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

[aramis erak]

What about the people who are bored because they've already been in this exact situation hundreds of times and really don't derive pleasure from playing the scene out anymore? Is that also badwrongfun?

For that matter, if the group doesn't like any RP at all, how is bypassing it badwrongfun?

Why is more fun badwrongfun?

Every game designer makes assumptions about what is and is not fun, and codes them into the design†. If you're not on board with the game's presumed fun, you're going to find a bunch of things either superfluous, broken, or missing.

Badwrongfun is pretty much any play which is outside the designer's intent. And the design intent explicitly is all 3 pillars.

There really isn't much wrong with it if everyone in the groupis on board for it, and aren't preaching their way as the one true way.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Where are they getting it from? Probably a reading of the rules. V components just require you to be able to speak, and say nothing about bellowing things at the top of your lungs. S components require you to have a single free hand, not a square meter of personal space.

In short - the rules say you can wiggle your fingers in your pocket and whisper something to make a spell go. Any assumptions beyond that are effectively house rules, so you shouldn't be surprised that your players don't know them if you don't discuss them.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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?

As far as the grappling, we've tweaked the grappling rules quite a bit, but as written all they do is drop your speed to 0. So as written you would have to incapacitate the spellcaster with your readied attack in order to prevent the spell from being cast.

Yes, any spell with only a verbal component could be cast when restrained. For somatic components I'd probably argue not. Part of the discussion we've had, and why we've landed where we have, is: "how could you capture or imprison a spellcaster?" Traditionally it involves binding their hands and gagging them. Burning hands, since it has a specific description, is a good example. It doesn't specify that it's the only somatic component, and even when shackled you could probably put your thumbs together and spread your fingers as described (and pictured). But based on the restrained rule, it would not be possible.

So if you can't cast a spell when bound, then I think you need a little more freedom of movement to cast it. This would apply to being restrained as well in my mind. Note that according to how the rules are written (and clarified recently online), you only need ONE hand free. Which goes directly against the burning hands description.

In the end, for simplicity we've gone with Restrained=no spells with somatic components.

Grappling on the other hand, that's a good question. I was thinking more in terms that the guard would either grab their arms or tackle them. Assuming you wanted to somebody a chance to stop the spellcasting, then if they were grappled they would at least need to make a check to cast the spell. I would suggest either a saving throw (Dex, probably) or a Concentration check. If the spell has an attack roll it could be at disadvantage. Otherwise, at this point it requires incapacitation to prevent the spell from being cast.

The situation hasn't come up, and I'm OK with either option myself.

Ilbranteloth

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As far as the grappling, we've tweaked the grappling rules quite a bit, but as written all they do is drop your speed to 0. So as written you would have to incapacitate the spellcaster with your readied attack in order to prevent the spell from being cast.

Well, that's one option. And it's the only one with written rules. However, the game explicitly allows and encourages other kinds of actions beyond the basic attack/dodge/dash spectrum, so if an (N)PC wants to grab the mage's hands to prevent somatic components, or stick a dagger in their mouth to prevent verbal components... it's not illegal, but it's not guaranteed to succeed either, so the DM will need to make something up appropriately.

TLDR; that's not necessarily the only option.

 

[travathian]

This recent thread may be of interest:

Stealthy Spellcasting in 5E

^^^^^^

Very good discussion there and I think everyone should give it a read. Could probably just bump that thread since this one has so many tangents taking up valuable posts.

I find myself in the camp of "it depends on the spell." Enchantment type spells, if they require my character to wave their arms and chant obviously, well, I wouldn't have any of those spells in my repertoire. They'd have such limited usefulness that I wouldn't see the point of taking them over any number of other spells. Especially given that many of them already have a built in negative aspect of the target knowing they were ensorceled. Arcana, Deception, Stealth, Sleight of Hand, etc all seem like reasonable ability checks for a spellcaster to use in order to be subtle with spells of a subtle nature.

That said, I would give other spell casters, especially ones of the same class, a bonus on the opposed check.

Lastly, I dont feel any of this steals the thunder from the Sorceror.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In short - the rules say you can wiggle your fingers in your pocket and whisper something to make a spell go. Any assumptions beyond that are effectively house rules, so you shouldn't be surprised that your players don't know them if you don't discuss them.

Interpretations aren't house rules. A house rule is when you change something because you don't like it. An interpretation is when something is vague, so that you're not sure what the rule actually is.

Fifth edition leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What about the people who are bored because they've already been in this exact situation hundreds of times and really don't derive pleasure from playing the scene out anymore? Is that also badwrongfun?

You have never been in this exact situation before. You've been in similar situations, but those were with different characters. The differences are what makes it interesting.

Just like you can fight goblins, and you can fight a million goblins, but the interesting things are in your character and the specifics of the situation and nothing inherent to goblins at all.

 

[Riley37]

You have never been in this exact situation before. You've been in similar situations, but those were with different characters. The differences are what makes it interesting.

On one hand, this is an excellent point. On another hand... some players, alas, may have had the unpleasant experience, of a DM laying out a scene which points towards carbon-copy replay of some scenario which no longer holds their interest. Since that's a thing which can happen, let's stay open to how people feel about it, and what they want to do about it.

If someone wants "stab your way out of RP" as the canonical answer, then that's not my kind of solution, but YMMV. I'd love to see better solutions emerge from discussion. Perhaps a few better solutions already have!

 

[Riley37]

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

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.

 

[Riley37]

Well, that's one option. And it's the only one with written rules. However, the game explicitly allows and encourages other kinds of actions beyond the basic attack/dodge/dash spectrum, so if an (N)PC wants to grab the mage's hands to prevent somatic components, or stick a dagger in their mouth to prevent verbal components... it's not illegal, but it's not guaranteed to succeed either, so the DM will need to make something up appropriately.

TLDR; that's not necessarily the only option.

The Grapple option has written rules, and because of what those rules say, it's not an effective way to interrupt spellcasting. If, however, a guard, or a PC, or a PC Guard, declares that they're using their Action on "Interrupt Spellcasting", then that has a MUCH higher chance of working, at least at my table.

The rules for the "Interrupt Spellcasting" action appear on page 317 of my copy of the PHB, which is where I create additional rules, whenever people do anything not covered in the previous 316 pages.

FWIW, at my table, having "Hold Person" prepared as a readied action, is a GREAT way to interrupt spellcasting. Or pretty much any other way of imposing the Incapacitated condition.