Learning new skills and languages is practically impossible

[Kaibis]

When you build a new character you get to pick two things (two languages, two tools, a language and a tool). Sometimes flavour requires more. E.g. Perhaps your character was a sailor, he can use navigator's tool, cartographer's tools, thieve's tools, and has picked up a language or two in his travels prior to the adventure (and I argue that a 40yo sailor that has travelled the world twice makes a far more interesting PC than an 18yo leaving their village for the first time, but that is a sidebar).

When you build a lvl1 character you can't have all that of course. However the downtime options to learn a new one, even just for flavour, is practically impossible. It requires having access to a skilled instructor for 250days, which really limits this to other party members, and that then begs the 'why bother' question.

From the PHB 187:
Training
You can spend time between adventures learning a new language or training with a set of tools. Your DM might allow additional training options.

First, you must find an instructor willing to teach you. The DM determines how long it takes, and whether one or more ability checks are required.

The training lasts for 250 days and costs 1 gp per day. After you spend the requisite amount of time and money, you learn the new language or gain proficiency with the new tool.

I know that skills are just for flavour (and mostly so are languages), but for players that enjoy the flavour, it puts a soft limit on it.

[Greywander]

Get Xanathar's Guide to Everything. It has a whole host of new downtime activity rules, including revamped training rules for learning new tool proficiencies or languages (RAW it's not possible to train skills, but the DMG has an option to train feats, and Skilled is a feat, so YMMV). Training in Xanathar's takes 10 workweeks minus your INT mod, and costs 25 gp per week. With an INT of 20, you can learn a new tool or language in a little over a month (5 weeks).

[Kaibis]

Get Xanathar's Guide to Everything. It has a whole host of new downtime activity rules, including revamped training rules for learning new tool proficiencies or languages (RAW it's not possible to train skills, but the DMG has an option to train feats, and Skilled is a feat, so YMMV). Training in Xanathar's takes 10 workweeks minus your INT mod, and costs 25 gp per week. With an INT of 20, you can learn a new tool or language in a little over a month (5 weeks).

Now that is more feasible. Thank you, I was wondering how other people dealt with it. I will go read Xanther's now (I have the D&DBeyond book, but have only glanced at it).

[Kaibis]

Hmmm. I am reading it and it is clear as mud.

Training
Given enough free time and the services of an instructor, a character can learn a language or pick up proficiency with a tool.

Resources. Receiving training in a language or tool typically takes at least ten workweeks, but this time is reduced by a number of workweeks equal to the character’s Intelligence modifier (an Intelligence penalty doesn’t increase the time needed). Training costs 25 gp per workweek.

Complications. Complications that arise while training typically involve the teacher. Every ten workweeks spent in training brings a 10 percent chance of a complication, examples of which are on the Training Complications table.

"Typically takes at least ten workweeks" is really vague. Is this up to the GM to decide? There doesn't seem to be any guide anywhere.
"Every ten workweeks spent in training brings a 10 percent chance of a complication" makes sense but the time frame is at odds with the overall timeframe to complete training. If training takes ten workweeks (typically) and there is a 10 percent chance of a complication once, then why not just say that? Also, when does this roll take place, at the end of the ten workweeks? If so, most of the complications become retrospective and irrelevant.

It is better than 250 days though!!!

[Tetrasodium]

Hmmm. I am reading it and it is clear as mud.

Training
Given enough free time and the services of an instructor, a character can learn a language or pick up proficiency with a tool.

Resources. Receiving training in a language or tool typically takes at least ten workweeks, but this time is reduced by a number of workweeks equal to the character’s Intelligence modifier (an Intelligence penalty doesn’t increase the time needed). Training costs 25 gp per workweek.

Complications. Complications that arise while training typically involve the teacher. Every ten workweeks spent in training brings a 10 percent chance of a complication, examples of which are on the Training Complications table.

"Typically takes at least ten workweeks" is really vague. Is this up to the GM to decide? There doesn't seem to be any guide anywhere.
"Every ten workweeks spent in training brings a 10 percent chance of a complication" makes sense but the time frame is at odds with the overall timeframe to complete training. If training takes ten workweeks (typically) and there is a 10 percent chance of a complication once, then why not just say that? Also, when does this roll take place, at the end of the ten workweeks? If so, most of the complications become retrospective and irrelevant.

It is better than 250 days though!!!

not every language in every setting is created equal. Lets say that:
Alice wants to learn elvish: Not a big deal, elves are reasonably friendly in most settings
Bob wants to learn ancient dhakaani goblin... probably a bit harder if it's not a language still in common use.
Chuck wants to learn thieve's cant. Again, probably more difficult than elven.
Dave is playing in Athas & thinks it would be swell if he could talk with the savage cannibalistic barbaraian halflings that drink the blood of their victims to survive but care not for money... This is going to be even more difficult

[Damon_Tor]

My homebrew for learning is as follows:


For every week of extended exposure to a language, tool or skill, you can make an intelligence check to attempt to gain proficiency in that skill. "Extended Exposure" means you are around a proficient user and can clearly see and hear him use the language/skill/tool regularly during that period. If one or more of these proficient users is actively trying to help you learn, you have advantage on the intelligence check.
The check has a DC of 100, but progress towards the check is cumulative: if you roll a 15 on your first attempt, your next attempt will have a DC of 85. If you roll a 10 next, your next check will have a DC of 75, and so on.

This means for languages you can simply learn via immersion. Traveling for 8 weeks on a boat full of elves? Chances are pretty good you're going to wind up speaking passable elvish by the end of it if you have a reasonable intelligence score.

Others skills and tools will be harder to just absorb. Even if you have a thief in the party, he probably doesn't use his thieves' tools "regularly" enough to qualify, and you're even less likely to be able to see him do it clearly, because doing that sort of thing sneakily is kind of the point.

[Greywander]

Hmmm. I am reading it and it is clear as mud.

Training
Given enough free time and the services of an instructor, a character can learn a language or pick up proficiency with a tool.

Resources. Receiving training in a language or tool typically takes at least ten workweeks, but this time is reduced by a number of workweeks equal to the character’s Intelligence modifier (an Intelligence penalty doesn’t increase the time needed). Training costs 25 gp per workweek.

Complications. Complications that arise while training typically involve the teacher. Every ten workweeks spent in training brings a 10 percent chance of a complication, examples of which are on the Training Complications table.

"Typically takes at least ten workweeks" is really vague. Is this up to the GM to decide? There doesn't seem to be any guide anywhere.
"Every ten workweeks spent in training brings a 10 percent chance of a complication" makes sense but the time frame is at odds with the overall timeframe to complete training. If training takes ten workweeks (typically) and there is a 10 percent chance of a complication once, then why not just say that? Also, when does this roll take place, at the end of the ten workweeks? If so, most of the complications become retrospective and irrelevant.

It is better than 250 days though!!!
I would apply Occam's Razor here: the solution with the fewest assumptions is probably the correct one.

It says that training "typically takes at least ten workweeks", so we need to make sure we parse this properly. This phrase includes both the words "at least" as well as "typically". If it only said "at least", we could infer training could never take less than ten weeks, but it could certainly take more than ten weeks. However, since it also says "typically", we have to assume that this refers to an average person, i.e. one with an INT score of 10. It suggests that training might take longer than ten weeks, but doesn't give any indication on how that time should be extended and what parameters would affect that.

We could begin by assuming that 10 weeks is the shortest time for an average character (10 INT), and that it takes one additional week for each -1 on their INT mod. However, it specifically says that a negative INT mod doesn't affect training time, so that can't be it. We could assume it was 10 weeks for a character with 20 INT, and that a character with less than 20 INT would take one additional week for each point that their INT mod is below +5, however this is backwards to the way most of the game is handled when it comes to ability score modifiers, which is to give the base rate with a mod of +0, and then apply some effect for each +1 (or -1).

The most straightfoward answer here is to assume that training time is 10 weeks, minus one week for each +1 on your INT mod.

As for complications, the rules seem to indicate that a character with an INT of 12 or higher would then never encounter complications, as they would always finish training in 9 weeks and never reach that 10th week. Obviously something has gone wrong here. Either our previous assumption that 10 weeks was the default time which is then further reduced by your INT mod were incorrect, and 10 weeks is the absolute least amount of time training can take, or we have to assume that someone goofed up while writing this rule, and the intent was to roll for a complication after each trained language or tool, regardless of the actual time spent training. A third option exists, and that's that we go back to 250 days base training, or 35 weeks and 5 days, and that each +1 to INT reduces that time by one week, but never lower than 10 weeks, which would require an INT of 60, when the hard cap is 30.

So basically none of the options make sense. Therefore, the most straightforward one is the second one: that someone screwed up while writing the rule.

Ergo, what we are left with is: base 10 weeks to train, subtract your INT mod (if positive), and roll for a complication after your choice of each completed training or 10 weeks of consecutive training (if you train more than one language/tool in a row).

As far as how to handle it, I would say that when you decide to train, you go ahead and pay your lifestyle expenses for that time frame, roll for a complication, and resolve the complication (if applicable). Once that's done, you have the new proficiency. Since it only requires workweeks, it leaves it open for doing small missions and sidequests during the weekends (or otherwise PRing), so you might only go one week at a time (in which case the DM can roll for a complication in secret and, if a complication occurs, implement it at whatever time seems appropriate during the training period).


Traveling for 8 weeks on a boat full of elves? Chances are pretty good you're going to wind up speaking passable elvish by the end of it if you have a reasonable intelligence score.
Unless you're a huge nerd who would rather spend time with his spellbook instead of a bunch of weird and creepy elves. Should scale with CHA instead to show that you're not afraid to socialize with a group of people you can't even understand.

Then again, this is honestly more of an introvert vs. extrovert thing, not intelligence or friendliness.

[Kaibis]

My homebrew for learning is as follows:


For every week of extended exposure to a language, tool or skill, you can make an intelligence check to attempt to gain proficiency in that skill. "Extended Exposure" means you are around a proficient user and can clearly see and hear him use the language/skill/tool regularly during that period. If one or more of these proficient users is actively trying to help you learn, you have advantage on the intelligence check.
The check has a DC of 100, but progress towards the check is cumulative: if you roll a 15 on your first attempt, your next attempt will have a DC of 85. If you roll a 10 next, your next check will have a DC of 75, and so on.

This means for languages you can simply learn via immersion. Traveling for 8 weeks on a boat full of elves? Chances are pretty good you're going to wind up speaking passable elvish by the end of it if you have a reasonable intelligence score.

Others skills and tools will be harder to just absorb. Even if you have a thief in the party, he probably doesn't use his thieves' tools "regularly" enough to qualify, and you're even less likely to be able to see him do it clearly, because doing that sort of thing sneakily is kind of the point.

I like this way of thinking a lot. I supposed my answer depends largely on wether these things are for game breaking means (i.e. I want all the skills and all the languages so nothing can thwart me) or for flavour. I tend to compartmentalise the RP and the Combat. I want my combat optimised, but the RP is fun, I want to tend a sour dough yeast and bake bread as we travel.

[Unoriginal]

The "typically 10 weeks" is because, yes, a DM could modify that length if they wanted. For example, they could decide learing X tool use takes longer because it's more difficult than others or require more specialized ressources.

[Marywn]

Here is the problem I find.

I have a centaur monk that doesn't know common, and her goal is to learn common. Only problem is that it takes too long to speak or even learn it. True, the Dm can modify it but hey *Shrug*.

I just kinda find that it does take slightly too long to learn a language.

[clash]

There are already a few ways to gain new skills or languages without any downtime.

Taking the skilled or linguist or prodigy feats will gain you new skills and languages languages.
Gaining levels in certain class or subclasses grant additional proficiencies.
Multiclassing can also gain you new skills and/or languages with the right multiclass.

The problem here is that you want it for free. Learning a new skill or language requires either a lot of time and practice(downtime listed) or fast pacing the process with revelations earned through experience in stressfull situations (represented by leveling up and/or ASI's). The game doesn't well support gaining skills and languages through downtime because you were never meant to get them for free. The standard way for your character to grow in d&d is by leveling up. If you are not willing to spend character levels gaining the skills and languages then how important are they actually to your character? d&d might be a combat simulator but that is not all it is about. Not every you spend your levels on has to be combat related.

[Marywn]

Only thing about that is, she had 14 hp at lvl 3, had to take tough.
I don't want it for free, that's the problem. A goal isn't really a good one if you don't have to much to acheive. Well character growth.

[RedMage125]

not every language in every setting is created equal. Lets say that:
Alice wants to learn elvish: Not a big deal, elves are reasonably friendly in most settings
Bob wants to learn ancient dhakaani goblin... probably a bit harder if it's not a language still in common use.
Chuck wants to learn thieve's cant. Again, probably more difficult than elven.
Dave is playing in Athas & thinks it would be swell if he could talk with the savage cannibalistic barbaraian halflings that drink the blood of their victims to survive but care not for money... This is going to be even more difficult

But...the rules you even quoted say that it requires the services of an instructor. So Bob and Dave probably are hosed in that regard, not because something about those languages is inherently more difficult, but because the services of an instructor will be that much harder to come by*. Chuck might be hosed as well, unless a party member or someone else who trusts him wants to let him in on such. Thieve's Cant is less a proper "language" and more "here's a bunch of double meanings and euphanisms for words in Common".

*The Heirs of Dhakaan in their hidden outposts may still speak some form of it, but good luck getting them to cooperate, they don't even cooperate with Lesh Haruuc's Darguun nation of hobgoblins.

[Unoriginal]

Here is the problem I find.

I have a centaur monk that doesn't know common, and her goal is to learn common. Only problem is that it takes too long to speak or even learn it. True, the Dm can modify it but hey *Shrug*.

I just kinda find that it does take slightly too long to learn a language.

How does the centaur not know common? It's an automatically known language for PCs, no?

[Marywn]

It was something I chose to not get, as a flaw that she has.

[Unoriginal]

It was something I chose to not get, as a flaw that she has.

Then there is no problem with it taking a long time to change.

[Marywn]

I do know that, characters don't instantly learn things, they grow and learn.

Its more of a little annoyance. It is funny when you have to play charades to get a message accross as a half horse person.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then there is no problem with it taking a long time to change.

In fact, I'd tend to believe that a willingly-chosen flaw should be impossible to simply retrain without spending significant plot/in-character time resolving. Otherwise you can buy off flaws with just cash/downtime, obviating the flaw itself.

But that's just me.

[Marywn]

In fact, I'd tend to believe that a willingly-chosen flaw should be impossible to simply retrain without spending significant plot/in-character time resolving. Otherwise you can buy off flaws with just cash/downtime, obviating the flaw itself.

But that's just me.

I concur.
I give my characters flaws that need time to resolve, not a thing that can be bought out of.
When I say alittle annoying, I mean very small, because I know she'll learn through time.

But for now, I communicate via charades.(She has a 10 CHA)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I concur.
I give my characters flaws that need time to resolve, not a thing that can be bought out of.
When I say alittle annoying, I mean very small, because I know she'll learn through time.

But for now, I communicate via charades.(She has a 10 CHA)

As a DM, I would have flat out disallowed a flaw of not speaking a common language. It's just not fair to the other players.

[Marywn]

The languages she can speak are Elven, Slyvan and Primodial.

I would agree, but the gm I'm playing with has a list of races that don't start with common language.

[Anonymouswizard]

I tend to find this a failing of both 5e's skill system and traditional D&D adventure design (where it's been assumed your skills have been pushed to peak since about third edition). I've been in a lot of games where we just flung an experience point or two at a skill because we realised we should have some proficiency in it, sometimes in-session. Once bought ranks in History three sessions in because I was on so tight a budget I hadn't been able to afford a single rank until then (not boosting my skills past peak was fine, as the adventure was written assuming 90% of our skills would be at 'journeyman' level rather than 'expert').

A little note on 3.X and 5e in regards to skill systems, in practice they work the same but with different numbers. Due to adventure design you'll want all your 'important' skills at maximum ranks in 3.X, in 5e they just cut to the middleman and have you spend your skills automatically remain at maximum. The only difference is A) number of ranks, and B) number of skills.

Now this is fine, but it does make it difficult to model dabbling in skills or picking up skills down the line. I don't like 5e's solution of the former (high Ability Score), although I'm okayish with it's training rules (although think they're a bit too harsh with the amount of downtime I tend to see).

[Laserlight]

As a DM, I would have flat out disallowed a flaw of not speaking a common language. It's just not fair to the other players.

I had a campaign where the party barbarian Druid tended to sleep with the Noble but they couldn't really talk to each other (he understood some Common but speaking it was beneath him, so he stuck to High Speech; she didn't talk much in the first place and Common was a second language at best). The other two players could translate but one had an interest in the Noble and the other was trying to get a romance going with the Druid, so their translations were, shall we say, not always exactly reliable. Hilarity ensured.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I had a campaign where the party barbarian Druid tended to sleep with the Noble but they couldn't really talk to each other (he understood some Common but speaking it was beneath him, so he stuck to High Speech; she didn't talk much in the first place and Common was a second language at best). The other two players could translate but one had an interest in the Noble and the other was trying to get a romance going with the Druid, so their translations were, shall we say, not always exactly reliable. Hilarity ensured.

In a comedic game where the inter-character interactions are the table's primary source of fun, that's fine. In a more "standard" game...it's a waste of everyone's time.

I'm not opposed to having languages that matter--I have a bunch of them. And not all people you run into will speak Common. But the party darn well will, otherwise we're playing telephone and wasting precious table time trying to translate. Even with truly foreign languages, if at least one person is proficient then I act as if everyone (mostly) is as long as they're together. The catch is that since the proficient one is talking, only his ability scores/proficiencies matter for communication/persuasion/deception/etc.

[MThurston]

You can take a feat. Pretty easy to do.

[RedMage125]

As a DM, I would have flat out disallowed a flaw of not speaking a common language. It's just not fair to the other players.


In a comedic game where the inter-character interactions are the table's primary source of fun, that's fine. In a more "standard" game...it's a waste of everyone's time.

I'm not opposed to having languages that matter--I have a bunch of them. And not all people you run into will speak Common. But the party darn well will, otherwise we're playing telephone and wasting precious table time trying to translate. Even with truly foreign languages, if at least one person is proficient then I act as if everyone (mostly) is as long as they're together. The catch is that since the proficient one is talking, only his ability scores/proficiencies matter for communication/persuasion/deception/etc.

I agree wholeheartedly. Some NPCs speaking a language no one in the party speaks is an obstacle, like many other possible obstacles for the party to overcome. And it's one thing if a party member speaks additional languages that the rest of the party does not. But to not even have a single common language amongst the whole party seems...unnecessarily absurd. I understand from the OP that this is the DM's fault. He/she thinks that some races should not get Common as a starting language. But this DM is setting his/her group up for unnecessary trouble and time wasted just communicating with each other.

Of note: Acolyte, Guild Artisan, Hermit, Noble, Outlander, and Sage Backgrounds all grant one or more languages of your choice. You could easily choose Common for that.

[Anonymouswizard]

I agree wholeheartedly. Some NPCs speaking a language no one in the party speaks is an obstacle, like many other possible obstacles for the party to overcome. And it's one thing if a party member speaks additional languages that the rest of the party does not. But to not even have a single common language amongst the whole party seems...unnecessarily absurd. I understand from the OP that this is the DM's fault. He/she thinks that some races should not get Common as a starting language. But this DM is setting his/her group up for unnecessary trouble and time wasted just communicating with each other.

Of note: Acolyte, Guild Artisan, Hermit, Noble, Outlander, and Sage Backgrounds all grant one or more languages of your choice. You could easily choose Common for that.

I'll note one thing: knowing a language doesn't automatically mean you speak it as a native (as I've seen so many GMs rule). This is one of the few places where I think GURPS 4e hits the balance between realism and playability, having three levels of proficiency for speaking a language (broken, accented, native) and two levels of proficiency for literacy (semi-literate [equivalent to accented[, and literate [equivalent to native]). One of the bits I like to steal for other games, although it's hard to get into 5e due to how it's purchased (in GURPS broken costs 2CP, accented costs 4CP, and native costs 6CP, although you can buy verbal and written seperately for half the cost). I have considered the following:

"A character begins with native proficiency in a single language (their mother tongue), and gets additional language points equal to Intelligence modifier, minimum one. One point means you have basic proficiency, you can get across basic concepts clearly but need to make a DC15 Intelligence check to engage in discussion or explain complicated concepts. Two points gives you full proficiency, you can successfully converse in the language in both day to day life and your area of expertise, but have a foreign accent (players are encouraged to talk in a silly voice). Three points gives you native proficiency, where you no longer have an accent and possess a more diverse volcabulary."

Anything that would normally give you a language gives you two language points, and you can attain a new language point with reference materials and ten weeks of downtime, or five weeks with a teacher. There is no real mechanical benefit to native proficiency, the ability to have it merely exists because there are some campaigns where it would give a benefit (such as ones where foreigners suffer from discrimination), but the rules are balanced assuming that accented is fine in all circumstances. Everybody gets one language point for two reasons:
-To allow a common party language, even if a player makes a 3int half-troll* who's native language is abyssal.
-Because PCs are assumed to be have been wandering for a while once play begins, and to have picked up a smattering of what they've heard.

Additionally the party should be allowed to act as a tutor for those who don't have full command of their common language if it begins causing trouble. But this works surprisingly well, most characters will have one or two languages, it makes INT slightly more valuable, and allows stuff like the sage who has enough understanding of four languages to read texts, but not the practical experience to converse in them. The downside is that anybody from another culture who doesn't have at least 14INT or dedicates a language proficiency might not have full grasp of the party language.

* Yeah, 5e has no PC-available half-trolls, I just wanted an example that would traditionally be very low INT.