Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1732170" data-attributes="member: 18280">Please.  A monster standing between you and the treasure is "willfully hampering the players" according to some.  Do you really believe that DM-Rocco's ruling was a game-stopper?  Honestly, now.  Yes or no.  If no, then DM-Rocco is in the right.Please supply one example where the term "corpse" is used to mean "skeleton" within the body of the rules.  I've made this request, variously worded, a number of times.  Funny how often I've heard "it's inconsistent" in various forms without anyone being able to point out a single example which pertains to this discussion.Just one.  A spell, maybe?  A monster?No?No argument here.  I'd be happy accepting that a fireball played music like a brass band, if that was what the spell description actually said.  On the other hand, we're talking about removing a limitation specific to the spell description for no better reason than (1) it's magic, so why not? or (2) I really, really, really want the spell to work that way."You could make a third level spell that does A plus B" is not an argument for claiming that any specific 3rd level spell should therefore have B as a component of its effects.I don't know about you, but I hardly need rules to determine whether or not a corpse is too badly damaged to supply answers, or what limitations it might have.  Apparently, DMs are sometimes relied upon to make judgement calls.I have also answered your points previously.  Allow me to recap: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. <snip>  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.  Yep.  And it's a pretty good one, too.  No doubt about it.  Although I believe it is very, very clear in the rules that "corpse" and "skeleton" are not interchangeable terms, this only demonstrates that a skeleton is not an intact corpse.  It doesn't actually answer the question of what an intact corpse actually is.However, the fact that your houserule is a pretty good one doesn't make DM-Rocco's ruling a bad one.  This thread started with DM-Rocco asking if his ruling was fair.  Simple question, simple answer.  Doesn't mean that there are not other, equally fair rulings out there.RCP.S.:  I do, however, think that calling the WotC position, at least related to the skeleton/corpse question, "obviously leaky, incomplete and self-contradicting" is pretty unfair.  You need only one counter-example to prove me wrong.RC</blockquote>

Verification