D&D 5E Using Languages like Tools

[Raduin711]

So I had this idea on the way home from D&D tonight. In D&D, languages for the most part aren't terribly useful. Your GM might give you a hand out that's in Dwarvish or Abyssal or something like that, and either A) one of your characters speaks it, so the GM hands over the translation, or B) you are forced to burn a comprehend languages or similar magic so that you know the thing and the campaign can progress.

It rarely interferes with your ability to interact with NPC's because Common is so widespread there is rarely an excuse to need one, and even if you did, all it would do is bog the game down- so DM's are typically going to avoid putting the players in situations where they need to talk to someone who can't speak common.

My idea is to instead use languages like cultural proficiencies. In 3.5 edition, we had Knowledge: Local, but no such proficiency exists any longer. Languages would then work like a specialized version of Knowledge: Local, (in addition to allowing you to speak their native tongue.)

My justification here is that in order to fully learn a language, you generally have to immerse yourself in its culture as well.

I can foresee a few hiccups though...

• Common. Having the Common language implies a proficiency in a sort of universal culture which... the existence of which is debatable. And if it does exist, then why should anyone have to roll this, seeing as it is so universal? And then you might have players who might misuse it, think it's like Kn: Local (Everybody) which defeats the purpose of the exercise.
• Humans. Humans have no language other than common. One solution is to treat Common proficiency as Kn: Local (Humans), which means that everyone has knowledge of human culture. Whether this is acceptable kind of depends on how big your world is. In a Points of Light scenario, this might not seem unreasonable, since the world is so tiny. In a setting with multiple nations and cultures (Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk...) everyone having knowledge of every nations' cultures might be a bit of a stretch.

My solution here would be to break the common language down into regions. A lot of campaign settings include lists of regional dialects already, so every race would pick one of those. This regional dialect would get you access to the Common language, which is still universal, and allow you to make checks pertaining to that particular region's culture.

For example, an Elven character might have Common (Calimshan) and Elvish, and a Dwarf might have Common (Tethyrian) and Dwarven. The Elf and Dwarf would be able to communicate with one another through their common tongues, but only the Elf could would get the bonus to knowledge of Calimshan culture.

• Shared Languages. A lot of languages are shared between different races and subraces that may or may not deserve to be shared under this system. On one hand this may be a feature rather than a bug. Giving a dwarf insight into Azers seems kind of cool, but what about, Deep Speech which is shared between Mind Flayers and Beholders, Giant which is shared between Ogres and Giants, Goblinoids (so many!) Sylvan, Infernal, Celestial, Abyssal which cover some very, very exotic creatures. I can't make up my mind whether these need to be broken up somehow similar to how common is broken up into different cultures or whether to leave things as they are.

I think these languages could also be treated similar to common. When learning Giant you might have to choose between Ogres and Giants, for example. But then again, maybe this isn't such a bad thing? There are some languages that I feel should be treated like latin: more of a theoretical, academic understanding of a language than real cultural insight.

• Undercommon. Unlike Common which has the benefit of humans being the primary speaker, there is no race that Undercommon ties itself to. This means that taking undercommon either doesn't give you any cultural knowledge (just a lingua franca for underground peoples) or it could apply to all of them, which might be problematic?
• Creature Cataloguing. In our 3.5 games we often used the various knowledge skills as a way to probe the GM about various monsters' abilities and weaknesses. 5th edition seems to have done away with that which I am kind of thankful for, and I wouldn't want to see a knowledge of Abyssal turn into a knowledge check to tell me what weaknesses a Kyton has.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’d add the non human languages to the regional rule. Elven (Cormanthor) can be separate from Elven (some other region).

 

[Raduin711]

I’d add the non human languages to the regional rule. Elven (Cormanthor) can be separate from Elven (some other region).

I am thinking that could be reflected by his choice for Common while his Elven dialect would reflect what subrace he belonged to. Common (Cormanthor), Elven (High) for example.

Edit: on the other hand, this might be too specific, as it suggests that our Elven character can only use his language proficiency for High Elves. But if we had any questions come up about high elven culture, I wouldn't ask for a check from a high elven character, I would just tell them, which kind of defeats the purpose. So I think I would leave the regional dialects as a feature of the Common language (since everyone gets it anyway) and have racial languages just be themselves...

 

[bedir than]

I'm rather intrigued by this concept. I love tools, and as a former linguist I think this is a solution to stuff.

 

[Tonguez]

Great idea

As for Common I’d either go with your regional Human language or treat common as a Trade language - so a character with Knowledge:Common knows enough to interact with Dwarfish metal smiths or understand the niceties required to interact with Elven Silk merchants. That doesnt give them enough to negotiate a deal but it does give them a chance to not cause offence.

For things like Dwarfish I have no problem with Dwarfs being able to have insights on Azer behaviour and even Mindflayers knowing about Beholders isnt an issue since they would likely interact and want to avoid each other.

Also I’d prefer more regional languages not just racial ones

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am thinking that could be reflected by his choice for Common while his Elven dialect would reflect what subrace he belonged to. Common (Cormanthor), Elven (High) for example.

Edit: on the other hand, this might be too specific, as it suggests that our Elven character can only use his language proficiency for High Elves. But if we had any questions come up about high elven culture, I wouldn't ask for a check from a high elven character, I would just tell them, which kind of defeats the purpose. So I think I would leave the regional dialects as a feature of the Common language (since everyone gets it anyway) and have racial languages just be themselves...

Ah, but would it be common (Cormanthor)? There is no general human culture that is recognizeable throughout the Cormanthor region, but there is an Elven heritage and culture that is shared.

In cases where most or all of your language regions overlap, so what? You'd just not that as Common and Elven (Norther Sword Coast).

But also, then, there are human regional languages in FR, so you could also use the regions that those languages correspond to, which are often really broad but sometimes rather small. The 4e FR books go into this pretty well, IIRC, but the map isn't quite the same anymore so I'm not sure how useful that would be for a 5e game, outside of a basic framework for figuring it out.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I do the "language proficiency implies cultural proficiency" thing in my campaign, but you may be overthinking it. You, as DM, know that the PC who learned (say) Giant learned it from ogres, and can easily rule that the cultural knowledge implied does not include storm giant dinner table etiquette or whatever. Just as you might say that a PC proficient in History has no reasonable way of knowing the history of a foreign land with which they've had no contact before. Breaking such skills up with a regional system seems more granular than you need -- just as a regular part of DMing, you're already deciding on a case-by-case basis whether a particular PC can attempt a check or add their proficiency bonus to it.

On the other hand, if that level of granularity is what you want, there doesn't seem to be any reason to tie a new regional knowledge system to language proficiencies. The key benefit, from my perspective, of using language as a proxy for cultural proficiency is that I can do it using the information and rules already on people's character sheets with absolutely no time spent on homebrewing rules. If you're going to homebrew after all, you can just make your system freestanding, and then it can cover regional History, Nature, Religion, whatever you need it to.

 

[Raduin711]

Ah, but would it be common (Cormanthor)? There is no general human culture that is recognizeable throughout the Cormanthor region, but there is an Elven heritage and culture that is shared.

Maybe think of it as Common (Cormanthor) has less to do with the humans of the cormanthor region but the regional dialect of common spoken in the Cormanthor region by those who reside there, regardless of what race they are, as well as the local culture therein. His Elven language covers Elves in general. I don't have an FR book with me but I am guessing that is a bit of an overlap. =/

I think my preference to treat common this way comes from the way regions are typically treated in D&D. Open up your 5th edition PHB and you will see a collection of names lists for regions all over the realms, but turn to a specific race and you get 1 list only. Nonhumans tend to get treated like a cultural monolith while humans vary in culture from place to place. A human from Rashemen and a human from Amn are going to be very different, culturally, but a drow is a drow is a drow regardless of which part of the underdark you met him in.

 

[Raduin711]

I do the "language proficiency implies cultural proficiency" thing in my campaign, but you may be overthinking it.

I don't think I have ever been accused of underthinking things, so this is pretty typical for me. The way it seems to slot in pretty well with the system is definitely a benefit.

 

[Shiroiken]

If you incorporate Human languages (see SCAG for details), then you could have Common not provide any benefit. I actually like this concept a lot, because I've found the lack of societal skills problematic.