|
|
Post by thesicilian on Jan 13, 2016 21:14:13 GMT
I was thinking about concepts for N/PCs And I had an idea for something but I wanted to know what you guys thought about this concept if you where the DM and I presented it to you.
The character concept is of a Halfling Thief that is a mute, and communicates only through other thieves as Thieves Cant is a complicated enough not only in complicated enough as it's own written and spoken language, but also in the symbolics and in hand signs that you could use it to convey simple messages that way such as "I want that, or 'let me examine it' even if you do have to play the pronoun game because of a lack of ways to specify items.
If I presented this idea to you as a PC would you accept it or would you say that Thieves Cant doesn't work that way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 13, 2016 23:05:24 GMT
Is the thief just mute or deaf/mute?
In the latter case, he's already at a disadvantage (silent communication is an advantage), so, I think I would allow it, in that case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 13, 2016 23:09:10 GMT
Riposte__: Just a mute
prespos: Hmm, well, he's also at a further disadvantage, since he can't read scrolls.
prespos: I think I would allow it, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesicilian on Jan 13, 2016 23:22:18 GMT
Not to mention that he would only be able to communicate to other thieves whom know thieves cant. I want to drive that point home. He cant do shit with out another thief around. It would be possible for him to learn to write common through a thief who could help him translate thieves cant to common but that that would be character development.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris107 on Jan 14, 2016 8:19:41 GMT
I'd have no problem at all with it. It's just character flavour so that's player stuff. Nothing to do with the DM. If it takes a few more minutes per session so what? It adds a nice twist  |
|
|
|
Post by ratbreath on Jan 14, 2016 16:30:04 GMT
I was thinking about concepts for N/PCs And I had an idea for something but I wanted to know what you guys thought about this concept if you where the DM and I presented it to you. The character concept is of a Halfling Thief that is a mute, and communicates only through other thieves as Thieves Cant is a complicated enough not only in complicated enough as it's own written and spoken language, but also in the symbolics and in hand signs that you could use it to convey simple messages that way such as "I want that, or 'let me examine it' even if you do have to play the pronoun game because of a lack of ways to specify items. If I presented this idea to you as a PC would you accept it or would you say that Thieves Cant doesn't work that way? What edition? I'm a 1e guy, and Thieves' Cant is specified not to be a general language. It can only be used for conversations about thievery, robbery, and the disposal of stolen goods ( p24DMG). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure bugbears have a full sign language, since you will never hear them if you listen at doors. |
|
|
|
Post by thesicilian on Jan 18, 2016 4:59:07 GMT
Wrong. The words 'only' doesn't appear anywhere in that paragraph. 'Anything pretraining' to thievery can be a large number of things, especially when you use hand signs for such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratbreath on Jan 19, 2016 11:48:48 GMT
Wrong. The words 'only' doesn't appear anywhere in that paragraph. ' Anything pretraining' to thievery can be a large number of things, especially when you use hand signs for such things. "The specialty tongues of Druidic and Thieves' Cant are designed to handle conversations pertaining to things druidical on one hand and thievery, robbery, and disposal of stolen goods on the other." It's pretty clear there that if you're not talking about thievery, robbery, or disposal of stolen goods then it can't be talked about in thieves' cant. The word "only" would be redundant in that paragraph. No point in specifying what can be talked about if anything can be talked about. The word "anything", on the other hand, was used only by you and entirely twists the meaning around. DM is always free to take liberties of course. Play it as you will, I will argue no more about it. |
|
