Strawpoll: Concealed casting.

[TheUser]

I have my own ardent opinions on concealed casting (which I would happily launch into later) but for now I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on the idea of DM's allowing players to cast "quietly" or somehow mask their spell's.

https://www.strawpoll.me/16040261

Feel free to comment with your rationale behind your vote.

Edit: my vote and why in the spoiler.

Spoiler

Show

My answer is a hard No.
There are a few core reasons why I never allow this, even when bards and arcane tricksters want to do so.
Before that, I should elaborate a bit; because of Counterspell and how it is worded my interpretation is one such that if a creature within 60ft of you, has line of sight and the spell has a vocal component they 100% know you cast a spell but maybe not what the spell was (this is RAW). Counterspell provides us with sufficient context that even in the throws of battle a spell being cast is obvious enough within 60ft that no check is required to notice the caster doing so.

Ok so why No?

1. The PHB and the spirit of the rule
The verbal, material and somatic components of the spell are implemented for both flavor and balance. The PHB even describes verbal components as "chanting" with careful respect to pitch and resonance; not amplitude (volume)? Uhm yes amplitude... resonance and pitch with respect to humanoid vocal chords means if you were supposed to chant it then you cannot maintain the same pitch and resonance without the same volume (you can't just mouth the spell and say nothing; an amplitude of zero is also a resonance of zero). If you think vocal component as part of a spell then think "chanting" (PHB 203). Xanathar's expanded on this further with a direct ruling that casting a spell is noticeable to everyone in your presence (more on this later).


2. Subtle Spell
Narratively, many class features -should- be offered as an ability check or circumstance bonus but are not.
Sneak Attack or the Assassinate feature come to mind; attacking someone when their guard is down should provide more damage but only rogues have sneak attack dice. If DM's offer up sneak attack dice/auto crit surprise rounds to any player attacking at advantage with finesse weapons and passing some **arbitrary check**, then it would make it so playing a rogue is almost pointless. The same too can be said of a sorcerer and subtle spell; if everyone can do it then why limit yourself to such a restricted class? Don't hand out class features as skill/ability checks.

3. You just buffed Skill monkeys
This is one I only recently just unearthed in discussion but as a DM when you decide on the skill check for something like...masking a vocal component and you think "Ok Deception seems appropriate, maybe performance" BAM Charisma based casters just got a leg up on wisdom and intelligence casters.

"Ok ok maybe arcana then?" So Wizards, EK's and Arcane Tricksters?

"Stealth?" Now Bards and Arcane Tricksters.

No matter what you choose you favor a casting class over the others.

(If it's a straight ability check then Bards become favored again)

Ok so you pick one, no big deal.

What's the DC?
15+ Spell level? 15+2x Spell level?
A flat 15 or 20?
A contested check against perception by all nearby creatures?
The point is that once you start assigning arbitrary DC's one of two things happens.
Either the DC is easy enough that those with expertise can attempt it with very little risk or the DC is so high that only those with expertise can even think about pulling it off.

Lastly, if you don't have a margin of failure such that the spell can fail entirely it's all reward and no risk so to speak. You're going to cast a spell? May as well try to conceal the cast if I still get to cast the spell anyway even if I fail.


4. Spellcasting is already amazing and implementing limitations is important
Spell casters literally tug and pull at the weave of existence on the material plane. Even a martial class has to give up their position from doing so much as launching an arrow from a bow at 600ft.
Let casters and their insanely strong tool kit have some restrictions and grow a spine as a DM.

5. Double Edged Sword
Probably the biggest factor in the permissiveness of my rulings as a DM has to do with how the players will respond to the same rules applying to them. If the player were to say
"I counter the spell"
And I as a DM say
"Nope. Sorry but they invoked it quietly and used sleight of hand for the somatic components the same way you can so you didn't notice."
Now I'm dancing on the grave of counterspell rules and cheated my player of a spell they specifically prepared/learned. No thanks.

6. There are other ways to work around it.
Just because people know you've cast a spell doesn't mean they know which one. Get the target in private to charm them, pretend you are about to cast something else and say it failed. There are lots of workarounds for creative players.

[Cybren]

This is what subtle spell is for. Take a sorcere level or something

[Naanomi]

A few exceptional circumstances might allow something like this, but definetly not something that is a regular expectation casters should have

[JackPhoenix]

How about "Maybe, under specific circumstances, but not as a general rule"?

[TheUser]

Maybe if you could provide us of an example of a special circumstance where you would allow it?

[Unoriginal]

Spells can't normally be concealed. That's what Subtle Spell is for.

Removing one of the Sorcerer's advantages is not a good idea.

Now it doesn't mean that everyone can always perceive spells. If you're in the middle of a crowd fleeing in a panic from an attack, you might not notice a spell being cast. But it's not because the caster can suppress the signs of the casting, it's just the situation makes it hard for you to notice.

Also, just to say, there is no skill check in 5e. Just a bit of pedantic terminology, I know.

[ErrantNonsense]

To those saying no: is the sorcerer the only class you would allow to secretly use charm or illusion spells in social situations without tipping everyone off? Because if so, it would seem to tread on the feet of arcane tricksters, illusion and enchantment wizards, and bards more than allowing it impacts on sorcerers. And if you would allow other classes to get away with it sometimes, how would you adjudicate it other than with a skill check?

Certainly it shouldn’t be a default expectation that anyone can do it any time, and it’s the sorcerer’s advantage that they can, but it seems like the game expects you to be able to manage it in some circumstances.

[Boci]

Spells can't normally be concealed. That's what Subtle Spell is for.

Removing one of the Sorcerer's advantages is not a good idea.

Since its already a houserule, its reasonable the DM could also be giving the sorceror something. I'm a bit wary of telling a player no on the rational that a badly designed class needs to keep that ability, even if its thematically appropriate. I mean, an arcane trickster could logically have some ability to cast concealed right? And it would still be a down to a dice roll, which has a chance to fail, whilst sorcerors can do it automatically.

[Lunali]

About the only one I would consider for verbal components would be if a bard mixed it into a performance since bards use music based magic. Even then anyone with experience with bardic magic would get a chance to notice it.

Somatic components you could probably get away with on a sleight of hand check as long as there was some reason for you to be making motions with your hands/arms, depending on what spell it is. You might get away with charm person, (at least until the spell ends) but throwing a fireball will still be traced back to you.

[Dragonkingofth]

The thing is: Subtle only negates the somatic and vocal parts of a spell, if a character could work around those parts then I say: Yes.

If a spell it had no vocal component, then just doing it out of line of sight would do the trick.

If a spell has no Somatic Component then doing it out of ear shot would do the trick.

Additionally there is no reason one must SHOUT ONE VOCAL COMPONENTS so one could easily see a wizard whispering in a busy tavern the words for a spell, while fiddling the somatic part under the table. I might call for deception in this case, and give an arcane roll for anybody to understand what he's saying, if they can hear him over a busy D&D Tavern!

[Lunali]

Additionally there is no reason one must SHOUT ONE VOCAL COMPONENTS so one could easily see a wizard whispering in a busy tavern the words for a spell, while fiddling the somatic part under the table. I might call for deception in this case, and give an arcane roll for anybody to understand what he's saying, if they can hear him over a busy D&D Tavern!

You don't have to shout them, but you do have to speak them clearly, with "specific pitch and resonance" so whispering doesn't work.

[GorogIrongut]

You don't have to shout them, but you do have to speak them clearly, with "specific pitch and resonance" so whispering doesn't work.

And for anyone who has children a fair distance from you, you know that it's the pitch, resonance and cadence that helps you get their attention even though they're 100 feet away from you, upstairs, with 10 walls between you and more than likely with their music on.

[Dragonkingofth]

You don't have to shout them, but you do have to speak them clearly, with "specific pitch and resonance" so whispering doesn't work.

My bad: but still while you have to speak with a "specific pitch and resonance", good luck being overheard while the teifling is using Thaumaturgy to sing death metal karaoke . . . ok that's character concept I should write down, death metal teifling bard. . . hummm

Eh anyway my point still stands: if you can think of and invent ways around these restrictions then in some situations you should be able to pull it off and cast hidden.

[Anymage]

My bad: but still while you have to speak with a "specific pitch and resonance", good luck being overheard while the teifling is using Thaumaturgy to sing death metal karaoke . . . ok that's character concept I should write down, death metal teifling bard. . . hummm

Eh anyway my point still stands: if you can think of and invent ways around these restrictions then in some situations you should be able to pull it off and cast hidden.

That depends on somebody else making a distraction, not on you being intrinsically less noticeable.

Somatic components require "forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures", and requires moving enough of the body that armor could potentially impede you. (So not just wiggling your fingers surreptitiously.) Verbal components, as mentioned, require a specific pitch and resonance.

More over, the vast majority of enchantment spells allow the victim to know that they were affected after the fact. Bypassing that is explicitly an enchantment subclass feature. Knock is noteworthy for being very noisy. "Magic is noticeable" seems to be very much a design choice in 5e. Enchanters use their subclass feature, although they're still not smart if they cast spells in front of a wide audience. Illusionists either set things up ahead of time, or count on the fact that this is a magical world where conjurations also exist to leave people wondering whether or not this new threat is safe to ignore. Bards can justify weaving magic in with their music because that's what bards do, although specific spells are again not wise to cast in front of a large audience. I'd allow some sort of check if someone else were providing a distraction of some sort, but doing things quietly is the domain of mundane skills and maybe characters who invest in Subtle Spell.

[Tubben]

To those saying no: is the sorcerer the only class you would allow to secretly use charm or illusion spells in social situations without tipping everyone off?

Lv 20 Druids can do that also.

[Quoxis]

To those saying no: is the sorcerer the only class you would allow to secretly use charm or illusion spells in social situations without tipping everyone off?

Yes, that’s why subtle spell metamagic exists. There are also non-spell methods of applying charm etc. to NPCs, like the first level feylock feature, second level enchanter wizard feature and ninth level swashbuckler feature (probably tons more, but those just came to mind) which don’t need verbal or somatic components. Giving what’s basically undetectable casting to each caster is greatly devaluing those features, and although JC has shown to like making the masses happy at the cost of the few with certain sage advices, i don’t.

Because if so, it would seem to tread on the feet of arcane tricksters, illusion and enchantment wizards, and bards more than allowing it impacts on sorcerers.

It weakens strong classes that abuse non-specific rules while strengthening otherwise worthless class features - that’s bad for anyone who doesn’t know beforehand, but if you plan accordingly you can get around it. Sacrificing three levels for sorcerer to get subtle spell is not different from sacrificing three levels for fighter to get maneuvers.

And if you would allow other classes to get away with it sometimes, how would you adjudicate it other than with a skill check?
Certainly it shouldn’t be a default expectation that anyone can do it any time, and it’s the sorcerer’s advantage that they can, but it seems like the game expects you to be able to manage it in some circumstances*.

*emphasis mine


You pretty much answered the question: under certain circumstances i would totally allow subtle casting. If you’re concealed or covered, an NPC wouldn’t see your somatic components. If they’re deafened or >20ft away from you in an area with appropriate background noise (weekly market, bardic concert with cheering fans, arena fight with a booing crowd...) they can’t hear your verbal components. Of course the crowd directly around the caster would probably give it away, as they can still hear them.
If you can’t provide either, you‘re detectable, but assuming your party members aren’t morons, they should be able to help - get the attention of the victim before the wizard casts their spell, let the bard provide noise with thaumaturgically enhanced death metal, whatever.
Still: stealth/sleight of hand/performance roll depending on the situation, and against (advantaged?) passive perceptions of bystanders.

[Laserlight]

De juris, no, although I suppose if the bystanders are sufficiently distracted (during a fight with storm priests in a bell factory, say), I'd make allowances.

De facto...my DMs ignore my casting Guidance during negotiations; and when I'm DMing, I don't remember an occasion of "Hey, that player just cast a spell during a Friendly Discussion, everyone would notice that", although that may be because my players have had a habit of moving straight for "ask nicely" to "hit someone" without pause for an answer.

I don't think any of the sorcs at our table have ever taken Subtle, because Twinned and Quickened come first.

[MrStabby]

Allow conceiled casting? Well I would allow somatic components to be hidden by a successful hide check (opposed) assuming that the caster found something to hid behind.

For verbal components no way. If someone is close enough to hear someone speaking in a clear voice then they hear someone casting. Maybe they don't notice if they are over 30ft away and there is a background noise (although other people making noise to hide the casting may be itself be suspicious), maybe further distances in quieter conditions. Very much in the camp of not freely giving out specific class perks to everyone.

[Tanarii]

Spells can't normally be concealed. That's what Subtle Spell is for.

Removing one of the Sorcerer's advantages is not a good idea.

Now it doesn't mean that everyone can always perceive spells. If you're in the middle of a crowd fleeing in a panic from an attack, you might not notice a spell being cast. But it's not because the caster can suppress the signs of the casting, it's just the situation makes it hard for you to notice.

Thats exactly how I feel. No way to intentionally "hide" casting with a check. But like anything else that is not hidden, it still may not be perceived.

The thing is: Subtle only negates the somatic and vocal parts of a spell, if a character could work around those parts then I say: Yes.

If a spell it had no vocal component, then just doing it out of line of sight would do the trick.

If a spell has no Somatic Component then doing it out of ear shot would do the trick.

Additionally there is no reason one must SHOUT ONE VOCAL COMPONENTS so one could easily see a wizard whispering in a busy tavern the words for a spell, while fiddling the somatic part under the table. I might call for deception in this case, and give an arcane roll for anybody to understand what he's saying, if they can hear him over a busy D&D Tavern!

Nothing says it is possible to whisper V components. In fact, it's pretty strongly implied you have to speak them at some reasonable volume.

Also it should not be a check on the behalf of the character casting to conceal. A check on the part of the potential perceiver against a fixed DC would be appropriate if they may overlook something.

For reference, the decibel scale for speaking works something like: talking normally sounds like a whisper at 30 ft. Talking loudly (like you would at a mall or sporting event) can double or that. (Which matches my RL experiences fairly well.)

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

I make it DC 10 to hear non-stealthy things at 30ft with no significant ambient noise. In terms of gameplay, I've found that's a little bit short, but I'm not going to change a fixed ruling the players have all used for a while now. Better would probably be 60ft.

[lperkins2]

So, the basic answer should probably be 'depends on the spell'. The general rule is that verbal components must be spoken aloud, and that somatic components involve fairly complex and large motions with a single hand. These cannot be concealed except in very limited circumstances (like by breaking LoS to the caster). Some spells, however, have specific rules for their verbal or somatic components, which may allow them to be concealed.

Assuming you have some way for the verbal component to be unnoticed, Burning Hands is one that could generally be concealed (of course, the effect of the spell won't be particularly concealable, given it will be bright, and warm). The somatic component for Burning Hands is given in the spell description: thumbs touching, fingers spread, in-line with each other, fire springs from your fingertips in a thin sheet. Put your hands under the table, anyone not able to see your hands can't see the somatic component.

[Tanarii]

Some spells, however, have specific rules for their verbal or somatic components, which may allow them to be concealed.

IIRC JC commented something like, I believe in regards to suggestion, the components are not to anything described in the spell. They are in addition to the V and S components. (So many conditionals in that sentence. )

Personally that makes little sense to me. At a first glance, the S component of True Strike seems to be just pointing at someone. Burning hands is a good example too.

[Theophilus]

For characters attempting to conceal spellcasting, terrain and circumstance are their allies. Skills like Deception and Sleight of Hand don't conceal spellcasting by RAW; however, they are the tools to get a character in position to cast from a concealed or noisy location. As others have said, putting your wizard in a crowd can mask the verbal and somatic components from the intended target; however, you risk having others notice.

A simple fix would be to cast the spells from a booth with a screen in a middle of a crowded bazaar. Or from behind a curtain on a covered balcony. Stealth may apply, but only with circumstantial advantages of noise, distraction, concealment, and distance. Slipping up on the wizard in his study may only get the advantage of surprise, but he is going to know someone has begun casting a spell at his back (That he did not have a glyph of Hold Monster waiting for you probably means he is a bad wizard).

[mgshamster]

Magic is strong enough as it is. Do you really need to add in extra rulings and rules to make it even better?

If you allow this, do you also give martials something extra? Maybe the chance to kill an opponent with a single surprise attack - or do you say, "if you want that, take a level in assassin"?

[Tanarii]

Magic is strong enough as it is. Do you really need to add in extra rulings and rules to make it even better?

If you allow this, do you also give martials something extra? Maybe the chance to kill an opponent with a single surprise attack - or do you say, "if you want that, take a level in assassin"?

Eh. My ruling that non-hidden things are DC 10 at 30ft, with +5 per doubling of distance, helps Martials as much as casters. quite a lot for melee martials, since it means if they declare an attempt to ambush they're starting at 30ft unless their opponent has Passive Perception 15+, even if they fail to get surprise. (Edit: So much so that'd I recommend to others that they make it 60 ft if they want to use the idea.)

But allowing Slight of Hand to cast without being noticed? No bueno for balance.

[Contrast]

I voted no but with one caveat.

I would rule that spells like charm person and the like include as part of their magic a haze which means on a failed save they don't register the preceding magic (at least until the spell ends).

If they pass the save or there's someone standing next to them who saw you and is inclined to warn them, you're out of luck.

[Tanarii]

I would rule that spells like charm person and the like include as part of their magic a haze which means on a failed save they don't register the preceding magic (at least until the spell ends).

No particularly necessary IMO. Unless they used their reaction, they've no idea what you just cast. And you're a friendly acquaintance. Why would you have cast a bad spell on them? I mean, they might be curious to know what you just cast, in which case they'll ask. Good thing you just got advantage on Deception checks ...

[Contrast]

No particularly necessary IMO. Unless they used their reaction, they've no idea what you just cast. And you're a friendly acquaintance. Why would you have cast a bad spell on them? I mean, they might be curious to know what you just cast, in which case they'll ask. Good thing you just got advantage on Deception checks ...

Except a shop keep would be somewhat suspicious of people casting spells in his shop, imposing disadvantage and cancelling out the advantage you just managed to get...

I'd just rather not have every instance of casting the spell (or the Friends cantrip for instance) immediately require a skill check to pull off (before you even get to the skill check you cast it in order to try and get an improvement on) in addition to a failed save. Kind of defeats the purpose, particularly when the downside for failing (or even succeeding in the longer term) is already pretty bad.

[bid]

Shades of Ars Magica: Upcast 1 level to be subtle.

A level 5 FIREBALL does 10d6.
A level 5 fireball does 9d6 and might not be noticed.

[CantigThimble]

I voted yes, but I'll give the caveat that there needs to be some kind of distraction or cover involved.

Casting under the table while sitting alone in a noisy bar? Roll a check.
Casting a buff while hidden in the treeline before rushing the enemy camp? Roll a check.
While the party is in a normal conversation? No chance.
In combat? Nope.

The sorcerer can cast a fireball while a hundred eyes are on him and still feign complete innocence and surprise. He also has zero risk of botching it.

One thing I really hate about games with lots of specific abilities is that as soon as an ability exists that does a thing, people start saying that it should be completely impossible to do that thing unless you have that specific ability. Which means that adding another book with new abilities doesn't expand the options available to players, it constricts them.

[Tanarii]

Except a shop keep would be somewhat suspicious of people casting spells in his shop, imposing disadvantage and cancelling out the advantage you just managed to get...

I'd just rather not have every instance of casting the spell (or the Friends cantrip for instance) immediately require a skill check to pull off (before you even get to the skill check you cast it in order to try and get an improvement on) in addition to a failed save. Kind of defeats the purpose, particularly when the downside for failing (or even succeeding in the longer term) is already pretty bad.

We're probably saying the same thing. I consider it part of the attitude adjustment that being supicious of you having just cast a spell isn't likely to happen. Sounds like you're saying that should be explicit.