Giving a character some hindrances seems to give them some character. The thing is do you reward a players character for taking a hindrance and if you do ... how much do you give? Currently I am creating a gun toting fighter who had his voice box blown out when he was a child. It happened to be almost the exact same time his folks were shot and killed...Should there be a reward for not being able to voice anything and if so what should it be?
Maybe sjgn language as a bonus language, kinda limited though. Higher perception possibly, cause while everyone else is talking hes watching. I dont know just a couple ideas.
Ki points?
LOL, ki for a fighter? Or did you mean Grit for a gunslinger? He is a fighter.
With enough Int he can pick up sign language, but how many people use it? Heightened senses perhaps (even as a human), or a feat?
+1/2 level to perception, Sign language or charades as a free bonus language.
With enough Int he can pick up sign language, but how many people use it?
THis is why it would be, well, you know, a hindrance. Almost as bad as having a hook hand, say.
I agree with Porphyrogenitus.
I'm apparently in the minority here, but I would say:
Kudos for being willing to take on such a dehibilitating circumstance on your character but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disallow it.
Being able to effectively communicate with the world is too important to allow you to throw it away. Interesting concept though.
Just as I wouldn't allow someone who was really and truly deaf or 100% completely blind, or armless, legless, or any of the other things that happen to real folks but don't need to be in an RPG.
Clearly though, I'm in the minority here.
-S
Selgard just asking but does this mean you disallow monks with the vow of silence? I know that my DM when i wanted to play one said no but that may have been because of the other vows i took (celibacy, fasting, peace, poverty, and cleanliness) which was actually a reasonable decision probably. I'm not disagreeing that its vital I am just curious.
Selgard just asking but does this mean you disallow monks with the vow of silence? I know that my DM when i wanted to play one said no but that may have been because of the other vows i took (celibacy, fasting, peace, poverty, and cleanliness) which was actually a reasonable decision probably. I'm not disagreeing that its vital I am just curious.
I'd have to read it, to be honest. But if It actually does prohibit any and all speech by the character? yep. I would.
At the absolute very least I'd have a nice long sit down with the group to discuss the problem that having such a character along for the ride, would entail. Afterall- its their burden not the DM's. (why would the DM care if a character is mute? its a burden for the group, not him).
As a player I wouldn't want to group with a mute character anymore than I'd want to group with the deaf one. Same issue, different angle.
One can't hear the problem and the other can't communicate it to the group.
An adventurer would have to ask: Is this person more of a hindrance than a boon? Is having this guy along going to be a serious problem for the group? Going to require the group to substantially alter the way things work in order to function?
Deaf? check.
Mute? Check.
Answer? Sorry dude, stay home.
Not that I'd pitch a fit if the group out-voted me for it, but that wouldn't make it a wise idea.
-S
Selgard just asking but does this mean you disallow monks with the vow of silence? I know that my DM when i wanted to play one said no but that may have been because of the other vows i took (celibacy, fasting, peace, poverty, and cleanliness) which was actually a reasonable decision probably. I'm not disagreeing that its vital I am just curious.I'd have to read it, to be honest. But if It actually does prohibit any and all speech by the character? yep. I would.
At the absolute very least I'd have a nice long sit down with the group to discuss the problem that having such a character along for the ride, would entail. Afterall- its their burden not the DM's. (why would the DM care if a character is mute? its a burden for the group, not him).
As a player I wouldn't want to group with a mute character anymore than I'd want to group with the deaf one. Same issue, different angle.
One can't hear the problem and the other can't communicate it to the group.An adventurer would have to ask: Is this person more of a hindrance than a boon? Is having this guy along going to be a serious problem for the group? Going to require the group to substantially alter the way things work in order to function?
Deaf? check.
Mute? Check.
Answer? Sorry dude, stay home.Not that I'd pitch a fit if the group out-voted me for it, but that wouldn't make it a wise idea.
-S
Fair enough, I've never had experience with a silent character though maybe its fun. Though for the most part I'm generally with you (if a character is useless he is removed, namely I discussed with the party and "removed" a member that was basically causing every non-essential fight in the campaign though he was cool with it after wards and made a quite wonderful armiger afterwards).
Empathy could be an option too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could let him roleplay it out normally. Some people have a lot of fun trying to get their messages across.
The idea comes to mind of a mute wizard with a raven familiar, which tries to help translate but doesn't actually understand its own master. I kinda want to play that, actually.
EDIT: Actually, I really want to play that. I'll have to write that down. I love how it would basically flip the old issue of the master trying to understand what his familiar is indicating.
As a boon for him I'd give everyone in the party sighn language for free.
That should be enough.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played a halfling rogue who didn't talk because of psychological trauma. He attached himself to a member of the party and would only speak through him. Other than that he would gesture. It was really difficult at times, but a lot of fun. I think if someone's able to play with the flaw in a way that helps the party more than hinders it then it could bring something great to the group.
If everybody knows sign language, though, him being mute becomes much less of an issue, and much less interesting. Better to only give a single other party member sign language for free. Allows some roleplaying without messing up the original idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hmm Rp it out normally.
"Guys, do we want a personw ith us who can't communicate in battle or stressful situations unless we all stop what we're doing and watch him wave his hands around at us?"
Group: "Not particularly"
Wizard: *sad face*
Group: "NEXT CANDIDATE!"
The fact is- Mr. Mute only gets into the party because 5 folks are sitting around a table and no one wants to tell their buddy that the hindrance they insist is a brilliant idea is really a hindrance.
If it was RP'd out, guy would be left at the temple when his reply to "What is your name" was sign language or a hand written note.
Why? Because communication in battle is vital and someone who can not do so is more of a hindrance to the party than a benefit.
Would having a raven familiar help? Somewhat.
But then what are you doing for verbal component spells? Skipping them? taking silent spell- and eating a permanent +1 spell level penalty for now until eternity on all V spells?
*every single* 1st level wizard spell in the CRB has a verbal component.
Not some, not most, but every single one. So what is this wizard doing in the group?
I know what he's not doing.
he's not casting any spells. At all.
Didn't check all the 2nd level ones but they look to be about the same.
(Guessing all, but hey there could be one or two that didn't have that big ole V on it)
Now granted this wizard is more useless than most characters who are mute- most just can't talk but their abilities can still be used.
But ouch.
Mute wizard?
Hope he likes the library, no one's ever taking him on a road trip.
Mute is just bad. Its unduly harsh for the rest of the group.
-S
Who mentioned wizards?
Besides me, that is? I'm sure I could make it work, just give me some time and access to 3rd-party materials. >_> <_<
Mute can be fun. It's inconvenient, but so is having a low Dexterity, or a 15 ft. base land speed. Do you refuse to hire the halfling in full plate? Or the rogue with 1 HP who gets KO'd by a strong breeze? Flaws are fun.
And if the GM can't come up with a way for a character to join a party, the GM is being a little bit lazy. The game is about the characters, after all. If a mute fighter can make up for it by being reliable and good in a fight, why not hire him? If a blind bard makes up for it by being very good at buffs, why not let him sign on? In many adventures, the heroes can use all the help they can get. Sure, the wizard who thinks you're all kookaburras is kind of crazy, but you can't hope to deny the effectiveness of those fireballs--nor can you afford to, when the arachnophobic barbarian keeps letting the drow surround you.
The fact is- Mr. Mute only gets into the party because 5 folks are sitting around a table and no one wants to tell their buddy that the hindrance they insist is a brilliant idea is really a hindrance.
If it was RP'd out, guy would be left at the temple when his reply to "What is your name" was sign language or a hand written note.Why? Because communication in battle is vital and someone who can not do so is more of a hindrance to the party than a benefit.
+1
The most common form of hindrance is the one that hinders the party, not the pc.
If you really want to play a silent wizard you could dip into oracle and take the deaf curse.
That way you will get to cast all spells as still spells without increasing their casting time or level.
Still the question is if the party wants to take you along.
I don't actually see how a mute character is so much of a hindrance that it's better to leave him behind than take him. Unless you keep having to rescue him--which seems fairly unlikely, given being mute is no more likely to get oneself into trouble than being overly brave--he's still making a contribution. He just can't order people around, or warn people about the goblins sneaking up on the barbarian. And if he wasn't around, the warning wouldn't come anyways, so it's not like he's messing things up.
I'm speaking from a roleplaying stance, since that seems to be what we're doing. Out of character, yes, it is a hindrance, since that mute fighter is going to be weaker than the normal fighter you could have rolled up. But I don't think muteness is more inconvenient than, say, that stupid tongues curse oracles can get stuck with, or being blind, or yeah, just standard flaws like recklessness and curiosity.
If mute characters are annoying, the players ain't been playing them right. There are plenty of ways to make them interesting.
Who mentioned wizards?
Besides me, that is? I'm sure I could make it work, just give me some time and access to 3rd-party materials. >_> <_<
Mute can be fun. It's inconvenient, but so is having a low Dexterity, or a 15 ft. base land speed. Do you refuse to hire the halfling in full plate? Or the rogue with 1 HP who gets KO'd by a strong breeze? Flaws are fun.
And if the GM can't come up with a way for a character to join a party, the GM is being a little bit lazy. The game is about the characters, after all. If a mute fighter can make up for it by being reliable and good in a fight, why not hire him? If a blind bard makes up for it by being very good at buffs, why not let him sign on? In many adventures, the heroes can use all the help they can get. Sure, the wizard who thinks you're all kookaburras is kind of crazy, but you can't hope to deny the effectiveness of those fireballs--nor can you afford to, when the arachnophobic barbarian keeps letting the drow surround you.
Yanno I'm clearly going crazy. I could have sworn you wrote that you'd find it interesting to play a wizard with a raven familiar who used it to talk for them cuz they were mute.
Either you edited your post, or i made the whole thing up.How weird.
-S
edit: you did say it ->
Or you could let him roleplay it out normally. Some people have a lot of fun trying to get their messages across.
The idea comes to mind of a mute wizard with a raven familiar, which tries to help translate but doesn't actually understand its own master. I kinda want to play that, actually.
EDIT: Actually, I really want to play that. I'll have to write that down. I love how it would basically flip the old issue of the master trying to understand what his familiar is indicating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't like is when players come up with a flaw they absolutely want to play and then they go to their GM and want compensation for a flaw they chose to have.
If someone wants to play a mute pc he doesn't need compensation.
If he thinks he needs compensation in a system that doesn't normally work that way he doesn't play the flaw because he wants to but because he gets a bonus for doing so.
all imo and subjective.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hmm Rp it out normally.
"Guys, do we want a personw ith us who can't communicate in battle or stressful situations unless we all stop what we're doing and watch him wave his hands around at us?"
Group: "Not particularly"
Wizard: *sad face*
Group: "NEXT CANDIDATE!"
Or
"Guys, do we want a personw ith us who can't communicate in battle or stressful situations unless we all stop what we're doing and watch him wave his hands around at us?"Wizard: *Bluff check: raises hand (to draw Group's attention) and nods in response to question, giving Group "for shizzle" facial expression*
...and depending on wizard's Bluff roll vs. any applicable SM checks...
Majority of Group: "Yeah, I guess we do want that."
But then what are you doing for verbal component spells?
Eschew Incantations
You have no need to speak to cast spells.Prerequisite: Silent Spell
Benefit: You do not need to fulfill the
verbal components of spells in order to cast
them. You effectively treat all the spells
you cast as if they had been cast using the
Silent Spell metamagic feat, but the spell’s
level does not change, and no extra time is
required to cast it.
Eschew Incantations is 3rd party stuff, right?
I think it's from a book called something like book of overpowered feats or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Growing up with deaf relatives, I can say that when my uncle wants to get his point across, he does, even if he has to make a fool of himself to do so. I can only finger spell and sign a few words, but most of what I can't say in ASL we pantomime and have a blast talking to each other. He's also teaching me ASL as we're doing this.
I think the RP value of trying to get someone's point across while deaf and/or mute is too good to pass up.
Yanno I'm clearly going crazy. I could have sworn you wrote that you'd find it interesting to play a wizard with a raven familiar who used it to talk for them cuz they were mute.
Either you edited your post, or i made the whole thing up.How weird.
-S
edit: you did say it ->
** spoiler omitted **
Read posts slower. I elaborated on the "who mentioned wizards" question a single line down.
Anyways, it's not too bad. Silent Spell allows a wizard to cast his cantrips normally. And the GM could always cut him some slack if he felt the concept would be fun for the group. For instance, allow the wizard to cast a single first level spell normally each day. In the familiar scenario, this could represent the raven trying to fill in for his master.And I'd like to repeat myself and draw attention to the Oracle class. They have a whole class feature dedicated to making things inconvenient, and Tongues is one of the worst. Not only can you not speak, you can't understand. Way worse than mere muteness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Selgar said:
*every single* 1st level wizard spell in the CRB has a verbal component.
Not some, not most, but every single one. So what is this wizard doing in the group?
I know what he's not doing.
he's not casting any spells. At all.
____________
I laughed so hard I woke my Fiance' up. I could totally hear this being intonated in my head. Hilarious. I think a lot of people are intentionally or unintentionally being soft on this one... he can't cohesively fight with the party, because he cannot communicate what he is seeing or would normally propose to do in tandem in a fight -- because people are looking at the bad guys, not watching this guy provoke a million AoO while he dances the YMCA trying to telegraph "I'm going to flank that ogre, Can the ranger shoot the guy on me before that happens?"
"There's also the situation where something strange might be witnessed only by him. Maybe he saw somebody's food poisoned. Maybe he saw some movement in the woods. Now everyone has to play 20 questions just so their certain it's not that THEY'RE unsure what he saw, but that HE'S unsure of what he saw.
A diabolical trap has been sprung, and only the mute guy makes the perception roll that indicates to him that the alternating color sequence on the orb is some kind of countdown. He now has to pantomime this to his party in the seconds before it blows up, or run out of the room and hope his buddies take a hint while he frantically beckons them from the next room.
Better yet, from 20 feet behind, he sees his friend blundering into a trip wire. Thanks for the heads up, Captain Quiet.
Or ANY situation that would involve diplomacy, bluff, or intimidation. Sure, the party has a face man... but what about those rare situations where one must stand in? Charades anybody?
Don't pretend it's not a hinderance, and not just for the player. He becomes a liability in a variety of dangerous and stressful situations.
Awful.Awful.Awful.
And if not, I have a limbless build that I'd like your staunch advocacy for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You talk about how he'd be hindering the party by not being able to warn, or diplomatize.
In Character, if he weren't there, they wouldn't be getting that help anyways. So In Character, he's not a hindrance. He's just less useful than a normal ally.
A limbless bard or wizard could be pretty cool, too. Dragged in a little wagon by his trusty donkey. Singing inspiring songs from the comfort of his wagon. I can see it now.
Plus, the mute could always clap his hands. :P
I don't know you, Cleaver -- but I have to love you. Your mirth and all-inclusiveness hath won me over. Now to draft up a new trait called "Just a flesh wound"...
...Though I will say the argument that he's not hurting anybody because otherwise nobody would be there rings false -- because if the player in question did not have a mute character, he would most certainly still have a character that is not mute...
...That being said, being part of a duet with a mute percussionist would be an interesting hinderance for an up and coming bard whom it also so happens is a multiple amputee... so by all means, hells to the yeah!
I've played a game with a PC that was mute. The two problems I encountered:
1. Being mute gives the player tacit approval to withdraw from as much of the game as he cares to. When heavy RP moments require significant PC involvement, he may choose to simply be mute.
2. Yes, the PC cannot speak. But, the player can and will. Unless you forbid him to give information to the other players, the lack of language will only be an issue on the occasions when he wants it to be.
If you have exceptionally mature players, you may not encounter these problems. You know your group better than I.
I don't know you, Cleaver -- but I have to love you. Your mirth and all-inclusiveness hath won me over. Now to draft up a new trait called "Just a flesh wound"...
...Though I will say the argument that he's not hurting anybody because otherwise nobody would be there rings false -- because if the player in question did not have a mute character, he would most certainly still have a character that is not mute...
Well, Out of Character, yeah, it can be annoying. You gotta make sure the PLAYERS are okay with what could cause their characters a lot of trouble. If they're okay with slightly more danger, and with the idea itself, go for it. But I agree with y'all that you need to make sure the players don't have a problem. Otherwise, you've got a Scrappy on your hands (albeit a Scrappy who can't talk, which would admittedly be less annoying).
I can see that the party is split on this one...I am using a fighter who uses guns. This campaign is low to no magic. Besides the magic thing I don't want to keep track of Grit or ki or whatever other quasi magic things a character can have.
Even if there are no perks for having a mute character I plan on having a mute character. It is his back story, and as some have pointed out it could be fun to role play it out. I don't have to worry about getting a word in with my group is a plus (laugh to myself, ltm)
This is very eye opening though, seeing as how the answers are split.
The GM has told me he intends on heightened senses for this character, as well as sign language (but I think I am going to use a language slot for sign)
How about an archer with one arm? Anyone?
"Mute guy," IMHO, is going to give the same result as "lone wolf."
It doesn't have to be that way, Manimal. Some players end up hanging back. Others force their way into the limelight, gesturing frantically in every roleplaying scene. Making it especially funny if the other PCs ignore him. :P
And wow, a cat PC could be annoying.
"Is the hallway trapped?"
"MEEEOW"
"Ow. That hurt my ears."
"MEEEEOWWWWW"
"Shut it! Just tell us if the room is trapped!"
"Hissss!" *Claw*
"Ow!" *Kicks cat into hallway*
*...*
"So it is trapped. That's all I wanted to know. Good work, cat."
A one-armed archer...hmmm...
Maybe a wizard with a monkey familiar could pull it off. I can see a GM allowing the monkey to help you reload a crossbow or sling. Otherwise, you're stuck with throwing knives and shurikens. :P
Wizard with a monkey familiar FTW! I was thinking that considering the monkey would have to both load the bow AND pull the string, the monkey alone would not be sufficient -- though the relative strength of a monkey might actually lead to greater string tension and therefore more power with the bow... but the wizard would need some kind of harness to keep the monkey stable and in the right location to do the work of the the other arm, or better yet -- is there some precedent (like a Lamasthu mutation where you could prophetically bond the head of your monkey familiar to your shoulder-nub so that it WAS effectively your missing arm? My mind reels at the possible additional benefits.
I respect your decision, Xanthemann, just be careful you don't go the way of Mr. Cat PC...
Jeez... I don't know know WHAT I would have done in that situation. I have precious little patience for people who think my hobbies are a playground for their dalliances. I'm all to the nines on backing the plays my mates call -- I only ask that people are remotely interested in something akin to the same, in my party. If you're there to slap at string, or enjoy some ridiculous mental exercise while monsters try to eat me, there's the door.
Yeah, don't know that a crossbow will be doable--maybe you're best with a sling.
Alternatively, a druid or ranger could probably teach her ape to load the crossbow for her. Lots of possibilities there.
Does the monkey pull the string or hold the bow steady?
Maybe the one armed archer and the monkey/ape need to visit the necro....