D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[doctorbadwolf]

Going Medieval is a blog by a medieval historian and pop culture enthusiast that likes to swear and make fun of Voltaire, that picks apart common myths about the Middle Ages.

very good food for world building thought.

for instance, most people had a wash quite regularly throughout the Middle Ages, changed their underclothes daily (and paid washerwoman to launder them), and didn’t dump chamberpots out of windows or have chickens running around the streets of their village.

 

[Oofta]

Again, the fact it’s a trope isn’t especially compelling or even relevant as a reply to “it’s a bad trope”.

And Elemental beings are not mortals. For a thousand reasons. Ignoring that distinction is nonsensical.

But again ... it's just drawing a different line. The distinction is important to you.

They are fantasy creatures that only exist on paper and in our imagination.

 

[generic]

But again ... it's just drawing a different line. The distinction is important to you.

They are fantasy creatures that only exist on paper and in our imagination.

Not true! They exist in video games and films as well.

 

[Minigiant]

The idea of everyone being literate except Barbarians was a 3e invention.

There was NOTHING explicitly in AD&D that I'm aware of saying otherwise. It was an incredibly common house rule that Wizards (and usually Clerics) got Read/Write NWP for free, but it wasn't in the core rules-as-written.

I even remember a Scale Mail letter in Dragon Magazine asking how a Wizard could use a spellbook if they didn't automatically get Read/Write, and the answer was to say that magical notation for spells wasn't the same as literacy and that reading a spellbook would be like reading music, an entirely separate notation that is a separate skill and you could know how to read one without understanding the other.

I even saw it pointed out that one of the flaws in the 2e NWP system is that it would take two NWP slots for a Fighter to learn Read/Write because it wasn't in their NWP groups, and if they didn't know it at character creation it would take numerous levels to get two NWP slots to be able to spend on reading and writing, long enough that in a low-power game they might never even learn.

If I'm wrong, and I may well be, I'd love to see it pointed out with a quote from the 1e or 2e core rulebooks that AD&D had universal literacy.

That's another trope
Why do only Druids and Rogues have class language?
Like you said, wizards would know a spellbook language that is basically like advancement math that they all can read/write/speak.

Rangers should be able to take Druidic as a language as many worlds have Rangers learn magic from druids. Or even a smoke signal whistling language to communicate with other rangers so "all of China knows you are here" without setting fires. Or just Rangerish and its 50 ways to say "hate".

Fighters could learn to speak Sword.
"Slash chop? Slash hack chop chop stab."

 

[Charlaquin]

That's another trope
Why do only Druids and Rogues have class language?

Well, there is semi-historical precedent for both of those, and the concept of secret societies with their own constructed languages is a big thing in fantasy.

Like you said, wizards would know a spellbook language that is basically like advancement math that they all can read/write/speak.

I believe Draconic is traditionally the language spell books and scrolls are written in, and 5e does account for each Wizard having a personal cypher for their spells with the time required to translate another wizard’s spell book.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, there is semi-historical precedent for both of those, and the concept of secret societies with their own constructed languages is a big thing in fantasy.

Well those classes wouldn't be the only ones witch secret languages.

Rangers, wizards, and bards would either have their own language or gain extra bonus language on top of the ones they have.
At least they gave rangers and bards a bonus language due to their traveling natures in 5e at least.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But again ... it's just drawing a different line. The distinction is important to you.

They are fantasy creatures that only exist on paper and in our imagination.

“Importance” is a red herring.

You’re in the thread arguing about it, so either on some level you care about the discussion, or you’re here to troll and derail the discussion.

The fact these things are fictional has no bearing on the nature of the discussion. Things which are fictional are not magically immune to rational classification.
Trying to dismiss someone else’s argument by flailing about “this fictional stuff doesn’t matter” is disingenuous, at best.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well those classes wouldn't be the only ones witch secret languages.

Rangers, wizards, and bards would either have their own language or gain extra bonus language on top of the ones they have.
At least they gave rangers and bards a bonus language due to their traveling natures in 5e at least.

I’d be down with that,

 

[wingsandsword]

That's another trope
Why do only Druids and Rogues have class language?

The idea of thieves cant does have some historic and real life roots.

We'd call it street slang now. The idea of street or criminal cultures having a dense web of slang, jargon and innuendo to get their point across in ways that wouldn't be immediately obvious to average people. If you didn't know "gangster" or "street gang" language from movies and TV, would you know what a mafioso was saying when he was saying to "take someone for a ride"? How many people would have no idea what someone was trying to buy when they were looking for "grass" or "acid" if not for popular culture?

Treating it as a completely different language in 1e and 2e, one that was class-exclusive to thieves, that was the problem.

When you look at a dictionary of historic Thieves Cant, you'll recognize a lot of the words, because over time they entered standard English and slang terms. Words like "brat", "kid" and "chip off the old block (as terms for a child) all started in 18th century thieves cant.

Just check out a dictionary of the actual Thieves Cant: 18th Century and Regency Thieves Cant

I'd definitely support the idea of Rangers being able to learn Druidic, if they can learn druidic nature magic after all. Then again, I was never comfortable with the fact that you're a outdoorsman and archer means you just happen to pick up a lot of Druidic magic casting along the way. I think the idea of Druids having a secret language was a holdover from their inspiration from the Celtic priests of antiquity, and how they kept their written language to themselves both within the priestly class of society, and within Celtic culture.

 

[Oofta]

“Importance” is a red herring.

You’re in the thread arguing about it, so either on some level you care about the discussion, or you’re here to troll and derail the discussion.

The fact these things are fictional has no bearing on the nature of the discussion. Things which are fictional are not magically immune to rational classification.
Trying to dismiss someone else’s argument by flailing about “this fictional stuff doesn’t matter” is disingenuous, at best.

We're discussing fictional creatures that do not exist. In fantasy world that does not have to work like the real world. It all comes down to fiction. I've presented one interpretation of how certain monsters work you've presented another.

However, I'm clear that my interpretation and ruling just applies to my campaign. Meanwhile you claim to have a rational justification while my justification is crap. Your opinion is the correct one, mine is not, neener-neener.

Gotcha.

I'm done, have a good one!