D&D (2024) Bonus languages in One D&D backgrounds goes contrary to their other goals

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But is the Gnomish in the north of the sword coast the same as the gnomish in the south? Is the gnomish on faerun the same as the gnomish in exandria? Why?

Even if there was some mythological origins to each language, it would take just a few hundred years for them to drift into dialects and then new languages.

It's a small point, and maybe worth handwaving, but if done correctly could really make groups thing seriously about what's specific about their setting and play into that.

Single cultural languages aren't great, although they could make an argument for it by saying A) most of the cultural languages are among long-lived people (not much linguistic drift if you can live up to 1,000 years as an elf) and B) they're magical reflections of the First World languages.

But if that's the case, they should say so.

I would rather have campaign-based languages. Everyone with hairy feet speaking Halfling feels only slightly removed from alignment languages.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, I did say "classes," too. If Draconic is the language of magic, give it to wizards for free. Let druids pick between Primordial and Sylvan. Let rangers pick up Sylvan for free. Let clerics pick between Primordial, Infernal, Abyssal, Celestial and Cthonic. (Also, Cthonic needs to be a language.)

That’s a lot of choices. The whole point of this change is to give players the option to make fewer choices if they want to.

Examples in the PHB carry a great deal of worldbuilding implications, especially in an era where more newbies are picking up the rulebooks than ever before. If the example gladiator background says that all gladiators know Orcish, then that's a message about how WotC sees orcs, no matter what they also say in their "Orcs of Many Worlds" paragraph.

But it doesn’t say all gladiators know Orcish. It provides a gladiator who knows orcish as one example of a background your character might have. You could instead be a gladiator who knows Elvish. Or a laborer who knows Orcish. Or a laborer who knows Druidic. All PC backgrounds are unique, the examples are just examples, and you can take an example as-is, if you don’t want to make all the decisions involved in creating your own, or modify an example if you want most of it but want a different language or different tool or whatever.

And maybe tools and languages should also be able to be swapped out for something else. I don't think Maximus in "Gladiator" learned a new tool or a new language as a Gladiator. Should players be able to cash in more background options for another level 1 feat?

Again, the benefits need to be standardized for the custom default to work.

 

[Charlaquin]

But is the Gnomish in the north of the sword coast the same as the gnomish in the south? Is the gnomish on faerun the same as the gnomish in exandria? Why?

Even if there was some mythological origins to each language, it would take just a few hundred years for them to drift into dialects and then new languages.

It's a small point, and maybe worth handwaving, but if done correctly could really make groups thing seriously about what's specific about their setting and play into that.

Yeah I mean naming languages after races is its own problem. Frankly, I’m not convinced that having languages as a mechanic is worth the trouble.

 

[Cadence]

There was a comment somewhere that language like “Orcish” are really what the problem is. Which I think is a valid point. I’m not sure what I think about that entirety, yet.

Would have been a chance here for them to put unexpected languages in backgrounds with who it was learned from. Scholar - Orcish (learned from working with the head librarian). Soldier - Elvish (learned from drill sergeant swearing) .

 

[Thommy H-H]

I mean, it is worth reading the descriptions of the Backgrounds in the context of the "[X]s of Many Worlds" sections, since Backgrounds are obviously meant to be, to some extent, setting specific. Not all gnomes have to be artificers, and not all orcs have to be gladiators, but in some of the worlds of D&D, those are things they're associated with. All along with these attempts to divorce 'race' from certain archetypes, they've had to thread the needle and say that, in the past, these traits have been used to encourage the kinds of characters that appeared in the game's fiction: nimble elves, burly orcs, chonky dwarves. Those archetypes still exist, you just don't have to play one. The choice is the point, and Backgrounds are entirely custom now, with these just serving as examples of what's possible.

Admittedly, it's perhaps a bit unfortunate that they chose to lean into the very things they were trying to discourage with certain examples, but I believe the idea was to demonstrate how a Background can inform a language choice and be used to imply certain worldbuilding elements. Halflings are great farmers in some D&D worlds so naturally they write the almanacs in those worlds. Hobgoblins are great generals in some D&D worlds, and soldiers from the same worlds might conceivably learn strategy from their works. They just need to be clearer about how including these elements is completely optional.

 

[Cadence]

That is the default. A “background” is just a set of those floating options you can take as a package, if you want to make one choice instead of several.

That’s a lot of choices. The whole point of this change is to give players the option to make fewer choices if they want to.

Tangent:

I get the idea of wanting to cut down choices for new players or players who want streamlining. But this still feels like a lot smaller choice than assigning the ability scores. (Saying where the high one goes, giving a choice for where the second goes, and nothing on the next three... ) I wonder if for the classes they'll give a suggested full assignment for what folks might want it. And I wonder what the complaints would be if they did.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That's where I'd like them to specify the sample background "Acolyte of Tyr" would have Celestial, while "Acolyte of Aurile" would get Infernal, for example. Having them side by side would emphasize the need to customize.

In my game, I associate all religions with a liturgical language, which I think I picked up somewhere in 3E.

At the very least, I'd like to see 5E Planescape put out a few more planar languages than we have now. The lawful planes seem extremely likely to have a single language -- that's the kind of thing they'd all dig -- which we could call Axiomatic, to bring back a 3Eism.

The Cthonic fiends who play both sides of the Blood War against one another seem like an ideal group to have their own language that they look down upon others knowing or using. (Telepathy can't be used for everything.)

If the Feywild uses Sylvan as its Common tongue (which I would have liked them to have at least nodded at in Wild Beyond the Witchlight, which I missed, if they did), the Shadowfell, which also has developed societies and even trade, seems like it ought to, independent of the Domains of Dread. Call it Umbral.

Yes, but I feel they strived for equality here, not to make a background having "more" than any other. And a language isn't something that is worth foregoing a feat, a prociency or an ASI.

It's officially as good as a tool proficiency. I'd like them to boost the value of tool proficiencies rather than just give up on them and broadly declare everyone in Generic D&Dland to be multilingual. (And yes, lots of people in real life are multilingual. But it's only specific cultures where that's the default.)

Races are "everything innate". Classes are "everything learnt as part of the main job" and Background are "everything learnt culturally". I can't see languages fitting elsewhere than background, unless one would want to make them a separate category.

If wizardly magic is built on Draconic, which has been the idea, to a greater or lesser extent for three editions, it seems hard for me to imagine wizards not getting it by default, as part of being a wizard. It's apparently the machine code of the multiverse.

Common (which is in fact "Human" since they don't have a racial language) is also problematic. Racial languages should be removed and replaced by regional languages, unless there is a strong in-setting reason to explain them (ie, every member of this race dreams in the language of his gods, which teach him new words here and there).

100% yes.

I would be A-OK with the removal of all racial languages.

 

[Malmuria]

Halflings are great farmers in some D&D worlds so naturally they write the almanacs in those worlds. Hobgoblins are great generals in some D&D worlds, and soldiers from the same worlds might conceivably learn strategy from their works.

But worlds are big places, right? And presumably the halfling farmers need soldiers sometimes, and the hobgoblin generals need to eat. Unless there is some kind of planar backstory to halflings have a knack for agriculture, halfling societies ought to not be monocultural

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Halflings are great farmers in some D&D worlds so naturally they write the almanacs in those worlds.

I believe they're also nodding at 3E and 4E halflings with Pilgrims speaking Halfling, which I am guessing means they're hanging out with traveling bands of them while on the road.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Single cultural languages aren't great, although they could make an argument for it by saying A) most of the cultural languages are among long-lived people (not much linguistic drift if you can live up to 1,000 years as an elf) and B) they're magical reflections of the First World languages.

I could accept language-as-magic. Evolving less because people are longer lived, I am not sure, though. We certainly don't speak like we did 40 years ago. Sure, we don't speak the exact same language as teenagers, but we no longer speak as we did back when we were teenagers. I am not sure the increase in lifespan over the course of the 19th and 20th century led to more language staticality.