A few friends and I are doing a homebrew campaign somewhat reminiscent of Bloodborne where our characters are hunters.
I decided I wanted to play a bard before DM had told me of the campaign idea and I am sticking with it. While creating our characters it popped in my head that I wanted Aelric(my character) to be deaf. DM had an issue with it being that if I was to try and use viscous mockery it wouldn't work because I am deaf but I have my backstory being that I was deaf due to an accident so I would still be able to talk.
Anyway my question is does anyone see Aelric being a deaf bard be an actual problem?
It would certainly make a variety of things more challenging than otherwise, but it seems perfectly viable if you're willing to accept those challenges. It might be reasonable for there to be some homebrew benefit to offset this — if I were DMing I might offer resistance to Thunder damage or something.
That said, if the DM thinks it'll be a problem, it's ultimately their call. Though there's no reason why being deaf would affect your use of Vicious Mockery specifically. (Your DM maybe should educate themselves on the difference between being deaf and being mute.)
I think if your character went deaf when they were a bit older I don't see it as being an issue as far as casting spells and using vicious mockery because, like you said, they would still be able to speak. I would, however, suggest that stealth checks made to be quiet, or perception checks based on hearing something should be at disadvantage. I worked with deaf kids and they are some of the loudest people around because they have no idea how loud they actually are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
I would allow it. Of course all perception checks (that have a hearing component) would be at disadvantage. I would, however, give a penalty to casting any verbal spell (perhaps a concentration check to ensure it is cast correctly since you can't hear yourself speaking to know if you are pronouncing it correctly). Earlier editions gave a 20% spell failure chance if there was a verbal component and the caster was deafened. Immunity to any spell that requires you to hear the caster. I would have to check whether Message or Sending spells could still be received.
The rest is just roleplaying (can't understand what others are saying unless facing (and near you) you so you can read lips - which also means species/monsters with different shaped mouths might not be understood either, but you can RP around that).
From a DM perspective, I probably would not allow it. I can see your point on how it works, but I'd be pretty upset with you being immune to any attacks or effects that require you to hear. As a fellow player, I'd be agitated at the extra levels of communication your character would require, and my suspension of disbelief would struggle with teaming up and risking my life with someone who's disabilities put my life at higher risk.
There's a lot of concepts that people come up with, and I always find myself asking, "why would my character be risking his life with this other character?" There'd have to be a really solid story reason for my character to want to sign up for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
From a DM perspective, I probably would not allow it. I can see your point on how it works, but I'd be pretty upset with you being immune to any attacks or effects that require you to hear. As a fellow player, I'd be agitated at the extra levels of communication your character would require, and my suspension of disbelief would struggle with teaming up and risking my life with someone who's disabilities put my life at higher risk.
There's a lot of concepts that people come up with, and I always find myself asking, "why would my character be risking his life with this other character?" There'd have to be a really solid story reason for my character to want to sign up for that.
Some characters come together by choice, some come together by circumstance, others by necessity.
Would your characters risk their life alongside a character who can't use a sword (even if they could use a dagger)? Would your characters risk their life alongside a character who can't cast any spells (even if they could use weapons instead)? If the character alongside yours were hit with a curse that removed their ability to hear, would you abandon them?
Think of the advantages your group could have if it had someone who was immune to Suggestion spells (or other spells that require you to hear the caster). It isn't a hindrance, it is an advantage. Is it really that much of a hindrance to have to turn towards someone in order to talk to them?
If a character in the group loses an arm, and the group isn't high enough level to have it replaced or regrown - are you going to kick them out of the group?
Every character has advantages and disadvantages, every character has things they are good at and things they suck at. Does it really matter if one character can't hear?
It is not WHAT you play, it is HOW you play it that matters. I have played countless characters that others considered non-viable, and by all accounts became the MVP of the group. I have never tried a deaf character, but I played a mute character once.
A few friends and I are doing a homebrew campaign somewhat reminiscent of Bloodborne where our characters are hunters.
I decided I wanted to play a bard before DM had told me of the campaign idea and I am sticking with it. While creating our characters it popped in my head that I wanted Aelric(my character) to be deaf. DM had an issue with it being that if I was to try and use viscous mockery it wouldn't work because I am deaf but I have my backstory being that I was deaf due to an accident so I would still be able to talk.
Anyway my question is does anyone see Aelric being a deaf bard be an actual problem?
If anything, it’s the perfect opportunity to roast enemies in Common Sign Language. There’s no rules saying that CSL wouldn’t work. And IRL deaf musicians exist, too. Besides, being deaf can actually be an advantage in some cases. Some spells only work if the target can hear the caster, which Aelric would be immune to. Go with your gut.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello!
A few friends and I are doing a homebrew campaign somewhat reminiscent of Bloodborne where our characters are hunters.
I decided I wanted to play a bard before DM had told me of the campaign idea and I am sticking with it. While creating our characters it popped in my head that I wanted Aelric(my character) to be deaf. DM had an issue with it being that if I was to try and use viscous mockery it wouldn't work because I am deaf but I have my backstory being that I was deaf due to an accident so I would still be able to talk.
Anyway my question is does anyone see Aelric being a deaf bard be an actual problem?
It would certainly make a variety of things more challenging than otherwise, but it seems perfectly viable if you're willing to accept those challenges. It might be reasonable for there to be some homebrew benefit to offset this — if I were DMing I might offer resistance to Thunder damage or something.
That said, if the DM thinks it'll be a problem, it's ultimately their call. Though there's no reason why being deaf would affect your use of Vicious Mockery specifically. (Your DM maybe should educate themselves on the difference between being deaf and being mute.)
pronouns: he/she/they
I think if your character went deaf when they were a bit older I don't see it as being an issue as far as casting spells and using vicious mockery because, like you said, they would still be able to speak. I would, however, suggest that stealth checks made to be quiet, or perception checks based on hearing something should be at disadvantage. I worked with deaf kids and they are some of the loudest people around because they have no idea how loud they actually are.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
I would allow it. Of course all perception checks (that have a hearing component) would be at disadvantage. I would, however, give a penalty to casting any verbal spell (perhaps a concentration check to ensure it is cast correctly since you can't hear yourself speaking to know if you are pronouncing it correctly). Earlier editions gave a 20% spell failure chance if there was a verbal component and the caster was deafened. Immunity to any spell that requires you to hear the caster. I would have to check whether Message or Sending spells could still be received.
The rest is just roleplaying (can't understand what others are saying unless facing (and near you) you so you can read lips - which also means species/monsters with different shaped mouths might not be understood either, but you can RP around that).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Good idea. Being deaf certainly makes it harder.
From a DM perspective, I probably would not allow it. I can see your point on how it works, but I'd be pretty upset with you being immune to any attacks or effects that require you to hear. As a fellow player, I'd be agitated at the extra levels of communication your character would require, and my suspension of disbelief would struggle with teaming up and risking my life with someone who's disabilities put my life at higher risk.
There's a lot of concepts that people come up with, and I always find myself asking, "why would my character be risking his life with this other character?" There'd have to be a really solid story reason for my character to want to sign up for that.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Some characters come together by choice, some come together by circumstance, others by necessity.
Would your characters risk their life alongside a character who can't use a sword (even if they could use a dagger)?
Would your characters risk their life alongside a character who can't cast any spells (even if they could use weapons instead)?
If the character alongside yours were hit with a curse that removed their ability to hear, would you abandon them?
Think of the advantages your group could have if it had someone who was immune to Suggestion spells (or other spells that require you to hear the caster). It isn't a hindrance, it is an advantage. Is it really that much of a hindrance to have to turn towards someone in order to talk to them?
If a character in the group loses an arm, and the group isn't high enough level to have it replaced or regrown - are you going to kick them out of the group?
Every character has advantages and disadvantages, every character has things they are good at and things they suck at. Does it really matter if one character can't hear?
It is not WHAT you play, it is HOW you play it that matters. I have played countless characters that others considered non-viable, and by all accounts became the MVP of the group. I have never tried a deaf character, but I played a mute character once.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
If anything, it’s the perfect opportunity to roast enemies in Common Sign Language. There’s no rules saying that CSL wouldn’t work. And IRL deaf musicians exist, too. Besides, being deaf can actually be an advantage in some cases. Some spells only work if the target can hear the caster, which Aelric would be immune to. Go with your gut.