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

[Rikka66]

Rangers, wizards, and bards would either have their own language or gain extra bonus language on top of the ones they have.

I think the thing with wizards is that their personal ciphers are just that, personal. They can't be used to communicate with other wizards, so no need for it to go down as a language.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

D&D never explained where Ranger magic comes from.
Some say druids. Some say fey. Some say a wizard.

It was just "Aragorn had magic powers. And a lone warrior can't kill a giant without magic powers. So a ranger got magic some place.". And when you ask where or from whom, TSR and WOTC both ran away.

 

[wingsandsword]

I think the thing with wizards is that their personal ciphers are just that, personal. They can't be used to communicate with other wizards, so no need for it to go down as a language.

Also, spellbook notation isn't exactly a language meant to convey messages other than technical instructions of how to cast a specific spell. In modern terms, it would be more like a programming language than a natural language.

Trying to communicate via spellbook notation would be like trying to write a letter in Assembly code or COBOL.

 

[wingsandsword]

D&D never explained where Ranger magic comes from.
Some say druids. Some say fey. Some say a wizard.

Given that it's explicitly classified as Divine magic (in 3e) and priestly magic (in 2e), is Wisdom-based, and it doesn't require a spellbook, it can't be from a Wizard.

Last time I checked, Wisdom-based spellcasting is Divine/Priest stuff.

In 22 years of playing D&D, I've never heard anyone suggest that Ranger spells normally came from the fey. I've always heard it as priestly magic of nature gods, as Druidic magic, or something of that nature.

 

[Dioltach]

It was just "Aragorn had magic powers. And a lone warrior can't kill a giant without magic powers. So a ranger got magic some place.". And when you ask where or from whom, TSR and WOTC both ran away.

I'd actually say it was Gwydion, from the Chronicles of Prydain. He weaves a mesh of grass, and later when he and Taran are attacked by the Cauldron Born he throws it and it turns into a sticky web.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the thing with wizards is that their personal ciphers are just that, personal. They can't be used to communicate with other wizards, so no need for it to go down as a language.

Every wizard having a personal cipher with symbols and syntax based on nothing but casting the same exact spells makes no sense.

It wouldn't be a spoken language. Just read and write.
It would be more like a form of math or programming language that all somewhat date back to the same base idea. And every wizard puts their own twists on top of it.

Given that it's explicitly classified as Divine magic (in 3e) and priestly magic (in 2e), is Wisdom-based, and it doesn't require a spellbook, it can't be from a Wizard.

Last time I checked, Wisdom-based spellcasting is Divine/Priest stuff.

In 22 years of playing D&D, I've never heard anyone suggest that Ranger spells normally came from the fey. I've always heard it as priestly magic of nature gods, as Druidic magic, or something of that nature.

Druids id the default but I don't think I ever see a book say it was from druids.Just "like a druid"
The OD&D ranger could use magic user spells and crystal balls.

Books often say rangers learn from a master but rarely say who taught the master or the master's master. Then you get all the ranger kits, feats, and prcs that mention fey.

 

[Rikka66]

Every wizard having a personal cipher with symbols and syntax based on nothing but casting the same exact spells makes no sense.

It wouldn't be a spoken language. Just read and write.
It would be more like a form of math or programming language that all somewhat date back to the same base idea. And every wizard puts their own twists on top of it.

"Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. "

The default assumption presented by the PHB is that each wizard uses their own cipher for their spellbook. I like your approach as well, but I'm just presenting one of the reasons the devs chose not to include a specific 'wizard's can't' language.

 

[Minigiant]

"Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. "

The default assumption presented by the PHB is that each wizard uses their own cipher for their spellbook. I like your approach as well, but I'm just presenting one of the reasons the devs chose not to include a specific 'wizard's can't' language.

I'm saying that "basic form of a spell" is a language. The cipher is to figure out which variables and VSM spell components are needed.

Any wizard can read the formula for a 3rd level spell fireball. The cipher hides the combination of verbal and somatic parts plus the use of bat gauno and sulphur.

That's why a wizard can learn any other wizard's spell. The base is always the same.

 

[Rikka66]

Personally, I've never thought of magic itself being a language, but it's a fine approach. In my games deciphering the text is a process that can be made harder if whoever is doing so doesn't know the original language of the original writer (though that's never actually happened to a player).

The closest the 5e PHB touches on it is a mention that spellcasters frequently study in draconic, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, which I think points to the approach the devs took on it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Every wizard having a personal cipher with symbols and syntax based on nothing but casting the same exact spells makes no sense.

It wouldn't be a spoken language. Just read and write.
It would be more like a form of math or programming language that all somewhat date back to the same base idea. And every wizard puts their own twists on top of it.

I mean, that has legit historical precedent in alchemists’ notebooks.