Allowing Subtle Casting with Slight of Hand?

[LudicSavant]

Thank you for the correction.

NP!

Huh. I looked for that. What page? DMG?

It's on pg85 of the XGtE, in the section that "expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide, providing clarifications and new options."

There's also pg203 of the PHB, which states:

MATERIAL (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a speIlcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell.

[RSP]

Here's what the rulebook has to say on the matter:

Where in the rulebook does it say you need to manipulate the focus when casting a spell?

Also, feel free to admit that it doesn’t say the focus needs to be manipulated, but rather the rules state the focus just needs be held; and that you were wrong in telling us otherwise earlier in this thread.

[Fnissalot]

I would allow Sleight of hand to hide material components during casting as long as you feasibly could hide it.

I would not allow any such things for somatic or verbal components. If you start meddling with those, the spell would fail.

On the other hand, I might allow a caster to develop/invent a new version of a spell over time to change what components it needs, but it might affect how the spell works as well.

[JackOfAllBuilds]

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.

The word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
hand·ling /ˈhandliNG/ noun
the act of taking or holding something in the hands.

Handling an arcane focus literally just means holding it.
Gestures and movements are covered by “somatic”

[TheUser]

No. Both on a fantasy level and game balance level this is 100% not permissable in my books.

If you are content to tread on the toes of sorcerers so easily I wonder what other skill checks you'll allow to mimic core class features.

Can I gain an extra action or dash, disengage or dodge as a bonus action with an athletics check?

How about running on water or sprinting across a 30ft stretch of wall? Can I perform an acrobatics check to dash along 30- 60ft of wall?

The rules are muddy but counter spell carries very serious implications; even in the throws of combat, with it's battlecries, the clanging of steel on steel and a symphony of screams as people are cut down in their tracks....through all of that if you are within 60ft of someone with and their spell has only a verbal component....well they can be counterspelled.

Verbal components are anything but subtle. They are mystical arcane chants.

The same is true of somatic components; they are delicate and finely calculated with easy to notice movements.

Trying to alter these very specific and finely tuned mechanics should cause the spell to fail.

It's important to have boundaries with your PC's

I can understand that your players (or even yourself) want this badly but spells are literally cheat codes for reality; is it so much to ask that they be noticeable at 60ft of distance?

[Galithar]

NP!



It's on pg85 of the XGtE, in the section that "expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide, providing clarifications and new options."

There's also pg203 of the PHB, which states:

The chapter opens with optional rules meant to help you run certain parts of the game more smoothly.

So once again. An optional rule in a splatbook is NOT RAW. It's an optional rule... In a splatbook! And in my experience the vast majority of tables ignore 95+% of what Xanathar's has to say about spellcasting because it's all asinine, and I don't think it should be spread with any claim of RAW attached. Clunky mechanics that serve only to slow game play and neuter players? There's a reason they don't get used much.

[LudicSavant]

The word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Gotta love it when I directly quote a dictionary, and someone on the internet tells me it's not a meaning of the word.

hand·ling /ˈhandliNG/ noun
the act of taking or holding something in the hands.

Also gotta love it when I say that holding something in the hands is one of the meanings of the word "handle", and then get "corrected" by someone saying that... holding something in the hands is one of the meanings of handle.

Spoiler: Where I said that

Show

there are additional possible definitions, at least one of which is simply holding an object.

Edit: Also noteworthy, you quoted the definition of "handling" rather than "handle." The definitions of handle given in the very dictionary you quoted that from actually include "feel or manipulate with the hands"

[TheUser]

I think we're getting caught up on pedantic word flogging.

You have to handle the object.

Sometimes it means holding it but it can also mean having to point the focus at your target and so on.

Ludic is saying that this small caveat is meant to give DM's an out. If they really want to allow counter spelling a material component the enemy reaching for then they can. Or pointing their arcane focus towards an enemy amd having it glow.

It doesn't mean it's enforceable at all tables but he's not misinterpreting things here guys. I suggest we relax and focus on how misguided giving away core class features as skill checks is.

[ChiefBigFeather]

Please stop the rules discussion, it is derailing the thread. M subtle spell rules are ambivalent. I would allow it.

I wouldn‘t allow Slight of hand to replace Subtle Spell. But there are no clear rules regarding how loud or how obvious the gestures of a spell have to be. Sure, you will notice when standing right next to someone. But in a crowded marketplace, how far would you notice? Can a spellcaster with sufficient practice cast spells a little quieter and make the gestures harder to spot?

I think it‘s reasonable to try to obscure the casting in appropriate situations. Like with hiding, you need some kind of visual and audible obscurement to even try.

[Mordaedil]

The difference between this and subtle spell is that this has a chance to being caught, while subtle spell is absolutely surefire.

Now, I see some disagreements in here about if it should be sleight of hand. In 3rd edition there was a rule for this in the rules compendium, but also a skill trick that did the same, but skill tricks could only be used once per encounter. But there was also a feat that bards could take that required perform skill.

Note that it won't remove any of the components and anyone in proximity will hear it, see it and can make a counter check to know what is happening. A subtle spell metamagic means they are just struck by the spell with no chance to recognize it.

[LudicSavant]

Where in the rulebook does it say you need to manipulate the focus when casting a spell?

So, there has clearly been a misunderstanding somewhere down the line here. The thread has been caught up in so many different tangents that wires are getting crossed. It feels like I'll answer one thing, and it'll be taken as an answer to a different thing. I'll make a comment about RAI, and it'll be taken as a comment about RAW. I'll make a comment about RAW, and it'll be taken as a comment about RAI. I'll say something can be inferred as intended from context, then it's demanded that I show where it's explicitly written in the rulebooks (in which case, why would I have to infer it from context?). It's a bloody mess.

What I actually told you earlier in the thread, after you brought up this "definition of handle" tangent in response to a quote about the Identifying Spells section of the XGtE rulebook, was that the Sage Advice Compendium (which is not a rulebook) said handle, that I felt that some degree of manipulation with the hand is one possible meaning that could have been meant by the devs, that I felt that this meaning could be inferred from the context of factors such as dev statements, that it was open to interpretation and I was fine with your reading as well, and that it's a moot point anyways so I don't know why we're talking about it (since the material component being perceptible doesn't actually hinge on the definition of handle. We're simply told that it is perceptible under given conditions, not why. Like with many things in 5e we are left to fill in the blanks, so exactly what causes material components to have a "tell" is left open to interpretation).

Spoiler: Where I said that"

Show

there are additional possible definitions, at least one of which is simply holding an object. However, via context I do not think it is the meaning being used here.

If you want to interpret it otherwise, that's fine by me. But then it just goes back to the various other sources that say that Subtle does not necessarily prevent counterspelling

We are not told precisely why it can be recognized, merely that it can be. Perhaps there is some tell that something is being focused through the staff. Perhaps you need to actually manipulate it in some recognizable way. Or perhaps the devs had something else in mind (though I suspect it's one of the former based on past things that have been said).

And no doubt since I now have reiterated that this thing was open to interpretation, someone else who hasn't followed the whole conversation will jump in and say that I think some different statement is open to interpretation, because that's about how this thread has gone so far.

[diplomancer]

I would not allow it in combat to counteract counterspell. As many have said, it steps too much on the Sorcerer's shoes.

But I would allow it out of combat for social reasons. It gives a good use for an underused skill (even more if it is Performance... I would not allow it with Deception), and it fits well some archetypes. Illusionists are going to love this.

[TheUser]

I would not allow it in combat to counteract counterspell. As many have said, it steps too much on the Sorcerer's shoes.

But I would allow it out of combat for social reasons. It gives a good use for an underused skill (even more if it is Performance... I would not allow it with Deception), and it fits well some archetypes. Illusionists are going to love this.

How does allowing it in social situations not step on the sorcerers toes?
I'm really curious about the rationale here like social situations somehow mean less?

[diplomancer]

It steps less on the Sorcerer toes, since it can't be used in every situation (notice that I said "it steps too much"). There is a good "in universe" explanation too, you can even make a rule for it, that the use of the skill to conceal the spell takes an action, casting the spell takes another action. Not a problem out of combat, a big price to pay in combat.

Stepping a little bit on the toes of a class to enable a good use for an underused skill and to enable more archetypes is a good price to pay, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Also, for me it just makes sense, whether it is the caster using sleight of hand, or a party member making a Performance check to distract others from the casting, which should also work, and encourages teamplay, always a good thing in D&D.

[sophontteks]

Using sleight of hand to cover up the somatic component is common at the tables I play. It doesn't step on the shoes of a sorcerer too much IMO, because it is not nearly as good as subtle spell. A spellcaster could try to cover up their V and S components, but they will never be able to cast a spell in front of someone. The DC for that would equal an impossible check.

There is nothing wrong with allowing a caster to try and take advantage of things within the environment to try and cover up a spell. They could mask the verbal with the ambient noise or duck down out of view so the target doesn't see their arms flailing about. These would often require a check, and don't come close to what subtle spell allows.

Now if the idea here is to allow a skill check to literally mimic a subtle spell. No freaking way. A wizard is still very deliberately casting a spell, and no skill check should change that.

[diplomancer]

It also improves the Sorcerers themselves, since now they can either choose other metamagics, or, even if they picked it, save the sorcery point for combat or for when they REALLY need to make sure no one will notice them casting it.

(I personally don't feel that Sorcerers are a "poor man's wizard" that needs to be coddled, but a powerful and distinctive class on its own right, so it doesn't bother me that much to let other casters mimic a little bit, in a lesser way, one of their optional class features- it would most certainly not be innapropriate to have a feat that does something similar).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

No. Both on a fantasy level and game balance level this is 100% not permissable in my books.
I can understand that your players (or even yourself) want this badly but spells are literally cheat codes for reality; is it so much to ask that they be noticeable at 60ft of distance?

I'm not bothered by the fantasy aspect - it seems fairly reasonable there, though there should be more of an investment for disguising verbal components than being proficient in a skill that 100% of wizards are already proficient in. But I fully agree with your point about game balance.

[diplomancer]

I'm not bothered by the fantasy aspect - it seems fairly reasonable there, though there should be more of an investment for disguising verbal components than being proficient in a skill that 100% of wizards are already proficient in. But I fully agree with your point about game balance.

What skill? I don't think anyone suggested that Arcana be used to disguise a verbal component (some people suggested using it instead of Perception to notice it), and I suppose that is the only skill 100% of wizards have.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

What skill? I don't think anyone suggested that Arcana be used to disguise a verbal component (some people suggested using it instead of Perception to notice it), and I suppose that is the only skill 100% of wizards have.

I was remembering this post, which wasn't by the OP:

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

[Sigreid]

To the original idea, I could see performance and slight of hand being used to put on a magic show that conceals the real magic being cast. So, classic misdirection.

[diplomancer]

I was remembering this post, which wasn't by the OP:

Ah, I forgot that, you are right. Yes, I don't think that is a good suggestion. Both Stealth and Performance make more sense for that (and though Stealth is a very commonly used skill, not all wizards will have it, while Performance is so underused that even some Bards don't get it).

[Pex]

I would not allow it in combat to counteract counterspell. As many have said, it steps too much on the Sorcerer's shoes.

But I would allow it out of combat for social reasons. It gives a good use for an underused skill (even more if it is Performance... I would not allow it with Deception), and it fits well some archetypes. Illusionists are going to love this.

I sympathize with players wanting to be able to do this, but I agree it steps on Sorcerers' toes. Let them have their exclusive thing. However, if one is to allow a minor version of it I agree it should be Performance. You're trying to cast a spell while pretending you aren't. From a game mechanics perspective it's a Charisma check in a skill very few wizards, clerics, and druids have a high score in let alone proficiency. It becomes a difficult thing for them to do. For bards and warlocks I can let it pass they won't have too much trouble with it being thematically appropriate while Sorcerers with Subtle Spell are able to do it all.

[Tuje]

Absolutely not, It's core exclusive for sorcerers. You wouldn't allow substitute a class feature.

Well, following that Arcana check would allows the sorcerer cast spells that he doesn't know...

Or Athletic check allows him to use dash as bonus action or ACTION SURGE.

[MaxWilson]

No. I am commenting on what the rules appear to say and mean, rather than how I would personally rule as a DM.

Namely, that the rules say you must handle the material components (per SAC) in a recognizable way (per XGtE's section that "provides clarifications to the PHB and DMG rules and new options" as well as JC's RAI comments on what is intended to be perceptible and counterspellable when using Subtle Spell).

Ah. I understand why people got the wrong impression (it probably would have been good to preface your initial remarks with something like "technically, the rules say that..."), but setting that aside: substantively I agree with you. If there were a spell with only M component, you could still Counterspell that spell, under both PHB rules and Xanathar's rules. In fact Xanathar's is explicit that the presence of any component including M makes a casting perceivable.

Subtle Spell eliminates V, S but not M components, so e.g. Subtle Fireball is technically an M spell, therefore technically both detectable and Counterspellable under the rules as written. (Maybe the glowing bead of bat guano levitates into the air and catches fire before suddenly streaking off and exploding; with an Arcane Focus maybe there's a bead of ghostly bat guano that appears and does the same thing.)

[Fryy]

To the OP: Allow Subtle Casting with a skill check?

No, that just gives extra advantage to Bards (with their Jack of All Trades class feature) relative to other casters.

[Fryy]

Subtle Spell allows casting without any Verbal or Somatic components.
The Somatic components are the gestures (or body movements).

So, what is 'manipulating' an object (a.k.a. handling or controlling) perceived as when no body movement is involved? I would say it is perceived as 'holding' an object.

So, if you are holding an object, the object is not consumed by casting (such as a staff, focus, wand, etc.) and the object is not said to glow, vibrate, or transform in any perceivable way, then honestly what would cause a reaction (counterspell)? I cannot see reasonable justification for being able to perceive a casting let alone react to it. You are welcome to your own opinions, though.

The only wiggle room I can see is if you maintain that the Somatic component does not include all body movement and that the Material component includes additional body movement. I don't think that is reasonable or is definitively stated in RAW.

Example: A group of Sorcerers walk into the street and stand there for 5 minutes holding staves. How many counterspells are you going to throw out, and when, and on whom? And would you even know if it made a difference?

[Spiritchaser]

I would not permit this to work for spells with verbal components under anything remotely like normal circumstances.

Quite apart from anything else, the ability to cast while concealed cannot be generally available for play balance reasons, most especially in a stealth heavy campaign.

Unless you were in the middle of a large religious convention with chanting to be heard from every point of the compass, I wouldn’t even consider allowing it.

If you want to cast spells without their verbal components, be a sorcerer.

I’d be quite a bit more accommodating with somatic components, though I can’t imagine making this remotely easy or anything like universally possible

[Mjolnirbear]

NP!



It's on pg85 of the XGtE, in the section that "expands on the spellcasting rules presented in the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide, providing clarifications and new options."

There's also pg203 of the PHB, which states:

That page in the PHB is why I made the first post, since the wording makes it clear that foci are substitutes for M components.

Normally I prefer Xanathars expansions and clarifications to PHB or DMG rules, but less so in this case.

[Pex]

The subtle difference, pun intended, of how one can justify a skill check for this but not a skill check for an extra Dash or Action Surge or cast a spell you don't know is the latter all involve actions. You can't do a skill check to gain an action. Casting while not being noticed is not an action but part of an action you're already doing. That's a wall you can put up so as not to have a slippery slope, but it's not a good one. The cleric may ask why can't he make a Religion check to smite like a paladin since it's not an extra action.

It's something, but I still rather let Sorcerer be exclusive.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The subtle difference, pun intended, of how one can justify a skill check for this but not a skill check for an extra Dash or Action Surge or cast a spell you don't know is the latter all involve actions. You can't do a skill check to gain an action. Casting while not being noticed is not an action but part of an action you're already doing. That's a wall you can put up so as not to have a slippery slope, but it's not a good one. The cleric may ask why can't he make a Religion check to smite like a paladin since it's not an extra action.

It's something, but I still rather let Sorcerer be exclusive.

What about using Perception to increase the range of a bow, or Athletics to reroll damage dice? Both are similar to other single sorcery point effects, and I think most DMs would laugh you out of the room if you proposed either.