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

[akr71]

My Roll20 campaign has a drow paladin who had his throat slashed by other drow because of his heretical (ie. good) behavior. His goddess gave him the power to telepathically communicate with people over a short range, rather than restoring his voice. This has created all manner of interesting roll play opportunities with common folk when "that drow is trying to pry people's minds!"... and by interesting I mean fun to watch - its probably frustrating for the player that he continuously has disadvantage on all Cha checks.

That doesn't help the spell casting verbal component though. My gut says that if that is his character, let him live with the choice - no spells with a verbal component. However, I would probably let him devise some sort of arcane focus that fulfills the verbal component of a spell rather than the material one.

 

[Horwath]

Simple,

you do not play a mute spellcaster.

Same way you don not play a blind archer or a crippled swordmaster.

You could become that later in your carrier and that can be a good roleplay twist and a plot device, but from start no chance.

Some concepts are cool to imagine but cannot hold in reality or in "d&d imagined reality".

 

[Blue]

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?

You're making assumptions that are incorrect. He wanted /a/ penalty, but he did not want a /heavy/ penalty because he wanted a way to cast. Please go reread the original post.

 

[mrpopstar]

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.

Muteness describes the absence of phonation, and the term is applied to those with an unwillingness or inability to produce sound with their vocal chords. Phonation in the absence of speech would indicate a different impediment, impairment, or disorder.

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

Allowing the mute wizard to ignore verbal components is the least problematic way to accommodate mainly because it avoids a statement on disability.

 

[mrpopstar]

What if the wizard wasn't mute, he simply refuses to speak unless he's providing the verbal components of a spell?

What if his ability to combine sounds and set the threads of magic in motion is so profound that he cannot utter a word unless he means to pluck at the strands of the Weave?

 

[Plaguescarred]

Muteness describes the absence of phonation, and the term is applied to those with an unwillingness or inability to produce sound with their vocal chords. Phonation in the absence of speech would indicate a different impediment, impairment, or disorder.

Allowing the mute wizard to ignore verbal components is the least problematic way to accommodate mainly because it avoids a statement on disability.

The fact is that mute people can still make sound means phonation in the absence of speech is irrevelant. If sound can still be produced and that verbal component don't need to be speech base, then a mute spellcaster could still possibly cast is all i said. It'll come down to the DM anyway.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

You're making assumptions that are incorrect. He wanted /a/ penalty, but he did not want a /heavy/ penalty because he wanted a way to cast. Please go reread the original post.

Being mute is a heavy penalty by default. Either you want to play a mute character and have a heavy penalty or you're not taking the implications of being mute very seriously. If you want to be a mute character, but just on situations that doesn't penalize you too much, I think the experience of playing a mute character is not what you're looking at. As I said, in such a situation, using muteness as a "character skin" would be much better, and also free [MENTION=6872920]LF219[/MENTION] to focus attention somewhere else.

 

[Waterbizkit]

So one thing I didn't notice, and certainly could have missed, in the original post is the "why?" Which is to say, why does the player want to play a mute? I feel like the players motivation should be a big factor in working all of this out.

If the reason is just that the player thinks it would be an interesting "quirk" I think it'd be fine hand-wave this away with any one of a nearly infinite number of fantasy contrivances. If on the other hand the player has a genuine interest in playing a character with rather serious disability in their chosen field, then I see no reason to do anything more complex than hand them a spell list that contains no verbal component spells.

It would be a tough call for me as a DM if I'm honest and something I could only work out with my own player, rather than fabricate some definitive response to you folks here on a message board. My gut says to work with the player to come up with a way they can cast all the spells in a relatively normal, if quirky, fashion. But the more I think about it the more I wonder "what's the point then?" Why play a mute wizard or other spell caster to begin with if it's just going to mean a bunch of time & effort spent between the player and DM figuring out how to bypass it and turn it into nothing more than some superficial coat of paint? A big part of me would rather see player have to put themselves in that characters shoes and struggle the way the character actually would. I don't know, like I said it's a tough call.

As an aside, I've contemplated playing a character like this, only my concept is a Warlock. Of course being a DM this PC is just a dream like so many others... oh to play as a player. Anyway, the idea was to have a character who had been horribly disfigured and incapable of speech and this leads them to make your classic "deal with the devil." The idea was to go Pact of the Chain and then get the Voice of the Chain Master invocation. Of course this can't happen until level three, but I actually don't mind the idea of having to struggle through the first few levels, sort of proving the character worthy of the gift, until finally he gets his voice back... after a fashion.

Anyway, it's a cool concept but I think this is a case where the DM and the player really having to sit down and hash out the why's and motivations behind this choice before they can reach a solution that'll make everyone happy.

 

[mrpopstar]

The fact is that mute people can still make sound means phonation in the absence of speech is irrevelant. If sound can still be produced and that verbal component don't need to be speech base, then a mute spellcaster could still possibly cast is all i said. It'll come down to the DM anyway.

I'm merely pointing out that the assertion "mute people can still make sound" is problematic, can easily be misconstrued as ignorant or insensitive, and strikes at the identity of those who are mute and cannot make sound.

I just see a thread where we're assuming the parameters of disability and proposing mechanical workarounds without asking what the wizard's obstacles to speech actually are.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

Regarding the thread' title: Blind people do not always get dogs or sticks. Some of them have learned to make clucking sounds and listen for the echo, and they move along just fine on their own. They even climb trees, ride bikes and go on hikes.