I guess there are cases of people being able to speak mulitple languages and not write/read any of them, but anytime I've learned a language I had to at least do some reading and writing. Also, someone can be 'conversational' in a language but not be fluent.
Therefore I was thinking of a homerule where one skill point makes you 'proficient' in a language, both written and spoken, but not fluent. Two skill points makes you fluent, both written and spoken.
Someone who is only 'proficient' would have to make a DC check to understand the language or be understood. Bonuses or penalties might apply for intelligence, being fluent in a similar language (someone who is fluent in Spanish and conversational in Italian would get a bonus for understanding the latter language, for example), or trying to communicate with someone who speaks a weird dialect.
I want to keep language ability at 2 points max to be consistent with the book rules (two points makes you fluent in both speaking and reading) and not force players to 'dilute' their skill points by having to put more than two into a language to be fluent.
Questons: Is this a good idea? If so, what should the DC check for only being proficient be? 10? 15?
How would this impact the linguist talent for smart characters, if at all?
I know this seems esoteric, but the campaign I'm creating is going to take characters to a lot of different places where lots of different languages are spoken.
Personal experience aside, when reading or writing you have much more time to gather your thoughts and "translate" things in your head than when speaking and listening. Also, how fast a person speaks and their diction can have a huge impact on how easy it is to understand them.
That said, I do like the idea of having multiple proficiency levels, but I think it would work better (but in turn be more complicated) to just treat languages like regular skills. With varying DCs against the "complexity" of the conversation or text. For example, to understand a repeating recorded message (like a warning) would be DC 10, maybe to read a warning sign DC 5, to understand basic interaction with a store clerk DC 13, but to carry on a conversation about the man you're looking for information for, DC 20.
Just throwing out some thoughts.
and when you come to more exsotic languages such as russian, swalhili and other such languages things become even more complicated.
though personaly i like ICE's MERP rules when it comes to languages where language has 5 skill ranks and each race/class has a set number of ranks in diffrent languages (for example a smart guy would understand technobable while a tough guy would better understand street slang depending on the background of the charicter) to start and can buy extra languages with skill points
for example rank 1 = basic level of understanding "safe to eat" "danger ahead" "what is cost" with no reading or writing (basically what you get is tourist phrase books)
rank 2 = allows speaking in simple sentances and if both parties speak slowly and with care then comunication is possible ability to read simple sentances (like signs) but no writing
rank 3 = allows speaking fluently but without the tonal qualities (accented speach). ability to read and write most sentances but lack of understanding of subtle meanings
rank 4 = ability to read and write at the level of an average litterate man but still some accent on the speach.
rank 5 = full fluency with no accent and full litteracy
As a Japanese major,
In the Army or the Air Force?
Just Kidding!!
In the Army or the Air Force?
Just Kidding!!
If you want to stay with the 2-point value of full fluency, then I think your house-rule makes perfect sense. If you want something more complex, like making people make skill checks to understand second languages, then you'll want to give them "language points" (like skill points, but only usable for languages) based on Intelligence. If a language is 2 points right now, then they should get their Int bonus x2 work of language points. That way, they're not more limited by their language choices, but they can buy lots of languages that they'll have to make checks with, or half as many that they know fluently.
If it were up to me, languages would cost a LOT more in RPGs, but that's because I work with language for a living.
for example rank 1 = basic level of understanding "safe to eat" "danger ahead" "what is cost" with no reading or writing (basically what you get is tourist phrase books)
rank 2 = allows speaking in simple sentances and if both parties speak slowly and with care then comunication is possible ability to read simple sentances (like signs) but no writing
rank 3 = allows speaking fluently but without the tonal qualities (accented speach). ability to read and write most sentances but lack of understanding of subtle meanings
rank 4 = ability to read and write at the level of an average litterate man but still some accent on the speach.
rank 5 = full fluency with no accent and full litteracy
I like this but there's no "language check" in the rules and it's a bit complex to RP the differences between each rank
DC Task
10 Read a short message in simple language.
15 Read a complex text (poetry, philosophy, legal, etc.)
15 Understand a casual conversation
20 Understand a conversation with distraction/difficulty (i.e, noisy environment, fast talkers, unknown slang or dialect)
That's just off the top of my head so my numbers could be totally wacky, but it's no more amorphous or complex than, say, what you can get away with using a Bluff.
That said, however, in almost every language program I've participated in, the subject is taught speaking and reading simultaneously. I learned to speak Chinese fairly well, and though I never mastered writing, I was forced to learn well over 500 characters during my two years of study.
It's also definitely unrealistic to have only one level of mastery for speaking. I think the system of one rank for basic usage, both speaking and reading, and a second rank for fluency is a good one.