Pathfinder has a potential restriction to casting spells with a verbal component while deafened.
A deafened character cannot hear. He takes a –4 penalty on initiative checks, automatically fails Perception checks based on sound, takes a –4 penalty on opposed Perception checks, and has a 20% chance of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components. Characters who remain deafened for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
I have actually played a deaf caster in one of my campaigns. It was a homebrew 5e conversion of Pathfinder's Oracle class, which has the PC cursed in some way. I had an ability that let me cast spells silently (like the sorcerer's subtle spell). IMO, the disadvantages of being deaf all the time balance out being able to silent spellcast but that's obviously up to a DM's discretion.
I'm always confused by the answers to these posts, because people are acting like verbal components are such a big deal. I have to ask: how often does the fact that a spell has a verbal component becomes relevant in your campaign ?
If you're afraid about the player circumventing silence spells and the like, you just have to rule that some sound is required on top of signing, such as clapping your hands to "throw" the spells, or something of the like.
From a balance perspective, the player choosing to be deaf is putting themselves at a big disadvantage, that's an automatic fail on perception check based on hearing, an inability to communicate with his partners during combat, and some creatures are just going to be impossible to lip-read. Giving them the ability to replace verbal components shouldn't break anything.
I just don't think this character concept works. A mute wizard is like a paraplegic monk, it just fully lacks an ability it would need to effectively be that adventuring class. Not to say that they couldn't become that class, but they would be better at a different class.
I never specifically stated a wizard, was assumed in the conversation. There are other spell casters out there. Personally I think it would fit with a Sorcerer who had innate magic powers from birth, just so happens that they are deaf and cannot speak as well.
So it was. That helps because I was thinking a bard could use music to replace verbal components. Sorcerers can use subtle spell metamagic to not need verbal components (a bit limited, but a start). A lenient DM might allow minor illusion or thaumaturgy to make the verbal components.
Beyond than you can homebrew new spells that don't have verbal components.
I'm always confused by the answers to these posts, because people are acting like verbal components are such a big deal. I have to ask: how often does the fact that a spell has a verbal component becomes relevant in your campaign?
In my experience, only every campaign that has a PC with spells. Verbal components give away your location when hidden and advertise that you are casting a spell in social situations.
Oh hold on, 3rd level Warlock can pick Pact of the Chain. Unlimited casting of Find Familiar granted to you by a tricksy Patron that promised to give you your hearing and now you're stuck with an imp constantly jabbering at you psychically.
I'm always confused by the answers to these posts, because people are acting like verbal components are such a big deal. I have to ask: how often does the fact that a spell has a verbal component becomes relevant in your campaign?
In my experience, only every campaign that has a PC with spells. Verbal components give away your location when hidden and advertise that you are casting a spell in social situations.
But replacing verbal by somatic mean that in social situation, you would still not be able to cast stealthily. So that doesn't have to be an issue.
As for stealth, again, you could decide that the somatic components require noise, or even that the spell itself is loud. Removing verbal components doesn't have to mean removing noise.
My point was mostly that Verbal components tend to be the easiest to provide. Somatic tend to be more obvious than Verbal, and Material are both obvious and easier to take away from a caster.
Anyway, I would not refuse someone wanting to play a deaf spellcaster the opportunity, and if it gives a slight buff somewhere but a flaw somewhere else, I'd be okay with that. And if it turns out to not be as balanced as we thought, we could just make another balance pass at it as things come up. I doubt someone wanting to play a deaf character would be doing it for the free buff anyway.
[EDIT] That being said, I just realised that we're in the Rules and Mechanics forum, so we should probably be talking more RAW. By RAW, since Verbal components can be about "the chanting of mystic words", you could just say that a deaf Character would still be able to provide such components, going by the vibrations he feels as he hums, for instance.
The two negative effects of a Verbal component are its ruining of a stealth situation and it being cancellable by silencing the caster. Any homebrewed solution which retains those two concepts should be absolutely fine.
The simplest I could suggest is a minor change. The first thing the spellcaster learns/receives from their god/patron/etc. is an ability called Summoned Voice: When casting a spell, a mote of conjuration magic appears in the caster's mouth and emits the resonant tones required for a Verbal component. This voice could even handle the vocal part of a Suggestion spell.
The voice is loud enough to ruin stealth, can be blocked by gagging or Silence, and sounds otherworldly in that it is clearly not the character's actual voice.
i'd allow it along the lines above that you'd still need some kind of audio component, whether some kind of maraca, belly-dancer symbols strapped to their fingers, or whatever. I think most of the options would require a second free hand....one for the audio component and one for the somatic/component. not sure if using a familiar really works for me as you have to summon the familiar in the first place...if they find a way to do that, they don't need the familiar.
I like the maraca idea as you can really easily adjust the tempo, rhythm, and volume.
people talk about some other penalty, but i think with time they'd over-come it (think deaf singers, musicians, or any lip-reader) and wouldn't bother with it as they could just build the learning curve into their background.
You already have your answer. You're making the game less fun for someone at the table by making them feel excluded. Change it. Mechanics/Canon never trumps friendship and being decent human beings.
Simple fix for this is just to change all Verbal components to Somatic. Now they just have to do hand symbols to cast spells. Maybe they're a master in that art or learned from a master of it. It's a Feat now just like ritual casting. It's not a big deal.
Edit: Here's a homebrew Feat that covers this exact issue.
Agreeing with ClementP. D&D should be about getting people together to have fun, tell creative stories and solve problems in a fictional universe. If it doesn't unbalance the game, house rule a way to allow a deaf and mute PC to cast spells. Perhaps house rule that some other sound would have to be produced by the caster to substitute for the verbal component: maybe each different type of spell requires a different type of sound. An abjuration spell might be the sound of sandpaper, an enchantment spell might be the sound of a bell. Let the DM and the player playing the deaf & mute PC work it out. Or be a bard with an instrument.
As to the "how does this character learn to cast spells in the first place if s/he is deaf?" part, keep in mind that just b/c someone is deaf does not mean that the person cannot feel vibrations. What is sound? A vibration in the air. Just stand next a speaker at a night club and you get confirmation of that. Those of us who can hear do so through a combination of ear drum stimulation, fluids in the inner ear, nerve conduction to the brain, and interpretation of those signals in the brain. A deaf person can still sense vibrations. Therefore, what is required for a deaf person to learn the sounds generally associated with casting a spell is just a different method of channeling the vibration such that it is amplified enough for the deaf person to "touch" the verbal component enough to learn it.
You can also have the spell caster wear some kind of homebrew magic gloves, which can convert sign language to sound, kind of like the subtitles on tv, but sign language and reverse.
Why not just say that the character has learned to magically create the sound through their sign language. As in, making the sign for a word (or tone or sound or whatever) actually makes the sound emanate from the caster.
This means a silence spell still works to prevent casting, the caster doesn't become a stealth caster, and while they could still cast spells with verbal components while gagged they would now be unable to cast spells with verbal components without the use of both hands, so that kind of balances out.
Yeah but I believe this was quickly established, and deaf became shorthand for deaf-mute. Probably not a good idea to use one word to mean another, but I believe this was the subject discussed.
it goes beyond 'restrained or silenced' - and the verbal component is more than just flavour. It's important to remember how certain spells are balanced. Along with the effects of a spell, how they're cast — and other factors, such as how long they take to cast — are factored into how powerful they are, and what level you can gain them.
The three casting mechanicisms - verbal, somatic, and material, are used to help balance spells, and either limit or enhance their usefullness, such as verbal only spells being able to be cast when restrained etc.
While I'd love to see a way of accomodating a spellcaster that couldn't speak, removing one of these balancing factors, or tying two of these factors together (such as using somatic component to create verbal component) could skew some spells to become more and less powerful than they should be. Each component needs to be distinct and seperate for proper balance.
Perhaps you could homebrew a metamagic feat similar to Silent Spell from previous editions of DnD, that allow you to cast spells silently, by expending higher level slots. Be wary that this steps on the Sorcerer's toes.
Why not just say that the character has learned to magically create the sound through their sign language. As in, making the sign for a word (or tone or sound or whatever) actually makes the sound emanate from the caster.
This means a silence spell still works to prevent casting, the caster doesn't become a stealth caster, and while they could still cast spells with verbal components while gagged they would now be unable to cast spells with verbal components without the use of both hands, so that kind of balances out.
This is the best answer.
I'd say its very much a gm judgement question. If it was obvious the player was trying to meta their way into a stealth caster, and dodge components, I'd disallow it.
If the player had a genuine reason for wanting to do it, like being deaf themselves, or someone close to them and wanting it to be part of the character, I'd allow it, but with these restrictions.
Or just have them play a Sorcerer and use Subtle spell a lot
I have a suggestion to the topic that I borrowed from some franchise, basically all franchises have forms of non-verbal magic:
Mental magic:
Why don't you have mental shouts (forming your brain waves into a specific pattern) that triggers the magic. This way, if an experience Wizard who knows about this technique can use this if they are bound and gagged. And doing it this way without verbal words to anchor the thought causes the magic to go awry, doing something else (since thoughts in a mind are probably fleeting).
Bringing the concept of mute (I think deaf can verbally shout something equivalent, just concentrating on vibrations of the throat, not necessarily coherent language), mutes are proficient in "mental shouts", since they have a lot of practice thinking.
Heavy somatic magic:
If the wizard doesn't know about "mental shouts", they could also do more complex, and potentially longer somatic gestures in replacement of verbal situations. Maybe a wizard has muscle memory intact enough to do a spell... maybe sloppily so it takes him a bit longer to complete it.
Heavy verbal magic:
If the wizard's body is paralyzed, the wizard can chant a longer form of the spell, relying on just chants to supplement the somatic portion obviously increases the length to complete the spell.
Those of you talking about verbal spellcasting: you do realize that some deaf people speak, right? You designed your character, it's up to you to decide whether or not they allow themselves to speak. When making a deaf character, just think of Jessica Kellgren-Fozard. I thought of her skill and determination when I designed my deaf wizard. If you don't know who she is, she is a deaf woman that is able to speak clearly and articulated through lots of practice. She reads lips very well, too.
There's no homebrew mumbo jumbo or extra magical attributes needed for an ability a creature is already capable of.
If you choose to give them the inability to speak, roleplaying is still pretty easy (of course there will always be that perception check that requires hearing, and those creatures that simply cannot be lip-read, but challenges are what makes the game fun!) A fellow player could intertwine a backstory with yours/somehow know sign language via their own backstory (like having a family member or friend that uses sign language) and become a sign language interpreter. For example, my current ranger character is an interpreter for his mute druid mentor, who is a fellow PC in a current campaign of mine. It's not very hard to be an interpreter, just an extra responsibility and a bit of a fun challenge when there's potential conversation in battle.
As for using verbal spells without being able to speak, I don't know about that. I suppose familiars are very handy. Through a familiar, you could listen to yourself chant some spells and thus learn how to use verbal spells through experimentation?? Maybe your character has trouble speaking, but since verbal spells are typically chants or just a few words, through enough practice in the PC's backstory and throughout the campaign, the character could be able to speak them (most likely if they have only been deaf for part of their life.) Last resort is to just play a different class, don't make your character deaf, or CHANGE THE RULES. If you have a DM/are a DM that's so strict on their own rules to the point where you can't make creative, unique characters that you want to play, simply don't play in their campaign. Had a nightmare DM once who told me my queer character was going to be targeted more because she was queer. Same DM told me not to play a man because I wasn't a man. Don't play with people with insane rules like that.
PLUS, D&D isn't just a game, it's about friendship and getting along, and practicing a little bit of escapism with your friends. If your DM won't give you some kind of leeway when it comes to a deaf and/or mute spellcaster, they probably won't be the best DM for you. Loosely following the rules is way more fun.
This is what I brought to the table. Take it as you will.
PS: back in 2020 I played a deaf wizard. one of the best roles I've ever tried; if you're interested in lots of interesting roleplay opportunity, definitely try playing a character who can't hear/can't talk.
Pathfinder has a potential restriction to casting spells with a verbal component while deafened.
But 5e does not.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I have actually played a deaf caster in one of my campaigns. It was a homebrew 5e conversion of Pathfinder's Oracle class, which has the PC cursed in some way. I had an ability that let me cast spells silently (like the sorcerer's subtle spell). IMO, the disadvantages of being deaf all the time balance out being able to silent spellcast but that's obviously up to a DM's discretion.
I'm always confused by the answers to these posts, because people are acting like verbal components are such a big deal. I have to ask: how often does the fact that a spell has a verbal component becomes relevant in your campaign ?
If you're afraid about the player circumventing silence spells and the like, you just have to rule that some sound is required on top of signing, such as clapping your hands to "throw" the spells, or something of the like.
From a balance perspective, the player choosing to be deaf is putting themselves at a big disadvantage, that's an automatic fail on perception check based on hearing, an inability to communicate with his partners during combat, and some creatures are just going to be impossible to lip-read. Giving them the ability to replace verbal components shouldn't break anything.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
So it was. That helps because I was thinking a bard could use music to replace verbal components. Sorcerers can use subtle spell metamagic to not need verbal components (a bit limited, but a start). A lenient DM might allow minor illusion or thaumaturgy to make the verbal components.
Beyond than you can homebrew new spells that don't have verbal components.
In my experience, only every campaign that has a PC with spells. Verbal components give away your location when hidden and advertise that you are casting a spell in social situations.
Oh hold on, 3rd level Warlock can pick Pact of the Chain. Unlimited casting of Find Familiar granted to you by a tricksy Patron that promised to give you your hearing and now you're stuck with an imp constantly jabbering at you psychically.
The backstory practically writes itself.
But replacing verbal by somatic mean that in social situation, you would still not be able to cast stealthily. So that doesn't have to be an issue.
As for stealth, again, you could decide that the somatic components require noise, or even that the spell itself is loud. Removing verbal components doesn't have to mean removing noise.
My point was mostly that Verbal components tend to be the easiest to provide. Somatic tend to be more obvious than Verbal, and Material are both obvious and easier to take away from a caster.
Anyway, I would not refuse someone wanting to play a deaf spellcaster the opportunity, and if it gives a slight buff somewhere but a flaw somewhere else, I'd be okay with that. And if it turns out to not be as balanced as we thought, we could just make another balance pass at it as things come up. I doubt someone wanting to play a deaf character would be doing it for the free buff anyway.
[EDIT] That being said, I just realised that we're in the Rules and Mechanics forum, so we should probably be talking more RAW. By RAW, since Verbal components can be about "the chanting of mystic words", you could just say that a deaf Character would still be able to provide such components, going by the vibrations he feels as he hums, for instance.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
The two negative effects of a Verbal component are its ruining of a stealth situation and it being cancellable by silencing the caster. Any homebrewed solution which retains those two concepts should be absolutely fine.
The simplest I could suggest is a minor change. The first thing the spellcaster learns/receives from their god/patron/etc. is an ability called Summoned Voice: When casting a spell, a mote of conjuration magic appears in the caster's mouth and emits the resonant tones required for a Verbal component. This voice could even handle the vocal part of a Suggestion spell.
The voice is loud enough to ruin stealth, can be blocked by gagging or Silence, and sounds otherworldly in that it is clearly not the character's actual voice.
i'd allow it along the lines above that you'd still need some kind of audio component, whether some kind of maraca, belly-dancer symbols strapped to their fingers, or whatever. I think most of the options would require a second free hand....one for the audio component and one for the somatic/component. not sure if using a familiar really works for me as you have to summon the familiar in the first place...if they find a way to do that, they don't need the familiar.
I like the maraca idea as you can really easily adjust the tempo, rhythm, and volume.
people talk about some other penalty, but i think with time they'd over-come it (think deaf singers, musicians, or any lip-reader) and wouldn't bother with it as they could just build the learning curve into their background.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
A rather comprehensive list of free WotC D&D resources
Deck of Decks
You already have your answer. You're making the game less fun for someone at the table by making them feel excluded. Change it. Mechanics/Canon never trumps friendship and being decent human beings.
Simple fix for this is just to change all Verbal components to Somatic. Now they just have to do hand symbols to cast spells. Maybe they're a master in that art or learned from a master of it. It's a Feat now just like ritual casting. It's not a big deal.
Edit: Here's a homebrew Feat that covers this exact issue.
As long as the caster isnt mute, they can still learn it, but make it harder to cast, such as 2 slots for that spell.
Zargorth Dakzonar, High Elf Sorceror
Agreeing with ClementP. D&D should be about getting people together to have fun, tell creative stories and solve problems in a fictional universe. If it doesn't unbalance the game, house rule a way to allow a deaf and mute PC to cast spells. Perhaps house rule that some other sound would have to be produced by the caster to substitute for the verbal component: maybe each different type of spell requires a different type of sound. An abjuration spell might be the sound of sandpaper, an enchantment spell might be the sound of a bell. Let the DM and the player playing the deaf & mute PC work it out. Or be a bard with an instrument.
As to the "how does this character learn to cast spells in the first place if s/he is deaf?" part, keep in mind that just b/c someone is deaf does not mean that the person cannot feel vibrations. What is sound? A vibration in the air. Just stand next a speaker at a night club and you get confirmation of that. Those of us who can hear do so through a combination of ear drum stimulation, fluids in the inner ear, nerve conduction to the brain, and interpretation of those signals in the brain. A deaf person can still sense vibrations. Therefore, what is required for a deaf person to learn the sounds generally associated with casting a spell is just a different method of channeling the vibration such that it is amplified enough for the deaf person to "touch" the verbal component enough to learn it.
You can also have the spell caster wear some kind of homebrew magic gloves, which can convert sign language to sound, kind of like the subtitles on tv, but sign language and reverse.
Zargorth Dakzonar, High Elf Sorceror
Why not just say that the character has learned to magically create the sound through their sign language. As in, making the sign for a word (or tone or sound or whatever) actually makes the sound emanate from the caster.
This means a silence spell still works to prevent casting, the caster doesn't become a stealth caster, and while they could still cast spells with verbal components while gagged they would now be unable to cast spells with verbal components without the use of both hands, so that kind of balances out.
Potentially relevant Sage Advice: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/14/would-it-stand-to-reason-that-deafness-could-impair-spellcasting/
Yeah but I believe this was quickly established, and deaf became shorthand for deaf-mute. Probably not a good idea to use one word to mean another, but I believe this was the subject discussed.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
it goes beyond 'restrained or silenced' - and the verbal component is more than just flavour. It's important to remember how certain spells are balanced. Along with the effects of a spell, how they're cast — and other factors, such as how long they take to cast — are factored into how powerful they are, and what level you can gain them.
The three casting mechanicisms - verbal, somatic, and material, are used to help balance spells, and either limit or enhance their usefullness, such as verbal only spells being able to be cast when restrained etc.
While I'd love to see a way of accomodating a spellcaster that couldn't speak, removing one of these balancing factors, or tying two of these factors together (such as using somatic component to create verbal component) could skew some spells to become more and less powerful than they should be. Each component needs to be distinct and seperate for proper balance.
Perhaps you could homebrew a metamagic feat similar to Silent Spell from previous editions of DnD, that allow you to cast spells silently, by expending higher level slots. Be wary that this steps on the Sorcerer's toes.
This is the best answer.
I'd say its very much a gm judgement question. If it was obvious the player was trying to meta their way into a stealth caster, and dodge components, I'd disallow it.
If the player had a genuine reason for wanting to do it, like being deaf themselves, or someone close to them and wanting it to be part of the character, I'd allow it, but with these restrictions.
Or just have them play a Sorcerer and use Subtle spell a lot
EDIT: Sorry, didn't know how to quote right
I have a suggestion to the topic that I borrowed from some franchise, basically all franchises have forms of non-verbal magic:
Mental magic:
Why don't you have mental shouts (forming your brain waves into a specific pattern) that triggers the magic. This way, if an experience Wizard who knows about this technique can use this if they are bound and gagged. And doing it this way without verbal words to anchor the thought causes the magic to go awry, doing something else (since thoughts in a mind are probably fleeting).
Bringing the concept of mute (I think deaf can verbally shout something equivalent, just concentrating on vibrations of the throat, not necessarily coherent language), mutes are proficient in "mental shouts", since they have a lot of practice thinking.
Heavy somatic magic:
If the wizard doesn't know about "mental shouts", they could also do more complex, and potentially longer somatic gestures in replacement of verbal situations. Maybe a wizard has muscle memory intact enough to do a spell... maybe sloppily so it takes him a bit longer to complete it.
Heavy verbal magic:
If the wizard's body is paralyzed, the wizard can chant a longer form of the spell, relying on just chants to supplement the somatic portion obviously increases the length to complete the spell.
I leave it to you to balance this.
I am new.
Those of you talking about verbal spellcasting: you do realize that some deaf people speak, right? You designed your character, it's up to you to decide whether or not they allow themselves to speak. When making a deaf character, just think of Jessica Kellgren-Fozard. I thought of her skill and determination when I designed my deaf wizard. If you don't know who she is, she is a deaf woman that is able to speak clearly and articulated through lots of practice. She reads lips very well, too.
There's no homebrew mumbo jumbo or extra magical attributes needed for an ability a creature is already capable of.
If you choose to give them the inability to speak, roleplaying is still pretty easy (of course there will always be that perception check that requires hearing, and those creatures that simply cannot be lip-read, but challenges are what makes the game fun!) A fellow player could intertwine a backstory with yours/somehow know sign language via their own backstory (like having a family member or friend that uses sign language) and become a sign language interpreter. For example, my current ranger character is an interpreter for his mute druid mentor, who is a fellow PC in a current campaign of mine. It's not very hard to be an interpreter, just an extra responsibility and a bit of a fun challenge when there's potential conversation in battle.
As for using verbal spells without being able to speak, I don't know about that. I suppose familiars are very handy. Through a familiar, you could listen to yourself chant some spells and thus learn how to use verbal spells through experimentation?? Maybe your character has trouble speaking, but since verbal spells are typically chants or just a few words, through enough practice in the PC's backstory and throughout the campaign, the character could be able to speak them (most likely if they have only been deaf for part of their life.) Last resort is to just play a different class, don't make your character deaf, or CHANGE THE RULES. If you have a DM/are a DM that's so strict on their own rules to the point where you can't make creative, unique characters that you want to play, simply don't play in their campaign. Had a nightmare DM once who told me my queer character was going to be targeted more because she was queer. Same DM told me not to play a man because I wasn't a man. Don't play with people with insane rules like that.
PLUS, D&D isn't just a game, it's about friendship and getting along, and practicing a little bit of escapism with your friends. If your DM won't give you some kind of leeway when it comes to a deaf and/or mute spellcaster, they probably won't be the best DM for you. Loosely following the rules is way more fun.
This is what I brought to the table. Take it as you will.
PS: back in 2020 I played a deaf wizard. one of the best roles I've ever tried; if you're interested in lots of interesting roleplay opportunity, definitely try playing a character who can't hear/can't talk.