Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="uzagi_akimbo" data-source="post: 1732007" data-attributes="member: 15945">I can accept anything from a GM as long as it is fun to play (it is, after all, his work, adventure and campaign that rests on keeping the tension and fun alive) , and not willfully hamper the players. If a corpse communicated by rattling its bones, lighting fire in its eyesockets or playing wheel of fortune or Quija, so be it. Its his/her campaign and with an adventure running, the GM's word closes any argument.From, WotC, with a lot of foresight, numerous staff, alleged play-testing, multiple sources for input and years of experience I do expect better than their obviously leaky, incomplete and self-contradicting definition and idea. Especially since "Speak with Dead" was redesigned for V3.5. Easy - for one "ghost sound" is a low-level effect, which I have no problem envisioning being created as a sideshow in a third level spell. And, as mentioned above, if the GM chooses some other means of communication - more power to his imagination ! Whatever floats his boat - be it telekinetic force, illusionary sounds or evocative light signals.If one does subscribe to the theory that a "key component" of a body should be in place though (and WotC assumes that _all_  parts are there, mostly intact, btw), choosing the part(s) with they main sensory organs and the seat of consciousness looks the feasible choice to me. Should the spell yield tangible results from any, however minuscule, amount of remains, even if possibly lacking many or most of the corpse (a la Lovecraft's "reanimation" magic, from which "Speak with Dead" unabashedly steals ) , it would simply be too powerful for its level. No-one disagrees on that.As access to all-powerful magics is sensibly (by the deities, rules of the universe and WotC ) restricted to more skilled and trusted servants - hence "miracle" being a ninth level magic, even though maybe a fair minded  deity should - philosophically - be as likely to help his lowly servant asking for a miraculous intervention in good faith as he should be to grant it to his most powerful servant. A third level spell should reflect those limitations - but an illusionary, cantrip-level figment is nothing to unbalance such a spell or make it overpowered. Especially if I have to assume the partial reanimation of a corpse for the use of its Thorax, Larynx and vocal chords as the only official way "Speak with Dead" allows  communicationAnd, btw, the deities in D&D are nigh all-mighty and all-powerful, even if they get statted out - but just how they chose to apply their power through "spells" is subject to rules. And the given e-mail ruling for "Speak with Dead" is, sorry too say, patchy at best, and a moth-ridden mess at worst, IMHO, because D&D does not sport a detailed damage system (for good reasons) - but suddenly it becomes very important just how badly mangled a corpse is...... is massive damage enough to make something "not mostly intact" ? How about acid or fire damage ? Damage type ? Will a partial desintegration suffice ? Or a deadly "Baleful Teleport" ? I can see that debate turning quickly into a macabre and potentially distasteful pathological excourse. So why pick a phrase as ambiguous as "mostly intact corpse" ? As for the "need the head" houserule  - It is meant as our local placebo for a balancing check, establishing some key part, be it heart, tongue or head. Its our interpretation of "mostly intact" and a balanced approach. It guarantees that only one party can communicate with any said corpse. It guarantees that no spare parts for interrogating those who have fallen in the field are kept back in a safe location, for later use by superiors and allies. It also guarantees that a corpse may be rendered "mum" as a witness by an unscrupulous party/NPC. Especially the last point - often essential for an adventure's progress or air-tight plot sealing - is not really adressed by D&D 3.5. Which, in itself, is a strange short-fall. I offered it as a piece of possible advice to the initial poster, no more, no less.</blockquote>

Verification