Talk:Languages (3.5e Variant Rule)
From D&D Wiki
 Comments / Revision
So, I like the idea of this page. I am going, however, to change it a bit: update grammar and spelling and add to it. If the author does not like these changes, I ask him only to say the word and I will revert the edits. Yours, (hopefully) helpfully, –EldritchNumen 00:50, 3 May 2007 (MDT)
- I almost want to kiss the one who edited this and made it less of a headache for me to read...almost -- Flession 10:44, 3 May 2007 (MDT)
- :) A thank you will do! –EldritchNumen 21:07, 10 May 2007 (MDT)
 Barbaric Language
So... it is essentially wrong (from a linguistic standpoint) to assume that certain languages are "barbaric" and less capable of communication of complex ideas (whether religion, philosophy, politics, science, etc.) than others. In the real world these sorts of "barbaric languages," which were so believed in 150 years ago, have been shown to simply not exist. So... the wild tongues section should probably be modified to say that there is simply probably significant dialectal differences between urbanized and "wild" societies within each race. Thoughts? –EldritchNumen 01:27, 5 September 2007 (MDT)
- I think what is meant here are "Primitive Languages" — ones that do not have words or ways of communicating all ideas. The perfect example I can think of to convey my thoughts on what is meant here is the fake german language. Maybe it chould be changed from "Barbaric Languages" to "Primitive Languages". Ideas? --Green Dragon 21:41, 5 September 2007 (MDT)
 Languages in General
I really want to raise a couple of major points, and I decided this talk page would be the best place for it. First off, the different languages between 3.5e and 4e are considerable, and since I was almost considering placing the Supernatural Languages Variant Rule into my gaming world, I wanted to raise the point of how best to work languages in the campaign setting, since it is such an integral and enriching facet of the gaming world and a campaign.
First, let's list the languages in each of the core 3.5 books:
- Druidic (class-specific)
- Goblin (convert to Goblinoid - including Gnoll, Orc, etc.)
- Blink Dog
- Githyanki / Githzerai (Githy)
- Slaad (Slaadi)
- Sphinx (Seshepsic)
- Yuan-Ti (Anakim, Serpentfolk Tongue)
Yes, even monsters are listed as having their own unique languages and some even have their own script (such as Aboleths and Sphinxi). Based on this platform, we could separate them as racial/common, planar, and monstrous. Because Draconic falls into both racial and monstrous, and is used in magic, I just kept it in the 'common' section, where it belongs. For the use of the Supernatural Languages Variant Rule, I guess we could consider a 'higher' language than those commonly thought of for the demihuman races.
Further, any language currently used in 'commonplace' could vary by timeline (ancient, progressive, etc.), location/region (regional, world/realm, etc.), specific usage (crude/wild, racial, profession- or class-oriented), and by determined changes in influences, etc. (a Draconic tongue influenced by Sylvan, Giant tongue influenced by Titans, etc.). In these cases, and especially where regional dialect plays an important role (such as in the Kingdoms of Kalamar Campaign Setting), it could be said that a character might want to learn the language variation en masse, as if purchasing 'packets' of languages within which to read and write. In this case, by spending skill points to 'buy' languages, it might be prudent simplistic for a DM to allow a player a set, or 'packet' of languages based around a single region, usage, or timeline. In this case, it is up to the DM to decide what that usage is, and how liberal to be with the language 'packets'.
So now, can we post the new 4e languages given in the PHB, and are there any monster languages listed in the new MM? Also, can we consider how to deal with in light of the Supernatural Languages Variant Rule? Thanks! -- xido 15:01, 14 July 2008 (MDT)