| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The remaster wording for the Casting Spells section in Player Core made it infinitely easier to play a character who does not/can not communicate verbally, which was an extremely welcome change for me. I could be missing something, but the playtest seems to be pretty clear that etching/tracing and invoking runes - while they produce magical effects - are not the same as casting spells, and so might not have the same easy guidance to point to when trying to make a nonverbal runesmith.
Basically I'm just hoping there's a little bit of specific additional wording or something in the final release that makes it as easy to do this with runesmith as it now is for casters. My current GM is awesome and would definitely let me flavour a character not having to literally speak the sounds that invoke runes (and not have to rely on a voicebox or anything), but it sucks to run into difficulties when someone has a very strict interpretation of flavour as part of mechanics.
"Though runes aren't spells, some things that affect spells also affect runes. Abilities that restrict you from casting spells or protect against spells also apply to tracing or invoking runes, though you can continue to benefit from a rune's effects."
To me, if abilities that restrict you from casting spells affect your ability to trace and invoke runes, than additions to allow a mute spell caster to still use verbal spells would apply for invoking runes. It could be spelled out better, but that allowance and any good DM should be enough to let you work with a mute runesmith.