Arcana vs Insight

[animorte]

Which of the two would you use to recognize a spell being cast?


Arcana: Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about Spells, magic items, eldritch Symbols, magical traditions, The Planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.
VS

Insight: Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, Speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

At first glance it seems obviously Arcana, but then you have that last bit of Insight. All of those things point to the three spell-casting components: Verbal, Somatic, and Material.

Overall, I’m inclined to say Insight alerts you that a spell is being cast in the first place while Arcana informs you of exactly what the spell is, or at least it’s school.

[Sulicius]

I would make it an Arcana check, or if the player really wants it allow them to roll Investigation.

[Unoriginal]

Which of the two would you use to recognize a spell being cast?


VS


At first glance it seems obviously Arcana, but then you have that last bit of Insight. All of those things point to the three spell-casting components: Verbal, Somatic, and Material.

Overall, I’m inclined to say Insight alerts you that a spell is being cast in the first place while Arcana informs you of exactly what the spell is, or at least it’s school.

Recognizing a spell is being cast does not take a roll unless exceptional circumstances hides what the character is doing, in which cases it would be WIS (Perception) to notice the caster is doing something.

INT (Arcana) is to identify which spell is being cast.

If the PCs think that someone may be pretending to cast a spell, at my table the players could roll either INT (Arcana) or WIS (Insight) to attempt to see if it's genuine or not.

[Sigreid]

Arcana. Insight more covers whether you opponent is trying to kill you, capture you or just make you go away.

[Amnestic]

Recognizing a spell is being cast does not take a roll unless exceptional circumstances hides what the character is doing, in which cases it would be WIS (Perception) to notice the caster is doing something.

INT (Arcana) is to identify which spell is being cast.

If the PCs think that someone may be pretending to cast a spell, at my table the players could roll either INT (Arcana) or WIS (Insight) to attempt to see if it's genuine or not.

I agree with all of this. The apparent intention of the rules (which I agree with) is that someone's spellcasting should by default always be recognisable, arcana just helps determine what spell is being cast, rather than if a spell is being cast.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Recognizing a spell is being cast does not take a roll unless exceptional circumstances hides what the character is doing, in which cases it would be WIS (Perception) to notice the caster is doing something.

INT (Arcana) is to identify which spell is being cast.

I agree with this as far as the default rules go. Although the pre-Xanathar's default (and the default if you don't use Xanathar's rule) is actually that identifying a spell being cast is entirely up to the DM's fiat and may not even be possible.

I'd go a step further (mostly for setting/narrative reasons, and this isn't the default rules)--except in specific circumstances[1], there is no "pretending to cast a spell" that fools anyone within a short range. Creatures smart enough to know what a spell is also can feel the energies being gathered as the spell is being cast as long as they're close enough (~30') and there are any components. This doesn't say who is casting a spell or what spell is being cast (the first of which requires observing the actual components and the second requires an Int (Arcana) check), but you usually can't hide "casting a spell" from someone close by. This also ties into trying to "hide" a casting--you generally can't unless you have Subtle Spell or some other way to remove components. And yes, Subtle Spell does also suppress this as long as it hides all the components.

[1] things like
* Being in a whole bevy of spell-casters all casting at once. Someone can pretend to be participating fairly well there unless you have detect magic up or something.
* Being in a magically "noisy" environment.
* Being incapacitated
* Actively casting a spell at that moment yourself

[animorte]

Creatures smart enough to know what a spell is also can feel the energies being gathered as the spell is being cast as long as they're close enough (~30') and there are any components.
This is exactly my point. Sure, you’ll know whether or not there was a spell and possibly the content of that spell at the end of the 6 seconds either way. If you can make an Arcana check for what the spell is, why not an Insight check instead to even confirm there is a spell being cast, especially if it could be something you aren’t even the target of.

Say an enemy caster is at 60 feet buffing himself or an ally. You likely won’t see the effects of any of that immediately. Perhaps the tavern Bard NPC is trying to lure another important NPC and casts charm person from across the room? The point is, you realize a spell occurred and know to be suspicious.

I realize Perception could also be worth looking at here.

[Demonslayer666]

Identify the spell: Arcana

Recognize hostile intent: Insight


Knowing what they are casting doesn't tell you if they intend to harm you. I would likely allow both checks in certain non-combat situations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is exactly my point. Sure, you’ll know whether or not there was a spell and possibly the content of that spell at the end of the 6 seconds either way. If you can make an Arcana check for what the spell is, why not an Insight check instead to even confirm there is a spell being cast, especially if it could be something you aren’t even the target of.

Say an enemy caster is at 60 feet buffing himself or an ally. You likely won’t see the effects of any of that immediately. Perhaps the tavern Bard NPC is trying to lure another important NPC and casts charm person from across the room? The point is, you realize a spell occurred and know to be suspicious.

I realize Perception could also be worth looking at here.

My model is that within a certain range, you'd just know if there's a spell being cast. No checks necessary. Range could be "if you can perceive the components".

I could see a Wisdom (Insight) check to see what the intent was, but that'd be a bit more specific. Especially for the sorts of things that require consent.

[LostBenefit]

If the PCs think that someone may be pretending to cast a spell, at my table the players could roll either INT (Arcana) or WIS (Insight) to attempt to see if it's genuine or not.
I agree but wanted to add that it should be a WIS (Insight) check against the caster's CHA (Deception) check.

[Chronos]

Just a reminder that it's entirely possible for more than one skill to be useful for the same purpose.

[Mastikator]

RAW spell components alert you that a spell is being cast. If you can hear the mystical words of power AKA verbal component then you can hear a spell is being cast, if you can see the mystical movements of magic AKA somatic component then you can see a spell is being cast. IMO if you can see or hear either then you always know a spell is being cast, no check required.

[Corran]

I agree but wanted to add that it should be a WIS (Insight) check against the caster's CHA (Deception) check.
I'd go with performance instead of deception.

[JackPhoenix]

RAW spell components alert you that a spell is being cast. If you can hear the mystical words of power AKA verbal component then you can hear a spell is being cast, if you can see the mystical movements of magic AKA somatic component then you can see a spell is being cast. IMO if you can see or hear either then you always know a spell is being cast, no check required.

You've missed that if you see someone fiddling with his wand, AKA manipulating the material component, you can tell a spell is being cast. It's relevant even when Subtle Spell remove V and S components. There's a clearly perceivable difference between just holding a wand or staff and casting a spell with its help, even if there's no S component for overt gesticulation.

[RSP]

If you’re allowing the caster the ability to hide their casting (not using Subtle Metamagic though), I’d say it’s possibly Sleight of Hands, Deception, Performance or Stealth; depending on how they’re trying to hide their casting.

Noticing that someone who’s trying to hide their casting is casting, I’d say is Insight for just noticing it out of the blue (say like someone you’re not expecting to be a threat who tries to sneak in a spell on you, or a Bard hiding their casting in a performance). I’d say Investigation if someone’s on the lookout for it (and hence looking for clues).

If Subtle is being used, either Insight (to know that person is doing something amiss - though not necessarily that they’re casting) or Investigation (but only if it’s a repetitive thing - like someone casting Guidance every hand of Poker or something - again, in the sense that one could pick up clues as to something being done out of the norm).

I don’t think there’s any real guidance RAW on it. These are just my thoughts on it.


You've missed that if you see someone fiddling with his wand, AKA manipulating the material component, you can tell a spell is being cast. It's relevant even when Subtle Spell remove V and S components. There's a clearly perceivable difference between just holding a wand or staff and casting a spell with its help, even if there's no S component for overt gesticulation.

This isn’t true, RAW.

[JackPhoenix]

This isn’t true, RAW.

It is: "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."

[RSP]

It is: "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."

Yes, this is the RAW on the opening of Components.

However, where does this say that you know a spell is being cast? “To be perceptible” does not mean “automatically perceived”. Further, you’re missing the part on focuses, which you specifically stated are the tell of a casting:

“A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”

So all you have to do to cast a spell using Subtle Spell and a focus, is hold the focus - nothing more. If a character is holding a staff that is their focus, nothing, RAW, gives away that they’re casting a spell if they use Subtle as they’ve fulfilled the required condition of the M component: that is, they are holding a focus.

Is it perceptible that they are holding a staff? Sure, but nothing tells you when they’re using that staff as a focus, or when they’re just holding it doing nothing else. Nothing about holding a staff alerts others to a spell being cast.

[Amnestic]

Is it perceptible that they are holding a staff? Sure, but nothing tells you when they’re using that staff as a focus, or when they’re just holding it doing nothing else. Nothing about holding a staff alerts others to a spell being cast.

If using another component instead of a staff would make it more perceptible then you're wrong about that, since it explicitly says that the nature of the component doesn't matter to its perception, therefore they're all equal.

Maybe the component glows and hums with magic or something, making it perceptible.

[Mastikator]

You've missed that if you see someone fiddling with his wand, AKA manipulating the material component, you can tell a spell is being cast. It's relevant even when Subtle Spell remove V and S components. There's a clearly perceivable difference between just holding a wand or staff and casting a spell with its help, even if there's no S component for overt gesticulation.

Indeed, that's how I DM. If a character can be seen and they cast a spell with either S or M components they can be seen as casting a spell. If they can be heard and the spell has a V component then they can hear the character casting a spell.

I've had many conversations with players who are very quick to remind me that a charmed person by Charm Person doesn't know they're charmed until the spell ends, same for Suggestion. Yes, they know you cast a spell, and yes, the spell prevents them from putting two and two together. At least that's the gentleman's agreement that I offer players if they also agree not to meta game against enchantments and illusions. But they always seem to think I'm trying to take away their precious enchantment spells.

Playerbo Characterins I am not trying to rob you, I am trying to help you!

[da newt]

XGtE pg 85 is pretty clear.
If the caster uses V, S and/or M components, their casting of a spell is easily perceived (assuming line of sight and other normal perception rules).
If a PC wants to determine what spell is being cast it costs them their reaction to make an arcana check.



This RAW has some drawbacks as one PC cannot identify and counterspell as they don't have 2 reactions.

Many house rule around the above.

For example, as DM I rule that casters recognize the specific spell being cast with no reaction cost IF they have ever cast the spell (but I also rule that while you can know it's FIREBALL you can't tell if it is being upcast).

[Unoriginal]

This RAW has some drawbacks as one PC cannot identify and counterspell as they don't have 2 reactions.

Of note, that drawback was intentional from the devs.

[Mastikator]

XGtE pg 85 is pretty clear.
If the caster uses V, S and/or M components, their casting of a spell is easily perceived (assuming line of sight and other normal perception rules).
If a PC wants to determine what spell is being cast it costs them their reaction to make an arcana check.



This RAW has some drawbacks as one PC cannot identify and counterspell as they don't have 2 reactions.

Many house rule around the above.

For example, as DM I rule that casters recognize the specific spell being cast with no reaction cost IF they have ever cast the spell (but I also rule that while you can know it's FIREBALL you can't tell if it is being upcast).

Funnily enough I think this also has the fantastic side effect of fixing the problem with counter spell. If players and NPCs are counterspelling blindly then it's not an overpowered or unfun spell IMO.

[Unoriginal]

Funnily enough I think this also has the fantastic side effect of fixing the problem with counter spell. If players and NPCs are counterspelling blindly then it's not an overpowered or unfun spell IMO.

Countespelling blindly was always the intent, and the Xanathar's rule was meant to reinforce that.


I have to wonder if they're going to change that in D&Done.

[Amnestic]

Countespelling blindly was always the intent,

I wonder if that speaks to a disconnect between rules intent and how people play - I've seen a number of complaints about how it's annoying for people at the table to say "this guy's casting a spell" only to have to wait a few moments if someone wants to counterspell to stop it before revealing it, or the concern (well founded or otherwise) of players/DMs changing the spell they cast once they found out it's getting counterspelled.

I'd be surprised if they didn't change it at least a little in 5.5e, but I guess we'll see...

[RSP]

XGtE pg 85 is pretty clear.
If the caster uses V, S and/or M components, their casting of a spell is easily perceived (assuming line of sight and other normal perception rules).

First off, you’re quoting an optional rule.

Secondly, what is perceived? Holding a staff. Are they perceivable while casting? Yes. Is it automatically known they’re casting? No.

I’ll put it this way, what do you think is noticeable about the casting if Subtle and holding a staff?

[Amnestic]

First off, you’re quoting an optional rule.

Secondly, what is perceived? Holding a staff. Are they perceivable while casting? Yes. Is it automatically known they’re casting? No.

I’ll put it this way, what do you think is noticeable about the casting if Subtle and holding a staff?

If a material component doesn't affect the perception of a spell they wouldn't have included it in this:


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

That they included it, and didn't just say verbal and somatic, tell us that material component usage has an explicitly perceptible aspect to it. That they include the second section say that the nature of the material component is irrelevant means that whether it's a staff, a druidic twig focus, or a handful of bat guano, it's all the same: something about using it means people notice.

What is that something? Depends on the caster and component I assume, but it is something people can identify as spellcasting. Maybe the head of the staff glows. Maybe the runic tracings along its edge thrum with magic power. Maybe it starts vibrating and singing zippidy-doo-dah. Who knows. I'm guessing they kept it deliberately vague so as to let players decide what THEIR character's spellcasting looks like. But it's perceptible all the same.

[RSP]

If a material component doesn't affect the perception of a spell they wouldn't have included it in this:



That they included it, and didn't just say verbal and somatic, tell us that material component usage has an explicitly perceptible aspect to it. That they include the second section say that the nature of the material component is irrelevant means that whether it's a staff, a druidic twig focus, or a handful of bat guano, it's all the same: something about using it means people notice.

What is that something? Depends on the caster and component I assume, but it is something people can identify as spellcasting. Maybe the head of the staff glows. Maybe the runic tracings along its edge thrum with magic power. Maybe it starts vibrating and singing zippidy-doo-dah. Who knows. I'm guessing they kept it deliberately vague so as to let players decide what THEIR character's spellcasting looks like. But it's perceptible all the same.

Look at the M rules:

“Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a char- acter must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”

So if a spell uses a component (rather than a CP or focus) that is visible: the character must take out some bat guano, or 100gp in diamond dust, etc. that is perceptible.

If that diamond dust then evaporated into nothing l, that is perceptible.

Neither of those, in and of themselves, definitively reveals a spell is being cast (though it may be a good assumption). For instance, a Giant Spider doesn’t instantly become smart enough to know about magic, and casting. The Giant Spider doesn’t magically become aware of this. But, a knowledgeable character can certainly put that as a clue that casting is being done.

However, the rules for a focus just require it be held. Again, a character standing there holding a staff is perceptible: but there is no extra thing that reveals when a spell is being cast, even though one can perceive that the character is indeed holding a focus.

[da newt]

I'm not so sure about RAW, but for a spellcasting focus I always assumed that the caster had to aim it at the target if not give it a good waggle ... I imagine that some old duffer leaning on his staff looks like one thing, but a mage using his staff as a focus to cast something like lighting bolt is more like a sniper aiming a rifle - but that's just my head cannon (based on every movie and book about casters I've ever read / seen). Subtle (IMO) allows you to hide your casting behind a bit of subterfuge or a cloak where it is not obvious to folks observing you.

As for 'is this optional or a rule', XGtE is unfortunately unclear as this chapter specifically says some bits are optional, some bits provide added clarity, and feel free to ignore anything you don't like ... that's not an answer at all. It is (I assume) very purposefully left up to the DM to decide what the rules are in their game and when they do or don't apply. Personally I'm not a fan of this theme - either there are rules and we all follow them, or nothing is a rule - everything is just a suggestion, the DM makes all the rulings as they see fit and the Players have zero agency wrt rulings - everything a player tries to do requires a 'mother may I?' and you are only allowed to be clever or 'win' if the DM grants you permission.

IMO, once a DM has made a ruling they have set precedence and are obligated to always rule the same way once a ruling has been made - but I've got some baggage there as I've had to deal with a DM whose rulings changed like the weather depending on which player was involved and what their desires were narratively or during combat, and it made every contest arbitrary.

But this is my opinion, and we've all got those ...

[JackPhoenix]

For instance, a Giant Spider doesn’t instantly become smart enough to know about magic, and casting. The Giant Spider doesn’t magically become aware of this. But, a knowledgeable character can certainly put that as a clue that casting is being done.

You're right... the spider doesn't *instantly* become smart enough to know about magic, it's smart enough already. With its Int of 2 and -4 Int mod, it's able to identify cantrips and 1st level spells as they are being cast, should it decide to spend its reaction to try when it perceives someone casting them. It doesn't have great chance to succeed, but still, manages to do so 10% or 5% of the time, for cantrips and 1st level spells, respectively.

Now, please, leave the goalposts where they lie. Moving them does not, in fact, help you win an argument, or make you right.

[Samayu]

Funnily enough I think this also has the fantastic side effect of fixing the problem with counter spell. If players and NPCs are counterspelling blindly then it's not an overpowered or unfun spell IMO.

Funnily enough, it's had the opposite effect on our group. We used to counterspell blind all the time. Most of us still do, but we have one guy who always asks for a no-action arcana roll to recognize the spell being cast, if it happens to be a spell he already knows.

[kazaryu]

Which of the two would you use to recognize a spell being cast?


VS


At first glance it seems obviously Arcana, but then you have that last bit of Insight. All of those things point to the three spell-casting components: Verbal, Somatic, and Material.

Overall, I’m inclined to say Insight alerts you that a spell is being cast in the first place while Arcana informs you of exactly what the spell is, or at least it’s school.

if you're assuming that someone is taking special care to hide the casting, then i could see insight being used in place of arcana. But arcana or even Wis (arcana) should always be appropriate. so iguess my answer would be either.

[Tanarii]

IMO no check if you can hear a V component, or see a S or M component, to recognize a spell is being cast. It's automatic success.

Also IMO there's no way to identify a spell while being cast. (I don't typically use the Xanathars new rule for that, this is my opinion on PHB rule.) Detect Magic or Identify can be used for ongoing spell effects of course.

Otoh ultimately after many forum arguments discussions, I've eventually landed on: its DM judgement all of that. If she wants to rule a Sleight of hand check vs Perception can conceal S and M components while casting, not minding it steps a bit on Sorcs subtle magic, so be it. Not sure what kind of check it would take to disguise V components though.

It's never occurred to me that you could come from the opposite direction of assuming spells can't be recognized as spells when cast as a default stance, with Wisdom (Insight) vs ... fixed DC? ... to instead recognize it's being cast. Probably because all the language of material components seems to me to strongly imply the opposite, that by default the activity is automatically identified. (Edit: Also because the SAC says it works as the other way around IIRC.)

[Chronos]

If you need to aim your staff like a rifle or the like to cast a spell, that's a somatic component, not material. A material component, by itself, doesn't require you to do anything to the component, just to hold it. Though I can see the argument that the component might glow or something when used and give you away in that way.

And my group usually counterspells blind, and the Counterspell spell still works just fine that way. If you're facing an archmage, and they consider it worth the use of their action to cast something, then that's probably something that's worth counterspelling, and you don't need to know what it is to decide that. On the other hand, if that archmage has a few cult fanatic minions, then you probably don't need to counterspell them, because whatever it is they do, it's probably pretty weak. The only issue might come in the first round of combat, when you don't yet know which of the creepy folks in robes is the archmage and which are the cult fanatics, but that's why you should try to do reconnaissance before combat.

[RSP]

You're right... the spider doesn't *instantly* become smart enough to know about magic, it's smart enough already. With its Int of 2 and -4 Int mod, it's able to identify cantrips and 1st level spells as they are being cast, should it decide to spend its reaction to try when it perceives someone casting them. It doesn't have great chance to succeed, but still, manages to do so 10% or 5% of the time, for cantrips and 1st level spells, respectively.

Now, please, leave the goalposts where they lie. Moving them does not, in fact, help you win an argument, or make you right.

I’m not sure why you think this has anything to do with moving goalposts.

You stated seeing a focus held transfers knowledge of any casting to those perceiving it. That would require understanding what spells and casting is. Here’s your original post:


You've missed that if you see someone fiddling with his wand, AKA manipulating the material component, you can tell a spell is being cast. It's relevant even when Subtle Spell remove V and S components. There's a clearly perceivable difference between just holding a wand or staff and casting a spell with its help, even if there's no S component for overt gesticulation.

So does the Giant Spider know a spell is being cast by seeing someone holding a focus?

Does a child who has no functional knowledge of spells and casting?

You mention “if you see” the M component being held: does that mean you believe it requires sight to know a spell is being cast when a caster uses Subtle Spell and holds a focus? So someone blinded wouldn’t be able to perceive the casting?

[Amnestic]

So does the Giant Spider know a spell is being cast by seeing someone holding a focus?

It doesn't need to know it's a spell to perceive a spell being cast. Understanding something and perceiving it are two different things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It doesn't need to know it's a spell to perceive a spell being cast. Understanding something and perceiving it are two different things.

And animals being able to sense when weird stuff is happening is very thematic. Dogs' hackles going up, cats hissing at "nothing", etc.

Additionally, in a world of fantasy where magic is in and through everything, having a "sixth sense" for "active magic being cast" at least to some degree sounds like a totally normal adaptation.

It's why I prefer an explicit "if a spell is cast within X distance and has at least one component, you know it is being cast except under unusual circumstances. If you can see the person casting the spell (or hear their voice for verbal components), you know who is casting the spell" statement. Where X could be a fixed distance (say 30') or something that varies with the power of the spell (say 10' + 10' per spell level).

[RSP]

It doesn't need to know it's a spell to perceive a spell being cast. Understanding something and perceiving it are two different things.

Let’s break this down so we make sure we’re discussing the same thing.

If you’re saying animals can perceive the caster “holding a staff”, then we are in agreement. The fact that the staff holder may also be casting a spell at any given moment using Subtle Spell, is immaterial to what they perceive.

If, however, you’re saying animals can perceive a spell being cast when a caster uses Subtle Spell and holds a staff as a focus; well then my question, again, is “what do you believe they are perceiving that alerts them that a spell is being cast?”

The latter requires knowing a spell is being cast (because they know a spell is being cast), and, therefore, knowledge of spells and magic in general.


And animals being able to sense when weird stuff is happening is very thematic. Dogs' hackles going up, cats hissing at "nothing", etc.

Additionally, in a world of fantasy where magic is in and through everything, having a "sixth sense" for "active magic being cast" at least to some degree sounds like a totally normal adaptation.

It's why I prefer an explicit "if a spell is cast within X distance and has at least one component, you know it is being cast except under unusual circumstances. If you can see the person casting the spell (or hear their voice for verbal components), you know who is casting the spell" statement. Where X could be a fixed distance (say 30') or something that varies with the power of the spell (say 10' + 10' per spell level).

It may be thematic, depending on the DM, campaign and fantasy world; but that doesn’t make it RAW.

Based on your post, I’m assuming you’re not stating it’s RAW, just that it could be a thematic homebrew.

RAW Subtle doesn’t do anything to remove an animals’ ability to sense magic, so if that is part of a setting, then they sense spells cast even if they don’t have any components (like using Subtle on a spell with only S or V components).

[PhoenixPhyre]

It may be thematic, depending on the DM, campaign and fantasy world; but that doesn’t make it RAW.

Based on your post, I’m assuming you’re not stating it’s RAW, just that it could be a thematic homebrew.

RAW Subtle doesn’t do anything to remove an animals’ ability to sense magic, so if that is part of a setting, then they sense spells cast even if they don’t have any components (like using Subtle on a spell with only S or V components).

Personally, I consider "RAW" a worthless illusion that exists only for internet arguments. The text matters as a starting point for further decisions, but that's it. And internet arguments are themselves worthless.

And note that I added conditionals to my explicit statement--you can sense it if it has components. That is, it's the act of manipulating the components that makes it perceptible. No components, no "normal" detection.

[RSP]

Personally, I consider "RAW" a worthless illusion that exists only for internet arguments. The text matters as a starting point for further decisions, but that's it. And internet arguments are themselves worthless.

And note that I added conditionals to my explicit statement--you can sense it if it has components. That is, it's the act of manipulating the components that makes it perceptible. No components, no "normal" detection.

I’ll rephrase to “do you believe the rules state there is something more noticeable to spells than what’s stated in the Components section of the rules?” If so, “what do you believe is noticeable?”

Not trying to pick a fight or anything, just trying to get your perspective here. If you’re saying “this would be thematic to a setting”, I’ll agree.

If you’re saying the rules of 5e state there’s something more in terms of perceiving a spell being cast than what’s written in the Components section, I’ll disagree.

[Tanarii]

If you need to aim your staff like a rifle or the like to cast a spell, that's a somatic component, not material. A material component, by itself, doesn't require you to do anything to the component, just to hold it.
Somatic components require a free hand to be done. If it's a M component but not a focus, you can use the same free hand to access and manipulate it. Arguably you can do the S component then use the free hand to access a focus and manipulate it the same way as a M component, or you may need a separate hand. Either way, M component or focus, it needs to be accessed and manipulated independently of the S component. They are separate things.

So aiming your staff like a rifle is replacing the M component with a focus. The S component still needs to occur using a free hand, possibly the same one before or after the 'aiming'.

Edit: The SAC claims otherwise, but the SAC contradicts the written rule and is wrong.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’ll rephrase to “do you believe the rules state there is something more noticeable to spells than what’s stated in the Components section of the rules?” If so, “what do you believe is noticeable?”

Not trying to pick a fight or anything, just trying to get your perspective here. If you’re saying “this would be thematic to a setting”, I’ll agree.

If you’re saying the rules of 5e state there’s something more in terms of perceiving a spell being cast than what’s written in the Components section, I’ll disagree.

The text says that IF(components > 0) THEN (perceptible). How and what is left up to the DM--any ruling there is text-compatible. That's it. That's the entire thing. If there is at least one component, then the spell is perceptible. Is it perceived? That's up to the DM. Either answer is text-compatible.

Beyond that, I believe that "default to perceived" is
* more thematic for any conforming setting
* more useful at the game level (because it gives greater weight to things like Subtle spell instead of letting people get it for free by "clever" wording)
* more balanced (because casters already have more power than they need).

And thus, such a ruling (which is 100% text-compatible) is better in many, if not all cases than one that says differently. The details are entirely up to the DM and the table.

[RSP]

The text says that IF(components > 0) THEN (perceptible). How and what is left up to the DM--any ruling there is text-compatible. That's it. That's the entire thing. If there is at least one component, then the spell is perceptible. Is it perceived? That's up to the DM. Either answer is text-compatible.

So then that is where we disagree. The rules don’t say “that’s it”. They explain what each of V, S, and M are and what they are perceived as:

V: “… the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.”

S: “Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.”

M: “A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components” or “to hold a spellcasting focus”.

I don’t consider these parts of the rules inconsequential to the components rules. So it’s more than just “IF(components > 0) THEN (perceptible)” as you state.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So then that is where we disagree. The rules don’t say “that’s it”. They explain what each of V, S, and M are and what they are perceived as:

V: “… the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.”

S: “Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.”

M: “A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components” or “to hold a spellcasting focus”.

I don’t consider these parts of the rules inconsequential to the components rules. So it’s more than just “IF(components > 0) THEN (perceptible)” as you state.

And that's where you're reading way more into the text than I think is wise. You're assuming that those descriptive statements define rules for perceiving them. I don't. Because they don't say they do.

By default (ie PHB, no Xanathar's), any ruling about perceiving spells being cast is entirely up to the DM. There is no default rule. Including Xanathars, we have this statement



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 Xanathar's isn't in play, then there are no explicit rules that bind anyone. Nothing mentions perceptibility in regards to components. However, without such a ruling, subtle spell has very little value. Because either no one can ever perceive spell casting or recognizing it spellcasting doesn't rely on components in any predictable way.

If Xanathar's is in play, then focus vs component pouch is irrelevant by explicit text. And "has component == perceptible" (not perceived, but perceptible) is an explicit statement.

Your choice.

[Captain Cap]

Somatic components require a free hand to be done. If it's a M component but not a focus, you can use the same free hand to access and manipulate it. Arguably you can do the S component then use the free hand to access a focus and manipulate it the same way as a M component, or you may need a separate hand. Either way, M component or focus, it needs to be accessed and manipulated independently of the S component. They are separate things.

So aiming your staff like a rifle is replacing the M component with a focus. The S component still needs to occur using a free hand, possibly the same one before or after the 'aiming'.
Doesn't the M component simply needs to be accessed (or held, in case of a focus) if no S is present? The way I interpret it, if a character is all tied up and can't wiggle his arms or anything, but they're somehow holding the M component and no S is required, they should still be able to cast the spell.

[RSP]

And that's where you're reading way more into the text than I think is wise. You're assuming that those descriptive statements define rules for perceiving them. I don't. Because they don't say they do.

They aren’t just descriptive statements: “If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell.”

Under V: “a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component.”

Under S: “the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.”

Under M: “Casting some spells requires particular objects…a cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus…”

None of those are simple descriptions that don’t matter: they’re requirements for Spellcasting, as the above quoted rule states.

V components don’t require the clapping of hands, they require “mystic words” in “the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance”.

That’s what’s perceptible about V components.



By default (ie PHB, no Xanathar's), any ruling about perceiving spells being cast is entirely up to the DM.

Any ruling is entirely up to the DM, that’s rule 0.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t rules for what V, S, and M components are, or what they entail.

You seem to boil it down to “is Spellcasting perceived”, when the rules give us more granularity. The questions should be

“Are the mystic words perceived?”
“Is the free hand doing Spellcasting gestures perceived?”
“Is the material component being accessed by a free hand and then potentially consumed perceived?” or “is the focus being held perceived?”

That’s what’s perceivable. The rules tell us that. A DM can rule otherwise, but that doesn’t mean these rules don’t exist.

[Sandeman]

As I see the intention of Subtle Spell, it is to hide the aspects of spellcasting.
So in my games if someone casts a spell using Subtle Spell nobody can counterspell it as counterspell requires seeing a spell being cast.
And if you use a focus or M components, you just stand there still, with your arms at your sides looking like an idiot (with things in the hands) until the spell takes effect.

However, if you see a spell being cast
Arcana might reveal WHAT spell it is
Insight might tell you WHY, like what the caster is intending to do with it
Perception might reveal HOW, like is he using a focus/component, who is he looking at (and therefore likely targeting)

[fishyfishyfishy]

First off, you’re quoting an optional rule.


This is incorrect. The rule itself is not optional. It is a new action that anyone can use.


This section expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player’s Handbook and the Dungeon Master’s Guide, providing clarifications and new options.

The sentence here isn't saying that the rules are optional the same way that things like feats are optional, it's saying that the player has the choice to use the actions or not.

[RSP]

This is incorrect. The rule itself is not optional. It is a new action that anyone can use.

The sentence here isn't saying that the rules are optional the same way that things like feats are optional, it's saying that the player has the choice to use the actions or not.

Check the beginning of the book. It states optional rules.