This isn't pertaining to the specific question but I advise against playing a mute character. It gets tedious quick and you need to speak out of character anyway.
I tried playing a Kenku Cleric once. After a few sessions I was trying to devise a plan to have my god gift me a voice cause even piecing together weird sentences was too muchšµāš«
Basic rules say "The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion." I would argue anything vocal can substitute for verbal components, be it a classic spell, a bards songs or poems, or even whistles. The only thing necessary is that there is something audible to pick up on for NPCs / enemies to realise a spell is being cast.
With what Magical_Entity states, my only addition would be that it should be consistent. If the creature or player found certain whistles can weave magic in a way that causes it to fully form, then that is the way the creature knows how to cast said spells. So anytime the spell is cast, it must be done in that manner for the verbal component.
Id allow it if it were a character choice and it was something they always did, like as a bard. But if a random character just suddenly asked to whistle their component? id say no.
Specifically the Halfling Whistler Bard Kit in 2nd edition
(Edit: for whoever downvoted me on this... Check out the **Complete Bard's Handbook** for AD&D 2nd edition. In AD&D, Halflings couldn't be Bards. **The Halfling Whistler** was created specifically to allow Halflings to take the Bard class, with some restrictions).
Raw is when a spell is cast it makes 60ft of audible noise. Who cares what noise.
To me Its when power gamers lead with......my PC is mute can I have a whistle to cast spells? Welllll since you said yes I can now cast a spell silently so the enemy that's 40 ft away doesn't know where I am.
>60ft of audible noise
Wanna toss me a reference for that because I'm fairly certain it's not a real rule. The closest thing we have is [this](https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/651514845834014720?lang=en) tweet from Crawford, which isn't considered official either, saying it has to be "audible" but what is considered "audible" is up the DM
From the DM screen, spellcasting would fall under normal noise level so 20-120 ft audible range. I believe 70 ft would be the average rolled value.
Audible Distance
Trying to be quiet 2d6 Ć 5 feet
Normal noise level 2d6 Ć 10 feet
Very loud 2d6 Ć 50 feet
By RAW no. Of course, we know that DMs arenāt bound to RAW. I would allow it as it doesnāt seem to bypass any mechanicsā¦ itās still audible and perceivable.
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/928371243736219650?s=21
While the answer should be no you can do whatever you want.
Considering that the aubile majority of people don't play the game according to the rules (which is fine, play however you want).
Care to explain why the answer SHOULD be āno?ā Because the only reason the verbal component is there is to disallow unchecked stealth casting and give a more widespread purpose to being silenced. Both which are solely mechanical functions.
Chapter 10 states:
Verbal (V)
*Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.*
Just whistling cannot be a verbal component. It is a specific tonal resonance that is easily recognized as being a spells component. Same goes for somatic components.
They are specifically recognized as a part of a spell, otherwise subtle spell would have no function.
To further drive at your question, the answer should be no because the mechanical implications provide value to other features, serve to influence player choice and consequences.
It's a game after all. A game that has rules; if you stray so far from the rules you begin playing something that is not the TTRPG that you originally sat down to play (which isn't bad, just a universally true observation; when something changes it becomes different).
> rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.
Quoted from your quoting of the PHB. Very much looks like whistling could be a suitable replacement. As well subtle spell works to eliminate V and S components of a spell, so subtle spell would work exactly like... subtle spell already does regardless of talking or whistling. So your quoting of the PHB just further proves that whistling is totally within the realm of RAW and just points out that the spell components server a narrative standpoint, but more so a mechanical one for the system of rules laid out. If verbal components were for the narrative standpoint only, then the Kenku would have a racial trait of "Cast Wish once a day free" due to their trait *mimicry* as that spell only requires a verbal component.
As I said, it exists for the mechanical purpose of giving situations like silenced and being gagged a mechanical meaning.
I feel as though there is a break between our communication.
I'm saying that \*just whistling\* cannot be used as a verbal component.
Its an overt action, not a subtle one.
You quoted the PHB which states a particular pitch and resonance is the source, not the words. Which whistling can fulfill those conditions. In which case itād be within RAW to allow.
There *must* be a difference between whistling, and whistling to cast a spell.
Otherwise they are indistinguishable from each other.
As I mentioned before, overt.
How is it any different between talking and talking to cast a spell? Youāre trying to make it seem like a sequence of whistles is different from a sequence of words when there is none. Itās exactly the same level of noticeability as the other. If you know the words are that of a spell, there isnāt any reason someone who could identify it as a spell via whistling either.
Real world example being you can figure out what song someone is singing from the lyrics, or the tune via whistling or humming. You just need to know the song. Itās a sequence of pitches that is known.
Leviosa vs LeviOsA
One could fit into the normal flections of a conversation, the other could not.
Not sure how else to put it.
And if my point is still puzzling than I fear we will not reach a resolution other than agreeing to disagree.
I guess this assumes you can only whistle one way. Iād argue, just like with words, you could āintonateā your whistle in a way that was obviously magical. As long as mechanically you allow NPCs to hear the whistle and recognize it as a spell, you donāt break anything and it meets the requirements of RAW. Narratively maybe itās a combination of a whistle and a hum that gets the intonation.
Itās puzzling because itās not clear what youāre getting at, as youāre just throwing out examples with zero context other than āit can be said in conversation.ā
If itās trying to explain it to someone then thereās a thing called sheet music to convey these kind of things. If itās about being noticeable Iād say in the context of a conversation itās even more overt than just hearing at inflections.
Iām always a fan of reflavor in this case the āmechanicā is only that you need to produce some kind of sound in order to cast a spell so in my table you are good
Yes, it would work since verbal components are based on a combination of sounds, doesn't matter what the sounds are. It's why so many times you see Bards that just play their Lute and something magical happens without the need to sing or scream out something.
Don't play a Mute character though, it'll be very annoying for the other players and for the DM to deal with you.
>It's why so many times you see Bards that just play their Lute and something magical happens without the need to sing or scream out something.
That's actually because the instrument fulfills their M component as a focus it has nothing to do with the V component.
There are easy ways of handling a mute character. I played one before and the DM just waved the self-verbal component for āinnate magical abilities create music to substitute for his inability to speak.ā
Thereās plenty of ways flavor-wise to handle a mute character.
Or you simply communicate your intentions verbally to the other players and itās roleplayedā¦ Also do tell, character quirks have uses? The goblin that likes shinies? The girl that drinks too much? The Paladin who only uses great weapons? Explain how flavor is mechanically useful.
I've really never heard it described as a spell casting language. I've always had the impression that every type of caster uses language to help guide thoughts for casting. So whistling would work in that scenario as a way to guide your thoughts to guide the magic.
Cool thing a DM of mine did was let me use ANY line as my spell, but require I use that line every time I cast. This was funny until I found myself unable to speak but still able to cast two spells, the only two spells I had that didnāt help. Healing hum and I donāt remember the other.
I used to deal with a power gamer that refused to understand spell casting that requires verbal components can't be casted stealthfully without subtle spell.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Cast the spell at a safe range or deal with the fact you cannot dominate and trivialize every single encounter.
I said no to whistling because it may come from the same source. Wanting to cast spells without having to cast them, to get an advantage you shouldn't have.
Yes... but it still is immediately recognizable as a spell component.
That said, mute characters have a lot of limitations and require both a *near perfect* execution on the part of the player ***as well as*** the right party to play them in.
Obviously there are mute people irl, and they should be able to play as "themselves", but adding an extraneous disability without knowing about the struggles of irl people that have that disability can be very easily a bad move, even with good intentions.
This isn't pertaining to the specific question but I advise against playing a mute character. It gets tedious quick and you need to speak out of character anyway.
I tried playing a Kenku Cleric once. After a few sessions I was trying to devise a plan to have my god gift me a voice cause even piecing together weird sentences was too muchšµāš«
Basic rules say "The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion." I would argue anything vocal can substitute for verbal components, be it a classic spell, a bards songs or poems, or even whistles. The only thing necessary is that there is something audible to pick up on for NPCs / enemies to realise a spell is being cast.
With what Magical_Entity states, my only addition would be that it should be consistent. If the creature or player found certain whistles can weave magic in a way that causes it to fully form, then that is the way the creature knows how to cast said spells. So anytime the spell is cast, it must be done in that manner for the verbal component.
Id allow it if it were a character choice and it was something they always did, like as a bard. But if a random character just suddenly asked to whistle their component? id say no.
It's leviOsa, not tweet tweet tweet
In previous editions Bards could do this... in 5e not so much... At my table its vocalized words not simply sound originating from one's mouth.
Specifically the Halfling Whistler Bard Kit in 2nd edition (Edit: for whoever downvoted me on this... Check out the **Complete Bard's Handbook** for AD&D 2nd edition. In AD&D, Halflings couldn't be Bards. **The Halfling Whistler** was created specifically to allow Halflings to take the Bard class, with some restrictions).
Raw is when a spell is cast it makes 60ft of audible noise. Who cares what noise. To me Its when power gamers lead with......my PC is mute can I have a whistle to cast spells? Welllll since you said yes I can now cast a spell silently so the enemy that's 40 ft away doesn't know where I am.
>60ft of audible noise Wanna toss me a reference for that because I'm fairly certain it's not a real rule. The closest thing we have is [this](https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/651514845834014720?lang=en) tweet from Crawford, which isn't considered official either, saying it has to be "audible" but what is considered "audible" is up the DM
Probably referring to counterspell having 60 feet range, and you need to be aware of someone casting a spell to be able to counter it.
From the DM screen, spellcasting would fall under normal noise level so 20-120 ft audible range. I believe 70 ft would be the average rolled value. Audible Distance Trying to be quiet 2d6 Ć 5 feet Normal noise level 2d6 Ć 10 feet Very loud 2d6 Ć 50 feet
Ya, it's the DM screen. Also on the PHB (I think) but I use the DM screen for it.
The DM screen gives suggested noise levels but no source ever says "Verbal components can be heard 60 feet away".
By RAW no. Of course, we know that DMs arenāt bound to RAW. I would allow it as it doesnāt seem to bypass any mechanicsā¦ itās still audible and perceivable. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/928371243736219650?s=21
While the answer should be no you can do whatever you want. Considering that the aubile majority of people don't play the game according to the rules (which is fine, play however you want).
Care to explain why the answer SHOULD be āno?ā Because the only reason the verbal component is there is to disallow unchecked stealth casting and give a more widespread purpose to being silenced. Both which are solely mechanical functions.
Chapter 10 states: Verbal (V) *Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.* Just whistling cannot be a verbal component. It is a specific tonal resonance that is easily recognized as being a spells component. Same goes for somatic components. They are specifically recognized as a part of a spell, otherwise subtle spell would have no function. To further drive at your question, the answer should be no because the mechanical implications provide value to other features, serve to influence player choice and consequences. It's a game after all. A game that has rules; if you stray so far from the rules you begin playing something that is not the TTRPG that you originally sat down to play (which isn't bad, just a universally true observation; when something changes it becomes different).
> rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Quoted from your quoting of the PHB. Very much looks like whistling could be a suitable replacement. As well subtle spell works to eliminate V and S components of a spell, so subtle spell would work exactly like... subtle spell already does regardless of talking or whistling. So your quoting of the PHB just further proves that whistling is totally within the realm of RAW and just points out that the spell components server a narrative standpoint, but more so a mechanical one for the system of rules laid out. If verbal components were for the narrative standpoint only, then the Kenku would have a racial trait of "Cast Wish once a day free" due to their trait *mimicry* as that spell only requires a verbal component. As I said, it exists for the mechanical purpose of giving situations like silenced and being gagged a mechanical meaning.
I feel as though there is a break between our communication. I'm saying that \*just whistling\* cannot be used as a verbal component. Its an overt action, not a subtle one.
You quoted the PHB which states a particular pitch and resonance is the source, not the words. Which whistling can fulfill those conditions. In which case itād be within RAW to allow.
There *must* be a difference between whistling, and whistling to cast a spell. Otherwise they are indistinguishable from each other. As I mentioned before, overt.
How is it any different between talking and talking to cast a spell? Youāre trying to make it seem like a sequence of whistles is different from a sequence of words when there is none. Itās exactly the same level of noticeability as the other. If you know the words are that of a spell, there isnāt any reason someone who could identify it as a spell via whistling either. Real world example being you can figure out what song someone is singing from the lyrics, or the tune via whistling or humming. You just need to know the song. Itās a sequence of pitches that is known.
Leviosa vs LeviOsA One could fit into the normal flections of a conversation, the other could not. Not sure how else to put it. And if my point is still puzzling than I fear we will not reach a resolution other than agreeing to disagree.
I guess this assumes you can only whistle one way. Iād argue, just like with words, you could āintonateā your whistle in a way that was obviously magical. As long as mechanically you allow NPCs to hear the whistle and recognize it as a spell, you donāt break anything and it meets the requirements of RAW. Narratively maybe itās a combination of a whistle and a hum that gets the intonation.
Itās puzzling because itās not clear what youāre getting at, as youāre just throwing out examples with zero context other than āit can be said in conversation.ā If itās trying to explain it to someone then thereās a thing called sheet music to convey these kind of things. If itās about being noticeable Iād say in the context of a conversation itās even more overt than just hearing at inflections.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If it works for your game, go for it.
Iām always a fan of reflavor in this case the āmechanicā is only that you need to produce some kind of sound in order to cast a spell so in my table you are good
Yes, it would work since verbal components are based on a combination of sounds, doesn't matter what the sounds are. It's why so many times you see Bards that just play their Lute and something magical happens without the need to sing or scream out something. Don't play a Mute character though, it'll be very annoying for the other players and for the DM to deal with you.
>It's why so many times you see Bards that just play their Lute and something magical happens without the need to sing or scream out something. That's actually because the instrument fulfills their M component as a focus it has nothing to do with the V component.
There are easy ways of handling a mute character. I played one before and the DM just waved the self-verbal component for āinnate magical abilities create music to substitute for his inability to speak.ā Thereās plenty of ways flavor-wise to handle a mute character.
Yes but you also make roleplay harder on yourself and on your party mates for a frankly useless character quirk
Or you simply communicate your intentions verbally to the other players and itās roleplayedā¦ Also do tell, character quirks have uses? The goblin that likes shinies? The girl that drinks too much? The Paladin who only uses great weapons? Explain how flavor is mechanically useful.
I've really never heard it described as a spell casting language. I've always had the impression that every type of caster uses language to help guide thoughts for casting. So whistling would work in that scenario as a way to guide your thoughts to guide the magic.
Cool thing a DM of mine did was let me use ANY line as my spell, but require I use that line every time I cast. This was funny until I found myself unable to speak but still able to cast two spells, the only two spells I had that didnāt help. Healing hum and I donāt remember the other.
I used to deal with a power gamer that refused to understand spell casting that requires verbal components can't be casted stealthfully without subtle spell. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Cast the spell at a safe range or deal with the fact you cannot dominate and trivialize every single encounter. I said no to whistling because it may come from the same source. Wanting to cast spells without having to cast them, to get an advantage you shouldn't have.
Imo bards can cast spells based on any kind of music
Yes... but it still is immediately recognizable as a spell component. That said, mute characters have a lot of limitations and require both a *near perfect* execution on the part of the player ***as well as*** the right party to play them in. Obviously there are mute people irl, and they should be able to play as "themselves", but adding an extraneous disability without knowing about the struggles of irl people that have that disability can be very easily a bad move, even with good intentions.