Stupid houserule idea: make Speak Language an ordinary skill complete with checks

[TuggyNE]

I haven't really thought this through all the way, but what would be the effects of making Speak Language a regular skill? For example, having to put ranks into Speak Language: Auran and making checks at varying DCs whenever attempting to speak it. (Presumably you get four free ranks in your automatic language and take 10 whenever possible.)

DCs might look sorta like this:
5: Ask where the bathroom is or for some food
10: State your purpose in this region
15: Debate politics
18: Explain theological or legal points
-2: Understand someone speaking about a DC X topic

Problems: burns yet more skill points, requires more rolls, has more rules. Possible solutions: grant all classes (except perhaps Int-based caster types) 4+Int or better and consolidate other skills PF-style. Advantages: you can have varying degrees of language mastery, if that's your thing. Open questions: what ability, if any, should be associated (cha?? wis? int?)? are those DCs anywhere near right?

Anything I'm missing here?

[Deophaun]

I don't see the point in this.

Why would having a higher mastery of a language let you discuss technical matters? Can an English major comprehend (and so intelligently discuss) a thesis in organic chemistry? Why should that let you understand other specialized fields like law or theology? Don't we already have skills for that?

It sounds like another skill point tax, which is the opposite of skill consolidation.

[GnomeGninjas]

I don't see the point in this.

Why would having a higher mastery of a language let you discuss technical matters? Can an English major comprehend (and so intelligently discuss) a thesis in organic chemistry? Why should that let you understand other specialized fields like law or theology? Don't we already have skills for that?

It sounds like another skill point tax, which is the opposite of skill consolidation.

I believe that theology and law were examples of a complicated subject that someone without much mastery of a language would have trouble conveying. It doesn't mean you magically gain knowledge of law/theology. It means that a native speaker would know what the hell you're talking about if you tried to explain your theological/legal opinions.

[Morph Bark]

I don't see the point in this.

Why would having a higher mastery of a language let you discuss technical matters? Can an English major comprehend (and so intelligently discuss) a thesis in organic chemistry? Why should that let you understand other specialized fields like law or theology? Don't we already have skills for that?

It sounds like another skill point tax, which is the opposite of skill consolidation.

You're confusing Speak Language for Knowledge skills. Knowing and speaking are not the same thing. Just because I can speak on the level that would be required for an organic chemistry thesis, doesn't mean I could understand it if someone else brought me into such a discussion.

That being said though, I like it the way Pathfinder did it. Which is to say, they consolidated it, but didn't require checks to enable you to say "thank you" in your primary language (exaggerated example).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by tuggyne
*language idea*

This looks right on. I've thought about doing something like this for years, in large part owing to the following line from p. 86 of the PHB:

You either know a language or you don't.

This has always struck me as one of the most absurd statements in all of 3.5. I work professionally in three languages, and reaching that point took years of effort, with a great many half-understood conversations along the way. The PHB statement is manifestly, painfully untrue.

My approach to Speak Language was a little different, in that I didn't use skill checks as such; I was thinking that the player could buy different degrees of fluency with additional skill points beyond the standard two. I never really developed that idea, mainly because--as you pointed out--it's yet another rule. I may look at it again, but I think your approach works much better.



EDIT: Also, building on what Morph Bark said, it would make sense for a character's starting languages to be fully known, with languages learned after first level requiring a check. If you grew up speaking Elven and Chondathan at home, but only learned Draconic when your party spent downtime in Silverymoon, it follows you'd need skill checks for your attempts at the new language.

(And won't those be fun. ; )

[Deophaun]

You're confusing Speak Language for Knowledge skills.

Hardly.

Just because I can speak on the level that would be required for an organic chemistry thesis, doesn't mean I could understand it if someone else brought me into such a discussion.

You haven't read many scientific theses, have you? Most people can speak on the level required for an organic chemistry thesis. They're not masterworks of linguistic form. It's that, being technical, it has it's own vocabulary. In fact, if you had such a thesis written in English, and you had an English major read it and an organic chemistry major who wasn't fluent at all in English read it, the later would have a far better understanding of it.

[TuggyNE]

I believe that theology and law were examples of a complicated subject that someone without much mastery of a language would have trouble conveying. It doesn't mean you magically gain knowledge of law/theology. It means that a native speaker would know what the hell you're talking about if you tried to explain your theological/legal opinions.

Yeah. Basically.

That being said though, I like it the way Pathfinder did it. Which is to say, they consolidated it, but didn't require checks to enable you to say "thank you" in your primary language (exaggerated example).

Well, obviously the DCs would need to be tweaked so taking 10 would work properly to begin with. (I just eyeballed them, and they may be off a bit.)

And, too, this is really only suitable if you want to make a big deal of proper phrasing in various languages, inadvertent miscommunications, and so on (and don't want to confine that to fluffing failed Diplomacy/Bluff rolls). Probably wouldn't be a good idea for the default ruleset.

I've thought of another problem, and that is that (obviously) most linguistic ability is confined to a fairly limited set of DCs: it's hard even to get DCs into the 30 range without a lot of slightly dubious assumptions, so skill use doesn't scale very far. (And, similarly, 4 ranks and trained is awfully tight to express the difference between "can't speak or understand" and "can speak fluently".)

This looks right on. I've thought about doing something like this for years, in large part owing to the following line from p. 86 of the PHB:


This has always struck me as one of the most absurd statements in all of 3.5. I work professionally in three languages, and reaching that point took years of effort, with a great many half-understood conversations along the way. The PHB statement is manifestly, painfully untrue.

My approach to Speak Language was a little different, in that I didn't use skill checks as such; I was thinking that the player could buy different degrees of fluency with additional skill points beyond the standard two. I never really developed that idea, mainly because--as you pointed out--it's yet another rule. I may look at it again, but I think your approach works much better.

Awesome! Good to hear that there seems to be something useful in the concept.

EDIT: Also, building on what Morph Bark said, it would make sense for a character's starting languages to be fully known, with languages learned after first level requiring a check. If you grew up speaking Elven and Chondathan at home, but only learned Draconic when your party spent downtime in Silverymoon, it follows you'd need skill checks for your attempts at the new language.

Hmm, yeah. Although once in a while, even someone who's fairly fluent in a language can have trouble phrasing something. Not sure whether to consider that a fumble (and probably not worth putting in the rules) or to leave it open that circumstance penalties/stress have prevented taking 10 and they just flubbed the roll.

Hardly.

You haven't read many scientific theses, have you? Most people can speak on the level required for an organic chemistry thesis. They're not masterworks of linguistic form. It's that, being technical, it has it's own vocabulary. In fact, if you had such a thesis written in English, and you had an English major read it and an organic chemistry major who wasn't fluent at all in English read it, the later would have a far better understanding of it.

Technically, I didn't give the example of scientific theses. Also, increasing ranks/ability modifiers in Speak Language need not reflect an increased training in formal rules, but can include a wider vocabulary and broader range of styles. Still, the point is taken that high-end DCs could use some more thought.

[Morph Bark]

You haven't read many scientific theses, have you?

I have, in several languages, most of them not my primary one. English takes little effort, as I'm the best-versed in that. German or French though? Quite hard. I've also let others read some of the things I've had to read and they had a much harder time understanding it.

Also, "having its own vocabulary" seems to me like that'd be part of the Knowledge bit rather than the Speak language bit, yes, but everything in-between would still require the ability to speak the language. I can understand a lot of technical or philosophical German terms or medical Greek or Latin ones because they're used a lot in those fields, but as I don't know the rest of those languages I would be flabbergasted if someone started talking to me about those subjects in those languages.

Long story short, discussions on a subject require both the knowledge of that subject and the ability to speak the language it's being discussed in. Case in point: if I had little ability to speak and understand English, it wouldn't matter if I had tons of knowledge of DnD, I still would be unable to discuss it like this with you. Thankfully though, I do possess that ability, so I can.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by tuggyne:
...what ability, if any, should be associated [with this skill]...?

In game terms, probably intelligence, since that would track how well you'd pick up new languages. (If I'm understanding your question right....)
.
.

[Deophaun]

Long story short, discussions on a subject require both the knowledge of that subject and the ability to speak the language it's being discussed in.

That's not in dispute here. What is in dispute is that it requires a high degree of proficiency in the language it's being discussed in. This is false.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by tuggyne
....once in a while, even someone who's fairly fluent in a language can have trouble phrasing something.

Yeah, this happens to me every day. My mouth apparently came with a pre-loaded foot.

Originally Posted by tuggyne
Not sure whether to consider that a fumble (and probably not worth putting in the rules) or to leave it open that circumstance penalties/stress have prevented taking 10 and they just flubbed the roll.

The second option sounds a lot better, since the social circumstances can have a powerful effect on how well someone speaks. All the more so if the half-dragon bouncer is giving you the grim eye while you're trying to talk your way past in Draconic.

[TuggyNE]

In game terms, probably intelligence, since that would track how well you'd pick up new languages. (If I'm understanding your question right....)

Hmm, seems reasonable enough I guess.

That's not in dispute here. What is in dispute is that it requires a high degree of proficiency in the language it's being discussed in. This is false.

Can we switch back to my actual stated examples (however terrible) of theological or philosophical opinions or legal ideas? Because those do tend to require above-average command of grammar (including archaic forms) and general vocabulary, in addition to the specialized vocabulary they include (perhaps as part of Knowledge: Whatever skills).

The second option sounds a lot better, since the social circumstances can have a powerful effect on how well someone speaks. All the more so if the half-dragon bouncer is giving you the grim eye while you're trying to talk your way past in Draconic.

Hmm, yeah. Let's figure that if someone is using this houserule, it's because they want to be considerably more detailed in their approach to linguistics. (Which is demonstrably not for everyone; this is a bit of a niche idea.)

[Deophaun]

Can we switch back to my actual stated examples (however terrible) of theological or philosophical opinions or legal ideas? Because those do tend to require above-average command of grammar (including archaic forms) and general vocabulary, in addition to the specialized vocabulary they include (perhaps as part of Knowledge: Whatever skills).

Surprisingly, there's little difference. As soon as you understand the concepts, attaching words to them is easy provided you have a basic knowledge of the language you're dealing with.

[TuggyNE]

Surprisingly, there's little difference. As soon as you understand the concepts, attaching words to them is easy provided you have a basic knowledge of the language you're dealing with.

I disagree, but I'm not entirely sure how to advance this discussion any further (on either side). Perhaps we can drop it unless and until some further evidence comes up beyond merely "well I think" on both sides?

[Deophaun]

I disagree, but I'm not entirely sure how to advance this discussion any further (on either side). Perhaps we can drop it unless and until some further evidence comes up beyond merely "well I think" on both sides?

Think of it this way: both philosophy and law deal in works. Philosophy deals with the writings of Plato, Descartes, Neihbur, and law deals with court cases, treaties, constitutions. If I am having difficulty conveying a concept in your language, I probably only have to say something like "the hole of Plato's slaves," horribly mangled as that is, and it would convey the cave story to you. Sure, you step into a bad Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, but the concepts are now easy to convey.

[AuraTwilight]

Surprisingly, there's little difference. As soon as you understand the concepts, attaching words to them is easy provided you have a basic knowledge of the language you're dealing with.

Have you never heard of a semantics argument? You can't really follow them very well without a sufficiently high proficiency in a language, man.

[Deophaun]

Have you never heard of a semantics argument? You can't really follow them very well without a sufficiently high proficiency in a language, man.

Semantics arguments tend to be the least productive, and I've never seen anyone engage a non-fluent speaker in them. So, in that case, not being fluent in the language should give you a bonus to your philosophy check!

[TuggyNE]

Think of it this way: both philosophy and law deal in works. Philosophy deals with the writings of Plato, Descartes, Neihbur, and law deals with court cases, treaties, constitutions. If I am having difficulty conveying a concept in your language, I probably only have to say something like "the hole of Plato's slaves," horribly mangled as that is, and it would convey the cave story to you. Sure, you step into a bad Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, but the concepts are now easy to convey.

The amount of circumlocution required, combined with the usual complexities of argument already there, make it almost impossible to follow for any but the simplest of examples if you don't have a good command of the language. Much of law depends on fine shadings of word meanings, and I don't have to tell you how much that's covered by, y'know, language.

[Deophaun]

The amount of circumlocution required, combined with the usual complexities of argument already there, make it almost impossible to follow for any but the simplest of examples if you don't have a good command of the language.

We will have to disagree. Experience tells me otherwise: if you know the concepts and know the common works in the field, you can communicate effectively without full fluency.

[Mytallest]

Have you considered a different approach? Why not make it an Int based skill, and, based on the language, a modifier of a certain amount gives you "full" understanding. Anything less would have you understand an appropriate percentage of dialogue. Common could be worth 5 points, while Infernal is 10.

[TuggyNE]

Have you considered a different approach? Why not make it an Int based skill, and, based on the language, a modifier of a certain amount gives you "full" understanding. Anything less would have you understand an appropriate percentage of dialogue. Common could be worth 5 points, while Infernal is 10.

A single skill that never makes checks but allows multiple languages to be spoken based on total modifier? I ... think I'll pass. Too dissociated for my liking, and also too abstract. (That is, being able to randomly learn a couple of different languages upon leveling seems undesirable, and it's even worse if you can learn languages by putting on a Headband of Intellect or reading a Tome of Clear Thought.)

On the other hand, I do actually like the idea of giving different languages different DCs, and kinda wonder why it didn't occur to me before....

[The Viscount]

Perhaps a staggered system of learning a language, where the first level is very basic, the next is beginner, then passable, then fluency. One might even declare a still higher level, mastery, achievable only with the languages one begins with at character creation to represent mother tongues. This idea is partially inspired from a line in Fiendish Codex that stated Infernal is so highly rigid in its laws and difficult in construction that any non-native speaker is clearly identifiable and frequently mocked by the devils.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by The Viscount
Perhaps a staggered system of learning a language, where the first level is very basic, the next is beginner, then passable, then fluency.

In fact, this was precisely the idea I'd come up with a while ago, but right now I'm liking tuggyne's approach better.

Originally Posted by tuggyne
...I do actually like the idea of giving different languages different DCs, and kinda wonder why it didn't occur to me before....

This brings up another issue, which is ease of comprehension based on how closely related the languages are. Two languages in the same family, with a close common ancestor, are much more likely to be mutually intelligible, and a solid knowledge of one will give you a good understanding of the other. (I'm thinking of Danish/Swedish/Icelandic here, though other examples abound.)

By the same token, a language from a different family would be that much more difficult to learn; fluency rooted in one family won't help when you're crossing over to another. Cross enough linguistic frontiers and you're dealing with an entirely different suite of sounds, some of which won't ever come naturally.

A lot of this will depend on the details of the game setting, but I would expect the classic racial languages--Elven, Dwarven, Orcish, Halfling, etc.--would all be radically different from one another, and would involve a greater challenge for a human speaker. Something like Draconic, meant to be spoken by a creature with a hundred times the lung capacity of a man, would almost be unattainable in its original form; a human speaker would never manage more than a sort of pidgin demi-Draconic.

And the languages of more bizarre creatures, like aboleths or xorn, should by rights be absolutely impossible, since they depend on fine control of a completely alien vocal anatomy. The DCs for speaking those would be essentially insurmountable.

[RedWarlock]

Expanding it out into a skill is an interesting approach, entirely dependent on whether your game has or wants more emphasis on language and language barriers in communication.

I would prefer to use sort of a hybrid approach in my mods. Linguistics would be a skill, but separate from the actual languages (which get absorbed into my expansion of Skill Tricks). The skill Linguistics allows you to temporarily understand a language or dialect you're not familiar with, but only temporarily, while spending points directly allows you to cement what you've learned into something permanent.

There would also be modifiers, both reduced DCs for related languages/scripts, and reduced skillpoint costs if you make the Linguistics checks first.

I also like the idea of breaking up fluency into rated chunks, like 'simple/advanced/fluent' that require multiple expenditures. Then, you could branch off dialects at the fluent level, or reduce costs for related tongues without giving it all up for free.

[TuggyNE]

Perhaps a staggered system of learning a language, where the first level is very basic, the next is beginner, then passable, then fluency. One might even declare a still higher level, mastery, achievable only with the languages one begins with at character creation to represent mother tongues. This idea is partially inspired from a line in Fiendish Codex that stated Infernal is so highly rigid in its laws and difficult in construction that any non-native speaker is clearly identifiable and frequently mocked by the devils.

I kind of dislike the idea of making something that's easy for certain low-level creatures to do (i.e. speak Infernal natively), but impossible even for near-epic PCs. Instead, I'd prefer just making it difficult. (In this case, probably high DCs to mimic native speech structure, perhaps in the 30+ range, or even higher.)

This brings up another issue, which is ease of comprehension based on how closely related the languages are. Two languages in the same family, with a close common ancestor, are much more likely to be mutually intelligible, and a solid knowledge of one will give you a good understanding of the other. (I'm thinking of Danish/Swedish/Icelandic here, though other examples abound.)

Synergy bonuses could come in handy, and actually fit really nicely.

Conceivably, Speak Language could only be used untrained if you have one or more synergy bonuses.

By the same token, a language from a different family would be that much more difficult to learn; fluency rooted in one family won't help when you're crossing over to another. Cross enough linguistic frontiers and you're dealing with an entirely different suite of sounds, some of which won't ever come naturally.

A lot of this will depend on the details of the game setting, but I would expect the classic racial languages--Elven, Dwarven, Orcish, Halfling, etc.--would all be radically different from one another, and would involve a greater challenge for a human speaker. Something like Draconic, meant to be spoken by a creature with a hundred times the lung capacity of a man, would almost be unattainable in its original form; a human speaker would never manage more than a sort of pidgin demi-Draconic.

And the languages of more bizarre creatures, like aboleths or xorn, should by rights be absolutely impossible, since they depend on fine control of a completely alien vocal anatomy. The DCs for speaking those would be essentially insurmountable.

Hmm, consistent and sensible penalties for wildly bizarre languages are going to be harder, since I don't particularly want to make it humanoid-centric (at least any more than I have to), so aboleths or xorns should have similar problems adjusting to human speech. (RAW, xorns speak Common and Terran. Oh well.)

Expanding it out into a skill is an interesting approach, entirely dependent on whether your game has or wants more emphasis on language and language barriers in communication.

Well, yeah. If you don't want a substantially greater emphasis this houserule is majorly not for you at all. That is, it's less of a universal fix (as I normally prefer) and more of a preference adjustment.

I would prefer to use sort of a hybrid approach in my mods. Linguistics would be a skill, but separate from the actual languages (which get absorbed into my expansion of Skill Tricks). The skill Linguistics allows you to temporarily understand a language or dialect you're not familiar with, but only temporarily, while spending points directly allows you to cement what you've learned into something permanent.

There would also be modifiers, both reduced DCs for related languages/scripts, and reduced skillpoint costs if you make the Linguistics checks first.

I also like the idea of breaking up fluency into rated chunks, like 'simple/advanced/fluent' that require multiple expenditures. Then, you could branch off dialects at the fluent level, or reduce costs for related tongues without giving it all up for free.

Sounds complicated

It seems like a Linguistics-based approach would be more useful if there are a great many minor languages in the setting (hundreds or thousands), but I believe in most standard settings there's only a few dozen in all, which makes it somewhat less needful.

[Mytallest]

A single skill that never makes checks but allows multiple languages to be spoken based on total modifier? I ... think I'll pass. Too dissociated for my liking, and also too abstract. (That is, being able to randomly learn a couple of different languages upon leveling seems undesirable, and it's even worse if you can learn languages by putting on a Headband of Intellect or reading a Tome of Clear Thought.)

On the other hand, I do actually like the idea of giving different languages different DCs, and kinda wonder why it didn't occur to me before....

Sorry, I should've been more clear; I meant having them as separate skills, but learning each requires different total modifiers. It would take Int into account, which makes sense, in my opinion. For example, a character with an 18 Int and 1 rank in common knows common, but would need 6 ranks in infernal. I type from my phone on breaks, so I'm not always clear.

[Arbane]

RuneQuest (and Call of Cthulhu, I think) actually do this, but skills in that system improve through study or practice instead of being character-point sinks.

If someone did this in D&D, I think I'd just ask for the "Shout At Foreigners" Feat, and insist on using it whether I got it or not. It's not like skill-points are exactly thick on the ground...

[TuggyNE]

Sorry, I should've been more clear; I meant having them as separate skills, but learning each requires different total modifiers. It would take Int into account, which makes sense, in my opinion. For example, a character with an 18 Int and 1 rank in common knows common, but would need 6 ranks in infernal. I type from my phone on breaks, so I'm not always clear.

Common is already a bit of a Pidgin, so shouldn't need more than one rank (and a -1 modifier) to be at least minimally capable of getting by. Or did you mean "knows Common really fluently"?

If someone did this in D&D, I think I'd just ask for the "Shout At Foreigners" Feat, and insist on using it whether I got it or not. It's not like skill-points are exactly thick on the ground...

Yeah, that's why my first post included skill system revision to crank it up a bit. Without that this wouldn't be at all workable. (Exactly how many extra skill points you'd need I'm not sure. You get free native proficiency in any automatic languages your race gives, and then a few more skill points here and there to learn others... yeah, that'd probably work out.)

[Jack_Simth]

Anything I'm missing here?

You're attempting to increase simulationism at the cost of a small amount of game balance. Most classes now need to invest ranks in speak language, which cuts into what people can manage to do, reducing their power a bit. So you increase the level-based skill points to compensate... but those extra skill points mean that people who don't particularly need to keep their languages up for one reason or another get a slight power boost. Given that it's primarily Wizards and Clerics who won't need ranks in it (Tongues is a 2nd level spell for Bards (available at level 4, with a Charisma score of 14 or higher), 3rd for Wizards (5th level), and 4th for Clerics (7th level); Comprehend Languages can also do most of what you'll need, and is a 1st level spell for Bards (available at level 2), Wizards (available at level 1), and Clerics (available at level 1)), this is expected to be slightly harmful to game balance.

[RFLS]

*popcorn* I love language discussions, and this is one of the things I've always wished D&D had handled better. Makes you wish there were a game like 3.5, but with everything just perfect. /sadness

Also, I hate to be "that guy," but a wizard would make this conversation moot with Tongues =/