Writing/Forging in a language I don't speak

[Trilby]

Hey playground,

Here's my question: Can I forge a document in a language that I 'speak' through application of the tongues spell?

Languages work as follows.
* You start at 1st level knowing one or two languages (based on your race), plus an additional number of languages equal to your starting intelligence bonus.
* You can purchase Speak Language just like any other skill, but instead of buying a rank in it, you choose a new language that you can speak.
* You don't make speak language checks. You either know a language or you don't.
* A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks. Each language has an alphabet, though sometimes several spoken languages share a single alphabetEmphasis mine.

Forgery is language dependent; thus, to forge documents and detect forgeries, you must be able to read and write the language in question. A barbarian can't learn the Forgery skill unless he has learned to read and write.Emphasis mine.

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 it's voice carries. This spell does not predispose any creature addressed toward the subject in any way.Emphasis mine.

I'm an arcane caster with access to both tongues and comprehend languages.
I have the document I want to forge and a forger's kit (and a base +19 forgery skill).
My conclusion is that this should work. Cast spell (10 min/CL), forge document (1 min/simple document, 1d4 min/page of a complex document), apply various modifiers, and let the DM make the check to set the DC to oppose by the reader. Could I take 20 on making the document? It'd take 20 minutes, but that may well be worth it (my cl allows the spell to last long enough).
If it's relevant, I also maxed Decipher script ('cause I like using scrolls),

[Mutazoia]

Forgery is language dependent; thus, to forge documents and detect forgeries, you must be able to read and write the language in question. A barbarian can't learn the Forgery skill unless he has learned to read and write.

Tongues let's you understand a language you do not know, and allows you to speak in that language, it does not impart the ability to read or write in the language.

"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 it's voice carries. This spell does not predispose any creature addressed toward the subject in any way."

(Emphasis mine.)

So sadly, the answer to your question is no it does not. And while Comprehend Languages would allow you to read a language you do not speak/are not literate in, it does not grant the ability to write in said language, and thus is useful for translation (to a language you ARE literate in) only.

[Telonius]

Tongues lets you speak and understand a language, but it doesn't give the ability to read and write it.

It would be a DM call to see if you could attempt it. Completely houserule territory here, but I might see giving the character a chance if they independently know the alphabet of the language in question. (The SRD has the table of which language uses which alphabet here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/speakLanguage.htm)). For example, if a character knows Elvish, they might have a shot at forging a document in Sylvan. However, even knowing a language and knowing the alphabet doesn't necessarily mean you know how to spell a given word in the language, unless it's a completely phonetic writing system. I'd apply a circumstance penalty to avoid posibul erors in speling.

[Somensjev]

i don't see a problem in it, i can see how people could say you can't, but to me it seems to be that you can

edit: the speak language skill is the deciding factor for me, pretty much, it's if i can speak it (and i'm literate), i can read/write it, if i can read/write it i can forge it

[Mutazoia]

For example, if a character knows Elvish, they might have a shot at forging a document in Sylvan. However, even knowing a language and knowing the alphabet doesn't necessarily mean you know how to spell a given word in the language, unless it's a completely phonetic writing system. I'd apply a circumstance penalty to avoid posibul erors in speling.

That would be like saying "I know Japanese so I can write in Chinese because the two share the same characters."

[Trilby]

Doesn't a literate character have the ability to read and write any language she speaks? Even temporary ones granted via Tongues?

[Somensjev]

That would be like saying "I know Japanese so I can write in Chinese because the two share the same characters."

ah, well, that depends on which japanese alphabet you use

and i believe it was more of "i know that these symbols makes these sounds, and i know that (insert word here) sounds like this, so i should use these symbols to spell it phonetically" which i believe is ok, but only with certain alphabets

[Duke of Urrel]

Strictly speaking, the Tongues spell doesn't grant you the ability to write in a foreign language that you don't already know.

However, there's a pretty easy workaround. Simply enlist the help of a creature that is literate in the language of the document you are trying to forge. By showing you how to write words in a language that you can only speak, this creature can enable you to use Forgery skill to create a document in that language. Indeed, if this creature has Forgery skill, I think most DMs will agree that this creature can take the Aid Another action and add +2 to your Forgery check.

[Trilby]

i don't see a problem in it, i can see how people could say you can't, but to me it seems to be that you can

edit: the speak language skill is the deciding factor for me, pretty much, it's if i can speak it (and i'm literate), i can read/write it, if i can read/write it i can forge it

This is my train of thought also.

[Somensjev]

Doesn't a literate character have the ability to read and write any language she speaks? Even temporary ones granted via Tongues?

that seems like an obvious answer, but as you can see, we're in the minority here


Tongues lets you speak and understand a language, but it doesn't give the ability to read and write it.

It would be a DM call to see if you could attempt it. Completely houserule territory here, but I might see giving the character a chance if they independently know the alphabet of the language in question. (The SRD has the table of which language uses which alphabet


Strictly speaking, the Tongues spell doesn't grant you the ability to write in a foreign language that you don't already know.


Tongues let's you understand a language you do not know, and allows you to speak in that language, it does not impart the ability to read or write in the language.

"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 it's voice carries. This spell does not predispose any creature addressed toward the subject in any way."

(Emphasis mine.)

i suggest you read the first spoiler and explain why that doesn't apply to tongues, it seems pretty conclusive to me

[Deophaun]

The general rule is that if you can speak a language, you can write a language. Tounges would therefore require wording that says you can speak but not write the language. As it lacks that language, tounges does allow you to read and write whatever language you learn from it.

[Mutazoia]

i don't see a problem in it, i can see how people could say you can't, but to me it seems to be that you can

edit: the speak language skill is the deciding factor for me, pretty much, it's if i can speak it (and i'm literate), i can read/write it, if i can read/write it i can forge it

LOL

Just because you can speak a language and can read and write your own does not mean you can read and write in the other language.

Case in point. I can speak (some) Japanese. I cannot read/write in anything but Romanji. Hiragana/Katagana are still garbledegook to me. My Grandparents were German. I can speak a smattering of German. I can't read/write any of it. Same thing with Spanish. I'm in Texas...kind of hard NOT to learn to speak SOME spanish. Doesn't mean I can read a lick of it..even the stuff I know how to say. In Chinese I can say Wo ai ne (I love you) but don't ask me to point it out in anything other than a phonetic spelling (like I just used) And English/German/Spanish all use roman characters, but the language structure is entirely different. You could possibly figure out the correct spelling of the words, but you would get the words in the wrong order, use the wrong masculine/feminine and conjugate your verbs improperly.

For instance if I write "My father kicked the lazy dog", in English lazy describes the dog and comes before the word dog. In Spanish lazy comes after the word dog (so read with English grammar rules would read "my father kicked the dog lazy" which we would translate to mean the dog was fine but my father kicked it and now it has brain damage.)

[Fouredged Sword]

I would allow it depending on WHAT you where forging.

Making a new thing out of whole cloth, no.

Putting a signature on a document that is unsigned? No problem if you have a copy of the signature to copy. You don't need to know any of the letters or what the document says, just where to put the squiggle and how to make said squiggle look.

Somewhere between those two, hefty penalties.

[Mutazoia]

that seems like an obvious answer, but as you can see, we're in the minority here







i suggest you read the first spoiler and explain why that doesn't apply to tongues, it seems pretty conclusive to me

Ok...a LITERATE character...Literate being the active word here. Literate means the ability to read and write, not just speak. SO...in order to be able to read and write in a language you need to be literate in it, correct? Tongues does not grant literacy. It's a babel fish....it translates audibly for you. It mentions NOTHING anywhere about gaining the ability to read. Comprehend languages gives you the ability to UNDERSTAND but not write in language unknown to you.

I can take you aside, point at a pretty Japanese girl and tell you to say "You are very beautiful" in Japanese and turn you loose. You are not going to be immediately able to write her a love letter.

[Deophaun]

Case in point. I can speak (some) Japanese. I cannot read/write in anything but Romanji.
Case in point: you are not a D&D character.

[Deophaun]

Ok...a LITERATE character...Literate being the active word here. Literate means the ability to read and write, not just speak.
No. Literate means "not a barbarian that has not spent skill points to become literate."

[Diarmuid]

Spending a skill point on Speak Language allows you to read and write the language.

Tongues says it grants the ability to speak/understand a language. While I can see the argument for "it doesnt say it lets you read/write", it does say "understand the language" and doesnt specify "understand the spoken language".

Using Speak Language as an example to pull from, the ability to speak a language also gives the ability to read/write the language.

At least that's how I would rule it.

[Mutazoia]

Case in point: you are not a D&D character.

ROFL...you did NOT just use that logic did you?



No. Literate means "not a barbarian that has not spent skill points to become literate."

Um....ok....seriously?

Ok ignoring you now.

[Somensjev]

Ok...a LITERATE character...Literate being the active word here. Literate means the ability to read and write, not just speak. SO...in order to be able to read and write in a language you need to be literate in it, correct? Tongues does not grant literacy. It's a babel fish....it translates audibly for you. It mentions NOTHING anywhere about gaining the ability to read. Comprehend languages gives you the ability to UNDERSTAND but not write in language unknown to you.

I can take you aside, point at a pretty Japanese girl and tell you to say "You are very beautiful" and turn you loose. You are not going to be immediately able to write her a love letter.

yes, literate, meaning you can read/write, not that you can read write a specific language, that would be literate in that language, it does not say that, it just says literate
therefore, if you have the ability to read/write at all then you can do so with any language that you can speak
does tongues let you speak a language? yes
can you read/write at all? yes
then you can read/write the language tongues gave you
and if you can read/write that language you can forge it

[Mutazoia]

Spending a skill point on Speak Language allows you to read and write the language.

Tongues says it grants the ability to speak/understand a language. While I can see the argument for "it doesnt say it lets you read/write", it does say "understand the language" and doesnt specify "understand the spoken language".

Using Speak Language as an example to pull from, the ability to speak a language also gives the ability to read/write the language.

At least that's how I would rule it.

Except that you are NOT spending a skill point on the language. You are (for a brief time) having the spoken language placed in your mind. I don't see how you can reason that you suddenly gain the benefits greater than that of the Comprehend Languages spell in addition to the effects of Tongues. (TONGUES = speaking not writing).



yes, literate, meaning you can read/write, not that you can read write a specific language, that would be literate in that language, it does not say that, it just says literate
therefore, if you have the ability to read/write at all then you can do so with any language that you can speak
does tongues let you speak a language? yes
can you read/write at all? yes
then you can read/write the language tongues gave you
and if you can read/write that language you can forge it

Except that you have to spend a skillpoint in a language before you can become literate in it. Tongues does not hand out free skill points.

[Telonius]

So, the two variant interpretations...

A)
1) Regular state: character cannot speak a language, must spend skill points to purchase knowledge of the language. After spending skill points, the character knows the language and can read and write it.
2) Spell changes regular state
3) Spell text allows character to speak and understand a language, but mentions nothing about reading or writing, or skill points
4) Because spell text does not specify, literacy is not granted.

B)
1) Regular state: character cannot speak or write a language, can read and write any language they speak
2) Spell changes regular state
3) Spell text allows character to speak a language
4) Because of 1), literacy is granted.

[Somensjev]

Except that you have to spend a skillpoint in a language before you can become literate in it. Tongues does not hand out free skill points.

except it doesn't say you have to be literate in a specific language, it just says you have to be literate, and that's the general rule, if you're literate you can read/write any language you can speak, and what does tongues do? i believe it lets you speak a language, and because of that general rule as long as you're literate you can read/write any language you can speak

[Deophaun]

Um....ok....seriously?

Ok ignoring you now.
Wow, ignoring someone for accurately stating the rules of the game. Very mature.

[geonova]

personally i'd allow it if you're using comprehend language, but not tongues, i'd also double the amount of time and supplies required to create the forgery due to your unfamiliarity with writing in that language.

[papr_weezl8472]

Tongues may not grant the ability to write in a language, but it certainly grants the ability to read it. Tongues grants the ability to understand any language. It does not specify spoken languages, and grants the ability to understand spoken Elven, written Draconic, sign language, whatever. It does specify that it grants the ability to speak the language rather than a more general term, so presumably does not let the target write or sign.

[Mutazoia]

except it doesn't say you have to be literate in a specific language, it just says you have to be literate, and that's the general rule, if you're literate you can read/write any language you can speak, and what does tongues do? i believe it lets you speak a language, and because of that general rule as long as you're literate you can read/write any language you can speak

So...basically your argument is "as soon as Tongues let's me speak a language I automatically get the effects of Comprehend languages as well and can read and write in that language." Then why do they bother with a Comprehend languages spell?

Well by that logic the Tongues spell also states that you can only speak one at a time. SO by your logic and literal translation you gain the ability (and literacy) of the new language and lose the ability to speak (and literacy in) all other languages for the spell duration, correct?


Wow, ignoring someone for accurately stating the rules of the game. Very mature.

More like ignoring your non-sense arguments like "your not a D&D character" If you have an argument that makes more sense, by all means present it.

[Trilby]

So, the two variant interpretations...

A)
1) Regular state: character cannot speak a language, must spend skill points to purchase knowledge of the language. After spending skill points, the character knows the language and can read and write it.
2) Spell changes regular state
3) Spell text allows character to speak and understand a language, but mentions nothing about reading or writing, or skill points
4) Because spell text does not specify, literacy is not granted.

B)
1) Regular state: character cannot speak or write a language, can read and write any language they speak
2) Spell changes regular state
3) Spell text allows character to speak a language
4) Because of 1), literacy is granted.

Would reading A technically not allow you to read/write in the languages that you speak from your race? Also, the text specifically states "Languages work as follows.", not "Only languages gained by spending skill points on them work as follows." This reasoning seems a bit contrived.
So I'm going to go with 'DM fiat will end this argument at the table'. At my table I will rule interpretation B, because magic and Occam's razor.

@Mutazoia: Yes you are right, I should have specified that I was talking about a D&D character (specifically a 3.5 one), not a real life situation. Consider the OP amended.

[Drachasor]

Well by that logic the Tongues spell also states that you can only speak one at a time. SO by your logic and literal translation you gain the ability (and literacy) of the new language and lose the ability to speak (and literacy in) all other languages for the spell duration, correct?

In general, people can only speak one language at a time. (But as with Tongues, they can potentially understand more than one at a time if more than one is spoken at once).

[Trilby]

A) So...basically your argument is "as soon as Tongues let's me speak a language I automatically get the effects of Comprehend languages as well and can read and write in that language." Then why do they bother with a Comprehend languages spell?

B) Well by that logic the Tongues spell also states that you can only speak one at a time. SO by your logic and literal translation you gain the ability (and literacy) of the new language and lose the ability to speak (and literacy in) all other languages for the spell duration, correct?


A: That seems reasonable, as it is a spell 2 slots higher. So it should be significantly more powerful that Comprehend Languages. I'd allow this.

B: Your logic is fallacious, speaking language A at one time has no implication whatsoever for my ability to speak language B at another time, say 2 seconds later (but within the duration of the Tongues spell). Tongues does forbid me to speak language A and B at the same time, however. It forces me to choose (which is expected normally, but as we are in a magic-altered state it is made explicit here). Or at least that's my take on it.

[Mutazoia]

Would reading A technically not allow you to read/write in the languages that you speak from your race? Also, the text specifically states "Languages work as follows.", not "Only languages gained by spending skill points on them work as follows." This reasoning seems a bit contrived.
So I'm going to go with 'DM fiat will end this argument at the table'. At my table I will rule interpretation B, because magic and Occam's razor.

@Mutazoia: Yes you are right, I should have specified that I was talking about a D&D character (specifically a 3.5 one), not a real life situation. Consider the OP amended.

You can most definitely house rule it any way you want, but interpretation A is the most logical, as in that instance a person has put effort (skill points) into gaining the ability to not only speak, but to read/write a given language. As I have pointed out, people can learn to speak a language with out reading/writing it. (yes yes I know, I'm silly for expecting some real world realities in a game that has always followed real world physics/law's unless otherwise stated in the rules.) By reading the text of the spell every word mentions SPEAKING. So pure audible translation. A magical version of Star Trek's Universal Translator. Nothing else...no other forms of communication. Just speaking. Hell it even states that you cannot communicate with someone who cannot doesn't speak. So if a person is a mute, or has his tongue cut out, or simply refuses to talk to you, you do not gain the ability to speak (and by your interpretation read/write) his language. SO...by THAT argument you have to be using Tongues to actively communicate with a person or creature that know's the language you are trying to forge in. NOW since with forgery you are attempting to write said language onto a piece of paper than cannot speak any language, your kind of screwed. :smallbiggrin:

Basically your arguing strict Literal translation of RAW in once instance (literacy) and then in another (Tongues) trying to argue loose interpretation. One way or the other please.

wait...you were talking about a game...you are implying that spells aren't real and that I'm not an 80th level Artificer/Dread Pirate? I think your losing your mind sir

[Somensjev]

So...basically your argument is "as soon as Tongues let's me speak a language I automatically get the effects of Comprehend languages as well and can read and write in that language." Then why do they bother with a Comprehend languages spell?

Well by that logic the Tongues spell also states that you can only speak one at a time. SO by your logic and literal translation you gain the ability (and literacy) of the new language and lose the ability to speak (and literacy in) all other languages for the spell duration, correct?



More like ignoring your non-sense arguments like "your not a D&D character" If you have an argument that makes more sense, by all means present it.

comprehend languages a level one spell, tongues a 2nd (bard), 4th (cleric), 3rd (wiz/sorc) spell
obviously you use comprehend language to understand written text at lower levels, or languages with no spoken dialect

edit: i also just realised that comprehend languages lets you understand the spoken language, but not to speak it, that's interesting

the tongues spell also says you may understand multiple languages at once, what you're saying is one thing is actually another, it means you can't say two different things at the exact same time, which is rather obvious, whereas you're saying that you may only speak one language for the duration of the spell, which is laughable at best

tongues says you may speak and understand a language, the general rule is, if you can speak a language you can read/write it, this has not been proven otherwise, and tongues has no specific ruling that says it doesn't work this way

and yes, i do have an argument that makes more sense, the one i've been saying this whole time

[Mutazoia]

comprehend languages a level one spell, tongues a 2nd (bard), 4th (cleric), 3rd (wiz/sorc) spell
obviously you use comprehend language to understand written text at lower levels, or languages with no spoken dialect

edit: i also just realised that comprehend languages lets you understand the spoken language, but not to speak it, that's interesting

Yes...an example where a spell description states that you can understand spoken AND written language...where as Tongues only mentions spoken language. Ergo your argument is invalid.


the tongues spell also says you may understand multiple languages at once, what you're saying is one thing is actually another, it means you can't say two different things at the exact same time, which is rather obvious, whereas you're saying that you may only speak one language for the duration of the spell, which is laughable at best

Well as you are arguing literal strict interpretation of the wording of a rule (as it applies to literacy) then you need to apply strict literal interpretation of the wording of a rule to your next argument (tongues). It states A) you can only speak one language at a time and nothing about switching back and forth at will. B) Exclusively mentions speaking/auditory communication and mentions nothing about literacy.


tongues says you may speak and understand a language, the general rule is, if you can speak a language you can read/write it, this has not been proven otherwise, and tongues has no specific ruling that says it doesn't work this way

And yet another nearly identical spell states that it covers hearing (but not speaking) and reading (but not writing) a language other than one you already know. As one description clearly spells out that you can understand both spoken and written communication, and the other only specifies spoken, it's logically safe to assume that the second (tongues) only does one thing...handle verbal communication only.

Just because a spell doesn't say it doesn't do a thing, doesn't me it automatically does. For example, water breathing specifically states that it doesn't make creatures unable to breath air. If it didn't state that then you could argue that casting water breathing on a person in the middle of the desert would suffocate them because then they would only be able to breath water.

[Trilby]

You can most definitely house rule it any way you want, but interpretation A is the most logical, as in that instance a person has put effort (skill points) into gaining the ability to not only speak, but to read/write a given language. As I have pointed out, people can learn to speak a language with out reading/writing it. (yes yes I know, I'm silly for expecting some real world realities in a game that has always followed real world physics/law's unless otherwise stated in the rules.) By reading the text of the spell every word mentions SPEAKING.

But this is my point: there are rules. Specifically those stated in the speak language skill. And yes, they differ from reality. As many things tend to do in D&D.
Also, the bit that talks about investing skill points in the rule specifically states:
"You can purchase Speak Language just like any other skill, but instead of buying a rank in it, you choose a new language that you can speak."
No mention of buying literacy whatsoever. In fact literacy is mentioned specifically beneath that to mean being able to read and write. Anyone but a barbarian without the skills invested can read/write any language that they speak specifically, not a language that they know.

Everybody, thanks for contributing :smallbiggrin:

[Somensjev]

Yes...an example where a spell description states that you can understand spoken AND written language...where as Tongues only mentions spoken language. Ergo your argument is invalid.

tongues does not specify only spoken languages, it says you may speak and understand a language, as opposed to comprehend languages which says you may understand the spoken words of a creature
i do believe that the word "understands" means more than just spoken things right?
and the rules are right on the first post, if you can speak a language you can read/write it


Well as you are arguing literal strict interpretation of the wording of a rule (as it applies to literacy) then you need to apply strict literal interpretation of the wording of a rule to your next argument (tongues). It states A) you can only speak one language at a time and nothing about switching back and forth at will. B) Exclusively mentions speaking/auditory communication and mentions nothing about literacy.


A) it doesn't say you can't, so we go back to the general rule, and i can only assume that the general rule for speaking is that you may switch to any language you can speak, of course, i have not actually seen this rule so it may or may not actually exist
B) yes, it does mention nothing about literacy, therefore we default to the general literacy rule, which is that you can read/write any language you can speak


And yet another nearly identical spell states that it covers hearing (but not speaking) and reading (but not writing) a language other than one you already know. As one description clearly spells out that you can understand both spoken and written communication, and the other only specifies spoken, it's logically safe to assume that the second (tongues) only does one thing...handle verbal communication only.

but tongue does not actually specify spoken, it says "you may speak, and understand the language of any intelligent creature

Just because a spell doesn't say it doesn't do a thing, doesn't me it automatically does. For example, water breathing specifically states that it doesn't make creatures unable to breath air. If it didn't state that then you could argue that casting water breathing on a person in the middle of the desert would suffocate them because then they would only be able to breath water. yes, exactly, if a spell doesn't say it can/can't do something then we go to the general rule, don't we? and the general rule, as i've said numerous times, is that you may read/write any language you can speak

answers are throughout the quote in bold

[Mutazoia]

But this is my point: there are rules. Specifically those stated in the speak language skill. And yes, they differ from reality. As many things tend to do in D&D.
Also, the bit that talks about investing skill points in the rule specifically states:
"You can purchase Speak Language just like any other skill, but instead of buying a rank in it, you choose a new language that you can speak."
No mention of buying literacy whatsoever. In fact literacy is mentioned specifically beneath that to mean being able to read and write. Anyone but a barbarian without the skills invested can read/write any language that they speak specifically, not a language that they know.

Everybody, thanks for contributing :smallbiggrin:

Yes...and you are interpreting THAT rule literally and strictly by RAW. You argue that this rule stats X so it means X not Y or X + Y, so that means the only choice we have is X. Then you hold up another rule and argue this rule states X but it means X+Y because it doesn't specifically state it doesn't do Y. (Even though other similar rules state they do X+Y or X not Y).

If your going to be strictly literal about literacy (no pun intended) then you have to be strictly literal about Tongues. You can mix and match your logic to get any result you want I suppose, but I'm never going to agree with it.


tongues does not specify only spoken languages, it says you may speak and understand a language, as opposed to comprehend languages which says you may understand the spoken words of a creature i do believe that the word "understands" means more than just spoken things right? and the rules are right on the first post, if you can speak a language you can read/write it

Speak and understand means you understand what is being said to you and can speak back in the same language. The spell wouldn't be very useful if you could only speak a language but not understand what was being said to you, right?


A) it doesn't say you can't, so we go back to the general rule, and i can only assume that the general rule for speaking is that you may switch to any language you can speak, of course, i have not actually seen this rule so it may or may not actually exist
B) yes, it does mention nothing about literacy, therefore we default to the general literacy rule, which is that you can read/write any language you can speak

A)Again you argue literal translation in one area and loose interpretation in another. These forums are riddled with threads about the rules not specifically saying they don't do something...just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't automatically mean you can.
B)But there are specific similar rules examples that specifically state that can cover speaking (hearing) and reading. So precedent states that Tongues, as it specifically leaves out literacy, does not impart literacy.


yes, exactly, if a spell doesn't say it can/can't do something then we go to the general rule, don't we? and the general rule, as i've said numerous times, is that you may read/write any language you can speak

If there is a question, we fall back on precedent...precedent in this case is a similar spell that mentions both verbal and written communication. Tongues merely mentions verbal communication. Ergo your argument is invalid.

[Trilby]

It states A) you can only speak one language at a time and nothing about switching back and forth at will.

Exactly. As we already have the ability to speak all the languages that we know--which includes switching between them, because the rules about languages mention nothing on the subject, and that's how they normally work (Verstehen Sie? Eso es como se trabaja. Comme ça. Nothing difficult about that.)--just not at the same time. Try it. When you read the part between parentheses, you'll be speaking different languages, but not at the same time :smallbiggrin:

(Though my Spanish sucks hard, so please don't try that one in the real world :smalltongue:)

[Somensjev]

@mutazoia: if i can't convince you with the last post i sent i'll probably give up trying to convince you (although i may still argue with you on the thread)

@trilby: none of this really matters any more to you does it? you decided to DM fiat it, currently you're just trying to prove you're right, is that correct?

[Trilby]

@trilby: none of this really matters any more to you does it? you decided to DM fiat it, currently you're just trying to prove you're right, is that correct?

Kind of, though by now I'm convinced that I truly am in the right in ruling this way in general. Seeing as only the method of acquisition and the duration of the effect differ with gaining a language through skill points or through Tongues.

So once again, thanks to all for contributing to my understanding.

[Mutazoia]

@mutazoia: if i can't convince you with the last post i sent i'll probably give up trying to convince you (although i may still argue with you on the thread)


I'm not trying to convince anybody. If you want to play it your way you are more than welcome to (obviously). Besides it's nearly impossible to convince anybody of anything on the internet any way :smallwink:

[Somensjev]

I'm not trying to convince anybody. If you want to play it your way you are more than welcome to (obviously). Besides it's nearly impossible to convince anybody of anything on the internet any way :smallwink:

yeah, i'm learning that from this argument :smallwink:
and i can understand both sides of the argument, it's just that i picked the one you didnt

i think we should leave it at a simple "DM discretion"

[Vaz]

This is a possible oversight in the writing of the rules. While I cannot imagine what RAI, it's a reasonable interpretation to assume it refers only to actually speaking the language, and hearing it spoken.

Tongues makes mention of understanding the language of an intelligent creature, and as far as the voice carries, suggesting that it is for verbal purposes.

However, the interaction of the Speak Language skill (which may have been written by a different author) means that the verbiage from "speaking" that language automatically grants you the ability to read and write it (thanks to the lack of qualifier, such as comprehend language* wording).

Essentially, it's how your DM interprets the spell; is it by RAW, or is it by what they feel the spell does.

Just to reiterate; I agree, by RAW, that Tongues allows you to speak the spell, and by Speak Languages definition, allows you to read and write it, which would allow you to use it with Forgery.

[Mutazoia]

Exactly. As we already have the ability to speak all the languages that we know--which includes switching between them, because the rules about languages mention nothing on the subject, and that's how they normally work (Verstehen Sie? Eso es como se trabaja. Comme ça. Nothing difficult about that.)--just not at the same time. Try it. When you read the part between parentheses, you'll be speaking different languages, but not at the same time :smallbiggrin:

(Though my Spanish sucks hard, so please don't try that one in the real world :smalltongue:)

Yes..but as some one pointed out earlier....we're not D&D characters :smallbiggrin:

Sorry but if that exact argument was invalid when I made it, it's not valid when YOU make it :smallbiggrin:

So the counter argument to that (following established logic in the thread) would be "because we're talking about D&D characters, they cannot swap languages back and forth like we can in the real world."

[Trilby]

Yes..but as some one pointed out earlier....we're not D&D characters :smallbiggrin:

Sorry but if that exact argument was invalid when I made it, it's not valid when YOU make it :smallbiggrin:

Difference being that this translates mechanically without any adjustment. {An Elvish insult. Some draconic catchphrase. And a dwarven quote about me pappy to finish}. All said in one breath by my awesome character who speaks all of these. Cast Tongues and he could serenade you in Terran, too.

But I kind of feel like I'm derailing my own thread here. You are obviously not getting my point, nor am I seeing the logic of yours.

RAI might be iffy, but RAW this indeed works.

Thanks all :smallcool:

[Mutazoia]

Well look at it this way. If things work the way you say the do, then technically a character can learn every language in the multi-verse (including full literacy), instantly with a 3rd level spell (a little broken right there), and then use permanency (a simple 5th leve spell) and know them for life, with out spending a single skill point on a language. Seems a lot broken to me? How about you?

[Hecuba]

Well look at it this way. If things work the way you say the do, then technically a character can learn every language in the multi-verse (including full literacy), instantly with a 3rd level spell (a little broken right there), and then use permanency (a simple 5th leve spell) and know them for life, with out spending a single skill point on a language. Seems a lot broken to me? How about you?

Not particularly. 5th level spells are quite powerful.

Heal the sick. Raise the dead. Strike down your enemy with but a wave of your hand. Travel anywhere within the world in a blink of an eye. Travel between worlds/planes in the blink of an eye. Summon a plauge of locusts upon the lands of your enemy. Transform the upity weaver into a spider.

Truthfully, with application of permanancy, there are relatively few feats western mythology attributes to the gods that cannot be accomplished with level 5 spells.
Why would universal literacy stand out?

[Vaz]

Welcome to magic.

Where a Cloistered Cleric is a better fighter than a fighter (Divine Power). Where a wizard is a better fighter (Polymorph), and where a Druid has two class features which are better fighters (Wild Shape and Animal Companion). A Bard can make the rest of the party better at fighting so the fighter isn't needed (Dfi and Snowflake Wardance).

And in the grand scheme of things, being able to understand every language is hardly the most broken thing you can do when you can cast 5th level spells (or even 2nd level for that much)

[Mutazoia]

Well as I said everybody is free to house rule that any way they want. It won't work in any of my campaigns. I'll agree to disagree :smallwink:

[Diarmuid]

You are certainly capable and welcome to houserule the spell to work however you want in your games. This is even encouraged.

When having these discussions, the only commonality we can all discuss evenly is what the rules state. That's why so many threads here focus on RAW as it's the bedrock of where RAI comes in. I've found, if you ask a question here, and dont specifically ask for RAI, you're generally going to get answers based strictly on RAW as trying to guess what someone else's houerule or interpretation is doesnt work out too well when having discussions/arguments.

Not that RAW conversations cant break down over semantics, but once that starts to happen I generally just stop reading the thread as I'm not an english major nor do I have doctorate in grammar.

[Red Rubber Band]

RAW, yes.
Applying common sense and real world understanding to D&D... no. But I'm sure there's a spell for that.

[Red Fel]

Here's the logic as I see it.

If you take skill points in a language, you can both speak and read/write it. (Unless you're specifically illiterate.) That makes sense, as skill points constitute an investment of effort to study and learn something, and if you're studying a language, that probably includes both literacy and speech.

Tongues does not give you skill points. It gives you the ability to speak a language, which is a specific function or use of the Language skill. Much like Glibness gives you a bonus to a particular use of a skill (in the case of Glibness, it's a bonus to convince others of the truth of your words, not to other functions of Bluff), Tongues grants you a particular use of Language - the ability to speak and understand. That much is express in the language of the spell. I would therefore rule on Tongues as I would on Glibness; just as Glibness does not give a bonus to Bluff rolls for feinting, Tongues does not give the ability to read or write.

As an aside, I dislike arguments that suggest "The rules don't say it isn't so, therefore it must be so." We're smart people; we can do better than that.

As an additional aside, let's not bring too much realism into this post. If we were being realistic, one's ability to perform forgery is mostly independent of one's ability to comprehend the material, and language proficiency would merely provide a bonus, rather than constitute a requirement.

[TuggyNE]

When I first looked at this thread, I thought, "That's silly, this obviously doesn't work." Fortunately, I didn't post to that effect, because my initial impression was flat-out wrong. Also fortunately, I kept reading the arguments pro and con, and those that agreed with my initial impression eventually convinced me that I had been mistaken.


If you take skill points in a language, you can both speak and read/write it. (Unless you're specifically illiterate.) That makes sense, as skill points constitute an investment of effort to study and learn something, and if you're studying a language, that probably includes both literacy and speech.

Tongues does not give you skill points. It gives you the ability to speak a language, which is a specific function or use of the Language skill. Much like Glibness gives you a bonus to a particular use of a skill (in the case of Glibness, it's a bonus to convince others of the truth of your words, not to other functions of Bluff), Tongues grants you a particular use of Language - the ability to speak and understand. That much is express in the language of the spell. I would therefore rule on Tongues as I would on Glibness; just as Glibness does not give a bonus to Bluff rolls for feinting, Tongues does not give the ability to read or write.

Automatic languages from race or Int bonus don't cost skill points (or, indeed, any resources at all) either, but they most certainly do allow you to read and write, so this argument appears to fall apart in the most common case.


As an aside, I dislike arguments that suggest "The rules don't say it isn't so, therefore it must be so." We're smart people; we can do better than that.

The proper use of general and specific is extremely important to D&D RAW. Here, there's an applicable general rule, and no applicable specific exception that modifies or negates the general rule. Therefore, the general rule applies: tongues allows you to speak, and thus write, one language you would otherwise not know at any given time.

"The rules don't say I can't" is only fallacious when there is, in fact, no such general rule to allow it. It is not fallacious when there is a general rule and no specific rule to forbid it; in fact, because rules can be as specific as desired, all D&D rules interactions ever function in this mode in the formal sense, by referencing some rule of at least minimal generality to allow a given interaction, and relying on the lack of any more specific rules that prevent that interaction.

All that said, because "the rules don't say I can't" is not clear, the phrase should be avoided in favor of more precisely indicating that there is (or is not) some general rule to allow it and a lack of specific rules to disallow it.

[Rosstin]

Seems like either way would be fine... this would be an "ask your DM" for me.

This would be a particular case where I think it would be flavorful to require a real understanding of a language for the player to forge it. After all, forging a document is difficult even for a native writer. Someone using magical means to understand a language so she can write in it? Sounds pretty hard.

[Totema]

Is using Amanuensis an option? If it applies in this situation you can completely bypass the issue.

[Duke of Urrel]

This interesting thread has influenced in the same manner as TuggyNE. At first, I thought: No, that can't work. Now, I believe it may work.


Tongues may not grant the ability to write in a language, but it certainly grants the ability to read it. Tongues grants the ability to understand any language. It does not specify spoken languages, and grants the ability to understand spoken Elven, written Draconic, sign language, whatever. It does specify that it grants the ability to speak the language rather than a more general term, so presumably does not let the target write or sign.

Understanding, in the ordinary sense of the word, is the passive mastery of a language. It enables you to comprehend the spoken or written words of a particular language, but it does not necessarily enable you to speak or write in this language yourself. Being able to speak or write in a particular language is active mastery.

It is a common experience of foreign language learners that it's easier to understand language passively than it is to produce it actively. In other words, generally speaking, it's easier to understand what somebody is saying in a foreign language than it is to speak in this language, and it's easier to read something written in a foreign language than it is to write in that language. This is part of what first moved me to say "No, that can't work" to Trilby's proposal.

"But wait a minute," you may object, "we're talking about magic here." Indeed, we are – and that's precisely what makes this controversy so interesting.

In D&D, it is possible to get purely passive mastery of a language by magical means. This is what you get with the Comprehend Languages spell. However, it's well-nigh impossible to get purely passive mastery of a language by mundane means, because mundane language skills are interdependent. For example:


Since Chinese is an ideographic language, you can learn to read Chinese without learning to speak it or to understand it as it is spoken. However, unless you're paralyzed, you can hardly develop the ability to read Chinese without also learning how to write at least a few common characters – and writing belongs to active mastery.


Similarly, unless you're physically mute, it's very difficult, using mundane means, to learn to understand any language as it is spoken without learning to speak at least a few words yourself. Of course, your active vocabulary may never extend as far as your passive vocabulary, and you may speak with a heavy accent. But can you learn to understand a spoken language without learning to say anything in this language at all? I think not.


In short, the purely one-sided, passive mastery bestowed by the Comprehend Languages spell is virtually impossible to acquire in the real world, by ordinary means. This alerted me to the possibility that in this case, as in many others, magical mastery doesn't have to work like mundane mastery.


The proper use of general and specific is extremely important to D&D RAW. Here, there's an applicable general rule, and no applicable specific exception that modifies or negates the general rule. Therefore, the general rule applies: tongues allows you to speak, and thus write, one language you would otherwise not know at any given time.

I fully endorse the main principle that TuggyNE has elucidated here, but I'm not sure that a mundane skill, such as the Speak Language skill, provides us with any general rule that necessarily also applies to magic – such as the Tongues spell. As the Comprehend Languages spell demonstrates, magic follows its own rules. According to the description of the Speak Language skill, if you master a spoken language in the mundane way (that is, by acquiring a new rank in Speak Language skill), you always learn to write it as well. But I'm not sure that this rule applies when you instantly master a spoken language by magic.

So to my way of thinking, it's significant that the Tongues spell does not explicitly grant the ability to write in a foreign language. It grants "understanding," which I interpret to mean total passive mastery, that is, the ability both to read written language and to understand spoken language. It also grants the ability to speak any language. However, just as the Comprehend Languages spell grants exclusively passive mastery, the Tongues spell may (I repeat, may) grant total passive mastery plus one kind of active mastery, namely mastery of speaking, but not of writing.


Seems like either way would be fine... this would be an "ask your DM" for me.

This would be a particular case where I think it would be flavorful to require a real understanding of a language for the player to forge it. After all, forging a document is difficult even for a native writer. Someone using magical means to understand a language so she can write in it? Sounds pretty hard.

I can't be any more decisive than Aster Azul. The RAW seem to me somewhat ambiguous. But please don't blame the game designers or the various interpreters on this thread who have come up with opposing views. Language itself is ambiguous, and it's very hard to say or write something so clearly that it's possible to interpret it in only one way.


I would allow it depending on WHAT you where forging.

Making a new thing out of whole cloth, no.

Putting a signature on a document that is unsigned? No problem if you have a copy of the signature to copy. You don't need to know any of the letters or what the document says, just where to put the squiggle and how to make said squiggle look.

Somewhere between those two, hefty penalties.

What Fouredged Sword advised here seems very reasonable, in any case.

[Red Rubber Band]

Can someone please explain to me how the RAW is ambiguous? It may not make a lick of sense, and does not make any real world sense, but that means absolutely jack in D&D.

[Deophaun]

In short, the purely one-sided, passive mastery bestowed by the Comprehend Languages spell is virtually impossible to acquire in the real world, by ordinary means. This alerted me to the possibility that in this case, as in many others, magical mastery doesn't have to work like mundane mastery.
There is no "possibility" here. Comprehend language is magical mastery following different rules than mundane mastery, because the spell description says so. In having exceptional language, comprehend languages proves that the authors of the PHB knew how to deviate from the general rule. Using that as some kind of proof that tongues, which lacks anything similar, is also an exception is a perverse breed of logic.

[Duke of Urrel]

Can someone please explain to me how the RAW is ambiguous? It may not make a lick of sense, and does not make any real world sense, but that means absolutely jack in D&D.

The description of the Tongues spell is ambiguous to me, because it doesn't explicitly grant the subject the power to write in any language that he or she instantly learns to speak and to understand. Either this spell does or doesn't grant this power; this is ambiguous.

We can eliminate the ambiguity only as TuggyNE proposed, namely in reference to the description of the Speak Language skill, which states that acquiring a language (in the form of a skill rank) includes knowing how to read and write in that language. I disputed whether we can confidently apply this rule when we use magic, because instant acquisition by magic doesn't have to work like language acquisition by mundane means, as the example of the Comprehend Languages spell demonstrates.

[Deophaun]

Can someone please explain to me how the RAW is ambiguous? It may not make a lick of sense, and does not make any real world sense, but that means absolutely jack in D&D.
Considering tongues is based off of a real world religious miracle (not to say it did or did not happen, just that actual real world religions have it as a tenet of their faith) where people spoke and everyone understood them no matter what languages the listeners knew, the spell actually makes more sense than its religious inspiration. It also makes more sense than Star Trek's universal translator.

[TuggyNE]

We can eliminate the ambiguity only as TuggyNE proposed, namely in reference to the description of the Speak Language skill, which states that acquiring a language (in the form of a skill rank) includes knowing how to read and write in that language. I disputed whether we can confidently apply this rule when we use magic, because instant acquisition by magic doesn't have to work like language acquisition by mundane means, as the example of the Comprehend Languages spell demonstrates.

Strictly speaking, the skill entry is irrelevant: the rule under Races (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#literacy) works just as well for this. And in general, rules apply equally in all cases except where they are specifically excepted; comprehend languages carves out an exception, yes, but only for itself, not for magic in general.

[Duke of Urrel]

There is no "possibility" here. Comprehend language is magical mastery following different rules than mundane mastery, because the spell description says so. In having exceptional language, comprehend languages proves that the authors of the PHB knew how to deviate from the general rule. Using that as some kind of proof that tongues, which lacks anything similar, is also an exception is a perverse breed of logic.

Neither the description of the Comprehend Languages spell nor that of the Tongues spell refers explicitly to the description of the Speak Language skill. The explicit prohibitions mentioned in the description of the Comprehend Languages spell may be there only to make clear that this particular piece of magic doesn't work like real-world language acquisition. Whereas in the real world, you can't master a language passively without becoming able to produce at least some of it actively, the Comprehend Languages spell limits you in precisely this manner. If this limiting text weren't there, some PCs would undoubtedly argue that the ability to read a language necessarily entails being able to write at least a few words, and that the ability to understand a language as it is spoken necessarily entails being able to respond orally with at least a few words.

I don't think these PCs would try to argue on the basis of the Speak Languages skill, though. This skill makes it a rule that acquisition of speaking ability (by adding a skill rank) entails acquisition of reading and writing ability as well. It does not state the converse, that the acquisition of reading and writing ability entails speaking ability as well. Indeed, to the contrary, there exists a skill that leaves wide open the possibility that you may be able to read in a language that you cannot speak: Decipher Script skill. So this argument would be a non-starter with the Comprehend Languages spell, even if its description lacked all those explicit prohibitions.

If it's not clear that the description of the Comprehend Languages spell implicitly refers to the Speak Languages skill, then it's not clear that the description of the Tongues spell does, either. Indeed, I consider it more reasonable to suppose that the latter refers implicitly to the Comprehend Languages spell. With the Comprehend Languages spell, you get the ability to comprehend any language as it is written or spoken. With the Tongues spell, you additionally get the ability to speak any language. It doesn't say that you also get the ability to write it, and I'm not sure that this is implied. Anybody is free to argue that it is implied, but please don't say I'm disregarding or not understanding the rules – or the principles of their application.

I consider descriptions of magic (and everything else) in D&D always to refer implicitly to the real world, because magic (and more generally fantasy) always contrasts with reality. I also consider descriptions of higher-level spells often (but not always) to refer implicitly to the descriptions of lower-level spells that are similar. However, I do not consider spell descriptions always to refer implicitly to descriptions of skills that are similar. This is the basis of my "perverse breed of logic."

[Red Rubber Band]

The description of the Tongues spell is ambiguous to me, because it doesn't explicitly grant the subject the power to write in any language that he or she instantly learns to speak and to understand. Either this spell does or doesn't grant this power; this is ambiguous.

We can eliminate the ambiguity only as TuggyNE proposed, namely in reference to the description of the Speak Language skill, which states that acquiring a language (in the form of a skill rank) includes knowing how to read and write in that language. I disputed whether we can confidently apply this rule when we use magic, because instant acquisition by magic doesn't have to work like language acquisition by mundane means, as the example of the Comprehend Languages spell demonstrates.

It just baffles me that what "TuggyNE proposed" was actually stated in the OP; and rather clearly, I thought. Not to take anything away from TuggyNE, but I'm just really confused as to why people are still, or rather even started, arguing this.
Unless I'm grossly misreading everything -could happen as I'm not functioning on enough sleep- RAW works. There's no need for all these explanations of how real life language works.
RAI talk is fine, but no one has mentioned that's the way they're going with it, and I'm under the assumption that these boards treat everything as RAW unless it's specified.

This was from the first post, if anyone missed it:
A character that is literate can read and write any language s/he speaks.

Tongues grants you the ability to speak a language; ergo you can write it.

Is that not how RAW works? Be a literal d*ck and warp reality. Because f*ck common sense?

Edit: Just quickly, re this:

Neither the description of the Comprehend Languages spell nor that of the Tongues spell refers explicitly to the description of the Speak Language skill.

It does say under the Speak Languages "skill" that "This is how languages work". Not "This is how languages work, except when magic happens."(loljkmagiciseverywherednd4lyfe)

[TuggyNE]

It just baffles me that what "TuggyNE proposed" was actually stated in the OP; and rather clearly, I thought. Not to take anything away from TuggyNE, but I'm just really confused as to why people are still, or rather even started, arguing this.

Because misreading is magic? I dunno, I do that a lot myself, and I'm a fast and fairly careful reader. :smallsigh:


RAI talk is fine, but no one has mentioned that's the way they're going with it, and I'm under the assumption that these boards treat everything as RAW unless it's specified.

That's generally the case, although some posters are less careful about the distinction, and almost everyone has at least one pet issue on which they are very prone to treating RAI as RAW.


It does say under the Speak Languages "skill" that "This is how languages work". Not "This is how languages work, except when magic happens."

The worst bit is, it doesn't even need to rely on the skill entry, per my last post. It's right there under the languages you learn as a PC, which I don't think anyone could argue is anything but applicable to every PC ever.

[Red Rubber Band]

Because misreading is magic? I dunno, I do that a lot myself, and I'm a fast and fairly careful reader. :smallsigh:
This is very true. I guess it's just the amount of people and how vehemently they're standing by their positions. Those Walls of Text.


The worst bit is, it doesn't even need to rely on the skill entry, per my last post. It's right there under the languages you learn as a PC, which I don't think anyone could argue is anything but applicable to every PC ever.
My Little Game Design: Magic Is Magic.

[Duke of Urrel]

Strictly speaking, the skill entry is irrelevant: the rule under Races (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#literacy) works just as well for this. And in general, rules apply equally in all cases except where they are specifically excepted; comprehend languages carves out an exception, yes, but only for itself, not for magic in general.

Both you and Trilby argue that the description of the Speak Languages skill applies to the Tongues spell. You yourself argued, more strongly than Trilby I think, that the description of the Speak Languages skill is a general rule, whereas the description of the Tongues spell is by comparison a specific rule. You strengthen your argument by bringing up the Literacy rule from the Races section, to which you provided a link. Trilby mentioned this rule, too (because the Speak Language skill refers to it explicitly), and I apologize for not having given Trilby any credit for this until now.

The argument that a rule qualifies as general rather than specific gains strength when there are two examples of it rather than one; that's induction. So I'm not disputing your logic, but I don't think it's compelling enough to conclude that every DM must think like you or be accused of disregarding or misunderstanding the RAW.


It just baffles me that what "TuggyNE proposed" was actually stated in the OP; and rather clearly, I thought. Not to take anything away from TuggyNE, but I'm just really confused as to why people are still, or rather even started, arguing this.
Unless I'm grossly misreading everything -could happen as I'm not functioning on enough sleep- RAW works. There's no need for all these explanations of how real life language works.
RAI talk is fine, but no one has mentioned that's the way they're going with it, and I'm under the assumption that these boards treat everything as RAW unless it's specified.

This was from the first post, if anyone missed it:
A character that is literate can read and write any language s/he speaks.

Tongues grants you the ability to speak a language; ergo you can write it.

Is that not how RAW works? Be a literal d*ck and warp reality. Because f*ck common sense?

Edit: Just quickly, re this:


It does say under the Speak Languages "skill" that "This is how languages work". Not "This is how languages work, except when magic happens."(loljkmagiciseverywherednd4lyfe)

The only sentence that makes absolutely clear (to me, anyway) what Speak Languages skill really is about is the following:

"You either know a language or you don’t." I confess that the bold text is mine.

The Speak Languages skill (and it is a skill, only a skill without skill checks), added to the languages you already know at the start of play, defines the languages that you know. Knowing a language entails more than just speaking it. This is both true in real life and explicitly true according to the description of the Speak Languages skill. And this skill is about knowing languages, and that is understood holistically as entailing all four language-related skills: speaking, reading, writing, and understanding spoken language.

But it is unclear to me whether the Tongues spell, which bestows the ability to speak, to read, and to understand any language as it is spoken, also grants any knowledge of this language whatsoever. Maybe it works something like Douglas Adams's Babel fish, as another commenter has suggested, in which case it accomplishes only what the spell's description says explicitly – and nothing more.

It is also unclear to me whether the sentence "Languages work as follows" pertains to anything other than the Speak Language skill, in particular: (1) the preceding sentence, "Speak Language skill doesn't work like other skills," which it obviously serves to explain*, and (2) the sentences that follow. These sentences mention those languages that PCs know when they start play ("You start at 1st level knowing one or two languages" – bold text mine) and those that they learn by adding skill ranks, but they make no mention of spells or magically mastered languages or language skills.

I'm not here trying to argue that by the RAW, it's wrong to claim that the Tongues spell entails the ability to write in any language. Some DMs will agree with that, and that's okay with me. What I'm trying to argue is that this is indeed unavoidably a matter of RAI.

The DM who rejects Trilby's logic may have reasons other than being a d*ck. He or she may favor the view that magic is quirky, or that the Tongues spell is overpowered, in a relative sense – not because it breaks the game, but because magic can and should sometimes be quirky, and because mundane skill can and should sometimes be more powerful than magic.

And that… is all that I have to say, I think. Consider me defeated if you will. I consider myself sleepy. Thank you all for the stimulating discussion.

__________
*This point is not trivial. We need to be careful about quoting sentences out of their immediate context. The meaning of a sentence may become clear only in connection with sentences that precede or follow, and this meaning may be distorted when those other sentences are removed.

[Vaz]

Walls of text saying nothing, but ignoring the actual influential bit of text.

Forgery Requires you to be able to read and write the language.

Speak Language allows you to read and write and language you can speak.

Tongues lets you speak any and all languages.

That is undeniable, as that is what the rules say. It may not "make sense", but this is at a level when people can already change their shape into something else entirely and create fireballs.

The verbiage for "knowing a language or not" is in the context of that you don't actually make checks.

You even brought this point up, but seemed to forget about it for the sake of your argument; *This point is not trivial. We need to be careful about quoting sentences out of their immediate context. The meaning of a sentence may become clear only in connection with sentences that precede or follow, and this meaning may be distorted when those other sentences are removed.



A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks. Each language has an alphabet, though sometimes several spoken languages share a single alphabet.
This is the relevant part; provided you are literate (and literate is a game term that means you are either not a Barbarian/Totemist/have the UA trait or flaw, or if you have purchased that literacy for 2 Skill points.

So, provided you meet any of those cases where you are deemed literate, you are eligible to read and write the language you can speak.

[Duke of Urrel]

Well, it's happened again. I've drawn out a long argument in one of these threads, only to let myself be persuaded in the end that my original position was wrong!

There is context, and then there is subtext. My own personal subtext is that I teach foreign languages for a living. Presently, I teach English as a second language, and to make matters worse, formerly, I taught German as a foreign language. So I have some deep subtext that I project onto whatever I happen to read about language. One part of that subtext is the division of language skills into four parts: reading, writing, speaking, and comprehending the speech that one hears. So when I read any text that mentions only three of these skills and (for me) conspicuously fails to mention the fourth, my first assumption, one that is extremely hard to shake, is that this omission must have been intentional and meaningful. Since the Tongues spell made no mention of writing, my subconscious interpreted this to mean that this spell could not grant the power to write. As I've already indicated above, I also subconsciously related the Player's Handbook's description of the Comprehend Languages spell to my knowledge of how language acquisition happens in the real world – but not to the rules printed in the self-same rulebook.

The subconscious is a powerful thing! And sometimes, it motivates one to interpret everything else one reads to fit one's strongest and most recently acquired notions. This is what I initially did when, prompted by you all, I looked again at those texts in the Skills chapter and the Races chapter, texts which I hadn't looked at in a while, and which therefore had long seemed to me irrelevant, or to relate only to themselves. And then I looked at them again, and again, and finally, I think I'm cured at last.

Your comments and reasoning made me think about other examples of rules pertaining to mundane activities. I have now concluded that nearly all of them apply to magic as well, except that every spell makes some of its own exceptions to them. This is true of Disguise skill and the various spells that create illusory or transmutational disguises, it's true of Climb skill and the Spider Climb spell, it's true of Survival skill and the Know Direction spell, etc. It's true of every mundane activity that is mentioned in the RAW.

There's a reason why the Races chapter and the Skills chapter appear earlier than the Spells chapter; earlier chapters provide general rules, later ones exceptions to the rules. Of course, in my defense, I must say that I have never read the Player's Handbook from beginning to end; I've only jumped about from place to place. So under the influence of subtext and the distortion of memory, I sometimes have a skewed notion of which rules ought to be applied most broadly, and I neglect to consider that what looks like a limit to a specific rule may be an implicit reaffirmation of a general rule. This is why I read these threads: to regain my perspective.

Another factor in changing my mind is the desire to keep things simple and to justify one's own judgements. One could argue that the Tongues spell ought to leave an odd gap in one's language skills, but how should this gap be remedied, and how should one justify this remedy? It's just easier to say that the Tongues spell confers total language mastery and to leave it at that.

Thanks, all – and good morning!

[TuggyNE]

Well, it's happened again. I've drawn out a long argument in one of these threads, only to let myself be persuaded in the end that my original position was wrong!

Well, it's better by a large margin than drawing out an argument and refusing to be persuaded. :smallwink:

[danzibr]

You can most definitely house rule it any way you want, but interpretation A is the most logical [...]
RAW and logic don't always coincide.

It's already stated, such as by Red Rubber Band, but RAW makes it very clear. In the Speak Language text we see how literacy works:

A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks. Each language has an alphabet, though sometimes several spoken languages share a single alphabet.
While this is under Speak Language, it describes how languages work, not the skill itself. Tongues let you speak and understand all languages. Everyone with class levels except for a Barbarian or Totemist is literate.

It seems silly, but that's RAW for ya.

[Mutazoia]

Ok...then let's look at RAW

1. Languages:
"All characters speak common. A dwarf, elf, gmone, half-elf, half-orc or halfling also speaks a racial language as appropriate. A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character.

So...this would state that unless you had an Int of at least 12, you cannot speak (or read/write) any other language. This also appears to state that you can only speak a number of additional languages equal to your Int bonus at first level.

This would mean that if the recipient of the Tongues spell had less than a 12 Int he would be unable to speak any additional languages, regardless of how many times you slapped that spell on him...he's just not smart enough to be able to speak any languages other than common and his racial language. Plus, since RAW clearly states you can learn additional languages equal to your Int bonus at 1st level, even if you raise your Int score to (or above) 12 at a later date, you are apparently unable to learn any more languages with your new Int bonus.

[Diarmuid]

Not sure where you're trying to go with that. You can always spend skill points to learn languages.

[Vaz]

Urgh. We have been looking at RAW.

I have no idea where you are going from with your train of thought, but you are succeeding at derailing the conversation. RAW what the OP is asking, it works. As you say though, you are free to Houserule otherwise.

[danzibr]

Ok...then let's look at RAW

1. Languages:
"]All characters speak common. A dwarf, elf, gmone, half-elf, half-orc or halfling also speaks a racial language as appropriate. A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character.

So...this would state that unless you had an Int of at least 12, you cannot speak (or read/write) any other language. This also appears to state that you can only speak a number of additional languages equal to your Int bonus at first level.

This would mean that if the recipient of the Tongues spell had less than a 12 Int he would be unable to speak any additional languages, regardless of how many times you slapped that spell on him...he's just not smart enough to be able to speak any languages other than common and his racial language. Plus, since RAW clearly states you can learn equal to your Int bonus at 1st level, even if you raise your Int score to (or above) 12 at a later date, you are apparently unable to learn any more languages with your new Int bonus.
I absolutely do not understand the bolded part (rather, how the conclusion was reached). What you quoted states, "If some condition happens, then you get more languages." It does not say that's the *only* way to get more languages.

[Mutazoia]

Not sure where you're trying to go with that. You can always spend skill points to learn languages.

No...you can't. By RAW you are unable to learn any additional languages unless you had an INT bonus at 1st level, and then only a number of languages equal to that 1st level Int bonus.


Urgh. We have been looking at RAW.

I have no idea where you are going from with your train of thought, but you are succeeding at derailing the conversation. RAW what the OP is asking, it works. As you say though, you are free to Houserule otherwise.

You miss my point.

How can you use Tongues to speak, and therefor read/write/forge in a new language if you are mentally unable to learn an additional language? By the loophole of RAW that you cling to so dearly, Tongues is useless for forging unless you have a sufficient INT bonus to allow you to speak a new language.


And the the OP already decided how to handle this issue...any further posting is arguing for fun / academic reasons :smallwink:

[Vaz]

Where on earth does it refer to 'learning' at all?

It is as simple as 'can you speak it? Then you can read and write it'.

The speak language skill overwrites that at Character creation, due to being more specific if anything.

[Diarmuid]

Where does RAW state you can only spend points in Speak Lanuage if you have a Int of 12 or higher?



The Speak Language skill doesn't work like other skills. Languages work as follows.
• You start at 1st level knowing one or two languages (based on your race), plus an additional number of languages equal to your starting Intelligence bonus.
• You can purchase Speak Language just like any other skill, but instead of buying a rank in it, you choose a new language that you can speak.
• You don't make Speak Language checks. You either know a language or you don't.
• A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks. Each language has an alphabet, though sometimes several spoken languages share a single alphabet.

[Deophaun]

I consider descriptions of magic (and everything else) in D&D always to refer implicitly to the real world, because magic (and more generally fantasy) always contrasts with reality. I also consider descriptions of higher-level spells often (but not always) to refer implicitly to the descriptions of lower-level spells that are similar. However, I do not consider spell descriptions always to refer implicitly to descriptions of skills that are similar. This is the basis of my "perverse breed of logic."
Indeed it is perverse, as you are assuming a game, with rules, abandons those rules when dealing with magic and skips straight to the "real world." Especially true considering all the "Eschew-materials fabricate an anti-osmium cube"-ish game shattering strategies such an approach opens up.

[Mutazoia]

I absolutely do not understand the bolded part (rather, how the conclusion was reached). What you quoted states, "If some condition happens, then you get more languages." It does not say that's the *only* way to get more languages.

All characters speak common. A dwarf, elf, gmone, half-elf, half-orc or halfling also speaks a racial language as appropriate. A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character.

What's not to understand. RAW clearly states that you can only speak common and your racial language unless you, at level 1, have an INT bonus. It also states that you can speak one extra language per INT bonus point that you had at level 1.

Ergo if, at level 1 you have an INT of 12, you have an INT bonus of +1. Therefor you can speak common, your racial language and one other. That's it. Even if you apply any and all stat increases to raise your INT to 14, thus gaining a +2 bonus, by RAW you only get to use your initial +1 bonus to determine how many languages you can speak.

Since we are now ruling that the effect of the Tongues spell is modified by the rule governing languages, we clearly see that, while Tongues grants you the ability to speak in a language yet unknown to you, the rule of languages states that you can only speak a new language if you have the INT bonus of +1 or greater at first level. If you did, and you used up all those languages at character creation then you are out of luck and cannot speak any new languages, even by using Tongues.

I see no rule under languages that states you can later go beyond this limit. And since we are suppose to follow the general rule, the general rule clearly states you only speak common, your racial language (if any) and a number of languages granted by your INT bonus at level 1.

The description of Speak Language merely states that you can purchase the skill, not that the skill allows you to go above and beyond the maximum stated in the rule governing languages. The rule governing languages also does not allow for any languages above and beyond the stated limit.

The Tongues spell also clearly states that you may only speak one language at a time. Now unless you are a Gibbering Mouther, you only have one mouth to speak with, so by the wording of the spell you would lose all ability to speak any other language (i.e. common, racial and any granted by Int bonii) while you speaking in the new language granted by Tongues for the duration (although you are allowed to understand any other language).

[Diarmuid]

Reading that section on languages as a hard limit on the number of languages that a character can ever know seems completely irrational to me.

I'm checking out of this one, I'm happy with the general concensus, but you're devolving this into the kind of argument that's just not productive to engage in.

[Somensjev]

All characters speak common. A dwarf, elf, gmone, half-elf, half-orc or halfling also speaks a racial language as appropriate. A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character.

What's not to understand. RAW clearly states that you can only speak common and your racial language unless you, at level 1, have an INT bonus. It also states that you can speak one extra language per INT bonus point that you had at level 1.

yeah, no, RAW clearly states that if you have an int bonus at first level you know extra languages, in no way does that sentence even imply that it's the only way to get languages, or that it's the requirements for having a language

Ergo if, at level 1 you have an INT of 12, you have an INT bonus of +1. Therefor you can speak common, your racial language and one other. That's it. Even if you apply any and all stat increases to raise your INT to 14, thus gaining a +2 bonus, by RAW you only get to use your initial +1 bonus to determine how many languages you can speak.

yes, but you can still learn more languages, such as using the speak language skill, or using the tongues spell and only knowing them temporarily

Since we are now ruling that the effect of the Tongues spell is modified by the rule governing languages, we clearly see that, while Tongues grants you the ability to speak in a language yet unknown to you, the rule of languages states that you can only speak a new language if you have the INT bonus of +1 or greater at first level. If you did, and you used up all those languages at character creation then you are out of luck and cannot speak any new languages, even by using Tongues.

RAW doesn't back this one up, the rules say "A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character" in no way does that imply that those are all the languages you can know, or that that's the only way to get languages, or even that it's a requirement for speaking a language

I see no rule under languages that states you can later go beyond this limit. And since we are suppose to follow the general rule, the general rule clearly states you only speak common, your racial language (if any) and a number of languages granted by your INT bonus at level 1.

yes, and then tongues, the specific spell, says that you can speak and understand all languages, and since specific trumps general it doesnt matter

The description of Speak Language merely states that you can purchase the skill, not that the skill allows you to go above and beyond the maximum stated in the rule governing languages. The rule governing languages also does not allow for any languages above and beyond the stated limit.

The Tongues spell also clearly states that you may only speak one language at a time. Now unless you are a Gibbering Mouther, you only have one mouth to speak with, so by the wording of the spell you would lose all ability to speak any other language (i.e. common, racial and any granted by Int bonii) while you speaking in the new language granted by Tongues for the duration (although you are allowed to understand any other language).

stupid post requirement

[Vaz]

A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well


one extra language per point of intelligence bonus


as a starting character.

I've broken it down so it makes more sense. As soon as you've increased past the character creation stage at 1st level, then you're no longer a starting character.

One EXTRA, is an addition. A +1 to attack doesn't prevent +1 to attack from another source.

As well; as in, it's an addition.

And, why are you comparing a comment regarding languages known at 1st level to the rule regarding languages at all other times under the speak language skill?

Like said, I'm done, I'm not interested arguing any more with you Mutazoia. RAW is conclusively in the favour of the OP. I just wish that you'd stop misleading people who were trying to follow the conversation; it's not helpful, neither is it particularly "fun" or "academic" either. Poorly worded rules do not help themselves, but confusing the situation is extremely annoying.

[Mutazoia]

stupid post requirement

Not sure if you are intentionally putting your answers in quotes in an attempt to make it harder to respond or not...



yeah, no, RAW clearly states that if you have an int bonus at first level you know extra languages, in no way does that sentence even imply that it's the only way to get languages, or that it's the requirements for having a language

Sorry...read it again. By literal translation of the text "A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character." It does not, however, state "As as starting character you may begin with additional languages equal to each point of intelligence bonus." Nor does the general rule on languages mention being able to learn more languages above and beyond these.


yes, but you can still learn more languages, such as using the speak language skill, or using the tongues spell and only knowing them temporarily

Ah...but the Speak Language skill does not say how many languages you may learn. And as we have been instructed to fall back on the general rule when something is not expressly stated, the general rule is "you speak common, a racial language (if any) and one additional language per point of INT bonus at first level." As there is nothing mentioned in the general under languages that allows for speaking a number of languages above and beyond this initial limit, you simply can't. By RAW


RAW doesn't back this one up, the rules say "A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character" in no way does that imply that those are all the languages you can know, or that that's the only way to get languages, or even that it's a requirement for speaking a language.

RAW actually does back this up, but it's very wording. Read it again with me: "All characters speak common. A dwarf, elf, gmone, half-elf, half-orc or halfling also speaks a racial language as appropriate. A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character." The above rule set's a limit. There is no provision what-so-ever for learning any languages above and beyond this limit.

Learning every language in the muliverse by purchasing the Speak Language skill may be RAI, but remember we're not allowed to use RAI...we're using Rules as Written...and the rules are written in such a way that places a set limit on the number of languages you can speak, ever.


yes, and then tongues, the specific spell, says that you can speak and understand all languages, and since specific trumps general it doesn't matter

Actually no. Tongues says you can understand any number of languages and that you can only speak one at a time. If a little boy is standing in front of you, bouncing up and down anxiously, holding his crotch and babbling in a language you do not speak, you can generally understand that he is wanting to know where the bathroom is and point the way without speaking his language. By your argument that the specific trumps general, then specifically speaking you can only speak ONE language during the duration of the spell, losing the ability to speak (but not understand) any others.

EDIT: By a strict reading of the rule governing Languages "All characters speak common. A Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-elf, Half-Orc, or Halfling also speaks a racial language as appropriate." By RAW, that's it...that's your one (or two). The rule then goes on to state "A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character." By strict reading this states that you speak one extra language per point of INT bonus that you have as a starting character. That sets the maximum number of languages you are allowed to speak. Ever. There is no further sentence that states that you may raise or break this limit. This is a specific limit, set by the RAW governing languages.

By strict reading of the rule governing Tongues it states "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." So you are now speaking a language(s) previously unknown to you. It does not state that this is above and beyond the specific limit established in the RAW governing languages. It goes on to state "The subject can speak only one language at a time, although it may be able to understand several languages." This is a specific limit that over-rides (temporarily) the established limit of the Languages rule...down to ONE language but not necessarily granting understanding of unknown languages. You still understand languages you speak normally (and your current magically provided one) but not EVERY language. The next two sentences are rather fun. "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" As the active word here is 'don't', rather than 'can't' this means that if the Drow priestess refuses to speak to you, you cannot speak Drow. This also implies that you must have some one within earshot of you that speaks the language you desire to speak (read/write). I take this to mean that you are temporarily taping into their knowledge of the language.

[Somensjev]

Sorry...read it again. By literal translation of the text "A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character." It does not, however, state "As as starting character you may begin with additional languages equal to each point of intelligence bonus." Nor does the general rule on languages mention being able to learn more languages above and beyond these.

note the words as well and one extra i do believe both of those can generally mean "additional"



Ah...but the Speak Language skill does not say how many languages you may learn. And as we have been instructed to fall back on the general rule when something is not expressly stated, the general rule is "you speak common, a racial language (if any) and one additional language per point of INT bonus at first level." As there is nothing mentioned in the general under languages does not allow for speaking a number of languages above and beyond this initial limit, you simply can't. By RAW

actually, since it's a skill and you get one language for each skill point you spend in it, we can assume that the maximum amount of languages you can learn from it is your level+3


RAW actually does back this up, but it's very wording. Read it again with me: "All characters speak common. A dwarf, elf, gmone, half-elf, half-orc or halfling also speaks a racial language as appropriate. A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character." The above rule set's a limit. There is no provision what-so-ever for learning any languages above and beyond this limit.

yes there is, there are two, the speak language skill, and tongues, albeit one is only temporary


Learning every language in the muliverse by purchasing the Speak Language skill may be RAI, but remember we're not allowed to use RAI...we're using Rules as Written...and the rules are written in such a way that places a set limit on the number of languages you can speak, ever.

but you have to really try to read the sentence to set a limit on it, and even then it's a laughably weak argument at best


Actually no. Tongues says you can understand any number of languages and that you can only speak one at a time. If a little boy is standing in front of you, bouncing up and down anxiously, holding his crotch and babbling in a language you do not speak, you can generally understand that he is wanting to know where the bathroom is and point the way without speaking his language. By your argument that the specific trumps general, then specifically speaking you can only speak ONE language during the duration of the spell, losing the ability to speak (but not understand) any others.

i actually can't find rules saying you can change what language you speak anyway, i think it might be one of those things that was assumed to be obvious, of course that's not RAW, AFAIK the RAW of it is that you can't change between the languages, which would mean tongues isn't changing anything at all


Languages work as follows.

You start at 1st level knowing one or two languages (based on your race), plus an additional number of languages equal to your starting Intelligence bonus.
You can purchase Speak Language just like any other skill, but instead of buying a rank in it, you choose a new language that you can speak.
You don't make Speak Language checks. You either know a language or you don’t.
A literate character (anyone but a barbarian who has not spent skill points to become literate) can read and write any language she speaks. Each language has an alphabet, though sometimes several spoken languages share a single alphabet.



i believe the first point and the second point are relevant to the argument

[Somensjev]

EDIT: By a strict reading of the rule governing Languages "All characters speak common. A Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-elf, Half-Orc, or Halfling also speaks a racial language as appropriate." By RAW, that's it...that's your one (or two). The rule then goes on to state "A smart character (one who had an intelligence bonus at 1st level) speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of intelligence bonus as a starting character." By strict reading this states that you speak one extra language per point of INT bonus that you have as a starting character. That sets the maximum number of languages you are allowed to speak. Ever. There is no further sentence that states that you may raise or break this limit. This is a specific limit, set by the RAW governing languages.

see my post above


By strict reading of the rule governing Tongues it states "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." So you are now speaking a language(s) previously unknown to you. It does not state that this is above and beyond the specific limit established in the RAW governing languages. It goes on to state "The subject can speak only one language at a time, although it may be able to understand several languages." This is a specific limit that over-rides (temporarily) the established limit of the Languages rule...down to ONE language. The next two sentences are rather fun. "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" As the active word here is 'don't', rather than 'can't' this means that if the Drow priestess refuses to speak to you, you cannot speak Drow. This also implies that you must have some one within earshot of you that speaks the language you desire to speak (read/write). I take this to mean that you are temporarily taping into their knowledge of the language.

actually, i do believe that you can't speak with someone who refuses to talk anyway, since they're refusing to talk, so, all it does is not let you talk to things that can't talk, and not talk to things that won't talk, both of those are already things you couldn't do, so it's irrelevant, the spell doesn't say it needs to have someone talking a language to understand it, if it's a language and you're using this spell, then you know it

[Mutazoia]

note the words as well and one extra i do believe both of those can generally mean "additional"

I agree. Strict reading of the rules on languages say all characters speak common and that dwarves etc will also speak a racial language. Full stop. That's it. You normally only get one (as a human) or two (as a demi-human) languages. You speak additional languages if you have an INT of 12 or higher. One language for each point of INT bonus as a 1st level character. Those are your "additional" languages. The rules on languages do not go on to say you can learn any more after this.





actually, since it's a skill and you get one language for each skill point you spend in it, we can assume that the maximum amount of languages you can learn from it is your level+3

Yes...but it does NOT how ever, set a limit on how many languages you can speak. AND as we are supposed to fall back on the general rule of languages...AND as that rule set's a hard limit, the rules do now allow you to speak more than common+racial+languages allowed by INT bonus.




yes there is, there are two, the speak language skill, and tongues, albeit one is only temporary

See above


but you have to really try to read the sentence to set a limit on it, and even then it's a laughably weak argument at best

It's a very good argument. You have to have a basic understanding of English grammar and sentence structure only.



i actually can't find rules saying you can change what language you speak anyway, i think it might be one of those things that was assumed to be obvious, of course that's not RAW, AFAIK the RAW of it is that you can't change between the languages, which would mean tongues isn't changing anything at all

If Tongues isn't changing anything at all...then you are not going to speak in a new language at all, so Tongues is useless.

Side note: if Tongues only let's you speak one language at a time and doesn't say which language that is or that you get to choose one, wouldn't that mean you suddenly start speaking in a totally random language?




i believe the first point and the second point are relevant to the argument

Not really...they state you can spend a skill point on a language. All that would mean, by the rules of languages, is that if you have not chosen all of our other languages (if any) up to your established maximum, you may now spend a skill point and speak a new one. Again this skill does not state a minimum or maximum number of languages you can speak. So we must revert to the general rule (which by the laws of English grammar are quite specific) which state a solid maximum of common+racial+INT bonus at first level.


actually, i do believe that you can't speak with someone who refuses to talk anyway, since they're refusing to talk, so, all it does is not let you talk to things that can't talk, and not talk to things that won't talk, both of those are already things you couldn't do, so it's irrelevant, the spell doesn't say it needs to have someone talking a language to understand it, if it's a language and you're using this spell, then you know it

Soooo if you can't talk to some one in a (magically induced) language, you can't speak (obviously) to some one in a (magically induced) language...soooo if you can't speak in a (magically induced) language, how do you read/Write/Forge in it? :smallbiggrin: (obviously you can speak to thin air if you really want to)

Basically You are arguing strict RAW and hierarchy of general/specific rules when that gives you the outcome you want. But what that same logic when applied to the same situation (but using the full rule, not just the cherry picked sentences) cancel's out or greatly modifies (to the point of near uslessness) of that outcome, you start trying to argue RAI instead :smallbiggrin:

[Curmudgeon]

Here's my question: Can I forge a document in a language that I 'speak' through application of the tongues spell?
You've quoted part of the Speak Language skill, but left out some important parts:
SPEAK LANGUAGE (NONE; TRAINED ONLY)
Trained Only: If this notation is included in the skill name line, you must have at least 1 rank in the skill to use it. If it is omitted, the skill can be used untrained (with a rank of 0). If any special notes apply to trained or untrained use, they are covered in the Untrained section (see below).
The Speak Language skill is an odd one, and it explains the rules of how languages work with regards to speaking and writing if literate. The layout for that skill entry is an issue, though. This skill is Trained Only, and to use those rules for a chosen language you must normally have 1 rank in Speak Language specific to that language. There could have been an exception to this requirement, but Speak Language lacks the requisite Untrained section in which this exception would be placed.

There's a Literacy paragraph which makes a similar statement outside the context of Speak Language, but that one's instead in the context of Race and Languages (Player's Handbook, page 12). Just as this isn't a use of Speak Language, it isn't an issue of a race-based language, either.

So it seems Mutazoia's answer in the second post of this thread is correct; it just needed additional RAW support to explain why. Languages you pick up through racial options or by investing ranks in Speak Language let literate characters read and write those languages. However, there is no general rule to that effect — just specific rules for those two contexts. A language you can speak only via Tongues has no proviso to let you also read and write it.


This was a fun question; tracking down the RAW of it took some digging! :smallcool:

[Trilby]

@TuggyNE: Good one finding the more general rule in the Races chapter of the book, that makes the RAW-this-works argument stronger in my opinion.

@mutazoia: I don't really get what you are trying to argue here. According to your current interpretation, both investing skill points in Speak Language and the Tongues spell don't function if you chose bonus languages up to you INT modifier at character creation; and this remains so for the entire game. Actually, nowhere in that sentence does it say that your starting languages are the only languages you will ever know. In addition to that, the Speak Language skill itself makes no mention of an upper limit to languages known (besides the obvious extra languages = level +3).

@Curmudgeon: I see your point about the untrained use of a skill, therefor this rule is not applicable. However, the section on literacy you refer to specifically mentions 'all languages he or she speaks', as does the complementary 'class feature' illiteracy. It seems binary, either you are literate, or you are not. If you are literate, you are so for all languages you speak. Weird, in a RL context, but useful for the arcane forger in D&D :smallwink:

Thanks all for contributing, I've found it very interesting to see the various arguments evolve.

[Mutazoia]

@mutazoia: I don't really get what you are trying to argue here. According to your current interpretation, both investing skill points in Speak Language and the Tongues spell don't function if you chose bonus languages up to you INT modifier at character creation; and this remains so for the entire game. Actually, nowhere in that sentence does it say that your starting languages are the only languages you will ever know. In addition to that, the Speak Language skill itself makes no mention of an upper limit to languages known (besides the obvious extra languages = level +3).

In only one place in the rules is there mention of how many languages you can speak. The Languages rule itself. In that rule it states that all characters speak 1 or two languages (common and racial if applicable), which give's us a current maximum of 2 languages a character can speak. This rule does not use the word "initially" anywhere, which means that this is a hard maximum for life. The rule goes on to state that the hard maximum may be adjusted upward if, at character creation, you have an INT bonus, in which case you can speak a number of languages equal to (we'll use demi-humans for future examples) 2 (common+racial) + INT bonus at the time of character creation. Full stop. So if our elf has and INT of 11 she can only speak common and elvish. That's it. No place in the rules is there a provision for speaking languages above and beyond this established limit. So by RAW our elf can't dump a skill point into Speak Language because she's already at her maximum language capacity. In other word's she can only ever speak common an elvish because she is not smart enough to speak any more languages. (weird I know but that's game realities for you.)

NOW When we cast Tongues on our elf so that she can speak to the Dwarf merchant, we are attempting to add a new language to her (even if only temporarily). This fails because she is already at her maximum allowed number of languages (2) and is, by RAW unable to speak a 3rd. If she cannot speak a 3rd, she is not literate in that 3rd language. If she is not literate in that 3rd language, she cannot use Forgery in that 3rd language.

Another interpretation would be that she becomes unable to speak her normal two languages for the duration of the spell and can only speak Dwarvish (as the spell states you can only speak one language at a time).

Now if a Halfling had, at 1st level an 18 INT, he would speak common, Halfling and be able to learn an additional 4 languages. If he chooses elvish, Orcish and Hill Giant he still has one language slot left open. Later if we cast tongues on our halfling so that he can speak with the Dwarf merchant, he is able to benefit from the spell because he is still able to speak an as of yet un-chosen language. Thus he becomes literate in that language, thus he can forge in that language.

What I'm arguing is this: If you are going to insist on using the rules governing languages to modify the Tongues spell, then you have to use the ENTIRE rules governing languages, including the (admittedly poorly worded but still RAW) ones about languages maximums.




Thanks all for contributing, I've found it very interesting to see the various arguments evolve.

Heh...having fun debating the point :)

[TuggyNE]

Reading that section on languages as a hard limit on the number of languages that a character can ever know seems completely irrational to me.

I'm checking out of this one, I'm happy with the general concensus, but you're devolving this into the kind of argument that's just not productive to engage in.

Pretty much this, with one exception.


There's a Literacy paragraph which makes a similar statement outside the context of Speak Language, but that one's instead in the context of Race and Languages (Player's Handbook, page 12). Just as this isn't a use of Speak Language, it isn't an issue of a race-based language, either.

I feel this is a misuse of context; it doesn't say "can read and write all the languages he or she learned to speak through their race" or anything like that; if a character knows a language through race or Int bonus (and all of them do), then they are literate unless they're a Barbarian, and literacy is defined (there, and in the Barbarian entry) as reading and writing all languages spoken by the character.

A similar rules structure is seen when intermixing manufactured and natural weapons in a full attack: if you have +5 or less BAB, you can make attacks in any order, but if you have +6 or more, you must make all of them in order from highest bonus to lowest.

Arguing that the definition of literacy suddenly becomes null or inapplicable outside a narrowly-construed context because of the chosen topical organization scheme seems disingenuous.

[Mutazoia]

Well I just don't accept strict letter of the rules in one aspect but "that's not what it means" in another. I'll concede the point when some one can show me any other place in the rules that explicitly state you can speak more languages than the number plainly stated in the languages rules (common+race+int bonus) or can point out where in the languages rules it stats explicitly that this is only a starting number and the actual number unlimited.

And I won't accept any thing that implies this either, as we have been arguing RAW not RAI.

So, to sum up, the entire second paragraph on languages set a max limit at character generation, and does not allow for any other languages. Find the counter rule that explicitly states a new max number of languages, not implies one.

See ...it's a scavenger hunt :smallbiggrin:


Arguing that the definition of literacy suddenly becomes null or inapplicable outside a narrowly-construed context because of the chosen topical organization scheme seems disingenuous.

Kind of what I've been hinting around the whole time. You can't take a single sentence from rule X and then say it modifies Y....PROFIT. You have to take X in its entirety...and unfortunately rule X in this case is written rather poorly and states one thing while implying a much broader scope.

(Naturally I play by RAI with this one (with exception to the Tongues grants literacy bit) rather than RAW, but as we were discussing RAW I though this would be a good exercise.)

Scratch that...I'll make a new thread for this one.

[Deophaun]

This is pretty ridiculous. I've had a lot of laughs at Mutazoia's arguments. They're as illogical as one would expect coming from someone who ignores people for quoting rules. But, here's a fun thing:

He makes a bid deal out of the phrase "one at a time." A BIG deal, and all for a spurious to-quoque argument about people ignoring parts of RAW they don't like (which is basically a tacit admission that he's ignoring RAW). But, by his own reasoning, the words he quotes are meaningless window dressing. Consider:

"The subject can speak only one language at a time."
versus.
"The subject can speak only one language."

Mutazoia would have us believe that these phrases are identical in meaning. Which means "at a time" is some sort of grammatical vestigial organ. And yet, Mutazoia bolds that phrase at every turn. Curious, isn't it?

Anyway, have fun arguing with him, but you won't get anywhere. As a wise man once said, you can't reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into.

[Mutazoia]

This is pretty ridiculous. I've had a lot of laughs at Mutazoia's arguments. They're as illogical as one would expect coming from someone who ignores people for quoting rules. But, here's a fun thing:

He makes a bid deal out of the phrase "one at a time." A BIG deal, and all for a spurious to-quoque argument about people ignoring parts of RAW they don't like (which is basically a tacit admission that he's ignoring RAW). But, by his own reasoning, the words he quotes are meaningless window dressing. Consider:

"The subject can speak only one language at a time."
versus.
"The subject can speak only one language."

Mutazoia would have us believe that these phrases are identical in meaning. Which means "at a time" is some sort of grammatical vestigial organ. And yet, Mutazoia bolds that phrase at every turn. Curious, isn't it?

Actually I've only brought it up twice and one of those times was a joke the other sarcastic. But hey...read what you will.

BTW how DO you speak more than one language at a time?

EDIT: I suppose I could have caved in to peer pressure and put those bits in blue..but I'm a loner Dotty...a rebel....