I am working on a character concept for PFS that uses the Taunt feat to boast and demoralise his opponents, but I'm unsure if he would know which language to use.
I assume that the demoralize action must now be language dependent and I have taken appropriate steps for him to know as many languages as possible.
My question is: If my character is fluent in Giant (or some other language), would he know to use that language to taunt a Troll (or other appropriate monster)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say he would certainly know if he hears the enemy talk, otherwise he'd have to roll a Knowledge check
Even a Knowledge check wouldn't necessarily be a sure shot. A troll raised by humans would probably speak Taldane/Common instead of Giant.
I would argue that knowing a racial language would imply knowing at least the major races that speak it, since that's part of the culture associated with the language. For example, if I get off the plane in Chile, I will probably use what little Spanish I have, on the assumption that any random human there is Spanish-speaking. Where did I get that assumption? From my learning Spanish, which included the knowledge that most South Americans (except the Brazilians) speak Spanish.
I'd certainly be appalled and annoyed if the GM insisted that I make a Knowledge roll to realize that goblins spoke Goblin or treants spoke Treant.
Well, most Latinos don't speak Latin now, do they? :PEven a Knowledge check wouldn't necessarily be a sure shot. A troll raised by humans would probably speak Taldane/Common instead of Giant.
I would argue that knowing a racial language would imply knowing at least the major races that speak it, since that's part of the culture associated with the language. For example, if I get off the plane in Chile, I will probably use what little Spanish I have, on the assumption that any random human there is Spanish-speaking. Where did I get that assumption? From my learning Spanish, which included the knowledge that most South Americans (except the Brazilians) speak Spanish.
I'd certainly be appalled and annoyed if the GM insisted that I make a Knowledge roll to realize that goblins spoke Goblin or treants spoke Treant.
They just speak it extremely badly; sufficiently badly that Virgil would probably not understand them very well.
But, then, Socrates would probably have problems talking to modern Athenians as well.
I would agree that knowledge of a language includes by default knowledge of those who speak it. Racial languages like Goblin or Giant should be self-evident, and it's no real secret that trolls are a race of giants.
Knowledge checks tend to focus on more abstruse information, like energy resistances, typical SU abilities and such like. Sure, you could be thrown off by a troll raised outside troll society and which did not speak troll at all, but such a situation would be a rare and remarkable exception.
Thanks people! I could certainly work with just knowing the basic races (goblin and orc certainly implies knowledge that those races speak them :) ). But it does sound like some table variation is possible, and I should ask GMs before starting scenarioa. If all else fails, perhaps I could just try goading monsters in different languages until I get a reaction, then go for a demoralize action.
Invest in knowledges. Leaning the language of draconic should tell you that it's used by.. well. dragons. But kobolds? Not so much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can bluff animals but take a penalty. Taunting a wolf might take the same penalty as bluffing one.
"your mother smells like a rotting carcass!
"Thank you! She rolled in it this morning.
Invest in knowledges. Leaning the language of draconic should tell you that it's used by.. well. dragons. But kobolds? Not so much.
That would be the ideal solution, but the character is a Cavalier without the skill points to spare
Do you really need a shared language to "Taunt" people? Definitely works in real life without a language, just sounds, faces and pointing.
While I can't find anything in the rules that says it is language dependant, the flavour of the feat certainly suggests that characters are using their words... I'm not sure now though. Would it be a bit cheesy to use taunt and a order of the cockatrice's dazzling display to demoralize without using a language that is understood?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taunting a wolf might take the same penalty as bluffing one.
Taunting their domesticated cousins is far easier- all you have to do is mime like you've thrown the ball when you actually still have it in your hand.
Is intimidate language dependent? I'm not seeing anything that prevents you gesturing. and nothing in taunt adds language dependency...
Also, don't you only have to share a language to use language dependent abilities? There is no explicit requirement to identify the correct language before-hand. I've certainly never had a GM require me to ID the language before hand, nor have I ever asked a player to do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, don't you only have to share a language to use language dependent abilities? There is no explicit requirement to identify the correct language before-hand.
I've always seen "share a language" interpreted to mean "use a shared language."
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to use a suggestion spell to give someone instructions in Aklo if they don't speak it. And the spell rules support this: "If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell fails."
That said, neither Intimidate nor Bluff are labelled as language-dependent, and Intimidate can specifically be used on animals that don't have language.
Also, don't you only have to share a language to use language dependent abilities? There is no explicit requirement to identify the correct language before-hand.I've always seen "share a language" interpreted to mean "use a shared language."
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to use a suggestion spell to give someone instructions in Aklo if they don't speak it. And the spell rules support this: "If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell fails."
...
The point was I have never seen anyone ask you to identify the language of your target. If your target only speaks Aklo, and you have Aklo as a known language you can affect them with suggestion - no other checks required.
In all honesty I would probably look askance at a GM who asked me to do so, it seems to add nothing to the game except slow it down.
The point was I have never seen anyone ask you to identify the language of your target. If your target only speaks Aklo, and you have Aklo as a known language you can affect them with suggestion - no other checks required.
Also, don't you only have to share a language to use language dependent abilities? There is no explicit requirement to identify the correct language before-hand.I've always seen "share a language" interpreted to mean "use a shared language."
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to use a suggestion spell to give someone instructions in Aklo if they don't speak it. And the spell rules support this: "If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependent spell says, the spell fails."
...
<shrug>. I would probably be that GM at which you looked askance, then. If there's no reason for you to suspect that you share a language with a given creature, how would you know which language to say things in when you cast the spell?
Even a Knowledge check wouldn't necessarily be a sure shot. A troll raised by humans would probably speak Taldane/Common instead of Giant.
And what percentage of Trolls would that cover again?
With monsters, it's 99 with so many 9's in the decimal point that you're pretty good if you know their base monster language.
Humans however, might be the dicey point. You may come across some that are so insular that they don't know Common. Or if you're on another continent, the local Common might not be Taldane.
|
Knowledge tells you what you're facing, at which point its primary language and languages common to its subtype might be obvious enough that a GM would give them freely (but I can see cases where the fact that it speaks a language at all might be a non-obvious point of information).
It's come up elsewhere that if your character acquires something out of immediate adventuring time, such as learning a skill or buying an item of equipment from the market, he should have had the chance to find out what the relevant rulebook says in the description of that thing, such as that holy water harms undead or that dragons and reptilian humanoids speak Draconic.
|
|
Even a Knowledge check wouldn't necessarily be a sure shot. A troll raised by humans would probably speak Taldane/Common instead of Giant.
Sure. Monster lore won't tell you what an individual has learned. Unless you recognised that specific troll, Knowledge would tell you it should speak a troll's listed languages.
I figure it's reasonable to assume that a character who is intending to speak to/with/at will lead with the language they speak which they estimate has the highest probability of being understood by the listener.
So it's mostly going to be an issue of "Guess which language they speak" when you don't speak the language that they're most likely to speak and you need to figure out what other languages they have learned (e.g. most people on Golarion do not speak Triaxian, but some people on Triaxus do speak Draconian, so once we've figured that out, we can talk.) Alternatively, it's only an issue when you come across the rare Dwarf who speaks neither Dwarven nor Common, but only Aboleth and Vegepygmy.
Specifically, if you want it to be a thing where communication is not immediate and simple, you can. If you don't want to, don't.
I might occasionally ask for a knowledge check in case what exactly they're trying to address isn't obvious.
I figure it's reasonable to assume that a character who is intending to speak to/with/at will lead with the language they speak which they estimate has the highest probability of being understood by the listener.
That's my working assumption as well, possibly aided by questions for clarification. ("You're trying to cast suggestion on the troll. Are you using Common or Giant?" "Does it matter?" "It might." "Well, I don't speak Giant, so I guess it's Common, then." "Your spell doesn't seem to have any effect.") [N.b. bestiary-standard trolls do not have Common listed among their languages.] If someone said that, no, they wanted to try speaking to this particular troll in Ignan or Draconic,.... sure, what the hell.
The key question, though, is where that estimation comes from. Does everyone who speaks Sylvan know the entire list of things that speak it?
|
|
The key question, though, is where that estimation comes from. Does everyone who speaks Sylvan know the entire list of things that speak it?
To me that's clearly the province of Knowledge and, no, still wouldn't spit back the entire list, but require a check against the lore DC of the creature that calls it into question.
From the suggestion above, not originally mine,
Sylvan (centaurs, fey creatures, plant creatures, unicorns)
This, or any commonly known campaign-specific variation, is what a character knows by learning the language. Whether this creature he has never seen before is a unicorn or a rhinoceros, would be a Knowledge check.
Invest in knowledges. Leaning the language of draconic should tell you that it's used by.. well. dragons. But kobolds? Not so much.
One of the first lessons in learning a language would cover what races speak the language you are learning. Why else would you be learning the language?
One of the first lessons in learning a language would cover what races speak the language you are learning. Why else would you be learning the language?
To talk to the other thing that talks the language?
To talk to the other thing that talks the language?
One of the first lessons in learning a language would cover what races speak the language you are learning. Why else would you be learning the language?
Exactly. So you'd find out what races speak the language as part of learning the language.