Arelith

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:47 pm**

I love it.

Making Thieves' Cant actually useful for rogues is a big improvement. Letting bards and monks make the most of their language power is also a welcome change.

I miss being able to make rothe noises on my minotaur, but a small price to pay.

The math is getting pretty complicated to understand how it works, but for those wondering, 33 lore, 14 int, and 30 monk/bard levels translates to a 32% translation chance. Unless the scaling has changed. It used to be 1% per level, now it looks like 0.5% if it's divided by 2? Seems like a nerf.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:50 pm**

The only change to that was adding a 1d20. It was always half.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:54 pm**

The wiki states Tongue of the Sun and Moon counts as two lore ranks for every monk level, which should be 1% per monk level.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:57 pm**

Ah, okay, I see what you mean. I thought you meant the half divide. That wasn't meant to be changed.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:02 pm**

Irongron wrote:Rogues: Thieves cant req 7 rogue levels

** Applauds the changes **

Irongron wrote:Curse of Draining Removed

The right decision imo. I think it was always going to be overpowered.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:41 pm**

I want to premise this by saying that I love the new change. I am all about people needing to invest in a class to get its benefits and cant and animal should be no different. By gating it slightly above dips, it makes the classes a little more unique and gives them something to call their own.

However, I'm a little sad that for my main character, animal language was a non-insignificant part of their RP. However, the build caps out at 4 ranger levels and I am too late in the build to adjust that. So my question is:

Is there any consideration for opening up avenues to learn these languages if you have the class but come in under the dip threshhold. It does not need to be easy or cheap. Secret NPC quests, books, listing to people talk, anything like that. Something to get a chance to learn it.

In the meantime it will be tough to suddenly not know a language so any RP tips would be appreciated. Or are old characters grandfathered?

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:50 pm**

Maybe rangers could get it earlier... But no ranger gets it unless they have a nature diety?

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:52 pm**

I'm unsure about Gnolls/Minotaurs gaining abyssal and losing animal, though.

Especially given information on gnoll page.

written by coldend (Gr'owl)
"I LIKE the fact that gnolls speak animal. It goes a long way to setting their place in the Arelith specific setting. They are feral, bestial, and amoral... at least they are amoral by the standards of other species.
* A Dwarf may wonder why other races get offended when they drunkenly insult everyone around and spit on the floor.
* An Elf may wonder why other races get offended when they only point out how inferior every other creature is.
* A Hin may wonder what all the fuss is about when it comes to "personal property".
* A gnoll would wonder why the idea of eating a wounded member of your party has you all upset.

To a gnoll, the group is everything no man is an island BUT often he is a meals-on-wheels buffet. This isn't ALWAYS evil (sometimes it is), it's just a natural animalistic way of viewing the world.
Gnolls speaking Animal, ties them more closely TO animals. You don't call a bear "evil" and decide to eradicate the whole species just because some hippy videographer decides they are cuddly and ends up getting eaten. You don't call them "evil" because that is simply what they DO without any moral judgment on the matter at all.
For gnolls to really be "the neutral race"... not puppies, not demons with fur... the association needs to be drawn that they ARE like wild animals. Not unthinking or unintelligent, but simply operating on such a vastly different set of values that human (or demi-human) ethics and morality do not apply."

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:59 pm**

Gnoll language is a form of abyssal (and the gnoll god, a demon prince, claims to have created them). We don't have a gnoll language so this is the best choice. It is far better than animal. Goblinoid was discussed but ultimately it was decided that abyssal was the most appropriate. I don't know you're referencing the wiki here as that is irrelevant.

There is 0 reference to Minotaurs ever speaking some kind of animal language. They speak giant (3.5) and abyssal (in 5e)

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 pm**

Wuthering wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:50 pm Maybe rangers could get it earlier... But no ranger gets it unless they have a nature diety?

Level 6 was chosen due to that being when the ranger gets animal language.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:09 pm**

Xerah wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:59 pm don't know you're referencing the wiki here as that is irrelevant.

It is not "irrelevant" because they had access to it for a long time, and people built their characters around that, which is what wiki demonstrates. That citation on the wiki is very old.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:36 pm**

Void wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:09 pm
Xerah wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:59 pm don't know you're referencing the wiki here as that is irrelevant.
It is not "irrelevant" because they had access to it for a long time, and people built their characters around that, which is what wiki demonstrates. That citation on the wiki is very old.

Just because something has been one way for a long time does not force it to continue that way. That is why it is irrelevant.

Posted: **Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:44 pm**

Xerah wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 pm
Wuthering wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:50 pm Maybe rangers could get it earlier... But no ranger gets it unless they have a nature diety?
Level 6 was chosen due to that being when the ranger gets animal language.

By taking lessons from their new animal companion.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 6:59 am**

The Rambling Midget wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:44 pm
Xerah wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 pm
Wuthering wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:50 pm Maybe rangers could get it earlier... But no ranger gets it unless they have a nature diety?
Level 6 was chosen due to that being when the ranger gets animal language.
By taking lessons from their new animal companion.

I see where the logic is here, but I feel it might be a little misplaced, at least as far as sourcing goes.

I've always thought of Druids and Rangers "speaking Animal" as them casting the first level spell "Speak with Animals," which is a first level spell for rangers that they can cast exactly one of at level 4 (provided they have at least a base 11 wisdom and gear to bring them up to a 12, which will grant them 1 first level bonus spell per day).

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithAnimals.htm

Would this be something able to be looked at as doable in that light, or is 4 levels under the threshold the team wants for the language's use?

Note: I would be fine with requiring people to actually burn a spell slot to use this language, as other than gnomes who have an ability to speak with burrowing mammals, there is zero reference to any actual animal language in the RAW. A dog, cat, and bird certainly all have their own different natural languages, and it's pretty extreme that any "one" animal language outside of a spell would provide for them all, elsewise.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 3:16 pm**

I wonder if it could be considered, that if you take your first levels as a rogue you could still get 'cant even if you don't hit the 7 levels. Since you started off learning on the streets sort of rp. I think that would still thin out the number of people who know it since most take the three level dip later for skill dumps.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 3:27 pm**

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 6:59 am I see where the logic is here, but I feel it might be a little misplaced, at least as far as sourcing goes.

Sourcing isn't at play here; it was chosen as a way to work best with Arelith.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 3:28 pm**

Definately Not A Mimic wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 3:16 pm I wonder if it could be considered, that if you take your first levels as a rogue you could still get 'cant even if you don't hit the 7 levels. Since you started off learning on the streets sort of rp. I think that would still thin out the number of people who know it since most take the three level dip later for skill dumps.

Consider it having to learn the way Cant works on Arelith.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 5:15 pm**

I want to reiterate that the formula as presented is off compared to what's promised by Tongue of the Sun and Moon.

The formula should be ([1d20 + BASE Lore + Feats + Old Background + Bard + Harper Scout]/2) + Monk Levels

For my own sanity can we make sure it's working that way? If Monk Levels have been divided by two the whole time they've never worked the way they were advertised.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 6:14 pm**

Xerah wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 3:28 pm
Definately Not A Mimic wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 3:16 pm I wonder if it could be considered, that if you take your first levels as a rogue you could still get 'cant even if you don't hit the 7 levels. Since you started off learning on the streets sort of rp. I think that would still thin out the number of people who know it since most take the three level dip later for skill dumps.
Consider it having to learn the way Cant works on Arelith.

This is how I've always seen Thieves' Cant interpreted. It's local, and it's disposable, because it's not necessarily a hard code to break, so it has to be reinvented each time the local constabulary starts to catch on.

If I had my way - and I've suggested this before - Thieves' Cant would be something developed for a cost of time and gold, by collectives of Roguish types, but very, very quick to learn, so anyone listening in would be able to decipher it in a matter of days, if it was used too liberally. I'm sure that'd be a nightmare to implement, tho.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 7:18 pm**

Yeah I dont understand how languages work anymore. I normally have good grasp for formulas but this time I'm totally missing something.

1d20 + all the bonuses mentiond / 2 vs WHAT EXACTLY?

Also +1 on the thieves cant change to lvl 7. I dont know how we havent thought about that back in the UMD meta when thieves cant was basically a useless language because even paladins had it. Its not a language you should havent ever get as you pick the class, its a language you dont study from dictionaries either. You pick it up as you gain experience in the shady streets.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 7:24 pm**

It's a percentage.

Posted: **Fri May 01, 2020 7:43 pm**

So my lore rank (33) + 20 monk lvls +1d20 /2 = 31 average

Now I'm rolling a d100 vs 31% (average, changes up and down a bit every roll)? Thank you.

Posted: **Sat May 02, 2020 4:19 am**

With all the great work continuing to be done on the server by a dedicated, unpaid staff, I hate to tack on a but...

...but, not a fan of the rogue and ranger changes, especially because it takes away RP opportunities. It also retcons existing characters.

I wouldn't be quite as sore about it if animal was able to be learned another way, but on my existing main this is now impossible.

Posted: **Sat May 02, 2020 8:13 am**

Wondering if there was a thought to giving Master Harpers a freebie language like the other three Harper classes? They are supposed to be masters of knowledge and lore after all. Draconic or Elven perhaps?

Also my character still has thieves cant presumably from shadowdancer levels, is this as expected?

Lastly, right now speaking a language gives an odd string of characters inside of brackets <like so>. Is this a bug?

Posted: **Sat May 02, 2020 1:59 pm**

R0GUE wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 8:13 amLastly, right now speaking a language gives an odd string of characters inside of brackets <like so>. Is this a bug?

Yes. It's a bug with the color formatting.

Arelith

New language system

New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system

Re: New language system