Limiting racial language proficiency

[acrosome]

I tried a search, got nowhere.

How would you stat a race that can only learn languages to accented or broken fluency? I assume that it would be a disad but I have no idea what. Just a -1 point feature, maybe? That's what a skill incompetency quirk costs.

[Stormcrow]

It's a taboo trait (page 261 of the Basic Set), a 0-point feature.

[Varyon]

It's canonically a Feature to be unable to learn most languages above some level (it's basically an application of Taboo Trait) - see the various Reptilians in DF3 as an example (they can only learn non-reptilian languages up to Accented). If the race literally cannot learn any language above Broken or Accented - implying a race with no language of its own (probably an engineered race of some flavor), that's probably worth a Disadvantage, however. Cannot Speak is [-15], but only prevents you from speaking other languages, not learning them. That said, [-10] if you cannot learn any language above Broken, and [-5] if you cannot learn any language above Accented, might not be a horrible idea.

[acrosome]

Yes, they are engineered races- uplifted animals. Thanks, I will wait for more discussion and consensus. Or, God forbid, word of Kromm...

While we are on the subject, I seem to recall some rules about low racial IQ. Isn't there a limit to how much you can raise IQ in such situations?

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Varyon

If the race literally cannot learn any language above Broken or Accented - implying a race with no language of its own (probably an engineered race of some flavor), that's probably worth a Disadvantage, however.

No need. By taking less than Native/Native in your native language, you are already taking a disadvantage. See "Exceptional Competence and Incompetence" on page 24 of the Basic Set.

Suppose your race can read and write their own language Foo no better than Accented. You have Foo (Accented) [-2].

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

It's a taboo trait (page 261 of the Basic Set), a 0-point feature.

I considered taboo traits, but it just logically seems more like a skill incompetence to me. Remember that this is for any language, not just a low proficiency in one! And language is pretty damned impactful- more so than not knowing almost any single skill that I can think of, actually, yet Incompetence (Falconry) or (Skating) is worth [-1]! And most taboo traits with which I am familiar are for disadvantages, like mental illnesses for engineered humans, etc.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

No need. By taking less than Native/Native in your native language, you are already taking a disadvantage. See "Exceptional Competence and Incompetence" on page 24 of the Basic Set.

Suppose your race can read and write their own language Foo no better than Accented. You have Foo (Accented) [-2].

But it is a disadvantage if you cannot raise proficiency above a certain level, though, right? Whereas normally a character could do that. That's why a skill incompetence is a -1 quirk. The GM doesn't get to deny you that point and just say "you didn't points in Cooking, so you already saved the points". Yes, the Incompetence quirk also gives you -4 to default, but language is so crucial that limiting proficiency is pretty equivalent. The whopping [-15] for Cannot Speak seems to support me on this.

It really seems like it should be worth something, though the [-5] and [-10] that Varyon proposed seems excessive. Maybe? I was going to base it on the skill incompetence quirk and make them [-1] and [-2]. (After all, languages were skills in earlier editions.)

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

No need. By taking less than Native/Native in your native language, you are already taking a disadvantage. See "Exceptional Competence and Incompetence" on page 24 of the Basic Set.

Suppose your race can read and write their own language Foo no better than Accented. You have Foo (Accented) [-2].

In which case being unable to learn to speak or understand any language would be worth only [-3], much as illiteracy is (in each case, you just buy down the free native language you start out with). B24 does suggest this for a character who can barely get by with even their native language ([-4] for Broken/Broken), but such a character presumably could buy up their language above that level in play. A character with Cannot Speak can actually understand languages just fine, but is simply incapable of speaking them at all, yet gets a full [-15] rather than the [-1.5] that having only One-Way Comprehension with the language would get them with buying down their native language.

Yes, normally "You cannot buy this trait (above a certain level)" is a Taboo Trait worth [0]. As somewhat-demonstrated with Cannot Speak, however, I think spoken language is a case where not being able to use above a certain level in any language is worse than a Feature (or, rather, the Feature plus the [-6], [-4], or [-2] for lacking a native language, having a native language only at Broken, or having a native language only at Accented, respectively). That's not RAW, but I think it's more fair.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yes, normally "You cannot buy this trait (above a certain level)" is a Taboo Trait worth [0]. As somewhat-demonstrated with Cannot Speak, however, I think spoken language is a case where not being able to use above a certain level in any language is worse than a Feature (or, rather, the Feature plus the [-6], [-4], or [-2] for lacking a native language, having a native language only at Broken, or having a native language only at Accented, respectively). That's not RAW, but I think it's more fair.

Yes, I kind of have to agree with this.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Yes, I kind of have to agree with this.

That said, if you feel it's more like a leveled Quirk, you could certainly handle it that way; this would make being unable to get above Accented in any language worth [-3] ([-1] for the Quirk, [-1] for Accented spoken comprehension in your native language, [-1] for Accented written comprehension in your native language) and [-6] ([-2] for doubling up on the Quirk, [-2] for Broken spoken comprehension in your native language, [-2] for Broken written comprehension in your native language), respectively, rather than my suggested [-5]/[-10]. Personally, I feel the former is a bit too stingy for the limitations it would place on the character, but if that's what you as GM feel is more appropriate, well, you know what works at your table better than I do.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Varyon

That said, if you feel it's more like a leveled Quirk, you could certainly handle it that way; this would make being unable to get above Accented in any language worth [-3] ([-1] for the Quirk, [-1] for Accented spoken comprehension in your native language, [-1] for Accented written comprehension in your native language) and [-6] ([-2] for doubling up on the Quirk, [-2] for Broken spoken comprehension in your native language, [-2] for Broken written comprehension in your native language), respectively, rather than my suggested [-5]/[-10]. Personally, I feel the former is a bit too stingy for the limitations it would place on the character, but if that's what you as GM feel is more appropriate, well, you know what works at your table better than I do.

Are there rules for "leveled quirks" somewhere? That might be quite helpful. And the [-3] and [-6] that you quote sound pretty appropriate to me.

But the argument about how Lizard Men have a 0-point Feature is compelling, though it doesn't affect all languages. So... maybe split the difference and I'm still at [-1] or [-2]?