Hey those of you who say verbal means loud/shouting could you post where you're seeing that? I can't find any discription that puts a volume level on it except this tweet from Crawford which basically states it's up to the DM. For me, this means a role of something verses an opposed perception check.
Hey those of you who say verbal means loud/shouting could you post where you're seeing that? I can't find any discription that puts a volume level on it except this tweet from Crawford which basically states it's up to the DM. For me, this means a role of something verses an opposed perception check.
Just from other media. I'm well aware it's not RAW, as I think I mentioned in my comment. It just seems appropriate. I mean, the rules don't say you have to extend your arm and point the wand at your target when you activate a magic wand, but we agree you definitely need to do that, right? Same idea, different degrees.
Hey those of you who say verbal means loud/shouting could you post where you're seeing that? I can't find any discription that puts a volume level on it except this tweet from Crawford which basically states it's up to the DM. For me, this means a role of something verses an opposed perception check.
I admit, I don't think it's RAW, I think it's the expected flavour of spell casting and also to protect subtle spell mechanics.
To be honest, I'm not impressed with Crawford on these things. He tends to give short and terse responses that, of the ones I've seen, often don't actually answer the question. I'm not talking about the DM bit, but he says that it must be audible. It must be audible to who? The caster? The target? Someone 10' away? He's literally not answered the question at all beyond saying it has to be a sound, which the rules already state. He says that how audible it is is up to the DM, but until we define who it is audible to, that's a statement without meaning. Useful.
Regardless, if people in D&D are so perceptive that they know where invisible people are based on their tracks on a hard dungeon floor, even in the middle of combat (so long as the person doesn't use the Hide Action), then I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that they wouldn't hear chanting. Honestly, I think that says as much about the rules regarding invisibility as anything, but still.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To clarify slightly, if Crawford simply intended to say that the level of noise is entirely up to the DMs discretion, then audible was the wrong word to use. Instead he should have said that it required sound, and how much sound is up to the DM. Audible requires a knowledge of who it is audible to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Hey those of you who say verbal means loud/shouting could you post where you're seeing that? I can't find any discription that puts a volume level on it except this tweet from Crawford which basically states it's up to the DM. For me, this means a role of something verses an opposed perception check.
See links in post #11 which are used to explain this position.
It strikes me that it would be odd for spellcasting to break invisibility but not stealth...
It's a particularity of the Invisibility spell specifically though, not the invisible condition in general.
It strikes me that it would be odd for stealth to be superior to a 2nd level spell...
Skills should absolutely be better than spells. They're way more costly to have, and usually more risky to use. (Invisibility doesn't require a d20 roll, after all.)
A Rogue at level 3 has 4 skills. More than any other class. The fewest spells a caster can know at level 3? 6. So the class with the most skills, has fewer options than the class with the fewest spells.
And that's just the smallest differential. A level 3 Monk would have only 2 skills, while a Wizard at level 3 would have 13 spells. That's over six times the number of options! And they're supposed to be more powerful options, too?!
It negates the benefits of subtle spell. Verbal components are spoken loudly, if not almost shouting.
Whike I agree that whispering is probably a step too far, it would only partially replicate ONE of the benefits of Subtle Spell, because somebody looking at you would still see you performing the Somatic components and waving your focus around.
Subtle Spell also allows you to cast while silenced or restrained, in many cases makes it impossible to tell who cast a spell (or even whether a spell was cast at all), and makes you impossible to Counterspell. Even if you aren't sneaky, there's a lot of utility in Subtle Spell, both in and out of combat.
My Arcane Trickster is fine with some of her spells having perfectly audible verbal components. It just means you use them for prep work before the part where you need to be sneaky, or else in combat you cast a verbal spell as an action (revealing your location) and then use your Cunning Action to Hide somewhere else.
That certainly works with some spells, but most of your subclass-specific features involve your Mage Hand. It has some great utility for shenanigans which are severely undercut if you have to announce, "HEY EVERYBODY, SPELL BEING CAST OVER HERE!" within 60 seconds of using it. I'm not saying it's not RAW, but it's definitely a weird design choice that clearly undercuts what it seems like the class should be able to do in non-dungeon-crawler encounters.
Do you know what everyone's answer to most problems in D&D are?
Its magic.
The idea that you have to cast a spell loud enough for your target to hear you is preposterous in any case. Why do I want to draw the attention of the guard I am trying to get to fall asleep? Whats the point of casting a spell from a hidden position?
That just makes drugs/poisons/potions better than any spell. Always.
I might as well just kill the guy with a sneak attack.Which ruins the idea of doing a robbery without anyone knowing for a few days. Or infiltrating the enemy camp and playing spy.
The same with invisibility. I cast the spell on myself and now all of a sudden I have to worry about everyone watching for my tracks when before no one was looking for them. Even in combat, the dark, or hard clean floors. Now I have to walk like Qui Chi Kane over rice paper. Who the heck looks for tracks in any traveled area like a house, a city or even a road? No one!!
The verbal component needs to reverberate the air in front of your mouth (loud enough for the caster to hear) not off the walls of the valley your in.
Let alone being in combat with a bunch of other people screaming yelling and clanging weapons and armor around. Now you have to raise your voice for everyone to hear? Why?
Its magic, not a verbal command directed at someone across the field.
As I have been told before do not bring your preconceived notions from other forms of entertainment into D&D.They shout it to make it look impressive. If shouting it louder made the spell work better I would use a bullhorn and blow every other spell caster out of the water. FIREBALL!!!!!!!! 500D8 I'm am just that loud.
If shouting it does not make it more powerful why does whispering it make it not work at all?
Personally the guy who waves his hand, barely makes a sound and makes a whole mountain disappear is far more impressive than some guy running around shouting at everyone.
AS for subtle spell. Well that should make all of your spell casting (both verbal and somatic) far more subtle if not even hidden inside other common actions like talking and gesticulating while talking. Dancing or playing an instrument. Fighting. Anything actions that could be used to hide the casting.
My Arcane Trickster is fine with some of her spells having perfectly audible verbal components. It just means you use them for prep work before the part where you need to be sneaky, or else in combat you cast a verbal spell as an action (revealing your location) and then use your Cunning Action to Hide somewhere else.
That certainly works with some spells, but most of your subclass-specific features involve your Mage Hand. It has some great utility for shenanigans which are severely undercut if you have to announce, "HEY EVERYBODY, SPELL BEING CAST OVER HERE!" within 60 seconds of using it. I'm not saying it's not RAW, but it's definitely a weird design choice that clearly undercuts what it seems like the class should be able to do in non-dungeon-crawler encounters.
That's why you don't cast Mage Hand in the room where you're trying to Surprise an enemy. But if combat's already begun, and you think you'd have a use for the Mage Hand in combat, it works to cast the hand in the middle of the room for later turns, then use your bonus action to go hide.
Edit: You could also take the Telekinesis feat after becoming an Arcane Trickster and effectively have subtle spell for Mage Hand, if it's especially bothersome.
Hey those of you who say verbal means loud/shouting could you post where you're seeing that? I can't find any discription that puts a volume level on it except this tweet from Crawford which basically states it's up to the DM. For me, this means a role of something verses an opposed perception check.
See links in post #11 which are used to explain this position.
Right that's the rule for verbal. It has to make sound. It doesn't say it has to be loud. Saying loud for spellcasting is RAW is not the case (unless there's some other source you can point to). Loud is also subjective. My dog thinks things are much louder than I do. So how loud is loud? You can certianly play that way because ultimatly it's up to the DM how much sound is needed. It would make sense to me that a fireball or an earthquake spell would be loud, but a whisper might be more appropriate for a sleep spell. I still advocate for a roll, but you'd be just as justified to say no if you wanted to.
Many spells create obvious effects: explosions of fire, walls of ice, teleportation, and the like. Other spells, such as charm person, display no visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible sign of their effects, and could easily go unnoticed by someone unaffected by them. As noted in the Player’s Handbook, you normally don’t know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect.
But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.
So unless you have a special ability which removes the verbal component, then the verbal component is perceptible.
There is nothing in that section which makes mention of making an actual Perception check in order to determine if something is perceptible.
Do you know what everyone's answer to most problems in D&D are?
Its magic.
It does follow rules, which is what we're discussing.
The idea that you have to cast a spell loud enough for your target to hear you is preposterous in any case. Why do I want to draw the attention of the guard I am trying to get to fall asleep? Whats the point of casting a spell from a hidden position?
Because if you succeed, then the fact that he would have heard you cast it is irrelevant - he's asleep.
That just makes drugs/poisons/potions better than any spell. Always.
Nope. I can't send someone to sleep from 90ft away using a potion. That spell doesn't cost me any permanent resources - just a spell slot that I can get back either tomorrow or after a short rest, as opposed to the very real and permanent cost of a sleeping potion. It's late, so I might just be tired (irony!), but I can't even find a sleeping potion, does one even exist?. You don't have to risk having to go up and force the potion down his gullet. You also don't have to actually sneak up on the guy and hope he doesn't call the rest of the guards on you.
In return...if you can just say the incantation under your breath and stay undetected...why would you ever use a potion? The only situation I can think of is if you're so hard done by for spell slots that you can't afford to use one. Otherwise, just keep doing those free castings.
I might as well just kill the guy with a sneak attack.Which ruins the idea of doing a robbery without anyone knowing for a few days. Or infiltrating the enemy camp and playing spy.
That's...why we have the rule. Give you multiple different options with different strengths. Do you use Sleep? Or do you use a valuable potion or poison? Do you wait until he's out and sneak in, or just sneak in while he's asleep? Do you just be proactive and remove him from the equation? There isn't meant to be one obvious and easy route that easily outdoes everything else. Sleep has it's advantages over the others...but the fact that f it fails, you're in trouble is meant to be part of the equation.
The same with invisibility. I cast the spell on myself and now all of a sudden I have to worry about everyone watching for my tracks when before no one was looking for them. Even in combat, the dark, or hard clean floors. Now I have to walk like Qui Chi Kane over rice paper. Who the heck looks for tracks in any traveled area like a house, a city or even a road? No one!!
I dislike the invisibility mechanics with you on this one, but they are RAW.
The verbal component needs to reverberate the air in front of your mouth (loud enough for the caster to hear) not off the walls of the valley your in.
Let alone being in combat with a bunch of other people screaming yelling and clanging weapons and armor around. Now you have to raise your voice for everyone to hear? Why?
Are we talking about the V component again? I think this falls under the "up to the DM" part of Crawford's Tweet. It's not going to grab everyone's attention in the middle of a fight. You do make the noise...but who would perceive it is another thing.
Its magic, not a verbal command directed at someone across the field.
As I have been told before do not bring your preconceived notions from other forms of entertainment into D&D.They shout it to make it look impressive. If shouting it louder made the spell work better I would use a bullhorn and blow every other spell caster out of the water. FIREBALL!!!!!!!! 500D8 I'm am just that loud.
If shouting it does not make it more powerful why does whispering it make it not work at all?
I'm wondering if you know the lore behind V. It's not that there are magic words that cause a spell. Instead, you are causing the magic to vibrate and produce the effect. That's why it has to be out loud. Have you seen Johnny English? Where he's trying to unlock the door by humming at it? That's a similar thing to what happens in D&D magic...in principle at least. Now, you could argue various interpretations of that, but it's logical to think that the vibrations have to go to where the spell is being targeted. That's not necessarily the case, but it a logical conclusion. It's not about saying words, it's about causing vibrations with your voice. That's why you can't just mouth it. There is still room for being able to whisper it...it's just not the intuitive conclusion.
AS for subtle spell. Well that should make all of your spell casting (both verbal and somatic) far more subtle if not even hidden inside other common actions like talking and gesticulating while talking. Dancing or playing an instrument. Fighting. Anything actions that could be used to hide the casting.
Right, but why go to that bother if you can just whisper the V and do the S in your pockets? That's one of the sticking points here...Subtle Spell becomes irrelevant, when it's one of the big perks of Sorceror class...and most people seem to say that the Sorceror needs all the love it can get.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Many spells create obvious effects: explosions of fire, walls of ice, teleportation, and the like. Other spells, such as charm person, display no visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible sign of their effects, and could easily go unnoticed by someone unaffected by them. As noted in the Player’s Handbook, you normally don’t know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect.
But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus.
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence.
So unless you have a special ability which removes the verbal component, then the verbal component is perceptible.
There is nothing in that section which makes mention of making an actual Perception check in order to determine if something is perceptible.
I totally 100% agree. The casting is perceptible (still doesn't say casting must be loud or give any indication of how perceptible). If you cast a spell in a room 60' away from behind a target, they can hear the spell being cast. The same can be said for someone walking across the room. The act of walking is perceptible. If someone is sneaking, as to not be perceptible, then it requires a roll. Since there is no rule about how loud/audible a spell must be cast (just that it must make sound) then if someone wants to try and cast it at a lower decible to not be noticed, I would call for a roll (others may not and this is fine too). A sleepy human guard may not notice, but the guard dog next to him that the player didn't see, very well could. To me this is more fun than arbitraily saying all spell are loud. Either way it's not RAW or incorrect. The DM get's to make the rule at the table if it comes up.
Counterspell has a range of 60ft. I think that should be taken into account when discussing how loud a spell is. A wizard 60ft from you can counter your spell based on seeing you cast it.
Counterspell does specifially state a creater you see. Sound in that case is not a consideration. A silent casting could still be counterspelled just by seeing someone cast a spell with a somatic component. If you're looking for a baseline, the audible distance chart on certain DM screens is again all we have to go by. This would put a normal noise level at 2d6 x 10 feet (120 feet max) and that just happens to be the max distance for a lot of spells. The question though is can you cast quieter and still have the spell be successful. That is all up to the DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey those of you who say verbal means loud/shouting could you post where you're seeing that? I can't find any discription that puts a volume level on it except this tweet from Crawford which basically states it's up to the DM. For me, this means a role of something verses an opposed perception check.
Quindraco's right, though a little more exasperated than I am about it.
Would be nice to get some clarification in 6e.
Just from other media. I'm well aware it's not RAW, as I think I mentioned in my comment. It just seems appropriate. I mean, the rules don't say you have to extend your arm and point the wand at your target when you activate a magic wand, but we agree you definitely need to do that, right? Same idea, different degrees.
I admit, I don't think it's RAW, I think it's the expected flavour of spell casting and also to protect subtle spell mechanics.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
To be honest, I'm not impressed with Crawford on these things. He tends to give short and terse responses that, of the ones I've seen, often don't actually answer the question. I'm not talking about the DM bit, but he says that it must be audible. It must be audible to who? The caster? The target? Someone 10' away? He's literally not answered the question at all beyond saying it has to be a sound, which the rules already state. He says that how audible it is is up to the DM, but until we define who it is audible to, that's a statement without meaning. Useful.
Regardless, if people in D&D are so perceptive that they know where invisible people are based on their tracks on a hard dungeon floor, even in the middle of combat (so long as the person doesn't use the Hide Action), then I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that they wouldn't hear chanting. Honestly, I think that says as much about the rules regarding invisibility as anything, but still.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To clarify slightly, if Crawford simply intended to say that the level of noise is entirely up to the DMs discretion, then audible was the wrong word to use. Instead he should have said that it required sound, and how much sound is up to the DM. Audible requires a knowledge of who it is audible to.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It strikes me that it would be odd for spellcasting to break invisibility but not stealth...
It's a particularity of the Invisibility spell specifically though, not the invisible condition in general.
See links in post #11 which are used to explain this position.
It strikes me that it would be odd for stealth to be superior to a 2nd level spell...
Skills should absolutely be better than spells. They're way more costly to have, and usually more risky to use. (Invisibility doesn't require a d20 roll, after all.)
A Rogue at level 3 has 4 skills. More than any other class. The fewest spells a caster can know at level 3? 6. So the class with the most skills, has fewer options than the class with the fewest spells.
And that's just the smallest differential. A level 3 Monk would have only 2 skills, while a Wizard at level 3 would have 13 spells. That's over six times the number of options! And they're supposed to be more powerful options, too?!
Whike I agree that whispering is probably a step too far, it would only partially replicate ONE of the benefits of Subtle Spell, because somebody looking at you would still see you performing the Somatic components and waving your focus around.
Subtle Spell also allows you to cast while silenced or restrained, in many cases makes it impossible to tell who cast a spell (or even whether a spell was cast at all), and makes you impossible to Counterspell. Even if you aren't sneaky, there's a lot of utility in Subtle Spell, both in and out of combat.
That certainly works with some spells, but most of your subclass-specific features involve your Mage Hand. It has some great utility for shenanigans which are severely undercut if you have to announce, "HEY EVERYBODY, SPELL BEING CAST OVER HERE!" within 60 seconds of using it. I'm not saying it's not RAW, but it's definitely a weird design choice that clearly undercuts what it seems like the class should be able to do in non-dungeon-crawler encounters.
Do you know what everyone's answer to most problems in D&D are?
Its magic.
The idea that you have to cast a spell loud enough for your target to hear you is preposterous in any case. Why do I want to draw the attention of the guard I am trying to get to fall asleep? Whats the point of casting a spell from a hidden position?
That just makes drugs/poisons/potions better than any spell. Always.
I might as well just kill the guy with a sneak attack.Which ruins the idea of doing a robbery without anyone knowing for a few days. Or infiltrating the enemy camp and playing spy.
The same with invisibility. I cast the spell on myself and now all of a sudden I have to worry about everyone watching for my tracks when before no one was looking for them. Even in combat, the dark, or hard clean floors. Now I have to walk like Qui Chi Kane over rice paper. Who the heck looks for tracks in any traveled area like a house, a city or even a road? No one!!
The verbal component needs to reverberate the air in front of your mouth (loud enough for the caster to hear) not off the walls of the valley your in.
Let alone being in combat with a bunch of other people screaming yelling and clanging weapons and armor around. Now you have to raise your voice for everyone to hear? Why?
Its magic, not a verbal command directed at someone across the field.
As I have been told before do not bring your preconceived notions from other forms of entertainment into D&D.They shout it to make it look impressive. If shouting it louder made the spell work better I would use a bullhorn and blow every other spell caster out of the water. FIREBALL!!!!!!!! 500D8 I'm am just that loud.
If shouting it does not make it more powerful why does whispering it make it not work at all?
Personally the guy who waves his hand, barely makes a sound and makes a whole mountain disappear is far more impressive than some guy running around shouting at everyone.
AS for subtle spell. Well that should make all of your spell casting (both verbal and somatic) far more subtle if not even hidden inside other common actions like talking and gesticulating while talking. Dancing or playing an instrument. Fighting. Anything actions that could be used to hide the casting.
Sorry I just had to vent.
That's why you don't cast Mage Hand in the room where you're trying to Surprise an enemy. But if combat's already begun, and you think you'd have a use for the Mage Hand in combat, it works to cast the hand in the middle of the room for later turns, then use your bonus action to go hide.
Edit: You could also take the Telekinesis feat after becoming an Arcane Trickster and effectively have subtle spell for Mage Hand, if it's especially bothersome.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Right that's the rule for verbal. It has to make sound. It doesn't say it has to be loud. Saying loud for spellcasting is RAW is not the case (unless there's some other source you can point to). Loud is also subjective. My dog thinks things are much louder than I do. So how loud is loud? You can certianly play that way because ultimatly it's up to the DM how much sound is needed. It would make sense to me that a fireball or an earthquake spell would be loud, but a whisper might be more appropriate for a sleep spell. I still advocate for a roll, but you'd be just as justified to say no if you wanted to.
XGTE has a section, https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte/dungeon-masters-tools#PerceivingaCasteratWork, which explains
So unless you have a special ability which removes the verbal component, then the verbal component is perceptible.
There is nothing in that section which makes mention of making an actual Perception check in order to determine if something is perceptible.
It does follow rules, which is what we're discussing.
Because if you succeed, then the fact that he would have heard you cast it is irrelevant - he's asleep.
Nope. I can't send someone to sleep from 90ft away using a potion. That spell doesn't cost me any permanent resources - just a spell slot that I can get back either tomorrow or after a short rest, as opposed to the very real and permanent cost of a sleeping potion. It's late, so I might just be tired (irony!), but I can't even find a sleeping potion, does one even exist?. You don't have to risk having to go up and force the potion down his gullet. You also don't have to actually sneak up on the guy and hope he doesn't call the rest of the guards on you.
In return...if you can just say the incantation under your breath and stay undetected...why would you ever use a potion? The only situation I can think of is if you're so hard done by for spell slots that you can't afford to use one. Otherwise, just keep doing those free castings.
That's...why we have the rule. Give you multiple different options with different strengths. Do you use Sleep? Or do you use a valuable potion or poison? Do you wait until he's out and sneak in, or just sneak in while he's asleep? Do you just be proactive and remove him from the equation? There isn't meant to be one obvious and easy route that easily outdoes everything else. Sleep has it's advantages over the others...but the fact that f it fails, you're in trouble is meant to be part of the equation.
I dislike the invisibility mechanics with you on this one, but they are RAW.
Are we talking about the V component again? I think this falls under the "up to the DM" part of Crawford's Tweet. It's not going to grab everyone's attention in the middle of a fight. You do make the noise...but who would perceive it is another thing.
I'm wondering if you know the lore behind V. It's not that there are magic words that cause a spell. Instead, you are causing the magic to vibrate and produce the effect. That's why it has to be out loud. Have you seen Johnny English? Where he's trying to unlock the door by humming at it? That's a similar thing to what happens in D&D magic...in principle at least. Now, you could argue various interpretations of that, but it's logical to think that the vibrations have to go to where the spell is being targeted. That's not necessarily the case, but it a logical conclusion. It's not about saying words, it's about causing vibrations with your voice. That's why you can't just mouth it. There is still room for being able to whisper it...it's just not the intuitive conclusion.
Right, but why go to that bother if you can just whisper the V and do the S in your pockets? That's one of the sticking points here...Subtle Spell becomes irrelevant, when it's one of the big perks of Sorceror class...and most people seem to say that the Sorceror needs all the love it can get.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I totally 100% agree. The casting is perceptible (still doesn't say casting must be loud or give any indication of how perceptible). If you cast a spell in a room 60' away from behind a target, they can hear the spell being cast. The same can be said for someone walking across the room. The act of walking is perceptible. If someone is sneaking, as to not be perceptible, then it requires a roll. Since there is no rule about how loud/audible a spell must be cast (just that it must make sound) then if someone wants to try and cast it at a lower decible to not be noticed, I would call for a roll (others may not and this is fine too). A sleepy human guard may not notice, but the guard dog next to him that the player didn't see, very well could. To me this is more fun than arbitraily saying all spell are loud. Either way it's not RAW or incorrect. The DM get's to make the rule at the table if it comes up.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/counterspell
Counterspell has a range of 60ft. I think that should be taken into account when discussing how loud a spell is. A wizard 60ft from you can counter your spell based on seeing you cast it.
Counterspell does specifially state a creater you see. Sound in that case is not a consideration. A silent casting could still be counterspelled just by seeing someone cast a spell with a somatic component. If you're looking for a baseline, the audible distance chart on certain DM screens is again all we have to go by. This would put a normal noise level at 2d6 x 10 feet (120 feet max) and that just happens to be the max distance for a lot of spells. The question though is can you cast quieter and still have the spell be successful. That is all up to the DM.