10 is the average so define what that means. If you don't want the average person to write in the native language make it require an intelligence of 11.
A noble has an intelligence of 12. So maybe an intelligence of 12 gives the individual fluency in both languages.
So maybe an intelligence of 13 or 14 is needed for fluency in a third language.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Discord: MasterWitch#2965
My World Anvil account if you're interested. Work in progress.
10 is the average so define what that means. If you don't want the average person to write in the native language make it require an intelligence of 11.
A noble has an intelligence of 12. So maybe an intelligence of 12 gives the individual fluency in both languages.
So maybe an intelligence of 13 or 14 is needed for fluency in a third language.
I was looking at these numbers and realized that the party for my up-and-coming campaign will include two illiterate characters, a half-orc fighter (int 8) and a dwarven druid (int 8), teamed up with a Kenku (int 12) who can write in two languages but can't speak them unless they hear the sounds first. This is going to be fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Discord: MasterWitch#2965
My World Anvil account if you're interested. Work in progress.
I had a character (Half-orc Barbarian) that was pretty stupid - his INT and WIS were both 7, with the caveat that when it came to tactical situations, he was somewhat of a savant. He was illiterate, cared nothing for reading or writing, and couldn't understand the fuss about it. One of my best characters ever, and fun to play in a party that took advantage of him never really knowing how much gold he had, what things cost, etc.
I've recently been reading a lot about literacy. It seems that being able to read and being able to write and then on top of that write well, were all independent skills. Especially if said writing was done in Latin as opposed to the local tongue.
I've been toying with ideas and ways to make the power of writing more awe inspiring to our modern sensibilities.
Most recently I'm playing with the idea of mass literacy printing and the publication of slander to be used by the villain to discredit the adventurers.
In the real world, Priests did not and still don't go around casting healing spells or creating magical, floating weapons, people don't throw fireballs or curses, or walk on water - Jesus not included. D&D is not the real world, it is a made up fantasy. There is no relationship between the two. If you want ultra-realism in your games then become a DM and run your own version of it, but don't expect the entire game to be recreated just because you don't think it is very realistic.
It's good stuff, but for those put off by a 26 min length - tl;ds: literacy in the olden times tends to get equated to being literate in the "important" languages (Latin, mainly) and being able to read and write the "common" language of where you lived doesn't count. Given that D&D literally has "Common" as its main language, the aforementioned distinction is really not pertinent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It all make sense, before Tyndal translated the bible into English it was almost exclusively read in Latin. Tyndal had a lot of opposition because it enabled the commoners to read the bible and attempt to interpret it for themselves, instead of the priest interpreting it for them and this was considered very dangerous.
Back to D&D, my level 19 into 8 monk went to a caste based city where if someone could read they had a Mark on their face, if they could write they had 2 marks and if they could cast spells 3. As the party marked themselves appropriately I decided I could probably read but not write. This led to a lot of people looking down on me and assuming I was a slave to the party spellcasters, in frustration I emptied my body of matter and was promptly declared a spell caster.
In the real world, Priests did not and still don't go around casting healing spells or creating magical, floating weapons, people don't throw fireballs or curses, or walk on water - Jesus not included. D&D is not the real world, it is a made up fantasy. There is no relationship between the two. If you want ultra-realism in your games then become a DM and run your own version of it, but don't expect the entire game to be recreated just because you don't think it is very realistic.
This kind of topic is why I DM. Standard D&D is just hack-and-slash ... it's the little stuff that provides for the story. The entire monster manual is built around CR (Challenge Rating/ combat rating). It is all about how skilled of a fighter they are. Going from CR 0 commoner with its little club to the CR 30 Tarrasque with its arsenal of attacks. I love how I can look at something in the game and see a pattern and create a story. There is nothing in the conversation that is asking for things to be recreated. The rules allow for creativity just like this. I love the idea that the commoner can't read. The thing is that means most of your shop keeps and blacksmiths are all illiterate if you require intelligence of 11 to read and write a language. A few races have a plus one intelligence (Elf, Gnome, Half-elf, and Tiefling) so would make for great merchants. A little thing like this conversation leads to a nice bit of world-building and it's fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Discord: MasterWitch#2965
My World Anvil account if you're interested. Work in progress.
I love the idea that the commoner can't read. The thing is that means most of your shop keeps and blacksmiths are all illiterate if you require intelligence of 11 to read and write a language. A few races have a plus one intelligence (Elf, Gnome, Half-elf, and Tiefling) so would make for great merchants.
The only problem with that though is that you don't need to be above-average intelligence to read or write. As long as you are not very low intelligence, all you need is to be taught. And while it might be reasonable to assume that your average farmhand won't have been taught to read or or write, I would think that shopkeepers (and probably skilled trades) likely would have.
So I'd perhaps modify it to be: people are illiterate unless any of the following apply:
a) their background is such that they would likely have been taught to read (e.g. nobility, middle classes, raised in a monastory, etc).
b) their current job (or character class) would require or benefit from it (shopkeeper, cleric, skilled trades, etc).
c) they have above-average int (so that people whose background would otherwise suggest they would be illiterate learned to read anyway - e.g. if somone realised their potential and decided to educate them, or if they taught themselves, etc).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why not just base it all on intelligence.
10 is the average so define what that means. If you don't want the average person to write in the native language make it require an intelligence of 11.
A noble has an intelligence of 12. So maybe an intelligence of 12 gives the individual fluency in both languages.
So maybe an intelligence of 13 or 14 is needed for fluency in a third language.
Discord: MasterWitch#2965
My World Anvil account if you're interested. Work in progress.
https://www.worldanvil.com/w/land-of-the-fallen-7Blandfall7D-masterwitch
I was looking at these numbers and realized that the party for my up-and-coming campaign will include two illiterate characters, a half-orc fighter (int 8) and a dwarven druid (int 8), teamed up with a Kenku (int 12) who can write in two languages but can't speak them unless they hear the sounds first. This is going to be fun.
Discord: MasterWitch#2965
My World Anvil account if you're interested. Work in progress.
https://www.worldanvil.com/w/land-of-the-fallen-7Blandfall7D-masterwitch
I had a character (Half-orc Barbarian) that was pretty stupid - his INT and WIS were both 7, with the caveat that when it came to tactical situations, he was somewhat of a savant. He was illiterate, cared nothing for reading or writing, and couldn't understand the fuss about it. One of my best characters ever, and fun to play in a party that took advantage of him never really knowing how much gold he had, what things cost, etc.
I've recently been reading a lot about literacy. It seems that being able to read and being able to write and then on top of that write well, were all independent skills. Especially if said writing was done in Latin as opposed to the local tongue.
I've been toying with ideas and ways to make the power of writing more awe inspiring to our modern sensibilities.
Most recently I'm playing with the idea of mass literacy printing and the publication of slander to be used by the villain to discredit the adventurers.
In the real world, Priests did not and still don't go around casting healing spells or creating magical, floating weapons, people don't throw fireballs or curses, or walk on water - Jesus not included. D&D is not the real world, it is a made up fantasy. There is no relationship between the two. If you want ultra-realism in your games then become a DM and run your own version of it, but don't expect the entire game to be recreated just because you don't think it is very realistic.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It's good stuff, but for those put off by a 26 min length - tl;ds: literacy in the olden times tends to get equated to being literate in the "important" languages (Latin, mainly) and being able to read and write the "common" language of where you lived doesn't count. Given that D&D literally has "Common" as its main language, the aforementioned distinction is really not pertinent.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It all make sense, before Tyndal translated the bible into English it was almost exclusively read in Latin. Tyndal had a lot of opposition because it enabled the commoners to read the bible and attempt to interpret it for themselves, instead of the priest interpreting it for them and this was considered very dangerous.
Back to D&D, my level 19 into 8 monk went to a caste based city where if someone could read they had a Mark on their face, if they could write they had 2 marks and if they could cast spells 3. As the party marked themselves appropriately I decided I could probably read but not write. This led to a lot of people looking down on me and assuming I was a slave to the party spellcasters, in frustration I emptied my body of matter and was promptly declared a spell caster.
This kind of topic is why I DM. Standard D&D is just hack-and-slash ... it's the little stuff that provides for the story. The entire monster manual is built around CR (Challenge Rating/ combat rating). It is all about how skilled of a fighter they are. Going from CR 0 commoner with its little club to the CR 30 Tarrasque with its arsenal of attacks. I love how I can look at something in the game and see a pattern and create a story. There is nothing in the conversation that is asking for things to be recreated. The rules allow for creativity just like this. I love the idea that the commoner can't read. The thing is that means most of your shop keeps and blacksmiths are all illiterate if you require intelligence of 11 to read and write a language. A few races have a plus one intelligence (Elf, Gnome, Half-elf, and Tiefling) so would make for great merchants. A little thing like this conversation leads to a nice bit of world-building and it's fun.
Discord: MasterWitch#2965
My World Anvil account if you're interested. Work in progress.
https://www.worldanvil.com/w/land-of-the-fallen-7Blandfall7D-masterwitch
The only problem with that though is that you don't need to be above-average intelligence to read or write. As long as you are not very low intelligence, all you need is to be taught. And while it might be reasonable to assume that your average farmhand won't have been taught to read or or write, I would think that shopkeepers (and probably skilled trades) likely would have.
So I'd perhaps modify it to be: people are illiterate unless any of the following apply:
a) their background is such that they would likely have been taught to read (e.g. nobility, middle classes, raised in a monastory, etc).
b) their current job (or character class) would require or benefit from it (shopkeeper, cleric, skilled trades, etc).
c) they have above-average int (so that people whose background would otherwise suggest they would be illiterate learned to read anyway - e.g. if somone realised their potential and decided to educate them, or if they taught themselves, etc).