D&D 5E 20th level Sorcerer vs the world

[Hohige]

If it can cast spells, it seems as though it might reasonably figure out when it's under spell attack.

It's just one of the possibilites.
Curse? Hotdog? disease?

 

[Istbor]

It's just one of the possibilites.
Curse? Hotdog?

Fake scenario I made up on the fly?

 

[prabe]

It's just one of the possibilites.
Curse? Hotdog?

And it makes sense to make sure it's not something attacking you. Get up, fan out, and search. Keep searching until you find something or make certain it's nothing. Then figure out if you've done anything to trigger a curse. Double-check your meat to make sure it's not psychic.

If you're actual oni, some portion of the searching might be done from the ethereal.

 

[Zio_the_dark]

If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it's normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.

To complete @Oofta quote from the rule well you're right it's impossible to determine who cast the spell. Nowhere it says that you don't know that you've been the subject of a spell...

But you're right everyone here is dishonest you're the only one who know the truth

 

[prabe]

But you're right everyone here is dishonest you're the only one who know the truth

Anybody want to place a bet on whether the poster will ignore the obvious sarcasm here and claim that @Zio_the_dark has acknowledged the poster's correctness in and mastery of all things?

 

[Hohige]

To complete @Oofta quote from the rule well you're right it's impossible to determine who cast the spell. Nowhere it says that you don't know that you've been the subject of a spell...

But you're right everyone here is dishonest you're the only one who know the truth

"If the need for a spell's components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer's Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it's normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence."

It's subtle spell alone that is really really powerful.
Subtle + Stealthy casting is one of most powerful combinations.
But, Stealth casting is still more powerful.
It's totally imperceptible.
I.M.P.E.R.C.E.P.T.I.B.L.E.


I'm sorry. The Sorcerer stealthy casting is unbeatiable.

Bastion can easily manipulate you without any chance of reaction. That's how it works.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Hohige, if while hidden, a sorcerer casted Dominate Person with Subtle Spell on a target, and the target succeeded on the saving throw, thus negating the effect, would the target realize that they had to make a wisdom saving throw? Or do you believe that the target would remain unaware of the wisdom saving throw?

 

[Zio_the_dark]

If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it's normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.

It's exactly what I said... It's impossible to know who, but nowhere it says you aren't AWARE (to quote JCVD) that you're the subject of a spell.
Oh all powerful Hohige I bow before your bad faith

 

[Hohige]

Hohige, if while hidden, a sorcerer casted Dominate Person with Subtle Spell on a target, and the target succeeded on the saving throw, thus negating the effect, would the target realize that they had to make a wisdom saving throw? Or do you believe that the target would remain unaware of the wisdom saving throw?

Without noticiable effect. It's imperceptible.

I.M.P.E.R.C.E.P.T.I.B.LE.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I would have preferred a simple yes or no, but I gather that is a no, the target does not.