D&D 5E Blind People Get Dogs or Sticks: What Do You Give A Mute Spellcaster?

[BoldItalic]

Give him a slate with a squeaky pencil that, if skillfully manipulated, can make sounds exactly like the words used in spells. The disadvantage is that all spells with a verbal component now require the use of the hands to work the slate and pencil, which gets in the way of using a magic focus or pouch, so he has to use actual material components which he needs to acquire from somewhere.

 

[mrpopstar]

You don't have to change anything necessarily as mute people still emit sounds and resonance, which verbal components is all about, rather than being about saying specific words being the source of spell’s powers. One could go on similar to tuvan throat singing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPN4ImIoVm0



Verbal (V): 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.

Muteness describes the absence of phonation, so there's no pitch or resonance with which to set the threads of magic in motion.

 

[mrpopstar]

Allowing the mute wizard to ignore verbal components is the least problematic way to accommodate, all things considered.

 

[Bayushi Seikuro]

I was thinking of this old Dragon magazine about the Ashen Compact. Basically, drow, duegar and aboleths created a secret cult to fight their enemies in the Underdark. A lot of blind-fighting, but the spellcaster class was blinded. No sight what so ever. Their 'spellbook' was encoded in braille basically on their staves; they rememorized the spells by 'reading' the dots and dashes.

Maybe if he's mute, he has an item - a 'Braille' staff, or a flute.. hell, even a Puzzle Box like Hellraiser - that has different effects for his spells. Plus, you have a way to disrupt his casting if he's imprisioned or in combat (they disarm his staff etc).

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

I would tell the player that all of his spells that require a verbal component instead have a somatic component, while spells that already have a somatic c ok component are unchanged.

I would also say that if the character is ever fully restrained (i.e., can't move) then any spells requiring a somatic component can't be cast by the character.

During play I would rule that his character's unusual casting style means does have disadvantaged when trying to identify the spells his character casts, and that the character has advantage when it comes to trying to hide the fact that he is casting spells, so long as the character is dancing or moving along with everyone else, as the extra somatic gestures could be folded into such activities.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

…I want to accommodate his character's quirk,

That's not a quirk; it's a crippling handicap.

If I were the GM, I'd say, "Well, it is an interesting idea. OK, the character is a mage, and can't cast any spells with verbal components." I wouldn't be giving them any magic items, because I feel taking away the consequences of the choice lessens the choice. If they choose to be mute then they are mute, with all the consequences.

I'd also not let the character talk to NPCs. Or make any Persuasion, Diplomacy, Intimidation or Negotiation checks.

Seriously, has the player thought about how much of the game this character is just not going to be participating in?

 

[Plaguescarred]

Muteness describes the absence of phonation, so there's no pitch or resonance with which to set the threads of magic in motion.

Perhaps muteness means that for TV and stereo system as a sound mutter, but people who do not speak can still make noise that do not require vocal cords as they can be made by forcing air in or out of the lungs. Inability to speak is not the same as inability to make noise.

A DM could certainly still allow a mute spellcaster to cast V spells if he doesn't want to penalize a PC too much.

Yan
D&D Playtester

 

[Igwilly]

Well, if the character is ultimately hampered by this trait, then the PC should have a bonus to compensate that. Keep in mind that, just as some special schools in AD&D 2e, there could be changes to methods of casting spells. The fact that the PC is mute is already going to hamper him greatly in social interactions. A bonus which allows to Bypass some limitations, while not simply cancels the consequences, and the RP things...
Yeah, it seems like right. I would give him a small bonus somewhere. Not a big one, but muteness can cause a lot of trouble in a quasi-medieval world.

 

[Lanliss]

That's not a quirk; it's a crippling handicap.

If I were the GM, I'd say, "Well, it is an interesting idea. OK, the character is a mage, and can't cast any spells with verbal components." I wouldn't be giving them any magic items, because I feel taking away the consequences of the choice lessens the choice. If they choose to be mute then they are mute, with all the consequences.

I'd also not let the character talk to NPCs. Or make any Persuasion, Diplomacy, Intimidation or Negotiation checks.

Seriously, has the player thought about how much of the game this character is just not going to be participating in?

I agree with not removing the handicap completely, but wouldn't say he can't participate in any social situations. For example, he could swing his staff menacingly to intimidate. He could hold up a bag of coin and a drawing of a person being looked for, to make a negotiation. It just depends how creative the player gets.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

If the player is self-imposing a heavy penalty on him character to make it more interesting, I'd personally be invested in meeting him half-way so that we can play something cool and make great stories, instead fo just screwing him over in such a way saying "This may be magical fantasy, but your idea can't be done successfully and has no place here".

What's the point of playing with a heavy penalty if you don't have to go through the implications of that heavy penalty in actual play? If I wanted to play a blind monk, I'd not ask the DM to create a Daredevil-like solution for my lack of eyesight, I'd play the blind monk with all the limitations that situation implies. I've played characters with heavy limitations before, and they're fun to play because you have to play around them.

Actually, 5e makes it even easier, because you have many cantrips with no verbal component and you can always use your higher slots to cast spells of lower level with no verbal components. With the help of the Elemental Evil companion, it looks really easy to make it happen (more difficult if you choose to go PHB only).

Now, you can also threat mute as a "character skin" and have the player cast anything he wants the way he wants. Your screen doesn't turn black if you're playing a League of Legends match as Lee Sin, after all. RPGs are all about imagination, creative groups can work around any concept they find interesting enough to try. That said, if this player wants to be mute because he likes the "skin", no reason to create any limitation. If he wants the opportunity to play that limitation, no reasons to make his life easier with that.