Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 1733393" data-attributes="member: 5122">I agree that's what WotC said.&nbsp; WotC is wrong, by the spell listing itself.The target of 3.5 speak with dead is &quot;one dead creature.&quot;&nbsp; You do agree that a human skeleton, for example, qualifies?&nbsp; That it is, therefore, a valid target for the spell?&nbsp; If not, you can skip the rest of this post.If you do agree, thus my question:If a skeleton is a valid target for speak with dead, yet speak with dead cannot actually produce any results from a skeleton, then why is a skeleton a valid target for speak with dead?&nbsp; If, as has been contended in this thread, the designers clearly meant different things when they say, in various places, &quot;corpse&quot; and &quot;skeleton,&quot; then why didn't they simply write the target of speak with dead as &quot;one corpse&quot;?My second point: if you agree that a human skeleton, for example, qualifies as &quot;one dead creature,&quot; making it a valid target for speak with dead, then you must also accept that when, in the first line of the spell's description -- &quot;you grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse&quot; -- the word &quot;corpse&quot; is being used in a manner that, by necessity, includes those corpses that are skeletons.(BTW, in plain English, a &quot;skeleton&quot; is most certainly also a &quot;corpse.&quot;)In several other places the spell talks about the &quot;corpse&quot; or the &quot;body&quot; which is the target of the spell.&nbsp; Nowhere in the description does it make any distinction between &quot;other types of dead creatures&quot; (such as skeletons) and &quot;corpses.&quot;&nbsp; It is therefore not reasonably deniable that these uses of the word &quot;corpse&quot; and &quot;body&quot; throughout the spell description also include &quot;skeletons.&quot;Note what isn't included: a severed arm, avec flesh or not, is not a &quot;corpse&quot; or &quot;dead creature.&quot;&nbsp; An undead creature, skeletal or not, is not a &quot;corpse&quot; or &quot;dead creature.&quot;&nbsp; A pile of cremains is not a &quot;corpse&quot; or &quot;dead creature.&quot;A &quot;skeleton,&quot; on the other hand, is, by the unambiguous spell listing.&nbsp; An intact skeleton, for the purposes of speak with dead is an &quot;intact corpse,&quot; since, for purposes of speak with dead, &quot;skeleton&quot; is a valid type of &quot;corpse.&quot;WotC got it wrong.&nbsp; The only thing surprising about this is that folks still use WotC for support in any capacity other than, &quot;Well, their ruling is official.&nbsp; Stupid and wrong, but official.&quot;Actually, he's not.&nbsp; As I demonstrated above, a skeleton is already a valid target for the spell.&nbsp; What he did was read limitations into the spell where they didn't exist.&nbsp; That's his right, as DM, but it would mightily annoy me.Maybe.&nbsp; As a DM, I've always had difficulty adjudicating divination type spells -- even if they're called &quot;Necromancy&quot; -- and illusion type spells fairly.&nbsp; I think it's the nature of those spells that they simply can't be quantified the way, say, evocations can.IMO, though, a third-level spell should be fairly powerful.&nbsp; A third-level divination-necromancy should be roughly as powerful a divination-necromancy spell as fireball is an evocation.&nbsp; Limiting speak with dead in the way folks are torturing the rules to do is both unnecessary and unfair.&nbsp; DMs that do it should really not be surprised when they find that their players begin to adhee -- even more than they already do -- to the quantifiable blow-crap-up spells.&nbsp; And, despite my own difficulties in adjudication, I think that would be a shame.Yes, but IMO those rulings should be (1) based on the rules, and (2) based on long-term and overall fairness, not just on, &quot;Hey, I have no idea what this 500-year-old skeleton would have to say ... hey, isn't being able to question a 500-year-old skeleton a little too powerful?&quot;&nbsp; 'Cause, honestly, that's kinda how it seemed like this ruling went down, to me.Nor in 3.5.&nbsp; The mistake you're making is in thinking that the exclusion of the word &quot;skeleton&quot; helps establish that skeletons don't work with speak with dead.&nbsp; The truth is the exact opposite ... since &quot;skeletons&quot; aren't excluded from the &quot;dead creatures&quot; that the spell works on, they're a valid and workable target.Thanks.&nbsp; You, too, although I'm really not entirely sure we're doing anything worthy of special gratitude.I think from a game balance standpoint, that'd be cool, but that it's not necessary to have a conversation with a skeleton.Jeff</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 1733393, member: 5122"] I agree that's what WotC said. WotC is wrong, by the spell listing itself. The target of 3.5 [i]speak with dead[/i] is "one dead creature." You do agree that a human skeleton, for example, qualifies? That it is, therefore, a valid target for the spell? If not, you can skip the rest of this post. If you do agree, thus my question: If a skeleton is a valid target for [i]speak with dead[/i], yet [i]speak with dead[/i] cannot actually produce any results from a skeleton, then [i]why[/i] is a skeleton a valid target for [i]speak with dead[/i]? If, as has been contended in this thread, the designers clearly meant different things when they say, in various places, "corpse" and "skeleton," then why didn't they simply write the target of [i]speak with dead[/i] as "one corpse"? My second point: if you agree that a human skeleton, for example, qualifies as "one dead creature," making it a valid target for [i]speak with dead[/i], then you must also accept that when, in the first line of the spell's description -- "you grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse" -- the word "corpse" is being used in a manner that, by necessity, [i]includes[/i] those corpses that are skeletons. (BTW, in plain English, a "skeleton" is most certainly also a "corpse.") In several other places the spell talks about the "corpse" or the "body" which is the target of the spell. Nowhere in the description does it make any distinction between "other types of dead creatures" (such as skeletons) and "corpses." It is therefore not reasonably deniable that these uses of the word "corpse" and "body" throughout the spell description also include "skeletons." Note what [i]isn't[/i] included: a severed arm, [i]avec[/i] flesh or not, is [i]not[/i] a "corpse" or "dead creature." An undead creature, skeletal or not, is [i]not[/i] a "corpse" or "dead creature." A pile of cremains is [i]not[/i] a "corpse" or "dead creature." A "skeleton," on the other hand, is, by the unambiguous spell listing. An intact skeleton, for the purposes of [i]speak with dead[/i] is an "intact corpse," since, for purposes of [i]speak with dead[/i], "skeleton" is a valid type of "corpse." WotC got it wrong. The only thing surprising about this is that folks still use WotC for support in any capacity other than, "Well, their ruling is official. Stupid and wrong, but official." Actually, he's not. As I demonstrated above, a skeleton is already a valid target for the spell. What he did was read limitations into the spell where they didn't exist. That's his right, as DM, but it would mightily annoy me. Maybe. As a DM, I've always had difficulty adjudicating divination type spells -- even if they're called "Necromancy" -- and illusion type spells fairly. I think it's the nature of those spells that they simply can't be quantified the way, say, evocations can. IMO, though, a third-level spell should be fairly powerful. A third-level divination-necromancy should be roughly as powerful a divination-necromancy spell as [i]fireball[/i] is an evocation. Limiting [i]speak with dead[/i] in the way folks are torturing the rules to do is both unnecessary and unfair. DMs that do it should really not be surprised when they find that their players begin to adhee -- even more than they already do -- to the quantifiable blow-crap-up spells. And, despite my own difficulties in adjudication, I think that would be a shame. Yes, but IMO those rulings should be (1) based on the rules, and (2) based on long-term and overall fairness, not just on, "Hey, I have no idea what this 500-year-old skeleton would have to say ... hey, isn't being able to question a 500-year-old skeleton a little too powerful?" 'Cause, honestly, that's kinda how it seemed like this ruling went down, to me. Nor in 3.5. The mistake you're making is in thinking that the exclusion of the word "skeleton" helps establish that skeletons don't work with [i]speak with dead[/i]. The truth is the exact opposite ... since "skeletons" aren't [i]excluded[/i] from the "dead creatures" that the spell works on, they're a valid and workable target. Thanks. You, too, although I'm really not entirely sure we're doing anything worthy of special gratitude. I think from a game balance standpoint, that'd be cool, but that it's not necessary to have a conversation with a skeleton. Jeff [/QUOTE]

Verification