RAW vs RAI exercise: Languages

[Mutazoia]

So a discussion of RAW vs RAI has led me into a discussion about the rule governing Languages. And while I (rather facetiously) continue to debate the following point I thought I would throw open the discussion to those not already following the thread.

The issue: The number of languages a character can speak.

The rules governing languages on page 12 of the PHB are as follows:

All characters know how to speak Common. A dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, or halfling also speaks a racial language, as appropriate. A character who has an Intelligence bonus at 1st level speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of Intelligence bonus as a starting character.

So if we break this down to literal reading we have:

1. All characters speak common.
2. Demi-humans speak their racial language.
3. Characters with an Int bonus speak a number of languages equal to their bonus as a starting character.

This gives us (by strict interpretation) a max number of languages a character may speak of:

Common+Racial+Int Bonus at 1st level.

The rule stops there, with no mention that this is only a starting number, nor any provision for learning more languages.

(Now obviously this is now how the rule is INTENDED to work, but this is how it reads, following proper sentence structure. Proper wording should have had "As a starting character" at the beginning at the start of the paragraph to show that what followed was only a starting point and include "additional languages may be purchased with the Speak Languages skill" to modify the proceeding statement to show that languages above and beyond the stating number are possible. I'm sure this is RAI. It's just not what was written.)

So...for our example we will take an elf with an INT of 12. By the above assumed rules she speaks 3 languages:

1. Common
2. Elvish
3. Hafling

So..the exercise. Can you find a rule that modifies in its exact wording (not by implication) the maximum number of languages is not as stated above, or one that increases that maximum.

NOTE: the Speak Languages skill talks about buying new languages with skill points, but does not, in fact, state a maximum number of languages nor does it allude to a rule that does, and so in the absence of information we fall back to the general rule which gives us the limit already mentioned. Also we will, for this exercise, assume that Tongues cannot give the character a new language, as the character is already at her maximum limit of 3 (unless a rule can be found that explicitly modifies (even temporarily) the above stated maximum.

Have fun!:smallbiggrin:

[Slipperychicken]

I believe the language under "races and languages" does not establish a maximum number of languages. It simply accounts for languages known at level 1.

[Mutazoia]

I believe the language under "races and languages" does not establish a maximum number of languages. It simply accounts for languages known at level 1.

By RAI yes...but by the way it is worded, not really.

Still for this we are assuming that it does indeed establish a maximum.

[Vizzerdrix]

As a starting character, yes. that is what you get for free. THEN you can invest skill ranks into speak language just like any other skill.

[plastickle]

Still for this we are assuming that it does indeed establish a maximum.

Yes. If we choose to assume, despite having no evidence whatsoever, that "speaks x languages" actually means "can never speak more than a maximum of x languages", instead of the plain english meaning of "currently speaks x languages", then you would be correct.

[Afgncaap5]

Yeah, for the thought experiment to work, you have to assume that 1) this statement does imply a maximum limit, and that 2) a character remains a "starting character" at every level.

With those assumptions, I can't think of anything. I thought that Loremaster's wording might state something like that, but it doesn't.

[Slipperychicken]

Yes. If we choose to assume, despite having no evidence whatsoever, that "speaks x languages" actually means "can never speak more than a maximum of x languages", instead of the plain english meaning of "currently speaks x languages", then you would be correct.

This is the bit I'm concerned about.


Could Mutazoia (or anyone sharing this belief) elaborate how the maximum is established? I do not see it.

[Scow2]

Assuming it is a maximum has no basis in the rules whatsoever. It never says that's a maximum anywhere, merely what ALL player-character members of that race can speak, and what languages are available for those with above-average INT.

All it says is those languages are automatic, and bonus for having a high INT. It doesn't say "starting" because that would leave no rules for characters that aren't starting characters, and have invested no ranks in Speak Language.

The RAI is RAW as long as you go by common english, instead of the stupid Not-English spoken in the DRFT.

[Evandar]

Yeah, for the thought experiment to work, you have to assume that 1) this statement does imply a maximum limit, and that 2) a character remains a "starting character" at every level.

With those assumptions, I can't think of anything. I thought that Loremaster's wording might state something like that, but it doesn't.

Point 1 still stands, but if I could address Point 2 for the sake of argument:

"All characters know how to speak Common. A dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, or halfling also speaks a racial language, as appropriate. A character who has an Intelligence bonus at 1st level speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of Intelligence bonus as a starting character."

That could be read to say "A character gets one extra language per point of intelligence bonus that they possessed as a starting character."

That is, the character would not be required to be a starting character all the time for the rules to apply, but simply for the intelligence bonus they possessed at character creation to be used when calculating languages. (As opposed to getting another point of bonus at level 4 and scoring a language for free.)

[TuggyNE]

Could Mutazoia (or anyone sharing this belief) elaborate how the maximum is established? I do not see it.

For the purposes of this thread, it is established by assumption.

*shrug* I would challenge that assumption but I don't think it's worth the time.

[eggynack]

Even were that rule setting some arbitrary maximum, which it doesn't, the speak language skill represents the specific rule that you're allowed to buy new languages over your starting languages with skill points. That would overwrite any sort of maximum language rule, which once again, does not exist to my knowledge. Thus, the speak language skill works as intended, and RAI and RAW are the same thing.

[AugustNights]

From the Speak Language Skill from the SRD.



Speak Language (None; Trained Only)
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.

The Speak Language skill specifically points out that additional languages can be purchased.
As that Speak Language is a skill, we look to the rules regarding skills to learn what is the maximum number of times one can take the Speak Language skill.


Skills Summary
If you buy a class skill, your character gets 1 rank (equal to a +1 bonus on checks with that skill) for each skill point. If you buy other classes’ skills (cross-class skills), you get ½ rank per skill point.

Your maximum rank in a class skill is your character level + 3.

Your maximum rank in a cross-class skill is one-half of this number (do not round up or down).

So there is indication of a maximum, it is the number of Languages a character begins with plus the number of ranks a character can invest into it based on their in-class skills.

[plastickle]

Even were that rule setting some arbitrary maximum, which it doesn't, the speak language skill represents the specific rule that you're allowed to buy new languages over your starting languages with skill points. That would overwrite any sort of maximum language rule, which once again, does not exist to my knowledge. Thus, the speak language skill works as intended, and RAI and RAW are the same thing.

If the initial rule set a maximum, which, I agree, it doesn't, the specific rules of the speak language skill wouldn't necessarily overwrite the general rules on languages, as it would be mechanically sound to learn a new language at the cost of forgetting an old language. Learning another language and learning a replacement language would both be valid interpretations, although it sounds like everyone here but Mutazoia is in agreement that learning another language would be the more correct interpretation.

[eggynack]

If the initial rule set a maximum, which, I agree, it doesn't, the specific rules of the speak language skill wouldn't necessarily overwrite the general rules on languages, as it would be mechanically sound to learn a new language at the cost of forgetting an old language. Learning another language and learning a replacement language would both be valid interpretations, although it sounds like everyone here but Mutazoia is in agreement that learning another language would be the more correct interpretation.
I suppose that's theoretically feasible, though I would figure that such a replacement effect would be explicit rather than implicit. It would probably ultimately depend on how the maximum would be worded, with a more solid maximum causing replacement, and a less solid one causing addition. Any actual argument would thus depend on specific details of this hypothetical maximum setting rule.

[AugustNights]

One could always look at the primary source argument.



All Core Errata

When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

However, it would be a bit of a semantic debate to find out if the "Races" section of the PHB or the "Skills" section of the PHB would be the primary source of information on Languages.
From a in-source reference, the skills section is a much more fleshed out description of how languages function, and actually lists all of the core languages.
From an out-of-source reference, I think you will find many people have good reason to believe language is more of a skill than an inherited ability; one must be trained to know why a gerund can function as a noun, or what splitting an infinitive is, and why some people believe it to be poor grammar. Like any skill, it is learned the most rapidly as developing mind, but isn't actually passed from parent to child without direct contact. But that's not very relevant to RAW.

[OldTrees1]

A character's Dexterity does not have a maximum. There are specific means by which the character can increase their Dexterity but there is no point at which increasing Dexterity through those means is forbidden by a Maximum Dexterity.

Replace Dexterity in the previous sentence with Language.

[Mutazoia]

This is the bit I'm concerned about.


Could Mutazoia (or anyone sharing this belief) elaborate how the maximum is established? I do not see it.

The maximum is established thus:

All characters speak common.
Demi-humans speak a racial language
you then get one bonus language for each point of INT bonus

So
common+racial language+INT bonus (1+1+X)


Even were that rule setting some arbitrary maximum, which it doesn't, the speak language skill represents the specific rule that you're allowed to buy new languages over your starting languages with skill points. That would overwrite any sort of maximum language rule, which once again, does not exist to my knowledge. Thus, the speak language skill works as intended, and RAI and RAW are the same thing.

Actually it does NOT state you may by new languages over your starting languages. (especially if we assume you have a max number of languages). It simply states you my buy a new language. So if you have a max number of languages of...say 4 (common+racial+2 from INT) and you only chose one other language, and have 1 open slot you may buy one with Speak Languages. Otherwise if we assume you have no open slots, Speak Languages does nothing.


If the initial rule set a maximum, which, I agree, it doesn't, the specific rules of the speak language skill wouldn't necessarily overwrite the general rules on languages, as it would be mechanically sound to learn a new language at the cost of forgetting an old language. Learning another language and learning a replacement language would both be valid interpretations, although it sounds like everyone here but Mutazoia is in agreement that learning another language would be the more correct interpretation.

Read the first post. I KNOW it doesn't really work like this...it's a thought experiment. Thank you for playing.

[eggynack]

The maximum is established thus:

All characters speak common.
Demi-humans speak a racial language
you then get one bonus language for each point of INT bonus

So
common+racial language+INT bonus (1+1+X)
None of those things are a maximum of any kind. Nowhere does it says, "You can't get any languages beyond these," or, "This right here? These languages? It's a maximum." That means that it's not a maximum. If something else gives you more languages, like say speak language, then none of that text is stopping it from doing so. You're citing RAW, but it is not there.

Edit: Also, there are no slots, cause it doesn't say there are slots. If something establishes these starting languages as some sort of slots, I can not see it.

[Mutazoia]

None of those things are a maximum of any kind. Nowhere does it says, "You can't get any languages beyond these," or, "This right here? These languages? It's a maximum." That means that it's not a maximum. If something else gives you more languages, like say speak language, then none of that text is stopping it from doing so. You're citing RAW, but it is not there.

Edit: Also, there are no slots, cause it doesn't say there are slots. If something establishes these starting languages as some sort of slots, I can not see it.

All characters know how to speak Common. A dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, or halfling also speaks a racial language, as appropriate. A character who has an Intelligence bonus at 1st level speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of Intelligence bonus as a starting character.

That's all there is to the rule (regarding number of languages you can know) This established a fixed number. It states you know common, any racial language and 1 language per point of INT bonus. It does not go on to state that additional languages may be purchased at a later date. Discuss :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

All characters know how to speak Common. A dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, or halfling also speaks a racial language, as appropriate. A character who has an Intelligence bonus at 1st level speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of Intelligence bonus as a starting character.

This established a fixed number. It states you know common, any racial language and 1 language per point of INT bonus. It does not go on to state that additional languages may be purchased at a later date. Discuss :smallbiggrin:
That establishes a number. It does not establish a fixed number, and it definitely doesn't establish a maximum. Other text, like speak language, thus has the ability to change that number. You're adding words that are not there.

[georgie_leech]

All characters know how to speak Common. A dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, or halfling also speaks a racial language, as appropriate. A character who has an Intelligence bonus at 1st level speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of Intelligence bonus as a starting character.

That's all there is to the rule (regarding number of languages you can know) This established a fixed number. It states you know common, any racial language and 1 language per point of INT bonus. It does not go on to state that additional languages may be purchased at a later date. Discuss :smallbiggrin:

This wouldn't be the first time that rules that could be affected by another rule not appearing there. Just looking at Natural Weapons doesn't tell you that they're always considered light weapons, but Weapon Finesse does.

[Anxe]

Yes, he's adding words that aren't there. The point is to try to think of a way around those words somewhere else in the rules. Like a scavenger hunt!

Anyways, so far I found the epic feat, Polyglot. It lets a character speak all languages. That gets around the maximum, but its a specific case, just like tongues. Does that pass the test?

[eggynack]

Yes, he's adding words that aren't there. The point is to try to think of a way around those words somewhere else in the rules. Like a scavenger hunt!

Well, in that case, I suppose I'd need some specification about what the rules are that are being made up. Can't have a fake RAW argument without real fake RAW after all.

[Anxe]

Well, in that case, I suppose I'd need some specification about what the rules are that are being made up. Can't have a fake RAW argument without real fake RAW after all.

I believe the "rule" we're trying to circumvent is that starting characters only get a number of languages equal to 1+racial+Int bonus. We're interpreting that starting number as the only number. From there, it seems like Speak Language doesn't explicitly give you a new language. An equally legitimate reading of Speak Language is that it allows a person to replace one of their starting languages with a new language for the price of some skill ranks.

[eggynack]

I believe the "rule" we're trying to circumvent is that starting characters only get a number of languages equal to 1+racial+Int bonus. We're interpreting that starting number as the only number. From there, it seems like Speak Language doesn't explicitly give you a new language. An equally legitimate reading of Speak Language is that it allows a person to replace one of their starting languages with a new language for the price of some skill ranks.
The problem is, if that's the only text that we're using, then it doesn't set a maximum at all. We're trying to circumvent a rule which doesn't exist, which is pretty much impossible in RAW terms, because I don't know how the rule which doesn't exist is phrased.

[Mutazoia]

Yes, he's adding words that aren't there. The point is to try to think of a way around those words somewhere else in the rules. Like a scavenger hunt!

Anyways, so far I found the epic feat, Polyglot. It lets a character speak all languages. That gets around the maximum, but its a specific case, just like tongues. Does that pass the test?


Actually I haven't added any words....just interpreted the words literally and pointed out the lack of further qualifiers/modifiers.

And yes I believe Polyglot would indeed be one work around for the problem as it does specifically state that it allows you to speak all languages (thereby increasing the supposed maximum ad infinitum).

[eggynack]

Actually I haven't added any words....just interpreted the words literally and pointed out the lack of further qualifiers/modifiers.
Interpreting the words literally doesn't lead to the result you're claiming. Because the starting languages don't indicate any maximum, or limit, or slots, or anything. This isn't a literal interpretation. It's an incorrect one.

[danzibr]

Like in the other thread, I still do not see how that wording gives you a max on known languages. Precisely how can, "All characters know how to speak Common. A dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, or halfling also speaks a racial language, as appropriate. A character who has an Intelligence bonus at 1st level speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of Intelligence bonus as a starting character," be interpreted to mean you cannot learn any more languages by any means (barring the specific trumps general)?

[Duke of Urrel]

The rules governing languages on page 12 of the PHB are as follows:

All characters know how to speak Common. A dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, or halfling also speaks a racial language, as appropriate. A character who has an Intelligence bonus at 1st level speaks other languages as well, one extra language per point of Intelligence bonus as a starting character.

So if we break this down to literal reading we have:

1. All characters speak common.
2. Demi-humans speak their racial language.
3. Characters with an Int bonus speak a number of languages equal to their bonus as a starting character.

This gives us (by strict interpretation) a max number of languages a character may speak of:

Common+Racial+Int Bonus at 1st level.

The rule stops there, with no mention that this is only a starting number, nor any provision for learning more languages.

This is all true enough, but this is a textbook example of what we call a general rule. The Speak Languages skill provides the most basic specific exception to this general rule, because it offers characters a means to increase the number of languages they can speak (and read and write). This is a sterling case of "specific trumps general."

If, on the other hand, we tried to argue that Speak Languages skill can't work because the "Races" chapter establishes an absolute maximum limit on languages a character can speak, we would be effectively claiming that in this particular instance, "general trumps specific."

If we applied "general trumps specific" as a general principle, we would make it very hard for players in D&D to advance or develop in any way at all. Just to name one of many examples, the extraordinary Uncanny Dodge ability wouldn't work, because if "general trumps specific," then the general rule that being flat-footed robs you of your Dexterity bonus can no longer be overturned by the specific benefit provided by the Uncanny Dodge ability.

[Devils_Advocate]

Mutazoia, if I say that Ted has one green apple, one red apple, and five yellow apples, that doesn't mean that he ONLY has five yellow apples, now does it? Ted having seven yellow apples doesn't preclude my statement from being true.


Actually I haven't added any words....
Yes, you have.


just interpreted the words literally
Your addendum to the rules is no more a literal interpretation than requiring player characters to wear underwear on their heads is a literal interpretation.


and pointed out the lack of further qualifiers/modifiers.
The thing is, one part of the rules not saying something does not make the opposite of that thing part of the rules. You're acting as if it does, which is of course Insane Troll Logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic). What you're suggesting is like "interpreting" the quoted passage to prohibit characters from making melee attacks, since it doesn't say they can make them.

[Trilby]

Actually I haven't added any words....just interpreted the words literally and pointed out the lack of further qualifiers/modifiers.

You seem to argue that stating 'rule A', and not stating 'rule B' means 'rule A and not rule B'. Omission of a predicate, propostion or qualifier does not mean its complement is true. Your 'maximum number of languages' is never mentioned anywhere. Which makes it poppycock.

If however, because magic/houserules, there would be a maximum number of languages known based on this 'literal interpretation', it would completely invalidate an entire skill for characters who took bonus languages up to their INT modifier.

In a world where the 'maximum' rules are deduced from your fallacious assumption that not being stated equals that its complement is true, this principle must (at the very least) be true for all the rules within this subsystem (languages).
Therefor, anything that is not explicitly stated is untrue.
Which means no new language for a character at 'max languages', as he does not have the 'language slots' available to learn them, despite these slots not being mentioned in any text describing a method of language acquisition (tongues or speak knownledge). Which, according to the previous 'logic', means there are no language slots.

Characters also can't replace old languages with newly acquired ones, because this language-replacement subsystem is also not mentioned, and therefor also does not exist. The polyglot feat is interesting, as this sets the upper bound of languages known to infinity (or as many languages as there are in the planes), which gives precedent for the 'maximum' not being a fixed number.

So are we now arguing that one specific rule overrides the immutability of the upper limit of languages known, while, even with this precedent, the speak languages skill does not? Because the 'maximum' number of languages is never mentioned in the speak language skill system, and therefor its complement must be true, i.e. there is no such maximum pertaining to the speak language skill. Which invalidates the entire previous post.

Think about what this rule implies though. Only if something is stated, it is true. Deduction, induction or partial conclusions no longer work in a universe where this axiom is in place. Though this might be an interesting place to be a truenamer :smallwink:

Adding this leap of 'logic' to the universe quickly leads to problems. I'm signing off to bed for now, but my conclusion is that the axiom 'if a, then the complements of everything not-a are true' seems dangerous to add to any universe.

TLDR: I got interested in what adding this law of logic to the universe (in this case to the languages subsystem) would mean for this thought experiment. Because this axiom has further impact beyond providing us with a maximum for languages known/spoken. To reiterate, I still think this 'maximum' is complete nonsense, but it is what the OP asked to discuss.

[Mutazoia]

In a world where the 'maximum' rules are deduced from your fallacious assumption

LOL if you read the entire post you'll see that I KNOW this isn't how it really works..this is supposed to be a "what if it did" kind of exercise.

[eggynack]

LOL if you read the entire post you'll see that I KNOW this isn't how it really works..this is supposed to be a "what if it did" kind of exercise.
I don't really see that. You seem to keep arguing that that text actually does set maximum languages, with others saying this thing that you say that you're saying. Anyway, I'm going to say what I keep saying. What if it did? Well, it doesn't. You're trying to build a hypothetical RAW argument using nothing but your misread version of the rules, except that RAW doesn't actually indicate a maximum at all, so anything of any kind overwrites those starting languages.

See, because if you want to make the fallacious leap of logic that you're insisting on, then the game gets all screwy in a manner similar to what Trilby indicated. If you want there to be text that indicates maximum language, you're going to have to actually write some up, because otherwise we're arguing about rules that are locked away in a box.

[Mutazoia]

I don't really see that. You seem to keep arguing that that text actually does set maximum languages, with others saying this thing that you say that you're saying. Anyway, I'm going to say what I keep saying. What if it did? Well, it doesn't. You're trying to build a hypothetical RAW argument using nothing but your misread version of the rules, except that RAW doesn't actually indicate a maximum at all, so anything of any kind overwrites those starting languages.

See, because if you want to make the fallacious leap of logic that you're insisting on, then the game gets all screwy in a manner similar to what Trilby indicated. If you want there to be text that indicates maximum language, you're going to have to actually write some up, because otherwise we're arguing about rules that are locked away in a box.


(Now obviously this is now how the rule is INTENDED to work, but this is how it reads, following proper sentence structure. Proper wording should have had "As a starting character" at the beginning at the start of the paragraph to show that what followed was only a starting point and include "additional languages may be purchased with the Speak Languages skill" to modify the proceeding statement to show that languages above and beyond the stating number are possible. I'm sure this is RAI. It's just not what was written.)

Like I said....read.


And before you get your panties further in a bunch over nothing, this assumed maximum is actually a 2e rule applied to 3x for purposes of this thought experiment

It's pretty obvious that the second paragraph on languages sets up a number of languages a character can speak when he/she is created.

As WOTC failed to go on to state a rule or other mechanic establishing a maximum, for this experiment only, we are assuming that this starting number is a carved in stone maximum.

Now please stop putting words (or intentions) into my mouth. If you don't want to play the game that's more than fine.

[eggynack]

Like I said....read.


And before you get your panties further in a bunch over nothing, this assumed maximum is actually a 2e rule applied to 3x for purposes of this thought experiment

It's pretty obvious that the second paragraph on languages sets up a number of languages a character can speak when he/she is created.

As WOTC failed to go on to state a rule or other mechanic establishing a maximum, for this experiment only, we are assuming that this starting number is a carved in stone maximum.

Now please stop putting words (or intentions) into my mouth. If you don't want to play the game that's more than fine.
But that quote you provided indicates that you think this is true. You very explicitly stated that the text used improper wording. In effect, you're saying, "This clearly isn't RAI, but it is RAW." It is neither. I think my reading comprehension was perfectly up to snuff in this case, thank you very much, and if you intended another meaning than what your quote indicates then it is very unclear. In any case, as I said in the post you quoted, you need actual base rules that indicate maximum language in order to debate the validity of other things changing those rules. Otherwise, how can I construct a proper semantics-based argument on the basis of the interaction between the maximum setting rules text and the other rules that alter that maximum?

[danzibr]

[...]

This gives us [...] a max number of languages a character may speak of:

Common+Racial+Int Bonus at 1st level.

The rule stops there, with no mention that this is only a starting number, nor any provision for learning more languages.

(Now obviously this is now (not?) how the rule is INTENDED to work, but this is how it reads, following proper sentence structure. Proper wording should have had "As a starting character" at the beginning at the start (where?) of the paragraph to show that what followed was only a starting point and include "additional languages may be purchased with the Speak Languages skill" to modify the proceeding (preceding?) statement to show that languages above and beyond the stating (starting?) number are possible. I'm sure this is RAI. It's just not what was written.)

[...]
Please explain the bolded parts. Where does maximum ever come in?

I agree with eggynack. In parentheses, it seems you're saying that by RAW there is a maximum, but by RAI there should not be. Then you go on to talk about experiments and whatnot, but that doesn't change what I quoted.

EDIT: Btw, sorry if this is coming off as harsh. I like your cat smoking a cig avatar. :)

[Mutazoia]

But that quote you provided indicates that you think this is true. You very explicitly stated that the text used improper wording. In effect, you're saying, "This clearly isn't RAI, but it is RAW." It is neither. I think my reading comprehension was perfectly up to snuff in this case, thank you very much, and if you intended another meaning than what your quote indicates then it is very unclear. In any case, as I said in the post you quoted, you need actual base rules that indicate maximum language in order to debate the validity of other things changing those rules. Otherwise, how can I construct a proper semantics-based argument on the basis of the interaction between the maximum setting rules text and the other rules that alter that maximum?

The rules on languages on page 12 of the PHB establish a number of languages known.

We are assuming that this is a maximum.

Find a way around this maximum

Plain and simple.

[georgie_leech]

Please explain the bolded parts. Where does maximum ever come in?

I agree with eggynack. In parentheses, it seems you're saying that by RAW there is a maximum, but by RAI there should not be. Then you go on to talk about experiments and whatnot, but that doesn't change what I quoted.

EDIT: Btw, sorry if this is coming off as harsh. I like your cat smoking a cig avatar. :)

His argument appears to be that the general rule gives no provisions for learning additional languages, and thus creates an implicit maximum in the same way that a parent might limit their child to a specific number of cookies. In favour of this metaphor is that it's perfectly within the parent's rights to say "You may have two cookies after dinner" and later say "you may have a cookie if you do the dishes." The former is most certainly not setting a maximum such that the cookie for doing the dishes is one of the former two, but I can understand how a suitably literal interpretation could view it that way.

OP, the issue you're having in actually getting responses is that your position is basically "If we imagine the rules have this maximum in it, can we find rules contradicting that" which leaves people nowhere to look. Of course the rules don't address rules not actually in the game, anymore than the game has rules on what to do if the PC's decide to create a Calvinball team instead of adventuring.

[danzibr]

The rules on languages on page 12 of the PHB establish a number of languages known.

We are assuming that this is a maximum.

Find a way around this maximum

Plain and simple.
This is what was not clear to me in the OP. Rather than saying, "Hey, we're just going to assume this even though it may not be RAW," I thought you were saying, "Alright, this is the RAW of it, which we're going to work off of."

[Mutazoia]

This is what was not clear to me in the OP. Rather than saying, "Hey, we're just going to assume this even though it may not be RAW," I thought you were saying, "Alright, this is the RAW of it, which we're going to work off of."

I do tend to get overly verbose at times, sorry if I confused you.


Of course the rules don't address rules not actually in the game, anymore than the game has rules on what to do if the PC's decide to create a Calvinball team instead of adventuring.

Sure they do...it's called role playing...you role play Calvinball.

BTW languages IS a rule in the game and are addressed :smallwink:

[georgie_leech]

Sure they do...it's called role playing...you role play Calvinball.

BTW languages IS a rule in the game and are addressed :smallwink:

The point being, there's no need to include language allowing the specific to overcome the general when the general already allows what you're trying to accomplish with the specific. You can assume it doesn't all you like, but it won't retroactively rewrite the existing rules that weren't written with that assumption in mind.

[Trilby]

LOL if you read the entire post you'll see that I KNOW this isn't how it really works..this is supposed to be a "what if it did" kind of exercise.

How is this a response to my previous post? I did read the entire post, and in order to address the thought experiment you raised, I had to set some common sense and actual rules aside. As you can see, I struggled with that throughout my post, but I did in fact attempt to address the content of the experiment.

Replying with "LOL, read ALL THE THINGS" is not in any way conducive to the discussion surrounding the substance of the debate, such as it is.

[Mutazoia]

How is this a response to my previous post? I did read the entire post, and in order to address the thought experiment you raised, I had to set some common sense and actual rules aside. As you can see, I struggled with that throughout my post, but I did in fact attempt to address the content of the experiment.

Replying with "LOL, read ALL THE THINGS" is not in any way conducive to the discussion surrounding the substance of the debate, such as it is.

Neither is this.

[eggynack]

The rules on languages on page 12 of the PHB establish a number of languages known.

We are assuming that this is a maximum.

Find a way around this maximum

Plain and simple.
I understand that. I'm telling you that what you're asking is somewhat impossible. We already know what this RAW does, and how it interacts with the game. It's more than that it doesn't mean the thing you're indicating. It fundamentally can't mean that thing. There are no words indicating a maximum, which makes finding contradictory words somewhat difficult, so if you want a thought experiment, then you need to construct this new rule out of whole cloth. What you're asking for can't work in any other way.