Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6572379" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Like so many things, I think the answer is yes, they can attempt it. As has been pointed out, a great many spells are far less useful if you can't attempt to hide that you're casting them. But I think that's all that's needed - you attempt to hide the casting of the spell.I'd just go with a simple stealth vs perception (passive or active as appropriate to the circumstance). In the case of a group of guards that are suspicious of the group approaching, the circumstances may warrant them having advantage on their perception. Your companion is creating a distraction? Then you get advantage on your stealth check. Deception vs Perception would be appropriate too.I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that even whispering the verbal components wouldn't be enough. But intelligent creatures living in a world where magic exists, particularly those that are suspicious under the circumstances, would be on the lookout for activity resembling verbal or somatic components of a spell.Subtle Spell eliminates the verbal and somatic components altogether. So that's very different than trying to hide the casting of a spell. It's also extremely helpful if you are restrained. In any event, it would make detection of spellcasting with Subtle Spell very difficult, and probably nondetectable with passive Perception, and in an opposed check would grant advantage on the Stealth check.Note that as currently written, you can't interrupt spellcasting, just break concentration on a spell that has been cast.I personally don't have a problem with "I'll ready my crossbow and fire at anybody who appears to be casting a spell" to allow a character that succeeds in their Perception check when somebody is going to cast a spell to fire their crossbow before the spell is cast. If you allow that, then if your shot is enough to incapacitate the spellcaster, they would fail to cast it. Otherwise your shot might do damage, but won't prevent the casting of the spell (nor break concentration since the damage would be caused before the spell had been cast, thus the concentration has not started yet).Nor do I have a problem with the guards being suspicious and on the lookout (that is, using active Perception) for potential spell use. Against a group of guards you'd either use help (granting advantage on the Perception check), have them all make their own checks, or use the group check rules where they succeed if more than half the group succeeds. I'd probably go with the second option where they make their own checks so I'd know who made it and who didn't and they could act accordingly.One example where this might matter is if the guard attempts to restrain somebody he believes is attempting to cast a spell. For example, "I'll ready an action to attempt to grapple anybody who looks like they are casting a spell." In that case I'd say that if the guard successfully detects the spellcasting attempt by making their Perception check they can attempt to grapple the spellcaster. If the grapple check is successful, then the spell is not cast (and the spell slot is not lost either).If you think this is too powerful, consider that the circumstances required are quite specific (they must be within melee reach to start), the guard is foregoing their action and potential bonus action, and may end up not acting at all if he doesn't detect somebody trying to cast a spell. After all that, they still have to successfully detect the spellcasting action, and then succeed at grappling the spellcaster. Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification