Spells That Affect Dialogue Encounters Should Be Castable In Those Encounters

[Saint]

I've played D&D 5e for five years and at every table i've sat at: Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy, Friends, Charm Person, etc. can be cast in the middle of dialogue to influence a roll. Having to predict the need to roll a charisma check, or just preemptively cast the relevant spell before ALL dialogue breaks immersion and hinders player agency in conversations.

Take The Chapel:
You stroll up on two people having a discussion, they're armed like everyone is in The Wilderness, and fairly unaware so it doesn't feel like a restricted area of some kind. You get close enough to... suddenly trigger inescapable dialogue which presents you with a load of skill checks designed to defuse a situation that you might not have realized would turn violent. In Baldur's Gate 3, I quickload so I can cast Thaumaturgy. At every table i've played at for the last five years, I say "I cast Thaumaturgy to make my voice boom like a crack of lightning and say "X", can I roll to intimidate?"

[Zunami]

Spells that only have a single component (i.e. verbal OR somatic) should be possible to cast discretely in conversation with a Slight-of-Hand/Perform/Deception check, but if a spell has multiple components (i.e. verbal AND somatic), I'd argue that this becomes incredibly difficult to do discretely.

That means that, in D&D RAW, you can't do what you're suggesting without making it very obvious that you're casting a spell in the middle of a conversation .

This is based on RAW, so even if I'd agree that your House Rules in this regard are commonplace, because it is easy enough to imagine that your character walks away a little bit and casts the spell and then comes back etc., I can certainly see why they wouldn't allow this - it would set a precedence that that is how the game is meant to be played, and it clearly isn't.

That said, Thaumaturgy is a single component spell, and with a perform check, I certainly think you should be able to cast it in an unnoticed way, versus a Religion Check made by the "victim".

Charm Person is a multi-component spell, but in RAW, a charmed creature becomes aware that it has been charmed at the end of the spell, which is implied to have negative ramifications. Because there's negative consequences anyway, I'd argue that if you can pass a slight-of-hand check to cast the spell fast enough, you should be able to do so in conversation - but if you fail, it is initiative!

[Ratsplat]

Nearly all non-combat spells feel extremely weak because we don't have a DM to decide on how to make them work. And since they take up precious learned/prepared spell slots, it hinders you greatly to take them unless you know the exact perfect moment to use them. Why take disguise self, which might help you with 1 or 2 encounters in the whole act, instead of a spell that sets everyone on fire in 20+ combats?

[Saint]

Originally posted by Zunami:

That

I never mentioned discretion. You're right, casting Charm Person in front of someone would be very obvious spellcasting. Initiative, however, is down to that person's temper and knowledge. The average person you're going to encounter wouldn't be able to tell what you were casting. If they were particularly on-edge (Like Grimmblebock) or were skilled enough to recognize a Charm spell (like Gale) sure, initiative... but Charm in tabletop would just end the combat anyway lmao

Also the point of Thaumaturgy in a dialogue encounter is LITERALLY to not be discrete. There is no need to cast in an unnoticed way. You wave your hands, your voice gets loud, and you tell people who probably don't have much magical power to "F U C K O F F!"

Also: including an option in dialogue to cast a spell in dialogue sets a precedent (What does the Attack button that's available in every dialogue encounter set, then?) and needs to be tempered by "well what if the NPC notices you casting and wants to react?" but like I said I can just cast it consequences-free outside of said dialogue before entering and the NPC doesn't notice me or react lol

[Saint]

Originally posted by Ratsplat:

Nearly all non-combat spells feel extremely weak because we don't have a DM to decide on how to make them work. And since they take up precious learned/prepared spell slots, it hinders you greatly to take them unless you know the exact perfect moment to use them. Why take disguise self, which might help you with 1 or 2 encounters in the whole act, instead of a spell that sets everyone on fire in 20+ combats?

F A C T S
Illusion spells in tabletop: Turn the tide of combat
Illusion spells in videogames: You made a glowey combat dummy!