When a character is attempting to talk with or persuade an NPC that doesn’t speak the same language by using an interpreter, who makes the check, the interpreter or the original character?
Edit: Clarification. I meant this for things like persuasion (let us pass, tell us what you know about the area, etc) instead of telling them things. I realize my original question was confusingly worded.
Both-one person is working to communicate the idea, and the other person to understand it. Both of them are not assured success, and thusly, both of them should make a check to see whether they or not they can do their part correctly.
The person sending the message through the interpreter can not use their full charisma to pass on an idea or influence the final receiver.
Try to pantomime the idea of using a radio to a Native American from 1800. I don't think a concept like that will get across no matter what your scores in any stat are. But The ideas of friendship and food are easy.
And my guess you should be using intelligence for the skill check and not Charisma. Intelligence to figure out the riddle to and from each of you. Charisma is more for influencing someone that you can speak well with.
This isn't really something I'd make a check for at all.
If you don't speak the same language, you might be able to pantomime some very simple concepts, but language proficiencies are in the game for a reason. You don't just get to ignore that with a high check.
If you have an interpreter, you can communicate. If I wanted to make a cost or risk to that, there would be checks to get the interpreter in the first place. But I'm not going to give the party an interpreter and then proceed to fumble it's ability to do its only job.
Not everything needs to be a roll. Especially in a case like this where the point of the scene is probably providing exposition and/or moving the story along. What are you going to do if everyone fumbles? You're just at an impasse and nothing happens and now you've managed to create more work for yourself.
If you can make failure interesting, go for it. But only if that.
I actually meant in persuasion situations (asking for help, etc) not expressing an idea. I updated the original post to reflect this, since the wording was confusing.
Overcomplicating it. Interpreter is helping a character who would otherwise be at disadvantage, interpretation negates that disadvantage. One roll, I'd put it on the idea character. On the other hand, I would have no problem with a less charismatic character ceding the messaging to the interpreter and have the interpreter roll, or keep the messenger as a puppet Cyrano style. I don't really see the need for hard and fast rules here.
As there would be no roll at all without the interpreter, I as a DM would maybe go with the character rolling at disadvantage and ignore the interpreter.
This isn't really something I'd make a check for at all.
If you don't speak the same language, you might be able to pantomime some very simple concepts, but language proficiencies are in the game for a reason. You don't just get to ignore that with a high check.
An anecdote. When I moved to Italy, a lady tried to make friends with me. She spoke Spanish and Italiah, I spoke English. By pantomime, I learned that she'd been in Italy for a decade, came with her family from Ecuador. I learned her name, who her family was, what her husband was called and that she was a shoemaker. I learned that she was studying and what (I've forgotten now, this was over a decade ago, but I knew at the time).
You can convey very complex ideas without sharing a language. It's a lot more laborious and time consuming, it takes determination, but it's doable so long as you have some key concepts and ideas in common that you can fall back on. A Brit and an Ecuadorian can do it. A 21st century Brit and a 1st century Roman? Probably not. But it's not an impossible task.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Anybody directly interacting with the person(s) they're communicating with, so assuming a face to face conversation with an interpreter literally standing between two other parties, both. The original speaker still conveys impressions via tone, body language, etc that transcend spoken language and influence how the message is perceived. All the same goes for the interpreter, plus other things like how they feel about the message (if the interpreter thinks they're translating a load of BS, an insight check can reveal this).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When a character is attempting to talk with or persuade an NPC that doesn’t speak the same language by using an interpreter, who makes the check, the interpreter or the original character?
Edit: Clarification. I meant this for things like persuasion (let us pass, tell us what you know about the area, etc) instead of telling them things. I realize my original question was confusingly worded.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Both-one person is working to communicate the idea, and the other person to understand it. Both of them are not assured success, and thusly, both of them should make a check to see whether they or not they can do their part correctly.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Interpreter and recipient use their scores.
The person sending the message through the interpreter can not use their full charisma to pass on an idea or influence the final receiver.
Try to pantomime the idea of using a radio to a Native American from 1800. I don't think a concept like that will get across no matter what your scores in any stat are. But The ideas of friendship and food are easy.
And my guess you should be using intelligence for the skill check and not Charisma. Intelligence to figure out the riddle to and from each of you. Charisma is more for influencing someone that you can speak well with.
This isn't really something I'd make a check for at all.
If you don't speak the same language, you might be able to pantomime some very simple concepts, but language proficiencies are in the game for a reason. You don't just get to ignore that with a high check.
If you have an interpreter, you can communicate. If I wanted to make a cost or risk to that, there would be checks to get the interpreter in the first place. But I'm not going to give the party an interpreter and then proceed to fumble it's ability to do its only job.
Not everything needs to be a roll. Especially in a case like this where the point of the scene is probably providing exposition and/or moving the story along. What are you going to do if everyone fumbles? You're just at an impasse and nothing happens and now you've managed to create more work for yourself.
If you can make failure interesting, go for it. But only if that.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I actually meant in persuasion situations (asking for help, etc) not expressing an idea. I updated the original post to reflect this, since the wording was confusing.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Overcomplicating it. Interpreter is helping a character who would otherwise be at disadvantage, interpretation negates that disadvantage. One roll, I'd put it on the idea character. On the other hand, I would have no problem with a less charismatic character ceding the messaging to the interpreter and have the interpreter roll, or keep the messenger as a puppet Cyrano style. I don't really see the need for hard and fast rules here.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
As there would be no roll at all without the interpreter, I as a DM would maybe go with the character rolling at disadvantage and ignore the interpreter.
An anecdote. When I moved to Italy, a lady tried to make friends with me. She spoke Spanish and Italiah, I spoke English. By pantomime, I learned that she'd been in Italy for a decade, came with her family from Ecuador. I learned her name, who her family was, what her husband was called and that she was a shoemaker. I learned that she was studying and what (I've forgotten now, this was over a decade ago, but I knew at the time).
You can convey very complex ideas without sharing a language. It's a lot more laborious and time consuming, it takes determination, but it's doable so long as you have some key concepts and ideas in common that you can fall back on. A Brit and an Ecuadorian can do it. A 21st century Brit and a 1st century Roman? Probably not. But it's not an impossible task.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Anybody directly interacting with the person(s) they're communicating with, so assuming a face to face conversation with an interpreter literally standing between two other parties, both. The original speaker still conveys impressions via tone, body language, etc that transcend spoken language and influence how the message is perceived. All the same goes for the interpreter, plus other things like how they feel about the message (if the interpreter thinks they're translating a load of BS, an insight check can reveal this).