Spell question: Speak with Dead

[Markn]

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.

You should take it as a compliment since it was...You should become a lawyer as you really present sound arguments and their very well rounded. Anyways, now that I know you own a comic shop in TO, do you sell D&D minis? If so, how much would you sell them by the case for? I live in Grande Prairie AB and I usuallly buy 2.5 cases and I am always looking for a better price...

PS - I may be hijacking the thread here but it's mainly you and me anyways.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You should take it as a compliment since it was...You should become a lawyer as you really present sound arguments and their very well rounded. Anyways, now that I know you own a comic shop in TO, do you sell D&D minis? If so, how much would you sell them by the case for? I live in Grande Prairie AB and I usuallly buy 2.5 cases and I am always looking for a better price...

PS - I may be hijacking the thread here but it's mainly you and me anyways.

I would be the least well-paid lawyer in the history of all law. I would forever be taking hard-luck cases pro bono, or allow clients to pay in produce (like in To Kill a Mockingbird. In fact, to some degree that's already true, as I have interceded on behalf of people with various Ontario utility and insurance companies, and (once) the Labour Board.

The Labour Board case was great, because the Board was very impressed with my submission. This was when I was working for Brookfield Property Management at BCE Place, doing light administrative duties for their internal courier department. An outside courier had quit, and the company he worked for refused to pay him for time owing. So, I made some calls. They figured out who was making the calls, and tried to get me fired. The entire case went from the Provincial to the Federal level when it was discovered that the courier company wasn't paying its employees vacation hours.

The guy got his pay, then stiffed me for $20.00.

Like I said, I'd be the most under-payed lawyer of all time!

As to D&D minis, the big question is, are you paying for shipping right now? I could probably work a good deal on price, but the shipping might be a bear.


RC

 

[Markn]

As to D&D minis, the big question is, are you paying for shipping right now? I could probably work a good deal on price, but the shipping might be a bear.


RC

Right now I purchase locally to support our local store but I have been less than happy with the price and wait time. I like to pick up my minis the day they are released. Throw me a number and an estimated shipping cost and we can go from there.

 

[Thondor]

Excuse me if this is a tad off topic but . . .

What's the point of being a necromancer if a cleric can ace you in everyway when it comes to the dead? Why can't a wizard/necromancer cast this spell? It makes no sense. Why does a cleric get all the good necromancer spells before the necromancer? (besides fear and damage/death)

Personally I think the spell needs to be reworked. I think in a case like this were your dragging someone back from thousand of years there should be some cost. Or danger. The amount of viable information should directly correspond to the danger.

As for your ruling. Stick with it. It's certainly not wrong and going back and changing it isn't worth it. I personally would have let the PC's chat, but what's the good? I suppose a language like Draconic might get them around the time-language barrier. But what are the chances both parties know it.

Unless you wish to rework the entire spell/system(necromancers) like I do I'd just stick with your ruling.

 

[blargney the second]

Right now I purchase locally to support our local store but I have been less than happy with the price and wait time. I like to pick up my minis the day they are released. Throw me a number and an estimated shipping cost and we can go from there.

I live in Victoria, BC, and I'm interested to hear a price as well!
-blarg

 

[werk]

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

Where did you pull that out of?

 

[Celebrim]

As far as I'm concerned, there is no one right answer to the original question - and this thread is proof enough that the one wrong answer to this question is to spend alot of time trying to debate how the spell works with the DM if you don't like his reasoning.

If the DM wants to rule that the skull can talk dispite a lack of vocal cords, then that is how the spell works in that campaign.
If the DM wants to rule that the skull will attempt to communicate but can't talk, then that is how the spell works in that campaign.
If the DM wants to rule that a skeleton is not a 'mostly intact' corpse, and that the spell fails completely, then that is how the spell works in that campaign.
If the DM wants to rule that the longer the skeleton has been dead, the less it remembers about its former life, then that is perfectly fine to even if it seems to contridict the explicit statement that the spell 'works' no matter how long the corpse has been dead.

The game is about having fun. It's not about 'winning'. So, if you disagree, shrug it off and keep playing. It's not important whether everything goes your way and the be-all-end-all of being a player is not to try to maximize the advantage you have in every circumstance.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where did you pull that out of?

Well, it's certainly a potentially valid interpretation of the spell.

1. The name of the spell is 'Speak With Dead'. But that's okay - Protection from Arrows protects you against javelins, so we know that the name of the spell is not rules text.

2. The spell allows the corpse to answer questions - answers are brief, cryptic, and repetitive.

3. The body must be mostly intact in order to respond.

4. A damaged body can give partial/partially correct answers, but requires a mouth in order to speak at all.

5. The animated body can speak with the knowledge the creature had while alive.

So, in summary - if we have a corpse missing its face, we can say that it's mostly intact, but is damaged and lacking a mouth.

Therefore it a/ can answer questions (point 2); b/ can respond (point 3); c/ gives partial answers (point 4a); d/ cannot speak at all (point 4b).

Point 5 says it can speak, but this is prohibited by point 4b.

So our damaged-but-mostly-intact animated corpse can give partial answers in response to questions, as long as it doesn't speak.

Simple sign language sounds about right.

-Hyp.

 

[werk]

Dropping mad knowledge.

As always, thanks hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, it's certainly a potentially valid interpretation of the spell.

<SNIP>

So, in summary - if we have a corpse missing its face, we can say that it's mostly intact, but is damaged and lacking a mouth.

Therefore it a/ can answer questions (point 2); b/ can respond (point 3); c/ gives partial answers (point 4a); d/ cannot speak at all (point 4b).

Point 5 says it can speak, but this is prohibited by point 4b.

So our damaged-but-mostly-intact animated corpse can give partial answers in response to questions, as long as it doesn't speak.

Simple sign language sounds about right.

-Hyp.

Such as, perhaps, nodding its head "yes" or "no"?


RC