How Subtle is a Subtle Spell?

[Yunru]

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

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

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

[ProsecutorGodot]

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

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

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

Seems complicated.

[MaxWilson]

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

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

On a side note:

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

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

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

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

[Yunru]

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

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

[ProsecutorGodot]

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

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

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

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

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

[Yunru]

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

But they do for the purpose of casting that spell.

[sophontteks]

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

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

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

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

[ezekielraiden]

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

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

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

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

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

[Damon_Tor]

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

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

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

[sophontteks]

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



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

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

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

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

This is beating a dead horse.

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

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

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

[JellyPooga]

This is beating a dead horse.

And you didn't answer the question.

Let's make it simpler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

They say turnabout is fair play.

[ezekielraiden]

Let's make it simpler.

Well, you ignored what I had to say on the subject, but 'kay.

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

Yes.

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

Of course, otherwise we wouldn't be having the conversation.

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

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

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

Because the rules say so.

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

Firstly, not counting the "possible/might be": Nope, because the rules don't say so, and the only comparable examples you have given do say so.

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

[diplomancer]

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

[Yunru]

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

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

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

[Sindal]

Well this has been an amusing read.

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

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

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

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

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

[JellyPooga]

Well this has been an amusing read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ezekielraiden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Randomthom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ezekielraiden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Resileaf]

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

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

[LordCdrMilitant]

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

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

"No verbal/somatic components."

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

[Yunru]

"No verbal/somatic components."

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

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

[Pex]

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

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

[VoxRationis]

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