D&D 5E (2014) Deceptive Spellcasting

[doctorbadwolf]

It's bad acting, if I'm the one doing it. I'm a big fan of "sawing the air too much." Definitely a big air-sawer-er here

I prefer the scenery chewing school, but I respect your time honored traditions!

anyway, I think it's a huge gap between "magic tea party" and using skills to cast quietly, or using circumstance to gain extra damage, or most forms of improvisation at the table. Improv is a good thing.

 

[Gonat]

At my table subtle spellcasting is rare (except metamagic), but not impossible. Like someone said before the situation must be favorable if a caster want to try something (the standard answer is "no, you can not try" if he don't give me a good explanation).
As a setting-specific rule the verbal component is not a fixed magic frase. Probably two mage casting the same spell will use different words if they are not from the same culture, school or students of the same teacher. But most important the voice of the caster resonate of magic, like an unnatural reverberation of the voice.
This started for scenic motives. It seemed cool for someone casting Command or Suggestion to shout his commands with a reverbering voice of power instead of going "abracadabra ... now do as I say". So.. the verbal component of this kind of spell is only the command frase (with the spelly voice).
But some spells like Message are (HIMO) unfairly mistreated by the basic rule. For me is clearly a primarily subtle spell.. but the three components relegate it to a really limited situational use. So... In my game you simply whisper the message with a magic-modified voice and the somatic component is the pointing.
Same reasoning for almost any spell.

 

[Cyan Wisp]

I think it would be food for thought to have enchantments and illusions be a bit more subtle in their components. These are sometimes face-to-face but trying-to-keep-the-peace spells.

Imagine an enchanter speaking honeyed words like "We are all friends here. There will be no need for your weapons" coupled with some subtle movements (think: Obi Wan vs stormtroopers). The magic is from force of will entwined in the more natural sounding words.

An illusionist says, "Yes, you could pass this way, though the door here is ensorcelled with deadly magic. Behold the bones!" as she sweeps her hand intricately in the direction of the door (cue: magical glimmers on the door, crackling sounds and a pile of bones in front)

As for other schools of magic, it seems right to have dramatic chanting and gesticulation.

 

[jgsugden]

What do you do when a character wants to cast a spell? Is it a skill check?

What if they want to add damage to their attack by describing how they attack harder than usual?

Isn't it more fun to do so? Isn't that roleplaying?

Why would spell casting be a spell check? I sometimes ask a character to do an arcana check to use a spell in a creative or specific way... but I don't follow your point, here.

And, yes, I do sometimes allow PCs to do extra damage when they have a fun way to attack in mind. For example, when a paladin lept off a building and slashed the BBEG on his way to the ground, I upped the damage by half the paladin's falling damage taken.

The thing is, there needs to be rules. Saying that no, you can't just whisper the verbal components this time, isn't any different than saying, no you can't just fly because you are flapping your arms. And saying no isn't to take away anyone's fun, it is because the rest of the players have all agreed to play a game with rules rather than magical tea party. If a player wants to play magical tea party they should have said so before play begins.

You'll note that I started my post by specifically pointing out the rules that are in the books (and Twitter) and how they've been addressed by Crawford. Everything I suggest is within the rules as clarified by Crawford. We're not making up rules here - we're interpreting them in the way that results in the most fun.

D&D is not an exact science. The rules are not so specific that there is always a single right way to address a situation under the rules. When you have multiple options under the rules, the DMs job is to pick the path forward that results in the best game for the players. That is usually the option that is the most fun.

 

[Shiroiken]

The thing is, there needs to be rules. Saying that no, you can't just whisper the verbal components this time, isn't any different than saying, no you can't just fly because you are flapping your arms. And saying no isn't to take away anyone's fun, it is because the rest of the players have all agreed to play a game with rules rather than magical tea party. If a player wants to play magical tea party they should have said so before play begins.

It depends on the group. The rules are made to be bent (and sometimes broken), as it says to do so in the DMG. While you may say NO, others will say YES, but most are somewhere in between. I've not yet had it come up, but might (under certain conditions) allow a check to cast a spell without being obvious about it. Conversely, I'm not going to allow players to believe that they can always do it either.

 

[not-so-newguy]

Although I think the default for casters is non-deceptive spellcasting, I would be interested in seeing variations on this point. The reason is that I'd like to run a Lankhmar sandbox one day and magic seems to function slightly different in Nehwon. Then again, perhaps not. The classes seem to cover some of the tropes pretty well (arcane trickster, Warlock, and sorcerer). I'm still learning about the setting at this point, so I can't comment much beyond this.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

One of the fundamental axioms of my campaign world is "magic is obvious".

It might not be in your world, of course. Being able to hide spellcasting does lead to an interesting worldbuilding idea of persecution of mages. If someone can cast a curse or charm on you without you noticing, then anyone who looks or acts remotely mage-like might get jailed or exiled or killed "just in case".

For example, prohibitions against blood magery (and magery in general) in Thedas (The Dragon Age setting).

 

[Saeviomagy]

By the book nothing stops you casting subtly.

The verbal component of spellcasting requires chanting, and a specific pitch and resonance, neither of which encompass volume. You can't whisper, because that's definitely a difference in pitch and resonance, but you can talk quietly enough that someone standing nearby can't hear you.

And for all that somatic components say they might be forceful gesticulation or intricate gestures, they only require free use of a single hand. Which means you could literally do them with that one hand tied behind your back.

And if a spell requires a material component or a focus, then you can cast it with one hand tied behind your back holding a 4lb staff in that hand.

The rules don't stop stealthy spellcasting, and there's at least one spell that makes zero sense if it's impossible (message), plus others whose fiction doesn't really work.

But I think mostly it shuts off possibilities for teamwork. If the team spellcasters can't cast spells any time they are in a city because they have to bellow them at the top of their voice and do full body breakdancing, that makes clever plans more difficult and dropping back to murder-hoboism more likely.

If your scenario is defeated by one spellcaster's loadout, while the party fighter has nothing at all he could possibly contribute, then I think there are deeper issues than whether spellcasting is concealable.

The argument that subtle spell is somehow a sorceror's raison d'etre is ridiculous. Apart from letting you cast while bound, gagged, drowning, silenced, and allowing you perfect stealth on your spellcasting without needing to roll, it also is a 100% protection against counterspelling. That's pretty good for 25% of one class ability.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Personally I am against concealed/deceptive spellcasting. I believe it was intended that spellcasting be obvious, though circumstance may make it less obvious or go unoticed ( a crowd cheering, smoky conditions, and whatnot ). However I agree that by the rules there isn't anything stopping it, and a successful performance or sleight of hand check could cover it, opposed by passive perception usually I guess.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

By the book nothing stops you casting subtly.

The verbal component of spellcasting requires chanting, and a specific pitch and resonance, neither of which encompass volume. You can't whisper, because that's definitely a difference in pitch and resonance, but you can talk quietly enough that someone standing nearby can't hear you.

And for all that somatic components say they might be forceful gesticulation or intricate gestures, they only require free use of a single hand. Which means you could literally do them with that one hand tied behind your back.

And if a spell requires a material component or a focus, then you can cast it with one hand tied behind your back holding a 4lb staff in that hand.

The rules don't stop stealthy spellcasting, and there's at least one spell that makes zero sense if it's impossible (message), plus others whose fiction doesn't really work.

But I think mostly it shuts off possibilities for teamwork. If the team spellcasters can't cast spells any time they are in a city because they have to bellow them at the top of their voice and do full body breakdancing, that makes clever plans more difficult and dropping back to murder-hoboism more likely.

If your scenario is defeated by one spellcaster's loadout, while the party fighter has nothing at all he could possibly contribute, then I think there are deeper issues than whether spellcasting is concealable.

The argument that subtle spell is somehow a sorceror's raison d'etre is ridiculous. Apart from letting you cast while bound, gagged, drowning, silenced, and allowing you perfect stealth on your spellcasting without needing to roll, it also is a 100% protection against counterspelling. That's pretty good for 25% of one class ability.

Agreed on all points.

I've also allowed casting with no components, or reduced components, if the mate has plenty of time to cast. They draw up their will, precisely inscribe sigils upon the ground, ground and refresh their mystical energies, and thereby need no components. At my table, components are Dresden style. They are there to help you concentrate, and focus your will while harnesses the requisite forces. They aren't actually required for the spell to happen.