How Subtle is a Subtle Spell?

[ezekielraiden]

Pretty much exactly what the description says. How subtle is a Subtle Spell? Is it covert enough that no one would know the sorcerer has used it? Is it literally no more than "the spell happens without somatic/verbal components," such that anyone can tell you still cast it?

I don't believe there are any "right" answers, though of course I have my preferred answers. This is more "how does this community feel about it" than anything else.

[Jerrykhor]

The spell 'just happens' with no hand waving and magic-word chanting. If you're the only guy in the vicinity wearing a a pointy hat, fancy robes and holding a staff, or you are levitating around with your eyes glowing with light, they might suspect its you. Otherwise, nobody knows who did it.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That depends on the spell effect.

If the effect is something like spirit guardians they will know you have casted a spell after you finish because you will have spirits orbiting you.

I can give you an example.
I have a sorcerer, I was wearing two shields(trying to solve a puzzle) and was attacked by a powerful golem.

A shield of force jumped into existence infront of me blocking the attack.

I have casted the shield spell subtly because I had no free hand.
The effect was a force blocking the attack.
A creature with knowledge about magic may recognise the spell effect but he have no way to perceive the casting (unless the spell have M component).

[Randomthom]

I've often toyed with the idea of showing up to a game with a character that nobody can tell what you do outside of some rather weak magic but things just "happen" around you sometimes. Eventually your party will understand but with liberal use of this metamagic you can become the ultimate assassin or manipulator.

What better assassin is there than the one who was stood right there close by and everyone saw did nothing to cause the death? In fact, unlike regluar assassination, crowds of observers become a strength to you, not a weakness. You've got loads of witnesses who can vouch that you were there but didn't do it...

[JellyPooga]

It's an interesting question. On the one hand, the spell has no verbal or somatic components, which means that if the spell doesn't have a material component, then there are no outward signs of the spell being cast (i.e. no chanting, no hand-waving). On the other hand, casting a Subtle Spell still requires whatever action was required to cast the spell, whether that be a Bonus Action, Reaction, Action or several Actions (for spells with longer casting times). This will obviously forgo you performing other actions of that type in that turn, so it could be argued that you're obviously doing something, even if it's just staring into space in concentration. Which brings me to two important points;

1) Any spell with a material component (which is many spells) will require interaction with either that/those component/s or a focus to cast the spell, including a free hand to do so, making a Subtle Spell with any material component definitively register on the "not-so-subtle" scale.

2) Spells with a casting time longer than 1 Action require you to Concentrate on casting that spell, including being able to be disrupted by incapacitation, taking damage or (at the GMs discretion) environmental effects. This implies that casting any spell requires a similar level of concentration, only that the casting time of most spells is short enough that those triggers don't occur during the cast-time. It can be argued that concentrating on anything is an obvious activity; after all, if someone is standing there thinking about something to the exclusion of doing anything else, it's usually pretty obvious. Now, it must be asserted that Concentration =/= Obviously casting a spell, but I'd say it's definitely not completely undetectable.

A third, albeit slightly more niche point I'd make is regarding the Mage Slayer feat, which states; "When a creature within 5ft of you casts a spell" as a trigger for one of its granted abilities. It makes no mention of components or subtlety, only the action of casting a spell. This implies that casting a spell is pretty obvious, regardless of the components involved in casting said spell. A similar argument can be made for the conditions of triggering the spell Counterspell.

So, we can say with certainty that;

A) Lacking somatic and verbal components does not mean a spell has zero components.
B) Casting a spell excludes performing other actions.
C) Casting a spell requires a certain degree of concentration. Casting a spell with a Casting Time longer than 1 Action requires literal Concentration.
D) There is no stated requirement to identify components of a spell in order to identify that a spell is being cast.

So, from this I would conclude that Subtle Spell is...not so subtle. Yes, it might allow you to cast spells whilst bound or gagged. Yes, it will allow you to cast spells while maintaining a degree of stealth. Will it allow you to stand in front of someone and cast a spell without them knowing about it? I'm going to say "no".

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It's an interesting question. On the one hand, the spell has no verbal or somatic components, which means that if the spell doesn't have a material component, then there are no outward signs of the spell being cast (i.e. no chanting, no hand-waving). On the other hand, casting a Subtle Spell still requires whatever action was required to cast the spell, whether that be a Bonus Action, Reaction, Action or several Actions (for spells with longer casting times). This will obviously forgo you performing other actions of that type in that turn, so it could be argued that you're obviously doing something, even if it's just staring into space in concentration. Which brings me to two important points;

1) Any spell with a material component (which is many spells) will require interaction with either that/those component/s or a focus to cast the spell, including a free hand to do so, making a Subtle Spell with any material component definitively register on the "not-so-subtle" scale.

2) Spells with a casting time longer than 1 Action require you to Concentrate on casting that spell, including being able to be disrupted by incapacitation, taking damage or (at the GMs discretion) environmental effects. This implies that casting any spell requires a similar level of concentration, only that the casting time of most spells is short enough that those triggers don't occur during the cast-time. It can be argued that concentrating on anything is an obvious activity; after all, if someone is standing there thinking about something to the exclusion of doing anything else, it's usually pretty obvious. Now, it must be asserted that Concentration =/= Obviously casting a spell, but I'd say it's definitely not completely undetectable.

A third, albeit slightly more niche point I'd make is regarding the Mage Slayer feat, which states; "When a creature within 5ft of you casts a spell" as a trigger for one of its granted abilities. It makes no mention of components or subtlety, only the action of casting a spell. This implies that casting a spell is pretty obvious, regardless of the components involved in casting said spell. A similar argument can be made for the conditions of triggering the spell Counterspell.

So, we can say with certainty that;

A) Lacking somatic and verbal components does not mean a spell has zero components.
B) Casting a spell excludes performing other actions.
C) Casting a spell requires a certain degree of concentration. Casting a spell with a Casting Time longer than 1 Action requires literal Concentration.
D) There is no stated requirement to identify components of a spell in order to identify that a spell is being cast.

So, from this I would conclude that Subtle Spell is...not so subtle. Yes, it might allow you to cast spells whilst bound or gagged. Yes, it will allow you to cast spells while maintaining a degree of stealth. Will it allow you to stand in front of someone and cast a spell without them knowing about it? I'm going to say "no".

Some rules from XGtE:


Perceiving a Caster at Work
Many spells create obvious effects: explosions of fire, walls of ice, teleportation, and the like. Other spells, such as charm person, display no visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible sign of their effects, and could easily go unnoticed by someone unaffected by them. As noted in the Player’s Handbook, you normally don’t know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect.

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.

If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.

[diplomancer]

It depends on the spell. If a bolt of lightning springs from you, it will be hard to convince that you were not involved in it.

If you are a limping guy with a staff that only casts spells with no visual effects or effects that are hard to perceive the origin, you can get away with a lot.

[JellyPooga]

Some rules from XGtE:

I feel justified ignoring rules I don't own :smalltongue:

That does answer the question quite succinctly though.

[ezekielraiden]

I feel justified ignoring rules I don't own :smalltongue:

That does answer the question quite succinctly though.

Well, it does explicitly say, "As noted in the Player's Handbook," which means at least some of these rules are ones you own.


Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature’s thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

Does that affect your position at all?

[JellyPooga]

Does that affect your position at all?

Whilst it certainly gives me pause for thought, I'd still be inclined (as a GM) to require a Deception check to conceal the action of casting a spell (opposed by Insight), even with the use of Subtle Spell or Innate Spellcasting. The effect of a spell might not be noticeable and there may be no M/S/V components to the spell, but that doesn't necessarily mean the act of spellcasting is entirely unnoticeable. I'll mention the Concentration thing again. If you're concentrating hard enough that being attacked or distracted by the environment can disrupt it, then you're likely concentrating hard enough for someone to notice you're thinking real hard about something. That said, I'd probably grant Advantage to the Deception check, and/or Disadvantage to the Insight check if Subtle spell was being used, depending on whether or not there was a Material Component and the circumstances.

[diplomancer]

Whilst it certainly gives me pause for thought, I'd still be inclined (as a GM) to require a Deception check to conceal the action of casting a spell (opposed by Insight), even with the use of Subtle Spell or Innate Spellcasting. The effect of a spell might not be noticeable and there may be no M/S/V components to the spell, but that doesn't necessarily mean the act of spellcasting is entirely unnoticeable. I'll mention the Concentration thing again. If you're concentrating hard enough that being attacked or distracted by the environment can disrupt it, then you're likely concentrating hard enough for someone to notice you're thinking real hard about something. That said, I'd probably grant Advantage to the Deception check, and/or Disadvantage to the Insight check if Subtle spell was being used, depending on whether or not there was a Material Component and the circumstances.

You can concentrate on a spell while dodging dragonfire and incoming arrows, while shooting arrows back, and giving orders to your companions. It's obviously not how you picture it.

This is a significant and unnecessary nerf to subtle spell.

[Morollan]

You can concentrate on a spell while dodging dragonfire and incoming arrows, while shooting arrows back, and giving orders to your companions. It's obviously not how you picture it.

This is a significant and unnecessary nerf to subtle spell.

I'd agree. The concentration argument is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. The list of things you can do whilst concentrating is fairly exhaustive and there's nothing to suggest that you are under any visible strain from concentrating when doing those things.

If the spell has a material component and the caster wanted to maintain plausible deniability I'd allow a sleight of hand check against any witnesses passive perception (perception if they have stated they are actively looking for such things). Other than that, I'd allow a subtle spell to be...subtle!

[Chronos]

The material component is no big deal, because you could just be putting your hands in your pocket, or holding on to your walking stick.

The spell effect, though, is likely to be, because an awful lot of spells are described as originating from you in some way. Including most damaging spells.

[diplomancer]

The material component is no big deal, because you could just be putting your hands in your pocket, or holding on to your walking stick.

The spell effect, though, is likely to be, because an awful lot of spells are described as originating from you in some way. Including most damaging spells.

Yes, except for the Bard (who has other ways of using his spell focus to conceal casting, namely, playing a song and using the instrument to cast the spell in the middle of the song), all casting classes have spell foci that are small enough to be held in a pocket (a crystal, for instance, or even an orb, could be small enough).

So, there is that guy who had his hands in his pocket a while ago and the king is now agreeing with everything he says... kinda tough to notice that. We are talking Sherlock Holmes levels of observation.

On the other hand, a mote of fire flying from you and exploding in the distance is going to be noticed by anyone who is looking at you.

[JellyPooga]

You can concentrate on a spell while dodging dragonfire and incoming arrows, while shooting arrows back, and giving orders to your companions. It's obviously not how you picture it.

This is a significant and unnecessary nerf to subtle spell.

Hmm...

Yes, I'll concede that you can dodge arrows passively with AC, or evade dragonfire without use of an action (if you have Evasion).

Yes, I'll concede that concentrating on maintaining a spell that is already cast does not require an action and will allow you to do any of the above.

However, the only active, mechanical applications of any of the actions mentioned all require the use of an Action (shooting arrows, i.e. Attack), Bonus Action (giving orders, e.g. Bardic Inspiration, Master of Tactics) or Reaction (dodging dragonfire e.g. Shield Master, or incoming arrows e.g. Deflect Missiles), any of which will preclude the use of a similar action type (i.e. Bonus Action, Reaction or Action) at the same time, including casting a spell (i.e. you can't shoot arrows and cast a spell with a Casting Time of one Action or more, simultaneously).

My argument is that the concentration to cast a spell (not maintain it) may be obvious enough to notice, given that it requires the use of more than a non-Action, regardless of whether it has any obvious components.

You can't Dash and cast Sleep.
You can't aim and shoot while casting Magic Missile.
You can't raise your shield (Shield Master) against a Flamestrike after failing to Counterspell it.

The act of casting a spell is sufficient that it stops you from doing anything else of significance at the time and for the duration of casting, regardless of whether you're waving your hands, speaking or manipulating objects or not, to do so. I'd argue that in order to conceal that effort, the effort of casting a spell, even without any components, would require some kind of additional focus, concentration or effort beyond that of merely casting the spell (i.e. a Deception check), in much the same way that merely walking along does not automatically make you unnoticeable without the additional focus, concentration and effort of trying to be stealthy (i.e. a Stealth check).

[Morollan]

The act of casting a spell is sufficient that it stops you from doing anything else of significance at the time and for the duration of casting, regardless of whether you're waving your hands, speaking or manipulating objects or not, to do so. I'd argue that in order to conceal that effort, the effort of casting a spell, even without any components, would require some kind of additional focus, concentration or effort beyond that of merely casting the spell (i.e. a Deception check), in much the same way that merely walking along does not automatically make you unnoticeable without the additional focus, concentration and effort of trying to be stealthy (i.e. a Stealth check).

To use your analogy, someone casting a non-subtle spell is 'merely walking along'. Someone casting a subtle spell is spending resources (sorcery points) in order to effectively achieve the same result as a stealth check. I don't see any need for additional hoops to jump through.

[sophontteks]

Hmm...

Yes, I'll concede that you can dodge arrows passively with AC, or evade dragonfire without use of an action (if you have Evasion).

Yes, I'll concede that concentrating on maintaining a spell that is already cast does not require an action and will allow you to do any of the above.

However, the only active, mechanical applications of any of the actions mentioned all require the use of an Action (shooting arrows, i.e. Attack), Bonus Action (giving orders, e.g. Bardic Inspiration, Master of Tactics) or Reaction (dodging dragonfire e.g. Shield Master, or incoming arrows e.g. Deflect Missiles), any of which will preclude the use of a similar action type (i.e. Bonus Action, Reaction or Action) at the same time, including casting a spell (i.e. you can't shoot arrows and cast a spell with a Casting Time of one Action or more, simultaneously).

My argument is that the concentration to cast a spell (not maintain it) may be obvious enough to notice, given that it requires the use of more than a non-Action, regardless of whether it has any obvious components.

You can't Dash and cast Sleep.
You can't aim and shoot while casting Magic Missile.
You can't raise your shield (Shield Master) against a Flamestrike after failing to Counterspell it.

The act of casting a spell is sufficient that it stops you from doing anything else of significance at the time and for the duration of casting, regardless of whether you're waving your hands, speaking or manipulating objects or not, to do so. I'd argue that in order to conceal that effort, the effort of casting a spell, even without any components, would require some kind of additional focus, concentration or effort beyond that of merely casting the spell (i.e. a Deception check), in much the same way that merely walking along does not automatically make you unnoticeable without the additional focus, concentration and effort of trying to be stealthy (i.e. a Stealth check).

The additional effort is that you are using your action to cast the spell in opposition to doing something else. The idea that an action must be spent doing something every round is only relevant during combat and its pure meta knowledge anyway. Rounds only exist for the ease of running combat mechanics and don't exist in RP. Without any movements or sounds during the casting I have no idea what the deception roll is hiding. Your decision is running in opposition to the abilities effects; deception check must be rolled to hide the tells the ability explicitly removes.

From the characters perspective there are no rounds. Everything is played in realtime. Characters are not remaining still while casting a spell, they have free movement and the ability to continue reacting to their environment, including dodging and parrying attacks. The concentration involved in an "action" isn't very limiting. Wizards aren't going through some form of mental constipation when they cast a spell. Its very fluid and happens within 6 seconds or less.

In addition, look what sorcerers give up to have their metamagics: very limited spells, loss of other useful metamagics, using a very limited long-rest resource. You are nerfing them very hard and I doubt many players would be pleased to build a subtle caster under these conditions.

[JellyPooga]

To use your analogy, someone casting a non-subtle spell is 'merely walking along'. Someone casting a subtle spell is spending resources (sorcery points) in order to effectively achieve the same result as a stealth check. I don't see any need for additional hoops to jump through.

No. Casting a Subtle Spell is walking along without waving your arms around and holding a conversation. Casting a Subtle Spell lets you attempt to sneak in the first place, so to speak. It doesn't mean you automatically succeed. I can see where you're coming from with the resource expenditure, but what I see is that resource being spent to furnish the opportunity, not to hand the desired result on a plate. Bear in mind the other benefits, beyond deception, of Subtle Spell; casting whilst bound, or casting in an area of Silence or gagged, for example. These are "freebies" that are furnished by that resource. Deception is not, necessarily (or explicitly), granted (unless using XGtE, as conceded earlier).


The additional effort is that you are using your action to cast the spell in opposition to doing something else. The idea that an action must be spent doing something every round is only relevant during combat and its pure meta knowledge anyway. Rounds only exist for the ease of running combat mechanics and don't exist in RP. Without any movements or sounds during the casting I have no idea what the deception roll is hiding. Your decision is running in opposition to the abilities effects; deception check must be rolled to hide the tells the ability explicitly removes.

From the characters perspective there are no rounds. Everything is played in realtime. Characters are not remaining still while casting a spell, they have free movement and the ability to continue reacting to their environment, including dodging and parrying attacks. The concentration involved in an "action" isn't very limiting. Wizards aren't going through some form of mental constipation when they cast a spell. Its very fluid and happens within 6 seconds or less.

In addition, look what sorcerers give up to have their metamagics: very limited spells, loss of other useful metamagics, using a very limited long-rest resource. You are nerfing them very hard and I doubt many players would be pleased to build a subtle caster under these conditions.

To expand my list of "Things you can't do whilst casting a spell", then;

- You can't cast Alarm (casting time 1 minute) whilst searching for secret doors.
- I would not allow you to cast Awaken (casting time 8 hours) whilst foraging or drawing a map while traveling (couldn't find a specific reference for this one, so this is a personal GM-call).

The point is that spending your Action every round to cast a spell with a cast time of longer than one Action is also representative of precluding doing anything else of significance during that time. Whether you're in combat or not. You don't stop "spending your Action" just because you're out of combat; you're still expending the same effort to "cast a spell" for the duration of the casting time. Yes, you can walk around and generally interact, but at the same time you are also casting a spell, utilising your concentration to do so. It's worth bearing in mind that whilst simple activities and object interactions don't require an action (e.g. opening a door), more complex tasks e.g. something as simple as opening a stuck door (reference: PHB pg.190; Other Activity on your Turn) or doing two such things within the space of 6 seconds, would be beyond the scope of performing whilst casting a spell simultaneously. Heck, as mentioned before, you can't even move 60ft (for your average Human) in 6 seconds whilst casting a "normal" spell. That's not that fast a speed to be travelling; I could roll a cigarette whilst walking that fast, but a spellcaster can't cast a spell at that pace.

[diplomancer]

No. Casting a Subtle Spell is walking along without waving your arms around and holding a conversation. Casting a Subtle Spell lets you attempt to sneak in the first place, so to speak. It doesn't mean you automatically succeed. I can see where you're coming from with the resource expenditure, but what I see is that resource being spent to furnish the opportunity, not to hand the desired result on a plate. Bear in mind the other benefits, beyond deception, of Subtle Spell; casting whilst bound, or casting in an area of Silence or gagged, for example. These are "freebies" that are furnished by that resource. Deception is not, necessarily (or explicitly), granted (unless using XGtE, as conceded earlier).



To expand my list of "Things you can't do whilst casting a spell", then;

- You can't cast Alarm (casting time 1 minute) whilst searching for secret doors.
- I would not allow you to cast Awaken (casting time 8 hours) whilst foraging or drawing a map while traveling (couldn't find a specific reference for this one, so this is a personal GM-call).

The point is that spending your Action every round to cast a spell with a cast time of longer than one Action is also representative of precluding doing anything else of significance during that time. Whether you're in combat or not. You don't stop "spending your Action" just because you're out of combat; you're still expending the same effort to "cast a spell" for the duration of the casting time. Yes, you can walk around and generally interact, but at the same time you are also casting a spell, utilising your concentration to do so. It's worth bearing in mind that whilst simple activities and object interactions don't require an action (e.g. opening a door), more complex tasks e.g. something as simple as opening a stuck door (reference: PHB pg.190; Other Activity on your Turn) or doing two such things within the space of 6 seconds, would be beyond the scope of performing whilst casting a spell simultaneously. Heck, as mentioned before, you can't even move 60ft (for your average Human) in 6 seconds whilst casting a "normal" spell. That's not that fast a speed to be travelling; I could roll a cigarette whilst walking that fast, but a spellcaster can't cast a spell at that pace.

No one "walks" at 11 km/h, that's a moderately fast jog. If you can do it whilst rolling a cigarette, kudos to you, but in game terms that means you are so practiced at it that you can do it as a bonus action. It's not a "free object interaction", certainly.

[JellyPooga]

No one "walks" at 11 km/h, that's a moderately fast jog. If you can do it whilst rolling a cigarette, kudos to you, but in game terms that means you are so practiced at it that you can do it as a bonus action. It's not a "free object interaction", certainly.

Whether or not I can walk at that pace, you rather prove my point. Rolling a cigarette is something that can be done whilst holding a conversation, or even opening a door (albeit with a slight pause); a lengthy task (i.e. longer than 6 seconds) that takes a certain amount of concentration that can be performed alongside other tasks easily enough. You assert that to be able to perform that task whilst ttaveling at a decent pace would be considered (in game terms) as some kind of sepcial training. Yet a level 20 Wizard can't cast even a cantrip whilst moving at that same pace (all other things being equal). That being the case, I'll assert that level of concentration is pretty significant and perhaps even obvious to an observer.

[TheUser]

Whether or not I can walk at that pace, you rather prove my point. Rolling a cigarette is something that can be done whilst holding a conversation, or even opening a door (albeit with a slight pause); a lengthy task (i.e. longer than 6 seconds) that takes a certain amount of concentration that can be performed alongside other tasks easily enough. You assert that to be able to perform that task whilst ttaveling at a decent pace would be considered (in game terms) as some kind of sepcial training. Yet a level 20 Wizard can't cast even a cantrip whilst moving at that same pace (all other things being equal). That being the case, I'll assert that level of concentration is pretty significant and perhaps even obvious to an observer.

How so?
Are they furrowing their brow? Clenching their facial muscles (like someone who is constipated)?

There's no penalties to any ability checks, movement, attacks, other spells being cast.

A PC can dash at full speed while concentrating on a spell or scale a cliff, heck you can literally RUN A MARATHON while concentrating on a spell.

The fact that concentration has no numerical impact on performing other actions would seem to indicate that it's not obvious at all.

[JellyPooga]

How so?
Are they furrowing their brow? Clenching their facial muscles (like someone who is constipated)?

There's no penalties to any ability checks, movement, attacks, other spells being cast.

A PC can dash at full speed while concentrating on a spell or scale a cliff, heck you can literally RUN A MARATHON while concentrating on a spell.

The fact that concentration has no numerical impact on performing other actions would seem to indicate that it's not obvious at all.

I'll say it again, I'm not talking about concentration to maintain a spell, I'm talking about concentrating to cast a spell. If it would take an action to perform a task during combat, you cannot cast a spell with a casting time of one action or more simultaneously.

How that concentration manifests is entirely dependent on the character in question. How does anyone concentrate in real life? One character might furrow his brow, the next might glow with an aura of power; that's your call as the player. All that matters is that there is a certain amount of effort involved in doing so. Enough effort to preclude other significant activity. Enough effort such that it may be obvious you're doing something and not nothing.

[TheUser]

I'll say it again, I'm not talking about concentration to maintain a spell, I'm talking about concentrating to cast a spell. If it would take an action to perform a task during combat, you cannot cast a spell with a casting time of one action or more simultaneously.

How that concentration manifests is entirely dependent on the character in question. How does anyone concentrate in real life? One character might furrow his brow, the next might glow with an aura of power; that's your call as the player. All that matters is that there is a certain amount of effort involved in doing so. Enough effort to preclude other significant activity. Enough effort such that it may be obvious you're doing something and not nothing.

Half of my point still remains; I can still jog, climb, swim, jump.

I can even maintain a grapple.

All of these without penalty.

[Willie the Duck]

Pretty much exactly what the description says. How subtle is a Subtle Spell? Is it covert enough that no one would know the sorcerer has used it? Is it literally no more than "the spell happens without somatic/verbal components," such that anyone can tell you still cast it?

I don't believe there are any "right" answers, though of course I have my preferred answers. This is more "how does this community feel about it" than anything else.

I think, provided you can just have your hand on your focus or touching a material component (as needed), the only way that anyone can tell you still cast it is if the consequences of the spell happening infer that it was you casting it (a fireball shoots from you to the opponent, spirit guardians appear around you). Of course only people familiar with said spell will be able to definitively intuit 'that's a self-only spell, they must have cast it.'



The spell effect, though, is likely to be, because an awful lot of spells are described as originating from you in some way. Including most damaging spells.

Sacred Flame, Toll the Dead, Call Lightning, and Flame Strike (hmm, lot of Celestial Sorcerer fodder here) being exceptions.
Regardless, overall it seems that making a subtle blaster sorcerer who doesn't identify themselves as 'the caster' and thus draw aggro seems not to have been the intended use. The subtle battle sorcerer would be the one casting buff spells (probably a better role for a sorcerer in general, although that sorcerer is making tough decisions compared to twinning their buffs, or the like). I have always considered the social/infiltrator role to be the best place for a subtle sorcerer. Casting a spell right before you _____ (enchant, illusion, stealth) oftentimes negates any value he spell might have provided because it calls out to the intended target that you are either 1) there in the first place, or 2) doing something special.

[Morollan]

I'll say it again, I'm not talking about concentration to maintain a spell, I'm talking about concentrating to cast a spell. If it would take an action to perform a task during combat, you cannot cast a spell with a casting time of one action or more simultaneously.

How that concentration manifests is entirely dependent on the character in question. How does anyone concentrate in real life? One character might furrow his brow, the next might glow with an aura of power; that's your call as the player. All that matters is that there is a certain amount of effort involved in doing so. Enough effort to preclude other significant activity. Enough effort such that it may be obvious you're doing something and not nothing.

I'm not sure where you even got this concept of concentrating to cast a spell? There are literally no rules for that or really any suggestion that there even is such a thing. You seem to be saying that because casting a spell is an action there must be some visual evidence of you taking that action but that seems to ignore what subtle spell does. It removes the most obvious visual tells from the action. I don't know why you would want to penalise a player by making him jump through more hoops based purely on this imagined concept.

[diplomancer]

"This person didn't do anything except walk and talk in the last 6 seconds, they are obviously casting a spell" will not get you far in a court of law, even in a magical world ;)

[VoxRationis]

"This person didn't do anything except walk and talk in the last 6 seconds, they are obviously casting a spell" will not get you far in a court of law, even in a magical world ;)

Well, not a fair court of law with reasonable standards for evidence, anyway. Lots of either codified or customary laws have had somewhat lower standards for burden of proof.

But yes, it sounds like JellyPooga is insisting that Subtle Spell, in spite of removing both visual and auditory cues as to the casting of a spell for the avowed purpose of making the spell, you know, subtle, does not actually do that. I would also argue that "concentration" in the non-technical sense is often rather difficult to notice. People don't necessarily squint and tense up all their muscles when they're mentally focusing on something; that's an element of artistic license to make TV and film more interesting to watch. Consider a classroom full of reasonably scholarly pupils. What does their focus look like? Well, not much, I would argue, and nothing that would be out of place in, say, an audience chamber.

[Damon_Tor]

It depends on the spell. If a bolt of lightning springs from you, it will be hard to convince that you were not involved in it.

Of course, humans (and I assume most other humanoids) do not perceive quickly enough to determine which end of the lighting is the origin and which end is the terminus. They just see a flash arcing from one location to another. You could use this to both fake your death and frame someone for your murder.

1. Make yourself look like lighting hit you. Burn your clothes, burn your hair, use a disguise kit to make your flesh look crispy, etc.
2. Cast Contingency: Feign Death. The condition is "I cast Lightning Bolt".
3. Use Disguise Self to hide the lightning-struck effects.
4. Exactly one hour later, stand 101 feet away from your target and get his attention, so he at least looks at you. An insult works well for our purposes.
5. Cast Lightning Bolt subtly in his direction, which triggers Feign Death. Disguise Self times out

You will be lying there, appearing to be dead, covered in horrific burns. Everyone will have seen the lightning, appearing to come from the target of the frame job. The obvious conclusion is that he is a sorcerer, and in his anger lashed out with his magic at a random heckler. Naturally the body will go missing later, something that will be blamed on the cover-up attempts of the targets allies in the coroner's office.

[Demonslayer666]

I'm not sure where you even got this concept of concentrating to cast a spell? There are literally no rules for that or really any suggestion that there even is such a thing. You seem to be saying that because casting a spell is an action there must be some visual evidence of you taking that action but that seems to ignore what subtle spell does. It removes the most obvious visual tells from the action. I don't know why you would want to penalise a player by making him jump through more hoops based purely on this imagined concept.

Probably from the Ready Action, you maintain concentration until the trigger.


@OP - Subtle Spell is not perceptible when the spell has V and S components only. If it has M, it depends on the accessibility of the M component. The way I play it, is you can't notice it if the material component is hidden and already in your pocket, or casually held (staff). Now, if you have to retrieve it from your component pouch, or get out your wand, then that can be noticed and subtle spell doesn't help - but I might let slight of hand work.

[sophontteks]

No. Casting a Subtle Spell is walking along without waving your arms around and holding a conversation. Casting a Subtle Spell lets you attempt to sneak in the first place, so to speak. It doesn't mean you automatically succeed. I can see where you're coming from with the resource expenditure, but what I see is that resource being spent to furnish the opportunity, not to hand the desired result on a plate. Bear in mind the other benefits, beyond deception, of Subtle Spell; casting whilst bound, or casting in an area of Silence or gagged, for example. These are "freebies" that are furnished by that resource. Deception is not, necessarily (or explicitly), granted (unless using XGtE, as conceded earlier).



To expand my list of "Things you can't do whilst casting a spell", then;

- You can't cast Alarm (casting time 1 minute) whilst searching for secret doors.
- I would not allow you to cast Awaken (casting time 8 hours) whilst foraging or drawing a map while traveling (couldn't find a specific reference for this one, so this is a personal GM-call).

The point is that spending your Action every round to cast a spell with a cast time of longer than one Action is also representative of precluding doing anything else of significance during that time. Whether you're in combat or not. You don't stop "spending your Action" just because you're out of combat; you're still expending the same effort to "cast a spell" for the duration of the casting time. Yes, you can walk around and generally interact, but at the same time you are also casting a spell, utilising your concentration to do so. It's worth bearing in mind that whilst simple activities and object interactions don't require an action (e.g. opening a door), more complex tasks e.g. something as simple as opening a stuck door (reference: PHB pg.190; Other Activity on your Turn) or doing two such things within the space of 6 seconds, would be beyond the scope of performing whilst casting a spell simultaneously. Heck, as mentioned before, you can't even move 60ft (for your average Human) in 6 seconds whilst casting a "normal" spell. That's not that fast a speed to be travelling; I could roll a cigarette whilst walking that fast, but a spellcaster can't cast a spell at that pace.
And what of the things that you can?

A caster can summersault away from a fireball, unsheath their sword, and parry away the attacks from several goblins all while running 30 feet, leaping over a ravine, and shouting "Death to the enemy" at the top of their lungs...

All within a 6 second timespan while they are using their action to cast a spell.

Again, you are confusing turn-based game mechanics. Everything in the game is happening real-time. The caster is never sitting motionlessly with a case of mental constipation. There is literally no tell.

EDIT: in response to what you can't do. Reactions happen within the same 6 second timespan, so add back in attacking and casting spells in reaction to the enemy.

[JellyPooga]

I'm not sure where you even got this concept of concentrating to cast a spell?

That'll be from the rules for casting a spell. AFB right now (sneaking a quickie in from work, on my phone), but take a ganders at the rules for casting a spell with a casting time of longer than a single Action. The quote will be something along the lines of "Every turn, you must spend an Action to concentrate on the spell, as per thr ruled for maintaining one". Or something along those lines.

As I mentioned previously, it isn't too much of a stretch to extend that same concept to the casting of any spell; i.e. that the action required to cast the spell, whether it be a Bonus Action, Reaction, an Action or several, is in essence an action to concentrate on the spell (as per maintaining), only there is no opportunity to disrupt the spell due to how quickly the cast time is resolved.


You seem to be saying that because casting a spell is an action there must be some visual evidence of you taking that action but that seems to ignore what subtle spell does. It removes the most obvious visual tells from the action.

You answer your own accusation. Subtle Spell removes the most obvious visual and audible cues of casting a spell. It does not remove all cues. Subtle Spell does not state that it makes casting the spell impossible to detect, only that it removes the Somatic and Verbal components. In the same way that Invisibility does not mean you automatically pass Stealth checks, I'm arguing that Subtle Spell does not automatically mean your spell casting is undetectable.

I'm not saying Subtle Spell does nothing here; as I said before, I'd likely grant advantage and/or disadvantage to Deception and Insight respectively to any attempt to disguise the casting if using Subtle, dependent on circumstances...both together is a pretty firm nail in that coffin in favour of the Subtle Sorcerer.

[Rabi]

You answer your own accusation. Subtle Spell removes the most obvious visual and audible cues of casting a spell. It does not remove all cues. Subtle Spell does not state that it makes casting the spell impossible to detect, only that it removes the Somatic and Verbal components. In the same way that Invisibility does not mean you automatically pass Stealth checks, I'm arguing that Subtle Spell does not automatically mean your spell casting is undetectable.

I'm not saying Subtle Spell does nothing here; as I said before, I'd likely grant advantage and/or disadvantage to Deception and Insight respectively to any attempt to disguise the casting if using Subtle, dependent on circumstances...both together is a pretty firm nail in that coffin in favour of the Subtle Sorcerer.

I beg to disagree,

Following xanathar's rules, It's undetectable (Except for fireball, Magic missales)

[NecessaryWeevil]

A third, albeit slightly more niche point I'd make is regarding the Mage Slayer feat, which states; "When a creature within 5ft of you casts a spell" as a trigger for one of its granted abilities. It makes no mention of components or subtlety, only the action of casting a spell. This implies that casting a spell is pretty obvious, regardless of the components involved in casting said spell. A similar argument can be made for the conditions of triggering the spell Counterspell.

Pretty obvious to a Mage Slayer. To someone with specialized training and/or supernatural abilities that the vast majority of people lack.

[Yunru]

I also beg to differ because it doesn't just remove the obvious. A spell with no V components has no verbal cues, not just less. Likewise for Somatic components.

The only clues you'd get are the timing of the thing, and if they have material components on them (possibly even then not unless said material component is consumed.

[Keltest]

That'll be from the rules for casting a spell. AFB right now (sneaking a quickie in from work, on my phone), but take a ganders at the rules for casting a spell with a casting time of longer than a single Action. The quote will be something along the lines of "Every turn, you must spend an Action to concentrate on the spell, as per thr ruled for maintaining one". Or something along those lines.

As I mentioned previously, it isn't too much of a stretch to extend that same concept to the casting of any spell; i.e. that the action required to cast the spell, whether it be a Bonus Action, Reaction, an Action or several, is in essence an action to concentrate on the spell (as per maintaining), only there is no opportunity to disrupt the spell due to how quickly the cast time is resolved.



You answer your own accusation. Subtle Spell removes the most obvious visual and audible cues of casting a spell. It does not remove all cues. Subtle Spell does not state that it makes casting the spell impossible to detect, only that it removes the Somatic and Verbal components. In the same way that Invisibility does not mean you automatically pass Stealth checks, I'm arguing that Subtle Spell does not automatically mean your spell casting is undetectable.

I'm not saying Subtle Spell does nothing here; as I said before, I'd likely grant advantage and/or disadvantage to Deception and Insight respectively to any attempt to disguise the casting if using Subtle, dependent on circumstances...both together is a pretty firm nail in that coffin in favour of the Subtle Sorcerer.

Nobody is saying that it literally renders you completely undetectable under any circumstances though. Obviously if youre just standing around and then a lightning bolt springs from your rear and strikes somebody, its going to be obvious that you did something magical there (or else have such significant problems that you shouldn't be allowed in public anyway), but if you pick a spell effect that cant be immediately traced to its point of origin, like a charm, there aren't going to be any visible signs, because you didn't perform any of the actions normally used to see somebody is spellcasting.

But ok, lets say you aren't missing the point of subtle spell. What, exactly, would they be hiding using the deception check? They aren't making gestures, they aren't chanting words. If no spell effect comes from them, what is even left to know a spell was cast?

[Yunru]

Nobody is saying that it literally renders you completely undetectable under any circumstances though. Obviously if youre just standing around and then a lightning bolt springs from your rear and strikes somebody, its going to be obvious that you did something magical there (or else have such significant problems that you shouldn't be allowed in public anyway), but if you pick a spell effect that cant be immediately traced to its point of origin, like a charm, there aren't going to be any visible signs, because you didn't perform any of the actions normally used to see somebody is spellcasting.

But ok, lets say you aren't missing the point of subtle spell. What, exactly, would they be hiding using the deception check? They aren't making gestures, they aren't chanting words. If no spell effect comes from them, what is even left to know a spell was cast?

Well you see Your Honour, they were clearly thinking about something.

[Izur Saiga]

You answer your own accusation. Subtle Spell removes the most obvious visual and audible cues of casting a spell. It does not remove all cues. Subtle Spell does not state that it makes casting the spell impossible to detect, only that it removes the Somatic and Verbal components. In the same way that Invisibility does not mean you automatically pass Stealth checks, I'm arguing that Subtle Spell does not automatically mean your spell casting is undetectable.

I'm not saying Subtle Spell does nothing here; as I said before, I'd likely grant advantage and/or disadvantage to Deception and Insight respectively to any attempt to disguise the casting if using Subtle, dependent on circumstances...both together is a pretty firm nail in that coffin in favour of the Subtle Sorcerer.


Sure, you are not saying Subtle does nothing, but you are unnecessarily nerfing and adding hoops to a unique mechanic of an arguably weaker class and to something that's crystal clear by RAW. You can't even counterspell a Subtle spell without material components because you can't perceive the caster at work.

Using verisimilitude based on our world as a basis for reasoning about fantastical mechanics and whatnot often leads to aberrant, unnecessary and almost certainly unfun rulings.

[JellyPooga]

But ok, lets say you aren't missing the point of subtle spell. What, exactly, would they be hiding using the deception check? They aren't making gestures, they aren't chanting words. If no spell effect comes from them, what is even left to know a spell was cast?

Ever watched someone think about something? For instance, whilst reading a book, they stop to consider something they've read or overheard. It's usually fairly obvious, right? They're not doing anything, but they're clearly not not doing anything either. Now take that "not doing anything" to an extreme beyond merely pondering a thought and into the realms of an activity that, whilst it doesn't involve actively doing anything obvious, it still prevents you from doing other significant activities (like running, fighting, opening a sticky door, or operating a mechanism). That's some significant "not doing anything", right?

Now add a magical effect; for the sake of argument, let's consider both a non-obvious one like Charm Person and an obvious one...let's say Fog Cloud. You spot a guy "not doing anything", then magic happens. Whether the magic effect is obvious or not, in retrospect, I figure it might at least give you a suspicion he could have cast a spell.

Now apply this into a world where magic is fairly ubiquitous. You spot a guy "not doing anything". Is it at least possible that you might suspect he's doing something magical?

[Frozenstep]

Subtle spell is something you have to think about when world-building. How much do the people your party will interact with know about magic, and what kinds?

Maybe wizard are more common, because wizards are useful and you can set up schools to teach them and so countries do that, while sorcerers are rare because they're only created in strange circumstances. In that case, people might know what goes into arcane magic, the verbal and somatic components, and thus be caught off guard by someone who requires neither. Their knowledge narrows their view on magic, hiding the truth.


As I mentioned previously, it isn't too much of a stretch to extend that same concept to the casting of any spell; i.e. that the action required to cast the spell, whether it be a Bonus Action, Reaction, an Action or several, is in essence an action to concentrate on the spell (as per maintaining), only there is no opportunity to disrupt the spell due to how quickly the cast time is resolved.

But nothing tells us this action can be perceived by anyone, it's the verbal, somatic, and sometimes material components that are perceivable. The caster can be standing completely and absolutely still, or dodging arrows, talk with others, or even take a reaction like catching an arrow during their turn and still get this spell off. The only thing that could give it away is what the caster didn't do, but that could still mean they're taking a ready action instead.

[JellyPooga]

But nothing tells us this action can be perceived by anyone

Nothing tells us an Attack action is perceivable either, but we assume it is. The components of a spell do not necessarily describe the only perceivable elements of casting a spell; they describe required activities for that specific spell, not the "Cast a Spell" Action.

[Izur Saiga]

Nothing tells us an Attack action is perceivable either, but we assume it is.

Yeah, an Attack is perceivable by default, because if it isn't, it is an attack from a unseen creature and there are rules for that.


The components of a spell do not necessarily describe the only perceivable elements of casting a spell; they describe required activities for that specific spell, not the "Cast a Spell" Action.

Per the PHB: "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell."

So yes, the V, S and M are everything there is to casting a spell; there is nothing more written elsewhere. Obviously, the specific words, gestures and materials will vary between spells, but there is nothing else indicating that a spell is being cast. AFTER the spell is cast, there might some effects.

[VoxRationis]

Using verisimilitude based on our world as a basis for reasoning about fantastical mechanics and whatnot often leads to aberrant, unnecessary and almost certainly unfun rulings.

It doesn't sound like verisimilitude based on our world.


Ever watched someone think about something? For instance, whilst reading a book, they stop to consider something they've read or overheard. It's usually fairly obvious, right? They're not doing anything, but they're clearly not not doing anything either.

...

Now apply this into a world where magic is fairly ubiquitous. You spot a guy "not doing anything". Is it at least possible that you might suspect he's doing something magical?

Firstly, no, whether someone is concentrating intently on something profound or just letting their mind wander is not intuitively obvious, (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-01-06) particularly if they aren't focusing on something like a book, which obliges them to stare intently, move their eyes in a particular way, and decline their head in an unusual way. Someone who's just thinking about something (and isn't trying to demonstrate "I'm thinking" to someone with a gesture) looks like someone who is just staring into space, or idly taking in the room. Secondly, people don't do things for large portions of the day. Saying that such behavior would raise suspicions is ludicrous. Now, you could have someone say, "I know a magical thing happened, and I know some people can cast spells through mental effort alone, so it's plausible that someone in this room did that," but that's not the same thing as saying "That person didn't talk for a couple of seconds; he (and not the other people who also weren't talking) must be a sorcerer working enchantments on people."


Nothing tells us an Attack action is perceivable either, but we assume it is. The components of a spell do not necessarily describe the only perceivable elements of casting a spell; they describe required activities for that specific spell, not the "Cast a Spell" Action.

There isn't a class feature that allows you to attack without moving your limbs and weapon. There is specifically a class feature that allows you to cast spells without moving your limbs.

[Frozenstep]

Nothing tells us an Attack action is perceivable either, but we assume it is. The components of a spell do not necessarily describe the only perceivable elements of casting a spell; they describe required activities for that specific spell, not the "Cast a Spell" Action.

Well, making an attack while unseen and unheard, you give away your location whether the attack hits or not. It doesn't say that about casting a spell.

Either way, we're pretty much in the classic 5e "ruling over rules" territory, and there's no way to really discuss that you think there's something noticeable like needing to scrunch up your face or something as casting a spell. If that works for you in your games, go ahead.

[redwizard007]

JP, it sounds like you are overly concerned with 5e enchantment based sorcerers. I'm my experience at tables I have never seen any of the GitP shenanigans with subtle spell. Not once. Spell points are a fairly limited resource and are saved more often than not. Further the situations where Subtle Spell would be uber useful are often the same places roleplaying or Charisma checks can make them superfluous. Essentially, you gain nothing with your ruling, but may alienate some players who want those options.

[Doug Lampert]

You can concentrate on a spell while dodging dragonfire and incoming arrows, while shooting arrows back, and giving orders to your companions. It's obviously not how you picture it.

This is a significant and unnecessary nerf to subtle spell.


"This person didn't do anything except walk and talk in the last 6 seconds, they are obviously casting a spell" will not get you far in a court of law, even in a magical world ;)

Agreed to both of the above. At least this discussion is different from the weekly guy who wants to be able to cast a spell with V and S components undetected WITHOUT subtle spell by muttering under his breath (when it says that's not what you're doing).

What is this? Sorcerers can't have nice things? Subtle is either pointless because someone gives it away for free to all casters for no obvious reason, or it's pointless because it simply doesn't do what it's obviously intended to do in some people's games.

I know this is imaginary elf games, but why is it so hard for some people to say, "V and S components are really obvious, you can't hide them, but if you have subtle spell it does the thing it's intended to do."

[ProsecutorGodot]

As I mentioned previously, it isn't too much of a stretch to extend that same concept to the casting of any spell; i.e. that the action required to cast the spell, whether it be a Bonus Action, Reaction, an Action or several, is in essence an action to concentrate on the spell (as per maintaining), only there is no opportunity to disrupt the spell due to how quickly the cast time is resolved.

Hard disagree, it's a huge stretch to apply rules that have no bearing on single action spells to them. Following this logic, anything that could take you more than 6 seconds should reasonably take your concentration to do. We could stretch that to apply to just about any action. That's ridiculous and the rules in no way support such a thing.

What takes your concentration (this is a game mechanic, not an abstract thing) is clearly spelled out in the rules. Anything that isn't listed as taking your concentration does not, just as there is no abstract term that makes your character act strangely in perceivable ways because they're clearly doing something, standing there all smug like while the sword hanging on the wall unseen behind you begins to Catapult towards you without your knowledge.

Fun fact about targeting a surprised target with Catapult is that despite you getting the drop on them by all accounts they receive no penalties to their dexterity saving throw. That's far more harmful to immersion (although not really to a degree I would complain about) than the Subtle spell not being made obvious via facial expressions or minor body movement.


I know this is imaginary elf games, but why is it so hard for some people to say, "V and S components are really obvious, you can't hide them, but if you have subtle spell it does the thing it's intended to do."
Amen, praise Grumbar.

[JellyPooga]

JP, it sounds like you are overly concerned with 5e enchantment based sorcerers.

Hey, I'm just responding to others and defending a position I conceded in my second (maybe third? still at work and don't care to check) post in this thread. I honestly couldn't care much less about Sorcerers with Subtle spell unless one of my players decides to roll one up. I'm certainly not going to be playing one myself any time soon (not my style). I just posited a stance on how I'd probably rule it at my table and everyone jumped on me saying how incredibly unfair/badwrongfun they think I am for ruling that way. *Shrug* Someone wants to argue, I'll put up a fight.

[Yunru]

It's not badwrongfun if it's just badunfun :p

[Pex]

I know this is imaginary elf games, but why is it so hard for some people to say, "V and S components are really obvious, you can't hide them,

A player wanting to cast a spell without the bad guys knowing doesn't happen so often when it does happen it gets noticed, and the player is bummed he can't do it. It's a reflex to ask if he can. It's being stealthy like others things players do that can be done stealthily. It seems so obvious a thing that could be done because it's all imaginary in the head playing the game. People mutter under their breath in real life and in various tv shows and movies people see characters being subtle doing magic or other things. The player isn't trying to win D&D, but it's really, really important for that once instance he needs to cast that spell without being noticed. The frustration factor is high that he can't and wants relief. When the DM agrees with the desire you get the Stealth/Sleight of Hand check justifying it with Subtle Spell in that the Sorcerer using that metamagic autosucceeds.


but if you have subtle spell it does the thing it's intended to do."

Instinctual DM worry a player is trying to get away with something. Anything that's an autosuccess pings that worry. Everything must have a risk of failure because otherwise where's the challenge? They don't accept the fun is having that autosuccess for that one instance, a small relief from the risk of failure that is inherent in the game of everything else. The DM views autosuccess as winning D&D.

[sophontteks]

Pex,
Subtle isn't autosuccess for spells. They fail or succeed the same as other spells.

[JellyPooga]

Pex,
Subtle isn't autosuccess for spells. They fail or succeed the same as other spells.

The autosuccess he's talking about is the spell being undetectable, not the spell effect.

[sophontteks]

The autosuccess he's talking about is the spell being undetectable, not the spell effect.
I know what he meant but it is misleading. The spell is not autosuccess. Checks and balances already exist. Creating a situation where a player needs to make multiple rolls to succeed at an ability doesn't work. Each check dramatically reduces the chance of succeeding.

For example,
"Sneak attack is auto-success. There should be a sleight of hand check to see if it works."
"Smite is auto-success...."

It just doesn't make sense. Abilities generally do what they are intended without fail, espesially when the check was made elsewhere. Imagine how tedious it would be if abilities like portent required an additional roll just to do what they are supposed to.

[HappyDaze]

If you're worried about being seen toying with your Material component(s), the Sleight of Hand skill likely covers doing so on the sly. Admittedly, it's not a skill I have commonly seen chosen by PCs, but it does have uses.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I know what he meant but it is misleading. The spell is not autosuccess. Checks and balances already exist. Creating a situation where a player needs to make multiple rolls to succeed at an ability doesn't work. Each check dramatically reduces the chance of succeeding.

For example,
"Sneak attack is auto-success. There should be a sleight of hand check to see if it works."
"Smite is auto-success...."

It just doesn't make sense. Abilities generally do what they are intended without fail, espesially when the check was made elsewhere. Imagine how tedious it would be if abilities like portent required an additional roll just to do what they are supposed to.

I could be mistaken but I think Pex read the comment "but why is it so hard for some people to say, "V and S components are really obvious, you can't hide them, but if you have subtle spell it does the thing it's intended to do." and chose to answer it literally. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's arguing for or against it (although he could be) but there are reasons that people would take issue with it.

What I got from the comment is that (a) If the table would be better for it, make rare exceptions and give opportunities for your players to succeed and (b) there can be an instinctual worry that someone is trying to win at DND when they make use of class features that takes away from a challenging aspect of the game. The former is a problem in rigidness in my opinion, following RAW to the letter can create strife on occasion and it's important to find wiggle room. The latter is a problem in perception, many class features are designed to allow a certain class to overcome challenging obstacles with relative ease and trying to mitigate those features (in most cases) is reductive to that class as they've almost certainly had to give something else up to gain that power. The second part of this is that there's an adversarial relationship between player and DM, which I would try to avoid falling into. If you're thinking you're competing with other people at your table, a discussion should be had on whether that was the expectation when starting the game.

[JellyPooga]

I know what he meant but it is misleading. The spell is not autosuccess. Checks and balances already exist. Creating a situation where a player needs to make multiple rolls to succeed at an ability doesn't work. Each check dramatically reduces the chance of succeeding.

For example,
"Sneak attack is auto-success. There should be a sleight of hand check to see if it works."
"Smite is auto-success...."

It just doesn't make sense. Abilities generally do what they are intended without fail, espesially when the check was made elsewhere. Imagine how tedious it would be if abilities like portent required an additional roll just to do what they are supposed to.

I'll bring up the example of Invisibility not granting an autosuccess at Stealth again. I doubt many on this forum would still argue that being unseen automatically means you're hidden, yet it's a "massive nerf" to Subtle Spell to ask for the same criteria to apply to casting a spell being detected.

[Spiritchaser]

I know this is imaginary elf games, but why is it so hard for some people to say, "V and S components are really obvious, you can't hide them, but if you have subtle spell it does the thing it's intended to do."

Not imaginary elf games at all! This just seems self evident...

Bordering on A is A

Now here’s a question: at what range CAN you make a verbal component stealthy?

You are hidden, but to pass through the tunnel in the distance you would need to walk right by a guard, and the tunnel has good lighting and affords no cover.

You wish to cast invisibility.

At 30’? No way.
60’ still hell no.

But as much as I am an advocate for spell casting being loud, there should be a point where hiding your casting is at least possible.

Personally I give the characters a free pass at anything over 1000’ Even in quiet conditions, down to 200-300’ if it’s noisier or there’s something to absorb the sound (a range cited because looking back I probably haven’t been super consistent on this one)

Would a noisy bazaar with religious zealots chanting... something... allow something closer still? Yes I think so.

[Yunru]

I'll bring up the example of Invisibility not granting an autosuccess at Stealth again. I doubt many on this forum would still argue that being unseen automatically means you're hidden, yet it's a "massive nerf" to Subtle Spell to ask for the same criteria to apply to casting a spell being detected.

Except this theoretical Invisibility also makes you silent. How exactly, does an unseen, unheard creature not auto-succeed?

[MaxWilson]

Except this theoretical Invisibility also makes you silent. How exactly, does an unseen, unheard creature not auto-succeed?

Well, he could trip over something, or leave footprints in the dirt, or brush against tree branches.

Would you say there is no possible way for a deaf character to perceive the presence of an invisible creature?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, he could trip over something, or leave footprints in the dirt, or brush against tree branches.

Would you say there is no possible way for a deaf character to perceive the presence of an invisible creature?

We're not talking about a literally invisible creature in this example, we're talking about a spell being cast without it's vocal and somatic components, effectively both invisible and silent as far as the casting is concerned. Whether a moving creature who is affected by the silence spell can be detected by a deaf creature is another debate entirely.

[JellyPooga]

Except this theoretical Invisibility also makes you silent. How exactly, does an unseen, unheard creature not auto-succeed?

A magically Silent and Invisible creature still needs to roll Stealth (and take an Action) to hide. Does that make any more sense than a component-less spell still being identifiable as a spell being cast without a Deception check?

[Yunru]

Well, he could trip over something, or leave footprints in the dirt, or brush against tree branches.

Would you say there is no possible way for a deaf character to perceive the presence of an invisible creature?

Alas, this spell also makes the creature incorporeal and makes it float :p

[ProsecutorGodot]

A magically Silent and Invisible creature still needs to roll Stealth (and take an Action) to hide. Does that make any more sense than a component-less spell still being identifiable as a spell being cast without a Deception check?

One is an aspect of the rules as written, one is an aspect exclusively within DM's table to table rulings.

So to answer the question, yes it does. If your argument is that it should be the same, you tell me how a creature casts a spell as an action and hides the casting with the same action. Do we create an entirely new action to mimic hide? Disguise Spell, roll sleight of hand and stealth, the next spell you cast has it's somatic components become imperceptible to creatures who fail to beat your sleight of hand check and its vocal components imperceptible to those who fail to beat your stealth check.

Seems complicated.

[MaxWilson]

Alas, this spell also makes the creature incorporeal and makes it float :p

But that makes it a bad analogy for Subtle Spell! After all, spells without components (like Dominate Monster cast by a Mind Flayer, or Subtle Counterspell) don't make the caster invisible and inaudible, which would be the equivalent of incorporeal floating (no interaction with anything visible). And some Subtle Spells still have Material components too.

On a side note:

Would you rule that a Mind Flayer casting Dominate Monster, or a Githyanki Knight casting Plane Shift or Telekinesis, cannot be Counterspelled?

Would you rule that the PCs wrongly cannot perceive it casting the spell, and try to mislead them into thinking the monster is not taking an action this turn?

Would you rule that a hidden Mind Flayer casting Dominate Monster remains hidden?

If your answer to these questions is "yes," Subtle Sorcerers will be somewhat happy, but anyone fighting Mind Flayers or Githyanki will be very, very sad: either immediately when you announce the rule or later on down the line when they get in a fight with mind flayer thralls and only then do they realize that 2 of the 4 PCs have already been Dominated by hidden Mind Flayers and they didn't know it, until the mind-controlled Fighter Action Surges 7 Sharpshooter/CE attacks into the party wizard instead of shooting at the Mind Flayer like he was originally planning to.

[Yunru]

Actually they don't roll for it.
Checks are only rolled for if there is a possibility of failure, as per the PHB.

In an event where no-one has, or can gain, the ability to, say, See Invisibility, then there is no roll, the check automatically succeeds (which mechanically makes no sense, since the check is actually one half of an opposed check but whatever, c'est la vie).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Would you rule that a Mind Flayer casting Dominate Monster, or a Githyanki Knight casting Plane Shift or Telekinesis, cannot be Counterspelled?

Would you rule that the PCs wrongly cannot perceive it casting the spell, and try to mislead them into thinking the monster is not taking an action this turn?

Would you rule that a hidden Mind Flayer casting Dominate Monster remains hidden?

If your answer to these questions is "yes," Subtle Sorcerers will be somewhat happy, but anyone fighting Mind Flayers or Githyanki will be very, very sad: either immediately when you announce the rule or later on down the line when they get in a fight with mind flayer thralls and only then do they realize that 2 of the 4 PCs have already been Dominated by hidden Mind Flayers and they didn't know it, until the mind-controlled Fighter Action Surges 7 Sharpshooter/CE attacks into the party wizard instead of shooting at the Mind Flayer like he was originally planning to.

I was under the impression that they couldn't be. No components as well as no outward effects, no perceptible spell to counter.

[Yunru]

But that makes it a bad analogy for Subtle Spell! After all, spells without components (like Dominate Monster cast by a Mind Flayer, or Subtle Counterspell) don't make the caster invisible and inaudible, which would be the equivalent of incorporeal floating (no interaction with anything visible).

But they do for the purpose of casting that spell.

[sophontteks]

A magically Silent and Invisible creature still needs to roll Stealth (and take an Action) to hide. Does that make any more sense than a component-less spell still being identifiable as a spell being cast without a Deception check?
First, you don't need to hide to gain the advantages of invisibility.

The book argues that one can still look for signs of the target's presence, such as foot prints. Being unseen and unheard would be a DM call. The book only mentions invisibility AFAIK. The book describes hidden as being "unseen and unheard" in the unseen attackers section. But that's a whole other can of worms I've seen take 20+ pages.

You haven't actually provided what tell is giving the subtle caster away besides the meta knowledge of actions and rounds, which would be the substance of your argument. I've talked in length how an action isn't something that exists in the real time world the character's perceive, and a character casting a spell is practically unbound given that they can take reactions, free actions, move about, take bonus actions, and dodge/parry spells, attacks, and abilities within that 6 second timespan. Your argument, as far as I know, is still contingent on the belief that a caster must remain practically motionless for a set period in such a way that its obvious that they are either pooping themselves, or casting a spell.

[ezekielraiden]

A magically Silent and Invisible creature still needs to roll Stealth (and take an Action) to hide. Does that make any more sense than a component-less spell still being identifiable as a spell being cast without a Deception check?

The former is more sensible than the latter, because your (conceded) position requires extrapolating an unrelated rule into an area it doesn't formally apply to, whereas spells like invisibility explicitly require it via the definition of the "invisible" condition, and because as noted in the piece of PHB text I quoted, where it expressly says that non-obvious spell effects "typically go unnoticed." Mage Slayers would, naturally, be an atypical situation, as most people are not Mage Slayers. So there are direct rules in the core book which suggest this position is less sensible. The simple divide between the two cases, "must roll to hide while magically invisible" and "must roll to conceal a Subtle non-M spell," is that the former has explicit rules requiring it and the latter does not, a perfectly valid difference of sensibility.

On the other hand, your (conceded) position requires both an analogic extrapolation, and an *expectation* extrapolation that finds no reference in the rules themselves. The analogy is "spells that take longer than 1 action to cast require concentration during the casting, so therefore spells that require no more than 1 action MUST also require concentration." As with all arguments by analogy, this is weak to the criticism that the analogy simply doesn't hold in this sense; no analogy is perfect, and an analogic argument is only as good as the fit of the two things being analogized. Here, the criticism would be that the "concentration" for >1 action spells is to shoe that they can be interrupted, causing the loss of the spell, whereas <=1 action spells cannot be affected so and thus do not work analogously in this sense. The expectation extrapolation is a further weakness, as it depends on arguing for the universality of the expectation that a person concentrating on something is so obvious when they do so that they must actively work to conceal that concentration. It seems pretty clear that many people do not agree with this understanding of what it means to concentrate, and that it can actually be quite difficult to detect under many common circumstances.

Now, if your position were, say, "I want someone already under suspicion to at least have a chance of failure, so in that circumstance I want opposed Deception/Insight rolls" or something similar, I would have a lot fewer issues. That's a situation where even very subtle indicators will be taken more seriously, where an inherent bias is likely (in the vein of "he was walking and talking with one hand in his pocket, OBVIOUSLY he's up to no good!") A court with an inherently jaundiced view of casters, an Officer Truncheon or Inspector Javert type, etc. would all be reasonable deviations from "the norm" such that I would be okay with even a Subtle Spell not being totally sufficient protection from scrutiny. But your (conceded) position is that this is required all the time, for any Subtle spell, no matter how favorable or unfavorable the conditions might be.

(As an aside, I am also totally fine with the idea that an ongoing charm effect or the like could totally be noticed by an onlooker with a plausible doubt, e.g. the king's seneschal notes that suddenly he's WAY more receptive to the robed man's negotiations than he ever is with others...so she tries to investigate by making subtle comments to get the robed man to request something she knows the king would hate. That's an Insight check, maybe even with advantage since she knows the king so well, having served the royal family since his mother's reign. But again, this requires significantly more of the person investigating than what you have devil's-advocate argued for; in effect it is explaining why THIS charm spell had an "obvious effect" when normally they don't.)

[Damon_Tor]

Well, he could trip over something, or leave footprints in the dirt, or brush against tree branches.

Would you say there is no possible way for a deaf character to perceive the presence of an invisible creature?

I will note a deafened creature explicitly "automatically fails any ability check that requires hearing." Which I would rule applies to locating an invisible creature, yes.

[JellyPooga]

First, you don't need to hide to gain the advantages of invisibility.

Nor does a spell need to be undetectable to gain the benefits of Subtle Spell. Subtle Spell does not state that it makes the spell casting undetectable, only that it removes Verbal and Somatic components. Subtle Spell does grant certain advantages, much as being Invisible does, without necessarily making the spell casting impossible to detect, analagous to Invisibility not automatically making you hidden.


You haven't actually provided what tell is giving the subtle caster away besides the meta knowledge of actions and rounds, which would be the substance of your argument.

Yes it would and I could turn the question on its head. What you call meta knowledge of actions and rounds has actual in-game ramifications, so it is relevant. Someone casting a Subtle Spell (for the sake of argument, a spell with no Material Component) is not "doing nothing"; they are taking the Cast a Spell action. Now, we know that this will not involve a Verbal component, nor will it involve a Somatic one, so what, exactly is our caster doing that precluded him from, say, making an attack? Or manipulating as complex an object as a stuck door? Or indeed picking up two objects in the same round? Yeah, you can walk and talk and many other things whilst casting a spell (Subtle or otherwise), but there are also many things that you cannot. That's not some "meta" airy-fairy rules construct that has little bearing on the in-game world; that's how spellcasting in-game works. The spellcaster is doing "a thing". I don't care to speculate what that might be, because it will depend on the character in question. It could be, as others have suggested, a furrowed brow of concentration, or it could be a constipated expression, or it could be mentally gathering power in an aura around you, or any number of other things but whatever it is, we can say only four things about it;

1) It's not a physical display as described by Somatic Components.
2) It's not a verbal ennunciation as described by Verbal components.
3) It doesn't involve manipulating the specific material components of that spell, a spell component pouch or focus as described by Material Components.
4) It precludes performing other actions of the same type as the Casting Time of the spell being cast, if one Action or less, or any (full) Action if the casting time is greater than one Action.

That leaves an awful lot of room for "things people do to Cast a Spell", including visual (non-somatic) or audible (non-verbal) elements, or even (non-material component) objects that are specific, even unique, to a given character.

...Unless you want to make it "nothing", in which case you're making casting a spell a meta construct of actions and rounds that has no bearing on the in-game world (in which case we have very little common ground and this argument is pointless).

[MaxWilson]

I will note a deafened creature explicitly "automatically fails any ability check that requires hearing." Which I would rule applies to locating an invisible creature, yes.

I'd use that ruling for a blind and deafened creature, assuming there are no other relevant senses (smell, touch, etc.) in play, but I wouldn't use it for a deafened creature against an invisible opponent, because it seems reasonable that you could still notice the creature by footprints in the dirt, tree branches moving, etc. (Maybe even raw Spider Sense-like intuition, which is apparently what lets Alert creatures never be surprised even if there's no visible threat.) Seems more fair to just give a healthy, healthy penalty to the passive Perception roll instead: -10 would not be out of line, based on Pass Without Trace.

YMMV though. If you'd rather just rule auto-fail, that's not unreasonable.


It could be, as others have suggested, a furrowed brow of concentration, or it could be a constipated expression, or it could be mentally gathering power in an aura around you, or any number of other things but whatever it is, we can say only four things about it;

Personally I go with the aura. You can feel magical power gathering in the air, like a clenched fist that hasn't yet struck a blow. In some settings this would also include a visible transformation of the Mythmaker, e.g. eyes going pure white (no pupils) while the Mythmark (lock of pure white hair or skin) quivers and enlarges, then contracts again to almost as small as it was before.

[sophontteks]

Nor does a spell need to be undetectable to gain the benefits of Subtle Spell. Subtle Spell does not state that it makes the spell casting undetectable, only that it removes Verbal and Somatic components. Subtle Spell does grant certain advantages, much as being Invisible does, without necessarily making the spell casting impossible to detect, analagous to Invisibility not automatically making you hidden.



Yes it would and I could turn the question on its head. What you call meta knowledge of actions and rounds has actual in-game ramifications, so it is relevant. Someone casting a Subtle Spell (for the sake of argument, a spell with no Material Component) is not "doing nothing"; they are taking the Cast a Spell action. Now, we know that this will not involve a Verbal component, nor will it involve a Somatic one, so what, exactly is our caster doing that precluded him from, say, making an attack? Or manipulating as complex an object as a stuck door? Or indeed picking up two objects in the same round? Yeah, you can walk and talk and many other things whilst casting a spell (Subtle or otherwise), but there are also many things that you cannot. That's not some "meta" airy-fairy rules construct that has little bearing on the in-game world; that's how spellcasting in-game works. The spellcaster is doing "a thing". I don't care to speculate what that might be, because it will depend on the character in question. It could be, as others have suggested, a furrowed brow of concentration, or it could be a constipated expression, or it could be mentally gathering power in an aura around you, or any number of other things but whatever it is, we can say only four things about it;

1) It's not a physical display as described by Somatic Components.
2) It's not a verbal ennunciation as described by Verbal components.
3) It doesn't involve manipulating the specific material components of that spell, a spell component pouch or focus as described by Material Components.
4) It precludes performing other actions of the same type as the Casting Time of the spell being cast, if one Action or less, or any (full) Action if the casting time is greater than one Action.

That leaves an awful lot of room for "things people do to Cast a Spell", including visual (non-somatic) or audible (non-verbal) elements, or even (non-material component) objects that are specific, even unique, to a given character.

...Unless you want to make it "nothing", in which case you're making casting a spell a meta construct of actions and rounds that has no bearing on the in-game world (in which case we have very little common ground and this argument is pointless).
This is beating a dead horse.

A round is 6 seconds, and in that period they are doing a great many things that most definitely do NOT amount to doing nothing. Including attacking and casting spells in reaction to their opponents, because reactions ARE within the 6 second period, even though they don't take place on that player's turn, because turns do not exist to the characters. Not to mention the myriad of other things a character will be doing during their turn that is not an action, and their attempts to defend themselves from the actions of their opponents. The best case, as mentioned, is if someone had already suspected that a subtle caster is trying something, they could deduce something after the fact.

Furthermore, for the majority of time a player is, in fact, doing nothing with their action. The idea that literally every 6 seconds an action is taken, and that the absence of said action signifies with any certainty that a spell is being cast is ridiculous.

What is stopping a player from performing a complex task within a 6 second period with no context? Literally anything! I do not live my life making as many actions as possible as fast as I can, and taking a literal 6 second break from performing a complex action is the norm, not the exception.

[JellyPooga]

This is beating a dead horse.

And you didn't answer the question.

Let's make it simpler.

1) Do you accept that "Cast a Spell" is an action (whether that be a Reaction, Bonus Action, Action or longer)?

2) Do you accept that this action can be taken devoid of spell components (Verbal, Material, Somatic)?

3) What, then, while a spell is being cast without components, actually occurs?

4) Why or how does the answer to (3) prevent a character from doing certain activities of similar effort expenditure within the timeframe of the spells casting time?

5) If there is an answer to (3) and (4), even if it is specific and/or unique to a given character, is it not possible that those things might be perceptible, perhaps even obvious, to an observer?


What is stopping a player from performing a complex task within a 6 second period with no context? Literally anything!

They say turnabout is fair play.

[ezekielraiden]

Let's make it simpler.
Well, you ignored what I had to say on the subject, but 'kay.


1) Do you accept that "Cast a Spell" is an action (whether that be a Reaction, Bonus Action, Action or longer)?
Yes.


2) Do you accept that this action can be taken devoid of spell components (Verbal, Material, Somatic)?
Of course, otherwise we wouldn't be having the conversation.


3) What, then, while a spell is being cast without components, actually occurs?
The spell effect. That is, quite literally, the only thing that the rules tell you happens. Of course, it could fizzle (missing an attack roll, target makes its save), but that's the spell effect failing to work once instantiated, not nothing whatsoever happening.


4) Why or how does the answer to (3) prevent a character from doing certain activities of similar effort expenditure within the timeframe of the spells casting time?
Because the rules say so.


5) If there is an answer to (3) and (4), even if it is specific and/or unique to a given character, is it not possible that those things might be perceptible, perhaps even obvious, to an observer?
Firstly, not counting the "possible/might be": Nope, because the rules don't say so, and the only comparable examples you have given do say so.

Secondly, counting those: Might be? That's not the position you've argued previously. You have argued that it definitely IS perceptible, even obvious, unless one or more people roll well(/badly) on a roll. You have argued that all spells, no matter how they work, are always sufficiently visible that either an observer must flub noticing them, the caster must actively conceal them, or both.

[diplomancer]

All a subtle sorcerer needs to conceal what he's doing is to read a book. "Why is he not attacking, or running or dodging, or hiding, or casting a spell?" "He's reading a book"

More seriously, perhaps he is the whole time pretending to convince people to stop fighting. He's just a pacifist. (His companions know exactly what he's doing they know his schtick)

[JellyPooga]

The spell effect. That is, quite literally, the only thing that the rules tell you happens. Of course, it could fizzle (missing an attack roll, target makes its save), but that's the spell effect failing to work once instantiated, not nothing whatsoever happening.

No. You skipped a step. I'm not asking about what happens after the spell has been cast (i.e. the spell effect), I'm asking about what happens between "I'm going to cast a spell" and "the spell goes off". If you're saying "nothing", then I a) disagree and b) have no further argument because I'm not nearly that gamist.

[Yunru]

No. You skipped a step. I'm not asking about what happens after the spell has been cast (i.e. the spell effect), I'm asking about what happens between "I'm going to cast a spell" and "the spell goes off". If you're saying "nothing", then I a) disagree and b) have no further argument because I'm not nearly that gamist.

Then you have no further argument because the answer is nothing. The spellcasting is instantaneous.

You're trying to pick open an abstraction to support your view, that will never work. Remember, actions happen both across the entire 6 seconds and in no time at all.

[Sindal]

Well this has been an amusing read.

Jelly. Humor me would you? Feel free not to answer cause this looks like it has been a long chat with everyone and you may have answered already. I'm just trying to get a feel for your thinking.

Let's say I'm a divine soul sorceror.
I'm watching my friend do battle in an arena. No one is allowed to interfere. But I'm a sorceror. Hohoho

For the sake of this argument we can assume that mages are present on battlefield because this duel is serious and everyone showed up to make sure it's fair. Everyone around knows that there are spell casters about. Perhaps some in the crowds.

I decide I'm going to suble cast healing word. Which only has a verbal component

Q: what happens during my bonus action that I would need to conceal. Per rules, I neither need to speak, move or even look at my target.

[JellyPooga]

Well this has been an amusing read.

Jelly. Humor me would you? Feel free not to answer cause this looks like it has been a long chat with everyone and you may have answered already. I'm just trying to get a feel for your thinking.

Let's say I'm a divine soul sorceror.
I'm watching my friend do battle in an arena. No one is allowed to interfere. But I'm a sorceror. Hohoho

For the sake of this argument we can assume that mages are present on battlefield because this duel is serious and everyone showed up to make sure it's fair. Everyone around knows that there are spell casters about. Perhaps some in the crowds.

I decide I'm going to suble cast healing word. Which only has a verbal component

Q: what happens during my bonus action that I would need to conceal. Per rules, I neither need to speak, move or even look at my target.

Setting aside the argument that the rules state not that you don't need to "speak, move or look at your target", but that you don't need to provide Verbal or Somatic components (NB- these are not necessarily the same thing)...

In much the same vein as there are no rules to describe how an archer shoots his bow, I cannot answer that question for you.

By RAW, when you make an Attack Action with a Longbow, nothing happens in between declaring the Action and resolving it. You are under no obligation to assume the archer knocks an arrow, no rules state that he must draw the bow and no errata tells us he releases it. Yet in actual play, we know these things happen and they can happen in a variety of ways, depending on the character, the bow they have, their training, etc. That variety is why there are no rules for it; how could there be?

Now, with spellcasting being a made up thing, the rules state that there *are* certain things for certain spells that must be abided by (i.e. spell components) as part of the rule mechanics of spellcasting in D&D. However, there is no description for the other elements that might be involved, or not, as the case may be. Something we do know is that the majority of spells take an Action to cast and as many other things that you can do in a turn as there are, your Action is the main thing you are doing for a given period of time. If there are none of the required components to perform to cast a spell, then the caster must be doing something to occupy that space, even if it is just focusing on casting the spell in an abstract manner. Once that "something" that is occupying your Action is established, we can extrapolate backwards to Bonus Actions and Reactions, which are quicker than Actions, to determine what those might be.

Whether or not this "something" is observable and if it's obvious as spellcasting is the question that no-one wants to answer because it cannot be; it's an entirely roleplaying element dependant on the spellcasters training, personality and style. For me, I assume it is observable, because even as simple a thing as pausing for thought is an observable phenomenon, let alone the wide variety of other possible things a caster could be doing to occupy that action.

[ezekielraiden]

Whether or not this "something" is observable and if it's obvious as spellcasting is the question that no-one wants to answer because it cannot be; it's an entirely roleplaying element dependant on the spellcasters training, personality and style. For me, I assume it is observable, because even as simple a thing as pausing for thought is an observable phenomenon, let alone the wide variety of other possible things a caster could be doing to occupy that action.

Doesn't that result in a contradiction? First you declare that it's purely a roleplay element--then you say it has rules-weight to it. Which is it? Either it's pure fluff, something not at all touched by the rules, or it's not pure fluff, and thus there is a valid question as to what, if anything, the rules require of us.

That's my sticking point. If it is, as you say, exclusively a matter of personal style, of player description, the equivalent of eye color or personal dress, is it really appropriate to engage meaningful (indeed, quite serious) rules restrictions, even when the player is spending relatively restricted resources? And if it is not exclusively description, if it really does inherently have some rules engagement to it such as "you have to roll to conceal it" or "any witness gets a roll to detect it," why is this something you can only justify with extrapolation? Is there even one argument you can make that doesn't rely on "well if we can assume <x physical thing> happens after <y physical thing> just like it does in real life, then by analogy we HAVE to assume that <q physical thing> happens after <p magical thing>"? Because, as I think you already grok, spellcasting works the way the designers decide it works. Perfectly natural assumptions break down all the time when talking about magic.

The books tell you how it does work--forget the "gamist" stuff, it literally says as helpful descriptive text that "a more subtle effect [than a lightning bolt], such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise." Right there, you have clear, specific, in-PHB statements that it is entirely possible to watch a person cast, maintain Concentration (the mechanic) upon, and "focus" in order to use, a spell without ever noticing. Detect thoughts (PHB, 231-232), cast as a Subtle spell, has only one material component--a copper piece ("penny for your thoughts"), which is perhaps the most innocuous material component ever. It explicitly requires that you "focus" on a target in order to read surface thoughts (deeper reading will reveal you, but it doesn't say that for surface reading), it's explicitly a Concentration spell so you're definitely maintaining that over the course of ten minutes, and you have to actually spend an Action to do the thought-reading (surface or otherwise)--yet the Targets section explicitly says this is an example of a spell that can "typically goes unnoticed."

Why does the book tell me that a spell that explicitly requires "focus," that takes an Action (and therefore meets your definition of "obvious"), and requires Concentration, is a spell beneath typical notice? How is that compatible with "spellcasting is an Action and therefore not just noticeable, but obvious"?

(BTW, I didn't reply to your previous post because it very much seemed that that conversation was at an end. Because yes, I literally do believe that I need no more than "the rules didn't call for this, so there's no need for it," unless there is a clearly compelling interest--and "well SHOULDN'T someone be able to notice?" is not, by itself, a compelling interest. See my "seneschal" example for a situation where it is a compelling interest.)

[Randomthom]

I realise that many folks here are arguing on the RAW vs RAI elements of this & I have my own opinions on this but for now, a practical example;

I'm currently running a game with a Wizard and a Sorcerer in the party. The Sorcerer has subtle spell. In this example, I feel it would be unfair on her to allow the Wizard to cast his spells quietly since she has actually chosen to take that metamagic ability over others for exactly the purpose of being able to cast spells on-the-sly and has to spend a finite daily resource to do so.

When that moment comes that the party is trying to be stealthy or socially subtle and magic could make the difference, that is her moment to shine, never take that away from a player, especially if it is "their thing". If I were to let the Wizard do it too then why choose Subtle Spell at all?

The Wizard has some cool abilities that "just work".
The Sorcerer does too, Subtle Spell is one of them.

I would possibly ask for a sleight of hand check and give advantage to deal with spell components in these instances depending on the components.

In a campaign with no sorcerer I might consider it but I'm always wary of a character death/new player join and suddenly there's a sorcerer. Do you now tell the Wizard they can't do that thing they've been doing for the last 20 sessions?

[ezekielraiden]

I realise that many folks here are arguing on the RAW vs RAI elements of this & I have my own opinions on this but for now, a practical example;

I'm currently running a game with a Wizard and a Sorcerer in the party. The Sorcerer has subtle spell. In this example, I feel it would be unfair on her to allow the Wizard to cast his spells quietly since she has actually chosen to take that metamagic ability over others for exactly the purpose of being able to cast spells on-the-sly and has to spend a finite daily resource to do so.

When that moment comes that the party is trying to be stealthy or socially subtle and magic could make the difference, that is her moment to shine, never take that away from a player, especially if it is "their thing". If I were to let the Wizard do it too then why choose Subtle Spell at all?

The Wizard has some cool abilities that "just work".
The Sorcerer does too, Subtle Spell is one of them.

I would possibly ask for a sleight of hand check and give advantage to deal with spell components in these instances depending on the components.

In a campaign with no sorcerer I might consider it but I'm always wary of a character death/new player join and suddenly there's a sorcerer. Do you now tell the Wizard they can't do that thing they've been doing for the last 20 sessions?

All good thoughts. For my part, I see Subtle Spell as being...sort of the implication of automatic success unless and until something changes that. Anyone can try to be sneaky about their spellcasting, but Sorcerers can do it near-effortlessly if it's something they've gone for. Regular spellcasters are taking a bigger gamble, especially since Charisma may not be one of their high stats (Bard and Warlock, sure, but Druid, Cleric, and Wizard, not so much). Again, I am NOT saying that it is impossible for spells to be detectable. What I am saying is that some spells have a presumption of negligible visibility, some spells have a presumption of substantial visibility, and Subtle Spell generally tips most spells (even dramatic ones!) into the former category, though circumstances matter quite a lot there. E.g. if you were alone in the middle of an empty plaza and a fireball shot from your general direction...people can figure that out. In the middle of a crowded theater, not so much.

[JellyPooga]

Doesn't that result in a contradiction? First you declare that it's purely a roleplay element--then you say it has rules-weight to it. Which is it? Either it's pure fluff, something not at all touched by the rules, or it's not pure fluff, and thus there is a valid question as to what, if anything, the rules require of us.

Herein may lie the conflict. I make little to no distinction between "fluff" and "mechanics" when it comes to validity of rules. If the rules tell me that Casting a Spell takes a certain amount of time (Bonus Action, Action, etc), I'm going to assume that entails a certain activity. If the rules then tell me what some of those activities might be and that those things are a) not applicable to every spell and b) can be forgone entirely without changing the casting time, I'm going to assume that there is something more to casting a spell than just the components it describes.

Just as making an Attack isn't spelled out in excrutiating detail, neither is spellcasting. One Wizard might have somatic components that draw arcane glyphs written in ethereal fire on the air itself and a Sorcerer casting the exact same spell might be performing something more akin to a meditative kata. The rules do not spell these things out because they are at the whim of the player, just as one Fighter might describe using a longsword as skillful swordplay and the next as brutal hack'n'slash. These elements of play are, however, just as valid as the RAW; they describe the context of what has happened in-game.

So if some things have changed (i.e. the components of the spell), but other things have not (i.e. the casting time), then something other than the components is still occurring. The context of casting the spell must still apply because the rules, the components, are a variable that doesn't change that context. You can't just skip it because the rules don't tell you what it is. So to take the Glyphs of Fire Wizard I mentioned earlier, for example, if he were somehow able to forgo somatic components for his spell, perhaps those glyphs still appear in the air before him, even though he's not drawing them with his fingers, or maybe they don't appear at all...that's something to discuss with your GM.

In general, however, I must assume that something is happening, even if that something is a cessation of activity for the duration of the Cast a Spell Action; the fact that "one Action" is not a quantifiable period of time is irrelevant - whatever that period is, it isn't changed or removed by removing spell components.

That said, the rest of your post is more relevant as it comes directly from the PHB and does seem to contradict some of my assumptions in just the way you describe. Then again, I was always fighting a lost battle :smallwink:

[Resileaf]

By RAW, when you make an Attack Action with a Longbow, nothing happens in between declaring the Action and resolving it. You are under no obligation to assume the archer knocks an arrow, no rules state that he must draw the bow and no errata tells us he releases it. Yet in actual play, we know these things happen and they can happen in a variety of ways, depending on the character, the bow they have, their training, etc. That variety is why there are no rules for it; how could there be?

What if you could shoot your bow without doing any of that? What if you just stood there and suddenly an arrow appeared from you and hit someone else without the bow ever having been drawn, how would someone know that you're preparing to shoot it?
That's what subtle spell is to me. It removes the 'swing your sword' part of your action.

[JellyPooga]

What if you could shoot your bow without doing any of that? What if you just stood there and suddenly an arrow appeared from you and hit someone else without the bow ever having been drawn, how would someone know that you're preparing to shoot it?
That's what subtle spell is to me. It removes the 'swing your sword' part of your action.

That's just it; you can't and it's the part where things stop making sense to me. I can't justify removing the active part of the activity in its entirety without also removing the action (if that makes sense); it's too "gamist" for me. There has to be another thing occurring to fill the space that Cast a Spell occupies, if you can remove certain elements and still have an activity there. If Subtle Spell removes all the "active" parts of casting the spell, then it must also remove the Action. That's the logic I'm working from. Given that it doesn't remove or alter the Action, it cannot remove all active elements of casting a spell.

[MaxWilson]

What if you could shoot your bow without doing any of that? What if you just stood there and suddenly an arrow appeared from you and hit someone else without the bow ever having been drawn, how would someone know that you're preparing to shoot it?
That's what subtle spell is to me. It removes the 'swing your sword' part of your action.

And if you're the DM, that's fine. The rules don't require spellcasting or Subtle Spell to work that way but it's certainly a valid way to run your campaign. (You may also want to change the rules for Invisibility in this case to make it so Subtle Spell/Subtle Sword Swing do not break invisibility, because at that point why would it?)

Note though that there are other people on this thread who seem to go even further, and expect Subtle Sword Swing to be an arrow which appears directly in someone's throat as if shot from the heavens, so that it doesn't betray you as the shooter even after it's shot. Again, if they're the DM that's fine, but the rules don't require it.


That's just it; you can't and it's the part where things stop making sense to me. I can't justify removing the active part of the activity in its entirety without also removing the action (if that makes sense); it's too "gamist" for me. There has to be another thing occurring to fill the space that Cast a Spell occupies, if you can remove certain elements and still have an activity there. If Subtle Spell removes all the "active" parts of casting the spell, then it must also remove the Action. That's the logic I'm working from. Given that it doesn't remove or alter the Action, it cannot remove all active elements of casting a spell.

It would be cool if Subtle Spell worked by letting you gesture/speak with imaginary hands/mouth instead of your actual physical hands/mouth, and yet the spell still works. Would also explain why the spell doesn't actually get any faster to cast.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Pretty much exactly what the description says. How subtle is a Subtle Spell? Is it covert enough that no one would know the sorcerer has used it? Is it literally no more than "the spell happens without somatic/verbal components," such that anyone can tell you still cast it?

I don't believe there are any "right" answers, though of course I have my preferred answers. This is more "how does this community feel about it" than anything else.

"No verbal/somatic components."

The visual effect of fireball or whatever still happens/ the target is aware a spell was cast on him, he just doesn't know who cast it.

[Yunru]

"No verbal/somatic components."

The visual effect of fireball or whatever still happens/ the target is aware a spell was cast on him, he just doesn't know who cast it.

Fireball isn't exactly a good example, since it draws what amounts to a tracer from you to your target as part of its effects.

[Pex]

That's just it; you can't and it's the part where things stop making sense to me. I can't justify removing the active part of the activity in its entirety without also removing the action (if that makes sense); it's too "gamist" for me. There has to be another thing occurring to fill the space that Cast a Spell occupies, if you can remove certain elements and still have an activity there. If Subtle Spell removes all the "active" parts of casting the spell, then it must also remove the Action. That's the logic I'm working from. Given that it doesn't remove or alter the Action, it cannot remove all active elements of casting a spell.

It's a game. Of course it's "gamist" if that's what you want to call it, and there's nothing wrong with being "gamist". To you, maybe, but not in general. Not everything needs an explanation and can just be to play the game.

[VoxRationis]

I don't think it's even that gamist. It's a mental effort, one that takes a short but non-negligible amount of time to complete, just like any number of mental tasks such as arithmetic or thinking up a sentence; the metamagic removes the need for the verbal and somatic components, but you still need to be thinking through the spell for a bit before it can go off.

[JellyPooga]

I don't think it's even that gamist. It's a mental effort, one that takes a short but non-negligible amount of time to complete, just like any number of mental tasks such as arithmetic or thinking up a sentence; the metamagic removes the need for the verbal and somatic components, but you still need to be thinking through the spell for a bit before it can go off.

This. Right here. This is my disconnect.

Ok, run with the arithmetic analogy. When you're faced with a problem that you can't solve easily, you count on your fingers or write it down. As you grow more competent, you lose the need to perform those "somatic components" to solve the same problem. It's also quicker because the somatic components are what took a significant portion of the time. If, however, you're just learning to do without the "somatics", such that it still takes you a comparable amount of time to solve the problem mentally, then it's fairly common for people to pull all sorts of silly faces, humming and erring, sticking their tongue out, stopping anything and everything else their doing to devote the effort to solving that maths problem.

Mental activity is still activity. Yes, you can do it without the song and dance, but it often takes conscious effort to refrain from those visual cues when the activity is significant. Given that most spells take an Action to cast and that an Action could be described as the primary and most significant thing you're doing at any given time, I'm inclined to assume it'll take conscious effort to conceal that Action, even if it's a solely mental activity.

[ezekielraiden]

This. Right here. This is my disconnect.

Ok, run with the arithmetic analogy. When you're faced with a problem that you can't solve easily, you count on your fingers or write it down. As you grow more competent, you lose the need to perform those "somatic components" to solve the same problem. It's also quicker because the somatic components are what took a significant portion of the time. If, however, you're just learning to do without the "somatics", such that it still takes you a comparable amount of time to solve the problem mentally, then it's fairly common for people to pull all sorts of silly faces, humming and erring, sticking their tongue out, stopping anything and everything else their doing to devote the effort to solving that maths problem.

Mental activity is still activity. Yes, you can do it without the song and dance, but it often takes conscious effort to refrain from those visual cues when the activity is significant. Given that most spells take an Action to cast and that an Action could be described as the primary and most significant thing you're doing at any given time, I'm inclined to assume it'll take conscious effort to conceal that Action, even if it's a solely mental activity.

And my response would be: Those are people who haven't gotten to the point of arithmetic being as natural as breathing. They haven't actually eliminated the somatic components. They've gotten close, to be sure--no hand gestures. But they still engage in facial gestures, halted body movements, and other physical signs of thought.

I don't need any of that to do most simple arithmetic. If I'm in a particularly math-friendly state of mind, I can in fact do multi-digit multiplication on the fly. Some of this is practice (I tutored math at the college level for several years), some of it is natural talent (I've always been good with figures), some of it is as I said a matter of mood and timing and state-of-mind. I can still do many derivatives without pausing for thought, and for a while I could do a lot of simple integrals without needing a calculator. Likewise, after my classical mechanics course I was doing Lagrangians without pausing because I find them so unbelievably straightforward.

You may even be right that most people cannot do this kind of thing, even with an enormous amount of practice. Sorcerers who take Subtle Spell aren't most people, they literally do have a special innate talent and the practiced effort (=taking the metamagic option) to pull it off. It really is possible to do complex philosophical, mathematical, or scientific thinking without any outward sign of effort, not even the blank-eyed "I'm not paying attention to the world" look. Most people cannot do that and also do anything particularly difficult at the same time.

[JellyPooga]

Sorcerers who take Subtle Spell aren't most people, they literally do have a special innate talent and the practiced effort (=taking the metamagic option) to pull it off. It really is possible to do complex philosophical, mathematical, or scientific thinking without any outward sign of effort, not even the blank-eyed "I'm not paying attention to the world" look. Most people cannot do that and also do anything particularly difficult at the same time.

Yeah, but that's the point. Sorcerers with Subtle Spell aren't at the point where they can cast spells on the fly like an experienced mathmatician can easily do calculations, otherwise they'd also be casting spells quicker and with less effort (i.e. less Action investment). A Sorcerer with Quickened Spell is more akin to someone so well practiced with magic that they can cast with less effort. The Subtle Sorcerer is expending the same effort; it's no easier for them, so to speak (if anything it's slightly harder because they have to expend Sorcery Points; they're limited on how often they can do it). It's just that they can use a different process; one that doesn't involve somatic or verbal components.

[Tanarii]

If, however, you're just learning to do without the "somatics", such that it still takes you a comparable amount of time to solve the problem mentally, then it's fairly common for people to pull all sorts of silly faces, humming and erring, sticking their tongue out, stopping anything and everything else their doing to devote the effort to solving that maths problem.
Wait, what? This is a mental effort that allows you to make quick attacks or other actions, move around easily, and defend yourself.

It's not like sitting at your computer programming something, or studying homework. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone other than a child trying to think that makes a mental effort and "pull all sorts of silly faces, humming and erring, sticking their tongue out". At most people stare blankly and stop doing everything. And we know that's not what's going on, because of all the other things a charcater can do.

Now, it's valid to say that with just the PHB RAW, just because V and S components are removed doesn't automatically mean we should assume it renders casting unpercievable. But that just means DM ruling, not arguing that it means it should be perceivable.

But that was before Xanathar's clarified it. Now we've got the developer RAI as XtGE RAW. Any PHB-only DM who is aware of it should be aware of how Subtle was intended to work when making their ruling. It's supposed to render the casting of V, S, or V/S spells unpercievable.

(Please note that I'm not saying that developer RAI means you have to rule that way, nor that you must use XtGE RAW in your games.)

[JellyPooga]

And we know that's not what's going on, because of all the other things a charcater can do.

Setting aside that this assertion is false (a character could well be stopping everything to cast a spell before continuing their turn; the length of the spellcasting time is not defined for any spell that takes one Action or less, except that it fits somewhere within a six second period), my argument is predicated more on what the character<i> cannot</i> do in addition to casting a spell. Casting a spell is significant enough an activity, Subtle or otherwise, that it prevents you from doing some of the most significant activities you can do. For most spells, it is the main thing you do in a turn. If the main thing you did was "not show outward signs of casting a spell", that's...well it's a significant amount of "nothing".

[Yunru]

Setting aside that this assertion is false (a character could well be stopping everything to cast a spell before continuing their turn; the length of the spellcasting time is not defined for any spell that takes one Action or less, except that it fits somewhere within a six second period), my argument is predicated more on what the character<i> cannot</i> do in addition to casting a spell. Casting a spell is significant enough an activity, Subtle or otherwise, that it prevents you from doing some of the most significant activities you can do. For most spells, it is the main thing you do in a turn. If the main thing you did was "not show outward signs of casting a spell", that's...well it's a significant amount of "nothing".Fine, let's use that then. It lasts the length of an action. An action can last at least as little as thrusting a blade. Thus, we can conclude that spellcasting can take as little time as blinking, which runs counter to the foundation of your assertion.

[Tanarii]

Setting aside that this assertion is false (a character could well be stopping everything to cast a spell before continuing their turn; the length of the spellcasting time is not defined for any spell that takes one Action or less, except that it fits somewhere within a six second period), my argument is predicated more on what the character<i> cannot</i> do in addition to casting a spell. Casting a spell is significant enough an activity, Subtle or otherwise, that it prevents you from doing some of the most significant activities you can do. For most spells, it is the main thing you do in a turn. If the main thing you did was "not show outward signs of casting a spell", that's...well it's a significant amount of "nothing".Debateable. Some folks interpret actions can occur in other actions generally. Specifically a character can defend themselves against an attack in the middle of an action in the form of defense against an enemy reaction. They can move in the middle of an action, in the case of extra attacks. They can use their own reactions in, as in Counterspell a Counterspell while taking an action.

But even if you interpret that as putting the Action on hold (ie sequential things happening), there's no particular reason to assume "doing nothing perceptible" = perceive a spell was cast, as a general rule. Especially if it's imperceptible once cast. Doing so introduces all sorts of wonkiness with other "doing nothing" activity.

Otoh I do get your general argument that taking an action is doing something. My counterpoint is doing something isn't always perceivable to others, or at least as a specific activity. Simple example: How does someone observing tell the difference between someone doing nothing taking the Search action vs someone doing nothing taking a Subtle Cast a Spell action?

(The reason I understand your argument is I rule doing nothing to take a Ready action is generally perceivable. But I'd have to caveat that the actions being declared to be Readied have, as far as I can recall, always been perceivable actions themselves.)

[Xetheral]

That's just it; you can't and it's the part where things stop making sense to me. I can't justify removing the active part of the activity in its entirety without also removing the action (if that makes sense); it's too "gamist" for me. There has to be another thing occurring to fill the space that Cast a Spell occupies, if you can remove certain elements and still have an activity there. If Subtle Spell removes all the "active" parts of casting the spell, then it must also remove the Action. That's the logic I'm working from. Given that it doesn't remove or alter the Action, it cannot remove all active elements of casting a spell.

From my standpoint, the abstraction that is 5e turn-based combat stops making sense even before you introduce Subtle Spell. For a closely-related example, the amount of dialogue a character can say on their turn is limited to "brief uterrances". However long a DM interprets "brief uterrances" to be (I've never seen a DM rule anything other than <6 seconds, but that's anecdotal), casting a spell that has a verbal component somehow does not further limit how long a character can speak. So, nonsensically, the length of an utterance a character can speak in combat is identical regardless of whether they don't use their action at all, or whether they spend their action casting Finger of Death.

Given that, from a simulationist standpoint, the abstraction of 5e combat is already nonsensical at a higher level before you introduce Subtle Spell, it seems bizarre to me to rely on the intricacies of that simulation to answer the lower-level question of whether Subtle Spells are perceptible.