How do you handle communication from your Steel Defender and Infused Homunculus?
The descriptions say that they understand the languages you speak, but there's nothing about them being able to speak or otherwise communicate. That seems to be a rather significant omission! For example, I want to send my Infused stag beetle to search for something. But that would be pointless if it has no way to tell me what it has found.
Since they both have human-level intelligence, I'm thinking that they should be able to communicate via sign language, if nothing else. The homunculus could fly in patterns to communicate, and the Steel Defender could scratch marks on the ground or use body language somehow. Or maybe make noises, although there's no indication in the description if it can roar or anything like that.
Edit: It just occurred to me to wonder if the Defender and Homunculus can communicate with each other. What do you think?
What you are saying makes sense and is perfectly reasonable and not at all gamebreaking, but... it only says that they understand the languages you speak, not that it can read, write, or speak the languages you know. If they could, it would say that it knows the languages you know or just have a language listed like the Drake Companion.
It's basically just a provision to facilitate verbal orders.
To add to the previous answer, the best way to use a Steel Defender or Homoculus to scout is to ask it questions. "Did you see any soldiers up ahead?" *SD nods* "More than ten soldiers?" *SD shakes head* "How many?" *SD holds up four fingers* "Did you see any of the other things you were supposed to look for? Spellcasters, treasure, bridges or were-elephants?" *SD shakes head*
What you are saying makes sense and is perfectly reasonable and not at all gamebreaking, but... it only says that they understand the languages you speak, not that it can read, write, or speak the languages you know. If they could, it would say that it knows the languages you know or just have a language listed like the Drake Companion.
It's basically just a provision to facilitate verbal orders.
Pretty much this. They understand the languages you speak so that you can give it commands.
The Homunculus has a 10 intelligence, it being capable of holding up fingers, tapping on the ground to count, or other such forms of non-verbal communication make sense, even if it can't speak.
The Steel Defender has an intelligence of 4. That is 1 point smarter than a dog. It's a bit more of a stretch for it to be able to do the same.
But also note, that the stat block doesn't state they cannot speak only that they understand. One could infer from this that the understanding of a language includes the ability to speak, read, and write it (I understand English and can speak, read, and write it but I don't understand Mandarin, being completely incapable of speaking, reading, or writing it.) Other creatures, such as the Pseudodragon and the Tressym, specifically state that they understand but cannot speak. It would not be outside of the scope of the RAW for either of them to be able to speak, though I would personally use their Intelligence as a basis for ruling that the Homunculus can and the Steel Defender cannot.
What you are saying makes sense and is perfectly reasonable and not at all gamebreaking, but... it only says that they understand the languages you speak, not that it can read, write, or speak the languages you know. If they could, it would say that it knows the languages you know or just have a language listed like the Drake Companion.
It's basically just a provision to facilitate verbal orders.
But also note, that the stat block doesn't state they cannot speak only that they understand. One could infer from this that the understanding of a language includes the ability to speak, read, and write it (I understand English and can speak, read, and write it but I don't understand Mandarin, being completely incapable of speaking, reading, or writing it.) Other creatures, such as the Pseudodragon and the Tressym, specifically state that they understand but cannot speak while neither the Homunculous nor the Steel Defender have that same wording. It would not be outside of the scope of the RAW for either of them to be able to speak, though I would personally use their Intelligence as a basis for ruling that the Homunculus can and the Steel Defender cannot.
It's completely against RAW to infer they are able to speak. It is also not what the words "understand" means. Dogs can understand simple spoken commands but that doesn't mean that they can speak, read or write. Historians can understand written hieroglyphs but they can't speak it (since we can't be sure how the language was pronounced). Illiterates can understand and speak a language but they can't read or write it. And so on.
I'd say RAW is deliberately (or accidentally) vague on whether or not the Homunculus or Steel Defender can speak in order to leave it in the hands of the DM. They built in wiggle room basically. If it was a major issue they'd have fixed it in one of the errata documents for Eberron or Tasha's.
By virtue of your race, your character can speak, read, and write certain languages. “Personality and Background” lists the most common languages of the D&D multiverse.
Not particularly relevant to the Constructed minions like the Steel Defender and the Homunculus Servant... but this establishes the norm that players by default can speak read and write the languages they know. This will be important further down as it qualifies them to the basic ability to teach said languages to others.
The languages that a monster can speak are listed in alphabetical order. Sometimes a monster can understand a language but can't speak it, and this is noted in its entry. A "--" indicates that a creature neither speaks nor understands any language.
So the norm here is that if a monster has a language that is a language it can speak. If it cannot speak it will be explicitly noted. The artificer's minions "understand the languages you speak" and no mention is made of their inability to speak themselves. Thus it seems deliberately open to interpretation and left as a ruling to be made by the DM.
So what if your DM rules that the Steel Defender or Homunculus cannot speak? Well, it's a perfectly valid ruling you'd have to work with them to figure out why that is and if there are any ways to work around this limitation.
If the limitation is physical, the creature lacks the necessary anatomy for means of communication, gently remind the DM that the Artificer is in control of the creature's appearance and can fashion it into a creature with the necessary anatomy for some form of communication: mouth and vocal chords for speech, hands or appendages suitable for writing, a magical display interface to communicate through emojis, etc. Whatever works and is suitable within the DM's chosen setting.
If the limitation is one of knowledge and lack of training (this is a creature that was more or less born yesterday after all) but your DM is willing to allow them to learn a language then you have the training rules for learning a language or gaining proficiency with a tool.
You can spend time between adventures learning a new language or training with a set of tools. Your DM might allow additional training options.
First, you must find an instructor willing to teach you. The DM determines how long it takes, and whether one or more ability checks are required.
The training lasts for 250 days and costs 1 gp per day. After you spend the requisite amount of time and money, you learn the new language or gain proficiency with the new tool.
Logically, in order to learn a language the learner and the teacher must be able to communicate. Fortunately for the Artificer their construct already understands them perfectly, all that's necessary is instruction and practice. Granted, when the player themselves is the teacher I don't personally see why there would be an expense necessary. It's not like you'd need to pay yourself to do a thing you want to do already. Xanathar's also has training rules that are a lot nicer in my opinion. 50 days vs 250 days.
But ultimately if no form of verbal communication from your constructs is allowed you still have options. As others have mentioned Magical Tinkering lets your construct press buttons to tell you when they are "mad" and if you want something more permanent than Magical Tinkering allows, Magic Mouth is on your spell list and can be cast as a ritual or can be cast through your Spell-Storing Item. You could theoretically cast it individually on a series of teeth and then insert them into your construct's mouth and let them play messages by tapping each tooth with their tongue. You could eventually build up a basic language capacity this way.
Finally, there's just nonverbal communication which is also possible in D&D.
The DM might call for an Intelligence check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Communicate with a creature without using words
And it'd be up to your DM how often they want you to make an intelligence check to understand your construct pet. If the situation is important enough you could apply Flash of Genius to it or cast Enhance Ability on yourself to grant you advantage on the check.
TLDR: The RAW are vague, probably deliberately. So the DM would need to make a ruling. Work with your DM to figure out the communication options your Steel Defender/Homunculus Servant or other construct pet have.
What you are saying makes sense and is perfectly reasonable and not at all gamebreaking, but... it only says that they understand the languages you speak, not that it can read, write, or speak the languages you know. If they could, it would say that it knows the languages you know or just have a language listed like the Drake Companion.
It's basically just a provision to facilitate verbal orders.
But also note, that the stat block doesn't state they cannot speak only that they understand. One could infer from this that the understanding of a language includes the ability to speak, read, and write it (I understand English and can speak, read, and write it but I don't understand Mandarin, being completely incapable of speaking, reading, or writing it.) Other creatures, such as the Pseudodragon and the Tressym, specifically state that they understand but cannot speak while neither the Homunculous nor the Steel Defender have that same wording. It would not be outside of the scope of the RAW for either of them to be able to speak, though I would personally use their Intelligence as a basis for ruling that the Homunculus can and the Steel Defender cannot.
It's completely against RAW to infer they are able to speak. It is also not what the words "understand" means. Dogs can understand simple spoken commands but that doesn't mean that they can speak, read or write. Historians can understand written hieroglyphs but they can't speak it (since we can't be sure how the language was pronounced). Illiterates can understand and speak a language but they can't read or write it. And so on.
Then explain why some stat blocks specify the creature cannot speak them while the Homunculus Servant does not. Surely the specification that the creature cannot speak is unnecessary if "understands [insert language here]" covers the inability to speak.
Tressym: understands Common but can't speak
Pseudodragon: Understands Common and Draconic but can't speak them
Homunculus Servant: understands the languages you speak
The language that specifies it "can't speak" is suspiciously absent. I'm not saying that RAW it can speak, only that it would not be deviating from RAW if the DM were to rule that it can since the stat block does not state that it cannot.
Then explain why some stat blocks specify the creature cannot speak them while the Homunculus Servant does not.
Because D&D is inconsistently written.
Surely the specification that the creature cannot speak is unnecessary if "understands [insert language here]" covers the inability to speak.
Read what I wrote specifically as a reply to that point. The word "understand" doesn't automatically cover reading, writing and speaking. Or are you saying that a mute person can't understand a language because they can't speak it?
Tressym: understands Common but can't speak
Pseudodragon: Understands Common and Draconic but can't speak them
Homunculus Servant: understands the languages you speak
But where does it state that the HS *can* speak at all?
The language that specifies it "can't speak" is suspiciously absent. I'm not saying that RAW it can speak, only that it would not be deviating from RAW if the DM were to rule that it can since the stat block does not state that it cannot.
Your original statement was that you could infer that everyone in the whole wide multiverse who understands a language (unless specifically stated otherwise) automatically is able to read, write and speak said language. I pointed out that this follows neither RAW nor the general meaning of the word "understand". A GM can absolutely rule that homoculi can speak but that's completely different from inferring that everything that understands a language can also speak, read and write it.
The language that specifies it "can't speak" is suspiciously absent. I'm not saying that RAW it can speak, only that it would not be deviating from RAW if the DM were to rule that it can since the stat block does not state that it cannot.
Your original statement was that you could infer that everyone in the whole wide multiverse who understands a language (unless specifically stated otherwise) automatically is able to read, write and speak said language. I pointed out that this follows neither RAW nor the general meaning of the word "understand". A GM can absolutely rule that homoculi can speak but that's completely different from inferring that everything that understands a language can also speak, read and write it.
My original statement was that you could infer being able to speak, read, and write from "understands" with "but cannot speak" missing. Not that it's an automatic and set-in-stone fact. You inferred much more than what I actually said from what I actually said.
"One could infer from this..."
Could is a very important word in my statement as it holds a meaning very different from stating that "understanding means..." as it alters the statement to mean it's an option or one possible way of viewing it. In other words, a DM could choose to allow it and be justified in doing so as the RAW does not state the creature cannot speak.
As Unclevertitle stated, the actual RAW is:
The languages that a monster can speak are listed in alphabetical order. Sometimes a monster can understand a language but can't speak it, and this is noted in its entry. A "--" indicates that a creature neither speaks nor understands any language."
The 5e Basic Rules specifically states that if a creature can understand a language but cannot speak it that it is "noted in its entry". That is RAW.
The language that specifies it "can't speak" is suspiciously absent. I'm not saying that RAW it can speak, only that it would not be deviating from RAW if the DM were to rule that it can since the stat block does not state that it cannot.
Your original statement was that you could infer that everyone in the whole wide multiverse who understands a language (unless specifically stated otherwise) automatically is able to read, write and speak said language. I pointed out that this follows neither RAW nor the general meaning of the word "understand". A GM can absolutely rule that homoculi can speak but that's completely different from inferring that everything that understands a language can also speak, read and write it.
My original statement was that you could infer being able to speak, read, and write from "understands" with "but cannot speak" missing. Not that it's an automatic and set-in-stone fact. You inferred much more than what I actually said from what I actually said.
It's actually quite funny that you put so much emphasis on your use of the word *could* that you seem to have missed my use of the very same word. :D In any way, that was a reply to you trying to backtrack on what you originally said.
"One could infer from this..."
Could is a very important word in my statement as it holds a meaning very different from stating that "understanding means..." as it alters the statement to mean it's an option or one possible way of viewing it. In other words, a DM could choose to allow it and be justified in doing so as the RAW does not state the creature cannot speak.
But as pointed out, that causes quite a few problems due to the way the word "understand" works. RAW also doesn't state that the creature specifically can speak so no, you really could not infer that.
As Unclevertitle stated, the actual RAW is:
The languages that a monster can speak are listed in alphabetical order. Sometimes a monster can understand a language but can't speak it, and this is noted in its entry. A "--" indicates that a creature neither speaks nor understands any language."
The 5e Basic Rules specifically states that if a creature can understand a language but cannot speak it that it is "noted in its entry". That is RAW.
No, the rules for monsters state that. Which means that it's not really applicable to the rules of a homoculus. Even if it was, it's a generic rule that is beaten by the specific rule that says that Homoculi can understand a language but it doesn't say anything about being able to speak. So once again, according to RAW and the meaning of the word "understand", no you can't infer that just because a creature understands a language means that it automatically can read, write and speak it (as per the whole thing on dogs and mute people which you still haven't adressed or even aknowledged). It is, however, completely within the prerogative of the GM to rule that a homoculus can speak anyway.
It's interesting that you should emphasise that it's the "rules for monsters" when the Homunculus Servant is a monster...
However, if we look to the Homunculus from the Monster Manual, that stat block does specify that it "can't speak"
LanguagesUnderstands the languages of its creator but can't speak
So if we go so far as to draw a conclusion of intent for the Homunculus Servant based on the understanding that all of the Artificer's replicated magical items function identically to the actual magical items they are replicating, we can absolutely agree that the Homunculus Servant is not intended to be able to speak. Pointing back to my first comment, I did state that
They understand the languages you speak so that you can give it commands.
The Homunculus has a 10 intelligence, it being capable of holding up fingers, tapping on the ground to count, or other such forms of non-verbal communication make sense, even if it can't speak.
From which it should be fairly obvious that I am on the side of it cannot speak. The fact that they left out "can't speak" from the Homunculus Servant, though, opens the door ever so slightly to interpretation.
It's interesting that you should emphasise that it's the "rules for monsters" when the Homunculus Servant is a monster...
No, the Homoculus is a Tiny Construct. The rules you quote were from the MM, Homunculus Servant is in Tasha's.
However, if we look to the Homunculus from the Monster Manual, that stat block does specify that it "can't speak"
LanguagesUnderstands the languages of its creator but can't speak
So if we go so far as to draw a conclusion of intent for the Homunculus Servant based on the understanding that all of the Artificer's replicated magical items function identically to the actual magical items they are replicating, we can absolutely agree that the Homunculus Servant is not intended to be able to speak. Pointing back to my first comment, I did state that
They understand the languages you speak so that you can give it commands.
The Homunculus has a 10 intelligence, it being capable of holding up fingers, tapping on the ground to count, or other such forms of non-verbal communication make sense, even if it can't speak.
From which it should be fairly obvious that I am on the side of it cannot speak. The fact that they left out "can't speak" from the Homunculus Servant, though, opens the door ever so slightly to interpretation.
No, it does not, as per the whole thing about what the word "understand" means. Non-verbal communication is a completely different thing, though.
Just because it doesn't exist in the Monster Manual doesn't make it not a monster. Monsters are sometimes introduced in other books. It being a construct also does not make it not a monster. Plenty of creatures (monsters) in the monster manual are constructs. Construct is just a creature type.
Granted it being a "monster" or not doesn't really change things. It has a stat block similar to the stat blocks presented in the Monster Manual. It's still susceptible to spells like Hold Monster, Dominate Monster, etc which don't break things down based on creature type.
It just differs slightly in the choice of wording from the stat blocks of monsters in the monster manual.
I took this difference as a subtle indication of design intent towards leaving the question up to the DM. Sometimes WOTC leaves things vague deliberately for this purpose.
Perhaps there's just no clear indication of intent, perhaps it's just a style change for stat blocks moving forward, perhaps it's just a quirk of stat blocks unique to Tasha's, perhaps it's a typo, perhaps it doesn't matter. Ultimately it's a point I don't particularly care about. Because it all boils down to "Up to your DM" regardless.
Just because it doesn't exist in the Monster Manual doesn't make it not a monster. Monsters are sometimes introduced in other books. It being a construct also does not make it not a monster. Plenty of creatures (monsters) in the monster manual are constructs. Construct is just a creature type.
Granted it being a "monster" or not doesn't really change things. It has a stat block similar to the stat blocks presented in the Monster Manual. It's still susceptible to spells like Hold Monster, Dominate Monster, etc which don't break things down based on creature type.
It just differs slightly in the choice of wording from the stat blocks of monsters in the monster manual.
I took this difference as a subtle indication of design intent towards leaving the question up to the DM. Sometimes WOTC leaves things vague deliberately for this purpose.
Perhaps there's just no clear indication of intent, perhaps it's just a style change for stat blocks moving forward, perhaps it's just a quirk of stat blocks unique to Tasha's, perhaps it's a typo, perhaps it doesn't matter. Ultimately it's a point I don't particularly care about. Because it all boils down to "Up to your DM" regardless.
It is not a monster from the MM so its rules are more specific. Specific rules beat general rules. But yes, as I pointed out the rules are inconsistent. What is absolutely not in the rules though is to infer that the word "understand" when it comes to languages automatically means that you can read, write and speak said language. That is simply a fact.
Just because it doesn't exist in the Monster Manual doesn't make it not a monster. Monsters are sometimes introduced in other books. It being a construct also does not make it not a monster. Plenty of creatures (monsters) in the monster manual are constructs. Construct is just a creature type.
Granted it being a "monster" or not doesn't really change things. It has a stat block similar to the stat blocks presented in the Monster Manual. It's still susceptible to spells like Hold Monster, Dominate Monster, etc which don't break things down based on creature type.
It just differs slightly in the choice of wording from the stat blocks of monsters in the monster manual.
I took this difference as a subtle indication of design intent towards leaving the question up to the DM. Sometimes WOTC leaves things vague deliberately for this purpose.
Perhaps there's just no clear indication of intent, perhaps it's just a style change for stat blocks moving forward, perhaps it's just a quirk of stat blocks unique to Tasha's, perhaps it's a typo, perhaps it doesn't matter. Ultimately it's a point I don't particularly care about. Because it all boils down to "Up to your DM" regardless.
It is not a monster from the MM so its rules are more specific. Specific rules beat general rules. But yes, as I pointed out the rules are inconsistent. What is absolutely not in the rules though is to infer that the word "understand" when it comes to languages automatically means that you can read, write and speak said language. That is simply a fact.
Sure. That's also not what I argued at any point. I literally just said what the rules were in order to provide a baseline for other people to draw their own conclusions, and then made some suggestions of things players could do to work with their DM if the DM ruled "no" on verbal communication and the player still wanted some form of verbal communication from their Homunculus or Steel Defender.
Because. Again. It's up to the DM to make a ruling. Not you. Not me. Excepting in games where either of us is doing the DM-ing. THAT was my main conclusion.
The rest of this post is unimportant pedantics as none of it changes the main point:
My understanding of "specific beats general" is that it applies when the rules contradict each other. The omission of the words "but cannot speak" is not a contradiction with the general rule so the specific and general aren't in conflict here. They can both apply. Further your argument has been that the Homunculus is not a monster not that it's a monster with it's own specific ruleset. That's not a scenario of "specific beats general" that's a scenario of "the general rules don't apply." But maybe that's getting too into semantics for this already extremely semantic laden discussion.
Further, the rules for languages for monsters (they're up above, I quoted them earlier) specifically only cover speaking. No mention is made for reading and writing. If a monster is or isn't capable of reading that's a ruling made by a DM. The language rules for player races covers speaking, reading, and writing but I've never been implying that player race rules ought to apply to the Homunculus. I only included those rules to say that a player ought to be capable of teaching a language to a creature with the capacity to learn a language.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my posts.
Again, I am NOT arguing that the lack of "but cannot speak" means "can totally speak, read, and write, y'all" or even "can totally speak. Gavel dropped. I am the judge. End of story" I am arguing that the lack of that specific phrase means it's up to the DM to answer that question. Just as it's always been up to the DM to make rulings where the rules do not directly say things.
Finally, I disagree with you on the Homunculus not being a monster but I've also not actually been able to find anywhere in the rules where it specifically defines "monster" in game terms. My understanding is that a "monster" is just any creature in the game that's not a player. My reasoning for concluding that the Homunculus Servant is a monster is because it's functionally very similar to a familiar. And familiars are monsters (as far as I can tell). It seems to me whenever a creature is introduced into D&D 99% of the time it's a monster.
How do you handle communication from your Steel Defender and Infused Homunculus?
The descriptions say that they understand the languages you speak, but there's nothing about them being able to speak or otherwise communicate. That seems to be a rather significant omission! For example, I want to send my Infused stag beetle to search for something. But that would be pointless if it has no way to tell me what it has found.
Since they both have human-level intelligence, I'm thinking that they should be able to communicate via sign language, if nothing else. The homunculus could fly in patterns to communicate, and the Steel Defender could scratch marks on the ground or use body language somehow. Or maybe make noises, although there's no indication in the description if it can roar or anything like that.
Edit: It just occurred to me to wonder if the Defender and Homunculus can communicate with each other. What do you think?
What you are saying makes sense and is perfectly reasonable and not at all gamebreaking, but... it only says that they understand the languages you speak, not that it can read, write, or speak the languages you know. If they could, it would say that it knows the languages you know or just have a language listed like the Drake Companion.
It's basically just a provision to facilitate verbal orders.
To add to the previous answer, the best way to use a Steel Defender or Homoculus to scout is to ask it questions. "Did you see any soldiers up ahead?" *SD nods* "More than ten soldiers?" *SD shakes head* "How many?" *SD holds up four fingers* "Did you see any of the other things you were supposed to look for? Spellcasters, treasure, bridges or were-elephants?" *SD shakes head*
Pretty much this. They understand the languages you speak so that you can give it commands.
The Homunculus has a 10 intelligence, it being capable of holding up fingers, tapping on the ground to count, or other such forms of non-verbal communication make sense, even if it can't speak.
The Steel Defender has an intelligence of 4. That is 1 point smarter than a dog. It's a bit more of a stretch for it to be able to do the same.
But also note, that the stat block doesn't state they cannot speak only that they understand. One could infer from this that the understanding of a language includes the ability to speak, read, and write it (I understand English and can speak, read, and write it but I don't understand Mandarin, being completely incapable of speaking, reading, or writing it.) Other creatures, such as the Pseudodragon and the Tressym, specifically state that they understand but cannot speak. It would not be outside of the scope of the RAW for either of them to be able to speak, though I would personally use their Intelligence as a basis for ruling that the Homunculus can and the Steel Defender cannot.
It's completely against RAW to infer they are able to speak. It is also not what the words "understand" means. Dogs can understand simple spoken commands but that doesn't mean that they can speak, read or write. Historians can understand written hieroglyphs but they can't speak it (since we can't be sure how the language was pronounced). Illiterates can understand and speak a language but they can't read or write it. And so on.
I'd say RAW is deliberately (or accidentally) vague on whether or not the Homunculus or Steel Defender can speak in order to leave it in the hands of the DM. They built in wiggle room basically. If it was a major issue they'd have fixed it in one of the errata documents for Eberron or Tasha's.
References: (All found in the Basic Rules)
Racial Stats: Languages
Not particularly relevant to the Constructed minions like the Steel Defender and the Homunculus Servant... but this establishes the norm that players by default can speak read and write the languages they know. This will be important further down as it qualifies them to the basic ability to teach said languages to others.
Monster Stats: Languages
So the norm here is that if a monster has a language that is a language it can speak. If it cannot speak it will be explicitly noted. The artificer's minions "understand the languages you speak" and no mention is made of their inability to speak themselves. Thus it seems deliberately open to interpretation and left as a ruling to be made by the DM.
So what if your DM rules that the Steel Defender or Homunculus cannot speak? Well, it's a perfectly valid ruling you'd have to work with them to figure out why that is and if there are any ways to work around this limitation.
If the limitation is physical, the creature lacks the necessary anatomy for means of communication, gently remind the DM that the Artificer is in control of the creature's appearance and can fashion it into a creature with the necessary anatomy for some form of communication: mouth and vocal chords for speech, hands or appendages suitable for writing, a magical display interface to communicate through emojis, etc. Whatever works and is suitable within the DM's chosen setting.
If the limitation is one of knowledge and lack of training (this is a creature that was more or less born yesterday after all) but your DM is willing to allow them to learn a language then you have the training rules for learning a language or gaining proficiency with a tool.
Training
Logically, in order to learn a language the learner and the teacher must be able to communicate. Fortunately for the Artificer their construct already understands them perfectly, all that's necessary is instruction and practice. Granted, when the player themselves is the teacher I don't personally see why there would be an expense necessary. It's not like you'd need to pay yourself to do a thing you want to do already. Xanathar's also has training rules that are a lot nicer in my opinion. 50 days vs 250 days.
But ultimately if no form of verbal communication from your constructs is allowed you still have options. As others have mentioned Magical Tinkering lets your construct press buttons to tell you when they are "mad" and if you want something more permanent than Magical Tinkering allows, Magic Mouth is on your spell list and can be cast as a ritual or can be cast through your Spell-Storing Item. You could theoretically cast it individually on a series of teeth and then insert them into your construct's mouth and let them play messages by tapping each tooth with their tongue. You could eventually build up a basic language capacity this way.
Finally, there's just nonverbal communication which is also possible in D&D.
Other Intelligence Checks
And it'd be up to your DM how often they want you to make an intelligence check to understand your construct pet. If the situation is important enough you could apply Flash of Genius to it or cast Enhance Ability on yourself to grant you advantage on the check.
TLDR: The RAW are vague, probably deliberately. So the DM would need to make a ruling. Work with your DM to figure out the communication options your Steel Defender/Homunculus Servant or other construct pet have.
Then explain why some stat blocks specify the creature cannot speak them while the Homunculus Servant does not. Surely the specification that the creature cannot speak is unnecessary if "understands [insert language here]" covers the inability to speak.
Tressym: understands Common but can't speak
Pseudodragon: Understands Common and Draconic but can't speak them
Homunculus Servant: understands the languages you speak
The language that specifies it "can't speak" is suspiciously absent. I'm not saying that RAW it can speak, only that it would not be deviating from RAW if the DM were to rule that it can since the stat block does not state that it cannot.
Because D&D is inconsistently written.
Read what I wrote specifically as a reply to that point. The word "understand" doesn't automatically cover reading, writing and speaking. Or are you saying that a mute person can't understand a language because they can't speak it?
But where does it state that the HS *can* speak at all?
Your original statement was that you could infer that everyone in the whole wide multiverse who understands a language (unless specifically stated otherwise) automatically is able to read, write and speak said language. I pointed out that this follows neither RAW nor the general meaning of the word "understand". A GM can absolutely rule that homoculi can speak but that's completely different from inferring that everything that understands a language can also speak, read and write it.
I have my Artificer pets attune to Psi Crystals.
My original statement was that you could infer being able to speak, read, and write from "understands" with "but cannot speak" missing. Not that it's an automatic and set-in-stone fact. You inferred much more than what I actually said from what I actually said.
Could is a very important word in my statement as it holds a meaning very different from stating that "understanding means..." as it alters the statement to mean it's an option or one possible way of viewing it. In other words, a DM could choose to allow it and be justified in doing so as the RAW does not state the creature cannot speak.
As Unclevertitle stated, the actual RAW is:
The 5e Basic Rules specifically states that if a creature can understand a language but cannot speak it that it is "noted in its entry". That is RAW.
It's actually quite funny that you put so much emphasis on your use of the word *could* that you seem to have missed my use of the very same word. :D In any way, that was a reply to you trying to backtrack on what you originally said.
But as pointed out, that causes quite a few problems due to the way the word "understand" works. RAW also doesn't state that the creature specifically can speak so no, you really could not infer that.
No, the rules for monsters state that. Which means that it's not really applicable to the rules of a homoculus. Even if it was, it's a generic rule that is beaten by the specific rule that says that Homoculi can understand a language but it doesn't say anything about being able to speak. So once again, according to RAW and the meaning of the word "understand", no you can't infer that just because a creature understands a language means that it automatically can read, write and speak it (as per the whole thing on dogs and mute people which you still haven't adressed or even aknowledged). It is, however, completely within the prerogative of the GM to rule that a homoculus can speak anyway.
It's interesting that you should emphasise that it's the "rules for monsters" when the Homunculus Servant is a monster...
However, if we look to the Homunculus from the Monster Manual, that stat block does specify that it "can't speak"
So if we go so far as to draw a conclusion of intent for the Homunculus Servant based on the understanding that all of the Artificer's replicated magical items function identically to the actual magical items they are replicating, we can absolutely agree that the Homunculus Servant is not intended to be able to speak. Pointing back to my first comment, I did state that
From which it should be fairly obvious that I am on the side of it cannot speak. The fact that they left out "can't speak" from the Homunculus Servant, though, opens the door ever so slightly to interpretation.
No, the Homoculus is a Tiny Construct. The rules you quote were from the MM, Homunculus Servant is in Tasha's.
No, it does not, as per the whole thing about what the word "understand" means. Non-verbal communication is a completely different thing, though.
Just because it doesn't exist in the Monster Manual doesn't make it not a monster. Monsters are sometimes introduced in other books.
It being a construct also does not make it not a monster. Plenty of creatures (monsters) in the monster manual are constructs. Construct is just a creature type.
Granted it being a "monster" or not doesn't really change things. It has a stat block similar to the stat blocks presented in the Monster Manual. It's still susceptible to spells like Hold Monster, Dominate Monster, etc which don't break things down based on creature type.
It just differs slightly in the choice of wording from the stat blocks of monsters in the monster manual.
I took this difference as a subtle indication of design intent towards leaving the question up to the DM. Sometimes WOTC leaves things vague deliberately for this purpose.
Perhaps there's just no clear indication of intent, perhaps it's just a style change for stat blocks moving forward, perhaps it's just a quirk of stat blocks unique to Tasha's, perhaps it's a typo, perhaps it doesn't matter. Ultimately it's a point I don't particularly care about. Because it all boils down to "Up to your DM" regardless.
It is not a monster from the MM so its rules are more specific. Specific rules beat general rules. But yes, as I pointed out the rules are inconsistent. What is absolutely not in the rules though is to infer that the word "understand" when it comes to languages automatically means that you can read, write and speak said language. That is simply a fact.
Sure. That's also not what I argued at any point. I literally just said what the rules were in order to provide a baseline for other people to draw their own conclusions, and then made some suggestions of things players could do to work with their DM if the DM ruled "no" on verbal communication and the player still wanted some form of verbal communication from their Homunculus or Steel Defender.
Because. Again. It's up to the DM to make a ruling. Not you. Not me. Excepting in games where either of us is doing the DM-ing. THAT was my main conclusion.
The rest of this post is unimportant pedantics as none of it changes the main point:
My understanding of "specific beats general" is that it applies when the rules contradict each other. The omission of the words "but cannot speak" is not a contradiction with the general rule so the specific and general aren't in conflict here. They can both apply. Further your argument has been that the Homunculus is not a monster not that it's a monster with it's own specific ruleset. That's not a scenario of "specific beats general" that's a scenario of "the general rules don't apply." But maybe that's getting too into semantics for this already extremely semantic laden discussion.
Further, the rules for languages for monsters (they're up above, I quoted them earlier) specifically only cover speaking. No mention is made for reading and writing. If a monster is or isn't capable of reading that's a ruling made by a DM. The language rules for player races covers speaking, reading, and writing but I've never been implying that player race rules ought to apply to the Homunculus. I only included those rules to say that a player ought to be capable of teaching a language to a creature with the capacity to learn a language.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my posts.
Again, I am NOT arguing that the lack of "but cannot speak" means "can totally speak, read, and write, y'all" or even "can totally speak. Gavel dropped. I am the judge. End of story" I am arguing that the lack of that specific phrase means it's up to the DM to answer that question. Just as it's always been up to the DM to make rulings where the rules do not directly say things.
Finally, I disagree with you on the Homunculus not being a monster but I've also not actually been able to find anywhere in the rules where it specifically defines "monster" in game terms. My understanding is that a "monster" is just any creature in the game that's not a player. My reasoning for concluding that the Homunculus Servant is a monster is because it's functionally very similar to a familiar. And familiars are monsters (as far as I can tell). It seems to me whenever a creature is introduced into D&D 99% of the time it's a monster.