Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zacharia 03-09-07, 04:44 PM	The answer is right in front of some and a question to others :) Is it indeed possible to have a druid who is mute? Because I have heard of Sorcerers being blind I just figured hey why not a mute druid :P
GothicDan 03-09-07, 04:53 PM	Well, Sorcerers don't require their sight (primarily) to cast spells; Druids do, unless you take the Still Spell Feat and apply it to every spell you cast.
Zacharia 03-09-07, 05:05 PM	Thanks :) I needed to know since I was planning on making a druid who was mute, it appears he can only use his animal empathy for now untill he aquires the still spell feat :cool:
GothicDan 03-09-07, 05:07 PM	No problem. Though note that some spells don't require Vocal Components. I'm not sure which of the Druids don't require them, but some might. You'd be able to cast those spells without the Still Spell Feat.
Mr.Sinister 03-09-07, 07:37 PM	Interesting question... do spells need actual words and phrasing? I'm thinking here of the Natural Spell feat, which allows druids to cast spells while in animal form. Does the serpent's hiss or shark's (whatever sound a shark does) count as the verbal component? If so, I know a mute person, really good with gestures/somatics components by the way, and he can produce some sounds with his vocal cords, but not actual syllables or words. Kinda of related to what an animal sound might sound like. Just my 2cp. Good gaming.
Stigger 03-09-07, 07:39 PM	There was a non-vocal spellcasting feat, or something to that effect in the Planar Handbook that might work for you too... it's a bit of a stretch maybe, don't recall the exact mechanics of it offhand, but I would say it was allowable were I dm'ing it, at least from what I recall of it.
Aegis_Chiron 03-10-07, 07:52 PM	As far as I'm concerned, the verbal, somatic and material components listed are from the most common ways of casting the spell. I have no doubt that there are others words, gestures and materials that could be used to cast the same spell. For example, a Haluraan could cast a fireball one way, a Dalesman another and a Rashemani witch yet a third. If the player wanted to have a mute caster for role-playing reasons, I'd allow it. The basis for a divine casters spells are his faith in his diety and his adherence to its teachings. I would have no problem allowing a mute divine caster. For an example, think Pikel - a dwarven "doo-dad" that has a vocabulary of only three words: "oo oi", ""doo-dad" and "uh oh" and look at the pwerful spells he cast in Hunter's Blade Trilogy Now if the PC was an arcane spellcaster, then it would make aquiring spells more difficult because he'd be taught mostly spell that require verbal components. He'd have to research the modifications to the spells in order to cast them *tosses 2 copper on the table*
Ashathar 03-11-07, 05:21 AM	Personally, if I were the DM, I wouldn't allow such a character. Not because of the spellcasting and the mechanics of that; that can easily be rationalized or dealt with via various feats. I wouldn't allow it because while a character with such a deficiency might be "interesting" to play, such a character would also be hopelessly asinine and difficult in a logistical sense. A PC who can't effectively communicate with NPCs and/or his companions via mundane means is a futile exercise that I, as a DM, would not want to be a part of. The party/NPC communication breakdown is bad enough when a Wizard, Druid, or other character briefly changes into a form which doesn't allow speech via polymorph/wild shape/what have you, or when an obstinate character decides his weirdo reclusive barbarian/savage/wild elf type character doesn't speak Common. To be saddled with that problem all the time just wouldn't be fun. "Interesting" but definitely not fun.
dragonheart 03-11-07, 05:49 PM	Just a quick note - you wnat the silent spell feat not still spell. Mute is unable to talk not unable to move arms. Assuming the character is a human you could take the silent spell feat along wiht one other at the start and perhaps get by levels one and two using only 0 level spells, skills and combat. Since silent spell moves the spell level up one level the PC would always be behind a level (so even with silent spell they would have an automatic -1 ECL in my opinion).
GothicDan 03-11-07, 07:33 PM	You're utterly right, Dragonheart. Sorry for the brain fart. :p
bloodtalon 03-12-07, 08:29 PM	why would a charachter who is mute not be fun. communication is only like 50% speach the rest its body laungauge. i think it would be fun to have someone take the challange and run with it. if you say you cant have a guy cause your mute then you should make the party gesture when non can speak the same tounge and see how fun that gets. only telling what they are doing and not what they say.have them pass note back and forth with people who aspeak the same.
Karsus the Mad 03-12-07, 11:31 PM	Interesting character concept! Silent feat would be the one you want, but if I was your DM, I'd allow you the ability to use a substitute for the vocal components of spells just for having a nice idea. Maybe a focus of some sort. There was also a mute arcanist during the times of Netheril that despite not being able to speak was able to cast spells up to 7th level (I think), but higher still required him to make some form of sound. Mayhaps your character could have developed a spellcasting style that would be the equivalent of Automatic Silent Spell x2?
Ashathar 03-13-07, 12:33 AM	why would a charachter who is mute not be fun. Because it's not. I've experienced many characters who cannot communicate with the rest of the party via normal speech, from muteness, to forms which cannot speak, to language barriers, and not a one of them have been fun in the long term. Back in 2nd Edition, Wood Elves didn't speak Common by default (and with the Intelligence penalty, few had the extra languages to do so), and Saurials, even to this day, cannot produce tones audible to human ears. It's not even fun when you're the DM and the Wood Elf Ranger cannot just hurry back to the party during his scouting and immediately communicate how many Orcs and Ogres he saw about to ambush the party, what direction they were coming from, and where they are right now because he doesn't speak Common and no one else speaks Elven. I've been there, and by the time the party deciphered the hand signals and charades, my ambush party was already upon them. communication is only like 50% speach the rest its body laungauge. Unfortunately, that other 50% is a whole lot more subtle and ambiguous and difficult to decipher the immediate meaning of. you say you cant have a guy cause your mute then you should make the party gesture when non can speak the same tounge and see how fun that gets. As a DM, I have (see the Wood Elf example above). If PCs don't speak a common language (which is not necessarily the Common language), then their players don't get to communicate via spoken language. The player of a mute character could speak to describe his actions, and pantomime and gesture to try to communicate via charades, but unless the PCs all knew a universal sign language or had magical items to allow for telepathy, there'd be no spoken communication between them. And it's not fun. I suppose it's partly one's job as DM to facilitate having fun, and decisions like these stand in the way of that goal, but at the same time, I'm not going to throw all logic out the window for the sake of conscious decisions players make about their character just so they're not inconvenienced or inconveniencing other players. Rather than be asinine and arbitrary, it's a case where I'd invoke supreme executive power as a DM and say "no." Your one oddball character is not going to disrupt this game and detract from the fun of everyone else. Since D&D is a cooperative storytelling, roleplaying, and adventuring game, being able to communicate with your team both as a player and as a character is, in my opinion, so important that it's importance cannot be understated, as communication is at the very core of a team being cohesive and able to coordinate and work together. Communication and teamwork are at the very core of what makes D&D what it is, and what makes D&D fun. Any character who is significantly hampered in his ability to do so, for whatever reason, has a big potential of being distracting and disruptive whenever that part of the game comes into play, and even worse, is going to require unfair and inordinate amounts of time (in respect to that spent on the same tasks with the other players) to resolve tasks involving speaking, due to his disability, since you can't justify simply glossing over his resolution of language/verbal communications-based tasks, as that wouldn't be fair to the player and the roleplaying decisions he made in an effort to flesh out his character. This sort of thing, the interesting roleplaying, the extra attention from the DM and other players, and all that, is really only fun for the player with the disabled character. Nope. I'd nip that in the bud. A character like that is selfish, disruptive, and not conducive to a cooperative game like D&D, regardless of whatever well-meaning intentions he might have been conceived with.
Optimystik 03-13-07, 01:35 AM	For an example, think Pikel - a dwarven "doo-dad" that has a vocabulary of only three words: "oo oi", ""doo-dad" and "uh oh" and look at the pwerful spells he cast in Hunter's Blade Trilogy Pikel actually had other words, like "sha la la" for the Shillelagh druid spell he cast in Cleric Quintet. One might presume he has ways of approximating the verbal components of other spells. Of course, that doesn't really count as being "mute," so I'll stop there.
Treymordin 03-13-07, 06:28 PM	Wouldnt a silent spell feat help him cast spells? Also wouldnt a heal just undo his being mute?:P
Ashathar 03-13-07, 11:23 PM	Also wouldnt a heal just undo his being mute?:P At the risk of beating a dead horse, these are the sorts of things that keep me up at night. It's hard to rationalize how a character (especially one who is, himself, a divine spellcaster, and thus a healer and either capable of curing his affliction himself, or at least acquainted with a higher priest who could do it for him) could possibly be permanently mute in a world abundant with powerful healing magic. Aside from my personal compunctions about it from a logistics and gameplay standpoint, it also doesn't make much sense in the context of the world.
Stigger 03-14-07, 12:53 AM	Kinda hard to heal a birth defect in most instances, presuming that's the case here.
bloodtalon 03-14-07, 08:09 AM	what about sign language. the druid can still talk to the party and give them a advantage . instead of talking and making noise outside a door or out in the field risking alerting the enemy they can sign to each other and formulate a plan of attack. it also would be great as a roleplaying tool to earn the trust of someone by teaching his/her child the signs if they were mute too makeing a long time friend.
Karsus the Mad 03-14-07, 08:15 AM	Kinda hard to heal a birth defect in most instances, presuming that's the case here. Not to mention that divine magic relies upon the deity actually allowing the spell to work. There was that cleric of Sune turned cleric of Mystra who, regardless of magic, was simply unable to heal his scarred face. The inability to heal something, despite prevalent magic, is more common than not.