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?!
I hadn't done that analysis. Interesting... I'm still not sure I agree, but you make a good point. Better than mine perhaps.
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...
It's broken for different reasons so you can't compare to measure superiority.
Spellcasting breaks Invisibility regardless of the components in use.
Spellcasting doesn't break Stealth, noise break it when Spellcasting uses verbal component. Spellcasting without such component doesn't inherently break it like for the spell.
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.
I agree that it doesn't have to be loud, but it does require specific pitch and resonance. That implies that you need to use your vocal cords at least, which means no whispering. There's no requirement that it be particularly loud, but it also can't be particularly quiet. We typically treat it as roughly the same as if the character was having a normal conversation with someone next to them.
I'd agree that normal, conversational level is loud enough. If you're in a crowd or near a waterfall or something, then you'd probably not be heard. It's different if you're ina small, quiet room with someone standing guard.
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.
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.
The reason I would not do this is that it's a slippery slope to let skill checks replicate actual abilities. If this works, why can't I make an Athletics check every time I swing my sword to hit even harder? Why can't I make an Arcana check every time I cast fire bolt to intensify the damage done?
Skills are useful enough. They cover every situation that aren't explicitly covered by other mechanics. But when a feature exists, it's just bad form to allow everyone to have access to it through a skill check.
Why is it that hard to swallow that sneaking restricts the actions you can take? It's part of the challenge. If you want to narrow the scope of verbal components all the way down to "this spell doesn't work in an area of silence" then you might as well just toss out spell components altogether. That's a fine route to take, by the way. But trying to twist them around to justify a thing that defies their very definition just feels like using logic dishonestly to achieve the outcome you want.
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?
...
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.
I see this viewpoint a lot. "Rules are dumb because they keep me from being awesome." I think it misunderstands why the rules are there.
Take casting sleep on the guard. Yes, he will hear you. And then if the spell is successful, he falls asleep. But what if you don't roll over his hp? What if there's 3 guards, can you get them all? What if someone else is nearby to hear you?
These buzzkill questions are consequences. Consequences make choices matter. They mean you have to think, weigh the pros and cons, and sometimes take a risk. Pondering - and later, dealing with - the consequences of your actions is the heart of roleplaying. That's what makes the game not just fun, but meaningful and fulfilling. A power fantasy game where everyone is One Punch Man and knocks down mountains might be fun for a one-shot, but Rules-Free Imagination Funtime gets old real quick because if the answer to every decision is "yes" than the choice never mattered.
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.
The reason I would not do this is that it's a slippery slope to let skill checks replicate actual abilities. If this works, why can't I make an Athletics check every time I swing my sword to hit even harder? Why can't I make an Arcana check every time I cast fire bolt to intensify the damage done?
Skills are useful enough. They cover every situation that aren't explicitly covered by other mechanics. But when a feature exists, it's just bad form to allow everyone to have access to it through a skill check.
Why is it that hard to swallow that sneaking restricts the actions you can take? It's part of the challenge. If you want to narrow the scope of verbal components all the way down to "this spell doesn't work in an area of silence" then you might as well just toss out spell components altogether. That's a fine route to take, by the way. But trying to twist them around to justify a thing that defies their very definition just feels like using logic dishonestly to achieve the outcome you want.
Hey this is a totally valid point. It can be a slippery slope, but I think you're misunderstanding my position. First of all, how often does this situation come up? I've maybe had it come up once or twice in the last couple years but maybe you see it more. The reason it wouldn't happen with damage rolls is because we have clear rules on how damage is applied. We don't for how audible a spell is (It's litterally up to the DM). I don't think that it's bad form because it steps on the Sorcerer ability since it's not guarenteed to work. Does knock invalidate theives tools or pass without trace invalidate stealth? There are also evnironmental accoustics that play in such as in Linklite's examples. In a quiet room at short distance, I'd probably just say no it's not possible even if speaking quiet. Outside next to a waterfall is a different situation. Also, I'm not trying to defy a definiton but instead I'm trying to play into it. Since there are no rules for this scenario, it's entirely up to the DM to sort it out how they see fit. I'm not trying to twist anything here. If a player of mine was trying to abuse this, then as the DM I would put some more guardrails around it possibly to the point of not allowing it if they were really pushing it, but again, I've just not seen it come up that much.
And please stop using Crawfords tweets as official rules. Until its printed in official rule books its not RAW.
Until its a written rule its the DM's option.
As for a problem coming up.
Happens to me every time my Rogue At casts his invisible mage hand. Even if he is already in hiding every person inside 100 feet hear the casting and immediately know my location. And if they fail their perception check to know my location they at least know a spell has been cast.
Whats the use? The spell was not even cast on a person if your thinking that a spell must be heard by the target. Talk about nerfing a skill.
And please stop using Crawfords tweets as official rules. Until its printed in official rule books its not RAW.
Until its a written rule its the DM's option.
As for a problem coming up.
Happens to me every time my Rogue At casts his invisible mage hand. Even if he is already in hiding every person inside 100 feet hear the casting and immediately know my location. And if they fail their perception check to know my location they at least know a spell has been cast.
Whats the use? The spell was not even cast on a person if your thinking that a spell must be heard by the target. Talk about nerfing a skill.
That sounds more like something you need to discuss with your DM. Or heck, in the moment during play, ask if you'd be able to cast a mage hand without alerting everyone; sometimes there's something like a nearby waterfall adding ambient noise that keeps sound from being heard beyond the current room. Or say, a fellow party member could cast Silence on the area where people are sleeping so that they wouldn't hear you casting the spell (outside of the Silence area of course, since that prevents casting with vocal components.) These are things that take some strategy.
And of course you'd need to re-Hide/Sneak after casting a vocal spell that would alert people to your presence. Use your Cunning Action to Hide after the spellcasting on your turn, not before it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Happens to me every time my Rogue At casts his invisible mage hand. Even if he is already in hiding every person inside 100 feet hear the casting and immediately know my location. And if they fail their perception check to know my location they at least know a spell has been cast.
Whats the use? The spell was not even cast on a person if your thinking that a spell must be heard by the target. Talk about nerfing a skill.
Indeed. Maybe your rogue isn't the best person to be casting Mage Hand when you're within hearing distance of the enemy.
So, I think this is really more of a social question than rules question. If your playing with a Sorcerer and they took Subtle spell over Twin Spell when choosing metamagic. Then it is a rude to try to whisper cast your mage hand cantrip. If Subtle Spell is in the game, or someone took Telekinetic feat, then its a no. Otherwise its a maybe. Probably a arcana check to see if the spell works. Followed by a perception check with a low dc to hear the spell by the target. With modifiers if target is asleep or distracted. Maybe its a negotiation. The casters set the dc on the perception check indicating how quite they are. This then sets the dc on the arcana check to subtle spell without metamagic. Also metamagic consumes sorcery points. So maybe require them to use spell slots to do this?
I’d say it’s totally up to the DM. ANYTHING written in the “rule books” can be changed or discarded by the DM…I do remember something like that being stated in one of the books? Heck, I’d have whoever it was trying to caste a spell “quietly” to average his Arcana & Stealth (using whatever mod it resulted in) and set it at a DC15. That was easy…and if you think that was dumb or stupid, come up with something else that would work for you.
Now since I recommended the above, I’ll try it out at my table. I’ve got a couple spell casters that would love to put this to the test.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Frank 😜
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It could be as simple as rolling another stealth check to whisper cast the spell.
This would not effect somatic actions or materials needed.
This would not intrude on subtle spell ability since that works in all situations, even if the caster is bound and gagged.
Treat it like a surprise check. My stealth against their perception check. With ambient noise factors thrown in. Anything from being in an underground cave to being outside in a hurricane.
You could even throw in the range table from the DM screen to see who could have possibly heard it. On a failed stealth roll.
Think about it. You have to give the casters a chance to try, especially those whose main work is being stealthy.
Why would a rogue bust his hump to get an invisible mage hand spell only to never be able to use it to its full advantage, like distracting someone? Rogues eventually get that skill for use in combat( to gain surprise for that sneak attack) so why not out of combat just to get the guard to look someplace else?
I don't at all allow for "stealth casting" in my games. Verbal and somatic components are all very obvious. It makes the magic system a tad more grounded in rules and it makes things more tactical. It also allows for a world which more realistically reacts to magic. Charm Person is a decent option if you manage to get the person you want to charm alone so you can cast it on them, but if you cast it at a grand party, everyone notices. There is a mechanic to bypass Verbal and Somatic components in case if your fantasy is a "stealth caster" being Subtle Spell. It's a big investment to get (either the Metamagic feat or a larger 3 levels in sorcerer investment). I think subtle spell is a good compromise for people who want to stealth cast, as it works but requires investment for utility that strong
It could be as simple as rolling another stealth check to whisper cast the spell.
This would not effect somatic actions or materials needed.
This would not intrude on subtle spell ability since that works in all situations, even if the caster is bound and gagged.
It would still intrude. It may not replace Subtle Spell completely, but it would remove the main purpose. I've run 3 campaigns, and not once have the Adventurers been bound and gagged. I'm not saying that it never happens or is quite as rare as that, but the bread and butter of that ability is to do what you're saying - to cast a spell secretly.
You could even throw in the range table from the DM screen to see who could have possibly heard it. On a failed stealth roll.
This is just making your whispered incantation even more powerful. Not only does the caster have to fail the stealth roll, if the observer isn't within 10ft, he doesn't hear it anyway?
Think about it. You have to give the casters a chance to try, especially those whose main work is being stealthy.
Nope. Not just by being quiet, at any rate. Do something a bit more interesting and we can talk. Have your teammate pretend to be drunk and distract guard or something. Then I might be interested in whether that guard wouldn't notice your V.
Why would a rogue bust his hump to get an invisible mage hand spell only to never be able to use it to its full advantage, like distracting someone?
He can. He just can't cast a spell with a V without having put in the effort to hide it beyond the player saying "I whisper". Maybe there's a distraction. Maybe he casts it in another room. Something meaningful. It he takes a feat that lets him do it without those things. He doesn't get to replicate a class ability just by saying "I whisper", though.
Rogues eventually get that skill for use in combat( to gain surprise for that sneak attack) so why not out of combat just to get the guard to look someplace else?
Outside of combat, there is no need for this ability. Use the Mage Hand to knock an object over or make it levitate, or stroke the guard's face. There's no reason why it should require a class ability to do that - in or out of combat. The ability is good in combat because it switches it to a Bonus Action which improves your Action economy, but this is normally irrelevant outside of combat.
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.
Minor Illusion is the safer way to distract guards away from an area. No V component at all.
And the 13th-level Arcane Trickster feature isn't the most wonderful, since it takes the whole bonus action to do the distraction - meaning you can't use that bonus action to move the hand into position next to the enemy, it needs to be there already.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I hadn't done that analysis. Interesting... I'm still not sure I agree, but you make a good point. Better than mine perhaps.
It's broken for different reasons so you can't compare to measure superiority.
Spellcasting breaks Invisibility regardless of the components in use.
Spellcasting doesn't break Stealth, noise break it when Spellcasting uses verbal component. Spellcasting without such component doesn't inherently break it like for the spell.
I agree that it doesn't have to be loud, but it does require specific pitch and resonance. That implies that you need to use your vocal cords at least, which means no whispering. There's no requirement that it be particularly loud, but it also can't be particularly quiet. We typically treat it as roughly the same as if the character was having a normal conversation with someone next to them.
I'd agree that normal, conversational level is loud enough. If you're in a crowd or near a waterfall or something, then you'd probably not be heard. It's different if you're ina small, quiet room with someone standing guard.
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.
The reason I would not do this is that it's a slippery slope to let skill checks replicate actual abilities. If this works, why can't I make an Athletics check every time I swing my sword to hit even harder? Why can't I make an Arcana check every time I cast fire bolt to intensify the damage done?
Skills are useful enough. They cover every situation that aren't explicitly covered by other mechanics. But when a feature exists, it's just bad form to allow everyone to have access to it through a skill check.
Why is it that hard to swallow that sneaking restricts the actions you can take? It's part of the challenge. If you want to narrow the scope of verbal components all the way down to "this spell doesn't work in an area of silence" then you might as well just toss out spell components altogether. That's a fine route to take, by the way. But trying to twist them around to justify a thing that defies their very definition just feels like using logic dishonestly to achieve the outcome you want.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I see this viewpoint a lot. "Rules are dumb because they keep me from being awesome." I think it misunderstands why the rules are there.
Take casting sleep on the guard. Yes, he will hear you. And then if the spell is successful, he falls asleep. But what if you don't roll over his hp? What if there's 3 guards, can you get them all? What if someone else is nearby to hear you?
These buzzkill questions are consequences. Consequences make choices matter. They mean you have to think, weigh the pros and cons, and sometimes take a risk. Pondering - and later, dealing with - the consequences of your actions is the heart of roleplaying. That's what makes the game not just fun, but meaningful and fulfilling. A power fantasy game where everyone is One Punch Man and knocks down mountains might be fun for a one-shot, but Rules-Free Imagination Funtime gets old real quick because if the answer to every decision is "yes" than the choice never mattered.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Hey this is a totally valid point. It can be a slippery slope, but I think you're misunderstanding my position. First of all, how often does this situation come up? I've maybe had it come up once or twice in the last couple years but maybe you see it more. The reason it wouldn't happen with damage rolls is because we have clear rules on how damage is applied. We don't for how audible a spell is (It's litterally up to the DM). I don't think that it's bad form because it steps on the Sorcerer ability since it's not guarenteed to work. Does knock invalidate theives tools or pass without trace invalidate stealth? There are also evnironmental accoustics that play in such as in Linklite's examples. In a quiet room at short distance, I'd probably just say no it's not possible even if speaking quiet. Outside next to a waterfall is a different situation. Also, I'm not trying to defy a definiton but instead I'm trying to play into it. Since there are no rules for this scenario, it's entirely up to the DM to sort it out how they see fit. I'm not trying to twist anything here. If a player of mine was trying to abuse this, then as the DM I would put some more guardrails around it possibly to the point of not allowing it if they were really pushing it, but again, I've just not seen it come up that much.
And please stop using Crawfords tweets as official rules. Until its printed in official rule books its not RAW.
Until its a written rule its the DM's option.
As for a problem coming up.
Happens to me every time my Rogue At casts his invisible mage hand. Even if he is already in hiding every person inside 100 feet hear the casting and immediately know my location. And if they fail their perception check to know my location they at least know a spell has been cast.
Whats the use? The spell was not even cast on a person if your thinking that a spell must be heard by the target. Talk about nerfing a skill.
That sounds more like something you need to discuss with your DM. Or heck, in the moment during play, ask if you'd be able to cast a mage hand without alerting everyone; sometimes there's something like a nearby waterfall adding ambient noise that keeps sound from being heard beyond the current room. Or say, a fellow party member could cast Silence on the area where people are sleeping so that they wouldn't hear you casting the spell (outside of the Silence area of course, since that prevents casting with vocal components.) These are things that take some strategy.
And of course you'd need to re-Hide/Sneak after casting a vocal spell that would alert people to your presence. Use your Cunning Action to Hide after the spellcasting on your turn, not before it.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Now I have to move to another place just to hide again?
Wouldn't that reveal me even more? Or can I rehide without moving? Sort of like making them forget where they heard the noise from.
Indeed. Maybe your rogue isn't the best person to be casting Mage Hand when you're within hearing distance of the enemy.
It you can stay out of sight while moving, you can re-Hide without being seen. Depends on the situation.
If you're really, really bothered about the vocal component to Mage Hand, the Telekinesis feat will help you immensely.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
So, I think this is really more of a social question than rules question. If your playing with a Sorcerer and they took Subtle spell over Twin Spell when choosing metamagic. Then it is a rude to try to whisper cast your mage hand cantrip. If Subtle Spell is in the game, or someone took Telekinetic feat, then its a no. Otherwise its a maybe. Probably a arcana check to see if the spell works. Followed by a perception check with a low dc to hear the spell by the target. With modifiers if target is asleep or distracted. Maybe its a negotiation. The casters set the dc on the perception check indicating how quite they are. This then sets the dc on the arcana check to subtle spell without metamagic. Also metamagic consumes sorcery points. So maybe require them to use spell slots to do this?
I’d say it’s totally up to the DM. ANYTHING written in the “rule books” can be changed or discarded by the DM…I do remember something like that being stated in one of the books? Heck, I’d have whoever it was trying to caste a spell “quietly” to average his Arcana & Stealth (using whatever mod it resulted in) and set it at a DC15. That was easy…and if you think that was dumb or stupid, come up with something else that would work for you.
Now since I recommended the above, I’ll try it out at my table. I’ve got a couple spell casters that would love to put this to the test.
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It could be as simple as rolling another stealth check to whisper cast the spell.
This would not effect somatic actions or materials needed.
This would not intrude on subtle spell ability since that works in all situations, even if the caster is bound and gagged.
Treat it like a surprise check. My stealth against their perception check. With ambient noise factors thrown in. Anything from being in an underground cave to being outside in a hurricane.
You could even throw in the range table from the DM screen to see who could have possibly heard it. On a failed stealth roll.
Think about it. You have to give the casters a chance to try, especially those whose main work is being stealthy.
Why would a rogue bust his hump to get an invisible mage hand spell only to never be able to use it to its full advantage, like distracting someone? Rogues eventually get that skill for use in combat( to gain surprise for that sneak attack) so why not out of combat just to get the guard to look someplace else?
I would either allow it or not -- I wouldn't tie it to a skill.
I don't at all allow for "stealth casting" in my games. Verbal and somatic components are all very obvious. It makes the magic system a tad more grounded in rules and it makes things more tactical. It also allows for a world which more realistically reacts to magic. Charm Person is a decent option if you manage to get the person you want to charm alone so you can cast it on them, but if you cast it at a grand party, everyone notices.
There is a mechanic to bypass Verbal and Somatic components in case if your fantasy is a "stealth caster" being Subtle Spell. It's a big investment to get (either the Metamagic feat or a larger 3 levels in sorcerer investment). I think subtle spell is a good compromise for people who want to stealth cast, as it works but requires investment for utility that strong
It would still intrude. It may not replace Subtle Spell completely, but it would remove the main purpose. I've run 3 campaigns, and not once have the Adventurers been bound and gagged. I'm not saying that it never happens or is quite as rare as that, but the bread and butter of that ability is to do what you're saying - to cast a spell secretly.
This is just making your whispered incantation even more powerful. Not only does the caster have to fail the stealth roll, if the observer isn't within 10ft, he doesn't hear it anyway?
Nope. Not just by being quiet, at any rate. Do something a bit more interesting and we can talk. Have your teammate pretend to be drunk and distract guard or something. Then I might be interested in whether that guard wouldn't notice your V.
He can. He just can't cast a spell with a V without having put in the effort to hide it beyond the player saying "I whisper". Maybe there's a distraction. Maybe he casts it in another room. Something meaningful. It he takes a feat that lets him do it without those things. He doesn't get to replicate a class ability just by saying "I whisper", though.
Outside of combat, there is no need for this ability. Use the Mage Hand to knock an object over or make it levitate, or stroke the guard's face. There's no reason why it should require a class ability to do that - in or out of combat. The ability is good in combat because it switches it to a Bonus Action which improves your Action economy, but this is normally irrelevant outside of combat.
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.
Minor Illusion is the safer way to distract guards away from an area. No V component at all.
And the 13th-level Arcane Trickster feature isn't the most wonderful, since it takes the whole bonus action to do the distraction - meaning you can't use that bonus action to move the hand into position next to the enemy, it needs to be there already.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)