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.
I think we are arguing that there is no "simply" about it. Distant Spell does more than just change the range. Take Bestow Curse, where the range is touch and the description of the 'effect' begins with "You touch a creature, and that creature must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw...". If you use Distant Spell with this and cast it on someone 30 feet from yourself, then in fact you do not "touch a creature". That description has been changed as a side effect of increasing the range of the spell. Similarly, we are arguing that Subtle Spell does more than just change the components - it also changes the description of the effect to remove any described Somatic motions (pointing or even touching) and any Verbal elements except those which are still required to feed more information into the spell's effect; the command of Command, the message in Message, etc. although perhaps telepathy might find ways past that too.
These changes of description are not likely to ever be simple, and I would suggest anyone planning on using such metamagic to have a quick chat to their DM about what effects they should expect to work and what won't be allowed.
I think we are arguing that there is no "simply" about it.
I get what you're saying. It's a reasonable argument. Still, we've already looked at the relevant rules, tweets, Sage Advice answers, and several spells and haven't been able to change each other's mind.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Short of an official ruling, you're not going to change my mind. You already added your perspective to the conversation. Let's move on.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think we are arguing that there is no "simply" about it. Distant Spell does more than just change the range. Take Bestow Curse, where the range is touch and the description of the 'effect' begins with "You touch a creature, and that creature must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw...". If you use Distant Spell with this and cast it on someone 30 feet from yourself, then in fact you do not "touch a creature". That description has been changed as a side effect of increasing the range of the spell. Similarly, we are arguing that Subtle Spell does more than just change the components - it also changes the description of the effect to remove any described Somatic motions (pointing or even touching) and any Verbal elements except those which are still required to feed more information into the spell's effect; the command of Command, the message in Message, etc. although perhaps telepathy might find ways past that too.
These changes of description are not likely to ever be simple, and I would suggest anyone planning on using such metamagic to have a quick chat to their DM about what effects they should expect to work and what won't be allowed.
I get what you're saying. It's a reasonable argument. Still, we've already looked at the relevant rules, tweets, Sage Advice answers, and several spells and haven't been able to change each other's mind.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Found a tweet I had overlooked earlier: "Subtle Spell affects only the verbal/somatic components of a spell. It has no effect on any other sounds or gestures the spell requires."
The Forum Infestation (TM)
From XGtE
Perceiving a Caster at Work
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.