Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1731841" data-attributes="member: 18280">(Shrug) Obviously, you can go with either the summation data, or the details of the spell.  I, for one, would not expect the summation data to make fine distinctions.  That would appear in the detailed description.  Or so I would assume.  Maybe it's just me.    <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /> The people who wrote the rules seem to have made the same distinction I make:  between a corpse and a skeleton.  No other distinction is being made here.  I suppose, if you want to put words in my mouth, you could claim all sorts of distinctions and refute them as well.  Neither answers the points raised.I think it is fairly clear that the "intact" question raised by the spell description is there specifically so that the DM can create scenarios where the speak with dead spell is, and is not, useful, as well as scenarios where its usefulness is limited.Of course, again, you're welcome to do whatever you want in your campaign.  We call that "house rules" where I come from.  To make the claim that DM-Rocco cannot do the same, or that his reasoning isn't reasonable, requires a better argument than any I've read in this thread so far.  Especially when you take into consideration that DM-Rocco's ruling is, in fact, the default ruling from WotC.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> And again, the corpse vs. skeleton issue is clearly consistent throughout the game, not just in the one spell description.  Find me a counter-example, and your argument gains weight.  I couldn't find one.  Then again, as I said, I'm looking at 3.0.  Maybe it's just me.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />  Actually, I believe that this question (or something similar) was already brought up.  DM-Rocco rightly pointed out that the magic required to create intelligent skeletal undead is much more powerful, and distinct from, the speak with dead spell.  The question is utterly irrelevant.Certainly, I wouldn't accept the argument that Spell X requires no attack roll because magic missile doesn't.  This line of reasoning seems to be much the same, imho.But, because you asked, the answer is "it depends".  The Bonewardens, who got their powers from infernal magic, could speak.  Certainly a lich would be able to speak.  An awakened animated skeleton (could such a thing exist) would not be able to speak, nor could a necromancer make his animated skeletons speak unless he used further magic (such as a magic mouth spell).In any event, trying to adjudicate magic on the basis of physics, or on the basis of what could happen, is a pointless endeavour.  You either follow the spell description or you do not.  No matter how clever game designers try to be, some of those descriptions will require adjudication.  The DM makes a decision, and, barring a strong reason not to, he ought to stick to it.  That means, stick to it for everyone: PC, NPC, and that guy who used to be a PC but never makes it to the game.Again, I think when you examine the wording of the spell description, this is fairly simple to adjudicate.  Resurrection and speak with dead are not the same.  Very clearly differentiated in their descriptions, as my previous quotes show.RC</blockquote>

Verification