It would depend on the DM and how the player is using it.
If I was playing a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell I would talk to the DM before the game to make sure he is ok with how it works. And then I would abuse the living hell out of it.
I mean, basically, no one ever knows you're casting a spell with it and it can never be countered. (Within it's own limits of course, needing sorcery points, spell slots etc.)
Thats the rub though as the M component makes it noticeable so you have a low list of spells that are truly unnoticeable and 95% of them are not work the bother casting with Subtle Spell.
I think you are right though that you should talk with the DM about it....I actively make a point to discuss it if the player picks a sorcerer.
You keep saying that though as if 'noticeable' equals 'noticed' or 'obvious.' It does not actually say that.
It says:
"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."
"Perceptible" here is being used as the opposite of "Imperceptible," in other words, possibly noticed rather than guaranteed noticed. It actually gives NO advice how perceptible it is under those circumstances.
That’s not really an accurate take on how “perceptible” is used. If something is perceptible, it’s perceptible. If it’s only perceptible on a DC 15 Perception check, then it’s not simply “perceptible.” It’s “perceptible under certain conditions.” If the text doesn’t limit the perceptibility based on anything other than the presence of components, then that’s all the matters; it really is “guaranteed noticed.”
As another example, there may be some phenomenon or other and I ask the GM whether or not it’s perceptible. The GM may very well call for a roll, and if I succeed, the answer is yes. If I fail, the answer is no. What’s not going to happen is that I fail but the answer is yes anyway, because that failure meant I couldn’t perceive it; i.e. it was not perceptible.
Since the rules just say components are perceptible, without any further qualification, yeah, if it happens within your line of sight, or within earshot, there’s no barrier to your ability to perceive it.
So in your world things are either seen or impossible to see? No one has to make perception checks for anything?
Your second sentence is a complete non-sequitur. Of course people have to make perception checks. That's how we distinguish between things that are seen and things that can't be seen.
Perceptible does not mean automatically perceived. To prove this, even without subtle spell, a spell casting is presumably not visible from, say, orbit. It is not visible through solid objects. It is not visible in heavy fog or other 100% soft cover.
It might be audible in the last two of those situations, but would not be visible.
By your interpretation, it would be visible under all circumstances, even those listed, since you are using an interpretation of 'perceptible' as guaranteed perceived.
Perceptibility is always inherently relative to an observer. If you are in orbit, then the casting presumably isn't perceptible, and likewise for your other scenarios. It's not difficult. The rules are written in a way that assumes that you and I reading them are not idiots. "The rules say the casting is perceptible, but what if I'm in orbit 150 miles away?" is not a reasonable challenge to those rules. What perceptible means is that there is no mechanical barrier to perception; no one has to roll a Perception check to notice something that's perceptible. They just have to be looking at it or listening to it.
Again, if I say "is this thing perceptible?" and the GM says "yes," but then it turns out that I can't actually perceive it for whatever reason, the GM has lied to me. They should have said "maybe, let's find out."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your second sentence is a complete non-sequitur. Of course people have to make perception checks. That's how we distinguish between things that are seen and things that can't be seen.
Perceptibility is always inherently relative to an observer. If you are in orbit, then the casting presumably isn't perceptible, and likewise for your other scenarios. It's not difficult. The rules are written in a way that assumes that you and I reading them are not idiots. "The rules say the casting is perceptible, but what if I'm in orbit 150 miles away?" is not a reasonable challenge to those rules. What perceptible means is that there is no mechanical barrier to perception; no one has to roll a Perception check to notice something that's perceptible. They just have to be looking at it or listening to it.
Again, if I say "is this thing perceptible?" and the GM says "yes," but then it turns out that I can't actually perceive it for whatever reason, the GM has lied to me. They should have said "maybe, let's find out."