Timeline for Can a Spell cast with Subtle Spell and an Arcane Focus be Counterspelled?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 15, 2021 at 14:27 | comment | added | Egor Hans | Besides, everyone is missing the answer's main point: There is a difference between being perceptible and being perceived. If there's a material component, including in form of an Arcane Focus, that makes it technically possible to perceive the spell, but how easy or hard it is is an entirely different topic, let alone whether it ultimately is perceived or not. | |
| Feb 1, 2020 at 18:08 | comment | added | Dezvul | Old post, but I was just about to point out that Benjamin's argument was a point of necessary and sufficient conditions. Looks like Benjamin knows his stuff, he already said that. I don't like the argument (because it gives gimmicky ways to possibly usurp the sorcerer's need for subtle spell [depending on what the DM allows]), but he completely right, the book actually doesn't give a condition that when satisfied means the spell is perceptible. Only that for the spell to be perceptible, its casting must involve a component. | |
| Apr 21, 2019 at 6:54 | history | edited | V2Blast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed spelling/formatting; added link to BlueMoon93's answer
|
| Apr 21, 2019 at 6:20 | history | edited | Benjamin Olson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Apr 21, 2019 at 6:12 | history | edited | Benjamin Olson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 22:51 | history | edited | Benjamin Olson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 294 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 22:01 | comment | added | Benjamin Olson | @Rubiksmoose And whatever the reading of the second sentence, your conclusion that it is automatically perceptible in no way logically flows from any content in the passage. It is clearly about necessary conditions not sufficient ones. | |
| Apr 20, 2019 at 21:58 | comment | added | Benjamin Olson | @Rubiksmoose Under my reading this is within the context of the material component being a necessary rather than a sufficient condition. It merely states that the same rule of necessity applies for all forms, not that it makes it sufficient, as in automatically seen. Beyond this it is unclear whether what you quote references the specific physical object''s form or simply (as the comma after perception would seem to imply) there being no difference based on which of these three arch-types of material component is being used. | |
| Apr 20, 2019 at 21:37 | history | edited | Rubiksmoose | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 21:33 | history | edited | Benjamin Olson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 164 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 21:32 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | Why are you are not considering the relevant second part of the quote from BlueMoon's answer which seems to contradict your answer explicitly? "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus." If a spell has a component, it is perceptible according to the rules. No check needed. | |
| Apr 20, 2019 at 21:30 | history | answered | Benjamin Olson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |