I used to just have all creatures speak common. At the time it seemed the "best choice" because it allowed for everyone at the table to participate in role play at the table. However, I've since changed my thinking on that and really gone to playing pretty strict to the spoken languages known for PCs and NPCs both. Several backgrounds, classes, subclasses, spells, and other areas of the game make languages a part of the build. I am admittedly a huge fan of the PHB ranger, for example, and learning new languages is a part of their "iconic" class ability. Since changing my ways at the table with languages I've found it actually increases role play as people have to pay attention to what their characters do or do not speak. PCs have to communicate with one another, and it really rewards builds that do something other than heal and kill things.
When I took over as DM a couple of years ago, I leaned into the potential for challenges/opportunities given language barriers. The party was big enough and varied to altogether be able to speak half a dozen different languages altogether. It made for some interesting, fun, and unique scenarios. The Elven guards in the hidden forest town only spoke Elvish, for example, so the "face" of the party to gain access happened to be the one who spoke Elvish even though he wasn't Elvish and the guards were suspicious on non-Elvish outsiders. The sorcerer is the only one who speaks Infernal, for example, but doesn't have musical aptitude so has to find a way to coordinate with the bard (who doesn't speak Infernal) to figure out how to be able to sing/play a particular piece of music. A drow (due to backgrounds, etc.) happened to be the only member who could speak Dwarvish, and thus the only member able to bribe/get-drunk a retired dwarf to gain critical information. Not to mention, for everything else, including obscure languages, beast-only langauges, etc. recognizing that language barriers as a challenge to overcome gives a lot of relevancy to spells specifically intended to bridge communication gaps.****(edit: for example, the party managed to somehow befriended a Mouth of Grolantor which only speaks Giant and brought it to town but needed to constantly use Tongues to talk to it and also convince it to not destroy the port docks the following week from its hunger)
I overall agree with your perspective. Enforcing languages as relevant and real adds to the fun, makes character backgrounds singularly topical & special when needed, adds a bit more depth to the world, makes more unique and memorable social encounters, and broadens horizons and plot hooks
During my session 0, one of my players said, when I asked them what they wanted to see in a campaign, "I would like it if languages actually mattered."
I had been planning this anyway, but I ramped it up a little bit so that in the campaign to this point, languages have mattered. There is a special script in which arcane spells are rendered (divine spells are rendered in standard Latin, since this is a Roman campaign). People can, to a degree, "sound out" the symbols and know that this set of sounds/symbols in this sequence produces a fireball, but they don't understand what the words actually mean, and so when they find letters or old documents written in that script, no one is able to translate them naturally. Comprehend Languages works, of course. But early in the campaign none of the PCs could cast it and they had to bring several items back to an NPC wizard to have her cast the spell for them for a small fee.
Since then the player has had his character learn Comprehend Languages to be used as a ritual spell, which means that, with enough time, they will be able to translate this language. But without that spell, still, nobody alive understands it.
Whether this is what he meant by "languages actually mattering," I don't know... but given the Comprehend Languages spell there is only so much I can really do... hopefully he's enjoyed it.
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.
I really like the examples given here, but I've seen groups that consider the language issue "solved" through Comprehend Languages or Tongues or telepathy, which is not uncommon through many sources even at low levels. So they just always fall back on that. I'd be interested to hear some ways people have dealt with that.
Welllll.... I considered making the arcane language something that could not be understood by such spells, but I tossed that idea as unnecessarily "gamey."
To some degree the way I've decided to deal with it is, if they want to cast an "I win" button type of spell, and just find out the solution to a mystery, I'll just let them do that. There isn't really any good way, in D&D, to avoid having the PCs use magic items to just "find out" stuff without doing any work. Kind of like casting "speak with dead" on a corpse and asking it "who killed you?" instead of using clues and witness testimony to figure it out the hard way.
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.
One way to make languages matter over spells is to make NPCs suspicious of magic.
The party come to the gates of an elven city and try to ask to be allowed in but the guards don't speak common and are suspicious of the group as soon as one of them startts to cast a spell the guards assume they arte attacking and either try to attack with their readied action or you roll initiative.
I often would like a suspicion of spells like that to be more common not just to encourage players to think of non-magical ways of doing things in social encounters but also to make subtle spell as powerful as I think it should be.
Well... in my campaign, within the Roman Empire, the use of magic on the public square is illegal. So they can't just walk around casting Comprehend Languages openly (although they have a couple of times succeeded in casting spells like it clandestinely). Of course, they'd have to be caught at it, and there isn't a lot of policing in Roman cities other than in the neighborhoods of Patricians, so the fact that it is illegal might, or might not, stop them.
But they certainly couldn't just walk openly up to some guards and start spewing out magic spells. Or they could... but they wouldn't like the result.
In my game, the Common language is also known as Trade. It is a limited language, useful only for trade, greetings, or simple instructions. No-one is going to be having debates or technical discussions in Common, because the language just doesn't have the words to support them.
That way all the players have a way for PCs to communicate in encounters (almost every sapient creature speaks some Common).
Other languages become important, especially in diplomacy. A noble or lord is not going to talk Common during important negotiations.
Other languages become important, especially in diplomacy. A noble or lord is not going to talk Common during important negotiations.
Historically, the language of diplomacy has usually been someone’s “common tongue.” If the noble or lord happens to be French, then they should be speaking the language they treat as “common.” Your idea about Common being a very limited trade language is cool, but it closes the door on some interesting worldbuilding when the international auxiliary language is a subset of a specific culture’s language. That can say something about who’s doing the trading in your world (as in the case of the Jawa trade language in Star Wars) or who the international hegemon of the age is (as with French or English in our own world).
One way to make languages matter over spells is to make NPCs suspicious of magic.
The party come to the gates of an elven city and try to ask to be allowed in but the guards don't speak common and are suspicious of the group as soon as one of them startts to cast a spell the guards assume they arte attacking and either try to attack with their readied action or you roll initiative.
This has always felt like a ridiculous overreaction to me though. I once played a haughty elf who joined the party to study "lower beings." We were in a tavern and I tried to use Prestidigitation to flavor the ale to something palatable and the DM was like, "If you try to cast anything, the guards will attack you." Really? Literally the next table over had a paladin, a sorcerer, and a cleric. Magic was not uncommon and half if not more of low level spells are non-damaging utility spells. Blanket paranoia of all magic just doesn't make sense.
One way to make languages matter over spells is to make NPCs suspicious of magic.
The party come to the gates of an elven city and try to ask to be allowed in but the guards don't speak common and are suspicious of the group as soon as one of them startts to cast a spell the guards assume they arte attacking and either try to attack with their readied action or you roll initiative.
This has always felt like a ridiculous overreaction to me though. I once played a haughty elf who joined the party to study "lower beings." We were in a tavern and I tried to use Prestidigitation to flavor the ale to something palatable and the DM was like, "If you try to cast anything, the guards will attack you." Really? Literally the next table over had a paladin, a sorcerer, and a cleric. Magic was not uncommon and half if not more of low level spells are non-damaging utility spells. Blanket paranoia of all magic just doesn't make sense.
I agree with this, I understand a small village that has been torn apart by a mad wizard being paranoid, but not a city.
I would view casting a spell in a similar manner to moving your hand to the inside of your jacket. Most of the time it is probably innocent but you might be reaching for a knife / gun and the law wont want to take the risk.
I would imagine in a world of magic the guards are taught very early on not to trust people who try to cast spells in their presence. A guard on duty as the city gate has the job of making sure undesirables do not get in, and there are whole host of spells that can do that without creating a scene (charm person, hold person, sleep, suggestion) many of these are able to affect multiple people (if there are 2 or 3 guards at the gate). That ignores the the risk that the caster is a murder hobo about to cast fireball.
I make sure to keep track of languages. Some groups speak exclusively to each other in their native tongue instead of having everyone speak common by default. For example, my players were making their way through Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and in a portion where they're in a cave filled with kobolds the kobolds immediately attacked them the moment they spoke common, since the Kobolds exclusively speak Draconic and, while working with the cultists, they've been trained to attack anyone who speaks any language other than draconic with zero hesitation... the wizard of the party even had Comprehend Languages cast on himself from step one, but since he couldn't speak draconic, only understand it, it didn't do much for him other than being able to understand, "What are you doing back here?" and "Kill theeeeeeem!"
Everyone has their 'red mist' rule and for me it's languages. Because the more knowledge you have in a particular area, the more you think "This rule is stupid oversimplified." How come there isn't a language called Human? How come all humans speak the same language, regardless of where they live? What do you mean, all barbarians can read and write?
Yeah, and some people get upset about polearms. You don't like the official rules? You make your own rules.
One way to make languages matter over spells is to make NPCs suspicious of magic.
The party come to the gates of an elven city and try to ask to be allowed in but the guards don't speak common and are suspicious of the group as soon as one of them startts to cast a spell the guards assume they arte attacking and either try to attack with their readied action or you roll initiative.
This has always felt like a ridiculous overreaction to me though. I once played a haughty elf who joined the party to study "lower beings." We were in a tavern and I tried to use Prestidigitation to flavor the ale to something palatable and the DM was like, "If you try to cast anything, the guards will attack you." Really? Literally the next table over had a paladin, a sorcerer, and a cleric. Magic was not uncommon and half if not more of low level spells are non-damaging utility spells. Blanket paranoia of all magic just doesn't make sense.
I will just say this as a response: knowing that spells like Suggestion, Charm Person, Dominate Person exist, if I were a guard at the city gates with the task of monitoring who is allowed to enter and who is not, I would stab the shit out of anyone casting a spell in my presence.
I will just say this as a response: knowing that spells like Suggestion, Charm Person, Dominate Person exist, if I were a guard at the city gates with the task of monitoring who is allowed to enter and who is not, I would stab the shit out of anyone casting a spell in my presence.
These spells are exactly why casting spells in the public square is against the law in my Roman campaign.
It is also a higher offense to use a spell in the commission of a crime than to just commit the crime itself. I.e., stealing is bad... using an invisibility spell to steal is worse. Again, this is because if it were allowed to go on it would become unpreventable.
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.
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.
There were a lot more languages spoken in our world in the pre-modern era. Look at the modern British Isles, where Scottish, Welsh, English, and Celtic languages still exist. Look at all of the different languages spoken in China. In Charlemagne era France, there were a number of different languages being spoken.
Because of this, many people grew up being able to speak multiple languages. When you learn multiple languages as a child, it is easier to learn to speak new languages as an adult. Looking at the Spanish intrusions into the Americas in the 16th century, we can see that both the native groups (Nahuatl, Maya, Inca, etc.) and the Spaniards picked up the others language relatively quickly (but, it still probably took years before any of them were fluent in the new tongues).
Norsemen served as body guards in the Ottoman royal courts, where they surely had to learn Arabic.
In terms of literacy, probably 90% of the population was illiterate in the pre-modern era. Some of the kings in the early Medieval period couldn't read or write. So, yes, your typical barbarian probably couldn't read, nor could your typical thief (rogue), nor many swordsmen. In many places, most of the nobility could read, and the wealthier merchants and their families could read. Beyond that, few would be able to read. That is one of the reasons why seals were developed. While the local sheriff or other government agent may not have been able to read the notice they were given, they would have been able to recognize the official seal of a person sending out notices.
But, this doesn't mean you have to follow historic patterns in D&D. There are a lot of things that get simplified (coinage for another example). If you want to try and make things like coin or language more realistically, go for it. If you prefer to keep that simple, there is nothing wrong with that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I used to just have all creatures speak common. At the time it seemed the "best choice" because it allowed for everyone at the table to participate in role play at the table. However, I've since changed my thinking on that and really gone to playing pretty strict to the spoken languages known for PCs and NPCs both. Several backgrounds, classes, subclasses, spells, and other areas of the game make languages a part of the build. I am admittedly a huge fan of the PHB ranger, for example, and learning new languages is a part of their "iconic" class ability. Since changing my ways at the table with languages I've found it actually increases role play as people have to pay attention to what their characters do or do not speak. PCs have to communicate with one another, and it really rewards builds that do something other than heal and kill things.
What are your thoughts and experiences?!
When I took over as DM a couple of years ago, I leaned into the potential for challenges/opportunities given language barriers. The party was big enough and varied to altogether be able to speak half a dozen different languages altogether. It made for some interesting, fun, and unique scenarios. The Elven guards in the hidden forest town only spoke Elvish, for example, so the "face" of the party to gain access happened to be the one who spoke Elvish even though he wasn't Elvish and the guards were suspicious on non-Elvish outsiders. The sorcerer is the only one who speaks Infernal, for example, but doesn't have musical aptitude so has to find a way to coordinate with the bard (who doesn't speak Infernal) to figure out how to be able to sing/play a particular piece of music. A drow (due to backgrounds, etc.) happened to be the only member who could speak Dwarvish, and thus the only member able to bribe/get-drunk a retired dwarf to gain critical information. Not to mention, for everything else, including obscure languages, beast-only langauges, etc. recognizing that language barriers as a challenge to overcome gives a lot of relevancy to spells specifically intended to bridge communication gaps.****(edit: for example, the party managed to somehow befriended a Mouth of Grolantor which only speaks Giant and brought it to town but needed to constantly use Tongues to talk to it and also convince it to not destroy the port docks the following week from its hunger)
I overall agree with your perspective. Enforcing languages as relevant and real adds to the fun, makes character backgrounds singularly topical & special when needed, adds a bit more depth to the world, makes more unique and memorable social encounters, and broadens horizons and plot hooks
Boldly go
During my session 0, one of my players said, when I asked them what they wanted to see in a campaign, "I would like it if languages actually mattered."
I had been planning this anyway, but I ramped it up a little bit so that in the campaign to this point, languages have mattered. There is a special script in which arcane spells are rendered (divine spells are rendered in standard Latin, since this is a Roman campaign). People can, to a degree, "sound out" the symbols and know that this set of sounds/symbols in this sequence produces a fireball, but they don't understand what the words actually mean, and so when they find letters or old documents written in that script, no one is able to translate them naturally. Comprehend Languages works, of course. But early in the campaign none of the PCs could cast it and they had to bring several items back to an NPC wizard to have her cast the spell for them for a small fee.
Since then the player has had his character learn Comprehend Languages to be used as a ritual spell, which means that, with enough time, they will be able to translate this language. But without that spell, still, nobody alive understands it.
Whether this is what he meant by "languages actually mattering," I don't know... but given the Comprehend Languages spell there is only so much I can really do... hopefully he's enjoyed it.
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.
I really like the examples given here, but I've seen groups that consider the language issue "solved" through Comprehend Languages or Tongues or telepathy, which is not uncommon through many sources even at low levels. So they just always fall back on that. I'd be interested to hear some ways people have dealt with 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
Welllll.... I considered making the arcane language something that could not be understood by such spells, but I tossed that idea as unnecessarily "gamey."
To some degree the way I've decided to deal with it is, if they want to cast an "I win" button type of spell, and just find out the solution to a mystery, I'll just let them do that. There isn't really any good way, in D&D, to avoid having the PCs use magic items to just "find out" stuff without doing any work. Kind of like casting "speak with dead" on a corpse and asking it "who killed you?" instead of using clues and witness testimony to figure it out the hard way.
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.
One way to make languages matter over spells is to make NPCs suspicious of magic.
The party come to the gates of an elven city and try to ask to be allowed in but the guards don't speak common and are suspicious of the group as soon as one of them startts to cast a spell the guards assume they arte attacking and either try to attack with their readied action or you roll initiative.
I often would like a suspicion of spells like that to be more common not just to encourage players to think of non-magical ways of doing things in social encounters but also to make subtle spell as powerful as I think it should be.
Well... in my campaign, within the Roman Empire, the use of magic on the public square is illegal. So they can't just walk around casting Comprehend Languages openly (although they have a couple of times succeeded in casting spells like it clandestinely). Of course, they'd have to be caught at it, and there isn't a lot of policing in Roman cities other than in the neighborhoods of Patricians, so the fact that it is illegal might, or might not, stop them.
But they certainly couldn't just walk openly up to some guards and start spewing out magic spells. Or they could... but they wouldn't like the result.
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.
In my game, the Common language is also known as Trade. It is a limited language, useful only for trade, greetings, or simple instructions. No-one is going to be having debates or technical discussions in Common, because the language just doesn't have the words to support them.
That way all the players have a way for PCs to communicate in encounters (almost every sapient creature speaks some Common).
Other languages become important, especially in diplomacy. A noble or lord is not going to talk Common during important negotiations.
Historically, the language of diplomacy has usually been someone’s “common tongue.” If the noble or lord happens to be French, then they should be speaking the language they treat as “common.” Your idea about Common being a very limited trade language is cool, but it closes the door on some interesting worldbuilding when the international auxiliary language is a subset of a specific culture’s language. That can say something about who’s doing the trading in your world (as in the case of the Jawa trade language in Star Wars) or who the international hegemon of the age is (as with French or English in our own world).
This has always felt like a ridiculous overreaction to me though. I once played a haughty elf who joined the party to study "lower beings." We were in a tavern and I tried to use Prestidigitation to flavor the ale to something palatable and the DM was like, "If you try to cast anything, the guards will attack you." Really? Literally the next table over had a paladin, a sorcerer, and a cleric. Magic was not uncommon and half if not more of low level spells are non-damaging utility spells. Blanket paranoia of all magic just doesn't make sense.
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 agree with this, I understand a small village that has been torn apart by a mad wizard being paranoid, but not a city.
I would view casting a spell in a similar manner to moving your hand to the inside of your jacket. Most of the time it is probably innocent but you might be reaching for a knife / gun and the law wont want to take the risk.
I would imagine in a world of magic the guards are taught very early on not to trust people who try to cast spells in their presence. A guard on duty as the city gate has the job of making sure undesirables do not get in, and there are whole host of spells that can do that without creating a scene (charm person, hold person, sleep, suggestion) many of these are able to affect multiple people (if there are 2 or 3 guards at the gate). That ignores the the risk that the caster is a murder hobo about to cast fireball.
I make sure to keep track of languages. Some groups speak exclusively to each other in their native tongue instead of having everyone speak common by default. For example, my players were making their way through Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and in a portion where they're in a cave filled with kobolds the kobolds immediately attacked them the moment they spoke common, since the Kobolds exclusively speak Draconic and, while working with the cultists, they've been trained to attack anyone who speaks any language other than draconic with zero hesitation... the wizard of the party even had Comprehend Languages cast on himself from step one, but since he couldn't speak draconic, only understand it, it didn't do much for him other than being able to understand, "What are you doing back here?" and "Kill theeeeeeem!"
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Everyone has their 'red mist' rule and for me it's languages. Because the more knowledge you have in a particular area, the more you think "This rule is stupid oversimplified." How come there isn't a language called Human? How come all humans speak the same language, regardless of where they live? What do you mean, all barbarians can read and write?
Yeah, and some people get upset about polearms. You don't like the official rules? You make your own rules.
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/327518/Language-Point-Variant-Rule looks well thought out; I'm still trying to decide whether the extra flavour will be worth the extra complexity.
I will just say this as a response: knowing that spells like Suggestion, Charm Person, Dominate Person exist, if I were a guard at the city gates with the task of monitoring who is allowed to enter and who is not, I would stab the shit out of anyone casting a spell in my presence.
These spells are exactly why casting spells in the public square is against the law in my Roman campaign.
It is also a higher offense to use a spell in the commission of a crime than to just commit the crime itself. I.e., stealing is bad... using an invisibility spell to steal is worse. Again, this is because if it were allowed to go on it would become unpreventable.
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.
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.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
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.
<Insert clever signature here>
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.
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.
There were a lot more languages spoken in our world in the pre-modern era. Look at the modern British Isles, where Scottish, Welsh, English, and Celtic languages still exist. Look at all of the different languages spoken in China. In Charlemagne era France, there were a number of different languages being spoken.
Because of this, many people grew up being able to speak multiple languages. When you learn multiple languages as a child, it is easier to learn to speak new languages as an adult. Looking at the Spanish intrusions into the Americas in the 16th century, we can see that both the native groups (Nahuatl, Maya, Inca, etc.) and the Spaniards picked up the others language relatively quickly (but, it still probably took years before any of them were fluent in the new tongues).
Norsemen served as body guards in the Ottoman royal courts, where they surely had to learn Arabic.
In terms of literacy, probably 90% of the population was illiterate in the pre-modern era. Some of the kings in the early Medieval period couldn't read or write. So, yes, your typical barbarian probably couldn't read, nor could your typical thief (rogue), nor many swordsmen. In many places, most of the nobility could read, and the wealthier merchants and their families could read. Beyond that, few would be able to read. That is one of the reasons why seals were developed. While the local sheriff or other government agent may not have been able to read the notice they were given, they would have been able to recognize the official seal of a person sending out notices.
But, this doesn't mean you have to follow historic patterns in D&D. There are a lot of things that get simplified (coinage for another example). If you want to try and make things like coin or language more realistically, go for it. If you prefer to keep that simple, there is nothing wrong with that.