation. The quoted rule is not concrete. It's not clear if "If the need for a spell’s components has been removed" means all components or at least one. XGtE is 100% ambiguous here. And I'm completely confident that if you asked on Twitter that Crawford would 100% give an ambiguous response or literally just read the book back to you with no explanation.

Further, it's important to note that XGtE is completely optional. Whatever is in that book is not a core rule unless they explicitly state that it overrides or is intended to replace the core rules.

Your post isn’t a response to what I was posting on, so I’m not sure what your “no” refers to.

In response to your post, if you remove the need for the M component in a spell, but not the S component, then you have not removed “the need for a spell’s components,” plural, and not fulfilled the condition present in the rule. You would, in fact, have to remove the need of each of the spell’s components to meet the requirement.

In other words, a spell with a need of an M component (but without the need of S or V) still has a need of a component, and, hence, the conditional “if” has not been met.

[RSP]

I don't understand why someone capable of perceiving the material component wouldn't be able to still perceive a spell was being cast. If you had a specific set-up, like the material was in your Pocket out of Line of Sight, that's one thing. But if you stand directly in my face and use Subtle Spell for something like Resurrection, I'd think it was fairly obvious that Diamonds disappeared...

tl;dr Just because you remove the obvious connection to you the caster does not mean people can't tell that magic something happened.

I covered this in detail in a prior post on this thread, if your interested.

The short of it is: the RAW states M components just need to be held. Holding a staff qualifies as the M component on focus-able M spells, and for a focus-able M only spell, it is the only physical requirement of the spell. Holding a staff is a perceptible quality of casting a spell, however, it is not indicative of a spell being cast.

Essentially, “you see someone holding a staff.” Are they casting? Your guess is as good as the next character’s.

Again, if interested, a few posts up of mine goes into more detail.

[da_chicken]

Spell requires no Components:
Imperceptible.

Spell requires only Verbal Components:
Only perceptible by Sound.

Spell requires only Somatic Components:
Only perceptible by Sight.

Spell requires only Material Components:
Perceptible by Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).

Spell requires Verbal and Somatic Components:
Perceptible by Sound and Sight.

Spell requires Verbal and Material Components:
Perceptible by Sound, Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).

Spell requires Somatic and Material Components:
Perceptible by Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).

Spell requires Verbal, Somatic, and Material Components:
Perceptible by Sound, Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).



Just because you remove component requirements does not explicitly mean that the other requirements have gone away. If something normally requires VSM and you remove the need for VS, you still need a focus or the Material for it, correct? Otherwise you can't cast the spell.

I don't understand why someone capable of perceiving the material component wouldn't be able to still perceive a spell was being cast. If you had a specific set-up, like the material was in your Pocket out of Line of Sight, that's one thing. But if you stand directly in my face and use Subtle Spell for something like Resurrection, I'd think it was fairly obvious that Diamonds disappeared. The casual observer may not know who cast it from a distance, but it's still obvious that the Diamonds did something cool and vanished.

The bolded categories are modified to be completely imperceptible when using Subtle Spell. The others require a bit more cunning or a buff to Subtle Spell to be completely imperceptible, but perceptible does not necessarily know you mean who did it.

While this is probably how I would rule it, the point I'm making is that the XGtE phrasing doesn't say that clearly. If your DM is using the XGtE rules, there's more than enough wiggle room in the literal phrasing of the rules to justify a different ruling.

[Ghost Nappa]

I covered this in detail in a prior post on this thread, if your interested.

The short of it is: the RAW states M components just need to be held. Holding a staff qualifies as the M component on focus-able M spells, and for a focus-able M only spell, it is the only physical requirement of the spell. Holding a staff is a perceptible quality of casting a spell, however, it is not indicative of a spell being cast.

Essentially, “you see someone holding a staff.” Are they casting? Your guess is as good as the next character’s.

Again, if interested, a few posts up of mine goes into more detail.

We mostly seem to be in agreement, so I don't really see a point tbh. Thanks though.


While this is probably how I would rule it, the point I'm making is that the XGtE phrasing doesn't say that clearly. If your DM is using the XGtE rules, there's more than enough wiggle room in the literal phrasing of the rules to justify a different ruling.

If you want to discuss whether or not the books are clear about anything, we might as well discuss about how there isn't really a system to 5E because of how open-ended it is.

I wouldn't be so much concerned with the component aspect of Subtle Spell.

I'd honestly be more concerned with "Is the player's spell unmundane enough that NPCs are going to start suspecting something is up?"

A 20' sphere suddenly exploding seems a bit more worth questioning than a Subtle Healing Word.


Tbh, I think attempting to Counterspell a Subtle Spell that requires materials would warrant

A Readied Action
A Perception/Insight Roll to test if you can even see the thing you'd need to counterspell
An Arcana check to see if you can tell a spell is actually occurring
A Roll for Counterspelling (if appropriate)


It might be a bit overkill, but in my mind, you have to be actively hunting to stop shenanigans to react to something that isn't supposed to have a tell.

[RSP]

While this is probably how I would rule it, the point I'm making is that the XGtE phrasing doesn't say that clearly. If your DM is using the XGtE rules, there's more than enough wiggle room in the literal phrasing of the rules to justify a different ruling.

Not sure what you think is unclear about the rules, but if you’re willing to expound, we may be able to help.

[TheUser]

I see a lot of back and forth over a XGTE ruling and how to interpret its ambiguity.

Whereas it's better to try and use a different rule to bring clarity to this.

The reaction + arcana check to identify a spell.

If a caster digs through a pouch and pulls out a glowing vial of phosphorescent material they could conceivably identify an incoming hypnotic pattern.

If they hold their staff the same way that they've been doing for the past hour....no amount of arcana checking can determine the incoming spell let alone -if- any spell is incoming at all.

[RSP]

Tbh, I think attempting to Counterspell a Subtle Spell that requires materials would warrant

A Readied Action
A Perception/Insight Roll to test if you can even see the thing you'd need to counterspell
An Arcana check to see if you can tell a spell is actually occurring
A Roll for Counterspelling (if appropriate)


It might be a bit overkill, but in my mind, you have to be actively hunting to stop shenanigans to react to something that isn't supposed to have a tell.

Adding in two skill checks would defeat the power of it being a 3rd level spell. It’s kind of like adding in a Performance check to see if you get the pitch and resonance right on a V spell, or a Sleight of Hand check to see if you get the S component right, whenever those components are needed for a spell.

I’d imagine adding in the skill checks would be a slight uptick in power to the Bard, and require a 1 dip in Rogue for anyone who wants to reliably Counterspell, each due to Expertise in the respective skills.

Plus, for the most part, I think the assumption is: any caster with 3rd level spells is adept enough to recognize castings (the Arcana check); and the idea that “In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around” cover the Perception check.

If you’re playing a grittier game, it would be interesting to play with skill checks to cast (kind of an additional restraint on casters), but I wouldn’t add those requirements only to specific spells (unless you also change other aspects of those spells to balance out the additional requirement).

[RSP]

I see a lot of back and forth over a XGTE ruling and how to interpret its ambiguity.

Whereas it's better to try and use a different rule to bring clarity to this.

The reaction + arcana check to identify a spell.

If a caster digs through a pouch and pulls out a glowing vial of phosphorescent material they could conceivably identify an incoming hypnotic pattern.

If they hold their staff the same way that they've been doing for the past hour....no amount of arcana checking can determine the incoming spell let alone -if- any spell is incoming at all.

I don’t think the rule is ambiguous, but you bring up an interesting point regarding the rule to identify a casting.

However, I think this still calls for a Player to call for an identification when they’d have no reason (based on the M component alone) to call for one.

Now, if that occurs at the same instant when a character holding a staff and using it as an M component is also casting an M-only, focus-able spell, and you’re at a table using that rule, and the character makes their check; RAW, the character identifies the spell based solely on the fact that someone is holding a staff.

I don’t think they anticipated that combination, based on how the rules are written, though I’m also going off memory of the id rule as I’m away from book.

[JumboWheat01]

I see a lot of back and forth over a XGTE ruling and how to interpret its ambiguity.

Whereas it's better to try and use a different rule to bring clarity to this.

The reaction + arcana check to identify a spell.

Question though, if you allow someone a reaction to use Arcana and see if a spell is cast, aren't you also denying them their chance to Counterspell, since that too uses one's Reaction, which they only get one per turn of.

[Dalebert]

Question though, if you allow someone a reaction to use Arcana and see if a spell is cast, aren't you also denying them their chance to Counterspell, since that too uses one's Reaction, which they only get one per turn of.

Yes, and they seemed well aware of that drawback when they added that optional rule. Your best bet is having someone who can't counterspell, maybe a rogue or bard trained in arcana, to shout the spell being cast so someone else can decide whether it's worth counterspelling.

Otherwise you just have to blow your counterspell and hope it wasn't wasted on a cantrip because you don't have time to worry about trying to identify the spell and also then counterspell it. FWIW, that's been the case in many games before Xanathar's. It has always been a controversial subject whether you could identify a spell before deciding whether to counter it. Some DMs allowed a check. Others didn't. My advice to players regardless of your DM's rulings on identifying a spell--enemy NPC casters don't give a crap about their spell slot economy. It's the action economy that's going to decide whether they survive that encounter. They're going to blow through their highest slots first. They're not wasting their actions trying to waste the PC spell slots. they're trying to survive. Should you CS? The answer is pretty much always "yes", if you can.

[Chronos]

Forget about counterspelling for a moment. If you can tell that a spell is being cast just from its material component (maybe it's glowing or something, or the caster has to hold it differently, or whatever), then that already kills most of the utility of Subtle Spell for material spells, because the whole point is to be able to cast spells without anyone realizing it.

Now, maybe that's intended. Maybe Subtle Spell is only supposed to do anything for VS spells. But it still feels a lot like a nerf.

[ThePolarBear]

“To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. [...] If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”

I think you’re reading this as “If a Spell has any of M, S or V components, then it’s perceptible.” However, that’s not what it says. It says to be able to perceive a casting there must at least one of M, S, or V; however, it’s not an all inclusive statement. Other things may need to be present.

In YOUR own words


The rules tell us these are what are required. If you’re arguing that “well the rules don’t say you dont also need to run around screaming while casting, so maybe you do need to do that,” then there’s no reason to continue discussing this.

Yes, i'm saying that if M, S, or V, then perceptible. I'm not saying that M, S, or V then PERCIEVED.

In a chapter that is answering the question "when is spellcasting perceivable", assuming that it doesn't answer the question with the baseline assumption is just about as unreasonable as assuming that it is talking about Bugs Bunny. It's the exact same bull**** argument that is thrown around the "attack yes/no" argument.


If I said, “To be perceptible, fireworks require a clear sky,” that would not mean any time there’s a clear sky, you see fireworks.

The example is inappropriate to the situation. No one is stating that if someone is not spellcasting, you perceive them as spellcasting - components or not.
Furthermore, If there are fireworks, and the sky is clear, and NOTHING ELSE IS PART OF THE EQUATION, then yes, the fireworks ARE, in fact, PERCEIVABLE.
Now, if the observer is on the other side of the planet (another part of the story), then the fireworks will not be PERCEIVED by that person. But that is not what the rule is about, nor the situation at hand.


This is by design, in my opinion. If the RAW said what you appear to think it says, “if any components, a spell is perceptible” than that blanket statement would mean any time anyone anywhere in the world casts a spell, RAW, everyone in the world would be able to perceive it, so long as it uses a component.

No, it would mean that the spell is perceivable. Whether a person could see or not ALSO has to pass through other factors (for example, not being into range to be able to perceive them). Again, perceivable doesn't mean perceived. Setting a baseline on which to add (or exception based systems, like 5e is) is exactly what this rule is about. It also makes an explicit exception for material components: no matter the form, just the presence makes the act of casting perceivable.

Again: HOW is this perceivable is up into the air, and up to the DM to adjudicate.


They way they worded it, it means a spell needs at least one component to be perceptible, but allows the DM to implement other factors, such as “anyone who can’t see the caster, can’t perceive the casting of the spell” (for example if the caster is behind total cover).

Yes, i agree. Perceivable is not Perceived.


So, holding a staff means the casting may be perceptible, however, holding a staff doesn’t mean that casting is always perceptible.

No, it means exactly that: holding a staff that is part of casting makes the casting perceivable.
It doesn't make the casting perceived: that requires further examinations of all the factors at play.

It sets the default condition: Unless there's something else involved, then the baseline assumption is that if it can, it will.
Think about invisibility: strictly speaking while invisible you are always still perceivable, you can't just be perceived by the means of sight, an extraordinary situation, unless a creature can perceive invisible things. Which would also mean that you can't suffer a counterspell: you can't be perceived, even if the act itself should be perceivable.

It's a matter of confusing perspective and defaults. It's simply just that.

[RSP]

Yes, i'm saying that if M, S, or V, then perceptible. I'm not saying that M, S, or V then PERCIEVED.

Yes, i agree. Perceivable is not Perceived.

I think we’re in agreement on the perceivable is not perceived.


able[/U].
It doesn't make the casting perceived: that requires further examinations of all the factors at play.

Again, agreed: you see someone holding a staff. There isn’t anything more to the M component, per the RAW.

So yes, one can “perceive” the act of that casting but only in the sense of perceiving the M component. As it pertains to this thread: what is perceived is someone holding a staff. Nothing more.



It sets the default condition: Unless there's something else involved, then the baseline assumption is that if it can, it will.

Um, you’ve lost me here and I’m not sure what rules you’re drawing off of.

Again, the M component is perceptible: of this we’re not arguing, you can see the staff being held by the character.

You seem to assume there’s something more to the casting than holding a staff: such as “you see the character holding a staff and drawing on magical energies.” There isn’t anything in the rules backing this idea up.

[RSP]

Forget about counterspelling for a moment. If you can tell that a spell is being cast just from its material component (maybe it's glowing or something, or the caster has to hold it differently, or whatever), then that already kills most of the utility of Subtle Spell for material spells, because the whole point is to be able to cast spells without anyone realizing it.

Now, maybe that's intended. Maybe Subtle Spell is only supposed to do anything for VS spells. But it still feels a lot like a nerf.

Nothing in the rules supports an M component glowing or needing to be held a certain way. The rule is very straightforward:

“Casting some spells requires particular objectsl...
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus...”

That’s what needing an M component involves: no less, no more.

[da_chicken]

If you want to discuss whether or not the books are clear about anything, we might as well discuss about how there isn't really a system to 5E because of how open-ended it is.

Except people here are trying to use the phrasing of the rulebook to argue their point. If you're going to quote something as an authoritative source, and that source isn't concrete about what it's saying then you've got no basis for a conclusion based on that phrasing. My point is that quoting XGtE is not convincing.

And, no, it's not the same as what you're suggesting because the books are often quite concrete about what they mean. They were not here.


Not sure what you think is unclear about the rules, but if you’re willing to expound, we may be able to help.

XGTE says: "If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, [...] the casting of the spell is imperceptible."

The question to ask is: Does this mean at least one component has been removed, or does it mean all components have been removed? Looking at the phrasing as an English sentence, both interpretations are valid. You cannot read the above sentence and deductively arrive at a single conclusion.

Even the fact that the word "components" is pluralized here does not provide enough information because the general term for the components of an arbitrary spell is the plural term "spell components". That term also refers to the components of spells with a single component.

There is not enough information in the above sentence to determine what the author intends, so it's not a particularly useful quote to use when making an assertion about how the game should be played.

[RSP]

XGTE says: "If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, [...] the casting of the spell is imperceptible."

The question to ask is: Does this mean at least one component has been removed, or does it mean all components have been removed? Looking at the phrasing as an English sentence, both interpretations are valid. You cannot read the above sentence and deductively arrive at a single conclusion.

Even the fact that the word "components" is pluralized here does not provide enough information because the general term for the components of an arbitrary spell is the plural term "spell components". That term also refers to the components of spells with a single component.

There is not enough information in the above sentence to determine what the author intends, so it's not a particularly useful quote to use when making an assertion about how the game should be played.

All the info you need is there: “If the need for a spell’s components has been removed...”

If you remove some of the components needed to cast, but not all, have you removed the need for a spell’s components? The answer is very simple: no.

If a spell requires any component, then the need for a spell’s components has not been removed.

You seem deadset on that saying something else, but it doesn’t.

[ThePolarBear]

Um, you’ve lost me here and I’m not sure what rules you’re drawing off of.

Ok, i'll try to explain:


Again, the M component is perceptible

No. Or better, the rule doesn't really care about the perceivability of the material component (or any particular component, for the matter). The rule says that "the act of spellcasting" is perceivable if the spell has components that have not been removed. So, by the rule it is not important if you are wearing a jade circlet that you yourself placed on your head or if you are holding a little crystal orb inside your gloves; If the person trying to perceive you chanting a V component is inside a zone of silence and not able to hear you at all.

How you perceive, what you perceive, how loud, wide, and from how far you can perceive is all left up to interpretation.
In the words of Ghost Nappa, for example, one interpretation might be that:


Spell requires no Components:
Imperceptible.

Spell requires only Verbal Components:
Only perceptible by Sound.

Spell requires only Somatic Components:
Only perceptible by Sight.

Spell requires only Material Components:
Perceptible by Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).

Spell requires Verbal and Somatic Components:
Perceptible by Sound and Sight.

Spell requires Verbal and Material Components:
Perceptible by Sound, Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).

Spell requires Somatic and Material Components:
Perceptible by Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).

Spell requires Verbal, Somatic, and Material Components:
Perceptible by Sound, Smell, Sight, or Touch (varies).


However i feel about it, it is completely within the rules: there are none in particular.
Personally, i feel that this is TOO restrictive: i believe that it is totally possible to see someone producing a V component, for example, and as such it is possible to recognize spellcasting and counterspell due to that.
But the rule, itself, doesn't care about the V component BECAUSE it's V, but BECAUSE IT'S A COMPONENT.
I think it's reasonable to think that, since it's V, it's more likely to be associated with sound, more likely to be found out via hearing and so on... but the "act of spellcasting" is not "producing the V component".

I do not care about "the staff held in hand" to be visible; the "act of spellcasting" is what is important.


You seem to assume there’s something more to the casting than holding a staff: such as “you see the character holding a staff and drawing on magical energies.” There isn’t anything in the rules backing this idea up.

I do not just assume it, i extract the fact that "the act of spellcasting" is different from holding a staff (and many other things) from various rules and interactions between various components and sources.

First off, and possibly the simplest and less important part in and of itself, is the fact that "castiing a spell" is an action (as in, something you do) in and of itself. It is not "preparing components" or whatsoever, even when it appears in other rules: you cast spells from abilities, from items and from traits like "spellcasting", and components are not always needed - in fact we know that the "act of spellcasting" still exists, even if unperceivable, when the components are missing from the very same rule in Xanathar!!!

In the chapter about spellcasting, you are pointed out that, to cast a spell, you gnerally need things: components are, like you said, generally REQUIREMENT to cast spells. They are not "the act of casting spells", they are something that is needed TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM THE ACT AT ALL.

We know that, generally, we need to spend a slot to "seal" (if you permit the misuse of the term) the casting of the spell. Not even spending a slot IS casting a spell, but merely an (optional, albeit generally required) part of casting the spell. Many items/traits do not expend slots at all, and it still is "casting a spell".

We know that you need ranges, targets, time; we also know that targets are not binding (you can target something of the wrong type anyway), ranges are an indication of what parts can be affected and not really definition of casting (a measure of effectivness, if you want, of the spell once it's cast), and time is not fixed, but variable and vague.

We know that, in presence or absence of all of this, "casting a spell" is what happens. What we do not know, since we do not have actual experience in our world, is what "casting a spell" is: we are left to our own idea of spellcasting since... well... the game and the world is the DM's and players only. We are given baseline indications of what the intent was, mechanically, and SOME indications on what the narrative was imagined to be (you can't cast V spell when gagged, so it's reasonable to assume that V components are meant to be done via your mouth more than a musical instrument).

So, yes. Casting a spell, the "act" of casting, what the wizard does once he clears his throat, ungloves his hand and grabs his trusty pineapple staff is really up for the imagination, but it's not just any particular mechanical part that is described, and not even the sum of all of them. It's something in itself that has an undescribed component that it's just "casting". How much of it there is to it, if there even IS something, it's up to the group.

However... none of this is really really binding anyway: even in the DMG it's stated that all the rules are just "standard baseline assumptions" that could not hold true for other "official" worlds and, as such, much less for any of the DM's worlds.

[RSP]

No. Or better, the rule doesn't really care about the perceivability of the material component (or any particular component, for the matter).

The rules very much care about the perceivability of components, as they are the only things visible in spellcasting. To say the rules of what are perceptible in regards to spellcasting, doesn’t care about components is either misinformed or disengenuous:

“To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component...
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed...the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”

So...the only thing perceivable in casting are the components. If you don’t have them, imperceivable casting. The only way to perceive it: if it contains S, V, or M. .




I do not just assume it, i extract the fact that "the act of spellcasting" is different from holding a staff (and many other things) from various rules and interactions between various components and sources.

No; your assumption is wrong. Let’s look at the above: no components=imperceivable; perceivable=must have one of S, V, or M.

So extrapolate from that. The components, what the RAW calls “the physical requirements” are what are perceivable. What are the V, S, or M components? Well, the rules tell us:

V=“the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance”

S=“Spellcasting gestures” to include “forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures.”

M=“particular objects” or “hold a spellcasting focus”

That’s it. That’s the RAW on what is perceivable in spellcasting. By the rules, a spell is perceivable if it has a “particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance” or “Spellcasting gestures” or “particular objects/a spellcasting focus”.

There’s nothing more to the perceivability of a spell. If a spell only has the S component, then only “spellcasting gestures” are perceptible. Likewise, if a spell only has V components, only the “particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance” is perceivable.

You’re making up rules if you’re adding to that. Read the PHB and the section on components. It’s very well laid out in terms of what’s required.



First off, and possibly the simplest and less important part in and of itself, is the fact that "castiing a spell" is an action (as in, something you do) in and of itself. It is not "preparing components" or whatsoever

Are you comparing a metagame concept to an in-game concept and stating that as your argument? “Cast a spell” Action is a metagame term. Preparing components is an in-game thing. If you, the Player, want to take the “Cast A Spell” Action, then your character needs to be able to provide any necessary components, RAW.

Components are the perceptible aspects of a spell: “To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component...
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed...the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”



In the chapter about spellcasting, you are pointed out that, to cast a spell, you gnerally need things: components are, like you said, generally REQUIREMENT to cast spells. They are not "the act of casting spells", they are something that is needed TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM THE ACT AT ALL.

Per the RAW, yes, you need things to cast. But we’re discussing the perceptible things with casting a spell, and again: “To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component...
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed...the casting of the spell is imperceptible.” The components are the perceptible qualities of a spell “To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component.”

Let me repeat that for you with the included descriptions from the PHB: “To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve [the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance], [Spellcasting gestures] or [particular objects\hold a spellcasting focus]...
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed...the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”

So, in regards to this thread, a spell that only has M components and is focus-able, the only perceivable phenomenon is holding a focus. That’s it, RAW.

[Ghost Nappa]

Except people here are trying to use the phrasing of the rulebook to argue their point. If you're going to quote something as an authoritative source, and that source isn't concrete about what it's saying then you've got no basis for a conclusion based on that phrasing. My point is that quoting XGtE is not convincing.

And, no, it's not the same as what you're suggesting because the books are often quite concrete about what they mean. They were not here.



I was being sarcastic for the most part here.




XGTE says: "If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, [...] the casting of the spell is imperceptible."

The question to ask is: Does this mean at least one component has been removed, or does it mean all components have been removed? Looking at the phrasing as an English sentence, both interpretations are valid. You cannot read the above sentence and deductively arrive at a single conclusion.

Even the fact that the word "components" is pluralized here does not provide enough information because the general term for the components of an arbitrary spell is the plural term "spell components". That term also refers to the components of spells with a single component.

There is not enough information in the above sentence to determine what the author intends, so it's not a particularly useful quote to use when making an assertion about how the game should be played.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If you want to know how Subtle Spell is going to affect spells, you need to consider what it does to spells and situations that are not synergistic or likely to be used by players and work backwards logically.

Consider a fictional spell I'm going to make up right now.

It's called "Really Big Glowing Shield."

Really big Glowing Shield has three components:

A Verbal Component: You must praise Johnny Roger the dread Pirate to cast the spell.
A Somatic Component: You must do the Macarena for 5 minutes.
A Material Component: You must be touching a giant 500 foot tall bell made of steel, which the spell consumes in a brilliant flash of light.

After being cast, "Really Big Glowing Shield" makes a - I'm sure you guessed it - a really big glowing shield capable of protecting a large city from a dragon. I don't know, maybe it blocks 20d8 over a 10,000 square foot area. Who cares, it doesn't matter for this conversation.


Billy Joe the Sorcerer casts "Really Big Glowing Shield" using Subtle Spell because the player thinks it's funny.

Is the effect of "Really Big Glowing Shield" perceptible?
Yes. There is a giant bell that is missing and a large barrier floating above your head. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that something has happened.

Is the fact that you cast "Really Big Glowing Shield" perceptible?
No. You didn't say or make any kind of motion really. You were just standing next to this really big bell and all of a sudden it's gone and a barrier is there.

So is the casting of "Really Big Glowing Shield" perceptible?
Yes and no. Some magic definitely happened, but was it you, a deity, a demon, someone else? It's not clear. The origin of the spell is obfuscated and anyone curious would likely have to know how the spell works in the first place. There's no obvious origin but in this case there is an obvious time window for *when* the spell was cast. The bell disappears in a brilliant flash of light and then the barrier showed up. These things are plainly visible and it isn't crazy to think that something magical happened.

What does this mean?
Subtle Spell hides the origin of a spell but not it's effects. An obvious painful example like this is demonstrative of what Subtle Spell actually does. This is important for two reasons:

1) No "smart" player is going to ever use Subtle Spell for something like the ridiculous example I gave, because it is completely at odds with the reason someone is picking Subtle Spell. If you picked it, you're using it for something like Phantasmal Force, Charm Person, or Counterspell. You do not want to combine it with spells that make obvious connections to anything involving you because that undermines the purpose of what you're doing.

2) The ridiculous example lets us split up the actual metamagic effect from the circumstantial effect. Together these two things are what is creating the situational power of Subtle Spell. We are trying to hide that the fact that we are using magic. Full stop. But even if the actual casting of the spell is imperceptible - or if we disagree on whether or not it is - it does not mean that someone else can't tell we did something. It just means they aren't aware we did something the instant we do it. Consider a scenario where a bounty hunter who knows everything your Sorcerer can do is locked in a room with you. They may not know when and what you do, but when a clearly magical effect happens, are they going to blame the floor?


Subtle Spell makes it possible to create magical effects without other people being aware that you are the cause. It does not prevent people from sensing, experiencing or deducing that a spell has been cast if the actual spell is something plainly obvious.


So Subtle spell does nothing to hide the consumption of material components. What about spells that have unconsumed material components? Because I don't think we disagree for spells that are V, S, or VS. It's VSM, VM, or SM that are the points of contention.

You still need the material components or a focus to cast the spell. So if someone is let's say holding a wand, and they use Subtle Spell, can what you're doing be perceived?

Do wands do anything when a spell is cast? Do they glow or make sound? If someone tells you that they're going to cast Subtle Fireball before they do it, can you react with a Counterspell? I don't see any reason why you couldn't.

Subtle Spell doesn't prevent Counterspell - it just makes Counterspelling a lot harder.

[RSP]

Consider a fictional spell I'm going to make up right now.

It's called "Really Big Glowing Shield."

...


To build on this, the fact that the spell component of REALLY BIG GLOWING SHIELD is only M, when Subtle Spell is used, doesn’t make casting RBGS perceptible; the fact that to cast RBGS requires you to touch a giant bell is what makes it perceptible. (The M component being mostly a metagame term and not really applicable to the character)

So yeah, you can perceive the Subtle Spell casting of RBGS when the caster touches the shield and the bell disappears, but there isn’t anything more to the casting that is perceptible than the touching of the bell and the disappearance of it.

(Ghost Napa, apologies if I’m misrepresenting what you wrote)

[ThePolarBear]

The rules very much care about the perceivability of components, as they are the only things visible in spellcasting.

For everything's nice, Rsp... Read the rule you quoted twice before writing such a nonsense again:

"To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component."

Again, the thing that is perceptible is THE CASTING OF THE SPELL, and the material component is only something THAT IS INVOLVED, not necessarily PERCEIVABLE.
What you are writing, at least from the point of view as the rules as written, is fantasy!

Even if the M component was imperceivable, it would still be involved in the casting of the spell and, rulewise, make the spell perceivable!
If you do not find it palatable for you, fine. It's not a big deal, to each their own.
I do not even know if there are tweets supporting your view; It would make the intention behind the rules support you, but what is written is not what the tweet would suggest was meant.


To say the rules of what are perceptible in regards to spellcasting, doesn’t care about components is either misinformed or disengenuous:

“To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component...
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed...the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”

So...the only thing perceivable in casting are the components.

No, the only thing perceivable of the spellcasting process is the spellcasting process. Only if the components are REMOVED, not UNPERCEIVABLE, the spellcasting process is no longer perceivable.

This is what you can extrapolate from that quote. What you read is that "involve" means "is visible while doing", but that's not what "involve" means, to any extent of the word.


No; your assumption is wrong.

Again, not an assumption. It's a specific part of the text present in multiple snippets. Second, i was answering to "it seems to you there's more to spellcasting". Yes, there is. What form it takes is not given, but whatever it is it's perceivable as long as the spell involves at least one component.


Let’s look at the above: no components=imperceivable; perceivable=must have one of S, V, or M.

So extrapolate from that. The components, what the RAW calls “the physical requirements” are what are perceivable.

By this logic, the baking of the cake is just the ingredients on the table. The act of mixing them is invisible. It's a logic jump that ends in error, RSP.
Requirement =/= process. The act of spellcasting HAS requirement, but the act of spellcasting IS NOT its requirements.

And if i extrapolate from that, i can still extrapolate that For every spell that has an M, the spell is perceivable, for ANY M, EVEN UNPERCEIVED ONES.
Physical =/= seen, heard, touched, smelled...


There’s nothing more to the perceivability of a spell.

Another logic jump. You state the perceivability and physicality of requirements and end up extrapolating visibility and physicality of the process.


You’re making up rules if you’re adding to that. Read the PHB and the section on components. It’s very well laid out in terms of what’s required.

You seem to be confusing "required" with "what happens" or "how you deal with them". It is required to move your hands, speak and have a staff, however those components are what makes spellcasting possible, those are not what spellcasting necessarily IS.


Are you comparing a metagame concept to an in-game concept and stating that as your argument? “Cast a spell” Action is a metagame term.

And since i thought you might misunderstand, i tried to express that i meant "action" as something you do, not the game concept. Whoosh anyway... well i tried.


Preparing components is an in-game thing. If you, the Player, want to take the “Cast A Spell” Action, then your character needs to be able to provide any necessary components, RAW.

Yes... you are almost there...


Components are the perceptible aspects of a spell: “To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component...
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed...the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”

... and still missing. An invisible, unperceived component is still involved into casting a spell. It still qualifies for that rule. Only the complete lack of components makes spellcasting imperceivable. Now, reflect on this:

An invisible, distant, silent, weightless, completely smell-neutral, (and so on...) component IS, IN FACT, STILL A COMPONENT. Such a component can be involved into the casting of a spell: there could be a spell that uses such component as part of the casting. And note, the component is still physical: you can still hold it into one hand and feel it there.

How does it fit?
“To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component... If the need for a spell’s components has been removed...the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”
Well, the component is still involved: casting that spell still involves that material component. Rule wise, that is enough to make the act of casting the spell perceivable, no strings attached. The second part doesn't enter into play, since the component has not been removed: it's still a requirement.

How can it be possible that it's the perceivability of the components that is the determining point for the perceivability of spellcasting? It isn't possible, so either the rule is incorrect (which might very well be in relation to the intentions of the designers, but that's not the point) or your interpretation is incorrect based on the text alone.


Per the RAW, yes, you need things to cast. But we’re discussing the perceptible things with casting a spell

No, you are discussing it. I do not know why. I was discussing "Would subtle spell prevent counterspell if there is a material component?" and perceivability of SPELLS, and got sidetracked.
And still i am trying to make you understand "casting a spell" and its perceivability... so somehow still am discussing the topic, if you squint a bit :D


Let me repeat that for you with the included descriptions from the PHB: “To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve [the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance], [Spellcasting gestures] or [particular objects\hold a spellcasting focus]...
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed...the casting of the spell is imperceptible.”

It still doesn't help Rsp! It could even be "You are holding an elephant in your hands" for all it matters: the perceivability of said elephant is not brought into question, as is it's colour, weight, or loudness; the fact that it's involved in the spell is what makes the spellcasting perceivable!
And, to to be 100% clear that there's a difference between what the rule says and what i think it's reasonable: For a DM to play as you say, for me, is a completely possible thing to do. I just do not think that it's what the rule says, at all, or that "well the M component is just being there, so it's not like you can say it's casting a spell, since it's not like an S component or a V component" is a good argument for such a distinction, when a simple "deal with it, that's how it rolls here" is sufficient, if prehaps a little unsatisfying.

[RSP]

For everything's nice, Rsp...

Basically, you believe their is perceivable phenomenon, apart from the components, when casting a spell. This phenomenon, whatever it is, gives all the in-game characters the meta-game knowledge that a spell is being cast.

Is that a correct summation of your argument?

[ThePolarBear]

Basically, you believe their is perceivable phenomenon, apart from the components, when casting a spell. This phenomenon, whatever it is, gives all the in-game characters the meta-game knowledge that a spell is being cast.

Is that a correct summation of your argument?

Almost. I believe that the rule describes that the act itself of casting the spell is perceivable if there are components.
HOW it is perceivable is not described, so it might be whatever (including, but not necessarily limited to, the components and their perceivability or lack thereof or any other phenomenon). What is important is that "X is casting a spell" is the information that passes when the "perceivable" part is, in fact, "perceived".

In short, it's not that Magic Missile is visible because it's necessary for the spell to have a pyrotechnical show as part of the spellcasting process. However, whatever the spellcasting process involves, Magic Missile should, taking the example with the smallest amount of parts in it ( no walls, darkness, and so on), be perceivable, somehow, as "the casting of a spell". And that somehow is left to each and anyone's immagination, since magic doesn't exist in this world (at least, AFAIK), and we have little to no guidelines to decide what that something is <for the rules>, at the very least to my knowledge and understanding.

Personally, i like flashy magic, and view subtle magic (not the trait, just the act of casting inconspicously) as an art that is on top of what "normal" spellcasting is, that is achieved either through "power" (items, traits...) or by great cleverness in approach (not "i put my hands behind my back" style, if you understand what i mean).

[Dalebert]

Expounding a little on my earlier comments, I don't think either ruling is unreasonable:

a) If it has only a material component, somehow people still (generally) know you're casting a spell.
b) If it has only a material component, whether someone knows depends on the context.

It all depends on how powerful you want subtle spell to be. If you want to nerf it a little bit, you can say that material components start to glow in a distinctive way that indicates spell casting. I tend to rule in favor of it making spells subtle even with material components involved but I can imagine some exceptions. For instance, Chromatic Orb has a 50gp diamond as a material component. I imagine the fluff of that being that you hold the diamond and the orb forms inside of it and shoots out. I would rule that's not subtle and could be CSed.

On the other hand, say you're casting a spell that's not necessarily automatically visible and it has non-costly material components, and thus the focus staff that's always in your hand meets the material reqts. Minor Illusion is an example (S and M). Normally you'd have to wave your focus around in some distinctive way that could be noticed but say you cast it with Subtle Spell. In that case I'd say no way. It's truly subtle. You just (continue to) hold your staff and think for a moment or two and an illusion appears nearby.

[sophontteks]

I was being sarcastic for the most part here.



We'll have to agree to disagree. If you want to know how Subtle Spell is going to affect spells, you need to consider what it does to spells and situations that are not synergistic or likely to be used by players and work backwards logically.

Consider a fictional spell I'm going to make up right now.

It's called "Really Big Glowing Shield."

Really big Glowing Shield has three components:

A Verbal Component: You must praise Johnny Roger the dread Pirate to cast the spell.
A Somatic Component: You must do the Macarena for 5 minutes.
A Material Component: You must be touching a giant 500 foot tall bell made of steel, which the spell consumes in a brilliant flash of light.

After being cast, "Really Big Glowing Shield" makes a - I'm sure you guessed it - a really big glowing shield capable of protecting a large city from a dragon. I don't know, maybe it blocks 20d8 over a 10,000 square foot area. Who cares, it doesn't matter for this conversation.


Billy Joe the Sorcerer casts "Really Big Glowing Shield" using Subtle Spell because the player thinks it's funny.

Is the effect of "Really Big Glowing Shield" perceptible?
Yes. There is a giant bell that is missing and a large barrier floating above your head. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that something has happened.

Is the fact that you cast "Really Big Glowing Shield" perceptible?
No. You didn't say or make any kind of motion really. You were just standing next to this really big bell and all of a sudden it's gone and a barrier is there.

So is the casting of "Really Big Glowing Shield" perceptible?
Yes and no. Some magic definitely happened, but was it you, a deity, a demon, someone else? It's not clear. The origin of the spell is obfuscated and anyone curious would likely have to know how the spell works in the first place. There's no obvious origin but in this case there is an obvious time window for *when* the spell was cast. The bell disappears in a brilliant flash of light and then the barrier showed up. These things are plainly visible and it isn't crazy to think that something magical happened.

What does this mean?
Subtle Spell hides the origin of a spell but not it's effects. An obvious painful example like this is demonstrative of what Subtle Spell actually does. This is important for two reasons:

1) No "smart" player is going to ever use Subtle Spell for something like the ridiculous example I gave, because it is completely at odds with the reason someone is picking Subtle Spell. If you picked it, you're using it for something like Phantasmal Force, Charm Person, or Counterspell. You do not want to combine it with spells that make obvious connections to anything involving you because that undermines the purpose of what you're doing.

2) The ridiculous example lets us split up the actual metamagic effect from the circumstantial effect. Together these two things are what is creating the situational power of Subtle Spell. We are trying to hide that the fact that we are using magic. Full stop. But even if the actual casting of the spell is imperceptible - or if we disagree on whether or not it is - it does not mean that someone else can't tell we did something. It just means they aren't aware we did something the instant we do it. Consider a scenario where a bounty hunter who knows everything your Sorcerer can do is locked in a room with you. They may not know when and what you do, but when a clearly magical effect happens, are they going to blame the floor?


Subtle Spell makes it possible to create magical effects without other people being aware that you are the cause. It does not prevent people from sensing, experiencing or deducing that a spell has been cast if the actual spell is something plainly obvious.


So Subtle spell does nothing to hide the consumption of material components. What about spells that have unconsumed material components? Because I don't think we disagree for spells that are V, S, or VS. It's VSM, VM, or SM that are the points of contention.

You still need the material components or a focus to cast the spell. So if someone is let's say holding a wand, and they use Subtle Spell, can what you're doing be perceived?

Do wands do anything when a spell is cast? Do they glow or make sound? If someone tells you that they're going to cast Subtle Fireball before they do it, can you react with a Counterspell? I don't see any reason why you couldn't.

Subtle Spell doesn't prevent Counterspell - it just makes Counterspelling a lot harder.

This was a wonderful read. Great explanation. How can you counterspell what you don't notice. I couldn't articulate this nearly as well.

Its also where this discussion has hit its end. No one can explain how a material component actually gives away that a subtle spell is being cast, and if we aren't talking about counterspell, it doesn't. Its a subtle spell. Ruling that somehow a countspeller "just knows" that a subtle spell is being cast is purely arbitrary.

[RSP]

Almost. I believe that the rule describes that the act itself of casting the spell is perceivable if there are components.
HOW it is perceivable is not described, so it might be whatever (including, but not necessarily limited to, the components and their perceivability or lack thereof or any other phenomenon). What is important is that "X is casting a spell" is the information that passes when the "perceivable" part is, in fact, "perceived".

In short, it's not that Magic Missile is visible because it's necessary for the spell to have a pyrotechnical show as part of the spellcasting process. However, whatever the spellcasting process involves, Magic Missile should, taking the example with the smallest amount of parts in it ( no walls, darkness, and so on), be perceivable, somehow, as "the casting of a spell". And that somehow is left to each and anyone's immagination, since magic doesn't exist in this world (at least, AFAIK), and we have little to no guidelines to decide what that something is <for the rules>, at the very least to my knowledge and understanding.

Personally, i like flashy magic, and view subtle magic (not the trait, just the act of casting inconspicously) as an art that is on top of what "normal" spellcasting is, that is achieved either through "power" (items, traits...) or by great cleverness in approach (not "i put my hands behind my back" style, if you understand what i mean).

So, just to clarify: the wording is perceptible, which includes non-visual cues. So a blinded, deaf character would still be able to know a spell is being cast.

Likewise, a common deer (Int 2) who was in the presence of the caster would automatically know “X is casting a spell” even though the entire concept of spells is non-existent to them?

[ThePolarBear]

If you want to know how Subtle Spell is going to affect spells

You ask your DM. That is the only answer that's actually really useful. On the second hand, you read what the rules for casting spells are. Only then you can form judgement. Then, you can try to form an idea on how YOU think spells and Subtle should work.


you need to consider what it does to spells and situations that are not synergistic or likely to be used by players and work backwards logically.

You strictly cannot do this. There's nothing really logical about casting spells in itself, so you can't really hope to find "the" intended solution from logic alone.


Is the effect of "Really Big Glowing Shield" perceptible?
Yes. There is a giant bell that is missing and a large barrier floating above your head. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that something has happened.

You answer a question, but the disappearance of the bell is not the effect of the spell. You know a spell has been cast because a really big glowing shield appeared - the actual effect of the spell. How does it solve if "the casting of" is perceptible at all is not even touched upon. You do not provide "how this spell is cast", you make a "mistake" from inception: you give the somatic component a duration, assuming that that is "the movement of the casting of the spell". Which is not what components are written to be.


Is the fact that you cast "Really Big Glowing Shield" perceptible?
No. You didn't say or make any kind of motion really.

And so what? Based on what are you giving this answer? "Because there was no Somatic or Verbal components" is not "there is no kind of motion". Providing components is NOT casting a spell, it's a requisite to cast a spell. There is anything about this that is more than just your decision?


So is the casting of "Really Big Glowing Shield" perceptible? Yes and no. Some magic definitely happened, but was it you, a deity, a demon, someone else? It's not clear.

How can you "so" this? How can you derive this? At most, you can ask if someone was perceptible doing something IF you perceived something was made, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You are just, again, argumenting for "who did this", not "is this being done in a way that is noticeable or discernible?"


The origin of the spell is obfuscated

No it isn't? I mean, you never stated it as such, you only said that "Subtle spell" was being used, and it doesn't cause obfuscation of "who is casting a spell", simply removes the "V and S" components. You are starting from a position and try to argument from it using that position as a proof. It's cyclical.


and anyone curious would likely have to know how the spell works in the first place

Again, you are putting what you are trying to prove as proof for it.


There's no obvious origin

Again, this still requires proof.


What does this mean?

It means nothing, other that you are sure things should work your way because that's how things work. I'm sorry, it is a reasonable thing to do, and if it works for you more power to you. But you demonstrated nothing, logically. The conclusion that you draw are unsupported.

You have not proven that casting a spell and the effects of a spell or that the components are one and the same. You pretended that those things ARE the same, and found out that under those assumptions you can construct a narrative that fits the bill.


No "smart" player is going to ever use Subtle Spell for something like the ridiculous example I gave, because it is completely at odds with the reason someone is picking Subtle Spell.

Casting a spell with "Subtle Spell" makes so that you do not need to provide V or S components. That's all it does. It allows you to bypass restriction that are put on spellcasting and, rulewise, allow for imperceptible spellcasting when conditions are met. Also, it gives you the ability to ask your DM for a different narrative, should one be warranted. What "Subtle spell" isn't is "i can cast spells unperceiven, always" or "the effects of the spell are never noticeable". If the intention is "having fun", then it is not at odds.


You do not want to combine it with spells that make obvious connections to anything involving you because that undermines the purpose of what you're doing.

You stated the Sorcerer was doing it "just for fun". I do not see how this is undermining that goal.


2) The ridiculous example lets us split up the actual metamagic effect from the circumstantial effect.

This is not what the OP is asking for, however. To be able to Counterspell, the spell is already in the act of becoming, but still has not been completed. Also, you didn't really accomplish that, at least from the angle you were trying to approach.


Together these two things are what is creating the situational power of Subtle Spell. We are trying to hide that the fact that we are using magic

That's not what you stated was the actual goal. And if the goal was "conceal magic", then it's not what "Subtle Spell" does. It CAN do that, but it's not what it's written to do.


Its also where this discussion has hit its end. No one can explain how a material component actually gives away that a subtle spell is being cast, and if we aren't talking about counterspell, it doesn't. Its a subtle spell. Ruling that somehow a countspeller "just knows" that a subtle spell is being cast is purely arbitrary.

As it's arbitrary the whole "spellcasting thing". No one can explain either way because it's made up entirely and information has not been provided, and when it is provided it gets ignored in discussions and tossed aside.
Just because an argument "is arbitrary" is not a good indication that it is a bad argument in this case: the arbitrary thing also applies to the "read" you just praised.


So, just to clarify: the wording is perceptible, which includes non-visual cues. So a blinded, deaf character would still be able to know a spell is being cast.

Likewise, a common deer (Int 2) who was in the presence of the caster would automatically know “X is casting a spell” even though the entire concept of spells is non-existent to them?

To a deer it doesn't matter: it matters to the player that is controlling the deer, so that he can make informed decisions on how to approach the problem in a way that suits the creature that they are playing as. If the deer was one from "our" world, it might not even know what is going to come off afterwards. If it's a deer from an high magic world that is used to spellcasting because it's used as a living target for magic practice at an accademy it might very well be equipped with an item that allows it to counterspell spells and the aquired knowledge from specific training. A normal deer from the very same world might have first hand spell experience to know to just flee in presence of such an occurrence anyway.

Again, it's baseline defaults. You know them to make a decision based on circumstances. Taking rules out of context never ends with a good understanding on how to use them to make a game better.

[RSP]

To a deer it doesn't matter: it matters to the player that is controlling the deer, so that he can make informed decisions on how to approach the problem in a way that suits the creature that they are playing as.

Ah. So, to you, it’s not a question of the spellcasting being perceptible to the characters, it’s a question of it being perceptible to the players? So you think the RAW is telling what the actual, real life people can or cannot notice?

[ThePolarBear]

Ah. So, to you, it’s not a question of the spellcasting being perceptible to the characters, it’s a question of it being perceptible to the players? So you think the RAW is telling what the actual, real life people can or cannot notice?

Rsp, do you really need me to answer this question?

[RSP]

Rsp, do you really need me to answer this question?

Do you really believe the rules of spellcasting and what is perceptible in a game where the entire point is to roleplay characters, don’t care what is perceptible to those characters, but only the Players?

That is what you said:



To a deer it doesn't matter: it matters to the player that is controlling the deer, so that he can make informed decisions on how to approach the problem in a way that suits the creature that they are playing as.

But again, to restate the question that brought this up: does a spellcaster being perceptible mean that every creature; regardless of intelligence, or knowledge of, or experiences in such matters; innately knows of magic and what spellcasting is?

[ThePolarBear]

Do you really believe the rules of spellcasting and what is perceptible in a game where the entire point is to roleplay characters, don’t care what is perceptible to those characters, but only the Players?

Where do you even read that? How do you even reach that conclusion? Rsp, did you even bother to try to understand?

You:
"Likewise, a common deer (Int 2) who was in the presence of the caster would automatically know “X is casting a spell” even though the entire concept of spells is non-existent to them?"

In short, does a deer know?

Answer:
"To a deer it doesn't matter"

To a deer, IT DOESN'T MATTER to receive the information! The deer, the fictional character, doesn't care! Who cares is the player. To make an informed decision, the player needs to have the information. It's up to the player to play the character, to its strenght and weaknesses, and to be able to play at all there needs to be clear informations about what the hell is happening. It can make for a very boring and dull experience, where the player only has to guess, if the information is constantly withold. The player is not there to experience what is happening, nor it's in the head of the one imagining the scene and describing it. The problem of misunderstanding is already present for all things that are readily present in our common, normal life. It gets amplified exponentially for the things that each and everyone of us cannot experience in a shared fashion because those things only exist in our mind. It is not important to weight if the deer can understand what is happening or not. What's important is if the player does, so that the character can act in a correct way. That's why (imho) the rule doesn't enter into specific territory: it leaves the specific to each DM and each player and each group, because different situations might call for different expressions of narrative.

For some groups, in some situations, being withheld informations and being filtered directly by the DM might make for an exciting change of perspective. For other groups and players it might lead to frustration. For others, yet again, it might be the norm. The rule is general because in this way each DM can handle as it sees fit in the situation, having a strong base (albeit freely appliable in narrative) to fall back to.

On a further point, usually deers are played by the DM, which is a player that also handles the narrative of the world. You really can't expect to not tell a DM what you want to do, so the DM isn't really going to have the problem of knowing what is happening to begin with and you'll need to trust that the DM will play a character in the way that makes more sense.
Do you think that trust works only one way, or do you believe that the game can really go on with players saying "you don't see what my character is doing, so i won't tell you"?


But again, to restate the question that brought this up: does a spellcaster being perceptible mean that every creature; regardless of intelligence, or knowledge of, or experiences in such matters; innately knows of magic and what spellcasting is?

To repeat: It's a meaningless question when weighted to the needs of other, more important parts of the game. Furthermore, it's a question about the a specific, while i've repeated enough times that the rule handles the general.

Now you have both my answers: what i think and what the rule says: "It is not meaningful" and "it is not a case that applies, there's no rule about that. The general says "it can"".

[RSP]

Where do you even read that? How do you even reach that conclusion? Rsp, did you even bother to try to understand?

You:
"Likewise, a common deer (Int 2) who was in the presence of the caster would automatically know “X is casting a spell” even though the entire concept of spells is non-existent to them?"

In short, does a deer know?

Answer:
"To a deer it doesn't matter"

To a deer, IT DOESN'T MATTER to receive the information! The deer, the fictional character, doesn't care! Who cares is the player. To make an informed decision, the player needs to have the information. It's up to the player to play the character, to its strenght and weaknesses, and to be able to play at all there needs to be clear informations about what the hell is happening.

...

To repeat: It's a meaningless question when weighted to the needs of other, more important parts of the game. Furthermore, it's a question about the a specific, while i've repeated enough times that the rule handles the general.

So a game about pretending to be different characters doesn’t care about what those characters know? I think you’ve missed the point of role playing games.

To quote the game we’re discussing: “The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure.”

The adventurers see stuff, figure stuff out, fight monsters, etc. Not the Players, but the characters.

Players will always know plenty of out of game stuff that their characters don’t. That’s just part of it being a game.

So yes, it is very important to the game. Your statement: “It's a meaningless question when weighted to the needs of other, more important parts of the game,” is absolutely false. We cannot role play characters if we don’t know what those characters know, and if we can’t role play characters, we can’t really play “role playing” games.

Your argument (from what I understand) is that perceptible spellcasting carries with it the inherent knowledge that it is, in fact, spellcasting, to whomever it is perceptible.

Is this correct?

[sophontteks]

In the games I play people detect spells through audio and visual cues (V and S.) They don't just 'know'. Even without subtle, a caster could hide a verbal component in a place with a lot of white noise, or slip behind a corner to hide a somatic component. Material components are largely undetectable. I've never been caught casting a suggestion because I was holding perfume.

These explanations are not arbitrary. They are very realistic and logical ways for someone to detect a spell. The only thing we ask for is a logical explanation for how someone can detect that a spell is being cast when these audio and visual cues are absent.

[ThePolarBear]

Your argument (from what I understand) is that perceptible spellcasting carries with it the inherent knowledge that it is, in fact, spellcasting, to whomever it is perceptible.

Is this correct?

No.

A deer not knowing that a spell being cast is of no consequence: the deer will not act, will not do anything.
The player knowing what is happening has consequences: the deer will then act, will do something.

Answering to what you are asking about:

"It is not important to weight if the deer can understand what is happening or not. What's important is if the player does, so that the character can act in a correct way. That's why (imho) the rule doesn't enter into specific territory: it leaves the specific to each DM and each player and each group, because different situations might call for different expressions of narrative.

For some groups, in some situations, being withheld informations and being filtered directly by the DM might make for an exciting change of perspective. For other groups and players it might lead to frustration. For others, yet again, it might be the norm. The rule is general because in this way each DM can handle as it sees fit in the situation, having a strong base (albeit freely appliable in narrative) to fall back to.

[...]

It's a meaningless question when weighted to the needs of other, more important parts of the game."

Which followed this, which i gave for understood, since it's plenty clear:

"What is important is that "X is casting a spell" is the information that passes when the "perceivable" part is, in fact, "perceived"."

What it means: It is WAY more important to ask oneself if the player received all the informations that are availlable for the form of game your group is up to and if that player is on board with it. Availlability of said information is up to each single DM to evaluate for each single situation: It can range from "X is spellcasting, but you are a deer, so remember to act accordingly since you never seen anyone do anything like that before" is a different way to express the same as "You see sparkles and rainbows like when those little winged fellas came to you last night, only different". They carry different strenghts and weaknesses, appropriate for different groups of people.

It is really such a small detail to consider when put against the important part of the game: to have fun. Another persons' fun is what should be in your mind when considering adding a bit of spice to the description or letting the narration be a bit bland in favour of clarity - should it allow the game to run smoother.

White rooming doesn't help.


In the games I play people detect spells through audio and visual cues (V and S.) They don't just 'know'. Even without subtle, a caster could hide a verbal component in a place with a lot of white noise, or slip behind a corner to hide a somatic component. Material components are largely undetectable. I've never been caught casting a suggestion because I was holding perfume.

These explanations are not arbitrary. They are very realistic and logical ways for someone to detect a spell. The only thing we ask for is a logical explanation for how someone can detect that a spell is being cast when these audio and visual cues are absent.

The choice to run it that way is. There's nothing saying that it MUST run that way, that it is intented to be so. I've said it multiple times: there is no "how" it works, each one can come up with its own narrative. But "coming up with a narrative" is arbitrary, since there is nothing shared between them.

You choose for it to be that way. It works, rule wise, in other, dissimilar, ways, too. No one is more or less arbitrary than the next; criticizing only one for a shared sin is not really fair.

[sophontteks]

The choice is not arbitrary. One option has logical reasoning. The other has none. Why would anyone choose to follow option 'B' when it has no logical explanation behind it? Is it for balance?

[ThePolarBear]

The choice is not arbitrary. One option has logical reasoning. The other has none. Why would anyone choose to follow option 'B' when it has no logical explanation behind it? Is it for balance?

It hasn't logical reasoning. You decided that spellcasting has nothing more than components. Others can decide that spellcasting is not only components. This is the choice you made that has no basis whatsoever: we do not know what spellcasting "really" involves. If there are lights, smells, other movements, sudden bursts of levitation is not a given knowledge. We do not even know "how much" perceptible it is or which senses are involved, only that if there is a component it's perceptible. So... yeah. Your choice is just as arbitrary as the next one.

[RSP]

No.

A deer not knowing that a spell being cast is of no consequence: the deer will not act, will not do anything.

So character knowledge is of no consequence in your mind, only what the Player knows? And you think this rule in XGtE backs this up, that what characters know “is of no consequence”?

A deer is a character (99%+ of the time an NPC, but a character nonetheless). The game cares about what characters know.

To put it another way: I, the Player, know how to cast the Fireball spell in the game 5e D&D. However, my level 1 Fighter character does not know the spell or how to cast it in the in-game world.

So is my character’s knowledge of fireball, or lack thereof, “of no consequence?” Should he just be able to cast fireball because I know what’s required in a metagame sense?

The answer clearly is “no.”

This holds true for the vast majority of 5e, RAW.



"It is not important to weight if the deer can understand what is happening or not. What's important is if the player does, so that the character can act in a correct way. That's why (imho) the rule doesn't enter into specific territory: it leaves the specific to each DM and each player and each group, because different situations might call for different expressions of narrative.

Again, it is of importance whether or not the character understands in-game events. To say otherwise is to not understand what a role playing game is.

How can a character “act in a correct way” if you have no idea whether or not that character understands the in-game events? What, if character comprehension is not a thing, determines the correctness of action?



"What is important is that "X is casting a spell" is the information that passes when the "perceivable" part is, in fact, "perceived"."

Okay, so again, to quote you here (quoting yourself if I’m not mistaken): “What is important is that "X is casting a spell" is the information that passes when the "perceivable" part is, in fact, "perceived””

So I wasn’t incorrect before (even though you for some reason answered “no”), you do believe that the rule is saying that if a spell is perceptible, then the character who is able to perceive said casting automatically knows and understands that spellcasting is occurring.



Availlability of said information is up to each single DM to evaluate for each single situation: It can range from "X is spellcasting, but you are a deer, so remember to act accordingly since you never seen anyone do anything like that before" is a different way to express the same as "You see sparkles and rainbows like when those little winged fellas came to you last night, only different". They carry different strenghts and weaknesses, appropriate for different groups of people.


There is nothing in the rule you’re discussing that states any of this, nor does anything in the PHB.

Speaking of which, you seem to completely disregard those rules, for some reason, as rules.

The Xanather’s rule doesn’t replace spellcasting rules in the PHB and Basic Rules, it builds on them.

Look at the PHB: “A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it.”

So, take away the new rule from XGtE for a minute. Would anything in the PHB lead you to believe that any character who perceives another character spellcasting automatically knows that they are, in fact, spellcasting; as opposed to just saying some words in an odd way, or perhaps just saying something in a foreign language; or making an odd gesture with their shield, possibly just shaking some dirt off it; or holding a staff?

So you really believe that the XGtE rule completely changed how in-game magic is run, to now include “every creature that is capable of experiencing any component of spellcasting automatically knows and understands that what they are experiencing is in fact spellcasting”?

[RSP]

we do not know what spellcasting "really" involves. If there are lights, smells, other movements, sudden bursts of levitation is not a given knowledge.

Yes we do!!! It’s in the PHB under Components in the Casting a Spell section in chapter 10: Spellcasting!! RAW, there is no need for lights, smells, movements other than S movements, or sudden bursts of levitation. We know this because the rules tell us this.

You’ve clearly made a houserule you want everyone else to think is RAW; why, I don’t know.