Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1733165" data-attributes="member: 18280">Jeff,Going back to the initial question, DM-Rocco ruled that a skeleton could answer yes/no questions by nodding its head.&nbsp; As I said earlier, that's a good houserule.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that a skeleton could even do so much given the spell as its written.&nbsp; The response from WotC clearly indicated that a skeleton was not a corpse.&nbsp; If you accept this, then DM-Rocco is being fairly generous.&nbsp; He is adding a valid target to the spell for the benefit and enjoyment of his players.In fact, it seems clear that most DMs are more generous with speak with dead than the rules suggest, and not just on the intactness of the corpse.&nbsp; The text of the spell makes one wonder just how much information you'd normally get anyway, as any DM could simply make the answers so obscure, repetitive, and incomplete as to be meaningless.A lot of this stuff requires the DM to make rulings, and then stick with those rulings.Again, since I am firmly sticking with 3.0 (at least until 4.0 comes out, anyway, and maybe even then), I'm not certain that the word &quot;skeleton&quot; doesn't come up in the 3.5 version of the spell.&nbsp; Skeletons are not mentioned in the 3.0 version of speak with dead.RCP.S.:&nbsp; Thank you for a clear and answerable post!P.P.S.:&nbsp; I had mentioned making a revised version of the speak with dead spell.&nbsp; Now I am thinking we could use, perhaps, two versions:&nbsp; speak with dead, which does what the current spell does, and commune with dead, which would actually contact the spirits of the dead.&nbsp; What do you think?RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 1733165, member: 18280"] Jeff, Going back to the initial question, DM-Rocco ruled that a skeleton could answer yes/no questions by nodding its head. As I said earlier, that's a good houserule. That doesn't mean that a skeleton could even do so much given the spell as its written. The response from WotC clearly indicated that a skeleton was not a corpse. If you accept this, then DM-Rocco is being fairly generous. He is adding a valid target to the spell for the benefit and enjoyment of his players. In fact, it seems clear that most DMs are more generous with [I]speak with dead[/I] than the rules suggest, and not just on the intactness of the corpse. The text of the spell makes one wonder just how much information you'd normally get anyway, as any DM could simply make the answers so obscure, repetitive, and incomplete as to be meaningless. A lot of this stuff requires the DM to make rulings, and then stick with those rulings. Again, since I am firmly sticking with 3.0 (at least until 4.0 comes out, anyway, and maybe even then), I'm not certain that the word "skeleton" doesn't come up in the 3.5 version of the spell. Skeletons are not mentioned in the 3.0 version of [I]speak with dead[/I]. RC P.S.: Thank you for a clear and answerable post! P.P.S.: I had mentioned making a revised version of the [I]speak with dead [/I] spell. Now I am thinking we could use, perhaps, two versions: [I]speak with dead[/I], which does what the current spell does, and [I]commune with dead[/I], which would actually contact the spirits of the dead. What do you think? RC [/QUOTE]

Verification