Allowing Subtle Casting with Slight of Hand?

[ChiefBigFeather]

Dear community,

do you think it would be unbalancing to allow subtle casting for all casters if they pass a slight of hand check vs the surroundings passive perception+the spell level? Maybe twice the spell level?

I‘d only allow this is situation where obscurement would be reasonable. The Verbal component rules are kind of ambivalent about the loudness of casting, at least as far as I know. This could be a decent framework for determining who can hear a spell.

What do you think?

[Man_Over_Game]

Dear community,

do you think it would be unbalancing to allow subtle casting for all casters if they pass a slight of hand check vs the surroundings passive perception+the spell level? Maybe twice the spell level?

I‘d only allow this is situation where obscurement would be reasonable. The Verbal component rules are kind of ambivalent about the loudness of casting, at least as far as I know. This could be a decent framework for determining who can hear a spell.

What do you think?

It's not bad. I like it, although I'd make it so that it could be a passive Perception or Arcana check.

You could make it so that each component has some way of not being detected:
Verbal: Arcana check.
Material/Somatic: Sleight of Hand check.



Another option you could do is to allow someone to indefinitely hold the charge of a spell so long as they maintain some kind of Somatic or Verbal action and make a Concentration check (as the rules do not support you being able to Ready a spell for longer than 6 seconds).
What this does is allow you to prepare a spell, with all of its components, out of sight and then maintain the spell until you're ready to cast at the precise moment. Sleight of Hand could be used here to hide the fact that you're storing the spell with Somatic gestures.

[CheddarChampion]

I would allow it (at passive perception + spell's level for DC) but only for remaining hidden/unseen/unheard.
Anything further, like being able to cast when bound and gagged or being clearly visible in combat/socially, I wouldn't allow that to work. I would not allow casting spells (with V/S) in the former example, enemies/bystanders in the second example would notice, no roll. Letting casters do this with a skill check steps on Subtle Spell's toes too much.

[ChiefBigFeather]

You could make it so that each component has some way of not being detected:
Verbal: Arcana check.
Material/Somatic: Sleight of Hand check.

Slight of hand is a bit of a stretch for verbal components, but I think tricks like ventriloquism is covered by it. I‘d prefer to keep it simple with a single check.

@Cheddar: Gagged casting is certainly in the realm of subtle spell, as is casting right in front of people in an empty room. But in a loud, crowded street? Or in the next room while the bells are ringing?

[Galithar]

I would never allow it. Sorcerers get few enough things over wizards already. Letting a wizard mimic one of the most potent meta magics? Not balanced.

Now if you don't care about stepping all over the Sorcerers abilities then your proposal is reasonable. I'd use a check against their (slight of hand - twice the spells level) to detect.

[Man_Over_Game]

Slight of hand is a bit of a stretch for verbal components, but I think tricks like ventriloquism is covered by it. I‘d prefer to keep it simple with a single check.

I'm not sure if you read my post right. The intent was that you could use an Arcana Check to disguise verbal components, or you could use a Sleight of Hand Check to disguise material/somatic components.

[LudicSavant]

Since it only removes S and V components, Subtle Spell doesn’t actually stop some 93 of the spells on the Sorcerer spell list from being detectable and counterspellable, due to the fact that you must still handle their material components in a recognizable way.

[Man_Over_Game]

Since it only removes S and V components, Subtle Spell doesn’t actually stop some 93 of the spells on the Sorcerer spell list from being detectable and counterspellable, due to the fact that you must still handle their material components in a recognizable way.

I guess the question then is, what does the Sorcerer get out of Subtle Spell that's worth the same value as 1 Sorcery Points with the other Metamagics?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I like the idea, sort of, except that I don't see what the equivalent thing is for non-casters. One contributing factor to perceived imbalances between casters and non-casters is that spells are read permissively. This is basically like half a sorcery point, free, on every spell, and it reduces the niche of an already-situational class feature even further. I'd wonder what's next - casting while restrained using Athletics? Increasing casting range with Perception? Avoiding damaging allies with Insight?

[Galithar]

Since it only removes S and V components, Subtle Spell doesn’t actually stop some 93 of the spells on the Sorcerer spell list from being detectable and counterspellable, due to the fact that you must still handle their material components in a recognizable way.

Not really true. I can hold my staff all day. You'd never be able to tell when I was subtle casting because of it.
That argument only works for a small number of spells with value attached to the component, or when the component is consumed, and I have to actually present the material component. Otherwise simply holding a focus qualifies me to cast. I don't have to move it around in any way because that would be a somatic component which I removed by subtle casting.

[Kyutaru]

I'd use it more for casting while your hands are full. The player's attempting something he's skilled at and the rules shouldn't be read literally as a hard and fast "Magic is Disabled When Holding Swords".

But subtle casting? Nah... you're not eschewing any of the components, you're just making them hard to notice.

[LudicSavant]

Not really true. I can hold my staff all day. You'd never be able to tell when I was subtle casting because of it. Both Jeremy Crawford and the RAW say otherwise.

[Contrast]

Both Jeremy Crawford and the RAW say otherwise.

I'd like some links/page references there as I had always worked on the assumption holding a focus was sufficient as well. Surely specific manipulations of it would be somatic and covered by Subtle?

[LudicSavant]

I'd like some links/page references there as I had always worked on the assumption holding a focus was sufficient as well. Surely specific manipulations of it would be somatic and covered by Subtle?

Can’t quote the books since I’m on my phone atm, but here’s some of the Sage Advices on the subject:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/08/subtle-spell-doesnt-remove-material-component-so-a-spell-with-m-doesnt-benefit/amp/

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/642086415040294912?lang=en


What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spell- casting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell

Hopefully those links work, not used to doing this from my phone.

[Ghost Nappa]

Can’t quote the books since I’m on my phone atm, but here’s some of the Sage Advices on the subject:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/08/subtle-spell-doesnt-remove-material-component-so-a-spell-with-m-doesnt-benefit/amp/

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/642086415040294912?lang=en



Hopefully those links work, not used to doing this from my phone.

This has probably come up before in a dozen other threads and Jeremy's answer on the matter is not going to resolve it because it doesn't make sense either way.

If a spell requires VSM components and you use Subtle Spell with it, then the only thing that would seem to be "perceptible" about the spell being cast is the presence of the material component. Most material components can be substituted with an arcane focus like a wand or staff, meaning that in theory you would just need to be holding it to do anything. Manipulating the material to move a certain which way is the Somatic component, so the actual "handling" of it is already covered by Subtle Spell.

The actual timing of when a Subtle Spell is then being cast is dependent on whether or not the arcane focus... glows? That seems Counterspell-able.

but what if you have the material components in your pocket and you stick your hand in there to use Subtle Spell? Is that Counterspell-able? How does someone perceive whether or not there's an arcane focus in your pocket? A Perception check makes the most amount of sense, but can you really get a Perception Check and a Counterspell roll as a Reaction when the former is - if the Monster Manual is to be believed - an action?

The short answer is that the entire thing is a mess but the only time it should be coming up is if you're players are fighting each other or you have a Sorcerer Bad Guy with the Metamagic. So ask your DM.

@OP: I think allowing a Sleight of Hand check Vs. Perception to *try* and hide a Spell is okay in social situations as it makes things more intriguey and unlike the feature can fail, but I wouldn't let it remove or substitute the normal components. You can make the roll to try and hide what your doing, but you still need to say the magic words, do the motion, and have the materials. The roll doesn't substitute the requirements, it obscures what you're trying to do.

[Kane0]

I remember quite a big thread on this in the past, seemed pretty controversial.

As a DM I'd allow you to be able to sneakily cast a spell under the right conditions. Some checks may be necessary, and turning it into a skill challenge with the party providing distractions and the caster trying to conceal what he's up to would be preferable.

[Contrast]

The short answer is that the entire thing is a mess but the only time it should be coming up is if you're players are fighting each other or you have a Sorcerer Bad Guy with the Metamagic. So ask your DM.

I mean it's pretty important to the actual utility of Subtle. I don't see how you're saying this will only come up in PvP or if the PCs fight a sorc.

In a social situation there's a world of difference between being able to cast Suggestion with no indication you're casting magic other than you happen to be leaning on your staff you're always holding or have your hand in your pocket and an obvious sign clearly noticeable (and potentially identifiable to anyone with arcana) that you're casting magic. Or casting Enhance Ability on the fighter just before the arm wrestling contest or...etc etc.

It does seem to me the links above don't really address the issue of foci specifically so yeah...does just depend if you DM decides foci glow/make some other noticeable spectacle when magic is being channeled through them I guess.

[LudicSavant]

Manipulating the material to move a certain which way is the Somatic component, so the actual "handling" of it is already covered by Subtle Spell. It explicitly says that handling the material or focus is part of the material component of the spell.

Removing the Somatic component does not remove that.

You are of course free to change the rule if you don’t like it.

Edit

It does seem to me the links above don't really address the issue of foci specifically so yeah...
The issue of focuses is specifically addressed in the official rules and rulings.


If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.


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.

[mephiztopheleze]

I wouldn't allow it at my table.
Somatic Spell components are very specific gestures, if you try and modify those gestures through sleight of hand, the spell fails.
I MIGHT, however, allow a Wizard to spend a feat to gain a metamagic ability. Then again, I might not.

[Contrast]

The issue of focuses is specifically addressed in the official rules and rulings.

The issue isn't about if you need to be holding a staff or if you can perceive someone holding a staff. It's how useful the information that someone is holding a staff is to you :smalltongue:

[LudicSavant]

The issue isn't about if you need to be holding a staff or if you can perceive someone holding a staff. It's how useful the information that someone is holding a staff is to you :smalltongue:

The quotes I provided to you aren't talking about whether someone holding a staff is perceptible, they're talking about whether you can perceive a spell being cast, identify what spell is being cast, or use a reaction that requires you to perceive the spell being cast.

What's said in the rules:
- That you can perceive, identify, and counter a spell if it contains either a verbal, somatic, or material component.
- that you must handle a material or focus to satisfy a spell's material component.

What's not said in the rules:
- That a Somatic component has anything to do with manipulating or wielding the Material component. You can perform the movements for both the material and somatic component with the same hand, but they are still separate components. A lack of a Somatic component doesn't remove the need to handle the material component any more than it removes the need to move your lips for the Verbal component.


Subtle Spell is meant to protect a spell w/o material components from counterspell


XGE has stated that perceiving a spell is dependent on the spell having a component. It further states that a feature removing the component requirements makes it imperceptible. Subtle Spell doesn't remove material component, so a spell with "M" doesn't benefit?That's correct.

What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spell-casting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?

If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.

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, whether it's an object specified in the spell's description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

[Shuruke]

I use the trying to be quiet distance for hiding casting

A. U have to succeed a stealth vs. Perception check

B. If your within the 2d6x5 distance your heard and the sound is recognizable as casting.

I wouldn't allow casting in a busy crowd because even though your attempting to hide components people close would still recognize it as casting
They wouldn't know what spell exactly but generally if someone is shadily hiding using magic in a crowd. You can assume it isn't good.


Ways I'd allow it
Hiding in an alley

Casting from a vantage point.

Targeting someone up on a balcony as you stand below.

Pretty much ways in which you'd think of a arcane trickster casting from the shadows


This leaves things like using V,S spells while in a area where otherwise it would be noticed up to the sorcerer.
Charm person , or command could prove useful in a crowd.


Doing this has gotten players to be creative, putting silence spell between them and the area of foot traffic while they cast from a shadowed second story window.

The wizard and bard working together as one has a major image of a parked wagon with loud snoring coming from it so the other can cast.

[RSP]

The quotes I provided to you aren't talking about whether someone holding a staff is perceptible, they're talking about whether you can perceive a spell being cast, identify what spell is being cast, or use a reaction that requires you to perceive the spell being cast.

What's said in the rules:
- That you can perceive, identify, and counter a spell if it contains either a verbal, somatic, or material component.
- that you must handle a material or focus to satisfy a spell's material component.

What's not said in the rules:
- That a Somatic component has anything to do with manipulating or wielding the Material component. You can perform the movements for both the material and somatic component with the same hand, but they are still separate components. A lack of a Somatic component doesn't remove the need to handle the material component any more than it removes the need to move your lips for the Verbal component.

Not accurate.

Holding a staff fulfills the M requirement of most spells. You can perceive the holding of the staff. It doesn’t, however, give away the casting of an M only spell.

For instance, you can see the person holding a staff, and watch them for one minute. During that minute, they cast a spell with an M component. Is anything other than the fact that they’re holding a staff noticeable? Only if the spell has a noticeable effect.

Nothing other than the fact their holding a staff is noticed, RAW:

“Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry.
...
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”

Having an staff in-hand does not, RAW, provide any information other than the character is holding a staff.

[sophontteks]

Since it only removes S and V components, Subtle Spell doesn’t actually stop some 93 of the spells on the Sorcerer spell list from being detectable and counterspellable, due to the fact that you must still handle their material components in a recognizable way.
This is a non factor given what most material components are, and it definately does stop them from being counterspelled.

[LudicSavant]

It doesn’t, however, give away the casting of an M only spell.

That is literally what both the book and Crawford says that it does. I quoted the section on identifying spells being cast and everything.


Nothing other than the fact their holding a staff is noticed, RAW You're ignoring the other quote from the RAW that I just gave you.


Having an staff in-hand does not, RAW, provide any information other than the character is holding a staff.

Having a staff in-hand does not. Handling it in order to cast a spell does, which numerous sources provided for you confirm, and you've just ignored all of those sources rather than addressing any of them.

[Galithar]

An optional rule in Xanathar's is not RAW... It's an OPTIONAL rule in a splatbook. RAW there are no rules for identifying a spell.

[strangebloke]

That is literally what both the book and Crawford says that it does. I quoted the section on identifying spells being cast and everything.

You're ignoring the other quote from the RAW that I just gave you.



Having a staff in-hand does not. Handling it does, which numerous sources provided for you confirm.

It says that in order to be detectable, a spell at a minimum needs to have a v,s, or m component. However, this does not imply that all spells with one of these components can be counterspelled.

For example, the caster might be under the effects of greater invisibility and therefore his material and somatic components are invisible. He might be behind one way glass. The person casting counterspell might be blind/deaf or otherwise unable to perceive the spell being cast. Etc etc.

In the case of a sorcerer "handling" his staff, why should anyone know that he's getting ready to cast a spell, when he's been holding the staff for the last hour?

Indeed, some spells, like enthrall, are worded in such a way as to suggest that though they have verbal components, their verbal components are not recognizable as spellcasting.

[LudicSavant]

An optional rule in Xanathar's is not RAW... It's an OPTIONAL rule in a splatbook. RAW there are no rules for identifying a spell.

In addition to the section on Xanathar's which provides "clarifications to the rules in the PHB and DMG and new options," we have the Sage Advice Compendium and Jeremy Crawford saying what is meant when Counterspell says you need to perceive the spell, and what level of interaction is required for a material component, and how Subtle Spell is supposed to interact with Counterspell. Those comments had nothing to do with XGtE, and they are unambiguous.


It says that in order to be detectable, a spell at a minimum needs to have a v,s, or m component. However, this does not imply that all spells with one of these components can be counterspelled.

For example, the caster might be under the effects of greater invisibility and therefore his material and somatic components are invisible. He might be behind one way glass. The person casting counterspell might be blind/deaf or otherwise unable to perceive the spell being cast. Etc etc.

Obviously. But in that case the reason they wouldn't see it would be obviously be because of the invisibility, one way glass, or blindness/deafness.

[GreyBlack]

Dear community,

do you think it would be unbalancing to allow subtle casting for all casters if they pass a slight of hand check vs the surroundings passive perception+the spell level? Maybe twice the spell level?

I‘d only allow this is situation where obscurement would be reasonable. The Verbal component rules are kind of ambivalent about the loudness of casting, at least as far as I know. This could be a decent framework for determining who can hear a spell.

What do you think?

Unbalanced? Perhaps not, but it literally kills an entire class feature for Sorcerer or Arcane Trickster and makes them a little bit less special. Why take either of them when a wizard can do what they can?

[Galithar]

In addition to the section on Xanathar's which provides "clarifications to the rules in the PHB and DMG and new options," we have the Sage Advice Compendium and Jeremy Crawford saying what is meant when Counterspell says you need to perceive the spell, and what level of interaction is required for a material component. Those comments had nothing to do with XGtE, and they are unambiguous.

Crawford's tweets mean literally nothing in regards to RAW. And the Sage advice only comments on spells that DON'T have materials, because the ones that do become more convoluted. (Costly components, focuses etc.) It simply clarifies that without a material component it is IMPOSSIBLE to counterspell a subtle spell. Not that material components are automatically noticable. It, like much of 5e is intentionally vague to allow DM rulings. Of which yours is an acceptable, but generally negative for players, ruling.

[LudicSavant]

DM rulings. Of which yours is an acceptable, but generally negative for players, ruling.

Please don't shove words in my mouth. At no point have I told you how I rule as a DM, or even if I agree with any of these rulings. :smallannoyed:

I quoted the rulebooks, the SAC official rulings, and JC's comments on RAI. I also was very clear which was which.

[sophontteks]

So a wizard is holding a stick, his arcane focus. When is he casting a spell? How can you tell? You can't. He's just holding a stick. He's always holding a stick. The stick does nothing and indicates nothing. Material components are even less conspicuous.

The only indicator you have are rounds. It's his turn, so he's casting now. That's the only indication. Metagaming at its best.

[Galithar]

Please don't shove words in my mouth. At no point have I told you how I rule as a DM, or even if I agree with any of these rulings. :smallannoyed:

I quoted the rulebooks, the SAC official rulings, and JC's comments on RAI. I also was very clear which was which.

Actually you weren't, unless you've edited, because RAW isn't something you can quote. Which you had marked as the source for at least one quote. I double checked the SAC and what you stated is not in the SAC published document. It's a JC tweet.

The SAC says only this on subtle spell

"If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use."

No where does it say material components make it counterspellable presumably because it becomes situational and is left open for DM interpretation. You are passing your interpretation off as RAW at the very least even if it's not the ruling you use.

Either way you're still not giving a RAW answer. You're giving optional rules without stating the book (or page) interpretations, and JC tweets and saying it's RAW.

[Naanomi]

Sleight of Hand? No way... Deception or (in the right circumstances) Performance to convince people you are doing something else? Maybe

[LudicSavant]

I double checked the SAC and what you stated is not in the SAC published document. It's a JC tweet.
Please stop spreading false information.

It's on page 13 of the 2019 SAC.


You're giving optional rules without stating the book (or page) interpretations, and JC tweets and saying it's RAW.
Please stop spreading false information.

At no point have I said that JC's tweets were RAW. I said that both the rulebooks and JC's tweets suggest that a spell with only a material component is possible to perceive.

[RSP]

That is literally what both the book and Crawford says that it does. I quoted the section on identifying spells being cast and everything.

You're ignoring the other quote from the RAW that I just gave you.


I’m not ignoring anything. What do you think “handle” means? Based on your posts, you seem to think it involves gesturing (which is clearly the S component), which it is not.

It’s literally just holding it.

Also, I quoted the RAW. JC’s comments and SA can go to RAI, and can be “official”, but those aren’t RAW. The RAW is what I quoted.



Having a staff in-hand does not. Handling it in order to cast a spell does, which numerous sources provided for you confirm, and you've just ignored all of those sources rather than addressing any of them.

Again, “handle that component” is holding it. What, in your opinion, is the difference between “handle” and “hold”?

[LudicSavant]

What, in your opinion, is the difference between “handle” and “hold”?

Handle:
verb. manipulate with the hands.

Hold:
verb. grasp, carry, or support with one's arms or hands.

[Galithar]

Please stop spreading false information.

It's on page 13 of the 2019 SAC.


Please stop spreading false information.

At no point have I said that JC's tweets were RAW.

Again, not spreading false information. THAT portion of the SAC, as I stated, says NOTHING about subtle, or counterspell for that matter. It says you have to have the material component in your hand. NOT that you have to DO anything with it. That's also not the portion I was talking about where you had a JC tweet cited as SAC. I'm not really concerned about that, people make mistakes. It's your insistence that the rules say something that they clearly don't.

For everyone's reference, this is the portion of the SAC about components.

"What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component..."

For the record, again, this is not the portion I called out as not being SAC. My mistake for not quoting sections, but I'm on my phone and it's difficult to properly multi quote.

And finally that says HANDLE. Let me get you a definition of handle.

"feel or manipulate with the hands"

So if I can feel the object OR manipulate it with my hands I have handled it. Again OR, not and. Therefore if I'm holding the staff and doing NOTHING ELSE with it. It's been handled and satisfies the RAW requirement, and the SAC clarification. It may not meet a JC interpretation, but unless it's in SAC it doesn't matter.

Edit: for good measure some synonyms for handle.
synonym: hold, pick up, grasp, grip, lift

[RSP]

Handle:
verb. manipulate with the hands.

Hold:
verb. grasp, carry, or support with one's arms or hands.

So what, in your opinion, is required to be handling a focus?

Obviously you think it’s more than holding. What is required?

Edit: I’m just asking your opinion on what you think is the difference between “handling” as you see it and the S component, which involves movement.

Note: Meriam defines Handle differently than you:

“1a : to try or examine (as by touching, feeling, or moving) with the hand
handle silk to judge its weight

b : to manage with the hands
handle a horse”

As does Google:

“feel or manipulate with the hands.”

And Dictionary.com:

“to touch, pick up, carry, or feel with the hand or hands; use the hands on; take hold of.”

So it’s clear you’re not using a complete definition of “handle.” Going by any of these would include holding a staff as handling it.

[MaxWilson]

Dear community,

do you think it would be unbalancing to allow subtle casting for all casters if they pass a slight of hand check vs the surroundings passive perception+the spell level? Maybe twice the spell level?

I‘d only allow this is situation where obscurement would be reasonable. The Verbal component rules are kind of ambivalent about the loudness of casting, at least as far as I know. This could be a decent framework for determining who can hear a spell.

What do you think?

Yes, I'd allow casting to go unnoticed (until it was too late) under certain circumstances (probably using Deception, but Sleight of Hand is reasonable too). No, I wouldn't refer to this as "subtle casting" because that risks confusion with the Sorcerer Metamagic, which has the advantage of being impossible to detect instead of merely difficult.

I view this as similar to Battlemaster Disarm vs. the regular Disarm maneuver anyone can attempt, or Battlemaster Trip vs. regular Shove Prone. Both characters can attempt the same action, but if you have a special feature you can get more mileage out of it (additional damage for Battlemaster, or less detectable for sorcerer). I am generally in favor of allowing improvised actions to do all kinds of extra things, from gagging spellcasters so they cannot speak, to feints in combat which deceive the enemy as to your intended next move (and therefore encourage erroneous countermeasures).

Naturally there is nothing preventing a sorcerer from attempting unobtrusive casting using Deception or Sleight of Hand, if he doesn't want to spend the sorcery points right now. But when he really needs no one to ever know that he was the one who cast that spell, he will go Subtle.

[LudicSavant]

Note: Meriam defines Handle differently than you Not really. It just used the word "manage" instead of "manipulate." They are synonyms, as pointed out by Merriam Webster itself.


to manage with the hands
handle a horse”


Synonyms for manage

Synonyms: Verb

address, contend (with), cope (with), field, grapple (with), hack, handle, maneuver, manipulate, negotiate, play, swing, take, treat

[RSP]

Not really. It just used the word "manage" instead of "manipulate." They are synonyms, as pointed out by Merriam Webster itself.

I guess you only want to focus on certain things I post, and ignore a whole lot of others.

If a rider is on a horse, and the horse is doing what the rider wants, is the rider “managing” said horse? Doesn’t this allow holding the reins?

Likewise, isn’t a Sorcerer whose holding a staff also managing that staff? Isn’t the staff doing what the Sorc wants?

Also, feel free to respond to any of the other definitions provided that prove the point of holding a staff being handling a staff.

[MaxWilson]

Since it only removes S and V components, Subtle Spell doesn’t actually stop some 93 of the spells on the Sorcerer spell list from being detectable and counterspellable, due to the fact that you must still handle their material components in a recognizable way.

If we're going all RAW here, note that Counterspell doesn't even require you to see any V, S, or M components in action. All you need is to see a creature within 60' of you casting a spell. A Subtle Spell is still a spell being cast, so a Sorcerer casting Subtle Magic Missile at you from 30' away is definitely a creature casting a spell and therefore you can (technically) use your reaction to Counterspell it.

It's very reasonable for a DM to rule otherwise of course. "Technically, by RAW..." is not a compliment. It's generally a statement about a deficiency in the rules as written.

[RSP]

If we're going all RAW here, note that Counterspell doesn't even require you to see any V, S, or M components in action. All you need is to see a creature within 60' of you casting a spell. A Subtle Spell is still a spell being cast, so a Sorcerer casting Subtle Magic Missile at you from 30' away is definitely a creature casting a spell and therefore you can (technically) use your reaction to Counterspell it.

It's very reasonable for a DM to rule otherwise of course. "Technically, by RAW..." is not a compliment. It's generally a statement about a deficiency in the rules as written.

Going by this, why would the Counterspeller think a spell is being cast if all they see is a person holding a staff?

[Tanarii]

Nope.

But spells cast when there is a chance it might go unnoticed due to ambient circumstances (background noise, visually distracting environment) should be perception vs a fixed DC set by the DM. Same as noticing (hearing or seeing) any other thing it's possible to overlook.

It's worth a DM setting said DC (or calling for a check at all) taking into account that within some unspecified range, it seems to be assumed you'll notice a creature casting a spell in combat without any checks. Which is potentially quite noisy and visually distracting.


If we're going all RAW here, note that Counterspell doesn't even require you to see any V, S, or M components in action. All you need is to see a creature within 60' of you casting a spell. A Subtle Spell is still a spell being cast, so a Sorcerer casting Subtle Magic Missile at you from 30' away is definitely a creature casting a spell and therefore you can (technically) use your reaction to Counterspell it.

It's very reasonable for a DM to rule otherwise of course. "Technically, by RAW..." is not a compliment. It's generally a statement about a deficiency in the rules as written.
XtgE clarifies the RAW, you need a V, S or M component to perceive a spell being cast.

[MaxWilson]

Please don't shove words in my mouth. At no point have I told you how I rule as a DM, or even if I agree with any of these rulings. :smallannoyed:

I quoted the rulebooks, the SAC official rulings, and JC's comments on RAI. I also was very clear which was which.

This was your first post in this thread:


Since it only removes S and V components, Subtle Spell doesn’t actually stop some 93 of the spells on the Sorcerer spell list from being detectable and counterspellable, due to the fact that you must still handle their material components in a recognizable way.

No mention is made of SAC or JC here. It sounds like you're giving your ruling right there. Aren't you? Then you use SAC and JC tweets later on to support your ruling, but it seems curious to claim that "at no time" have you told us your actual opinion.

[Stygofthedump]

Subtle spell is the only reason I chose to play a sorcerer and not a bard. Lord knows there are not many goodies for sorc, don’t give them away cheaply.

[LudicSavant]

XtgE clarifies the RAW, you need a V, S or M component to perceive a spell being cast.

Right.


It's very reasonable for a DM to rule otherwise of course. "Technically, by RAW..." is not a compliment. It's generally a statement about a deficiency in the rules as written.

Agreed!


It sounds like you're giving your ruling right there. Aren't you?

No. I am commenting on what the rules appear to say and mean, rather than how I would personally rule as a DM.

Namely, that the rules say you must handle the material components (per SAC) in a recognizable way (per XGtE's section that "provides clarifications to the PHB and DMG rules and new options" as well as JC's RAI comments on what is intended to be perceptible and counterspellable when using Subtle Spell).


Also, feel free to respond to any of the other definitions provided

All 3 of the dictionaries you cited provide at least one meaning synonymous with "manipulate with the hands." Manipulate with the hands is one of the possible meanings of "handle" in English. The availability of additional definitions does not render that one "incomplete."

A more relevant point is that there are additional possible definitions, at least one of which is simply holding an object. However, via context I do not think it is the meaning being used here.

If you want to interpret it otherwise, that's fine by me. But then it just goes back to the various other sources that say that Subtle does not necessarily prevent counterspelling (which, incidentally, are part of what provides additional context on what meaning of "handle" was meant).

Obviously if you have some other means of hiding the material component, then you're fine.

[RSP]

All 3 of the dictionaries you cited provide at least one meaning synonymous with "manipulate with the hands." Manipulate with the hands is one of the possible meanings of "handle" in English. The availability of additional definitions does not render that one "incomplete."

A more relevant point is that there are additional possible definitions, at least one of which is simply holding an object. However, via context I do not think it is the meaning being used here.

If you want to interpret it otherwise, that's fine by me. But then it just goes back to the various other sources that say that Subtle may not necessarily prevent counterspelling (which, incidentally, are part of what provides additional context on what meaning of "handle" was meant).

All the definitions include holding because holding an item is handling it. Manipulating it is handling it. Neither one is exclusive. Both are allowed under the definition. To say one is the only one, is wrong. It’s not an interpretation thing, it’s the meaning of the word.

Now, yes, context matters, which is why I quoted the RAW earlier. You want to use JC’s use of “handle” to justify your claim, but even the RAW disagrees with you; “A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”

So does it really make sense to you that “handle” in this case doesn’t mean “to hold,” when the RAW explicitly states holding the focus is all that’s needed, and it’s included in the dictionary definition?

[LudicSavant]

To say one is the only one, is wrong.
I just said as much.


Now, yes, context matters, which is why I quoted the RAW earlier. Said quote does not contradict what I said. You can be required both to hold the focus and handle it in a recognizable way. Indeed, holding it would be necessary for handling it in a recognizable way. :smalltongue:

We are not told precisely why it can be recognized, merely that it can be. Perhaps there is some tell that something is being focused through the staff. Perhaps you need to actually manipulate it in some recognizable way. Or perhaps the devs had something else in mind (though I suspect it's one of the former based on past things that have been said).

[Galithar]

I just said as much.

Said quote does not contradict what I said. You can be required both to hold the focus and handle it in a recognizable way. Indeed, holding it would be necessary for handling it in a recognizable way. :smalltongue:

No. It's not "...necessary for handling it..." It IS handling it by every definition of the word. They all say (paraphrasing obviously) 'holding OR manipulating' you keep positing that the statements are connected by AND, this requiring both. But you only need ONE.

I can handle something without holding for example.

A staff is laying in the ground and I gently slide my hand across the top to roll the staff.

I handled without holding.

Now I pick up the staff and just hold it.

I handled without manipulating.

Both of those qualify as handling under every definition of handle I've seen. (I'm going to go back and double check the ones posted earlier to make sure I'm not mistaken. All three definitions, yes three. Merriam gives a two part definition the first of which includes simply touching and I see no reason to count that as separate definitions.)

[RSP]

Said quote does not contradict what I said. You can be required both to hold the focus and handle it in a recognizable way. Indeed, holding it would be necessary for handling it in a recognizable way. :smalltongue:

So where does needing to do anything more than just holding the focus come from?

According to you and your previous post, it’s the SA and JC, both of which use “handle”. Now you apparently no longer think discussing what handle means is worthwhile to this discussion, but it was the crux of your post.

However, the SA clarifies what they mean by “handle” (which you oddly excluded in your post quoting the SAC):

“For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a so- matic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.”

So again, the examples given for what “handle” means is literally to just hold it.

I’ll ask you again: where do you think it states that more is required than just holding the focus for an M component?

[LudicSavant]

No. It's not "...necessary for handling it..." It IS handling it by every definition of the word.

That's not what I meant.

What I meant is that if you are required to manipulate something with your hands, you must also be required to hold the thing.

[Mjolnirbear]

Another consideration:

To know a spell is being cast, you must see the verbal, somatic, or material components of the spell.

Note that a focus is a substitute. It's not the material component. It performs the same role but has its own rules, such as requiring proficiency (which material components do not) and being able to paint it on your shield if you're a cleric.

Casting a Fireball requires bat guano or a bit of sulphur, which the spell consumes. If you Subtle Spell a Fireball, and are not using a focus, you need sulphur or bat poo. That's for all Fireball spells across all classes; so perhaps the M part of seeing a spell being cast is simply the fact that someone holding bats+^t in their hand while focusing intently is enough for people to guess what's going on if they're at all clued in.

But holding a staff? Anyone can do that. There's nothing at all unusual. A cleric needs merely have their holy symbol on their shield. A bard can be idly fingering their instrument, surely something they do all the time.

TL:DR; a focus is not a material component.

[RSP]

That's not what I meant.

What I meant is that if you are required to manipulate something with your hands, you must also be required to hold the thing.

Where does it state the requirement to manipulate the focus with your hands?

[RSP]

TL:DR; a focus is not a material component.

Very good point in regards to noticing a spell being cast.

[Galithar]

That's not what I meant.

What I meant is that if you are required to manipulate something with your hands, you must also be required to hold the thing.

Except you're not required to manipulate anything in RAW. That's something that was added by you, or possibly in one of the JC tweets. I honestly don't remember which right now. Neither of those sources of it are RAW though. Holding a focus satisfies the RAW requirement to 'handle' the focus.

Edit: darn Shadow Monk'd what RSP said

[Mjolnirbear]

With regard to OP:

No. I would not allow it.

It's not overpowered. But it's like giving an Eldritch Knight Smite, or a Wizard Sneak Attack. You're taking something uniquely Sorcerer and giving it to all casters, and Sorcerers already get the short end of the stick in many ways (less versatile spell list, far fewer spells known, no ritual casting... Bards get more spells known, more hit points, more uses for their unique resource-based abilities, armor, more weapons...)

[LudicSavant]

TL:DR; a focus is not a material component.
Very good point in regards to noticing a spell being cast.

Here's what the rulebook has to say on the matter:


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.

[Mjolnirbear]

Here's what the rulebook has to say on the matter:

Huh. I looked for that. What page? DMG?

But in my opinion, I guess you needn't bother getting the page number; I find that rule ridiculous. They don't say the focus starts glowing, or you carve symbols into the air around you.

Fortunately I'm not overly concerned with the raw. I'm more concerned with logical consistency. If holding a staff is enough to permit identifying spellcasting, a mendicant monk would send peasants scurrying. Nothing says you need to wave your wand about in a pattern that shouts caster nor that you component pouch glows or your instrument plays by itself. If, as asserted, manipulating a focus means a particular movement of some unidentified and undistinguished way, then indeed Subtle Spell is actually useless for a Sorcerer.

Thank you for the correction. I'm going to choose to ignore it. If only because I felt like a light bulb was going off and my erroneous 'genius idea' feels like it solves the issue perfectly.

[LudicSavant]

Thank you for the correction.

NP!


Huh. I looked for that. What page? DMG?

It's on pg85 of the XGtE, in the section that "expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide, providing clarifications and new options."

There's also pg203 of the PHB, which states:

MATERIAL (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a speIlcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell.

[RSP]

Here's what the rulebook has to say on the matter:

Where in the rulebook does it say you need to manipulate the focus when casting a spell?

Also, feel free to admit that it doesn’t say the focus needs to be manipulated, but rather the rules state the focus just needs be held; and that you were wrong in telling us otherwise earlier in this thread.

[Fnissalot]

I would allow Sleight of hand to hide material components during casting as long as you feasibly could hide it.

I would not allow any such things for somatic or verbal components. If you start meddling with those, the spell would fail.

On the other hand, I might allow a caster to develop/invent a new version of a spell over time to change what components it needs, but it might affect how the spell works as well.

[JackOfAllBuilds]

Having a staff in-hand does not. Handling it in order to cast a spell does, which numerous sources provided for you confirm, and you've just ignored all of those sources rather than addressing any of them.

The word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
hand·ling /ˈhandliNG/ noun
the act of taking or holding something in the hands.

Handling an arcane focus literally just means holding it.
Gestures and movements are covered by “somatic”

[TheUser]

No. Both on a fantasy level and game balance level this is 100% not permissable in my books.

If you are content to tread on the toes of sorcerers so easily I wonder what other skill checks you'll allow to mimic core class features.

Can I gain an extra action or dash, disengage or dodge as a bonus action with an athletics check?

How about running on water or sprinting across a 30ft stretch of wall? Can I perform an acrobatics check to dash along 30- 60ft of wall?

The rules are muddy but counter spell carries very serious implications; even in the throws of combat, with it's battlecries, the clanging of steel on steel and a symphony of screams as people are cut down in their tracks....through all of that if you are within 60ft of someone with and their spell has only a verbal component....well they can be counterspelled.

Verbal components are anything but subtle. They are mystical arcane chants.

The same is true of somatic components; they are delicate and finely calculated with easy to notice movements.

Trying to alter these very specific and finely tuned mechanics should cause the spell to fail.

It's important to have boundaries with your PC's

I can understand that your players (or even yourself) want this badly but spells are literally cheat codes for reality; is it so much to ask that they be noticeable at 60ft of distance?

[Galithar]

NP!



It's on pg85 of the XGtE, in the section that "expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide, providing clarifications and new options."

There's also pg203 of the PHB, which states:



The chapter opens with optional rules meant to help you run certain parts of the game more smoothly.

So once again. An optional rule in a splatbook is NOT RAW. It's an optional rule... In a splatbook! And in my experience the vast majority of tables ignore 95+% of what Xanathar's has to say about spellcasting because it's all asinine, and I don't think it should be spread with any claim of RAW attached. Clunky mechanics that serve only to slow game play and neuter players? There's a reason they don't get used much.

[LudicSavant]

The word doesn’t mean what you think it means. Gotta love it when I directly quote a dictionary, and someone on the internet tells me it's not a meaning of the word. :smalltongue:


hand·ling /ˈhandliNG/ noun
the act of taking or holding something in the hands.

Also gotta love it when I say that holding something in the hands is one of the meanings of the word "handle", and then get "corrected" by someone saying that... holding something in the hands is one of the meanings of handle.


there are additional possible definitions, at least one of which is simply holding an object.

Edit: Also noteworthy, you quoted the definition of "handling" rather than "handle." The definitions of handle given in the very dictionary you quoted that from actually include "feel or manipulate with the hands"

[TheUser]

I think we're getting caught up on pedantic word flogging.

You have to handle the object.

Sometimes it means holding it but it can also mean having to point the focus at your target and so on.

Ludic is saying that this small caveat is meant to give DM's an out. If they really want to allow counter spelling a material component the enemy reaching for then they can. Or pointing their arcane focus towards an enemy amd having it glow.

It doesn't mean it's enforceable at all tables but he's not misinterpreting things here guys. I suggest we relax and focus on how misguided giving away core class features as skill checks is.

[ChiefBigFeather]

Please stop the rules discussion, it is derailing the thread. M subtle spell rules are ambivalent. I would allow it.

I wouldn‘t allow Slight of hand to replace Subtle Spell. But there are no clear rules regarding how loud or how obvious the gestures of a spell have to be. Sure, you will notice when standing right next to someone. But in a crowded marketplace, how far would you notice? Can a spellcaster with sufficient practice cast spells a little quieter and make the gestures harder to spot?

I think it‘s reasonable to try to obscure the casting in appropriate situations. Like with hiding, you need some kind of visual and audible obscurement to even try.

[Mordaedil]

The difference between this and subtle spell is that this has a chance to being caught, while subtle spell is absolutely surefire.

Now, I see some disagreements in here about if it should be sleight of hand. In 3rd edition there was a rule for this in the rules compendium, but also a skill trick that did the same, but skill tricks could only be used once per encounter. But there was also a feat that bards could take that required perform skill.

Note that it won't remove any of the components and anyone in proximity will hear it, see it and can make a counter check to know what is happening. A subtle spell metamagic means they are just struck by the spell with no chance to recognize it.

[LudicSavant]

Where in the rulebook does it say you need to manipulate the focus when casting a spell?

:smallconfused: So, there has clearly been a misunderstanding somewhere down the line here. The thread has been caught up in so many different tangents that wires are getting crossed. It feels like I'll answer one thing, and it'll be taken as an answer to a different thing. I'll make a comment about RAI, and it'll be taken as a comment about RAW. I'll make a comment about RAW, and it'll be taken as a comment about RAI. I'll say something can be inferred as intended from context, then it's demanded that I show where it's explicitly written in the rulebooks (in which case, why would I have to infer it from context?). It's a bloody mess.

What I actually told you earlier in the thread, after you brought up this "definition of handle" tangent in response to a quote about the Identifying Spells section of the XGtE rulebook, (www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23895760&postcount=36) was that the Sage Advice Compendium (which is not a rulebook) said handle, that I felt that some degree of manipulation with the hand is one possible meaning that could have been meant by the devs, that I felt that this meaning could be inferred from the context of factors such as dev statements, that it was open to interpretation and I was fine with your reading as well, and that it's a moot point anyways so I don't know why we're talking about it (since the material component being perceptible doesn't actually hinge on the definition of handle. We're simply told that it is perceptible under given conditions, not why. Like with many things in 5e we are left to fill in the blanks, so exactly what causes material components to have a "tell" is left open to interpretation).



there are additional possible definitions, at least one of which is simply holding an object. However, via context I do not think it is the meaning being used here.

If you want to interpret it otherwise, that's fine by me. But then it just goes back to the various other sources that say that Subtle does not necessarily prevent counterspelling

We are not told precisely why it can be recognized, merely that it can be. Perhaps there is some tell that something is being focused through the staff. Perhaps you need to actually manipulate it in some recognizable way. Or perhaps the devs had something else in mind (though I suspect it's one of the former based on past things that have been said).

And no doubt since I now have reiterated that this thing was open to interpretation, someone else who hasn't followed the whole conversation will jump in and say that I think some different statement is open to interpretation, because that's about how this thread has gone so far.

[diplomancer]

I would not allow it in combat to counteract counterspell. As many have said, it steps too much on the Sorcerer's shoes.

But I would allow it out of combat for social reasons. It gives a good use for an underused skill (even more if it is Performance... I would not allow it with Deception), and it fits well some archetypes. Illusionists are going to love this.

[TheUser]

I would not allow it in combat to counteract counterspell. As many have said, it steps too much on the Sorcerer's shoes.

But I would allow it out of combat for social reasons. It gives a good use for an underused skill (even more if it is Performance... I would not allow it with Deception), and it fits well some archetypes. Illusionists are going to love this.

How does allowing it in social situations not step on the sorcerers toes?
I'm really curious about the rationale here like social situations somehow mean less?

[diplomancer]

It steps less on the Sorcerer toes, since it can't be used in every situation (notice that I said "it steps too much"). There is a good "in universe" explanation too, you can even make a rule for it, that the use of the skill to conceal the spell takes an action, casting the spell takes another action. Not a problem out of combat, a big price to pay in combat.

Stepping a little bit on the toes of a class to enable a good use for an underused skill and to enable more archetypes is a good price to pay, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Also, for me it just makes sense, whether it is the caster using sleight of hand, or a party member making a Performance check to distract others from the casting, which should also work, and encourages teamplay, always a good thing in D&D.

[sophontteks]

Using sleight of hand to cover up the somatic component is common at the tables I play. It doesn't step on the shoes of a sorcerer too much IMO, because it is not nearly as good as subtle spell. A spellcaster could try to cover up their V and S components, but they will never be able to cast a spell in front of someone. The DC for that would equal an impossible check.

There is nothing wrong with allowing a caster to try and take advantage of things within the environment to try and cover up a spell. They could mask the verbal with the ambient noise or duck down out of view so the target doesn't see their arms flailing about. These would often require a check, and don't come close to what subtle spell allows.

Now if the idea here is to allow a skill check to literally mimic a subtle spell. No freaking way. A wizard is still very deliberately casting a spell, and no skill check should change that.

[diplomancer]

It also improves the Sorcerers themselves, since now they can either choose other metamagics, or, even if they picked it, save the sorcery point for combat or for when they REALLY need to make sure no one will notice them casting it.

(I personally don't feel that Sorcerers are a "poor man's wizard" that needs to be coddled, but a powerful and distinctive class on its own right, so it doesn't bother me that much to let other casters mimic a little bit, in a lesser way, one of their optional class features- it would most certainly not be innapropriate to have a feat that does something similar).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

No. Both on a fantasy level and game balance level this is 100% not permissable in my books.
I can understand that your players (or even yourself) want this badly but spells are literally cheat codes for reality; is it so much to ask that they be noticeable at 60ft of distance?

I'm not bothered by the fantasy aspect - it seems fairly reasonable there, though there should be more of an investment for disguising verbal components than being proficient in a skill that 100% of wizards are already proficient in. But I fully agree with your point about game balance.

[diplomancer]

I'm not bothered by the fantasy aspect - it seems fairly reasonable there, though there should be more of an investment for disguising verbal components than being proficient in a skill that 100% of wizards are already proficient in. But I fully agree with your point about game balance.

What skill? I don't think anyone suggested that Arcana be used to disguise a verbal component (some people suggested using it instead of Perception to notice it), and I suppose that is the only skill 100% of wizards have.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

What skill? I don't think anyone suggested that Arcana be used to disguise a verbal component (some people suggested using it instead of Perception to notice it), and I suppose that is the only skill 100% of wizards have.

I was remembering this post, which wasn't by the OP:



You could make it so that each component has some way of not being detected:
Verbal: Arcana check.
Material/Somatic: Sleight of Hand check.

[Sigreid]

To the original idea, I could see performance and slight of hand being used to put on a magic show that conceals the real magic being cast. So, classic misdirection.

[diplomancer]

I was remembering this post, which wasn't by the OP:

Ah, I forgot that, you are right. Yes, I don't think that is a good suggestion. Both Stealth and Performance make more sense for that (and though Stealth is a very commonly used skill, not all wizards will have it, while Performance is so underused that even some Bards don't get it).

[Pex]

I would not allow it in combat to counteract counterspell. As many have said, it steps too much on the Sorcerer's shoes.

But I would allow it out of combat for social reasons. It gives a good use for an underused skill (even more if it is Performance... I would not allow it with Deception), and it fits well some archetypes. Illusionists are going to love this.

I sympathize with players wanting to be able to do this, but I agree it steps on Sorcerers' toes. Let them have their exclusive thing. However, if one is to allow a minor version of it I agree it should be Performance. You're trying to cast a spell while pretending you aren't. From a game mechanics perspective it's a Charisma check in a skill very few wizards, clerics, and druids have a high score in let alone proficiency. It becomes a difficult thing for them to do. For bards and warlocks I can let it pass they won't have too much trouble with it being thematically appropriate while Sorcerers with Subtle Spell are able to do it all.

[Tuje]

Absolutely not, It's core exclusive for sorcerers. You wouldn't allow substitute a class feature.

Well, following that Arcana check would allows the sorcerer cast spells that he doesn't know...

Or Athletic check allows him to use dash as bonus action or ACTION SURGE.

[MaxWilson]

No. I am commenting on what the rules appear to say and mean, rather than how I would personally rule as a DM.

Namely, that the rules say you must handle the material components (per SAC) in a recognizable way (per XGtE's section that "provides clarifications to the PHB and DMG rules and new options" as well as JC's RAI comments on what is intended to be perceptible and counterspellable when using Subtle Spell).

Ah. I understand why people got the wrong impression (it probably would have been good to preface your initial remarks with something like "technically, the rules say that..."), but setting that aside: substantively I agree with you. If there were a spell with only M component, you could still Counterspell that spell, under both PHB rules and Xanathar's rules. In fact Xanathar's is explicit that the presence of any component including M makes a casting perceivable.

Subtle Spell eliminates V, S but not M components, so e.g. Subtle Fireball is technically an M spell, therefore technically both detectable and Counterspellable under the rules as written. (Maybe the glowing bead of bat guano levitates into the air and catches fire before suddenly streaking off and exploding; with an Arcane Focus maybe there's a bead of ghostly bat guano that appears and does the same thing.)

[Fryy]

To the OP: Allow Subtle Casting with a skill check?

No, that just gives extra advantage to Bards (with their Jack of All Trades class feature) relative to other casters.

[Fryy]

Subtle Spell allows casting without any Verbal or Somatic components.
The Somatic components are the gestures (or body movements).

So, what is 'manipulating' an object (a.k.a. handling or controlling) perceived as when no body movement is involved? I would say it is perceived as 'holding' an object.

So, if you are holding an object, the object is not consumed by casting (such as a staff, focus, wand, etc.) and the object is not said to glow, vibrate, or transform in any perceivable way, then honestly what would cause a reaction (counterspell)? I cannot see reasonable justification for being able to perceive a casting let alone react to it. You are welcome to your own opinions, though.

The only wiggle room I can see is if you maintain that the Somatic component does not include all body movement and that the Material component includes additional body movement. I don't think that is reasonable or is definitively stated in RAW.

Example: A group of Sorcerers walk into the street and stand there for 5 minutes holding staves. How many counterspells are you going to throw out, and when, and on whom? And would you even know if it made a difference?

[Spiritchaser]

I would not permit this to work for spells with verbal components under anything remotely like normal circumstances.

Quite apart from anything else, the ability to cast while concealed cannot be generally available for play balance reasons, most especially in a stealth heavy campaign.

Unless you were in the middle of a large religious convention with chanting to be heard from every point of the compass, I wouldn’t even consider allowing it.

If you want to cast spells without their verbal components, be a sorcerer.

I’d be quite a bit more accommodating with somatic components, though I can’t imagine making this remotely easy or anything like universally possible

[Mjolnirbear]

NP!



It's on pg85 of the XGtE, in the section that "expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide, providing clarifications and new options."

There's also pg203 of the PHB, which states:

That page in the PHB is why I made the first post, since the wording makes it clear that foci are substitutes for M components.

Normally I prefer Xanathars expansions and clarifications to PHB or DMG rules, but less so in this case.

[Pex]

The subtle difference, pun intended, of how one can justify a skill check for this but not a skill check for an extra Dash or Action Surge or cast a spell you don't know is the latter all involve actions. You can't do a skill check to gain an action. Casting while not being noticed is not an action but part of an action you're already doing. That's a wall you can put up so as not to have a slippery slope, but it's not a good one. The cleric may ask why can't he make a Religion check to smite like a paladin since it's not an extra action.

It's something, but I still rather let Sorcerer be exclusive.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The subtle difference, pun intended, of how one can justify a skill check for this but not a skill check for an extra Dash or Action Surge or cast a spell you don't know is the latter all involve actions. You can't do a skill check to gain an action. Casting while not being noticed is not an action but part of an action you're already doing. That's a wall you can put up so as not to have a slippery slope, but it's not a good one. The cleric may ask why can't he make a Religion check to smite like a paladin since it's not an extra action.

It's something, but I still rather let Sorcerer be exclusive.

What about using Perception to increase the range of a bow, or Athletics to reroll damage dice? Both are similar to other single sorcery point effects, and I think most DMs would laugh you out of the room if you proposed either.

[TheUser]

I'm going to roll a Religion check to expend a spell slot to add radiant damage to my melee attack....

[diplomancer]

All those ironic comments abour "using religion for smite", "using perception for bow range", etc, miss the point.

Suppose there was no Divine Smite feature in the game; would anyone dream that up as a skill check? No, it is an obvious abuse.

The same simply does not apply to subtle spell metamagic and using sleight of hand to disguise magic. That is simply a fantasy trope that does not depend on the existence of subtle spell metamagic, or the sorcerer class for that matter.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

All those ironic comments abour "using religion for smite", "using perception for bow range", etc, miss the point.

Suppose there was no Divine Smite feature in the game; would anyone dream that up as a skill check? No, it is an obvious abuse.

The same simply does not apply to subtle spell metamagic and using sleight of hand to disguise magic. That is simply a fantasy trope that does not depend on the existence of subtle spell metamagic, or the sorcerer class for that matter.

I'm pretty sure the guy with really good eyes being able to shoot people very far away is also a common fantasy trope that doesn't rely on the existence of Distant Spell. I'd say, in fact, that the guy with good eyes shooting people very far away is an even more common trope than hiding spellcasting.

[Tanarii]

All those ironic comments abour "using religion for smite", "using perception for bow range", etc, miss the point.Not really. Theyre pointing out a comparison to gaining distant metamagic or empowered metamagic for the cost of a skill check. Its directly comparable.



The same simply does not apply to subtle spell metamagic and using sleight of hand to disguise magic. That is simply a fantasy trope that does not depend on the existence of subtle spell metamagic, or the sorcerer class for that matter.It sounds to me like you think the resource investment necessary to disguise your spellcasting in 5e is too high for your preferences. Thats fine. Just openly acknowledge that is your opinion, and house rule away Subtle spell, replacing it with Sleight of Hand checks.

[Demonslayer666]

I would only allow a spell to go off unnoticed if the situation were pretty distracting. I would not require a roll though, because I feel that the the spell has to be cast a certain way, and you can't make it less obvious because you'd be changing the VS components which would cause the spell to fail. That's how I picture it anyway.

A good example would be casting from a second story room through a window and your target is on a busy street below you.

VS are pretty obvious, M not so much on it's own.

Under direct observation, no. Standing 20' in front of the king and you start casting, you are going to roll initiative, not stealth.

[sophontteks]

For what its worth, I love sorcerers. A lot of people think they are weak, I think they are amazing. But the reason I love sorcerers is because they have subtle spell. If a bard could match this metamagic with expertise in sleight of hand, I'd never play a sorcerer again.

[Pex]

What about using Perception to increase the range of a bow, or Athletics to reroll damage dice? Both are similar to other single sorcery point effects, and I think most DMs would laugh you out of the room if you proposed either.

Like I said, the wall is weak, but at least there's a wall so you won't be asked to roll a Constitution check to get Action Surge. You eliminate all desires of ability/skill check to get an action and work from there. Fine by me if you say No to Everything, but for those who will allow Yes to Something the wall can help keep things grounded.

[diplomancer]

Rule 1 of D&D is: player describes what his character tries to do. DM describes the result, setting a DC for a roll if appropriate.

When a player says "I want to cast a spell without people noticing it", the DM who answers "sure, make a sleight of hand check. DC is 15" is "houseruling" it as much as the DM who says "DC is 60, its impossible". Both of them express the DM's judgement about how difficult an action described by the player is.

There is no rule that says "it is not possible to disguise a spell with a sleight of hand check"

[TheUser]

Rule 1 of D&D is: player describes what his character tries to do. DM describes the result, setting a DC for a roll if appropriate.

When a player says "I want to cast a spell without people noticing it", the DM who answers "sure, make a sleight of hand check. DC is 15" is "houseruling" it as much as the DM who says "DC is 60, its impossible". Both of them express the DM's judgement about how difficult an action described by the player is.

There is no rule that says "it is not possible to disguise a spell with a sleight of hand check"

Ahh yes the DM fiat argument.

How many players elect to play with DM's who allow skill checks to replace core class features?

Player: "I want to [mirror a class feature I do not possess but with a chance of failure]"
DM: "[I think that skill monkeys should be able to replicate class features on a whim so long as a chance of failure is possible] Roll an [insert skill] check"

[Man_Over_Game]

Ahh yes the DM fiat argument.

How many players elect to play with DM's who allow skill checks to replace core class features?

Player: "I want to [mirror a class feature I do not possess but with a chance of failure]"
DM: "[I think that skill monkeys should be able to replicate class features on a whim so long as a chance of failure is possible] Roll an [insert skill] check"

I mean, the game kinda already does that, though.

You can climb without a check, but difficult climbing scenarios would require a chance to fail (An Athletics check) or Spider Climb.

You can jump a certain height, but to jump higher you'll need a chance to fail (an Athletics check), Step of the Wind, or Jump.

You can guess if someone's lying with Detect Thoughts, or do so with a chance to fail (Insight check).

The game is full of redundant abilities that either come at some kind of cost (usually a spell slot, but Ki is another possible example) or a chance to fail.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in that Subtle Spell shouldn't be ignored, but I don't think that avoiding making features redundant by adding a chance to fail is a good defense, considering that's a major part of what skills already do.

[diplomancer]

Subtle spell works, 100% of the time:
- if you are gagged.
-if you are bound.
-if you are bound And gagged.
- if you want to avoid Counterspell
- to cast spell unnoticed in out of combat situations.

Saying "hey, maybe there might be some way of casting unnoticed in out of combat situations, with a chance of faiure, with an ability check" is not, in any way, shape, or form, giving away a class feature for a skill check.

Are you telling me that you would not allow a Master Bard to create a Performance so amazing that one would not notice his Wizard friend (who is not known to be a wizard) casting a spel in a dimly lit corner? If the answer is you would not, thats cool, but you and I approach D&D very differently.

You might as well claim that stealth should not allow you to not be seen in a dim environment, since turning invisible in such environment is a Way of Shadows Monk class feature.

[sophontteks]

Subtle spell works, 100% of the time:
- if you are gagged.
-if you are bound.
-if you are bound And gagged.
- if you want to avoid Counterspell
- to cast spell unnoticed in out of combat situations.

Saying "hey, maybe there might be some way of casting unnoticed in out of combat situations, with a chance of faiure, with an ability check" is not, in any way, shape, or form, giving away a class feature for a skill check.

Are you telling me that you would not allow a Master Bard to create a Performance so amazing that one would not notice his Wizard friend (who is not known to be a wizard) casting a spel in a dimly lit corner? If the answer is you would not, thats cool, but you and I approach D&D very differently.

You might as well claim that stealth should not allow you to not be seen in a dim environment, since turning invisible in such environment is a Way of Shadows Monk class feature.
I'm fine with that 100%, but that's not what is being discussed.

[diplomancer]

I'm fine with that 100%, but that's not what is being discussed.

Well, it is what I have been arguing for since my first post on this thread, when I mentioned I would not allow it for counterspell, but could allow it, in some cases, to cast it unnoticed in social situations.

People have answered that this is comparable to allowing divine smite with a Religion check.

[Tanarii]

Rule 1 of D&D is: player describes what his character tries to do. DM describes the result, setting a DC for a roll if appropriate.

When a player says "I want to cast a spell without people noticing it", the DM who answers "sure, make a sleight of hand check. DC is 15" is "houseruling" it as much as the DM who says "DC is 60, its impossible". Both of them express the DM's judgement about how difficult an action described by the player is.

There is no rule that says "it is not possible to disguise a spell with a sleight of hand check"
Fair. My comment was not clear.

1) House rule Subtle Spell away.

2) Then use standard DM procedure of ruling n an action, and rule you can Sleight of Hand by allowing it to cover up V & S components for set DCs.

I mean, if you make them really really hard DCs, then Subtle Spell retains some serious value. But if you allow it as a DC 10 check for someone standing fairly close with no serious ambient noise or visual covering, you're setting an entirely different tone for Spellcasting, as well as taking away from subtle spell. Ditto if you allow someone to remain hidden by making a stealth check to over it up, or the like.

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

If I had a DM that allowed this I'd probably make every caster a Charlatan or Urchin with Prodigy (Expertise Sleight of Hand). :smallamused:

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Like I said, the wall is weak, but at least there's a wall so you won't be asked to roll a Constitution check to get Action Surge. You eliminate all desires of ability/skill check to get an action and work from there. Fine by me if you say No to Everything, but for those who will allow Yes to Something the wall can help keep things grounded.

Sure. I think we can all agree that skill checks for extra actions are completely out-of-bounds. I think Perception for bonus ranged attack range is a very good comparison to Sleight to disguise S components; 50% extra range and one disguised component are both roughly 0.5 sorcery point effects with niche effects.

That it steps on Subtle Spell doesn't bother me that much. Subtle Spell is automatic and disguises the casting more fully. But Subtle Spell is automatic, and this isn't. Subtle Spell also consumes a resource, and this doesn't. That means you're going to have a game where CasterPlayer rolls a skill check every time he casts a spell. It might not slow the game down much, but it will slow the game down.

I also haven't seen anyone explain the consequences for failure. If failure is "the spell behaves normally", there's no reason not to roll it every single time; that's the only overlap with Subtle Spell that bothers me. If failure is "fail to cast the spell", then it's a much more niche application with some interesting, real tension and usage decisions to make, and I'd be much more willing to allow it.

[diplomancer]

Sure. I think we can all agree that skill checks for extra actions are completely out-of-bounds. I think Perception for bonus ranged attack range is a very good comparison to Sleight to disguise S components; 50% extra range and one disguised component are both roughly 0.5 sorcery point effects with niche effects.

That it steps on Subtle Spell doesn't bother me that much. Subtle Spell is automatic and disguises the casting more fully. But Subtle Spell is automatic, and this isn't. Subtle Spell also consumes a resource, and this doesn't. That means you're going to have a game where CasterPlayer rolls a skill check every time he casts a spell. It might not slow the game down much, but it will slow the game down.

I also haven't seen anyone explain the consequences for failure. If failure is "the spell behaves normally", there's no reason not to roll it every single time; that's the only overlap with Subtle Spell that bothers me. If failure is "fail to cast the spell", then it's a much more niche application with some interesting, real tension and usage decisions to make, and I'd be much more willing to allow it.

Consequence of the failure is that the spell is noticed, with all social implications that this implies, which can go from "nothing much" to "people laugh at your pitiful attempt to deceive them" to "as you try to conceal your casting of the spell, the King's Archmage and the King's guard attack you, roll for initiative... i.e, a TPK".

I have also suggested that to do that should take 1 extra Action, which is probably a high enough cost, with the chance of failure, to keep it strictly to Out of Combat situations (and certainly enough so that NO player will do this every time he casts a spell ).

[sophontteks]

Sure. I think we can all agree that skill checks for extra actions are completely out-of-bounds. I think Perception for bonus ranged attack range is a very good comparison to Sleight to disguise S components; 50% extra range and one disguised component are both roughly 0.5 sorcery point effects with niche effects.

That it steps on Subtle Spell doesn't bother me that much. Subtle Spell is automatic and disguises the casting more fully. But Subtle Spell is automatic, and this isn't. Subtle Spell also consumes a resource, and this doesn't. That means you're going to have a game where CasterPlayer rolls a skill check every time he casts a spell. It might not slow the game down much, but it will slow the game down.

I also haven't seen anyone explain the consequences for failure. If failure is "the spell behaves normally", there's no reason not to roll it every single time; that's the only overlap with Subtle Spell that bothers me. If failure is "fail to cast the spell", then it's a much more niche application with some interesting, real tension and usage decisions to make, and I'd be much more willing to allow it.
Right, I think this is the general consensus.

The blunt answer to the OP: No, players should not be allowed to mimic the effects of subtle spell with a skill check.

The long answer. It is ok to try to hide the effects of verbal and somatic components through the use of the environment, which may or may not require skill checks, depending on the situation. Stealth and sleight of hand checks can be used to help hide these components in the right situation, but the V and S themselves are always present and obvious. Like with stealth, if the spell is cast in plain and obvious sight, it can't be masked in any way.


Consequence of the failure is that the spell is noticed, with all social implications that this implies, which can go from "nothing much" to "people laugh at your pitiful attempt to deceive them" to "as you try to conceal your casting of the spell, the King's Archmage and the King's guard attack you, roll for initiative... i.e, a TPK".

I have also suggested that to do that should take 1 extra Action, which is probably a high enough cost, with the chance of failure, to keep it strictly to Out of Combat situations (and certainly enough so that NO player will do this every time he casts a spell ).
Are you still arguing that the caster is not making a naked check at all, but instead taking advantage of environmental distractions, or are you now arguing that a player can use a skill check to mimic subtle spell?

[ChiefBigFeather]

{Scrubbed}

[diplomancer]

Are you still arguing that the caster is not making a naked check at all, but instead taking advantage of environmental distractions, or are you now arguing that a player can use a skill check to mimic subtle spell?

I am arguing that the DC to cast the spell without being noticed depends directly on the amount of environmental distractions present, who is keeping an eye on you, etc... and is up to the DM (you know, like every other DC for any action the player wants to attempt which does not have a set DC by the rules). I am also arguing that this is, in no way, a houserule, but how Dungeons and Dragons works.

If I were the DM, I would set the DC to disguise Somatic Components in a bare room from a person staring straight at you at 30 (i.e, it can mimic, at a VERY high level AND at the cost of a Class Feature- Expertise, and an extra action, WITH a high chance of failure, ONE of the aspects of Subtle Spell). Almost impossible, but amazing sleight of hand tricks, where a skilled illusionist does things without anyone perceiving what he is actually doing, even though thousands are staring straight at him trying to figure out what's happening, happen in the real world. Letting a fantasy wizard do a similar thing in the fantasy game does not stretch my imagination one bit.

If I were playing a Sorcerer in that same group and the DM decided that the Bard can make the attempt, I would not feel gimped at all. Depending on the situation, I would probably look at it with amusement, wait for the Bard to fail, which is quite likely, and then spend my 1 sorcery point to easily do what the Bard attempted. I would feel empowered, even more empowered if I am a Level 3 sorcerer and just witnessed the level 20 bard failing. If, against the odds, he succeeded, great. I saved my sorcery point and can use it for other things.

[Moxxmix]

Overall, I don't believe Sleight of Hand could be used to give an effect like Subtle Spell, but it could be used in other ways. Other skills such as Stealth and Performance can also be used to help mitigate the ability of an opponent to Counterspell, and all three of them have ways to help reduce the odds of a spell's casting being noticed (either before or after the cast, depending on the spell).

It would absolutely not be Subtle Spell, as there are many points of failure, and it doesn't try to substitute for the spell components, but even a Subtle Spell user could benefit from incorporating creative skill usage.

NB: The extent of the answer somewhat depends on whether the OP is asking about "subtle" spellcasting or "Subtle Spell" casting. It makes sense for the first, but not for the second.

---

Application of skills to conceal the casting of a spell:

Stealth: Hide to prevent someone seeing you cast, and thus be unable to Counterspell. They can still hear you if you start chanting a spell, though.

Performance: Provide a distraction to allow someone else to cast without being noticed. Disadvantage on Perception checks to notice them casting. Not effective in combat.

Sleight of Hand: Could be used to give disadvantage on identifying a cast spell, or identifying the intended target of a spell.


---

Thoughts on the "Material" debate:

Material: External materials necessary for the spell to be able to work. You may also use a magical focus for many spells, instead. Use of the material component is a noticeable part of casting a spell. It's basically always a visual component, similar to Somatic, and thus has the same means of hiding your casting, or distracting an observer.

Note that use of Material can involve movement without that movement being the Somatic component of the spell. For example, if you use a wand as a spell focus, the Somatic component might involve tracing a rune in the air, while the Material component might be pointing the wand at the target, and having a fireball streak out in the direction you pointed. If you used bat guano instead of a spell focus, you might throw it in the direction of the target, for the same effective purpose. Either way, someone pointing a wand or other magical thingy at you is a pretty good indicator that magic is coming, even without any Somatic components. That's enough to validate Counterspell usage.

Summary: Merely having the material or spell focus isn't enough to cast the spell. There must be some action involved in their use that is necessary for the activation of the spell. So a Sorcerer just standing still and holding a staff can't cast an undetectable Fireball, even with Subtle Spell, because he's not completing the final activation step.

[Witty Username]

Dear community,

do you think it would be unbalancing to allow subtle casting for all casters if they pass a slight of hand check vs the surroundings passive perception+the spell level? Maybe twice the spell level?

I‘d only allow this is situation where obscurement would be reasonable. The Verbal component rules are kind of ambivalent about the loudness of casting, at least as far as I know. This could be a decent framework for determining who can hear a spell.

What do you think?

I wouldn't allow them to cast without verbal or somatic components, so they would still need free hands and such.
But using sleight of hand to obscure spell casting seems fine, I would probably allow others to oppose with insight or arcane as well as perception depending on the situation.

For the Religion, smite argument. Can I use Religion/Arcana to determine if a creature is a fiend, celestial, or undead? Isn't that divine sense? That seems like the stronger parallel.

[GreyBlack]

I wouldn't allow them to cast without verbal or somatic components, so they would still need free hands and such.
But using sleight of hand to obscure spell casting seems fine, I would probably allow others to oppose with insight or arcane as well as perception depending on the situation.

For the Religion, smite argument. Can I use Religion/Arcana to determine if a creature is a fiend, celestial, or undead? Isn't that divine sense? That seems like the stronger parallel.

By the rules as written, no. You can't determine a creature's typing based on a skill check.


Arcana. Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.

If you know that the creature is from another plane, you might be able to use the Arcana check to know what it is, but you can't use the check to find out if it is from another plane.

[Sindal]

If asked by my players "Can I roll slight of hand to try and hide my material components" or "Can I roll performance to try make my somatic casting looks more like an act instead of spellcasting"

The first thing I'd tell them is to stop asking for skill checks and actually tell me what they're character does to accomplish this :smallsmile:

Beyond that: I'd generally say no, unless you can give me a VERY convincing argument about all the stuff that's going on. Casters are usually pretty smart people (all things considered). They'll notice that your fancy dance looks AWFULLY SIMILAR to how fireball looks. Counterspell bargains on the fact that someone is able to, in 6 seconds, notice that something is a spell. Even for spells that they don't personally know how to cast, you can cast counterspell.

The other reason is that, this is where things start getting 'needlessly dicey'. Not that I don't want my players to think outside the box, but spells are very specific near formulaic things as we are led to believe. A wizard apparent spends YEARS studying just to be able to cast fire bolt. The fact that there's SO MUCH conversation about what the requirements of spells even are, in this thread alone, shows that. It's easier to just take it at face value and say something reasonably believable like "This would disrupt your spell casting too much and may put your spell into jeopardy"

Thinking about it, the only time this REALLY matters, is if you are dealing with other people who know magic. A random shop owner might notice your hand moving funnily but they won't necessarily have the know how to realize "Wait, he's doing magic". And in that example, if your trying to hide it, hopefully you would have told me something like "I'm strolling around the shop trying to look casual, while I try to cast x" instead of "I stand infront of him and cast charm person point blank"

But generally? no. I won't look to skill checks for this kind of things. I would expect you to acutally hide it, by going somewhere else and getting something to distract the person

[Nagog]

I would allow it (at passive perception + spell's level for DC) but only for remaining hidden/unseen/unheard.
Anything further, like being able to cast when bound and gagged or being clearly visible in combat/socially, I wouldn't allow that to work. I would not allow casting spells (with V/S) in the former example, enemies/bystanders in the second example would notice, no roll. Letting casters do this with a skill check steps on Subtle Spell's toes too much.

I don't think it would hurt Subtle Spell all that much. Subtle spell ignores Somatic and Verbal components completely, so when using that you can still be doing something else with your hands or speaking while you cast, meaning not only can you multitask but you can also cast much more stealthily. This just allows casters to hide their casting behind a skill check that not only can be beaten, doing so also occupies their hands/mouth so they cant be actively doing something else.

As for making the check, I'd give some kind of debuff to it if it requires material components, for the reason if somebody saw a wizard in a robe holding the severed leg of a newt, they'd be really sketched out. So if it requires material components, perhaps they roll ad disadvantage, or have separate rolls for each component they need to hide, so in the case of verbal, somatic, and material components, they would roll 3 times and if they failed any one of those, somebody will notice that component being used. This allows other factors to impose disadvantage or advantage on those checks, such as a party member providing a distraction or a bright light being aimed right at the guilty caster.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I just now remembered is that you can Ready a spell and then cast it later in the turn without requiring components. The components (and spell slot) are spent with the initial casting, yet the spell effect can take place later. So be around a corner, cast a spell and hold it, walk up to 30 feet and release your spell with nobody being the wiser. This trick also works against Counterspell (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/80960/can-a-readied-spell-be-counterspelled-after-it-is-cast-but-before-the-trigger-o), if you're looking for combat tricks. This does expend your Reaction, but it's a small price to pay.

[diplomancer]

One thing I just now remembered is that you can Ready a spell and then cast it later in the turn without requiring components. The components (and spell slot) are spent with the initial casting, yet the spell effect can take place later. So be around a corner, cast a spell and hold it, walk up to 30 feet and release your spell with nobody being the wiser. This trick also works against Counterspell (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/80960/can-a-readied-spell-be-counterspelled-after-it-is-cast-but-before-the-trigger-o), if you're looking for combat tricks. This does expend your Reaction, but it's a small price to pay.

Neat trick, and certainly useful in many situations, but I'd like to point out that, by my reading, you have to fulfill all the requirements of the spell at the moment you cast the spell, not just at the moment the energy is released. So, for instance, casting Charm Person on the shopkeeper from outside the store where you can't see him does not work (because the spell says "a creature you can see"... and this just makes me realize that "seeing through the eyes of your familiar" is even better than I thought edit: actually, the action requirement and duration of seeing through the eyes of your familiar make that exploit impossible), nor does casting a spell with a range of 40' at 65' to avoid counterspell than moving 30' to get in range.

[Tanarii]

You must have line of effect to a target, or from an AoE's Point of origin to the target, unless the spell says otherwise. So it wont work for most spells.

But it would make far more sense to judge all that stuff at the time the spell is released.

[Galithar]

I think that's really just coming down to DM ruling. Since the spell doesn't have to be released when you cast, not does a target have to be chosen I think that it SHOULD work. But a DM could say otherwise.

Example of not choosing a target: I'm fighting phase spiders and they ALL phased to the Ethereal last turn. I ready an action to cast Magic Missle on the first spider that I see. Would you say I can't do that because I can't see them when readying the spell? If you would allow that, which is a time I might actually ready a spell in combat, why wouldn't you let me prepare charm person before walking into the shop? My trigger being 'when I can see Bob, the shopkeeper'.

[Tanarii]

Having just read the PHB Ready section again, I think it's mostly a strict reading of "cast the spell as normal".

I've certainly allowed it to work fine when a player is waiting for an enemy to become visible or get into range. RAW or no.

[Galithar]

Having just read the PHB Ready section again, I think it's mostly a strict reading of "cast the spell as normal".

I've certainly allowed it to work fine when a player is waiting for an enemy to become visible or get into range. RAW or no.

I get that. I am just trying to ask the people that disagree with allowing it what the difference between me moving to trigger my own ready action is and an enemy moving. Because as you've said most (if not all) would allow me to ready a spell even if the enemy is currently invisible, in preparation for when they aren't anymore.

I can ready a spell whether I can see the enemy or not, and it goes off if THEY cause me to be able to see them but NOT if I cause the change that let's me see them?

I can see a 'for balance' argument, but allowing one and not the other seems to be enforcing different rules each time which I dislike. I don't care if you change things or don't use RAW. Just be consistent with it.

[sithlordnergal]

I think it is perfectly fine, and doesn't break anything. Of course, I also allow spell casters to roll stealth or deception to hide that they're casting a spell...but I have yet to see it break anything.

And allowing people to stealthily cast spells doesn't seem to step on the toes of subtle spell as much as people claim. Subtle spell just removes the chance of being spotted and makes it a guarenteed success, and allows sorcerers to cast stuff when they are bound.

[Moxxmix]

I get that. I am just trying to ask the people that disagree with allowing it what the difference between me moving to trigger my own ready action is and an enemy moving. Because as you've said most (if not all) would allow me to ready a spell even if the enemy is currently invisible, in preparation for when they aren't anymore.

I can ready a spell whether I can see the enemy or not, and it goes off if THEY cause me to be able to see them but NOT if I cause the change that let's me see them?

I can see a 'for balance' argument, but allowing one and not the other seems to be enforcing different rules each time which I dislike. I don't care if you change things or don't use RAW. Just be consistent with it.

This took some thinking and digging, but I think the reasonable answer is the real answer.

The first consideration is that it depends on whether the initial casting of the spell necessarily includes the target, or if the target is only selected upon the release of the spell.

We know that:

If you’re concentrating on a spell, do you need to maintain line of sight with the spell’s target or the spell’s effect?
You don’t need to be within line of sight or within range to maintain concentration on a spell, unless a spell’s description or other game feature says otherwise.

Since you're concentrating on the readied spell, that seems to imply that the target not being in line of sight, or not in range, doesn't matter. So from that perspective, the target only needs to be selected (and within range/seen/etc) at the time of release.

We also have:

For readying a spell or other action, does the target have to be in range?
Your target must be within range when you take a readied action, not when you first ready it.
Which means range doesn't matter, and, given the arbitrary nature of what "in range" could possibly be, being in line of sight shouldn't matter either.

Another Sage Advice question: "Can you ready dispel magic to stop another spell from taking effect?" has a long answer that clearly shows that you must necessarily be able to choose the target of a spell at the point in time that you release the spell, in order for it to make any sense at all. That is, you ready Dispel Magic, then another caster casts a spell on some unknown (at the time of your casting) target, and then you cast Dispel Magic on that target after the opponent's spell takes effect. Since you can't possibly have selected the target beforehand, it seems that the target is specified on release of the spell, not at the time you initially readied it.


Conclusions:
1) The target of a readied spell does not have to be in range at the time you readied your spell.
2) The target of a readied spell does not have to be in line of sight at the time you readied your spell.
3) The target of a readied spell does not have to be known at the time you readied your spell.
4) The target of a readied spell does have to fulfill all the conditions of a valid target at the time you release the readied spell.


That does then lead to the issue of handling Counterspell, and whether the casting of a readied spell is noticeable.

Since the above conclusions show that some portion of the spell must be completed when you release the spell (in order to select the target), and "casting" can mean either the performance of the spell's ritual or the release of the spell in order to perform an effect (which I believe is more relevant for our purposes), I would consider that releasing the spell is the point where you are 'casting' the spell (in terms of how Counterspell is used), and is noticeable if the spell as a whole is noticeable (ie: not cast with Subtle Spell and no material components).

Thus Counterspell would be relevant at the time of the release of the spell, not at the time of initially readying it. (This is counter to the StackExchange answer, which I don't believe is correct.) That also negates shenanigans of readying a spell outside Counterspell's range, and then releasing the spell inside Counterspell's range.

That also implies that releasing the spell should be noticeable for the purpose of determining that you're casting a spell (and/or identifying it, bringing in Xanathar's rules, though I'd probably give disadvantage if you didn't see the initial readying of the spell), since it must be noticeable in order to be counterable.


Overall shopkeeper conclusion: Yes, you can ready the spell outside the shop, and then walk in and cast it on the shopkeeper, but doing so would be just as noticeable to him as just walking into the shop and casting the spell on him normally.

[diplomancer]

This took some thinking and digging, but I think the reasonable answer is the real answer.

The first consideration is that it depends on whether the initial casting of the spell necessarily includes the target, or if the target is only selected upon the release of the spell.

We know that:


Since you're concentrating on the readied spell, that seems to imply that the target not being in line of sight, or not in range, doesn't matter. So from that perspective, the target only needs to be selected (and within range/seen/etc) at the time of release.

We also have:

Which means range doesn't matter, and, given the arbitrary nature of what "in range" could possibly be, being in line of sight shouldn't matter either.

Another Sage Advice question: "Can you ready dispel magic to stop another spell from taking effect?" has a long answer that clearly shows that you must necessarily be able to choose the target of a spell at the point in time that you release the spell, in order for it to make any sense at all. That is, you ready Dispel Magic, then another caster casts a spell on some unknown (at the time of your casting) target, and then you cast Dispel Magic on that target after the opponent's spell takes effect. Since you can't possibly have selected the target beforehand, it seems that the target is specified on release of the spell, not at the time you initially readied it.


Conclusions:
1) The target of a readied spell does not have to be in range at the time you readied your spell.
2) The target of a readied spell does not have to be in line of sight at the time you readied your spell.
3) The target of a readied spell does not have to be known at the time you readied your spell.
4) The target of a readied spell does have to fulfill all the conditions of a valid target at the time you release the readied spell.


That does then lead to the issue of handling Counterspell, and whether the casting of a readied spell is noticeable.

Since the above conclusions show that some portion of the spell must be completed when you release the spell (in order to select the target), and "casting" can mean either the performance of the spell's ritual or the release of the spell in order to perform an effect (which I believe is more relevant for our purposes), I would consider that releasing the spell is the point where you are 'casting' the spell (in terms of how Counterspell is used), and is noticeable if the spell as a whole is noticeable (ie: not cast with Subtle Spell and no material components).

Thus Counterspell would be relevant at the time of the release of the spell, not at the time of initially readying it. (This is counter to the StackExchange answer, which I don't believe is correct.) That also negates shenanigans of readying a spell outside Counterspell's range, and then releasing the spell inside Counterspell's range.

That also implies that releasing the spell should be noticeable for the purpose of determining that you're casting a spell (and/or identifying it, bringing in Xanathar's rules, though I'd probably give disadvantage if you didn't see the initial readying of the spell), since it must be noticeable in order to be counterable.


Overall shopkeeper conclusion: Yes, you can ready the spell outside the shop, and then walk in and cast it on the shopkeeper, but doing so would be just as noticeable to him as just walking into the shop and casting the spell on him normally.

Having read your argument, I agree that this is the best solution... even though the spell is cast beforehand (meaning the slot is spent), the requirements of the spell should be met at the time of release. So no "readying a cast outside of range of counterspell, move into range, cast spell", and no "casting outside the store so as not to be noticed" either.

[Galithar]

Now I'm not sure if it officially made it into the SAC, but Crawford has said (via tweet which is why I'm not sure it's in the SAC and the 'official' ruling) that a readied spell cannot be counterspelled at the time of release, but only when the ready action is taken because that's when the spell is actually cast.

Edit: Removed quote before I never referenced it.