it feels like the text on verbal components implies some stuff that i am unshure of, just look at this
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.
the red text in the middle sort of implies that both a) that the caster of the spell need not necessarily speak the verbal component, as long as the right noises are made, and so thus an mute wizard and an wizard with no hands could team up to cast spells with both verbal and somatic components, or that an artificer could produce the right sounds from an device made with magical tinkering while doing the somatic component, and this sentence at the same time also implies that b) the verbal component need not be words at all, nor do they need to mean anything, the verbal component for fireball might for instance by complete accident sound quite similar for the goblin word for stone or the gnomish word for pig, or the verbal component for a spell might be several different words as long as they are delivered in similar manners, one might shout fork, another cork, and a third might shout pork as they cast ray of frost, and an kenku wizard might just straight up cast a spell by playing bits and pieces of random noises they have heard previously in rapid sucession to produce the series of sounds they need to create and spell and that c) presumably spells with only verbal components might incredibly rarely go of entirely randomly in places where there is a lot of ambient noise like taverns and deep within the woods where the frogs are creeking and the birds are chirping due to the perfect pitch and resonance being met for a spell to be cast, even if it is so incredebly rare it must have happened like at least once or twice in the history of the forgotten realms right?
of course, the sentence i marked is also simultaneously ignored and contradicted by the sentence proceeding it and the sentence after, who seem to imply that the verbal component MUST be words with meanings and that the verbal component MUST come from a person, an spellcaster and that this spellcaster MUST supply the somatic component themselves, so i really do not know what to belive here. Am i correct? am i missing something crucial? what is going on?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I read it as 'the words written down do nothing, but have potential. Saying them aloud does. Like a car that does not move until a person fires up the ignition and moves the pedals.
I feel it's more like they are saying it's another way of focusing the spells energy. It's the intent that is the most important and the the rest is necessary by way of rote(habit). For example, shouting a Kiai when making a martial arts combat strike to focus your power.
I do like that there's no restriction on how the sounds are made. That implies that a skeleton or zombie character (neither of whom can speak) could cast spells with verbal components by using Minor Illusion.
I feel it's more like they are saying it's another way of focusing the spells energy. It's the intent that is the most important and the the rest is necessary by way of rote(habit). For example, shouting a Kiai when making a martial arts combat strike to focus your power.
it sounds like that might more be the case of sorcerers, clerics, paladins and druids, perhaps certain specific kinds of bards or warlocks, not the case of stuff like artificers, wizards, lore bards, pact of the tombe warlocks who are much more scientific about their spells rather than using force of will to force the spells into existence
also, assuming the sound vibrations are indeed the only necessary thing, then i propose a new type of mage duel: duett. Teams of two are pitted against each other, one is team member has their hands tied behind their back so they cannot use somatic components and the other is prevented from speaking so they cannot do verbal components, one uses the spells with only verbal components, the other uses spells with only somatic components and when they want to cast a spell that has both they would have to both work together to do so, furthermore the teams are connected to each other by an Telepathic Bond spell so that they can communicate without the opponent eavesdropping, and prior to the restraints being put into place each member of the pair is allowed to cast one buff spell on their partner, like warding bond, dragon's breath, bless, invisibillity
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
You could also go with another very simple answer. This line, "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" wasn't very well thought out.
For Verbal components: Is there a requirement for how long you must speak? Could you use the Artificer's Magical Tinkering to make the stone and store the words in the 6 second time limit?
Just want to point out that the way the Artificer class Spellcasting feature is worded, the Artificer themselves isn't actually interacting with the Weave to cast the spell. Rather, they are inventing devices that are capable of interacting with the Weave, and use their Tinker's Tools to activate timing devices or whatever.
In short, an Artificer doesn't cast Fireball, they are activating the timer on the fire grenade they built this morning, which happens to have the same effect as the Fireball spell when it detonates. The Artificer doesn't cast Ray of Frost, they pull out a freeze ray and fire it.
This red text is to me the most important, specifically the pitch and resonance. To me this says that anyone casting Fireball will sound the same. This could be comical because say Fireball requires a high pitch and you're a Goblin with a deep raspy voice. If you want to cast Fireball you need to do your best Alvin and the Chipmunks impression.
This red text is to me the most important, specifically the pitch and resonance. To me this says that anyone casting Fireball will sound the same. This could be comical because say Fireball requires a high pitch and you're a Goblin with a deep raspy voice. If you want to cast Fireball you need to do your best Alvin and the Chipmunks impression.
I wouldn't go that far. Not every cast of a spell needs to sound the same, but within your natural vocal range you need to resonate, pitch, emphasize specific syllables. I think, depending on the source of the formula, there might be differences. This could actually be a fun RP element, that you can determine with am arcana check, where that wizard got his training from.
IMO, your concept is already considered in the rules - its a bard. Bards represent a different method of creating magic (which then has a slightly different repertoire of spells). For wizards, of course the words aren't the source of the power, but they're the tool that brings the power out. Wizards use one tool (words), bards use another (instruments that make your noise - as well as voice which also makes noise vs. particular words).
I do not agree with the 'it must have happened' as that means a talking doll ...or anything else that recreates a noise...could be used to cast a spell. The intent (the action taken) has to be there as well...something needs to use the tool as a tool in order to bring out the magic.
Sure a frog can cast a spell, but it'd be a frog-class spell (vs wizard). Many creatures that can't speak have a limited number of spells, while not written any many of the descriptions, you could say they're stomping their feet or rubbing their legs together to cast the spell.
If you want a character to create spells stomping their feet or slapping frogs together, sure...but it'd be another class, not wizard.
IMO, your concept is already considered in the rules - its a bard. Bards represent a different method of creating magic (which then has a slightly different repertoire of spells). For wizards, of course the words aren't the source of the power, but they're the tool that brings the power out. Wizards use one tool (words), bards use another (instruments that make your noise - as well as voice which also makes noise vs. particular words).
I do not agree with the 'it must have happened' as that means a talking doll ...or anything else that recreates a noise...could be used to cast a spell. The intent (the action taken) has to be there as well...something needs to use the tool as a tool in order to bring out the magic.
Sure a frog can cast a spell, but it'd be a frog-class spell (vs wizard). Many creatures that can't speak have a limited number of spells, while not written any many of the descriptions, you could say they're stomping their feet or rubbing their legs together to cast the spell.
If you want a character to create spells stomping their feet or slapping frogs together, sure...but it'd be another class, not wizard.
again all imo.
or a parot, repeating its master
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
IMO, your concept is already considered in the rules - its a bard. Bards represent a different method of creating magic (which then has a slightly different repertoire of spells). For wizards, of course the words aren't the source of the power, but they're the tool that brings the power out. Wizards use one tool (words), bards use another (instruments that make your noise - as well as voice which also makes noise vs. particular words).
I'd argue that the opposite is the case, that wizards derive their power the Most from the exact words and phrases spoken wheras the Bard relies the Most on intent, look at the following bits of text from their respective spellcasting features:
"Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization"
"Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your bard spells. Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration"
Wizards rely on an neigh scientific understanding of the weave, where a certain input Always results in a certain output, its very dogmatic. Bards and sorcerers on the other hand have a less organised manner of casting spells, they essentially Will their spell effects to existance, each casting is entirely unique
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I would like to introduce my friend Groot to this argument. Does it make logical sense that everything he says is "I Am Groot" but that others can hear different things he is saying? No... but it sure is fun to watch. As for Roleplay, that would be a fun thing to do, that every time a spell is cast the same words are used "Magic Magic Magic" or whatever and the results are always different. To be fair, with spells there is a lot of leeway anyway. The whole scribing a spell to a spellbook is fraught with "You interpret the spell so it makes sense to you in your own writing" and it costs you so many hours and so much gold and so much practice paper. It doesn't mean you write out "Ip so facto lorum abra cadabra infinitum" for every fireball spell but it is different words for Feather Fall or Identify. It's one of the beautiful things of 5E IMHO... but yeah, now I need to come up with a wizard that always says "Magic Magic Magic" when casting a spell... be right back.... or possibly one that is so conceited that he says his full name every time he casts a spell... hmmmm....
I think it’s an interesting take on verbal components but I don’t thing it would naturally occur. There is a reason a class “learns” a spell wether it’s innately or written in a book or given by a deity which then has to be prepared. The words or sounds only “set the threads of magic in motion” it is the class ability that completes it. Otherwise a kenku fighter could perfectly mimic the wizard and start casting verbal only spells. But they can’t.
but as RP it would be fun to flavor it in different ways.
Now the artificer can create an object that plays a 10 second message, could you record the spell being cast and use it later if you are somehow silenced?
Now the artificer can create an object that plays a 10 second message, could you record the spell being cast and use it later if you are somehow silenced?
Interesting idea, but I wouldn't think so. But it might be neat, with DM permission, to play a mute artificer that uses different devices for his verbal components. So you want to cast firebolt, you pull out one of your devices and it produces the right sounds to cast it with your somatic gestures. Then pull out a different one for another spell. Might get complicated with pulling out different items.
Or if you have Enhanced Arcane focus infusion, maybe your rod you are using is a device that you can manipulate to produce different sounds as part of casting the spell.
My first thought was of a toy I had as a kid that when you turned it upside down it made a cow Mooing noise. Imagine using that and it moos and you turn invisible lol
Now the artificer can create an object that plays a 10 second message, could you record the spell being cast and use it later if you are somehow silenced?
Interesting idea, but I wouldn't think so. But it might be neat, with DM permission, to play a mute artificer that uses different devices for his verbal components. So you want to cast firebolt, you pull out one of your devices and it produces the right sounds to cast it with your somatic gestures. Then pull out a different one for another spell. Might get complicated with pulling out different items.
Or if you have Enhanced Arcane focus infusion, maybe your rod you are using is a device that you can manipulate to produce different sounds as part of casting the spell.
My first thought was of a toy I had as a kid that when you turned it upside down it made a cow Mooing noise. Imagine using that and it moos and you turn invisible lol
"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."
They said "most" so that doesn't mean all spells require a character to chant the mystic word, but if the spell mandates it, then it requires sounds with a specific pitch and resonance, which is why few DM's will let a character whisper a spell. If something can stop the character from making the sounds, they can't cast the spell. This makes the Sorcerer ability "subtle spell" pretty potent sometimes.
It says "a character". That means no intermediaries of any kind. The character has to make the sounds, they have to say the words. It could be amusing at times, if the words they used actually meant something, they might accidentally, or even on purpose, say something odd or funny. I don't suggest requiring it, but it's there if you want it.
Interesting note: In an episode of Dragon Talk, it was clarified that being underwater has no impact on spellcasting, by RAW/RAI. Further, whether or not anyone can hear the sound is irrelevant, such as in the case of water muffling the noise.
So, you could hypothetically cast Water Breathing and walk around with an aquarium on your head to completely mask verbal components.
As for Mystic Words having meaning... A lot of fantasy has ancient languages being composed of the "true names" of things, so the verbal components for a fire spell might mean fire, in a transcendental sense. This is similar to arcane runes being symbolic, rather than a language with grammar. Any combination is "true", though they might not all yield useful results.
it feels like the text on verbal components implies some stuff that i am unshure of, just look at this
the red text in the middle sort of implies that both a) that the caster of the spell need not necessarily speak the verbal component, as long as the right noises are made, and so thus an mute wizard and an wizard with no hands could team up to cast spells with both verbal and somatic components, or that an artificer could produce the right sounds from an device made with magical tinkering while doing the somatic component, and this sentence at the same time also implies that b) the verbal component need not be words at all, nor do they need to mean anything, the verbal component for fireball might for instance by complete accident sound quite similar for the goblin word for stone or the gnomish word for pig, or the verbal component for a spell might be several different words as long as they are delivered in similar manners, one might shout fork, another cork, and a third might shout pork as they cast ray of frost, and an kenku wizard might just straight up cast a spell by playing bits and pieces of random noises they have heard previously in rapid sucession to produce the series of sounds they need to create and spell and that c) presumably spells with only verbal components might incredibly rarely go of entirely randomly in places where there is a lot of ambient noise like taverns and deep within the woods where the frogs are creeking and the birds are chirping due to the perfect pitch and resonance being met for a spell to be cast, even if it is so incredebly rare it must have happened like at least once or twice in the history of the forgotten realms right?
of course, the sentence i marked is also simultaneously ignored and contradicted by the sentence proceeding it and the sentence after, who seem to imply that the verbal component MUST be words with meanings and that the verbal component MUST come from a person, an spellcaster and that this spellcaster MUST supply the somatic component themselves, so i really do not know what to belive here. Am i correct? am i missing something crucial? what is going on?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I read it as 'the words written down do nothing, but have potential. Saying them aloud does. Like a car that does not move until a person fires up the ignition and moves the pedals.
I feel it's more like they are saying it's another way of focusing the spells energy. It's the intent that is the most important and the the rest is necessary by way of rote(habit). For example, shouting a Kiai when making a martial arts combat strike to focus your power.
I do like that there's no restriction on how the sounds are made. That implies that a skeleton or zombie character (neither of whom can speak) could cast spells with verbal components by using Minor Illusion.
it sounds like that might more be the case of sorcerers, clerics, paladins and druids, perhaps certain specific kinds of bards or warlocks, not the case of stuff like artificers, wizards, lore bards, pact of the tombe warlocks who are much more scientific about their spells rather than using force of will to force the spells into existence
also, assuming the sound vibrations are indeed the only necessary thing, then i propose a new type of mage duel: duett. Teams of two are pitted against each other, one is team member has their hands tied behind their back so they cannot use somatic components and the other is prevented from speaking so they cannot do verbal components, one uses the spells with only verbal components, the other uses spells with only somatic components and when they want to cast a spell that has both they would have to both work together to do so, furthermore the teams are connected to each other by an Telepathic Bond spell so that they can communicate without the opponent eavesdropping, and prior to the restraints being put into place each member of the pair is allowed to cast one buff spell on their partner, like warding bond, dragon's breath, bless, invisibillity
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
You could also go with another very simple answer. This line, "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" wasn't very well thought out.
For Verbal components: Is there a requirement for how long you must speak? Could you use the Artificer's Magical Tinkering to make the stone and store the words in the 6 second time limit?
Just want to point out that the way the Artificer class Spellcasting feature is worded, the Artificer themselves isn't actually interacting with the Weave to cast the spell. Rather, they are inventing devices that are capable of interacting with the Weave, and use their Tinker's Tools to activate timing devices or whatever.
In short, an Artificer doesn't cast Fireball, they are activating the timer on the fire grenade they built this morning, which happens to have the same effect as the Fireball spell when it detonates. The Artificer doesn't cast Ray of Frost, they pull out a freeze ray and fire it.
This red text is to me the most important, specifically the pitch and resonance. To me this says that anyone casting Fireball will sound the same. This could be comical because say Fireball requires a high pitch and you're a Goblin with a deep raspy voice. If you want to cast Fireball you need to do your best Alvin and the Chipmunks impression.
I wouldn't go that far. Not every cast of a spell needs to sound the same, but within your natural vocal range you need to resonate, pitch, emphasize specific syllables. I think, depending on the source of the formula, there might be differences. This could actually be a fun RP element, that you can determine with am arcana check, where that wizard got his training from.
IMO, your concept is already considered in the rules - its a bard. Bards represent a different method of creating magic (which then has a slightly different repertoire of spells). For wizards, of course the words aren't the source of the power, but they're the tool that brings the power out. Wizards use one tool (words), bards use another (instruments that make your noise - as well as voice which also makes noise vs. particular words).
I do not agree with the 'it must have happened' as that means a talking doll ...or anything else that recreates a noise...could be used to cast a spell. The intent (the action taken) has to be there as well...something needs to use the tool as a tool in order to bring out the magic.
Sure a frog can cast a spell, but it'd be a frog-class spell (vs wizard). Many creatures that can't speak have a limited number of spells, while not written any many of the descriptions, you could say they're stomping their feet or rubbing their legs together to cast the spell.
If you want a character to create spells stomping their feet or slapping frogs together, sure...but it'd be another class, not wizard.
again all imo.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
or a parot, repeating its master
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I'd argue that the opposite is the case, that wizards derive their power the Most from the exact words and phrases spoken wheras the Bard relies the Most on intent, look at the following bits of text from their respective spellcasting features:
"Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your wizard spells, since you learn your spells through dedicated study and memorization"
"Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your bard spells. Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration"
Wizards rely on an neigh scientific understanding of the weave, where a certain input Always results in a certain output, its very dogmatic. Bards and sorcerers on the other hand have a less organised manner of casting spells, they essentially Will their spell effects to existance, each casting is entirely unique
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I would like to introduce my friend Groot to this argument. Does it make logical sense that everything he says is "I Am Groot" but that others can hear different things he is saying? No... but it sure is fun to watch. As for Roleplay, that would be a fun thing to do, that every time a spell is cast the same words are used "Magic Magic Magic" or whatever and the results are always different. To be fair, with spells there is a lot of leeway anyway. The whole scribing a spell to a spellbook is fraught with "You interpret the spell so it makes sense to you in your own writing" and it costs you so many hours and so much gold and so much practice paper. It doesn't mean you write out "Ip so facto lorum abra cadabra infinitum" for every fireball spell but it is different words for Feather Fall or Identify. It's one of the beautiful things of 5E IMHO... but yeah, now I need to come up with a wizard that always says "Magic Magic Magic" when casting a spell... be right back.... or possibly one that is so conceited that he says his full name every time he casts a spell... hmmmm....
I think it’s an interesting take on verbal components but I don’t thing it would naturally occur. There is a reason a class “learns” a spell wether it’s innately or written in a book or given by a deity which then has to be prepared. The words or sounds only “set the threads of magic in motion” it is the class ability that completes it. Otherwise a kenku fighter could perfectly mimic the wizard and start casting verbal only spells. But they can’t.
but as RP it would be fun to flavor it in different ways.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Now the artificer can create an object that plays a 10 second message, could you record the spell being cast and use it later if you are somehow silenced?
Interesting idea, but I wouldn't think so. But it might be neat, with DM permission, to play a mute artificer that uses different devices for his verbal components. So you want to cast firebolt, you pull out one of your devices and it produces the right sounds to cast it with your somatic gestures. Then pull out a different one for another spell. Might get complicated with pulling out different items.
Or if you have Enhanced Arcane focus infusion, maybe your rod you are using is a device that you can manipulate to produce different sounds as part of casting the spell.
My first thought was of a toy I had as a kid that when you turned it upside down it made a cow Mooing noise. Imagine using that and it moos and you turn invisible lol
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Or a cane with a kenku on the handle
"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."
They said "most" so that doesn't mean all spells require a character to chant the mystic word, but if the spell mandates it, then it requires sounds with a specific pitch and resonance, which is why few DM's will let a character whisper a spell. If something can stop the character from making the sounds, they can't cast the spell. This makes the Sorcerer ability "subtle spell" pretty potent sometimes.
It says "a character". That means no intermediaries of any kind. The character has to make the sounds, they have to say the words. It could be amusing at times, if the words they used actually meant something, they might accidentally, or even on purpose, say something odd or funny. I don't suggest requiring it, but it's there if you want it.
<Insert clever signature here>
Interesting note: In an episode of Dragon Talk, it was clarified that being underwater has no impact on spellcasting, by RAW/RAI. Further, whether or not anyone can hear the sound is irrelevant, such as in the case of water muffling the noise.
So, you could hypothetically cast Water Breathing and walk around with an aquarium on your head to completely mask verbal components.
As for Mystic Words having meaning... A lot of fantasy has ancient languages being composed of the "true names" of things, so the verbal components for a fire spell might mean fire, in a transcendental sense. This is similar to arcane runes being symbolic, rather than a language with grammar. Any combination is "true", though they might not all yield useful results.