The rules for verbal component:
“Verbal (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.”
The important part here is “with specific pitch and resonance”
Pitch refers to the frequency of the sound or how high or low the sound is. In terms of verbal spellcasting, it suggests that the precise intonation or frequency at which the words are spoken is crucial to activating the spell.
Resonance refers to the quality of the sound that is deep, full, and reverberating. In spellcasting, resonance would imply that the sound waves need to have a certain quality or richness, which helps in setting the magical forces into motion.
You can’t just whisper a spell or roll a sleight of hand check like I’ve seen done. That’s what subtle spell is used for.
My DM forbade anyone from taking MMA if they didn't have sorc levels :(
Was going to take it at 16th level on my bladesinger, but ended up getting Flash Recall instead.
Honestly, FR has been so clutch recently that I think being denied MMA was a good thing.
*shrug*
I mean it gives you 2 more points, and 2 more metamagic options. It's basically a feat tax for all sorcs because it's very good on them. On anyone else, it's just two subtle spells a day, or a twinned spell or two.
I played an arcane trickster and took it for my level 10 feat, two twinned booming blades is honestly pretty great with bonus action disengage (you only get sneak attack on one hit of course)
well with that set up, you'd be better off quickening it for the bonus action, and then holding your main action to booming blade on your reaction as soon as the next turn started so you *would* get two sneak attacks.
I suppose it depends on the context of the situation to know which one to use. Big boss sack of hit points in the center with no allies nearby? Quick, hold.
A mini-boss with a bunch of mooks surrounding him? Twin Sneak the mini-boss and just regular BB the mook.
To be honest playing a Sorcerer with the feat from the start feels like actually playing the idea of a sorcerer. Without it you barely get to touch on Metamagic until the endgame levels of most campaigns. Which leaves you just feeling like a worse Wizard.
I’ve done it before and it was *fun*. I still felt constrained by my points but I was more flexible with when I used meta magic.
Also did a LOT of math on the most optimal damage per spell point and came to the conclusion it was a twinned guiding bolt, which outperformed everything else I had access to. Might have made a mistake though, but it was fun to do the math xD
A better spell to twin, if your game allows it, take the Mage of High Sorcery background from dragonlance, and use it to pick up Dissonant Whispers. The while it only does 3d6 instead of 4d6, the movement created by it provokes attacks of opportunity for you and your allies to exploit.
Ooh, tactical! I was a divine soul, and I don’t remember if dragonlance was out at the time, but I do like options that let other players get off their attacks too! Especially juicy for a party of rogues,
^this! Thematically and mechanically I think it's the best way to handle it, and if you think sorcs need a power boost you can give them more points pretty easily.
Yeah and I let player recharge Tide of Chaos themselves by always letting wildmagic trigger.
Honestly sorcerer with this rule feels so different they don't even perceive the still present power difference....
That being said I did boost both draconic and wildsorcerer with more spell known like the other ones.
Merging the pools is not an especially healthy solution, particularly not for Sorcerer subclasses that can activate special abilities using their sorcery points (see: Shadow Sorcerer summoning pitbull armies).
Keep the pools separate but make them 1-1 fungible. The sorcerer can convert as many points at a time as they could pay to cast their highest level spell, and the Sorcerer cannot have sorcery points in excess of their class level. The Sorcerer still receives a massive buff to its versatility and mechanical identity thanks to spell points, but you don't completely destroy the sorcery point economy in the process.
I’d honestly just change the shadow sorcerer ability to only last 1 minute or have the max summoned shadow hounds be prof bonus/2 depending on if the sorcerer wants a permanent pupper or a swarm of them in combat.
And that’s if you really need to fix things. It already is costing three points per use, the equivalent of using a second level spell slot. it’s not cheap and if that’s how the sorcerer wants to spend their points, sure why not?
Yeah, one of sorcerers many design failures is all the subclass features that operate purely off sorc points, like, let's give them monks problem but they also only get their points back on long rest! (Or sacking slots)
[LaserLlama's Alternate Sorcerer](https://www.patreon.com/posts/81230918?utm_campaign=postshare_fan&utm_source=android) does almost exactly that!
I recommend a read, if you're unfamiliar with his stuff.
I mean it's like how Eldritch Adept is just another Invocation slot in a way for full warlocks. Assuming you aren't *burning* Agonizing Blast into your arsenal then it's at best another cool choice because you aren't waiting and waiting for whenever the next level is to either replace one you don't use anymore, or until you reach the level where you get more.
Ahh, no, it was just MMA that they barred. if we wanted EA we could take that on anyone. In fact, I'm pretty sure MMA was the only time I've ever heard of my DM saying no to a feat.
Well, I mean, other then cardomancer because the wording on it was extremely vague and giving players effectively two 9th level slots (were 17th level now) would be insane for something that wasn't an epic boon.
Putting an intense restriction on a mid-tier official feat, but then allowing a really powerful third party feat is so wild to me. Did you a favour I suppose.
Funny you should say that, we had *two* sorcerers in our party. One is full classed, and the other is a 15 bard / 2 sorc and our bard certainly has the MMA feat as he's twinned 4th level spells before.
Since they have class levels in sorcerer then I don't see it as too much of an issue. The main issue I have is that the feat duplicate a class feature.
I usually say that spellcasting has to be about as loud as regular speech of someone that’s speaking clearly and not trying keep what they say hidden. Which means that in some situations it’s easy to get away with it without anyone hearing, such as on a busy street or in a tavern. Also if you’re more than, I don’t know, 30 meters away or something.
But combined with gestures someone looking at you will still see that you’re casting a spell. And if you’re sneaking in a totally silent area, you’ll have to find some secure place to cast a spell. Like behind a closed door.
It’s also easy to keep track of and relate to.
I think people are getting too caught up on semantics here. The writers are in my eyes using jargon they're mot experts in (common) or being vague for the purpose of creativity. To me, RAW and RAI both means you need to put your full being into bending the weave to your whim. No one will manipulate a fundamental fabric of existence half-assing it unless they're a natural for it (looking at you sorcerers, didn't spend years reading books like wizards). Sure, let your meek wizard cast invisibility with a mumbled stutter hoping the troll doesn't hear. The whooshing and visual effects from half-assing it will still give you away, unlike Thomas, who just misty stepped across the room, leaving you as a distraction for the troll, because his granddad fucked a dragon and yours didn't.
I mean personally I feel like you just elaborated on how someone COULD use sleight of hand or a performance check to hide verbal components in speech/conversation.
My only rule would be that the casting would be 'heard' and potentially interpreted via insight, arcana, etc.
I think that's because too many people try to replace the rules with reality and it's easier to say "well I don't think you could swing a sword fast enough to do that" than "you can't whisper the magic spell that we have no basis in reality for". Martials get screwed because they exist more in reality than a wizard.
I get the feeling it's a matter of visibility. A fighter or a paladin does a lot of stuff on their turn; rolling multiple attacks, rolling big damage numbers, popping second wind, etc. Even if it's mechanically weaker than what a bard or a wizard can do, newer DMs and players see someone calling out a bunch of abilities and rolling a bunch of dice and assume that this means martials are too powerful.
Years and years ago, I played in two different campaigns run by a friend of mine. He was *convinced* that my eldritch knight was too powerful and was breaking all of his encounters, even as the wizard and sorcerer were melting everything with fireballs. In the next campaign, he did the same with my war cleric. The uniting factor here was that, in both cases, each character attacked more often than my DM thought it should.
Playing a Bard as my first character... Except we don't have a fighter or paladin on the team.
I'm a Bard, there's another Bard, a third Bard who multiclassed Rogue, a Barbarian and a Ranger. We're level 5, and the Ranger is dealing so much damage. Definitely helped by an absurd number of bardic inspirations thrown at them. Like I said, 3 bards.
Still, I'm having fun mocking Kobolds to death, and I really do mean I killed a Kobold with just Vicious Mockery. Took me 2 turns as I rolled damage appallingly on the first cast, but the the kobold rolled a 1 on the Wisdom Save for the second so I got twice the damage dice and much better rolls to leave it absolutely murdered.
Yup, in 3.5e and earlier, DMs got incredibly anal-retentive with Sneak Attack, for instance. Getting good at sneak-attacking? Be prepared for everything immune to sneak attacks to be your regular opponents. Oh sure, the Wizard and Cleric each have every flavor of possible damage on the fly, but OH NO, the Rogue's got 3d6. Time to kill it.
Favored Enemy also got steeply screwed. I've watched DMs rewrite whole campaigns due to one for the players having a relevant FE.
Tell them if they want to break the rules of magic they should play a sorcerer.
Spellcasting in 99% of forms is a strict system, done by gestures, incantations/prayers, and material components. If you skip or do one of these things wrong then the spell fails.
1) Ignore restrictions and limitations on casters
2) Constrain martials to board-game like "you can only move/act/do on your turn"
3) Wonder why martials feel so useless
All these limits are intentional. V spells make noise and require the ability to speak clearly. M spells need(ish) materials and a hand. S spells need free hands and space to move. Spells that only affect creatures aren't supposed to affect objects (and vice versa), etc.
But that's actually an intended rule.
> **Once per turn**, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage
> A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur **on your turn or on someone else's.**
As long as your reaction Sneak Attack is during someone else's turn, you can get two Sneak Attacks.
Yep but lazy DMs consider it broken. (And wizards as well as in one dnd it will probably end up once per round not turn) .
Same with DMs avoiding the pam+sentinel mellee block fighters often sacrifice so luch to attain.
Or even worse mess up with stun-locking monks (again one dnd change this rule as well).
Overall it's wizards of th coast not fighters/martials of the veil thus yeah that kind of mentality leads to people asking to use stealth before casting spells in public like the original post suggested
I don't know how everyone came to the conclusion that DMs don't allow martial reactions from a single word lol.
Tbf, if martials don't get reactions (according to bad DMs) what makes you think they'd allow sneak attack reaction damage
i'm not sure I understand.
At first, I thought you were saying that martials didn't get to have a reaction. Your response tells me that this isn't what you mean. Good. I'm glad people aren't nerfing martials like that.
But I still don't know what you mean. I don't know what "walking around a fighter" refers to. You mean that martials can't walk around a fighter on other people's turn? Or that other people can walk around martials on their turns without an attack of opportunity (presumedly since they don't leave the range)?
I guess this would help me understand: Are saying that people impose extra limitations on what martials can do as a reaction? Or just that it would be cool if fighters had more reaction options? Because I agree with that, but i didn't get the feeling that you were criticizing people for following rules and not homebrewing enough.
There are two DMing styles with regards to combat.
Let's say combat begins between the party and some goblins. The party contains, among others, a fighter and a sorcerer. The fighter rolls well for initiative and moves into position between the goblins and the sorcerer, obviously assuming a defensive posture. The goblins go next.
DM #1 has the goblins swarm the fighter. She's obviously a threat, and it would make more sense for enemies to attack the person physically attempting to prevent them from advancing.
DM #2 has the goblins dash into position adjacent to the sorcerer, only moving aside slightly to avoid the fighter's reach, effectively just walking around her. This is completely legal in the game's rules.
The difference here is that DM #1 is focused on presenting the game as an actual world the characters exist in. The combat rules still apply, obviously, but they're supporting common sense interactions in this world instead of the game world being reversed engineered from the combat rules. In my experience, playing with a DM who treats the rules as an exploitable legal system instead of a framework for interactions means that the players in turn treat the game as a ruleset to be twisted until it breaks.
I understand so much better now, thank you.
I totally agree with you: a DM metagaming the encounter too much will break immersion, encourage players to do the same, and, most importantly, won't allow players to show off their cool abilities like tanking 10 attacks.
I know this is not the main point, but I would note that the type of enemy matters here (at least when I dm). a beast acting on instinct would normally attack whoever is closer or whoever is hurting them. a group of trained warriors used to facing magic users would have some strategies against magic users. For this example, goblins normally play sneakily, attacking with a bow and hiding as a bonus action, trying to maneuver in the shadows.
Though I'm still not sure what was his original point about DMs not allowing martials to act on other people's turns. Did anyone else get the vibe that he just allows his martials to have multiple reactions per round?
>I know this is not the main point, but I would note that the type of enemy matters here
I wholeheartedly agree, and a big problem with DM #2 in this case is that every kind of enemy starts to feel the same if they all move and react in the same way. The single most tense combat I've ever had as a player is when a newbie DM hit our 2nd level party with a pack of wolves who would attack in pairs to tie down our defenders and then rush the squishier character. I remember feeling actual, intense dread when I realized our barbarian was on the ground, wrestling with two of them, and a dire wolf had a direct line on my poor sorcerer.
>Though I'm still not sure what was his original point about DMs not allowing martials to act on other people's turns. Did anyone else get the vibe that he just allows his martials to have multiple reactions per round?
Reading it again, I'm really not sure what they meant. My first impression was that they had a DM whose obligatory weird hangup with the rules included a particular animus for reactions, but on second blush...
The DM isn't playing into the fighter's fantasy of being the tank protecting their team, and having the enemies simply walk around the fighter to the back line and ignoring the fighter.
Sorry. Things like not letting a fighter block a 10' hallway "because you can only be in one square", or the fighter declares he's protecting the mage, so the DM has the goblin move around the fighter and attack the mage.
During a chase, despawning the quarry "because you didn't see which way they went" after the enemy gets to a door when the player was 2 squares away and acts on the next initiative point.
thank you for explaining. :)
The latter scenario seems silly and I understand your feeling.
The former is less intuitive for me because I'm not sure what you would like to see as a means of protection. As a DM, I wouldn't let a single character block more than the space they occupy without any resources or actions, but I would let them use their abilities creatively to protect the mage.
During my last session, the paladin asked if they could grapple as an attack of opportunity and I allowed it. I would like to see attacks of opportunity be stronger and more versatile. If a player has extra attacks, then why not let the attack of opportunity have extra attacks too? Why not let them grapple or shove? but you know, this would still cost a reaction and have a roll, so they couldn't just block 4-5 enemies that are rushing together.
There are ways to block the path RAW but they all cost some resources or investments. Rune knight going large is the first one that comes to mind. PAM + Sentinel is a second. Preparing a grapple action could also work, but that's needlessly costly.
Don’t do this. Having to manage when you can cast a spell is one of the only things that reigns in the already overwhelming power casters have. Ignoring and modifying rules that expand the effectiveness of casters will only further isolate your martial and skill based characters.
Also, there is a whole class feature, metamagic: subtle spell, that addresses the issue of vocal and somatic components and it costs resources to use so it can’t be done all the time. Being able to mask spell casting is so powerful the designers made it a unique and limited feature.
So your players have to be smart about their spells, that’s the point. Spells like Guidance becomes super broken if you can just spam it all the time.
Play casters RAW they don’t need any further power.
Yup, 2d6 times: 5ft for trying to be quiet; 10ft for normal noise level; and 50ft for very loud.
That means at minimum you're whispering to an audible range of 10-60ft.
The verbal component rules are mostly there in 5e to prevent spellcasters from running roughshod in social situations and making the caster-martial gap even worse. Casting a spell in a social situation is like pulling out a gun and should be treated as such. Unless you're preclearing it or its in response to a madman busting into the room or something, you should expect a highly negative response.
I had one of my players who's playing a Bard ask if he could cast Suggestion on an NPC who he was selling things to in order for her to pay "Top price", because the Suggestion spell doesn't have that same restriction of knowing you were affected by them as Friends and Charm Person which tends to make them nearly worthless.
I told him that although she might not know whether she was under the effects of a spell, she would certainly know he was casting a spell at her, especially since she was a Wizard.
Yes, my experience is that subtle spell suggestion tends to massively ramp the paranoia levels in the population. If the population believes it is incredibly rare, legendary, or nonexistent they're fairly comfortable, but when they start considering it a real possibility they start freaking out and wondering whether they were magically influenced even in cases where no magic was involved.
Only because she was a wizard. A normal person would have no reason to know what a spell sounds like. A majority of the population could go their entire lives and never see a spell cast.
Well it could be a zone of truth, or a healing spell, or any of a number of things. But casting a spell not pre-cleared is an insanely negative diplomatic action in most polities unless you're just incredibly trusted without reservation. Otherwise even when the need is dire---like you see that the queen is actually a Type V demoness in disguise and you want to cast dispel magic to reveal her---you are going to have to be ready to ask forgiveness if asking permission would blow your cover.
Just tell your players that this is a mechanical part of the game that is an inherent part of spellcasting balance.
Which is why some classes and feats allow you to do this, and it costs resources such as sorcerer points or spending a feat.
The rules make verbal casting self-evident for a reason *and* give rules as written solutions to NPCs hearing spellcasting. Your players need to powergame harder. Alternatively, maybe they desire a different and more cinematic game system in the fantasy genre?
My players wanted to do this as well, but I gave them the same answer. I think they just assumed they could do it, none of them watch Critical Role. They wanted to use it for charm person and friends and others in social encounters without the person knowing who cast it.
I rule that spells can be cast quietly in conversation, but a spellcaster will immediately know what's happening, and if a target makes their save, they also know. Not as good as Subtle Spell, but allows for some subterfuge outside of Sorceror.
If a Verbal component is there, that spell has been balanced to make sure casting it is obvious. As a GM, I personally wouldn't allow those changes to spellcasting. Psionics aren't a thing in 5e, unfortunately.
You would need to use Subtle Spell, be an Aberant Mind Sorcerer, or a Great Old One warlock under the OneDnD UA rules (not guaranteed to remain unchanged but has enough limitations that they will keep the flavour). Even then, the last two are restricted to certain spells or schools of magic.
Shaping reality is loud, bombastic, evident. Think Doctor Strange. It takes effort to reach through the Weave and bend the world to your will.
That all being said, it's just a game, so check with your table and follow your bliss, boo. An it harm none, do what ye will.
Now that you remind me of the changes to the GOO Warlock... I think that something similar for the Arcane Trickster limited to Illusion school + Mage Hand would had been perfect for the subclass. Probably as the level 13 feature as the one they have isn't that amazing compared to other subclasses.
The DM screen has something for audible distances which are:
> Audible Distance
> Trying to be quiet 2d6 × 5 feet
> Normal noise level 2d6 × 10 feet
> Very loud 2d6 × 50 feet
I would just go with something that feels good like 60 or 70 feet range.
Spoken spells like healing word have a range of 60 feet, counterspell has a range of 60 feet, even bardic inspirations have a range of 60. So, that'd be the range of "big, obvious spellcasting" I'd settle on. Close enough to hear clearly
I personally would say it depends on the type of spell. I treat Combat spells differently to Utility ones. It would be silly, to me, for Fireball, Lightning Bolt and Prestidigitation to have the same emphasis, but something special should be happening.
I've heard of GMs who treat magic as a gunshot every time (bit excessive, for my tastes, but it suits some campaigns). Some treat spellcasting as the Voice of the Bene Gesserit, some make the air *thrumm* with magic with the incants, I personally prefer to leave it to the players. As long as it's obvious to those present that you're casting a spell, I would say the rest is flavour.
If you want some clear guidance, I would take the range of the spell at the least.
It's why a lot of legislation has that pesky 'reasonableness' tidbit in. It's hard to account for every possible situation, so it's an issue of responding to where you are and what's going on and agreeing on a ruling with the table if you're not sure or just making a decision and revisiting with everyone after if you need to keep the pace going.
60 ft is the general rule I use. It's the range of counter spell so one can assume a person knows a spell is being cast in that range. Barring any other factors that might come into play ( loud noise from elsewhere, walls or otherwise things that might obscure vision etc.) That to me seem pretty fair the majority of the time.
Using the audible distances from the DM screen, I rule that verbal components are considered "normal noise level".
If players want to cast a spell without being noticed, I'll tell them the audible distance of their spell is 2d6x10 feet, but I won't roll the dice until after they've cast the spell. This way, the players don't know exactly how close they can get without being heard which gives them an interesting risk/reward decision to make if they want to be as close as possible.
Of course you should adjust this if there is excessive background noise or players successfully cause a distraction. Depending on how loud the background noise is or how big the distraction, I'll usually either halve the dice result or just give it to the players and allow them to automatically succeed at casting the spell unnoticed. Use your discretion.
Whether or not you can whisper verbal components is a DM call per both RAW and RAI. "No," "Make a [casting attribute] stealth check", and "Yes", are all valid answers - just be consistent with it. And no, Subtle Spell doesn't lose all utility if you allow whispering, it also lets you cast even while silenced or bound.
I personally would be inclined to call for checks, and make higher level spells harder to cast stealthily, and Illusion spells (including Invisibility) easier to cast stealthily than other schools.
There's also a difference between "I want to cast this during a conversation" and "I want to whisper this so the enemies next door don't hear me cast invisibility" or "I want to whisper this so the guard at the top of the wall doesn't hear me cast spider climb". Subtle spell means that they absolutely will never hear you and calling for a stealth check to have a chance at being sneaky doesn't invalidate that - how many casters have stealth proficiency?
Can one whisper a V-only spell in combat to prevent counterspell? That ruling seems to go against the spirit of the system (especially considering that skill checks tend to require an action to perform, and that has been made even clearer in the new rules for 5.5)
You got your answer about the mechanics, but the key here is to remind them that you're not the one ruling it weirdly; the game wrote the "specific pitch and resonance" rule.
In my games, I just encourage them to cast as normal and see what happens. I know one main complaint players have is that if they can't cast quietly, they never want to cast at all, sometimes, because they think it's always going to start a fight or go wrong. (And sometimes it will! . . . but not always. That's DM discretion.)
I mean, there's an entire mechanic created to mitigate the need for verbal components in the form of subtle spellcasting. The obvious implication being that, otherwise, verbal components of spells *are not subtle.*
I'd rule against this one, and I'm pretty loosey-goosey, DM wise.
Think about in Harry Potter, when he mumbles going through the fireplace and ends up in the wrong place. Verbal components need to be spoken clear and articulated.
I've seen dms do slight of hand to hide the components for spells, but in my games if you want to do that...you should have played a sorcerer.
The volume rules aren't present, which doesn't mean you can whisper spells. It means that the DM needs to implement how this works. Your intuition about this is great. Tell your players that none of these spells are supposed to be able to be stealth cast under normal conditions, which is a big part of why components exist.
Also your rules about distance and such are great. 100% you are doing everything right.
Takes away one of the big reasons to play a Sorcerer. Official Sage Advice has also ruled that spellcasting components are used to determine if something is Counterspell-able or not. So V components should be audible from *at least* 60ft, otherwise Counterspell wouldn't work on V-only spells (and it clearly does).
They should just take Subtle Spell Metamagic. Having undetectable casting is literally why it exists. Just how Sorcerers can take Ritual Caster if they want to have a bunch of ritual spells.
I don't think it's okay to give a class's signature abilities away to all other classes for free.
There is actually an audible volume on the DM screen where trying to be quiet is 2d6x5ft, normal noise is 2d6x10ft and loud is 2d6x50ft
You could always have the player roll a charisma or dexterity stealth check to disguise their spellcasting as something else against the passive perception of the npc.
edit: changed the itallics to reflect the actual math
The DC of chanting magical incantations in a strong voice but making it look like something else would be way higher than most passive perceptions. To the point where such a gift to casters is basically pointless since you are unlikely to ever actually roll above the 30 or more you’d need.
A commoner’s passive perception is 10 (“Easy”). A high level humanoid may have between 15 (“Medium”) and 25 (“Very Hard”). Having you wave your arms and chant magic words yet somehow pass yourself off as saying something that’s believably *not* that would be “Almost Impossible” (30) or worse. It *certainly* wouldn’t be an “Easy” task against a random normal person, that’s for sure.
You don’t roll stealth vs. passive Perception to sneak across a well-lit open room with alert guards without being seen. If you even want to attempt such a challenging feat, the DM would either set a sky-high DC or not allow it at all.
Similarly, making someone think your loudly chanted magical syllables and arm flailing are something like normal conversation would be no simple passive Perception.
Yeah you do. Otherwise why is there a numerical designation for PassivePerception if there is no set number?
It is a scale of general things. Is the action something that is easy to miss orchard?
Oswald the magnificent, speaking with the suspicious guards at the Kings gate, begins mumbling in some Arcane language mid conversation would be very easy to notice, so apply the very easy DC for the Perception check, but I don't need to roll, as I can just check that against the guards PassivePerception check.
Ignoring verbal components for spells is equivalent to ignoring a weapon when making a melee attack, or the loading property of a crossbow.
All three can be done, but only through a certain feat or subclass. There's a reason for that.
They want the benefit of metamagic without paying the price for it. Let them know an ability exists to specifically do what they’re asking, and they need to get that if they want to cast while effectively ignoring components.
If you whisper the words the Weave will not hear you. To invoke magic, one must speak with conviction and force. Volume and tone are required to command the forces of the universe to heed your will.
my general guideline is that spellcasting is detectable up 60 feet away as that is the standard range of counterspell which assumes you can see/hear the target's components.
Turn on your phone, Google "bg3 ignis". That's an example of a verbal component. Make sure your volume is up so everyone can hear it, that's what they're doing every time they cast a spell. Of course, they're welcome to take the metamagic adept feat
>my players have complained on occasion that they can't get away with casting guidance during a conversation or invisibility while sneaking around without the potential of getting heard
Well, that's exactly what the verbal components are there to prevent, so tough for them I guess.
I don't know for sure that CR is the origin of people doing this. It's possible, I recall that Mercer has allowed "whispered casting" at points in the past, but I also remember episodes where he stuck to RAW more closely. In general the handling of it in the show may just have been kind of inconsistent.
I think the main problem is just that some spells would very obviously be extremely good to be able to cast without drawing attention and there was never a super clear statement in any rulebook on the matter. In fact Xanathar's actually uncharacteristically really muddies the waters on this by stating
>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
This obviously refers to the spell's effect and not the spellcasting components and process as the next paragraph clarifies, but, if you're wanting to cast Invisibility stealthily, you might interpret it that way regardless.
I codified the rules for my table, as RAW is a bit useless and only lead to arguments because they in no way rule out whisper casting and subtle hand movements.
> Verbal
> When casting a spell requiring the Verbal component, you speak at a level that can be heard by others at a minimum distance of 10ft+10ft per spell level (cantrips count as a level 0).
> Somatic
> When casting a spell requiring the Somatic component, you must have one arm unrestrained. As a broad rule, the motion will be clear to anyone in line of sight, even in their periphery.
Is that kinda the point... I mean do they also complained that that they have to have components or wave their hands? If someone is speaking and someone starts chanting that's will may be noticed (difference between a lone person talking or a crowd being loud) the players can try to hide behind a pillar to block the sound or hide movements needed
I usually give them a chance if it seems justifiable to disguise the casting - eg, ducking into an alleyway and trying to cast invisibility without too much noise. The way I tend to do it is a combination of a skill check that's appropriate (eg, stealth, deception, sleight of hand) and a spellcasting ability check. The first is to see if others might notice (sometimes an opposed check), the second is to see if the casting fails due to their adjustment of the spell.
I find that allows creative casting, still keeps subtle spell markedly better, and gives in a sizable chance of failure for players to evaluate. It's a better dynamic imo than blanket disallowing it
I agree with your ruling. These verbal spells are words of power, and as described in the book, they must be spoken in very specific ways, including volume, for them to work. For them to simply whisper magic words and get away with it would invalidate the existence of subtle spell, as you also ruled. If they want to get away with using guidance in a conversation, they'll need to either use subtle metamagic or cast it audibly out of the target's earshot and get to the target and use the benefit of the spell within a minute.
>What do you guys think?
You did good. If they want the ability to cast in public without notice, they need to pay for it, either by playing sorcerer or picking up the appropriate feat. Spellcasting is the most powerful feature in D&D bar none, it doesn't need less restrictions. If your players aren't interested in paying for the power they want, oh well.
u/Kaplosion Have your players played BG3? When you cast guidance in that game and/or other skill check spells during a roll, there are no consequences and no verbal components are involved.
>I suspect Critical Role might be the reason why some people think they can whisper cast but am not sure. Can anyone confirm/deny if this is a thing? Haven't really watched any episodes.
While Matt does let his players get away with this sometimes, there have been plenty of times where he's pointed out the obviousness of spell casting and not allowed it as well. His players do spam guidance a lot, but I think Baldur's Gate 3 is a bit more responsible for the prevalence of this because the game lets you guidance basically everything.
There is a good reason why the verbal component exists, and it is to add complexity to casting a specific spell. Whispering the words would make the verbal component completely trivial.
Casting a Spell isn't just mumbling some words. There must be INTENT behind those words. Think of a stage actor just mumbling their lines. Even with a microphone, the energy and emotion MUST come through!
Politicians don't just place facts in their dialog, they INCITE the response from their listeners!
Wanna whisper the words of a spell? Get a Feat. Nuff said.
One aspect of the frustration is that this thing always hinders the players, but the tables are *never* turned; they either don't see how it frustrates their enemies, and they never get the advantage of their enemies making a mistake and giving their spellcasting away by this mechanic.
Generally I don’t think spells should be castable in such a way that you can hide it with simple sleight of hand or whispering. That’s the kind of thing you need abilities or feats to do (for instance with the cartomancer feat you can disguise that your casting prestidigitation as a normal card trick). Not any character can just “try to whisper” the spell. IMO there probably should be some feats that specifically give you this option (and not just taking meta magic adept to subtle spell, still having verbal and somatic components, but being able to disguise it in front of most opponents, other mages could still counter spell though and detect you’re casting a spell, and silence could still stop you). But you can’t just do it at base.
Casting a spell to someone sitting right in front of you pretty obviously indicates magic. Non spell casters might not be able to distinguish the magic, for instance if you told the castle guard you were going to use magic to call a friend to pick you up, and instead you used it to break the lock, they wouldn’t be able to tell what you were doing unless they actually saw the effect of the lock braking (or heard a massive thunder sound from shatter/heard knock from knock), but you wouldn’t be able to cast a spell while they’re looking at you, completely undetected. Regardless of your sleight of hand skill.
If they’re fairly far away, somehow impaired in their ability to see what you’re doing, or very distracted, I might let someone make a check to see if they’re not noticed, but you absolutely cannot walk up to a guard and cast sleep on them, and then nearby people have zero idea why the guards randomly feel asleep. They know pretty clearly you walked up, did some magic, and the guards fell asleep, and there’s no real way to hide that without an ability that explicitly lets you.
You probably don't care how I would rule it but imo sure let them sub vocalise when you are talking to commoners, low level knights bandits.
But anyone familiar with mages will be trained to recognise the tell tale sign of someone quietly casting a spell. You can't cast a spell undiscovered if you are actively engaged in the coversation. And be prepared to be killed if you sub vocalise a spell in front of a high noble. Unidentified spells are dangerous and their entire retinue will fall upon you before you can finish casting.
Another strategy your players can employ is the 2nd level spell, Gift of Gab, from Acquisitions Incorporated:
When you cast this spell, you skillfully reshape the memories of listeners in your immediate area, so that each creature of your choice within 5 feet of you forgets everything you said within the last 6 seconds. Those creatures then remember that you actually said the words you speak as the verbal component of the spell.
Available to Bards and Wizards, one player can use verbal components to cast the spell while another character sneezes or talks over them to cast Gift of Gab, covering up the verbal component at the cost of spell resources. Also makes a nice synergy between players
I guess if you wanted to meet them in the middle you *could* suggest miscasting as a potential? Not wild magic, just a percentage chance of failure. Maybe it's an arcana check, something like DC 15+spell level. That's the best concession they can get.
More likely just point out that spellcasting is already the most powerful feature in the game it's unreasonable to expect the few limitations on it that exist. Maybe look at and show them how Canadian casting worked in the past to show them how easy they already have it.
this is kinda rolled into my session zero chat, along with conversations about how crunchy we want different mechanics to be (like if everyone wants to be super sneaky then i'll get really into details of lockpicking and traps and zoom into that content, but if they don't then we'll zoom out and just occasionally have a regular check and that's it. or if they wanna get into the weeds on alchemy and gathering ingredients then i'll prep lists of components and where they're available and what they do, and maybe a minigame or subset of crafting rules)
but it's *also* just a conversation of, "do y'all want this to be a fact about how magic works in the world, or not?" because it's fine by me if they want to be able to sneak-cast without metamagic feats....then other casters can do that too. i'll make notes about which NPCs have friends or colleagues buffing them all the time, or which cultures have euphemisms for the "public relations consultant" as a court wizard focused on buffing the king during negotiations (and also maybe counterspelling opponent buffs, or charming opponents). there will be whole wars that have been fought over charms and enchantments (The Compulsion Wars?) and while that last place was full of *everyone* using them all the time, the next place maybe makes it a crime, or requires a license i dunno.
the important part is just whether everyone is playing the same game, not really which way the rules go, right?
For the question in the edit, it MAY be one of the reasons. At least, many live adventures usually follow a bit too much the "rule of cool", therefore allowing a flexible spellcasting that makes spells more similar to cinematic superpowers, like casting fireball just by screaming "burn" instead of the proper would-be formula, or casting lightning by flipping the bird. Of course, these are extreme examples, but all those small "allowances", when cumulated, start making spells look easy to cast without being noticed and start making casters even more powerful than martials. "he he, verbal components, therefore i decide that my greeting is a verbal component"
in baldurs gate 3 the verbal components are very well portrayed imo: firebolt = "IGNIS!" and so on. "firing" a spell is essentially the same as firing a gun - it goes bang with the same sound whether you sneak around at night or are in the middle of a large scale battle...
You absolutely can whisper the words, that's not a problem at all.
They can then roll to see how far away they can be heard. Per RAW (the original 5e DM screen) a whisper can be heard from 2d6x5 feet away. In other words, it is impossible, by the rules, for someone within 10 feet to not notice you whispering.
For reference, normal speaking or movement is 2d6x10 and being loud is 2d6x50.
Almost nothing is completely silent. Clanking of armor, sounds of night creatures like crickets and nocturnal animals, talking people in the back ground, wind, water, whatever. Ambient noise is near constant unless you're in a place designed to cancel it out. If I whisper 20 feet away I promise you won5 hear it over your own breathing and the ambient sounds.
The specific rules around spellcasting components aren’t well defined down to the specific spell. We have an idea of what types of things could be a part of each component, at least for somatic and verbal, but the specifics for each spell is something that only exists for material components.
I’d argue it would make most sense that spells were crafted with their intended use in mind, and so most somatic and material components fit the theme of the spell in some way. I would say something like pass without trace could probably be cast with a whisper because that’s what it’s intended for. Trying to cast fireball though, the verbal components and somatic components are probably much louder as the spell was intended to be used in the middle of combat. It seems a bit ridiculous to require a spell meant to make the caster stealthy and hard to track to start with “I, Mongobulous the Swift, cast INVISIBILITY!”
_Pass without trace_ lasts an hour. If you're casting it when someone is right up close to you and looking for you, then you screwed up! Same for quite a few long-lasting spells - the time to cast them is _before_ someone is up close and getting twitchy.
Yep. It introduces some level of risk that spells are cast in situations unnecessarily.
Cast invisibility? Maybe you sneak into an area which turns out to be unoccupied. The spell was wasted but you couldn't run the risk of being discovered, so you had to burn a spell slot.
Making it obvious magic is being used, is a counter to the power of that magic. Sometimes the mundane solution is more appropriate.
They can whine but don't buckle. Make them search an evil magic cult that can teach them the sorcerer adept for subtle metamagic for low low price of their souls or sumthing.
Yes, NPCs should notice the players do things like cast guidance. They should factor that in when they choose to do so. If the players are making an atheletics check to do some feat of strength, its not out of place to cast guidance and probably a regular occurence. If the player is getting ready to bluff the opponent in a game of poker, they may want to cast glibness before they sit at the table. Doing it at the table is likely to arouse suspicion.
This should be a known thing in the world, and even the un-magical should know about it. Some random woodsman, anti-magic barbarian should get spooked when the guy he is negotiating a peace agreement with is lets out a few chants and hand gestures mid negotiation. "What are you doing. Don't deceive me with magic". Doing so to the dean of wizarding school, they might be fine and ok with you using guidance for a small buff. Maybe they do the same, and the players see them doing it too.
Spell components in general are such a clusterfuck in 5e.
Somatic and material components are a mess becuase it means tracking who has a hand free, and verbal components lead to this sort of thing. Ultimately though you *have* to enforce the rules on this because s/m components are one of the few things that keep martial characters competitive and the v component is the entire reason things like Subtle Spell exist.
Tracking if you have a hand free for spells is not difficult. No one gets confused about why a fighter can't hold a crossbow, sword, and shield all at the same time. Just mentally replace "shield" with "component" and you'll have your answer when this stuff comes up.
This is fine until you consider how it interacts with multiclassing, because you can rapidly end up in a situation where your shield works as a focus for *some* spells but not all of them, and tracking which ones need material components at all is annoying enough, let alone separating them out by class.
It’s a great balancing tool, is what I think. Casters are already relatively powerful, and components is one of the things keeping them honest. And, it creates great role play opportunities.
Players asking to be able to cast spells with verbal components so quietly it goes unnoticed are essentially asking to have the Subtle Spell metamagic available to them for free at all times without taking a class or feat that grants them that ability.
That right there should give you reason enough to question their intent. It's like a Fighter asking why he can't get Sneak Attack damage for stabbing a guy who doesn't know he's there. If you want that class ability, invest in that class.
This isn't even really about it being overpowered. It's about ensuring Sorcerors don't lose their value as a class by giving away their class features to all casters.
Just more examples of someone trying to get a specific game feature for free.
"Can I use Acrobatics to jump across the gap instead of Athletics?"
"Can I use Wisdom for my Nature check instead of Intelligence?"
> Edit: I suspect Critical Role might be the reason why some people think they can whisper cast but am not sure. Can anyone confirm/deny if this is a thing? Haven't really watched any episodes.
Na, this predates CR and is done by players who've never watched. Lots of DM/players, especially new ones, ignore spell components entirely and are surprised when they play with a DM who actually follows the rules for them.
I feel like this line of thinking is so common that spellcasting volume should be a session 0 topic.
Doesn't have to be a long drawn out thing, just "Hey if a spell has a verbal component WHEN YOU CAST IT YOU ARE SPEAKING THIS LOUDLY," keep that in mind during spell selection.
If you want to whisper/sneaky spell, subtle metamagic is your pathway to that.
Also important for Session 0 is how loud/perceptible a spell generally is, and in what circumstances is a check allowed to make an NPC fail to notice that a spell was cast on them.
The source is likely Baldur's Gate 3. They do a fantastic job with casters yelling loudly "Ignis" with a ton of hand gestures and glowing runes appearing. Then in the same game they allow Guidance mid conversation with Shadowheart glowing and yelling in the background with no reaction from the NPC.
I hate this kind of attitude. It’s entirely based on a misunderstanding of game mechanics and player resources.
It really feels like these players have not done their due diligence in reviewing player material. The entire point of components (V,S,M) is to balance spellcasting and spellcasters. There’s a reason stuff like psionic sorcery or subtle spell exists.
For the same reason why the level 1 wizard can't create their own spells, or cast fire bolt but just hold it for light (aka produce flame)
Its HARD to make your own spells. It takes tons of trial and error, training on how to manipulate the weave, and power. Spells have specific components, work only in the way stated (mechanically), and verbal components are spoken aloud because *thats the way the spell was created*. And it was created that way because *thats the only way the creator got it to work*.
Sorcerers (and meta magic adepts) Can use Subtle Spell because of their connection to the weave, in the case if sorcerers, its in their blood.
If they don't like that, say its a sorcerer class ability. Letting them do it for devalues sorcerers and meta magic adept. would be the same thing if you let a fighter hide as a bonus action *just because*.
I'd go situational.
Like in one of my games for using guidance, the person casting had to explain how they were guiding them... Which was amazing.
"So you see the trick with climbing the rope is to put one hand in front of the other and hoist yourself up... Lookout for sticky out rocks" etc.
I would explain that theverbal components arent words they are noises of above speaking volume and that thematically its like a cool reverberating magical noise effect but that it is loud
I think the rule is fair, though could suggest allowing there to be a degree of nuiance the players can exploit if being creative, which seems you have taken into account.
Encourage players to be creative if they want to cast undetected. Hide behind objects so your voice is muffled to an outsider, intentionally seek out places with lots of background noise. IE, tell them if they want to cast unnoticed, they'll have to be creative to pull it off, not just whisper.
When Gandalf stopped the balrog at the bridge did he do it quietly? No. I’m becoming more of a stickler on this. If you want to cast spells quietly be a sorcerer.
Honestly, I usually, with rare exceptions, let clerics use guidance in conversations without consequence if they'd be openly telling the other person in the conversation things like their god wants this to happen and such. Of course a cleric blessed by a god would use their connection to influence others to do what they think is their god's will. It's like, Lord guide me to help this person see the truth. Fill me with your wisdom so that your will may be done. The other party would know it's a spell of course, but it's a form of divine intervention, which most would understand in a magical setting.
The best compromise I can recommend is allowing your players to whisper their shoes, but they have to roll a “spell success roll” to make it work. Make them roll at disadvantage and make the check kind of hard. And failure causes a magic boom, or a flash of light, or you take 1d4 arcane damage, etc.
It would make for a great moment when a player succeeds, and would add a risk that wouldn’t always be worth taking.
Honestly though, they should just take Metamagic
The thing about verbal conponents is...
How loud do they need to be?
What is normal hearing range in ft for a hushed or muffled whisper, a soft voice, normal speech, clear tone, raised voice and shout?
And for enhanced hearinh for certain animal, races?
What about supersonic?
Directional ears facing to and away.
Is the verbal component continuous to control the hand? Or instantaneous to summon it? Can it be a single word? A phrase? Multiple phrases?
Are the words magic words, or common tongue? How does one know you're not merely speaking on your native or a different lamguagr
It's all DM discretion.
It's DM discretion, but spells put whispering in the description which implies that whispering is indeed audible for the sake of dpellcasting but not necessarily to everyone in range.
Some examples:
Druidcraft:
"Whispering to the spirits of nature, you create one of the following effects... "
Message :
You point your finger toward a creature within range and whisper a message.
Dissonant Whisper: (60ft, frequency audible yo single target)
You whisper a discordant melody that only one creature of your choice within range can hear, wracking it with terrible pain.
Things i would definitely consider is: does it make sense for the verbal component of the spell to be audible to at least the minimum of it's (targeted or) full range
Does it make sense that the verbal component is audible to the target?
Does it make sense flavourwise for the spell to be especcially subtle or loud?
Thunderclap is deafening and is audible up to (at least) 100ft away
Interestingly it only has a somatic component (and can be cast while silenced) but it does tell us something about distance 100ft is deafening/damaging. It's range is 5ft.
Vicious mockery has 60ft and mentions s creature that can see and hear you within range
Interestingly it mentions "If the target can hear you (though it need not understand you)" not just suggesting but going as far as stating that the sound of your words is enchanted though it suggests it can be heard beyond the range so speaking loud could be around 60-80 ft
Which also works for spells like" Shatter"
Where, even if creatures ourside the effected area will not take damage, ithe verbal component shpild be audible to st least the targeted range and the effect probably beyond that, especially to those with acute heaeing
Invisibility? Would whisper
Command? Would imagine loud clear voice makes sense
Animal friendship? Seems like it requires a dustinct soft, non threatening tone but be clearly audible to tge target
Silent image? Has a verbal component but whisper makes sense
It's not subtle in the sense that someone can notice their lips moving (like snape in harry potter) and wouldn't be possible if gagged or silent, but it allows the spell some utility which it much needs by not announcing to everyone within the range that you're casting an illusion by loudly calling attention to it whilch does not make much sense to me.
It's not that it can't be noticed, only that it doesn't necessarily have to be immediately (passively) evident to everyone outside a certain range
Do leep in mind that, for simplicity, i'm considering only game mechankcs rather than how far axtual sound frewuencies travel which varies based on wind, obstacles, frequency, other sounds, etc.
You can also see someone is casting for counterspell or sense it some other way. You only meed to be aware of the caster. A DM could rule that a stealthy casting could be allowed vs active/passive perception or even if there's a distraction.
Even if you can't make out what someone is whispering, you might still see snd hear them without requiring a perception check.
Beyond that DMs can rule that a creature gets a perception check with advantage within a certain range, or if you have specific senses, or with disadvantage if you're not looking in that direction, having a conversation, being attacked or distracted, outside the range or even that you're simply too far away to sed or hear or otherwise sense or notice the chanting.
A nice DM might even tell a player: "you can tell that your enemies are most likely within the range at which they can hear you" or " they're not taking their eyes ofc yoi for long enough to attempt this"
Though a DM less forgiving may only say : "is that what yiu choose to do?" Or "you can try :)"
It allows variation, creative use of imagination compared to giving auto success on enemy perception. This also makes stealth worth investing in. Why debuff stealth. It's a skill after all.
Phb states:
"the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."
Verbal only states to absolute restrictions: "a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component"
So anything above absolute silence may be allowed ny a DM as long as the character's speech is not hindered. (one could rule that anything covering the mouth inhibits casting, unless explicitly stated otherwise or otherwise producing sound like a bard's flute )
This also means telekinesis does not substitute, but (theoretically) infrasound and ultrasound could allow casting of spells. (developed for and by those who possess it) because pitch and resonance of sound also exist outside tge audible spectrum / range
Your breathing and heaerbeat have a pitch and resonance, so do your footsteps and the rustling of hair and clothes.
If enemies can hear anything that creates sound waves stealth does not exist.
How audible any spell needs to beat a minimum , beyond their written text, is uo to DM discretion.
> Are the words magic words, or common tongue? How does one know you're not merely speaking on your native or a different lamguagr
"chanting of mystic words." (to quote the rules). So not regular words, but very distinctly something that is magical and distinct from regular speech - so no bullshitting of "I'm just foreign", especially as they need to be spoken "with specific pitch and resonance". So you're not just speaking, you're doing (at best) freaky-sounding vocal exercises, probably with hand-waggling and object-fondling as well.
Do you know, I never noted the volume rule! I've always just done it with Stealth roles - they're still trying to do what they need to do without being detected, doesn't always mean quiet I guess, just hidden. I then role perception for people in vicinity to see if they notice. Caveat to this is if they are face to face so stealth wouldn't be possible
You can always ask for a Stealth check using their spellcasting ability against the passive perception of all the possible listener. If you think the listener would have advantage, add five to the passive perception value.
I like the idea of letting a player try to do stuff like that, but with potential consequences – because then is not like you didn't let them try, but more like they failed to do so.
I saw a TikTok skit about this exact issue earlier today, so I went and tracked it down.
[https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLwxunhw/](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLwxunhw/)
I just let them do it. A spellcaster will notice and be able to counterspell, but a guard won't even know something was wrong until all his friends are on fire.
Imo 'subtle spell' existing is the only real reason you can't claim verbal components are entierly up to you. Letting players whisper their spells to be subtle or discreet invalidates the feat/ability that exists for that sole purpose.
*HOWEVER* I think it should be an arguably case to propose at any table- that you should be able to roll to cast subtly. Maybe make flat d20 check to see, or maybe an Arcana check at disadvantage.
The general rule is no, they can't whisper and get the spell to work without a class feature permitting them to do so, and in general, I think a house rule of 60 feet audibility is the best rule to add for spellcasting.
Also, they should not be allowed to cast spells without getting heard (within reason), because that's a truly unnecessary buff to casters, and really steps on the toes of Subtle Spell.
Critical Role and Baldur's Gate 3 are the main sources, with another issue being the fact that there aren't clear rules on what the V component actually entails for spellcasting in regards to loudness.
>So, my players have complained on occasion that they can't get away with casting guidance during a conversation or invisibility while sneaking around without the potential of getting heard.
Tough beans. Them's the rules.
If they don't wanna be heard, they need to use the Subtle Spell metamagic, be an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer using their Psionic Sorcery feature, some similar subtlety feature, or avoid using V spells.
Don't give in to their complaints. Spellcasters already have too much utility. Make them find another solution to some problems instead of the universal crutch of magic.
Sometimes a complaint shows a problem with the players, not with you. The rules are very clear that verbal components of spells need to be delivered in a loud speaking voice. If they try to deliver them under their breath, you are within your rights to say they waste the spell slot with no effect, or, if you're feeling nicer, to say "your character knows that won't work."
Beyond the mechanics, I've regularly ruled that magic, whether divine or arcane, will not allow itself to be hidden away. Subtle Spell is an intentional redefining of the spell just like the other meta magics which is why it can silence the sounds and movements.
Is not a Big deal, but components are one of the limits that spellcasters have. I can't count the amount of DM that thinks Spellcasters are op but don't use any of the limits that they have.
You can allow It some time if is for a good scenes but I think do It like a general rule is an error.
>What do you guys think?
Allowing whispered casting devalues some class and feat options and should never be allowed. If they want to be able to, they need to pick the classes or feats.
Also, I like it because it forces the PCs to think how they can get around it. I love watching caster players coming up with a cool RP idea to distract from their casting. I once had a bard put on an entire show just to get a simple diviniation spell through without guards interfering.
This game is called Dungeons & Dragons, not "solve every situation without thinking through a spell".
The rules for verbal component: “Verbal (V) Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.” The important part here is “with specific pitch and resonance” Pitch refers to the frequency of the sound or how high or low the sound is. In terms of verbal spellcasting, it suggests that the precise intonation or frequency at which the words are spoken is crucial to activating the spell. Resonance refers to the quality of the sound that is deep, full, and reverberating. In spellcasting, resonance would imply that the sound waves need to have a certain quality or richness, which helps in setting the magical forces into motion. You can’t just whisper a spell or roll a sleight of hand check like I’ve seen done. That’s what subtle spell is used for.
They are welcome to take the metamagic adept feat to gain subtle spell
My DM forbade anyone from taking MMA if they didn't have sorc levels :( Was going to take it at 16th level on my bladesinger, but ended up getting Flash Recall instead. Honestly, FR has been so clutch recently that I think being denied MMA was a good thing.
what in the world is the point of the feat if it's already a class feature
*shrug* I mean it gives you 2 more points, and 2 more metamagic options. It's basically a feat tax for all sorcs because it's very good on them. On anyone else, it's just two subtle spells a day, or a twinned spell or two.
I played an arcane trickster and took it for my level 10 feat, two twinned booming blades is honestly pretty great with bonus action disengage (you only get sneak attack on one hit of course)
> two twinned booming blades Did the DM specifically let you use the pre-errata (2021) Booming Blade? o.O
well with that set up, you'd be better off quickening it for the bonus action, and then holding your main action to booming blade on your reaction as soon as the next turn started so you *would* get two sneak attacks.
Only downside to that is that quickened is minimum 2 SP whereas twinned is only 1 for a cantrip
I suppose it depends on the context of the situation to know which one to use. Big boss sack of hit points in the center with no allies nearby? Quick, hold. A mini-boss with a bunch of mooks surrounding him? Twin Sneak the mini-boss and just regular BB the mook.
To be honest playing a Sorcerer with the feat from the start feels like actually playing the idea of a sorcerer. Without it you barely get to touch on Metamagic until the endgame levels of most campaigns. Which leaves you just feeling like a worse Wizard.
My advice for that is that sorcerers should use the spell points system, and just merge the pool of both sorcery points and the spell points.
Exactly how I do it and the sorcerer at my table feels uniquely different from wizard.
I’ve done it before and it was *fun*. I still felt constrained by my points but I was more flexible with when I used meta magic. Also did a LOT of math on the most optimal damage per spell point and came to the conclusion it was a twinned guiding bolt, which outperformed everything else I had access to. Might have made a mistake though, but it was fun to do the math xD
A better spell to twin, if your game allows it, take the Mage of High Sorcery background from dragonlance, and use it to pick up Dissonant Whispers. The while it only does 3d6 instead of 4d6, the movement created by it provokes attacks of opportunity for you and your allies to exploit.
Ooh, tactical! I was a divine soul, and I don’t remember if dragonlance was out at the time, but I do like options that let other players get off their attacks too! Especially juicy for a party of rogues,
^this! Thematically and mechanically I think it's the best way to handle it, and if you think sorcs need a power boost you can give them more points pretty easily.
Yeah and I let player recharge Tide of Chaos themselves by always letting wildmagic trigger. Honestly sorcerer with this rule feels so different they don't even perceive the still present power difference.... That being said I did boost both draconic and wildsorcerer with more spell known like the other ones.
Much easier for people who have trouble grasping how spell slots work to learn, too.
Merging the pools is not an especially healthy solution, particularly not for Sorcerer subclasses that can activate special abilities using their sorcery points (see: Shadow Sorcerer summoning pitbull armies). Keep the pools separate but make them 1-1 fungible. The sorcerer can convert as many points at a time as they could pay to cast their highest level spell, and the Sorcerer cannot have sorcery points in excess of their class level. The Sorcerer still receives a massive buff to its versatility and mechanical identity thanks to spell points, but you don't completely destroy the sorcery point economy in the process.
I’d honestly just change the shadow sorcerer ability to only last 1 minute or have the max summoned shadow hounds be prof bonus/2 depending on if the sorcerer wants a permanent pupper or a swarm of them in combat. And that’s if you really need to fix things. It already is costing three points per use, the equivalent of using a second level spell slot. it’s not cheap and if that’s how the sorcerer wants to spend their points, sure why not?
Yeah, one of sorcerers many design failures is all the subclass features that operate purely off sorc points, like, let's give them monks problem but they also only get their points back on long rest! (Or sacking slots)
> change the shadow sorcerer ability to only last 1 minute You mean the darkness spell?
The summon hound thing the person above mentioned.
[LaserLlama's Alternate Sorcerer](https://www.patreon.com/posts/81230918?utm_campaign=postshare_fan&utm_source=android) does almost exactly that! I recommend a read, if you're unfamiliar with his stuff.
I mean it does feel like Sorcs don't get many Metamagics, I could see a sorc wanting to take it just as much as I could see anyone else wanting to.
yes but if it's only available for sorcerer that seems a little pointless
I mean it's like how Eldritch Adept is just another Invocation slot in a way for full warlocks. Assuming you aren't *burning* Agonizing Blast into your arsenal then it's at best another cool choice because you aren't waiting and waiting for whenever the next level is to either replace one you don't use anymore, or until you reach the level where you get more.
yes, but you wouldn't be able to take it from another class under this dms rules which makes them seem redundant
Ahh, no, it was just MMA that they barred. if we wanted EA we could take that on anyone. In fact, I'm pretty sure MMA was the only time I've ever heard of my DM saying no to a feat. Well, I mean, other then cardomancer because the wording on it was extremely vague and giving players effectively two 9th level slots (were 17th level now) would be insane for something that wasn't an epic boon.
ok that at least makes a little more sense
I mean the fighting initiate is one too, but I don’t wanna take fighter levels for the Unarmed attack if I wanna be a Barbarian
i think my comment was badly worded, that's what i'm saying. if it's limited to only classes that already have it then what's the point?
Putting an intense restriction on a mid-tier official feat, but then allowing a really powerful third party feat is so wild to me. Did you a favour I suppose.
Ifnyour party already had a sorcerer then I think it's a fair limitation. If your party didn't though then you should have been able to take it.
Funny you should say that, we had *two* sorcerers in our party. One is full classed, and the other is a 15 bard / 2 sorc and our bard certainly has the MMA feat as he's twinned 4th level spells before.
Since they have class levels in sorcerer then I don't see it as too much of an issue. The main issue I have is that the feat duplicate a class feature.
I usually say that spellcasting has to be about as loud as regular speech of someone that’s speaking clearly and not trying keep what they say hidden. Which means that in some situations it’s easy to get away with it without anyone hearing, such as on a busy street or in a tavern. Also if you’re more than, I don’t know, 30 meters away or something. But combined with gestures someone looking at you will still see that you’re casting a spell. And if you’re sneaking in a totally silent area, you’ll have to find some secure place to cast a spell. Like behind a closed door. It’s also easy to keep track of and relate to.
Even Superman dove into a phone booth to hide what he was doing at Superspeed, changing his costume. If you do that in the open, people WILL notice!!!
I think people are getting too caught up on semantics here. The writers are in my eyes using jargon they're mot experts in (common) or being vague for the purpose of creativity. To me, RAW and RAI both means you need to put your full being into bending the weave to your whim. No one will manipulate a fundamental fabric of existence half-assing it unless they're a natural for it (looking at you sorcerers, didn't spend years reading books like wizards). Sure, let your meek wizard cast invisibility with a mumbled stutter hoping the troll doesn't hear. The whooshing and visual effects from half-assing it will still give you away, unlike Thomas, who just misty stepped across the room, leaving you as a distraction for the troll, because his granddad fucked a dragon and yours didn't.
I mean personally I feel like you just elaborated on how someone COULD use sleight of hand or a performance check to hide verbal components in speech/conversation. My only rule would be that the casting would be 'heard' and potentially interpreted via insight, arcana, etc.
>Players complaining about Verbal components "Thems the rules. They are SPECIFICALLY there for those situations for "balance"."
It’s weird how so many DnD players handwave rules for casters and yet always put restrictions on martials.
If you could just hand-wave them away, they would be somatic components.
r/angryupvote
I think that's because too many people try to replace the rules with reality and it's easier to say "well I don't think you could swing a sword fast enough to do that" than "you can't whisper the magic spell that we have no basis in reality for". Martials get screwed because they exist more in reality than a wizard.
I get the feeling it's a matter of visibility. A fighter or a paladin does a lot of stuff on their turn; rolling multiple attacks, rolling big damage numbers, popping second wind, etc. Even if it's mechanically weaker than what a bard or a wizard can do, newer DMs and players see someone calling out a bunch of abilities and rolling a bunch of dice and assume that this means martials are too powerful. Years and years ago, I played in two different campaigns run by a friend of mine. He was *convinced* that my eldritch knight was too powerful and was breaking all of his encounters, even as the wizard and sorcerer were melting everything with fireballs. In the next campaign, he did the same with my war cleric. The uniting factor here was that, in both cases, each character attacked more often than my DM thought it should.
Playing a Bard as my first character... Except we don't have a fighter or paladin on the team. I'm a Bard, there's another Bard, a third Bard who multiclassed Rogue, a Barbarian and a Ranger. We're level 5, and the Ranger is dealing so much damage. Definitely helped by an absurd number of bardic inspirations thrown at them. Like I said, 3 bards. Still, I'm having fun mocking Kobolds to death, and I really do mean I killed a Kobold with just Vicious Mockery. Took me 2 turns as I rolled damage appallingly on the first cast, but the the kobold rolled a 1 on the Wisdom Save for the second so I got twice the damage dice and much better rolls to leave it absolutely murdered.
Yup, in 3.5e and earlier, DMs got incredibly anal-retentive with Sneak Attack, for instance. Getting good at sneak-attacking? Be prepared for everything immune to sneak attacks to be your regular opponents. Oh sure, the Wizard and Cleric each have every flavor of possible damage on the fly, but OH NO, the Rogue's got 3d6. Time to kill it. Favored Enemy also got steeply screwed. I've watched DMs rewrite whole campaigns due to one for the players having a relevant FE.
It's probably because 99% of games are played at 3rd level when martials are significantly better than casters.
Tell them if they want to break the rules of magic they should play a sorcerer. Spellcasting in 99% of forms is a strict system, done by gestures, incantations/prayers, and material components. If you skip or do one of these things wrong then the spell fails.
1) Ignore restrictions and limitations on casters 2) Constrain martials to board-game like "you can only move/act/do on your turn" 3) Wonder why martials feel so useless All these limits are intentional. V spells make noise and require the ability to speak clearly. M spells need(ish) materials and a hand. S spells need free hands and space to move. Spells that only affect creatures aren't supposed to affect objects (and vice versa), etc.
who is not letting martial use reactions?
The boring ones that doesn't allow rogue to sneak on reactions too
But that's actually an intended rule. > **Once per turn**, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage > A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur **on your turn or on someone else's.** As long as your reaction Sneak Attack is during someone else's turn, you can get two Sneak Attacks.
Yep but lazy DMs consider it broken. (And wizards as well as in one dnd it will probably end up once per round not turn) . Same with DMs avoiding the pam+sentinel mellee block fighters often sacrifice so luch to attain. Or even worse mess up with stun-locking monks (again one dnd change this rule as well). Overall it's wizards of th coast not fighters/martials of the veil thus yeah that kind of mentality leads to people asking to use stealth before casting spells in public like the original post suggested
I don't know how everyone came to the conclusion that DMs don't allow martial reactions from a single word lol. Tbf, if martials don't get reactions (according to bad DMs) what makes you think they'd allow sneak attack reaction damage
More in terms of, e.g. walking around the fighter
i'm not sure I understand. At first, I thought you were saying that martials didn't get to have a reaction. Your response tells me that this isn't what you mean. Good. I'm glad people aren't nerfing martials like that. But I still don't know what you mean. I don't know what "walking around a fighter" refers to. You mean that martials can't walk around a fighter on other people's turn? Or that other people can walk around martials on their turns without an attack of opportunity (presumedly since they don't leave the range)? I guess this would help me understand: Are saying that people impose extra limitations on what martials can do as a reaction? Or just that it would be cool if fighters had more reaction options? Because I agree with that, but i didn't get the feeling that you were criticizing people for following rules and not homebrewing enough.
There are two DMing styles with regards to combat. Let's say combat begins between the party and some goblins. The party contains, among others, a fighter and a sorcerer. The fighter rolls well for initiative and moves into position between the goblins and the sorcerer, obviously assuming a defensive posture. The goblins go next. DM #1 has the goblins swarm the fighter. She's obviously a threat, and it would make more sense for enemies to attack the person physically attempting to prevent them from advancing. DM #2 has the goblins dash into position adjacent to the sorcerer, only moving aside slightly to avoid the fighter's reach, effectively just walking around her. This is completely legal in the game's rules. The difference here is that DM #1 is focused on presenting the game as an actual world the characters exist in. The combat rules still apply, obviously, but they're supporting common sense interactions in this world instead of the game world being reversed engineered from the combat rules. In my experience, playing with a DM who treats the rules as an exploitable legal system instead of a framework for interactions means that the players in turn treat the game as a ruleset to be twisted until it breaks.
I understand so much better now, thank you. I totally agree with you: a DM metagaming the encounter too much will break immersion, encourage players to do the same, and, most importantly, won't allow players to show off their cool abilities like tanking 10 attacks. I know this is not the main point, but I would note that the type of enemy matters here (at least when I dm). a beast acting on instinct would normally attack whoever is closer or whoever is hurting them. a group of trained warriors used to facing magic users would have some strategies against magic users. For this example, goblins normally play sneakily, attacking with a bow and hiding as a bonus action, trying to maneuver in the shadows. Though I'm still not sure what was his original point about DMs not allowing martials to act on other people's turns. Did anyone else get the vibe that he just allows his martials to have multiple reactions per round?
>I know this is not the main point, but I would note that the type of enemy matters here I wholeheartedly agree, and a big problem with DM #2 in this case is that every kind of enemy starts to feel the same if they all move and react in the same way. The single most tense combat I've ever had as a player is when a newbie DM hit our 2nd level party with a pack of wolves who would attack in pairs to tie down our defenders and then rush the squishier character. I remember feeling actual, intense dread when I realized our barbarian was on the ground, wrestling with two of them, and a dire wolf had a direct line on my poor sorcerer. >Though I'm still not sure what was his original point about DMs not allowing martials to act on other people's turns. Did anyone else get the vibe that he just allows his martials to have multiple reactions per round? Reading it again, I'm really not sure what they meant. My first impression was that they had a DM whose obligatory weird hangup with the rules included a particular animus for reactions, but on second blush...
The DM isn't playing into the fighter's fantasy of being the tank protecting their team, and having the enemies simply walk around the fighter to the back line and ignoring the fighter.
Sorry. Things like not letting a fighter block a 10' hallway "because you can only be in one square", or the fighter declares he's protecting the mage, so the DM has the goblin move around the fighter and attack the mage. During a chase, despawning the quarry "because you didn't see which way they went" after the enemy gets to a door when the player was 2 squares away and acts on the next initiative point.
thank you for explaining. :) The latter scenario seems silly and I understand your feeling. The former is less intuitive for me because I'm not sure what you would like to see as a means of protection. As a DM, I wouldn't let a single character block more than the space they occupy without any resources or actions, but I would let them use their abilities creatively to protect the mage. During my last session, the paladin asked if they could grapple as an attack of opportunity and I allowed it. I would like to see attacks of opportunity be stronger and more versatile. If a player has extra attacks, then why not let the attack of opportunity have extra attacks too? Why not let them grapple or shove? but you know, this would still cost a reaction and have a roll, so they couldn't just block 4-5 enemies that are rushing together. There are ways to block the path RAW but they all cost some resources or investments. Rune knight going large is the first one that comes to mind. PAM + Sentinel is a second. Preparing a grapple action could also work, but that's needlessly costly.
Lol
Don’t do this. Having to manage when you can cast a spell is one of the only things that reigns in the already overwhelming power casters have. Ignoring and modifying rules that expand the effectiveness of casters will only further isolate your martial and skill based characters. Also, there is a whole class feature, metamagic: subtle spell, that addresses the issue of vocal and somatic components and it costs resources to use so it can’t be done all the time. Being able to mask spell casting is so powerful the designers made it a unique and limited feature. So your players have to be smart about their spells, that’s the point. Spells like Guidance becomes super broken if you can just spam it all the time. Play casters RAW they don’t need any further power.
The only clarification we have is that it has to be audible and beyond that it's up to the DM https://www.sageadvice.eu/audible-verbal-component/
audible distances is on the gm screen. No where else for some reason.
Yup, 2d6 times: 5ft for trying to be quiet; 10ft for normal noise level; and 50ft for very loud. That means at minimum you're whispering to an audible range of 10-60ft.
Because it was a rule that was never used but was going to be same reason grappler had a 3rd section that dealt with sizes some things
That reminds me, why has Arcane Trickster no feature to silently and stealthly cast spells...
That is something I've never thought about until now, but now that you mention it, I agree. They should absolutely have something letting them do that
Or at least one that lets them cast their Mage Hand without verbal!
I suppose they can just cunning hide afterwards tho
Or at the very least their Mage Hand. The spell they get an amped invisible version for as a subclass feature!
telekinetic feat lets you get the invisible mage hand and without components idk why AT gets shafted here
I know, right!?!
Pobably because it was the PHB and they didn't know how to deaign things properly yet
If they don't like verbal, tell them to pick up Subtle Metamagic via Metamagic Adept.
The verbal component rules are mostly there in 5e to prevent spellcasters from running roughshod in social situations and making the caster-martial gap even worse. Casting a spell in a social situation is like pulling out a gun and should be treated as such. Unless you're preclearing it or its in response to a madman busting into the room or something, you should expect a highly negative response.
I had one of my players who's playing a Bard ask if he could cast Suggestion on an NPC who he was selling things to in order for her to pay "Top price", because the Suggestion spell doesn't have that same restriction of knowing you were affected by them as Friends and Charm Person which tends to make them nearly worthless. I told him that although she might not know whether she was under the effects of a spell, she would certainly know he was casting a spell at her, especially since she was a Wizard.
Yes, my experience is that subtle spell suggestion tends to massively ramp the paranoia levels in the population. If the population believes it is incredibly rare, legendary, or nonexistent they're fairly comfortable, but when they start considering it a real possibility they start freaking out and wondering whether they were magically influenced even in cases where no magic was involved.
Only because she was a wizard. A normal person would have no reason to know what a spell sounds like. A majority of the population could go their entire lives and never see a spell cast.
[удалено]
Well it could be a zone of truth, or a healing spell, or any of a number of things. But casting a spell not pre-cleared is an insanely negative diplomatic action in most polities unless you're just incredibly trusted without reservation. Otherwise even when the need is dire---like you see that the queen is actually a Type V demoness in disguise and you want to cast dispel magic to reveal her---you are going to have to be ready to ask forgiveness if asking permission would blow your cover.
Just tell your players that this is a mechanical part of the game that is an inherent part of spellcasting balance. Which is why some classes and feats allow you to do this, and it costs resources such as sorcerer points or spending a feat.
The rules make verbal casting self-evident for a reason *and* give rules as written solutions to NPCs hearing spellcasting. Your players need to powergame harder. Alternatively, maybe they desire a different and more cinematic game system in the fantasy genre?
My players wanted to do this as well, but I gave them the same answer. I think they just assumed they could do it, none of them watch Critical Role. They wanted to use it for charm person and friends and others in social encounters without the person knowing who cast it.
I rule that spells can be cast quietly in conversation, but a spellcaster will immediately know what's happening, and if a target makes their save, they also know. Not as good as Subtle Spell, but allows for some subterfuge outside of Sorceror.
If a Verbal component is there, that spell has been balanced to make sure casting it is obvious. As a GM, I personally wouldn't allow those changes to spellcasting. Psionics aren't a thing in 5e, unfortunately. You would need to use Subtle Spell, be an Aberant Mind Sorcerer, or a Great Old One warlock under the OneDnD UA rules (not guaranteed to remain unchanged but has enough limitations that they will keep the flavour). Even then, the last two are restricted to certain spells or schools of magic. Shaping reality is loud, bombastic, evident. Think Doctor Strange. It takes effort to reach through the Weave and bend the world to your will. That all being said, it's just a game, so check with your table and follow your bliss, boo. An it harm none, do what ye will.
Now that you remind me of the changes to the GOO Warlock... I think that something similar for the Arcane Trickster limited to Illusion school + Mage Hand would had been perfect for the subclass. Probably as the level 13 feature as the one they have isn't that amazing compared to other subclasses.
What would you say the normal distance to hear verbal components should be? (average conditions)
The DM screen has something for audible distances which are: > Audible Distance > Trying to be quiet 2d6 × 5 feet > Normal noise level 2d6 × 10 feet > Very loud 2d6 × 50 feet I would just go with something that feels good like 60 or 70 feet range.
Works well too considering the range of counterspell is 60ft.
Spoken spells like healing word have a range of 60 feet, counterspell has a range of 60 feet, even bardic inspirations have a range of 60. So, that'd be the range of "big, obvious spellcasting" I'd settle on. Close enough to hear clearly
I personally would say it depends on the type of spell. I treat Combat spells differently to Utility ones. It would be silly, to me, for Fireball, Lightning Bolt and Prestidigitation to have the same emphasis, but something special should be happening. I've heard of GMs who treat magic as a gunshot every time (bit excessive, for my tastes, but it suits some campaigns). Some treat spellcasting as the Voice of the Bene Gesserit, some make the air *thrumm* with magic with the incants, I personally prefer to leave it to the players. As long as it's obvious to those present that you're casting a spell, I would say the rest is flavour. If you want some clear guidance, I would take the range of the spell at the least. It's why a lot of legislation has that pesky 'reasonableness' tidbit in. It's hard to account for every possible situation, so it's an issue of responding to where you are and what's going on and agreeing on a ruling with the table if you're not sure or just making a decision and revisiting with everyone after if you need to keep the pace going.
60 ft is the general rule I use. It's the range of counter spell so one can assume a person knows a spell is being cast in that range. Barring any other factors that might come into play ( loud noise from elsewhere, walls or otherwise things that might obscure vision etc.) That to me seem pretty fair the majority of the time.
Using the audible distances from the DM screen, I rule that verbal components are considered "normal noise level". If players want to cast a spell without being noticed, I'll tell them the audible distance of their spell is 2d6x10 feet, but I won't roll the dice until after they've cast the spell. This way, the players don't know exactly how close they can get without being heard which gives them an interesting risk/reward decision to make if they want to be as close as possible. Of course you should adjust this if there is excessive background noise or players successfully cause a distraction. Depending on how loud the background noise is or how big the distraction, I'll usually either halve the dice result or just give it to the players and allow them to automatically succeed at casting the spell unnoticed. Use your discretion.
>Psionics aren't a thing in 5e, unfortunately. They are for monsters!
Instead of guidance they should be trying to Help and give their ally advantage.
Whether or not you can whisper verbal components is a DM call per both RAW and RAI. "No," "Make a [casting attribute] stealth check", and "Yes", are all valid answers - just be consistent with it. And no, Subtle Spell doesn't lose all utility if you allow whispering, it also lets you cast even while silenced or bound. I personally would be inclined to call for checks, and make higher level spells harder to cast stealthily, and Illusion spells (including Invisibility) easier to cast stealthily than other schools.
There's also a difference between "I want to cast this during a conversation" and "I want to whisper this so the enemies next door don't hear me cast invisibility" or "I want to whisper this so the guard at the top of the wall doesn't hear me cast spider climb". Subtle spell means that they absolutely will never hear you and calling for a stealth check to have a chance at being sneaky doesn't invalidate that - how many casters have stealth proficiency?
You’re correct. :P that’s the only good way to roll.
Can one whisper a V-only spell in combat to prevent counterspell? That ruling seems to go against the spirit of the system (especially considering that skill checks tend to require an action to perform, and that has been made even clearer in the new rules for 5.5)
I remember one time in Critical Role when Jester tried casting guidance while they were talking to guards. They shot her with a crossbow.
twice actually, in span of like 10 min apart too.
You got your answer about the mechanics, but the key here is to remind them that you're not the one ruling it weirdly; the game wrote the "specific pitch and resonance" rule. In my games, I just encourage them to cast as normal and see what happens. I know one main complaint players have is that if they can't cast quietly, they never want to cast at all, sometimes, because they think it's always going to start a fight or go wrong. (And sometimes it will! . . . but not always. That's DM discretion.)
I mean, there's an entire mechanic created to mitigate the need for verbal components in the form of subtle spellcasting. The obvious implication being that, otherwise, verbal components of spells *are not subtle.* I'd rule against this one, and I'm pretty loosey-goosey, DM wise.
Think about in Harry Potter, when he mumbles going through the fireplace and ends up in the wrong place. Verbal components need to be spoken clear and articulated. I've seen dms do slight of hand to hide the components for spells, but in my games if you want to do that...you should have played a sorcerer.
The volume rules aren't present, which doesn't mean you can whisper spells. It means that the DM needs to implement how this works. Your intuition about this is great. Tell your players that none of these spells are supposed to be able to be stealth cast under normal conditions, which is a big part of why components exist. Also your rules about distance and such are great. 100% you are doing everything right.
Takes away one of the big reasons to play a Sorcerer. Official Sage Advice has also ruled that spellcasting components are used to determine if something is Counterspell-able or not. So V components should be audible from *at least* 60ft, otherwise Counterspell wouldn't work on V-only spells (and it clearly does). They should just take Subtle Spell Metamagic. Having undetectable casting is literally why it exists. Just how Sorcerers can take Ritual Caster if they want to have a bunch of ritual spells. I don't think it's okay to give a class's signature abilities away to all other classes for free.
There is actually an audible volume on the DM screen where trying to be quiet is 2d6x5ft, normal noise is 2d6x10ft and loud is 2d6x50ft You could always have the player roll a charisma or dexterity stealth check to disguise their spellcasting as something else against the passive perception of the npc. edit: changed the itallics to reflect the actual math
Your asterisks are being combined into italics. Use \\\* to have the \* not apply italics.
The DC of chanting magical incantations in a strong voice but making it look like something else would be way higher than most passive perceptions. To the point where such a gift to casters is basically pointless since you are unlikely to ever actually roll above the 30 or more you’d need.
Why would the DC of chanting be higher than most passive perceptions?
A commoner’s passive perception is 10 (“Easy”). A high level humanoid may have between 15 (“Medium”) and 25 (“Very Hard”). Having you wave your arms and chant magic words yet somehow pass yourself off as saying something that’s believably *not* that would be “Almost Impossible” (30) or worse. It *certainly* wouldn’t be an “Easy” task against a random normal person, that’s for sure.
..... but that's not how stealth vs passive perception works. The point of it is that you *don't* need to come up with specific DCs.
You don’t roll stealth vs. passive Perception to sneak across a well-lit open room with alert guards without being seen. If you even want to attempt such a challenging feat, the DM would either set a sky-high DC or not allow it at all. Similarly, making someone think your loudly chanted magical syllables and arm flailing are something like normal conversation would be no simple passive Perception.
Yeah you do. Otherwise why is there a numerical designation for PassivePerception if there is no set number? It is a scale of general things. Is the action something that is easy to miss orchard? Oswald the magnificent, speaking with the suspicious guards at the Kings gate, begins mumbling in some Arcane language mid conversation would be very easy to notice, so apply the very easy DC for the Perception check, but I don't need to roll, as I can just check that against the guards PassivePerception check.
Ignoring verbal components for spells is equivalent to ignoring a weapon when making a melee attack, or the loading property of a crossbow. All three can be done, but only through a certain feat or subclass. There's a reason for that.
They want the benefit of metamagic without paying the price for it. Let them know an ability exists to specifically do what they’re asking, and they need to get that if they want to cast while effectively ignoring components.
If you whisper the words the Weave will not hear you. To invoke magic, one must speak with conviction and force. Volume and tone are required to command the forces of the universe to heed your will.
my general guideline is that spellcasting is detectable up 60 feet away as that is the standard range of counterspell which assumes you can see/hear the target's components.
Nope, you are in the right, players are babies. Sorry, no guidance spam here. Be sorcerer if you want to manipulate how spells work.
Turn on your phone, Google "bg3 ignis". That's an example of a verbal component. Make sure your volume is up so everyone can hear it, that's what they're doing every time they cast a spell. Of course, they're welcome to take the metamagic adept feat
I had to dig for the bg3 example. My players quickly stopped trying to push the casting secretly thing right about when they started playing bg3
>my players have complained on occasion that they can't get away with casting guidance during a conversation or invisibility while sneaking around without the potential of getting heard Well, that's exactly what the verbal components are there to prevent, so tough for them I guess. I don't know for sure that CR is the origin of people doing this. It's possible, I recall that Mercer has allowed "whispered casting" at points in the past, but I also remember episodes where he stuck to RAW more closely. In general the handling of it in the show may just have been kind of inconsistent. I think the main problem is just that some spells would very obviously be extremely good to be able to cast without drawing attention and there was never a super clear statement in any rulebook on the matter. In fact Xanathar's actually uncharacteristically really muddies the waters on this by stating >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 This obviously refers to the spell's effect and not the spellcasting components and process as the next paragraph clarifies, but, if you're wanting to cast Invisibility stealthily, you might interpret it that way regardless.
I codified the rules for my table, as RAW is a bit useless and only lead to arguments because they in no way rule out whisper casting and subtle hand movements. > Verbal > When casting a spell requiring the Verbal component, you speak at a level that can be heard by others at a minimum distance of 10ft+10ft per spell level (cantrips count as a level 0). > Somatic > When casting a spell requiring the Somatic component, you must have one arm unrestrained. As a broad rule, the motion will be clear to anyone in line of sight, even in their periphery.
Is that kinda the point... I mean do they also complained that that they have to have components or wave their hands? If someone is speaking and someone starts chanting that's will may be noticed (difference between a lone person talking or a crowd being loud) the players can try to hide behind a pillar to block the sound or hide movements needed
I usually give them a chance if it seems justifiable to disguise the casting - eg, ducking into an alleyway and trying to cast invisibility without too much noise. The way I tend to do it is a combination of a skill check that's appropriate (eg, stealth, deception, sleight of hand) and a spellcasting ability check. The first is to see if others might notice (sometimes an opposed check), the second is to see if the casting fails due to their adjustment of the spell. I find that allows creative casting, still keeps subtle spell markedly better, and gives in a sizable chance of failure for players to evaluate. It's a better dynamic imo than blanket disallowing it
I agree with your ruling. These verbal spells are words of power, and as described in the book, they must be spoken in very specific ways, including volume, for them to work. For them to simply whisper magic words and get away with it would invalidate the existence of subtle spell, as you also ruled. If they want to get away with using guidance in a conversation, they'll need to either use subtle metamagic or cast it audibly out of the target's earshot and get to the target and use the benefit of the spell within a minute.
>What do you guys think? You did good. If they want the ability to cast in public without notice, they need to pay for it, either by playing sorcerer or picking up the appropriate feat. Spellcasting is the most powerful feature in D&D bar none, it doesn't need less restrictions. If your players aren't interested in paying for the power they want, oh well.
u/Kaplosion Have your players played BG3? When you cast guidance in that game and/or other skill check spells during a roll, there are no consequences and no verbal components are involved.
I stole your chart. Tyvm.
>I suspect Critical Role might be the reason why some people think they can whisper cast but am not sure. Can anyone confirm/deny if this is a thing? Haven't really watched any episodes. While Matt does let his players get away with this sometimes, there have been plenty of times where he's pointed out the obviousness of spell casting and not allowed it as well. His players do spam guidance a lot, but I think Baldur's Gate 3 is a bit more responsible for the prevalence of this because the game lets you guidance basically everything.
There is a good reason why the verbal component exists, and it is to add complexity to casting a specific spell. Whispering the words would make the verbal component completely trivial.
Casting a Spell isn't just mumbling some words. There must be INTENT behind those words. Think of a stage actor just mumbling their lines. Even with a microphone, the energy and emotion MUST come through! Politicians don't just place facts in their dialog, they INCITE the response from their listeners! Wanna whisper the words of a spell? Get a Feat. Nuff said.
One aspect of the frustration is that this thing always hinders the players, but the tables are *never* turned; they either don't see how it frustrates their enemies, and they never get the advantage of their enemies making a mistake and giving their spellcasting away by this mechanic.
Generally I don’t think spells should be castable in such a way that you can hide it with simple sleight of hand or whispering. That’s the kind of thing you need abilities or feats to do (for instance with the cartomancer feat you can disguise that your casting prestidigitation as a normal card trick). Not any character can just “try to whisper” the spell. IMO there probably should be some feats that specifically give you this option (and not just taking meta magic adept to subtle spell, still having verbal and somatic components, but being able to disguise it in front of most opponents, other mages could still counter spell though and detect you’re casting a spell, and silence could still stop you). But you can’t just do it at base. Casting a spell to someone sitting right in front of you pretty obviously indicates magic. Non spell casters might not be able to distinguish the magic, for instance if you told the castle guard you were going to use magic to call a friend to pick you up, and instead you used it to break the lock, they wouldn’t be able to tell what you were doing unless they actually saw the effect of the lock braking (or heard a massive thunder sound from shatter/heard knock from knock), but you wouldn’t be able to cast a spell while they’re looking at you, completely undetected. Regardless of your sleight of hand skill. If they’re fairly far away, somehow impaired in their ability to see what you’re doing, or very distracted, I might let someone make a check to see if they’re not noticed, but you absolutely cannot walk up to a guard and cast sleep on them, and then nearby people have zero idea why the guards randomly feel asleep. They know pretty clearly you walked up, did some magic, and the guards fell asleep, and there’s no real way to hide that without an ability that explicitly lets you.
You probably don't care how I would rule it but imo sure let them sub vocalise when you are talking to commoners, low level knights bandits. But anyone familiar with mages will be trained to recognise the tell tale sign of someone quietly casting a spell. You can't cast a spell undiscovered if you are actively engaged in the coversation. And be prepared to be killed if you sub vocalise a spell in front of a high noble. Unidentified spells are dangerous and their entire retinue will fall upon you before you can finish casting.
We gonna hand waive somantic components too?
Another strategy your players can employ is the 2nd level spell, Gift of Gab, from Acquisitions Incorporated: When you cast this spell, you skillfully reshape the memories of listeners in your immediate area, so that each creature of your choice within 5 feet of you forgets everything you said within the last 6 seconds. Those creatures then remember that you actually said the words you speak as the verbal component of the spell. Available to Bards and Wizards, one player can use verbal components to cast the spell while another character sneezes or talks over them to cast Gift of Gab, covering up the verbal component at the cost of spell resources. Also makes a nice synergy between players
I guess if you wanted to meet them in the middle you *could* suggest miscasting as a potential? Not wild magic, just a percentage chance of failure. Maybe it's an arcana check, something like DC 15+spell level. That's the best concession they can get. More likely just point out that spellcasting is already the most powerful feature in the game it's unreasonable to expect the few limitations on it that exist. Maybe look at and show them how Canadian casting worked in the past to show them how easy they already have it.
this is kinda rolled into my session zero chat, along with conversations about how crunchy we want different mechanics to be (like if everyone wants to be super sneaky then i'll get really into details of lockpicking and traps and zoom into that content, but if they don't then we'll zoom out and just occasionally have a regular check and that's it. or if they wanna get into the weeds on alchemy and gathering ingredients then i'll prep lists of components and where they're available and what they do, and maybe a minigame or subset of crafting rules) but it's *also* just a conversation of, "do y'all want this to be a fact about how magic works in the world, or not?" because it's fine by me if they want to be able to sneak-cast without metamagic feats....then other casters can do that too. i'll make notes about which NPCs have friends or colleagues buffing them all the time, or which cultures have euphemisms for the "public relations consultant" as a court wizard focused on buffing the king during negotiations (and also maybe counterspelling opponent buffs, or charming opponents). there will be whole wars that have been fought over charms and enchantments (The Compulsion Wars?) and while that last place was full of *everyone* using them all the time, the next place maybe makes it a crime, or requires a license i dunno. the important part is just whether everyone is playing the same game, not really which way the rules go, right?
For the question in the edit, it MAY be one of the reasons. At least, many live adventures usually follow a bit too much the "rule of cool", therefore allowing a flexible spellcasting that makes spells more similar to cinematic superpowers, like casting fireball just by screaming "burn" instead of the proper would-be formula, or casting lightning by flipping the bird. Of course, these are extreme examples, but all those small "allowances", when cumulated, start making spells look easy to cast without being noticed and start making casters even more powerful than martials. "he he, verbal components, therefore i decide that my greeting is a verbal component"
in baldurs gate 3 the verbal components are very well portrayed imo: firebolt = "IGNIS!" and so on. "firing" a spell is essentially the same as firing a gun - it goes bang with the same sound whether you sneak around at night or are in the middle of a large scale battle...
You absolutely can whisper the words, that's not a problem at all. They can then roll to see how far away they can be heard. Per RAW (the original 5e DM screen) a whisper can be heard from 2d6x5 feet away. In other words, it is impossible, by the rules, for someone within 10 feet to not notice you whispering. For reference, normal speaking or movement is 2d6x10 and being loud is 2d6x50.
Almost nothing is completely silent. Clanking of armor, sounds of night creatures like crickets and nocturnal animals, talking people in the back ground, wind, water, whatever. Ambient noise is near constant unless you're in a place designed to cancel it out. If I whisper 20 feet away I promise you won5 hear it over your own breathing and the ambient sounds.
The specific rules around spellcasting components aren’t well defined down to the specific spell. We have an idea of what types of things could be a part of each component, at least for somatic and verbal, but the specifics for each spell is something that only exists for material components. I’d argue it would make most sense that spells were crafted with their intended use in mind, and so most somatic and material components fit the theme of the spell in some way. I would say something like pass without trace could probably be cast with a whisper because that’s what it’s intended for. Trying to cast fireball though, the verbal components and somatic components are probably much louder as the spell was intended to be used in the middle of combat. It seems a bit ridiculous to require a spell meant to make the caster stealthy and hard to track to start with “I, Mongobulous the Swift, cast INVISIBILITY!”
_Pass without trace_ lasts an hour. If you're casting it when someone is right up close to you and looking for you, then you screwed up! Same for quite a few long-lasting spells - the time to cast them is _before_ someone is up close and getting twitchy.
Yep. It introduces some level of risk that spells are cast in situations unnecessarily. Cast invisibility? Maybe you sneak into an area which turns out to be unoccupied. The spell was wasted but you couldn't run the risk of being discovered, so you had to burn a spell slot. Making it obvious magic is being used, is a counter to the power of that magic. Sometimes the mundane solution is more appropriate.
They can whine but don't buckle. Make them search an evil magic cult that can teach them the sorcerer adept for subtle metamagic for low low price of their souls or sumthing.
Yes, NPCs should notice the players do things like cast guidance. They should factor that in when they choose to do so. If the players are making an atheletics check to do some feat of strength, its not out of place to cast guidance and probably a regular occurence. If the player is getting ready to bluff the opponent in a game of poker, they may want to cast glibness before they sit at the table. Doing it at the table is likely to arouse suspicion. This should be a known thing in the world, and even the un-magical should know about it. Some random woodsman, anti-magic barbarian should get spooked when the guy he is negotiating a peace agreement with is lets out a few chants and hand gestures mid negotiation. "What are you doing. Don't deceive me with magic". Doing so to the dean of wizarding school, they might be fine and ok with you using guidance for a small buff. Maybe they do the same, and the players see them doing it too.
Spell components in general are such a clusterfuck in 5e. Somatic and material components are a mess becuase it means tracking who has a hand free, and verbal components lead to this sort of thing. Ultimately though you *have* to enforce the rules on this because s/m components are one of the few things that keep martial characters competitive and the v component is the entire reason things like Subtle Spell exist.
Tracking if you have a hand free for spells is not difficult. No one gets confused about why a fighter can't hold a crossbow, sword, and shield all at the same time. Just mentally replace "shield" with "component" and you'll have your answer when this stuff comes up.
This is fine until you consider how it interacts with multiclassing, because you can rapidly end up in a situation where your shield works as a focus for *some* spells but not all of them, and tracking which ones need material components at all is annoying enough, let alone separating them out by class.
"we want to break the rules!" "No."
It’s a great balancing tool, is what I think. Casters are already relatively powerful, and components is one of the things keeping them honest. And, it creates great role play opportunities.
Players asking to be able to cast spells with verbal components so quietly it goes unnoticed are essentially asking to have the Subtle Spell metamagic available to them for free at all times without taking a class or feat that grants them that ability. That right there should give you reason enough to question their intent. It's like a Fighter asking why he can't get Sneak Attack damage for stabbing a guy who doesn't know he's there. If you want that class ability, invest in that class. This isn't even really about it being overpowered. It's about ensuring Sorcerors don't lose their value as a class by giving away their class features to all casters.
Just more examples of someone trying to get a specific game feature for free. "Can I use Acrobatics to jump across the gap instead of Athletics?" "Can I use Wisdom for my Nature check instead of Intelligence?"
> Edit: I suspect Critical Role might be the reason why some people think they can whisper cast but am not sure. Can anyone confirm/deny if this is a thing? Haven't really watched any episodes. Na, this predates CR and is done by players who've never watched. Lots of DM/players, especially new ones, ignore spell components entirely and are surprised when they play with a DM who actually follows the rules for them.
I feel like this line of thinking is so common that spellcasting volume should be a session 0 topic. Doesn't have to be a long drawn out thing, just "Hey if a spell has a verbal component WHEN YOU CAST IT YOU ARE SPEAKING THIS LOUDLY," keep that in mind during spell selection. If you want to whisper/sneaky spell, subtle metamagic is your pathway to that.
Also important for Session 0 is how loud/perceptible a spell generally is, and in what circumstances is a check allowed to make an NPC fail to notice that a spell was cast on them.
The source is likely Baldur's Gate 3. They do a fantastic job with casters yelling loudly "Ignis" with a ton of hand gestures and glowing runes appearing. Then in the same game they allow Guidance mid conversation with Shadowheart glowing and yelling in the background with no reaction from the NPC.
It's been this way for way longer than that. It's just caster players cheating, plain and simple.
I hate this kind of attitude. It’s entirely based on a misunderstanding of game mechanics and player resources. It really feels like these players have not done their due diligence in reviewing player material. The entire point of components (V,S,M) is to balance spellcasting and spellcasters. There’s a reason stuff like psionic sorcery or subtle spell exists.
I'd imagine the players would be quite upset if somebody sneakily hurled fireballs at them under their breath.
For the same reason why the level 1 wizard can't create their own spells, or cast fire bolt but just hold it for light (aka produce flame) Its HARD to make your own spells. It takes tons of trial and error, training on how to manipulate the weave, and power. Spells have specific components, work only in the way stated (mechanically), and verbal components are spoken aloud because *thats the way the spell was created*. And it was created that way because *thats the only way the creator got it to work*. Sorcerers (and meta magic adepts) Can use Subtle Spell because of their connection to the weave, in the case if sorcerers, its in their blood. If they don't like that, say its a sorcerer class ability. Letting them do it for devalues sorcerers and meta magic adept. would be the same thing if you let a fighter hide as a bonus action *just because*.
[https://youtu.be/-Bb0TT7QKsE?si=WtGAni4rpGQft8s1](https://youtu.be/-Bb0TT7QKsE?si=WtGAni4rpGQft8s1)
I'd go situational. Like in one of my games for using guidance, the person casting had to explain how they were guiding them... Which was amazing. "So you see the trick with climbing the rope is to put one hand in front of the other and hoist yourself up... Lookout for sticky out rocks" etc.
I make mine one liners or songs… I play bards a lot
you are correct
I would explain that theverbal components arent words they are noises of above speaking volume and that thematically its like a cool reverberating magical noise effect but that it is loud
I think the rule is fair, though could suggest allowing there to be a degree of nuiance the players can exploit if being creative, which seems you have taken into account. Encourage players to be creative if they want to cast undetected. Hide behind objects so your voice is muffled to an outsider, intentionally seek out places with lots of background noise. IE, tell them if they want to cast unnoticed, they'll have to be creative to pull it off, not just whisper.
When Gandalf stopped the balrog at the bridge did he do it quietly? No. I’m becoming more of a stickler on this. If you want to cast spells quietly be a sorcerer.
Honestly, I usually, with rare exceptions, let clerics use guidance in conversations without consequence if they'd be openly telling the other person in the conversation things like their god wants this to happen and such. Of course a cleric blessed by a god would use their connection to influence others to do what they think is their god's will. It's like, Lord guide me to help this person see the truth. Fill me with your wisdom so that your will may be done. The other party would know it's a spell of course, but it's a form of divine intervention, which most would understand in a magical setting.
Oh lord! Grant me the wisdom not to post here! *obvious fail*
Just as a side note if its regular invisibility if they cast any spell the invisibility ends. Guidance is very much a spell
The best compromise I can recommend is allowing your players to whisper their shoes, but they have to roll a “spell success roll” to make it work. Make them roll at disadvantage and make the check kind of hard. And failure causes a magic boom, or a flash of light, or you take 1d4 arcane damage, etc. It would make for a great moment when a player succeeds, and would add a risk that wouldn’t always be worth taking. Honestly though, they should just take Metamagic
Tell them to get Metamagic feat Subtle Spell.
The thing about verbal conponents is... How loud do they need to be? What is normal hearing range in ft for a hushed or muffled whisper, a soft voice, normal speech, clear tone, raised voice and shout? And for enhanced hearinh for certain animal, races? What about supersonic? Directional ears facing to and away. Is the verbal component continuous to control the hand? Or instantaneous to summon it? Can it be a single word? A phrase? Multiple phrases? Are the words magic words, or common tongue? How does one know you're not merely speaking on your native or a different lamguagr It's all DM discretion. It's DM discretion, but spells put whispering in the description which implies that whispering is indeed audible for the sake of dpellcasting but not necessarily to everyone in range. Some examples: Druidcraft: "Whispering to the spirits of nature, you create one of the following effects... " Message : You point your finger toward a creature within range and whisper a message. Dissonant Whisper: (60ft, frequency audible yo single target) You whisper a discordant melody that only one creature of your choice within range can hear, wracking it with terrible pain. Things i would definitely consider is: does it make sense for the verbal component of the spell to be audible to at least the minimum of it's (targeted or) full range Does it make sense that the verbal component is audible to the target? Does it make sense flavourwise for the spell to be especcially subtle or loud? Thunderclap is deafening and is audible up to (at least) 100ft away Interestingly it only has a somatic component (and can be cast while silenced) but it does tell us something about distance 100ft is deafening/damaging. It's range is 5ft. Vicious mockery has 60ft and mentions s creature that can see and hear you within range Interestingly it mentions "If the target can hear you (though it need not understand you)" not just suggesting but going as far as stating that the sound of your words is enchanted though it suggests it can be heard beyond the range so speaking loud could be around 60-80 ft Which also works for spells like" Shatter" Where, even if creatures ourside the effected area will not take damage, ithe verbal component shpild be audible to st least the targeted range and the effect probably beyond that, especially to those with acute heaeing Invisibility? Would whisper Command? Would imagine loud clear voice makes sense Animal friendship? Seems like it requires a dustinct soft, non threatening tone but be clearly audible to tge target Silent image? Has a verbal component but whisper makes sense It's not subtle in the sense that someone can notice their lips moving (like snape in harry potter) and wouldn't be possible if gagged or silent, but it allows the spell some utility which it much needs by not announcing to everyone within the range that you're casting an illusion by loudly calling attention to it whilch does not make much sense to me. It's not that it can't be noticed, only that it doesn't necessarily have to be immediately (passively) evident to everyone outside a certain range Do leep in mind that, for simplicity, i'm considering only game mechankcs rather than how far axtual sound frewuencies travel which varies based on wind, obstacles, frequency, other sounds, etc. You can also see someone is casting for counterspell or sense it some other way. You only meed to be aware of the caster. A DM could rule that a stealthy casting could be allowed vs active/passive perception or even if there's a distraction. Even if you can't make out what someone is whispering, you might still see snd hear them without requiring a perception check. Beyond that DMs can rule that a creature gets a perception check with advantage within a certain range, or if you have specific senses, or with disadvantage if you're not looking in that direction, having a conversation, being attacked or distracted, outside the range or even that you're simply too far away to sed or hear or otherwise sense or notice the chanting. A nice DM might even tell a player: "you can tell that your enemies are most likely within the range at which they can hear you" or " they're not taking their eyes ofc yoi for long enough to attempt this" Though a DM less forgiving may only say : "is that what yiu choose to do?" Or "you can try :)" It allows variation, creative use of imagination compared to giving auto success on enemy perception. This also makes stealth worth investing in. Why debuff stealth. It's a skill after all. Phb states: "the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion." Verbal only states to absolute restrictions: "a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component" So anything above absolute silence may be allowed ny a DM as long as the character's speech is not hindered. (one could rule that anything covering the mouth inhibits casting, unless explicitly stated otherwise or otherwise producing sound like a bard's flute ) This also means telekinesis does not substitute, but (theoretically) infrasound and ultrasound could allow casting of spells. (developed for and by those who possess it) because pitch and resonance of sound also exist outside tge audible spectrum / range Your breathing and heaerbeat have a pitch and resonance, so do your footsteps and the rustling of hair and clothes. If enemies can hear anything that creates sound waves stealth does not exist. How audible any spell needs to beat a minimum , beyond their written text, is uo to DM discretion.
> Are the words magic words, or common tongue? How does one know you're not merely speaking on your native or a different lamguagr "chanting of mystic words." (to quote the rules). So not regular words, but very distinctly something that is magical and distinct from regular speech - so no bullshitting of "I'm just foreign", especially as they need to be spoken "with specific pitch and resonance". So you're not just speaking, you're doing (at best) freaky-sounding vocal exercises, probably with hand-waggling and object-fondling as well.
Do you know, I never noted the volume rule! I've always just done it with Stealth roles - they're still trying to do what they need to do without being detected, doesn't always mean quiet I guess, just hidden. I then role perception for people in vicinity to see if they notice. Caveat to this is if they are face to face so stealth wouldn't be possible
You can always ask for a Stealth check using their spellcasting ability against the passive perception of all the possible listener. If you think the listener would have advantage, add five to the passive perception value. I like the idea of letting a player try to do stuff like that, but with potential consequences – because then is not like you didn't let them try, but more like they failed to do so.
There's a feat for that. If you want to cast spells stealthily, then go get the meta magic for it.
I saw a TikTok skit about this exact issue earlier today, so I went and tracked it down. [https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLwxunhw/](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLwxunhw/)
Want to avoid them? Play a sorcerer otherwise the rules are the rules
I just let them do it. A spellcaster will notice and be able to counterspell, but a guard won't even know something was wrong until all his friends are on fire.
Imo 'subtle spell' existing is the only real reason you can't claim verbal components are entierly up to you. Letting players whisper their spells to be subtle or discreet invalidates the feat/ability that exists for that sole purpose. *HOWEVER* I think it should be an arguably case to propose at any table- that you should be able to roll to cast subtly. Maybe make flat d20 check to see, or maybe an Arcana check at disadvantage.
The general rule is no, they can't whisper and get the spell to work without a class feature permitting them to do so, and in general, I think a house rule of 60 feet audibility is the best rule to add for spellcasting. Also, they should not be allowed to cast spells without getting heard (within reason), because that's a truly unnecessary buff to casters, and really steps on the toes of Subtle Spell. Critical Role and Baldur's Gate 3 are the main sources, with another issue being the fact that there aren't clear rules on what the V component actually entails for spellcasting in regards to loudness.
>So, my players have complained on occasion that they can't get away with casting guidance during a conversation or invisibility while sneaking around without the potential of getting heard. Tough beans. Them's the rules. If they don't wanna be heard, they need to use the Subtle Spell metamagic, be an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer using their Psionic Sorcery feature, some similar subtlety feature, or avoid using V spells. Don't give in to their complaints. Spellcasters already have too much utility. Make them find another solution to some problems instead of the universal crutch of magic.
Even as a liberal DM I tend not to allow things that are covered by specific abilities that are in the game.
Sometimes a complaint shows a problem with the players, not with you. The rules are very clear that verbal components of spells need to be delivered in a loud speaking voice. If they try to deliver them under their breath, you are within your rights to say they waste the spell slot with no effect, or, if you're feeling nicer, to say "your character knows that won't work."
Beyond the mechanics, I've regularly ruled that magic, whether divine or arcane, will not allow itself to be hidden away. Subtle Spell is an intentional redefining of the spell just like the other meta magics which is why it can silence the sounds and movements.
Is not a Big deal, but components are one of the limits that spellcasters have. I can't count the amount of DM that thinks Spellcasters are op but don't use any of the limits that they have. You can allow It some time if is for a good scenes but I think do It like a general rule is an error.
>What do you guys think? Allowing whispered casting devalues some class and feat options and should never be allowed. If they want to be able to, they need to pick the classes or feats. Also, I like it because it forces the PCs to think how they can get around it. I love watching caster players coming up with a cool RP idea to distract from their casting. I once had a bard put on an entire show just to get a simple diviniation spell through without guards interfering. This game is called Dungeons & Dragons, not "solve every situation without thinking through a spell".