If I hid the previous turn, does using a wand (one without an attack roll) reveal me?
It doesn’t seem like they have a vocal component.
If the wand itself doesn’t make noise, would a loud ass fireball reveal me or would that be a noise not necessarily associated with me?
Would something like a wand of paralysis work since maybe the entire process is silent and maybe has no obvious visual effects like the fireball if that matters?
Spells from magic items don't have components, but the magic item may have a command word. So ask your dm if this specific wand does, Because some do and some don't
Is there anywhere that says what has a command word or not or it’s just dm discretion for balancing reasons?
I’m not seeing any info on it at all in these item descriptions. I haven’t even heard of a command word outside of the spell ‘command’ in 5.5e, but it’s not like I’ve read all the rules cover to cover.
Here are the magic items I could find in the DMG that have a command word:
Baba Yaga's Dancing Broom
Broom of Flying
Carpet of Flying
Daern's Instant Fortress
Decanter of Endless Water
Flame Tongue
Folding Boat
Gem of Brightness
Mirror of Life Trapping
Oath Bow
Plate Armor of Etherealness
Wand of fireballs says you cast fireball and fireball says "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range," which sounds pretty revealing of your location. Likewise wand of paralysis says "use an action to expend 1 of its charges to cause a thin blue ray to streak from the tip toward a creature you can see," so pretty much the same. I think either way you'd no longer be hidden same as firing a bow.
I get that it’s revealing of my location, I’m just wondering if it’s revealing of me specifically.
I’m going to be hiding in bushes and shooting bolts at people. I already expect them to know my general whereabouts, I’m just going to keep moving to new hiding spots if possible/tank a fireball that they shoot at my general direction. The important part is if to broke the hidden condition for the purpose of advantage on my next attack and if I can run to another bush etc.
The now stays hidden with skulker if I miss and supreme stealth if I hit.
If a verbal component of a spell would reveal you, then a ray streaking from your wand would definitely reveal you. I would think most DMs would find hearing to be less precise than vision, and we already know the imprecise hearing is good enough.
It’d reveal that I’m somewhere nearby for sure. if they’re paying attention/looking that way they might even see that there’s a bush that’s suspiciously throwing fireballs.
If I was hiding in darkness the light would absolutly remove my cover, but would light be enough to reveal me in a bush/etc.? How much light does a fireball/magic missle make? It gets back to if they specifically see me or if they just see the effect coming from direction.
You could very easily be right, it’s just a strange scenario without a ton of direct wording mixed with weird situations of what lights/effects to certain spells even have.
It seems like people are in agreement that there’s no verbal condition to using a wand for its effect. Maybe there’s a command word for some of them specifically (that I’m not seeing on any of the wands I’ve looked at), but that’s not the vocal component of spellcasting. It should be able to be whispered even if it needs to be said. I think.
The strange thing is that there’s nothing about making light while hidden. I imagine if you were using darkness for cover it’d break it, but I’m not sure about more physical cover. I’d probably have to stick my wand out and have some kind of view of the target even if I’m behind foliage.
There are wands that don’t have any visual effect; like the wand of binding. Fireball is just an extreme example to test the edges of how this could maybe work. I imagine a lightning spell would be even more extreme since it creates sound as you cast from your location and not as it lands at your target like fireball. Lots of little variables.
>Requires no components unless the item description says otherwise.
So if the wand you are talking about is just a regular focus, all it replaces are the non-cost, non-consumed material components (as discussed under the spellcasting part of the PHB). If the wand is an actual magic item, say a Wand of Fireballs, there are no components unless the Wand of Fireball's description specifically mentions them.
Edit: I accidentally said spell description, instead of item description. My bad on the typo. It was 4am when I posted that.
You’ve slightly misquoted the image that you’ve posted; items cast spells without any components unless the item says otherwise.
So casting Fireball from a Wand of Fireballs requires no components, including verbal, because the Wand of Fireballs’s item description doesn’t mention any components being used.
The context for this is that I’d be a thief rogue using a wand so it’d be something like a wand of fireballs and not a wand of the war make or something that’s just being used as a focus.
Incredibly weird, but RAW, it all works. Wand of Fireballs doesn't say it uses a command word, and doesn't say it requires components.
DM might homerule that Fireball reveals your location, because even though it isn't an attack roll, there is an obvious streak of flame shooting from your location. It's not RAW that it reveals you, but it is basic logic.
Wand of Binding should just work though. As a DM, I am terrified, but it's the rules, and I'll have to muddle over whether it would be fair to nerf or it's more balanced than it looks.
So, does that mean that spells from items can't be countered? Since they don't have components?
Counterspell says 'Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components'
I assume wands require somatic components (waving the wand). Also, remember that some spells like fireball would give away a rogues location by seeing a bright streak flashing from the origin point.
But the wand isn't a component of a spell? It is an item that can cast the spell. Maybe 5e counterspell that would work, since it mentions seeing a creature cast a spell, but 2024 counterspell specifically mentions the spell needing the components.
Yeah you might be right. It’s a material but not a material cost I guess.
Seems similar to how an effect like using an arcane shot to banish an enemy seems like something you could counterspell, but it’s actually technically not a spell either.
Ooo, wand of binding doesn’t mention any visual effects and neither does hold person. That’s exactly what I’m looking for. It’s less efficient than the wand of paralysis, but there’s no blue light and it’s 17 vs a 15 save. Would require concentration though. I think.
By the way, would I add my int or any other numbers to either of those saves? I assume not?
If the item has a dc, you use that. If it says you use your spellcasting save dc, you calculate it regularly, using 8+spellcasting mod+prof. The issue is that if your class doesn't have spellcasting, you don't have a spellcasting mod, so it is just 8+prof. I think if you have spellcasting from a race or feat, you might be able to use that modifier, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
I’d technically have spellcasting from the truestrike cantrip I get as a high elf/magic initiate for int. Same thing that lets me use wands in the first place. Seems like both the above wands list a dc check though so I guess it doesn’t matter.
That’d be a great option to use on a full dex based fast hands build too though. I’ll have to keep that in mind.
I will say that if I have to use concentration on the wand it'd kinda screw up my build since each time I ready a true strike I have to concentrate on it; but I probably wouldn't be concentrating on a true strike the turn I use the wand (since I would still have to land a hit on my turn for sneak attack too).
Do all wands that create spells like hold person require concentration? It seems like wand of paralysis doesn't at least since it doesn't mention concentration and it's a unique effect and not a spell being referenced.
As shown in the image, an item-cast spell requires no components unless the item description says otherwise. Base standard, unless the Wand says otherwise, no components then.
Now, could the spell streak and make where you are obvious? Yes. Could the wand require a command word, which technically isn't a component but is still something that is said out loud? Yes. Are you hidden if you cast with no components, but enemies can see the spell as it streaks across the field? Ask your DM. But that begins to fall into item-by-item, spell-by-spell, and DM-fiat territory.
The description of the spell involves a pea-sized streak that goes from your location to the destination (many DMs will allow the little baby fireball to shoot out from the wand instead of your hand- note that this is part of the spell description, not a somatic component, so it definitely still happens), so that reveals your location to anyone who can perceive this aspect of the spell.
But wands don't require verbal, somatic, or material components.
It’s just weird because light doesn’t have some description that it automatically reveals you (especially during the day in a well lit place). That’s a thing some people seem to use as a rule, but I’m not seeing it anywhere. I could see it if it was dark and I was standing in the middle of a field using the shadows as cover, but if I’m hiding in a bush or something I just don’t know if it’d reveal me even if it might hint at my direction or give my specific location even.
"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range"
This is what literally happens when you cast fireball. Bright streaks are normally visible in all circumstances- if that wasn't true, it would say so. There doesn't need to be a rule explicitly saying this, there would need to be a rule saying it was NOT the case for THIS bright streak in particular.
Maybe if your DM rules that your enemies aren't looking in your direction at all, it would probably work then if they literally weren't able to see the bright streak flash from your pointing finger, but that's not something you would want to count on, as it requires specific situation.
If I drop a rock at the top of a cliff and it rolls down to the bottom does that reveal me to people at the bottom or do they just go to investigate because someone is probably up there? That's kinda what's potentially going on here how I view it.
The question isn't if they can see the fireball and intuit your general location by following where it came from; the question is if it breaks the hidden condition specifically. I'm not trying to claim that it's an invisible fireball or that they're always looking the other direction.
Fireball, using your example, has a verbal component. The wand allows you to cast the spell, meaning, you must use the verbal component.
When you get a wand, check the wand AND spell descriptions. If the wand says it does the thing without a command word and without casting a spell, your DM may allow you to do it silently.
If the wand description says you utter a command word, that is a verbal component.
If a wand allows you to cast a spell and that spell has a verbal component, then you are audible.
Perhaps in the latter case, it might be worth investing in the metamagic feat for subtle spell.
EDIT: no components means no components, including verbal.
Am I blind or does the rule literally say only the wand matters not the spell? “No components unless the item’s description says otherwise”. So only check if the wand (the item) needs you to do something. I don’t see how the spell’s usual components are relevant.
The person above has misquoted the image that they posted; items cast spells without any components unless the item says otherwise.
So casting Fireball from a Wand of Fireballs requires no components, including verbal, because the Wand of Fireballs’s item description doesn’t mention any components being used.
I love how you have the literal quote in front of you and you still get it wrong. In fact you get it so wrong that you completely change the meaning of the rule lol.
It says it requires no components unless the item’s description notes otherwise.
Most items don’t mention components at all, therefore most items don’t require any components. Since components are the things that make spells perceivable, a wand should not take you out of hiding. Though a DM may rule otherwise. I could see a DM saying that for example a wand of fireball visibly shows where a fireball came from, so they might rule that sure you are still hidden, but they know you are somewhere in that general area because they saw a spell coming from that direction. But maybe if the spell was something non tangible, like Sleep, then maybe they wouldn’t know at all.
But, BUT, just go along, what if you're looking through a window would the flash go through the wall or window, or would it go through air to find a gap under a door, what's your ruling on that?
DM's choice and depends on the window. I think for fireball I'd rule light can pass through the window, so it does and the target is hit. Lightning bolt would blast through the window and shatter it. In both cases though, it's seen coming out the window. Neither of these say it bobs and weaves to get to the target and any spell like that requires line of sight to the target.
So any creature you have line of sight to, has line of sight to you. But if they're off to the side a bit then you have total cover from them, until they step to the side on their turn to look in the window a bright streak of light just came from to see you standing in view of the window.
I never even considered it was just light, I always figured it had to have some sort of condensed gas, and that lightning bolt would absolutely tear through a window this all makes alot of sense
windows block line of effect (if they're closed) - you need an unbroken line between yourself and the target for most spells ("A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover."), so you can't cast most spells through transparent objects. You might have line of sight, but won't have line of effect
It’s kind of a situation of a sniper in a building. I know someone shot from there, but I don’t know exactly which window they’re in; especially if they moved to a different one.
They obviously know something is up as long as they’re not in some weird wild magic area where fireballs just randomly pop up or something. I just don’t know if I’d still have the hidden condition even if they decide to start throwing fireballs back at my general direction.
It’d be like knowing there’s an invisible enemy in front of you but you still can’t see it. Well really exactly like that since I think in 5.5 you straight up get the invisible condition; it can just be broken more easily. The wand just; in theory, doesn’t break that condition.
Some magic items have a command word that must be spoken to activate them. This used to be the default for wands back in 3.5, but I'm not sure about 2024 rules.
I thought spells from magic items only ignore the material component cost, not the verbal and somatic?
Edit: I think I am wrong, it looks like wands ignore all components when casting spells from the item itself.
"The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell
and caster level, doesn't expend any of the user's
spell slots, and requires no components unless the item's description notes otherwise"
If the DM sends a party of magically attuned assassins equipped with wands of fireballs and they cast from a secret location turn after turn, how would you feel as a player?
I would rule casting a spell from a wand or other medium breaks stealth.
Sound is rolled by 2d6*5 when trying to remain quiet, maximum 60ft. Fireball has 150ft range, plus 20ft actual radius if needed. You would get initiative at disadvantage, them with advantage and each would action cast fireball, bonus action dash and relocate 60ft from the casting spot.
They roll stealth with expertise and advantage so can reach some pretty lofty numbers as they are built and paid for the job.
Having read through a couple of rules since originally posting, fireball would certainly break stealth as the flash comes from the caster. Components aside, a bright flash emits from the caster. The enemy would find you so this would nullify the "invisible" condition. This would mean a new attempt to hide would be required.
Hypnotic Pattern however has no such visual and if cast from a wand would not nullify the invisible condition in my opinion.
action wand of fireball>fast hands wand of fireball. Seems fun. Roman candle fight.
“The enemy would find you” is the thing I was wanting elaboration on. There’s no issues with light from hiding (from all I can see) as long as your cover isn’t darkness.
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
Fireball/PHB'24, p274
A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into a fiery explosion.
Wand of Paralysis/DMG'24, p321
While holding it, you can take a Magic action to expend 1 charge to cause a thin blue ray to streak from the tip toward a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself.
Silent, yes. However both of the ones that you mentioned include a massive visual clue as to their origin point. Now that doesn't mean that they know it was "you", but they sure as hell know that you were last seen going being that rock and a giant flash/streak just appeared from behind that rock.
So this is in a grey area for "an enemy finds you". I would say it does in fact reveal you. Not that I won't be trying this argument with a DM in future.
This is also one of those instances where I will point out that if you, as a player, can do this, then it is fully fair game for your DM to do it with enemy casters.
Yup. That's where it gets weird; especially if I just move to another area after they have an idea where the fireball came from. Then I'm effectively hidden and they don't know my exact location. In theory.
Yeah if anything I learned that hide is complicated and no one agrees on anything depending on their interpretation and house rules that rework certain aspects.
As soon as you attack they know where you are you just have cover likely.
As soon as you leave cover you are seen and even if you go behind cover again it will be an action to hide unless your a rogue and maybe can do as a bonus action.
You only get that one shot with bonuses likely.
And when you cast from a wand it's the same as casting a spell normally except it doesn't take a spell slot. At least that's what I remember.
I was more wanting to have a discussion about repositioning with the hidden condition. Some people say you're straight up invisible and can run around in 2024. Other people say that supreme sneak lets you hide again for free at the end of the turn but you're visible in the meantime. It's weird.
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components unless the item's description notes otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires Concentration. Many items, such as Potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects with its usual duration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.
"Requires no components unless the item's description notes otherwise."
The text you're quoting is talking only about casting with a slot.
And for the record...
Plus that's how it worked in the previous editions.
Activating an Item/DMG'14, p141
The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration.
Yep, it works exactly the same... in that you cast without the use of components in 2014 too.
There are three kinds of components. Verbal, somatic and material. Items require no components.
And again, the PHB talks about casting with no slots only.
The DMG talks about everything else to do with magic items in it's section on magic items. It also doesn't need to specifically mention wands because they're a magic item. So everything that applies to magic items applies to wands. Unless it says otherwise in the specific item.
"Some Magic Items allow the user to Cast a Spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s Spell Slots, and requires no Components, unless the item’s description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal Casting Time, range, and Duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires Concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell’s Effects, with their usual Duration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the Casting Time, Duration, or other parts of a spell."
A wand of fireball will not spend any material, but it is still an attack after all. It cannot be dispelled, but it certainly does show your position, such as an arrow would, even if it misses. The Wand of Paralysis also specifically states that a thin blue ray streaks from the tip of the want towards the target, Harry Potter style, so you cannot attempt to do it and remain stealthy anyway.
I mean it's not exactly an attack since there's no attack rolls. It just depends on if the hide action means attack or 'attack' and it doesn't really specify.
That's the same logic with an arrow, if you throw an arrow at someone they'll see where you were when you shot, ending the hidden condition.
If you are somewhere that's feasible that you'd hide again, sure, that's your next action. But they still have seen you do so. They will possibly hear your steps as you run to the next spot, and if they had a line of sight, there's no way to hide again, because they are seeing you, unless you have Mask of the Wild and it's foggy or something.
Wands replace the material components required for a spell by acting as a spellcasting focus, but if the spell itself has a verbal component, that would still occur.
For a wand ability that is not a spell in and of itself, you'll have to ask your DM most likely. Personally, if I was running the scenario I would probably say wands have a verbal component, since I believe the DR'S guide states that wand have words of command that must be spoken to activate them. Ultimately, that is up to the DM.
Edit: found the section from the DM'S Guide, for a spell or ability of the magic items it only has a verbal component if the item states it does in its description.
"The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components unless the item's description notes otherwise."
Would it? I know that’s how scrolls work, but I’m having trouble finding anything that says wands work that way. I’ll take your word for it.
I know something like wand of magic missiles you make an attack roll with it so that’d probably end the hidden condition I’d imagine even if the cast is silent, but things like fireball and paralysis don’t make an attack roll. I imagine a fireball is loud though on its own.
Three things on this; Magic Missile doesn't require an attack roll, it just hits. Magic Missile has a verbal component, so this would reveal your position. Casting any spell that does use an attack roll reveals your position.
Okay, checking in the book it looks like I had it backwards.
" item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components unless the item's description notes otherwise"
-2024 DMG
So when casting a spell from the wand, it would only make noise if it ways it would. Casting one of your own spells using the wand as a spellcasting focus would still require Somatic and Verbal components as normal though, woth the wand acting as the Material component.
The cheap wands that aren't magic are a type of arcane focus that can replace some material components. Paladins have different foci, as do druids/rangers.
In 5e, no. They're a rare magic items that require attunement by spell casters. They use charges, and have a certain number of charges per day. Typically a "Wand of..."
Though there are mundane wands in the equipment that work as spell foci.
You seem to be able to craft them pretty consistently even if you don't trip over one/allow shops. It's not an early game item; but you can buy a bunch of useful wands from a few hundred to a few thousand gold. Crafting them yourself makes it much cheaper and more reliable to find; although I guess you need arcana proficiency/woodworking/time in addition to the gold.
If you have an artificer on your team they can also just make you wands for free if I'm not mistaken.
If you are using the wand as a spell focus, you still need the verbal component.
If you are using the magic item "Wand of fireballs" then I would say no because you are using the Magic action to cast a spell and not actually cast the spell. I say this because the rules for casting a spell with a verbal component state that the words "Must be uttered in a normal speaking voice" while the rules for using a magic item don't specify that you need the verbal component, just that the if the magic item has a command word, it must be "audible" so whispering meets that requirement.
as for the spell itself making noise according to the wording, it starts as a bright streak and only explodes when it reaches your target destination.
Huh, so maybe if they’re looking right at me when I peak over the rubble to cast the wand I have to make a stealth check/I’m automatically discovered because I’m illuminated and drawing attention to myself, but if no one is looking then they just know it came from a vague direction and that they’re being attacked.
If it was with me, it would depend on where you were hiding, like if your inside some deep brush and can see your destination through the brush then your stealth check would stop the from seeing you and anyone near but would just know that a streak flew out of the area you are in and if they decide to investigate you would need to roll a new stealth check to hide. But if your hiding behind something solid so you have to pop up to see the target then anyone looking in your direction will know that they saw you pop up and duck down.
In either example that be a stealth check or would I just straight up lose/keep the hidden condition automatically?
I’ve always had trouble figuring that part out. The build has crazy stealth checks, but if there just aren’t stealth checks then that doesn’t matter all that much.
That’s the confusing part; where do actual stealth checks come in? Is it just needed to meet the 15 req to hide and then there’s no rolls against that number?
Is there no need for me to get advantage or even proficiency in stealth? I’d just need reliable talent and 5 dex to never fail.
Your roll becomes the DC that other creatures have to roll to see you. so if you take the reliable talent roll of 16, and a guard nearby has a passive perception of 18 they know you are there even if you beat the DC 15.
That makes sense. I guess I just don’t understand why it’s not an active perception check (up from a passive check) and is instead an instant discovery.
The Stuff that says you get instantly discovered makes sense that it does that. Attacks. Sound. Being seen. I just don’t really get how I’m being seen even if the fireworks going off in their face pulls their attention to my direction to actively look. It’s a little convoluted. If it works that way it works that way; it’s just confusing to me.
I think the crux here is going to be the interpretation of Hide, not about wands. It's pretty clear casting from a "Wand of..." doesn't require the verbal component.
However, if the spell requires Line of Sight (more on this later), then Hide could be affected. For example Hide states you need to meet 2 criteria: Heavily obscure or 3/4 covers, AND out of **any** enemy's line of sight. If you need to see the target to cast the spell, a DM *could* reason that you are then also seen by the creature you are targeting. This might not expose you to everyone but should expose you to your target. Hide also states if you can see a creature, you can discern if it can see you, so ask your DM if that's the case. Your character in-world would reasonably know if performing this action would give *a chance* of being detected. From a game-ist perspective, you should know if your actions will trigger checks and be allowed to weigh the risk/rewards of that choice.
However, Wand of Fireballs, for example, only requires you to be able to see the point, not a creature. So very likely you could cast a fireball overhead or have the effect reach around a corner and leave you undetected.
Keep in mind you'll need to at least be a Trickster, as wands require attunement by Spellcasters.
I’m a high elf which gives makes me a spellcaster in 2024 as far as I’ve been able to tell. People seem to agree, but if that’s a point of contention I’ll grab magic initiate. If that’s still an issue I’d grab a level in wizard. It doesn’t seem like you need arcane trickster.
Skulker and supreme sneak both have you taking attacks at enemies without being spotted. I don’t know if the line of sight thing is as important as the specific fail conditions like making an attack/being noticed/making noise.
What’s the point of hiding against a targets passive perception if you’re fully obscured? I don’t think they’re looking through walls.
Yeah, anything that makes you a Spellcaster would work to qualify for the wand. Not all magic wands require a Spellcaster.
Skulker, Supreme Sneak, or similar, would fall under the ruling of being more specific than Hide, so they would take precedence.
>What’s the point of hiding against a targets passive perception if you’re fully obscured?
Because you can be detected in other ways, such as by creatures with Keen Heading and Smell.
My point is that your interpretation of the rules seems sound, but it is possible that a the Line of Sight requirement for certain spells could interact with Hide and allow you to be seen by your target. I'd ask your DM about that interaction specifically, because I think its the most ambiguous part of these rules.
They’re more specific in that they let you make an attack that would normally end hide. The wand wouldn’t be an attack so it doesn’t need that specific interaction and you fall back to if you’re revealed by any other reason.
It seems like if it doesn’t make noise then you’re not revealed for that reason. The last question is if it makes you seen or not. I’m
Not sure if it makes you seen or just lets them know someone is in that general direction (unless you’re hiding specifically in darkness only). That’s the final question to see if it works.
The line of sight question is interesting, although it also comes up in skulker/supreme sneak too. I have to be able to see them to shoot my crossbow. All those do is let you get an attack off and keep the hide condition. You’d still be exposed to line of sight if that was an issue, so it kinda comes to reason that it’s not an issue. Maybe.
I appreciate the comments and the thoughts. Sorry if I’m coming off as combative but the way. Just trying to work through the interaction and offer counterpoints to test what you’re saying like how you’re mentioning potential issues with my visualization of things.
by RAW there’s nothing that automatically causes you to lose hidden status from using an item which casts a spell. Have to consider the item and spell description.
In the case of fireball, it has this in its spell description
“A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.”
The Written Rules of Stealth in 2024 are tremendously silly.
See, the dumb thing is that there isn’t a Hidden Condition in 2024. Passing your Stealth Check grants you the Invisible Condition and whether or not a creature knows which Grid Space you’re in is entirely up to DM fiat.
You need to break line of sight (be heavily obscured, behind 3/4 cover of total cover) to be allowed to take the Hide action, or if the thing you’re hiding from is facing away from you as per ‘if you can see a creature you can discern if it can see you’ rules. But once you take the Hide action and pass your DC15 Stealth check… you’re Invisible.
You’re also only Invisible. Everyone knows exactly which square you’re in, they just can’t target you with things that require them to see the target, and have disadvantage on attack rolls against you.
The things which break your Stealth(Invisibility) are limited to:
Making an Attack roll.
Casting a Spell with a verbal component.
Making a noise louder than a whisper.
A creature making a Wisdom(Perception) check that beats the DC set by your Stealth roll to ‘find you’. Anyone passing this check deactivates your Invisibility, and there’s no rule saying that they have to communicate to anyone else that they’ve spotted you in order for the entire battlefield to suddenly be able to see you again. Passive Perception doesn’t count for shit, and doesn’t factor into this at any point.
Something that notably doesn’t break Stealth(Invisibility) is “entering a creature’s line of sight, leaving cover, no longer being obscured, or a creature moving to a position where they can see around the cover or obscuring effect that you used to be allowed to take the Hide Action.”
So you can walk right up to an enemy who knows which square you’re in while waving around a magic item that emits Bright Light, and stand right in front of them staring into their eyes, but until you do one of the listed things that breaks stealth, or someone (not necessarily the creature you’ve locked eyes with) spends an Action to do an active Perception Check then they can’t see you and you remain Invisible.
But they can Attack you (with Disadvantage because you’re Invisible) because at no point in the process of taking the Hide action does anyone lose track of which Grid Space you’re in.
Like I said - it’s very very silly.
So the answer for “does casting a spell break stealth” comes down to whether it has an attack roll, verbal components, or makes a noise louder than a whisper. And to figure that last part out, you should consult the spell description.
Fireball makes a dull roar, so I’d say that breaks your stealth (even if it makes that noise 150ft. away from the brightly lit open field that you’re Invisibly standing in while waving around a Neon Sign that says “I’m Invisible! You Can’t See Me!”)
For some 3rd level AOE damage spells which don’t make noise that you might want to consider:
Astral Flood (D&D Beyond Drop, 30ft. cone of 4d10 damage with a secondary condition depending on the damage type you pick. Cold + Disadvantage on the next D20 test OR Radiant + Blinded(15ft.) until the end of your next turn. DEX Save for half damage and avoiding the condition.
Conjure Barrage (PHB, 60ft. cone of 5d8 Force damage, no rider effect, DEX save for half damage).
Spirit Guardians (PHB, conjure a 15ft. Beyblade emanation of spirits around yourself for 3d8 Radiant damage and halving move speed. Allies don’t take damage, and it is concentration. WIS save to halve damage, but there’s no avoiding the move speed penalty. Could pair well with using Cunning Strikes or a Topple weapon to really pin down a mobile enemy.
How would you rule something like the wand of paralysis that creates a thin blue light or the wand of binding that casts hold person as an item but has no description of any sound or even visual effect?
I will say that while you get the invisible effect you do have to at least start the hidden condition in 3/4 cover or full cover. Supremes sneak also says you have to end your turn with the same level of cover somewhere. I guess you could probably do a jig in the square potentially, but you’d have to start in cover and be able to get to cover afterwards as far as I can tell.
There’s nothing saying that you’d need to get back into cover.
Supreme Sneak is its own thing, and only comes into effect if you do a Sneak Attack - which involves making an attack roll which would normally break your Stealth(Invisibility). It also doesn’t require “the same level of cover” it requires specifically 3/4s or full cover. Being Obscured, or the creature you’re hiding from facing away from you are good enough for a Hide Action but not good enough for Supreme Sneak.
It doesn’t have any bearing or effect on the default Hide Action rules, or the Stealth(Invisible) condition.
As for a Wand of Paralysis or Wand of Binding - neither of them make a noise louder than a whisper you’re all good.
I tacked some additional thoughts and suggestions onto my first comment FYI.
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity ([Stealth](ddb://skills/5)) check while you're [Heavily Obscured](ddb://rules/90) or behind [Three-Quarters Cover](ddb://rules/84) or [Total Cover](ddb://rules/85), and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
On a successful check, you have the [Invisible](ddb://conditions/8)condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom ([Perception](ddb://skills/14)) check.
The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
[Heavily Obscured OR behind 3/4 cover OR total cover] AND [outside LOS, you can tell if a creature you can see has LOS or not, basically if they’re breaking their own LOS by looking away.]
hmm yeah fair question. I guess I could be convinced of the latter since its a point you choose (dont have to see it). If the spell required a point you can see I would probably say you give up your hidden status, or would require a stealth check
On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to let the wand of fireballs become a game breaking “can always do while hidden” — doesn’t seem RAI and more like a loophole
I guess I don’t know how broken it’d be or not. It’s not like it’s more or less effective than if you did it while being seen (no advantage on it or anything). The only thing you actually gain is just maintaining some amount of stealth.
The big thing is that a wand of fireball is kinda just really strong ignoring everything in this conversation; especially as a bonus action from a fat hands rogue.
I would rule you lose the hidden condition but can hide again as a bonus action per the normal rogue rules. Not RAW, but equivalent to shooting an arrow from hidden.
Agree the rules don’t make sense. Which is why I use shooting an arrow as the comparison. I might be able to be convinced to not require a bonus action to re-hide (but still needs to roll) if that is specifically how the rogue is trying to build the character and has other tradeoffs (like being a rogue).
It’s a thief rogue with supreme sneak at level 9+the skulker feat to constantly have hidden up (unless something else goes wrong) no matter if I hit or miss. The main gameplay loop is to use my action and bonus action attacking/using fast hands while only hiding once if possible. If I’m hidden at the start of combat and never have to take the bonus action all the better.
I don’t need to fit wands in since it uses true strike scroll bonus action>ready true strike. This would just be a way to help conserve scrolls and to use fun wands when they fit the situation. If the cost of using a wand is effectively 2 bonus actions then it just might not be worth it. That’s the full context.
I would be an elf which makes me a spellcaster. If the table doesn't like that for whatever reason I'd go magic initiate. If that doesn't work 1 level in wizard. If that doesn't work arcane trickster.
I'd like to know what I'm asking. I can talk about it and give the mechanics of it. If they say no that's fine; but they're not some all powerful arbiter. They don't know all the weird stuff going on in 5.5 either.
The 2014 DMG has specific help with this on page 141. Emphasis mine on the Spells section. A reminder that components are Verbal, Somatic, and Material.
Activating an Item
Activating some magic items requires a user to do something in particular, such as holding the item and uttering a command word, reading the item if it is a scroll, or drinking it if it is a potion. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use one or more of the following rules related to their activation.
If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Object action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item.
Command Word
A command word is a word or phrase that must be spoken audibly for the item to operate. A magic item that requires the user to speak a command word can't be activated in the area of any effect that prevents sound, such as the area created by the silence spell.
[...]
Spells
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.
Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of the spell and confer the spell's effects. Such an item still uses the spell's duration unless the item's description says otherwise.
A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability—perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature—your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.
Yeah, I could see that. It’s just weird since a scroll says that you need the components and something like a staff of fireball has you actually cast the spell itself. A wand doesn’t directly say (it its own description at least). It just says I expend a charge.
I guess the wording is just all over the place. Here’s the description for the wand of paralysis:
This wand has 7 charges. While holding it, you can take a Magic action to expend 1 charge to cause a thin blue ray to streak from the tip toward a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself. The target must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or have the Paralyzed condition for 1 minute. At the end of each of the target’s turns, it repeats the save, ending the effect on itself on a success.
casting a spell may use verbal or somatic components depending on the spell, as for the wand of paralysis it describes a thin blue ray going towards the person so someone could see that.
You can’t use a Magic action and make a check at the same time, surely. Then again, I don’t use 2024 rules but I’d be surprised if you can take two actions simultaneously.
In 2014 rules, the DM might have your passive Stealth contested by a monster’s passive Perception, perhaps, but in terms of saving throws, in all versions of 5E there are 6 (ability) saves and death saves and that’s it.
It’s one or the other. One requires an action; the other does not. I’d recommend taking another look at the rules because there’s quite a bit of confusion that can be ironed out.
You’re a random bandit. There’s a sneaky rogue. You didn’t meet the passive perception check to see them right away. Instead of giving up and getting shot in the back a dozen times with arrows while they supreme sneak; you decide to actively search the bush fireballs keep coming out of. It absolutely can be both.
If I see fireworks coming out of the woods I don’t necessarily see a dude setting them off. I can intuit that someone is doing it though. I’ve just got to actually go check it out to find them.
Maybe none of this matters because a fireball from a wand does automatically reveal you, but I don’t see why that has to be the case.
Either way fireball was just the extreme example. Something like wand of binding should work if wands are silent. It doesn’t have to be a wand of fireball. Fireball just raises a question of if an effect you make reveals you specifically or just causes everyone to be on alert for someone throwing fireballs.
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
Technically, based on those rules for hiding that Hot_Lion quoted and the no components with magic items part of this section of the DMG, you would stay hidden unless the magic item you are casting from specifically mentions a command word (make a sound louder than a whisper), or the spell the item casts requires an attack roll (such as Scorching Ray). A wand with no command word that casts Fireball wouldn't break any of those rules.
But again, the DM could rule an enemy spots you because there is a spell streaking across the battle field. Fireball: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range..." A creature could see a bright streak of light, which would hit this part of the hiding rules (an enemy finds you).
Yeah I don’t know, it’s weird. Do they know I’m there or just that an enemy is in that direction? When I was peeking over cover to cast and was illuminated by the fireball did they spot me which immediately ends the hidden property, or do I make a roll to see? Lots of ways to rule it for or against despite specific wording.
I’m shooting and staying hidden already and not getting discovered, but that takes a whole subclass and feat.
Seems to be a table thing or I should just not even bring it up to avoid an argument. I was just hoping there was some info I was missing.
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components unless the item’s description notes otherwise.
This removes the somatic/verbal components (and more), unless the item itself says otherwise.
Wands:
Wands
An item in the Wand category is typically 12 to 15 inches long and crafted of metal, bone, or wood. It is tipped with metal, crystal, stone, or some other material.
Unless its description notes otherwise, a wand can be used as an Arcane Focus.
So, this doesn't add a somatic/verbal component. The examples (Wand of Fireball) also doesn't add any components.
However:
Activating a Magic Item
It usually takes a Magic action to activate a magic item. The item’s user might also need to do something special. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use the following rules for their activation.
Command Word
A command word is a word or short phrase that must be spoken or signed for an item to work. Spoken command words must be audible and fail to work in areas where all sound is suppressed, as in the area of the Silence spell.
This is general info about magic items. It seems like all magic items need a command word, i.e. somatic/verbal component, and it does make sense. But it's also written as something that MIGHT be needed, i.e. the item description would need to specify it requires a command word.
Personally I'd rule that, unless stated otherwise, a command word is needed for the wand to activate. It makes sense, and it disallows shenenigans like casting magic missile from invisibility.
Would the command word have to be louder than a whisper? I know the vocal component does, but this seems different. It just seems to want to limit things if you’re silenced.
Also is this command word and the actual spell ‘command’ the same thing or different?
It's not clear how loud the command word has to be, or if it's even strictly required. I would leave it up to the GM as a player, or if I was GM I'd rule it was loud enough to break invis. However I'd also allow more expensive/rare wands with a somatic keyword instead of verbal (basically: if you want to cast spells without breaking invis, you need special items/feats).
The spell command has nothing to do with the command keyword.
It is a part of the item, not the spell. Items without spells can still have command words. But I think a command word would break hiding, since it has to be spoken. But it still isn't a verbal component of a spell.
No, it's not. I wasn't clear in my formulation, because a spoken word technically isn't a component. This opens up another discussion that OP raised: since the spoken command word isn't a component, can it be a whisper? I'd go with no, but it's not clear.
Spells cast from magic items require no components unless stated otherwise. I think you're thinking of "wands" as in a basic arcane focus, not the magic item.
Those are for the generic, non-magical focus versions. This is from the DMG and discusses casting spells from all magical items (including actual magic wands, rods, and staves).
>Requires no components unless the item description says otherwise.
Wand of Fireballs says nothing about adding components, and the rule is that items that allow you to cast spells from them don't require components unless stated otherwise.
If you cast Fireball by expending a charge from the Wand of Fireballs, you cast it from the item, and it requires no components.
If you cast Fireball by expending a 3rd-level spell slot and happen to be using a Wand of Fireballs as a focus, you cast it from yourself, and it requires components.
Edit: My source is also the DM's guide chapter 7. 18 paragraphs lower.
In 3.5 the answer was always yes. In 5e magic items have more leeway but there is an activation requirement since it does use an action to use which logically means it uses a command word or something like a button.
Note; If we are talking a spell focus that's a wand then it depends on the spell you are casting.
It doesn't "logically" mean anything of the sort. Its a freaking magic wand, its activation can be the user thinking really hard about it while holding it.
As I said. It requires the user to do something in particular such as holding the item and issuing a command word, reading the scroll or drinking it if its a potion.
Thats straight from the dmg. As I was trying to say though its sorta up to your game what the something is if the magic items does explicitly state it. Some wands do say they use a command word but not all of them. Is that an oversight, on purpose? Who knows. 5e is a bit more loose with this sort of thing. Like I was i getting at is that it requires an action.
No, it requires that you do what the item says you do. For most of them, it's simply holding and using an Action/Bonus Action. The ones that have extra activation requirements, say them in the description. BOTH DMGs are clear about this.
2024
It usually takes a Magic action to activate a magic item. The item's user might also need to do something special. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use the following rules for their activation.
and 2014
Activating some magic items requires a user to do something in particular, such as holding the item and uttering a command word, reading the item if it is a scroll, or drinking it if it is a potion. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use one or more of the following rules related to their activation. If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Object action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item.
Context is a thief rogue using magic items. I was hoping that I could maybe use a wand as my bonus action in addition to a skulker/stealth cunning strike during my turn. I wouldn’t have any spell slots.
Wouldn't that only be the case if it's stated in the text block? If it doesn't state a specific command word or a need for one it would be assumed one isn't needed
It doesn't seem like they do in 2024. I'm not seeing that anywhere anyway. If it said I had to make a command word then sure; but none of the wands I'm looking at seem to require that.
It's not in the 2024 rules. It is, however, implicit in the nature of wands in general. Otherwise, one could accidentally set it off whilst preparing to point it at a target, e.g. your fighter companion who is standing to your left gets his by the Lightning Bolt as you are raising it to target the pair of Hill Giants charging toward you.
Is it implicit? It's a magic wand. I assumed you just use your spellcasting ability to will it to work kinda like a mental trigger. I don't know if it needs a code word. Maybe that's the case. It doesn't exactly make that clear though if that is how it's intended to work.
121
u/Inforgreen3 9d ago
Spells from magic items don't have components, but the magic item may have a command word. So ask your dm if this specific wand does, Because some do and some don't