I have an idea of making a mute bard who plays an instrument to communicate. I was wondering if, in instances of the PCs instrument being taken/lost/stolen, what sorts of sign languages could i give my bard? Should i multi-class as a rogue so i can use thieves cant?(thats all hand gestures, correct?)
Languages can always be homebrewed in, though you'll want to run this idea past your whole table before you try and run it. It's also worth noting that technically a mute character is unable to cast any spells with V components; again, this can be homebrewed, but it's something to be aware of when you're putting the request in with the DM, since to a certain degree you're asking to bypass arguably the most obvious component of spellcasting (RAW you cannot disguise the V component as normal speech or playing an instrument, it's a distinctly magical incantation).
I played a silent monk in my first ever D&D campaign. He communicated via sign language, and initially none of my party members could understand him. My DM had me make a series of Performance checks to teach the signs to the party over a number of long rests. I have no idea how she decided how the progression on that should work, but it felt very cool and eventually all our characters were fluent in sign. The party all learning sign together kind of mirrored my own process of coming out of my shell as a roleplayer; it was a great experience and obviously I remember it very fondly.
Casters need Verbal spell components. It is the major problem playing a mute spell caster.
You would need a house rule to negate this problem. I would suggest something along the lines of letting you snap your fingers to substitute for the Verbal components.
If your DM doesn't want to house rule the Verbal component of spells to be some other kind of sound, you could also make your character mute except for Verbal spell components. Magic is magic, after all; there's no reason an inability to speak under normal conditions should stop the sounds of spellcasting from nonetheless escaping your body at the appropriate times. Never learned a language? No tongue? No problem. You can still speak verbal components. The spell demands it.
If your DM doesn't want to house rule the Verbal component of spells to be some other kind of sound, you could also make your character mute except for Verbal spell components. Magic is magic, after all; there's no reason an inability to speak under normal conditions should stop the sounds of spellcasting from nonetheless escaping your body at the appropriate times. Never learned a language? No tongue? No problem. You can still speak verbal components. The spell demands it.
That's sort of the opposite of the intent of V components, since being gagged, put under the effect of Silence, or otherwise being rendered unable to vocalize is supposed to keep you from casting those spells. The spell does demand the component, in that it will not work without the component, not that it will alter reality to bring the component into being.
But seriously (though Mime is a serious art form) I'd say on the mutism and verbal components, suggest the character needs to be able to clearly aspirate gestures with and through the mouth. So mechanically/functionally mutism is not a work around of frustrations to verbal components. The smacking of lips or smacking of teeth or gasps rendered in place of spoken language will serve to give the audible clues someone's up to something that verbal components would to a sentry etc. It's rough, but a thought I think you could run with. I wouldn't allow mutism as a "hack" to make spell casting less detectable.
I would, were I the DM, allow the instrument to count aS the Verbal component. That would mean their spellcasting would still be susceptible to Silence, etc, and discernible for Counterspell, etc. In fact, it would slightly penalise the Bard, as this would effectively add a Somatic and a Material component to all spells.
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component.
It's about the vibrations made rather than using a voice. I'd allow an instrument to be used for V, and feel that's within the intents of the rules. It would likewise be affected by a Silence etc. Lose the instrument? Lose the ability to cast spells with a V component. It's the equivalent of being gagged.
If there are any issues this would cause, they're not coming to mind - and I'm sure they're not insurmountable.
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.
If your DM doesn't want to house rule the Verbal component of spells to be some other kind of sound, you could also make your character mute except for Verbal spell components. Magic is magic, after all; there's no reason an inability to speak under normal conditions should stop the sounds of spellcasting from nonetheless escaping your body at the appropriate times. Never learned a language? No tongue? No problem. You can still speak verbal components. The spell demands it.
That's sort of the opposite of the intent of V components, since being gagged, put under the effect of Silence, or otherwise being rendered unable to vocalize is supposed to keep you from casting those spells. The spell does demand the component, in that it will not work without the component, not that it will alter reality to bring the component into being.
Oh I would still have the spell fail if you were gagged, within an area of Silence, or otherwise affected by an outside force. I would just let the mute caster speak the words of power under the same circumstances that a non-mute caster could speak them. It's magic, we don't have to explain it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have an idea of making a mute bard who plays an instrument to communicate. I was wondering if, in instances of the PCs instrument being taken/lost/stolen, what sorts of sign languages could i give my bard? Should i multi-class as a rogue so i can use thieves cant?(thats all hand gestures, correct?)
Any and all ideas welcome :)
In the first of the 2024 PHB playtest documents, Common Sign Language was given as one of language options.
I somehow missed that but that is so freaking cool! thank you!
Languages can always be homebrewed in, though you'll want to run this idea past your whole table before you try and run it. It's also worth noting that technically a mute character is unable to cast any spells with V components; again, this can be homebrewed, but it's something to be aware of when you're putting the request in with the DM, since to a certain degree you're asking to bypass arguably the most obvious component of spellcasting (RAW you cannot disguise the V component as normal speech or playing an instrument, it's a distinctly magical incantation).
I played a silent monk in my first ever D&D campaign. He communicated via sign language, and initially none of my party members could understand him. My DM had me make a series of Performance checks to teach the signs to the party over a number of long rests. I have no idea how she decided how the progression on that should work, but it felt very cool and eventually all our characters were fluent in sign. The party all learning sign together kind of mirrored my own process of coming out of my shell as a roleplayer; it was a great experience and obviously I remember it very fondly.
Casters need Verbal spell components. It is the major problem playing a mute spell caster.
You would need a house rule to negate this problem. I would suggest something along the lines of letting you snap your fingers to substitute for the Verbal components.
If your DM doesn't want to house rule the Verbal component of spells to be some other kind of sound, you could also make your character mute except for Verbal spell components. Magic is magic, after all; there's no reason an inability to speak under normal conditions should stop the sounds of spellcasting from nonetheless escaping your body at the appropriate times. Never learned a language? No tongue? No problem. You can still speak verbal components. The spell demands it.
That's sort of the opposite of the intent of V components, since being gagged, put under the effect of Silence, or otherwise being rendered unable to vocalize is supposed to keep you from casting those spells. The spell does demand the component, in that it will not work without the component, not that it will alter reality to bring the component into being.
Mime.
But seriously (though Mime is a serious art form) I'd say on the mutism and verbal components, suggest the character needs to be able to clearly aspirate gestures with and through the mouth. So mechanically/functionally mutism is not a work around of frustrations to verbal components. The smacking of lips or smacking of teeth or gasps rendered in place of spoken language will serve to give the audible clues someone's up to something that verbal components would to a sentry etc. It's rough, but a thought I think you could run with. I wouldn't allow mutism as a "hack" to make spell casting less detectable.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I would, were I the DM, allow the instrument to count aS the Verbal component. That would mean their spellcasting would still be susceptible to Silence, etc, and discernible for Counterspell, etc. In fact, it would slightly penalise the Bard, as this would effectively add a Somatic and a Material component to all spells.
It's about the vibrations made rather than using a voice. I'd allow an instrument to be used for V, and feel that's within the intents of the rules. It would likewise be affected by a Silence etc. Lose the instrument? Lose the ability to cast spells with a V component. It's the equivalent of being gagged.
If there are any issues this would cause, they're not coming to mind - and I'm sure they're not insurmountable.
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.
Oh I would still have the spell fail if you were gagged, within an area of Silence, or otherwise affected by an outside force. I would just let the mute caster speak the words of power under the same circumstances that a non-mute caster could speak them. It's magic, we don't have to explain it.