| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello! This is my idea that languages shouldn't be so easily learned as soon as you gain a single rank in Linguistics, this system seems to work in my current campaign due to its seamless integration with everything. The system works quite simply, each language has a 'rank' representing your knowledge of the language, the ranks go from 1 to 5, 1 meaning that you can string together a few sentences and understand basic words whilst 5 represents a mastery of the language. Here is a further example of each rank, feel free to offer suggestions for balancing:
Level 1 - You have a simple understanding of the language and recognize some phrases and sentences. -4 on Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skill checks when speaking/listening to this language and -2 on Linguistics and Sense Motive.
Level 2 - You have a basic understanding of the language and can recognize most phrases and sentences. -2 on Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skill checks when speaking or listening to this language and -1 on Linguistics and Sense Motive when listening to this language.
Level 3 - You have a complete understanding of the language and can recognize all well-known phrases and sentences. You receive no penalties or bonuses due to this.
Level 4 - You have a further understanding of the language and use various synonyms and other language conventions in your sentences. +2 on Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skill checks when speaking or listening to this language and +1 on Linguistics and Sense Motive when listening to this language.
Level 5 - You have an advanced understanding of the language and try to use most language conventions in the most advanced way possible to make your sentences larger, and thus you exude an aura of authority and articulation. +4 on Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate skill checks when speaking or listening to this language and +2 on Linguistics and Sense Motive checks when listening to the language.
For those who want to make progression more difficult, you might make your PCs make a Linguistics check to understand someone at Ranks 1 and 2, and make the same check for those listening to a PC with a rank of 4 and 5, though that's just an option, you could also make language progression have more ranks in between for more difficult languages.
These Ranks can be represented in anyway you want, but I prefer to show them like 'Common (3)', as it's simple to understand.
Rules:
- If a race would state "...begins play speaking X", they immediately start at 3 ranks in that language, so an Aasimar would start at Common (3) and Celestial (3).
- If a race would state "...with high Intelligence scores can choose from the following languages...", if they would choose any of those languages, they gain an additional rank into that language, so if an Aasimar chose the Elven language at first level, they gain Elven (2).
- All languages gained through Linguistics ranks start at Rank 1
- Languages gained via an Intelligence modifier can provide a +1 rank in any language, meaning they may upgrade their Common (3) to Common (5) with a +2 Intelligence modifier
- Traits that provide an extra language gained can be assumed to start at Rank 2
- Druids immediately gain Druidic (5) as their bonus language.
- Comprehend Languages treats all languages at Rank 3, a custom spell can be added such as Greater Comprehend Languages to make them start at Rank 5.
If anyone has any questions about the system that I haven't covered, feel free to bring it up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My question: how is this different from a solution in search of a problem?
All this really does is make wizards more powerful, because they can now dominate mundanes in one more field.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a unique idea that nobody but you has thought up before.
Snark aside, it is and has always been a terrible idea. It makes the skill beyond worthless and everyone would just save their skill points and cast Tongues instead (like they already do anyway, but still...).
This was just a more roleplay decision that I prefer, that just integrates mechanics into it, I'm sure that to stop the 'domination', you can merely change the bonuses from +2 and +4 to +1 and +2, or only give bonuses at Rank 1 and 5, though this was merely an idea, one that seems to function in my current campaign quite well, though I'm also sure that my party aren't thinking of the mechanics of the game, but the roleplay side, which I personally prefer, I do appreciate the... 'feedback', but I can't build further on an already 'terrible idea'.
I like the idea.
I would make it so spells like tongues only grant up to level 2 in a language if I was going to implement this.
|
Seems a lot like how Shadowrun handles languages, except more forgiving. In APs I could see this being an issue, since multilinguality is often fairly important in Golarion's adventures. But for a homebrew setting it could work just fine I'm sure. I would nerf the bonuses a bit, maybe consider capping it at fluency with rank 3 and instead homebrew a feat that grants you the rank 4 bonuses to 1 language.
Finally! Some actually constructive feedback! I actually forgot about the tongues spell, and I'd probably just make a branch of spells myself that progressively get better or something.
Also, your idea hasteroth is fantastic! I'd never though about that before, It works a lot more roleplay-wise as well, as I'm assuming that once you've become fluent with a language, you can only get more proficient if you go out of your way, so yeah, thank you!
Have you considered accents within your system? Or whether a language is known in written or spoken form? GURPS 4th edition has rules for both if you wanted inspiration in this area, it was one of the many small changes going from 3rd to 4th edition. In 3rd edition (like Pathfinder) it was really easy to pick up high fluency in a large number of languages but the point cost made no sense considering how important fluency in multiple languages is.
Ideas like this really only work if you follow through and nerf - or outright remove - the language spells.
As far as your rules system goes, I'd try not to mess with the [1 rank per HD in any skill] rule already in place; it just makes everything messy.
I like your idea of slowly learning a language, but if you were to keep it bound by the [1 rank per HD in any skill] rule, it would need to be a tweaked a bit. In the real world, many languages are similar, or have similar roots. I think an alternative could be to follow this line of thought, and have 1 rank effect a set group of languages. This way with your alternate rules, you're not limiting a character to only ever being fully proficient in 6 new languages by level 20. This is more realistic than knowing 20, I know, but the nature of the game demands you to often know a slew of languages, and if you're going to make it harder to learn languages, then you're really only punishing martials, so for this entire shift to really work and still fit the framework of the game, you'd need to remove language spells, and still make it feasible to know a lot of languages.
So it could go that if your race knows any languages by default, they have full proficiency with those languages, like normal, without any ranks in Linguistics. Then you could have a set group, like, say [Infernal, Ignan, and Terran]. When they put 1 rank into Linguistics toward that group, they get the 1 rank rules you posted for every language in the group. This way, by spending 3 ranks, they'll have full proficiency in 3 languages, but this way makes it more back-loaded. You could also add a restriction like "you can only vaguely understand a language at 1 rank - you must make a DC 10 Linguistics check to speak or write correctly. Failure means you misuse words, or just use gibberish". This makes the benefit of growing 3 languages at the same time a bit dampened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a roleplay reason not to do this: It doesn't make a lick of sense from a logical perspective.
There are people in real life that are proficient in 10+ languages.
By your rules they would need to be a minimum of level 30 to accomplish this. 40 for fluency, and level 50 to sound educated and authoritative in them.
Normal humans cap out around level 5 or 6 when you take into account other mechanics. You'd need to be Epic level just to be someone who studies languages for a living.
If you want to model it based on roleplay, remove the mechanics entirely. Let people study languages and become better at them over time like real people do instead of kludging together poorly designed mechanics and calling it "un-constructive" when people tell you they're bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe 3 levels instead of 5?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe 3 levels instead of 5?
It's still a substantial nerf to an option that was already subpar.
Imagine the reaction I would get if I decided that allowing martials to use all weapons with proficiency, even ones they'd never seen before, was unrealistic. (Which it is.) As a result, I propose that everyone starts out with proficiency with only simple weapons and needs to take martial weapon proficiency for any martial weapon they want to use.
Does this make fighters more effective? No, it's a substantial nerf.
Does this make fighters more fun? No, it makes them substantially less versatile and easier to catch in a situation where they can't do anything effective -- which is already an issue.
Does it make people want to play fighters? No, anyone with the sense God gave an onion would say "the hell with it."
Is this a good idea in any way, shape, or form? No, it's a terrible idea.
Oh, well, maybe if we gave martials one free martial weapon proficiency -- that's the equivalent of making Linguistics three times less effective as a skill instead of five -- would that fix things?
No, it's still a very bad idea. And I think it's literally unsalvageable.
In response:
Boomerang Nebula: I haven't considered it greatly, the main point of the idea was to get less languages or at least progress slowly with them, it seems like a controversial thing though but I do understand that.
Cuup: I do like this idea, it does make more sense, as someone learning Chinese would find learning Japanese a whole lot easier, so I do like the pairing idea though, it makes it easier to learn languages in bulk without compromising the entire system.
To make the system work, I would probably add a variety of traits, feats and other things so it blends together nicely and makes language progression easier.
Sundakan: I do understand that people can know 10 or more languages, though to add onto Cuup's comment, it is most likely because their quite similar, learning Italian, German, Spanish, and other languages like English would be a lot more easier to learn other than languages such as Japanese and Chinese. And to translate this into Pathfinder, learning the elemental languages would be more difficult to learn than another language. I will add that this is merely the FOUNDATION of a system, it's meant to have parts added and removed. And yes, it's perfectly alright to rid of the mechanics, they could be better designed and make more sense. And yes, your PREVIOUS comment was un-constructive, unless something constructive is telling someone that their idea is terrible, however, this comment was a lot more constructive.
swoosh: Yes, I do believe your reading it correctly, it's just meant to make language learning a bit more realistic, I just PERSONALLY thought that instantly learning a language doesn't make that much sense and I wanted to tweak it so it made more sense, I added piecemeal mechanics because I wanted to add SOME reward of progressing through a language that actually made some degree of sense.
voideternal: That is one way to look at the system yes, and even though it might make for a cluttered character sheet, it would work nonetheless.
As for your second comment, yes, this also is a great way that the spells can be edited rather than removed altogether, though some people may think that only Level 2 may be terrible for the slot you need to expend, it would be better than removing them completely.
Ciaran Barnes: This does seem a lot better as hasteroth had previously noted, and adding feats that allow for further mastery makes more sense too.
Orfamay Quest: This is simply a roleplay choice, it adds a bit of realism to the languages and yes, it may be a substantial nerf, but my players personally haven't argued with it, some even embracing the idea, I just believe that it's another system that works in roleplay, and gives Linguistics a reason to actually add a skill into, where others see a nerf, others may see realism, I prefer the RP side of things were others see a mechanical side.
To just clarify, this idea was meant to be one that is brought into a game, and then changed to suit people's wishes, you want fast progression, drop the limit to 3 and add feats/traits that make it faster. That's your choice, this is a 'modular' system that you can pick apart and piece back together all you like, it was meant to spark ideas in people's heads so they can twist and change it to THEIR wishes, I was merely giving them the lightbulb.
@ Brad Whittingham 241
I believe your idea is good and will achieve what you want it to achieve. That is: I think it will encourage role playing, which is far more important than any other criteria.
I completely agree, thank you
I never knew my high school german teacher was level 24 (or higher). Not only could he speak English, Icelandic, German, Russian, Spanish, French, Italian and Latin, he could break down root words and how they evolved in the different languages.
10% of the European population is conversant (rank 3) in 4 languages (including their native language).
It doesn't seem realistic that 10% of Europe is level 12 or higher.
I never knew my high school german teacher was level 24 (or higher). Not only could he speak English, Icelandic, German, Russian, Spanish, French, Italian and Latin, he could break down root words and how they evolved in the different languages.
10% of the European population is conversant (rank 3) in 4 languages (including their native language).
It doesn't seem realistic that 10% of Europe is level 12 or higher.
Excellent, so the proposed change meshes perfectly with the rest of the unrealistic Pathfinder rules, which is practically all of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree, thank you
So basically you're only here to agree with people who already like your idea?
I also really don't like how easy linguistic fluency is to just kinda have. But weakening the skill like this is gonna take some serious reworking of the language spells. Otherwise this is not a "roleplay choice." This is just a nerf.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You keep referencing that this is supposed to encourage roleplaying, but I'm a bit confused how you came to that conclusion. You clearly disagree with how easy it is to learn languages in Pathfinder, and many here agree, but I think you're making it too hard with all of this.Cuup: I do like this idea, it does make more sense, as someone learning Chinese would find learning Japanese a whole lot easier, so I do like the pairing idea though, it makes it easier to learn languages in bulk without compromising the entire system.
To make the system work, I would probably add a variety of traits, feats and other things so it blends together nicely and makes language progression easier.
Excellent, so the proposed change meshes perfectly with the rest of the unrealistic Pathfinder rules, which is practically all of them.I never knew my high school german teacher was level 24 (or higher). Not only could he speak English, Icelandic, German, Russian, Spanish, French, Italian and Latin, he could break down root words and how they evolved in the different languages.
10% of the European population is conversant (rank 3) in 4 languages (including their native language).
It doesn't seem realistic that 10% of Europe is level 12 or higher.
Except it's unrealistic in the opposite direction, now. If you're so determined to make learning new languages a chore, just incorporate it into the downtime rules. Remove the [1 language per rank in Linguistics] rules, and make it a Linguistics check after spending x time and y money during downtime to progress z% in a language. Now feats aren't required, and a level 1 Expert who specializes in languages can feasibly know a bunch of languages.
Wow. I just came up with that on the spot, but I think I really like that. Thanks, me, I think I'm gonna use that going forward.
So basically you're only here to agree with people who already like your idea?
I also really don't like how easy linguistic fluency is to just kinda have. But weakening the skill like this is gonna take some serious reworking of the language spells. Otherwise this is not a "roleplay choice." This is just a nerf.
When I think of a nerf, i think mechanics, so I do think this is a RP choice, and a nerf, as I have said, it can be 'balanced' mechanics wise more those who wish too. I also do understand your first comment, though i'll clarify: Most of the comments here I'm taking as constructive criticism (if it CAN be taken as such, which MOST of it can be), though, I agree that pretty much everyone has a valid point here and I agree with what most people say, Yes it may not be the best idea, it's the foundation. Though I do see that people feel it's a massive nerf to Linguistics, it was just a suggestion.
You keep referencing that this is supposed to encourage roleplaying, but I'm a bit confused how you came to that conclusion. You clearly disagree with how easy it is to learn languages in Pathfinder, and many here agree, but I think you're making it too hard with all of this.
I don't think I said anything about encouraging, more that it ADDS to the actual roleplay, though I agree that it would encourage roleplay to some extent, I do disagree that it's quite easy to learn languages, but that's why I'm saying that you can add things such as feats, traits, downtime systems to make it easier, (as you said) or make it max at 3 ranks, etc. I did have a downtime system in place, but just didn't write it, though it was different in many areas, like progressing through ranks got progressively harder, didn't cost gold, and kept the 1 language per rank in Linguistics, though yours does make a lot of sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does this add to roleplay? At all?
You have a mechanic that is just worse than the previous mechanic. It does not require any more roleplaying to add 3 +1s to your character sheet than merely 1.
This is entirely mechanics, pure and simple. Like I said, if this was about roleplaying you'd make earning a language actually require roleplaying. Visiting tutors to learn, conversing with people in your non-native tongue for extended periods, etc. until it finally clicks.
If you want it to be a roleplaying thing, it would be divorced entirely from mechanics.
Your system does not add to roleplaying in any way, it just makes the mechanics less useful.
|
|
How does this add to roleplay? At all?
You have a mechanic that is just worse than the previous mechanic. It does not require any more roleplaying to add 3 +1s to your character sheet than merely 1.
This is entirely mechanics, pure and simple. Like I said, if this was about roleplaying you'd make earning a language actually require roleplaying. Visiting tutors to learn, conversing with people in your non-native tongue for extended periods, etc. until it finally clicks.
If you want it to be a roleplaying thing, it would be divorced entirely from mechanics.
Your system does not add to roleplaying in any way, it just makes the mechanics less useful.
If he's reworking a system, he could limit it to a rank per level. He could make languages important in his world (enough to really encourage learning more), but make it less important to know a wide variety. There are a million ways this can work and a million ways it can't. He has already said he will be implementing a baseline system and then taking player feedback on it. Presumably if nobody likes it he'll shelve it until he has time to revise it.
Personally I like the idea, but I'm a high-RP type of player and GM (as a GM I'm often open to modifying and in some cases handwaving certain mechanics in service of good RP). I think the idea needs refining, does present its own issues that the original mechanic doesn't have... but this is true of every alternate system.Example off the top of my head is the Unchained options for removing alignment from the game. Some of them were easy to work with but overly simple, others were more complex and difficult to implement... all of them had problems. But some of them (like loyalties) provided an excellent baseline to build off of. With RP-first players, the propensity for abuse of mechanics is often pretty low... and in my experience they are willing to yield to Rule 0 more often than not. Other examples are all the alternate magic systems... the alternate action economy, alternate skill systems, alternate crafting, etc etc etc.
Don't rip on and shoot down an idea just because it doesn't sound perfect to you, else you'll run afoul of the nirvana fallacy. You can offer criticism without sounding vicious, it's pretty damned easy actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for modifying the rules to achieve something, predominantly what I see with this rule is to make Linguistic skill points less effective and make them impact other skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, etc).
I personally think there are already enough stackable bonuses for Bluff and Diplomacy that you don't really need more.
Overall, I find linguistic barriers to be interesting at first, but quickly tiresome. Consider the movie 13th Warrior. At the beginning of the movie the language and customs differences are to highlight how different the narrator is from his companions. Once that difference is firmly established, the movie removes these devices for the most part, touching on them only when necessary.
This might work in conjunction with the background skill system set up in Pathfinder Unchained. Make linguistics a background skill and maybe only three levels.
Don't rip on and shoot down an idea just because it doesn't sound perfect to you, else you'll run afoul of the nirvana fallacy. You can offer criticism without sounding vicious, it's pretty damned easy actually.
I'm not shooting it down because it's "not perfect" I'm shooting it down because the stated goal and implementation are damn near diametrically opposed to each other.
Goal: Increase roleplay.
Implementation: Fiddle with mechanics.
It's like if I was trying to fix my broken stove and started fiddling with the pipes under the sink. It's not gonna help.
Irontruth makes a good point: Language barriers are usually a plot device in fiction. Used for a while, and generally discarded once it's served its purpose.
This does nothing to aid the use of that plot device, and everything to hinder it. Because no matter how much RP you do...you will NEVER overcome that language barrier without dropping ranks in the skill. That's pure mechanics.
What I keep trying to get across is that if his goal is to increase the roleplay value of learning languages, his current idea is a non-starter. At best, it won't do anything, because the mechanics and RP never interact here. At worst, it's taking things in the OPPOSITE direction. It makes the mechanics more complex for no gain, and reduces your ability to roleplay as anything but a fish out of water among people who don't speak your native tongue.
This is not a "perfect is enemy of the good" scenario here, this is a scenario where what is being done does not make even a slight step toward the goal you're trying to work toward.
Imagine this with some other mechanic.
"I'm going to try and increase RP in combat. Here's how I'll go about it:"
"BaB is based on skill ranks. You have to buy Skill: Swords to fight with swords, and so on. Every 6 ranks gives you an iterative attack, as normal. The skill is based on Wisdom, so having a high Widom modifier gives you attack bonuses."
If I made a thread with that kind of goal you'd look at me like I'm an idiot. Because what my goal is isn't matched AT ALL by what I tried to do to make it work.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Except it's unrealistic in the opposite direction, now. If you're so determined to make learning new languages a chore, just incorporate it into the downtime rules. Remove the [1 language per rank in Linguistics] rules, and make it a Linguistics check after spending x time and y money during downtime to progress z% in a language. Now feats aren't required, and a level 1 Expert who specializes in languages can feasibly know a bunch of languages.
Wow. I just came up with that on the spot, but I think I really like that. Thanks, me, I think I'm gonna use that going forward.
That was my first thought as well--run languages like Handle Animal and tricks. You start with one or more bonus languages, and to learn new ones, instead of taking a rank in Linguistics, you make a DC XX Linguistics check.
You'd probably want to cap the amount of languages you can learn this way, similar to tricks (3 + Int?) or maybe just add a cumulative +5 to the DC of each new language after the first. You could even wave that penalty if the new language is related to/in the same family as one of your current languages.
If you really wanted to get fiddly with it, add in the competency tiers like the OP was suggesting. E.g., say you spend a week and make a DC 10 check to become tier 1 with a new language. You can then spend a month and make a DC 15 check to increase your competence to tier 2. Tier 3 requires a year/DC 20. You could add circumstance bonuses for immersing yourself in the language, voluntary penalties to halve the time it takes, etc.
I believe this idea encourages role-playing.
The core rules for a system set the tone for how that game is played and what players focus on. The Pathfinder core rules are very combat heavy and encourage players to design characters who are optimised for combat. By contrast Vampire The Masquerade (VTM) has very simple combat rules and very detailed background rules and so encourages role-playing. A system like Pendragon sits somewhere in the middle, it's combat system is more complex than VTM but it also has a lot of rules focused on role-playing. In my opinion Pendragon has the right balance.
If you want to make Pathfinder more focused on role-playing then focus on the non-combat stuff. It really is that simple.
How does this add to roleplay? At all?
You have a mechanic that is just worse than the previous mechanic. It does not require any more roleplaying to add 3 +1s to your character sheet than merely 1.
This is entirely mechanics, pure and simple. Like I said, if this was about roleplaying you'd make earning a language actually require roleplaying. Visiting tutors to learn, conversing with people in your non-native tongue for extended periods, etc. until it finally clicks.
If you want it to be a roleplaying thing, it would be divorced entirely from mechanics.
Your system does not add to roleplaying in any way, it just makes the mechanics less useful.
I do get your point, And I believe my main point has to ADD realism and ENCOURAGE roleplay, I believe it does add realism to the system as I have noted MANY times, I would argue that it adds to realism and thus to roleplay in some circumstances too, it also encourages players to follow different languages (or language groups), it allows other players to engage in roleplay, I would personally feel quite excited if I was the only one who could speak Aquan proficiently, rather than everyone going (including the barbarian) going "Oh, We can all talk this (possibly complicated) language! It doesn't matter!" I personally believe that this DOES support roleplay, especially (as voideternal said) than the already binary rules in the Core Rules. It makes people think about areas there going into, "Ok, we should stay a few weeks, I'm gonna just brush up on my Dwarven a bit while you all take care of your businesses", It allows more deceitful characters to deceive the others into thinking that someone else has a different agenda "Oh? You said you want peace and want to no harm to come to us?" "Yeah, these guys are part of a mercenary group, they're asking for 500 gold or they'll kill us all, I say we kill 'em first". These are just SOME examples.
What I keep trying to get across is that if his goal is to increase the roleplay value of learning languages, his current idea is a non-starter. At best, it won't do anything, because the mechanics and RP never interact here. At worst, it's taking things in the OPPOSITE direction. It makes the mechanics more complex for no gain, and reduces your ability to roleplay as anything but a fish out of water among people who don't speak your native tongue.
I completely understand this actually, i believe my previous comment still stands, but that's also why people can integrate a downtime system (like Cuup said) or completely make it all about downtime, it's their choice.
Overall, I find linguistic barriers to be interesting at first, but quickly tiresome. Consider the movie 13th Warrior. At the beginning of the movie the language and customs differences are to highlight how different the narrator is from his companions. Once that difference is firmly established, the movie removes these devices for the most part, touching on them only when necessary.
I believe that's because its a movie, I understand the point your making, that the barriers are interesting at first but become tiresome, but the reason I make this suggestion is primarily to add to realism and, in some cases, add to roleplay as well, as i've stated many times.
Are you going to apply the same level of granularity to every other skill? Because if you do, you'll quickly stop playing D&D and begin playing Spreadsheets and Calculators (not that the game isn't already numbers-intensive).
Too late! Everyone at my table (except me) already uses Hero Lab for Pathfinder because combat is too complicated.
Are you going to apply the same level of granularity to every other skill? Because if you do, you'll quickly stop playing D&D and begin playing Spreadsheets and Calculators (not that the game isn't already numbers-intensive).
No, I don't think much of the other skills need an injection of realism, at least I believe it works for me personally, it's just linguistics and languages specifically that annoy me about how easy it is to learn them.
I also just want THIS particular thing to be a BIT more realistic, I like the roleplay in D&D more than I do the mechanics, and I don't really think I'm adding an INSANE amount of complexity to the system, what I first posted (excluding downtime) can be easily added to a game, and adding your own homebrew traits/feats/spells would be a simple ordeal, so I wouldn't be adding much complexity even if I DID do it too every skill.
Are you going to apply the same level of granularity to every other skill? Because if you do, you'll quickly stop playing D&D and begin playing Spreadsheets and Calculators (not that the game isn't already numbers-intensive).Too late! Everyone at my table (except me) already uses Hero Lab for Pathfinder because combat is too complicated.
Good point.
Hey everyone, how should we best turn Pathfinder into Campaign for North Africa? Be quick about it - we gotta slide down this slippery slope fallacy ASAP before someone puts their brain on the right way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that's because its a movie, I understand the point your making, that the barriers are interesting at first but become tiresome, but the reason I make this suggestion is primarily to add to realism and, in some cases, add to roleplay as well, as i've stated many times.
I understand why you think it's realistic. Assuming you're from the USA, it's fairly uncommon for people who aren't immigrants or children of immigrants to speak more than one language. In the US, it's pretty standard for people to only speak one.
In the rest of the world though, this isn't true. People speak lots of languages, in fact, a very significant portion of the world's population is bilingual (over half). In regions where countries are about the size of US states, people are often multi-lingual (3 or more languages).
My high school German teacher would have had at least 3 ranks in 8 different languages, but more likely 4, with a couple 5's. In game terms, that puts him somewhere in the realm of level 30-40. 10% of the European population has 2+ ranks in 4 languages, which is a massive portion of the population to be level 8-12 (or higher).
It's realistic that it takes time to learn the language, yes, but it's unrealistic how limited people are in how many/well they can learn them.
If realism is your goal, you're partially achieving it, while failing it at the same time.
If you instead made it that each time you put a rank in Linguistics, you got your new total to spend on languages, maybe capped at 5, but no more than 2 points spent on any one language. Players still have to "practice" the language and progress is slowed down, but it means that someone who focuses on languages can still be good at it (which is realistic).
@ Irontruth
Your German teacher is an exception. Of the thousands of people I have met in my lifetime I don't know anyone like that and I'll wager that you don't know anyone else (besides them) that is like that. At any rate he is clearly unusual and would be a good candidate for having some kind of language talent feat.
Regarding people who are bilingual or trilingual, all the ones I know are much better with their native tongue than with their second or third languages. The proposal in the OP handles that aspect reasonably well considering that it is trying to fit in with a totally unrealistic level based system. In fact it is clearly superior to the current system in that regard plus opens up lots of interesting roleplaying challenges.
I like the intent but think there are flaws in the implementation and gameplay. The gameplay aspects have been covered by many others already so there is no need to dwell on them. The second aspect is the fact that bonuses are granted to other skills. It seems very strange that someone who has learned a foreign language can outwit a native speaker through skill of language.
An alternative implementation, which may work in certain styles of campaign could be something like:
Each skill point of linguistics grants 1 language point per level, which can be spent improving skill in an existing language or learning a new language.
Each language has 3 levels of fluency:
1. Understandable - can make self understood but has difficulty with complex subjects and matters, -5 penalty on all social checks
2. Fluent - can speak and understand the language fluently but possesses a foreign accent, -2 on social checks
3. Native - can speak as well as a native and has no hint of a foreign accent
That system achieves some of the same results and makes linguistics skill ranks a long term investment. As some others have suggested, by making language based spells be less than natively fluent it would provide some motivation for learning other languages.
@ Hugo Rune
Ah...Hadn't thought of it like that! Yeah it doesn't make too much sense... I'd personally have an external rank that (if your max is 3 ranks in a language) is 4 or something or 'native', which is as you named, but your system also works and is easier and compact for those who don't want a larger impact in their game.
@ Create Mr.Pitt
That does make sense... I guess the only thing I can suggest is the faster progression that others have noted, feats/talents that people have noted, downtime systems, or something else, other than that though... I have no real way to fix it i guess, the way I'd justify that is that if the player/character doesn't invest their time or skill points, i guess that player/character doesn't feel that it's necessary, though I do think that if they truly want to invest in it without causing a massive pain to their skills, they could invest downtime?
@Irontruth
I do agree with Boomerang Nebula, though your capping after 2 points in a language does also make sense, once again another different implementation people can try out i guess!
@ Irontruth
Your German teacher is an exception. Of the thousands of people I have met in my lifetime I don't know anyone like that and I'll wager that you don't know anyone else (besides them) that is like that. At any rate he is clearly unusual and would be a good candidate for having some kind of language talent feat.
Regarding people who are bilingual or trilingual, all the ones I know are much better with their native tongue than with their second or third languages. The proposal in the OP handles that aspect reasonably well considering that it is trying to fit in with a totally unrealistic level based system. In fact it is clearly superior to the current system in that regard plus opens up lots of interesting roleplaying challenges.
Basically your rebuttal to actual evidence that the rule is unrealistic, is to cite other aspects of other rules that are also unrealistic.
If you want to embrace the rule and the changes they make, that's fine, but don't claim they're realistic, when they clearly aren't. You're trading one unrealistic aspect for a different unrealistic aspect.
The Linguistics skill is already a pretty weak skill. It's useful for social characters, but this rule reduces that effectiveness by 1/3 (since you need 3 ranks to get zero penalty). 90% of the time, all Linguistics does is allow you to roll other skills and doesn't even get rolled itself.
I agree that it's unrealistic that the way games are framed, if characters go from level 1 to 10 within a 3 month span, that someone also learns 9 new languages, probably without meeting anyone who speaks those languages. This attempts to be a course correction, but does so in the drastically opposite direction by essentially removing polyglots from existence, even though we know they exist in real life.
Instead of reducing the effectiveness of ranks in Linguistics, instead put time limits or keep track of how long a language has been known. For example, you could say that every new rank in Linguistics gives you language points equal to the new rank. Using the same 5 point scale, you can spend points equal to the new language rating that you want, but this requires 1 month of down time.
Ex: Linguo the Bard reaches 5th level and puts a 5th rank into Linguistics. He started with Common and Elvish at first level (native speaker each).
Common 3
Elvish 3
By 4th level he had:
Common 4
Elvish 3
Dwarf 2
Gnome 2
At 5th level, he gets 5 points, so he increases Dwarf to 3 (costing 3 points). This takes 1 month of downtime, but leaves him with 2 points left over to either save, or invest in a new language if desired. He could also have learned 5 new languages (1 month each), but have them all at a rating 1. Using this system, it wouldn't be until level 15 that you could earn enough points in one level to take a language straight to rating 5, but by that point having 15 ranks in Linguistics should make you a master of learning new languages and very quick to pick them up.
Every now and then you and I get an itch to add an element of "realism" into this game.
But the real question is. Given that we are here to have our players do heroic escapist fantasy, does adding this make the game better? Does putting on another layer of rules for this activity justify diverting time to this as opposed to using that time for running the adventure? I know that if I get to play only once every two weeks, I want the minimum amount of that time spent on non-fun bookkeeping.
Keep in mind that level up changes reflect stuff that character has been doing off screen, so to speak and maybe it won't feel as jarring.
I run a similar system from Sylven Trumpeter, but they had even more ranks in their framework. With about 12 languages represented at the current table, including an Inuit dialect, my players don't complain, often tossing in their own thoughts.
Characters get 'language points' based on Class and Intelligence each level and may add up to one point in a language each level (No instant wordsmiths in a newly discovered tongue). My languages have cost for each level in a language, several having prerequisites as well. Draconic is 'the' language for the current state of the Art, so most arcane Classes include level 3 so spells can be cast. The 'common' form of Elvish can be used in rituals, the Will being the key, not just some words being mumbled. I could 'read' a scroll, but unless I popped in some juice, nothing happens. Both are common enough for the base cost of 3 to get to the 'casting' level of the language. Auld Wyrmish takes an Int of 15 to merely understand and a 17 to speak, costing 2 points for just the first step. It takes a feat and a total of 5 Language Points to actually cast using the language, but grants the caster several benefits. I thought it was expensive, but both serious arcane casters are building towards it. High Elvish requires Perform (singing) to be properly spoken, the more ranks the better, is the creation of 2 of our players.
For the handwavers above, why have languages if they only matter at the start. Not saying you're wrong, every foreign movie has subtitles or Romans with British accents. Just delete the rule. The staged language levels can be an Abbot and Costello routine, as my players enjoy running the npcs. One came up with a variant Explosive runes keyed only to people who could read a specific language, in this case 'Ammuu-m-nysu', an ancient tongue, in order to boobytrap a Lich's philactry (sp) for his next incarnation. After the next session, it was bumped to a 'rare spell' status.
We don't handwave languages at all in my games and find the rules suitably ripe with roleplaying opportunities. In fact, we sometimes make parties of one race and whoever is GM'ing will give small bonuses to those who remove Common from their list of languages. It helps highlight the race as being more distinct and different from humans and often creates communication barriers... even though it would only cost one skill point to solve.
I appreciate you looking for a way to improve your rules. And if it works for you, go for it.
Off the bat, though; realize you are forcing players to eat up a LOT more of their skill ranks. That's going to hurt unless you make adjustments elsewhere.
Personally, I like that Pathfinder made great strides in streamlining the 3.5 system. Particularly in combining some skills.
While your idea makes logical sense, I'm not convinced it's necessary enough, to add more details to your rules system though.
Let's face it. RPG rule systems are generally abstract in many ways.
Just look over all the variant rule options Paizo themselves have published (Armor as DR; wounds/vigor; piecemeal armor, etc).
All of them might make more realistic sense, but every step towards more realism, adds pages and pages of additional rules that can cause a drag on the flow of a game.
Just skills/knowledges alone could be expanded into hundreds of areas if you wanted to be realistic.
I myself have fallen into that hole sometimes. Sounded good and made logical sense: but down the line, had a lot more unintended effects, and slowed things down considerably.
What house rules I have now, tend to be minor tweaks that avoid "rules-creep" as much as possible.
I realized that a quickly flowing game, with good role playing, doesn't need to be a realistic simulator in order to be fun.
Keep it simple and go at it. Who cares if every aspect of the game isn't as technically detailed and accurate as it could be?
Now, as for languages. I do happen to agree it is a bit too easy to pick them up. My house rule adjusts things some, but it's minor.
Each language on my character sheets has 2 check boxes next to them. *Speak and *Literate
Instead of each skill rank in Linguistics granting full use of a language, a PC can choose to EITHER speak, or be literate in, an additional language.
So, a very slight edit to the existing skill description
Effectively doubles the cost from base rules for fully speak/reading a language.
It also allows for being able to read/write a language, without necessarily being able to speak it.
It could be a dead language that no one knows how it sounded, or could be the language of a creature/race, that most humanoids are incapable of reproducing.
Also, there are languages that might not have a written form. So just speaking it is all that's possible.
Again. Your game. Use what works for you.
I submit my version, in case you find it useful.
Play On!
Excuse me, but are you all trying to limit my abuse of a combination of the Tengu race, the orator feat, and maxed out linguistics, plus inspiration?
@Pod Trooper
I'm glad someone does understand it from both standpoints, yes, from a mechanics standpoint it does do harm, and it can slow down a game, depending on the complexity, your idea does also seem like a completely valid option as well, the rule i made was just meant to be a simple insert, merely to make sure that all the players don't become legendary linguists, including the Half-Orc Barbarian, and I think that I've succeeded, but thank you for you comment, i do understand that pathfinders rules aren't all necessarily realistic, and if they were, they would slow things down, hence why I'm not adding a lot of the other rules, which I feel would be easy to add for me, but I have new players among my group, so one step at a time.