For attack roll spells, would you grant someone using a subtle spell as having advantage on the attack roll for V, S type spells? Maybe just the first time they use it? The reasoning is that there isn't any obvious or visible lead up to the attack. It comes out of nowhere.
I think if it was intended to do that all the time, it would be in the text of the meta-magic. But I can see how this could be very unexpected and potentially fall under "the DM can decide if circumstances warrant" So looking for comments, and potential abuse, or unexpected interactions with other things, suggestions, etc.
For attack roll spells, would you grant someone using a subtle spell as having advantage on the attack roll for V, S type spells?
Nope. That's not a rule.
Maybe just the first time they use it? The reasoning is that there isn't any obvious or visible lead up to the attack. It comes out of nowhere.
Not necessarily. You might still point a finger or your spellcasting focus to aim a ranged spell attack or literally take a swing at someone with a melee spell attack. When you cast Flame Blade, you say some stuff, wave a material component around and then swing a fiery blade at someone. Removing the first two parts doesn't change the fact that they can see you swinging that fiery blade. If you cast Ray of Frost they can still see that beam of cold shoot out.
I think if it was intended to do that all the time, it would be in the text of the meta-magic.
That said, if you are hidden, casting a Subtle spell helps you remain hidden, contrary to muttering arcane phrases out loud. :p
Because of the hiding rules, the attack would reveal you anyways. But if you're casting a saving throw spell that can't be traced back to you (e.g. Hold Person or Hypnotic Pattern) and doesn't require you to speak or do something noisy, then yeah, that's a fantastic way to stay hidden and still do very harmful things.
There is a rule specifically in Advantage/Disadvantage that advises:
"The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."
My comments leading in to that were my reasoning why I don't think it would be all the time, but I think there is clearly justification that some uses of this would be very surprising, unexpected and should influence the roll.
If a spell was solely V or V,S with no material components, there is often no requirement that the caster does anything at all apparent, not even a mean look directed at the target. If a person out of sight of the target throws a boulder at a target, they get advantage even though the target sees the boulder coming. So seeing the weapon coming is irrelevant. Recognizing that person is attacking you is what is operative. If a spell, literally, comes out of nowhere with no visible warning until it is in flight or you are being hit with it, I think that is the exact same thing. Again, I don't think it applies for every spell, or every use, but I can see it applying for many. If you are fighting someone who is holding a sword and shield, and suddenly with no indication or warning (no V, S) you get hit with Shocking Grasp, I think the unexpectedness of it would warrant advantage under DM discretion part of the rule.
One thing I am not clear on now that I think about, Does removing the S from a spell mean that any specific text in the spell related to gestures is not required? Not all S component spells are specific in the spell text but some do have it. An example of one that has specific text would be burning hands. So is that in addition to somatic components or a description of the somatic components?
If a person out of sight of the target throws a boulder at a target, they get advantage even though the target sees the boulder coming. So seeing the weapon coming is irrelevant. Recognizing that person is attacking you is what is operative.
How do you know the person saw the person saw the boulder coming? To me it's obvious the rules are equating being able to see the attacker with being able to see the attack coming. If you can't see the attacker, you probably can't see the boulder either; at least not until it's too late.
If you are fighting someone who is holding a sword and shield, and suddenly with no indication or warning (no V, S) you get hit with Shocking Grasp, I think the unexpectedness of it would warrant advantage under DM discretion part of the rule.
The attack from shocking grasp is no more surprising than an attack with the sword, which also doesn't have what you consider "indication or warning" (i.e. V or S components). Shocking Grasp requires touching the target; you can see them trying to touch you.
By your logic a Lich or Flameskull should have advantage on all their actions (which are all spell attacks).
One thing I am not clear on now that I think about, Does removing the S from a spell mean that any specific text in the spell related to gestures is not required? Not all S component spells are specific in the spell text but some do have it. An example of one that has specific text would be burning hands. So is that in addition to somatic components or a description of the somatic components?
Anything in the text of the spell happens after you've successfully cast it. You still have to put your hands together for Burning Hands or point your finger for Fireball.
Spells requiring an attack roll probably should not get Advantage simply because of Subtle Spell, for the same reason that spells like Spiritual Weapon and Mordenkainen's Sword don't get Advantage on their attack rolls: the fact that the person directing the attack doesn't say anything or performs any overt actions doesn't make the attack itself more effective.
Of course, such a spell, when cast from hiding, should, and does, get Advantage, but then so do spells cast normally (with verbal and somatic components). And if you want to argue that an attack spell without verbal or somatic components (whether cast with Subtle Spell or not) should let you remain in hiding, why doesn't firing a bow, or a slingshot, then?
Naturally, under certain circumstances, the DM can decide the spell was surprising enough to warrant Advantage, and certainly a spell without verbal or somatic components is more likely to be so. But as a general rule, I wouldn't think so.
... By your logic a Lich or Flameskull should have advantage on all their actions (which are all spell attacks)...
Anything in the text of the spell happens after you've successfully cast it. You still have to put your hands together for Burning Hands or point your finger for Fireball.
Neither a Lich nor a Flameskull cast their spells without components. The skull only needs Verbal, but that is still a component of all of its attacking spells.
I also disagree that all the text of a spell description applies when you remove its normal components. Power Word Kill says that you "utter a word of power", but the entire point of things like subtle spell is that you do not utter anything at all. Likewise all pointing of fingers and moving of hands is no longer necessary.
All that said, I'm not certain granting advantage is the right option here as the player might be the kind to abuse that (casting only cantrips, then using subtle to get advantage on a level 9 spell). And there are then many creatures that do cast without components, a Mind Flayer for example, which would be granted the same bonus. Maybe they can use it for advantage when cast outside of battle as a surprise attack.
Neither a Lich nor a Flameskull cast their spells without components. The skull only needs Verbal, but that is still a component of all of its attacking spells.
I specifically called out their actions, which are spell attacks but not spells. There's no V, S, or M component preceding a Flameskull's Fire Ray or a Lich's Paralyzing Touch.
I also disagree that all the text of a spell description applies when you remove its normal components. Power Word Kill says that you "utter a word of power", but the entire point of things like subtle spell is that you do not utter anything at all. Likewise all pointing of fingers and moving of hands is no longer necessary.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
Is the sentence of suggestion in the suggestion spell the verbal component, or is the verbal component separate?
Verbal components are mystic words (PH, 203), not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.
See also these tweets regarding Green-Flame Blade:
The text of a spell is its effect. Your Power Word Kill got counterspelled? Then you don't utter a word of power. A spell says you touch someone? You still have to touch them even if you get rid of the S component. Casting Fireball? You still point your finger in the direction you want to shoot it.
The text of a spell is its effect. Your Power Word Kill got counterspelled? Then you don't utter a word of power. A spell says you touch someone? You still have to touch them even if you get rid of the S component. Casting Fireball? You still point your finger in the direction you want to shoot it.
While I agree with your interpretation, I do have to question the usefulness of Subtle Spell, given that. Unless the spell's effects go off even when they normally would not be able to? For example, you're magically gagged, completely unable to speak. You cast Subtle Power Word Kill. Now, you're still gagged, so you can't "utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly". Assuming the target creature has under 100 hps, does it die, or not? If it does, then the spell doesn't really need the word of power uttered: it wasn't, since the caster's unable to speak, but the target still died. If it doesn't, then Subtle Spell is useless for this particular spell. Does anybody know of any spells with V/S components that don't specify some sort of gesture or utterance in its effect?
Neither a Lich nor a Flameskull cast their spells without components. The skull only needs Verbal, but that is still a component of all of its attacking spells.
I specifically called out their actions, which are spell attacks but not spells. There's no V, S, or M component preceding a Flameskull's Fire Ray or a Lich's Paralyzing Touch....
Look, I'm not going to argue that anything you're saying here is incorrect (though much of it is a bit tangential as to whether removing VSM components from a spell affects the described operation of that spell). Personally, I just think that you are placing too much faith in the omniscience of the creators of this game, as well as the infallibility of the spell descriptions. Almost every spell description contains at least one sentence that is clearly not an actual part of the effect but is actually a description of the purpose of the spell as a whole, and other sentences that are clearly (at least to me) colour only - like the thumbs together description of burning hands which would make it impossible to perform using only one hand. You are free to interpret the rules as you like, but in my opinion it will result in far more nonsense than it will prevent. An example is that according to your interpretation here, subtle casting Power Word Kill would involve an utterance but doing the same for Power Word Heal would not. I think we can agree to disagree on that sort of stuff.
Back to the main topic, I think subtle spell should not grant advantage, even once per combat. The main advantages of subtle spell is it renders spells uncounterable, and has out-of-combat advantages to casting during stealth and social interaction.
My note on the questions about spell-abilities and monster and such would be this... If the characters have no clue what the monster can do because no one has encountered them before or taken the time (or even thought to try) to roll a check to see if they know what it can do, absolutely would give an attack that doesn't have normal lead up (no V.S or obvious description) an advantage the first time they experienced it. First, that would place some value on the skills, experience and stopping to take a beat to think about your foe. And encourage players to do research and go talk to people who fought the creature before if it was a tough one. Second it would help a bit with meta-gaming where the players know something but their characters do not. Again, they would be motivated to RP their character learning that information because they would know that their character's lack of knowledge would give the opponent an edge sometimes. "What the heck??? It just shot fire out of it's eyes!!!" Again, it would be a DM determination that the target was not expecting that type of attack from that target.
Here is my take... V and S represent the general rule of the requirements to cast a spell. Descriptive text within a spell is then a specific rule further describing the V or S action that is required as part of that V or S activity. You never see descriptive text of a type not required for a spell. No you must utter "xxx" and the spell doesn't have a V component for example. That descriptive text is not divorced from the general rule for casting the spell. It is not stand alone text. It is a specific expansion of the general rule V or S component (or M even) Subtle is also a specific rule that overrides the general rule and any specific rules that follow from the general rule would then not come into play. To make it really, really clear, when text says "can cast a spell without material components" (you know the M part) you sound idiotic if you say "but the descriptive text lists a specific component so you still have to supply that". Just as applicable when text says "can cast a spell without verbal component" and you say "but the spell text says you must say something specific" or "can cast without somatic components" and you say "but the spell text says you must make this specific gesture".
The specific rule doesn't apply because the general rule it is derived from no longer applies.
So, I just read Coder's comments on some things that require an intelligible utterance as part of the effect. I do think that is different from what is I feel is a description of a V or S component like "a word of power". With the Suggestion example - if I were in a silence zone, I could not cast the spell without the V component. I would try and fail, No spell slot burned. If I cast the spell that required an "intelligible utterance" and did not make an intelligible utterance the spell would still cast, but would not actually affect the target. Like they were in a silence and couldn't hear me. Or didn't speak the language I tried. Or the sentence I constructed made no sense,(hey it happens like saying "Kill Bob" and it is like "who's Bob?"). Spells that have this requirement describe it pretty well, so I stand by that these aren't descriptions of the V or S component which is what the sage advice meant. Additionally, on the Green Flame Blade, I would say that if you somehow removed the M component through some ability or feature or magic item, it would affect the text description by removing "with a weapon" allowing you to make any melee attack fire it off including a melee spell attack.
I would also say that quoting related but very specific examples of Sage Advice is generally problematic because they are deliberately narrow and specific to answer only the question asked and not intended to then extend beyond that answer. I have seen what looks to be the same question (but isn't) answered in 100% opposite fashion by both Jeremy and Mike. Can I do X? No. Can I do X.5? yes. Just a note.
Here is my take... V and S represent the general rule of the requirements to cast a spell. Descriptive text within a spell is then a specific rule further describing the V or S action that is required as part of that V or S activity.
No. The rules are clear; the text is what the spell does. If a spell elaborates on the casting, that's explicitly stated. Teleportation Circle says you draw a circle as you cast the spell. Snare says you create a circle of rope on the ground as you cast the spell. Summon Greater Demon says you can draw a circle of blood as part of casting the spell. Others like Warding Bond mention you have to wear a pair of rings in the Components section.
You never see descriptive text of a type not required for a spell. No you must utter "xxx" and the spell doesn't have a V component for example.
Almost every single spell in the game has a V component so this doesn't say much.
That descriptive text is not divorced from the general rule for casting the spell.
You can run games however you like, but that's not what the rules say.
To make it really, really clear, when text says "can cast a spell without material components" (you know the M part) you sound idiotic if you say "but the descriptive text lists a specific component so you still have to supply that". Just as applicable when text says "can cast a spell without verbal component" and you say "but the spell text says you must say something specific" or "can cast without somatic components" and you say "but the spell text says you must make this specific gesture".
What do you expect the target of Suggestion or Command to do if you don't say anything? What do you expect your friends to hear if you cast Message but don't whisper anything? These spells can't function at all without the caster saying something.
Personally, I just think that you are placing too much faith in the omniscience of the creators of this game, as well as the infallibility of the spell descriptions.
I'm not discounting the possibility that spells have mistakes in them.
Almost every spell description contains at least one sentence that is clearly not an actual part of the effect but is actually a description of the purpose of the spell as a whole
In other words, describing the spell's effect? What else is a spell's purpose but to cause some sort of effect?
...and other sentences that are clearly (at least to me) colour only - like the thumbs together description of burning hands which would make it impossible to perform using only one hand.
The DM is free to ignore the rules whenever it's more fun to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that Burning Hands requires you to put your hands together. Every part of a spell is rules text. Mechanics and "colour" go hand-in-hand. The mere existence of a spell is an act of worldbuilding, and placing it on a class's spell list affects the flavor of that class.
You are free to interpret the rules as you like, but in my opinion it will result in far more nonsense than it will prevent. An example is that according to your interpretation here, subtle casting Power Word Kill would involve an utterance but doing the same for Power Word Heal would not.
Confusing the spell's effects with components immediately results in nonsense for several spells. It's not my fault someone forgot to add text to Power Word Heal stating you utter a word of healing.
Here is the difference, I would actually argue that someone who has telepathy or such could absolutely use that to convey to them the commands as the RAI are that you have to convey what you want to them to do in a manner they understand. Again you are stating examples where the text says they have to understand something for it to affect them(not to be cast) which is different from the text describing a gesture or vocalization to cast the spell. Additionally you have argued both sides if "the description is what takes place after the spell is cast" and "the description is what is required to cast the spell". You cannot have that both ways.
Lastly, I am waiting for any explanation of how specific wording of required material component in descriptive text is removed by saying no material components required. But specific wording for a gesture or phrase solely to cast the spell is not when no verbal or somatic component is required.
You are extending a Sage Advice answer outside of its specific scope and that fails 100% of the time. That ruling was limited to needing the target to hear and understand you for the desired effect to happen. And somehow that means you must point at someone or say a word of power for a totally different spell that doesn't say the target must know you've said or pointed? No Sage Advice that says that as far as I have found.
If there is a description or gestures not paired with a requirement external to the phrasing like the target needing to understand what you say, or gesture, I firmly believe removing the general rule for requiring a gesture or vocalization removes the specific rule in the text. Even if understanding is required, I would say meeting that through another communication method is valid also (especially if you have removed the V component). Viewing it as general and specific rules is really the only way it fits into the design unless you are arguing that each spell description is an entirely stand alone description of how to cast not subject to any of the general rules? IMO that stance fails utterly as each is clearly written as specific expansion of the general rules, but you can ignore basic game rules in your game all you want. I guess because you think that a magical ability that removes the need for a verbal component still requires you to say something specific for no other purpose than causing the spell to be cast. I mean that is clearly the definition of Verbal Component, but go ahead and ignore that too. No oroblem.
Here is the difference, I would actually argue that someone who has telepathy or such could absolutely use that to convey to them the commands as the RAI are that you have to convey what you want to them to do in a manner they understand.
If the spells simply required communicating, that's what they'd say, but they don't. They require speaking (or whispering, in the case of Message). Not telepathy, not sign language, not holding up a a written note. Speech.
Additionally you have argued both sides if "the description is what takes place after the spell is cast" and "the description is what is required to cast the spell". You cannot have that both ways.
I said the text is what happens after the spell is cast, and that some spells make exceptions. Both of those statements are true. D&D is an exceptions-based game.
You are extending a Sage Advice answer outside of its specific scope and that fails 100% of the time.
I cited the part of the Spellcasting rules that say everything after the spell's header is the spell's effect. That's RAW, whether you like it or not.
Here it is again:
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
If you can find some rules text that supports your position, I'm all ears. Until then, you're house ruling.
And you completely ignore the fact that the "rest of the entry" often describing or requiring a material component is completely negated by a specific rule that says you don't need them. You see, even though it describes the effect, that does not exempt it from being affected by other rules. There are absolutely clear examples that directly contradict your stance that somehow the text in the spell cannot be overridden by a different specific rule. That it is supreme over certain rules but not others. Even while you justify your own contradictions with "there are exceptions".
Like the simple example of "No material component required". Maybe, I don't know, the common situation of a scroll. Let's not even go into supernatural abilities of monsters. If say, you cast Augury "without a material component". Are you saying they don't need the sticks, but still have to throw some sticks because there is text in the spell that says that is part of the effect? Or do they just need to make the throwing gesture without any sticks because the gesture is still required? Or does the text that "when casting from a scroll no material components are needed" override the specific "unalterable" (according to you) effect description? Or if you can cast Awaken without material components because... scroll..., you still have to use a gemstone to trace the circle because the text says you have to? Or can you just use your finger since you don't need the material component? Maybe you don't even need to draw anything, because the spell scroll just takes care of all that? You know, like magic?
That is literally on the first page of the spell list. Or does, gasp, the specific rule of not needing material component change the effect description to remove the need to use, handle or otherwise deal with a material component? If "no material component" can alter effect text specific to what you do with a material component. Then clearly No Verbal or No Somatic component can alter that same text in the exact same way. You are the one house ruling that "sometimes" the effect description can be changed or removed by "some rules" but not others because "exceptions" or "well, not my fault they wrote that spell wrong". Which is clearly not RAW but "rules as you feel like". Good luck with that.
Oh, and please show me where "speech" is required for Suggestion. The spell states "hear and understand you" Telepathy states you can "instantly share words, sounds, images" which establishes that "hearing" and "understanding" would absolutely apply. But sure, you can play however you want, just making up stuff that isn't there. House rule away... As for the others, pretty sure "sharing words" via telepathy is "speaking" via telepathy, but hey, that's just me being crazy....
I cited the part of the Spellcasting rules that say everything after the spell's header is the spell's effect. That's RAW, whether you like it or not.
Well, you pasted the rule followed by your interpretation of it - it isn't actually clear from the rule as stated. All the PHB says is 'Theres a block at the top that lists the important stats, then theres a detailed description underneath' - it in no way suggests that the stat block and description are divorced from each other, or that the V/S/M components mentioned in the block are not what is described below.
As far as how it is actually applied, that would be DM discretion. Some examples i've encountered in play:
Message: If you are gagged, you can open the connection to another player in range...but since you can't talk you lack the ability to communicate over that connection.
Command/Suggestion: As above, you wouldn't be able to cast this whilst gagged without having any other way of communicating with the creature using a means they would understand. If you have Telepathy, a DM could allow it to be used in conjunction with Command/Suggestion but it is entirely at their discretion.
Fireball: Just appears in front of you and goes in the direction you intend, no finger point necessary (the finger point is considered the part of the Somatic component)
Any Power Word: The 'word' is the entire described verbal component, so this spell can be cast freely without any warning with subtle spell.
Any touch spell: Still requires you to touch - this is not a somatic requirement, but based on the spells 'range' being touch. The effects of these spells are being transferred via physical contact with you.
All of this is just interpretation since, despite InquisitveCoder's insistence, the rule as stated in PHB doesn't clearly rule one way or the other.
Well, to be blunt, you are mistaken; metamagic is specifically breaking the standard rules of spells, in one of the finest displays of Specific rules trumping General. To take a simple, direct example from another form of metamagic, the Distant Spell metamagic allows you to cast a 'touch' range spell at a range of 30 feet. It does not change the spell text that might say that you 'touch' a creature, yet you are not forcibly moved to the creature's space nor vice versa; it simply removes the act of touching from the spell entirely.
To take a simple, direct example from another form of metamagic, the Distant Spell metamagic allows you to cast a 'touch' range spell at a range of 30 feet.
Yes, I know that Distant Spell changes Range: Touch to Range: 30 ft, just like Subtle Spell simply removes the V and S entries from the component list.
No, you fail to understand teh premise entirely. What Metamagic in every one of its forms does is change the spell. That is waht makes it metamagic. And while it is simple, you are arguing from a fallacious belief that irrelevant restrictions apply when rules are overriden.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For attack roll spells, would you grant someone using a subtle spell as having advantage on the attack roll for V, S type spells? Maybe just the first time they use it? The reasoning is that there isn't any obvious or visible lead up to the attack. It comes out of nowhere.
I think if it was intended to do that all the time, it would be in the text of the meta-magic. But I can see how this could be very unexpected and potentially fall under "the DM can decide if circumstances warrant"
So looking for comments, and potential abuse, or unexpected interactions with other things, suggestions, etc.
Nope. That's not a rule.
Not necessarily. You might still point a finger or your spellcasting focus to aim a ranged spell attack or literally take a swing at someone with a melee spell attack. When you cast Flame Blade, you say some stuff, wave a material component around and then swing a fiery blade at someone. Removing the first two parts doesn't change the fact that they can see you swinging that fiery blade. If you cast Ray of Frost they can still see that beam of cold shoot out.
Right.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
That said, if you are hidden, casting a Subtle spell helps you remain hidden, contrary to muttering arcane phrases out loud. :p
And being hidden has the usual advantages if you use a spell with an attack roll.
Because of the hiding rules, the attack would reveal you anyways. But if you're casting a saving throw spell that can't be traced back to you (e.g. Hold Person or Hypnotic Pattern) and doesn't require you to speak or do something noisy, then yeah, that's a fantastic way to stay hidden and still do very harmful things.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
There is a rule specifically in Advantage/Disadvantage that advises:
"The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."
My comments leading in to that were my reasoning why I don't think it would be all the time, but I think there is clearly justification that some uses of this would be very surprising, unexpected and should influence the roll.
If a spell was solely V or V,S with no material components, there is often no requirement that the caster does anything at all apparent, not even a mean look directed at the target. If a person out of sight of the target throws a boulder at a target, they get advantage even though the target sees the boulder coming. So seeing the weapon coming is irrelevant. Recognizing that person is attacking you is what is operative. If a spell, literally, comes out of nowhere with no visible warning until it is in flight or you are being hit with it, I think that is the exact same thing. Again, I don't think it applies for every spell, or every use, but I can see it applying for many. If you are fighting someone who is holding a sword and shield, and suddenly with no indication or warning (no V, S) you get hit with Shocking Grasp, I think the unexpectedness of it would warrant advantage under DM discretion part of the rule.
One thing I am not clear on now that I think about, Does removing the S from a spell mean that any specific text in the spell related to gestures is not required? Not all S component spells are specific in the spell text but some do have it. An example of one that has specific text would be burning hands. So is that in addition to somatic components or a description of the somatic components?
How do you know the person saw the person saw the boulder coming? To me it's obvious the rules are equating being able to see the attacker with being able to see the attack coming. If you can't see the attacker, you probably can't see the boulder either; at least not until it's too late.
The attack from shocking grasp is no more surprising than an attack with the sword, which also doesn't have what you consider "indication or warning" (i.e. V or S components). Shocking Grasp requires touching the target; you can see them trying to touch you.
By your logic a Lich or Flameskull should have advantage on all their actions (which are all spell attacks).
Anything in the text of the spell happens after you've successfully cast it. You still have to put your hands together for Burning Hands or point your finger for Fireball.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Spells requiring an attack roll probably should not get Advantage simply because of Subtle Spell, for the same reason that spells like Spiritual Weapon and Mordenkainen's Sword don't get Advantage on their attack rolls: the fact that the person directing the attack doesn't say anything or performs any overt actions doesn't make the attack itself more effective.
Of course, such a spell, when cast from hiding, should, and does, get Advantage, but then so do spells cast normally (with verbal and somatic components). And if you want to argue that an attack spell without verbal or somatic components (whether cast with Subtle Spell or not) should let you remain in hiding, why doesn't firing a bow, or a slingshot, then?
Naturally, under certain circumstances, the DM can decide the spell was surprising enough to warrant Advantage, and certainly a spell without verbal or somatic components is more likely to be so. But as a general rule, I wouldn't think so.
Neither a Lich nor a Flameskull cast their spells without components. The skull only needs Verbal, but that is still a component of all of its attacking spells.
I also disagree that all the text of a spell description applies when you remove its normal components. Power Word Kill says that you "utter a word of power", but the entire point of things like subtle spell is that you do not utter anything at all. Likewise all pointing of fingers and moving of hands is no longer necessary.
All that said, I'm not certain granting advantage is the right option here as the player might be the kind to abuse that (casting only cantrips, then using subtle to get advantage on a level 9 spell). And there are then many creatures that do cast without components, a Mind Flayer for example, which would be granted the same bonus. Maybe they can use it for advantage when cast outside of battle as a surprise attack.
I specifically called out their actions, which are spell attacks but not spells. There's no V, S, or M component preceding a Flameskull's Fire Ray or a Lich's Paralyzing Touch.
Nope. From the rules:
From Sage Advice:
See also these tweets regarding Green-Flame Blade:
"No part of a countered spell occurs. That's the purpose of counterspell."
"If the attack could be disentangled from the spell's effect, the attack would be a component, not part of the effect."
The text of a spell is its effect. Your Power Word Kill got counterspelled? Then you don't utter a word of power. A spell says you touch someone? You still have to touch them even if you get rid of the S component. Casting Fireball? You still point your finger in the direction you want to shoot it.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
While I agree with your interpretation, I do have to question the usefulness of Subtle Spell, given that. Unless the spell's effects go off even when they normally would not be able to? For example, you're magically gagged, completely unable to speak. You cast Subtle Power Word Kill. Now, you're still gagged, so you can't "utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly". Assuming the target creature has under 100 hps, does it die, or not? If it does, then the spell doesn't really need the word of power uttered: it wasn't, since the caster's unable to speak, but the target still died. If it doesn't, then Subtle Spell is useless for this particular spell. Does anybody know of any spells with V/S components that don't specify some sort of gesture or utterance in its effect?
Look, I'm not going to argue that anything you're saying here is incorrect (though much of it is a bit tangential as to whether removing VSM components from a spell affects the described operation of that spell). Personally, I just think that you are placing too much faith in the omniscience of the creators of this game, as well as the infallibility of the spell descriptions. Almost every spell description contains at least one sentence that is clearly not an actual part of the effect but is actually a description of the purpose of the spell as a whole, and other sentences that are clearly (at least to me) colour only - like the thumbs together description of burning hands which would make it impossible to perform using only one hand. You are free to interpret the rules as you like, but in my opinion it will result in far more nonsense than it will prevent. An example is that according to your interpretation here, subtle casting Power Word Kill would involve an utterance but doing the same for Power Word Heal would not. I think we can agree to disagree on that sort of stuff.
Back to the main topic, I think subtle spell should not grant advantage, even once per combat. The main advantages of subtle spell is it renders spells uncounterable, and has out-of-combat advantages to casting during stealth and social interaction.
My note on the questions about spell-abilities and monster and such would be this...
If the characters have no clue what the monster can do because no one has encountered them before or taken the time (or even thought to try) to roll a check to see if they know what it can do, absolutely would give an attack that doesn't have normal lead up (no V.S or obvious description) an advantage the first time they experienced it. First, that would place some value on the skills, experience and stopping to take a beat to think about your foe. And encourage players to do research and go talk to people who fought the creature before if it was a tough one. Second it would help a bit with meta-gaming where the players know something but their characters do not. Again, they would be motivated to RP their character learning that information because they would know that their character's lack of knowledge would give the opponent an edge sometimes. "What the heck??? It just shot fire out of it's eyes!!!"
Again, it would be a DM determination that the target was not expecting that type of attack from that target.
Here is my take... V and S represent the general rule of the requirements to cast a spell. Descriptive text within a spell is then a specific rule further describing the V or S action that is required as part of that V or S activity. You never see descriptive text of a type not required for a spell. No you must utter "xxx" and the spell doesn't have a V component for example. That descriptive text is not divorced from the general rule for casting the spell. It is not stand alone text. It is a specific expansion of the general rule V or S component (or M even)
Subtle is also a specific rule that overrides the general rule and any specific rules that follow from the general rule would then not come into play.
To make it really, really clear, when text says "can cast a spell without material components" (you know the M part) you sound idiotic if you say "but the descriptive text lists a specific component so you still have to supply that". Just as applicable when text says "can cast a spell without verbal component" and you say "but the spell text says you must say something specific" or "can cast without somatic components" and you say "but the spell text says you must make this specific gesture".
The specific rule doesn't apply because the general rule it is derived from no longer applies.
So, I just read Coder's comments on some things that require an intelligible utterance as part of the effect. I do think that is different from what is I feel is a description of a V or S component like "a word of power".
With the Suggestion example - if I were in a silence zone, I could not cast the spell without the V component. I would try and fail, No spell slot burned. If I cast the spell that required an "intelligible utterance" and did not make an intelligible utterance the spell would still cast, but would not actually affect the target. Like they were in a silence and couldn't hear me. Or didn't speak the language I tried. Or the sentence I constructed made no sense,(hey it happens like saying "Kill Bob" and it is like "who's Bob?"). Spells that have this requirement describe it pretty well, so I stand by that these aren't descriptions of the V or S component which is what the sage advice meant.
Additionally, on the Green Flame Blade, I would say that if you somehow removed the M component through some ability or feature or magic item, it would affect the text description by removing "with a weapon" allowing you to make any melee attack fire it off including a melee spell attack.
I would also say that quoting related but very specific examples of Sage Advice is generally problematic because they are deliberately narrow and specific to answer only the question asked and not intended to then extend beyond that answer. I have seen what looks to be the same question (but isn't) answered in 100% opposite fashion by both Jeremy and Mike. Can I do X? No. Can I do X.5? yes. Just a note.
No. The rules are clear; the text is what the spell does. If a spell elaborates on the casting, that's explicitly stated. Teleportation Circle says you draw a circle as you cast the spell. Snare says you create a circle of rope on the ground as you cast the spell. Summon Greater Demon says you can draw a circle of blood as part of casting the spell. Others like Warding Bond mention you have to wear a pair of rings in the Components section.
Almost every single spell in the game has a V component so this doesn't say much.
You can run games however you like, but that's not what the rules say.
What do you expect the target of Suggestion or Command to do if you don't say anything? What do you expect your friends to hear if you cast Message but don't whisper anything? These spells can't function at all without the caster saying something.
I'm not discounting the possibility that spells have mistakes in them.
In other words, describing the spell's effect? What else is a spell's purpose but to cause some sort of effect?
The DM is free to ignore the rules whenever it's more fun to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that Burning Hands requires you to put your hands together. Every part of a spell is rules text. Mechanics and "colour" go hand-in-hand. The mere existence of a spell is an act of worldbuilding, and placing it on a class's spell list affects the flavor of that class.
Confusing the spell's effects with components immediately results in nonsense for several spells. It's not my fault someone forgot to add text to Power Word Heal stating you utter a word of healing.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Here is the difference, I would actually argue that someone who has telepathy or such could absolutely use that to convey to them the commands as the RAI are that you have to convey what you want to them to do in a manner they understand. Again you are stating examples where the text says they have to understand something for it to affect them(not to be cast) which is different from the text describing a gesture or vocalization to cast the spell. Additionally you have argued both sides if "the description is what takes place after the spell is cast" and "the description is what is required to cast the spell". You cannot have that both ways.
Lastly, I am waiting for any explanation of how specific wording of required material component in descriptive text is removed by saying no material components required. But specific wording for a gesture or phrase solely to cast the spell is not when no verbal or somatic component is required.
You are extending a Sage Advice answer outside of its specific scope and that fails 100% of the time. That ruling was limited to needing the target to hear and understand you for the desired effect to happen. And somehow that means you must point at someone or say a word of power for a totally different spell that doesn't say the target must know you've said or pointed? No Sage Advice that says that as far as I have found.
If there is a description or gestures not paired with a requirement external to the phrasing like the target needing to understand what you say, or gesture, I firmly believe removing the general rule for requiring a gesture or vocalization removes the specific rule in the text. Even if understanding is required, I would say meeting that through another communication method is valid also (especially if you have removed the V component). Viewing it as general and specific rules is really the only way it fits into the design unless you are arguing that each spell description is an entirely stand alone description of how to cast not subject to any of the general rules? IMO that stance fails utterly as each is clearly written as specific expansion of the general rules, but you can ignore basic game rules in your game all you want. I guess because you think that a magical ability that removes the need for a verbal component still requires you to say something specific for no other purpose than causing the spell to be cast. I mean that is clearly the definition of Verbal Component, but go ahead and ignore that too. No oroblem.
If the spells simply required communicating, that's what they'd say, but they don't. They require speaking (or whispering, in the case of Message). Not telepathy, not sign language, not holding up a a written note. Speech.
I said the text is what happens after the spell is cast, and that some spells make exceptions. Both of those statements are true. D&D is an exceptions-based game.
I cited the part of the Spellcasting rules that say everything after the spell's header is the spell's effect. That's RAW, whether you like it or not.
Here it is again:
If you can find some rules text that supports your position, I'm all ears. Until then, you're house ruling.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
And you completely ignore the fact that the "rest of the entry" often describing or requiring a material component is completely negated by a specific rule that says you don't need them. You see, even though it describes the effect, that does not exempt it from being affected by other rules. There are absolutely clear examples that directly contradict your stance that somehow the text in the spell cannot be overridden by a different specific rule. That it is supreme over certain rules but not others. Even while you justify your own contradictions with "there are exceptions".
Like the simple example of "No material component required". Maybe, I don't know, the common situation of a scroll. Let's not even go into supernatural abilities of monsters.
If say, you cast Augury "without a material component". Are you saying they don't need the sticks, but still have to throw some sticks because there is text in the spell that says that is part of the effect? Or do they just need to make the throwing gesture without any sticks because the gesture is still required? Or does the text that "when casting from a scroll no material components are needed" override the specific "unalterable" (according to you) effect description?
Or if you can cast Awaken without material components because... scroll..., you still have to use a gemstone to trace the circle because the text says you have to? Or can you just use your finger since you don't need the material component? Maybe you don't even need to draw anything, because the spell scroll just takes care of all that? You know, like magic?
That is literally on the first page of the spell list.
Or does, gasp, the specific rule of not needing material component change the effect description to remove the need to use, handle or otherwise deal with a material component?
If "no material component" can alter effect text specific to what you do with a material component. Then clearly No Verbal or No Somatic component can alter that same text in the exact same way. You are the one house ruling that "sometimes" the effect description can be changed or removed by "some rules" but not others because "exceptions" or "well, not my fault they wrote that spell wrong". Which is clearly not RAW but "rules as you feel like". Good luck with that.
Oh, and please show me where "speech" is required for Suggestion. The spell states "hear and understand you" Telepathy states you can "instantly share words, sounds, images" which establishes that "hearing" and "understanding" would absolutely apply. But sure, you can play however you want, just making up stuff that isn't there. House rule away...
As for the others, pretty sure "sharing words" via telepathy is "speaking" via telepathy, but hey, that's just me being crazy....
Well, you pasted the rule followed by your interpretation of it - it isn't actually clear from the rule as stated. All the PHB says is 'Theres a block at the top that lists the important stats, then theres a detailed description underneath' - it in no way suggests that the stat block and description are divorced from each other, or that the V/S/M components mentioned in the block are not what is described below.
As far as how it is actually applied, that would be DM discretion. Some examples i've encountered in play:
Message: If you are gagged, you can open the connection to another player in range...but since you can't talk you lack the ability to communicate over that connection.
Command/Suggestion: As above, you wouldn't be able to cast this whilst gagged without having any other way of communicating with the creature using a means they would understand. If you have Telepathy, a DM could allow it to be used in conjunction with Command/Suggestion but it is entirely at their discretion.
Fireball: Just appears in front of you and goes in the direction you intend, no finger point necessary (the finger point is considered the part of the Somatic component)
Any Power Word: The 'word' is the entire described verbal component, so this spell can be cast freely without any warning with subtle spell.
Any touch spell: Still requires you to touch - this is not a somatic requirement, but based on the spells 'range' being touch. The effects of these spells are being transferred via physical contact with you.
All of this is just interpretation since, despite InquisitveCoder's insistence, the rule as stated in PHB doesn't clearly rule one way or the other.
Well, to be blunt, you are mistaken; metamagic is specifically breaking the standard rules of spells, in one of the finest displays of Specific rules trumping General.
To take a simple, direct example from another form of metamagic, the Distant Spell metamagic allows you to cast a 'touch' range spell at a range of 30 feet. It does not change the spell text that might say that you 'touch' a creature, yet you are not forcibly moved to the creature's space nor vice versa; it simply removes the act of touching from the spell entirely.
Yes, I know that Distant Spell changes Range: Touch to Range: 30 ft, just like Subtle Spell simply removes the V and S entries from the component list.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
No, you fail to understand teh premise entirely. What Metamagic in every one of its forms does is change the spell. That is waht makes it metamagic. And while it is simple, you are arguing from a fallacious belief that irrelevant restrictions apply when rules are overriden.