Spell question: Speak with Dead

[Markn]

I can truly understand your point of view RC. It is reasonable to rule the way DM-Rocco did and I respect him for that. I just disagree.

As far as the Test of the Smoking Eye goes, they don't go into detail as to what the corpse was answering with so I guess whether it is a flagrant violation of the rules or not, it is debatable.

I just think the key points are: Must have a mouth, must be a corpse, can be a corpse of any length of time (1 minute to 1 billion years - time in this case is not important) and therefore what the corpse is, is not important. As far as talking goes, you don't need a leg, an arm, a stomach or any of those things. You really only need a mouth and that is where I base my decision. As stated before this just doesn't kill the game in any way so why not allow it. I CAN see how others see the need for vocal chords and a lung and in which case skeletons would be ruled out. But then I wouldn't even allow yes or no questions. The spell doesn't say the skeleton can nod his head to answer questions. Soooo, if he can asnwer yes and no, why can't he speak other words? There doesn't seem to be any partial answers with skeletons. Just my 2 cp.

 

[dcollins]

Ah, one of my favorite necromantic spells... Speak with Dead Thread.

 

[Veander]

This debate is going back and forth but I just can't get past the idea that those who feel intact mouths will keep one from speaking with the dead, but yet the same spell somehow moves this skeleton around to utilize head shakes and fingers drawn in the dirt.

I actually don't email WotC email anymore because I find the argument on these things goes on anyways. If it's in one of their books then it maye settle the debate in one of my groups, but otherwise the emails just haven't proven solid enough. That might be due to the nature of the beast. Different reps have different opinions about very subjective rules.

It is the DM's decision and this DM will always think of Speak with Dead as it's been used in every movie and story I have every enjoyed - a seance. In fact, I've never had the mouth move in these situations. The "cold, detached voice eminates from the skeleton (or whatever) in the grave" and the PCs hear the info they need. I usually speak in a sort of ghostly voice for this sort of role-playing to ham-up the idea that it's a floating, distant voice that comes from the skeleton. I didn't know people had their skellies sitting up and chatting with this spell.

IMO, as long as the DM is giving the skeleton a way to communicate, I'm happy as a player. If I was given this "intact" argument at the table, I'd probably have a very puzzled look on my face - though I'd go with it if the DM really wanted that effect.

 

[moritheil]

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.

WOTC's ineptitude, if accepted as a postulate, is indefensible. DMs are not paid at a regular job to rule on these things. WOTC people are. Just because any one DM is incapable of something does not make it OK for WOTC staff to be incapable of the same thing.

(Put another way, perhaps you can't win a case in court, so you go to a lawyer. If the lawyer fails to win the case for you, is it OK for him to say, "Well, you wouldn't have won anyway, so I don't have to win either?" It is not; you are paying him to be more skilled at interpreting law than you yourself are.)

Is there some reason you are apparently flame-mongering in this thread? I don't like to point fingers, but you have something like 6-8 responses in a row aimed at an array of people, and very few of them are pleasant in tone.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I just think the key points are: Must have a mouth, must be a corpse, can be a corpse of any length of time (1 minute to 1 billion years - time in this case is not important) and therefore what the corpse is, is not important. As far as talking goes, you don't need a leg, an arm, a stomach or any of those things. You really only need a mouth and that is where I base my decision. As stated before this just doesn't kill the game in any way so why not allow it. I CAN see how others see the need for vocal chords and a lung and in which case skeletons would be ruled out. But then I wouldn't even allow yes or no questions. The spell doesn't say the skeleton can nod his head to answer questions. Soooo, if he can asnwer yes and no, why can't he speak other words? There doesn't seem to be any partial answers with skeletons. Just my 2 cp.

Recall, please, that magic is not physics. The information that the dead person can provide is stored in its body, not in any specific part of its body, nor (apparently) in its brain (as a brain is not required). Apparently, from the spell description, remembering how to speak is stored in the mouth. Other than that, information can be stored anywhere, and missing body parts thus can cause missing information.


RC

 

[Markn]

Recall, please, that magic is not physics. The information that the dead person can provide is stored in its body, not in any specific part of its body, nor (apparently) in its brain (as a brain is not required). Apparently, from the spell description, remembering how to speak is stored in the mouth. Other than that, information can be stored anywhere, and missing body parts thus can cause missing information.


RC

I agree with your first line - magic is not physics - thus physical aspects of the body (other than a mouth) are not required. Remember, the spell calls upon imprinted knowledge of that person. How that is tied to a body part makes zero sense to me. How do you account for age of a corpse not being a factor? Eventually a corpse becomes a skeleton (barring bizarre circumstances) and if these bizarre circumstances were important don't you think they would be mentioned in the spell? I do. Since there not, since time is irrelevant and since skeletons are not specifically excluded (since 99% of players will think at some point - 'Hey theres a skeleton, lets talk to him') I would think it is allowable.

Looking forward to your reply.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree with your first line - magic is not physics - thus physical aspects of the body (other than a mouth) are not required. Remember, the spell calls upon imprinted knowledge of that person. How that is tied to a body part makes zero sense to me. How do you account for age of a corpse not being a factor? Eventually a corpse becomes a skeleton (barring bizarre circumstances) and if these bizarre circumstances were important don't you think they would be mentioned in the spell? I do. Since there not, since time is irrelevant and since skeletons are not specifically excluded (since 99% of players will think at some point - 'Hey theres a skeleton, lets talk to him') I would think it is allowable.

Looking forward to your reply.

Actually, you are assuming that age directly relates to the condition of a body, which many examples (the Ice Man, peat bog mummies, etc.) can disprove. Therefore, the spell description is precise in saying that the condition, not the age, of the body is the critical issue.

The source of the knowledge is also clear:

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.​

Assuming that the soul imprints on the entire body, then as the body degrades the imprint degrades as well. The spell description seems to bear out that assumption, as the condition of the body determines the amount of information that the soul imprint can impart.


RC

 

[Markn]

Actually, you are assuming that age directly relates to the condition of a body, which many examples (the Ice Man, peat bog mummies, etc.) can disprove. Therefore, the spell description is precise in saying that the condition, not the age, of the body is the critical issue.

The source of the knowledge is also clear:

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.​

Assuming that the soul imprints on the entire body, then as the body degrades the imprint degrades as well. The spell description seems to bear out that assumption, as the condition of the body determines the amount of information that the soul imprint can impart.

IMO, your last paragraph is a big assumption. Is it not reasonable to think that the designers of the spell would have said that skeletons don't work? If it was their intention to limit the spell this way then that is a huge omission, moreso than any other facet of the spell we have discussed. I do agree, in part, that the condition of the corpse is important and I recognize the difference between time and condition but since the spell does not provide example of ONLY humanoids that have been preserved then one must agree that age and condition CAN go hand in hand thus giving an end result of a skeleton. Now if the skeleton is whole then there can be no debate that it can answer any and all questions as opposed to partial answers.

In terms of 'mostly intact', that would be DM's discretion. You could go with 1) body is not damaged in any way so regardless of age (meaning rotting flesh vs bone only) the skeleton would give all the answers it can 2) body is partly damaged (via combat, a fall or what have you) so it may or may not give complete answers.

You have convinced me that 'body damage' is relevant, however I don't consider age to be damage and thus a skeleton would not be limited in any way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You have convinced me that 'body damage' is relevant, however I don't consider age to be damage and thus a skeleton would not be limited in any way.

I do not argue that a spell cannot make a skeleton speak; I only argue that the wording of this spell in particular makes it reasonable for a DM to assume otherwise.

You are correct in saying that the spell does not make clear what a "corpse" or a "mouth" specifically are. Other spells in D&D 3.5, though, (such as animate dead) do specify a difference between a "corpse" or a "skeleton." This certainly lends some legitimacy to DM-Rocco's ruling.

Whether or not age is damage, in D&D terms, is an interesting question. Once the corpse is a corpse, it has hardness and hp as an object. Does a body lose hp as it decomposes? Does a wooden door? If not, then one could claim, despite the condition of the body, that it was "undamaged" even if it was now actually mostly part of the lawn.

My alternative to speak with dead was provided to allow DMs to make use of the classic spell, btw, and avoid the semantics.


RC

 

[Veander]

Is there a higher level spell that allows the caster to speak with someone in the "afterlife" without a body? Or maybe with only a personal item (such as a seance might mention).

If so, then I see the importance of laying such a limitation on this 3rd level spell. Otherwise, if this is indeed the only way to speak with those who have passed on in D&D then I can't see why strict limitations should be placed. It's unclear what intact is referring to and it is unclear how much of a mouth the spell asks for.

I'd certainlylean towards the players regardless.