With the similar trigger wording, so I think this also protects from Mage Slayer feat.

But I can Counterspell a Wand which has no components whatsoever? I think JC has some 'splainin' to do.

@Slagmoth -- the components for a wand is brandishing it.

@Slagmoth You can't counterspell a wand if the spell doesn't have any components (but most wand-spells do)

I'm not sure that a categorical "you can't counter a Subtle spell" is justified. While as noted it's intended to protect against countering or interruption, I would expect that the caster would still have some sort of "tell" (e.g., staring intently at the target), and if the would-be counterer is willing to pay close attention to the sorcerer, it seems to me that she could attempt to discern when the spell is being cast (e.g., an active Insight check).

@Chry

@chrylis: I think you should handle that the opposite way, namely putting the onus on the original caster. They're the one spending the sorcery point, presumably because they know there's a chance of it being countered. So I would have them roll first, maybe Stealth or Sleight of Hand or Concentration, in order to cast the spell truly without any indication.

@ravery Magical items explicitly state you cast the spell and it requires no components... that means no Verbal, Somatic or Material... for example a staff you could literally stand still and cast the spell undetected. DMG 141

"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."

@Slagmoth -- I believe most spell items require a command word

@ravery They used to definitely... Wand of Enemy Detection does but I don't see another wand that does... Staves don't either to my knowledge... essentially you just have to have it in hand.

@DavidCoffron Which Wands explicitly state they have components for the spell as a requirement? I see Wand of Enemy Detection with a command word but it isn't really a spell to begin with.

It is entirely possible I missed something but since I contantly have players looking for loopholes I have spent a lot of time on spell and magic items over the last few years. I am getting old though. :)

@Slagmoth You are right. No components necessary. I forgot about the rule that does that.

Which means (since you only have to hold the wand) you could cast the spell subtl-y (like while it is in your pouch) and it shouldn't be counterspellable.

The whole point of subtle spell is to remove the "tell" from the person casting the spell in the first place. It's a class feature unique to sorcerers, and adding things to make it weaker is basically screwing with player agency

@Falc - So to be fair, do you have fighters roll acrobatics when they need to make multiple attacks? Do you also add checks to illusion spells to give people more chances to break them despite the spells explicitly stating that active investigations are required? Adding extra checks to class features is certainly a DM perogative, but it's not in the rules.

@LinoFrankCiaralli Not sure I understand your point? I am not adding anything to take away anything unique from Sorcerer I just am pointing out that JC is either incorrect or has rules errata forthcoming. As it stands now, there would be nothing to indicate anyone casting a spell from an item.

@DavidCoffron Wondering if JC has errata incoming for that.

Depends on the item

Well, the errata could be for the general rules starting in the Magic Item section specifically having to do with spell casting from them.

If I am using the item in such a way that the person can "see" me cast the spell then it can be counterpelled, otherwise no

But what in that case constitutes you being able to see me cast a spell from an item? I don't need to wave my hands or even present the item, I don't need to speak at all, and I don't need another item to do so. I can literally stand perfectly still with a wand in my hand and throw fireball.

Although I do like the pointing aspect.

It is apparently not required.

@Slagmoth Valid, I propose that as written there is no indication. I would probably houserule that you have to perform somatic components with then hand holding the wand (i.e. pointing the wand)

Yeah, always how I thought about it in my head... just wondering what JC justifies it. I replied back to the Tweet but it was an old one... probably won't get a response. Noticing more and more contradictions of late.

@LinoFrankCiaralli Player agency is, to a large degree, why I said that I would prefer to have the Sorcerer make a roll to really hide his actions, rather than only allow the counterspeller to roll. And all of this only in the very particular case where one caster is specifically waiting for the spell (to counter it) and paying full attention, while the other is specifically trying to hide his spellcasting from the first caster.

@Falc - And that's what I mean by removing it. It would be like giving a player a saving throw against a Paladin's smite ability. Or a save against Hunter's Mark. It doesn't matter if somebody is waiting specifically for a spell, the whole point of Subtle spell is to remove the indicator that a spell is coming specifically to avoid being counterspelled.

Adding another function to permit somebody a way to counter subtle spell literally removes all player agency from the equation. It's a middle finger to a caster for taking the ability and using the points to prevent anybody from interfering with their casitng.

In essence it would be like making a fighter perform a strength check to wear plate mail.

@Slagmoth - I was referring to the "tell" that chrylis made reference to. Falc supported this with his statement about requiring an additional check on top of using a meta-magic feature despite it not requiring that check at all. You and I are in agreement here, especially with respect to the issue with casting from magical objects which is a whole new world of grey. I'm more concerned with the original question though, not the magical item ones.

@LinoFrankCiaralli Gotcha.