So, from the 3e setting guide: "Common was little more than a trade language; that is, it was not useful for complicated topics. It was simple and not very expressive as a language." "Nuances of speech, names, and phrases could be expressed easier in older languages such as Illuskan and Dwarven."
I find that often, if a player character shares a language with an NPC and uses that language to talk to them, a DM will grant advantage on whatever check they're making. And that's all well and good, but I'm wondering what happens if we take it a step further? What if we give *disadvantage* if they are using the common tongue?
Firstly, just going by the description, it sounds as though communication is more difficult in common, which would certainly be a reason to impose disadvantage. But they didn't bring that description over into the 5e lore -- you won't find it anywhere. I've looked. So it would also be reasonable to assume the 5e writers don't intend for this to be the case. But let's examine it anyway.
Here's the effects I would expect this to have on a game:
1. Players would choose languages more carefully. I'd expect players to collaborate and ensure they have one instance of each of the most common languages among them, and largely skip out on the weirder ones that might be more thematically appropriate for their backgrounds.
2. Non-"face" characters would be more often thrust into the spotlight during social encounters. Since a Bard can only learn so many languages, for example, you may see your dwarven Barbarian taking on conversations with people who speak dwarvish, just to avoid the disadvantage.
3. Language magic would see more use. No longer would Tongues only get cast to bridge an otherwise impossible language barrier, but to smooth over an otherwise annoying language barrier.
4. Social challenges would, on the whole, be more difficult, and threaten to expend more resources. This wouldn't affect every encounter, of course. But on average, it would effectively make it harder to succeed on these checks.
5. It might contribute to a sense of cultural history. This one I'm less sure about, but maybe it would cause players to feel more that the world and its cultures are very old and very alive. Less like needless ornamentation, more like important info to be respected and remembered.
Do you think I'm missing any consequences? What do you think about the listed consequences? Are they good or bad?
Myself, I am feeling like it would do more good than bad at my table. I think the social checks are often too easy in modules (because the writers don't have any plans for what happens if you fail, so the effect is that social challenges become extremely "squishy" - it's very easy to recover from a bad roll - but I digress), and with new character options making it even harder to fail, maybe these things should be turned up in difficulty a bit. I also feel that the cultures of the Realms don't feel very strong, and maybe this would help in that regard.
However, I find it's really difficult to get anyone on board with the idea of a perceived "nerf." And the strength of that discomfort might be sufficient to kill this idea before it even gets going.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, from the 3e setting guide: "Common was little more than a trade language; that is, it was not useful for complicated topics. It was simple and not very expressive as a language." "Nuances of speech, names, and phrases could be expressed easier in older languages such as Illuskan and Dwarven."
I find that often, if a player character shares a language with an NPC and uses that language to talk to them, a DM will grant advantage on whatever check they're making. And that's all well and good, but I'm wondering what happens if we take it a step further? What if we give *disadvantage* if they are using the common tongue?
Firstly, just going by the description, it sounds as though communication is more difficult in common, which would certainly be a reason to impose disadvantage. But they didn't bring that description over into the 5e lore -- you won't find it anywhere. I've looked. So it would also be reasonable to assume the 5e writers don't intend for this to be the case. But let's examine it anyway.
Here's the effects I would expect this to have on a game:
1. Players would choose languages more carefully. I'd expect players to collaborate and ensure they have one instance of each of the most common languages among them, and largely skip out on the weirder ones that might be more thematically appropriate for their backgrounds.
2. Non-"face" characters would be more often thrust into the spotlight during social encounters. Since a Bard can only learn so many languages, for example, you may see your dwarven Barbarian taking on conversations with people who speak dwarvish, just to avoid the disadvantage.
3. Language magic would see more use. No longer would Tongues only get cast to bridge an otherwise impossible language barrier, but to smooth over an otherwise annoying language barrier.
4. Social challenges would, on the whole, be more difficult, and threaten to expend more resources. This wouldn't affect every encounter, of course. But on average, it would effectively make it harder to succeed on these checks.
5. It might contribute to a sense of cultural history. This one I'm less sure about, but maybe it would cause players to feel more that the world and its cultures are very old and very alive. Less like needless ornamentation, more like important info to be respected and remembered.
Do you think I'm missing any consequences? What do you think about the listed consequences? Are they good or bad?
Myself, I am feeling like it would do more good than bad at my table. I think the social checks are often too easy in modules (because the writers don't have any plans for what happens if you fail, so the effect is that social challenges become extremely "squishy" - it's very easy to recover from a bad roll - but I digress), and with new character options making it even harder to fail, maybe these things should be turned up in difficulty a bit. I also feel that the cultures of the Realms don't feel very strong, and maybe this would help in that regard.
However, I find it's really difficult to get anyone on board with the idea of a perceived "nerf." And the strength of that discomfort might be sufficient to kill this idea before it even gets going.