Would it be dangerously unbalancing to make reading and writing Common NOT the default for all PCs and most humanoid NPCs? I know that having everybody be able to communicate to some degree is important. Nevertheless, it feels weirdly off narrative that all commoners are assumed to know skills that are not necessary to their survival in a medieval world setting (before the existence of such things as printing presses and public schools). As such, how would PCs with backgrounds such as folk heroes, low ranking soldiers, common criminals, urchins, etc. be able to read and write?
Does it necessarily ruin the fun to incorporate somewhat more realistic world-building into PC characters in this way?
Probably not, although I wouldn't limit the proficiency to just some backgrounds, but also classes. Kinda hard to fathom of someone who became a Wizard without learning to read or write, regardless of their background.
You might be able to get away with just talking to your players, and have each one decide whether they can read or write, with an appropriate justification (sure, my Rogue's an Urchin, but he routinely studied scraps of paper he stole from nobles, so he learned to read), or maybe tie it to Intelligence (14+, your character can read/write if you choose, for example).
I'd float the idea to you players if they want to be part of this but have the PC's default as literate. And as Tonio mentioned above just ask them for how they did learn if you decide that your world isn't generally literate.
You could have it that for every language they decide they can only speak in (from character creation) they can speak one additional.
Some players may want to be able to speak them all but not read all.
The example I can think of is set in Eberron. Goliaths and Drow both speak Giant as they are from Xen'drik, the home of the fallen Giant civilisation. Both could read and write Xen'rikii fluently but only speak in broken Khorvairian (common). This info is from some old 4e, I think, chart my DM showed us not too long ago.
I have considered a home rule where you know an additional language for each INT modifier, and become illiterate in a language you already know for each negative INT modifier.
Because INT doesn't really have any mechanics based around it.
I have considered a home rule where you know an additional language for each INT modifier, and become illiterate in a language you already know for each negative INT modifier.
Because INT doesn't really have any mechanics based around it.
I like this! Simple, gives another (imo much needed) use for Intelligence, and still gives players the option to be literate in all languages if they choose to.
Only drawback I can think of is that with the standard array, you'd only be illiterate in at most one language, and then only if you dump Intelligence.
A similar approach that wouldn't have that drawback (although it eliminates extra languages) would be that you're fully illiterate by default, and gain literacy in a number of languages equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum 0). That would mean many/most characters wouldn't be literate, and most of those that are, probably only in one language.
Probably not, although I wouldn't limit the proficiency to just some backgrounds, but also classes. Kinda hard to fathom of someone who became a Wizard without learning to read or write, regardless of their background.
You might be able to get away with just talking to your players, and have each one decide whether they can read or write, with an appropriate justification (sure, my Rogue's an Urchin, but he routinely studied scraps of paper he stole from nobles, so he learned to read), or maybe tie it to Intelligence (14+, your character can read/write if you choose, for example).
Yes, I think it's off-base that we should just Assume that all Barbarians know how to read. Isn't the ferocity and danger sense of that class supposed to signify Non-immersion in civilization?
I have considered a home rule where you know an additional language for each INT modifier, and become illiterate in a language you already know for each negative INT modifier.
Because INT doesn't really have any mechanics based around it.
What if the home rule was that 8 INT means illiterate in all languages unless your character gets one or more from their background? Backgrounds like Acolyte or Noble, for instance, would likely confer literacy in some kind of language since those backgrounds heavily suggest having received schooling as a child. Limit of 1 written language in that case. Perhaps create a category called Schooled Backgrounds. Probably add Sage, Archaeologist, Hermit, Soldier (Officer only) and Guild Artisan to that list. A 10 or 11 would signify literacy in one language, with 1 more for Schooled Backgrounds. Then just add one language per INT modifier from there as DxJxC suggested.
This may persuade some people to not dump INT at character creation and also get people to think a bit more about their PC's past. Or create some more interesting RP situations based on miscommunication.
Song_of_Blues: Class is not concept, concept is not class. Having levels in the Barbarian class does not, in any way, require the character to be an unwashed primitive.
Which is why I would have a house rule specifically to deal with the issue of linguistic literacy.
Notice that I used the word "all" before the word Barbarian. Obviously, a player should be able to make the character they want, but they should also have to abide by some rules integral to the world that they are playing in, otherwise, why have rules at all? So a player can certainly choose to play Barbarian who can read and write in 3 languages, they would just need to justify that with an INT of 12 or 14, depending on their background.
It's possible that you're running into world issues rather than party issues. The characters in the party are heroes. They are exceptional in every way vs the common farmer.
It is totally ok to say that common peasants can't read. It is also ok to say that they can. Different worlds different themes. You can also say that in nation B, it is illegal for peasants to learn how to read. A PC can have their background story be that they are from this place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
Sure, in a fantasy world in which everybody goes to public school, it would be much more thematic that most people knew how to read. This is where the fantasy lore often falls flat IMO b/c it assumes things that are true for medieval settings that were would be hard to explain given the all around different standards of living available to people who did not have access to things like the printing press or electrical lighting.
Would it be dangerously unbalancing to make reading and writing Common NOT the default for all PCs and most humanoid NPCs? I know that having everybody be able to communicate to some degree is important. Nevertheless, it feels weirdly off narrative that all commoners are assumed to know skills that are not necessary to their survival in a medieval world setting (before the existence of such things as printing presses and public schools). As such, how would PCs with backgrounds such as folk heroes, low ranking soldiers, common criminals, urchins, etc. be able to read and write?
Does it necessarily ruin the fun to incorporate somewhat more realistic world-building into PC characters in this way?
Probably not, although I wouldn't limit the proficiency to just some backgrounds, but also classes. Kinda hard to fathom of someone who became a Wizard without learning to read or write, regardless of their background.
You might be able to get away with just talking to your players, and have each one decide whether they can read or write, with an appropriate justification (sure, my Rogue's an Urchin, but he routinely studied scraps of paper he stole from nobles, so he learned to read), or maybe tie it to Intelligence (14+, your character can read/write if you choose, for example).
I'd float the idea to you players if they want to be part of this but have the PC's default as literate. And as Tonio mentioned above just ask them for how they did learn if you decide that your world isn't generally literate.
You could have it that for every language they decide they can only speak in (from character creation) they can speak one additional.
Some players may want to be able to speak them all but not read all.
The example I can think of is set in Eberron. Goliaths and Drow both speak Giant as they are from Xen'drik, the home of the fallen Giant civilisation. Both could read and write Xen'rikii fluently but only speak in broken Khorvairian (common). This info is from some old 4e, I think, chart my DM showed us not too long ago.
I have considered a home rule where you know an additional language for each INT modifier, and become illiterate in a language you already know for each negative INT modifier.
Because INT doesn't really have any mechanics based around it.
I like this! Simple, gives another (imo much needed) use for Intelligence, and still gives players the option to be literate in all languages if they choose to.
Only drawback I can think of is that with the standard array, you'd only be illiterate in at most one language, and then only if you dump Intelligence.
A similar approach that wouldn't have that drawback (although it eliminates extra languages) would be that you're fully illiterate by default, and gain literacy in a number of languages equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum 0). That would mean many/most characters wouldn't be literate, and most of those that are, probably only in one language.
Yes, I think it's off-base that we should just Assume that all Barbarians know how to read. Isn't the ferocity and danger sense of that class supposed to signify Non-immersion in civilization?
What if the home rule was that 8 INT means illiterate in all languages unless your character gets one or more from their background? Backgrounds like Acolyte or Noble, for instance, would likely confer literacy in some kind of language since those backgrounds heavily suggest having received schooling as a child. Limit of 1 written language in that case. Perhaps create a category called Schooled Backgrounds. Probably add Sage, Archaeologist, Hermit, Soldier (Officer only) and Guild Artisan to that list. A 10 or 11 would signify literacy in one language, with 1 more for Schooled Backgrounds. Then just add one language per INT modifier from there as DxJxC suggested.
This may persuade some people to not dump INT at character creation and also get people to think a bit more about their PC's past. Or create some more interesting RP situations based on miscommunication.
Song_of_Blues: Class is not concept, concept is not class. Having levels in the Barbarian class does not, in any way, require the character to be an unwashed primitive.
Which is why I would have a house rule specifically to deal with the issue of linguistic literacy.
Notice that I used the word "all" before the word Barbarian. Obviously, a player should be able to make the character they want, but they should also have to abide by some rules integral to the world that they are playing in, otherwise, why have rules at all? So a player can certainly choose to play Barbarian who can read and write in 3 languages, they would just need to justify that with an INT of 12 or 14, depending on their background.
It's possible that you're running into world issues rather than party issues. The characters in the party are heroes. They are exceptional in every way vs the common farmer.
It is totally ok to say that common peasants can't read. It is also ok to say that they can. Different worlds different themes. You can also say that in nation B, it is illegal for peasants to learn how to read. A PC can have their background story be that they are from this place.
"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
Sure, in a fantasy world in which everybody goes to public school, it would be much more thematic that most people knew how to read. This is where the fantasy lore often falls flat IMO b/c it assumes things that are true for medieval settings that were would be hard to explain given the all around different standards of living available to people who did not have access to things like the printing press or electrical lighting.