In my campaign, I have a creature that is able to cast speak with animals while ignoring all components. This creature also happens to be unable to verbally speak (for now). I noticed in the wording of speak with animals that it says that "You gain the ability to comprehend and verbally communicate with beasts for the duration" (Basic Rules Pg. 277). Since the spell grants you the ability to speak with beasts for the duration, could a creature that is unable to speak (biologically) be able to use verbal components for spells while under the effects of speak with animals?
..., could a creature that is unable to speak (biologically) be able to use verbal components for spells while under the effects of speak with animals?
"You gain the ability to ... verbally communicate with beasts for the duration" with, RAW, no condition to have been previously able to speak. Nothing is written about using other vocal abilities so that's also at DMs discretion.
Specifically for your question about verbal spell components, I would say probably not. You are given the ability to "verbally communicate with beasts for the duration". This allows them to make verbal utterances if they are typically unable (probably as a side effect of an unintended interaction- usually speak with animals has verbal components, so this would not come up under most "normal" circumstances) but only for the purpose of verbally communicating with beasts.
On the other hand, from the description of verbal components: "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."
Speak with Animals does not allow you to perform "the chanting of mystic words." It allows you to "verbally communicate with beasts..." RAW, you would not be able to verbally communicate for any other purposes based solely on the description of the spell. It also wouldn't allow a creature to speak a language, even if it had the "understands but cannot speak" descriptor for the language, since again the spell specifies how it allows you to verbally communicate.
However, as a DM, you could always rule this more generously. However, strictly RAW, spells don't grant accessory benefits, even if logically they might.
RAW the spell grants you the ability to verbally communicate, but not the biological means to do so. That said, I would maybe flavor this to the creature using the equivalent of a game call or other mechanical analogue to create the sound, and the spell's granted ability to know what the sounds mean.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
IMO Speak With Animals doesn't give the animal any additional abilities. The animal will continue to vocalize in the way that it normally does: birds sing, wolves growl and howl, pigs snort, etc. Speak With Animals just gives you the ability to understand these utterances and make them yourself.
In your case it's kind of weird, since you have a beast casting it on themself. In my mind, if the beast is a wolf, Speak With Animals on it would allow it to sing bird songs in addition to wolf growls. If bird songs and wolf growls are not sufficient for the verbal component of spells, then Speak With Animals won't allow the beast to cast spells with verbal components.
Exactly whether beast speech can cast spells is unclear. Spells can be cast in any language, so maybe why not beast vocalizations? But animal "speech" is not really like a language, and it would seem spells might need a degree of eloquence and complex syntax to work.
Ultimately, I think it will just be up to the DM whether they want it to work. It might even only work for certain spells. Command, for example, involves a one-word command. It's not explicitly stated, but I think it's reasonable to assume that single word is the verbal component of a spell. One can definitely imagine that a wolf might have a certain noise that means "flee", "drop", "halt", or "grovel". Whereas the words required to invoke a more complex spell like Bigby's Hand or Guards and Wards is probably correspondingly complex.
IMO Speak With Animals doesn't give the animal any additional abilities. The animal will continue to vocalize in the way that it normally does: birds sing, wolves growl and howl, pigs snort, etc. Speak With Animals just gives you the ability to understand these utterances and make them yourself.
In your case it's kind of weird, since you have a beast casting it on themself. In my mind, if the beast is a wolf, Speak With Animals on it would allow it to sing bird songs in addition to wolf growls. If bird songs and wolf growls are not sufficient for the verbal component of spells, then Speak With Animals won't allow the beast to cast spells with verbal components.
Exactly whether beast speech can cast spells is unclear. Spells can be cast in any language, so maybe why not beast vocalizations? But animal "speech" is not really like a language, and it would seem spells might need a degree of eloquence and complex syntax to work.
Ultimately, I think it will just be up to the DM whether they want it to work. It might even only work for certain spells. Command, for example, involves a one-word command. It's not explicitly stated, but I think it's reasonable to assume that single word is the verbal component of a spell. One can definitely imagine that a wolf might have a certain noise that means "flee", "drop", "halt", or "grovel". Whereas the words required to invoke a more complex spell like Bigby's Hand or Guards and Wards is probably correspondingly complex.
It's a good and direct interpretation of RAW to say that the spell speak with animals just lets you speak with animals as fitting with the text that "You gain the ability to comprehend and verbally communicate with beasts for the duration." No indication is given to being able to use other vocal abilities I'd say that, RAW, the only additional ability that the spell may give relates to the potential vocabulary of the animals when they are speaking to you. Some animals have vocabularies that are limited to things like "look at me I'm sexy", typically by the male, and abilities to comprehend and judge such claims, typically by the female. The spell also says that "at minimum, beasts can give you information about nearby locations and monsters, including whatever they can perceive or have perceived within the past day." For various animals, even this may be a major step up. It's also a cool observation that a 'wolf might have a certain noise that means "flee", "drop", "halt", or "grovel".' This wouldn't be needed for the caster of speak with animals to use spells like command on animals. If command was to be used by a creature using a language of a beast on a target creature that was not of that beast type then there could be a RAW problem that "The spell has no effect if the target ... doesn't understand your language". I'd imagine that certain beast terms, such as when telling others to "**** off", might be even better understood when coming from a beast than when expressed in a different language but this, among other matters, might be at DMs discretion.
It's a good and direct interpretation of RAW to say that the spell speak with animals just lets you speak with animals as fitting with the text that "You gain the ability to comprehend and verbally communicate with beasts for the duration." No indication is given to being able to use other vocal abilities I'd say that, RAW, the only additional ability that the spell may give relates to the potential vocabulary of the animals when they are speaking to you. Some animals have vocabularies that are limited to things like "look at me I'm sexy", typically by the male, and abilities to comprehend and judge such claims, typically by the female. The spell also says that "at minimum, beasts can give you information about nearby locations and monsters, including whatever they can perceive or have perceived within the past day." For various animals, even this may be a major step up. It's also a cool observation that a 'wolf might have a certain noise that means "flee", "drop", "halt", or "grovel".' This wouldn't be needed for the caster of speak with animals to use spells like command on animals. If command was to be used by a creature using a language of a beast on a target creature that was not of that beast type then there could be a RAW problem that "The spell has no effect if the target ... doesn't understand your language". I'd imagine that certain beast terms, such as when telling others to "**** off", might be even better understood when coming from a beast than when expressed in a different language but this, among other matters, might be at DMs discretion.
The spell doesn't change the INT of the animal, so when it describes the nearby locations and creatures it is likely to describe them from ITS point of view - not necessarily in a human's view (i.e. sharp-toothed two-legged creatures, not Orcs).
The spell doesn't change the INT of the animal, so when it describes the nearby locations and creatures it is likely to describe them from ITS point of view - not necessarily in a human's view (i.e. sharp-toothed two-legged creatures, not Orcs).
Yep! Curiously the communication could be at a similarly basic level as, RAW, wizards may telepathically have with their familiars though with the familiar having the point of view of a celestial, fey or fiend with animal intelligence.
I was previously unaware of it but familiars aren't mentioned as having any language skills other than via their telepathic communication.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In my campaign, I have a creature that is able to cast speak with animals while ignoring all components. This creature also happens to be unable to verbally speak (for now). I noticed in the wording of speak with animals that it says that "You gain the ability to comprehend and verbally communicate with beasts for the duration" (Basic Rules Pg. 277). Since the spell grants you the ability to speak with beasts for the duration, could a creature that is unable to speak (biologically) be able to use verbal components for spells while under the effects of speak with animals?
The spells says "you gain" so you get it.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
"You gain the ability to ... verbally communicate with beasts for the duration" with, RAW, no condition to have been previously able to speak. Nothing is written about using other vocal abilities so that's also at DMs discretion.
I would put that firmly in the 'talk to your DM' category.
Specifically for your question about verbal spell components, I would say probably not. You are given the ability to "verbally communicate with beasts for the duration". This allows them to make verbal utterances if they are typically unable (probably as a side effect of an unintended interaction- usually speak with animals has verbal components, so this would not come up under most "normal" circumstances) but only for the purpose of verbally communicating with beasts.
On the other hand, from the description of verbal components:
"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."
Speak with Animals does not allow you to perform "the chanting of mystic words." It allows you to "verbally communicate with beasts..." RAW, you would not be able to verbally communicate for any other purposes based solely on the description of the spell. It also wouldn't allow a creature to speak a language, even if it had the "understands but cannot speak" descriptor for the language, since again the spell specifies how it allows you to verbally communicate.
However, as a DM, you could always rule this more generously. However, strictly RAW, spells don't grant accessory benefits, even if logically they might.
OP said The GM allowed the creature can cast the spell without any restrictions.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
RAW the spell grants you the ability to verbally communicate, but not the biological means to do so. That said, I would maybe flavor this to the creature using the equivalent of a game call or other mechanical analogue to create the sound, and the spell's granted ability to know what the sounds mean.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
IMO Speak With Animals doesn't give the animal any additional abilities. The animal will continue to vocalize in the way that it normally does: birds sing, wolves growl and howl, pigs snort, etc. Speak With Animals just gives you the ability to understand these utterances and make them yourself.
In your case it's kind of weird, since you have a beast casting it on themself. In my mind, if the beast is a wolf, Speak With Animals on it would allow it to sing bird songs in addition to wolf growls. If bird songs and wolf growls are not sufficient for the verbal component of spells, then Speak With Animals won't allow the beast to cast spells with verbal components.
Exactly whether beast speech can cast spells is unclear. Spells can be cast in any language, so maybe why not beast vocalizations? But animal "speech" is not really like a language, and it would seem spells might need a degree of eloquence and complex syntax to work.
Ultimately, I think it will just be up to the DM whether they want it to work. It might even only work for certain spells. Command, for example, involves a one-word command. It's not explicitly stated, but I think it's reasonable to assume that single word is the verbal component of a spell. One can definitely imagine that a wolf might have a certain noise that means "flee", "drop", "halt", or "grovel". Whereas the words required to invoke a more complex spell like Bigby's Hand or Guards and Wards is probably correspondingly complex.
It's a good and direct interpretation of RAW to say that the spell speak with animals just lets you speak with animals as fitting with the text that "You gain the ability to comprehend and verbally communicate with beasts for the duration." No indication is given to being able to use other vocal abilities
I'd say that, RAW, the only additional ability that the spell may give relates to the potential vocabulary of the animals when they are speaking to you.
Some animals have vocabularies that are limited to things like "look at me I'm sexy", typically by the male, and abilities to comprehend and judge such claims, typically by the female.
The spell also says that "at minimum, beasts can give you information about nearby locations and monsters, including whatever they can perceive or have perceived within the past day." For various animals, even this may be a major step up.
It's also a cool observation that a 'wolf might have a certain noise that means "flee", "drop", "halt", or "grovel".' This wouldn't be needed for the caster of speak with animals to use spells like command on animals.
If command was to be used by a creature using a language of a beast on a target creature that was not of that beast type then there could be a RAW problem that "The spell has no effect if the target ... doesn't understand your language".
I'd imagine that certain beast terms, such as when telling others to "**** off", might be even better understood when coming from a beast than when expressed in a different language but this, among other matters, might be at DMs discretion.
The spell doesn't change the INT of the animal, so when it describes the nearby locations and creatures it is likely to describe them from ITS point of view - not necessarily in a human's view (i.e. sharp-toothed two-legged creatures, not Orcs).
Yep! Curiously the communication could be at a similarly basic level as, RAW, wizards may telepathically have with their familiars though with the familiar having the point of view of a celestial, fey or fiend with animal intelligence.
I was previously unaware of it but familiars aren't mentioned as having any language skills other than via their telepathic communication.