D&D 5E Stealthy Spellcasting in 5e

[Psikerlord#]

Arcana could still work, as it would be a case of "how low can I make these sounds and still resonate with the flame of acheron?"

yeah i see it as similar to throwing a sword - you're not supposed to do it that way, but with a bit of luck it just might work.

 

[Aimian_Silverflash]

First off, I'd like to be clear here: I'm not talking about casting a fireball on someone from stealth without them knowing where the spell came from, or blasting someone with phantasmal killer in a crowded bar without the recipient having any clue who is blasting them. That would clearly be overpowered. Those scenarios involve initiative rolls, and all the rules for combat. And the moment we start talking about initiative rolls, I would indeed be talking about needing to be a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell.

What I'm talking about here is casting an innocuous spell, out of combat, such that people around you don't clearly notice that you're casting a spell. "These aren't the droids you're looking for..." says Obiwan, with a subtle wave of his hand. That sort of thing.

I adamantly disagree with anyone that states this is an ability exclusively for sorcerers with subtle spell. Sorcerers will for sure be the absolute best at it, and a sorcerer doing using subtle spell shouldn't even need to make a roll, IMHO. But that's like saying I can't go swimming in a lake because there's a guy out there riding a jetski. They are similar, but they are most definitely mutually exclusive. Plus, not only is this absolutely no fun, it's unrealistic.

As long as a GM is careful, I don't think it's something that takes away from Sorcerers either. And that's exactly the sort of judgment call I was looking for here, basically I'm asking what would other GMs let their players get away with here. And I definitely got some good guidance. Thanks.

After Reading all the comments, I'm of the opinion of letting them try it with a stealth/slight of hand/deception check, depending on what they are trying to do. But like any skill check, it's my job as a DM to adjust the degree of difficulty, depending on the conditions.

If it's a loud, crowded tavern? Chances are nobody is going to notice you casting a Friends cantrip on the bartender, with a slight of hand roll vs. passive perception.

But if you're trying to cast Charm Person on the Lieutenant of the city gates while 6 other soldiers have crossbows trained on your party, you're talking about a stealth roll with disadvantage vs. active perception rolls for all 6 soldiers, and probably initiative rolls if it's failed.

I rarely flat out say "NO!" to players trying to be creative. That's no way to run a game people! It's a lot better to give them a minimal chance at success, and let them make the choice of if they want to risk it. -Plus it makes the game a lot more fun when they try those sorts of things and fail.

 

[Fanaelialae]

First off, I'd like to be clear here: I'm not talking about casting a fireball on someone from stealth without them knowing where the spell came from, or blasting someone with phantasmal killer in a crowded bar without the recipient having any clue who is blasting them. That would clearly be overpowered. Those scenarios involve initiative rolls, and all the rules for combat. And the moment we start talking about initiative rolls, I would indeed be talking about needing to be a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell.

What I'm talking about here is casting an innocuous spell, out of combat, such that people around you don't clearly notice that you're casting a spell. "These aren't the droids you're looking for..." says Obiwan, with a subtle wave of his hand. That sort of thing.

I adamantly disagree with anyone that states this is an ability exclusively for sorcerers with subtle spell. Sorcerers will for sure be the absolute best at it, and a sorcerer doing using subtle spell shouldn't even need to make a roll, IMHO. But that's like saying I can't go swimming in a lake because there's a guy out there riding a jetski. They are similar, but they are most definitely mutually exclusive. Plus, not only is this absolutely no fun, it's unrealistic.

As long as a GM is careful, I don't think it's something that takes away from Sorcerers either. And that's exactly the sort of judgment call I was looking for here, basically I'm asking what would other GMs let their players get away with here. And I definitely got some good guidance. Thanks.

After Reading all the comments, I'm of the opinion of letting them try it with a stealth/slight of hand/deception check, depending on what they are trying to do. But like any skill check, it's my job as a DM to adjust the degree of difficulty, depending on the conditions.

If it's a loud, crowded tavern? Chances are nobody is going to notice you casting a Friends cantrip on the bartender, with a slight of hand roll vs. passive perception.

But if you're trying to cast Charm Person on the Lieutenant of the city gates while 6 other soldiers have crossbows trained on your party, you're talking about a stealth roll with disadvantage vs. active perception rolls for all 6 soldiers, and probably initiative rolls if it's failed.

I rarely flat out say "NO!" to players trying to be creative. That's no way to run a game people! It's a lot better to give them a minimal chance at success, and let them make the choice of if they want to risk it. -Plus it makes the game a lot more fun when they try those sorts of things and fail.

The Force is pretty different from most D&D magic, aside from a subtle spell. I'd say it's much more similar to psionics (not counting 3rd edition psionics, which had manifestations IIRC).

The way I see it, casting a spell is somewhat equivalent to drawing a greatsword (only louder, if there are vocal components). If there's a chance that a PC could draw their greatsword unnoticed, there's a similar chance that they could cast a somatic-only spell unnoticed.

As such, under normal circumstances, there's no chance that the PCs can pull it off while 6 guardsmen have crossbows trained on them. That's under normal circumstances, of course, and here's where player creativity plays its role. If the players can think of a way to distract the guards so that they're no longer focused on the wizard / fighter-with-a-greatsword, now there is a chance, and that player can make an appropriate check. Perhaps the bard begins a loud and energetic performance to draw the guards' attention away from his companions. Assuming that the guards don't immediately shoot him, his companions now have a chance at succeeding with their not-so-stealthful stealth checks.

I understand the "Yes, but..." and "Yes, and..." approaches to DMing, and I think they bring a lot to the table. But I nonetheless believe that there are times that the PCs want to do something so outrageous that you just have to say No. Like trying to stealth-draw your greatsword (or cast a spell) while people are directly observing you.

I think there are benefits to saying No to things like this. If you let the Wizard (or Fighter) make their check, they pass/fail and you move on. On the other hand, if the rest of the party gets involved in distracting onlookers, suddenly you have the makings of an interesting scenario where everyone is involved. The wizard may be able to bend time and space to his will, but if he wants to do it without being noticed he needs the rest of the party to help him out. That gets them involved in the "using magic to solve the party's problems" scenes too. Which, IMO, is a good thing.

I'm not saying that this is the one true way or anything like that. Do what works for your group. Just something to consider.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I'd agree that subtle spell would be the only way to hide spellcasting from anyone who is paying attention to you. I'd allow a check to hide it if you have some sort of cover, concealment or a distraction aiding you.

Then the game becomes manipulating the circumstances to hide your spellcasting--with distractions, getting your target alone, or whatever else you can think of. It's also a great opportunity for the party to work together rather than the caster pressing the win button.

I like spellcasting to be OBVIOUS. It sets it apart from reality and makes it more...magical. Magic likes to flaunt its power over the mundane world with bold, grandiose displays and for a caster to tap into such power they must be equal bold and grandiose. No mousy "uhh...a fireball if you please" and "I suppose a charm person spell if it's all right with you, powers of Creation, thank you so very much" for me.

 

[Queer Venger]

IF you really want it, make an Ability or Skill check and let it happen. BUT. It's a potentially problematic ruling. It steals some of that niche from your sneaky types. It makes magic users more powerful.

Classes have niches where that class shines in particular moments. I personally wouldn't allow a Wizard or Sorcerer to pull off a stealth casting. Maybe the Arcane Trickster Rogue archetype (or whatever it's called...). The Wizard is going to have to come up with a creative way to mask the casting or cast it elsewhere. It's part of the price of magic and also forces the that player to be creative. Perhaps the Rogue could offer some advice or assistance in this nefarious plot?

As a DM this would be my reasoning. Spellcasters, wizards in particular, are not sneaky classes. They are grand, powerful, often noticeable (robes, staffs, amulets and spell component pouches scream "WIZARD"). 5e offers Arcane Trickster as an option, but casting a spell should get your noticed unless its a material component spell only.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

First off, I'd like to be clear here: I'm not talking about casting a fireball on someone from stealth without them knowing where the spell came from, or blasting someone with phantasmal killer in a crowded bar without the recipient having any clue who is blasting them. That would clearly be overpowered. Those scenarios involve initiative rolls, and all the rules for combat. And the moment we start talking about initiative rolls, I would indeed be talking about needing to be a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell.

What I'm talking about here is casting an innocuous spell, out of combat, such that people around you don't clearly notice that you're casting a spell. "These aren't the droids you're looking for..." says Obiwan, with a subtle wave of his hand. That sort of thing.

I adamantly disagree with anyone that states this is an ability exclusively for sorcerers with subtle spell. Sorcerers will for sure be the absolute best at it, and a sorcerer doing using subtle spell shouldn't even need to make a roll, IMHO. But that's like saying I can't go swimming in a lake because there's a guy out there riding a jetski. They are similar, but they are most definitely mutually exclusive. Plus, not only is this absolutely no fun, it's unrealistic.

As long as a GM is careful, I don't think it's something that takes away from Sorcerers either. And that's exactly the sort of judgment call I was looking for here, basically I'm asking what would other GMs let their players get away with here. And I definitely got some good guidance. Thanks.

After Reading all the comments, I'm of the opinion of letting them try it with a stealth/slight of hand/deception check, depending on what they are trying to do. But like any skill check, it's my job as a DM to adjust the degree of difficulty, depending on the conditions.

If it's a loud, crowded tavern? Chances are nobody is going to notice you casting a Friends cantrip on the bartender, with a slight of hand roll vs. passive perception.

But if you're trying to cast Charm Person on the Lieutenant of the city gates while 6 other soldiers have crossbows trained on your party, you're talking about a stealth roll with disadvantage vs. active perception rolls for all 6 soldiers, and probably initiative rolls if it's failed.

I rarely flat out say "NO!" to players trying to be creative. That's no way to run a game people! It's a lot better to give them a minimal chance at success, and let them make the choice of if they want to risk it. -Plus it makes the game a lot more fun when they try those sorts of things and fail.

Friends lacks a somatic component, and it's material component is just dabbing on a bit of makeup. So it appears designed to be cast without drawing notice.

Though if you want it to work as apparently intended, you may want to ditch the part about the target automatically becoming hostile, and replace it with the "after this spell expires, the target is immune to that spell cast by you for 24 hours," line that a lot of monster abilities use.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Had this come up for the Message spell.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Specifically the player assumed that the Verbal and Somatic components of Message were "You point your finger toward a creature within range and whisper a message. " mentioned in the spell's text.

You point your finger toward a creature within range and whisper a message. The target (and only the target) hears the message and can reply in a whisper that only you can hear.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It occurs to me that part of this issue involves interaction with D&D's general conception of spellcasting. D&D has traditionally taken a rather scientific approach to spellcasting. It's more or less a technology. You push the right buttons and gears on the cosmic machine and get the prescribed results. From that perspective, it makes sense that the vocalizations and motions don't bear a resemblance to normal words and gestures. You aren't communicating, you are pushing cosmic buttons.

If you take the approach that more accurately mimics real world occult practices, the magical words are generally going to be real phrases in whatever language you happen to be speaking, and any physical motions are going to represent or symbolize things in the world, and hence also be a form of understandable communication.

So D&D seems to be taking the scientific approach, but then assuming that certain spells use the symbolic approach instead, without clearly telling us when they shift paradigms. Hence the issue.

 

[Aimian_Silverflash]

It occurs to me that part of this issue involves interaction with D&D's general conception of spellcasting. D&D has traditionally taken a rather scientific approach to spellcasting. It's more or less a technology. You push the right buttons and gears on the cosmic machine and get the prescribed results. From that perspective, it makes sense that the vocalizations and motions don't bear a resemblance to normal words and gestures. You aren't communicating, you are pushing cosmic buttons.

If you take the approach that more accurately mimics real world occult practices, the magical words are generally going to be real phrases in whatever language you happen to be speaking, and any physical motions are going to represent or symbolize things in the world, and hence also be a form of understandable communication.

So D&D seems to be taking the scientific approach, but then assuming that certain spells use the symbolic approach instead, without clearly telling us when they shift paradigms. Hence the issue.

As Hermione liked to say, "It's LeviOsa, Not LevioSA!"

But yeah, I get what you're saying. I think I'm going to submit this question to one of the developer blogs for clarification.