Spell question: Speak with Dead

[Li Shenron]

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.

I very much agree with you Mouseferatu.

I was just about to post that the reason why the spell says "it must at least have a mouth" is probably that you should not allow to use the spell to speak with a severed finger for example.

If you start ruling that the skeleton cannot speak because it doesn't have a tongue, you can rule as well that you cannot speak with any corpse because it doesn't have blood pressure to make the muscles of the tongue move etc... or IOW you cannot speak with any corpse because dead corpses cannot speak

Just think that "must have a mouth" means that if someone died decapitated and the head was buried away from the body, you cannot use speak with dead on both the head and the body, but just the head. I think it's fair, personally.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

Exactly. This discussion reminds me of the old "fireball chunky-salsa" arguments. If your argument for limiting a spell -- or for expanding its capabilities -- takes you into an anatomy or physics lesson, you're over-thinking.

Gimme a corpse with all its limbs, a torso, and a head, and it's "intact." If the corpse has a jawbone or a beak, it's got a "mouth."

Speak with dead is a 3rd-level spell. Within its narrow focus, it should be granted quite a bit of latitude for usefulness.

 

[Liquidsabre]

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.

Yikes, was such a blanket comment like that necessary? I must say, a single ruling doesn't make for non-roleplaying orientation of a game. Sounds more like a thinly veiled contempt for the DM's game. Most players such as this don't last long at the game table, especially if so contemptuous. Doesn't exactly promote a healthy game environment at the table.

 

[Blue]

I think the spell should work. The idea that a skeleton can nod it's head without muscles but can't talk without vocal cords is a silly distinction that punishes the players. Either rule that a skeleton isn't "mostly intact" and that it won't work at all, or that it is mostly intact and let the spell work. If a teeth and jaws isn't "a mouth", then a skeleton isn't "mostly intact".

Looking at the spell, I would think that by intent it would work. I read "dead any length of time" as recognizing that bodies decay, and "having a mouth" as stopping (a) creatures that never possessed a mouth and (b) bodies specifically mutilated to remove the mouth.

This is a spell, allowing you to do things that you wouldn't be able to do without magic. If a necromatic spell can animate a skeleton, why not allow one to speak? After all, that's what the spell does "speak with dead".

Now, it is a language dependant spell as shown in the descriptor, so I hope they have a common language with the 5000 year old skeleton, but that's a different matter.

Cheers,
=Blue

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

............
Just think that "must have a mouth" means that if someone died decapitated and the head was buried away from the body, you cannot use speak with dead on both the head and the body, but just the head. I think it's fair, personally.

That's actually the division we make in our camapign - is the skull still reasonably intact ?
If the answer is yes, "Speak with Dead" will work. If someone mashed up the skull to splinters/chopped it off and hid it/dissolved it in acid.... well then you are out of luck as the prospective caster. Same goes for reasonably close anatomical equivalents (like an Aaracockra's beak or a Thri Kreens set of mandibles ).

In the case given initially, intact bare-boned humanoid skeleton, go ahead and ask your stuff.

Although, from a GM's point of view, I know how much of a nuisance it can be to figure out and and deliver dead-pan the usually improvised answers of any random dead body the players may wish to query. One of the reasons we changed "Speak with Dead" into a 10 minute ritual - usually the spell gets cast in some safe surroundings later on in a quiter phase of the game.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I am still leaning towards only yes or no questions. Yes, you can animate a skeleton body, but that doesn't mean it can talk? Also, if you cast animate object on the skeleton, can the skeleton get up and recite Shakespeare?

The spell gives the corpse a semblance of life, meaning that you could technically animate the body to speak, if it had a mouth, or too do sign language or draw in the dirt or whatever. If it had some type of flesh, or at least most of his throat, I would say sure.

I gave the player a fair chance to be creative and ask it yes or no questions. I would have also allowed him to ask it questions and tell the skeleton to write his answers in the dirt. He chose to do neither.

Liquidsabre gets the prize of the day for recognizing the frustration of being a DM with a whiner so to you evil DM .

 

[DM-Rocco]

This just in

This is the reply I got from WOTC. I emailed them about another matter and threw this question in as well. I just checked my mail and here is their reply, for those who are interested.

1. if you cast speak with undead on a skeleton can the skeleton talk? It says that dead must have a mouth, they only have a jaw. I ruled that they could only answer yes or no question by nodding yes or no since it couldnt talk.

- The speak with dead spell states that the corpse must be mostly intact to be able to speak. A skeleton is a collection of bones, not an intact corpse.

2. It says you can train a horse for war, if you do, does that turn the horse
into a war horse?

- The Handle Animal skill is not a template. If you train a regular horse for
combat riding, they only get the specific items mentioned in the description of this skill.

Do they become war horses so they get the improved stats?

- No. Warhorses are bred as such and have the stats listed in the Monster
Manual.

Can a war horse, that was bought as a war horse, gain further tricks or does he get the war trained tricks and that is it?

- A warhorse has already learned all of the tricks possible.

Does that get rid of the hooves as secondary weapons so they don't get the
penalty for fighting with hooves?

- Correct. It does not suffer this penalty once trained as a warhorse.


Thanks!

*Please quote this e-mail in any reply.*

Darrin
Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496

 

[Twowolves]

I don't really know why I'm putting in my 2 cents, now that you got an official answer, but here goes. 3.5 is based on earlier editions of the game, and in cases like this, I'd look to those rules to see how it used to be done. Speak w/ Dead once took 10 minutes to cast, required incense (I believe), and you didn't even need a corpse, just a piece of the body. In this sense, it very much seems to me to have been meant as a séance-type spell. I remember one character having a collection of pinky fingers for just this purpose.

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. Allowing a skeleton to verbally answer a handful of questions based on it's limited perspective during it's previous life is right in line with a 3rd level spell. Keep in mind a 4th lvl spell lets you ask yes or no questions about anything, not just what 5000 year old Joe Schmo knew, and a 5th level spell lets you have a chat with your freakin deity for crying out loud!

edit: I see it still takes 10 minutes to cast, but my points are still mostly valid.

 

[Numion]

Now that the official answer is in, the thread could be closed .. but since it's not, I'll chime in too!

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!

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

This is the reply I got from WOTC. I emailed them about another matter and threw this question in as well. I just checked my mail and here is their reply, for those who are interested.

1. if you cast speak with undead on a skeleton can the skeleton talk? It says that dead must have a mouth, they only have a jaw. I ruled that they could only answer yes or no question by nodding yes or no since it couldnt talk.

- The speak with dead spell states that the corpse must be mostly intact to be able to speak. A skeleton is a collection of bones, not an intact corpse.

<snip>

Thanks!

*Please quote this e-mail in any reply.*

Darrin
Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496

Okies now _that_ throws an offcial looking spanner into the works - and oddly enough, WotC depicted a very different situation (and take on the rules) in one of their adventures ( well it was published in Dungeon Magazine #96 or 97, back then it was not yet an independent Paizo publication. Yes, Dungeon is not official 'canon', but it is an in-house publication, sticking very close to published and established WotC D20 rules - so a major oversight looks unlikely, IMHO ), "Flood Season" where a key NPC gets killed and the players (or their NPC backers) are assumed to use "Speak with Dead" to get rather essential hints from said corpse - which lacks its tongue and is decapitated, IIRC. This is vital for the adventure's progress and the NPC backers even suggest (!) this course of action/initiate it if the PCs don't think of it (or are incapable to do so ).
Now I don't assume having your tongue ripped out and eaten by an NPC counts as natural decomposition or being in a fairly complete state .... Same goes for a decapitation. So clearly, "Speak with Dead", as handled by that WotC customer support e-mail should not work at all.
Wouldn't it be nice, if they stayed consistent with their ideas of what actually works and what does not ? I never understood the reasoning behind the "knowledge imprinted in the body" guideline - if you miss a leg/arm/parts you can possibly give only partial answers - anyway. I mean, what knowledge is stored in my leg ? Algebra ? History ? A*se-kicking ? What does my liver know ? Or my spleen ? What knowledge does a peglegged, hook-handed pirate have, even if he lost his leg and hand 40 years prior to his death ?
Yeah, right ......

I also wonder - if the time since death does not matter, how the spells is supposed to work on corpses more than a few months old (which it does )- not even talking decades or millenia. I mean, not everyone gets mummified (and a mummy , in eqyptian tradition at least, has its vital organs removed.... now does that constitute complete ? And what knowledge would be lost if a brain is removed from the body - all ?), or frozen in a glacier to stay in reasonable shape. So what use would the spell be ?

Oh well, seems like time for yet another reality update at WotC's "Sage department" again.