I'm hoping/expecting that there will be varied opinions on this subject. On another thread Inquisitive Coder said, "There's no rules for what the somatic components for a spell actually are, or even whether every spellcasting class or monster makes the same gestures."
Assuming this is the case (and I have no reason not to, barring spell descriptions that may call out specific gestures and what not), I was curious what freedom a player has when interpreting what form the verbal and somatic components "look" like when viewed by others. Let me give an example of what I have in mind.
Lets take the Silent Image spell. I know it has a material component as well, but that's easily dealt with. So, my Wizard/Illusionist is a performer, and is on stage ready to put on a show. let's assume for a moment that he has a bit of fleece already tucked between his fingers so we don't get bogged down by the Material component aspect. Now, if I'm doing a show I don't exactly want to stand on a stage and blatantly make some gestures whilst speaking arcane gibberish, as then the crowd would know what I'm up to (if they chose to think about it). Could the Verbal component be mundane speech, and the Somatic component be ann everyday gesture, both acting as a conduit for what the spell wants? I.E. I look at the crowd and say, "Imagine you're sitting on a throne," and I make a sweeping, pointing gesture with my hand, indicating an empty spot on the stage (V, S components fulfilled) where an ornate throne suddenly appears. Could that work? Or does this make it too easy to get away with spellcasting in full view of spectators.
The same question/argument could be made for any number of spells. I provided the above example because it's a situation (1 of many) in which the caster would want to be inconspicuous with his casting. Thoughts?
Could the Verbal component be mundane speech, and the Somatic component be ann everyday gesture, both acting as a conduit for what the spell wants?
Verbal components are mystic words, as specified in the spellcasting rules.
I.E. I look at the crowd and say, "Imagine you're sitting on a throne," and I make a sweeping, pointing gesture with my hand, indicating an empty spot on the stage (V, S components fulfilled) where an ornate throne suddenly appears. Could that work? Or does this make it too easy to get away with spellcasting in full view of spectators.
Yes, that's the problem with it. Spellcasting is an incredibly potent ability for any creature to have, and the ability to cast spells without being noticed is even more potent. How would you feel as a player if someone cast Power Word Kill without any chance of you recognizing it's happening?
The same question/argument could be made for any number of spells. I provided the above example because it's a situation (1 of many) in which the caster would want to be inconspicuous with his casting. Thoughts?
If this is really important to the player, they should consider taking 3 levels in Sorcerer for Subtle Spell metamagic.
It's much more harmless to let players reskin the look and feel of spells (in fact, Curse of Strahd does this) than to let them circumvent the spellcasting rules.
As much as I love the idea you presented with the Bard on stage I'm leaning more toward InquisitiveCoder's point of view. However, I am a bit more lenient on it in so far as the words and gestures may change slightly due to the line. I look at it in the same light as martial arts, you can find 800 different styles of Tae Kwon Do, they range drastically in similarity. In my town there were two dojangs, the Katas that were performed in one school were completely different than the ones in the other. However, the kicks were all the same, even though half of them went by different names. The core of Tae Kwon Do was present in each, but how they represented it was quite different.
So, while the verbal and somatic components may vary slightly, the emphasis on a word is slightly different or the hands are held in a slightly different position, there is going to be a core similarity in every person.
Fair enough. So in theory, at such a time as I tell the audience, "Imagine you're sitting on a throne," I could turn my back to them, flourish my hand in some arcane fashion, and mutter, "procidat deceptionem" under my breath (Google translate provides that as the latin translation for Illusion. I was feeling Harry Potterish). *wham* my illusion appears, though my actions are slightly less inconspicuous than desired. Would this function properly within the parameters of spellcasting?
Also, out of curiousity, how do you DM's adjudicate spellcasters trying to be less obvious in their spellcasting? Is it a Sleigh of Hand check vs Passive Perception check?
I would work with that example exactly as you've presented it, you tie the arcane language and gestures into your (performance). I would allow Deception over Performance depending on how you intended on slipping the spell into your act. If you were trying to hide it completely from the crowd, then we'd have sleight of hand/deception. If you were trying to make it feel like all of those antics were part of the show, then performance. However, depending on the audience, there may be some arcane users who see through the ruse much easier (advantage).
Could the Verbal component be mundane speech, and the Somatic component be ann everyday gesture, both acting as a conduit for what the spell wants?
Verbal components are mystic words, as specified in the spellcasting rules.
I.E. I look at the crowd and say, "Imagine you're sitting on a throne," and I make a sweeping, pointing gesture with my hand, indicating an empty spot on the stage (V, S components fulfilled) where an ornate throne suddenly appears. Could that work? Or does this make it too easy to get away with spellcasting in full view of spectators.
Yes, that's the problem with it. Spellcasting is an incredibly potent ability for any creature to have, and the ability to cast spells without being noticed is even more potent. How would you feel as a player if someone cast Power Word Kill without any chance of you recognizing it's happening?
The same question/argument could be made for any number of spells. I provided the above example because it's a situation (1 of many) in which the caster would want to be inconspicuous with his casting. Thoughts?
If this is really important to the player, they should consider taking 3 levels in Sorcerer for Subtle Spell metamagic.
It's much more harmless to let players reskin the look and feel of spells (in fact, Curse of Strahd does this) than to let them circumvent the spellcasting rules.
I'm going to have to 100% disagree on this one.
1) Here's the whole thing on verbal components, with the important bits (from my perspective) bolded. Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component.
So it's not about the words, clearly. It's about the sounds, the pitch, and the resonance. As the whole "laurel" vs "Yanny" thing shows, it's entirely possible to hide one sound within another, and have one person hear one thing while another hears something else. Wordsmiths and covert agents alike regularly hide one message within another, seemingly more innocuous one. I'm not saying the specific example provided, "imagine you're sitting on a throne" works. I'm saying the conclusion you draw from the words "most spells require the chanting of mystic words" exceeds the meaning of that phrase, especially when taken into context. Just because it says it is the chanting of mystic words, does not mean it could not be done covertly, or woven into a greater performance.
2) I understand what you're saying with the ability to do it without being noticed. However something being powerful doesn't make it unfair. If a court advisor is attempting to slip an ingested poison into the drink of the king, the fact that them doing so would make it so the players wouldn't be able to recognize it's happening doesn't prevent them from making that sleight of hand check, and honestly I don't see spellcasting as incomparable. Also, who said "without any chance"? If you're allowing a sleight of hand check to make somatic gestures appear more innocuous than they are, and / or a performance check to weave the verbal components into other speech or song, would it not be fair to assume you would also allow a perception check, or insight check, or even arcana check to detect the importance of the sounds and / or gestures they are making?
3) Again I think you're misrepresenting the spellcasting rules. I 100% agree, it can't be "normal" words or gestures, it's specific words (or more accurately, sounds with specific pitch and resonance) and specific gestures which key it up. That's not the same as saying it has to be obvious to everyone what's happening. I think it would be a much more fair and accurate characterization of the rules to say that 'the rules do not grant you the specific ability to obfuscate your spellcasting in any way, but nor do the rules as written preclude those efforts from being made'. It entirely depends on your DM's interpretation of how involved those words and or gestures are (keep in mind though they can be accurately made in combat, within 6 seconds, while moving 30' and dodging multiple attacks headed in your direction), and how recognizable those words or gestures are to the average person in a non-combat situation.
I think it's certainly fair to say this one is a fine candidate for "ask your DM". I certainly wouldn't assume you can do it. Yet just like the rules do not specifically spell out your ability to take out a concealed weapon and covertly stab someone (sneak attack assassination with a poisoned weapon) while walking through a crowd and then melt into the dispersing crowd after the fact, that doesn't mean it's wrong to want to try, or that it would somehow break the game if the DM allowed it. Nothing in the rules says it *can't* be done.
Fair enough. So in theory, at such a time as I tell the audience, "Imagine you're sitting on a throne," I could turn my back to them, flourish my hand in some arcane fashion, and mutter, "procidat deceptionem" under my breath (Google translate provides that as the latin translation for Illusion. I was feeling Harry Potterish). *wham* my illusion appears, though my actions are slightly less inconspicuous than desired. Would this function properly within the parameters of spellcasting?
Also, out of curiousity, how do you DM's adjudicate spellcasters trying to be less obvious in their spellcasting? Is it a Sleigh of Hand check vs Passive Perception check?
Sleight of Hand (or Performance) with your spellcasting ability, against the passive Perception of the audience members, with mages getting some sort of bonus, possibly advantage. Pretty close to DMThac0's method.
I appreciate your points, Octopodes. One of the main reasons I post these questions isn't necessarily to get a firm ruling, but to cull together different viewpoints so that when I discuss it with my DM we can tackle it from as many perspectives as possible.
One thing to note is that the verbal component can't be whispered, or under your breath. It must be spoken at full conversational level or above - thus it would and should ruin any attempt at stealth. Likewise the Somatic component can't be a subtle flick of a finger. You can reskin the movements however you like (I feel that every wizard learns and experiments their own way to generate magical effects so two magical symbols will never be very similar let alone identical) but the symbol must be noticeably vigorous and distinctly arcane or mysterious.
All that being said, a bard's performance is exactly the kind of environment where you could conceal the exact workings of your magic: you hide the verbal component in a improvised humming verse of a song, a bit of dance conceals the unusual gestures, a puff of smoke, some energetic drumming or a distraction on the other side of the stage would hide things too. A magic user or someone familiar with such things might still notice that there is real magic at work, but the majority of the audience would be none the wiser. If the ruse was difficult and important to the quest then some roll for deception, Sleight of Hand or performance, contested by insight or Arcana would get the job done.
This is a topic I have thought considerably on. My problem with performance and slight of hand checks make the bard a more powerful spell caster while weakening other casters, including the mage, who IMO is the purest caster. I hate that the 5e framework is so fragile that their balancing system makes casting spells, even those that are supposed to be used outside of combat like charm person, almost impossible. Should I really believe Elminster can’t charm a shopkeeper without an ability to be detected? There’s a fine line between balance and removing believability, even in a fantasy setting. I am leaning towards making deceptive casting a feat that any caster can take. It would allow for an arcana check to detect the action (with advantage if proficient in arcana) against an arcana check of the caster. Arcana is what XGE uses to “identify a spell”. Anyone that can cast the spell being attempted would also have advantage (they recognize it). Further, the act of casting would have a spell DC roll, increased based on the spell level, with failure by the caster causing the spell to fail. I attribute this to having to muffle or mask the normal (v,s,m) and messing it up. The more components required to cast (v,s,m) may also increase the difficulty(TBD). If the DC is successful but the deception part fails, roll initiative to see order of action with the possibility of stopping the caster, the shopkeeper yells out, etc..
One way to figure out what sort of actions are involved is to look at the mechanical side of it. The actions are such that wearing armor that you aren't used to will get in the way and are recognizable enough that even an untrained person can occasionally identify up to 5th level spells.
This is just my opinion, not something spelled out in the rules, but I'm opposed to this. This has come up in conversation before. The problem is that you're essentially aping what is a powerful sorcerer metamagic ability without having to take it. My opinion is that if you allow this, you are cheapening the ability itself. A similar discussion happened recently regarding the lightfoot halfling's ability to hide behind a medium-sized creature. If a halfling can do it, why not a gnome? It's not an unreasonable question except that the lightfoot halfling is balanced around having that ability and if you can get it without being a lightfoot halfling, then why should you be one? Same thing with the subtle spell metamagic. If you can get the same effect without the subtle spell metamagic, then why should you bother getting it?
I think of magic as closely guarded secrets passed down between mentor and apprentice. In a world without patents and copyrights, all artisans would closely guard their secrets. I really like GiantOctopodes idea about the yanny and laurel thing. That would be a great way to hide secrets but I don’t know if you can actually make both sounds at the same time. Even if you can’t, wizards would disguise the important parts of a spell within meaningless gestures and vocalizations so that others can’t steal their spells. Thus castings of the same spell by different casters may appear very different to the untrained observer.
If someone is watching a wizard the whole time he is casting and the spell creates an obvious effect within the observers line of sight, it should be basically impossible to fool the observer.
If a wizard casts a spell in a dark corner of a very loud tavern, it creates nothing obvious and no observers were focusing their attention on the wizard, I’m not going to be the DM who says “the room goes silent and everyone looks directly at the wizard”.
Most situations are going to somewhere in between these extremes. Allies helping with distractions would increase the chances of being unobserved. Other roleplaying by the wizard could also contribute to reducing the chance of being seen. So I would allow a caster to roleplay a way to cast without everyone immediately knowing that she cast a spell but the player wouldn’t get very far with “I roll sleight of hand so no one sees me casting”. The player has to really put some effort into roleplaying the reason why no one notices.
What about a feat tree that requires two feats and ultimately an Intelligence of 20? This could be written/geared towards Illusionists or a smaller subset of wizards/Intel casters.
I agree with some of the posters here: allowing too much discretion on Verbal and Somatic components cheapens the Subtle Spell feature of the Sorcerer class. I say this as someone who is playing a Storm Sorcerer and has been using Subtle Spell as their main metamagic ability. The campaign is based in Waterdeep (Adventurers League) which lends itself to making Subtle Spell very valuable.
I like some of your arguments for this and because of this I think that I would have to limit the scope of what is being done. I think that a performance could incorporate many aspects of what was being done into it, including using many arcane words or gestures to hide which ones were actually being used. I would limit this to cantrips, stating that effects indicating the spell would be too noticeable otherwise. Perhaps there is a noticeable glow around the hands as the power builds, but its dim enough that in the right setting is almost unnoticeable. This would preserve subtle spell's importance and a sorcerer would be able to pull it off either way. I wouldn't limit it to just bards being able to do it since anyone could do performance, sleight of hand, or deception. I do think that the closest to an attack spell that I would allow would be control flames and there would be magic users in the audience to intercede if any hijinks were attempted, since word of such a performance would spread and be investigated.
My only concern is that certain spells have the stipulation that if you are in combat the target has advantage on saves such as the charm person spell. Given that spellcasting with a verbal component is an act of aggression would that not imply that this text is irrelevant? Certain social spells without obvious physical consequences should be able to conceal their casting or they essentially become worthless.
My only concern is that certain spells have the stipulation that if you are in combat the target has advantage on saves such as the charm person spell. Given that spellcasting with a verbal component is an act of aggression would that not imply that this text is irrelevant? Certain social spells without obvious physical consequences should be able to conceal their casting or they essentially become worthless.
It isn't obvious that you're casting a hostile spell, or even that you're casting a spell targetting the person to be charmed.
I'm hoping/expecting that there will be varied opinions on this subject. On another thread Inquisitive Coder said, "There's no rules for what the somatic components for a spell actually are, or even whether every spellcasting class or monster makes the same gestures."
Assuming this is the case (and I have no reason not to, barring spell descriptions that may call out specific gestures and what not), I was curious what freedom a player has when interpreting what form the verbal and somatic components "look" like when viewed by others. Let me give an example of what I have in mind.
Lets take the Silent Image spell. I know it has a material component as well, but that's easily dealt with. So, my Wizard/Illusionist is a performer, and is on stage ready to put on a show. let's assume for a moment that he has a bit of fleece already tucked between his fingers so we don't get bogged down by the Material component aspect. Now, if I'm doing a show I don't exactly want to stand on a stage and blatantly make some gestures whilst speaking arcane gibberish, as then the crowd would know what I'm up to (if they chose to think about it). Could the Verbal component be mundane speech, and the Somatic component be ann everyday gesture, both acting as a conduit for what the spell wants? I.E. I look at the crowd and say, "Imagine you're sitting on a throne," and I make a sweeping, pointing gesture with my hand, indicating an empty spot on the stage (V, S components fulfilled) where an ornate throne suddenly appears. Could that work? Or does this make it too easy to get away with spellcasting in full view of spectators.
The same question/argument could be made for any number of spells. I provided the above example because it's a situation (1 of many) in which the caster would want to be inconspicuous with his casting. Thoughts?
All I can say is that it depends on the DM and that I would allow it.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Verbal components are mystic words, as specified in the spellcasting rules.
Yes, that's the problem with it. Spellcasting is an incredibly potent ability for any creature to have, and the ability to cast spells without being noticed is even more potent. How would you feel as a player if someone cast Power Word Kill without any chance of you recognizing it's happening?
As much as I love the idea you presented with the Bard on stage I'm leaning more toward InquisitiveCoder's point of view. However, I am a bit more lenient on it in so far as the words and gestures may change slightly due to the line. I look at it in the same light as martial arts, you can find 800 different styles of Tae Kwon Do, they range drastically in similarity. In my town there were two dojangs, the Katas that were performed in one school were completely different than the ones in the other. However, the kicks were all the same, even though half of them went by different names. The core of Tae Kwon Do was present in each, but how they represented it was quite different.
So, while the verbal and somatic components may vary slightly, the emphasis on a word is slightly different or the hands are held in a slightly different position, there is going to be a core similarity in every person.
Fair enough. So in theory, at such a time as I tell the audience, "Imagine you're sitting on a throne," I could turn my back to them, flourish my hand in some arcane fashion, and mutter, "procidat deceptionem" under my breath (Google translate provides that as the latin translation for Illusion. I was feeling Harry Potterish). *wham* my illusion appears, though my actions are slightly less inconspicuous than desired. Would this function properly within the parameters of spellcasting?
Also, out of curiousity, how do you DM's adjudicate spellcasters trying to be less obvious in their spellcasting? Is it a Sleigh of Hand check vs Passive Perception check?
I would work with that example exactly as you've presented it, you tie the arcane language and gestures into your (performance). I would allow Deception over Performance depending on how you intended on slipping the spell into your act. If you were trying to hide it completely from the crowd, then we'd have sleight of hand/deception. If you were trying to make it feel like all of those antics were part of the show, then performance. However, depending on the audience, there may be some arcane users who see through the ruse much easier (advantage).
Sleight of Hand (or Performance) with your spellcasting ability, against the passive Perception of the audience members, with mages getting some sort of bonus, possibly advantage. Pretty close to DMThac0's method.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I appreciate your points, Octopodes. One of the main reasons I post these questions isn't necessarily to get a firm ruling, but to cull together different viewpoints so that when I discuss it with my DM we can tackle it from as many perspectives as possible.
One thing to note is that the verbal component can't be whispered, or under your breath. It must be spoken at full conversational level or above - thus it would and should ruin any attempt at stealth. Likewise the Somatic component can't be a subtle flick of a finger. You can reskin the movements however you like (I feel that every wizard learns and experiments their own way to generate magical effects so two magical symbols will never be very similar let alone identical) but the symbol must be noticeably vigorous and distinctly arcane or mysterious.
All that being said, a bard's performance is exactly the kind of environment where you could conceal the exact workings of your magic: you hide the verbal component in a improvised humming verse of a song, a bit of dance conceals the unusual gestures, a puff of smoke, some energetic drumming or a distraction on the other side of the stage would hide things too. A magic user or someone familiar with such things might still notice that there is real magic at work, but the majority of the audience would be none the wiser. If the ruse was difficult and important to the quest then some roll for deception, Sleight of Hand or performance, contested by insight or Arcana would get the job done.
This is a topic I have thought considerably on. My problem with performance and slight of hand checks make the bard a more powerful spell caster while weakening other casters, including the mage, who IMO is the purest caster. I hate that the 5e framework is so fragile that their balancing system makes casting spells, even those that are supposed to be used outside of combat like charm person, almost impossible. Should I really believe Elminster can’t charm a shopkeeper without an ability to be detected? There’s a fine line between balance and removing believability, even in a fantasy setting. I am leaning towards making deceptive casting a feat that any caster can take. It would allow for an arcana check to detect the action (with advantage if proficient in arcana) against an arcana check of the caster. Arcana is what XGE uses to “identify a spell”. Anyone that can cast the spell being attempted would also have advantage (they recognize it). Further, the act of casting would have a spell DC roll, increased based on the spell level, with failure by the caster causing the spell to fail. I attribute this to having to muffle or mask the normal (v,s,m) and messing it up. The more components required to cast (v,s,m) may also increase the difficulty(TBD). If the DC is successful but the deception part fails, roll initiative to see order of action with the possibility of stopping the caster, the shopkeeper yells out, etc..
One way to figure out what sort of actions are involved is to look at the mechanical side of it. The actions are such that wearing armor that you aren't used to will get in the way and are recognizable enough that even an untrained person can occasionally identify up to 5th level spells.
This is just my opinion, not something spelled out in the rules, but I'm opposed to this. This has come up in conversation before. The problem is that you're essentially aping what is a powerful sorcerer metamagic ability without having to take it. My opinion is that if you allow this, you are cheapening the ability itself. A similar discussion happened recently regarding the lightfoot halfling's ability to hide behind a medium-sized creature. If a halfling can do it, why not a gnome? It's not an unreasonable question except that the lightfoot halfling is balanced around having that ability and if you can get it without being a lightfoot halfling, then why should you be one? Same thing with the subtle spell metamagic. If you can get the same effect without the subtle spell metamagic, then why should you bother getting it?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
My games have a baseline assumption that spellcasting is obvious. Anyone watching or listening knows that you are doing something magical.
The goddess of magic is vain. She wants to see and hear your devotion to the magister's art.
Want to hide spellcasting? Use silence or darkness or multiclass into sorcerer.
I think of magic as closely guarded secrets passed down between mentor and apprentice. In a world without patents and copyrights, all artisans would closely guard their secrets. I really like GiantOctopodes idea about the yanny and laurel thing. That would be a great way to hide secrets but I don’t know if you can actually make both sounds at the same time. Even if you can’t, wizards would disguise the important parts of a spell within meaningless gestures and vocalizations so that others can’t steal their spells. Thus castings of the same spell by different casters may appear very different to the untrained observer.
If someone is watching a wizard the whole time he is casting and the spell creates an obvious effect within the observers line of sight, it should be basically impossible to fool the observer.
If a wizard casts a spell in a dark corner of a very loud tavern, it creates nothing obvious and no observers were focusing their attention on the wizard, I’m not going to be the DM who says “the room goes silent and everyone looks directly at the wizard”.
Most situations are going to somewhere in between these extremes. Allies helping with distractions would increase the chances of being unobserved. Other roleplaying by the wizard could also contribute to reducing the chance of being seen. So I would allow a caster to roleplay a way to cast without everyone immediately knowing that she cast a spell but the player wouldn’t get very far with “I roll sleight of hand so no one sees me casting”. The player has to really put some effort into roleplaying the reason why no one notices.
What about a feat tree that requires two feats and ultimately an Intelligence of 20? This could be written/geared towards Illusionists or a smaller subset of wizards/Intel casters.
I agree with some of the posters here: allowing too much discretion on Verbal and Somatic components cheapens the Subtle Spell feature of the Sorcerer class. I say this as someone who is playing a Storm Sorcerer and has been using Subtle Spell as their main metamagic ability. The campaign is based in Waterdeep (Adventurers League) which lends itself to making Subtle Spell very valuable.
- IT
I like some of your arguments for this and because of this I think that I would have to limit the scope of what is being done. I think that a performance could incorporate many aspects of what was being done into it, including using many arcane words or gestures to hide which ones were actually being used. I would limit this to cantrips, stating that effects indicating the spell would be too noticeable otherwise. Perhaps there is a noticeable glow around the hands as the power builds, but its dim enough that in the right setting is almost unnoticeable. This would preserve subtle spell's importance and a sorcerer would be able to pull it off either way. I wouldn't limit it to just bards being able to do it since anyone could do performance, sleight of hand, or deception. I do think that the closest to an attack spell that I would allow would be control flames and there would be magic users in the audience to intercede if any hijinks were attempted, since word of such a performance would spread and be investigated.
My only concern is that certain spells have the stipulation that if you are in combat the target has advantage on saves such as the charm person spell. Given that spellcasting with a verbal component is an act of aggression would that not imply that this text is irrelevant? Certain social spells without obvious physical consequences should be able to conceal their casting or they essentially become worthless.
It isn't obvious that you're casting a hostile spell, or even that you're casting a spell targetting the person to be charmed.
On the other hand, if casting can be concealed then counterspell becomes much less useful.