Considering the often Warlocks are considered evil by nature despite that not being necessarily true, along with some ability to be a manipulator class, it seems like Warlocks could take a page from Sorceress Subtle spell meta magic but with greater restriction to it. I also figure it should be geared toward the warlocks who focus on casting spells to further restrict it and to make it an option for characters who are planning to focus on being casters primarily.
Discrete Caster (version 2) Prerequisite: Pact of the Tome feature You have learned to be more discrete and can now cast your spell without verbal components. If a creature sees you casting spells with somatic or material it may still counter spell it normally. Edit: When casting a spell with a casting time of one action on your turn, you may use your bonus action to make a DC15 charisma save. On success, you remove the somatic component of the spell. On Fail, you still cast the spell with its somatic component as long as you would normally be able to do so. Once you use the ability to remove the somatic component of a spell you can not use this aspect of the ability again until you finish a long rest.
Optional upgrade (interesting but a little long winded and complicated for an invocation): You can also attempt to hide the somatic component gestures from one creature you can see, make a Dexterity(slight of hand) check contested by the targets Wisdom (Perception) check or passive perception which ever is higher. Spells with material components may not be hidden in this way. If the target has at least one level in a class with the Spellcasting Ability feature they gain advantage on this check. If you succeed, the target creature does not notice the casting of the spell as long as the spell causes no damage or relatable visual effect (GMs Discretion) or reveal your position to that creature if you are hidden. If you fail, the target creature sees you cast the spell and may not be effected by this ability for 24 hours.
Mechanical implications - Misty Step, Thunder step, Dimension door, and Far Step become immune to counter spell. Cool and not overpowered.
Role Play implications - 1. Charm Person/Monster could be used without the target noticing until the spell fads more easily but not with the possibility of failure and not if their is more than one person around. Again cool but not over power. 2.Dispel magic, Detect Magic, mage hand, and Expeditious retreat can be cast discreetly for finding a magic item in room, dispelling a security glyph, mage hand grabbing the item off the shelf, and preparing to run or perhaps some other prefight buff. Again, I don't see anything broken here.
Meta game implications - 1. Some players don't like role playing verbal components this lets them avoid that legally if they have a GM that wants to in force verbal casting phrases. 2. Some prep spells players might want to cast before a fight and the GM can rule that even though the player is trying to hide at distance behind a tree to cast it the GM claims they still hear it and see it. This provides a method to stop "they heard you despite your attempt" and provide a possible option for hiding the "they see you" which then allows players a method to approach trying to be discreate and GMs a method of failing players in doing so which makes it possible for both to win sometimes.
Sorcerer conflict? - The subtle spell meta magic is strictly more powerful but at cost you pay with each use, where this is weaker but has a permanent cost of an eldritch invocation to use. However, their is an augment to be made while it might be a faire cost is it stepping on sorcerers toes and perhaps a bit of a munchkin option? Well possibly, however, its also a less munchkin option than multi-classing 3 levels of sorcerer. So the thought is that perhaps it would reduce multi-classing into sorcerer for subtle spell while being limited enough to not replace a sorcerer in the party who can use subtle spell. The sorcerer will be better at this but a limited number of times, the warlock is not as good at it but can attempt it multiple times. Its a bit of the reflection of the class designs and distinct. Even if you multi-class you might use both. Subtle spell when you really need it to work or their are multiple people around and Discrete Caster when its less important with one target only and you don't want to waste sorcery points. That seems like pretty decent indicator that they are unique enough to not step on the sorcerer to me.
Is it worth it? - The great thing about invocation is the ability to drop them or ignore them if you don't like it. As long as its interesting and not broken their is little reason to deny them. Its really up to the players who choice the to make them useful or pick a new one. Mask of many faces for example can be a lot of fun for a player who likes subterfuge but another player my find after several games they need to change it out because they thought it would be cool but in practice never use it.
Just and idea. Curious what input other might have on this. Thanks for reading.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I’d put a limitation on it so that it can’t be used every round. Maybe usable a number of times equal to the warlock’s charisma modifier and resetting after a long rest?
I’d put a limitation on it so that it can’t be used every round. Maybe usable a number of times equal to the warlock’s charisma modifier and resetting after a long rest?
That's a valid point but I am a little worried it then becomes so weak no one would ever use it. Its already deliberately weaker the subtle spell. Without the optional upgrade, you can't use it to cast it to charm a person for example, unless you charm them while hiding then move out. The advantage is that the verbal component does reveal what you have done thought by the rules the casting of a spell (even with subtle spell) reveals you. So would you use it if it had a limit of charisma modifier per long rest?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
That’s 3 or 4 times per long rest, which is more than how often you can use a few other Eldritch invocations. It depends on my warlock’s character conception and the campaign. If I was playing a subtle warlock who does a lot of intrigue I’d take it in a heartbeat. The Warlock who I’m playing right now is flashy though, I wouldn’t take it for him if it was unlimited because he’d never use it.
That’s 3 or 4 times per long rest, which is more than how often you can use a few other Eldritch invocations. It depends on my warlock’s character conception and the campaign. If I was playing a subtle warlock who does a lot of intrigue I’d take it in a heartbeat. The Warlock who I’m playing right now is flashy though, I wouldn’t take it for him if it was unlimited because he’d never use it.
ok, good answer. I was thinking about it terms of the many persistent eldritch invocations. So you think silent verbal on only is too powerful despite the coast of an invocation and that it does not nullify somatic or material components and spell recognition if not obscured/hidden? I am considering it but I have 2 thoughts that give me pause, this ability resolves 3 things to me personally, 1. is need to have spell phrases for GMs who are more concerned with roll playing spells (changing it to 3-5 per long rest will completely nullify this effect), 2. Misty step is perhaps the most important survival spell in the game and warlocks will often have to cast it at 5th level using one of 2 or 3 total spell slots making it immune to counter spell because it only has a verbal component seems fine and not at all broken for warlocks but making it a charge ability will mean you have to state the use of the ability instead of It being inherent. That is likely to nullify this as well because most people will not consider counter spell defense until something has been counter spelled and it will simply be forgotten and not allowed in post by GM. 3. Charm person or other sneaky attempts might require more than 3 attempts. like the stated example: "cast discreetly for finding a magic item in room, dispelling a security glyph, mage hand grabbing the item off the shelf, and preparing to run or perhaps some other prefight buff." which already relies on ether the optional rule or being hidden when you initially cast so it can be limited to one by the GM already.
I am curious how you see it being used with a requirement to state prior that you are using it and a limit of 3. Just for Charm person / monster? If so, that is why I asked if you would still use it as you could with a little GM allowance have a party member make some noise and a detraction while you cast on a guard etc and completely void the feat with all the other benefits except perhaps you might if hidden be able to apply 1 buff before a fight revealing yourself but not letting your enemies know you buffed yourself. I am just wandering it the 3 times a day restriction is warranted because it a huge lose to the invocation that does seem broken as it is to me. Am I missing some method of abuse that warrants further restriction? Very like, that's the point of the thread. What is it you see that I don't? can you elaborate?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
This isn’t abuse, it’s a great use for that ability. Hide in a public area and use that to cast a spell without being seen as the caster. Either an attack spell like Toll the Dead that doesn’t visibly originate with you or a spell like Create Bonfire to burn down the platform right before a public hanging to save the person being hanged. If you’re hidden so that the somatic component isn’t seen and the guard right in front of you can’t hear you cast the spell you can pull something like that off.
Now, for diplomacy, casting Detect Thoughts while you’re negotiating with someone, especially if you’re arguing with them and waving your arms wildly, can definitely give you a huge advantage in the negotiations. Sure, you’d have to make a deception check against their insight to disguise the somatic component, but what warlock isn’t great at deception and persuasion?
None of those are guaranteed, they both need additional prep ahead of time, and skill checks to pull them off, but those are two situations where a warlock who isn’t flashy and flamboyant like mine is could use that to attempt to cast spells without anyone noticing that he’s the caster.
My warlock goes around telling everyone that he’s a war mage. He’s not subtle and he’d never think to try to hide his magic.
Mage Hand creates a visible hand by the way. Unseen Servant is the spell to use if you want an invisible hand. If you want an invisible Mage Hand you need to be a rogue with the Arcane Trickster archetype
And as a warlock’s charisma bonus goes up so does the number of uses per day. I just assume that every warlock will have a bare minimum charisma of 16.
This isn’t abuse, it’s a great use for that ability. Hide in a public area and use that to cast a spell without being seen as the caster. Either an attack spell like Toll the Dead that doesn’t visibly originate with you or a spell like Create Bonfire to burn down the platform right before a public hanging to save the person being hanged. If you’re hidden so that the somatic component isn’t seen and the guard right in front of you can’t hear you cast the spell you can pull something like that off.
This does not really require the invocation which diminishes this greatly. It might make it an easier debate with the GM as to if you pull it off unnoticed or just that instead of being automatically noticed it NPCs roll a perception check to see it they notice somatic gestures. However, because Toll the Dead is an attack spell and my rule makes you unhidden my GM rules that it reveals your position because the magic still emanates from you before manifesting the spectral bell which tolls. This is true of attack spells at our table. I am not saying your table plays that way but the invocation nor the rules prevent it and the rules to say casting a spell reveal your position if your hidden so its not unreasonable to think other GMs might rule the same way eliminating this use of the spell.
Now, for diplomacy, casting Detect Thoughts while you’re negotiating with someone, especially if you’re arguing with them and waving your arms wildly, can definitely give you a huge advantage in the negotiations. Sure, you’d have to make a deception check against their insight to disguise the somatic component, but what warlock isn’t great at deception and persuasion?
None of those are guaranteed, they both need additional prep ahead of time, and skill checks to pull them off, but those are two situations where a warlock who isn’t flashy and flamboyant like mine is could use that to attempt to cast spells without anyone noticing that he’s the caster.
My warlock goes around telling everyone that he’s a war mage. He’s not subtle and he’d never think to try to hide his magic.
I would say that any caster will notice if you start making semantic gestures so that really limits the diplomatic use. The concern here is that in a diplomatic situation you are generally not alone. This means it does have to be the person your talking to for this to fail. Just one magic casting ally. I would likely rule its a slight of hand check to pull off a somatic gesture without others noticing it but regardless there is no guarantee that even with a high charisma and dexterity any given warlock will be proficient in those skill, you would need to build to it.
At that point and following your point, I put in bold... it already seems quite limited and if your character is building to use it meaning additional cost to make it function well like stealth, slight of hand, deception, and/or performance (persuasion seems like a weird choice to hide spell casting to me, beside the point though) and then they are taking the time to prepare and setup the use, I don't see a need to limit it to 1-5 uses based on Charisma score. The other uses I listed above make the invocation more constantly useful no matter the GM and if a player is willing to invest time and character design to make greater use of the invocation than someone else and it still doesn't break the game … that makes me happy its good invocation that people want to put the work in to make the best of not make it more restrained. … If I am still missing something that breaks it or makes it too useful that's might require that change. At the moment your argument actually seems to confirm that the balance is about right... in my opinion… but I rarely have good ideas so if you have other examples or issues with it let me know. Maybe I just need the right comment form someone to spot that curtail flaw.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Mage Hand creates a visible hand by the way. Unseen Servant is the spell to use if you want an invisible hand. If you want an invisible Mage Hand you need to be a rogue with the Arcane Trickster archetype
And as a warlock’s charisma bonus goes up so does the number of uses per day. I just assume that every warlock will have a bare minimum charisma of 16.
Understood, but my me (when I GM) and my primary GM both, allow the 30ft range to allow the spectral mage hand behind a target 25ft or closer, under a counter etc with out a trail because it is not an attack. I do agree moving it around would be tricky and Arcane Tricksters would be better at it.
I would typically assume that at least any warlock that would take this invocation would have a 16 charisma but I would also say that while that is a way to lock this ability down and I am willing to do so, I first want to establish a need to do so. I am thinking ether warlocks will use it once in a while during situational occasions but rarely enough that keeping track is pointless and what really makes this useful is having it ready on hand with those situations come up. You might not need it for 2 months in a campaign but then need it 10 times in one day. That seems more like a justification for taking it to me then a fearful point of being over power. … again I could be wrong. Feel free to make a counter point..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Your DM’s rule that magic originates from you even when the spell doesn’t say that it does is a house rule and that diminishes what spell casters can do. A lot of spells don’t have a visible effect and a lot of spells do have a visible effect. Picking spells that don’t point back at you and tell everyone that you’re the one who cast it is part of building a spell caster just like picking spells like Fireball is part of building a spell caster.
Honestly I would just use the full Subtle Spell ability with some sort of resource cost or limit, after all Eldritch Smite is an invocation that replicates (and is arguably better) than the Divine Smite class feature. If you want it to be an "always on" feature I’d go in a direction like this:
Discrete Caster
When you cast a spell you may attemp to disguise the fact. Make a Charisma (Deception) check contested by a Wisdom (Perception) check, on a success the target doesn’t notice you casting the spell.
This lets you get away with secretly casting a spell without removing the components. You would still have to be able to speak and gesture, unlike Subtle Spell where you could cast while bound and gagged.
Your DM’s rule that magic originates from you even when the spell doesn’t say that it does is a house rule and that diminishes what spell casters can do. A lot of spells don’t have a visible effect and a lot of spells do have a visible effect. Picking spells that don’t point back at you and tell everyone that you’re the one who cast it is part of building a spell caster just like picking spells like Fireball is part of building a spell caster.
The rules actually say any attack breaks stealth and revels your position to include spells with out visual components. PHB.p195 "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." There is nothing in the rule book that says magic ever does not originate from you. My GM simply uses that to explain the existing rule by saying all attack spells source from the caster visibly because even a sorcerer using subtle spell does not avoid this. Kind of like how not being proficient in armor prevents spell casting even for spells that only have vocal components. My GM says they can't breath properly to speak them until they have become proficient. The rules to allow for secret casting are homebrew not the rule that say you are revealed when you attack... that is RAW as listed above.
You can technically cast spells that are not attacks without revealing your position, like buffs on your self and mage hand without revealing yourself but on the side bar on page 177 says the GM can reveal you for any action at their discretion. But not toll the dead, that is an attack. If it does damage or creates and harmful debuff like hold person they know you cast it and they know where you are by rules as written. GM can determine if anything else reveals your position so if GMs say you can't quietly speak vocal components or use minor gestures for semantic components because to explain that casting a spell 120ft away alerts a target since there is no rule to cast subtle and their is subtle spell meta magic, it is reasonable for a GM to say that is implied by the existence of subtle casting in a specific class. It also allows for consistency in handling spells and enforces the usefulness of subtle spell.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I like it and think keeping the "No V component" part passive and always up is fine. I think the "Sometimes no S component" should be a bonus action limited to once per long rest.
At most levels the Warlock doesn't have enough spells to cast to warrant this ability being used more than once or twice per long rest as you wouldn't need it every spell. In combat, you probably don't care. Preventing Counterspell is the best use case in my opinion, which leads to...
... a reason to take Archfey is to get Greater Invisibility so you can cast and attack while invisible. This Invocation would impact that type of build and patron choice as you can fulfill some of that benefit by not having V or S components. I don't know how big the impact is outside of preventing Counterspell but I see an overlap.
I like it and think keeping the "No V component" part passive and always up is fine. I think the "Sometimes no S component" should be a bonus action limited to once per long rest.
At most levels the Warlock doesn't have enough spells to cast to warrant this ability being used more than once or twice per long rest as you wouldn't need it every spell. In combat, you probably don't care. Preventing Counterspell is the best use case in my opinion, which leads to...
... a reason to take Archfey is to get Greater Invisibility so you can cast and attack while invisible. This Invocation would impact that type of build and patron choice as you can fulfill some of that benefit by not having V or S components. I don't know how big the impact is outside of preventing Counterspell but I see an overlap.
Nice so you add Tim's charisma modifier uses per long rest to a secondary bonus action to remove semantic…. that's better than the optional addition that I made. I added it to the original post but I also restricted it a little more so it does not apply to spells with material components and you have to use the bonus action and action during your turn. This keeps Sorcerers subtle spell superior as only it can be used on reactions with semantic components like counter spell, shield, hellish rebuke, and absorb elements because its getting too close to the sorcerer ability and I believe their needs to be a clear superiority separation between the two in favor or the sorcerer as an established sorcerer trait. The sorcerers ability to use it at one sorcerer point means they can cast it up to 4 times more and on reactions when not on their turn. On the other hand the Warlock could be a mute but can only do it up to 5 times a day during their turn.
I still worry it becomes too accessible for the warlock and wonder if maybe their should be a DC15 charisma save or something so it gets easier at higher levels but their is no guarantee. . . .? lvl1 +3 cha +2 Prof minimum 1 on dice so 60% chance of success and at lvl20 +5 Cha + 6 prof with minimum 1 on dice for 85% chance of success at DC15. (I went ahead and added that. I think its interesting, it gives it a less refined feel with a chance to fail, as though warlocks focused on gaining the silent part of the spell but haven't mastered the somatic component filtering in their attempts to emulate sorcerers ability to hide them selves as casters.)
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I’d say keep it simple and not add extra rolls. It’s still competing with Agonizing Blast, Sculptor of Flesh, Minions of Chaos, Devil’s sight and a bunch of other goodies that are power-gamer material.
I’d say keep it simple and not add extra rolls. It’s still competing with Agonizing Blast, Sculptor of Flesh, Minions of Chaos, Devil’s sight and a bunch of other goodies that are power-gamer material.
That's a valid point. I put a strike through the role. A once a day limit instead of cha modifier times per day is likely good enough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Considering the often Warlocks are considered evil by nature despite that not being necessarily true, along with some ability to be a manipulator class, it seems like Warlocks could take a page from Sorceress Subtle spell meta magic but with greater restriction to it. I also figure it should be geared toward the warlocks who focus on casting spells to further restrict it and to make it an option for characters who are planning to focus on being casters primarily.
Prerequisite: Pact of the Tome feature
You have learned to be more discrete and can now cast your spell without verbal components. If a creature sees you casting spells with somatic or material it may still counter spell it normally. Edit: When casting a spell with a casting time of one action on your turn, you may use your bonus action to
make a DC15 charisma save. On success, youremove the somatic component of the spell.On Fail, you still cast the spell with its somatic component as long as you would normally be able to do so. Once you use the ability to remove the somatic component of a spell you can not use this aspect of the ability again until you finish a long rest.Optional upgrade (interesting but a little long winded and complicated for an invocation):You can also attempt to hide the somatic component gestures from one creature you can see, make a Dexterity(slight of hand) check contested by the targets Wisdom (Perception) check or passive perception which ever is higher. Spells with material components may not be hidden in this way. If the target has at least one level in a class with the Spellcasting Ability feature they gain advantage on this check. If you succeed, the target creature does not notice the casting of the spell as long as the spell causes no damage or relatable visual effect (GMs Discretion) or reveal your position to that creature if you are hidden. If you fail, the target creature sees you cast the spell and may not be effected by this ability for 24 hours.The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I’d put a limitation on it so that it can’t be used every round. Maybe usable a number of times equal to the warlock’s charisma modifier and resetting after a long rest?
Professional computer geek
That's a valid point but I am a little worried it then becomes so weak no one would ever use it. Its already deliberately weaker the subtle spell. Without the optional upgrade, you can't use it to cast it to charm a person for example, unless you charm them while hiding then move out. The advantage is that the verbal component does reveal what you have done thought by the rules the casting of a spell (even with subtle spell) reveals you. So would you use it if it had a limit of charisma modifier per long rest?
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
That’s 3 or 4 times per long rest, which is more than how often you can use a few other Eldritch invocations. It depends on my warlock’s character conception and the campaign. If I was playing a subtle warlock who does a lot of intrigue I’d take it in a heartbeat. The Warlock who I’m playing right now is flashy though, I wouldn’t take it for him if it was unlimited because he’d never use it.
Professional computer geek
ok, good answer. I was thinking about it terms of the many persistent eldritch invocations. So you think silent verbal on only is too powerful despite the coast of an invocation and that it does not nullify somatic or material components and spell recognition if not obscured/hidden? I am considering it but I have 2 thoughts that give me pause, this ability resolves 3 things to me personally, 1. is need to have spell phrases for GMs who are more concerned with roll playing spells (changing it to 3-5 per long rest will completely nullify this effect), 2. Misty step is perhaps the most important survival spell in the game and warlocks will often have to cast it at 5th level using one of 2 or 3 total spell slots making it immune to counter spell because it only has a verbal component seems fine and not at all broken for warlocks but making it a charge ability will mean you have to state the use of the ability instead of It being inherent. That is likely to nullify this as well because most people will not consider counter spell defense until something has been counter spelled and it will simply be forgotten and not allowed in post by GM. 3. Charm person or other sneaky attempts might require more than 3 attempts. like the stated example: "cast discreetly for finding a magic item in room, dispelling a security glyph, mage hand grabbing the item off the shelf, and preparing to run or perhaps some other prefight buff." which already relies on ether the optional rule or being hidden when you initially cast so it can be limited to one by the GM already.
I am curious how you see it being used with a requirement to state prior that you are using it and a limit of 3. Just for Charm person / monster? If so, that is why I asked if you would still use it as you could with a little GM allowance have a party member make some noise and a detraction while you cast on a guard etc and completely void the feat with all the other benefits except perhaps you might if hidden be able to apply 1 buff before a fight revealing yourself but not letting your enemies know you buffed yourself. I am just wandering it the 3 times a day restriction is warranted because it a huge lose to the invocation that does seem broken as it is to me. Am I missing some method of abuse that warrants further restriction? Very like, that's the point of the thread. What is it you see that I don't? can you elaborate?
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
This isn’t abuse, it’s a great use for that ability. Hide in a public area and use that to cast a spell without being seen as the caster. Either an attack spell like Toll the Dead that doesn’t visibly originate with you or a spell like Create Bonfire to burn down the platform right before a public hanging to save the person being hanged. If you’re hidden so that the somatic component isn’t seen and the guard right in front of you can’t hear you cast the spell you can pull something like that off.
Now, for diplomacy, casting Detect Thoughts while you’re negotiating with someone, especially if you’re arguing with them and waving your arms wildly, can definitely give you a huge advantage in the negotiations. Sure, you’d have to make a deception check against their insight to disguise the somatic component, but what warlock isn’t great at deception and persuasion?
None of those are guaranteed, they both need additional prep ahead of time, and skill checks to pull them off, but those are two situations where a warlock who isn’t flashy and flamboyant like mine is could use that to attempt to cast spells without anyone noticing that he’s the caster.
My warlock goes around telling everyone that he’s a war mage. He’s not subtle and he’d never think to try to hide his magic.
Professional computer geek
Mage Hand creates a visible hand by the way. Unseen Servant is the spell to use if you want an invisible hand. If you want an invisible Mage Hand you need to be a rogue with the Arcane Trickster archetype
And as a warlock’s charisma bonus goes up so does the number of uses per day. I just assume that every warlock will have a bare minimum charisma of 16.
Professional computer geek
This does not really require the invocation which diminishes this greatly. It might make it an easier debate with the GM as to if you pull it off unnoticed or just that instead of being automatically noticed it NPCs roll a perception check to see it they notice somatic gestures. However, because Toll the Dead is an attack spell and my rule makes you unhidden my GM rules that it reveals your position because the magic still emanates from you before manifesting the spectral bell which tolls. This is true of attack spells at our table. I am not saying your table plays that way but the invocation nor the rules prevent it and the rules to say casting a spell reveal your position if your hidden so its not unreasonable to think other GMs might rule the same way eliminating this use of the spell.
I would say that any caster will notice if you start making semantic gestures so that really limits the diplomatic use. The concern here is that in a diplomatic situation you are generally not alone. This means it does have to be the person your talking to for this to fail. Just one magic casting ally. I would likely rule its a slight of hand check to pull off a somatic gesture without others noticing it but regardless there is no guarantee that even with a high charisma and dexterity any given warlock will be proficient in those skill, you would need to build to it.
At that point and following your point, I put in bold... it already seems quite limited and if your character is building to use it meaning additional cost to make it function well like stealth, slight of hand, deception, and/or performance (persuasion seems like a weird choice to hide spell casting to me, beside the point though) and then they are taking the time to prepare and setup the use, I don't see a need to limit it to 1-5 uses based on Charisma score. The other uses I listed above make the invocation more constantly useful no matter the GM and if a player is willing to invest time and character design to make greater use of the invocation than someone else and it still doesn't break the game … that makes me happy its good invocation that people want to put the work in to make the best of not make it more restrained. … If I am still missing something that breaks it or makes it too useful that's might require that change. At the moment your argument actually seems to confirm that the balance is about right... in my opinion… but I rarely have good ideas so if you have other examples or issues with it let me know. Maybe I just need the right comment form someone to spot that curtail flaw.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Understood, but my me (when I GM) and my primary GM both, allow the 30ft range to allow the spectral mage hand behind a target 25ft or closer, under a counter etc with out a trail because it is not an attack. I do agree moving it around would be tricky and Arcane Tricksters would be better at it.
I would typically assume that at least any warlock that would take this invocation would have a 16 charisma but I would also say that while that is a way to lock this ability down and I am willing to do so, I first want to establish a need to do so. I am thinking ether warlocks will use it once in a while during situational occasions but rarely enough that keeping track is pointless and what really makes this useful is having it ready on hand with those situations come up. You might not need it for 2 months in a campaign but then need it 10 times in one day. That seems more like a justification for taking it to me then a fearful point of being over power. … again I could be wrong. Feel free to make a counter point..
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Your DM’s rule that magic originates from you even when the spell doesn’t say that it does is a house rule and that diminishes what spell casters can do. A lot of spells don’t have a visible effect and a lot of spells do have a visible effect. Picking spells that don’t point back at you and tell everyone that you’re the one who cast it is part of building a spell caster just like picking spells like Fireball is part of building a spell caster.
Professional computer geek
Honestly I would just use the full Subtle Spell ability with some sort of resource cost or limit, after all Eldritch Smite is an invocation that replicates (and is arguably better) than the Divine Smite class feature. If you want it to be an "always on" feature I’d go in a direction like this:
Discrete Caster
When you cast a spell you may attemp to disguise the fact. Make a Charisma (Deception) check contested by a Wisdom (Perception) check, on a success the target doesn’t notice you casting the spell.
This lets you get away with secretly casting a spell without removing the components. You would still have to be able to speak and gesture, unlike Subtle Spell where you could cast while bound and gagged.
The rules actually say any attack breaks stealth and revels your position to include spells with out visual components. PHB.p195 "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." There is nothing in the rule book that says magic ever does not originate from you. My GM simply uses that to explain the existing rule by saying all attack spells source from the caster visibly because even a sorcerer using subtle spell does not avoid this. Kind of like how not being proficient in armor prevents spell casting even for spells that only have vocal components. My GM says they can't breath properly to speak them until they have become proficient. The rules to allow for secret casting are homebrew not the rule that say you are revealed when you attack... that is RAW as listed above.
You can technically cast spells that are not attacks without revealing your position, like buffs on your self and mage hand without revealing yourself but on the side bar on page 177 says the GM can reveal you for any action at their discretion. But not toll the dead, that is an attack. If it does damage or creates and harmful debuff like hold person they know you cast it and they know where you are by rules as written. GM can determine if anything else reveals your position so if GMs say you can't quietly speak vocal components or use minor gestures for semantic components because to explain that casting a spell 120ft away alerts a target since there is no rule to cast subtle and their is subtle spell meta magic, it is reasonable for a GM to say that is implied by the existence of subtle casting in a specific class. It also allows for consistency in handling spells and enforces the usefulness of subtle spell.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I like it and think keeping the "No V component" part passive and always up is fine. I think the "Sometimes no S component" should be a bonus action limited to once per long rest.
At most levels the Warlock doesn't have enough spells to cast to warrant this ability being used more than once or twice per long rest as you wouldn't need it every spell. In combat, you probably don't care. Preventing Counterspell is the best use case in my opinion, which leads to...
... a reason to take Archfey is to get Greater Invisibility so you can cast and attack while invisible. This Invocation would impact that type of build and patron choice as you can fulfill some of that benefit by not having V or S components. I don't know how big the impact is outside of preventing Counterspell but I see an overlap.
Nice so you add Tim's charisma modifier uses per long rest to a secondary bonus action to remove semantic…. that's better than the optional addition that I made. I added it to the original post but I also restricted it a little more so it does not apply to spells with material components and you have to use the bonus action and action during your turn. This keeps Sorcerers subtle spell superior as only it can be used on reactions with semantic components like counter spell, shield, hellish rebuke, and absorb elements because its getting too close to the sorcerer ability and I believe their needs to be a clear superiority separation between the two in favor or the sorcerer as an established sorcerer trait. The sorcerers ability to use it at one sorcerer point means they can cast it up to 4 times more and on reactions when not on their turn. On the other hand the Warlock could be a mute but can only do it up to 5 times a day during their turn.
I still worry it becomes too accessible for the warlock and wonder if maybe their should be a DC15 charisma save or something so it gets easier at higher levels but their is no guarantee. . . .? lvl1 +3 cha +2 Prof minimum 1 on dice so 60% chance of success and at lvl20 +5 Cha + 6 prof with minimum 1 on dice for 85% chance of success at DC15. (I went ahead and added that. I think its interesting, it gives it a less refined feel with a chance to fail, as though warlocks focused on gaining the silent part of the spell but haven't mastered the somatic component filtering in their attempts to emulate sorcerers ability to hide them selves as casters.)
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I’d say keep it simple and not add extra rolls. It’s still competing with Agonizing Blast, Sculptor of Flesh, Minions of Chaos, Devil’s sight and a bunch of other goodies that are power-gamer material.
That's a valid point. I put a strike through the role. A once a day limit instead of cha modifier times per day is likely good enough.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.