Here's a question. . .
For non-humanoid creatures with unusual anatomies, what are the absolute minimum requirements necessary for a creature to perform the necessary Verbal and Somatic components?
For example, could a Hell Hound receive wizard levels and cast a spell, despite its verbal limitations? For that matter, could a Nightmare get cleric levels and use its hooves for somatic components? What about a Mimic? Or an Invisible Stalker? And so on. . .
Is there any general ruling in the core books that I am missing, and if so, could someone point me in the right direction? Thanks a lot!
Check out the savige sepecis sorce book, libris motis, the dracamicon, and lords of madniss for tips on no humanoid spell casters.
Savage Species, Liber Mortis, Draconomicon, Lords of Madness -- it'll only cost about $120.
Sorry, I get annoyed and amused at the cost of playing this game, and a response that suggests looking at 4 non-core books makes my wallet twitch :)
Jack
If a creature can make coherent sounds with its vocal cords it can cast spells with a verbal component. This means that most intelligent monsters can cast verbal only spells.
A creature needs limbs and hands approximating those of a humanoid if it wants to cast spells with a somatic component. Therefore an ogre mage, mind flayer, or nymph could cast spells with somatic components, but a chimera, roper, or beholder could not.
Of course, both of these conditions are often thrown out the window by DMs for the sake of creating a memorable monster. If you want to create a beholder that cast spells it just means that the beholder uses movements of its eyestalks to mimic hand gestures and uses its telekinetic ray to manipulate material components (or takes the Eschew Components feat). Also remember that creatures like dragons and naga have sorcerer or cleric levels and cast spells. Advancing their magical spell ability is easy since its assumed that all their spells have verbal only components.
If a creature can make coherent sounds with its vocal cords it can cast spells with a verbal component. This means that most intelligent monsters can cast verbal only spells.
A creature needs limbs and hands approximating those of a humanoid if it wants to cast spells with a somatic component. Therefore an ogre mage, mind flayer, or nymph could cast spells with somatic components, but a chimera, roper, or beholder could not.
Of course, both of these conditions are often thrown out the window by DMs for the sake of creating a memorable monster. If you want to create a beholder that cast spells it just means that the beholder uses movements of its eyestalks to mimic hand gestures and uses its telekinetic ray to manipulate material components (or takes the Eschew Components feat). Also remember that creatures like dragons and naga have sorcerer or cleric levels and cast spells. Advancing their magical spell ability is easy since its assumed that all their spells have verbal only components.
Thanks, Phil. May your future vengful Druid be mighty. :)
Check out the savige sepecis sorce book, libris motis, the dracamicon, and lords of madniss for tips on no humanoid spell casters.
Thanks to you too, dude. Surrogate Spellcasting via Savage Species looks like a good choice. I was hoping someone had a loophole. I didn't want to waste a feat on it (and, er. . . word count). Thanks!
Chris,
You can always make the assumption (as I do), that the somatic and verbal components for each spell are unique to each language. Why do bipeds have the patent on spellcasting?
My unofficial house rule is that if the creature can make an audible sound and can move, it can cast normal spells. If it's one of those telepathic weirdness creatures, it can cast spells as an innate ability.
...but judging from your last post, you were looking for something "official" in order to use in a submission...and that I don't know about....
I would just say, for the hell hound example that - they cast spells as whatever level wizard, and did it with growls, though sorcerer levels probably makes more sense. And for the feats associated with those levels eschew components would be one of the first picks.
The bigger issue (IMO) with spell casting animals (and monsters) is spell selection. I would make an effort to pick spells that fit. For Hell Hounds, fear, fire, darkness, enlarge, maybe blink, invisible, dimension door depending on the scenario, but like lightning bolt, I would steer away from.
Chris,
You can always make the assumption (as I do), that the somatic and verbal components for each spell are unique to each language. Why do bipeds have the patent on spellcasting?
My unofficial house rule is that if the creature can make an audible sound and can move, it can cast normal spells. If it's one of those telepathic weirdness creatures, it can cast spells as an innate ability.
...but judging from your last post, you were looking for something "official" in order to use in a submission...and that I don't know about....
Yeah man. . . that was kind of the idea. I had a few house rules myself on this issue, which are gonna be big no-nos officially:
1. Only humanoids have a verbal and somatic component. Each type of creature in existence posesses its own connection to the divine/arcane, and therefore, each type of creature posesses a unique set of requirements to access it, based on their physiology/psychology. This doesn't work in every DM's cosmology, but I can rationalize it pretty well in mine.
2. Ability limits for spellcasters. Why can't a wizard have a 7 intelligence and cast 3rd level spells? Why can't uncharismatic people be sorcerers? Granted they won't be very effective, with negative DC modifiers, etc, but if that's okay with teh NPC, it should be okay int he game. After all, there are no strength requirements for fighters. . . instead, there are just mechanics built into the game to make characters with low strength/dexterity less capable in combat. Personally, I feel like this should be the same for Spellcasters. As far as spells like Feeblemind or Touch of Idiocy are concerned, you STILL lose bonus spells and have a negative to your DC - why lose the ability to cast all together? If you cast Ray of Enfeeblement on a fighter, he doesn't lose his sword or a bunch of feats. . . he just loses strength and the modifiers associated with it.
3. Eschew Materials is a good thing, so everybody gets this for free. In my game, spellcasters only have to provide costly spell components (Identify, etc.), XP, and/or any divine/arcane focus. Situations where a spellcaster is stripped of his posessions and incarcerated. . . well, PC capture only leads to one thing in my games: subduing the guards, picking the lock with a bent copper piece, finding a single chest nearby with ALL of their stuff, and executing a heroic escape. :) Letting the wizard participate a little more is no problem in my book.
As far as the official word goes, I'm pretty comfortable with Phil's ideas on this. I've read too many of his submissions in the mag to consider him anything but the mack-daddy at this point.
It's funny how house rules CAN infect your submissions, though. You play with them for so long, you just forget what the rulebooks actually say. I let one go out a couple of months ago that "assumed" one of my above house rules. . . I didn't even realize it until yesterday. :/ (%#^@, %$^#, and other Q-bert-style rantings. . .)
Anyway, thanks.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
One thing to keep in mind about letting non-humanoids easily cast somatic spells is how your players will (ab)use that fact in conjunction w/polymorph and other shapechanging abilities. I'm not certain that it is a major isssue from the perspective of balance, but the core rules do prevent wizards from being able to cast while polymorphed into non-humanoid creature. The designers even considered the ability to cast while in a druid's animal form worthy of a feat.
Sebastian
One thing to keep in mind about letting non-humanoids easily cast somatic spells is how your players will (ab)use that fact in conjunction w/polymorph and other shapechanging abilities. I'm not certain that it is a major isssue from the perspective of balance, but the core rules do prevent wizards from being able to cast while polymorphed into non-humanoid creature. The designers even considered the ability to cast while in a druid's animal form worthy of a feat.
Yes, I'm familiar with that problem. One way around it is to say that those creatures are ALWAYS in that form, and thus are more "proficient" with their own limbs, while someone assuming that form wouldn't be. For example, if a wizard polymorphs into a tentacled form with a strange mouth, say that it's too alien to his mind to cast spells in, but that creature is perfectly comfortable with its own anatomy, and can cast spells just fine. At least, that's how I justify it.
Another thing to consider is wizards spellbooks. What does a hellhound's spellbook look like? If it doesn't have hands how can it scribe spells? How can any monstrous creature without opposable digits write? I suppose they could hold the quill or pen in their mouths, in their tentacles, or between their paws, but its still problematic.
On a second point, does a naga wizards spellbook contain verbal only spells or spells that use body waving for somatic components. Does a human wizard therefore have to mimic a naga's body waving to cast spells from the naga's spellbook? If all the spells were verbal only does that make them more or less powerful?
I have answers for these questions from a DMing perpective, but thought I'd throw it open to the message boards.
By the way Chris, thanks for the encouragment.