I know all this has little to do with mechanics...but they are reasonable justifications for a GM to say 'no.'
I want to be clear. I agree that it is completely reasonable for a GM to say "you can't learn that language" for just about any language which the PC has no exposure to.
My point is that RAW, you spent the skill point, and boom, you know druidic. Anything other than that, is GM fiat.
My point is that RAW, you spent the skill point, and boom, you know druidic. Anything other than that, is GM fiat.I disagree. Like Shar Tahl pointed out, it says "only" in the entry. It has the massive coincidence of saying "Druid (only)" there, then also having Druidic pointed out specifically as being a language only available to Druids in the Druid class entry. Wait, did I say massive coincidence? I meant to say that that is exactly RAI and RAW--obtaining Druidic via Int bonus languages or Linguistics is limited to Druids (who get it through the class, anyway, but it still gets a listing in Linguistics just for completeness's sake even though it's explicitly caveated with terminology that only appears for Druidic in that listing), and Loremasters through a very special exception that is specifically listed in the class. Your argument is completely backwards--it is literally only through GM intervention that you will be able to learn Druidic, except in that very special Loremaster case (and that Loremaster would arguably still have to face repercussions if the Druids ever get wind of what he's up to).
Druid are the only typical speakers of druidic. That is what the only means. That is why in the list, it states Common languages(and their typical speakers). Additionally, it says that druidic is a Common language. That means there are enough druids in the world for druidic to be considered common. Also, what about ex-druids? Do they not exist? Does no one ever become an ex-druid? Can you not find an ex-druid and learn druidic from them? (Something which would cause them to be an ex-druid in the first place).
I have become addicted to reading Japanese webnovels via machine transltors like Google Translate.... and honestly, I would say that you would have a VERY rough time trying to do this without any understanding of the inflection, subtle word choice ques, and grammatical structure. And heck, just try understanding metaphors and compound words (going back to words we recognize, "hippopotamus" means "horse of the river", which comes from the fact that their head looks horse-like when it is mostly covered in water).I agree with your intent, but I don't think this argument really applies. Google Translate is pretty amazing, but it's still not magic--all of those fiddly bits you have to worry about when you're reading Japanese don't really apply, because they're just dealt with by the spell. Since the spell pretty clearly only allows communication, not knowledge of a language, I'd argue that the crux of it is that you don't really hear that language--you hear yourself speaking your native tongue even though you're speaking Sylvan or whatever, you hear them speaking your native language even though they're speaking Sylvan, and magically it just all kind of fits in place syntactically and lexically, like a master translator had endless time to compose the perfect translation between the two and dub it over the audio track of your life.
Oh, I of course acknowledge that the spell lets you speak the language... but it says nothing about teaching the language, which can be an entirely different animal.
As an English Major more focused on Literature (particularly with a focus in plot, images, and metaphors), my mind kind of blanked when I took more technical English courses. Future perfect? Prepositional phrase? Passive voice? Simpy conditional? Modal Verbs? ....did I learn any of this in elementary school? Man, I don't usually dissect language, I just go by what sounds 'right'. I am conditioned in their use, but it is completely invisible to me. (sidenote: I passed all of my French and Spanish courses with all A's, and I still can't speak either- the education system folks!)
So 'being able to say what you want to say, and understand what other side wants to say' is very different from 'having a firm grasp on the language, and all of its uses'. I highly doubt you will ever be more proficient than a 5 year old throwing his 1/day entangle spell at his sisters while riding off on the family dog without learning it from someone who actually knows the language (and likely had to learn it themselves as a 2nd language). The most practical use you will likely get out of it is recognizing some vocabulary like 'head', 'stake', 'sacrifice', and 'unbeliver' after trying to speak your broken druidic to a group of druids.
The Google Translate comparison doesn't apply, because Google Translate isn't magic--magic can just pop in and say, "This translates perfectly," because magic is like that.
Wait....Google isn't magic?
I always thought it was a finicky Augury spell.
You can complain about my very obvious statement, but I only made it because you invited the comparison. I hope the point I'm trying to make is clear, regardless.
Who is complaining. I just fell in love with my own joke.
I still think that, if you were just saying individual words for the purposes of writing down a vocabulary (apple- manzana), the lack of context might lead to changes in diction that are still technically correct.
For example, 'murdered' and 'killed'. 'Murder' implies a sense of agency and responsibility (ie- there is a murderer). 'Killed', however, can also be used when someone did the killing (ie- killer), but it can also imply a cause of death that is not caused by a person (the falling chandelier killed him; alcohol killed him; he was killed by owl bears).
And this could be a case of user error on the part of the tongues user; they might not be aware of the other diction, or they could have the wrong idea about what they are supposed to be saying (if they think of 'killed' in terms of 'killer', they might say 'murdered', which can be awkward for who ever tries to use the common to druidic dictionary for diplomatic reasons).
|
Only druids can learn druidic unless taught by a druid, who subsequently ceases to be a druid.By RAW anyone can learn Druidic by specning 1 point in Linguistics.
Now a GM can overrule this, but powers at Paizo have said it can be done.
Whether it was by secrelty observing druids in their natural habitat, or laboriously interpreting some text written in the druidic language, anyone can learn Druidic in Golarion by spending 1 point in linguistics.
Learn a Language: Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language. Common languages (and their typical speakers) include the following.Druidic (druids only)
By RAW, only druids can learn it. That only part restrict it more than the general rule about learning languages.
|
|
Would you allow anyone with access to tongues to "study" any language using the method I described above?"BY RAW" means nothing as an argument. BY RAW, there is nothing that says that dead people can't play the oboe either.
When it comes to Linguistics, I will restrict the languages available if the character has absolutely no contact with them, or ways of researching them.. Androffan being a good example in most cases. Drow Sign Language being another if the character has never been underground.
This spell grants the creature touched the ability to speak and understand the language of any intelligent creature, whether it is a racial tongue or a regional dialect. The subject can speak only one language at a time, although it may be able to understand several languages. Tongues does not enable the subject to speak with creatures who don't speak. The subject can make itself understood as far as its voice carries. This spell does not predispose any creature addressed toward the subject in any way.
1) speak, not write;
2) you speak 1 language at a time;3) I are a English speaker? Get someone to speak to you in French and write down what he say. Then try to translate that with a dictionary. I doubt you will get something comprehensible.
By RAW, only druids can learn it. That only part restrict it more than the general rule about learning languages.
Learn a Language: Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language. Common languages (and their typical speakers) include the following.Druidic (druids only)
That is saying that druids are the only typical speaker, as that is what is listed in the parentheses after the language.
It would be redundant to say that only druids can pick druidic to learn via a point in the linguistics skill, as all druids gain druidic as a bonus language from their level 1 class ability of being a druid. If druidic was not an option to learn, it should not be listed on the "learn a language" list.
|
|
By RAW, only druids can learn it. That only part restrict it more than the general rule about learning languages.
Learn a Language: Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language. Common languages (and their typical speakers) include the following.Druidic (druids only)
That is saying that druids are the only typical speaker, as that is what is listed in the parentheses after the language.
It would be redundant to say that only druids can pick druidic to learn via a point in the linguistics skill, as all druids gain druidic as a bonus language from their level 1 class ability of being a druid. If druidic was not an option to learn, it should not be listed on the "learn a language" list.
So you have decided to totally disregard the "only" part, something that don't appear for the other typical speakers.
That is saying that druids are the typical speaker, as that is what is listed in the parentheses after the language.
It would be redundant to say that only druids can pick druidic to learn via a point in the linguistics skill, as all druids gain druidic as a bonus language from their level 1 class ability of being a druid. If druidic was not an option to learn, it should not be listed on the "learn a language" list.
So you have decided to totally disregard the "only" part, something that don't appear for the other typical speakers.
No, I didn't.
It is "druids are the only typical speaker." Not, "only druids can learn this language."
All things considered...
I am swayed by the argument that by RAW a skill point spent on linguistics lets you learn any language, including druidic. I mean, PF is a highly abstract system, and there is no point trying to apply real-life concepts like imperfect mastery, the years it takes to really effectively speak and write a language, and the interference you get from learning multiple languages essentially at once. Not to mention the greater facility a 152-year-old elf would have for having learnt a long list of languages compared to a 17-year-old human sorcerer.
We have so many other complex issues to deal with in a PF game that we might as well just handwave the requirements of time and effort needed to really learn a language, and stick to the skill point requirement.
This said, if for a given DM, druidic is more like a mystical power gifted by the Earth Goddess (or whatever) then restricting access is fine, too.
I wouldn't let PCs choose Thassilonian (or druidic, or any other extremely rare, ancient or outdated language) on leveling up and spending a skill point, in my campaign, unless they can posit access to significant volumes of written material, or live speakers of the language. But that's my call, my house rule in my home campaign.
I wouldn't let PCs choose Thassilonian (or druidic, or any other extremely rare, ancient or outdated language) on leveling up and spending a skill point, in my campaign, unless they can posit access to significant volumes of written material, or live speakers of the language. But that's my call, my house rule in my home campaign.
Would you let a bard by virtue of bardic knowledge?
Would you let a loremaster at 4th level take any language he felt like? Even old/outdated/rare/dead langauges?
I wouldn't let PCs choose Thassilonian (or druidic, or any other extremely rare, ancient or outdated language) on leveling up and spending a skill point, in my campaign, unless they can posit access to significant volumes of written material, or live speakers of the language. But that's my call, my house rule in my home campaign.Would you let a bard by virtue of bardic knowledge?
Would you let a loremaster at 4th level take any language he felt like? Even old/outdated/rare/dead langauges?
IMHO, both of those cases would allow the PC to posit access to rare or dead languages, so sure. Although... if the loremaster flavor is posited as based on written lore, and druidic has no written form, that might be a conundrum, unless said loremaster can come up with some alternate method, like summoning the dead spirit of Bob the Skull who knows druidic to teach him.
But by RAW, as noted above, anyone can spend a skill point and learn any language overnight. I suppose we assume they've actually been working on it for years and just never mentioned it on their character sheet. <g>
Bonus Languages: A druid's bonus language options include Sylvan, the language of woodland creatures. This choice is in addition to the bonus languages available to the character because of her race.
A druid also knows Druidic, a secret language known only to druids, which she learns upon becoming a 1st-level druid. Druidic is a free language for a druid; that is, she knows it in addition to her regular allotment of languages and it doesn't take up a language slot. Druids are forbidden to teach this language to nondruids.
Druidic has its own alphabet.
Druidic has a written form. Also, no one touched on why can't you seek out an ex-druid and learn from him?
I mean, we already had a quote from JJ come in and lay down the law, that should pretty much settle what's in the RAW: Linguistics can be used to buy Druidic. Done. Whether an individual game wants to put additional restrictions on top of that is entirely up to the people playing that game.
As for the ex-druid problem: The same problem the Loremaster faces, I would imagine, which is that Druids might get ticked off if they learn someone is going around teaching their secrets and try to cut it off at the source.
Yes, that's why they become an ex-druid for teaching others the language.
JJ quotes are good for JJ's opinion. They aren't RAW. They are statements about how he would run something in his own games.
True. I can definitely still see a problem regardless. If you can just put a skill rank in linguistics to learn whatever language, you could potentially learn something like drow sign language or druidic (both secret languages) without knowing even what drow or druids are, without a teacher and without any -apparent- effort (more due to how Linguistics works).
Perhaps possible RAW, but can definitely seem silly.
Slightly more problematic is that there is now a feat that apparently says otherwise and is more recent than the JJ quote.
The Druidic Decoder feat seems to be at odds with a RAW interpretation of the Linguistics skill.
Unless you rule that no non-druids can ever select Druidic as a language without this feat.
Clearly, the rules on Linguistics are insufficiently detailed to forge a RAW interpretation of this situation.
Druidic decoder can add druidic to your bonus languages. This would allow you to choose druidic if your intelligence modifier went up as a new bonus language. The only other time bonus languages are chosen is at chargen for int bonus or as a class feature (such as how druids learn druidic in the first place).
Linguistics provides that you can learn a language off the list when you put a point into the skill. Druidic is on the list. The list also happens to tell you who the typical speakers of a language are. Druidic is listed with (druids only) as the typical speakers, because only druids typically speak druidic.
If non-druids can't learn druidic, then why does a druid become an ex-druid for teaching drudic to a non-druid?
|
To those who say Driudic Decoder is the only way to learn Druidic, and that you can not put apoint in it via linguistics...
So what happens if you take a level in Druid, for the free druidic language. Then later retrain out of druid... do you still know druidic?
The DM excuses himself to go change his underwear.
Step 2—Pick Your Race: Next, pick your character's race, noting any modifiers to your ability scores and any other racial traits (see Races). There are seven basic races to choose from, although your GM might have others to add to the list. Each race lists the languages your character automatically knows, as well as a number of bonus languages. A character knows a number of additional bonus languages equal to his or her Intelligence modifier.
Bonus languages are chosen via high int score. Race is one place that grants you access to bonus languages.
Druidic decoder also adds druidic to your bonus languages list, if you meet the requirements.
Putting a point in linguistics does not utilize bonus languages. You merely add the language to your languages known.
Learn a Language: Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language.
IIRC, wizards get Draconic as a bonus language, meaing they can select it on character creation or on raising their intelligence.
The question that we should be asking is:
a) does a point in linguistics allow you to select any language you want?
b) does a point in linguistics allow you only to select from this character's subset of bonus languages?
c) does a point in linguistics allow you to select from your bonus languages *and* other languages subject to DM approval (depending on availability and other factors the DM may wish to take into account)?
The RAW reading of linguistics is "a".
As a DM, I would prefer to go with "c". This way, a dwarf travelling with an elf in his party (or having any readily available teacher, be it another PC or some NPC) could spend a point to get Elven.
But if you go with "a", the list of so-called "bonus languages" seems to be a useless concept.
So, given the fact that the Linguistics skill is insufficiently details in the RAW, I would propose that "c" that seems to respect RAI.
|
|
Raising intelligence. The raw does not stipulate a new list. All races have a set list that is set. For example, a dwarf would be as follows.
Languages: Dwarves begin play speaking Common and Dwarven. Dwarves with high Intelligence scores can choose from the following: Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, Terran, and Undercommon.
This means by RAW that a dwarf can only learn Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, Terran, and Undercommon as languages from raising his intelligence.
The point however is linguistics.
Step 2—Pick Your Race: Next, pick your character's race, noting any modifiers to your ability scores and any other racial traits (see Races). There are seven basic races to choose from, although your GM might have others to add to the list. Each race lists the languages your character automatically knows, as well as a number of bonus languages. A character knows a number of additional bonus languages equal to his or her Intelligence modifier.Bonus languages are chosen via high int score. Race is one place that grants you access to bonus languages.
Druidic decoder also adds druidic to your bonus languages list, if you meet the requirements.
Putting a point in linguistics does not utilize bonus languages. You merely add the language to your languages known.
Learn a Language: Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language.
This was literally just spelled out for you. The feat you quoted above (druidic decoder) adds the druidic language to your list of bonus languages.
Yes, but druidic decoder is pretty pointless if you can just spend one point in linguistics and get druidic as a language that you can both read and write flawlessly.
Yes, but druidic decoder is pretty pointless if you can just spend one point in linguistics and get druidic as a language that you can both read and write flawlessly.
Yes it is. I don't know why people keep calling it up as if it proves something. Its a poor feat.
IMHO, it IS very clear. Each race has a list of languages that can be added via Inteligence, and EVERY language can be added via Linguistics.If anything, it is just badly written with the passing of 3.5 to Pathfinder.
I think they should provide a set list of the languages and what can be added as intelligence and what can be added with linguistics.
This should help make it clearer because the existence of the feat makes everything so unclear.
Exactly.
|
|
If that is the case, why include a feat to learn the druidic language?IMHO, it IS very clear. Each race has a list of languages that can be added via Inteligence, and EVERY language can be added via Linguistics.If anything, it is just badly written with the passing of 3.5 to Pathfinder.
I think they should provide a set list of the languages and what can be added as intelligence and what can be added with linguistics.
This should help make it clearer because the existence of the feat makes everything so unclear.
Sorry Chillsabre, that's just another example of someone writing splat book material that doesn't know the core rules.