Is Speak Language a useless skill?

[Psion]

In my game, if a creature lists common as a language, I treat it as a placeholder for "predominant local language". There is no common language and the concept of a world-wide (or worse, multiverse wide) common language strikes me as so ludicrous as to shatter all disbeleif.

As for comp languages and tonges, I have frequently considered nerfing them or raising their levels, as their utility is so extremely high. That said, my players tend more towards sorcerers than wizards and they rarely feel like surrending a precious slot that could be a combat spell, so it hasn't been enough of a problem for me to take action yet.

 

[diaglo]

I agree with this mostly. I think it depends moreso on the DM.

and if the other players are into metagaming

like in several campaigns i quickly left.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

I agree with the excellent point above that it's comprehend languages and tongues that kill the usefullness of this skills. Especially the former as it comes so so early.

 

[grodog]

So, is speak language really a useless skill. I suppose a lot of it depends on the campaign. But, in standard D&D settings, such as Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, I can't think of any reason that anyone would take ranks in speak language other than for "flavor reasons".

Actually, in Greyhawk there are several non-Common human languages that are quite useful in game play for the reasons others have elaborated upon in the thread. Common is basically the equivalent of Latin, in that it was the language of Greyhawk's equivalent of the Roman Empire/conquerors of the world. Non-Common languages play important roles in Greyhawk.

I don't recall langauge usage in the FR very much, but given the sheer number of elven races, there would have to be more languages than you could shake a twig at

I've heard several posters mention various previous discussions about language on ENWorld. Can anyone point to the good ones?

Lastly, has anyone checked out the language rules from Necromancer Games' Players Guide to the Wilderlands, at http://206.65.59.13/pdf/JG_languages_pre.pdf?

 

[Kichwas]

I use Kalamar which has no common, so it's a non issue for me.

That said the presence of Common in standard DnD really breaks it for me - it's utterly absurd and serves no real useful purpose.

Most games exist in a small geographical region, so the locals will all speak the same language anyway. When they travel, foreign languages just make it more logical.

 

[kenjib]

It also has meta-game problems just like ranger's favored enemy. A DM knows what languages you have and will only bring this asset to bear if he wants to and how he wants to. The player has no control over when it is useful and regardless of which languages he has, for a given situation the DM can always pick one the player does or doesn't have depending on whether or not he wants you to understand.

 

[green slime]

Only as much as Jump and Climb skills become pointless because of the Jump and fly spells.

It still comes down to the PC-DM interaction.

IMC, many players have spent precious skill points in various languages.

 

[Chacal]

We use comprehend languages and tongues as a basic translator. You'll miss some play on words, subtleties in sentences that were meant to be understood multiple ways, and cannot "decipher script" with them.

They're still very useful on most cases, but not plot breakers anymore.

That way language skills are useful (besides the fact that casting a spell before talking to someone is frequently frowned upon, at minimum)



Chacal

 

[Henry]

As others have said, it's up to the DM.

Several suggestions as to how to make languages viable skills in your campaign without eliminating comprehend languages and tongues:

-The spells only last a limited duration (10 minutes per level). A particularly long book or conversation will outlast the spell.

-Neither spell conveys idiomatic expression or hidden meaning, only the literal meaning. A student of the language, however, WILL have understanding of this. (Students of multiple languages will be able to tell you the dangers of idiomatic expression. ) a clever DM might even make an in-game puzzle that depends on true understanding of the language, rather than translations.

-A person or creature may be well disposed towards someone who understands their language without resorting to a spell, as opposed to casting something as soon as they meet them. In addition, given lack of true understanding of the language, it should be fairly evident (listen check perhaps?) to a native speaker when someone is using auto-translation and when someone is not.

Others may have some extra suggestions, but there are ways to improve the value of speak languages without hampering mages who have taken the requisite spells.

 

[Henry]

As another thought, I like the way Spycraft handles languages - the first time you take a language, you are an obviously "foreign" speaker - you have basic comprehension, but it's obvious you aren't fluent. Taking it a second time you become a "native speaker" - it's difficult for a native to tell you are not a native yourself. It's the difference between being able to "listen in" and putting on an effective disguise.