Spell question: Speak with Dead

[Raven Crowking]

double post.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The response from WotC clearly indicated that a skeleton was not a corpse.

I agree that's what WotC said. WotC is wrong, by the spell listing itself.

The target of 3.5 speak with dead is "one dead creature." You do agree that a human skeleton, for example, qualifies? That it is, therefore, a valid target for the spell? If not, you can skip the rest of this post.

If you do agree, thus my question:

If a skeleton is a valid target for speak with dead, yet speak with dead cannot actually produce any results from a skeleton, then why is a skeleton a valid target for speak with dead? If, as has been contended in this thread, the designers clearly meant different things when they say, in various places, "corpse" and "skeleton," then why didn't they simply write the target of speak with dead as "one corpse"?

My second point: if you agree that a human skeleton, for example, qualifies as "one dead creature," making it a valid target for speak with dead, then you must also accept that when, in the first line of the spell's description -- "you grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse" -- the word "corpse" is being used in a manner that, by necessity, includes those corpses that are skeletons.

(BTW, in plain English, a "skeleton" is most certainly also a "corpse.")

In several other places the spell talks about the "corpse" or the "body" which is the target of the spell. Nowhere in the description does it make any distinction between "other types of dead creatures" (such as skeletons) and "corpses." It is therefore not reasonably deniable that these uses of the word "corpse" and "body" throughout the spell description also include "skeletons."

Note what isn't included: a severed arm, avec flesh or not, is not a "corpse" or "dead creature." An undead creature, skeletal or not, is not a "corpse" or "dead creature." A pile of cremains is not a "corpse" or "dead creature."

A "skeleton," on the other hand, is, by the unambiguous spell listing. An intact skeleton, for the purposes of speak with dead is an "intact corpse," since, for purposes of speak with dead, "skeleton" is a valid type of "corpse."

WotC got it wrong. The only thing surprising about this is that folks still use WotC for support in any capacity other than, "Well, their ruling is official. Stupid and wrong, but official."

If you accept this, then DM-Rocco is being fairly generous. He is adding a valid target to the spell for the benefit and enjoyment of his players.

Actually, he's not. As I demonstrated above, a skeleton is already a valid target for the spell. What he did was read limitations into the spell where they didn't exist. That's his right, as DM, but it would mightily annoy me.

In fact, it seems clear that most DMs are more generous with speak with dead than the rules suggest, and not just on the intactness of the corpse. The text of the spell makes one wonder just how much information you'd normally get anyway, as any DM could simply make the answers so obscure, repetitive, and incomplete as to be meaningless.

Maybe. As a DM, I've always had difficulty adjudicating divination type spells -- even if they're called "Necromancy" -- and illusion type spells fairly. I think it's the nature of those spells that they simply can't be quantified the way, say, evocations can.

IMO, though, a third-level spell should be fairly powerful. A third-level divination-necromancy should be roughly as powerful a divination-necromancy spell as fireball is an evocation. Limiting speak with dead in the way folks are torturing the rules to do is both unnecessary and unfair. DMs that do it should really not be surprised when they find that their players begin to adhee -- even more than they already do -- to the quantifiable blow-crap-up spells. And, despite my own difficulties in adjudication, I think that would be a shame.

A lot of this stuff requires the DM to make rulings, and then stick with those rulings.

Yes, but IMO those rulings should be (1) based on the rules, and (2) based on long-term and overall fairness, not just on, "Hey, I have no idea what this 500-year-old skeleton would have to say ... hey, isn't being able to question a 500-year-old skeleton a little too powerful?" 'Cause, honestly, that's kinda how it seemed like this ruling went down, to me.

I'm not certain that the word "skeleton" doesn't come up in the 3.5 version of the spell. Skeletons are not mentioned in the 3.0 version of speak with dead.

Nor in 3.5. The mistake you're making is in thinking that the exclusion of the word "skeleton" helps establish that skeletons don't work with speak with dead. The truth is the exact opposite ... since "skeletons" aren't excluded from the "dead creatures" that the spell works on, they're a valid and workable target.

P.S.: Thank you for a clear and answerable post!

Thanks. You, too, although I'm really not entirely sure we're doing anything worthy of special gratitude.

P.P.S.: I had mentioned making a revised version of the speak with dead spell. Now I am thinking we could use, perhaps, two versions: speak with dead, which does what the current spell does, and commune with dead, which would actually contact the spirits of the dead. What do you think?

I think from a game balance standpoint, that'd be cool, but that it's not necessary to have a conversation with a skeleton.


Jeff

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree that's what WotC said. WotC is wrong, by the spell listing itself.


The target of 3.5 speak with dead is "one dead creature." You do agree that a human skeleton, for example, qualifies? That it is, therefore, a valid target for the spell? If not, you can skip the rest of this post.

A human skeleton is a part of a dead creature, in the same way that a a severed arm is a part of a dead creature. But that is neither here nor there, because D&D 3.X uses "dead creature" as a sort of cover-all for a number of things, including severed arms, severed fingers, a single bone, a lock of hair, and even the residue from a disintegrate spell.

There are several spells that target one dead creature (or, more properly, "dead creature touched"); in all of these cases, the descriptive text clarifies just how much of the creature must remain. Examining raise dead, resurrection, true resurrection, and speak with dead should verify that a spell which targets a "dead creature" has a large range of actual targets, depending upon the spell.

If you had asked your question about, say, raise dead, rather than speak with dead, the target would be essentially the same. Raise dead reads, in part, "While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life. None of the dead creature’s equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell."

If a skeleton is a valid target for raise dead, yet raise dead cannot actually produce any results from a skeleton, then why is a skeleton a valid target for raise dead? If, as has been contended in this thread, the designers clearly meant different things when they say, in various places, "corpse" and "skeleton," then why didn't they simply write the target of raise dead as "one corpse"?

You are indeed adding weight to the argument that WotC could have been more careful in its phraseology, however.

(BTW, in plain English, a "skeleton" is most certainly also a "corpse.")

Corpse: A dead body. esp. of a person.

Body: The whole physical structure and substance of a man, animal, or plant.

Skeleton: The hard framework of an animal body for supporting the tissues and protecting the organs; specif., all the bones collectively, or the bony framework, of a human being or other vertebrate animal.

These are the relevant definitions from the New World Dictionary of the American Language, second college edition, published by Simon and Schuster in 1984.

If a corpse is a dead body, and a body is the whole physical structure, by definition a corpse cannot be a portion of the physical structure. Under normal parlance, for example, a hand is not a corpse.

Obviously, as with all language, there is a degree of "fudge factor" in every definition. This is because words are defined not by actual objects, but by the relationship between objects and speakers. One speaks of a "headless body," for example, or a "bloodless corpse" without apparent dichotomy. This is because our relationship with the remains allows us to decide that this is, or this is not, a body. Essentially, we decide how much can be missing before a "dead creature" is just a particular part or group of parts of a dead creature. In general, the majority of a body, including at least part of most subsystems of that body, must be present for most people to conclude that they are seeing a corpse rather than, say, a hank of hair, a head, an eye, a large intestine, or a skeleton.

For most purposes, a head is not a dead creature. On the evening news, the anchor would surely say "A head was found today," rather than "A bodiless corpse was found today." Likewise, I can think of no example in common parlance, in literature, or elsewhere, where a skeleton is referred to as a corpse. A head is sufficient to qualify as a "dead creature" for resurrection in the D&D game, however. It is not sufficient to qualify for raise dead. A mostly intact corpse is required for speak with dead.

In the case of most of the aforementioned spells, having been turned into an undead creature precludes the use of the spell, even if the undead creature is a corpse (such as a zombie), or has previously been an undead creature and is now an inanimate corpse. This is not the same as claiming that a zombie (or former zombie) is not a corpse.

A pile of cremains is a "dead creature" though not a corpse for the purpose of casting resurrection or true resurrection, btw.

The mistake you're making is in thinking that the exclusion of the word "skeleton" helps establish that skeletons don't work with speak with dead. The truth is the exact opposite ... since "skeletons" aren't excluded from the "dead creatures" that the spell works on, they're a valid and workable target.

No, I am thinking that spell affects a mostly intact corpse because that is what the spell description says:

"You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all.

This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned."​

Thanks. You, too, although I'm really not entirely sure we're doing anything worthy of special gratitude.

There's a huge difference between arguing on the basis of "That's not what I want it to do," and having an argument that can be accepted or refuted on the basis of logic and/or rules interpretation. Whether or not you come to an agreement, at least a logical argument can cause you to examine the topic in a new light.

Obviously, for the purposes of this discussion, the most relevant piece of information upon which there is no agreement is the definition of the term "corpse," particularly as it pertains to the D&D 3.X game.

I think that I have demonstrated ad infinitum ad nauseum that, at the very least, within the context of the 3.X rules the term "skeleton" is not synonomous with the term "corpse". I would further argue that a skeleton is a portion of a corpse, not a subset of the term.

I do appreciate the argument you made, though, because it is clear that if you accept "skeleton" as a subset of "corpse", then your argument is correct. I hope that I have been clear, in this post and others, why I do not accept that premise.

In general, your premise depends upon an acceptance of the "target" portion of the spell description being full and accurate. In the spell listings, there are short, one-line descriptions of spells. At the heading of each spell there is summary data that gives you information on the spell, but this information is not always as detailed or as complete as the information in the descriptive text. In this way, the spell listings move from the less detailed to the more detailed. In all cases, where the descriptive text adds more detail to the information in the summary data, including where it places restrictions or removes limitations on said data, the descriptive text takes priority.

Although WotC has made some effort to keep the summary descriptions of spells clear and accurate, one can easily examine the descriptions of the spells in this thread to demonstrate that there are places where Wizards dropped the ball. I think, however, that given the information in the more detailed spell description, most spells are simple enough to adjudicate.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I imagine at this point that the subject has been done to death. Since I mentioned it earlier, I would like to submit the following, which you may use as you will. In fact, I grant blanket rights unconditionally to consider the following OGC:

Speak with Dead (Revised Version)
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: 10 ft.
Target: One corpse
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: No

You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The corpse’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any). Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.

If the corpse has been subject to speak with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond.

This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned.

A corpse is defined as a dead body, and for this spell must be mostly intact to be able to respond. These means that, at the very minimum, there must be a head, and sufficient bodily tissue for an animate dead spell to turn the corpse into a zombie. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature.​

(NOTE: All revisions and editions are in yellow green for clarity. The line, "A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all" was moved, but not altered.)

Commune with Dead
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 hour
Range: Touch
Target: Dead creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

By touching the remains of a deceased creature, you are able to commune with its departed soul, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The soul’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any), and the condition of the soul in the afterlife (including knowledge of the plane to which the soul has been consigned).

The soul is able to answer as though it were alive, although answers may be brief or cryptic, depending upon the nature of the questions asked. Although the soul is compelled to answer, in general, most souls that have gone on to planes with the "evil" descriptor are more interested in their torment than in the questions they are asked. Petitioners to some planes may lose the memory of their mortal lives; these souls may, however, answer questions about their current plane of existence.

If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, or was antagonistic to you during life, the soul gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive. Even if this check fails, the soul is allowed to attempt Bluff checks to give misleading answers.

If the remains have been subject to commune with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on remains that have been deceased for any amount of time, and the body need not be intact. Even a single fingerbone is enough to allow commune with dead to be cast.

Unlike speak with dead, the recipient of a commune with dead can remember being questioned, including knowledge of who the questioner was, and the memory of previous questionings may color the answers given by subsequent castings.

This spell does not affect remains that have been turned into an undead creature. Further, it does not affect remains whose soul has turned into an undead creature (such as a ghost), or whose soul has been somehow destroyed.​

Hope someone gains some use from these.

RC

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

I imagine at this point that the subject has been done to death. Since I mentioned it earlier, I would like to submit the following, which you may use as you will. In fact, I grant blanket rights unconditionally to consider the following OGC:

Speak with Dead (Revised Version)
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: 10 ft.
Target: One corpse
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: No

You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The corpse’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any). Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.

If the corpse has been subject to speak with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond.

This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned.

A corpse is defined as a dead body, and for this spell must be mostly intact to be able to respond. These means that, at the very minimum, there must be a head, and sufficient bodily tissue for an animate dead spell to turn the corpse into a zombie. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature.​

(NOTE: All revisions and editions are in yellow green for clarity. The line, "A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all" was moved, but not altered.)

Commune with Dead
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 hour
Range: Touch
Target: Dead creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

By touching the remains of a deceased creature, you are able to commune with its departed soul, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The soul’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any), and the condition of the soul in the afterlife (including knowledge of the plane to which the soul has been consigned).

The soul is able to answer as though it were alive, although answers may be brief or cryptic, depending upon the nature of the questions asked. Although the soul is compelled to answer, in general, most souls that have gone on to planes with the "evil" descriptor are more interested in their torment than in the questions they are asked. Petitioners to some planes may lose the memory of their mortal lives; these souls may, however, answer questions about their current plane of existence.

If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, or was antagonistic to you during life, the soul gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive. Even if this check fails, the soul is allowed to attempt Bluff checks to give misleading answers.

If the remains have been subject to commune with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on remains that have been deceased for any amount of time, and the body need not be intact. Even a single fingerbone is enough to allow commune with dead to be cast.

Unlike speak with dead, the recipient of a commune with dead can remember being questioned, including knowledge of who the questioner was, and the memory of previous questionings may color the answers given by subsequent castings.

This spell does not affect remains that have been turned into an undead creature. Further, it does not affect remains whose soul has turned into an undead creature (such as a ghost), or whose soul has been somehow destroyed.​

Hope someone gains some use from these.

RC

Great work RC. Now, lets cross fingers and hope silently, if intensely (adding a sacrificial goat here and there for good benefit /jk ) that someone at WotC takes up the ball and runs with it, for a workable spell to end campaign specific house-rules. If the boards can do it, so should WotC.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

I imagine at this point that the subject has been done to death. Since I mentioned it earlier, I would like to submit the following, which you may use as you will. In fact, I grant blanket rights unconditionally to consider the following OGC:

Speak with Dead (Revised Version)
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: 10 ft.
Target: One corpse
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: No

You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The corpse’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any). Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.

If the corpse has been subject to speak with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond.

This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned.

A corpse is defined as a dead body, and for this spell must be mostly intact to be able to respond. These means that, at the very minimum, there must be a head, and sufficient bodily tissue for an animate dead spell to turn the corpse into a zombie. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature.​

(NOTE: All revisions and editions are in yellow green for clarity. The line, "A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all" was moved, but not altered.)

Commune with Dead
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 hour
Range: Touch
Target: Dead creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

By touching the remains of a deceased creature, you are able to commune with its departed soul, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The soul’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any), and the condition of the soul in the afterlife (including knowledge of the plane to which the soul has been consigned).

The soul is able to answer as though it were alive, although answers may be brief or cryptic, depending upon the nature of the questions asked. Although the soul is compelled to answer, in general, most souls that have gone on to planes with the "evil" descriptor are more interested in their torment than in the questions they are asked. Petitioners to some planes may lose the memory of their mortal lives; these souls may, however, answer questions about their current plane of existence.

If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, or was antagonistic to you during life, the soul gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive. Even if this check fails, the soul is allowed to attempt Bluff checks to give misleading answers.

If the remains have been subject to commune with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on remains that have been deceased for any amount of time, and the body need not be intact. Even a single fingerbone is enough to allow commune with dead to be cast.

Unlike speak with dead, the recipient of a commune with dead can remember being questioned, including knowledge of who the questioner was, and the memory of previous questionings may color the answers given by subsequent castings.

This spell does not affect remains that have been turned into an undead creature. Further, it does not affect remains whose soul has turned into an undead creature (such as a ghost), or whose soul has been somehow destroyed.​

Hope someone gains some use from these.

RC

Great work RC. Now, lets cross fingers and hope silently, if intensely (adding a sacrificial goat here and there for good benefit /jk ) that someone at WotC takes up the ball and runs with it, for a workable spell to end campaign specific house-rules. If the boards can do it, so should WotC.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Great work RC. Now, lets cross fingers and hope silently, if intensely (adding a sacrificial goat here and there for good benefit /jk ) that someone at WotC takes up the ball and runs with it, for a workable spell to end campaign specific house-rules. If the boards can do it, so should WotC.

Thanks. Use it if you want to. Ignore it if you want to. Anyone who wants to throw it into a project is free to do so.


RC

 

[Rel]

I'm chiming in VERY late, so I'll make this brief:

My ruling would have been to allow the spell to work on the skeleton and then to have spoken without using my tongue when roleplaying the skeleton's response. We'd have had the fun of the spell working combined with the fun of the players trying to understand my grunting responses.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Dang, I didn't know that my little thread had gained in such a fashion. Special thanks to Raven Crownking for standing up to the pack of hungry players.

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.

You really have to be kidding me with this one. A corpse has a mouth, a 5,000 year old skeleton does not. If you look at a skeleton and see a mouth, then you need glasses.

A skeleton has a jaw bone at most, most of the debate came from the fact that a mouth needs at least lips and a throat to be considered a mouth. Yes, undead can speak, if they have Intelligence, like vampires, liches and the like, but non intelligent undead can't speak, like skeletons and zombies. Zombies might moan, but skeletons make no noise what-so-ever. (clarification for you Liberals out there, yes, if they walk over a creaky floor board they make noise, I mean they can't speak)

Why? You could say that it is because they are dumb, or that they have no vocal cords, or that magic didn't work that way for them, but if you did, you would be reading to much into it.

I did love the people who replied that they always follow what the DM says and then in the next paragraph say that this DM, being me, was wrong.

The sad thing is that the player didn't even try to make an attempt to even try and communicate with the dead. So the spell didn't work as intended, so what. If you cast a fireball for 10d6 damage and you roll all 1s and the enemies make their saving throw, so the hoard of 11 hit point Orcs only take ten damage, what do you do? Do you A) whine and moan that the game sucks, B) blame the DM for your misfortune, C) throw out your dice, D) get mad at WOTC for making rules that cap a fireball at 10D6 and piss and moan about it to everyone who will listen or E) cast another one?

As a DM you can't go through all spells and hand out a sheet saying that this spell and that spell doesn't work as you want it too. Most players meta game around knowing how all spells work and build their character accordingly. So, why get mad when I decide that the spell works exactly as it is stated. Also, for the person who commented that I would try to kill a player for casting a wish, if I was so mean on a simple speak with dead spell, you are mistaken.

I am more than fair on high level magic. Yes, I will seek a way to thwart your wish if you say, 'I wish for the power of Elminster' or 'I wish for the staff of Asmodeos,' but if you follow the guidelines in the book, I offer great leway.

Bottomline, I was the DM making a ruling and I am sticking by it. I have my style of play and if he really didn't like it, he would drop out. He has, however, remained in the game, in fact, he is the one who always shows up, so as a DM, I must be doing something right.

 

[Hypersmurf]

DM-Rocco - recall the 'No Politics' rule we have around here.

An edit would be appreciated.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)