Spell question: Speak with Dead

[Scion]

Without muscles, tendons, ligaments...? How does it do that?

-Hyp.

Why does the skelten have no dried out tendons and ligaments? shrivled up muscle masses? psychic powers? bit of parsley stuck in its teeth for hundreds of years?

While it may be a stretch to make it give slight nods and shakes of the head it is certainly out of the question to have a missing jaw talk.

Mmm.. I always liked the whole making jawbones talk though.. now that is something a true necromancer should be able to sink his teeth into.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why does the skelten have no dried out tendons and ligaments? shrivled up muscle masses?

And if it doesn't?

psychic powers?

Then why can't those same psychic powers be used to talk?

-Hyp.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I guess now I need to add in more detail about the skeleton. the skeleton is the one in the temple section of the Tomb of Horrors module, which had been laid bare in the temple for over 5,000 years, there is nothing on the skeleton except rusty chainmail, no flesh, just bone. Yes, it still has a jaw, but with no throat or vocal cords, I think I am being generous in letting him as it yes or no questions.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Without muscles, tendons, ligaments...? How does it do that?

-Hyp.

Well let's see what exactly we are working with here first, these are the parts I read to come to that conclusion:

"You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it."

So it's clear that you can ask the corpse a question and it will answer the question, by any method ('the spell allows the corpse to answer several questions'). Given that the corpse is given a semblance of life we can imagine that the corpse has a limited capacity for movement, such as speaking, moving it's mouth and jaw, etc.


"...but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond."

A skeleton if 'mostly intact' should be able to respond to questioning, by technicality. Though missing all if it's flesh may not count as being 'mostly intact' as long as the skeleton was completely whole it probably counts I imagine otherwise we likely wouldn't see the whole: "You can cast this spell on any corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time". So a skeleton can indeed respond to questioning.


"A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must have a mouth in order to speak at all.

While we can get away with calling a full skeleton moslty intact, I doubt we can get away with calling the skeletal corpse undamaged. So the skeleton will be answering with 'partial answers or partially correct answers'.

A skeleton doesn't possess a mouth by definition: "Mouth: The cavity lying at the upper end of the alimentary canal, bounded on the outside by the lips and inside by the oropharynx and containing in higher vertebrates the tongue, gums, and teeth." So a skeleton cannot speak the answers to questions.

Though as we see in the first quote, a corpse, even a skeleton is allowed to respond to questions (in this case 'partial answers'). Without speaking the corpse could only trace answers in the dust with bony fore-finger (or point, as with a question of "which way to go", etc.) or nod it's head up and down, or side to side, in response to questions. In other words, yes and no.

 

[Scion]

And if it doesn't?

Any reason why it shouldnt? Even skeletons thousands of years old would still have some, as they toughen up to bone like consistancy.

Then why can't those same psychic powers be used to talk?

It must be late there, the obvious obsurdity in the last couple on that list I would think were apparent.

Still though, psychic remnents arent exactly unknown even in our world, just not believed in by all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A skeleton doesn't possess a mouth by definition: "Mouth: The cavity lying at the upper end of the alimentary canal, bounded on the outside by the lips and inside by the oropharynx and containing in higher vertebrates the tongue, gums, and teeth." So a skeleton cannot speak the answers to questions.

So you wouldn't allow Speak With Dead to work on a dead Giant Eagle?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Any reason why it shouldnt? Even skeletons thousands of years old would still have some, as they toughen up to bone like consistancy.

Sure. Say you just retrieved the skeleton from a gelatinous cube.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

chances are good that it would eat the bones as well, if not then there would still be some tendon in there somewhere in all likelyhood.

::shrugs:: except in incredible circumstances I see no reason why some amount of tendon would not be there along with some muscle as well. Especially depending on the method of storage.

An old body in a sealed crypt might very well be mummified to some degree, which would easily allow the spell.

Unless the spell is intended to work only on juicy corpses.

 

[EvilGM]

I'm the player Rocco is talking about.

The spell description isn't very clear and is open to interpretation. The spell is meant to speak with the dead (any length of time dead) which the intact skeleton clearly was.
By the rules, I can see going either way on this - loose descriptions like this are open to DM decision. It's not the decision I would have made, but it's his game.

A couple things for DMs to think about...
If one of your NPCs (bad guy trying to track the party, holy man looking for a murderer, etc.) casts this spell on a body in the same condition, would it work? Consistency is what I'm looking for here.

The spell is Speak with Dead - which really has a narrow focus.. If it doesn't, in fact, let me speak with the dead what's the point of taking it?

Its not the end of the world. There are plenty of other 3rd level spells I can prepare... something more combat-oriented since it seems we aren't promoting role-playing aspects.

Interesting info on decomposition

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.