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

[Malmuria]

I mean, no one said they were? It's like...French cuisine has been historically regarded as superior. Any elite chef trained before the 21st Century might have picked up a little French just from working in the finest restaurants. That doesn't mean that all French people are amazing cooks and can't do anything else. It just means that, rightly or wrongly, the best cooks were believed by others to found amongst French speakers.

Not all halflings are farmers, but farming is one of the things that - in some D&D worlds - some of their cultures have a reputation for doing well. You might also learn Halfling if you're a ranger with a pet dinosaur wandering the edges of the Talenta Plains in Eberron because, in that world, the halflings of that region are nomadic, dinosaur-riding warriors.

The analogy doesn't quite hold up because french is a particular culture that originated in a particular place. Two halflings, meanwhile, might be born on opposite sides of a continent or planet; in that sense it doesn't make sense that both would be equally good at farming. My overall point is that culture needs to be more specific than race in dnd settings.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

in the "real D&D" it seems that many GM forget tools, so I guess you're right.

I have to work constantly to remember them. Luckily, I have players who love to have their characters gamble, so that's at least one tool proficiency I use.

(On a related note: I also don't give out Inspiration as often as I ought to, and am delighted that they're making Inspiration flow more freely in the 2024 PHB, since it's a great mechanic that I feel badly about not using more.)

 

[beancounter]

It is

Not by default, according to the OP.

 

[Thommy H-H]

I'd pick one's that go against type, and provide a parenthetical about why that was the language picked up. (Scholar - Orcish - learned from fellow students; Soldier - Gnomish - learned from assigned tentmate in training; etc...)

Yes, I'd have preferred if they'd chosen examples like these tbh. But when I was reading it for the first time, I thought that actually some of them were initially counter-intuitive, then I went "oh yes, of course!" when I read the descriptions, because I saw how they fit in with some of the settings. Conversely, some of them did go with very specific rationales - Giant for scout, for example, learned from some friendly druids - and I think the implication that gladiators would know Orcish is something they ought to have avoided. There isn't even anything really in the description they used that specifically points to Orcish; they mention other races as fellow performers as well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not by default, according to the OP.

She's referring to the PDF saying how to make a custom language, I'm referring to the examples. We are talking about two related but not identical things.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khuzdul instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.

 

[Thommy H-H]

The analogy doesn't quite hold up because french is a particular culture that originated in a particular place. Two halflings, meanwhile, might be born on opposite sides of a continent or planet; in that sense it doesn't make sense that both would be equally good at farming. My overall point is that culture needs to be more specific than race in dnd settings.

Again, I don't think that's implied? To continue the analogy, there are other countries where French is an official or widely-spoken language, and no one would assume people from there were good at cooking (or conform to any of the other stereotypes associated with French people). Saying "the best farming almanacs are written in Halfling, because in this world, there is at least one halfling culture that is known for excellent agriculture" isn't the same as saying "all halflings everywhere are good farmers".

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khazad instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.

I think the solution is to learn languages from multiple sources, as it is in the 2014 edition.

The acolyte shouldn't learn Celestial, they should learn "the liturgical language of their faith (consult your DM)" but the cleric should also get the same note, along with the obligatory note that if they already know that language, they can pick another. (I have a paladin in my campaign who was also a village priest, and the division of cleric and acolyte is one that's always pleased me, even if they often overlap.)

And they should definitely not be called the same thing as their species. (Again, can you imagine doing that with a D&D setting book about contemporary Earth?) For orcs in the Forgotten Realms, I might go with "Many-Voices," with the language being officially standardized during the time of Many-Arrows, and given a name to match.

 

[Thommy H-H]

I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khazad instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.

This would be good too.

I mean, look, everyone's version of D&D is different. In my setting, I treat the 'racial' languages as the names outsiders give to the language families spoken by certain cultures. It's "Orcish" because orcs speak it (or variations of it). But not every orc or group of orcs can necessarily speak it, and two orc cultures that have never had any contact with one another wouldn't speak the same language (though speakers of other languages living near them might call the respective languages their equivalent of 'Orcish', making them identical in game terms until it matters). So "Dwarvish" is "the language spoken by the dwarves that the characters have met", not literally some language every dwarf is born knowing how to speak somehow.

 

[Cadence]

I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khazad instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.

Would it work even better to have some associated with geographies? So Sindarin is almost a "forest humanoid common for elves and forest gnomes, and tabaxi", Khazad is almost a "hill/mountain humanoid common" for dwarves, tinker gnome, and whatnot, aquan for "underwater common", and then throw in giant, draconic, supernal, and infernal for.the iconic creatures. Could also suggest some geographical ones like southern trade common, North Island trade common, and the like that varied by campaign.