How come there isn't a language called Human? How come all humans speak the same language, regardless of where they live?
Why do all elves? All dwarves? All dragons?
You've gotta have a cutoff somewhere. The real world's language systems are incredibly complex and would be very hard to gamify.
Ask the Elves what they call the Common Tongue, and see if they don't call it "Human".
It isn't even true that all Humans speak the same language. Check out the Forgotten Realms, the Default Setting, in the SCAG. Humans speak:
Dambrathan
Bedine
Alzhedo
Chondathan
Damaran
Waelan
Guran
Halruaan
Illuskan
Roushoum
Chessentan
Mulhorandi
Untheric
Thayan
Rashemi
Shaaran
Shou
Tuigan
Turmic
Uluik
In the Realms the Common Tongue is a pidgin variant of Chondathan, the most widely used of the Human languages of the West, and is used primarily for trade and negotiations. It's not a language to be used for discussion of lore or philosophy.
Greyhawk had a whole bunch of Human languages from what I remember. Eberron is less linguistically rich. I can't speak to other settings.
I think it adds a bit of extra flourish to enforce languages, but as with so many things only if it’s meaningful. I require that all PCs share at least one language, for instance - doesn’t have to be Common, but I want them all to be able to communicate directly. Having a Chewie who can only talk through Han is comical for a few sessions maybe, but it’s also quite restricting for the Wookiee who can’t just explain what he found or saw (never mind needing to be accompanied just to order a drink or going on a walk where he might get asked questions by the local constabulary, although if my players want that kind if thing I’m not stopping them). Rogues not being able to understand everything they overhear or mages at least needing a spell slot for Comprehend Languages is helpful, five dozen Cha checks per session just to see if PC A and PC B are on the same page is not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What do you mean, all barbarians can read and write?
This kind of bugs me... why wouldn't a barbarian be able to read and write? It's just the name of a class. Even Conan, the most famous barbarian, was still a perfectly intelligent person. He often solved difficult problems through his wit and intelligence just as, if not more often, than he ever barreled through problems like a meat tank. Not all wizards are old men with long beards and pointy hats, not all warlocks are evil schemers murdering children to keep their patron happy, and not all bards are horny attention seekers who try to solve every problem with their crotch. There's nothing wrong with playing characters in that way, but it's not weird to stray from these stereotypes.
Intelligence has nothing to do with linguistic skill in 5th Edition D&D. You can have an 8 Intelligence and still speak multiple languages depending on your Race and Background.
I have not seen any mention of literacy in the 5th Edition D&D rules.
More on Topic... I have always assumed that speaking to an NPC in their Native Tongue gets a more favorable reaction. Sure, you can use Common to negotiate with those Dwarves, but you'll be showing more respect if you use Dwarven. I don't often burden the players with Language Barriers. After the first couple of times it just gets old and it brings the game to a crawl.
I have not seen any mention of literacy in the 5th Edition D&D rules.
Well, under Racial Traits in the PHB it says By virtue of your race, your character can speak, read, and write certain languages.
Universal literacy is an extremely recent phenomenon and doesn't fit my conception of a pseudo-medieval world. Reading and writing are two separate skills. Historically, many more people learned to read than to write. It's why being a scribe/secretary is a specific job -- and even in the industrialised West, continued to be so until about 30 years ago.
Your mileage is welcome to differ. I'm just pointing out that for me, because of my level of background knowledge, this is a point at which the simplicity of the rules is frustrating. But I'm not about to join the psionics bandwagon and insist that there needs to be official rules to enable me to play the way I want to play. I'm happy to hack something together -- and interested in what other people come up with.
To be fair, literacy was a lot more common in the medieval period than we generally think because what was considered "literate" was to read and write Latin. Basic reading and writing in your local language was much more common as was very basic math. But if it wasn't Latin then it didn't count. NPCs who speak, read, and write only their racial/cultural language is fairly accurate representation.
To be fair, literacy was a lot more common in the medieval period than we generally think because what was considered "literate" was to read and write Latin. Basic reading and writing in your local language was much more common as was very basic math. But if it wasn't Latin then it didn't count. NPCs who speak, read, and write only their racial/cultural language is fairly accurate representation.
It has been estimated that overall literacy in Germany in the early sixteenth century was around 5 percent. Although literacy rates were higher in the cities, perhaps in the area of 30 percent for men, cities themselves enclosed no more than 10 percent of the empire's population. In other words, those learned in Latin were a minority among the literate; the literate were a minority within the cities; and the cities enclosed a minority among the empire.
Well how about that? There actually is a mention of Literacy in the 5th Edition D&D rulebooks. I was wrong.
It only applies to the Non-Human races in the Player's Handbook, and I believe they were only talking about Player Characters, who are pretty much always the exception to the general run of things, so it is hardly saying there is Universal Literacy, but that is splitting hairs.
The stuff in PHB applies to PCs pretty much exclusively.
One of the players in my campaign has a character in his background, and he told me that "she is a Rogue/Way of Shadows Monk" I had to tell him no, she is not - because NPCs do not have levels, subclasses, or character classes. She may have some abilities that would reflect those classes, but she has a CR, not a level, and she doesn't have a class, because as an NPC, she gets a stat-block, not a character sheet.
Now a DM can, of course, choose to make the NPC up using the PC rules, but the DM doesn't have to do that, and my impression is that most of us don't. Which means that rules on language, free skill proficiency picks, saving throw proficiencies, etc... those apply to PCs. The NPCs/Monsters get... whatever you want to give them. You can see at a glance that almost zero monsters have the types of stats/saves/proficiencies that would be done following RAW for a PC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To be fair, that's mostly because stating out a full PC just to have a NPC when you can get the same effect from the player perspective by taking an existing NPC creature and adding a flavor ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really like Dael Kingsmill’s new(ish) YouTube video on languages. I’m thinking about adopting it into my games.
Ask the Elves what they call the Common Tongue, and see if they don't call it "Human".
It isn't even true that all Humans speak the same language. Check out the Forgotten Realms, the Default Setting, in the SCAG. Humans speak:
In the Realms the Common Tongue is a pidgin variant of Chondathan, the most widely used of the Human languages of the West, and is used primarily for trade and negotiations. It's not a language to be used for discussion of lore or philosophy.
Greyhawk had a whole bunch of Human languages from what I remember. Eberron is less linguistically rich. I can't speak to other settings.
<Insert clever signature here>
I think it adds a bit of extra flourish to enforce languages, but as with so many things only if it’s meaningful. I require that all PCs share at least one language, for instance - doesn’t have to be Common, but I want them all to be able to communicate directly. Having a Chewie who can only talk through Han is comical for a few sessions maybe, but it’s also quite restricting for the Wookiee who can’t just explain what he found or saw (never mind needing to be accompanied just to order a drink or going on a walk where he might get asked questions by the local constabulary, although if my players want that kind if thing I’m not stopping them). Rogues not being able to understand everything they overhear or mages at least needing a spell slot for Comprehend Languages is helpful, five dozen Cha checks per session just to see if PC A and PC B are on the same page is not.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well, under Racial Traits in the PHB it says By virtue of your race, your character can speak, read, and write certain languages.
Universal literacy is an extremely recent phenomenon and doesn't fit my conception of a pseudo-medieval world. Reading and writing are two separate skills. Historically, many more people learned to read than to write. It's why being a scribe/secretary is a specific job -- and even in the industrialised West, continued to be so until about 30 years ago.
Your mileage is welcome to differ. I'm just pointing out that for me, because of my level of background knowledge, this is a point at which the simplicity of the rules is frustrating. But I'm not about to join the psionics bandwagon and insist that there needs to be official rules to enable me to play the way I want to play. I'm happy to hack something together -- and interested in what other people come up with.
To be fair, literacy was a lot more common in the medieval period than we generally think because what was considered "literate" was to read and write Latin. Basic reading and writing in your local language was much more common as was very basic math. But if it wasn't Latin then it didn't count. NPCs who speak, read, and write only their racial/cultural language is fairly accurate representation.
What's your evidence for that?
Here's a quote to work with (Edwards, Mark U., Jr. Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994, https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3q2nb278&chunk.id=d0e6117&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e303&brand=ucpress):
It has been estimated that overall literacy in Germany in the early sixteenth century was around 5 percent. Although literacy rates were higher in the cities, perhaps in the area of 30 percent for men, cities themselves enclosed no more than 10 percent of the empire's population. In other words, those learned in Latin were a minority among the literate; the literate were a minority within the cities; and the cities enclosed a minority among the empire.
Well how about that? There actually is a mention of Literacy in the 5th Edition D&D rulebooks. I was wrong.
It only applies to the Non-Human races in the Player's Handbook, and I believe they were only talking about Player Characters, who are pretty much always the exception to the general run of things, so it is hardly saying there is Universal Literacy, but that is splitting hairs.
<Insert clever signature here>
The stuff in PHB applies to PCs pretty much exclusively.
One of the players in my campaign has a character in his background, and he told me that "she is a Rogue/Way of Shadows Monk" I had to tell him no, she is not - because NPCs do not have levels, subclasses, or character classes. She may have some abilities that would reflect those classes, but she has a CR, not a level, and she doesn't have a class, because as an NPC, she gets a stat-block, not a character sheet.
Now a DM can, of course, choose to make the NPC up using the PC rules, but the DM doesn't have to do that, and my impression is that most of us don't. Which means that rules on language, free skill proficiency picks, saving throw proficiencies, etc... those apply to PCs. The NPCs/Monsters get... whatever you want to give them. You can see at a glance that almost zero monsters have the types of stats/saves/proficiencies that would be done following RAW for a PC.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To be fair, that's mostly because stating out a full PC just to have a NPC when you can get the same effect from the player perspective by taking an existing NPC creature and adding a flavor ability.