Nerioth |
Now, I know that testing is essentially over, but in the oracle, it states that
Deaf: You cannot hear and suffer all of the usual penalties for being deafened. You cast all of your spells as if they were modified by the Silent Spell feat. This does
not increase their level or casting time.
So does that mean that for any classes taken, such as for a wizard, that all their spells would be considered silent too? This has abuse all over it, but just checking on the intent of this.
Fauxknight |
You got yourself a tone deaf bard.
Or a mime.
Being deaf is a pretty severe handicap. There is no reason to limit the benefit to oracle only. Multi-classing as a spellcaster is sub-par to begin with and if the DM thinks its really being abused he can easily make being deaf a more significant problem for the player.
hogarth |
Being deaf is a pretty severe handicap. There is no reason to limit the benefit to oracle only. Multi-classing as a spellcaster is sub-par to begin with and if the DM thinks its really being abused he can easily make being deaf a more significant problem for the player.
Yeah, I'm not really seeing a huge potential for abuse. Silent Spell is nice, but being deaf is a significant penalty.
Alizor |
From my playtesting I'd say that it really isn't that big of an issue at all, considering that deaf is a major penalty. Even once your get tremorsense being deaf still has disadvantages: not being able to cast/receive spells based on sounds (message?), not being able to understand speech unless you are looking at the person (DMs should be using some primitive facing adjudications for deaf characters) and still a negative to initiative and perception checks.
Silent spell only makes it so you aren't detected as much as well as being able to cast in a silence spell. The only case where I see this to be an extremely powerful combination is an oracle/wizard mystic theurge. And to be honest a mystic theurge is not that powerful compared to a single classed caster.