D&D 5E Could Tongues Work on an Ape?

[Leo_ASF]

Cast it on Yourself: it just doesn't work on an ape.

Cast it on mongo: he can understand you but as he can't speak he can't talk you back

Sent from my C6906 using EN World mobile app

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think it's meaningful that most beasts are unintelligent and lack any society or language, meaningful that only druids, rangers, clerics who choose the Nature domain, and paladins who take the Oath of the Ancients have speak with animals on their spell lists, and meaningful that themes, tropes, and niches exist.

Bards do too. It's on their base spell list.

I'm also not sure what the beast description is supposed to be reflective of: it doesn't match medieval texts on animals, doesn't match most fantasy representations and doesn't reflect modern knowledge. In terms of output, if you apply it as written you end up with beast encounters that are tedious tactic-free slugfests with a single creature.

Like I said, the amount of thought that went into it seems to be "writer saw a cow as an extra in a movie and wrote the description based on that".

 

[mrpopstar]

Bards do too. It's on their base spell list.

Of course! Bards, the great communicators.

I'm also not sure what the beast description is supposed to be reflective of: it doesn't match medieval texts on animals, doesn't match most fantasy representations and doesn't reflect modern knowledge. In terms of output, if you apply it as written you end up with beast encounters that are tedious tactic-free slugfests with a single creature.

I find the description serves the game just fine.

 

[Harzel]

It really isn't vague here. Both parts of the spell (speaking and understanding) refer to a language.

Page 9 of the MM says:

A "―" indicates that a creature neither speaks nor understands any language.

The stat block for apes has this line:

Languages: ―

It really is that simple. The spell won't work on an anything with that line.

That being said, you can always go with a rule of cool, but if you are asking for the RAW, that's it.

On the comprehension side, that is at best your interpretation of RAW. Here is another. The spell description is extremely straightforward:

This spell grants the creature you touch the ability to understand any spoken language it hears.

The word "creature" has absolutely no modifiers or limitations attached to it. If the spell was meant to have a major limitation such as the creature having to be natively linguistically competent, it would have said so. As to the apparent contradiction between the spell description and the stat block: specific overrides general. An ape at most times ("generally") can't understand any languages, but when this spell is in effect (specifically) it can.

On the speaking side, though, I have to agree. The spell says "when the target speaks", but makes no mention of the spell conferring the ability to speak.

All that said, considering the precedent of Speak with Animals, I personally would allow Mongo to speak as well as understand.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

We agree, but I acknowledge the vagary that arises when a creature that neither speaks nor understands any language is targeted by a spell that grants the ability to understand any spoken language it hears.

On the comprehension side, that is at best your interpretation of RAW. Here is another. The spell description is extremely straightforward:

Okay, I see what happened. I missed that it was the first part of the spell that was relevant to the target and the second part relevant to those it was conversing with.

 

[mrpopstar]

All that said, considering the precedent of Speak with Animals, I personally would allow Mongo to speak as well as understand.

There is limited precedent.

Speak with animals is a divination spell with a range of self that has no effect on the language or intelligence of any beast you gain the ability to comprehend or verbally communicate with.

A magical effect that changes an unintelligent creature without any language into a creature that speaks and understands describes a transmutation, not a divination.

Okay, I see what happened. I missed that it was the first part of the spell that was relevant to the target and the second part relevant to those it was conversing with.

Unfortunately, Crawford didn't reply with any clarification.

 

[Sunseeker]

As written, I would say it should work. The question becomes when the ape speaks, does it speak a language? I would say no, it does not.

However, "Speak with Animals" would work just fine, though still, your communication is going to be limited since the communication would be in ideas, images and such.

All that aside, what's to say this ape is willing to tell you more about his master than his master is?

 

[mrpopstar]

However, "Speak with Animals" would work just fine, though still, your communication is going to be limited since the communication would be in ideas, images and such.

Speak with animals gives you the ability to comprehend and verbally communicate with beasts for the duration. It does not allow you to telepathically communicate.

All that aside, what's to say this ape is willing to tell you more about his master than his master is?

Good point!

 

[mrpopstar]

[MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION]