Spell question: Speak with Dead

[DM-Rocco]

I was always a bigger fan of the 1st addition then any of the others, so I may dig up my old 1st edition PHB and make a different ruling. My characters have worked hard to get where they are, but I was following the letter of the current spell, and it says no.

I would like to hear from everyone one else on how the spell should read if you took into account 1st addition spells. We are not playing until a week from this tuesday, so if one of you wishes to aid my character by proposing a full and complete spell, durations, spell components, etc., go ahead and I may change my mind.

I can't do it myself right now, my 1st addition books are packed away as we are moving at the end of the month.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now that it requires a "mostly intact corpse" that magically yaps at you, it is more restricted in that you can't have a keyring of body parts to strike up a conversation with at will. Needing a body (as in the recent "Hellboy" movie) instead of a lock of hair is the extent of the change as I see it. Limiting it to yes or no answers only completely ignores the whole magic of the spell: returning a fragment of the previous soul to answer questions.

I don't see this at all. In either case, the fragment returns to answer questions. The only difference is the means, and the limitations set upon the means. To me, having the corpse/skeleton respond makes sense, and if the DM rules that the skeleton can only answer yes/no questions the so be it. Really, so long as the DM is consistent with this, what's the problem?

The corpse is animated to answer questions. This isn't a physics thing. If you can show me the physics of how to animate a corpse to answer questions, then I'll agree that the ligaments, lung pressure, etc., matter. But they don't. This is magic, not science. As magic, it works on the basis of a whole 'nother set of rules.

If I was running the game, I wouldn't have warned the PCs what would happen if they cast the spell. They would simply cast the spell, then deal with whatever consequences or limitations occured. I certainly wouldn't say that having those limitations nerfs role-playing. On the contrary. And dealing with those limitations is one of the challenges of the game.

I think that your ruling was fair, and the old bones rattling their answers out would have added a fun flavor to the evening. I think your reasons were well thought out, given the wording of the spell, and I fully agree with WotC that a corpse and a skeleton are not necessarily the same thing. The word corpse implies flesh.

Also, a note for Hypersmurf: If it is a skeleton, and not just a collection of bones, then something is holding those bones together, no? Assuming ligaments here is probably more than reasonable.

I have a great new idea for DMing in general: When in doubt, SAY YES! The players have fought to advance their characters, let them use the abilities!

I certainly hope you are joking, numion, though I doubt that is the case. Under this great new idea, I seriously question how much fighting the players would do to advance their characters. In 3.X the players already have it way too easy, unless the DM intentionally toughens things up.

RC

 

[DM-Rocco]

Well, my will was begining to break. I was considering giving in to the needs of greedy players everywhere after reading the last few threads. In fact, had someone done as I had requested and converted the 1st edition spell into 3.5, something I can't do right now because I am in the middle of moving and the books are packed away, then I would have allowed the spell to function as the players had wanted.

However, since Raven Crowking had posted his last comment, it just made things more clear for me. I am the DM, I made a ruling and I need to be consistant in that ruling. If the player wants to try and create a better version of the spell, at the same or different level, then I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is balanced. I know how the 1st edition spell worked, and I know this is weaker, but it is what it is.

As for letting the characters get away with it because they worked hard to get to that level, no, I am not buying that. Yes, they did pull some tricks out of thier hats to survive until now, but if I let them bend the rules on this, it would be the same as letting a 20th level mage have 10 magic missles from a 1st level spell. You as a player may not see a problem with that, but as a DM, there are rules to follow, and even though this example is a bit out there, it is the same premise.

Sorry, the spell is 'nerfed', as the player would say.

 

[DreamChaser]

i second mouseferatu's minimal rules-lawyering interpretation.

but I also support DM's prerogotive.

DC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, my will was begining to break. I was considering giving in to the needs of greedy players everywhere after reading the last few threads.

<snip>

However, since Raven Crowking had posted his last comment, it just made things more clear for me. I am the DM, I made a ruling and I need to be consistant in that ruling. If the player wants to try and create a better version of the spell, at the same or different level, then I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is balanced.

<snip>

As for letting the characters get away with it because they worked hard to get to that level, no, I am not buying that.

Pleased to be of service.

i second mouseferatu's minimal rules-lawyering interpretation.

To recap, Mouseferatu said:

Frankly, I think this is a perfect example of people reading too much into the rules.

The spell is designed to speak with dead bodies. Period.

Decay is not "damage" in the D&D sense of the word. The spell says that corpses can speak, and it does not exclude skeletal corpses. That's a pretty major omission, if that was the writer's intention, don't you think? Especially with "bodies of any age" caveat.

As written, I'd rule that if the corpse is intact--and by intact, I mean all the pieces that should be there given its state of decomposition are still present--than it can speak. Anything else is grossly limiting a spell that's A) already pretty narrow in focus, and B) a third-level spell.

DreamChaser, I have a very hard time seeing how DM-Rocco's interpretation is "rules lawyering" and Mouseferatu's is not. Both are looking at the rule (spell description) as written, and then interpreting what they see based upon (1) general principles as they see them, and (2) what type of game they prefer. If you truly believe that one of these positions must be rules-lawyering, look at what benefits are being asked for. Then decide if you really "support DM's prerogotive" or not.

Usually, rules lawyering refers to taking the rules as written, and using the phraseology to create specific benefits (almost always for a PC, almost never for the DM) that are clearly not intended by the person creating the rule. In this case, we also know from WotC that DM-Rocco's interpretation is that specifically intended by the people creating the rule.

There is some question as to what the word "corpse" means. To DM-Rocco, myself, and (apparently) WotC, the terms "corpse" implies that there is flesh on those bones. As for the "of any age," the discovery of a mummified "Ice Man" from prehistoric times in the Alps is a perfect example of how speak with dead could be used to speak with an intact body "of any age."

Spells that supply information are not as "narrow in focus" as Mouseferatu implies. With a clever caster and access to a body -- even with the limitations supported by DM-Rocco and WotC -- this spell could easily be renamed "find out just about anything." That's a pretty broad power, especially as dead bodies are not uncommon in most D&D campaigns. Speak with dead could easily be one of the best 3rd level spells around.

I have a great new idea for DMing in general: When in doubt, SAY YES! The players have fought to advance their characters, let them use the abilities!

According to the oft-spoken rule, the DM is supposed to be impartial. Now, we all know that this is a crock. The DM is supposed to be creating an entertaining experience for the players, not for the orcs hidding out in room 38 of the third level of Castle Hackmoore. Yet, part of creating an entertaining experience is making things difficult for the PCs. There, I said it. The DM's job is to avoid making things easy for the PCs.

You know how the PCs are those "special people" who get to weild magic and money so much more than everyone else around them? Well, they are also the "special people" who have assassins, evil wizards, dragons, and the archlich after them. And the King's Tax Collector. And their dog got the flu. And they just discovered that their castle was built on an old orcish burial ground. You get the idea.

This is the only way the players fight to advance their characters.

I say to DMs everywhere: When in doubt, go with your gut instinct. Then be prepared to be consistent. Which means, take notes on your rulings. Then get back to the game. It's as simple as that.

(If you need to make it more simple, tell your players when they sit down that what they know about the game is lore that may or may not be accurate, that you can and do change monsters and magic items to fit your vision of the world, and that you control the rules in your game. Even if you change nothing. Then you can always remind them that they were warned.)​

I say to players everwhere: Your plan didn't work the way you thought it would? Too bad. If this was the first time your character ever cast speak with dead (or at least the first time under these circumstances, or in this world), chalk it up to a learning experience. Then get on with the game. Because, while the DM is supposed to provide an entertaining experience for you, the DM gets to expect you to provide an entertaining experience as well. It's a two-way street. Otherwise, why DM?

(What I am trying to say here is stop whining. If you really think this call was such a biggie that it ruined the game, quit and find another DM. If not, keep your part of the DM/player contract and make the game fun. If you're a player arguing with the DM because something didn't work the way you hoped it would, based upon a difference in interpretaion of the rules as written, you're in no position to claim that the DM is "rules lawyering"!)​

I seriously wonder how DM-Rocco's players would fare in my campaign world....?

RC

 

[HeavyG]

I have a great new idea for DMing in general: When in doubt, SAY YES! The players have fought to advance their characters, let them use the abilities!

Hear, hear !

It took me a looooong time to realize that.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

So far as the spell reads, I'm with Hypersmurf. Intact is intact. I see Speak With Dead as the "who killed you, Mr. Boddy?" spell. It's a way to get some info off a freshly dead guy about his last few moments.

Actually, as far as "intact" goes, I used to run an evil campaign in a city environment that was very legalistic and restrictive. The players could get away with a lot, so long as they left no evidence. Evidence like a body with an intact head that could Speak With Dead for the authorities. So standard operating procedure was for the characters to either remove the heads and chuck them into the sewers, or to smash the heads flat with a special head-smashing mace if they were in a hurry.

I always saw Speak With Dead as a slightly-improved "Miracle Max" trick.
"...truuuuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeellllllllooooooooooovvvvvvvvvvvveeee...."

 

[Hypersmurf]

So far as the spell reads, I'm with Hypersmurf.

Wait... you are?

I don't even know if I'm with Hypersmurf... I haven't expressed an opinion yet, just asked questions

-Hyp.

 

[rkanodia]

I think your questions tend to come across as Socratic irony, Smurf.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Indeed.

How does a skeleton talk without any talking apparatus? It's like asking it to dance with no legs.