Side thought... would sign language be considered a verbal or a somatic component when casting a spell?
As a DM I would say neither. Somatic components to casting spells typically refer to specific hand motions that spell requires and verbal components often refer to specific words. As a dm I liken the concept of verbal components to Harry Potter where if one doesn't say "Diagon Alley" correctly the spell will function incorrectly.
Does this mean I handicap mute spellcasters? yes and no. If you chose to be a mute spellcaster you chose that handicap for yourself, it is now on you to play through it. Or you can become a sorcerer and cast silent spells, I grant to option to take feats for that as there is a feat for metamagic dabbling which would limit your casting but accomplish it.
Side thought... would sign language be considered a verbal or a somatic component when casting a spell?
As a DM I would say neither. Somatic components to casting spells typically refer to specific hand motions that spell requires and verbal components often refer to specific words. As a dm I liken the concept of verbal components to Harry Potter where if one doesn't say "Diagon Alley" correctly the spell will function incorrectly.
Does this mean I handicap mute spellcasters? yes and no. If you chose to be a mute spellcaster you chose that handicap for yourself, it is now on you to play through it. Or you can become a sorcerer and cast silent spells, I grant to option to take feats for that as there is a feat for metamagic dabbling which would limit your casting but accomplish it.
I agree with the somatic component ruling, but in the case of a mute character I disagree a bit.
Spellcasting vocal components has always been described as specific sounds and are not necessarily words spoken. I'd rule that anyone who has been mute for a while and also have taken up the mantle of spellcasting has some manner of producing the sound effects needed to cast their spells.
If wizards use chants or words of power and bards use literal music, no reason a mute wizard can't beatbox their spells.
I kinda like the notion of "Surface Sign" or "Oversign", being derived from drow sign by surface-dwellers who interacted with them extensively (either voluntarily or not), which could mean adding "Drow Sign" or "Undersign" to the list as an alternative sign language.
I would love to see Undersign, an name I now love, introduced!
Side thought... would sign language be considered a verbal or a somatic component when casting a spell?
This is not the point of the thread, but I really hope we see support for mute spellcasters. When I played my mute sorcerer, my DM and I had it so he could cast verbal spells by snapping his fingers, cracking his knuckles, or otherwise making sound. Meanwhile, other mute spellcasters who can still make utterances could cast spells with verbal components. CSL as a somatic component, sure! Why not? Maybe some CSL words for spells originate in common somatic components associated with those spells!
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
This is not the point of the thread, but I really hope we see support for mute spellcasters. When I played my mute sorcerer, my DM and I had it so he could cast verbal spells by snapping his fingers, cracking his knuckles, or otherwise making sound. Meanwhile, other mute spellcasters who can still make utterances could cast spells with verbal components. As a somatic component, sure! Why not? Maybe some CSL words for spells originate in common somatic components associated with those spells!
I really want to play a beatboxing mute wizard now lol
I'm sure the PTBFs will be integrated somehow, just differently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Personally I don’t mind the crit change that non-PC’s can’t crit. But I’m fine the way it is as well. I’m used to characters dying from my AD&D days. Either way I will still have fun playing.
But if this is a concern instead of taking away non-PC crits how about changing the rules so that you can’t be killed outright, which seems to be the real possibility in T1 from a crit. Or even taking a hit while making death saves doesn’t count as two?
haven’t gotten past page 6 of this thread but I find it odd that so many are focused on the sample backgrounds giving a language, like the guard and dwarvish as if they were set in stone (which they aren’t) but I don’t recall reading “why does acolyte force me to have +2 Wis, +1 Int?”
From the video it seems they want making your own background to be the primary method and the samples (or pre-made ones when published) are the alternate.
I've already gone on about what I like or don't like in various threads for the most part, but one thing I haven't mentioned is how much I like the character origin stuff. I actually wish they would take it a step further and add a step between your race and your background: cultural heritage.
You would choose from a list similarly to current backgrounds--stuff like "naturalist", "artistic", "militaristic", "religious", "industrious", and so on. You would pick one (maybe two?) depending on the culture you come from in the setting, working with your DM (more than one might apply to a given culture in the setting). Your choice(s) would each come with a proficiency or a trait of some kind--perhaps a militaristic cultural background nets you one martial weapon proficiency, while a religious one gets you advantage on INT (religion) checks to recall information about a particular god or faith.
By mixing and matching, you can create distinctions between, say, hill dwarves and mountain dwarves, or any homebrew setting variant, and then see those distinctions have a gameplay impact on the player characters. It'd help create a more streamlined framework for characters to build their backstories, too, I think. For example, let's say you want to play a dwarf who was found and raised by elves as an infant. You would choose dwarf as your race, then choose your cultural background--perhaps "religious" and "naturalist" or something--and then choose your background, which represents your personal background. You'd have dwarven racial traits, speak Elvish instead of Dwarven, maybe have a knack for the bow and arrow and knowledge in the elven pantheon, and then whatever your background is--perhaps Sailor, because you never quite felt at home among elves as a dwarf and wanted to get out and find a place you truly belong. You could just as easily make it so you grew up in a militaristic city-state and then ran away to join the circus... or visa-versa.
Maybe it's too much, but I think it would allow for really unique and mechanically impactful origin stories.
Side thought... would sign language be considered a verbal or a somatic component when casting a spell?
As a DM I would say neither. Somatic components to casting spells typically refer to specific hand motions that spell requires and verbal components often refer to specific words. As a dm I liken the concept of verbal components to Harry Potter where if one doesn't say "Diagon Alley" correctly the spell will function incorrectly.
Does this mean I handicap mute spellcasters? yes and no. If you chose to be a mute spellcaster you chose that handicap for yourself, it is now on you to play through it. Or you can become a sorcerer and cast silent spells, I grant to option to take feats for that as there is a feat for metamagic dabbling which would limit your casting but accomplish it.
I agree with the somatic component ruling, but in the case of a mute character I disagree a bit.
Spellcasting vocal components has always been described as specific sounds and are not necessarily words spoken. I'd rule that anyone who has been mute for a while and also have taken up the mantle of spellcasting has some manner of producing the sound effects needed to cast their spells.
If wizards use chants or words of power and bards use literal music, no reason a mute wizard can't beatbox their spells.
Id rule it as you could perform the verbal component using sign language, but you have to have a free hand. So, if it has both a somatic and verbal component, both your hands would have to be free to cast the spell and you are out of luck if it also has a material component. So you can cast all of your spells without making a sound, but you are fairly restricted on which ones are feasibly useable (unless of course you are a mute ThriKreen or soemthing)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I've already gone on about what I like or don't like in various threads for the most part, but one thing I haven't mentioned is how much I like the character origin stuff. I actually wish they would take it a step further and add a step between your race and your background: cultural heritage.
You would choose from a list similarly to current backgrounds--stuff like "naturalist", "artistic", "militaristic", "religious", "industrious", and so on. You would pick one (maybe two?) depending on the culture you come from in the setting, working with your DM (more than one might apply to a given culture in the setting). Your choice(s) would each come with a proficiency or a trait of some kind--perhaps a militaristic cultural background nets you one martial weapon proficiency, while a religious one gets you advantage on INT (religion) checks to recall information about a particular god or faith.
By mixing and matching, you can create distinctions between, say, hill dwarves and mountain dwarves, or any homebrew setting variant, and then see those distinctions have a gameplay impact on the player characters. It'd help create a more streamlined framework for characters to build their backstories, too, I think. For example, let's say you want to play a dwarf who was found and raised by elves as an infant. You would choose dwarf as your race, then choose your cultural background--perhaps "religious" and "naturalist" or something--and then choose your background, which represents your personal background. You'd have dwarven racial traits, speak Elvish instead of Dwarven, maybe have a knack for the bow and arrow and knowledge in the elven pantheon, and then whatever your background is--perhaps Sailor, because you never quite felt at home among elves as a dwarf and wanted to get out and find a place you truly belong. You could just as easily make it so you grew up in a militaristic city-state and then ran away to join the circus... or visa-versa.
Maybe it's too much, but I think it would allow for really unique and mechanically impactful origin stories.
It seems like the move to fully custom, modular, compartmentalized backgrounds really goes a long way toward doing this. Just choose the tool/skill/language proficiencies that work with your culture. It would be pretty easy to say you’re a soldier, but from a very religious society, so you take religion as one of your skills. It’s just a question of what you want to emphasize in your character.
I've already gone on about what I like or don't like in various threads for the most part, but one thing I haven't mentioned is how much I like the character origin stuff. I actually wish they would take it a step further and add a step between your race and your background: cultural heritage.
You would choose from a list similarly to current backgrounds--stuff like "naturalist", "artistic", "militaristic", "religious", "industrious", and so on. You would pick one (maybe two?) depending on the culture you come from in the setting, working with your DM (more than one might apply to a given culture in the setting). Your choice(s) would each come with a proficiency or a trait of some kind--perhaps a militaristic cultural background nets you one martial weapon proficiency, while a religious one gets you advantage on INT (religion) checks to recall information about a particular god or faith.
By mixing and matching, you can create distinctions between, say, hill dwarves and mountain dwarves, or any homebrew setting variant, and then see those distinctions have a gameplay impact on the player characters. It'd help create a more streamlined framework for characters to build their backstories, too, I think. For example, let's say you want to play a dwarf who was found and raised by elves as an infant. You would choose dwarf as your race, then choose your cultural background--perhaps "religious" and "naturalist" or something--and then choose your background, which represents your personal background. You'd have dwarven racial traits, speak Elvish instead of Dwarven, maybe have a knack for the bow and arrow and knowledge in the elven pantheon, and then whatever your background is--perhaps Sailor, because you never quite felt at home among elves as a dwarf and wanted to get out and find a place you truly belong. You could just as easily make it so you grew up in a militaristic city-state and then ran away to join the circus... or visa-versa.
Maybe it's too much, but I think it would allow for really unique and mechanically impactful origin stories.
I think that's exactly what you can do with the playtest system. You put together a bundle of Attributes, Skills, Language, Tools, and even Equipment to reflect your character's history.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
What do folks think of the lucky feat changes? Which version of the feat is better in any of y'all's opinion? Not in the "which is more balanced" sense, but literally which would you pick over the other.
What do folks think of the lucky feat changes? Which version of the feat is better in any of y'all's opinion? Not in the "which is more balanced" sense, but literally which would you pick over the other.
As a powergamer, I would choose the older version 9 times out of 10. As a DM, I would choose the new version (assuming it gets changed to actually work mechanically, because currently it doesn't do what it's trying to do).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
What do folks think of the lucky feat changes? Which version of the feat is better in any of y'all's opinion? Not in the "which is more balanced" sense, but literally which would you pick over the other.
The old feat was more powerful. The new feat is nonsensical because applying advantage after rolling doesn't make sense on a roll that started with advantage.
Honestly, I would prefer to make it be the same thing as halfling luck.
What do folks think of the lucky feat changes? Which version of the feat is better in any of y'all's opinion? Not in the "which is more balanced" sense, but literally which would you pick over the other.
The original is mathematically superior. It is also, however, much more powerful than the vast majority of other feats and interacts in unfortunate and counter-intuitive ways with disadvantage. The new version is how the feat should have worked from the outset.
Side thought... would sign language be considered a verbal or a somatic component when casting a spell?
As a DM I would say neither. Somatic components to casting spells typically refer to specific hand motions that spell requires and verbal components often refer to specific words. As a dm I liken the concept of verbal components to Harry Potter where if one doesn't say "Diagon Alley" correctly the spell will function incorrectly.
Does this mean I handicap mute spellcasters? yes and no. If you chose to be a mute spellcaster you chose that handicap for yourself, it is now on you to play through it. Or you can become a sorcerer and cast silent spells, I grant to option to take feats for that as there is a feat for metamagic dabbling which would limit your casting but accomplish it.
I agree with the somatic component ruling, but in the case of a mute character I disagree a bit.
Spellcasting vocal components has always been described as specific sounds and are not necessarily words spoken. I'd rule that anyone who has been mute for a while and also have taken up the mantle of spellcasting has some manner of producing the sound effects needed to cast their spells.
If wizards use chants or words of power and bards use literal music, no reason a mute wizard can't beatbox their spells.
Id rule it as you could perform the verbal component using sign language, but you have to have a free hand. So, if it has both a somatic and verbal component, both your hands would have to be free to cast the spell and you are out of luck if it also has a material component. So you can cast all of your spells without making a sound, but you are fairly restricted on which ones are feasibly useable (unless of course you are a mute ThriKreen or soemthing)
If you did that, you'd buff casters even more. Silence is supposed to prevent the casting of verbal spells. Verbal spell-casting is also intended to be incompatible with stealth. This would circumvent both of those limitations, and for no gain whatsoever.
Whether the old or new lucky feat is better depends on circumstance. Up to L8, old is definitely better since it imposes pseudoAdvantage/Disadvantage in most circumstances. Even if the target already has Advantage/Disadvantage, the feat can have an effect by effectively stacking. You already have Advantage? You can still roll again and see if you can improve it, etc. The the can at best cancel the their Advantage/Disadvantage, since it's an actual Advantage/Disadvantage.
L9, the new grants more uses, since it is linked to your Proficiency Bonus. It then becomes a preference - do you want the better effect, or more uses of it? Then it becomes a matter of weighing the overall pros and cons. If you're taking the feat at L1 in a L1-8 campaign versus at L8 in a campaign that runs to L20 will have different weightings.
There are.other factors. As a Rogue for example, the new may be better regardless as you could use it to prep for a Sneak Attack; the old one doesn't work. We're also assuming that the Advantage/Disadvantage system is remaining the same - if they will now stack, then that alters the equation considerably. If they become very easy to gain, that will also change things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
What do folks think of the lucky feat changes? Which version of the feat is better in any of y'all's opinion? Not in the "which is more balanced" sense, but literally which would you pick over the other.
The old one had an exploit. If you could give yourself disadvantage or already had it you could turn it into super advantage. Instead of rolling two d30’s and take the lowest you use a luck point roll a third d20 and pick which one to use (super advantage)
Side thought... would sign language be considered a verbal or a somatic component when casting a spell?
As a DM I would say neither. Somatic components to casting spells typically refer to specific hand motions that spell requires and verbal components often refer to specific words. As a dm I liken the concept of verbal components to Harry Potter where if one doesn't say "Diagon Alley" correctly the spell will function incorrectly.
Does this mean I handicap mute spellcasters? yes and no. If you chose to be a mute spellcaster you chose that handicap for yourself, it is now on you to play through it. Or you can become a sorcerer and cast silent spells, I grant to option to take feats for that as there is a feat for metamagic dabbling which would limit your casting but accomplish it.
I agree with the somatic component ruling, but in the case of a mute character I disagree a bit.
Spellcasting vocal components has always been described as specific sounds and are not necessarily words spoken. I'd rule that anyone who has been mute for a while and also have taken up the mantle of spellcasting has some manner of producing the sound effects needed to cast their spells.
If wizards use chants or words of power and bards use literal music, no reason a mute wizard can't beatbox their spells.
Id rule it as you could perform the verbal component using sign language, but you have to have a free hand. So, if it has both a somatic and verbal component, both your hands would have to be free to cast the spell and you are out of luck if it also has a material component. So you can cast all of your spells without making a sound, but you are fairly restricted on which ones are feasibly useable (unless of course you are a mute ThriKreen or soemthing)
If you did that, you'd buff casters even more. Silence is supposed to prevent the casting of verbal spells. Verbal spell-casting is also intended to be incompatible with stealth. This would circumvent both of those limitations, and for no gain whatsoever.
Perhaps, but now your caster lacks a free hand with which to hold a spellcasting focus or access a component pouch, so except for a few niche builds a caster using sign language for the verbal component would be limited in the spells they could actually cast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a DM I would say neither. Somatic components to casting spells typically refer to specific hand motions that spell requires and verbal components often refer to specific words. As a dm I liken the concept of verbal components to Harry Potter where if one doesn't say "Diagon Alley" correctly the spell will function incorrectly.
Does this mean I handicap mute spellcasters? yes and no. If you chose to be a mute spellcaster you chose that handicap for yourself, it is now on you to play through it. Or you can become a sorcerer and cast silent spells, I grant to option to take feats for that as there is a feat for metamagic dabbling which would limit your casting but accomplish it.
I agree with the somatic component ruling, but in the case of a mute character I disagree a bit.
Spellcasting vocal components has always been described as specific sounds and are not necessarily words spoken. I'd rule that anyone who has been mute for a while and also have taken up the mantle of spellcasting has some manner of producing the sound effects needed to cast their spells.
If wizards use chants or words of power and bards use literal music, no reason a mute wizard can't beatbox their spells.
I would love to see Undersign, an name I now love, introduced!
This is not the point of the thread, but I really hope we see support for mute spellcasters. When I played my mute sorcerer, my DM and I had it so he could cast verbal spells by snapping his fingers, cracking his knuckles, or otherwise making sound. Meanwhile, other mute spellcasters who can still make utterances could cast spells with verbal components. CSL as a somatic component, sure! Why not? Maybe some CSL words for spells originate in common somatic components associated with those spells!
Tooltips | Snippet Code | How to Homebrew on D&D Beyond | Subclass Guide | Feature Roadmap
Astromancer's Homebrew Assembly
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
I really want to play a beatboxing mute wizard now lol
I miss all the Background Traits, flaws, ideals and bonds.
Imo they were great in guiding a way to an interesting character.
I'm sure the PTBFs will be integrated somehow, just differently.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah pretty sure PIBF's will still be a part of character creation. They just didn't put them here to playtest.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Personally I don’t mind the crit change that non-PC’s can’t crit. But I’m fine the way it is as well. I’m used to characters dying from my AD&D days. Either way I will still have fun playing.
But if this is a concern instead of taking away non-PC crits how about changing the rules so that you can’t be killed outright, which seems to be the real possibility in T1 from a crit. Or even taking a hit while making death saves doesn’t count as two?
haven’t gotten past page 6 of this thread but I find it odd that so many are focused on the sample backgrounds giving a language, like the guard and dwarvish as if they were set in stone (which they aren’t) but I don’t recall reading “why does acolyte force me to have +2 Wis, +1 Int?”
From the video it seems they want making your own background to be the primary method and the samples (or pre-made ones when published) are the alternate.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I've already gone on about what I like or don't like in various threads for the most part, but one thing I haven't mentioned is how much I like the character origin stuff. I actually wish they would take it a step further and add a step between your race and your background: cultural heritage.
You would choose from a list similarly to current backgrounds--stuff like "naturalist", "artistic", "militaristic", "religious", "industrious", and so on. You would pick one (maybe two?) depending on the culture you come from in the setting, working with your DM (more than one might apply to a given culture in the setting). Your choice(s) would each come with a proficiency or a trait of some kind--perhaps a militaristic cultural background nets you one martial weapon proficiency, while a religious one gets you advantage on INT (religion) checks to recall information about a particular god or faith.
By mixing and matching, you can create distinctions between, say, hill dwarves and mountain dwarves, or any homebrew setting variant, and then see those distinctions have a gameplay impact on the player characters. It'd help create a more streamlined framework for characters to build their backstories, too, I think. For example, let's say you want to play a dwarf who was found and raised by elves as an infant. You would choose dwarf as your race, then choose your cultural background--perhaps "religious" and "naturalist" or something--and then choose your background, which represents your personal background. You'd have dwarven racial traits, speak Elvish instead of Dwarven, maybe have a knack for the bow and arrow and knowledge in the elven pantheon, and then whatever your background is--perhaps Sailor, because you never quite felt at home among elves as a dwarf and wanted to get out and find a place you truly belong. You could just as easily make it so you grew up in a militaristic city-state and then ran away to join the circus... or visa-versa.
Maybe it's too much, but I think it would allow for really unique and mechanically impactful origin stories.
Id rule it as you could perform the verbal component using sign language, but you have to have a free hand. So, if it has both a somatic and verbal component, both your hands would have to be free to cast the spell and you are out of luck if it also has a material component. So you can cast all of your spells without making a sound, but you are fairly restricted on which ones are feasibly useable (unless of course you are a mute ThriKreen or soemthing)
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
It seems like the move to fully custom, modular, compartmentalized backgrounds really goes a long way toward doing this. Just choose the tool/skill/language proficiencies that work with your culture. It would be pretty easy to say you’re a soldier, but from a very religious society, so you take religion as one of your skills. It’s just a question of what you want to emphasize in your character.
I think that's exactly what you can do with the playtest system. You put together a bundle of Attributes, Skills, Language, Tools, and even Equipment to reflect your character's history.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
What do folks think of the lucky feat changes? Which version of the feat is better in any of y'all's opinion? Not in the "which is more balanced" sense, but literally which would you pick over the other.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
As a powergamer, I would choose the older version 9 times out of 10. As a DM, I would choose the new version (assuming it gets changed to actually work mechanically, because currently it doesn't do what it's trying to do).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The old feat was more powerful. The new feat is nonsensical because applying advantage after rolling doesn't make sense on a roll that started with advantage.
Honestly, I would prefer to make it be the same thing as halfling luck.
The original is mathematically superior. It is also, however, much more powerful than the vast majority of other feats and interacts in unfortunate and counter-intuitive ways with disadvantage. The new version is how the feat should have worked from the outset.
If you did that, you'd buff casters even more. Silence is supposed to prevent the casting of verbal spells. Verbal spell-casting is also intended to be incompatible with stealth. This would circumvent both of those limitations, and for no gain whatsoever.
Whether the old or new lucky feat is better depends on circumstance. Up to L8, old is definitely better since it imposes pseudoAdvantage/Disadvantage in most circumstances. Even if the target already has Advantage/Disadvantage, the feat can have an effect by effectively stacking. You already have Advantage? You can still roll again and see if you can improve it, etc. The the can at best cancel the their Advantage/Disadvantage, since it's an actual Advantage/Disadvantage.
L9, the new grants more uses, since it is linked to your Proficiency Bonus. It then becomes a preference - do you want the better effect, or more uses of it? Then it becomes a matter of weighing the overall pros and cons. If you're taking the feat at L1 in a L1-8 campaign versus at L8 in a campaign that runs to L20 will have different weightings.
There are.other factors. As a Rogue for example, the new may be better regardless as you could use it to prep for a Sneak Attack; the old one doesn't work. We're also assuming that the Advantage/Disadvantage system is remaining the same - if they will now stack, then that alters the equation considerably. If they become very easy to gain, that will also change things.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The old one had an exploit. If you could give yourself disadvantage or already had it you could turn it into super advantage. Instead of rolling two d30’s and take the lowest you use a luck point roll a third d20 and pick which one to use (super advantage)
the new is more balanced
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Perhaps, but now your caster lacks a free hand with which to hold a spellcasting focus or access a component pouch, so except for a few niche builds a caster using sign language for the verbal component would be limited in the spells they could actually cast.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!