My DM is letting me play as a wereraven from Curse of Strahd. Lycanthropes can’t cast in their animal forms because they can’t do the verbal or somatic components.
The question I haven’t been able to find an answer to is whether or not lycanthropes can concentrate on spells. For example, if I cast invisibility on myself and then turned into a raven, would I be able to keep concentrating on the spell?
I agree. Concentration works irrelevant of shape. Things that stop concentration tend to say it. Example from Barbarian Rage: "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."
My DM is letting me play as a wereraven from Curse of Strahd. Lycanthropes can’t cast in their animal forms because they can’t do the verbal or somatic components.
The question I haven’t been able to find an answer to is whether or not lycanthropes can concentrate on spells. For example, if I cast invisibility on myself and then turned into a raven, would I be able to keep concentrating on the spell?
Ravens can perform the verbal component just fine, although your DM might want to ban you from casting anyway. Ravens can make any verbal sound a human can.
My DM is letting me play as a wereraven from Curse of Strahd. Lycanthropes can’t cast in their animal forms because they can’t do the verbal or somatic components.
The question I haven’t been able to find an answer to is whether or not lycanthropes can concentrate on spells. For example, if I cast invisibility on myself and then turned into a raven, would I be able to keep concentrating on the spell?
Ravens can perform the verbal component just fine, although your DM might want to ban you from casting anyway. Ravens can make any verbal sound a human can.
That may be true of ravens, but wereravens explicitly cannot speak in raven form.
I can't follow that link, but I'll take your word for it. Wereravens in raven form being less capable than an actual raven isn't any weirder than how Frost Druids (the NPC) can speak in giant fox form.
That may be true of ravens, but wereravens explicitly cannot speak in raven form.
It would still have its mimicry trait, but can't speak conversationally. Normal ravens have the same trait and same limitation on speech.
I've often said this in regard to kenku that the ability to mimic voices completely defeats the "inability to talk." Like "I can't talk, but I can understand languages and mimic words I've heard perfectly," is 1-to-1 the same as able to talk with the added super power of mimicry.
That may be true of ravens, but wereravens explicitly cannot speak in raven form.
It would still have its mimicry trait, but can't speak conversationally. Normal ravens have the same trait and same limitation on speech.
I've often said this in regard to kenku that the ability to mimic voices completely defeats the "inability to talk." Like "I can't talk, but I can understand languages and mimic words I've heard perfectly," is 1-to-1 the same as able to talk with the added super power of mimicry.
Wereraven and raven Mimicry is different from Kenku Mimicry.
Wereravens can only mimic "sounds" that resemble voices, but not actual words. (i.e. "whispering").
Kenku Mimicry is heavily swayed by DM latitude. Being able to imitate spoken words doesn't mean it can form new spoken sentences. Realistically, it could be stuck with combining whole phrases and have to use them with the same inflections. ("I think I saw a bear in the woods!" + "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!" means "I see a wolf in the woods".[Whispered yelling]) It also doesn't inherently have the Keen Mind feat, which means it might not remember old and infrequently used phrases, so it would need to cycle through what it has heard relatively recently.
Potentially, it could sit down with a Audio Dictionary and just memorize individual words for later recall, but that's a pain and might not be enough for spellcasting. Some languages are tonal and depend on how the words are said, not just that all of the right characters are present.
Then again, "Verbal" doesn't necessarily need to mean "Conventional Language".
That may be true of ravens, but wereravens explicitly cannot speak in raven form.
It would still have its mimicry trait, but can't speak conversationally. Normal ravens have the same trait and same limitation on speech.
I've often said this in regard to kenku that the ability to mimic voices completely defeats the "inability to talk." Like "I can't talk, but I can understand languages and mimic words I've heard perfectly," is 1-to-1 the same as able to talk with the added super power of mimicry.
I don't disagree re: kenku, but ravens' mimicry trait is written in a way that precludes actual speech. They can't reproduce words, so no verbal components.
(Were)raven's mimicry doesn't say it can't mimic voices (and even implies that it can to an extent IMO).
Regardless, I didn't mean to imply that it could cast spells. I mostly only wanted to let quindraco know that wereravens in raven form had the same language and mimicry ability as ravens, not less.
Mimicry. The wereraven can mimic simple sounds it has heard, such as a person whispering, a baby crying, or an animal chattering. A creature that hears the sounds can tell they are imitations with a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Insight) check.
Are we looking at the same creature entry? It seems pretty pretty straightforward to me.
The reference to "simple sounds" in combination with the examples of "whispering" and "crying" strongly suggests to me that they are providing an upper limit on vocal realism. I understand this to mean that "simple sounds" can sound like a particular creature, but can not be intelligible.
Adding a qualifier onto "sounds" presumes a "standard" or "complex" sound, which speech would certainly be categorized as.
I agree with Memnosyne, the in-game wereraven can not talk.
Despite the fact that in the real birds, such as Raven talking are indistinguishable from a person. Honestly, some people (Fran Drescher) sound more fake than some birds.
Ok. Maybe I'm weird for thinking most words are pretty simple sounds. Or for thinking that mimicking a person whispering means mimicking what they whispered.
It's not a surprising belief, speaking comes naturally to us and even toddlers can do it. We're just prone to confirmation bias because we don't think about the other 99.99999% of organisms on the planet.
You should see the experiments in creating analog acoustic throats for mimicking human speech. It can be... unsettling.
Of course, in the real world, we also have birds that can perfectly replicate the sounds of camera shutters, chain saws, and pretty much damn near anything, so some of the D&D limitations aren't entirely warranted.
It's not a surprising belief, speaking comes naturally to us and even toddlers can do it. We're just prone to confirmation bias because we don't think about the other 99.99999% of organisms on the planet.
You should see the experiments in creating analog acoustic throats for mimicking human speech. It can be... unsettling.
Of course, in the real world, we also have birds that can perfectly replicate the sounds of camera shutters, chain saws, and pretty much damn near anything, so some of the D&D limitations aren't entirely warranted.
A small percentage of animals do try to mimic us (not just birds, but mammals like dogs to varying degrees of success) and actually sound like words. Of course we also have a word for noises that sound like language: auditory pareidolia. So it actually doesn't even have to be a perfect mimic to communicate a message. Like a whispered word for example.
I have seen the throat robot, and agree it is a little unsettling.
A small percentage of animals do try to mimic us (not just birds, but mammals like dogs to varying degrees of success) and actually sound like words. Of course we also have a word for noises that sound like language: auditory pareidolia. So it actually doesn't even have to be a perfect mimic to communicate a message. Like a whispered word for example.
"Auditory pareidolia" sounds about where I draw the line for mimicry. Like speaking without opening you lips, communication becomes context and observer dependent.
A Wereraven could 100% communicate fairly complex topics, and for the sake of gameplay, that can be "translated" to plain language. If I were to DM such a character, I would probably treat it the same way I would handle a deaf character teaching the party sign language. Set a difficulty DC based on the complexity of the message, and give Advantage/Disadvantage on an Insight check to correctly interpret based on the audience's familiarity with the "speaker". As long as the message is contextually appropriate, like giving directions via terrain specific landmarks, the party would basically auto succeed on communications checks, but if the wereraven needed to communicate something without precedent, such as a symbolic password in an unfamiliar language, or the precise details of a piece of artwork, they would have a very difficult time.
Also, as a matter of semantics, "communication" implies that a specific message was held by Entity A and accurately transferred to Entity B. A dog mimicking "I Love You" almost certainly has no comprehension of the meaning of the words, so while it was definitely communicating something, the illusory speech was not material to that message. The results could have been achieved just as easily with the normal range of dog sounds.
I suppose an analogy would be trying to send an e-mail with a broken keyboard. If you only have access to the keys "Shift" + "A", "G", "}", "6", it wouldn't be hard to establish a "simple language", but increasing complexity would be increasingly inefficient. (And would require teaching every new person who wishes to join the conversation.)
My DM is letting me play as a wereraven from Curse of Strahd. Lycanthropes can’t cast in their animal forms because they can’t do the verbal or somatic components.
The question I haven’t been able to find an answer to is whether or not lycanthropes can concentrate on spells. For example, if I cast invisibility on myself and then turned into a raven, would I be able to keep concentrating on the spell?
You can keep concentrating on spells while Wild shaped or polymorphed. Lycanthropes should be the same.
I agree. Concentration works irrelevant of shape. Things that stop concentration tend to say it. Example from Barbarian Rage: "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."
Ravens can perform the verbal component just fine, although your DM might want to ban you from casting anyway. Ravens can make any verbal sound a human can.
That may be true of ravens, but wereravens explicitly cannot speak in raven form.
I can't follow that link, but I'll take your word for it. Wereravens in raven form being less capable than an actual raven isn't any weirder than how Frost Druids (the NPC) can speak in giant fox form.
It would still have its mimicry trait, but can't speak conversationally. Normal ravens have the same trait and same limitation on speech.
I've often said this in regard to kenku that the ability to mimic voices completely defeats the "inability to talk." Like "I can't talk, but I can understand languages and mimic words I've heard perfectly," is 1-to-1 the same as able to talk with the added super power of mimicry.
Wereraven and raven Mimicry is different from Kenku Mimicry.
Wereravens can only mimic "sounds" that resemble voices, but not actual words. (i.e. "whispering").
Kenku Mimicry is heavily swayed by DM latitude. Being able to imitate spoken words doesn't mean it can form new spoken sentences. Realistically, it could be stuck with combining whole phrases and have to use them with the same inflections. ("I think I saw a bear in the woods!" + "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!" means "I see a wolf in the woods".[Whispered yelling]) It also doesn't inherently have the Keen Mind feat, which means it might not remember old and infrequently used phrases, so it would need to cycle through what it has heard relatively recently.
Potentially, it could sit down with a Audio Dictionary and just memorize individual words for later recall, but that's a pain and might not be enough for spellcasting. Some languages are tonal and depend on how the words are said, not just that all of the right characters are present.
Then again, "Verbal" doesn't necessarily need to mean "Conventional Language".
I don't disagree re: kenku, but ravens' mimicry trait is written in a way that precludes actual speech. They can't reproduce words, so no verbal components.
(Were)raven's mimicry doesn't say it can't mimic voices (and even implies that it can to an extent IMO).
Regardless, I didn't mean to imply that it could cast spells. I mostly only wanted to let quindraco know that wereravens in raven form had the same language and mimicry ability as ravens, not less.
Are we looking at the same creature entry? It seems pretty pretty straightforward to me.
The reference to "simple sounds" in combination with the examples of "whispering" and "crying" strongly suggests to me that they are providing an upper limit on vocal realism. I understand this to mean that "simple sounds" can sound like a particular creature, but can not be intelligible.
Adding a qualifier onto "sounds" presumes a "standard" or "complex" sound, which speech would certainly be categorized as.
I agree with Memnosyne, the in-game wereraven can not talk.
Despite the fact that in the real birds, such as Raven talking are indistinguishable from a person. Honestly, some people (Fran Drescher) sound more fake than some birds.
Ok. Maybe I'm weird for thinking most words are pretty simple sounds. Or for thinking that mimicking a person whispering means mimicking what they whispered.
It's not a surprising belief, speaking comes naturally to us and even toddlers can do it. We're just prone to confirmation bias because we don't think about the other 99.99999% of organisms on the planet.
You should see the experiments in creating analog acoustic throats for mimicking human speech. It can be... unsettling.
Of course, in the real world, we also have birds that can perfectly replicate the sounds of camera shutters, chain saws, and pretty much damn near anything, so some of the D&D limitations aren't entirely warranted.
A small percentage of animals do try to mimic us (not just birds, but mammals like dogs to varying degrees of success) and actually sound like words. Of course we also have a word for noises that sound like language: auditory pareidolia. So it actually doesn't even have to be a perfect mimic to communicate a message. Like a whispered word for example.
I have seen the throat robot, and agree it is a little unsettling.
"Auditory pareidolia" sounds about where I draw the line for mimicry. Like speaking without opening you lips, communication becomes context and observer dependent.
A Wereraven could 100% communicate fairly complex topics, and for the sake of gameplay, that can be "translated" to plain language. If I were to DM such a character, I would probably treat it the same way I would handle a deaf character teaching the party sign language. Set a difficulty DC based on the complexity of the message, and give Advantage/Disadvantage on an Insight check to correctly interpret based on the audience's familiarity with the "speaker". As long as the message is contextually appropriate, like giving directions via terrain specific landmarks, the party would basically auto succeed on communications checks, but if the wereraven needed to communicate something without precedent, such as a symbolic password in an unfamiliar language, or the precise details of a piece of artwork, they would have a very difficult time.
Also, as a matter of semantics, "communication" implies that a specific message was held by Entity A and accurately transferred to Entity B. A dog mimicking "I Love You" almost certainly has no comprehension of the meaning of the words, so while it was definitely communicating something, the illusory speech was not material to that message. The results could have been achieved just as easily with the normal range of dog sounds.
I suppose an analogy would be trying to send an e-mail with a broken keyboard. If you only have access to the keys "Shift" + "A", "G", "}", "6", it wouldn't be hard to establish a "simple language", but increasing complexity would be increasingly inefficient. (And would require teaching every new person who wishes to join the conversation.)