Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Szatany 08-01-07, 01:55 PM	I recently made a new version of Speak Language skill for my project. Tell me what you think about it: it's renamed to Linguistics and incorporates Decipher Script as well. Linguistics Use this skill to learn languages, communicate in a simplest manner in a language you don't know, and decipher unknown scripts. To learn a language, you need a year of study and a DC 15 Linguistics check. If you fail, you can try again after one year. When you create your character, you start knowing one language automatically, you can make a number of Linguistics checks equal to your Intelligence bonus (if any) to learn other languages. The number of languages you can know is limited only by time you spend on learning them. If you are trying to communicate in language you don't know, you can make a DC 20 Linguistics check. You can only do that after listening to that language for at least 1 minute. If you succeed, you can say or understand a single word. If you beat DC by 10, you can say or understand a simple sentence. If you fail by 10 or more, you say something you didn't intend to, or you understand a sentence or word for what it is not. You can decipher writing in an unfamiliar language or a message written in an incomplete or archaic form. DC of tasks: * 15 - simplest messages * 20 - standard texts * 25 - intricate, exotic, or very old writing If the check succeeds, you understand the general content of a piece of writing about one page long (or the equivalent). If you fail critically, you draw a false conclusion about the text. Deciphering the equivalent of a single page of script takes 1 minute. If you have at least 1 rank in Linguistics, you can read and write in all languages you know.
Rustmonster 08-01-07, 02:52 PM	It's time for another episode of: Adventures in Problematic House Rules! At a game... DM: Well, you succeded on your Linguistic check to understand that ancient text. It says "Look for the full moon". PC1: Wow! Now I can solve the puzzle! Later... DM: Well, you failed the check, and couldn't understand the ancient text. PC1: Aww, poop. PC2: Well, I'll give it a go. DM: You succeded! It says "Look for the Heart of Gold". PC1: Wait, wait, wait. I just understood the word for "look" all of one fast forward ago! What gives! DM: Ummm... At another game... PC1: Haha! I have a +20 in my Linguistics skill. I can understand what these guys are saying for sure! DM: Make a roll. PC1: Umm... 1. Oh well, I still succed DM: Nope, a 1 means you screw up and say somethign offensive. PC1: What?! are you saying that no matter how good I am, I screw up 5% of the time? DM: Ummm... Later... PC1: Okey, I got a 19 this time. DM: Good! You manage to get their attention by saying "friend". PC2: I'm going to try to talk to them too! PC1: No, don't do that! You have a +0 to Linguistics! PC2: Whatever. I roll a... Natural 20! DM: Good job! You manage to convay that you need food, water and shelter for the night, and that you are willing to barter for those services. PC1: What?! I got a 39 on the check, and got to say ONE damn word, and this guy with no training gets a 20 but can convay an entire simple message because he made a 5% chance roll? DM: Ummm... Tune in next, well, probably sometime later today, for another exciting episode!
Szatany 08-01-07, 02:59 PM	DM: Well, you succeded on your Linguistic check to understand that ancient text. It says "Look for the full moon". PC1: Wow! Now I can solve the puzzle! You know that that part of new skill is copied straight away from SRD? I didn't change almost anything about decipher script. PC1: Haha! I have a +20 in my Linguistics skill. I can understand what these guys are saying for sure! DM: Make a roll. PC1: Umm... 1. Oh well, I still succed DM: Nope, a 1 means you screw up and say somethign offensive. PC1: What?! are you saying that no matter how good I am, I screw up 5% of the time? DM: Ummm... Help me finish: DM: Ummm, yes, no matter how good you are, you screw up 5% of the time you try to speak a language you don't know.
Rustmonster 08-01-07, 03:12 PM	You know that that part of new skill is copied straight away from SRD? I didn't change almost anything about decipher script. Yes, I understand that. But since it is in your house rule, I decided to comment on it. Besides, what about the speech understanding part? That was all your invention. It's just silly. +20 Linguist: Aww, I rolled a one. That means I got a 21 on the roll, but I offended the people, even though I made the check. +0 Linguist: Oh wow! With some luck, I rolled a natural 20! My check is 20, and I convey an entire sentance! +20 Linguist: But my roll was HIGHER than yours! That's stupid! +0 Linguist: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And I've seen grade schoolers who learned a language in less than a year. Yes, the current system is not very realistic, but then again, neither is your system. But, while the system used in core rules is just unrealistic, yet mechanicly sound, your system is not only unrealistic, but also a mechanical nightmare.
Szatany 08-01-07, 03:16 PM	Yes, I understand that. But since it is in your house rule, I decided to comment on it. Besides, what about the speech understanding part? That was all your invention. It's just silly. +20 Linguist: Aww, I rolled a one. That means I got a 21 on the roll, but I offended the people, even though I made the check. +0 Linguist: Oh wow! With some luck, I rolled a natural 20! My check is 20, and I convey an entire sentance! +20 Linguist: But my roll was HIGHER than yours! That's stupid! +0 Linguist: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And I've seen grade schoolers who learned a language in less than a year. Yes, the current system is not very realistic, but then again, neither is your system. But, while the system used in core rules is just unrealistic, yet mechanicly sound, your system is not only unrealistic, but also a mechanical nightmare. HOwever obnoxious your style is ( ;) ), I can see what you are trying to show me. I changed that part about autofailure and success, replaced it with something that makes more sense. About grade schoolers - I'm writing a game, not a simulation. That means a certain degree of simplification is necessary.
Rustmonster 08-01-07, 03:18 PM	DM: Ummm, yes, no matter how good you are, you screw up 5% of the time you try to speak a language you don't know. I guess this is beleivable to you, that you screw up 5% of the time. And I guess also, you beleive that 5% of the time, no matter how terrible you are, you succed above and beyond what someone who isn't lucky but is more experienced can achieve? And also that it is beleiveable that you can speak any one word in a language you don't know, after listening for 1 minute, even if they didn't use those words? Bravo. It takes courage to completly ignore terrible mechanics and unrealistic simulation by trying to justify it with a "just because". In the current system, you know or do not know a language. That is reasonable. You can't just start spouting words you don't know because you heard someone talking for a while. And how would you TRAIN to speak languages that you don't understand?
Szatany 08-01-07, 03:23 PM	Let the steam off. I already changed the 5% part yes?
Rustmonster 08-01-07, 03:26 PM	HOwever obnoxious your style is ( ;) ), I can see what you are trying to show me. I changed that part about autofailure and success, replaced it with something that makes more sense. About grade schoolers - I'm writing a game, not a simulation. That means a certain degree of simplification is necessary. And thank you for actually getting the point. It's good you changed the autofail/success rule, and yes that makes alot more sense. Good work. About grade schoolers - I'm writing a game, not a simulation. That means a certain degree of simplification is necessary But oh, here comes the fun. Okey, you want simple? I have a much simpler system then yours. Any language you know, you can speak, any you don't, you can't. What do you have against the normal rules? Also, just asking, what mechanical value can be gleaned from having to study a YEAR to learn ONE language? I'm sure there is an answer, but you'll have to find it.
Rustmonster 08-01-07, 03:27 PM	Let the steam off. I already changed the 5% part yes? I posted that right after you. I didn't think you were replying.
Traverse 08-01-07, 04:19 PM	My campaign is no magic so I made a rule to tack on to Speak Language, since there's no way my players are going to know every language. I think it's good for when my players want to feel like tourists. :D ____ Expanded Rule When presented with a language you don't know only information you get is the alphabet used, and that only if you know another language using that alphabet. Check: With a successful Speak Language check, you can garner what language is being spoken and even understand simpler words a phrases. Compare the situation with those on the following table to determine an appropriate DC. Speak Language DC Example 10 To know the exact spoken or written language. 15 To understand simple words and phrases. 20 To understand more complex phrases and reply with simple words and phrases. DC Modifier¹ Example -1 For every language you know using the same alphabet. +2 If creature using language is hostile. ¹ These modifiers are cumulative; use any that apply. Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to understand a new language in a reactive manner (when someone tries to speak to you in a new language), you can make a Speak Language check without using an action. Trying to understand a language you failed to understand previously is a move action. To reply in a new language or understand a written language, you must concentrate for a full minute before making a Speak Language check, and you can't perform any other action (other than moving at up to half speed) during this minute. Try Again: Yes. You can try so understand a language that you failed to understand previously at no penalty. You can attempt to reply once per minute. You can attempt to understand a written language once per minute. Special: You can make an Intelligence check at DC 20 to know the exact spoken or written language without knowing a language with a similar alphabet. The hostility modifier above still applies if necessary.
enlightened 08-01-07, 07:58 PM	In my rather extensive experience ( :tongue: ), speak language house rules are like critical fumble house rules. They seem cool.....to the DM.....while he's making them, but in application they are not so hot. Over the years, I myself have created and tried probably three or four different speak language house rules, and my conclusion is that in a roleplaying game languages need to be sort of binary. They are either on or off. You can speak it or you can't in order for play to be smooth. The closest thing I came to a success with it was kind of a GURPS inspired thing in which you had levels of fluency and your level of fluency affected skill roles that were based off of language. But even that turned out to be more hassle than fun. About your rule, I forsee it getting wonky after a while as the players start to make little dictionaries of words that they have been able to say once so that they could prove that they never need to role to be able to say them again. On-or-off language ability is no where near realistic, but I have come to see that linguistic realism is most likely impossible in this kind of game. However, I strongly suggest that you actually do try your rule out and tell us how it goes. I would be interested in hearing some language-use house rule success stories.
Traverse 08-01-07, 08:45 PM	This is one of the few areas where I'd, for once, love some complexity. Many other areas of my campaigns I usually simplify, but the level to which DnD has gone to remove the complexity of language from it's rules is astounding. However, I'll agree that most Speak Language house rules don't work with a typical fantasy setting, and can cause haltings in play. My campaign is built around travel and the social skills, so this rule helps to flavor that. Once your character is created, it's a drawn out process to learn a new language, but requires no skill points. It's kind of like using Handle Animal to teach your self a new trick. But for the most part, you're not going to know the language where you're going, so they can get a translator for important conversations and just try to plow through the new language once they get out on the street and order some food at a restaurant. They like it for the most part, and the NPC reactions get some laughs. My players don't have a problem with their character spending a few weeks to learn the basics of a new language. If they can wait for their new sword or armor, it's really no different.
Thakowsaizmu 08-02-07, 03:36 AM	It always sounds like a good idea to redo the Speak Language skill, but for the mechanics there really is nothing better to do than accept the flawed system that the PHB has given us. To be honest linguistics has very little to do with speaking a language. I know many people that know more than one language and they haven't the foggiest what a superlative is or what the essitive case does. Linguistics is the study of what languages are and how they work. If anything it'd be a Knowledge skill. Having a bit of a background in languages and linguistics, I really dislike the way languages work in D&D, but it does work in the context of the game, so after much frustration trying to revamp and rework languages in D&D, and many unhappy PCs that didn't want to get that involved in the dialect continuum of the Elven tongue, I opted to give it up and stick to the way it works in the PHB. But I did give Humans their own language. They deserve more than just 'Common'.
Szatany 08-02-07, 07:21 AM	About your rule, I forsee it getting wonky after a while as the players start to make little dictionaries of words that they have been able to say once so that they could prove that they never need to role to be able to say them again.Why would they? Nobody does that with Knowledge skill and the problem there is the same (roll good - you know something, roll bad later, you no longer know it??)
HidaAkira 08-02-07, 07:45 AM	I just stole a hint from MERP and made each language a different skill with seperate levels. You still use skill points to buy ranks in a language, but as a compromise between normal skills and the Speak Language "I know everything" variant, I made 5 ranks, each costing 1 skill point. It goes something like this. Rank 1: learner. You know a number of the most common words but have trouble determining which forms to use, and syntax is rather bad. People generally need to make an Intelligence DC 10 check to understand your horrible accent. Rank 2: you are basically proficient. Your accent is not terribly good, but you can get the basic sounds right. You can communicate simple messages and understand the answers, so long as they are spoken clearly and don't use too many big words. Rank 3: You are pretty decent now. You make some mistakes, of course, but people still understand what you mean. You have a noticable accent, but nothing that gets in the way of comprehension. You can carry on conversations and read newspapers with little problem. Rank 4: native competancy. This is the rank at which your native language starts. If this is a foreign language, your accent shines through now and then, but is mostly unnoticable Rank 5: Master. At this level your mastery of the language is nearly perfect. You know it better than most native speakers, and have read/are familiar with the major works of literature and poetry. Instead of gaining bonus languages = to your intelligence modifier, you gain bonus skill points equal to your Intelligence modifier which you may spend in whatever combination you wish on languages available. Races that start with extra languages generally have these at rank 3.
Rustmonster 08-02-07, 11:31 AM	You still use skill points to buy ranks in a language, but as a compromise between normal skills and the Speak Language "I know everything" variant, I made 5 ranks, each costing 1 skill point. What about Bard though? They have Speak language as a class skill. Does that mean it takes a half skill point?
CaoSlayer 08-02-07, 12:26 PM	I also would favor the rank rules, although I would include rules about writing. It is usual to know perfectly a language and still have no idea of how to write it.
HidaAkira 08-02-07, 12:45 PM	No, Speak Language would be a class skill for everybody. There would just have to be some good reason why you could suddenly learn a language. I enforce this rather rigidly. People need to have some good reason to learn any skill, and unlikr many skills (like Jump, tumble, Climb etc.), languages aren't something you can learn on your own. you either need a good grammar and texts in the target language, or you need someone to teach you. It's not simply a matter of spending points and saying "I know Terran now," after you've leveled up in the middle of the wilderness, far from any library or Terran speaking people.
HidaAkira 08-02-07, 12:47 PM	I also would favor the rank rules, although I would include rules about writing. It is usual to know perfectly a language and still have no idea of how to write it. Good idea. I can't believe I didn't think about that. Say, for most purely phonetic writing systems 1 skill point, for pictograms and other more abstract systems, as many as 5. Of course, you run up against the undeniable fact that most D&D characteres don't have anywhere near the amount of skill points they need.
CaoSlayer 08-02-07, 01:08 PM	Yep, for that reason I borrowed the "education" rules from CODA. In place of giving the characters free languages I give them a number of skill points based in their intelligence and starting class that only can be spent in knowledge skills, profession or speak language (based in race or region), this way I solve the trouble of having a ranger by example knowing nothing about their favored enemy or a cleric knowing nothing at all about religion because he used int as a dump stat and only have ranks for concentration and spellcraft.
Rustmonster 08-02-07, 02:19 PM	No, Speak Language would be a class skill for everybody. There would just have to be some good reason why you could suddenly learn a language. I enforce this rather rigidly. People need to have some good reason to learn any skill, and unlikr many skills (like Jump, tumble, Climb etc.), languages aren't something you can learn on your own. you either need a good grammar and texts in the target language, or you need someone to teach you. It's not simply a matter of spending points and saying "I know Terran now," after you've leveled up in the middle of the wilderness, far from any library or Terran speaking people. Okey, ya, but you think this is fine: "Hey, I leveled up, and even though I've been in the forest, and even though I've never set foot in a dungeon, and even though I didn't study, I learned a little more about Dungeonering!"
HidaAkira 08-03-07, 04:30 AM	Okey, ya, but you think this is fine: "Hey, I leveled up, and even though I've been in the forest, and even though I've never set foot in a dungeon, and even though I didn't study, I learned a little more about Dungeonering!" Is this a question or a statement?` Either way, no I don't think that is the right way to do it. I treat all skills in this manner: you need to have some sort of reason for dumping points in a skill. Either by practise (most physical skills, including Profession ++) or by research (most Knowledge skills, Spellcraft etc.). Knowledge skills could conceivably be raised after practise but there is something weird about meeting an orc in a dungeon, then suddenly dumping skill points in K (dungeoneering) and K (nature) (or whatever Knowledge skill is for humanoids - don't have my books with me), and suddenly having the ability to potentially know about all sorts of aberrations and humanoids and plant monsters. In my games I have done away with class/cross-class skills, but insist that people have a good reason to put skill points in something. Knowledge skills generally require reading books, having other people teach you or actually going out and observing and experimenting on your own.
Asurya 08-03-07, 04:50 AM	back on the argument between Szatany and Rustmonster about nat.1 and nat.20, I don't know if there was a rule now edited in Szatany post but SRD is pretty clear in this case : The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure. (emphasis mine)
Rustmonster 08-03-07, 12:52 PM	Is this a question or a statement?` Either way, no I don't think that is the right way to do it. I treat all skills in this manner: you need to have some sort of reason for dumping points in a skill. Either by practise (most physical skills, including Profession ++) or by research (most Knowledge skills, Spellcraft etc.). Knowledge skills could conceivably be raised after practise but there is something weird about meeting an orc in a dungeon, then suddenly dumping skill points in K (dungeoneering) and K (nature) (or whatever Knowledge skill is for humanoids - don't have my books with me), and suddenly having the ability to potentially know about all sorts of aberrations and humanoids and plant monsters. In my games I have done away with class/cross-class skills, but insist that people have a good reason to put skill points in something. Knowledge skills generally require reading books, having other people teach you or actually going out and observing and experimenting on your own. Okey, then it's fine and dandy for you, I guess, because you use a houserule. But that is not RAW. Most people don't do that. That makes it a whole different matter. back on the argument between Szatany and Rustmonster about nat.1 and nat.20, I don't know if there was a rule now edited in Szatany post but SRD is pretty clear in this case : The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure. (emphasis mine) Yes, he did edit it. Before he had a rule where a nat 1, no matter what, you'd basiclly offend the person you are trying to talk to, and on nat 20, you can actually say an entire sentance instead of one word, even if you have a 0 in it. I made a few examples in post 2, if you'd like to read them.
Sylvaroth 08-03-07, 02:45 PM	You might want to read my version of the speak language (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-297035) skill (wrote it 3 years ago but never got to post the final version) and this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=441878) thread in Regdar's for some inspiration.
Krusk 08-04-07, 05:59 PM	Why would they? Nobody does that with Knowledge skill and the problem there is the same (roll good - you know something, roll bad later, you no longer know it??) Ive done this, and it is generally helpful. If we are in a long campaign I will keep a spiral notebook with my character sheet on the first few pages, spells on the next couple -with spell descriptions-, and then a section for each knowledge i have.If I am encountering zombies the first time, i roll high on the check and know undead traits and how their DR works I will flip to knowledge religion and write down -zombies, Undead traits and DR 5/bludgeoning. - Helps keep things under control, so i dont have to roll a check each time we encounter something. stop combat and have the dm read me a list of things. Also I will sometimes make a little note about special abilities i did not know about befor the battle, but they were able to use during the battle. IE "this thing has vorpal tusks, watch out."
Holy_Beholder 08-05-07, 08:35 PM	HOwever obnoxious your style is ( ;) ), I can see what you are trying to show me. I changed that part about autofailure and success, replaced it with something that makes more sense. That doesn't apply to skills anyways. Also, it might make sense if speak language was a feat, otherwise it is way too easy to learn one.
Sylvaroth 08-06-07, 01:12 AM	Also, it might make sense if speak language was a feat, otherwise it is way too easy to learn one. Look (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#polyglot) :D
Szatany 08-06-07, 04:51 AM	That doesn't apply to skills anyways. Also, it might make sense if speak language was a feat, otherwise it is way too easy to learn one. What do you mean too easy? Because it doesn't cost skill points? Who would waste them on languages when there are cheap magic items or spells that do the same?