Spell question: Speak with Dead

[ThirdWizard]

Admittedly, I am looking at 3.0 right now, but the wording in that book for ressurection is "any deceased creature" whereas the wording in speak with dead is "a corpse"

I was thinking more along the lines of "Target: Dead creature touched" but if you're going to make a distinction between a "dead creature" and a "corpse" then I suppose that's your perogative.

EDIT: I do have a question, however. Can intelligent skeletal undead not speak in your games?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was thinking more along the lines of "Target: Dead creature touched" but if you're going to make a distinction between a "dead creature" and a "corpse" then I suppose that's your perogative.

(Shrug) Obviously, you can go with either the summation data, or the details of the spell. I, for one, would not expect the summation data to make fine distinctions. That would appear in the detailed description. Or so I would assume. Maybe it's just me.

The people who wrote the rules seem to have made the same distinction I make: between a corpse and a skeleton. No other distinction is being made here. I suppose, if you want to put words in my mouth, you could claim all sorts of distinctions and refute them as well. Neither answers the points raised.

I think it is fairly clear that the "intact" question raised by the spell description is there specifically so that the DM can create scenarios where the speak with dead spell is, and is not, useful, as well as scenarios where its usefulness is limited.

Of course, again, you're welcome to do whatever you want in your campaign. We call that "house rules" where I come from. To make the claim that DM-Rocco cannot do the same, or that his reasoning isn't reasonable, requires a better argument than any I've read in this thread so far. Especially when you take into consideration that DM-Rocco's ruling is, in fact, the default ruling from WotC.

And again, the corpse vs. skeleton issue is clearly consistent throughout the game, not just in the one spell description. Find me a counter-example, and your argument gains weight. I couldn't find one. Then again, as I said, I'm looking at 3.0. Maybe it's just me.

EDIT: I do have a question, however. Can intelligent skeletal undead not speak in your games?

Actually, I believe that this question (or something similar) was already brought up. DM-Rocco rightly pointed out that the magic required to create intelligent skeletal undead is much more powerful, and distinct from, the speak with dead spell. The question is utterly irrelevant.

Certainly, I wouldn't accept the argument that Spell X requires no attack roll because magic missile doesn't. This line of reasoning seems to be much the same, imho.

But, because you asked, the answer is "it depends". The Bonewardens, who got their powers from infernal magic, could speak. Certainly a lich would be able to speak. An awakened animated skeleton (could such a thing exist) would not be able to speak, nor could a necromancer make his animated skeletons speak unless he used further magic (such as a magic mouth spell).

In any event, trying to adjudicate magic on the basis of physics, or on the basis of what could happen, is a pointless endeavour. You either follow the spell description or you do not. No matter how clever game designers try to be, some of those descriptions will require adjudication. The DM makes a decision, and, barring a strong reason not to, he ought to stick to it. That means, stick to it for everyone: PC, NPC, and that guy who used to be a PC but never makes it to the game.

Again, I think when you examine the wording of the spell description, this is fairly simple to adjudicate. Resurrection and speak with dead are not the same. Very clearly differentiated in their descriptions, as my previous quotes show.

RC

 

[MerakSpielman]

One of the things normally required for a person to speak is electrical impulses directed from the brain to the tissue in question...

Believe me, there's no way a dead creature, however fresh, has all the bits required for speech that a alive person does. How can I know this? Because dead people DON'T TALK.

Those of you saying that a skeliton can't talk and a fleshy corpse can are doing little more than drawing a very arbitrary line in the dirt. MAGIC can make the corpse breath and make words, but only if the vocal cords haven't decomposed? Why is that? Why can't MAGIC make a dead person talk even if they don't have vocal cords? Can you neutralize the spell by removing the tongue? Cutting the throat? Punching a few holes in the lungs? If a person died from inhaling chlorine gas, can Speak with Dead talk to him (certain important bits have been disolved, after all)?

I find it far more reasonable, in a MAGIC world, that the spell handles all that. If the corpse in question is reasonably intact, the magic finds a way to allow it to speak. If it's a pile of bones, then the magic is doing a bit more work than if it's a freshly-dead dude.

My major beef with SwD is that, other than the Will save, the corpse is magically bound to answer any question honestly.

"I'll never tell you where your friend is imprisoned!"
Player makes a Diplomacy check, offers a bribe, and it all fails.
So they just kill the guy and interrogate him. If he makes his Will save, just try again until he fails.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Especially when you take into consideration that DM-Rocco's ruling is, in fact, the default ruling from WotC.

Yeah... WotC support actually doesn't have much credibility. Email them again and you might get a different answer depending on who your email ends up with. And the Sage? Maybe he used to know what he was talking about. Does Skip even write that anymore or do they just throw his name on it and claim he writes it, anyway? Because, if he does, then maybe he needs to spend a little more time with the rules that he himself helped to write.

Just a slight rant. Has no bearing on the actual discussion, sorry.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

Yet, you have a hard time accepting a DM ruling that, while they can, they do not? At least not through the use of this spell?

I can accept anything from a GM as long as it is fun to play (it is, after all, his work, adventure and campaign that rests on keeping the tension and fun alive) , and not willfully hamper the players. If a corpse communicated by rattling its bones, lighting fire in its eyesockets or playing wheel of fortune or Quija, so be it. Its his/her campaign and with an adventure running, the GM's word closes any argument.
From, WotC, with a lot of foresight, numerous staff, alleged play-testing, multiple sources for input and years of experience I do expect better than their obviously leaky, incomplete and self-contradicting definition and idea. Especially since "Speak with Dead" was redesigned for V3.5.

Why would those same gods flinch at the lack of a head? Hmmm? If they can provide a ghostly throat, surely they can provide the rest? Hell, why do you need the body at all by that reasoning?

As you said above, "it's a world that is kept ticking by slightly different rules, laws and universal field theories." All limitations on spellcasting are part of those slightly different rules. None of them has a hard-and-fast reason for being. They are either what the rules designers felt would have the right "feel" or would work based upon game requirements.

Yes, you should work to give your world versimilitude. But anyone arguing on the basis of how magic must be limited by real-world physics (such as the post you were responding to) or on what presumably near-omnipotent gods could do if they desired it (which your post seems to do) isn't actually going to resolve anything. If it works for your campaign, that's all that matters.
RC

Easy - for one "ghost sound" is a low-level effect, which I have no problem envisioning being created as a sideshow in a third level spell. And, as mentioned above, if the GM chooses some other means of communication - more power to his imagination ! Whatever floats his boat - be it telekinetic force, illusionary sounds or evocative light signals.
If one does subscribe to the theory that a "key component" of a body should be in place though (and WotC assumes that _all_ parts are there, mostly intact, btw), choosing the part(s) with they main sensory organs and the seat of consciousness looks the feasible choice to me. Should the spell yield tangible results from any, however minuscule, amount of remains, even if possibly lacking many or most of the corpse (a la Lovecraft's "reanimation" magic, from which "Speak with Dead" unabashedly steals ) , it would simply be too powerful for its level. No-one disagrees on that.
As access to all-powerful magics is sensibly (by the deities, rules of the universe and WotC ) restricted to more skilled and trusted servants - hence "miracle" being a ninth level magic, even though maybe a fair minded deity should - philosophically - be as likely to help his lowly servant asking for a miraculous intervention in good faith as he should be to grant it to his most powerful servant. A third level spell should reflect those limitations - but an illusionary, cantrip-level figment is nothing to unbalance such a spell or make it overpowered. Especially if I have to assume the partial reanimation of a corpse for the use of its Thorax, Larynx and vocal chords as the only official way "Speak with Dead" allows communication

And, btw, the deities in D&D are nigh all-mighty and all-powerful, even if they get statted out - but just how they chose to apply their power through "spells" is subject to rules. And the given e-mail ruling for "Speak with Dead" is, sorry too say, patchy at best, and a moth-ridden mess at worst, IMHO, because D&D does not sport a detailed damage system (for good reasons) - but suddenly it becomes very important just how badly mangled a corpse is...... is massive damage enough to make something "not mostly intact" ? How about acid or fire damage ? Damage type ? Will a partial desintegration suffice ? Or a deadly "Baleful Teleport" ? I can see that debate turning quickly into a macabre and potentially distasteful pathological excourse. So why pick a phrase as ambiguous as "mostly intact corpse" ?


As for the "need the head" houserule - It is meant as our local placebo for a balancing check, establishing some key part, be it heart, tongue or head. Its our interpretation of "mostly intact" and a balanced approach. It guarantees that only one party can communicate with any said corpse. It guarantees that no spare parts for interrogating those who have fallen in the field are kept back in a safe location, for later use by superiors and allies. It also guarantees that a corpse may be rendered "mum" as a witness by an unscrupulous party/NPC. Especially the last point - often essential for an adventure's progress or air-tight plot sealing - is not really adressed by D&D 3.5. Which, in itself, is a strange short-fall. I offered it as a piece of possible advice to the initial poster, no more, no less.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Those of you saying that a skeliton can't talk and a fleshy corpse can are doing little more than drawing a very arbitrary line in the dirt.

If that was what the spell did, then obviously it could do that. Unfortunately, in this case, the DM clearly ruled (based upon the spell description) that this is not what the spell does. The line is not arbitrary, excepting the decisions made by the game design staff, and it was drawn in the dirt prior to the release of 3.0.

Simply put, DM-Rocco correctly discerned the intent of the game designers, as was confirmed by Wizards of the Coast.

You can house rule that speak with dead makes skeletons talk. No harm done there. But going by the rules as written, and as confirmed by WotC, speak with dead doesn't make skeletons talk for the same reason that burning hands doesn't grant wishes: not because a spell cannot grant wishes, but because that is not what burning hands does.

Real world physics, and the possibilities of what magic can do, are both irrelevant.

RC

EDIT:

My major beef with SwD is that, other than the Will save, the corpse is magically bound to answer any question honestly.

"I'll never tell you where your friend is imprisoned!"
Player makes a Diplomacy check, offers a bribe, and it all fails.
So they just kill the guy and interrogate him. If he makes his Will save, just try again until he fails.

Hey, if you want to get into the "magic in 3.X is way overpowered" discussion, I'm right there with you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

[Doug Henning] It's maaagic!" [/Doug Henning]

See, I'd been hoping for that response within an hour or so, so I could reply with "Ahhhh."

But it sort of loses its impact several days later

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can accept anything from a GM as long as it is fun to play (it is, after all, his work, adventure and campaign that rests on keeping the tension and fun alive) , and not willfully hamper the players.

Please. A monster standing between you and the treasure is "willfully hampering the players" according to some. Do you really believe that DM-Rocco's ruling was a game-stopper? Honestly, now. Yes or no. If no, then DM-Rocco is in the right.

From, WotC, with a lot of foresight, numerous staff, alleged play-testing, multiple sources for input and years of experience I do expect better than their obviously leaky, incomplete and self-contradicting definition and idea. Especially since "Speak with Dead" was redesigned for V3.5.

Please supply one example where the term "corpse" is used to mean "skeleton" within the body of the rules. I've made this request, variously worded, a number of times. Funny how often I've heard "it's inconsistent" in various forms without anyone being able to point out a single example which pertains to this discussion.

Just one. A spell, maybe? A monster?

No?

Easy - for one "ghost sound" is a low-level effect, which I have no problem envisioning being created as a sideshow in a third level spell.

No argument here. I'd be happy accepting that a fireball played music like a brass band, if that was what the spell description actually said. On the other hand, we're talking about removing a limitation specific to the spell description for no better reason than (1) it's magic, so why not? or (2) I really, really, really want the spell to work that way.

"You could make a third level spell that does A plus B" is not an argument for claiming that any specific 3rd level spell should therefore have B as a component of its effects.

And, btw, the deities in D&D are nigh all-mighty and all-powerful, even if they get statted out - but just how they chose to apply their power through "spells" is subject to rules. And the given e-mail ruling for "Speak with Dead" is, sorry too say, patchy at best, and a moth-ridden mess at worst, IMHO, because D&D does not sport a detailed damage system (for good reasons) - but suddenly it becomes very important just how badly mangled a corpse is...... is massive damage enough to make something "not mostly intact" ? How about acid or fire damage ? Damage type ? Will a partial desintegration suffice ? Or a deadly "Baleful Teleport" ? I can see that debate turning quickly into a macabre and potentially distasteful pathological excourse. So why pick a phrase as ambiguous as "mostly intact corpse" ?

I don't know about you, but I hardly need rules to determine whether or not a corpse is too badly damaged to supply answers, or what limitations it might have. Apparently, DMs are sometimes relied upon to make judgement calls.

I have also answered your points previously. Allow me to recap:

The people who wrote the rules seem to have made the same distinction I make: between a corpse and a skeleton. No other distinction is being made here. I suppose, if you want to put words in my mouth, you could claim all sorts of distinctions and refute them as well. Neither answers the points raised.

I think it is fairly clear that the "intact" question raised by the spell description is there specifically so that the DM can create scenarios where the speak with dead spell is, and is not, useful, as well as scenarios where its usefulness is limited.

<snip>

And again, the corpse vs. skeleton issue is clearly consistent throughout the game, not just in the one spell description. Find me a counter-example, and your argument gains weight. I couldn't find one. Then again, as I said, I'm looking at 3.0. Maybe it's just me. ​

As for the "need the head" houserule - It is meant as our local placebo for a balancing check, establishing some key part, be it heart, tongue or head. Its our interpretation of "mostly intact" and a balanced approach. <snip> I offered it as a piece of possible advice to the initial poster, no more, no less.

Yep. And it's a pretty good one, too. No doubt about it. Although I believe it is very, very clear in the rules that "corpse" and "skeleton" are not interchangeable terms, this only demonstrates that a skeleton is not an intact corpse. It doesn't actually answer the question of what an intact corpse actually is.

However, the fact that your houserule is a pretty good one doesn't make DM-Rocco's ruling a bad one. This thread started with DM-Rocco asking if his ruling was fair. Simple question, simple answer. Doesn't mean that there are not other, equally fair rulings out there.

RC

P.S.: I do, however, think that calling the WotC position, at least related to the skeleton/corpse question, "obviously leaky, incomplete and self-contradicting" is pretty unfair.

You need only one counter-example to prove me wrong.

RC

 

[MerakSpielman]

Simply put, DM-Rocco correctly discerned the intent of the game designers, as was confirmed by Wizards of the Coast.

You can house rule that speak with dead makes skeletons talk. No harm done there. But going by the rules as written, and as confirmed by WotC, speak with dead doesn't make skeletons talk for the same reason that burning hands doesn't grant wishes: not because a spell cannot grant wishes, but because that is not what burning hands does.

I don't consider the help emails gotten from WOTC to be official. Hell, ask them the same question 5 different times and you'll get 5 different interpretations.

The spell says "Corpse with mouth." I can point at a skull and say "That is a mouth" with total accuracy, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Oh is that all you want? You should have said so more clearly.

Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: One or more corpses touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

EDIT: copy/paste was evil to me