Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1708329" data-attributes="member: 18280">I don't see this at all.&nbsp; In either case, the fragment returns to answer questions.&nbsp; The only difference is the means, and the limitations set upon the means.&nbsp; To me, having the corpse/skeleton respond makes sense, and if the DM rules that the skeleton can only answer yes/no questions the so be it.&nbsp; Really, so long as the DM is consistent with this, what's the problem?The corpse is animated to answer questions.&nbsp; This isn't a physics thing.&nbsp; If you can show me the physics of how to animate a corpse to answer questions, then I'll agree that the ligaments, lung pressure, etc., matter.&nbsp; But they don't.&nbsp; This is magic, not science.&nbsp; As magic, it works on the basis of a whole 'nother set of rules.If I was running the game, I wouldn't have warned the PCs what would happen if they cast the spell.&nbsp; They would simply cast the spell, then deal with whatever consequences or limitations occured.&nbsp; I certainly wouldn't say that having those limitations nerfs role-playing.&nbsp; On the contrary.&nbsp; And dealing with those limitations is one of the challenges of the game.I think that your ruling was fair, and the old bones rattling their answers out would have added a fun flavor to the evening.&nbsp; I think your reasons were well thought out, given the wording of the spell, and I fully agree with WotC that a corpse and a skeleton are not necessarily the same thing.&nbsp; The word corpse implies flesh.Also, a note for Hypersmurf:&nbsp; If it is a skeleton, and not just a collection of bones, then something is holding those bones together, no?&nbsp; Assuming ligaments here is probably more than reasonable.I certainly hope you are joking, numion, though I doubt that is the case.&nbsp; Under this great new idea, I seriously question how much fighting the players would do to advance their characters.&nbsp; In 3.X the players already have it way too easy, unless the DM intentionally toughens things up.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 1708329, member: 18280"] I don't see this at all. In either case, the fragment returns to answer questions. The only difference is the means, and the limitations set upon the means. To me, having the corpse/skeleton respond makes sense, and if the DM rules that the skeleton can only answer yes/no questions the so be it. Really, so long as the DM is consistent with this, what's the problem? The corpse is animated to answer questions. This isn't a physics thing. If you can show me the physics of how to animate a corpse to answer questions, then I'll agree that the ligaments, lung pressure, etc., matter. But they don't. This is magic, not science. As magic, it works on the basis of a whole 'nother set of rules. If I was running the game, I wouldn't have warned the PCs what would happen if they cast the spell. They would simply cast the spell, then deal with whatever consequences or limitations occured. I certainly wouldn't say that having those limitations nerfs role-playing. On the contrary. And dealing with those limitations is one of the challenges of the game. I think that your ruling was fair, and the old bones rattling their answers out would have added a fun flavor to the evening. I think your reasons were well thought out, given the wording of the spell, and I fully agree with WotC that a corpse and a skeleton are not necessarily the same thing. The word corpse implies flesh. Also, a note for Hypersmurf: If it is a skeleton, and not just a collection of bones, then something is holding those bones together, no? Assuming ligaments here is probably more than reasonable. I certainly hope you are joking, numion, though I doubt that is the case. Under this great new idea, I seriously question how much fighting the players would do to advance their characters. In 3.X the players already have it [I][B]way[/B][/I] too easy, unless the DM intentionally toughens things up. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification