So what are the rules around non standard spell casting? Like if i lack a hand can i still cast spells with somatic requirements? Can a dog that speaks common cast spells that only require verbal components?
It says you must have "one" hand free. If you are lacking just one, you are fine. If you lack both, no Somatic spells for you. If your Dog speaks Common, they can certainly cast Verbal only ones. I don't see why they couldn't cast Somatic ones (pawing can be a vigorous gesture so far as I am concerned) Might have some trouble with Material components, but you can always stand on one, or have it strapped to you, and that ought to work fine.
If you were a dog that speaks common you can cast spells that have verbal components only. Lacking opposable thumbs, you cannot make the appropriate somatic gestures or manipulate an arcane focus/component's pouch. Somatic gestures are complex and require free hands; if they just required a free foot, you wouldn't need a hand for them, or maybe could do them with your head. But you can't.
Do you realise that this is the 9th thread you have made in just 3 days about transforming between a dog and a humanoid using an Amulet of True Polymorph? I really hope that you find a campaign to play in soon as you're clearly extremely invested into this idea.
Even if the whole amulet of true polymorph was allowed, I cannot imagine any DM allowing you to cast spells as a dog.
If you were a dog that speaks common you can cast spells that have verbal components only. Lacking opposable thumbs, you cannot make the appropriate somatic gestures or manipulate an arcane focus/component's pouch. Somatic gestures are complex and require free hands; if they just required a free foot, you wouldn't need a hand for them, or maybe could do them with your head. But you can't.
Do you realise that this is the 9th thread you have made in just 3 days about transforming between a dog and a humanoid using an Amulet of True Polymorph? I really hope that you find a campaign to play in soon as you're clearly extremely invested into this idea.
Even if the whole amulet of true polymorph was allowed, I cannot imagine any DM allowing you to cast spells as a dog.
Why Common specifically? You need to be able to speak but there is no requirement of being able to speak any specific language. And DM's allowing awakened animals some or even full casting ability is not a new thing. It is not a common thing but not new. There are many examples in myth and literature as inspiration.
Unusual does not always equal OP.
True. And I'm not arguing, just pointing out that RAW says "hand".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
this was more a general question (with a bias towards the dog, because i've been using it as an example a lot). Had debating using something like a Parrot as the example, but then you get into this weird head space of "is it just the words? is it the words said with a specific intention? Could one of those repeater stones (you say something into it, and it will repeat the phrase till turned off) cast verbal component spells? How smart does a creature/thing have to be to actually cast a spell?"
But you do make a good point though. I've basically been using the forums as a sounding board and i should really calm it WAY down.
I suppose they do say "hand" and that implies an opposable thumb. Try an ape of some kind, or maybe a raccoon. Almost everyone agrees that apes have opposable thumbs, though they are awkward, and I've yet do see a description of a raccoon that didn't say something along the lines of "They have clever little hands..."
this was more a general question (with a bias towards the dog, because i've been using it as an example a lot). Had debating using something like a Parrot as the example, but then you get into this weird head space of "is it just the words? is it the words said with a specific intention? Could one of those repeater stones (you say something into it, and it will repeat the phrase till turned off) cast verbal component spells? How smart does a creature/thing have to be to actually cast a spell?"
But you do make a good point though. I've basically been using the forums as a sounding board and i should really calm it WAY down.
It is not just the words, otherwise spellcaster levels and spell slots would be meaningless. It does require the ability and intent to cast spells along with the words/sounds.
It doesn't necessarily require intelligence to cast spells RAW, though my benchmark for (non-innate) spellcasting would be around 6 INT. I think that is around the "using tools" level of intelligence.
this was more a general question (with a bias towards the dog, because i've been using it as an example a lot). Had debating using something like a Parrot as the example, but then you get into this weird head space of "is it just the words? is it the words said with a specific intention? Could one of those repeater stones (you say something into it, and it will repeat the phrase till turned off) cast verbal component spells? How smart does a creature/thing have to be to actually cast a spell?"
But you do make a good point though. I've basically been using the forums as a sounding board and i should really calm it WAY down.
It is not just the words, otherwise spellcaster levels and spell slots would be meaningless. It does require the ability and intent to cast spells along with the words/sounds.
It doesn't necessarily require intelligence to cast spells RAW, though my benchmark for (non-innate) spellcasting would be around 6 INT. I think that is around the "using tools" level of intelligence.
There is no restriction on Kenku casting when the Kenku has a class that can cast.
Correct. Kenku spellcasters are not parrots simply repeating words.
Verbal: It's about emitting the right sounds - pitch and resonance explicitly matter, the language does not. There's no rule requiring the caster speak a *language*, and "speak" is overloaded here - if you had a way to emit the right sounds without using your vocal chords, it would work.
Somatic: Like grappling, explicitly requires a "hand", which is sus - for example, a gynosphinx explicitly has no hands, and is clearly depicted as having the paws it's described as having (so it has no analogue to opposable thumbs - no tentacles, no claws, not even monkey-grade non-opposable paws). Of course, this simply means RAW gynosphinxes can't cast any of their S spells, which iirc is most or all of them, but it's not alone. Ki-rin have the same issue but worse - many explicitly don't even have *toes*, just hooves. I think it's reasonable to conclude that humanoids, giants, and other bipeds, like undead that used to be those two types, and monstrosities and fey which are bipedal, are intended to need a free manipulatory limb, but a creature that somehow has spellcasting without the limbs to begin with - like the monstrosity and the celestial I just listed - probably needs something else free. Perhaps its mouth does double duty? This whole mess screams "DM fiat".
Not that I disagree with you, but in this forum, the word "hand" means just that, you have to have an opposable thumb. As a general rule, you have to a free hand. Monsters are specific exceptions. As far as it goes, the word "Monster" is either confined to only those things in the Monster Manual, the DMG and nowhere else unless the DM says so, or "monster" is a general term for anything the players are likely to have conflict with.
I think it's a general term, so a sentient animal qualifies as a monster. That's why I think a dog with Human level intelligence (remember, that can be as low as 3) waving it's paw around would work for the Somatic component. As to the Verbal, the OP said the animal in question could speak, so I didn't worry about them being able to do the Verbal, but technically, barking, growling, and howling are forms of communication. They are a language of a sort, if a limited one, and the rules don't state what language the Verbal component has to be, so any animal with an int of 3 or better that has anything remotely like a hand could cast spells, if you found some way to teach them to do it. That would be pretty tough, but possible with magic. So an ordinary dog subjected to the Awaken spell could be a Wizard. But a Snake couldn't be, no matter how intelligent. Those don't have hands. Neither do Dolphins, and those may be smarter than Humans.
this was more a general question (with a bias towards the dog, because i've been using it as an example a lot). Had debating using something like a Parrot as the example, but then you get into this weird head space of "is it just the words? is it the words said with a specific intention? Could one of those repeater stones (you say something into it, and it will repeat the phrase till turned off) cast verbal component spells? How smart does a creature/thing have to be to actually cast a spell?"
But you do make a good point though. I've basically been using the forums as a sounding board and i should really calm it WAY down.
It is not just the words, otherwise spellcaster levels and spell slots would be meaningless. It does require the ability and intent to cast spells along with the words/sounds.
It doesn't necessarily require intelligence to cast spells RAW, though my benchmark for (non-innate) spellcasting would be around 6 INT. I think that is around the "using tools" level of intelligence.
There is no restriction on Kenku casting when the Kenku has a class that can cast.
Correct. Kenku spellcasters are not parrots simply repeating words.
But they are. Not literal parrots, but Kenku can only speak by way of their mimicry ability. This includes Kenku spellcasters, even the non-book casters.
I know. But that wasn't the question. The question was if it was just repeating the words that casts spells. And I answered it is not, you need to also be a spellcaster and intend to cast the spell.
Then you said a kenku spellcaster can cast spells. I agreed because they are not classless birds simply repeating words.
Now we are here, with you saying they are birds that have to speak by repeating words. Which for the second time, is not the point of what I said, nor relevant to the question I was answering.
If you're a talking dog you're already in homebrew territory, might as well extend the houserules a bit further to kill the stifling component restrictions.
Talking dogs are not actually homebrew. At least not fully, it's just a dog stat block (mastiff was the easiest one i could find) modified via the Awaken spell (so it's INT is now 10 and it knows and can speak 1 language). Then you get into the questions about how possible is it that an awakened creature would know/learn/ be gifted magic. I figure the most likely classes that would be open would be druid, cleric, and warlock. Druid for the connection to nature. Cleric, maybe your talking pup (with a humanoid level of intelligence) caught the eye of some deity. And warlock assuming the dog was gifted it's increased mind power by an Archfey.
Probably not relevant, but as a Druid with Wild Shape a character retains their intelligence in wolf form for instance but specifically cannot cast spells in that form. Now this only applies to Wild Shape as a druid, but is similar - sort of to the situation you are describing. As a DM I may utilize this rule in making a determination about your situation. One opinion.
You can’t cast spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn’t break your concentration on a spell you’ve already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as call lightning, that you’ve already cast.
That actually makes a lot of sense. No spells until you are able to cast them while in wildshape, and that happens at 18th level for Druids, so no matter how you get turned into an animal, no spells before level 18 while in animal form.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
<Insert clever signature here>
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So what are the rules around non standard spell casting? Like if i lack a hand can i still cast spells with somatic requirements? Can a dog that speaks common cast spells that only require verbal components?
It says you must have "one" hand free. If you are lacking just one, you are fine. If you lack both, no Somatic spells for you. If your Dog speaks Common, they can certainly cast Verbal only ones. I don't see why they couldn't cast Somatic ones (pawing can be a vigorous gesture so far as I am concerned) Might have some trouble with Material components, but you can always stand on one, or have it strapped to you, and that ought to work fine.
<Insert clever signature here>
If you were a dog that speaks common you can cast spells that have verbal components only. Lacking opposable thumbs, you cannot make the appropriate somatic gestures or manipulate an arcane focus/component's pouch. Somatic gestures are complex and require free hands; if they just required a free foot, you wouldn't need a hand for them, or maybe could do them with your head. But you can't.
Do you realise that this is the 9th thread you have made in just 3 days about transforming between a dog and a humanoid using an Amulet of True Polymorph? I really hope that you find a campaign to play in soon as you're clearly extremely invested into this idea.
Even if the whole amulet of true polymorph was allowed, I cannot imagine any DM allowing you to cast spells as a dog.
True. And I'm not arguing, just pointing out that RAW says "hand".
"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
this was more a general question (with a bias towards the dog, because i've been using it as an example a lot). Had debating using something like a Parrot as the example, but then you get into this weird head space of "is it just the words? is it the words said with a specific intention? Could one of those repeater stones (you say something into it, and it will repeat the phrase till turned off) cast verbal component spells? How smart does a creature/thing have to be to actually cast a spell?"
But you do make a good point though. I've basically been using the forums as a sounding board and i should really calm it WAY down.
I suppose they do say "hand" and that implies an opposable thumb. Try an ape of some kind, or maybe a raccoon. Almost everyone agrees that apes have opposable thumbs, though they are awkward, and I've yet do see a description of a raccoon that didn't say something along the lines of "They have clever little hands..."
<Insert clever signature here>
It is not just the words, otherwise spellcaster levels and spell slots would be meaningless. It does require the ability and intent to cast spells along with the words/sounds.
It doesn't necessarily require intelligence to cast spells RAW, though my benchmark for (non-innate) spellcasting would be around 6 INT. I think that is around the "using tools" level of intelligence.
Correct. Kenku spellcasters are not parrots simply repeating words.
Rules are here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#VerbalV
Verbal: It's about emitting the right sounds - pitch and resonance explicitly matter, the language does not. There's no rule requiring the caster speak a *language*, and "speak" is overloaded here - if you had a way to emit the right sounds without using your vocal chords, it would work.
Somatic: Like grappling, explicitly requires a "hand", which is sus - for example, a gynosphinx explicitly has no hands, and is clearly depicted as having the paws it's described as having (so it has no analogue to opposable thumbs - no tentacles, no claws, not even monkey-grade non-opposable paws). Of course, this simply means RAW gynosphinxes can't cast any of their S spells, which iirc is most or all of them, but it's not alone. Ki-rin have the same issue but worse - many explicitly don't even have *toes*, just hooves. I think it's reasonable to conclude that humanoids, giants, and other bipeds, like undead that used to be those two types, and monstrosities and fey which are bipedal, are intended to need a free manipulatory limb, but a creature that somehow has spellcasting without the limbs to begin with - like the monstrosity and the celestial I just listed - probably needs something else free. Perhaps its mouth does double duty? This whole mess screams "DM fiat".
Not that I disagree with you, but in this forum, the word "hand" means just that, you have to have an opposable thumb. As a general rule, you have to a free hand. Monsters are specific exceptions. As far as it goes, the word "Monster" is either confined to only those things in the Monster Manual, the DMG and nowhere else unless the DM says so, or "monster" is a general term for anything the players are likely to have conflict with.
I think it's a general term, so a sentient animal qualifies as a monster. That's why I think a dog with Human level intelligence (remember, that can be as low as 3) waving it's paw around would work for the Somatic component. As to the Verbal, the OP said the animal in question could speak, so I didn't worry about them being able to do the Verbal, but technically, barking, growling, and howling are forms of communication. They are a language of a sort, if a limited one, and the rules don't state what language the Verbal component has to be, so any animal with an int of 3 or better that has anything remotely like a hand could cast spells, if you found some way to teach them to do it. That would be pretty tough, but possible with magic. So an ordinary dog subjected to the Awaken spell could be a Wizard. But a Snake couldn't be, no matter how intelligent. Those don't have hands. Neither do Dolphins, and those may be smarter than Humans.
<Insert clever signature here>
I know. But that wasn't the question. The question was if it was just repeating the words that casts spells. And I answered it is not, you need to also be a spellcaster and intend to cast the spell.
Then you said a kenku spellcaster can cast spells. I agreed because they are not classless birds simply repeating words.
Now we are here, with you saying they are birds that have to speak by repeating words. Which for the second time, is not the point of what I said, nor relevant to the question I was answering.
If you're a talking dog you're already in homebrew territory, might as well extend the houserules a bit further to kill the stifling component restrictions.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Talking dogs are not actually homebrew. At least not fully, it's just a dog stat block (mastiff was the easiest one i could find) modified via the Awaken spell (so it's INT is now 10 and it knows and can speak 1 language). Then you get into the questions about how possible is it that an awakened creature would know/learn/ be gifted magic. I figure the most likely classes that would be open would be druid, cleric, and warlock. Druid for the connection to nature. Cleric, maybe your talking pup (with a humanoid level of intelligence) caught the eye of some deity. And warlock assuming the dog was gifted it's increased mind power by an Archfey.
Probably not relevant, but as a Druid with Wild Shape a character retains their intelligence in wolf form for instance but specifically cannot cast spells in that form. Now this only applies to Wild Shape as a druid, but is similar - sort of to the situation you are describing. As a DM I may utilize this rule in making a determination about your situation. One opinion.
That actually makes a lot of sense. No spells until you are able to cast them while in wildshape, and that happens at 18th level for Druids, so no matter how you get turned into an animal, no spells before level 18 while in animal form.
<Insert clever signature here>