Allowing Subtle Casting with Slight of Hand?

[ChiefBigFeather]

Dear community,

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

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

What do you think?

[Man_Over_Game]

Dear community,

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

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

What do you think?

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

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



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

[CheddarChampion]

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

[ChiefBigFeather]

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

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

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

[Galithar]

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

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

[Man_Over_Game]

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

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

[LudicSavant]

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

[Man_Over_Game]

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

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

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

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

[Galithar]

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

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

[Kyutaru]

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

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

[LudicSavant]

Not really true. I can hold my staff all day. You'd never be able to tell when I was subtle casting because of it.

Both Jeremy Crawford and the RAW say otherwise.

[Contrast]

Both Jeremy Crawford and the RAW say otherwise.

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

[LudicSavant]

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

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

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sag...t-benefit/amp/

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecr...294912?lang=en

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

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

[Ghost Nappa]

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

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sag...t-benefit/amp/

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecr...294912?lang=en



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kane0]

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

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

[Contrast]

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

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

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

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

[LudicSavant]

Manipulating the material to move a certain which way is the Somatic component, so the actual "handling" of it is already covered by Subtle Spell.

It explicitly says that handling the material or focus is part of the material component of the spell.

Removing the Somatic component does not remove that.

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

Edit

It does seem to me the links above don't really address the issue of foci specifically so yeah...

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

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

To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn't matter for the purposes of perception, whether it's an object specified in the spell's description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

[mephiztopheleze]

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

[Contrast]

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

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

[LudicSavant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's correct.

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

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

But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn't matter for the purposes of perception, whether it's an object specified in the spell's description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.

[Shuruke]

I use the trying to be quiet distance for hiding casting

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

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

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


Ways I'd allow it
Hiding in an alley

Casting from a vantage point.

Targeting someone up on a balcony as you stand below.

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


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


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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

Not accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

[sophontteks]

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

This is a non factor given what most material components are, and it definately does stop them from being counterspelled.

[LudicSavant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Galithar]

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

[strangebloke]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

[LudicSavant]

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

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

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

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

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

[GreyBlack]

Dear community,

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

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

What do you think?

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

[Galithar]

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

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