OSRIC Question, 400 Goblins!?

[Crow]

Trying to DM OSRIC for the first time, and now I am trying to stock my first dungeon. So I start by just rolling on the random encounter table, and get Goblins. Ok, sounds good. How many? 2d10??? That can be a lot of goblins for a party to handle at first level.

So I flip to the monsters section to check out the stats. Under "number encountered", I find it reads "40d10"! That could be up to 400 goblins. What am I missing here?

[Rogue Shadows]

So I flip to the monsters section to check out the stats. Under "number encountered", I find it reads "40d10"! That could be up to 400 goblins. What am I missing here?

Earlier editions care not for your modern conceptions of balance. Roll yon dice and that is how many goblins there are in the dungeon.

(out of morbid curiosity, I just rolled 40d10 and got 192 goblins).

Remember that it was a defualt assumption of older versions of D&D that the vast majority of characters that players rolled up would die. One need look no further than Tomb of Horrors for confirmation of this. Earlier editions really were DM VS Player, with the DM actively trying to kill the player characters, albeit with the assumption that they would do so within the rules.

Note as well that the players could always run away and then come back later after levelling, or try to take down the dungeon piecemeal rather than in one go. Defeating a dungeon with 400 goblins in it (or even just 192) is practically a campaign unto itself.

[ufo]

Not familiar with the scenario, but it seems like a test of the party's situational awareness - ie., "pick your battles".

Running like hell and escaping in creative ways can make for wonderful encounters!

[Crow]

Ah, that is for the whole dungeon. That makes more sense and is more reasonable.

[hamlet]

1. Do not take Tomb of Horrors as an object in Dungeon Design Philosophy. It is not that. It is an object lesson in how Gary the GM smacked down a handful of jerk min-max players who sassed him and badmouthed his game. Basically, it's Gary's version of a giant middle finger aimed squarely at them and not really intended to be anything else. Commonly forgotten nowadays.

2. It really is up to 400 goblins, but to understand it, you have to understand some of the old school philosophy. In the old days, you didn't create a blank dungeon, and then roll monsters into it. You started with maybe a room or five, then started rolling some monsters into it, which would then help to shape your dungeon further and improve it.

Yeah, you might roll 400 goblins, but then you get the fun task of figuring out why they're all there. Where they all fit (i.e., create more rooms for them to inhabit) and further transform the dungeon into something living.

Maybe they're an entire tribe that is at war with a tribe of kobolds on a lower level. Maybe they're digging for an artifact.

Who knows?

Roll the dice and then figure out what they could mean rather than getting hung up on "that's lots of goblins!"

Or, simply decide "I only want a couple goblins here, 10 sounds about right."

[Rogue Shadows]

1. Do not take Tomb of Horrors as an object in Dungeon Design Philosophy. It is not that. It is an object lesson in how Gary the GM smacked down a handful of jerk min-max players who sassed him and badmouthed his game. Basically, it's Gary's version of a giant middle finger aimed squarely at them and not really intended to be anything else. Commonly forgotten nowadays.

Really, Tomb is only the most famous example. AD&D is loaded with examples of modules that had absolutely no interest in ensuring player character survival.

The fleeting life of player characters was actually part of the fun...

[hamlet]

Really, Tomb is only the most famous example. AD&D is loaded with examples of modules that had absolutely no interest in ensuring player character survival.

The fleeting life of player characters was actually part of the fun...

The purpose of the module was not to ensure character survival. That was the function of the player.

Ya goobs.:smalltongue:

[Jay R]

Trying to DM OSRIC for the first time, and now I am trying to stock my first dungeon. So I start by just rolling on the random encounter table, and get Goblins. Ok, sounds good. How many? 2d10??? That can be a lot of goblins for a party to handle at first level.

So I flip to the monsters section to check out the stats. Under "number encountered", I find it reads "40d10"! That could be up to 400 goblins. What am I missing here?

Several things. First of all, that's how many you find in their lair, which is traditionally a village.

Secondly, don't worry about 400 goblins. 99% of the time you'll get 262 or fewer.

Third, when you meet over 200 goblins, don't attack. The world is full of things you shouldn't stick your noses into. The correct response to many encounters is to run away.

Fourth, a higher level player, say level ten, will have a hundred or more warriors. This encounter is for him.

Fifth, you do not stock your dungeon with random encounters, you plan it.

And finally, the rules are grossly incomplete. Throw them out at will. Goblins do not live in a dungeon next to beholders and other monsters. If they are there, then they are just passing through. Make it a party of ten goblin messengers, quivering in their boots hoping to deliver their king's message and get out alive.

[LibraryOgre]

And finally, the rules are grossly incomplete. Throw them out at will. Goblins do not live in a dungeon next to beholders and other monsters. If they are there, then they are just passing through. Make it a party of ten goblin messengers, quivering in their boots hoping to deliver their king's message and get out alive.

Or they're slaves to the beholder.

For me, a great example is the Caves of Chaos in Keep on the Borderlands. You have a number of disparate humanoids (gnolls, bugbears, two tribes of orcs, kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, along with an ogre, a minotaur, and a owlbear) living in a VERY small area. Why are they all together? What keeps them from killing each other, and what keeps them around?

For me, the obvious answer is that the evil priests keep them around and more-or-less in line. It's not a perfect alliance, but it's one unstable enough that the players don't need to kill everyone.

The orcs allied together, and have a loose, IIRC, connection with the gnoles. The goblins serve the hobgoblins and pay the ogre. The bugbears do their own thing, and the kobolds are trying desperately to not be destroyed by anyone having a bad day. Everyone respects the owlbear, and mostly leaves it alone. They're all scared of the clerics, and I had the minotaur be their creation.

How did the players mess this up? Well, they started by convincing the minotaur to take out the ogre (bribed him with owlbear meat and new armor from their Cleric of Gond), which emboldened the orcs. They then killed the gnoles, who were independent enough that the orcs were just made nervous. Sending the minotaur against the bugbears (in exchange for, IIRC, a good shield) let them further destabilize things, and opened them up to framing the murder of one group of orcs on orcs from another tribe. Civil war resulted in a conflict the hobgoblins and the goblins, leaving them easy pickings for the PCs.

Know your politics, and let players explore them.

[Crow]

What advice should I give to my players before playing their first old-school session?

I have played 2nd edition d&d, and would prolly run if I encountered even 10 goblins, let alone 262! If I remember correctly, 10 goblins has a good chance of getting some kills.

Now as DM, should I eyeball the monsters and design the encounters for what I think the group should handle? Or should I run with the (for example) 2d10 goblins and let the party figure it out, for that old-school feel?

[hamlet]

What advice should I give to my players before playing their first old-school session?

I have played 2nd edition d&d, and would prolly run if I encountered even 10 goblins, let alone 262! If I remember correctly, 10 goblins has a good chance of getting some kills.

Now as DM, should I eyeball the monsters and design the encounters for what I think the group should handle? Or should I run with the (for example) 2d10 goblins and let the party figure it out, for that old-school feel?

Advice for players, the best I ever received or gave, is thus: Know when to hold em, know when to fold em.

Teach them to know when to tuck tail and run like scared children and that there's no shame in it. Teach them to use their brains rather than the numbers on the character sheets (i.e., reward them for having interesting and good ideas on how to defeat a group of monsters without a toe to toe fight by having it actually work even if, especially if, you didn't think of it before).

The answer to your second question is "yes." Yes, you basically have to, at this point, eyeball the encounters until you get a better feel for that particular party. And as you go along, you learn as much about them as they learn about you. Then you'll feel more confident about what you can throw at them with what results. And if you screw up and throw a little too much? Them's the breaks.

And yes, 10 goblins, especially armed with shortbows from behind an archery blind or from sniping points in trees, are very dangerous. Nets. Pit traps. Etc. etc. etc.

[LibraryOgre]

Advice for players, the best I ever received or gave, is thus: Know when to hold em, know when to fold em.


You gotta know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to sneak away
Know when to run.
You never count your treasure
When you're sittin' in the dungeon
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the crawl is done.

Yep... I gotta write it all out.

[kaomera]

Ah, that is for the whole dungeon. That makes more sense and is more reasonable.
Well, if you put 400 goblins into a single 10' x 10' room, the main challenge is going to be getting the door open. After that, as long as the party has access to a shovel, getting the treasure may be a bit time-consuming, but should not be awful difficult.

Tomb of Horrors was a competitive tournament dungeon. It certainly showcased some of Gary's DMing philosophy, but it was seriously slanted towards being as challenging as possible, most other considerations taking a back-seat.

My advice for old-school play would be: players must abide by the rules, characters should always strive to cheat their way to victory. Avoid engaging on the enemy's terms, always strive to avoid anything that might be mistaken for a fair fight. Isolate individual enemies and gang up on them. Turn them against one-another. Steal their treasure and then just leave (XP values for defeating monsters are not worth wasting your time on). Poison their food and / or water supply. Find the secret exit to the dungeon and go in the back way. Use oil - lots of it; if you can fill the dungeon they'll all drown and you'll never even need to light it!
(Note: from personal experience I can attest that the last of those isn't really that great of a tactic. Hilarious, yes. Cost-effective, not so much. And definitely do not set the oil alight if you think you might be standing above part of the dungeon complex...)

[potatocubed]

My advice for old-school play is to give out XP for treasure found and explain that the idea is for the characters to get in, grab as much loot as possible, and get out alive.

'Clearing the level' of monsters is asking for trouble.

Clearing the level of gold is much more the right idea.

[LibraryOgre]

My advice for old-school play is to give out XP for treasure found and explain that the idea is for the characters to get in, grab as much loot as possible, and get out alive.

'Clearing the level' of monsters is asking for trouble.

Clearing the level of gold is much more the right idea.

You're not so much "questing heroes" as "well-armed house robbers". ;-)

[Jay R]

What advice should I give to my players before playing their first old-school session?

This isn't a school playground; it's a fantasy world. Lots of things here are bigger than you. They can kill you, and will if you let them.

Luke doesn't go fight Darth Vader; he runs.

Frodo doesn't fight the Black Rider in the Shire; he runs.

Lucy, Susan and Edmund don't fight the wolves; they run.

There are no Challenge Ratings. The monster in the room isn't one who was measured to make sure you can kill it; it's the one who lives there.

[Rogue Shadows]

Luke doesn't go fight Darth Vader; he runs.

Um...no he doesn't. That was the problem. I mean, yeah, in Episode IV he ran from Vader, but he was also running from a billion Stormtroopers. But in EpV, he didn't run, despite Yoda and Obi-wan both telling him he was an idiot for trying to take on Vader.

...of course, he then had his hand cut off, lost his ancestral daisho, gained a derrangement, got a disturbing number of DSPs, and must of been at 0 HP by the time Falcon showed up, so I suppose the point is made regardless.

[nedz]

I'm not sure about what is in OSRIC and what isn't, but in the 1E MM these 400 Goblins would have been described as a tribe. This would have been broken down further into women, children, warriors, shamen etc.

The module asks for 2-20 Goblins, which is probably a patrol of warriors/scouts.

Incidently you don't say what level your party is? I would expect high level parties to treat 400 goblins as a meer nuisance.

[Particle_Man]

The real challenge with 400 goblins is finding an appropriate name and backstory for each of them. :smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

The real challenge with 400 goblins is finding an appropriate name and backstory for each of them. :smallbiggrin:

Once the forestory is "fried by fireball", the backstory becomes less urgent.

[Crow]

for 2-20 Goblins, which is probably a patrol of warriors/scouts.

Incidently you don't say what level your party is? I would expect high level parties to treat 400 goblins as a meer nuisance.

Level 1. With rolled hp.

[nedz]

Level 1. With rolled hp.

1st level party - Right.

You are the DM which means that you are allowed to fudge dice rolls. And the one you fudge is the 2d10 roll for the number of goblins.

Reason:
20 goblins = TPK/party run away = end of dungeon.
Actually there is a sliding scale here (the precise numbers here are just guesses) 5-10 gobins = party stay and fight = TPK, 11+ = party run away.

For a random encounter I'd probably throw 2 or 3 goblins at them.
Since you are using a random encounter table here: goblins are going to come up again, and you can always increase the number next time.

[Matthew]

The Monster Manual "number encountered" figures are indeed for a whole lair, and not supposed to be used outside of randomly generating the contents of wilderness hexes. Best to think of them as "orders of battle" for a war game.

[Premier]

1st level party - Right.

You are the DM which means that you are allowed to fudge dice rolls. And the one you fudge is the 2d10 roll for the number of goblins.

Reason:
20 goblins = TPK/party run away = end of dungeon.
Actually there is a sliding scale here (the precise numbers here are just guesses) 5-10 gobins = party stay and fight = TPK, 11+ = party run away.

For a random encounter I'd probably throw 2 or 3 goblins at them.
Since you are using a random encounter table here: goblins are going to come up again, and you can always increase the number next time.

Sorry, but I think that's just bad advice.

One, you don't fudge the rolls. You're able to, but you shouldn't. Once you start fudging to compensate for "honest bad luck", it's a slippery slope to fudging to compensate for the players' poor decison, and at that point it's no longer a game with challenge and a sense of accomplishment but a pointless excercise in feel-good self-aggrandizement.

Two, "20 goblins = TPK/party run away = end of dungeon" is just plain wrong math. Correctly it's

20 goblins = TPK OR the party runs away and explores some other, equally fun part of the dungeon OR they sneak past the goblins and nab their loot OR they negotiate passage with them to get to the motherlode OR they lure some monster that way and have it kill the goblins OR any one of numerous other options. OR they risk it all and actually get lucky and live to tell an awesome tale, 20 goblins are absolutely not unsurvivable if the party's smart and slightly lucky.

[nedz]

Well maybe my language was a little colourful but I do think one should avoid throwing overpowered random encounters at a 1st level party. I am aware that this is a very old debate, and it is certainly a valid play style to do that, but it is one the OP did seem reticent about using.

It is a question about DMing style really: Do you want to throw interesting and challanging encounters at the party, or are you a slave to the dice ?

The former should produce an interesting and challanging game, whilst the latter will get you a certain reputation.

IIRC the table states 2-20 anyway, and not 2d10. YMMV with this.

Having gone and read the OP again, which is always a good thing to do, it seems that he is using the random encounter table to populate his dungeon.

I guess filling a small complex with 2-20 goblins spread over a number of locations would be a little different to meeting such a group all at once. This would also allow you to vary the difficulty as more and more goblins arrived, or not. It could also make the goblins more interesting both tactically as well as from a RP point of view.

Again though I think the DM should choose how many goblins (or whatever) to use.

[Premier]

The former should produce an interesting and challanging game, whilst the latter will get you a certain reputation.

I think your statement underlines the fundamental difference between how WotC (and WotC-D&D weaned players) think about the game and how pre-WotC editions and gamers do.

You implicitly state, possibly not deliberately but I daresay without conscious critical reflection, that having the "correct" toughness for encounters (the "Challenge Rating", if you will), determines whether your game is "interesting and challenging" or not. This notion, in turn, is founded on the assumption that an "encounter" is something the party is supposed to attack and defeat in direct combat; and that if a party can't attack and defeat it in such, it is "overpowered".

However, these are all notions that only really cropped up with WotC's editions of the game. In old D&D, an encounter is not an in-game unit of combat; rather, it's an open-ended situation. In the case of a large number of goblins, I've already outlined several of "dealing with the encounter" (that is, resolving the situation), but others are also possible: for example, retreating from the dungeon, striking a deal with a nearby lord and leading his men to the goblin nest is an equally valid way of dealing with the situation as charging in and duking it out.

Therefore, it's pointless to say that "the encounter is too hard", because all that means is that the players are insisting on applying one single (and inappropriate) approach to the situation. And, as it were, all the non-direct-combat approaches are at least as interesting and challenging as the fight.


As a slight aside, let me offer the following as a parallel: imagine an 3E/4E game where the party mixes it up with some fiery elemental-like monsters. Every round, the wizard casts Fireball (or some other fire spell), the fighter attacks with his Flametongue sword, and the third PC tries to grapple and wrestle the elementals, burning himself in the process. Then once the fight is over, they complain to the DM that the encounter was too hard.
Well, it wasn't too hard, they just consistently made poor choices of action: had the wizard cast some watery spell, the fighter used some other weapon (maybe an ice-related one) and the third PC, I don't know, maybe attacked with ranged weapons, it would have been much, much easier.

I'm talking about the same thing, only on a large scale: just as it is the player's responsibility to realise when to use a watery spell instead of Fireball, so it is also the player's responsibility to realise when to invent a solution that does not involve combat. A non-combat solution is not any "worse" or "less relevant" than combat, just like a watery spell is not any worse or less relevant than Fireball.

[Knaight]

I'm talking about the same thing, only on a large scale: just as it is the player's responsibility to realise when to use a watery spell instead of Fireball, so it is also the player's responsibility to realise when to invent a solution that does not involve combat. A non-combat solution is not any "worse" or "less relevant" than combat, just like a watery spell is not any worse or less relevant than Fireball.

In the case of a mere 20 goblins, there's absolutely no reason not to just kill them all, it just takes tactics. Lure them above ground, hop on your horses, demonstrate your superior fire power at range, cut them down when they flee. Done. Granted, non combat situations can often be fun, but 20 goblins isn't something that absolutely demands them. Besides, combat often transitions into running away well - a well placed arrow or thrown dagger to a tribe leader followed by beating feet can be remarkably effective.

[Premier]

Yeah, but that's besides the point I'm making. I'm talking about the general process; it could just as well be 30 or 40 goblins.


And don't make it sound so simple, you might draw the attention fo Tucker's kobolds...

[Knaight]

Yeah, but that's besides the point I'm making. I'm talking about the general process; it could just as well be 30 or 40 goblins.


And don't make it sound so simple, you might draw the attention fo Tucker's kobolds...

Eh, Tucker's kobolds have flaws. It sounds like it would be rather difficult to make their lair watertight, for example, and a nearby lake is all it takes to demonstrate why that is a flaw. The reason they worked as well as they did was that the players were trying to get in a head on fight and they refused to do so, but they're a pinned down defensive force by nature. Now, if you take something equivalent but use fast, flying creatures...

[Premier]

Eh, Tucker's kobolds have flaws. It sounds like it would be rather difficult to make their lair watertight, for example, and a nearby lake is all it takes to demonstrate why that is a flaw. The reason they worked as well as they did was that the players were trying to get in a head on fight and they refused to do so, but they're a pinned down defensive force by nature.

See, this is what I'm talking about... :smallbiggrin:

[LibraryOgre]

Eh, Tucker's kobolds have flaws. It sounds like it would be rather difficult to make their lair watertight, for example, and a nearby lake is all it takes to demonstrate why that is a flaw. The reason they worked as well as they did was that the players were trying to get in a head on fight and they refused to do so, but they're a pinned down defensive force by nature. Now, if you take something equivalent but use fast, flying creatures...

My problem with Tuckers comes from resources. If you do a Tucker's-esque thing, with the kobolds spending their treasure on the resources to build their Jigsaw house, no problem. But the version I saw had them spending far more then kobolds are ever gonna have... like a random goblin having full plate and a +5 sword. Sure, there may be a story behind it, but if you come upon it at random...

[kaomera]

My problem with Tuckers comes from resources. If you do a Tucker's-esque thing, with the kobolds spending their treasure on the resources to build their Jigsaw house, no problem. But the version I saw had them spending far more then kobolds are ever gonna have... like a random goblin having full plate and a +5 sword. Sure, there may be a story behind it, but if you come upon it at random...
Over-equipping monsters is not traditional ''Tucker's syndrome'' (at least as far as what I've read / heard over the years). The resource issue that does come up is that Tucker-ized monsters tend to inhabit dungeons geared to augment their tactics. PCs would find themselves facing kobolds who fled into passages too small for anything but a halfling to follow, collapsing passages behind or even upon them, and peppering them with dropped stones from murder-holes in the ceiling. Thrown rocks are cheap, and kobolds usually have numbers on their side, it's then just a matter of preventing the PCs from retreating and reducing their ability to actually thin those numbers to the greatest extent possible.

But WBL can certainly introduce some wrinkles of it's own... I've had players lobby that monsters should have the same amount of gear as a similarly-leveled PC (I think they expected that just meant more loot for them?). And it is possible to tailor treasure to be maximally effective for the monsters, while not so much so once in the hands of the PCs... Items designed for and exclusively usable by a specific specie of monster and therefore have to be sold off for a fraction of their nominal value, for instance. Any time the PCs end up selling off items and then buying new ones they are liable to end up losing value.

[Knaight]

My problem with Tuckers comes from resources. If you do a Tucker's-esque thing, with the kobolds spending their treasure on the resources to build their Jigsaw house, no problem. But the version I saw had them spending far more then kobolds are ever gonna have... like a random goblin having full plate and a +5 sword. Sure, there may be a story behind it, but if you come upon it at random...

The main thing is that they don't have the capacity to project force effectively by default. The jigsaw house of doom is wonderful, as it makes attacking them incredibly difficult, but when they can't project force that leaves them vulnerable to long term manipulations. However, an attack force is much more limited when it comes to terrain control, which cedes them their best advantage.

On the bright side, it is trivial to assign attack forces to Tucker's Kobolds. Anyone they are able to capture can concievably be turned to their side given enough, and when they're as deadly on defense as they are that might give them some fairly solid resources in the form of turned captives.

[Crow]

I'm going to just keep posting my OSRIC questions here. So here is my next one:

What role does the thief's ability to move silently and hide in shadows really play?

For instance, does moving silently just allow the thief to move noiselessly over surfaces that others can't (like dried leaves)? Does it allow the lone thief to always treat his opponents as surprised, or what? Basically, how do I adjudicate this ability any differently than other characters who are trying to be stealthy?

I assume hide in shadows does exactly what it says. So a thief wouldn't have to climb into a barrel of pickles to hide if there is shadowed areas nearby.

Thank you!

[Premier]

What role does the thief's ability to move silently and hide in shadows really play?

Well, this is where the old-school philosophy comes in: no matter what exact quotes you could scrounge up from the rulebooks, every DM will have his own exact interpretation and his own way of doing things.


For instance, does moving silently just allow the thief to move noiselessly over surfaces that others can't (like dried leaves)?

That's a reasonable interpretation.


Does it allow the lone thief to always treat his opponents as surprised, or what?

Another reasonable interpretation. The thief would almost certainly also get a backstab attack.

[Matthew]

What role does the thief's ability to move silently and hide in shadows really play?

They improve the chance to surprise. It is never indicated exactly by how much, though there is an example in the DMG of a silenced and invisible party getting a 4-in-6 chance to surprise, which is the same as the natural ability of an elf to surprise.

[hamlet]

Well, this is where the old-school philosophy comes in: no matter what exact quotes you could scrounge up from the rulebooks, every DM will have his own exact interpretation and his own way of doing things.


Precisely.

I've always held that there's just a qualitative difference between a thief's "move silently" ability and simply moving quietly.

Any idiot can sneak. A thief's ability is the ability to move utterly without sound.

If he blows his move silently roll, then he might still, with some luck, get a chance to just plain old move quietly and salvage the situation.

[Jay R]

What role does the thief's ability to move silently and hide in shadows really play?

For me, the biggest difference is how consistent you can be. Other people can sneak, but cannot count on it for ten minutes at a time. As a DM, I would assume that anybody else sneaking into an enemy camp had to roll to avoid each guard, to avoid the pile of rustling leaves, to avoid stepping on a stick, to avoid hitting his head on a branch, etc.

If the thief makes his roll once, I'd say, "OK, you make it to the back of the commander's tent. What do you do now?"

Also, if there's any degree of shadows and the guards aren't particularly vigilant, I wouldn't even require a roll.

[Crow]

Thank you for the feedback, guys. Another one:

The races list languages for each race. Does a character of that race get all those languages automatically? Or are those ones they can choose from with high intelligence?

[hamlet]

Thank you for the feedback, guys. Another one:

The races list languages for each race. Does a character of that race get all those languages automatically? Or are those ones they can choose from with high intelligence?

They get them all. The additional languages for high INT are exactly that, additional.

[kyoryu]

Sorry, but I think that's just bad advice.


This post is exactly correct IMHO and captures the essence of 1e.

20 goblins *is* an interesting encounter to a 1st-level party. It's not an encounter that the party can steamroll, and that's *exactly* what makes it interesting.

To deal with this, the players will have to think outside the box - find ways to splinter off smaller groups of goblins, ways to evade them, or even ally and negotiate with them.

[Matthew]

They get them all. The additional languages for high INT are exactly that, additional.

Yes, it is a confusing point from time to time. If I recall correctly they even changed it in second edition so that intelligence even limited the number of languages that previously were a "racial bonus".

[hamlet]

Yes, it is a confusing point from time to time. If I recall correctly they even changed it in second edition so that intelligence even limited the number of languages that previously were a "racial bonus".

Yep. And they created a very good set of rules, I thought, in that languages = non-weapon proficiency slots. You had to devote a slot to learning how to speak a new language (you got your own or common for free) and, in my game, a second to literacy. It made polyglots possible, but far from the norm. And it made a linguist wizard or bard very valuable.