Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1732948" data-attributes="member: 18280">(Shrug.  Again.) 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="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> I am not really sure whether you are being tongue-in-cheek or serious here, Hypersmurf.In the spell listings, there are short, one-line descriptions of spells.  At the heading of each spell there is summary data that gives you information on the spell, but this information is not always as detailed or as complete as the information in the descriptive text.  In this way, the spell listings move from the less detailed to the more detailed.Descriptive text is described as:  "This portion of the spell description details what the spell does and how it works."Doesn't the descriptive text, where it adds more detail, trump the summary data? It is true that skeletons are not listed as targets under the "Target" heading in the summary data, but it is also true that they are specifically included as valid targets in the descriptive text.While I think that this is more than clear enough for most people, I will concede that it could be clearer had the target read "One or more dead creatures touched."  What we have is an example of the target section of the spell description that does not contain full information on legal targets for the spell, whereas said information is clearly supplied in the descriptive text portion of the text.(1)  Could the "target" portion be clearer?  Yes.(2)  Is this an example where "corpse" means "skeleton"?  No.  The descriptive text makes it clear that, while skeletons are legal targets, they are not the same thing as corpses.  (Shrug)  As they say, your mileage may vary.  If you want to houserule that skeletons can only be made from corpses, be my guest.This falls short of an example of "corpse" meaning "skeleton" in my book.  I am pretty sure that, despite the fact that it is not as clear as it could be, it is clear enough for most people.  If enough people chime in otherwise, I will definitely concede that WotC needs to lower the common denominator yet again when thinking through their phraseology.   :\ I suppose I should thank you and ThirdWizard in any event for including another update to my argument summary.  More completely, it should read (in part):B. What do you mean it isn't a corpse? It's a skeleton, isn't it?(1) The rules clearly demonstrate a difference between skeletons and corpses.Whoa, whoa, whoa, what about animate dead?  Doesn't that target only corpses?  How do you make skeletons? (1)  The descriptive text adds skeletons as a legal target.(2)  You can also also create skeletons from corpses, but the corpses loose their flesh, as described in the spell. (2) By connotation, if not by denotation, the term "corpse" implies flesh. There are four potential questions here as I see it: (1)  Original question:  Was DM-Rocco's ruling (re: speak with dead) unfair?Can we at least concede that DM-Rocco's ruling was fair here?  I would hate to imagine, after all this time, that even so much is beyond us.(2)  Secondary question:  Are the words "skeleton" and "corpse" interchangeable in Dungeons & Dragons 3.X?I believe that it has been amply demonstrated that they are not.  In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find anywhere where a skeleton was considered a corpse.  Again, your mileage may vary.(3)  Third question:  Is Wizards of the Coast using an "obviously leaky, incomplete and self-contradicting definition and idea"?Here we have a little more leeway in terms of discussion.  Clearly, as ThirdWizard and Hypersmurf point out, the animate dead spell description does not list all potential targets (or even, let's be honest, all normal targets) under the "target" descriptor of the spell description.  It does, however, supply this information in the descriptive text. This does not address the seperation between the terms "corpse" and "skeleton" in the rules, because the descriptive text makes clear that the terms are not synonomous. It does, however, demonstrate that Wizards of the Coast could be clearer.  To a degree, therefore, uzagi_akimbo is correct.  WotC's rules do have holes in them, and certainly the target descriptor in animate dead is incomplete. I would still imagine that, for most people, the rules are clear enough.  In fact, the examples of house rules given demonstrate that most people were able to look at the speak with dead spell, come to a decision as to what a "mostly intact" corpse was, and get on with the game.(4)  Final Question:  Could speak with dead be better written?Yes.  Clearly so. As many have pointed out, the term "mostly intact corpse" has a lot of potential meanings.  The "body must have head" houserule is a good houserule, and is implicit in the "corpse must have mouth to talk" portion of the speak with dead descriptive text.  Likewise, frankly, DM-Rocco's decision not to have the skeleton speak verbally is a good houserule.  Neither houserule might be to everyone's taste. MerakSpielman points out the inherent problems with having the corpse magically bound to speak honestly.  According to the spell description, you're not talking to the person, but rather information imprinted in the body.  Some parties, based upon local ordinances or the DM's take on certain alignments, won't be able to pull off the "Kill 'em and question their corpses" trick, but it does seem a valid tactic in D&D 3.X. Should it be?A revised speak with dead spell might be an interesting topic for another thread.RC</blockquote>

Verification