Warring Guilds and Rogue Assassins Plague the Streets of AD&D

Thieves guilds and assassins guilds are ubiquitous in AD&D cities and towns. Both assassins and thieves are found on the DMG's city/town encounters matrix:

The assassin entry tells us that not only are cities and towns assumed to have a Thieves' Quarter, but also that (many) assassins may be encountered "at the guild":

The thief entry tells us that "other thieves encountered will be on guild business":

Thieves can "build a tower or fortified building of the small castle type for their own safety", but only within or very close to a town or city:

This calls into question why thieves are listed as potential masters of castles - including medium and large ones - in Appendix C within the procedure for generating fortresses in uninhabited areas:

...but this is certainly not the only contradiction between the PHB and DMG, and isn't particularly relevant to this post, so I won't dwell on it.

What is relevant is that if a thief does build a stronghold, they may use it as a headquarters for a gang, and in so doing attract thief followers. However, if they do so they will "bring the enmity of the local Thieves Guild". This will result in a war which ends "only when and if all the Master Thieves on either or both sides are dead, or if the thief character removes to another locale" (where, presumably, there is simply another Thieves Guild to contend with):

Similarly, the PHB tells us that "most towns and cities" are home to an Assassins Guild which "controls an area of from 10 to 100 miles radius around the headquarters town or city", and that "all non-player assassin characters are members of such guilds". A player character assassin who is discovered in a guild area will be invited to join the guild. They may decline, but will be sentenced to death if they perform an assassination while not a member of the guild:

Later, we are given more information about the nature of the Assassins Guild headquarters, which is "always within a large town or big city", but must be "nondescript" and safeguarded so as to avoid "attention and unwanted notoriety":

Compare that to this paragraph from the section of the DMG on poison, which describes the Thieves Guild as "an accepted part of communal society", so long as they stick to doing things that thieves do. The Thieves Guild can provoke the enmity of the Assassins Guild by engaging in acts which bring unwanted attention (or unwarranted blame) to the latter, or which are seen to step on the latter's toes:

This suggests that while the Thieves Guild may be at war with an upstart gang outside of their organization, and the Assassins Guild may condemn to death an outsider carrying out unsanctioned killings, the two organizations may also be in conflict with each other.

Unlike the thief, who can simply start a gang but must then go to war with the local guild, an assassin must assassinate or otherwise kill the local Guildmaster Assassin to attain 14th level (and later do the same to the Grandfather of Assassins to attain 15th level):

The headquarters of the Grandfather/Grandmother of Assassins can take a variety of forms but, unlike the local guild headquarters, is obvious and "must be located well away from all communities":

(Here we have another inconsistency with Castle Sub-Table II.B. That table lists the assassin as a possible master of the castle, but they can only be 14th level. 14th level assassins are Guildmasters, though, and their headquarters "is always within a large town or big city". As Grandfathers/Grandmothers - 15th level assassins - are the only assassins who build headquarters in uninhabited areas, it would be more accurate for the assassin on Castle Sub-Table II.B. to be of 15th level. But I digress yet again.)

The local Guildmaster Assassin commands 7-28 lower-level assassins. If the Guildmaster is killed, 75% "leave the area" (presumably to defect to a Guildmaster in another city or town) and new (1st level) assassins eventually arrive to fill the ranks:

The DMG goes on to state that the Grandfather/Grandmother of Assassins always has 28 followers of 2nd through 8th level, plus 4-16 of 1st level, and that when they are overthrown, as with the Guildmaster, 75% of these followers desert:

Since Guildmaster Assassins are referred to as "the local Guildmaster Assassin", whereas the Grandfather/Grandmother of Assassins is referred to as "the Grandfather/Grandmother", I'm going to conclude that there is only one such Grandfather/Grandmother of Assassins in the entire world, similar to The Great Druid:

It is my conclusion then that those assassins who desert when the Grandfather/Grandmother is supplanted do not return to the guild or defect to another but instead become masterless rogue assassins who wander the world, employing their skills in unsanctioned killings (thus making themselves persona non grata within the newly established order). 

They may even plot to overthrow the new Grandfather/Grandmother (the player character) once they've accumulated sufficient power. This would require reengaging with the guild structure which, since they've already deserted, may not be the intention. In any case, the player character assassin would be wise to closely monitor any new Guildmasters within their domain!

The assumption that there is only one Grandfather/Grandmother of Assassins and that assassins who desert in the wake of one's thus killing leave the guild forever is at odds with the previous declaration that "all non-player assassin characters are members of such guilds", but I've already demonstrated Gygax's tendency towards contradicting himself. Gygax may also simply be describing the status quo at the time when campaign play begins, not accounting for every possible action the player characters might take during the course of a campaign.

Whether this is another contradiction or I'm simply over-interpreting or making a false assumption, the idea of rogue assassins roaming the world is at least a fun one with interesting gameplay implications, so I'm willing to accept it at face value.

All of this, in fact, is highly gameable information. A player character thief may start a gang and provoke a war with the Thieves Guild. A player character assassin may decline to join the Assassins Guild and be condemned to death for unsanctioned activities, or join the guild and climb the ranks to Guildmaster or even Grandfather/Grandmother and so have rival (and even guildless) assassins plotting to kill them. But also keep in mind that anything the player characters can do, NPCs can do too.

Whether or not there's a player character thief or assassin in play, these organizations are assumed to be present in all AD&D towns and cities and will be operating in the world on their own terms. The player characters may be unlucky and run into thieves or assassins in the streets of the town or city, but perhaps they can also help out the local guild by toppling the upstart gang or capturing or slaying the rogue assassin. Perhaps the players help the upstart gang of thieves or mistakenly hire a rogue assassin, thus earning the enmity of the respective guilds. Perhaps they employ poison in some high-profile skirmish in the city, and now the Assassins Guild is out for their blood.

In summary, pit your guilds against each other for control of the streets, and let your player characters get mixed up in the conflict or caught in the crossfire. Remember that all dealings with thieves and assassins are wrapped up in layers of intrigue, subterfuge, and esoteric rules. The guilds are everywhere, and something as simple as helping or hiring the wrong person or putting a bit of poison on your blade may be seen as the opening salvo in a protracted war with AD&D most dangerous organizations of burglars and cutthroats.

On Hands (and how to use them)

Okay, weird post title. Bear with me.

This post was inspired by Warren D.'s post "WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT BASIC DUNGONEERING: And what is not" on the I Cast Light! blog. What got me thinking about hands specifically is Warren's thoughts on light and weapons (highlights mine):

Light: Due to torch cost and number per slot, it is easy to carry a lot of torches.

Not interesting: Carrying enough light to last 12-24 turns- easily done

Interesting: When torches extinguish-- like in the middle of a fight or when the goblins you are negotiating with get mad; how many hands in the party are occupied by torches

... 

Weapons: I've yet to find a really good way to do weapons simply outside of 1d6 damage for all types. I don't mind BX's variable weapon damage. And I do like some old rulesets sorta "first strike" if your weapon is larger than an opponents other wise smaller, lighter weapons strike first in subsequent arounds.

So here is what I have got so far: Using a weapon two-handed is a +1 to damage, using an off-hand weapon is +1 to-hit, and a shield is of course +1 AC. I do like that fighters with bows can shoot twice if they did not move and the "cleave" ability.

Not interesting: Weapon factors that are so extensive they require a separate rules discussion, trigger player obsession, and/or orient the whole of gameplay to combat

Interesting: What PCs chose to do with their hands: more armor, more weapons, or more light

What I'm interested in is how player characters choose to use their hands. It's a simple thing, but it's important - a hand can do any of the following things:

• Cast a spell with material or somatic components
• Hold a torch or lantern (providing light with which to see)
• Increase weapon damage (per my rules for variable weapon damage, using two hands increases a weapon's damage die size by one) 
• Increase a weapon's reach (most weapons with the reach property require two hands to use)
• Increase a weapon's range (ranged weapons which require two hands, such as bows, usually have a longer range than those which require one hand, such as thrown weapons)
• Interact with objects (open doors, throw levers, withdraw items from a bag or pouch)
• Make an extra attack (if dual wielding or a monk)
• Provide extra protection (a hand used to hold a shield provides +2 to the character's armor class)
• Use items (drink a potion, read a scroll, activate a wand, etc.)

It's something many DMs might not even think about, and I suspect that most modern DMs view it as one of those things - like encumbrance - which is too onerous to keep track of, and simply don't, beyond "Is the character dual-wielding, two-handing, or using a shield?" I have certainly forgotten about it a good number of times. In fact, when thinking about this, I realized that in a recent AD&D 2e session, I forgot about something very important - light.

Who is Carrying the Light?

The player characters were exploring a network of subterranean tunnels made by a brood of ankhegs. When the party first entered the tunnels, I said, "It's dark, so you'll probably want a light source. Who is carrying the light?" Then, when the party had its climactic battle with the ankheg brood, I never once considered the issue of light. Characters were firing bows, dual wielding, two-handing, and wielding shields. Who was carrying the light? Could the characters even see? I don't know.

When not in combat, the question of who is carrying the light isn't incredibly important. One might as well assume that all of the characters are carrying light unless they state otherwise. Characters might place a torch in a sconce when exploring a room or put it on the ground while they check a chest for traps. True, monsters hidden far away in the dark might target the torchbearer specifically, but in that case, the DM can simply check with the players who exactly is carrying the light before springing the ambush, after which the specifics become more crucial.

Once combat begins, it becomes very important who is carrying the light, because that character can't use their light-carrying hand to cast spells, wield a weapon with both hands, interact with other objects, duel wield (aside from using the torch as a weapon), wield a shield, or use items. That character is making a choice to benefit the rest of the party (by providing light) at the expense of their own tactical versatility. It's part of what makes light-providing spells, weapons, torchbearers, and the like valuable - they can provide light without occupying a hand.

Furthermore, the light source typically moves with the torchbearer, unless the torchbearer drops their torch on the ground in order to free up their other hand. Monsters may attempt to attack the torchbearer and snuff out the light. So, keeping track of who is carrying the light in these scenarios is very important. 

Stow, Drop, and Draw

In D&D 5e, a character can interact with one object for free on their turn, as part of their attack or move action (PHB, page 190). This includes drawing a weapon as part of the action they use to make an attack, opening a door as they move through it, picking up a dropped item, stowing an item, or withdrawing a stowed item. Redditors will happily say that according to the rules, a spellcaster wielding a sword and shield can drop their sword (no action required), freeing up a hand to cast a spell, then immediately pick up the sword again (using their free object interaction).

I hate this. It's stupid. Changing what hand is doing what is a tactical choice. It should have benefits and drawbacks like any other.

Baldur's Gate 3 is the current hotness as far as video games based on 5e go, but another 5e-based game, Solasta: The Crown of the Magister, is much better at little rules minutia like this. In Solasta, each character has weapon sets - a primary weapon set, a secondary weapon set, and a light source set. A character can switch between sets once on their turn.

So if a character is wielding a sword and shield, but wants to make a ranged attack, they switch to their longbow. After attacking with their longbow, they cannot then switch back to their sword and shield to benefit from the improved armor class. If light is an issue, the character can switch to holding their sword and torch, but cannot then switch back to their sword and shield.

This is more or less how I do it in my games, although locking characters into using predefined "weapon sets" is not exactly lifelike. Instead, I implement a stow/drop/draw action, which allows a character to switch what they're holding in each hand once per turn. They can drop their torch and draw another weapon, stow their sword and draw their wand, stow two items to free up both hands, or any combination of those things, so long as the item being held or not is interacted with just once, and the hand switches between only two items per turn. That means no dropping an item to do something with the hand and then picking the item right back up again.

To Two-Hand or Not to Two-Hand

A character who chooses to wield a two-handed weapon is making a deliberate choice. They are doing more damage if they hit, but they are sacrificing increased armor class (from a shield) and number of chances to hit (a dual-wielding character is making an extra attack each round). 

Only, are they actually doing more damage than a dual-wielding character? Using my own rules for variant weapon damage, a character wielding a heavy martial weapon with two hands does d12 damage. A character wielding a light martial weapon in each hand does d6 damage with each. If they hit with both, they do an average of 7 damage, versus the two-hander's average 6.5. Not a huge difference, but it's there.

On top of that, normally, the player does not add their character's Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll from their off-hand weapon, but the two-weapon fighting style allows them to do so, which can make the disparity greater. The dual-wielder also has an extra chance to score a critical hit.

But aha, two-handed weapons only require two hands when making an attack (PHB, page 146)! The second hand is free for the rest of the character's turn, allowing them to manipulate objects, draw items, and the like. If they can cast spells, they might also use their now-free hand for that (more on that later). If the dual-wielder wants to free up a hand, they have to use their stow/drop/draw action on that turn to do so, then use their stow/drop/draw action again on their next turn to switch back. Not a huge difference, but it's there.

Shields

Shields might be an exception to the stow/drop/draw action rule. In 5e, shields require a full action to don or doff (PHB, page 146). This feels overly punitive to me. I would rule that a character could switch their shield out for another item as if that hand was holding anything else. Maybe this isn't realistic (assuming the shield is strapped to the arm), but the gamey, mechanical tradeoff decision from round to round is what I'm interested in here, not realism.

This requires another change - in 5e, a character can benefit from a shield even if they're not proficient with shields. Here's the tradeoff: "If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells" (PHB, page 144). 

That above rule doesn't matter (aside from making saving throws) if the character has already taken their action that turn, meaning a character without shield proficiency could take their action as normal, then whip out a shield to benefit from the extra AC. I don't want that.

So if we remove the action required to don or doff a shield, we have to go a bit further and say "You do not benefit from the bonus to Armor Class when wielding a shield with which you are not proficient." Easy.

The Buckler Shield

One thing I miss from AD&D is different types of shields. 2e has buckler shields, small shields, medium shields, and body shields. I've simplified this a bit in 5e, introducing light (buckler) shields, medium (standard) shields, and heavy (body) shields. 

A character no longer needs proficiency in shields to use one - they just need proficiency in the corresponding armor type. This means that classes which don't normally get to use shields (most bards, rogues, and warlocks) can now use some certain shields, which doesn't bother me.

Standard shields work the same as the typical 5e shield. Body shields are similar, but against ranged attacks from the front and flanks, the character is treated as having three-quarters cover (+5 to AC, instead of the +2 typical of shields).

The buckler is the important shield when it comes to the discussion of hands, because it's light and fastens to the forearm, allowing the hand of the shield arm to be used to do things like fire a bow or crossbow, cast a spell, hold a torch, open a door, or the like. So the character wielding a buckler never needs to worry about stowing, dropping, or drawing their shield.

The tradeoff is that the buckler shield only grants the +2 bonus to Armor Class against one attack per round, and only if the character uses their reaction. It comes in handy (haha), but only if the character's reaction isn't already spoken for, and it's still not as good as having a proper shield.

The Components of a Spellcaster

Finally, I want to talk about spellcasting components. There are three kinds of spell components in D&D 5e: verbal, somatic, and material (PHB, page 203). Every spell in D&D requires at least one of these components, but more often, some combination of two or all three components in order to cast. 

Verbal components are "mystic words" which are spoken aloud as the spell is cast. It's not enough to simply say the words - the combination of sounds requires "specific pitch and resonance" to "set the threads of magic in motion". It's why, in my opinion, a character cannot "quietly" or "stealthily" cast a spell. Uttering the verbal components is loud and showy - it's evident to everyone present that a spell is being cast, disgraced 5e designers be damned.

Somatic components "might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures". Material components are "particular objects" but can be substituted by a component pouch or spellcasting focus so long as the components has no cost and isn't consumed by the spell.

Here's where we get to hands: To cast a spell with somatic components, "the caster must have free use of at least one hand". To cast a spell with material components, "a spellcaster must have a hand free to access [the] material components". However, the hand used to access the material components "can be the same hand that [the caster] uses to perform somatic components".

It used to be that a caster's whole body had to be free to cast a spell. A spellcaster casting a spell with somatic components couldn't just wiggle their fingers. Their whole body had to move. They had to do a dumb little dance. A spellcaster could not move on the same turn they cast a spell. If they were on a ship in the middle of a storm, the rest of the party would have to brace them to hold them still so that they could cast without being thrown around the ship. This, along with proper Vancian spellcasting and simultaneous actions in combat - allowing spellcasters to be interrupted while casting - was a huge element of reigning in the power of spellcasters. 

5e has a much different conception of spellcasters. They're basically hyper-mobile artillery. They can run, ride, and fly around casting spells, and all the while, they only need one hand free. They can be restrained by a titanic boa constrictor and can still cast spells with somatic and material components, so long as they can wiggle their fingers.

I personally rule that a spellcaster can't cast spells with somatic components if they're, for example, grappled or restrained, and in that case, they also can't cast spells with a material component unless those materials are already in hand.

I'm inclined to take it a step farther. What if spellcasters needed one free hand for somatic components, and another for material components? Casting a spell which requires both is a full-body action, meaning the character has to stow or drop whatever other items are occupying their hands before they cast.

Unfortunately, the characters who would suffer most from this aren't the dedicated casters, who probably aren't holding much other than a spellcasting focus anyway - the true victims are those that straddle the line between fighting and spellcasting: artificers, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers. These characters are spellcasters as well as characters that want to wield weapons and, often, shields.

Most of these classes have features which would mitigate the impact of this effect, allowing them to substitute some other item for a spellcasting focus. Artificers can use infused items as spellcasting foci, meaning that an artificer could infuse their weapon or shield, using it for their material components. Clerics and paladins can etch their holy symbol into a shield or, even better, simply wear it visibly on their person. Druids and - as of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything - rangers can use a druidic focus, which can be a staff, which is also a weapon (although maybe not the preferred one). 

In baseline 5e, this allows each of these character types to wield a useful item while still casting spells which require both somatic and material components (oddly, if the spell only requires a somatic component, they still need a free hand). If we change the rule to require one free hand for each of these components, then they at least need one less hand free.

These classes can also benefit from taking the War Caster feat, which eliminates the need for a free hand to use somatic components, so long as the character is wielding weapons or a shield in one or both hands (my reading of it is that the character couldn't cast a spell requiring somatic components while holding a torch in one hand and holding a potion in the other, for example).

Certain subclasses suffer more greatly - those classes which normally don't cast spells, but have subclasses which do, such as the eldritch knight fighter or the arcane trickster rogue, or those classes which normally don't wield weapons, but have subclasses which do, such as the swords and valor bards and the hexblade warlock. Since 5e is designed in such a way that casting spells with somatic components, material components, or both requires just one hand, this isn't normally a problem. If we require them to use both hands, they become much more limited. If I were to implement the house rule I'm proposing, I would likely give these subclasses some extra feature that allows them to use a weapon or shield as a focus.

Overall, I've not totally sold myself on making this change. It's not like changing a single spell or the way a class feature works, which is relatively easy - it's changing the base rules about how spellcasting as a whole works, which potentially has tons of knock-on effects. 

I'm not particularly interested in going through the whole spell list and analyzing the edge cases of which spells become more or less effective with different classes and subclasses depending on what they can and can't use as a spellcasting focus. It's the kind of thing that would require playtesting. Maybe next time I run a 5e game, I'll try it. Or maybe by then I'll have decided I don't really care.

The important take away is that I'm trying to pay more attention to what my players' characters are doing with their hands. Doing so generates interesting round-by-round decision points (holding a light source, choosing weapons, using a shield, and casting spells are all meaningful tradeoffs). This, and a healthy dose of common sense, reigns in more powerful character concepts, such as spellcasters (a wizard can't cast elaborate spells while being throttled by a tentacled beast). That at the very least is worth considering.

Character Progression and Tiers of Play in AD&D 2e

Greetings from Mexico! I'm not in Mexico at the time of writing this, but will be when this post is published. I am communicating from the past, anticipating the future.

Anticipating the future is some part of the reason for this post. My AD&D 2e game is going smoothly - though we will miss playing this coming week, and my play report for this past week will have to wait until I return from Mexico - did I mention I'm going to Mexico? 

As a way of looking towards the future, I thought it would be fun to look at the different character classes in 2e and how their abilities progress as they gain levels. 

Level progression in 2e is much different than in modern D&D. Every class in D&D 5e, for example, gains a little something on a level up - a class or subclass feature, spells and/or spell slots, ability score improvements and feats, and the like. Nonetheless, there continues to be much consternation in the 5e community over "dead levels". What do you mean my 15th-level monk only never again has to eat or drink, or worry about magical aging? Boooring!

By comparison, I think most modern players would find 2e's level advancement "boring" - some classes gain access to new spell levels or other magical and pseudo-magical abilities at certain levels, but for the most part a character's numbers are just going up or down occasionally. 

I love how different every class feels in AD&D, compared to the standardization approach used in modern D&D. The classes don't feel "equal", and they're not supposed to - the thief advances through levels faster than every other class because it's less powerful than every other class, just as the paladin and ranger advance slower than the fighter because they're more powerful than the fighter. Designing classes this way isn't for everyone, but the asymmetry is more interesting to me.

Another reason I wanted to look at this is because I really like 5e's approach to "tiers of play" - levels 1-4 are Tier 1, levels 5-10 are Tier 2, levels 11-16 are Tier 3, and levels 17+ are Tier 4. The level of the player characters determines what sorts of people approach them and what sorts of problems they should be solving. This is a really useful framework for the DM to have in mind when running a game in which it feels like the PCs' reputation and the stakes of their escapades are increasing along with the PCs' level.

The levels associated with each tier are not arbitrary - at 5th-level, spellcasters can cast 3rd-level spells (fireball, lightning bolt, revivify!), and non-spellcasters increase their damage output via extra attacks. At 11th-level, 6th-level spells come into play (chain lightning, mass suggestion, sunbeam!), most non-spellcasters get another damage uptick, barbarians can rage against death, and rogues become reliable good at all the things they're already really good at. At 17th-level, spellcasters gain 9th-level spells (power word kill, timestop, wish!), and most other classes get another damage boost.

When I started to revisit 2e in preparation to run my current campaign, I noticed that the Monstrous Manual, in the human section, under adventurers (page 196) similarly breaks adventurers into four groups based on their level! "Low level" adventurers are levels 1-3, "medium level" adventurers are levels 4-7, "high level" adventurers are levels 7-12, and "very high level" adventurers are levels 9-20. Are these the hidden "tiers of play" baked into 2e? Does the game fundamentally change at levels 4, 7, and 9?

Let's find out.

Fighter (PHB, pages 36-38)

Fighters are of the warrior group, which also includes paladins and rangers. A warrior's THAC0 improves by one at every level (page 121), their saving throws improve at every odd-numbered level (maxing out at 17th-level, page 134), and they gain a weapon proficiency and nonweapon proficiency at each level divisible by three (page 71).

Warriors also gain additional melee attacks depending on their level, beginning at 7th-level:

Warrior Level    Melee Attacks/Round
1-6                       1/round
7-12                     3/2 rounds
13+                      2/round

Fighters who specialize in a weapon (page 73) gain additional attacks at these levels (3/2 rounds at levels 1-6, 2/round at levels 7-12, and 5/2 rounds at levels 13+). They are the only class that can specialize in this way - not even paladins and rangers can do it.

At 9th-level, fighters attract loyal men-at-arms and an elite bodyguard, if the fighter has built a stronghold, which they can do at any time, so long as they have the money and land to do so.

Beyond 9th-level, warriors stop gaining additional hit dice and bonus hit points from Constitution - instead, they gain 3 hit points per level thereafter.

Paladin (pages 38-40)

Paladins are in the warrior group, so they have the same hit die, THAC0, attacks per round, saving throw, and proficiency progression as fighters. 

On top of the usual progression from being warriors, paladins get additional benefits at certain levels.

Paladins can heal two additional hit points using their lay on hands ability each time they gain a level. 

Paladins with a holy sword (which I take to mean a holy avenger or similarly potent, paladin-specific magic weapon) can dispel hostile magic in a 10-foot radius equal to their experience level, so if the paladin has a holy sword, their ability to dispel magic improves with each level, up to 9th-level (unless the "level" of the spell in this case is determined by the level of the caster - the PHB is not clear on this point). 

Paladins can turn undead as if they were a priest two levels lower starting at 3rd-level, so their turning ability improves each level after this.

A paladin can go on a quest to acquire a "war horse" (a faithful steed that needn't actually be a horse) anytime from 4th-level onward.

A paladin can also cure diseases once per week for every five levels of experience, meaning they gain an additional use at levels 6, 11, and 16.

Finally, a paladin can cast priest spells once they reach 9th-level. They use their own spell progression, distinct from that of other priests, such as clerics and druids. They gain 2nd-level slots at 11th-level, 3rd-level slots at 13th-level, and 4th-level slots at 15th-level. They max out at a spellcasting level of 9 at 17th-level.

Paladins do not automatically attract followers as a fighter does.

Ranger (pages 40-42)

Rangers, again, are members of the warrior group, so they have a progression similar to fighters and paladins.

Rangers have a thief-like ability to move silently and hide in shadows (depending on the armor they wear, and with a worse chance to do so in non-wilderness environments). Unlike the thief, they don't earn and spend points to improve these abilities. Instead, the abilities improve by a fixed amount at each level. Hide in shadows improves by 5% at levels 2-4, 6% at levels 5-8, 7% at levels 9-12, 8% at levels 13 and 14, and maxes out at 99% at 15th-level (a 6% improvement). Move silently improves by 6% at levels 2-4, 7% at levels 5-6, 8% at level 7, 7% again at level 8, 8% again at levels 9-12, and maxes out at 99% at level 13 (a 5% improvement).

Rangers are automatically proficient in tracking (page 86) - even if the optional proficiency rules are not used! At every level divisible by three (levels 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18), the ranger gains a +1 to their tracking ability checks.

Rangers can manipulate the reaction rolls of wild and hostile animals in either direction (i.e., the ranger can choose to make the animal more friendly or more hostile). The animal must make a saving throw versus rods (for some reason!), and receives a -1 penalty to the saving throw for every three levels of the ranger. So, the ranger's ability to influence animals improves at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19.

Rangers can cast priest spells from the animal and plant spheres (so druid spells, sort of) beginning at 8th-level. Like paladins, they use their own spell progression, gaining 2nd-level spell slots at 10th-level, and 3rd-level spell slots at 12th-level. I don't know why they get to cast spells before paladins but, unlike paladins, don't get 4th-level spells. Like paladins, they max out at a spellcasting level of 9, but do so at 16th-level instead of 17th.

Finally, at 10th-level, rangers attract followers. Unlike fighters, they don't need a stronghold to do so. Also unlike fighters, the followers they attract are buck wild - animals, adventurers, fey creatures, lycanthropes, treants, and more! Table 19 in the PHB is seriously worth a look.

Wizard (pages 42-47)

The wizard group consists of generalist mages and specialists. The two classes don't have any progression-specific distinctions (specialists are just mages with a more narrow focus - they are better at casting, learning, researching, and resisting spells from their chosen school of magic, and don't have access to spells from their "schools of opposition", all of which makes them feel thematically distinct and unique in comparison to their modern D&D counterparts). For this post, I'll simply refer to both mages and specialists as wizards.

Wizards gain a nonweapon proficiency at each level divisible by three, their THAC0 improves by one at every third level gained (4th, 7th, 10th, etc.), their saving throws improve at every fifth level gained (6th, 11th, 16th, etc.), and they gain a weapon proficiency at each level divisible by six.

The wizard's main form of progression is the acquisition of higher-level spells. They can cast 2nd-level spells at 3rd-level, 3rd-level spells at 5th-level, 4th-level spells at 7th-level, 5th-level spells at 9th-level, 6th-level spells at 12th-level, 7th-level spells at 14th-level, 8th-level spells at 16th-level, and 9th-level spells at 18th-level. In short, they gain access to a new level of spells every other time they gain a level, except at 11th-level - maybe because 6th-level spells are considered significantly more powerful than 5th-level spells?

At 9th-level, wizards can create spell scrolls and brew magic potions - spell scrolls require special quills and inks, as well as the wizard's knowledge of the spell being scribed, and potions require expensive laboratories (DMG, pages 118-120).

Unlike warriors, wizards continue to gain hit dice and bonus hit points from Constitution up to and including 10th-level. After 10th-level, wizards gain 1 hit point per level.

At 11th-level, wizards can create magic items besides scrolls and potions (DMG, pages 120-122). Like making scrolls and potions, this requires expensive materials and knowledge of specific spells - enchant an item (a 6th-level spell, meaning the wizard must be at least 12th-level), permanency (an 8th-level spell, meaning the wizard must be 16th-level), and any spells which are relevant to the item being created (lightning bolt if the wizard is creating a wand of lightning, for example). 

It stands out as strange that a wizard can allegedly create magic items at 11th-level, but can't know the enchant an item spell necessary to actually do so until 12th-level.

Cleric (PHB, pages 47-51)

Clerics are in the priest group, which also includes druids. Priests gain a nonweapon proficiency at every level divisible by three, their THAC0 improves by two at every third level gained (4th, 7th, 10th, etc.), and their saving throws improve at those levels as well. They gain a weapon proficiency at every level divisible by four.

Like wizards, the priest's main form of progression is by gaining access to higher level spells. Also like wizards, they can cast 2nd-level spells at 3rd-level, 3rd-level spells at 5th-level, 7th-level spells at 4th-level, and 5th-level spells at 9th-level. Unlike wizards, they can cast 6th-level spells at 11th-level. Like wizards once again, they can cast 7th-level spells (their most powerful spells) at 14th-level. 

They end up with many more spells than wizards overall - 49 total slots versus the wizard's 37, and they gain additional spell slots for having a high Wisdom score, which is not true for wizards with regards to Intelligence.

Clerics have the ability to turn undead, which improves at every level, allowing the cleric to turn stronger undead over time, and to automatically turn or destroy weaker undead.

Like the wizard, clerics can create spell scrolls, potions, and magic items. Unlike the wizard, they can make spell scrolls beginning at 7th-level (DMG, page 117). Like the wizard, they must wait until 9th-level to make potions, and until 11th-level to make other magical items. Unlike the wizard, they need only a sacred altar to create these items (no expensive laboratory or specific spells, pages 120-121), so they can start creating these items immediately once they reach the requisite level.

At 8th-level, the cleric attracts loyal followers, like the fighter. Also like the fighter, the cleric does not attract followers until they have built a stronghold, which they can do at any time, if they have the means to do so.

At 9th-level, the cleric can receive approval from their church to build a sanctioned stronghold, which costs half as much as building a stronghold without the church's approval.

Like warriors, priests stop gaining hit dice and bonus hit points from Constitution after 9th-level. From 10th-level onward, they gain 2 hit points per level.

Druid (PHB, pages 51-53)

Druids are in the priest group, so they use the same hit die, proficiency, saving throw, and THAC0 progression as clerics.

3rd-level is loaded for druids. At that time, they can identify plants, animals, and pure water with perfect accuracy, can pass through overgrown areas without leaving a trail and at their normal movement rate, and begin learning the languages of woodland creatures ("centaurs, dryads, elves, fauns, gnomes, dragons, giants, lizard men, manticores, nixies, pixies, sprites, and treants"). The druid learns one of these languages at 3rd-level, and another every time they gain a level thereafter.

7th-level is also loaded. The druid becomes immune to charm spells cast by woodland creatures and gains the ability to shapechange into a reptile, bird, or mammal up to three times per day.

At 12th-level, the druid's advancement becomes very weird. To actually reach 12th-level, the druid must defeat one of nine 12th-level druids in the region in magical or hand-to-hand combat in order to gain the official title of "druid". The druid then receives three druid initiates as followers. The level of these followers is determined by the druid's XP total in comparison to the other eight druids in the region - the least experienced of the nine receives 1st-level initiates, the next most experienced receives 2nd-level initiates, and so on, up to the most experienced druid, who receives 9th-level initiates.

To reach 13th-level the druid must defeat one of three archdruids in the region, and receives three initiates of 10th-level for doing so. To reach 14th-level, the druid must defeat the sole Great Druid in the region, and receives three initiates of 11th-level for doing so.

To reach 15th-level, the druid must be chosen as the successor to the sole Grand Druid in the entire world (the position cannot be won through combat). Their spell progression completely changes at this point - the Grand Druid has six spells of each level and can cast six additional spell levels per day (one 6th-level spell, or two 3rd-level spells, or three 2nd-level spells, etc.). The Grand Druid is served by nine druids, three of them 13th-level archdruids, and the remaining six typically levels 7 to 11.

The Grand Druid reaches 16th-level after only 500,000 XP are gained (compared to 1.5 million to go from 14th- to 15th-level). The Grand Druid loses all but 1 XP and begins advancing anew - this symbolizes the Grand Druid stepping down. They are now a hierophant druid, and require just 500,000 XP each to reach levels 17-20.

At 16th-level, the hierophant druid becomes immune to natural poisons, no longer suffers ability score penalties due to aging, and can alter their appearance at will.

At 17th-level, the hierophant druid gains the ability to hibernate, and can travel to the Elemental Plane of Earth and back to the Prime Material Plane at will, and gains the means to survive in the Plane of Earth.

At levels 18-20, the hierophant gains the ability to travel to and from and survive on the Elemental Planes of Fire, Water, and Air, respectively.

Thief (pages 54-58)

Thieves are part of the rogue group, which also includes bards. Rogues gain a THAC0 improvement of one at every odd-numbered level, a weapon and nonweapon proficiency at every level divisible by four, and saving throw improvements at every fourth level gained (5th, 9th, 13th, etc.).

At every level after 1st-level, thieves gain 30 percentage points to distribute among their thieving skills, with the caveat that no skill can exceed 95% (meaning that rangers at the highest levels are actually slightly better at hiding in shadows and moving silently in natural surroundings, since their skills cap at 99%).

A thief's chance of being noticed when picking someone's pocket can also be affected by the thief's level, relative to the target's, so to some extent the thief's chance not to get caught picking pockets improves with every level:

If the DM wishes, he can rule that a thief of higher level than his victim is less likely to be caught pilfering. The chance that the victim notices the attempt can be modified by subtracting the victim's level from the thief's level, and then adding this number to the percentage chance the thief is detected. For example, Ragnar, a 15th-level thief, tries to pick the pocket of Horace, a 9th-level fighter. Normally, Ragnar would be detected if his pick pockets roll was 73 or more (100-[3×9]=73). Using this optional system, since Ragnar is six levels higher than Horace, this number is increased by six to 79 (73+6=79). This option only applies if the thief is higher level than his victim.

At 4th-level, the thief can begin spending thieving skill points on the read languages skill, which gives the thief a chance to read any nonmagical writing.

The thief's damage multiplier when backstabbing improves by one at every fourth level gained, up to x5 at 13th-level.

At 10th-level, the thief can cast wizard and priest spells from scrolls, with a 25% chance of failure.

Also at 10th-level, the thief attracts followers in the form of other single- and multiclassed thieves. Like the ranger, and unlike the fighter and cleric, they do not need a stronghold to do so.

Like wizards, rogues continue gaining hit dice and bonus hit points from Constitution through 10th-level. After 10th-level, they gain 2 hit points per level.

Bard (pages 58-61)

The bard is part of the rogue group, so bards use the same hit die, proficiency, saving throw, and THAC0 progression as thieves.

The bard has a selection of abilities similar to those of the thief, but they are limited to climb walls, detect noise, pick pockets, and read languages. The bard can distribute 15 percentage points among these skills whenever they gain a level.

The bard can perform to inspire allies, improving their attack rolls, saving throws, or morale. The range of this ability improves by 10 feet per level gained, and the duration improves by one round per level gained.

The bard can attempt to identify magic items with a base chance of success of 5% at 1st-level. The chance of success improves by an additional 5% for each level gained.

The bard can cast wizard spells up to 6th-level. They gain 1st-level spell slots at 2nd-level, 2nd-level slots at 4th-level, 3rd-level slots at 7th-level, 4th-level slots at 10th-level, 5th-level slots at 13th-level, and 6th-level slots at 16th-level.

Like the ranger with animals, bards can use performance to influence the reactions of NPCs by one category in a direction of the bard's choosing. NPCs must save vs paralyzation (not rods, as with the ranger) to resist the effect. NPCs receive a -1 to their saving throw for every three levels of the bard, so the bard's ability to influence NPCs improves by one at every third level gained (4th, 7th, 10th, etc.).

Like the fighter and cleric, the bard attracts followers at 9th-level, but only if the bard has a stronghold.

At 10th-level, the bard can attempt to use magic items of written nature, such as scrolls and books, with a 15% chance of failure.

AD&D 2e's Tiers of Play

So, is there anything to this idea that AD&D 2e has secret "tiers of play" starting at or around 4th-, 7th-, and 9th-level? Let's summarize. I'm going to ignore hit dice, proficiency, saving throw, and THAC0 advancements, since they happen fairly often, and focus instead on the "flashy" abilities which seem most significant.

• 3rd-level: Paladins can turn undead, and druids can identify plants, animals, and pure water, pass through overgrown areas, and speak the languages of woodland creatures.
• 4th-level: Paladins can acquire a "war horse", and thieves can read languages.
• 7th-level: Warriors gain an extra attack (3/2 rounds or 2/round for specialists), clerics can create priest scrolls, and druids become immune to charm spells cast by woodland creatures and can shapechange.
• 8th-level: Rangers can cast priest spells, and clerics can attract followers.
• 9th-level: Fighters can attract followers, paladins can cast priest spells, wizards can create wizard scrolls and potions, clerics can create potions and can receive approval to build a sanctioned stronghold, and bards can attract followers.
• 10th-level: Rangers can attract followers, thieves can attempt to cast spells from wizard and priest scrolls and attract followers, and bards can attempt to use magic items of a written nature.
• 11th-level: Wizards and clerics can create more powerful magic items.
• 12th-level: Druids begin advancing through the druid hierarchy and gain initiate followers.
• 13th-level: Warriors gain an extra attack (2/round or 5/2 rounds for specialists).

Looking at the list above, it seems clear to me that (excluding extra attacks for warriors and a smattering of special abilities gained by paladins, druids, and thieves) there's really only two "tiers", distinguished by - and this should be pretty obvious to anyone familiar with old-school D&D - whether the characters have strongholds and followers, or can create magic items. This begins as early at 7th-level for clerics and as late as 10th-level for rangers and thieves, making 8th- or 9th-level a decent sweet spot.

I suspected as much when I set out to write this post, but thought it'd be fun to go through the process anyway. Sometimes you have a hunch and go digging in the text for evidence supporting that hunch, and the evidence isn't there. This is normal and good, and the process is often still illuminating.

Although the only substantial and somewhat-universal break in power seems to be around 8th- or 9th-level, I still really like the idea of breaking up the earlier levels into levels 1-3 and 4-9, at least, and will probably continue to keep those distinctions in mind when running my 2e game. For example, larger settlements are more likely to have higher-level adventurers as NPCs, and adventure locations further away from settlements are more likely to be designed with higher-level player characters in mind.

As I continue to run my AD&D game, it might become apparent that there are significant leaps in player character power and abilities at certain levels, which aren't immediately identifiable just by looking at character progression on paper. I'll keep all this in mind and update this post if I discover anything significant.

On Language

The topic of languages in RPGs is a contentious issue. In D&D, language acquisition is unrealistic. It's a binary on-off switch - when a player character decides to learn a language, they suddenly know it in its totality, and can engage in conversations of varying complexity with all speakers of the language, regardless of things like dialect. 

Real-world "intelligence" (whatever that means - my education in psychology has taught me that it's hotly debated and that a nuanced understanding of "multiple intelligences" is more accurate) has little to do with language acquisition - it's much more important to be immersed in a language from an early age, suggesting that a PC's background is more useful as a metric for what languages they should know. So why do older editions of D&D and OSR games use Intelligence to determine language acquisition?

Others argue that because it's so difficult for humans in the real world to learn languages from cultures other than their own, it makes little sense in a fantasy game for intelligent creatures of one species to sufficiently learn the language and understand the worldview of an entire other species.

And that's not even touching on what alignment languages are supposed to represent.

It's not only appeals to realism which are used to critique language proficiency in D&D. Language acquisition happens most frequently during character creation, when a player's knowledge of the setting, the challenges they may face, and the languages they might encounter is often incomplete. 

The result is that if the players choose the "wrong" languages, they end up missing out on valuable information, and consequently have fewer choices - they are either less well-equipped to make informed decisions, or they are locked out of certain approaches to situations. If the party encounters unfriendly or hostile intelligent creatures and they do not share a language, negotiation is more or less not an option, which means combat often becomes the only way forward.

I'm not particularly concerned with realistically representing language acquisition in my games. In D&D, language is often just another challenge to overcome, whether by clever roleplaying or with hard-coded skills. Ability scores are one among many abstractions in D&D which are necessary to keep the game relatively simple and gameable. I'm not trying to introduce six new ability scores to represent the different types of intelligence, for example. 

I view Intelligence in D&D not as a character's inherent smartness, but more as the level of education and learnedness that a new character enters the game with. When a wizard in D&D 5e, for example, increases their Intelligence as they level up, it doesn't represent a magical increase in their inherent ability to learn - it represents a deepening knowledge of the world gained through adventuring and study. 

It makes enough sense to me that a wizard would begin the game with a higher Intelligence due to their study under a mentor or at an academy, and thus would have a greater capacity for language acquisition and use, even if attributing such a thing to a single measure of "intelligence" in the real world might be overly simple and potentially problematic. 

I also don't think it makes the game more interesting to forego the acquisition of exotic languages entirely just because it doesn't necessarily make sense for a human to be able to fully comprehend the nuances of not just Dwarvish vocabulary and grammar, but also the Dwarvish worldview.

I do agree with two of the above points: that language acquisition is too binary, and doesn't account for the complexity of interpretation, and that the nature and timing of language acquisition in the game often leads to uninformed decisions which unfortunately lock players out of certain choices in play.

Language is a Proficiency

Beginning with AD&D 2e, if the optional proficiency system is used, language has been one of many possible proficiencies available to player characters in D&D. 

It continues to be a proficiency in 5e, but for some reason isn't used as such. If a character is proficient in a language, they simply know it - no check is required to speak, read, or write in that language. The only other proficiency which is treated this way is armor - even weapons technically require an ability check (an attack roll) every time a character attempts to use them. This is a major missed opportunity for language. If language is instead treated like any other proficiency, a world of possibilities emerges.

Language is a Skill

My house rule for using languages in 5e works like this: Any languages which a character acquires via their race (Common and Dwarvish, for example, if the character is a dwarf) is a native language. The character grew up speaking it and can speak, read, and write in that language without difficulty. Any other language that character knows (such as those acquired from the character's background, the occasional class feature, or downtime spent studying) is a learned language.

Non-native languages always require an Intelligence (Language) check when the character attempts to speak, read, or write in that language. If the character has proficiency in the language, they can apply their proficiency bonus to the ability check. A success indicates that the character has successfully communicated their intent or understood the intent of another. A failure indicates a misunderstanding, mistranslation, or faux pas. 

The difficulty class of the Intelligence (Language) check is determined based on a variety of factors, including the complexity of the ideas being communicated, vocabulary used, expected etiquette, the speed with which another creature is speaking to the interpreter, legibility of the writing, and the like.

At the DM's option, a failed Intelligence (Language) check to comprehend a speaker or piece of writing may still allow the character to glean some information in the form of common or key words:

Degree of Failure    Number of Words
1-4                            1d12
5-9                            1d10
10-14                        1d8
15-19                        1d6
20+                           1d4

Alternatively, a simpler rule would be to say that a failure of 5 or less indicates that 1-3 key words are understood, and a failure of more than 5 indicates that a (potentially) disastrous misinterpretation has occurred.

This not only allows for a less binary system of language acquisition, but also for the possibility that characters who don't necessarily have proficiency with a language can still attempt to understand it. In that case, an Intelligence check without proficiency is made. A success means that the character conveys or understands more or less the gist of what's intended. No longer are the players locked out of negotiating with the goblins just because nobody picked Goblin as a language in character creation!

This may seem unrealistic to some, but adventurers are worldly individuals who interact with all manner of creatures. It makes plenty of sense to me that they may pick up a few common words here or there, or that the wizard with their nose in a book at every opportunity is somewhat capable of navigating simple and intermediate conversations in a foreign tongue. Many adventurers would know that "bree-yark" is Goblin for "We surrender"...it is, isn't it?

Treating language as a skill proficiency has a few added effects. Any mechanic which interacts with ability checks can be applied to language ability checks. 

Skill Mechanics

If language is treated as a skill, characters who gain the expertise feature (such as bards and rogues, and those characters which take certain feats) can take expertise in a language if they wish to get a better grasp than most. 

Bards at 2nd-level gain the Jack of All Trades feature (PHB, page 51), which allows them to apply half their proficiency bonus to skills with which they're not already proficient. Now that applies to languages, too. The bard is the worldliest and wordiest of adventurers, after all, so it stands to reason that they would have a better than average grasp of even those languages they haven't devoted time or resources to learning.

Rogues also benefit, as at 11th-level they gain the Reliable Talent feature (PHB, page 94), which prevents them from ever rolling under 10 on an ability check with which they have proficiency. Now the rogue has more or less mastered even the slangiest thieves' cant, as well as any other languages they've picked up on their adventures. This sort of harkens back to the thief's ability in past editions to read any language, though I'm tempted to give them a version of Jack of All Trades which applies only to language ability checks to represent that more accurately.

One of my favorite 5e mechanics is found in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Chapter 2: Dungeon Master's Tools, under Tool Proficiencies (page 78). The rule pertains to the use of tool proficiencies in combination with skill proficiencies: "If the use of a tool and the use of a skill both apply to a check, and a character is proficient with the tool and the skill, consider allowing the character to make the check with advantage."

When I read this, I decided to completely ignore the fact that it specifically refers to using tools, and started using this mechanic any time my players did anything that could conceivably fall under more than one of their proficiencies. Trying to use historical precedent to convince an NPC to do something? That's a Persuasion check, and if the character has proficiency with History, it's made with advantage. Trying to trick the cultists into believing that the character is a fanatical follower of the Bone Lord? That's a Deception check, and if the character has proficiency with Religion, it's made with advantage.

This can work with language ability checks, too. A character may be able to kind of sort of get by speaking and interpreting another languages sometimes, but they're particularly well-versed in a certain field of study and have learned several words which are important when discussing it, or reading or writing about it. 

If the character is building a stronghold and wants to communicate construction specifications to the dwarf stonemasons, the character's proficiency with mason's tools applies, and they have advantage on their check to communicate their intent. A character with proficiency in Religion is better able to communicate and interpret religious ideas to and from goblins. A character with proficiency in Nature is better able to decipher an Elvish bestiary with information on the mating habits of owlbears.

Lost in Translation

Another benefit of using ability checks for language is that it can complicate negotiations. When the character succeeds in an attempt to communicate, and is simultaneously attempting to deceive, intimidate, or persuade the creature to which they're speaking, the result of their language ability check can also be used a cap for the following Deception, Intimidation, or Persuasion check (i.e. if the result of the language check is 15, the following Charisma check cannot be higher than a 15). The bard may be great at working a crowd, but their ability to work a crowd of orcs is much less potent than it would be with a crowd of humans.

For best results, this mechanic should be combined with a robust system for social interaction.

Related Languages

Languages in the real world often share connections. An English speaker can sometimes follow the meaning of a Spanish speaker because some of the words are alike. It stands to reason that fantasy languages would also share commonalities. To determine which languages in 5e are related, I refer to their scripts:

If two languages share a script, then they're related. If a character attempts to converse in or comprehend a language with which they are not proficient, they have advantage on the ability check if they're proficient in a related language.

Standard and Exotic Languages

D&D 5e makes a useful distinction between "standard" and "exotic" languages (PHB, page 123)...which then isn't actually used at all, except to say "With your DM's permission, you can instead choose a language from the Exotic Languages table". I don't think I've ever had a player ask my permission to learn any language during character creation.

Standard languages are those spoken by the typical player character races - Dwarvish, Elvish, Halfling, and the like. Exotic languages are typically those spoken by monsters - Celestial, Draconic, Infernal, etc. I've written before about how the DM can, prior to character creation, change up which languages are standard or exotic based on the setting.

I don't love that it's equally easy to learn both standard and exotic languages - after all, what makes exotic languages exotic, other than this vague notion of "Hey, maybe ask your DM first, if you want"?. 

I house rule that if a feature allows a character to learn two or more languages (such as with certain backgrounds), the character can learn one exotic language in lieu of two standard languages. A character with the sage background can learn Dwarvish and Elvish, or Infernal, but not Dwarvish and Infernal.

To represent the difficulty of fully grasping an exotic language, I recommend increasing the DC of Intelligence (Language) checks made to speak or comprehend exotic languages by at least 5 across the board. (I actually roll to determine the DC of most ability checks during prep, so I usually roll twice and take the higher result when it comes to exotic languages.) 

Learning Languages

I use XGE's rules for the training downtime activity (page 134) to handle language acquisition beyond those languages learned by other means. The downtime activity normally takes ten weeks and costs 25 gold per week. I house rule that learning an exotic language instead takes twice as long and costs 50 gold per week.

This is one case where I would apply a limit to the maximum knowable languages based on Intelligence. Otherwise, with enough downtime and cash, player characters can learn every language (which is maybe fine, but I still want there to be some tradeoff and element of strategy when deciding which languages to learn - if the character only gets three, then the player better choose them carefully, ideally after spending some time in the world and determining which languages are most useful).

If the DM wants to stick with mechanics which exist in 5e, the number of languages can be limited by the character's Intelligence modifier, meaning that a character of the highest degree of nonmagically-augmented Intelligence can learn five languages, which seems fairly reasonable. Through magical augmentation and ability score increases beyond 20th level (DMG, page 230), a character's Intelligence modifier can go all the way up to +10.

Quantum Language

As evidenced by the many hyperlinks in this article, there's a wide variety of discussion on this topic. I wasn't sure how else to work it into this post - and my "ability check without proficiency" approach pretty much covers the possibility for any character to know (enough of) any language at any given time - but one might also consider playing around with quantum languages as another way of doing things.

Conclusion

None of this is to say that this is a 100% fix for language in D&D 5e, but I think it's a big improvement. Obviously, language in 5e is intended to be a binary ability - the character either knows the language or they don't - but this to me is a much more interesting way of doing it. 

This approach mitigates the binary nature of language acquisition, which also makes the player's specific choice of known languages at the start of the game less crucial, and allows for a wider array of character choices in encounters with NPCs, even if the characters and NPCs don't share a language.