Spell question: Speak with Dead

[Raven Crowking]

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.

(Shrug) You're certainly allowed to.

The original question was:

I had a player try and cast speak with dead last night and I told him I was going to limit him to yes or no questions because it was a skeleton and didn't have a mouth. The spell says you need a way of communicating with the creature and they must have a mouth, which a skeleton doesn't have, just a jaw and some teeth.

He decided not to cast it since he couldn't ask full questions. We stopped shortly thereafter so I may back up a bit depending on the nature of this discussion. What is the correct usage of this spell? Can you engage in a full verbal conversation with a skeleton without a mouth? Shouldn't the dead creature have vocal cords inorder to verbally communicate with you?​

It seems clear that the DM is allowed quite a bit of leeway in this, because some of the terms may be considered vague. The limitations on the spell, though (i.e., relatively complete body, requires a mouth to talk) are from the SRD, not DM-Rocco.


RC

 

[werk]

Was the skeleton ever a 'skeleton'?

SRD: This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature.


I didn't read all this thread once I saw a post with large font, just wanted to tack on my .02

I wouldn't allow any answers, bones can't speak, and the spell is not 'commune with dead' or 'non-verbal communication with dead'. That seems to be the stipulation with the corpse in the text of the spell, needs to be able to 'speak'.

The developers have my sympathy. It's hard to explain something in text flawlessly when you understand it as a concept.

 

[Markn]

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.

I agree that a lot of spells are ambiguous in nature - whether they were planned that way or not - so I can see some DM's ruling otherwise. I certainly don't dispute this.

As for other spells making references to corpse or skeleton such as animate dead then, to me, that lends credence to the fact that there should be no difference. Other spells make the distinction and specifically point it out. This one doesn't, so it does not seem to matter (although I CAN see how others would think the opposite).

Soo, Crowing, how do you use the spell in your campaigns?

 

[Raven Crowking]

As for other spells making references to corpse or skeleton such as animate dead then, to me, that lends credence to the fact that there should be no difference. Other spells make the distinction and specifically point it out. This one doesn't, so it does not seem to matter (although I CAN see how others would think the opposite).

Are you saying that if a spell states that it works on a "corpse or skeleton" (emphasis mine) that this means that "corpse" and "skeleton" are synonomous? To my mind, saying that X works on A or B implies that, while A and B might be related, they are not the same thing. Websters, by the way, bears this out. A corpse is a dead body. A skeleton is part of a body, whether living or dead.

Soo, Crowing, how do you use the spell in your campaigns?

Hasn't come up in 3.X .

In DM-Rocco's shoes, I would probably have made a similar ruling, though I wouldn't have told the player until the spell was cast. And, while old nodding-and-rattling-bones might have frustrated the players, I am pretty certain that they would have had fun as well.

However, since I did a revision for this thread, I'll probably make it the "official" spell for my campaign.


RC

 

[Markn]

Are you saying that if a spell states that it works on a "corpse or skeleton" (emphasis mine) that this means that "corpse" and "skeleton" are synonomous? To my mind, saying that X works on A or B implies that, while A and B might be related, they are not the same thing. Websters, by the way, bears this out. A corpse is a dead body. A skeleton is part of a body, whether living or dead.

What I am saying is, since other spells go so far as to point out the differences between skeleton and corpse, then it matters to those spells. Since Speak with Dead does not differentiate that to me means there is not a difference.

As for your interpretation of my last email (quoted above) if a spell states that it works on A or B and does not define any differences between A or B then A and B must have equal results and therefore in this case skeleton and zombie are one and the same.

As for Webster, or any other dictionary, I would caution as using these to define words found in D&D (or most other games for that matter). In D&D, skeleton and corpse are keywords or classifications if you will. They are not meant to be used with literal translations from dictionaries... For example, I don't think you'll find walking undead as the definition for skeleton in the dictionary (although I could be wrong since I haven't checked).

 

[Raven Crowking]

What I am saying is, since other spells go so far as to point out the differences between skeleton and corpse, then it matters to those spells. Since Speak with Dead does not differentiate that to me means there is not a difference.

As for your interpretation of my last email (quoted above) if a spell states that it works on A or B and does not define any differences between A or B then A and B must have equal results and therefore in this case skeleton and zombie are one and the same.

I have to be honest; I'm not quite sure that I follow your logic here. Say that we have two spells. In Spell 1, the spell works on items A and B, but it has different effects if cast on item A than it does if cast on item B. In spell 2, the spell states that it works on item A, and has specific effects if item A is damaged or if certain parts of item A are not present.

Would this lead you to conclude that items A and B are the same or different?

Now we add the complication that item B is a part of item A.

Is an arm the same as a body? Is an intestinal tract a corpse? If not, why not?

Or, another way to look at it: You have two spells, both of which work on item A, but both of which work differently if some particular part of parts of item A are missing. In the case of animate dead, the parts are the soft tissues. In the case of speak with dead, the part is the mouth. If skeleton is synonomous with corpse, why isn't mouth?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

As for Webster, or any other dictionary, I would caution as using these to define words found in D&D (or most other games for that matter). In D&D, skeleton and corpse are keywords or classifications if you will. They are not meant to be used with literal translations from dictionaries... For example, I don't think you'll find walking undead as the definition for skeleton in the dictionary (although I could be wrong since I haven't checked).

Obviously, if there is a specific definition inherent in the game system, then that definition takes precedence where it applies. Otherwise, standard language usage must apply. What possible value can any game manual have if it cannot be read and understood in the language in which it is printed?

 

[Markn]

I have to be honest; I'm not quite sure that I follow your logic here. Say that we have two spells. In Spell 1, the spell works on items A and B, but it has different effects if cast on item A than it does if cast on item B. In spell 2, the spell states that it works on item A, and has specific effects if item A is damaged or if certain parts of item A are not present.

Would this lead you to conclude that items A and B are the same or different?

Now we add the complication that item B is a part of item A.

Is an arm the same as a body? Is an intestinal tract a corpse? If not, why not?

Or, another way to look at it: You have two spells, both of which work on item A, but both of which work differently if some particular part of parts of item A are missing. In the case of animate dead, the parts are the soft tissues. In the case of speak with dead, the part is the mouth. If skeleton is synonomous with corpse, why isn't mouth?

OK, here's what I was trying to say...If spell 1 specifically talks about A and B and they are defined as different (meaning B is a skeleton and A is a zombie) then spell 1 is stating it has different effects for A and B. Now Spell 2, talks about A and I have always thought that B included A in this case and thus did not need to be quantified. However, after reading Animate Dead and seeing the detail they use to discuss corspe, skeleton and zombie you now have convinced me that my ruling is wrong. Kudos to you for winning the battle of attrition...

Now my next question to you is: What do you do for a living? I feel like I have been discussing this with all my high school/college teachers combined....Sheesh. Either that or some Harvard debate champion. Good job.

 

[Raven Crowking]

OK, here's what I was trying to say...If spell 1 specifically talks about A and B and they are defined as different (meaning B is a skeleton and A is a zombie) then spell 1 is stating it has different effects for A and B. Now Spell 2, talks about A and I have always thought that B included A in this case and thus did not need to be quantified. However, after reading Animate Dead and seeing the detail they use to discuss corspe, skeleton and zombie you now have convinced me that my ruling is wrong. Kudos to you for winning the battle of attrition...

What if spell 1 says a corpse turns into a zombie and a skeleton turns into an animated skeleton? Object A is corpse, object B is animated skeleton.

In any event, it is not my intention to convince you that your ruling is wrong; merely to demonstrate that DM-Rocco's ruling is neither wrong nor unreasonable.

Certainly, I wouldn't want to win a "battle of attrition." Either a point has merit or it does not; repeating an invalid point does not make it any more valid.



{QUOTE]Now my next question to you is: What do you do for a living? I feel like I have been discussing this with all my high school/college teachers combined....Sheesh. Either that or some Harvard debate champion. Good job. [/QUOTE]





I'll take that as a compliment.

I've done a lot of things over the years. I spent four years in the U.S. Army, where I worked as a paralegal and a generator mechanic. I've worked supply, payroll, and courier administration. Currently, I co-own Golden City Comics in Toronto, I write some freelance fantasy & science fiction, and I work for the CPSO in their mailroom/copy room.


RC

 

[The Great Bear King]

If the undead can use sign language it doesn't need a mouth.