So Let Me Get This Straight--Linguistics


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

If it really bothers you so much(and your players aren't bothered by it/ focus on it) you could consider languages learned based on the overall skill level, making every 3 points total(1-2written/spoken, point 3 making them perfectly fluent as though they were born to it) in the skill add up to a language learned, then add linguistics as a class skill to all classes...

Then players who focus on the skill can still learn languages around the same rate the first few ranks they gain(as they get 4 points in their first rank, possibly more with their attribute distribution), be capped with fewer languages, or you can let them learn the written or spoken parts of more languages than normal, depending on which they prefer.


Another house-rule I've seen is that a rank of Linguistics gives you the potential to know another language; you must also spend a semi-realistic amount of time learning it from an available source before you can use it fluently. So if you were travelling with an elf you could say, "I'm trying to learn Elvish." Then you could make a Linguistics check to try to read a document written in Elvish. When you level up, if you take a rank of Linguistics, and have been hanging out with the elf long enough, you can add Elvish to your known languages.

But really, all you need to do is say you've been studying the language since childhood; you just haven't quite had the confidence to use it until now.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
English is harder because, since everyone else learns English, we don't have to learn other languages.

Have to disagree, English is noticeably the easiest of all the languages I've dabbled with... I tried my hand at about a dozen languages, and English is the only one where I managed to reach fluency (not counting my native French, of course).


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Klorox wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
English is harder because, since everyone else learns English, we don't have to learn other languages.
Have to disagree, English is noticeably the easiest of all the languages I've dabbled with... I tried my hand at about a dozen languages, and English is the only one where I managed to reach fluency (not counting my native French, of course).

Well, in all fairness, English has a lot of French influence...I think the general estimate is about 30% or so of English words were originally French?


I just give it to the players. It's one of the only universally applicable skills that has some bearing of fruit with each skill rank. If anything, PFU skill unlocks don't go far enough in making skills useful for Regular Joe characters.


Klorox wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
English is harder because, since everyone else learns English, we don't have to learn other languages.
Have to disagree, English is noticeably the easiest of all the languages I've dabbled with.

I don't think CB actually meant English is harder - was probably meant to be something like "It's harder to learn other languages when English is your first language."


CalethosVB wrote:
I just give it to the players. It's one of the only universally applicable skills that has some bearing of fruit with each skill rank. If anything, PFU skill unlocks don't go far enough in making skills useful for Regular Joe characters.

You mean that as a DM, you give your players free skill rankss in speaking various languages? Or do you give the full Linguistics skill complete with deciphering and forging abilities?


Matthew Downie wrote:
Klorox wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
English is harder because, since everyone else learns English, we don't have to learn other languages.
Have to disagree, English is noticeably the easiest of all the languages I've dabbled with.
I don't think CB actually meant English is harder - was probably meant to be something like "It's harder to learn other languages when English is your first language."

OOops, I hadn't seen that angle, yeah, it must be hard learning languages with a highly structured grammar, like verb conjugation, noun cases and the like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
English is harder because, since everyone else learns English, we don't have to learn other languages.

Certainly gels with my experience in the Netherlands.

I'd start trying out some abysmal,guidebook Dutch, only to be interrupted in superb English...

I've had the same experience across Europe and parts of Asia.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Klorox wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
English is harder because, since everyone else learns English, we don't have to learn other languages.
Have to disagree, English is noticeably the easiest of all the languages I've dabbled with.
I don't think CB actually meant English is harder - was probably meant to be something like "It's harder to learn other languages when English is your first language."
OOops, I hadn't seen that angle, yeah, it must be hard learning languages with a highly structured grammar, like verb conjugation, noun cases and the like.

The nerds who actually study language difficulty are pretty adamant that perceived difficulty is not an inherent part of any language; it's primarily a question of difference from the other languages you know, and mostly from your first language, the one your brain literally reshaped itself for you to master.

English is very easy until you look at the sound inventory -- depending upon how you count, it has at least a dozen, possibly more like twenty (in my version of English, for example, "cot" and "caught" do not rhyme). Italian has six. Spanish has five. A Finn would not be impressed (they have even more, and are extremely used to making very subtle changes in vowel quality), but an Italian or Spaniard will be wondering what the hell is going on with the word "cookie" and whether it's even possible to move your mouth into that shape.

German is very easy (for English speakers) because the syntax and vocabulary are almost the same, but the case and gender system is horrific. Chinese is very easy (for English speakers) except for the tones. English is very easy (for Chinese speakers) except for the determiners and odd pronouns. I'm sure you get the idea. (Or should that be "an idea"?)

The other factor to consider is that it's well-documented to be easier to learn a language the younger you are. Learning Chinese at two is as easy as growing up [in China]. Learning Chinese at fifteen is simply taking a few classes in high school. At fifty, it's almost impossible. There are well-understood neurobiological reasons for this, but what it amounts to is that schools in the Netherlands start teaching every student English in by about age ten, and many start earlier. DItto Greece. When was the last time you saw a US primary school that taught foreign languages?

The Dutch experience is actually typical for most of Western Europe and for "good" schools all over the world. Especially when you're from a smaller country -- the Netherlands, Czechia, Finland, Greece, Vulcan, et cetera -- you can't count on finding what you need in Vulcan translation. But that also means that many people find English relatively easy because they were ten when they learned it.


Klorox wrote:
CalethosVB wrote:
I just give it to the players. It's one of the only universally applicable skills that has some bearing of fruit with each skill rank. If anything, PFU skill unlocks don't go far enough in making skills useful for Regular Joe characters.
You mean that as a DM, you give your players free skill rankss in speaking various languages? Or do you give the full Linguistics skill complete with deciphering and forging abilities?

I mean that, as a DM, 1 skill rank invested in Linguistics gets the character their choice (secret languages excluded) of any language they wish to learn, plus the ability to forge/check for forgeries, and decipher script written in any language they know.

It's a quantifiable use of a skill rank where most skills aren't much different between the first and second ranks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:


Certainly gels with my experience in the Netherlands.

I'd start trying out some abysmal,guidebook Dutch, only to be interrupted in superb English...

I've had the same experience across Europe and parts of Asia.

So have I, but the Dutch are something special. The Dutch educational system is superb, and learning English is a major focus of the official curriculum. The effect is that you'll generally hear more standard English on the streets of Amsterdam than you will in Merseyside, UK.


My personal linguistic anecdote: I was in french immersion from grades 1-10, so as a result I am the best French speaker in my immediate family. Since I natively know English, I have been able to dabble in the less practical languages of Latin, (ancient) Greek, and Klingon.

Anyway, back to French. When my family was vacationing in Quebec, It became clear that having the least social person in a group know the language the best often led to the staff having switched to English by the time I got around to talking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it actually makes *more* sense the more you think about it.

- Most normal people are like, no higher than level 5. So that's like, maybe 6-8 languages? Seems about right. By the time you're level 14, you're like, demigod level. I sure hope that if you're a demigod level linguist you know a ton of languages.

- Golarion is a region with an awful lot of cultures in a relatively small area. It's closer to Europe than America. So it makes sense to see more languages able to be learned rather than less.

- Apparently it took longer to level up in old editions. Perhaps it's a holdover from that, where there was an actual assumption that players took time off to actually practice their skills in between adventures. Note that this is just hypothetical because PF was my first exposure to D&D.

-That just leaves the problem of going from 0 to "I know everything", which I just have to chalk up to the game requiring a level of abstraction. As a GM you are perfectly within your rights to require some degree of practice and track stages of learning, especially if you think the party will have a lot of downtime for personal development. I wouldn't restrict the number of max languages any further than Linguistics normally does, because that's just a buff to magic that magic doesn't need.

The Exchange

Sundakan wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I'll suggest a homebrew alternative for you, DungeonmasterCal... It involves more paperwork and more tracking of in-game time, but has the advantage of not being level-related...
Could you imagine if you had to go through this ridiculous process every time you took a rank in Acrobatics or something? It makes the skill functionally unusable... Are there no tinkers, traveling merchants, or old storytellers in your universe? No travel guidebooks?... It makes no sense from ANY type of game point of view. That narrow focus is what the Lore Background Skill was invented for.

I understand your objections, Sudakan. You prefer the rules as written: so do I, for most campaigns. But a campaign in which language barriers are supposed to play a role needs a different approach.

Your attempted comparison to Acrobatics fails, partly because Acrobatics isn't subject to hundreds of regional variations, but mainly because I never suggested applying this process to any other skill.

Learning the language secondhand - or from books - are both valid methods, of course! They count as 'daily exposure to the language'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I'll suggest a homebrew alternative for you, DungeonmasterCal... It involves more paperwork and more tracking of in-game time, but has the advantage of not being level-related...
Could you imagine if you had to go through this ridiculous process every time you took a rank in Acrobatics or something? It makes the skill functionally unusable... Are there no tinkers, traveling merchants, or old storytellers in your universe? No travel guidebooks?... It makes no sense from ANY type of game point of view. That narrow focus is what the Lore Background Skill was invented for.

I understand your objections, Sudakan. You prefer the rules as written: so do I, for most campaigns. But a campaign in which language barriers are supposed to play a role needs a different approach.

Your attempted comparison to Acrobatics fails, partly because Acrobatics isn't subject to hundreds of regional variations, but mainly because I never suggested applying this process to any other skill.

Learning the language secondhand - or from books - are both valid methods, of course! They count as 'daily exposure to the language'.

Its the fact that you didn't suggest applying the process to other skills that makes it even worse to be quite honest. 7500 gold + some gets you permanent tongues and bypasses your complex linguistics system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PK the Dragon wrote:
-I wouldn't restrict the number of max languages any further than Linguistics normally does, because that's just a buff to magic that magic doesn't need.

Is the main issue with putting any extra limits on learning languages: as it is Linguistics is considered a fairly weak skill outside of intrigue campaigns where you can get good mileage out of its forgery applications. There's a reason Unchained put it in the Background Skill category.

Adding lots of extra resource investment and complication to learning a new language is likely to result in a lot of players just ignoring Linguistics completely, and relying on starting languages and magic to cover what they need. Comprehend languages and tongues are both low-level spells with long enough duration to handle most tasks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You fundamentally want to ask yourself "Is it supposed to be hard to talk to people in this game?" If it's an "exploring new civilizations sort of game" then having some difficulty in communication is probably a good thing. On the other hand, if it's a standard sort of fantasy campaign someone who invests in the linguistics skill should pretty much be able to talk to anybody they meet. After all, there's not much gained from having the party encounter an NPC and nobody in the party is able to communicate with them.

The Exchange

Agreed, PB. For some - most! - campaigns, the rules in the CRB work well enough.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
...Your attempted comparison to Acrobatics fails... mainly because I never suggested applying this process to any other skill...
It's the fact that you didn't suggest applying the process to other skills that makes it even worse to be quite honest. 7500 gold + some gets you permanent tongues and bypasses your complex linguistics system.

The thread is about Linguistics, not about general skill system changes or magical ways to circumvent the skill.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Magical ways to circumvent the skill" is very much on topic. It undermines your point completely.

If the point is to make the skill harder to use, you have just made the Tongues spell more valuable, and people will eschew your overly complicated, overly punitive rules set to just cast that spell.

If the point is to "make communication hard", you have failed. You have made the Linguisitics skill difficult to use, and people will eschew your overly complicated, overly punitive rules set to just cast that spell.

The Exchange

Any form of the skill has the same magical workarounds. Pointing out that the system I offered can be circumvented is entirely true, but not relevant. That objection applies just as well to the system in the core rulebook, or to any other house-ruled system.

You consider the system I suggested "overly complicated" and "overly punitive?" Those are fair criticisms. Perhaps that's why I stated right out of the gate that it involves more paperwork and closer tracking of in-game time.

You feel that I have failed to make communication hard? Thank you.


A thought-

Since Golarion (and many other worlds this game takes place) massively simplify a great number of philosophical issues by making good and evil objective, observable, and measurable things, it's conceivable that they've likewise simplified questions within the philosophy of language.

Specifically, perhaps in the Metaphysics of the Pathfinder game setting, there are in fact a set of objective and agreed upon concepts (perhaps corresponding to planes of existence.) So that translating from one language to another is as simple as looking up "what word do they use for [this concept] in that other language." This is obviously not true for the real world, but if direct translation were as simple as a table-lookup in Golarion, then it would be vastly easier to learn a whole bunch of languages than it is on earth.

I'm not entirely certain how to get around Quine's indeterminacy of translation argument, but perhaps there would only be a finite concepts "gavagai" could possibly represent, so this could be figured out via exhaustion.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5th level is Earth max.

Some people have taken feats to learn to speak more than five languages.

Pathfinder characters level too fast.

Ergo, Linguistics is realistic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

This is an interesting discussion... but at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself just how much "gritty realism" you want in your epic fantasy game.

I work in language learning, and no system we come up with here can accurately represent the complexities of language learning in an intensely polylingual environment like Golarion. I mean, there are dozens of regional "human" languages, dozens of racial languages - which begs the question of why humans who live 500 miles away have a totally different language, but goblins all speak "goblin". Not to mention the dozens of magical or planar languages.

And some folks are constitutionally unsuited to language learning, and will never get their heads around more than the most basic vocabulary, while for others, picking up new languages will be easy.

For a while, I entertained the notion of having PCs acquire languages gradually. You would still get one new language per skill point spent, but you would have three or four collumns for your languages: beginner, intermediate, advanced and native speaker. At acquisition, a new language would automatically go into the lowest skill category, and each time you advance a level or have a month of game time pass, you can advance one or more languages along the fluency track.

When I tried to explain the system to my first guinea pig player... he just looked at me funny. So I chucked the lot.

This said, our hobby was inspired by linguists. Don't forget the love Tolkein poured into his Elvish and Dwarvish tongues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Any form of the skill has the same magical workarounds. Pointing out that the system I offered can be circumvented is entirely true, but not relevant. That objection applies just as well to the system in the core rulebook, or to any other house-ruled system.

You consider the system I suggested "overly complicated" and "overly punitive?" Those are fair criticisms. Perhaps that's why I stated right out of the gate that it involves more paperwork and closer tracking of in-game time.

You feel that I have failed to make communication hard? Thank you.

The point is that the workarounds come pretty early (comprehend languages) and increase in value by comparison. 750 gold for a wand of comprehend languages is a way better investment than skill points in linguistics under your system. Players will figure that out pretty quickly.

Basically im saying that by adding more complexity to the system than it actually needs, you're just providing incentive to bypass it, and while yes it will eat into their resources some (generally at low level when they can least afford it) it wont take long for scrolls or wands to make it a GP issue rather than a character building one.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate to be the BADWRONGFUN guy, but really??

Make a few linguistics rolls. Have some funny misinterpretations. Next level, put a skill point in it, now you speak it, maybe with a funny accent or they can peg you as a non-native speaker.

Otherwise, just go game.

Punishing people for having the skill and trying to be really REAL about language while having flying dragons and damage resistance to swords and axes and fireballs and stuff is only making it harder for some people.

Punishing the spell casters by FORCING them to have to save a spell slot or two on Comprehend Languages or whatever is garbage too.

We are playing Pathfinder ffs, not "how can I make it harder for epic guys who slay dragons to have fits trying to talk to the people that need the dragon slayed".

Now, get off my lawn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Any form of the skill has the same magical workarounds. Pointing out that the system I offered can be circumvented is entirely true, but not relevant. That objection applies just as well to the system in the core rulebook, or to any other house-ruled system.

Any houserule to add realism has a tendency to exacerbate caster-martial disparity. There are many GMs who say things like "It's not realistic that you can survive a hundred foot fall on to rocks, no matter how many HP you have, so you die. Unless you have Feather Fall, of course."

I don't think it's a very serious issue in this case, but it's worth watching out for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And I think spells are also relevant because Linguistics suffers heavily from being completely superceded by a level 1 or 2 spell. Even Paizo admitted it's a weak skill when Unchained did Background skills.

Restricting the skill further is just kicking it while it's down.


After discussing this with my group, they decided to we should stick with the way we've been doing it, that every language requires its own linguistics slot and that the ranks in them determine your level of fluency. I let them make the decision, and it was unanimous.

Verdant Wheel

Maybe "Comprehend Languages" simply adds +1 rank to every language?


rainzax wrote:

5th level is Earth max.

Paul Robeson, football player, actor, orator, fluent speaker of 25 languages, and Rutgers Alumni, begs to differ.


Chengar Qordath wrote:

And I think spells are also relevant because Linguistics suffers heavily from being completely superceded by a level 1 or 2 spell. Even Paizo admitted it's a weak skill when Unchained did Background skills.

Restricting the skill further is just kicking it while it's down.

What folks seem to forget is that Comprehend Languages only allows understanding. It does not allow you to communicate in return.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

And I think spells are also relevant because Linguistics suffers heavily from being completely superceded by a level 1 or 2 spell. Even Paizo admitted it's a weak skill when Unchained did Background skills.

Restricting the skill further is just kicking it while it's down.

What folks seem to forget is that Comprehend Languages only allows understanding. It does not allow you to communicate in return.

I was just about to make the same point.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It is interesting that two PCs in my campaign want to advance their Linguistics skill for totally different reasons. One PC wants to become an expert forger but couldn't care less about learning additional languages. My PC, on the other hand, wants to learn every language she encounters but has no interest in forgery or anything else that requires an actual Linguistics check. It would be nice if there were some way we could each focus on what our characters actually want to learn without automatically picking up other stuff that we don't want.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

And I think spells are also relevant because Linguistics suffers heavily from being completely superceded by a level 1 or 2 spell. Even Paizo admitted it's a weak skill when Unchained did Background skills.

Restricting the skill further is just kicking it while it's down.

What folks seem to forget is that Comprehend Languages only allows understanding. It does not allow you to communicate in return.

Tongues is level 2 for bards, and allows for both speech and comprehension.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

And I think spells are also relevant because Linguistics suffers heavily from being completely superceded by a level 1 or 2 spell. Even Paizo admitted it's a weak skill when Unchained did Background skills.

Restricting the skill further is just kicking it while it's down.

What folks seem to forget is that Comprehend Languages only allows understanding. It does not allow you to communicate in return.

Which is why I said level 1 or 2, since Tongues is also a spell and does allow communicating in return. Comprehend still covers you for a lot of uses, like understanding written texts.

Granted, Tongues is slightly higher level on some lists—it's one of those spells that's all over the place in spell level.


Garrett Guillotte wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

And I think spells are also relevant because Linguistics suffers heavily from being completely superceded by a level 1 or 2 spell. Even Paizo admitted it's a weak skill when Unchained did Background skills.

Restricting the skill further is just kicking it while it's down.

What folks seem to forget is that Comprehend Languages only allows understanding. It does not allow you to communicate in return.
Tongues is level 2 for bards, and allows for both speech and comprehension.

Spells known slots are a precious limited quantity for Bards. Tongues isn't going to be a priority purchase for many. Nor are many 5th level wizards going to make tongues a primary candidate for purchase, or preparation unless they're Diviner specialists.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
rainzax wrote:

5th level is Earth max.

Paul Robeson, football player, actor, orator, fluent speaker of 25 languages, and Rutgers Alumni, begs to differ.

How do any of things break 5th level? He's probably an Investigator that used the retraining rules to gain a bunch of additional languages and started with a 20 INT. Started with 6 languages (1 + 5 bonus), had the Unintentional Linguist Trait (Terran probably), added on five ranks for 5 more, got an INT boosting item, retrained for 7 more languages, took the Guileful Polygot Rogue Talent for another 4, and finally took the Cosmopolitan feat. 25 Languages. No sweat. His other trait was probably Student of Philosophy.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

And I think spells are also relevant because Linguistics suffers heavily from being completely superceded by a level 1 or 2 spell. Even Paizo admitted it's a weak skill when Unchained did Background skills.

Restricting the skill further is just kicking it while it's down.

What folks seem to forget is that Comprehend Languages only allows understanding. It does not allow you to communicate in return.
Tongues is level 2 for bards, and allows for both speech and comprehension.
Spells known slots are a precious limited quantity for Bards. Tongues isn't going to be a priority purchase for many. Nor are many 5th level wizards going to make tongues a primary candidate for purchase, or preparation unless they're Diviner specialists.

In this hypothetical campaign where communicating with people is so important that the GM is nerfing an already weak skill?

Why WOULDN'T you prepare it or have it Permanencied?


Sundakan wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

And I think spells are also relevant because Linguistics suffers heavily from being completely superceded by a level 1 or 2 spell. Even Paizo admitted it's a weak skill when Unchained did Background skills.

Restricting the skill further is just kicking it while it's down.

What folks seem to forget is that Comprehend Languages only allows understanding. It does not allow you to communicate in return.
Tongues is level 2 for bards, and allows for both speech and comprehension.
Spells known slots are a precious limited quantity for Bards. Tongues isn't going to be a priority purchase for many. Nor are many 5th level wizards going to make tongues a primary candidate for purchase, or preparation unless they're Diviner specialists.

In this hypothetical campaign where communicating with people is so important that the GM is nerfing an already weak skill?

Why WOULDN'T you prepare it or have it Permanencied?

Why wouldn't you have a wand?


Ryan Freire wrote:
Why wouldn't you have a wand?

Good point.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Assuming a career diplomat is a level 4 Expert, this is actually one of the most realistic skill depictions in the game.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RJGrady wrote:
Assuming a career diplomat is a level 4 Expert, this is actually one of the most realistic skill depictions in the game.

I don't see any major problems with Linguistics, either. Sure, a character with high INT and max points sunk into Linguistics knows a lot of languages, and appears to snap up new ones at the drop of a hat. But that's all attributable to the level of abstraction involved in leveling up. If each level took a year of game time, fewer people would grouse about how Linguistics works.

One can easily "assume" that a character who likes learning languages has been working on those skills for a while before his level advancement actually gives him the in-game ability to use them. Some might call that "retconning", but I'd say it's simply adjusting the macro setting on the leveling mechanic.

Plus, how often do you want a party of players to be in a situation where they simply cannot communicate with their foes, or with various groups of NPCs? Doesn't that just nudge the PCs towards murderhobo behavior?


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

And I think spells are also relevant because Linguistics suffers heavily from being completely superceded by a level 1 or 2 spell. Even Paizo admitted it's a weak skill when Unchained did Background skills.

Restricting the skill further is just kicking it while it's down.

What folks seem to forget is that Comprehend Languages only allows understanding. It does not allow you to communicate in return.

But it allows reading stuff, which Tongues doesn't.


I use a 'ranks in' language system and the players have ha a great hand in it. 3 ranks is fluency and everyone gets a rank each level, though some classes get more (Bards). Skill points are usable, but not required. This allows for both overhearing basic conversation (1) and basic reading and writing (2) as well as actual fluency. Wizards get brevetted Draconic 3 with Scribe Scroll while Sorcerers only need and get Draconic 1. A Ranger gets a favored enemy's tongue at 2.

Having had an actual 6+ language lay person who differentiated seven (7!) different Chinese dialects in game partially spawned this and it works, Linguistics helps in translations and communication in unknown tongues. She even made up a Language Group chart for the campaign I still use, with x ranks in a group language counting as y ranks in the others: 5 ranks in 'Giant' is fluency in about a dozen languages.

The use of 'language in a game goes from the cruel of 'no, you cam't communicate of WoW to 'why even have it as everybody speaks, writes and composes poems in Common'. A game that makes the dreaded boogey man of different languages actually matter is the better for it. The Linguistics skill was a fast throwaway that has come back to bite so many times its more like gnawing. It is less a nuisance than grappling was in 3.0, but then a dragon raiding a town is too.

Consult your players and give them input. They can often produce better than exists. More brain cells and viewpoints are generally better. Our language rules took from the late 70s till the mid 90s to gel and only got revised in 2005. They make those odd languages workable and make real Linguists stand out.

Verdant Wheel

Bwang wrote:

I use a 'ranks in' language system and the players have ha a great hand in it. 3 ranks is fluency and everyone gets a rank each level, though some classes get more (Bards). Skill points are usable, but not required. This allows for both overhearing basic conversation (1) and basic reading and writing (2) as well as actual fluency. Wizards get brevetted Draconic 3 with Scribe Scroll while Sorcerers only need and get Draconic 1. A Ranger gets a favored enemy's tongue at 2.

Having had an actual 6+ language lay person who differentiated seven (7!) different Chinese dialects in game partially spawned this and it works, Linguistics helps in translations and communication in unknown tongues. She even made up a Language Group chart for the campaign I still use, with x ranks in a group language counting as y ranks in the others: 5 ranks in 'Giant' is fluency in about a dozen languages...

...Our language rules took from the late 70s till the mid 90s to gel and only got revised in 2005. They make those odd languages workable and make real Linguists stand out.

I would love to have a look at the full proposal!

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / So Let Me Get This Straight--Linguistics All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion