Expanded 3.5 language system

[kaiguy]

So, I'm thinking of putting together a 3.5 campaign with some friends of mine. My friends and I are all really interested in languages, and tend to be disappointed by the pretty sketchy language system in 3.5.

So I want to create a somewhat expanded system for languages for our campaign, but I don't have a lot of experience with these things. So I thought I'd put my thoughts up here, and see if anyone else wants to add to it, see if we can't come up with something that can handle some complexity.

What I'm thinking is that we need to differentiate about five levels of fluency (by the by, I ran into something a while ago on the web that might be vaguely similar - if I'm cribbing from you, I'm not intentionally a plagiarist.) You'd have 1 - no fluency, 2 - passing familiarity, 3 - everything from conversational to somewhat fluent, 4 - fluent, and 5 - native speaker.

I thought about just having it be part of the skills - 20 ranks in language (Gnoll) is native fluency, but the one problem I have is that this is a lot of skill ranks to learn a language. I think 1 is far too few, but 20 is too high (even 5 seems too few to me, or I'd just do it as outlined above.) Basically, it should take several levels and a concerted effort to acheive fluency in another language, which should have tangible benefits (at the very least, a +2 to everything from Diplomacy to Bluff.)

I also know I want dialects to play a role at some point, but I'm not there yet. Anyone interested in throwing in their two cents?

[Altair_the_Vexed]

20 ranks for native fluency is way too high.

To achive an averagely difficult task (DC 15) when you take 10 - most conversations are held without any pressure or threat - you need +5 to the skill. I would say that an ordinary conversation would be averagely difficult.
I'd say that 5 ranks in a language means you're fluent and easy to understand, and can understand what's being said back to you.
Asking for directions, or getting a room in an inn would be easy (DC 10). Anyone with a rank in the language would be able to do that. If you take 20, you'll be able to make conversation, too.

You could set higher DCs, or adjustments to the DC for certain situations: an obscure dialect might be DC 20.

[Shpadoinkle]

This comes up periodically. I remember seeing pretty much the same post eight or nine years ago on the WotC D&D boards, before they turned to crap. I'm going to tell you the same thing I told that guy.

No, the present system isn't realistic. It was never intended to be. It was intended to be usable. That is, something that's not going to be a huge pain in the ass to play with, and something you won't have to constantly keep looking up the rules for.

As written, it's a very simple system- either you know a language or you don't. Making it more realistic would mostly just slow the game down and make it both more frustrating (due to miscommunication or inability to communicate complex concepts at all, unless you sink a lot of skill points into it) and more boring- it would add a lot of work with very little payoff. YOU might find your alternate rules more fun, but a lot of people wouldn't.

Now, if it's your players complaining communication is too easy, go nuts. I've never heard of that happening, but I'm not counting it as outside the realm of possibility (it's pretty close though- it's up there with "You're giving us too much treasure" as things I expect very few players have ever actually said.)

Finally, think about how few skill points the classes get. Making a more complicated languages system simply for the sake of making it more complicated would, more than likely, do nothing but make PCs stop spending points in the Speak Language skill and instead buy a wand or two of tongues.

[Land Outcast]

Well, if you and your friends are really interested in languages -perhaps you're linguistic students, perhaps it's just an amateur passion- I'd go with 5 ranks to mean fluency. Why?

Remember that Language will be a cross-class skill for most classes, so most characters will attain fluency at level 7... if they DO devote skillpoints to the skill every level. 'nuff said.

[kaiguy]

No, the present system isn't realistic. It was never intended to be. It was intended to be usable.

I never said I was shooting for realism - I'm shooting for complexity. I don't care if most people would find it fun - I have a group that's into this kind of thing.

A DC of 10 for simply talking to someone in your native language is way too high - granted. But, speaking to someone in a language you have just a hint of a grasp of? Maybe making it a skill check wouldn't work, but I still like the scale of 20. Instead of using up skill points, maybe give each player a number of language points equal to their intelligence modifier every level?

[Mayhem]

Maybe you could make the race's bonus languages count as class skills and the other languages count as cross-class regardless of whether your class has the skill on their list, an idea I really like. You could add charisma to the communicate DC I suppose, to represent how outgoing people always make themselves understood but can barely read or write. I'd say that 5 ranks are enough though, and you could rule no more than say 2 ranks can be put into a language skill a level. Having a language skill pool from your intelligence bonus and any skill points you add to the mix is a good idea too.

[Siosilvar]

Food for thought:

5 ranks is the difference between "incompetent" and "good enough to reliably make masterwork items" for the Craft skill. Using more real-world terms, that's "no experience" and "master craftsman".

5 ranks is also the point at which you gain synergy bonuses from applying study in one skill to other skills.

[Ashtagon]

I opted to divorce language from skills entirely, and to divorce the writing system from the spoken language. A language has the following levels of understanding:

1. None: You cannot even attempt to make sense of the language. You may be able to communicate by point and grin, or drawing pictures in the dirt on the ground, or mime, but nothing that actually involves the language itself.
2. Basic: Communication-based tasks suffer a -5 penalty on skill rolls. Except for pre-arranged signals that the GM is specifically informed of in advance, you can't communicate in the language in the heat of battle. Normal communication tasks take 2-5 times longer, depending on GM fiat.
3. Intermediate: Communication-based tasks suffer a -2 penalty on skill rolls. This is the minimum knowledge level necessary to activate a scroll by reading it.
4. Fluent ("Literate"): No penalties. You have an accent corresponding to where you learned the language or who you learned it from. If your biology theoretically allows for it, you can learn additional accents by spending a skill point for each one. Speaking in the wrong accent may impose a penalty on checks.

If reading something, you use the lower of your relevant literacy and fluency values to determine the penalties, if any. Note that literacy is per writing system, so as a RL example, English speakers are fluent in English, and literate (we hope) in the Latin script, a script shared by almost every other western European language today.

A 1st level character starts off with all his automatic languages, plus a number of points to spend between literacy and fluency equal to (Intelligence -10, minimum 0). These points may only be spent on bonus languages, where those languages are listed.

Each time a character gains a level, he may spend one skill point on increasing his language skills. Classes that have Speak Language or Read Language as a class skill may spend two skill points per level on languages.

This was designed as a compromise between simplicity, realism, and keeping the language magic spells relevant.

[Eldan]

I never said I was shooting for realism - I'm shooting for complexity. I don't care if most people would find it fun - I have a group that's into this kind of thing.

A DC of 10 for simply talking to someone in your native language is way too high - granted. But, speaking to someone in a language you have just a hint of a grasp of? Maybe making it a skill check wouldn't work, but I still like the scale of 20. Instead of using up skill points, maybe give each player a number of language points equal to their intelligence modifier every level?

However, that also means that no one in the entire world save it's greatest and most epic heroes can ever learn a foreign language with any degree of proficiency.

Let's take John, the Translator. He's very good at his job, and a human expert, level 4. He has 7 ranks, about a third of what is required for perfect fluency. So, he can barely make himself understood, despite having spent his entire life studying foreign language.

So, 20 ranks is way, way too high. Make it four ranks, perhaps, or something close to that. I still think it's not really necessary.

[Mangles]

5 ranks is the difference between "incompetent" and "good enough to reliably make masterwork items" for the Craft skill. Using more real-world terms, that's "no experience" and "master craftsman".

This really says it all. 5 ranks should make you fluent if not have it as a native tongue.

Just for more realism though. No one can actually achieve a native tongue after a certain age. They can become more fluent than someone born to it, but a native tongue can only be taught to the young. So maybe cap it at 4 ranks unless it is in their language list or even taken to 5 at character creation. Even so they aren't going to get a single language to that level until they hit 5.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

...
A DC of 10 for simply talking to someone in your native language is way too high - granted.
...

But DC 10 is what anyone with zero modifier to their skill can hit every time they try a skill under normal, unstressed conditions.
I'd say that's a little easy for language skills.

I'm not talking about ever really needing to roll checks for languages, just using the Take 10 and Take 20 rules.

Here's a real-world example: I have a bad recollection of the French I learned at school (say I have a negative adjustment from lack of practice) - but with enough time and a few attempts, I can order things over the phone from a French company (Taking 20).

...
5 ranks is the difference between "incompetent" and "good enough to reliably make masterwork items" for the Craft skill. Using more real-world terms, that's "no experience" and "master craftsman".
...

This analogy only works if you have the other bonuses to go with your 5 ranks.

I think that ranks aren't the issue here, it's more the total bonus. You could have 5 ranks and a -4 penalty to Craft, and you'd be rubbish at making masterwork kit.

Languages are not associated with an ability score. Where are your bonuses coming from?

In short, 1 rank is enough to hit DC10 when you take 10 to communicate.

[kaiguy]

So, twenty ranks seems too high. But five ranks seems low, if we're using skills points, or special language points based on the ability modifier. Let's look at it from the other way.

A level 5 expert translator with moderately high intelligence (14-16) should have native level fluency in a secondary language, both spoken and written. If I base it on skill points, by level 5 he will have 64 to 72 skill points, or (using the 20 point language system I suggested) 3 languages he has native level fluency in. That seems about right, honestly.

What I'm most concerned with is creating a drain on skill points. 64 skill points isn't bad for an NPC class that will be focusing 90% of them on one thing. It's a lot for a PC.

If we use the same translator, getting extra language points per level based on his Int or Wis bonus, he'll have 10 - 15 points, or two to three languages he's fluent in.

[Siosilvar]

This analogy only works if you have the other bonuses to go with your 5 ranks.

I think that ranks aren't the issue here, it's more the total bonus. You could have 5 ranks and a -4 penalty to Craft, and you'd be rubbish at making masterwork kit.

If you have a horrible skill to begin with, then yes.

5 ranks is the same +5 bonus no matter where you start from, and it will take longer to overcome a significant handicap (like a -4 penalty) than if you already have natural ability.

Perhaps I could've appended "for a person who could expect to be good or at least decent at it".

[hr]I'm not sure 5 ranks is low. 5 ranks will take you 25% of an adventurer's career (not counting the +3 ranks at first level, which comes from learning a second language in childhood/teen years) to accumulate, assuming you also focus on other things (and just speaking a language is cripplingly overspecialized for a linguist; there's also Decipher Script, Profession, Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and maybe Forgery to worry about).

Assuming* the typical person (not the adventurers; their rapid XP gain is ridiculously fast) levels up about evenly through their life (5** years or so per level, after reaching 15), they'll need to be 20 to speak a language fluently. If they wait until they're 20 to start, they'll need to be 45.

Sounds okay to me.

*For the sake of the argument. Actual XP gain may vary, depending on how you model it. D&D doesn't do reality well, but it can approximate it.

**5 years per level means most modern-day people reach about level 10 in their lifetime. Medieval ages? Assuming a 40-year lifespan, that's level 6. Feel free to tweak this number depending on how you feel people would advance when modeled in D&D*.

[hr]EDIT: Perhaps limit learning a language to no more than one rank per level, and you must actually RP having an instructor to gain ranks above 3.

[Mayhem]

Sadly average life span during middle ages was around 21 . Fortunately that's not the case in d&d. [/off topic end].

Maybe you could allow intelligence bonus to language skill provided you have atleast 1 rank. That would help linguists get past the level limit I suppose.

[Ashtagon]

The problem with defining Language as a skill is that there is never a situation in which you may be required to make a roll against Language skill. In game terms, what it does it let you make a roll against certain Charisma skills at all.

[Eldan]

Sadly average life span during middle ages was around 21 . Fortunately that's not the case in d&d. [/off topic end].

Maybe you could allow intelligence bonus to language skill provided you have atleast 1 rank. That would help linguists get past the level limit I suppose.

Yes, average lifespan is about 21. This includes the high percentage of children dying in their first year. If you make it to adulthood, your chance to making it past 40 isn't too bad.

[Super_Dave]

I like the Language system in the World of Darkness games, myself.

Here's a warning, though: If you're DM-ing a game where not everyone speaks a major language fluently, you're going to have a really tough time of it. Every time the players encounter someone who isn't a native speaker of their language, you'll have to generate three conversations in your head: what the characters mean, what they say, and what they hear. In large groups, or with more than one NPC in the room, this could make your job as the DM very difficult indeed.

But it's good that you're even trying. Most games/DMs gloss over the issue of language entirely. It's a little unrealistic, and it's always bugged me.

Overall, I feel like this mechanic would work well in campaigns that emphasize cultural hurdles and roadblocks to understanding, or the damage that can be caused by a lack of cultural context.

[DaTedinator]

If I wanted to make language matter in my games, I think what I'd do is focus on variety over mastery. Let one or two skill ranks teach someone a language, but get rid of common.

Then have each country have their own language, maybe even with different races having their own language within the country ("Oh, yeah, you speak Guilder Elvish, but you're in Florin now, the elves here all speak Florinese Elvish) - similar, but different; sort of like the difference between German and Swiss German.

Still allow for a sort of common; as long as you know a language half in common - e.g., Guilder Elvish and Florinese Elvish - you can communicate with a sort of pidgin, but that's mostly only suitable for trade and basic communication, not conversation.

Speak Language would become a separate skill based on Intelligence, that would allow you to pick up languages with similar roots to languages you know. So with a DC X check, you can understand Florinese Elvish, and with a DC X+5 check, you can talk about higher concepts (as opposed to the basic stuff you could communicate in pidgin), and with a DC X+10 check you can permanently learn it, but you speak with a distinct accent unless you spend an extra skill point on it.

Let Speak Language even teach you languages you know nothing about - Florinese Halfling, say - but at a much higher DC. Or you can spend one skill point to skip the Speak Language check, and learn the language with a thick accent, which you can then spend another rank to eliminate.

That, quickly evolved into a big long thing. It was originally supposed to just be my two cents, but now I don't know if it's anything near what you're trying to do. I hope that's at all helpful.

[Winter_Wolf]

I feel obligated to point out that there is an official system (at least two, actually) in the United States for denoting fluency in languages, which is scaled from 0-5 in .5 increments. You could just as easily ignore the .5, and I'd recommend it for something like D&D.
ILR System: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILR_scale

There is also ACTFL, which is significantly more complicated and probably more effort than it's worth unless you're a hardcore linguistic type.