DM judgement issues for each class?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I'm thinking Bards cause the most judgement situations for DM's with their role playing nonsense :) and "controversial" spells like Phantasmal Force and the illusions.

Clerics calling upon their deity for help can bring up some issues.

Rogues are always hiding and stereotypically trying to steal things.

What else do you all see at your tables?

[TheUser]

Sorcerers; but not in how they treat them but rather how they treat spellcasting from all other classes.

A majority of DM's don't treat verbal components as a very obvious "chant" and some even allow whisper casting with arbitrary ability checks (is it Arcana? Sleight of Hand? Deception? Performance? Casting Ability Check? Do you lose the spell slot if you fail badly?) Despite the fact that maintaining the pitch and resonance of a chant while whispering is literally impossible with a humanoid voice box.

Essentially, one of the most unique and powerful Sorcerer metamagics gets given away to every other caster and Bards with skill specialization can all but guarantee success...making it better than the metamagic. Despite having the potential for failure, it has zero resource cost (unlike Subtle metamagic).


Worst of all.....it's frustratingly abundant.

[micahaphone]

Deffo the free Subtle Spell, I agree with TheUser.

For monks/warlocks, a DM who is strict about what constitutes a short rest and doesn't give opportunities for it. It will leave you feeling really underpowered. Either you're out of resources way before the wizards or bards, or you realize after the fight that you held back and could've been more effective, now that you're short resting post-fight.

[HappyDaze]

Forest Gnome is not a class, but I get tired of players wanting to ignore interactions with NPCs and instead trying to strike up conversations with every dog, cat, bird, squirrel, etc. that they come upon.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Sorcerers; but not in how they treat them but rather how they treat spellcasting from all other classes.

A majority of DM's don't treat verbal components as a very obvious "chant" and some even allow whisper casting with arbitrary ability checks (is it Arcana? Sleight of Hand? Deception? Performance? Casting Ability Check? Do you lose the spell slot if you fail badly?) Despite the fact that maintaining the pitch and resonance of a chant while whispering is literally impossible with a humanoid voice box.

Essentially, one of the most unique and powerful Sorcerer metamagics gets given away to every other caster and Bards with skill specialization can all but guarantee success...making it better than the metamagic. Despite having the potential for failure, it has zero resource cost (unlike Subtle metamagic).


Worst of all.....it's frustratingly abundant.

I don't permit this as GM. Unless the spell says otherwise, casting it creates an immediate auditory and visual event that alerts everyone to your presence and identifies the spell in question. That said, I also don't interpret it as a chant and more a calling your shots kind of thing: "FIREBALL!" "MAGIC MISSILE!" "COUNTERSPELL!" Chanting is for rituals and cultists.

That said, I don't see a lot of subtle spell anyway. Once you open fire, the enemy knows what's up anyway, so it's only worthwhile to prevent being counterspelled or to cast when restrained.

My "spellcasting judgement" is that if the component doesn't have a cost, it doesn't matter. I prefer caster-with-stick to caster-with-tactical-vest-of-garbage, so as long as you have your rod or whatever you point that at the enemy to cast rather than pulling bat ****, sand, a feather, pocket lint, and a 9V battery out of your tactical-vest-of-garbage to cast your spell.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't permit this as GM. Unless the spell says otherwise, casting it creates an immediate auditory and visual event that alerts everyone to your presence and identifies the spell in question. That said, I also don't interpret it as a chant and more a calling your shots kind of thing: "FIREBALL!" "MAGIC MISSILE!" "COUNTERSPELL!" Chanting is for rituals and cultists.

That said, I don't see a lot of subtle spell anyway. Once you open fire, the enemy knows what's up anyway, so it's only worthwhile to prevent being counterspelled or to cast when restrained.

My "spellcasting judgement" is that if the component doesn't have a cost, it doesn't matter. I prefer caster-with-stick to caster-with-tactical-vest-of-garbage, so as long as you have your rod or whatever you point that at the enemy to cast rather than pulling bat ****, sand, a feather, pocket lint, and a 9V battery out of your tactical-vest-of-garbage to cast your spell.

I also don't allow whispering the spells, I do allow to try to lie about casting a spell.

I also only make NPCs with knowledge to try and identify the spell. A regular person may understand it is a spell, he may not understand it but there is a need for knowledge to identify the spell(try to cast greater restoration on the king just to get spears stabs because the king's wizard is not in the room).
You may convince them you did good but they will know there was a spell casted(a king guard need to know how components look like so he can spot the spell, a commoner will laugh at your weird words).

And the verbal components itself is more of a flavour of the character. It can be anything as long as it is vocal.

And the tactical vest caster I save for humour games, the focus is better in my eyes.

[Lord Haart]

Mystic.

Whatever your build is, you'll never convince anyone you're not OP.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I also don't allow whispering the spells, I do allow to try to lie about casting a spell.

I also only make NPCs with knowledge to try and identify the spell. A regular person may understand it is a spell, he may not understand it but there is a need for knowledge to identify the spell(try to cast greater restoration on the king just to get spears stabs because the king's wizard is not in the room).
You may convince them you did good but they will know there was a spell casted(a king guard need to know how components look like so he can spot the spell, a commoner will laugh at your weird words).

And the verbal components itself is more of a flavour of the character. It can be anything as long as it is vocal.

And the tactical vest caster I save for humour games, the focus is better in my eyes.

Also, the list of crap that's in the spell component pouch, which contains everything that doesn't have a cost, is ridiculous. And it's almost entirely trash [rocks, marbles, feathers, sand, a drop of mercury, bat guano, a tree branch, some wild berries, string, straw, a reed, a clay figurine, etc.]

I jokingly call it the tactical vest of garbage or the fanny pack of garbage, because not only is it literally filled with what amounts of a heap of trash, there's so much different crap some of which are powders and liquids that the wizard must have it compartmentalized with lots of buttoned and zippered pockets in order to find anything at all. Therefore, the wizard looks like she's wearing a tactical vest with like 400 pockets, all of them overflowing with the sort of leftover crap that you find in the washing machine after doing pants.


Also, the components themselves are good for a laugh if you actually read them. One spell requires a giant squid tentacle, which apparently fits in the bag. Flesh to Stone requires the ingredients of concrete, and Fireball requires ingredients of explosives. They're just so silly, and silly to visualize how one would use them, I chose to ignore them.

[Jerrykhor]

Mystic.

Whatever your build is, you'll never convince anyone you're not OP.

This. Its the truth, and only the truth.

[MoiMagnus]

For classes:
While it didn't happens at my table, I'm sure there is a lot of discussion to have about the exact interpretation of the Paladin's vows. (Though not as much as alignement debates in previous editions)

For most spellcaster classes:
Enchantment and Illusion magic are the most misinterpreted / implicitly-DM-houseruled.
Some DMs want illusion to be purely a light-bending magic (which buff it because it means knowing it's an illusion doesn't allow to see through, but nerf it because all the mind-affecting effect are gonna be much weaker).
Moreover, all enchantments and illusion spells heavily depends on the "NPC AI" your DM is using.

Counterspell: what kind of information do you have (or do the NPC should have) when you have to chose to counterspell or not? You know the caster, for sure. Do you know what spell he is casting? (RAW is no, as it cost a reaction to identify a spell) Do you know in what direction the spell will be casted? (RAW do not answer this) Do you have some other obvious informations you can deduce from the way the spell is casted, like the school or magic of the spell, or the level of the spell, ...?

Oh, and any Wish will call for DM judgement, obviously. What kind of wishes are allowed? Will the DM tries to trick you on the wording? Will the DM not try to trick you on the exact wording, considering the exact wording is a meta-information, but rather ask your characters to do some Int checks to see if you are tricked in some way?

[MrStabby]

Druids and wildshape are a big one. What creatures has a druid seen? do you need to see them directly or is scrying sufficient? any proximity required? What is each form able to do with respect to holding or manipulating objects?

Summon cheese spell at spell level 4 poses a problem at some tables and can lead to different interpretations of the rules.

Polymorph is also interesting - can you polymorph into a creature that doesnt exist in the campaign setting? What are the limitations of the mental stats?



Other than that some debates about illusions are common. Anything involving hiding and vision and obscurement and lighting can cause controversy.

Rogues can get into debates about should stealth checks be an individual thing or a group thing? What do you need in order to be able to take the help action? This isn't just true of rogues and is more about the role than the class.

Then there are spells that create objects - if you create a big block of lead over someones head and let it fall, what damage does it do? Is there a save?

[diplomancer]

Sorcerers; but not in how they treat them but rather how they treat spellcasting from all other classes.

A majority of DM's don't treat verbal components as a very obvious "chant" and some even allow whisper casting with arbitrary ability checks (is it Arcana? Sleight of Hand? Deception? Performance? Casting Ability Check? Do you lose the spell slot if you fail badly?) Despite the fact that maintaining the pitch and resonance of a chant while whispering is literally impossible with a humanoid voice box.

Essentially, one of the most unique and powerful Sorcerer metamagics gets given away to every other caster and Bards with skill specialization can all but guarantee success...making it better than the metamagic. Despite having the potential for failure, it has zero resource cost (unlike Subtle metamagic).


Worst of all.....it's frustratingly abundant.

That got me thinking. I agree that subtle spell is great in combat (to avoid counterspelling or to cast with your hands full without warcaster) or in extreme situations (bound and gagged, for instance), and I think most DMs are not as liberal with other casters in those situations.

But what about social situations? Bards literally weave spells with music. Would someone untrained in Arcana be able to tell that a Bard is casting a spell during a performance if it has no immediate visual effects? I really don't agree that a DM that allows this is "nerfing subtle sorcerers".

Only reason to disallow this is "bards are already good", but:
1- So are sorcerers, they are not the poor man of 5e.
2- without having access to the designer's opinions we can't know whether that sort of casting is already intended by the rules or not.

Maybe, by disallowing it, you are nerfing bards from the designer's original intent. If anything, the answer is yes, it's permitted; from the very first paragraphs describing a bard:
"Laughing as she tunes her cittern, a gnome weaves her subtle magic over the assembled nobles, ensuring that her companions’ words will be well received."

If this does not look like a description of deceptive casting, then basically casting a spell is always socially acceptable, even if it's over an assembly of nobles (and that is an even greater nerf to subtle sorcerers, as well as being a setting premise that should have no place in a class description).

[da newt]

The help action is one that I've seen handled in so many different ways that its hard to know what is 'right' - familiars make this even more prevalent. (maybe this should go in the RAW thread)
Do you have to have proficiency to 'help'? - you don't need it to do the action.
Can my owl 'help' me pick a lock?
How does a Mastermind 'help' during combat from 30' away (yells to the Barbarian across the way - 'he drops his left when he throws a right' or 'go for the femoral artery (crap it's Thog I'm talking to) - I mean hit him in the b@!!$')

[Keravath]

That got me thinking. I agree that subtle spell is great in combat (to avoid counterspelling or to cast with your hands full without warcaster) or in extreme situations (bound and gagged, for instance), and I think most DMs are not as liberal with other casters in those situations.

But what about social situations? Bards literally weave spells with music. Would someone untrained in Arcana be able to tell that a Bard is casting a spell during a performance if it has no immediate visual effects? I really don't agree that a DM that allows this is "nerfing subtle sorcerers".

Only reason to disallow this is "bards are already good", but:
1- So are sorcerers, they are not the poor man of 5e.
2- without having access to the designer's opinions we can't know whether that sort of casting is already intended by the rules or not.

Maybe, by disallowing it, you are nerfing bards from the designer's original intent. If anything, the answer is yes, it's permitted; from the very first paragraphs describing a bard:
"Laughing as she tunes her cittern, a gnome weaves her subtle magic over the assembled nobles, ensuring that her companions’ words will be well received."

If this does not look like a description of deceptive casting, then basically casting a spell is always socially acceptable, even if it's over an assembly of nobles (and that is an even greater nerf to subtle sorcerers, as well as being a setting premise that should have no place in a class description).

Just a note but I don't think bard spellcasting is described any differently than any other sort of spellcaster. It is your interpretation that "Bards literally weave spells with music."

Bard: "Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music oration."
Druid: "Drawing on the divine essence of nature itself, you can cast spells to shape that essence to your will."
Paladin: "By 2nd level, you have learned to draw on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does."
Ranger: "By the time you reach 2nd level, you have learned to use the magical essence of nature to cast spells, much as a druid does."
Sorcerer: "An event in your past, or in the life of a parent or ancestor, left an indelible mark on you, infusing you with arcane magic. This font of magic, whatever its origin, fuels your spells."
Warlock:"Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells."
Wizard: "As a student of arcane magic, you have a spellbook containing spells that show the first glimmerings of your true power."


"VERBAL (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magicin motion."

None of the "origin" stories of the source of magic for any of the classes indicate that if casting a spell with a verbal component the character does not need to "chant mystic words".

It is a DM call as to whether these mystic words have to be loud or unique but they are likely recognizable as "magic words". They do need to have a "particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance". Presumably, these sounds would be recognizable as "magic words" in a world where magic is relatively common. So it seems likely that even a typical audience of commoners would know if a bard segued into casting a spell, even if they don't know what the spell might be.

So, no, I don't think the bard gets a pass on being able to get away with casting a spell during a performance.

On the other hand, as mentioned, a lot of DMs do allow spellcasting to be hidden among other activities even if they require obvious somatic or verbal components. The somatic can be justified simply if the casters hands can be concealed or if the required movements fit in to casting the spell (like a bard playing a musical instrument - any somatic component may be part of the playing or made into a flourish with the instrument) but justifying the verbal components not being noticeable, for any spell caster except a sorcerer using subtle spell is a DM judgement.

[Urukubarr]

Sorcerers; but not in how they treat them but rather how they treat spellcasting from all other classes.

A majority of DM's don't treat verbal components as a very obvious "chant" and some even allow whisper casting with arbitrary ability checks (is it Arcana? Sleight of Hand? Deception? Performance? Casting Ability Check? Do you lose the spell slot if you fail badly?) Despite the fact that maintaining the pitch and resonance of a chant while whispering is literally impossible with a humanoid voice box.

Essentially, one of the most unique and powerful Sorcerer metamagics gets given away to every other caster and Bards with skill specialization can all but guarantee success...making it better than the metamagic. Despite having the potential for failure, it has zero resource cost (unlike Subtle metamagic).


Worst of all.....it's frustratingly abundant.

I COMPLETLY AGREE

sorc is the ONLY way to get silent casting / subtle casting, and yet everyone plays casting like nothing is involved. I specifically always go a few sorc levels with arcane trickster because of that metamagic (think it was like an arcane trickster / shadow sorc / something, was trying to play a dishonored style character.)

[Hail Tempus]

Also, the list of crap that's in the spell component pouch, which contains everything that doesn't have a cost, is ridiculous. And it's almost entirely trash [rocks, marbles, feathers, sand, a drop of mercury, bat guano, a tree branch, some wild berries, string, straw, a reed, a clay figurine, etc.]

I jokingly call it the tactical vest of garbage or the fanny pack of garbage, because not only is it literally filled with what amounts of a heap of trash, there's so much different crap some of which are powders and liquids that the wizard must have it compartmentalized with lots of buttoned and zippered pockets in order to find anything at all. Therefore, the wizard looks like she's wearing a tactical vest with like 400 pockets, all of them overflowing with the sort of leftover crap that you find in the washing machine after doing pants.


Also, the components themselves are good for a laugh if you actually read them. One spell requires a giant squid tentacle, which apparently fits in the bag. Flesh to Stone requires the ingredients of concrete, and Fireball requires ingredients of explosives. They're just so silly, and silly to visualize how one would use them, I chose to ignore them. Yeah, spell components are like a vestigial limb from 1970's D&D. At best, they're just a bunch of silly puns. At worst, they're just a ticky-tacky waste of time.

They really should have dropped the whole concept from 5e, other than expensive components for a few spells.

[diplomancer]

I COMPLETLY AGREE

sorc is the ONLY way to get silent casting / subtle casting, and yet everyone plays casting like nothing is involved. I specifically always go a few sorc levels with arcane trickster because of that metamagic (think it was like an arcane trickster / shadow sorc / something, was trying to play a dishonored style character.)

From the paragraphs explaining to players the typical bard tropes, at the very beginning of what bards are supposed to do:

"Laughing as she tunes her cittern, a gnome weaves her subtle magic over the assembled nobles, ensuring that her companions’ words will be well received."

(Actually the 3 bard descriptions are examples of not obvious castings, but this one is in a social situation where openly casting a spell should work very badly for the bard and her companions)

From the paragraphs explaining to players the tipical warlock tropes, at the very beginning of what warlocks are supposed to do:

"With a pseudodragon curled on his shoulder, a young elf in golden robes smiles warmly, weaving a magical charm into his honeyed words and bending the palace sentinel to his will."

Those paragraphs are supposed to illustrate to players (especially new players) what their characters can do, and they both illustrate deceptive casting. If I were a new player, read that description, and later my DM told me I can't do it, that would be disappointing. What is supposed to be going on here if ONLY sorcerers with subtle metamagic can disguise their casting?

(Bards and warlocks, incidentally, are the only ones that have instances of deceptive casting in their first description. Arcane tricksters seem to have stealth casting in their description, but it's basically their invisible mage hand at work)

Honestly, I think all this discomfort for deceptive casting comes from the name of the metamagic. If it was called "mental casting" or something of that sort, there would be no issue at all. Something to consider before arguing "hey, this is fluff, not crunch".

Edit: And to make it clear; I am not claiming that DMs HAVE to allow deceptive casting, but that doing so is in no way a house rule, a buff to bards and warlocks (or other casters without subtle spell) or a nerf to sorcerers.

[sithlordnergal]

Druids not being allowed to use metal armor. This fluff makes no sense to me at all, so I always ignore it. All it says is that there is a "taboo", there's no mechanical reason for a Druid to forego metal armor.

As such, all Druids are allowed to wear metal armor at my tables. I will admit, it makes the more traditional Druids in game dislike you, but that's it. You aren't forced out of it.

[Frozenstep]

-snip-

While I agree subtle spell should be more than just "this spell can't be counterspelled if it only has a V S component and can be cast while tied and gagged", as diplomancer mentions, deceptive casting is kind of important for other classes and spells too.

The way I run it, deceptive magic casting is great against those who don't have their guard up against you, letting bards turn taverns and parties to their whims like expected, but anyone experienced with magic may realize what is happening, and the deception will fail in the wrong setting (good luck trying it while being interrogated by a dozen guards who think you're a witch). Meanwhile, a sorcerer with subtle spell can calmly explain to the court wizard that they are innocent and being framed, and out of the corner of their eye see and cast dominate person on the king in front of all his guards without anyone suspecting a thing.

[sithlordnergal]

While I agree subtle spell should be more than just "this spell can't be counterspelled if it only has a V S component and can be cast while tied and gagged", as diplomancer mentions, deceptive casting is kind of important for other classes and spells too.

The way I run it, deceptive magic casting is great against those who don't have their guard up against you, letting bards turn taverns and parties to their whims like expected, but anyone experienced with magic may realize what is happening, and the deception will fail in the wrong setting (good luck trying it while being interrogated by a dozen guards who think you're a witch). Meanwhile, a sorcerer with subtle spell can calmly explain to the court wizard that they are innocent and being framed, and out of the corner of their eye see and cast dominate person on the king in front of all his guards without anyone suspecting a thing.

This is basically how I run magic. It isn't stepping on the Sorcerer's toes or anything, it just lets the Sorcerer be the expert as casting spells that aren't noticed. Plus even as a player in games where you can't cast anything stealthily without being a level 20 Druid or a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell, I have never seen a Sorcerer use Subtle Spell. Twin Spell and Quicken Spell are always chosen instead.

[TripleD]

Yeah, spell components are like a vestigial limb from 1970's D&D. At best, they're just a bunch of silly puns. At worst, they're just a ticky-tacky waste of time.

They really should have dropped the whole concept from 5e, other than expensive components for a few spells.

I disagree. It’s one of the few things in D&D that still makes magic feel strange and weird. Nonsensical manipulation of the universe and whatnot.

If anything I wish they leaned into it a bit harder.

[Tanarii]

Class by class, things I find are DM judgement, possibly with advice from SAC or even online. Some of them apply to more than just the one class, but come up most frequently for me with the given class.

Barbarian - how does rage negating surprise work if you win the initiative and enemies are still hidden?

Bard - what the heck is the Performance skill good for? Can a Sleight of Hand check to disguise Spellcasting?

Cleric - How personally involved is the Diety? Are some people going to find someone playing a very devout cleric annoying? (Also players wanting to dump Str and wear encumbering armor in an explicitly variant Encumberance game.)

Druid - is tracking what creatures you've seen worth it, given downtime, or just depend on player judgement? How do summons work, player or DM choice?

Fighter - specific to my campaign, but occasional requests from Fighter players asking if their bonus level ASIs can be feats, in a featless game.

Monk - When do bonus action attack / flurry attacks happen? Is it possible to run up walls or just along them?

Paladin - Tenets.

Ranger - when does the Natural Explorer "expertise" apply?

Rogue - is pop up hiding allowed?

Sorcerer - why does the party hate me when I dump all my spells as fast as possible then want to end the session / leave?

Warlock - how binding is the Pact? How personally involved is the a Patron?

Wizards - Is it possible walk around and Ritual Cast at the same time? (Also spell dumping and hiding casting.)

Edit: also common to monks and rogues, where's the line deciding when Acrobatics can substitute for Athletics, or even if something is Str (Acrobatics) or Dex (Athletics)

[LordCdrMilitant]

I disagree. It’s one of the few things in D&D that still makes magic feel strange and weird. Nonsensical manipulation of the universe and whatnot.

If anything I wish they leaned into it a bit harder.

I generally imagine spells as being cast quickly [as less than 6s implies], with intense hand gesticulations and loud words, which fishing around in a fanny pack and holding up a pile of bat feces and sulphur doesn't really go with.


Monk - When do bonus action attack / flurry attacks happen? Is it possible to run up walls or just along them?

My take on the monk class depends on how snarky and insensitive I feel at the time:

The monk class features becomes replaced with two subclasses: "you can read and write, and can create illustrated copies of parts of locale-appropriate holy books," or "you can set yourself on fire to prove a point when the government comes to oppress you, but they're far too rich for anyone else to do anything about it."

If I'm less cranky, then you have to explain to me exactly how the monk class features relate to the function of your character in a way that has nothing to do with any of the following: "finding and mastering you inner self", "punching people with bare hands to be the equal of a man with a sword, bow, or gun", or "kung fu movies" before I let you use it, because I think all of those are stupid ideas.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Class by class, things I find are DM judgement, possibly with advice from SAC or even online. Some of them apply to more than just the one class, but come up most frequently for me with the given class.

Barbarian - how does rage negating surprise work if you win the initiative and enemies are still hidden?

Bard - what the heck is the Performance skill good for? Can a Sleight of Hand check to disguise Spellcasting?

Cleric - How personally involved is the Diety? Are some people going to find someone playing a very devout cleric annoying? (Also players wanting to dump Str and wear encumbering armor in an explicitly variant Encumberance game.)

Druid - is tracking what creatures you've seen worth it, given downtime, or just depend on player judgement? How do summons work, player or DM choice?

Fighter - specific to my campaign, but occasional requests from Fighter players asking if their bonus level ASIs can be feats, in a featless game.

Monk - When do bonus action attack / flurry attacks happen? Is it possible to run up walls or just along them?

Paladin - Tenets.

Ranger - when does the Natural Explorer "expertise" apply?

Rogue - is pop up hiding allowed?

Sorcerer - why does the party hate me when I dump all my spells as fast as possible then want to end the session / leave?

Warlock - how binding is the Pact? How personally involved is the a Patron?

Wizards - Is it possible walk around and Ritual Cast at the same time? (Also spell dumping and hiding casting.)

Edit: also common to monks and rogues, where's the line deciding when Acrobatics can substitute for Athletics, or even if something is Str (Acrobatics) or Dex (Athletics)

About ritual casting.

In the rules for casting a spell that take more then an action it says that it use your action and concentration.

I follow this rules when I run my game so a wizard can cast as he walk.

Performance is good to take attention, when the bard is playing (and get a good roll) everyone eyes and ears is on him.

The barbarian rage? You smell fear/bloodlust/something else(it is a fantasy game, there is magic).

The cleric stuff? It needs a talk with the table to determine.

Druid is a can on worms I am not going to open(I always say to my players to choose which creatures they want, some want to RP finding new ones and some don't. It doesn't hurt the fun in the table both ways).

About the fighter. Did you consider saying at session zero that no one is getting feats, even fighters?

About the monk. It is in the same movement as the first attack, as someone that practice martial arts I can say that you don't need to pull back you hand in order to deliver an attack that can kill a human and that most movement are flowing so there is no real time when you stop attacking even when you defend(unless you choose to not attack).
I wish I could demonstrate it because I am meeting a language barrier.

About running up walls, you can see it done by people who do parkour.


I try translating the paladin stuff but it didn't make sense to me so I will skip this one.

Ranger I have no experience to comment about.

Rogue, because you don't know when and from where behind the cover the attack will come I see no problem to allow it.

Sorcerer, because you can always ask for a long rest, ending the session is a big thing that character action have nothing to do with. You end the session when the table want to end it, it is a game with peoples, not machines.

Warlock, depends on what the table wants.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I generally imagine spells as being cast quickly [as less than 6s implies], with intense hand gesticulations and loud words, which fishing around in a fanny pack and holding up a pile of bat feces and sulphur doesn't really go with..

I recommend checking out Critical Role's second campaign, The Mighty Nein. The wizard in that game leans hard on components vs spell focus and it hasn't really ever come off goofy or weird.

[MoiMagnus]

About the fighter. Did you consider saying at session zero that no one is getting feats, even fighters?


I don't think that even if they did it, that would change anything. I can totally see the player realizing at level 6 their character is absolutely boring to play without feats, and that they don't care at all about additional ASI. The question here is not "Did they agree that there was no feat at all?", but more "Was it a good idea to say there was no feat at all, including for the fighter? Should this session-0 choice be slightly changed?"

[Drascin]

Mystic.

Whatever your build is, you'll never convince anyone you're not OP.

Which gets kind of hilarious seeing how it's actually pretty easy to end up significantly less powerful than the wizard or the cleric as a Mystic. It's one of the classes with biggest power variance in the game.

That said, generally Mystic does add DM judgement issues, in that the class just feckin ends after like level 10-11 and now you have to decide if you allow multiclassing and how does multiclassing work with this, because no player wants to stay in Mystic after that. Thankfully, campaigns rarely last much beyond level 10 anyway.

[Tanarii]

The question here is not "Did they agree that there was no feat at all?", but more "Was it a good idea to say there was no feat at all, including for the fighter? Should this session-0 choice be slightly changed?"Yes, that was the area for DM judgement.

And my judgement has been, and continues to be, yes and no. Most Fighter players are fine with it. But every once in a while someone thinks their special case should be an exception to the rule.

One shots with a single group of players are a different matter of course. For pretty much all DM judgement issues. For example, I almost always allow multiclassing and feats, because I can make judgement calls (and prevent abusive combos, such as 5e has them) on a case by case basis without affecting many other players. But for my main campaign I had to put forethought into my session 0 document rules and changing them is no small thing. Thinking about how I wanted to handle a large number of common DM judgement issues ahead of time was a necessary part of putting the campaign together.

[KorvinStarmast]

What else do you all see at your tables? To me an important challenge is pacing, and making sure that short rests can be taken, but the party has to weight time pressure (when there is any) versus objectives. Some players keep forgetting about hid dice healing ... and need to be reminded.

Bard: spells like "suggestion" require judgment calls, but I have not had trouble with them, per se. Illusions seem to make for more DM work/thinking/evaluation. (This same issue arises with Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards)

Barbarian: No problems. But I have had to ask players "are you raging or not? It's a limited resource, I need you to keep track of that and make a clear declaration" ... we have one Barbarian player who can't seem to remember that.

Cleric: Divine Intervention is IMO easy - pick a cleric spell that seems to fit the request, and if not, come up with something close. I only had two clerics who got to that level and both players were smart about what they asked for.

Druid: unlike the fun-cramping DMs and Xanathar's nonsense, I presume that any Druid is educated about all Flora and Fauna as a part of the process of growing up and becoming a Druid. Thus, all beasts in the MM are eligible for Wild Shape, as are all Beasts in Volo's. The Character actually learned a lot before embarking on an adventuring career.

Fighter: I've had no problems with Fighters. I have to keep reminding our current Champion that his short rest abilities recharge on a short rest.

Monk: Have not had any monks play at our table that cause me any trouble. The ones who have played did a good job of ki point tracking.

Paladin: Not seen much trouble with Paladin's since our players seem to embrace the oath. An old friend of mine played a really solid dwarf Vengeance Paladin who embraced the whole "with a vengeance" mind set.

Ranger: Nobody has played Beast Master at our tables, and the other Rangers are pretty well set up. When in doubt, I tend to give advantage on any Survival check to track ... it's what Rangers do.

Rogue: hiding or not hiding? Stealth or no stealth before that attack? Advantage or no advantage? Surprise or no surprise? That last one is very much a judgment call. If the party takes the effort to set it up, surprise can happen.

Sorcerer: Have only had one Sorcerer play at my tables. He's an experienced player, no problems. Have not had to DM Wild Magic, though I intend to make that d20 check on any spell cast. (Tempted to include cantrips on that ... but I'll work that out with any player who wants to be WM sorcerer)

Warlock: my note above in re short rests as DM is also informed by my having played a Warlock. I still wish they'd made this an Int Caster.

Wizard: The mind control and illusion spells, as above, are the challenging part of DMing any spell caster; that's what I still find. That, and components that cost and are consumed. I have had varying success with players taking that on and embracing it, and me having to watch over it. Very player dependent.

[Demonslayer666]

Class by class, things I find are DM judgement, possibly with advice from SAC or even online. Some of them apply to more than just the one class, but come up most frequently for me with the given class.

Barbarian - how does rage negating surprise work if you win the initiative and enemies are still hidden?

Bard - what the heck is the Performance skill good for? Can a Sleight of Hand check to disguise Spellcasting?

Cleric - How personally involved is the Diety? Are some people going to find someone playing a very devout cleric annoying? (Also players wanting to dump Str and wear encumbering armor in an explicitly variant Encumberance game.)

Druid - is tracking what creatures you've seen worth it, given downtime, or just depend on player judgement? How do summons work, player or DM choice?

Fighter - specific to my campaign, but occasional requests from Fighter players asking if their bonus level ASIs can be feats, in a featless game.

Monk - When do bonus action attack / flurry attacks happen? Is it possible to run up walls or just along them?

Paladin - Tenets.

Ranger - when does the Natural Explorer "expertise" apply?

Rogue - is pop up hiding allowed?

Sorcerer - why does the party hate me when I dump all my spells as fast as possible then want to end the session / leave?

Warlock - how binding is the Pact? How personally involved is the a Patron?

Wizards - Is it possible walk around and Ritual Cast at the same time? (Also spell dumping and hiding casting.)

Edit: also common to monks and rogues, where's the line deciding when Acrobatics can substitute for Athletics, or even if something is Str (Acrobatics) or Dex (Athletics)

Funny, most of that is in my session 0. I may need to add the ritual casting one!

[8wGremlin]

Illusions - all of them, every DM i've had has a slight variant on how this works, too much DM dependence

Enchantment, or the words used in those enchantments, too much DM dependence

Conjure spells - one line in the spell would be great: - You choose the creatures that appear or Your DM chooses the creatures that appear. Done, all those spells are no fixed.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I recommend checking out Critical Role's second campaign, The Mighty Nein. The wizard in that game leans hard on components vs spell focus and it hasn't really ever come off goofy or weird.

I'm not asking how to make it work.

Having and taking stuff out of a tactical vest full of garbage to cast spells is incongruent with my mental image of how a wizard casts her spells [which, as I described, it along the lines of pointing at the target with her rod dramatically and shouting "FIREBALL!", after which a tracer-like streak of flame is projected from the end of the rod and explodes when it reaches the target], therefore I largely eschew components in favor of foci in my games.

[Hail Tempus]

I'm not asking how to make it work.

Having and taking stuff out of a tactical vest full of garbage to cast spells is incongruent with my mental image of how a wizard casts her spells [which, as I described, it along the lines of pointing at the target with her rod dramatically and shouting "FIREBALL!", after which a tracer-like streak of flame is projected from the end of the rod and explodes when it reaches the target], therefore I largely eschew components in favor of foci in my games. And few other players want to sit around wasting time while the wizard talks about bringing out bat guano or whatever. Just like nobody wants to hear how the rogue notches an arrow, pulls his bowstring, releases half a breath, accounts for wind and movement of the target etc.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

And few other players want to sit around wasting time while the wizard talks about bringing out bat guano or whatever. Just like nobody wants to hear how the rogue notches an arrow, pulls his bowstring, releases half a breath, accounts for wind and movement of the target etc.

Those sound more like bad players being overly hogging of the spotlight.

Saying: I smash a bit of phosphorus in my hand and thrust forward causing a wall of fire to erupt.

Doesn't take much longer than:

Saying: I slash downward across his shoulder with my halberd before spinning and bringing the haft up into his gut.

It could be a case of your normal players just say "I hit twice" and that's where the disconnect comes from?

[SteelArcana]

The first thing that comes to mind is running a game with no feats and having a fighter or barbarian in the party. Wouldn't be a fun time fighting anything that makes them roll a wisdom saving throw.

[Tharkun]

Druid

How does magic item X handle transformation of caster into form Y? (high table variance)
What forms do you know?
Is polymorphing a friend into a form enough to learn it?
metal armor?
Is armor Z found in module W metal?
Can my friend ride a druid wildshaped into a Giant Constrictor Snake? Repeat for all forms.
What does a Saddle of the Cavalier fit on? Repeat for all forms.
Can you cast spells in Elemental form after level 18?
Repeat all for Shapechanging

[Hail Tempus]

Those sound more like bad players being overly hogging of the spotlight.

Saying: I smash a bit of phosphorus in my hand and thrust forward causing a wall of fire to erupt.

Doesn't take much longer than:

Saying: I slash downward across his shoulder with my halberd before spinning and bringing the haft up into his gut.

It could be a case of your normal players just say "I hit twice" and that's where the disconnect comes from? Yeah, we tend to run combat quickly in order to keep the pace up. It hasn't been my experience that players get overly descriptive. They say what their character does and rolls any appropriate dice. ("I cast fireball on this spot, so it looks like I hit both trolls. 26 fire damage, or half on a DC 15 dex saving throw.")

[micahaphone]

I assumed you could walk around while doing ritual caster, as several ritual casting spells require you to walk around as a part of it. For example, imagine casting the Alarm spell, walking around a 20 foot cube laying down your silver wire. I don't think you can just jog around town and take part in conversations while you're ritual casting, but you're not forced to stand in one spot.

[Tanarii]

The first thing that comes to mind is running a game with no feats and having a fighter or barbarian in the party. Wouldn't be a fun time fighting anything that makes them roll a wisdom saving throw.
Fighters and Barbarians in my no feat campaign are marginally more likely to use their ASI to raise secondary attributes like Wis.

If you mean that Resilient (Wisdom) isn't available, yes, that's a drawback of no Feats.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Those sound more like bad players being overly hogging of the spotlight.

Saying: I smash a bit of phosphorus in my hand and thrust forward causing a wall of fire to erupt.

Doesn't take much longer than:

Saying: I slash downward across his shoulder with my halberd before spinning and bringing the haft up into his gut.

It could be a case of your normal players just say "I hit twice" and that's where the disconnect comes from?

We generally go with:
"Fireball here." or "Both swings into this guy."
The GM describes the effect after to-hits and damage are rolled, usually reserving detailed descriptions for critical effects or hits for massive damage.

It's not that there's a disconnect, it's just that components are lame, clumsy, and not just "kind of" a joke.

[SteelArcana]

Fighters and Barbarians in my no feat campaign are marginally more likely to use their ASI to raise secondary attributes like Wis.

If you mean that Resilient (Wisdom) isn't available, yes, that's a drawback of no Feats.

Yes, I was referring to resilient wisdom. Either of those classes are effectively rendered useless against any monster that throws out high DC wisdom saves frequently. This happens the most often with dragons, when your party's main tank spends the entire fight wetting his pants in the corner because he has a 1/20 chance to pass the required wisdom save.

[Theodoxus]

Sorcerers; but not in how they treat them but rather how they treat spellcasting from all other classes.

A majority of DM's don't treat verbal components as a very obvious "chant" and some even allow whisper casting with arbitrary ability checks (is it Arcana? Sleight of Hand? Deception? Performance? Casting Ability Check? Do you lose the spell slot if you fail badly?) Despite the fact that maintaining the pitch and resonance of a chant while whispering is literally impossible with a humanoid voice box.

Essentially, one of the most unique and powerful Sorcerer metamagics gets given away to every other caster and Bards with skill specialization can all but guarantee success...making it better than the metamagic. Despite having the potential for failure, it has zero resource cost (unlike Subtle metamagic).


Worst of all.....it's frustratingly abundant.

Wow, I've NEVER had this happen, either as a player or DM. I'm not even sure how I'd react if a player tried to do that... then again, I've never had a player use Subtle Spell either. I mean, I've read stories of evil DMs trying to downplay the usefulness, but I've just never... wow.

Abundant, huh? Am I lucky, or nah? Hard to say...

[Tanarii]

Yes, I was referring to resilient wisdom. Either of those classes are effectively rendered useless against any monster that throws out high DC wisdom saves frequently. This happens the most often with dragons, when your party's main tank spends the entire fight wetting his pants in the corner because he has a 1/20 chance to pass the required wisdom save.
If you're going up again an Ancient dragon without some form of protection from fear, everyone is going to be risking taking disadvantage on their attacks (and possibly resorting to javelins) against it. DC 19+ saves are no joke even with prof in Wis saves.

[ezekielraiden]

Wow, I've NEVER had this happen, either as a player or DM. I'm not even sure how I'd react if a player tried to do that... then again, I've never had a player use Subtle Spell either. I mean, I've read stories of evil DMs trying to downplay the usefulness, but I've just never... wow.

Abundant, huh? Am I lucky, or nah? Hard to say...

If I had to base my answer to this question purely on my played experience? You're not particularly lucky, but you are a little bit lucky. Some DMs just...don't know how to give consistent rulings, which is kind of a big problem in this system.

If I had to base my answer purely on statements I've read on forums? You are extremely lucky to the point of being a statistical outlier. There are a LOT of DM horror stories out there.

The true answer is probably somewhere in-between. DMing is a difficult thing, and a lot of people just...aren't very good at it.

[TheUser]

Wow, I've NEVER had this happen, either as a player or DM. I'm not even sure how I'd react if a player tried to do that... then again, I've never had a player use Subtle Spell either. I mean, I've read stories of evil DMs trying to downplay the usefulness, but I've just never... wow.

Abundant, huh? Am I lucky, or nah? Hard to say...

There are a few D&D podcasts that have been pretty lenient about sneaking off spells with verbal components (because they want to be entertaining and get viewership).

On reddit, anytime I've tried to fly the sentiment that a verbal component is a chant which is not quiet (by definition) (https://www.synonym.com/synonyms/chant) the post flutters back and forth in upvotes and downvotes, usually settling on a single digit positive or negative.

Like any other D&D forum; people don't want to acknowledge that words have very specific meanings that are used in the rules. But because the rules all of a sudden stop painting the same picture than what they had imagined they get mad and start trying to figure out how to argue a different angle. It stops being about the rules and what words mean but instead about an AL module that let people do it with a sleight of hand/deception DC (http://dndadventurersleague.org/state-of-mulmaster/) that borders on ridiculously easy to pass:



Hiding Your Casting

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

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

All the while ignoring that it deals with tricking a single witness and doesn't make casting quiet or discreet at all.

It's honestly the biggest non-slippery slope that has devolved into a slippery slope because people want the game to be what -they- imagine it to be as opposed to it being what it is.

Even the game's own designers are deliberately obtuse because they want to keep the game accessible to as many customers as possible. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/17/audible-verbal-component/) (for anyone who was wondering, audible normal speaking usually falls into the 60dB range unless you are dealing with particularly high or low frequencies)

[Tanarii]

Even the game's own designers are deliberately obtuse because they want to keep the game accessible to as many customers as possible. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/17/audible-verbal-component/) (for anyone who was wondering, audible normal speaking usually falls into the 60dB range unless you are dealing with particularly high or low frequencies)And 60dB normal speaking is about as loud as a whisper at 30ft.

[TheUser]

ahh there's where we are getting to be mis-informative.

It's as quiet as a whisper (the highest end of whispering decibel range 40db)... at point blank! We all hear people whispering loudly when they are right next us right next to us yes?

EDIT:
In case you were wondering what WotC in days of yore thought spellcasting sounded like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_7gzmJVxLc

[diplomancer]

There are a few D&D podcasts that have been pretty lenient about sneaking off spells with verbal components (because they want to be entertaining and get viewership).

On reddit, anytime I've tried to fly the sentiment that a verbal component is a chant which is not quiet (by definition) (https://www.synonym.com/synonyms/chant) the post flutters back and forth in upvotes and downvotes, usually settling on a single digit positive or negative.

Like any other D&D forum; people don't want to acknowledge that words have very specific meanings that are used in the rules. But because the rules all of a sudden stop painting the same picture than what they had imagined they get mad and start trying to figure out how to argue a different angle. It stops being about the rules and what words mean but instead about an AL module that let people do it with a sleight of hand/deception DC (http://dndadventurersleague.org/state-of-mulmaster/) that borders on ridiculously easy to pass:



All the while ignoring that it deals with tricking a single witness and doesn't make casting quiet or discreet at all.

It's honestly the biggest non-slippery slope that has devolved into a slippery slope because people want the game to be what -they- imagine it to be as opposed to it being what it is.

Even the game's own designers are deliberately obtuse because they want to keep the game accessible to as many customers as possible. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/17/audible-verbal-component/) (for anyone who was wondering, audible normal speaking usually falls into the 60dB range unless you are dealing with particularly high or low frequencies)

God forbid that the game be entertaining and attract the most players! D&D might end up being popular if that keeps up.

Especially when the game rules already describe Bards and Warlocks concealing their castings...

[SteelArcana]

If you're going up again an Ancient dragon without some form of protection from fear, everyone is going to be risking taking disadvantage on their attacks (and possibly resorting to javelins) against it. DC 19+ saves are no joke even with prof in Wis saves.

Agreed, but for barbarians in particular, it doesn't take an ancient dragon to cripple their effectiveness. Without resilient wisdom, a barbarian is going to have somewhere around +0 or +1 to their Wisdom save unless they start dumping their ASIs into wisdom as opposed to strength, constitution or dexterity. With a +1 in wisdom, even if the DC of the saving throw was 12, it means the barbarian is going to fail it about 50% of the time and have their rage ended early.

While it's possible for certain classes like clerics, paladins and bards to alleviate this issue, it would be challenging to predict when wisdom saving throws are going to be tossed around in advance.

Is it manageable without feats? Yes, but it's certainly much harder, and martial classes tend to get negatively impacted the most when feats are not being used, at least from what I've observed.

[KorvinStarmast]

This happens the most often with dragons, when your party's main tank spends the entire fight wetting his pants in the corner because he has a 1/20 chance to pass the required wisdom save. This is a team game.

There are spells that boost wisdom saves and/or prevent fear from being such a burden.
Spell casters need to take care of their martial allies when fighting dragons or that pants wetting thing can really hurt the party effort.

It's a team game. (As an aside: we aren't trying to solo a video game end boss).

[SteelArcana]

This is a team game.

There are spells that boost wisdom saves and/or prevent fear from being such a burden.
Spell casters need to take care of their martial allies when fighting dragons or that pants wetting thing can really hurt the party effort.

It's a team game. (As an aside: we aren't trying to solo a video game end boss).

I mentioned this in my post above yours.

Personally I would never play a martial character beyond a Paladin in a featless campaign, but to each their own.

[diplomancer]

I mentioned this in my post above yours.

Personally I would never play a martial character beyond a Paladin in a featless campaign, but to each their own.

Same here. Perhaps a rogue, if I know the DM is good at policing the adventure day.

[SteelArcana]

Same here. Perhaps a rogue, if I know the DM is good at policing the adventure day.

A rogue would be impacted less because generally speaking they're not as reliant on feats when compared to a fighter or barbarian. Arcane trickster and swashbuckler come to mind specifically.

[Tanarii]

ahh there's where we are getting to be mis-informative.There was nothing mis-informative about my statement, although it certainly could have been reorganized to be more understandable. So: Someone 30ft away from you who is talking at normal conversational levels sounds roughly like someone standing next to you whispering.

That's not a statement on if it can be heard or not, it's a statement on effective volume over distance. Whether or not you'll hear that probably depends on ambient noise.

How to resolve if someone will perceive a given noise at a given distance is in the DMs hands. Same goes for not using Stealth and moving around normally. The DM does not have to rule it's automatically detected, even when you're only 30ft away.

[Monster Manuel]

From the paragraphs explaining to players the typical bard tropes, at the very beginning of what bards are supposed to do:

"Laughing as she tunes her cittern, a gnome weaves her subtle magic over the assembled nobles, ensuring that her companions’ words will be well received."

(Actually the 3 bard descriptions are examples of not obvious castings, but this one is in a social situation where openly casting a spell should work very badly for the bard and her companions)

From the paragraphs explaining to players the tipical warlock tropes, at the very beginning of what warlocks are supposed to do:

"With a pseudodragon curled on his shoulder, a young elf in golden robes smiles warmly, weaving a magical charm into his honeyed words and bending the palace sentinel to his will."



I've seen these descriptions come up before, in reference to "hiding" spellcasting; I think the thing that gets missed is that neither of those descriptions explicitly describe spellcasting. The Bard could be using Bardic Inspiration to boost his companion's persuasion check. The Warlock could be an Archfey warlock using Fey Presence to charm the guard. Both of these could describe actions that have nothing to do with spellcasting...they could still be accurate even if the Warlock had to obviously chant loud oogie-boogie noises and twiddle his fingers to cast Charm Person using a spell slot, if the action being described isn't using a spell slot.

It's definitely a tricky DM judgement call. Because you can take it too far in the other direction, too. "I ready an action to cast Dominate Person on the mayor the next time there's a loud flash of lightning and thunder, so no one in the room knows I cast" seems reasonable to me. I'd allow a roll to pull that off, rather than a blanket No Hiding Spellcasiting ruling. If a Bard wanted to try "I will now regale you with an epic tale told in High Valyrian. Do any of you SPEAK High Valyrian, perchance? No? Brilliant. I cast Geas" It just has a V component...if the target doesn't know that V component is a spell, I might allow a Deception check to pull it off.

On another topic, one huge area of DM judgement calls is with the Wild Magic sorcerer (I think someone already brought this up? But I'm not seeing it now). Having the defining feature of your subclass totally dependent upon the DM's decision is no fun. I get it, there would be times when the wild surge would otherwise disrupt the session, but saying "the DM will decide when this goes off" is not the way I would have liked to see that issue avoided. If nothing else, they could have fixed it by changing the Tides of Chaos ability to let they PLAYER decide to fire off a wild surge to recharge Tides. That's how I've played it: random roll for any spell, but the player can decide to allow a surge to get their Tides ability back.

[diplomancer]

I've seen these descriptions come up before, in reference to "hiding" spellcasting; I think the thing that gets missed is that neither of those descriptions explicitly describe spellcasting. The Bard could be using Bardic Inspiration to boost his companion's persuasion check. The Warlock could be an Archfey warlock using Fey Presence to charm the guard. Both of these could describe actions that have nothing to do with spellcasting...they could still be accurate even if the Warlock had to obviously chant loud oogie-boogie noises and twiddle his fingers to cast Charm Person using a spell slot, if the action being described isn't using a spell slot.

It's definitely a tricky DM judgement call. Because you can take it too far in the other direction, too. "I ready an action to cast Dominate Person on the mayor the next time there's a loud flash of lightning and thunder, so no one in the room knows I cast" seems reasonable to me. I'd allow a roll to pull that off, rather than a blanket No Hiding Spellcasiting ruling. If a Bard wanted to try "I will now regale you with an epic tale told in High Valyrian. Do any of you SPEAK High Valyrian, perchance? No? Brilliant. I cast Geas" It just has a V component...if the target doesn't know that V component is a spell, I might allow a Deception check to pull it off.

On another topic, one huge area of DM judgement calls is with the Wild Magic sorcerer (I think someone already brought this up? But I'm not seeing it now). Having the defining feature of your subclass totally dependent upon the DM's decision is no fun. I get it, there would be times when the wild surge would otherwise disrupt the session, but saying "the DM will decide when this goes off" is not the way I would have liked to see that issue avoided. If nothing else, they could have fixed it by changing the Tides of Chaos ability to let they PLAYER decide to fire off a wild surge to recharge Tides. That's how I've played it: random roll for any spell, but the player can decide to allow a surge to get their Tides ability back.

I will grant you the warlock, but the Bard is weaving her magic over the assembled nobles, not over her companions. The implication is that either the bard is hiding her magic (whatever that magic is), or that weaving magic over an assembly of nobles is socially acceptable and perfectly alright.

But, more importantly. The whole idea of those paragraphs is to let (new) players have an idea of what their characters are supposed to do. To put that in their description and then say "sorry, there is no way to cast a spell deceptively" (especially when there is nothing in the rules that spell that out clearly) is a bit mean, don't you think?

[MrStabby]

No, I don't think it is mean at all. It is simply protecting the niche of other players.

The ability to do your stuff silently is not only the domain of subtle sorcerers but also cutthroats, rogues and brigands. What is the point of aging a character skilled in knifework if you can achieve the same thing casting a spell?

When gauging what is fun in a game you seriously misjudge things if you only look at it from the perspective of one player. You need to look at it from the perspective of the whole party and to see whose roles are being encroached upon.

The game does have rules for how to influence a crowd without them believing a spell had been cast over them. A persuasion check should be a good start.

[diplomancer]

No, I don't think it is mean at all. It is simply protecting the niche of other players.

The ability to do your stuff silently is not only the domain of subtle sorcerers but also cutthroats, rogues and brigands. What is the point of aging a character skilled in knifework if you can achieve the same thing casting a spell?

When gauging what is fun in a game you seriously misjudge things if you only look at it from the perspective of one player. You need to look at it from the perspective of the whole party and to see whose roles are being encroached upon.

Honestly, if I was playing a subtle sorcerer I would not feel at all gimped by a Bard that cast a spell during her singing (which, notice, involves specific and intricate hand gestures-somatic components-, words said at a particular pitch and resonance- verbal components-, and handling an arcane focus- material component for any spell without a gp cost) without people noticing it, though I would enjoy one-upping them by casting a spell at someone whilst holding a conversation with them.


The game does have rules for how to influence a crowd without them believing a spell had been cast over them. A persuasion check should be a good start.


Yes, but it's not what the gnome is doing in that description. She is "weaving her subtle magic over the assembled nobles", while playing around with her arcane focus; she is not trying to persuade anybody, she is laughingly plucking at her lute.

Refer to the other Bard descriptions in the first paragraphs. Would you know, by observing, that the person that is humming a song whilst tracing their fingers over an object is actually casting Legend Lore, and not just someone who absent-mindedly hums during some difficult mental endeavor?

[Tanarii]

On another topic, one huge area of DM judgement calls is with the Wild Magic sorcerer (I think someone already brought this up? But I'm not seeing it now). Having the defining feature of your subclass totally dependent upon the DM's decision is no fun. I get it, there would be times when the wild surge would otherwise disrupt the session, but saying "the DM will decide when this goes off" is not the way I would have liked to see that issue avoided. If nothing else, they could have fixed it by changing the Tides of Chaos ability to let they PLAYER decide to fire off a wild surge to recharge Tides. That's how I've played it: random roll for any spell, but the player can decide to allow a surge to get their Tides ability back.
OMG yes!

That's one a I actually changed after my campaign had began. I used to treat Wild Surges as something a player would want to avoid, and not trigger it very often. After several long threads on the matter, I was brought around to seeing that they're another beneficial class feature. Now I default to it happening every time, unless almost any wild surge would totally screw what the player is trying to accomplish, usually being somewhat not splashy. In that regard, Subtle spell also has an unwritten "typically suppresses wild surges" aspect, since it tends to go hand in hand with wanting to be subtle, which very few wild surges are.

I really should just make it explicitly player choice.