Hello, as the title states I'm wanting to cast a spell but have it look like another to my party members. as I want to hide as a lawful player while being evil and using the party to help my plans.
What skill would you have me roll to hide the spell from the rest of the party?
Talking to the DM and we are thinking between "Slight of hand" or "Deception"
I'd probably ask for multiple rolls, to be honest. Deception to see how well you hide your motivations and Arcana to see if you can substitute the verbal and somatic components of the "evil" spell for the "good" spell. I'd probably only use Sleight of Hand if you wanted to hide the fact that you're casting the spell at all - or possibly as a replacement for the Arcana check if you're a divine/nature caster instead of an arcane/bardic one. If you use a spellcasting focus, Sleight of Hand would be off the table entirely since your method of casting wouldn't change.
If you fail the Deception check but succeed the Arcana check, I'd rule that the more insightful PCs might notice something's off, depending on how low you roll. If you pass the Deception check and fail the Arcana check, I'd rule that you keep your motivations hidden but that you either lose the spell or end up casting the "good" one by mistake.
I just wouldn’t allow this. The entire point of spell components is that they need to be precisely what they are. You can’t make them different and still cast the spell.
That said, identifying any spell based solely on the components is already difficult. Xanathar’s Guide to Everything offers the following: “If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s level.”
That requires an active attempt on the part of whoever’s trying to identify the spell. You can just say you’re casting whatever you want to say you’re casting, and if I were the DM, I’d leave it at that unless someone else said “ARE YOU THOUGH” and asked if they could identify the spell as something different.
Wouldn't allow it without a means of doing so. A sorcerer using Subtle Spell to ignore spell components for the spell she's casting, while mimicking the components of a different spell completely? Sure - that's a really clever use of Subtle Spell and merits a Deception roll. No Subtle Spell or similar effect? Then spell components need to be what they are.
As Saga mentioned though, it takes training and keen observation to spot this in the first place. If you're the only spellcaster in your party they're not going to catch you anyways. Someone without Arcana training doesn't even get a roll. The most difficult part of this would be figuring out how to tell the DM what you're actually casting without tipping off your party.
Which brings me to the most important observation - be freaking careful with this. This is the kind of duplicitous double-dickery that explodes campaigns, and why absolutely nobody behind the DM screen does anything but groan when a player says "can my character be secretly evil?" If you want to be Secretly Evil, my principle advice is "don't." My advice if that is ignored is "no, really. Don't." My advice following that, should you have your blackened little heart set on being Secretly Evil, is not to involve the DM beyond letting her know. Say "My character has a plan she's trying to enact, secret from the other characters. If I occasionally do something that seems a little odd, just roll with it please", and then see if you're a sufficiently excellent actor and storyteller to successfully pull off a Machiavellian secret plot. You won't be, but try. If you somehow manage to pull it off it could be one extremely cool "oh that magnificent son of a bytch!" moment, but more realistically your fellow players are just going to be massively upset at you for torching their plans and their game whenever your own objective goes live.
If you're not doing this because you think you've got a really cool story or moment to share with your group - i.e. you're trying to make the game better for everyone, not just you - don't do it. Being Secretly Evil sucks far too much for everyone else to do under any other circumstance.
I just wouldn’t allow this. The entire point of spell components is that they need to be precisely what they are. You can’t make them different and still cast the spell.
100% agreed. Changing components is equivalent to the sorcerer's Metamagic, and spellcasters already have the edge when it comes to solving problems compared to characters that need to rely on skills.
Just keep in mind that if checks are involved, eventually you will fail and be exposed. Reasonable characters wouldn't want you in their party. So you need a plan for the inevitable outcome - either your character is expendable and you have another ready, or you can provide a reason for the party to somehow want you around despite your deception and betrayal.
I just wouldn’t allow this. The entire point of spell components is that they need to be precisely what they are. You can’t make them different and still cast the spell.
That said, identifying any spell based solely on the components is already difficult. Xanathar’s Guide to Everything offers the following: “If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s level.”
That requires an active attempt on the part of whoever’s trying to identify the spell. You can just say you’re casting whatever you want to say you’re casting, and if I were the DM, I’d leave it at that unless someone else said “ARE YOU THOUGH” and asked if they could identify the spell as something different.
I agree here mechanically for all the reasons said.
Now, if said caster that wasn't in combat was going to say "I am casting a spell to cure your disease," but then casts a Charm Person that would be a Deception check and I would allow that. If it fails, the intended target of the deception would know something is up, but not what. It doesn't actually change the spells nature or V/S/M, so if they were checking the spell as cited above, it is already hard enough for a spell caster to do and is already covered. Most classes with out Arcana just can't do this effectively; magic is hard.
The other case, where you are in combat, like trying to juke a Counterspell by claiming your next big bad is Fireball when you really are casting [Tooltip Not Found] is more a problem. I don't think I would allow that in my games , precisely because of the rules already in place as Saga mentions covers it, and you don't get to use an action to deceive AND cast a spell. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it, and that would become a headache real quickly.
Yeah, I did not interpret this as trying to change components or anything like that.
id say deception or arcana.
or nothing and it would be up to the other players to be suspicious of your spell casting in the first place, and I’d have them make an arcana check to attempt to identify the spell you are casting.
1) The OP just talks about casting a spell while it looking like they are casting a different spell. They are not talking about substituting components or anything of the sort.
2) If one cannot deceive while casting, then every disguise automatically fails if the person casts any sort of spell. In fact it would be difficult to impossible to do anything clandestinely. That seems neither RAW nor RAI.
The problem that I see is that the effects of the spell would have to be similar enough to allow for it to be believable, but dissimilar enough to allow for distinguishing results. I can't think of enough spells that I would classify as being innately evil that would have similar results to one that would be Innately good that it would even matter.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that most D&D magic is just magic and any good or evil applications of such magic is more reliant on the story telling than the mechanics.
This would mean that another character would have to question your motives when using a spell, at which point some kind of charisma check would be needed (likely deception) to leave them feeling comfortable with your use of magic. This would imply that your more brutal or dishonest uses of magic would either have to be done in secret or with a performance check or deception check as you are "reluctantly persuaded" to do this "for the common good".
I certainly wouldn't let you use different components, particularly ones with value. There isn't enough that's said about the size of most material components to allow for a lot of interplay on component belts and sleight of hand, nor would I expect most people to be paying enough attention to you to notice discrepancies with what you grabbed unless you were teaching them.
The rules don't state that the somatic components are the same for each caster for each spell and there is so little on somatic components that people get miffed that SM spells can be cast with a focus but not with S only spells (not stressing the V components because it's the same with or without for this point). The difference could simply be in flavor such that the component is different holding something than not holding something and therefore impossible while holding something. Lacking clarification on such a distinction, they justifiably ask, "Why here but not there?" The fact that is the case when we're not trying to hide our spells means that there isn't enough support to suggest mechanics while trying to deceive while casting since the somatics aren't even described as being universal. The closest we have is the Wizard trying to copy another wizard's spellbook, which doesn't say that you couldn't develop somatic components that differ.
The vocal components could reasonably be said in a different language perhaps Draconic or Primordial or something that no other party members know and perhaps the harsh sounding components are just sound that way because of the language.
Edit truncating quotes and editing spacing.
Also, some of this would have to be up to the DMs discretion, but I still think more about what you cast would be discernable by casual observers by the spell effects than anything else they would be doing.
1) The OP just talks about casting a spell while it looking like they are casting a different spell. They are not talking about substituting components or anything of the sort.
2) If one cannot deceive while casting, then every disguise automatically fails if the person casts any sort of spell. In fact it would be difficult to impossible to do anything clandestinely. That seems neither RAW nor RAI.
1) Making it look like you're casting a different spell is substituting components. Spells are uniquely identifiable by their components. It's difficult to do so (see Xanathar's Guide), but it can be done. Appearing to cast a different spell would involve using that different spell's unique components, in which case you couldn't cast the spell you're actually trying to cast.
2) If your disguise relies on you not casting spells, then... yeah? Casting spells would break the disguise? If you're disguised as someone who wouldn't do something, don't do that thing where other people can see you. That's Disguises 101 and 100% in line with both RAW and RAI. If you want to be able to cast spells undetected and out in the open, play a sorcerer and take Subtle Spell.
1) The OP just talks about casting a spell while it looking like they are casting a different spell. They are not talking about substituting components or anything of the sort.
2) If one cannot deceive while casting, then every disguise automatically fails if the person casts any sort of spell. In fact it would be difficult to impossible to do anything clandestinely. That seems neither RAW nor RAI.
1) Making it look like you're casting a different spell is substituting components. Spells are uniquely identifiable by their components. It's difficult to do so (see Xanathar's Guide), but it can be done. Appearing to cast a different spell would involve using that different spell's unique components, in which case you couldn't cast the spell you're actually trying to cast.
2) If your disguise relies on you not casting spells, then... yeah? Casting spells would break the disguise? If you're disguised as someone who wouldn't do something, don't do that thing where other people can see you. That's Disguises 101 and 100% in line with both RAW and RAI. If you want to be able to cast spells undetected and out in the open, play a sorcerer and take Subtle Spell.
1) You are assuming the audience knows enough about the spells to be able to identify those differences. NOT a given. Unless the observer has the spell or at least routinely sees it cast *and* cares enough to notice such things (DM discretion) then how would they know which spell you are casting?
2) Even if they know the gestures, if the spell only needs one hand (again, DM discretion), it might be possible to fake gestures with the other, even if just nonsense gestures. Depending on spells, the spell actually being cast might not need any gestures at all. And we are not talking about casting spells undetected but rather disguising the nature of the spell actually being cast. Not quite the same thing. If it was not possible for gestures to appear to be one thing while actually doing another, slight of hand would be useless. That is exactly what slight of hand is.
1) That's exactly what I already said in my first response to this thread.
2) Anyone who can successfully identify a spell as it's cast is not going to be fooled by random gesticulation with the other hand. No one's saying it's not possible for gestures to appear to be one thing while actually doing another as a general statement. Somatic components are not just gestures. They are specific patterns that must be deployed precisely in order to achieve a specific magical effect. That's why you can identify what spell someone is casting with a successful Arcana check, and that's why you can't do different patterns and still achieve the same magical effect. Obviously a DM can do whatever they want, but Xanathar's Guide lays out the process for figuring out what spell someone is casting. Additional mechanics on top of that are houserules, which are100% fine, but it's important to understand where RAW ends and homebrew begins.
1) That's exactly what I already said in my first response to this thread.
2) Anyone who can successfully identify a spell as it's cast is not going to be fooled by random gesticulation with the other hand. No one's saying it's not possible for gestures to appear to be one thing while actually doing another as a general statement. Somatic components are not just gestures. They are specific patterns that must be deployed precisely in order to achieve a specific magical effect. That's why you can identify what spell someone is casting with a successful Arcana check, and that's why you can't do different patterns and still achieve the same magical effect. Obviously a DM can do whatever they want, but Xanathar's Guide lays out the process for figuring out what spell someone is casting. Additional mechanics on top of that are houserules, which are100% fine, but it's important to understand where RAW ends and homebrew begins.
If a party member is casting identify as the person casts.... who in blazes does that? Somatic patterns do have to be *specific* gestures but exactly what they are or how complex they are for any given spell varies from spell to spell. And yes an Arcana check could determine what is being cast, but as an action or reaction, which are conscious choices. Xanathar's seems not to provide any passive identification. And the Xanathar's mechanics seem to be optional rules that the DM may or may not be using.... That makes it 'a' process that might be relevant in that campaign. It does not make it 'The' process. What if the DM does not even own Xanathar's? Do the new rules somehow adjudicate themselves?
I don't think that they were saying that the character casts Identify, just that they could predict which spell was being cast if they were watching and every magic caster used the same exact gestures to cast the same spell (which is probably the intended way for this to work, I just haven't seen any rules that state it outright).
Xanathar's is optional. Everything that is outside of the PHB, DMG, and MM are considered expansions and there are several rules within those books that are also considered optional. That doesn't mean that one can't reference those optional rules when discussing something that is borderline or outright homebrew as a point of reference. It's simply saying, "These are the closest rules that I could find and this seems to be the intent that was had for this type of thing."
So much of this topic is going to depend on DM ruling that the major point of having the discussion is simply to give guidance to the OP in particular and any DM that might decide that it sounds cool (or more likely has a player that thinks that it sounds cool) down the road.
I feel a little more back story is needed, im looking at playing a death cleric looking to become a lich. I am joining up with a party already looking for what i need to have this happen. They have the quest to destroy it though. I want to look like the good lawful healer type, not the raise and army of the death type that I am.
I am only starting to develope this PC at the moment and still have a to flesh out the details.
I feel a little more back story is needed, im looking at playing a death cleric looking to become a lich. I am joining up with a party already looking for what i need to have this happen. They have the quest to destroy it though. I want to look like the good lawful healer type, not the raise and army of the death type that I am.
I am only starting to develope this PC at the moment and still have a to flesh out the details.
Have a conversation with your DM about before you plan it any more. It's possible that idea won't be allowed at the table.
If this follows to conclusion, you will have one of the follow scenarios:
The party convinces your character to turn from their ways everything runs normal.
The party discovers your plot and disposes of your character. They then either kick you from the group or have you roll a new character (either to continue the campaign or start a new campaign).
The party fails to stop your plot. Your character becomes a lich and:
They kill your character and kick you from the group or have you roll a new character.
Your character escapes and becomes an NPC. You are kicked from the group or roll a new character.
You defeat the party, probably killing their characters. You are kicked from the group or you start a new campaign with them.
Possibly something that's not these, but the chances of it not ending well are very high and won't received well by the wrong group.
If your DM is ok with this and you want to continue, I highly suggest that your character obtaining lichdom be something that happens only at the conclusion of the campaign as this gives the inevitable showdown the chance to be an epic conclusion. Also be ready to not control the lich.
Hello, as the title states I'm wanting to cast a spell but have it look like another to my party members. as I want to hide as a lawful player while being evil and using the party to help my plans.
What skill would you have me roll to hide the spell from the rest of the party?
Talking to the DM and we are thinking between "Slight of hand" or "Deception"
Whats every ones thoughts?
I'd probably ask for multiple rolls, to be honest. Deception to see how well you hide your motivations and Arcana to see if you can substitute the verbal and somatic components of the "evil" spell for the "good" spell. I'd probably only use Sleight of Hand if you wanted to hide the fact that you're casting the spell at all - or possibly as a replacement for the Arcana check if you're a divine/nature caster instead of an arcane/bardic one. If you use a spellcasting focus, Sleight of Hand would be off the table entirely since your method of casting wouldn't change.
If you fail the Deception check but succeed the Arcana check, I'd rule that the more insightful PCs might notice something's off, depending on how low you roll. If you pass the Deception check and fail the Arcana check, I'd rule that you keep your motivations hidden but that you either lose the spell or end up casting the "good" one by mistake.
I just wouldn’t allow this. The entire point of spell components is that they need to be precisely what they are. You can’t make them different and still cast the spell.
That said, identifying any spell based solely on the components is already difficult. Xanathar’s Guide to Everything offers the following: “If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s level.”
That requires an active attempt on the part of whoever’s trying to identify the spell. You can just say you’re casting whatever you want to say you’re casting, and if I were the DM, I’d leave it at that unless someone else said “ARE YOU THOUGH” and asked if they could identify the spell as something different.
Wouldn't allow it without a means of doing so. A sorcerer using Subtle Spell to ignore spell components for the spell she's casting, while mimicking the components of a different spell completely? Sure - that's a really clever use of Subtle Spell and merits a Deception roll. No Subtle Spell or similar effect? Then spell components need to be what they are.
As Saga mentioned though, it takes training and keen observation to spot this in the first place. If you're the only spellcaster in your party they're not going to catch you anyways. Someone without Arcana training doesn't even get a roll. The most difficult part of this would be figuring out how to tell the DM what you're actually casting without tipping off your party.
Which brings me to the most important observation - be freaking careful with this. This is the kind of duplicitous double-dickery that explodes campaigns, and why absolutely nobody behind the DM screen does anything but groan when a player says "can my character be secretly evil?" If you want to be Secretly Evil, my principle advice is "don't." My advice if that is ignored is "no, really. Don't." My advice following that, should you have your blackened little heart set on being Secretly Evil, is not to involve the DM beyond letting her know. Say "My character has a plan she's trying to enact, secret from the other characters. If I occasionally do something that seems a little odd, just roll with it please", and then see if you're a sufficiently excellent actor and storyteller to successfully pull off a Machiavellian secret plot. You won't be, but try. If you somehow manage to pull it off it could be one extremely cool "oh that magnificent son of a bytch!" moment, but more realistically your fellow players are just going to be massively upset at you for torching their plans and their game whenever your own objective goes live.
If you're not doing this because you think you've got a really cool story or moment to share with your group - i.e. you're trying to make the game better for everyone, not just you - don't do it. Being Secretly Evil sucks far too much for everyone else to do under any other circumstance.
Please do not contact or message me.
100% agreed. Changing components is equivalent to the sorcerer's Metamagic, and spellcasters already have the edge when it comes to solving problems compared to characters that need to rely on skills.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Just keep in mind that if checks are involved, eventually you will fail and be exposed. Reasonable characters wouldn't want you in their party. So you need a plan for the inevitable outcome - either your character is expendable and you have another ready, or you can provide a reason for the party to somehow want you around despite your deception and betrayal.
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
Deception or performance.
I agree here mechanically for all the reasons said.
Now, if said caster that wasn't in combat was going to say "I am casting a spell to cure your disease," but then casts a Charm Person that would be a Deception check and I would allow that. If it fails, the intended target of the deception would know something is up, but not what. It doesn't actually change the spells nature or V/S/M, so if they were checking the spell as cited above, it is already hard enough for a spell caster to do and is already covered. Most classes with out Arcana just can't do this effectively; magic is hard.
The other case, where you are in combat, like trying to juke a Counterspell by claiming your next big bad is Fireball when you really are casting [Tooltip Not Found] is more a problem. I don't think I would allow that in my games , precisely because of the rules already in place as Saga mentions covers it, and you don't get to use an action to deceive AND cast a spell. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it, and that would become a headache real quickly.
Yeah, I did not interpret this as trying to change components or anything like that.
id say deception or arcana.
or nothing and it would be up to the other players to be suspicious of your spell casting in the first place, and I’d have them make an arcana check to attempt to identify the spell you are casting.
The problem that I see is that the effects of the spell would have to be similar enough to allow for it to be believable, but dissimilar enough to allow for distinguishing results. I can't think of enough spells that I would classify as being innately evil that would have similar results to one that would be Innately good that it would even matter.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that most D&D magic is just magic and any good or evil applications of such magic is more reliant on the story telling than the mechanics.
This would mean that another character would have to question your motives when using a spell, at which point some kind of charisma check would be needed (likely deception) to leave them feeling comfortable with your use of magic. This would imply that your more brutal or dishonest uses of magic would either have to be done in secret or with a performance check or deception check as you are "reluctantly persuaded" to do this "for the common good".
I certainly wouldn't let you use different components, particularly ones with value. There isn't enough that's said about the size of most material components to allow for a lot of interplay on component belts and sleight of hand, nor would I expect most people to be paying enough attention to you to notice discrepancies with what you grabbed unless you were teaching them.
The rules don't state that the somatic components are the same for each caster for each spell and there is so little on somatic components that people get miffed that SM spells can be cast with a focus but not with S only spells (not stressing the V components because it's the same with or without for this point). The difference could simply be in flavor such that the component is different holding something than not holding something and therefore impossible while holding something. Lacking clarification on such a distinction, they justifiably ask, "Why here but not there?" The fact that is the case when we're not trying to hide our spells means that there isn't enough support to suggest mechanics while trying to deceive while casting since the somatics aren't even described as being universal. The closest we have is the Wizard trying to copy another wizard's spellbook, which doesn't say that you couldn't develop somatic components that differ.
The vocal components could reasonably be said in a different language perhaps Draconic or Primordial or something that no other party members know and perhaps the harsh sounding components are just sound that way because of the language.
Edit truncating quotes and editing spacing.
Also, some of this would have to be up to the DMs discretion, but I still think more about what you cast would be discernable by casual observers by the spell effects than anything else they would be doing.
1) Making it look like you're casting a different spell is substituting components. Spells are uniquely identifiable by their components. It's difficult to do so (see Xanathar's Guide), but it can be done. Appearing to cast a different spell would involve using that different spell's unique components, in which case you couldn't cast the spell you're actually trying to cast.
2) If your disguise relies on you not casting spells, then... yeah? Casting spells would break the disguise? If you're disguised as someone who wouldn't do something, don't do that thing where other people can see you. That's Disguises 101 and 100% in line with both RAW and RAI. If you want to be able to cast spells undetected and out in the open, play a sorcerer and take Subtle Spell.
need blood for a component? Squirt it out of a ketchup bottle ya dingus!
1) That's exactly what I already said in my first response to this thread.
2) Anyone who can successfully identify a spell as it's cast is not going to be fooled by random gesticulation with the other hand. No one's saying it's not possible for gestures to appear to be one thing while actually doing another as a general statement. Somatic components are not just gestures. They are specific patterns that must be deployed precisely in order to achieve a specific magical effect. That's why you can identify what spell someone is casting with a successful Arcana check, and that's why you can't do different patterns and still achieve the same magical effect. Obviously a DM can do whatever they want, but Xanathar's Guide lays out the process for figuring out what spell someone is casting. Additional mechanics on top of that are houserules, which are100% fine, but it's important to understand where RAW ends and homebrew begins.
Again, that’s exactly what I’ve already said. Glad we’re on the same page now!
I don't think that they were saying that the character casts Identify, just that they could predict which spell was being cast if they were watching and every magic caster used the same exact gestures to cast the same spell (which is probably the intended way for this to work, I just haven't seen any rules that state it outright).
Xanathar's is optional. Everything that is outside of the PHB, DMG, and MM are considered expansions and there are several rules within those books that are also considered optional. That doesn't mean that one can't reference those optional rules when discussing something that is borderline or outright homebrew as a point of reference. It's simply saying, "These are the closest rules that I could find and this seems to be the intent that was had for this type of thing."
So much of this topic is going to depend on DM ruling that the major point of having the discussion is simply to give guidance to the OP in particular and any DM that might decide that it sounds cool (or more likely has a player that thinks that it sounds cool) down the road.
wow didn't think i would get such a response :)
I feel a little more back story is needed, im looking at playing a death cleric looking to become a lich. I am joining up with a party already looking for what i need to have this happen. They have the quest to destroy it though. I want to look like the good lawful healer type, not the raise and army of the death type that I am.
I am only starting to develope this PC at the moment and still have a to flesh out the details.
Have a conversation with your DM about before you plan it any more. It's possible that idea won't be allowed at the table.
If this follows to conclusion, you will have one of the follow scenarios:
The party convinces your character to turn from their ways everything runs normal.
The party discovers your plot and disposes of your character. They then either kick you from the group or have you roll a new character (either to continue the campaign or start a new campaign).
The party fails to stop your plot. Your character becomes a lich and:
They kill your character and kick you from the group or have you roll a new character.
Your character escapes and becomes an NPC. You are kicked from the group or roll a new character.
You defeat the party, probably killing their characters. You are kicked from the group or you start a new campaign with them.
Possibly something that's not these, but the chances of it not ending well are very high and won't received well by the wrong group.
If your DM is ok with this and you want to continue, I highly suggest that your character obtaining lichdom be something that happens only at the conclusion of the campaign as this gives the inevitable showdown the chance to be an epic conclusion. Also be ready to not control the lich.
I would rule that if you used Subtle Spell, then you could do either a Performance or a Deception check against the opponents' Arcana roll.
You would also need to be able to cast the spell you choose to pretend to cast.
Without Subtle spell, you simply can not do it.