Search results

Not social mechanics. Language mechanics. Learning languages and language known is a mechanic.

The problem is it can't. It's the fundamental issue D&D fans struggle with. At some point, at the last point, you have to choose looks, story, or gameplay. I just looked up the umber hulk monster. It speaks umber hulk. No PC in there right mind will have knowledge of speaking umber hulk before...

Again the the question is Are to creating your languages for verisimilitude or gaming? One has to take priority over the other

No opposite. Having more and easier ways to learn languages is just a patch for bad game mechanics designed out of flavor desire. Either 1) Create a game mechanic that support having many languages in part of the game's design Or 2) Reduce the languages until it matches the current game...

Because then.theyd have to reconcile why there is only 1 language for the other major races. D&D already has too many languages for a game with no concrete social mechanical subsystem D&D with its lack of hard mechanics should only have 5 languages Common Runic (Dwarvish, Giant, and Orcish...

Personally I don't know how much that would help without actually game design Because much of the tedium could from the game designers attempting to meet the aesthetic goals of themselves and their community. So actually play experience takes a hit. I mean 5es tedium comes from Bounded...

Well I was really talking about D&D's honeymoon phase. Which seems to be 30 years ago in 2e when it ended. Which makes sense for PreInternet. This is compared to Shadowdark were all mostly still in the honeymoon where criticism is nearly invisible due to its newness. Or Pathfinder which...

It's about cycle she not actual age. Many "popular games" don't have in internal discussion on the flaws of the game and how to fix them. They are in honeymoon stage still. No subreddits or forums on fire with "X is broken" or "Y doesn't work" threads.

That's the point. Bonus actions were made so clerics can Heal + Attack.or rangers HM +Attack But it became "How can I do BA every turn" for everyone. A good idea to be more fun made the game more tedious and slow.

Combat is tedious because other aspects of the game that were designed to be more fun leak into combat and make it tedious. And 90% of it is due to catering to spell caster fans. Basically we made spellcasters and magic strong while keeping them complex. And in turn we had to raise...

In Klassico Only Elves and Valley Dwarves use bows as a primary missile weapon because only Elves live long enough to train bow users, craft high quality bows, and are unwilling to swap to crossbows or firearms Dragon Dynasty(Dragonborn, Elves, Humans, Hybrids) - Bows Gryphon Empire (Humans...

I am a fan of Magic types and restrictions. Arcane magic can't Heal nor Revive and it's buff and debuffs require Concentration/Focus, ritual time, or a item slot. Utility can't supplant skills but can go around it. Divine magic is behind a tier in Damage and Debuffing unless targeting the...

That's because Language by X has no bearing to gameplay. If you want Language to be a designed gameplay element, you must decide what game language is supposed to be in. For example, if you are designed an Old School game where Good species/monsters speak Good languages and Bad species/monster...

That's my point. Language was designed to look flavorful and fair. But in usage, it's boring, arbitrary, and fully up to the DM's whims.

PC1 knows Common, CSL, and Halfling. PC2 knows Common, Elvish, and Sylvan PC3 knows Common, Dwarvish, and Giant. PC4 knows Common, Gnome, and Goblin. Sign is in Common, all PCs can read. Sign is in Elvish, PC1 can read. Sign is in Infernal, None can read. Mother May the sign be in Common? 🥹

I am using the fact that there are over 10 languages with no core design on spread nor additional rules. A party of 4 can't cover all Standard Languages. And if you count rare languages as 1/2, a party of 4 who all choose not to overlap still has a 35% chance of not knowing what someone says...

D&D languages were never designed seriously but many traditionalist ran them with serious implications via barriers. You can. But again. D&D languages were never designed to be seriously ran.

Exactly. D&D's languages we're not designed seriously. So they are best used as opening has rather than closing them. Personally if D&D wanted to really make languages at the path close trip it really should reorganize Its various languages into families and have them more or less be steps of...

My point is that D&D never treated languages design as serious game design so using it as a barrier is foolish play born out of traditionalism. D&D Languages are set up as something nice to look at. So its use should be aesthetically for immersion in best cases and for minor tweaking of real...

That's typically called bad DMing if the barrier is to a mandatory route and not an optional one. It's a quick and dirty way of doing native fluency proficiency. I mean we could force players to pick a native language for their PCs and require high INT or the Linguist feat to be fluent in...