Spell question: Speak with Dead

ThirdWizard said:
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.
So, hmm, if you are such an expert, why haven't you either taken over the job at WOTC for answering these questions or made your own gaming system by now. And the answer is, because you don't know the answer either. Don't criticize WOTC reps for conflicting answers if you don't know yourself. You are not so high and mighty that you have all the answers, otherwise, there would be a article in Dragon Magazine called, 'Ask The Third Wizard', but there isn't.

As a DM we have to make tough calls at times in the interest of balance, and so do they. The rules leave a lot of room for interpretation, as we all know, and they do their best, as do I, as do you, as do we all. However, if you can't, don't or won't even take the answers from WOTC as a partail or whole truth, then what are you playing for.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MerakSpielman said:
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.
Your argument if flawed in this respect. The SPELL, not the DM, says that you need an intact mouth. You show me a 5,000 year old skeleton with a mouth and I will show you a partial or intact corpse, not a skeleton, which this was.
 

MerakSpielman said:
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.
Hey, see reply above to similar post.
 

MerakSpielman said:
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.
Oh, and you and the Third Wizard don't have a leg to stand on since you have not emailed them about this to ask them. If you and four others email WOTC and get different answers and then post them here, then you may have a right to make that statement, but you didn't, so you don't. It doesn't matter if you tried this on another topic, it was not this topic.

Even if you do this, which you most likely won't, then see above where I address the Thrid Wizard. Don't like tough medicine, too bad.
 

wilder_jw said:
Here's what I don't get:

If speak with dead doesn't allow the questioning of skeletons, then, well, why does the spell even allow skeletons as a valid target? Why, in the description, does it consistently refer to the target "corpse," yet clearly allow for the spell to target -- efficacy aside -- a skeleton?

Consistency of the usage of the word "corpse" throughout the rest of 3.5E aside, it's extremely clear that in the description of speak with dead, at least, "skeleton" is a sub-category of "corpse."


Jeff

P.S. Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep."
Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man / But will they come when you do call for them?"
It also states that the corpse needs a mouth. See above for witty reply.
 

Raven Crowking said:
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
See, this is all I wanted. Good job on the spells. If it would have been written like this, I wouldn't have had to post on this thread.
 

wilder_jw said:
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.
I don't agree, but let's go on anyway.
wilder_jw said:
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.")
From the plain english Webster's dictionary - skeleton- the hard framework of bones of an animal body, a supporting framework, an outline, as of a book
Corpse-a dead body of a person

they are not the same thing. If you have frame of a house, it is not the same as a house, just as a jaw bone is not a mouth, just the frame work
 


So, hmm, if you are such an expert, why haven't you either taken over the job at WOTC for answering these questions or made your own gaming system by now. And the answer is, because you don't know the answer either. Don't criticize WOTC reps for conflicting answers if you don't know yourself. You are not so high and mighty that you have all the answers, otherwise, there would be a article in Dragon Magazine called, 'Ask The Third Wizard', but there isn't.
I don't have to be able to play an instrument to know when someone is flat. I don't have to be able to make my own RPG system to know when a help line contradicts themselves repeatedly. Skip helped create D&D 3E, does that mean I think everything he says is correct? Actually, I don't even read the FAQ or Sage Advice anymore. It's just that bad. The Rules of the Game articles are all right, but there are still problems with them.

As a DM we have to make tough calls at times in the interest of balance, and so do they. The rules leave a lot of room for interpretation, as we all know, and they do their best, as do I, as do you, as do we all. However, if you can't, don't or won't even take the answers from WOTC as a partail or whole truth, then what are you playing for.
I'm playing to have fun, as I think we all are. I agree that there are tough calls, and that my interprietation of some rules are probably going to be different than others' interprietations, but that's still no reason for me to trust the WotC help line. Personally I've never used it, and I never will. I find discussions on these boards to be much more beneficial.

Oh, and you and the Third Wizard don't have a leg to stand on since you have not emailed them about this to ask them. If you and four others email WOTC and get different answers and then post them here, then you may have a right to make that statement, but you didn't, so you don't. It doesn't matter if you tried this on another topic, it was not this topic.
I believe emailing four identical emails to WotC would be somehow improper. The employees arn't paid to settle quabbles on this board, and even if I don't trust them, I'm not looking to make their job more difficult than it already is.
 
Last edited:

Well third wizard, I find that these boards help more often than not, but I humble myself to not only asking on this forum but also the WOTC help line. I have not seen such contradictions as you describe, however, I am willing to bet that they do make mistakes. I also happen to think that they have a better chance of being correct than a bunch of people who have nothing but opinions to offer.

Of course I value these opinions, otherwise I wouldn't have asked for them, but I must decide what is best for my game and when an unbiased source gives me an answer, I am more apt to go by that source. People who respond to these post try to give answers that are helpful, and they are for the most part, but when you get a statement like "you should always give in to the players because they have worked hard to get where they are" I have to say, no, they got there because of structure, good role playing and a bit of die luck. Following that line of thinking, a player could wish for a million gold, and since they worked hard to get where they are, I should just give it to them, I don't think so.
 

Remove ads

Top