D&D 5E (2014) Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Spellcasting

[aramis erak]

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.

A lot depends upon the nature of the spell how I interpret the verbal component.

If' it's got a V - I require it be in at least a firm speaking voice. If the spell has "word of" in the name and is targeted, I require it be loud enough that the sound reaches the target audibly.

It it has an S, the somatic component needs be something readily done with a hand and/or wand.

To conceal the component within normal conversation without abrogating the requirement, I generally require an arcana roll, but allow it to be attempted.

 

[pukunui]

People keep referring to Obi-Wan and his use of mind tricks. How about Harry Potter?

In the last film, when they're trying to break into the bank, Harry uses a charm spell on the bank manager. While no one can see him under his invisibility cloak, he can be heard saying the word required to cast the spell, after which a visible cloud swirls around the manager, who inhales it and then becomes all docile and happy ... and yet no one else in the crowded bank seems to notice all this, not even the suspicious guard who was approaching them from behind.

Just thought I'd put that out there.

 

[Riley37]

People keep referring to Obi-Wan and his use of mind tricks. How about Harry Potter?

Thank you for extending the range of examples! Sure, HP might also influence the assumptions of players and DMs, and might be part of either convergent or divergent assumptions.

An example not yet mentioned so far: Luke also uses the Jedi Mind Trick, on Jabba the Hutt's guards and then on Jabba, and it *fails* on Jabba, who recognizes what just happened. I don't see the Jedi Mind Trick as Charm Person, the crude spell one learns at first; I see it as Suggestion, a more powerful, more sophisticated spell, with different rules.

There are lots of movies and novels and so forth, with many conceptions of magic. D&D 5E has room for a lot of them. Each table can have its own range, of what conceptions of magic are included. I don't think (prove me wrong!) that any table can have room a strict Vancian definition, *as the only way magic works*, and also *at the same time* apply the Earthsea model *as the only way magic works*, and also *at the same time* apply the Hogwarts model *as the only way magic works*. I think having all three co-exist, as multiple styles of magic in the same campaign, is possible but might be tricky, especially when a caster of the Potter style uses Counterspell against a caster of the Vance style.

In movies and TV and other on-screen media, there are often things which the *audience* sees, which may or may not also be *visible to others within the story*. I am not clear on whether the SFX in the bank scene indicate "hey, audience, look where the magic is happening!", or are also visible to the guard.

Even if it is, well, that's canon for the Harry Potter TRPG, and it's absolutely not canon at my table, because there's no way that any element from the Potterverse is canon in my version of Forgotten Realms. Especially not jelly beans with the flavor of troll bogies. If a player arrives at my table and assumes that magic in Faerun will be exactly like magic in the HP movies, then it's time for a conversation about that. And if they DM a table, and I arrive as a player at that table, it's also time for a conversation. Or it might be time for me, as a player, to just play along, and come up with a list of questions to ask post-session, depending on circumstances.

 

[pukunui]

An example not yet mentioned so far: Luke also uses the Jedi Mind Trick, on Jabba the Hutt's guards and then on Jabba, and it *fails* on Jabba, who recognizes what just happened. I don't see the Jedi Mind Trick as Charm Person, the crude spell one learns at first; I see it as Suggestion, a more powerful, more sophisticated spell, with different rules.

Yes, I've always equated mind trick with suggestion myself.

In movies and TV and other on-screen media, there are often things which the *audience* sees, which may or may not also be *visible to others within the story*. I am not clear on whether the SFX in the bank scene indicate "hey, audience, look where the magic is happening!", or are also visible to the guard.

Indeed.

I'm not saying that D&D magic should look like using the Force or casting spells like Harry Potter. I was merely offering another example in which a spellcaster casts a spell that is obvious to the audience but not necessarily the people around him.

 

[Skyscraper]

It will make the game better *for you*. And you aren't at my table, are you?

At my table, Thaumaturgy, as an overtly cast spell, has plenty of utility. If that's not true at yours, then... then I'm bewildered at how you got there, but do what works for you.

In my campaign, if Moshe the Cleric says "SHAZAM!" and then the ground trembles for a minute, many NPCs will be awed by the power which Moshe has publicly demonstrated. Those with a level in Cleric, or sufficient Religion or Arcana, will know that Moshe may or may not also have Earthquake prepared. But most normal people won't want to take any chances on what else Moshe's god might do.

If Moshe wants to demonstrate the deity's power, *while hiding Moshe's role as the conduit of that power*, then that's a bit more conditional and complex. It might provoke the deity to ask "Moshe, what's up, are you ashamed to be publicly known as a conduit of My power?" Moshe darn well better have a good answer to that question.

Fair enough, fair enough, alright, alright Cool interpretation about the god's reaction to the cleric's covert use of the spell by the way.

Sidetrack: it's hard to post an opinion on these boards without being admonished, if we do not state that my opinion is only my opinion and should not be interpreted as being the ultimate truth, but only an opinion from one guy stating his opinion

So... I was just stating my opinion That being: charm and thaumaturgy get more time under the spotlight if they can be overtly cast. Cool if you get plenty of fun out of those spells by requiring them to include a clearly identifyable spellcasting component. Your original post appeared to suggest that you found surprising that some people would not consider this to be how it should work, so I was just chiming in that my game got a boost from allowing cover use of spellcasting.

One of way of linking the rules to this interpretation, is that the words or sound spoken by the PC or the gestures made by him to impress others, might be the somatic or verbal components required by those spells.

Anyway, cheers, and happy gaming!

 

[iserith]

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?

Yes. It sounds like a Session Zero issue and that makes sense since you say it is AL play at a game store. Player and DM expectations do not appear to be aligned with regard to how to handle this scene. For whatever reason, the player did not meet your expectations - "as if he just needs to charm that one guard" - and you objected on some level. He did not respect that guard's authoritay.

I wasn't there, but I can imagine myself saying something like, "The guard squints and looks at you, then smiles. 'Oh, greetings! How are you doing, friend? What was your name again?'" and then asked the player if his character is just really cheap and didn't want to play the toll or if he just can't stand authority. I wouldn't even have made a save for the guard because I just don't give a flumph about some guard at a gate and the logical but un-fun consequences that might ensue from that player's choice. After all, it just seems that the goal of that scene was to show a little something about the characters, not to present any kind of real challenge.

How did you respond anyway? I don't recall from your post how you resolved the interaction.

 

[Riley37]

He did not respect that guard's authoritay.

Hah, well put. That particular guard was a mook, a scrub. However, the Order of the Knights of the Black Fist, as a whole, are a big deal in Phlan, and that's a significant element of the later story. Consider Phlan's survival of a Shadowvar attack, versus what happened at Zhentil Keep. The Fists are not to be dismissed out of hand. The main gate into Phlan is WELL guarded.

So I ruled that sure, he's completely bamboozled that one guard. He hadn't said anything about casting *discreetly*, so several of the other guards at the gate objected, readied their crossbows, and told him that casting ANY spell at ANY guard counted as a hostile action. He had two maces, so he offered his spare mace as toll, and they shrugged, accepted the offering, and waved him through the gate into the city. (The guards would RATHER get a handful of gold as toll, but sometimes they just take the path of least resistance.) Scene resolved. Making the point about overt casting cost perhaps a few extra minutes. As you say, it's a Session Zero issue, and I wanted to establish off the bat that at my table, spellcasting defaults to overt. (It is sometimes possible to spellcast covertly, and it's also sometimes possible to stab someone to death in front of Buckingham Palace without anyone noticing what happened... but that's not the default, it takes a bit of effort.)

The PC is a tightwad AND a mendicant priest of a trickster goddess, it's part of his schtick. He has played the same schtick brilliantly in some later scenes, and gained important clues by doing so. If I had annoyed the player so badly that he didn't return, that would have been a real loss to the table.

 

[Riley37]

Cool interpretation about the god's reaction to the cleric's covert use of the spell

Aw, thanks!

Lemme try and meet you partway: if no one EVER dares cast ANY spell covertly, then the story's probably missing some opportunities for awesome. And if no one ever casts Prestidigitation as part of "pulling a fast one", all the more so. Gandalf can create fancy smoke rings; we don't need to see his V S M components, or at least not "on-camera".

On another hand, I am biased against deception EVER being taken for granted, even against characters as minor as Bilbo Baggins or a gate guard. I want deception - whether it's spellcasting, or picking a pocket, or discreetly beheading a guard - to be done only when the reward is worth the risk. There's a scene in the Odyssey, in which Odysseus tries to pull a fast one on someone *who happens to be Athena in disguise*. Suffice to say that Odysseus, when trickery fails, does not then get out of the situation by stabbing Athena.

I am, in real life, a mook, a scrub. I once caught a pickpocket going after my wallet, on a crowded bus in Rome; he already had his hand in my pocket, when I noticed, but I didn't let him remove the wallet. Maybe he was sloppy or having a bad day. Maybe he was only a Level 1 rogue. My point is, even a scrub on a crowded bus CAN sometimes notice, and part of being an awesome trickster, is always being ready to change one's course when the plan goes sideways.