D&D 5E Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Spellcasting

[Skyscraper]

To the original topic: I would allow spellcasting to be automatically subtle, where the spell is useful only if it is subtly cast. Thaumaturgy and charm person are very good examples of this. Imagine Gandalf in Bilbo's home, moving away to case Thaumaturgy before looming over Bilbo for a dramatic influence. What a letdown!

Honestly, allowing spells to influence social interactions is simply cool. It's rare that the situation allows them to work, if on top of that you need a phone booth to cast the spell in, before moving out and being allowed to benefit from the spell's effect, you're simply confining spells such as Thaumaturgy to non-existence, or just about.

This won't break your game. It will make it better.

 

[iserith]

Is there a significant difference between stabbing a guard to make the RP go away, and casting a spell to make the RP go away?

Yeah, the latter is a great deal more subtle than the former, unless you have a DM that is stressing out over how noticeable and offensive it is to cast a spell like friends or charm person.

If a player assumes that this particular guard-PC interaction is going to be stock and boring, *and that it will take more than ten seconds*, then that's not giving me much benefit of the doubt as DM. I was going around the table and having each player describe their new PC and play out a snapshot of their entry to the city. If player #3 is bored by describing the first appearance of their new PC to the other players (and to me), then *player #3 can gorram tell me that they're bored*, and perhaps player 3 will make the great sacrifice of spending ten seconds on boring RP so that the rest of the table knows something about the new PC as a sentient humanoid, before we get to the FUN of damage per round.

I agree that players should tell the DM what they find fun and what they don't find fun, provided they know it. If player 3 is the guy who cast the spell, perhaps a good way of looking at that situation is that it's that player showing what his or her character is about rather than telling. That might be a good angle to ask questions to flesh out the character's personality.

Thing One: I am a human DM, not the CPU of a first-person-shooter. If a player is bored, then the player can *tell me with their own words*, rather than by the proxy of what their PC does to NPCs. I provide a more rewarding experience to players who TALK TO THE DM, than to players who use the indirect semaphore of having their PC stab guards in the game world.

I prefer direct communication as well, but a player can probably be forgiven for having had DMs train them in the past to do otherwise.

If, instead of admitting boredom, the player declares "I kill all the guards", is that going to take *less* than ten seconds to resolve?

It might if you're like me and don't necessarily see the need to live out every minute of the day or roll out every action as if there was always an uncertain outcome.

Is this a real thing you're talking about or making up a scenario to rail against?

 

[Riley37]

Okay, back to spells and spellcasting. Is Hypnotic Pattern a junk, useless spell?
Or might it be useful to take a swarm of minions out of a fight, while laying all the firepower on the boss?

If there were a version of Hypnotic Pattern which only affected one target, and only worked on humanoids, but didn't require Concentration and only expended a first-level spell slot, would THAT be a junk, useless spell?

Or might it sometimes be useful to prevent the boss from attacking you, so that instead it can only attack your front-rank tank allies, while you and those allies lay all the firepower on the swarm of minions?

In non-battle situations: get someone alone, or cast Charm Person on them from concealment (from an alley, or from the KITCHEN of the tavern if you can get LOS to the main room, or as the spell which breaks Invisibility). Ask them questions, or ask them for favors, as a friendly acquaintance. Before the hour ends... well, get a new disguise, or kill them, or leave town, or any of MANY other ways to resolve the issue of "they might object to having been charmed". If you can't think of any way to pull off that sort of dirty tricks, then yes, Charm Person is a junk spell.

If you can, however, think of situations in which you could cast a spell on someone, out of combat, WITHOUT already being face-to-face with them, then Charm Person as a first-level spell kinda terrifies me.

Fortunately, it takes a third-level sorceror to cast Suggestion as a Subtle spell. Whew.

 

[Sunseeker]

If the spell doesn't specify how grand an expression of spellcasting must be, then unless you set some rules and are clear on those rules with the players, then I leave it up to the players to determine how their spellcasting looks. For starters it provides more variety, since everyone at the table comes up with their own little way to cast spells. If the spell has visual and verbal components then my only requirement is that those things be clearly visible and clearly audible within a close proximity. Mumbling under your breath is IMO, tantamount to using "Silent Spell". You do not need to be shouting magical words to the heavens and waving your hands around like a lunatic in order to cast spells.

Burning Hands for example is very clear on the somatic component, thumbs touching, hands laid flat, fingers outstretched in the direction you want to shoot fire. That's not necessarily the grandest of spellcasting, but it is certainly visible. I tend to enforce grander requirements on grander spells. Raise dead for example. Fireball works out something like a Kamehameha DBZ style or something to that effect.

In short: if you want to enforce the verbal and somatic components, be clear with your players on what you expect them to do. If your idea of a verbal component is "GREAT LORD OF HOLY FIRE GRANT MY FINGERS YOUR BLAZING POWER!!!!" shouted at the top of their lungs, be clear with that.

 

[Shiroiken]

It really depends on the DM. Some DMs are going to make all casting obvious to all (minus Subtle spell). Some DMs are going to have all casting be discreet. Most, I think, will go somewhere in the middle.

Personally, I see nothing that requires you to speak loudly when casting a spell, allowing it to be whispered. Somatic components are not necessarily large gestures, and very few would understand what those gestures mean anyway (unless every 3rd person you meet in the world is a caster). A Slight of Hand (Somatic) vs. Perception and/or Deception (Verbal) vs. Insight seems appropriate to me.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Like so many things, I think the answer is yes, they can attempt it.

As has been pointed out, a great many spells are far less useful if you can't attempt to hide that you're casting them. But I think that's all that's needed - you attempt to hide the casting of the spell.

I'd just go with a simple stealth vs perception (passive or active as appropriate to the circumstance). In the case of a group of guards that are suspicious of the group approaching, the circumstances may warrant them having advantage on their perception. Your companion is creating a distraction? Then you get advantage on your stealth check. Deception vs Perception would be appropriate too.

I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that even whispering the verbal components wouldn't be enough. But intelligent creatures living in a world where magic exists, particularly those that are suspicious under the circumstances, would be on the lookout for activity resembling verbal or somatic components of a spell.

Subtle Spell eliminates the verbal and somatic components altogether. So that's very different than trying to hide the casting of a spell. It's also extremely helpful if you are restrained. In any event, it would make detection of spellcasting with Subtle Spell very difficult, and probably nondetectable with passive Perception, and in an opposed check would grant advantage on the Stealth check.

Note that as currently written, you can't interrupt spellcasting, just break concentration on a spell that has been cast.

I personally don't have a problem with "I'll ready my crossbow and fire at anybody who appears to be casting a spell" to allow a character that succeeds in their Perception check when somebody is going to cast a spell to fire their crossbow before the spell is cast. If you allow that, then if your shot is enough to incapacitate the spellcaster, they would fail to cast it. Otherwise your shot might do damage, but won't prevent the casting of the spell (nor break concentration since the damage would be caused before the spell had been cast, thus the concentration has not started yet).

Nor do I have a problem with the guards being suspicious and on the lookout (that is, using active Perception) for potential spell use. Against a group of guards you'd either use help (granting advantage on the Perception check), have them all make their own checks, or use the group check rules where they succeed if more than half the group succeeds. I'd probably go with the second option where they make their own checks so I'd know who made it and who didn't and they could act accordingly.

One example where this might matter is if the guard attempts to restrain somebody he believes is attempting to cast a spell. For example, "I'll ready an action to attempt to grapple anybody who looks like they are casting a spell." In that case I'd say that if the guard successfully detects the spellcasting attempt by making their Perception check they can attempt to grapple the spellcaster. If the grapple check is successful, then the spell is not cast (and the spell slot is not lost either).

If you think this is too powerful, consider that the circumstances required are quite specific (they must be within melee reach to start), the guard is foregoing their action and potential bonus action, and may end up not acting at all if he doesn't detect somebody trying to cast a spell. After all that, they still have to successfully detect the spellcasting action, and then succeed at grappling the spellcaster.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Reynard]

Personally, I see nothing that requires you to speak loudly when casting a spell, allowing it to be whispered.

Checking the Basic rules quickly, you are correct. The only requirement is that you are able to speak. I must have been applying a previous edition rule by accident.

 

[Riley37]

if your shot is enough to incapacitate the spellcaster, they would fail to cast it. Otherwise your shot might do damage, but won't prevent the casting of the spell (nor break concentration since the damage would be caused before the spell had been cast, thus the concentration has not started yet).

Indeed. Analogy: an elf with a readied bow has a Prepared Action to shoot at a dwarf, if the dwarf starts running across a 20' bridge. The dwarf starts running. The elf shoots, automatically. Unless the arrow hits and does so much damage that the dwarf drops, then the dwarf continues running and crosses the bridge. (Assuming that was the dwarf's base move speed, the dwarf also may take action, reaction and bonus action.)

if the guard successfully detects the spellcasting attempt by making their Perception check they can attempt to grapple the spellcaster. If the grapple check is successful, then the spell is not cast (and the spell slot is not lost either).

If I understand 5E Grapple correctly, that might not stop the casting of the spell. Establishing a Grapple is kinda like getting one hand one someone's shoulder, or grabbing them by the front of their shirt. The target isn't going anywhere, can't run away; but the target is not yet Restrained. It takes a follow-up action to Shove or to Restrain, after initially establishing the grapple.

I'd argue that there's some spells one could cast even when fully Restrained. A restrained person can still attack, just with disadvantage. It is common for judo duellists to tap the mat, to surrender. If a judoka decides that they've been successfully pinned, and is ready to call that round a loss; and still has the ability to tap out; then a person might be Restrained, and still be able to perform Somatic and Verbal components. Perhaps with a stat check, at DM discretion?

 

[Riley37]

Actually, I'll go one further: if you Grapple and then Restrain a succubus/incubus, then not only can it try to cast Charm Person on you, or Suggestion, but it might even have the upper hand, so to speak, in the contest of wills.

However, unless it has Subtle Spell, or Sleight of Hand, or Deception, or some such, then you and everyone else observing the event, or at least everyone with sufficient Perception, is aware that it's using spellcasting, spellcasting targeted at you, as well as its, ahem, other enchanting abilities.

 

[Riley37]

Is this a real thing you're talking about or making up a scenario to rail against?

I described the game session in the OP. This happened on Monday, March 16th, 2015, at around 5PM, Pacific Daylight Time, in San Mateo, California. Is that real enough for you?

I prefer direct communication as well, but a player can probably be forgiven for having had DMs train them in the past to do otherwise.

Fair point. The first time it happens, ball's in my court to say either something like "are you sure you wanna do that in front of all those armed guards at the city gate" (which puts focus on PC choices), or perhaps something like "How are you hoping this scene will end?" (which puts more focus on player intent). The second time, I might add a glare or a sigh. The third time, either it's time to call a session break, or to go hardball with "okay, multiple guards shoot you, you drop to the ground with 0 HP, they continue fire until you're perma-dead".

The latter takes under ten seconds for the DM to declare, but it still might be more than another minute of table time before Player #4 gets their mini-introduction-scene of their new PC entering Campaign City.