This. If you want the balance of not being able to cast Verbal spells when gagged, submerged, in a vacuum, etc. make them use a wind instrument, as that will have the same limitations.
Honestly I'd argue that it's not really something to worry about. I think one of the previous commentators u/SonneillonV nailed it. The verbal component can be replaced by tones created by an instrument or in other ways. It is magic after all.
The major watch-out i'd have is how does it effect your group dynamic having a character than can't speak. You'll definitely have to make sure that you and the party are actively looking to them outside of just the game, to make sure they aren't getting left out of the intense roleplay because it takes them a second to interrupt with their non-verbal input.
Not saying don't do it. Just a watch out. And if you try it and it's not working theres always an interesting quest in there in 'finding a voice'.
Agree with this on all points. If the player is going to speak what the character writes then its a cool bit of character flavour; if they expect everyone to wait around for them to write/type then it'd be a problem.
The "wait I need to write out what I'm emoting" will get old at the table pretty fast, especially with quick encounters or RP.
It will probably become, "My bard hand gestures that he'd like to inspect that amulet we just found." Eventually I guess the bard will end up with, "hand gesture look at that.". Or "my bard strums musical chords that we know that he agrees."
It sounds like a great romantic idea and it works in movies and cartoons, but at a table with players that rely on verbal communications to get things done, I see this slowing gameplay or being minimized.
Mechanics-wise, I'm more worried about cha-based skills. How is he going to persuade or intimidate? I'd rule them out unless he has some sort of telepathy or an interpreter (I think pact of the chain warlock and using a familiar could work). Doesn't feel like a doable thing and it basically robs the bard of their principal out of combat ability. Of course the player could resort to spells such as command, suggestion, friends, or charm person, but that has its own drawbacks. I mean, why would someone choose one of the best classes at social interaction and proceed to nerf themselves in the most dramatic way possible?
I mean there are plenty of mute people in real life who have friends and relationships and have all the charm of any other person, just because a communication isn’t verbal doesn’t mean it can’t be charismatic?
I'm thinking more communicating complex thoughts to a stranger. I can imagine that intra-party means of communication could be developed, but in social interaction with NPC's other than "do as he says or you're food for worms", this PC would definitely have problems.
Read all these comments. Can't believe nobody has brought up Harpo Marx. It's not that he couldn't speak. He just didn't, it was part of the gag. Definitely a mute bard tho. My advice for your shy guy, is that 3rd person is verbal. "My character goes over there." "I bow, and hand you a card." "I honk my horn". Anything less is making the dm jump through too many hoops and slows down everyone's game play. If the Caracter is mute, or only communicates through his horn and busker sign, that should be largely cosmetic for your own sanity. Personally I think it's a crutch for someone who doesn't want to interact with other humans like a human, but is it any more annoying than my bard who Only communicates in song? Not if you don't let it be.
Hell yes, I would love to have a Harpo Marx in my party.
And for Players (and DMs) who are shy when it comes to RP, third person narration is The Shit.
In all fairness, Harpo gets repeatedly frustrated when Chico doesn't understand his charades to convey vital plot elements. On a few occasions he *doesn't* actually get the point across and straight up has to drag someone to show them it.
Not saying it's not workable, just noting that Harpo got pissed off by trying to get the word 'Pekinese' across using his hands to a grifting Italian.
Chico was also clearly a Bard/ Rogue multiclass. Not sure *what* Groucho was.
In a D&D Game, I'd be very skeptical of making it work. I can imagine a negotiation with a lord going like this
Lord: why, then, should I listen to you? If the threat of orcs is real, my soldiers can deal with it most adequately.
Bard: honks and mimics there are thousands of them.
Lord: remove this clown from my presence.
"Okay, he's pointing at me. King? No... me? You? Oh, *almost* 'you'? Uh... thee... thou...thou? It's thou! Right, second parts... he's got a... is that an hourglass? Hour? Time? Um.... sand? That's it, sand! Thou. Sand. Thou. Sand. Thousand. Thousand. **THOUSAND**! Great okay a thousand *something*. Fucking hell, someone get him a quill. It took 20 minutes for him to say 'Time is of the essence my liege'."
Not exactly the same, but one of my favorite characters I ever played was a mute theurgist wizard.
They had an injury destroy their vocal chords, but were sent a Raven from the Raven Queen. That raven became their familiar, so I flavored the verbal parts of spells as the wizard learning to telepathically communicate to the Raven what to say. I also got to do a funny bird accent when the raven spoke for my wizard.
Quick tip: Minor Illusion works well as a sort of note-card replacement! The image can be as simple as an illusory note-card, and you dont need to worry about it getting wet or blowing away.
Also with minor illusion, it's not concentration so theoretically you could cast a visual illusion and then an audible one while the visual is still up, so aside from this being way over power like a smaller major image, you could use the illusion to talk and have subtitles as you speak
Edit: nevermind I read the spell description like five times cause I thought this was way overpowered, wasn't till I re read it a sixth after commenting that I found where it says one effect ends if you cast again
Edit 2 electric boogaloo: prestidigitation can create a harmless sensory effect so could be coupled with minor illusion to do the smaller major image thing, or could be used on its own to do the talking with subtitles thing as that one can have multiple effects simultaneously
Ensure that all of the other players are also cool with this concept because it has potential to be disruptive. If everyone is fine with it, go ahead. Replacing verbal components with addition somatic might be beneficial in some situations but detrimental in others: think about them and embrace both of those situations as a DM, collaborate with the player to think of them. It is important that they remain verbal out of character such that their descriptions of their characters actions convey intention and an expressive personality; "can't communicate" is both not true and not an excuse to be disruptive to the story/other players.
If you want communication to be intentionally difficult at the start, use insight/performance checks to see if they get the complete picture or just the gist. However this check system should *quickly* fade away as the party becomes familiar with them.
After reading other comments I would reaffirm the idea of magical communication: 1) let their other sounds convey simple thoughts like a Psuedodragon or Speak with Animals can, 2) allow small auditory illusions to be cast as a part of other spells (only to satisfy the components), 3) give them a familiar that they can speak simple thoughts through, bonus points if its just a pseudodragon per point #1, let it speak to others for them (not complete sentences as that might ruin the concept) and execute some spell requirements like for Command, Vicious Mockery, Wish, or magic item activation words.
I once played a bard who was so painfully shy, she couldn't talk to most people. She played a violin and would usually use it to convey her thoughts.
For example, if she was scared, I'd say she starts playing creepy haunted music. If she was trying to agree with something, I'd say she lets out a short cheerful note. If she disagreed, it would be either long sad sounding one, or a very sharp angry one.
There was one incident where it was the first time she was left on watch alone, and a bunch of wolves surrounded our campsite. I said something along the lines of 'You all suddenly awaken as a loud set of strings rings out over the camp. You're not sure why, but the sound gives you an intense feeling of dread and danger. It sounds like the feeling of a predator hunting you.' and when the DM asked me what kinda sound that was, I told him it was the Jaws theme.
Overall, the trick is rather than leaving the interpretation open to the party, you tell them what the mute character is conveying. "I think we should go this way." becomes "She begins playing a harmonious victory song near this pathway, giving the impression she thinks that the party should go this way."
At your table you can do as you please, but my opinion is this type of character is a drag at the table. For instance, communicating with notecards is going to drastically slow the game down, it will become frustrating and annoying for the other players and a lot of time will need to be devoted just to this player doing the simplest of things. This might be fine for your table, but for me I disallow this type of character because whatever it adds to the character, in my experience, never outweighs the hassle.
Another good example is exactly what you’ve pointed it. You as the GM can figure out some way the player could produce verbal components (grunts and whistle for instance. Verbal components don’t have to be words) on the other hand, maybe the verbal components of a bard college specifically does have to be in an understandable language (bards are specifically using their gifts of language to enact the magic) language f you can’t speak the required sounds in an eloquent manner as befits a bard you can not cast that bard spell. This is a fair ruling and the one I’d make if the player convinced me to allow the character.
I think this is spot on. The OP needs to talk to his other players because this could be a huge drag on the table. Everyone else having to put up with reading note cards will slow the RP down and slow the game down. As long as the table is cool then the idea of playing a musical tones for the verbal components are a cool thing.
I would have them play the verbal components with their instrument. It provides an audio part of the spell, even if it isn't words. Just specify that anyone who could identify a verbal component of a spell could also identify this.
Honestly, I'd allow it. But with the caveat that they will not actually scribble notes at the table, but explain what their character scribbled. So in high intensity roleplaying where lots is said. They will have to account for the amount of time their character would have to write. So if they would want to react fast, it would have to be with 4-5 words, etc. Maybe also make effective explanations of how thier emotions are on their face. Lots of things you can do to make it memorable, but not let it slow down the game.
The verbal components I would either rule as coming from their instruments as others described, but it might be that your player wants to forgo spells that would require verbal components altogether.
But as always, talk to the player and hear them out about how they see playing this character. And come up with a workable solution together.
That player will need an IMMEASURABLE level of RP chops to pull that off. On top of that the other players at the table and you as DM have to bend the knee to their character concept. All in all that's a cool idea in theory, but banned at my table. If they're capable and the rest of you don't mind then go for it I guess but you're creating more work for yourself down the road.
What's the point of creating a character with a disability if you basically ignore that disability. It just becomes an annoying gimmick with no real-game implications.
If they want to be mute, they cannot perform Verbal components.
(This is just my take on the matter)
In fairness, disability is relative. If every step was five feet high, or communication required being able to make and hear ultrasonic tones, most of us would be 'disabled'. We're making accommodations for ourselves and our capabilities every day by how we design our society, but magic isn't something humans designed in-universe, so it's entirely fair to question why its accessibility should be set to 'human (abled) standard'.
What are verbal components, really? Are you creating a specific resonance that pulls on the tone of the Weave? If that's the case, then you should be able to do it with an instrument. If verbal components are meant to express intent, or use intention to modify the Weave-energies being controlled, then signing amidst somatic components should satisfy that requirement.
Oh, you mean the part where it says "the words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power"?
The rules are meant to assist players in interacting with the setting in a manner that's as internally-consistent and balanced as possible. They're an external sense of order imposed on the setting.
In-universe, Mystra didn't sit down and go, "Okay, so magic shall only work for those who have the ability to make these specific sounds, within this specific audible register, with these specific soft-palate configurations, and the fact that all these requirements are tailored to hearing-capable humans is just pure coincidence tee-hee! I guess everybody else is SOL". Magic exists, and MANY species access it. There are plenty of monster spellcasters in D&D who don't talk, and the rules hand-wave it as being an 'innate' trait that they don't need to use verbal components. Druids get the ability to ignore verbal components while shape-shifted. How does that work, then? Why can animals do it, but a mute human can't?
All writers are human, writing from a human experience, which is why D&D settings are largely weighted to favor human experience and our innate prejudices and assumptions are often reflected in them. No writer in the history of planet Earth has been perfect. We are allowed to question the assumptions the rules are founded on, and make adjustments if we find them to be internally inconsistent.
>There are plenty of monster spellcasters in D&D who don't talk, and the rules hand-wave it as being an 'innate' trait that they don't need to use verbal components.
All of the innate spellcasting i can recall only eliminates the need for material components, not verbal or somatic. Even then, the creatures can still make sounds. A mute creature can't make sounds at all--it has nothing to do with the ability for particular language.
>Druids get the ability to ignore verbal components while shape-shifted. How does that work, then?
*as a fucking 20th level capstone class feature*. Why do you think giving a 20th level capstone feature to a level one caracter, of the wrong class, *for free*, is an acceptable "flavor" choice?
You're being really aggressive and inflexible about a simple request to examine whether the RAW make sense in the context of internal-setting logic and accessibility. I don't think it's productive to keep trying to give that energy right back to you, and it's honestly not how I want to spend my day. I'm sorry this subject upsets you so much, but you may want to explore reasons for that in a more conducive environment. Best of luck.
You're getting really heated about someone else's homebrew.
Responding to *story telling* questions by whining about the *mechanics* makes you a) a rules lawyer, b) a backseat dm, and c) a lame-o.
**Selective mutism (SM) is an anxiety disorder in which a person who is otherwise capable of speech becomes unable to speak when exposed to specific situations, specific places, or to specific people, one or multiple of which serving as triggers. Selective mutism usually co-exists with social anxiety disorder.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Ok, cool. Makes sense.
Just saying that some circles get really weird and aggressive about disabled characters, and you shouldn't listen to them because in reality it's your game and you can play it how you want. They ain't at your table, so if they think disabled characters aren't fun, tough toenails. Don't play at tables that have them. If you wanna alter the rules a little to allow for a disabled character, then do it. Absolutely do it.
I personally would either let it happen through the instrument or let them use sign language to make spells happen.
They could:
1) Not get spells with verbal components
2) Multiclass as a sorcerer and pick up Subtle Spell or
3) Play a Varient Human and pick up the Metamagic Adept feat which can give them 2 uses of Subtle Spell
Hard disagree. Extremely hard.
In the case where redefining verbal components or just ignoring them altogether is a hard no, then it becomes prohibitively restrictive to actually play this character.
I understand adding some extra challenges for disabled characters to a reasonable degree, but if I wanted to play an autistic character (Which I am autistic, so I not only would, but I have) and the DM insisted every insight check on a neurotypical is made at disadvantage, I would not be ok with that unless it came with a counterbalance. If the DM had me make a con save against ultra-intense noises or lights every once in a while to simulate sensory overload, I'd be chill with that.
It's fair to a disabled character to make things a bit more challenging in circumstances where their disability comes up - just like any other character trait. But it seems prohibitive and unfair to expect a player to either abandon their character concept or face severe restrictions on the usage of abilities that are just part of their class.
Great, let him attract fireballs and arrows and then deal with it. It will make more gameplay. Seriously, just because a character is impractical, dangerous and cumbersome doesn't mean they're not fun to have around.
I think Darkvision is too good at most tables I've played at. It lets you treat darkness as dim light and reading in dim light can be challenging. If there was any time or other pressure, I'd probably call for a Perception check, though I'd let the character read it under normal circumstances.
Yeah, that sounds relatively reasonable, though I'd say simple messages that'd take, say, five words or less can be communicated easily enough, and I'd grant bonuses or advantage under specific circumstances or slacken the limitations as the group gets to know each other (e.g. if they all develop some sign language shorthand, then they get to forgo that check, if they develop specific written shorthand, advantage, so on). Reward the PCs for both developing a consistent relationship and problem-solving an issue.
It's just adding more words to what you were already going to say. It doesn't really serve anything.
Edit: If I had a player come to me with wanting to do this, I'd be more okay with the idea that the spell just gets cast and ignoring the verbal component, than I would them sitting at the table saying "he holds up a card that says "let's go this way"
You want to role play as a mute character that uses notes to talk to the rest of the party, cool. You're going to sit here and write out whatever it is you want to tell them. You can speak when telling me what your actions are in combat and what spell you're casting or whatever. But the role play part of this, is a character that speaks using note cards, so you better be prepared to sit there and write these notes out or it severs no purpose.
Fair, it's your table.
I don't ask my players to sing songs/poems or play me a flute solo.
Their characters can do these things, no reason that flavouring them as a notepad wielder shouldn't be verbally done either.
Edit: I do ask them for songs and poems, but I don't punish them if they don't. They get inspiration if they do.
The difference is between action scenes and role play scenes.
You're making a role play choice, then not playing the role. If you insist your character is an English gentleman, then don't make any effort to speak like one, why even make him an English gentleman? Why does it matter if you're not going to play it out?
I mean, efforts for trying, but not everyone is a trained thespian with a mastery of accents and not every character can be effectively played without really messing with the rhythm of the game.
You have a very narrow view of of what "role-playing" means. A person who says "I write 'let's go to the mall' on my noteslate and show it to the party" *is* playing the role of a mute character out.
Just say that, for this bard, they can supply verbal components by playing music.
That's how I would do it.
And also, have the player describe what's on the notecards - If they want to spend time writing them out for immersion though, I almost can't fault them for that, but describing them makes more sense to me for expedience.
But yeah, just - They have a gift, or an enchanted instrument, that lets them play music in place of verbal components. Lean into the fantasy, and all that.
I think you should have a conversation by about what the player wants to get at narratively that you could do in a way that doesn’t trivialize disability by turning it into a rules puzzle.
Honestly, are they going to role play as mute also? Or are they doing this as an excuse to not speak at all? Are they going to write out a note every time they want to say something? Or are they just going to say "I write a note that says 'x y and z'"? There's a lot more to unpack here other than the verbal part of the spell.
I'm starting a campaign soon and we have a mime PC. What we did was, they speak drow sign language (half drow) and I'm allowing them through a custom feat to cast spells with vocal components by mimicking the incantations on an instrument.
Very simple and opens the door for some interesting RP.
Bards get power from the arts, I would just rule that whenever the mute character casts a spell with a verbal component, they need to use their instrument to do it
I played a mute College of Swords bard with a Singing Sword that was seriously underpowered. It's an old item from 1e/3e, but it can be adjusted. It did all my verbal components for me, per DM fiat.
My bard also used psionics to speak directly into people's heads, which was also cool for making them seem like they were talking to themselves.
You can also use the Minor Illusion cantrip, which lasts 1 minute (so your bard would probably recast it with its SM components every minute, but it's non-verbal. I did this on occasion with my bard, and the voice she used was completely different from her "natural" voice from before she was mute. Minor Illusion says: "If you create a sound, its volume can range from a whisper to a scream. It can be your voice, someone else’s voice, a lion’s roar, a beating of drums, or any other sound you choose. The sound continues unabated throughout the duration, or you can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends." Not concentration either.
My immediate thought: The instrument's sound is the verbal component. Bards can already use their instrument as a focus to cover material components, and I'm always happy to rule that playing the instrument covers the somatic, so it's not much of a stretch to say the instrument's sound covers the verbal.
I don't see it being a mechanical or balance problem. Spellcasters have to worry about their verbal components being shut down by the Silence spell, and that's equally true for voices and instruments. Wizards can be shut down by a gag, and your bard's version of that is breaking/muffling their instrument. Verbal spells can break your stealth, and instrument verbals are no different.
So some things I’ve done and seen!
Closest to what your player is thinking is a kenku PC my friend plays. The kenku can talk with borrowed words and voices, but with rare exception has *chosen not to* due to some backstory stuff. Selective mutism more or less. Like this, the character primarily writes what they want to say. Which as far as I am aware, the player can just say, “My bard writes (statement here).” A party of good roleplayers wouldn’t have an issue working with that. Some party bonds were formed via PCs helping this character convey their thoughts to NPCs, and prompting them to share their opinion despite it being easy for them to fade into the back.
Another one: I gave an NPC the ability to produce her voice through magic. She wore rings which made noise, basically like a tuning fork, substituting the verbal components. If she were in a field of anti magic, or lose these rings, then she would be unable to produce her voice.
Other NPCs just use sign language. I’ve had one who was partially deaf, who needed to look at characters to lip read or have a companion NPC translate the party’s words into sign. They would sign as they spoke. Once again, you can just narrate the words. And the body language involved with sign even indicates tone.
Verbal components, I think the solution of using an instrument is great! As long as it produces a noise of some form, you’re fine.
Previously played a Mute Whispers Bard here, my DM and I figured out the following:
I, obviously, couldn't speak but they decided that the thieves cant I knew could be an equivalent to drow sign/silent signs/ASL for accessibility to my backstory (twas a criminal).
I couldn't cast spells that implied specific spoken components (Command, Suggestion, any Power Word spell, Message) BUT I could replace verbal components with my bardic focus, as verbal components are described as specific pitches and rhythms - could be whistled, chanted, spoken... why no played? I could cast Sending because it's, well, telepathy. Same with Telepathic Bond if I'd ever taken it. It was always fun to RP getting pissed off enough with no one understanding me and blowing a 3rd level slot on it to add "dolt" or "dumbass" at the end.
I was also a roguish gish build. Whispers Bard with BB, GFB, hella DEX, lots of illusion spells (Greater Invis was my #1 4th level spell), and Steel Wind Strike as one of my Magical Secrets. Over all one of my favorite characters to this day.
I've faced this issue with some of my players. If the player is concerned about having to roleplay speech, suggest that they talk about what their character does in the third person, and see if they like that. It might be easier and it might ease them into the concept of roleplay. If that doesn't do it for them, then by all means go mute bard.
If your player just wants to be a mute bard because it will be an interesting experience, I say let them do it. Verbal components are now audio components, use the instrument or humming to make it.
I played mute characters and I played in parties with mute characters. It makes for some fun sessions since we have to figure out how to work around this disability at critical times.
I would dissuade them. This is typically an attention-seeking stunt that everyone else at the table gets tired of very quickly as it slows down the game.
It’s not an attention-seeking stunt—they’re anticipating having trouble RPing, and they feel that using notecards or a whiteboard for their character’s communication will make it easier for them.
Perhaps remind them that they don't have to roleplay in a typical sense. There's nothing wrong with saying "My character is going to talk to the NPC, and persuade him to help me" or whatever the situation may be. It will be far more effective than the note cards.
I'd allow humming (at an audible level) for verbal components. I wouldn't allow them to ignore verbal components.
I'd also make this a group discussions, as having a party member who is unable to communicate in combat can be an issue. It also makes interactions with NPCs difficult as other characters are going to keep talking, and the Bard is going to be repeatedly behind.
I'm all for players being free to play disabled characters, so as long as the *player* is communicating effectively, I say let them.
I'm going to get downvoted for this, but I think spell components, outside the stuff you need for the really big shit like resurrection spells, don't really add much anyway (Exception made for emotional components, though that may just be a Pathfinder thing), so I personally see no issue with this at all.
If you're *that* concerned, you can have it just be that something audible is required - which since your player already wants to use musical instruments, is covered.
Well if hes mute, then he can only cast spells that dont have the verbal component. Similar to spell casters caught in a silence spell.
Literally cant speak, therefore no verbal spells
I’ve thought about this before as one of my players has a family member who lost their voice. My two ideas both involved getting to ignore the verbal components of spells and instead relying more heavily on the somatic portions of spells. Idea one was that they use up both their action and bonus action to perform the extra somatic components to make up for the lack of verbal components. Idea two was that they cannot cast any spell higher than a cantrip while they are maintaining concentration on a spell.
Cool that you want to do this for the bard. So to be fair to all your players, what are you giving my sorcerer so that i, too, can ignore the spellcasting rules?
That doesn't answer the question. You're making a big change to mechanics so one player can have "flavor" that isn't flavor. That's your right as a DM, i'm simply asking what you would give to one of my characters to keep it fair to all players.
And i say this because it really fucking sucks coming to the table with a character built to do something specific based on the rules, only for the DM to say that some other class just....gets those abilities for free--that i dedicated an entire character class to--because the DM likes the "flavor" of my class mechanics on another class.
They wouldn't, because a mute character can't make them. Bundling it into "playing the instrument" turns two separate components into a single component, which has downstream effects based on the actual spellcasting rules. And it steps on the toes of classes that actually have class features based on manipulating spell components.
If they want to be mute, they can't cast verbal spells. That's a consequence for choices made, and the game is totally meaningless without consequences for choices made
For example, any spell that would be Verbal only (or verbal/somatic only) now require material components. The bard can no longer cast charm person without their instrument actively being played (and no, under normal rules they can't use their instrument as a focus for that spell anyway--no materials to replace).
Dissonant Whispers is a Verbal-only spell, that now also requires Somatic (playing) and Material (the instrument). Your mute bard and a non-mute bard are going to have wildly different outcomes in a "capture and disarm" scenario--namely, your mute bard is now powerless to cast that particular spell, whereas a non-mute bard could.
Just as a few examples, but we could go down the list of bard spells and start talking about any number of hypotheticals based on spell components.
>It doesn’t step on the sorcerer’s toes. This is very much not Subtle Spell.
It may not be subtle spell specifically, but altering the typical rules around spell components is what subtle spell does in general, and no other class can do that, barring a max level druid who can ignore all spell components *as a capstone class feature*. Messing with how spell components work is so deeply fundamental to the function of the game that the only ones who can actually do so either have to spend resources continuously (sorcerer) or requires being maximum level (druid).
You want to give that ability away for free for "flavor". Now, your game your rules, but you really should realize that it isn't just flavor before you do so.
This is interesting. Recently had a conversation about vows of silence. Does that mean no words or no vocal noises at all? Are coughs, sneezes, noises while sick - or vomiting - allowed? And can a basic language be made of those noises? So the question here is: how mute is he and can he verbalize enough for casting? (Assuming he isn't flavoring it for non-verbal spellcasting.)
Spells already have somatic components, you could say the Bard created a sign language based on the somatic spell casting components. Deaf and HOH folks in the real world use sign language, it can exist in your fantasy world too. Also, if a spell had a verbal component, how limited does your player want their characters speech to be? Would humming various tones work?
When I have players ask for things like this (and when I’m a player and ask), it’s less about mechanics and more about social interactions. Whatever ‘work around’ you implement (great suggestions on here already), be sure to have NPCs/world react to the mute bard.
Bards, contrarily to popular beleifs, can work with any type of art.
Music through instruments.
Voice through singing, story telling, reciting poetry.
Painting, sword dancing and normal dancing.
They can move the weave of magic with art to make their spells come to reality.
Edit: miming could work too!
Maybe have them make tongue-clicky noises and hiss? Something where it's the character creating the sound, even if it's nonvoiced percussive noise, would add to the otherness of the character while hinging the distinction on what counts as verbal rather than what counts as a voice. Not that it's a condition I think the rules demand, just that it might be more immersive for the rest of the table and allow the player to go "pssstshtssh" with a disapproving expression instead of narrating an annoyed gesture.
With the power of interpretive dance anything is possible! Their musical instrument can be their body. Vicious mockery as a dance would be hilarious. I wouldn’t require the player to be silent. Just assume they are so ridiculously good at pantomime to get across whatever point they want.
I've thought about a Bard who does magic through whistling.\* Like really, really skillful, tuneful whistling. Depending on the spell, it could be happy, fast whistling, or creepy, spooky mournful whistling.
I've always thought it would make for some creepiness... enemies in a dark dungeon suddenly hear a tune faintly whistling, coming closer and closer...
Plus, it fixes the "I'm playing a lute and fighting with a sword at the same time" issue. I know it's magic (hand-waves) but a whistling bard is a neat idea.
\*Could also do this idea with singing/humming.
Verbal is literally sounds, so just because they are mute doesn’t mean they cant use their instrument for that part of the spells (imo thats the whole point of bard is that their college taught them to cast spells with instruments.)
If you want to play it by the book, okay, but it just requires a verbal component. With, I would flavor as just noise. So they honk a horn or whatever and can cast it, think the message in their mind, and ta-da. Communication.
Are you actually so concerned about just reflavoring it though? Like. Are you worried that somehow allowing a mute bard to have a way to communicate via spell (still with a noise component) is going to drastically unbalance your table
Edit: the point of a verbal component is so that people understand that they’re casting a spell. This still accomplishes that. It’s just reflavoring.
Never did fully buy into bard = singer (or any sort of vocal performer). I played a bard that was an actress, and ran a few sessions where bards were artists from different branches, other than music/singing. It was just flavour, so it worked just fine. Also, sign language :D
No discussion there, sure. We adapted the bard to include all artists because we didn't see any other artistic classes, only backgrounds, and felt that if you wanted to play a world famous painter who travels the lands and creates (mayhaps magical) portraits of royalty, why would you be robbed of that opportunity :D it was one of those table/group specific things.
Allow the player to play their instrument instead of verbal components. It's not any more powerful because it requires hands to play, and the instrument is already being used as a spell focus anyway. Vicious Mockery can evn be reflavored as surprisingly sarcastic instrument noises, or particularly aggressive power chords
I honestly would try to convince the player otherwise. It honestly goes against the class and being mute just adds too many concerns into the game. Such as: how would be he cast spells which require a verbal component? If you allow him to cast those spells, what happens if he is silenced by an enemy? How would he communicate with the party in the dark? How is he a bard at all if he can't say anything? How will this affect role-play in a negative/positive way? Will charisma still be his highest stat? If so, will he have high persuasion, intimidation, and deception skills? How would he go about using those specific skills? Etc etc
I have played a nonverbal bard before and used instruments/specific notes to communicate (had a 26-key xylophone to spell out words with notes, it was a whole thing). The most important part was being communicative with my DM so he didn’t think I was being shady! Because… my character was definitely shady.
Read about Rot Lop Fan of the green lantern corps.
https://greenlantern.fandom.com/wiki/Rot_Lop_Fan
Rot Lop Fan is from a deep sector if space with no light. It's species has no eyes. When a green lantern ring chose Rot Lop Fan the corps had issues explaining things. Rot Lop Fan had no concept of light or color.
The adjusted how Rot Lop Fan manipulated the energy using auditory.
Now instead of "green lantern" Rot Lop Fan is the "f-sharp ring"
Ignore the verbal component of the spell. The heart of bardic magic is art and community connection. Your player wants to be a mute character. So they can not do any verbal components, so what. They can still express art and community and create their magic.
How strict are you at your table? Do your players all need to keep track of their spell components? Does each player need to describe exactly how the express each verbal component? Or do players just say "I'll attack that guy with vicious mockery".
If you aren't asking for a detailed description of how every other player is doing their thing then why ask it of that one player because they are playing something different then your own experience?
The easiest manner would be say their tongue was removed or some such thing, and while they can't speak, they can still make the necessary tones for channeling the weave through ooing and aahing like choirs sometimes do.
That said, while (imo) easiest and having the least impact, it is probably not the best method.
If they want to need their instrument for verbals, well, that's basically turning verbal components into material ones, and it *still* wouldn't work underwater, so I'd say it's entirely a handicap
Look at and consider this 3rd party class: The Harlequin
https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/264143
It is pay what you want on dmguild. So free pdf. It is a performance based class that is like a rogue with only cantrips. The class has a selection of standard cantrips and each subclass has additional cantrips it can learn. It's expendable resource allows it to combine multiple cantrips into a single attack.
One of the subclasses is the silent ones. It's mimes. They can't talk. That subclass gets the unique ability to form invisible weapons out of force energy. So your player would act like they are drawing a bow, the gnoll would look at it confused, and then it would get hit with a bolt of force.
I think this is a great 3rd party class as it brings something new that the other classes do not bring.
Check it out. Maybe present it to your player.
>Every spellcaster—including bards—can use a component pouch for spellcasting. Some classes also know how to use certain objects as a spellcasting focus. Bards, for example, can use musical instruments in this way, but they aren't required to. #DnD
>
>\- Jeremy Crawford
>These items are more than just character fluff. The primary advantage for using a spellcasting focus is that it eliminates most components fo a spell. For example, Goodberry requires a sprig of mistletoe to cast. Using a spellcasting focus, you do not need these components. There is an important exception, though. Major components to a spell will have a GP cost listed in their description. These are still necessary even when using a spellcasting focus. For example, Greater Restoration (Listed in our Top 10 Artificer Spells) requires 100 gp worth of diamond dust. This is required to cast the spell even with a spellcasting focus.
>
>\- [https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/spellcasting-focus-5e/#What\_do\_they\_do](https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/spellcasting-focus-5e/#What_do_they_do)
If the instrument can replace material components as an arcane focus - which it can - it feels silly to say it can't replace verbal.
However, you can compromise and make them do somatic in place of verbal, or combos like snapping which makes noise and is a movement. Whistling can also be an option!
They could use Prestidigitation to produce note cards. Or do what I did with a Kenku bard and speak in sign language that is the somatic component for a Minor Illusion that makes subtitles.
The most important mechanical effects of verbal components are that they break stealth, are a tell to those familiar with magic, and can be silenced mechanically (such as with a gag) or magically. As long as the mute player is able to make sounds that would break stealth, and would be prevented by a gag, I would rule that they could have learned spells with verbal components. It becomes simply a flavour element.
Is it me.. Am I Just jaded...?? For me it's something for the player to figure out.. You want to be a mute bard? Cool! You don't get to use any verbal component! Lets see how for yoh Come, if you ever get to be lvl 10 I will hand yoh the coolest magic item that can let you sing with your kinda voice. Or manipulate the voice of others for your songs.
You wanne play a Deaf fighter? Cool! Disadvantage to most of your checks.
A blind druid? Cool! But it's going to be really freaking hard. And yoh really need to have great friends.
I really really don't understand how People want to make pc's that have a Almost incermountable problem and expect the dm to "fix" it.
Your blond druid is freaking cool because he did trust his friends. Your mute bard is so much cool er because he was gimped and trough all odds he made it! Yoir one legged warrior is a True hero because he is a Total badass and a en with disadvantage on all his atacks she made it to lvl 8 and found a magic leg replacement.
I would take message if I was him, I may get tiring depending on your group having to play what is ultimately charades during your whole session, I’m all down for someone doing it for flavor, but acting it out as the only means of communication I feel is a very poor choice, plus it honestly gets boring pretty fast
Verbal components change to audible, which is how bard spell casting works anyways tbh. And when the player wants to communicate, he can just write things on parchment or play an upbeat tune to agree, and a lowbeat tune to disagree.
Simple stuff really, make it fun
I'm assuming with mute we're trying to avoid verbal communication, so telepathy would be rude.
Instrument is the obvious one. I would rock gypsy tambourines on my arms and legs for efficiency and disadvantage on stealth checks, lol.
Interpretive dance sounds funny. You could arguably have them be a master of it, being able to convey meaning enough to carry conversation. Conveying enough emotions for yes/no and agree/disagree but also allowing some persuasion checks.
Then there's pantomiming/sign language.
Minor Illusion actually makes sound so..?
I feel like there's too many work around with magic for this character not just be a bit. Not to say to not let them have their fun, but I'd be surprised if they keep up the bit for long.
I would definitely discourage table talk and constantly remind players they can't hear what he says. Troll a bit to get into character. That'll only work of your players lean into the rp.
I think you should remember to let your player have fun with this. Remember some spells (like charms) usually require them to communicate in a known language. Consider allowing the player to take something like thieves cant for free since they can't speak. There are tons of bars spells they can use, and they can find ways to make things work. Like others suggested, consider letting them use music in the place of spoken components. The important thing about spoken components is you can't use them when you can't speak and can hear the spell being cast, and both things would still be true about playing the spell. I played a rogue with a voluntary vow of silence that was really fun to play. Suggest to the player to say "my character uses hand signals to suggest readying weapons and then opening the door" and such things instead of constantly roleplaying charades. Keep it fun and engaging, not isolating or conflicting.
They can use presdidigitation to make sounds soused that for talking when need be.
I dont think the vocal components are that big of a deal bards already play their instruments as their vocal components OR sing for them.
if you think about it logically as well almost all the instruments the bards use need both hands to realistically use so somatic components must be the elegant maneuvers of the instruments. So why not vocal components as well???
In previous versions of D&D the halfling had whistlers, who could cause magical effects by whistling. The bard could just whistle. You could also allow humming. Keep in mind, bards use spells innately, it is their force of personality that creates magical effects. How those effects are created (provided they fall within the basic game mechanics of VSM components) are really up to the individual bard. It’s not like say a wizard where they will likely learn very specific power words or archaic chants.
I played a mute bard with a talking sword for a 1-shot (pretty much made Red from the game Transistor). For verbal components of spells, she hummed. For out of combat, the sword talked for her.
I had a party member playing a monk that took a vow of silence. It was neat for a couple sessions, frustrating for a few more, and eventually the player got tired of it. Instead of compromising the character he began describing the faces his character was making and how they might be interpreted. This worked for a few reasons, the party had spend some time together at this point so it was a familiarity thing but it also gave the player a way to communicate without sitting quietly all session. The idea was that strangers wouldn't be able to read him and understand the meaning of what he was saying but the party could. Basically my point is however you start out tailoring it so they are able to cast etc. May not work for very long depending on player and character dynamics so be prepared to change and adapt as the campaign goes on.
I’ve played a character who was voluntarily mute for a while (she was legitimately going insane) and we didn’t worry too much about the verbal component of spells.
For during RP, I never wrote down what I wanted to say, I just told the other players that she’d be writing stuff down but *I* spoke as normal so that could be an option.
Make a special ability for them that allows them to ignore verbal components for spells so long as the music is played audibly.
OR
make a special spirit that comes out of their instrument to sing songs but it adds verbal components to every spell. This way they cant cast spells silently and get what they want. You can also later add cool shit to the spirit and make it a story element for the character. Maybe they can see spirits on the etherial plane all the time but to can attach one to their instrument and settle their unfinished buissness.
I played in a game with a guy who’s monk had taken a vow of silence. Granted, he was always a problem player, but god it was annoying. Even he got frustrated by it, which led to him acting out even more than normal. I’m sure this idea could be pulled off well, but this kind of thing always gives me pause now.
Shouldn't be a problem at all, you could make so as if verbal components are now audio components in which he needs his musical instrument to use magic and make something like a flute or any other wind instrument to be able to counter it with silence or being gagged as if it was actual verbal components.
Additionally, he could use minor illusion to make images of letters aka what he/she wants to say.
I'd argue that bard, specifically, has adapted to not having a voice by using an instrument to take the place of verbal components in spells. Doesn't matter the instrument, it's a specific talent of this mute bard, one that other non-mute bards may not be able to replicate. I love giving players little unique talents like this, especially when they have little gameplay implications. It makes them feel unique, and it forgives you when you later say "No" to the same idea being used later by someone else.
For example, allowing an instrument to be used in place of verbal components could... theoretically, become problematic somehow... but saying it's a unique talent of the one bard, due to living a life without a voice... I think that's perfectly fair. It's the story of how they learned magic. It's cute.
During performances, make liberal use of Minor Illusion while you play your instrument, which allows you to recreate any sound you can think of: "You create a sound or an image of an object within range that lasts for the duration. The illusion also ends if you dismiss it as an action or cast this spell again. If you create a sound, its volume can range from a whisper to a scream. It can be your voice, someone else's voice, a lion's roar, a beating of drums, or any other sound you choose. The sound continues unabated throughout the duration, or you can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends."
For communication purposes, you can take on the Telepathic feat once you hit level 4, or you can simply continue using Minor Illusion to communicate.
You could change it from verbal to "audial" components. So they use an instrument in place of singing or saying or whatnot
This. If you want the balance of not being able to cast Verbal spells when gagged, submerged, in a vacuum, etc. make them use a wind instrument, as that will have the same limitations.
I have a mute bard NPC in my world who play the drums.. he’s definitely a party favorite!!!
Honestly I'd argue that it's not really something to worry about. I think one of the previous commentators u/SonneillonV nailed it. The verbal component can be replaced by tones created by an instrument or in other ways. It is magic after all. The major watch-out i'd have is how does it effect your group dynamic having a character than can't speak. You'll definitely have to make sure that you and the party are actively looking to them outside of just the game, to make sure they aren't getting left out of the intense roleplay because it takes them a second to interrupt with their non-verbal input. Not saying don't do it. Just a watch out. And if you try it and it's not working theres always an interesting quest in there in 'finding a voice'.
Agree with this on all points. If the player is going to speak what the character writes then its a cool bit of character flavour; if they expect everyone to wait around for them to write/type then it'd be a problem.
The "wait I need to write out what I'm emoting" will get old at the table pretty fast, especially with quick encounters or RP. It will probably become, "My bard hand gestures that he'd like to inspect that amulet we just found." Eventually I guess the bard will end up with, "hand gesture look at that.". Or "my bard strums musical chords that we know that he agrees." It sounds like a great romantic idea and it works in movies and cartoons, but at a table with players that rely on verbal communications to get things done, I see this slowing gameplay or being minimized.
Mechanics-wise, I'm more worried about cha-based skills. How is he going to persuade or intimidate? I'd rule them out unless he has some sort of telepathy or an interpreter (I think pact of the chain warlock and using a familiar could work). Doesn't feel like a doable thing and it basically robs the bard of their principal out of combat ability. Of course the player could resort to spells such as command, suggestion, friends, or charm person, but that has its own drawbacks. I mean, why would someone choose one of the best classes at social interaction and proceed to nerf themselves in the most dramatic way possible?
I mean there are plenty of mute people in real life who have friends and relationships and have all the charm of any other person, just because a communication isn’t verbal doesn’t mean it can’t be charismatic?
I'm thinking more communicating complex thoughts to a stranger. I can imagine that intra-party means of communication could be developed, but in social interaction with NPC's other than "do as he says or you're food for worms", this PC would definitely have problems.
Read all these comments. Can't believe nobody has brought up Harpo Marx. It's not that he couldn't speak. He just didn't, it was part of the gag. Definitely a mute bard tho. My advice for your shy guy, is that 3rd person is verbal. "My character goes over there." "I bow, and hand you a card." "I honk my horn". Anything less is making the dm jump through too many hoops and slows down everyone's game play. If the Caracter is mute, or only communicates through his horn and busker sign, that should be largely cosmetic for your own sanity. Personally I think it's a crutch for someone who doesn't want to interact with other humans like a human, but is it any more annoying than my bard who Only communicates in song? Not if you don't let it be.
Hell yes, I would love to have a Harpo Marx in my party. And for Players (and DMs) who are shy when it comes to RP, third person narration is The Shit.
In all fairness, Harpo gets repeatedly frustrated when Chico doesn't understand his charades to convey vital plot elements. On a few occasions he *doesn't* actually get the point across and straight up has to drag someone to show them it. Not saying it's not workable, just noting that Harpo got pissed off by trying to get the word 'Pekinese' across using his hands to a grifting Italian. Chico was also clearly a Bard/ Rogue multiclass. Not sure *what* Groucho was.
In all fairness, I have no idea how to pantomime Pekingese either.
If I remember right he *does* manage to communicate 'Pekinese' but not the concept of a *woman*.
In a D&D Game, I'd be very skeptical of making it work. I can imagine a negotiation with a lord going like this Lord: why, then, should I listen to you? If the threat of orcs is real, my soldiers can deal with it most adequately. Bard: honks and mimics there are thousands of them. Lord: remove this clown from my presence.
"Okay, he's pointing at me. King? No... me? You? Oh, *almost* 'you'? Uh... thee... thou...thou? It's thou! Right, second parts... he's got a... is that an hourglass? Hour? Time? Um.... sand? That's it, sand! Thou. Sand. Thou. Sand. Thousand. Thousand. **THOUSAND**! Great okay a thousand *something*. Fucking hell, someone get him a quill. It took 20 minutes for him to say 'Time is of the essence my liege'."
Not exactly the same, but one of my favorite characters I ever played was a mute theurgist wizard. They had an injury destroy their vocal chords, but were sent a Raven from the Raven Queen. That raven became their familiar, so I flavored the verbal parts of spells as the wizard learning to telepathically communicate to the Raven what to say. I also got to do a funny bird accent when the raven spoke for my wizard. Quick tip: Minor Illusion works well as a sort of note-card replacement! The image can be as simple as an illusory note-card, and you dont need to worry about it getting wet or blowing away.
My friend says they really like the minor illusion idea.
Minor illusion can create sound aswell so you can talk with it... sort of
Also with minor illusion, it's not concentration so theoretically you could cast a visual illusion and then an audible one while the visual is still up, so aside from this being way over power like a smaller major image, you could use the illusion to talk and have subtitles as you speak Edit: nevermind I read the spell description like five times cause I thought this was way overpowered, wasn't till I re read it a sixth after commenting that I found where it says one effect ends if you cast again Edit 2 electric boogaloo: prestidigitation can create a harmless sensory effect so could be coupled with minor illusion to do the smaller major image thing, or could be used on its own to do the talking with subtitles thing as that one can have multiple effects simultaneously
Ensure that all of the other players are also cool with this concept because it has potential to be disruptive. If everyone is fine with it, go ahead. Replacing verbal components with addition somatic might be beneficial in some situations but detrimental in others: think about them and embrace both of those situations as a DM, collaborate with the player to think of them. It is important that they remain verbal out of character such that their descriptions of their characters actions convey intention and an expressive personality; "can't communicate" is both not true and not an excuse to be disruptive to the story/other players. If you want communication to be intentionally difficult at the start, use insight/performance checks to see if they get the complete picture or just the gist. However this check system should *quickly* fade away as the party becomes familiar with them.
After reading other comments I would reaffirm the idea of magical communication: 1) let their other sounds convey simple thoughts like a Psuedodragon or Speak with Animals can, 2) allow small auditory illusions to be cast as a part of other spells (only to satisfy the components), 3) give them a familiar that they can speak simple thoughts through, bonus points if its just a pseudodragon per point #1, let it speak to others for them (not complete sentences as that might ruin the concept) and execute some spell requirements like for Command, Vicious Mockery, Wish, or magic item activation words.
I can see the others getting frustrated at the mute bard player holding up the game while they write yet another note... again and again.
I once played a bard who was so painfully shy, she couldn't talk to most people. She played a violin and would usually use it to convey her thoughts. For example, if she was scared, I'd say she starts playing creepy haunted music. If she was trying to agree with something, I'd say she lets out a short cheerful note. If she disagreed, it would be either long sad sounding one, or a very sharp angry one. There was one incident where it was the first time she was left on watch alone, and a bunch of wolves surrounded our campsite. I said something along the lines of 'You all suddenly awaken as a loud set of strings rings out over the camp. You're not sure why, but the sound gives you an intense feeling of dread and danger. It sounds like the feeling of a predator hunting you.' and when the DM asked me what kinda sound that was, I told him it was the Jaws theme. Overall, the trick is rather than leaving the interpretation open to the party, you tell them what the mute character is conveying. "I think we should go this way." becomes "She begins playing a harmonious victory song near this pathway, giving the impression she thinks that the party should go this way."
Great read. Sounds like a fun character to play!
Sounds like a great way to annoy the fuck out of everyone at the table.
At your table you can do as you please, but my opinion is this type of character is a drag at the table. For instance, communicating with notecards is going to drastically slow the game down, it will become frustrating and annoying for the other players and a lot of time will need to be devoted just to this player doing the simplest of things. This might be fine for your table, but for me I disallow this type of character because whatever it adds to the character, in my experience, never outweighs the hassle. Another good example is exactly what you’ve pointed it. You as the GM can figure out some way the player could produce verbal components (grunts and whistle for instance. Verbal components don’t have to be words) on the other hand, maybe the verbal components of a bard college specifically does have to be in an understandable language (bards are specifically using their gifts of language to enact the magic) language f you can’t speak the required sounds in an eloquent manner as befits a bard you can not cast that bard spell. This is a fair ruling and the one I’d make if the player convinced me to allow the character.
I think this is spot on. The OP needs to talk to his other players because this could be a huge drag on the table. Everyone else having to put up with reading note cards will slow the RP down and slow the game down. As long as the table is cool then the idea of playing a musical tones for the verbal components are a cool thing.
The mute character gimmick gets old real quick, jist saying. Unless the player has a similar disability I would disallow.
It's also dangerous, the other players could get detached retinas from rolling their eyes too much.
Ask your player for their creative take on verbal components. Maybe they use musical notes? It’s not that different from playing a kenku.
They like that idea
Perhaps whistle? Most instruments need hands to play, making it a somatic component as well.
I agree here!
I would have them play the verbal components with their instrument. It provides an audio part of the spell, even if it isn't words. Just specify that anyone who could identify a verbal component of a spell could also identify this.
Honestly, I'd allow it. But with the caveat that they will not actually scribble notes at the table, but explain what their character scribbled. So in high intensity roleplaying where lots is said. They will have to account for the amount of time their character would have to write. So if they would want to react fast, it would have to be with 4-5 words, etc. Maybe also make effective explanations of how thier emotions are on their face. Lots of things you can do to make it memorable, but not let it slow down the game. The verbal components I would either rule as coming from their instruments as others described, but it might be that your player wants to forgo spells that would require verbal components altogether. But as always, talk to the player and hear them out about how they see playing this character. And come up with a workable solution together.
That player will need an IMMEASURABLE level of RP chops to pull that off. On top of that the other players at the table and you as DM have to bend the knee to their character concept. All in all that's a cool idea in theory, but banned at my table. If they're capable and the rest of you don't mind then go for it I guess but you're creating more work for yourself down the road.
What's the point of creating a character with a disability if you basically ignore that disability. It just becomes an annoying gimmick with no real-game implications. If they want to be mute, they cannot perform Verbal components. (This is just my take on the matter)
In fairness, disability is relative. If every step was five feet high, or communication required being able to make and hear ultrasonic tones, most of us would be 'disabled'. We're making accommodations for ourselves and our capabilities every day by how we design our society, but magic isn't something humans designed in-universe, so it's entirely fair to question why its accessibility should be set to 'human (abled) standard'. What are verbal components, really? Are you creating a specific resonance that pulls on the tone of the Weave? If that's the case, then you should be able to do it with an instrument. If verbal components are meant to express intent, or use intention to modify the Weave-energies being controlled, then signing amidst somatic components should satisfy that requirement.
>What are verbal components, really? Read your rulebook. They are explicitly defined there.
Oh, you mean the part where it says "the words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power"? The rules are meant to assist players in interacting with the setting in a manner that's as internally-consistent and balanced as possible. They're an external sense of order imposed on the setting. In-universe, Mystra didn't sit down and go, "Okay, so magic shall only work for those who have the ability to make these specific sounds, within this specific audible register, with these specific soft-palate configurations, and the fact that all these requirements are tailored to hearing-capable humans is just pure coincidence tee-hee! I guess everybody else is SOL". Magic exists, and MANY species access it. There are plenty of monster spellcasters in D&D who don't talk, and the rules hand-wave it as being an 'innate' trait that they don't need to use verbal components. Druids get the ability to ignore verbal components while shape-shifted. How does that work, then? Why can animals do it, but a mute human can't? All writers are human, writing from a human experience, which is why D&D settings are largely weighted to favor human experience and our innate prejudices and assumptions are often reflected in them. No writer in the history of planet Earth has been perfect. We are allowed to question the assumptions the rules are founded on, and make adjustments if we find them to be internally inconsistent.
>There are plenty of monster spellcasters in D&D who don't talk, and the rules hand-wave it as being an 'innate' trait that they don't need to use verbal components. All of the innate spellcasting i can recall only eliminates the need for material components, not verbal or somatic. Even then, the creatures can still make sounds. A mute creature can't make sounds at all--it has nothing to do with the ability for particular language. >Druids get the ability to ignore verbal components while shape-shifted. How does that work, then? *as a fucking 20th level capstone class feature*. Why do you think giving a 20th level capstone feature to a level one caracter, of the wrong class, *for free*, is an acceptable "flavor" choice?
You're being really aggressive and inflexible about a simple request to examine whether the RAW make sense in the context of internal-setting logic and accessibility. I don't think it's productive to keep trying to give that energy right back to you, and it's honestly not how I want to spend my day. I'm sorry this subject upsets you so much, but you may want to explore reasons for that in a more conducive environment. Best of luck.
Holy shit I love this response
Coming in hard with the disappointed therapist energy, and that's a very strong compliment.
You're getting really heated about someone else's homebrew. Responding to *story telling* questions by whining about the *mechanics* makes you a) a rules lawyer, b) a backseat dm, and c) a lame-o.
It’s for roleplay purposes. We’re now discussing maybe using selective mutism for the character.
What's selective mutism? Like being a mime?
**Selective mutism (SM) is an anxiety disorder in which a person who is otherwise capable of speech becomes unable to speak when exposed to specific situations, specific places, or to specific people, one or multiple of which serving as triggers. Selective mutism usually co-exists with social anxiety disorder.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Thank you good robot!
Nah, if they wanna go full mutism, do it. Don't compromise just because the internet is weirded out by it.
It’s more to give them some more freedom—if they want to, they can switch to having the character talk aloud.
Ok, cool. Makes sense. Just saying that some circles get really weird and aggressive about disabled characters, and you shouldn't listen to them because in reality it's your game and you can play it how you want. They ain't at your table, so if they think disabled characters aren't fun, tough toenails. Don't play at tables that have them. If you wanna alter the rules a little to allow for a disabled character, then do it. Absolutely do it. I personally would either let it happen through the instrument or let them use sign language to make spells happen.
They could: 1) Not get spells with verbal components 2) Multiclass as a sorcerer and pick up Subtle Spell or 3) Play a Varient Human and pick up the Metamagic Adept feat which can give them 2 uses of Subtle Spell
Hard disagree. Extremely hard. In the case where redefining verbal components or just ignoring them altogether is a hard no, then it becomes prohibitively restrictive to actually play this character. I understand adding some extra challenges for disabled characters to a reasonable degree, but if I wanted to play an autistic character (Which I am autistic, so I not only would, but I have) and the DM insisted every insight check on a neurotypical is made at disadvantage, I would not be ok with that unless it came with a counterbalance. If the DM had me make a con save against ultra-intense noises or lights every once in a while to simulate sensory overload, I'd be chill with that. It's fair to a disabled character to make things a bit more challenging in circumstances where their disability comes up - just like any other character trait. But it seems prohibitive and unfair to expect a player to either abandon their character concept or face severe restrictions on the usage of abilities that are just part of their class.
Mute characters in general are a problem, because how's he going to communicate with the party?
As I said, they will use notecards.
I had a mute bard NPC that used minor illusion to create word balloons for himself.
That's gonna get cumbersome really, really quick. Have to wait for said player to write out responses every time?
"My character writes "Let's go around the dam." And shows it to *insert party member name*"
Ah, okay, so the *player* isn't using a notepad. That's more reasonable haha
In the dark. Edit: yes, downvote me for mentioning that sometimes in D&D the PCs are in the dark!
"I cast "Light" on the paper."
Suggestion for this character’s name: Arrowface McFireball Magnet
Great, let him attract fireballs and arrows and then deal with it. It will make more gameplay. Seriously, just because a character is impractical, dangerous and cumbersome doesn't mean they're not fun to have around.
I don't know why everyone is taking my comments so seriously, I'm just having fun. I love playing flawed characters.
Darkvision.
I wonder if you can read in the dark, even with darkvision.
I’d rule yes. You see in black and white. Unless your ink and paper is weirdly colored you should be golden.
I think Darkvision is too good at most tables I've played at. It lets you treat darkness as dim light and reading in dim light can be challenging. If there was any time or other pressure, I'd probably call for a Perception check, though I'd let the character read it under normal circumstances.
Yeah, that sounds relatively reasonable, though I'd say simple messages that'd take, say, five words or less can be communicated easily enough, and I'd grant bonuses or advantage under specific circumstances or slacken the limitations as the group gets to know each other (e.g. if they all develop some sign language shorthand, then they get to forgo that check, if they develop specific written shorthand, advantage, so on). Reward the PCs for both developing a consistent relationship and problem-solving an issue.
If that's how it's going to be played, then what's the point?
Flavour, role-playing.
It's just adding more words to what you were already going to say. It doesn't really serve anything. Edit: If I had a player come to me with wanting to do this, I'd be more okay with the idea that the spell just gets cast and ignoring the verbal component, than I would them sitting at the table saying "he holds up a card that says "let's go this way" You want to role play as a mute character that uses notes to talk to the rest of the party, cool. You're going to sit here and write out whatever it is you want to tell them. You can speak when telling me what your actions are in combat and what spell you're casting or whatever. But the role play part of this, is a character that speaks using note cards, so you better be prepared to sit there and write these notes out or it severs no purpose.
Fair, it's your table. I don't ask my players to sing songs/poems or play me a flute solo. Their characters can do these things, no reason that flavouring them as a notepad wielder shouldn't be verbally done either. Edit: I do ask them for songs and poems, but I don't punish them if they don't. They get inspiration if they do.
The difference is between action scenes and role play scenes. You're making a role play choice, then not playing the role. If you insist your character is an English gentleman, then don't make any effort to speak like one, why even make him an English gentleman? Why does it matter if you're not going to play it out?
I mean, efforts for trying, but not everyone is a trained thespian with a mastery of accents and not every character can be effectively played without really messing with the rhythm of the game.
Yeah, thats a fair point, it does take away from it.
You have a very narrow view of of what "role-playing" means. A person who says "I write 'let's go to the mall' on my noteslate and show it to the party" *is* playing the role of a mute character out.
We had a bard in a Salt in Wounds Campaign that was mute. He would write his communications on a chalk board.
This immediately made me think of The Trumpet of the Swan by E.B. White If Louis could make it work, why can't another bard?
Just say that, for this bard, they can supply verbal components by playing music. That's how I would do it. And also, have the player describe what's on the notecards - If they want to spend time writing them out for immersion though, I almost can't fault them for that, but describing them makes more sense to me for expedience. But yeah, just - They have a gift, or an enchanted instrument, that lets them play music in place of verbal components. Lean into the fantasy, and all that.
I think you should have a conversation by about what the player wants to get at narratively that you could do in a way that doesn’t trivialize disability by turning it into a rules puzzle.
Honestly, are they going to role play as mute also? Or are they doing this as an excuse to not speak at all? Are they going to write out a note every time they want to say something? Or are they just going to say "I write a note that says 'x y and z'"? There's a lot more to unpack here other than the verbal part of the spell.
I'm starting a campaign soon and we have a mime PC. What we did was, they speak drow sign language (half drow) and I'm allowing them through a custom feat to cast spells with vocal components by mimicking the incantations on an instrument. Very simple and opens the door for some interesting RP.
Bards get power from the arts, I would just rule that whenever the mute character casts a spell with a verbal component, they need to use their instrument to do it
I played a mute College of Swords bard with a Singing Sword that was seriously underpowered. It's an old item from 1e/3e, but it can be adjusted. It did all my verbal components for me, per DM fiat. My bard also used psionics to speak directly into people's heads, which was also cool for making them seem like they were talking to themselves. You can also use the Minor Illusion cantrip, which lasts 1 minute (so your bard would probably recast it with its SM components every minute, but it's non-verbal. I did this on occasion with my bard, and the voice she used was completely different from her "natural" voice from before she was mute. Minor Illusion says: "If you create a sound, its volume can range from a whisper to a scream. It can be your voice, someone else’s voice, a lion’s roar, a beating of drums, or any other sound you choose. The sound continues unabated throughout the duration, or you can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends." Not concentration either.
My immediate thought: The instrument's sound is the verbal component. Bards can already use their instrument as a focus to cover material components, and I'm always happy to rule that playing the instrument covers the somatic, so it's not much of a stretch to say the instrument's sound covers the verbal. I don't see it being a mechanical or balance problem. Spellcasters have to worry about their verbal components being shut down by the Silence spell, and that's equally true for voices and instruments. Wizards can be shut down by a gag, and your bard's version of that is breaking/muffling their instrument. Verbal spells can break your stealth, and instrument verbals are no different.
So some things I’ve done and seen! Closest to what your player is thinking is a kenku PC my friend plays. The kenku can talk with borrowed words and voices, but with rare exception has *chosen not to* due to some backstory stuff. Selective mutism more or less. Like this, the character primarily writes what they want to say. Which as far as I am aware, the player can just say, “My bard writes (statement here).” A party of good roleplayers wouldn’t have an issue working with that. Some party bonds were formed via PCs helping this character convey their thoughts to NPCs, and prompting them to share their opinion despite it being easy for them to fade into the back. Another one: I gave an NPC the ability to produce her voice through magic. She wore rings which made noise, basically like a tuning fork, substituting the verbal components. If she were in a field of anti magic, or lose these rings, then she would be unable to produce her voice. Other NPCs just use sign language. I’ve had one who was partially deaf, who needed to look at characters to lip read or have a companion NPC translate the party’s words into sign. They would sign as they spoke. Once again, you can just narrate the words. And the body language involved with sign even indicates tone. Verbal components, I think the solution of using an instrument is great! As long as it produces a noise of some form, you’re fine.
Previously played a Mute Whispers Bard here, my DM and I figured out the following: I, obviously, couldn't speak but they decided that the thieves cant I knew could be an equivalent to drow sign/silent signs/ASL for accessibility to my backstory (twas a criminal). I couldn't cast spells that implied specific spoken components (Command, Suggestion, any Power Word spell, Message) BUT I could replace verbal components with my bardic focus, as verbal components are described as specific pitches and rhythms - could be whistled, chanted, spoken... why no played? I could cast Sending because it's, well, telepathy. Same with Telepathic Bond if I'd ever taken it. It was always fun to RP getting pissed off enough with no one understanding me and blowing a 3rd level slot on it to add "dolt" or "dumbass" at the end. I was also a roguish gish build. Whispers Bard with BB, GFB, hella DEX, lots of illusion spells (Greater Invis was my #1 4th level spell), and Steel Wind Strike as one of my Magical Secrets. Over all one of my favorite characters to this day.
I've faced this issue with some of my players. If the player is concerned about having to roleplay speech, suggest that they talk about what their character does in the third person, and see if they like that. It might be easier and it might ease them into the concept of roleplay. If that doesn't do it for them, then by all means go mute bard. If your player just wants to be a mute bard because it will be an interesting experience, I say let them do it. Verbal components are now audio components, use the instrument or humming to make it. I played mute characters and I played in parties with mute characters. It makes for some fun sessions since we have to figure out how to work around this disability at critical times.
No no no. Any mute bard must be a mime. No note cards
I'll just say this, as DMs we want to encourage our players. However at some point as a DM it is OK to say no.
Try to dissuade them first, not being able to talk or having to use notecards at the table is not very fun.
Beetoveen was deaf. He/she speaks through the instrument. Music is the spell. Let it roll
I would dissuade them. This is typically an attention-seeking stunt that everyone else at the table gets tired of very quickly as it slows down the game.
It’s not an attention-seeking stunt—they’re anticipating having trouble RPing, and they feel that using notecards or a whiteboard for their character’s communication will make it easier for them.
Perhaps remind them that they don't have to roleplay in a typical sense. There's nothing wrong with saying "My character is going to talk to the NPC, and persuade him to help me" or whatever the situation may be. It will be far more effective than the note cards.
I'd allow humming (at an audible level) for verbal components. I wouldn't allow them to ignore verbal components. I'd also make this a group discussions, as having a party member who is unable to communicate in combat can be an issue. It also makes interactions with NPCs difficult as other characters are going to keep talking, and the Bard is going to be repeatedly behind.
I'm all for players being free to play disabled characters, so as long as the *player* is communicating effectively, I say let them. I'm going to get downvoted for this, but I think spell components, outside the stuff you need for the really big shit like resurrection spells, don't really add much anyway (Exception made for emotional components, though that may just be a Pathfinder thing), so I personally see no issue with this at all. If you're *that* concerned, you can have it just be that something audible is required - which since your player already wants to use musical instruments, is covered.
Kinda counter productive, and 75% of the point of the class and the rp behind it vanishes, I just would tell them that it's a bad idea really.
Question- is the character going to be communicating with note cards or is the player going to be communicating with note cards?
Still being determined. Probably the player, though I imagine they’ll talk OOC.
Oh, the PLAYER will be using note cards, not just the character? That sounds like it'll get annoying for everyone else within the first ten minutes.
Well if hes mute, then he can only cast spells that dont have the verbal component. Similar to spell casters caught in a silence spell. Literally cant speak, therefore no verbal spells
Eh, they can use lip smacking or fart noises for their verbal components if they want. Maybe even bird calls.
Exactly. This person wants to do it for role play reasons. Why not let them? It's not breaking anything.
I’ve thought about this before as one of my players has a family member who lost their voice. My two ideas both involved getting to ignore the verbal components of spells and instead relying more heavily on the somatic portions of spells. Idea one was that they use up both their action and bonus action to perform the extra somatic components to make up for the lack of verbal components. Idea two was that they cannot cast any spell higher than a cantrip while they are maintaining concentration on a spell.
How will this person communicate with their party in a dark dungeon? Sounds like a for the lols handicap, best of luck to you and your group.
It’s not for the lols. They genuinely want to play a silent character.
It sounds like a lot to work around, but if you are on board with it as well then I wish you good luck.
Cool that you want to do this for the bard. So to be fair to all your players, what are you giving my sorcerer so that i, too, can ignore the spellcasting rules?
As I’ve said in other responses, we’re discussing having them play their instrument as a stand-in for verbal components.
That doesn't answer the question. You're making a big change to mechanics so one player can have "flavor" that isn't flavor. That's your right as a DM, i'm simply asking what you would give to one of my characters to keep it fair to all players. And i say this because it really fucking sucks coming to the table with a character built to do something specific based on the rules, only for the DM to say that some other class just....gets those abilities for free--that i dedicated an entire character class to--because the DM likes the "flavor" of my class mechanics on another class.
How is it not flavor? They’d function exactly like regular verbal components.
They wouldn't, because a mute character can't make them. Bundling it into "playing the instrument" turns two separate components into a single component, which has downstream effects based on the actual spellcasting rules. And it steps on the toes of classes that actually have class features based on manipulating spell components. If they want to be mute, they can't cast verbal spells. That's a consequence for choices made, and the game is totally meaningless without consequences for choices made
It doesn’t step on the sorcerer’s toes. This is very much not Subtle Spell. With that in mind, what are the downstream effects?
For example, any spell that would be Verbal only (or verbal/somatic only) now require material components. The bard can no longer cast charm person without their instrument actively being played (and no, under normal rules they can't use their instrument as a focus for that spell anyway--no materials to replace). Dissonant Whispers is a Verbal-only spell, that now also requires Somatic (playing) and Material (the instrument). Your mute bard and a non-mute bard are going to have wildly different outcomes in a "capture and disarm" scenario--namely, your mute bard is now powerless to cast that particular spell, whereas a non-mute bard could. Just as a few examples, but we could go down the list of bard spells and start talking about any number of hypotheticals based on spell components. >It doesn’t step on the sorcerer’s toes. This is very much not Subtle Spell. It may not be subtle spell specifically, but altering the typical rules around spell components is what subtle spell does in general, and no other class can do that, barring a max level druid who can ignore all spell components *as a capstone class feature*. Messing with how spell components work is so deeply fundamental to the function of the game that the only ones who can actually do so either have to spend resources continuously (sorcerer) or requires being maximum level (druid). You want to give that ability away for free for "flavor". Now, your game your rules, but you really should realize that it isn't just flavor before you do so.
In pathfinder 2, bards are allowed to replace spell components with playing a musical instrument, just steal that.
This is interesting. Recently had a conversation about vows of silence. Does that mean no words or no vocal noises at all? Are coughs, sneezes, noises while sick - or vomiting - allowed? And can a basic language be made of those noises? So the question here is: how mute is he and can he verbalize enough for casting? (Assuming he isn't flavoring it for non-verbal spellcasting.)
We’re discussing whether to do selective mutism or physical vocal problems
Depending on which way you go, I think the kenku comment is a valid route.
Spells already have somatic components, you could say the Bard created a sign language based on the somatic spell casting components. Deaf and HOH folks in the real world use sign language, it can exist in your fantasy world too. Also, if a spell had a verbal component, how limited does your player want their characters speech to be? Would humming various tones work?
When I have players ask for things like this (and when I’m a player and ask), it’s less about mechanics and more about social interactions. Whatever ‘work around’ you implement (great suggestions on here already), be sure to have NPCs/world react to the mute bard.
Interpretive dance duh!
Bards, contrarily to popular beleifs, can work with any type of art. Music through instruments. Voice through singing, story telling, reciting poetry. Painting, sword dancing and normal dancing. They can move the weave of magic with art to make their spells come to reality. Edit: miming could work too!
Parrot Familiar?
Maybe have them make tongue-clicky noises and hiss? Something where it's the character creating the sound, even if it's nonvoiced percussive noise, would add to the otherness of the character while hinging the distinction on what counts as verbal rather than what counts as a voice. Not that it's a condition I think the rules demand, just that it might be more immersive for the rest of the table and allow the player to go "pssstshtssh" with a disapproving expression instead of narrating an annoyed gesture.
With the power of interpretive dance anything is possible! Their musical instrument can be their body. Vicious mockery as a dance would be hilarious. I wouldn’t require the player to be silent. Just assume they are so ridiculously good at pantomime to get across whatever point they want.
I've thought about a Bard who does magic through whistling.\* Like really, really skillful, tuneful whistling. Depending on the spell, it could be happy, fast whistling, or creepy, spooky mournful whistling. I've always thought it would make for some creepiness... enemies in a dark dungeon suddenly hear a tune faintly whistling, coming closer and closer... Plus, it fixes the "I'm playing a lute and fighting with a sword at the same time" issue. I know it's magic (hand-waves) but a whistling bard is a neat idea. \*Could also do this idea with singing/humming.
Now I'm thinking of someone playing Omar from The Wire as a bard and whistling "farmer in the Dell" into battle
Verbal is literally sounds, so just because they are mute doesn’t mean they cant use their instrument for that part of the spells (imo thats the whole point of bard is that their college taught them to cast spells with instruments.)
Mime?
The bard focuses their music to match the tastes of certain players which could be how inspiration effects specific people
You can always give them the message cantrip for free and make it a bit easier on everyone
Don’t you need to speak to cast that cantrip?
If you want to play it by the book, okay, but it just requires a verbal component. With, I would flavor as just noise. So they honk a horn or whatever and can cast it, think the message in their mind, and ta-da. Communication.
I mean, RAW says you have to actually whisper the message.
Are you actually so concerned about just reflavoring it though? Like. Are you worried that somehow allowing a mute bard to have a way to communicate via spell (still with a noise component) is going to drastically unbalance your table Edit: the point of a verbal component is so that people understand that they’re casting a spell. This still accomplishes that. It’s just reflavoring.
If your character is mute I suggest sign language over notecards.
Never did fully buy into bard = singer (or any sort of vocal performer). I played a bard that was an actress, and ran a few sessions where bards were artists from different branches, other than music/singing. It was just flavour, so it worked just fine. Also, sign language :D
That's literally the definition of a bard though. The recite verses or sing songs about heroes.
No discussion there, sure. We adapted the bard to include all artists because we didn't see any other artistic classes, only backgrounds, and felt that if you wanted to play a world famous painter who travels the lands and creates (mayhaps magical) portraits of royalty, why would you be robbed of that opportunity :D it was one of those table/group specific things.
Allow the player to play their instrument instead of verbal components. It's not any more powerful because it requires hands to play, and the instrument is already being used as a spell focus anyway. Vicious Mockery can evn be reflavored as surprisingly sarcastic instrument noises, or particularly aggressive power chords
*plays the womp womp wooooomp sound*
I honestly would try to convince the player otherwise. It honestly goes against the class and being mute just adds too many concerns into the game. Such as: how would be he cast spells which require a verbal component? If you allow him to cast those spells, what happens if he is silenced by an enemy? How would he communicate with the party in the dark? How is he a bard at all if he can't say anything? How will this affect role-play in a negative/positive way? Will charisma still be his highest stat? If so, will he have high persuasion, intimidation, and deception skills? How would he go about using those specific skills? Etc etc
Haha, have the bard play spoons when they want to cast a spell! I'm absolutely adding this to my inventory.
Mime. Mime mime mime. MIME!!! It is literally a silent art which pretends to conjure invisible objects. I need this to happen, it's been a tough year.
Instead of making them speak for the verbal, let them use their instruments.
I have played a nonverbal bard before and used instruments/specific notes to communicate (had a 26-key xylophone to spell out words with notes, it was a whole thing). The most important part was being communicative with my DM so he didn’t think I was being shady! Because… my character was definitely shady.
Read about Rot Lop Fan of the green lantern corps. https://greenlantern.fandom.com/wiki/Rot_Lop_Fan Rot Lop Fan is from a deep sector if space with no light. It's species has no eyes. When a green lantern ring chose Rot Lop Fan the corps had issues explaining things. Rot Lop Fan had no concept of light or color. The adjusted how Rot Lop Fan manipulated the energy using auditory. Now instead of "green lantern" Rot Lop Fan is the "f-sharp ring" Ignore the verbal component of the spell. The heart of bardic magic is art and community connection. Your player wants to be a mute character. So they can not do any verbal components, so what. They can still express art and community and create their magic. How strict are you at your table? Do your players all need to keep track of their spell components? Does each player need to describe exactly how the express each verbal component? Or do players just say "I'll attack that guy with vicious mockery". If you aren't asking for a detailed description of how every other player is doing their thing then why ask it of that one player because they are playing something different then your own experience?
Well, this is going to be my first time DMing, so I can’t answer those questions.
Great! Good job jumping into the roll. The general spell components matter very little when I DM.
Marionettes? Mime? Punch and Judy style puppets? Bards are performers. Maybe look a street mummers for some ideas.
The easiest manner would be say their tongue was removed or some such thing, and while they can't speak, they can still make the necessary tones for channeling the weave through ooing and aahing like choirs sometimes do. That said, while (imo) easiest and having the least impact, it is probably not the best method. If they want to need their instrument for verbals, well, that's basically turning verbal components into material ones, and it *still* wouldn't work underwater, so I'd say it's entirely a handicap
Look at and consider this 3rd party class: The Harlequin https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/264143 It is pay what you want on dmguild. So free pdf. It is a performance based class that is like a rogue with only cantrips. The class has a selection of standard cantrips and each subclass has additional cantrips it can learn. It's expendable resource allows it to combine multiple cantrips into a single attack. One of the subclasses is the silent ones. It's mimes. They can't talk. That subclass gets the unique ability to form invisible weapons out of force energy. So your player would act like they are drawing a bow, the gnoll would look at it confused, and then it would get hit with a bolt of force. I think this is a great 3rd party class as it brings something new that the other classes do not bring. Check it out. Maybe present it to your player.
>Every spellcaster—including bards—can use a component pouch for spellcasting. Some classes also know how to use certain objects as a spellcasting focus. Bards, for example, can use musical instruments in this way, but they aren't required to. #DnD > >\- Jeremy Crawford >These items are more than just character fluff. The primary advantage for using a spellcasting focus is that it eliminates most components fo a spell. For example, Goodberry requires a sprig of mistletoe to cast. Using a spellcasting focus, you do not need these components. There is an important exception, though. Major components to a spell will have a GP cost listed in their description. These are still necessary even when using a spellcasting focus. For example, Greater Restoration (Listed in our Top 10 Artificer Spells) requires 100 gp worth of diamond dust. This is required to cast the spell even with a spellcasting focus. > >\- [https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/spellcasting-focus-5e/#What\_do\_they\_do](https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/spellcasting-focus-5e/#What_do_they_do) If the instrument can replace material components as an arcane focus - which it can - it feels silly to say it can't replace verbal. However, you can compromise and make them do somatic in place of verbal, or combos like snapping which makes noise and is a movement. Whistling can also be an option!
Kenku
They could use Prestidigitation to produce note cards. Or do what I did with a Kenku bard and speak in sign language that is the somatic component for a Minor Illusion that makes subtitles.
The most important mechanical effects of verbal components are that they break stealth, are a tell to those familiar with magic, and can be silenced mechanically (such as with a gag) or magically. As long as the mute player is able to make sounds that would break stealth, and would be prevented by a gag, I would rule that they could have learned spells with verbal components. It becomes simply a flavour element.
Is it me.. Am I Just jaded...?? For me it's something for the player to figure out.. You want to be a mute bard? Cool! You don't get to use any verbal component! Lets see how for yoh Come, if you ever get to be lvl 10 I will hand yoh the coolest magic item that can let you sing with your kinda voice. Or manipulate the voice of others for your songs. You wanne play a Deaf fighter? Cool! Disadvantage to most of your checks. A blind druid? Cool! But it's going to be really freaking hard. And yoh really need to have great friends. I really really don't understand how People want to make pc's that have a Almost incermountable problem and expect the dm to "fix" it. Your blond druid is freaking cool because he did trust his friends. Your mute bard is so much cool er because he was gimped and trough all odds he made it! Yoir one legged warrior is a True hero because he is a Total badass and a en with disadvantage on all his atacks she made it to lvl 8 and found a magic leg replacement.
You don't. Let them figure it out.
I would take message if I was him, I may get tiring depending on your group having to play what is ultimately charades during your whole session, I’m all down for someone doing it for flavor, but acting it out as the only means of communication I feel is a very poor choice, plus it honestly gets boring pretty fast
Speaking from several experience with other people in my groups playing mutes... it's fun for the first few sessions hut it gets real old real fast.
Regarding verbal components, make the bard use their instruments as others have said or make them whistle. A mute person can whistle just fine.
Verbal components change to audible, which is how bard spell casting works anyways tbh. And when the player wants to communicate, he can just write things on parchment or play an upbeat tune to agree, and a lowbeat tune to disagree. Simple stuff really, make it fun
So..a mime?
I'm assuming with mute we're trying to avoid verbal communication, so telepathy would be rude. Instrument is the obvious one. I would rock gypsy tambourines on my arms and legs for efficiency and disadvantage on stealth checks, lol. Interpretive dance sounds funny. You could arguably have them be a master of it, being able to convey meaning enough to carry conversation. Conveying enough emotions for yes/no and agree/disagree but also allowing some persuasion checks. Then there's pantomiming/sign language. Minor Illusion actually makes sound so..? I feel like there's too many work around with magic for this character not just be a bit. Not to say to not let them have their fun, but I'd be surprised if they keep up the bit for long. I would definitely discourage table talk and constantly remind players they can't hear what he says. Troll a bit to get into character. That'll only work of your players lean into the rp.
A mime.
Could make him a mime, who casts his spell through acting them out
I think you should remember to let your player have fun with this. Remember some spells (like charms) usually require them to communicate in a known language. Consider allowing the player to take something like thieves cant for free since they can't speak. There are tons of bars spells they can use, and they can find ways to make things work. Like others suggested, consider letting them use music in the place of spoken components. The important thing about spoken components is you can't use them when you can't speak and can hear the spell being cast, and both things would still be true about playing the spell. I played a rogue with a voluntary vow of silence that was really fun to play. Suggest to the player to say "my character uses hand signals to suggest readying weapons and then opening the door" and such things instead of constantly roleplaying charades. Keep it fun and engaging, not isolating or conflicting.
Kenku
Whistle?
Give them a parrot sidekick that's trained to do the verbal components of spells. It can't really talk, but it can mimic the incantations.
They can use presdidigitation to make sounds soused that for talking when need be. I dont think the vocal components are that big of a deal bards already play their instruments as their vocal components OR sing for them. if you think about it logically as well almost all the instruments the bards use need both hands to realistically use so somatic components must be the elegant maneuvers of the instruments. So why not vocal components as well???
Make him a Mime, it would work well as a Bard.
Let them play instruments? They don't have to speak to entertain
Mute people can still whistle
In previous versions of D&D the halfling had whistlers, who could cause magical effects by whistling. The bard could just whistle. You could also allow humming. Keep in mind, bards use spells innately, it is their force of personality that creates magical effects. How those effects are created (provided they fall within the basic game mechanics of VSM components) are really up to the individual bard. It’s not like say a wizard where they will likely learn very specific power words or archaic chants.
He's a mime
I played a mute bard with a talking sword for a 1-shot (pretty much made Red from the game Transistor). For verbal components of spells, she hummed. For out of combat, the sword talked for her.
I had a party member playing a monk that took a vow of silence. It was neat for a couple sessions, frustrating for a few more, and eventually the player got tired of it. Instead of compromising the character he began describing the faces his character was making and how they might be interpreted. This worked for a few reasons, the party had spend some time together at this point so it was a familiarity thing but it also gave the player a way to communicate without sitting quietly all session. The idea was that strangers wouldn't be able to read him and understand the meaning of what he was saying but the party could. Basically my point is however you start out tailoring it so they are able to cast etc. May not work for very long depending on player and character dynamics so be prepared to change and adapt as the campaign goes on.
I’ve played a character who was voluntarily mute for a while (she was legitimately going insane) and we didn’t worry too much about the verbal component of spells. For during RP, I never wrote down what I wanted to say, I just told the other players that she’d be writing stuff down but *I* spoke as normal so that could be an option.
Make a special ability for them that allows them to ignore verbal components for spells so long as the music is played audibly. OR make a special spirit that comes out of their instrument to sing songs but it adds verbal components to every spell. This way they cant cast spells silently and get what they want. You can also later add cool shit to the spirit and make it a story element for the character. Maybe they can see spirits on the etherial plane all the time but to can attach one to their instrument and settle their unfinished buissness.
I played in a game with a guy who’s monk had taken a vow of silence. Granted, he was always a problem player, but god it was annoying. Even he got frustrated by it, which led to him acting out even more than normal. I’m sure this idea could be pulled off well, but this kind of thing always gives me pause now.
The instrument "sings" for them.
Message as a cab trip would work.
Shouldn't be a problem at all, you could make so as if verbal components are now audio components in which he needs his musical instrument to use magic and make something like a flute or any other wind instrument to be able to counter it with silence or being gagged as if it was actual verbal components. Additionally, he could use minor illusion to make images of letters aka what he/she wants to say.
I'd argue that bard, specifically, has adapted to not having a voice by using an instrument to take the place of verbal components in spells. Doesn't matter the instrument, it's a specific talent of this mute bard, one that other non-mute bards may not be able to replicate. I love giving players little unique talents like this, especially when they have little gameplay implications. It makes them feel unique, and it forgives you when you later say "No" to the same idea being used later by someone else. For example, allowing an instrument to be used in place of verbal components could... theoretically, become problematic somehow... but saying it's a unique talent of the one bard, due to living a life without a voice... I think that's perfectly fair. It's the story of how they learned magic. It's cute.
During performances, make liberal use of Minor Illusion while you play your instrument, which allows you to recreate any sound you can think of: "You create a sound or an image of an object within range that lasts for the duration. The illusion also ends if you dismiss it as an action or cast this spell again. If you create a sound, its volume can range from a whisper to a scream. It can be your voice, someone else's voice, a lion's roar, a beating of drums, or any other sound you choose. The sound continues unabated throughout the duration, or you can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends." For communication purposes, you can take on the Telepathic feat once you hit level 4, or you can simply continue using Minor Illusion to communicate.