# Spell question: Speak with Dead



## DM-Rocco (Aug 12, 2004)

I had a player try and cast speak with dead last night and I told him I was going to limit him to yes or no questions because it was a skeleton and didn't have a mouth.  The spell says you need a way of communicating with the creature and they must have a mouth, which a skeleton doesn't have, just a jaw and some teeth.

He decided not to cast it since he couldn't ask full questions.  We stopped shortly thereafter so I may back up a bit depending on the nature of this discussion.  What is the correct usage of this spell?  Can you engage in a full verbal conversation with a skeleton without a mouth?  Shouldn't the dead creature have vocal cords inorder to verbally communicate with you?


----------



## dcollins (Aug 12, 2004)

I rule "yes, the skeleton can speak" on this issue. The spell does say "you can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time". If corpses reduced to a skeleton could by their nature not speak, one would think that would present a hard limitation on the spell. A distinction between "having a jaw and teeth" versus "having a mouth" doesn't appear in the spell.

There's lots of examples of skelatal-appearing dead speaking in fantasy and gaming. In D&D, somehow spectres, ghosts, liches, and whatnot can speak even though they don't have physical muscles to do so. This is a Necromantic spell, after all.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 12, 2004)

From the readin of the spell, you ruled exactly right. The skeleton can shake it's head yes or no, rattle some bones, clatter some teeth, and that's about it. Yes or no answers are about the best the poor ol' skelie can do without a mouth or any substance to the body capable of producing sound.


----------



## Scion (Aug 12, 2004)

yeah, the lack of the tools to speak would disallow it to speak. It does talk about 'mostly intact' and really a skeleton does not fall under that description.

yes/no sounds perfectly reasonable, further communication would be very difficult.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 12, 2004)

Ah, 1:1, got to love it.  We wasted about ten minutes debating this issue last night.  I think I am right since it requires a mouth, which is flesh, which it doesn't have.  Yes,  lich can talk, but some of that is more powerful magic at work, perhaps part of the process for becoming a lich has magic mouth as part of the spell process, but whatever, that is not the same in my book.

Perhaps hypersmurf will weigh in, sigh.


----------



## Menexenus (Aug 12, 2004)

I think limiting the player to Yes/No questions is perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Gunslinger (Aug 12, 2004)

As written it seems that you ruled correctly.  However I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow a spell which would allow the caster to speak with the souls of the departed in the same manner as Speak with Dead (albeit, in a non-necromantic form).  The idea of prying information from the dead mind of a corpse just doesn't seem like something that most "good" aligned clerics would be very comfortable with, as you are actually raising the corpse back into un-life to a certain extent.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 12, 2004)

Oh, that reminds me, if you bring up the fact that it might be evil, the cleric is a good cleric of pelor and it may be against his nature to do so.  That aside though, that doesn't bother me that he wants to talk to dead, the spell just reads like I said unless someone else can prove me wrong.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> The skeleton can shake it's head yes or no...




Without muscles, tendons, ligaments...?  How does it do that?

-Hyp.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 12, 2004)

Good point, figured you jump in some time soon, good day.  

Although, I can see animating a dead body to move, like a skeleton, but with out any type of throat or vocal cords, I don't know how it could talk.  If it said the ghost of the dead came back and talked to you I would say sure, but how many time have you seen a skeleton, in a movie or a book, start talking, with the exception of liches and demi liches.


----------



## Scion (Aug 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Without muscles, tendons, ligaments...?  How does it do that?
> 
> -Hyp.




Why does the skelten have no dried out tendons and ligaments? shrivled up muscle masses? psychic powers? bit of parsley stuck in its teeth for hundreds of years? 

While it may be a stretch to make it give slight nods and shakes of the head it is certainly out of the question to have a missing jaw talk.

Mmm.. I always liked the whole making jawbones talk though.. now that is something a true necromancer should be able to sink his teeth into.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Why does the skelten have no dried out tendons and ligaments? shrivled up muscle masses?




And if it doesn't?



> psychic powers?




Then why can't those same psychic powers be used to talk?

-Hyp.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 12, 2004)

I guess now I need to add in more detail about the skeleton.  the skeleton is the one in the temple section of the Tomb of Horrors module, which had been laid bare in the temple for over 5,000 years, there is nothing on the skeleton except rusty chainmail, no flesh, just bone.  Yes, it still has a jaw, but with no throat or vocal cords, I think I am being generous in letting him as it yes or no questions.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Without muscles, tendons, ligaments...?  How does it do that?
> 
> -Hyp.




Well let's see what exactly we are working with here first, these are the parts I read to come to that conclusion:

"You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it."

So it's clear that you can ask the corpse a question and it will answer the question, by any method ('the spell *allows* the corpse to answer several questions'). Given that the corpse is given a semblance of life we can imagine that the corpse has a limited capacity for movement, such as speaking, moving it's mouth and jaw, etc.


"...but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond."

A skeleton if 'mostly intact' should be able to respond to questioning, by technicality. Though missing all if it's flesh may not count as being 'mostly intact' as long as the skeleton was completely whole it probably counts I imagine otherwise we likely wouldn't see the whole: "You can cast this spell on any corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time". So a skeleton can indeed respond to questioning.


"A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must have a mouth in order to speak at all.

While we can get away with calling a full skeleton moslty intact, I doubt we can get away with calling the skeletal corpse undamaged. So the skeleton will be answering with 'partial answers or partially correct answers'.

A skeleton doesn't possess a mouth by definition: "Mouth: The cavity lying at the upper end of the alimentary canal, bounded on the outside by the lips and inside by the oropharynx and containing in higher vertebrates the tongue, gums, and teeth." So a skeleton cannot speak the answers to questions. 

Though as we see in the first quote, a corpse, even a skeleton is allowed to respond to questions (in this case 'partial answers'). Without speaking the corpse could only trace answers in the dust with bony fore-finger (or point, as with a question of "which way to go", etc.) or nod it's head up and down, or side to side, in response to questions. In other words, yes and no.


----------



## Scion (Aug 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And if it doesn't?




Any reason why it shouldnt? Even skeletons thousands of years old would still have some, as they toughen up to bone like consistancy.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Then why can't those same psychic powers be used to talk?




It must be late there, the obvious obsurdity in the last couple on that list I would think were apparent.

Still though, psychic remnents arent exactly unknown even in our world, just not believed in by all.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> A skeleton doesn't possess a mouth by definition: "Mouth: The cavity lying at the upper end of the alimentary canal, bounded on the outside by the lips and inside by the oropharynx and containing in higher vertebrates the tongue, gums, and teeth." So a skeleton cannot speak the answers to questions.




So you wouldn't allow Speak With Dead to work on a dead Giant Eagle?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Any reason why it shouldnt? Even skeletons thousands of years old would still have some, as they toughen up to bone like consistancy.




Sure.  Say you just retrieved the skeleton from a gelatinous cube.

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion (Aug 12, 2004)

chances are good that it would eat the bones as well, if not then there would still be some tendon in there somewhere in all likelyhood.

::shrugs:: except in incredible circumstances I see no reason why some amount of tendon would not be there along with some muscle as well. Especially depending on the method of storage.

An old body in a sealed crypt might very well be mummified to some degree, which would easily allow the spell.

Unless the spell is intended to work only on juicy corpses.


----------



## EvilGM (Aug 12, 2004)

I'm the player Rocco is talking about.

The spell description isn't very clear and is open to interpretation.  The spell is meant to speak with the dead (any length of time dead) which the intact skeleton clearly was.  
By the rules, I can see going either way on this - loose descriptions like this are open to DM decision.  It's not the decision I would have made, but it's his game.

A couple things for DMs to think about...
If one of your NPCs (bad guy trying to track the party, holy man looking for a murderer, etc.) casts this spell on a body in the same condition, would it work?  Consistency is what I'm looking for here.

The spell is Speak with Dead - which really has a narrow focus..  If it doesn't, in fact, let me speak with the dead what's the point of taking it? 

Its not the end of the world.  There are plenty of other 3rd level spells I can prepare... something more combat-oriented since it seems we aren't promoting role-playing aspects.

Interesting info on decomposition


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 12, 2004)

Frankly, I think this is a perfect example of people reading too much into the rules.

The spell is designed to speak with dead bodies. Period.

Decay is not "damage" in the D&D sense of the word. The spell says that corpses can speak, and it does _not_ exclude skeletal corpses. That's a pretty _major_ omission, if that was the writer's intention, don't you think? Especially with "bodies of any age" caveat.

As written, I'd rule that if the corpse is intact--and by intact, I mean all the pieces that should be there given its state of decomposition are still present--than it can speak. Anything else is grossly limiting a spell that's A) already pretty narrow in focus, and B) a third-level spell.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 12, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think this is a perfect example of people reading too much into the rules.
> 
> The spell is designed to speak with dead bodies. Period.
> 
> ...




I very much agree with you Mouseferatu.   

I was just about to post that the reason why the spell says "it must at least have a mouth" is probably that you should not allow to use the spell to speak with a severed finger for example.   

If you start ruling that the skeleton cannot speak because it doesn't have a tongue, you can rule as well that you cannot speak with any corpse because it doesn't have blood pressure to make the muscles of the tongue move etc... or IOW you cannot speak with any corpse because dead corpses cannot speak   

Just think that "must have a mouth" means that if someone died decapitated and the head was buried away from the body, you cannot use speak with dead on both the head and the body, but just the head. I think it's fair, personally.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 12, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think this is a perfect example of people reading too much into the rules.
> 
> The spell is designed to speak with dead bodies. Period.




Exactly.  This discussion reminds me of the old "_fireball_ chunky-salsa" arguments.  If your argument for limiting a spell -- or for expanding its capabilities -- takes you into an anatomy or physics lesson, you're over-thinking.

Gimme a corpse with all its limbs, a torso, and a head, and it's "intact."  If the corpse has a jawbone or a beak, it's got a "mouth."

_Speak with dead_ is a 3rd-level spell.  Within its narrow focus, it should be granted quite a bit of latitude for usefulness.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 12, 2004)

EvilGM said:
			
		

> Its not the end of the world.  There are plenty of other 3rd level spells I can prepare... something more combat-oriented since it seems we aren't promoting role-playing aspects.




Yikes, was such a blanket comment like that necessary? I must say, a single ruling doesn't make for non-roleplaying orientation of a game. Sounds more like a thinly veiled contempt for the DM's game. Most players such as this don't last long at the game table, especially if so contemptuous. Doesn't exactly promote a healthy game environment at the table.


----------



## Blue (Aug 12, 2004)

I think the spell should work.  The idea that a skeleton can nod it's head without muscles but can't talk without vocal cords is a silly distinction that punishes the players.  Either rule that a skeleton isn't "mostly intact" and that it won't work at all, or that it is mostly intact and let the spell work.  If a teeth and jaws isn't "a mouth", then a skeleton isn't "mostly intact".

Looking at the spell, I would think that by intent it would work.  I read "dead any length of time" as recognizing that bodies decay, and "having a mouth" as stopping (a) creatures that never possessed a mouth and (b) bodies specifically mutilated to remove the mouth.

This is a spell, allowing you to do things that you wouldn't be able to do without magic.  If a necromatic spell can animate a skeleton, why not allow one to speak?  After all, that's what the spell does "speak with dead".

Now, it is a language dependant spell as shown in the descriptor, so I hope they have a common language with the 5000 year old skeleton, but that's a different matter.

Cheers,
=Blue


----------



## uzagi_akimbo (Aug 12, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> ............
> Just think that "must have a mouth" means that if someone died decapitated and the head was buried away from the body, you cannot use speak with dead on both the head and the body, but just the head. I think it's fair, personally.




That's actually the division we make in our camapign - is the skull still reasonably intact ?
If the answer is yes, "Speak with Dead" will work. If someone mashed up the skull to splinters/chopped it off and hid it/dissolved it in acid.... well then you are out of luck as the prospective caster. Same goes for reasonably close anatomical equivalents (like an Aaracockra's beak or a Thri Kreens set of mandibles ).

In the case given initially, intact bare-boned humanoid skeleton, go ahead and ask your stuff. 

Although, from a GM's point of view, I know how much of a nuisance it can be to figure out and and deliver dead-pan the usually improvised answers of any random dead body the players may wish to query. One of the reasons we changed "Speak with Dead" into a 10 minute ritual - usually the spell gets cast in some safe surroundings later on in a quiter phase of the game.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 13, 2004)

I am still leaning towards only yes or no questions. Yes, you can animate a skeleton body, but that doesn't mean it can talk? Also, if you cast animate object on the skeleton, can the skeleton get up and recite Shakespeare?

The spell gives the corpse a semblance of life, meaning that you could technically animate the body to speak, if it had a mouth, or too do sign language or draw in the dirt or whatever. If it had some type of flesh, or at least most of his throat, I would say sure.

I gave the player a fair chance to be creative and ask it yes or no questions. I would have also allowed him to ask it questions and tell the skeleton to write his answers in the dirt. He chose to do neither.

Liquidsabre gets the prize of the day for recognizing the frustration of being a DM with a whiner so   to you evil DM .


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 13, 2004)

*This just in*

This is the reply I got from WOTC.  I emailed them about another matter and threw this question in as well.  I just checked my mail and here is their reply, for those who are interested.

1. if you cast speak with undead on a skeleton can the skeleton talk?  It says that dead must have a mouth, they only have a jaw.  I ruled that they could only answer yes or no question by nodding yes or no since it couldnt talk.

- The speak with dead spell states that the corpse must be mostly intact to be able to speak. A skeleton is a collection of bones, not an intact corpse.

2. It says you can train a horse for war, if you do, does that turn the horse 
into a war horse?  

- The Handle Animal skill is not a template. If you train a regular horse for 
combat riding, they only get the specific items mentioned in the description of this skill.

Do they become war horses so they get the improved stats?  

- No. Warhorses are bred as such and have the stats listed in the Monster 
Manual.

Can a war horse, that was bought as a war horse, gain further tricks or does he get the war trained tricks and that is it?  

- A warhorse has already learned all of the tricks possible.

Does that get rid of the hooves as secondary weapons so they don't get the 
penalty for fighting with hooves? 

- Correct. It does not suffer this penalty once trained as a warhorse.


Thanks!

*Please quote this e-mail in any reply.*

Darrin
Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 13, 2004)

I don't really know why I'm putting in my 2 cents, now that you got an official answer, but here goes. 3.5 is based on earlier editions of the game, and in cases like this, I'd look to those rules to see how it used to be done. Speak w/ Dead once took 10 minutes to cast, required incense (I believe), and you didn't even need a corpse, just a piece of the body. In this sense, it very much seems to me to have been meant as a séance-type spell. I remember one character having a collection of pinky fingers for just this purpose. 

Now that it requires a "mostly intact corpse" that magically yaps at you, it is more restricted in that you can't have a keyring of body parts to strike up a conversation with at will. Needing a body (as in the recent "Hellboy" movie) instead of a lock of hair is the extent of the change as I see it. Limiting it to yes or no answers only completely ignores the whole magic of the spell: returning a fragment of the previous soul to answer questions. Allowing a skeleton to verbally answer a handful of questions based on it's limited perspective during it's previous life is right in line with a 3rd level spell. Keep in mind a 4th lvl spell lets you ask yes or no questions about anything, not just what 5000 year old Joe Schmo knew, and a 5th level spell lets you have a chat with your freakin deity for crying out loud!

edit: I see it still takes 10 minutes to cast, but my points are still mostly valid.


----------



## Numion (Aug 13, 2004)

Now that the official answer is in, the thread could be closed .. but since it's not, I'll chime in too!

I have a great new idea for DMing in general: When in doubt, SAY YES! The players have fought to advance their characters, let them use the abilities!


----------



## uzagi_akimbo (Aug 13, 2004)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> This is the reply I got from WOTC.  I emailed them about another matter and threw this question in as well.  I just checked my mail and here is their reply, for those who are interested.
> 
> 1. if you cast speak with undead on a skeleton can the skeleton talk?  It says that dead must have a mouth, they only have a jaw.  I ruled that they could only answer yes or no question by nodding yes or no since it couldnt talk.
> 
> ...




Okies now _that_ throws an offcial looking  spanner into the works - and oddly enough, WotC depicted a very different situation (and take on the rules) in one of their adventures ( well it was  published in Dungeon Magazine #96 or 97, back then it was not yet an independent Paizo publication. Yes, Dungeon is not official 'canon', but it is an in-house publication, sticking very close to published and established WotC D20 rules - so a major oversight looks unlikely, IMHO ), "Flood Season" where a key NPC gets killed and the players (or their NPC backers) are assumed to use "Speak with Dead" to get rather essential hints from said corpse - which lacks its tongue and is decapitated, IIRC. This is vital for the adventure's progress and the NPC backers even suggest  (!) this course of action/initiate it if the PCs don't think of it (or are incapable to do so ).
Now I don't assume having your tongue ripped out and eaten by an NPC counts as natural decomposition or being in a fairly complete state .... Same goes for a decapitation. So clearly, "Speak with Dead", as handled by that WotC customer support e-mail should not work at all.
Wouldn't it be nice, if they stayed consistent with their ideas of what actually works and what does not ? I never understood the reasoning behind the "knowledge imprinted in the body" guideline - if you miss a leg/arm/parts you can possibly give only partial answers - anyway. I mean, what knowledge is stored in my leg ? Algebra ? History ? A*se-kicking ? What does my liver know ? Or my spleen ? What knowledge does a peglegged,  hook-handed pirate have, even if he lost his leg and hand 40 years prior to his death ?
Yeah, right ......

I also wonder - if the time since death does not matter, how the spells is supposed to work on corpses more than a few months old (which it does )- not even talking decades or millenia. I mean, not everyone gets mummified (and a mummy , in eqyptian tradition at least, has its vital organs removed.... now does that constitute complete ? And what knowledge would be lost if a brain is removed from the body - all ?), or frozen in a glacier to stay in reasonable shape. So what use would the spell be ?

Oh well, seems like time for yet another reality update at WotC's "Sage department" again.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 17, 2004)

I was always a bigger fan of the 1st addition then any of the others, so I may dig up my old 1st edition PHB and make a different ruling.  My characters have worked hard to get where they are, but I was following the letter of the current spell, and it says no.

I would like to hear from everyone one else on how the spell should read if you took into account 1st addition spells.  We are not playing until a week from this tuesday, so if one of you wishes to aid my character by proposing a full and complete spell, durations, spell components, etc., go ahead and I may change my mind.

I can't do it myself right now, my 1st addition books are packed away as we are moving at the end of the month.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 17, 2004)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> Now that it requires a "mostly intact corpse" that magically yaps at you, it is more restricted in that you can't have a keyring of body parts to strike up a conversation with at will. Needing a body (as in the recent "Hellboy" movie) instead of a lock of hair is the extent of the change as I see it. Limiting it to yes or no answers only completely ignores the whole magic of the spell: returning a fragment of the previous soul to answer questions.




I don't see this at all.  In either case, the fragment returns to answer questions.  The only difference is the means, and the limitations set upon the means.  To me, having the corpse/skeleton respond makes sense, and if the DM rules that the skeleton can only answer yes/no questions the so be it.  Really, so long as the DM is consistent with this, what's the problem?

The corpse is animated to answer questions.  This isn't a physics thing.  If you can show me the physics of how to animate a corpse to answer questions, then I'll agree that the ligaments, lung pressure, etc., matter.  But they don't.  This is magic, not science.  As magic, it works on the basis of a whole 'nother set of rules.

If I was running the game, I wouldn't have warned the PCs what would happen if they cast the spell.  They would simply cast the spell, then deal with whatever consequences or limitations occured.  I certainly wouldn't say that having those limitations nerfs role-playing.  On the contrary.  And dealing with those limitations is one of the challenges of the game.

I think that your ruling was fair, and the old bones rattling their answers out would have added a fun flavor to the evening.  I think your reasons were well thought out, given the wording of the spell, and I fully agree with WotC that a corpse and a skeleton are not necessarily the same thing.  The word corpse implies flesh.

Also, a note for Hypersmurf:  If it is a skeleton, and not just a collection of bones, then something is holding those bones together, no?  Assuming ligaments here is probably more than reasonable.




			
				numion said:
			
		

> I have a great new idea for DMing in general: When in doubt, SAY YES! The players have fought to advance their characters, let them use the abilities!





I certainly hope you are joking, numion, though I doubt that is the case.  Under this great new idea, I seriously question how much fighting the players would do to advance their characters.  In 3.X the players already have it _*way*_ too easy, unless the DM intentionally toughens things up.

RC


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 22, 2004)

Well, my will was begining to break.  I was considering giving in to the needs of greedy players everywhere after reading the last few threads.  In fact, had someone done as I had requested and converted the 1st edition spell into 3.5, something I can't do right now because I am in the middle of moving and the books are packed away, then I would have allowed the spell to function as the players had wanted.

However, since Raven Crowking had posted his last comment, it just made things more clear for me.  I am the DM, I made a ruling and I need to be consistant in that ruling.  If the player wants to try and create a better version of the spell, at the same or different level, then I don't see a problem with that, as long as it is balanced.  I know how the 1st edition spell worked, and I know this is weaker, but it is what it is.

As for letting the characters get away with it because they worked hard to get to that level, no, I am not buying that.  Yes, they did pull some tricks out of thier hats to survive until now, but if I let them bend the rules on this, it would be the same as letting a 20th level mage have 10 magic missles from a 1st level spell.  You as a player may not see a problem with that, but as a DM, there are rules to follow, and even though this example is a bit out there, it is the same premise.

Sorry, the spell is 'nerfed', as the player would say.


----------



## DreamChaser (Aug 22, 2004)

i second mouseferatu's minimal rules-lawyering interpretation.

but I also support DM's prerogotive.

DC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 29, 2004)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, my will was begining to break.  I was considering giving in to the needs of greedy players everywhere after reading the last few threads.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Pleased to be of service.    




			
				DreamChaser said:
			
		

> i second mouseferatu's minimal rules-lawyering interpretation.





To recap, Mouseferatu said:




			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think this is a perfect example of people reading too much into the rules.
> 
> The spell is designed to speak with dead bodies. Period.
> 
> ...





DreamChaser, I have a very hard time seeing how DM-Rocco's interpretation is "rules lawyering" and Mouseferatu's is not.  Both are looking at the rule (spell description) as written, and then interpreting what they see based upon (1) general principles as they see them, and (2) what type of game they prefer.  If you truly believe that one of these positions must be rules-lawyering, look at what benefits are being asked for.  Then decide if you really "support DM's prerogotive" or not.

Usually, rules lawyering refers to taking the rules as written, and using the phraseology to create specific benefits (almost always for a PC, almost never for the DM) that are clearly not intended by the person creating the rule.  In this case, we also know from WotC that DM-Rocco's interpretation is that specifically intended by the people creating the rule.

There is some question as to what the word "corpse" means.  To DM-Rocco, myself, and (apparently) WotC, the terms "corpse" implies that there is flesh on those bones.  As for the "of any age," the discovery of a mummified "Ice Man" from prehistoric times in the Alps is a perfect example of how _speak with dead _ could be used to speak with an intact body "of any age."

Spells that supply information are not as "narrow in focus" as Mouseferatu implies.  With a clever caster and access to a body -- even with the limitations supported by DM-Rocco and WotC -- this spell could easily be renamed "find out just about anything."  That's a pretty broad power, especially as dead bodies are not uncommon in most D&D campaigns.  _Speak with dead_ could *easily* be one of the best 3rd level spells around.




			
				numion said:
			
		

> I have a great new idea for DMing in general: When in doubt, SAY YES! The players have fought to advance their characters, let them use the abilities!





According to the oft-spoken rule, the DM is supposed to be impartial.  Now, we all know that this is a crock.      The DM is supposed to be creating an entertaining experience for the players, not for the orcs hidding out in room 38 of the third level of Castle Hackmoore.  Yet, part of creating an entertaining experience is making things difficult for the PCs.  There, I said it.  The DM's job is to avoid making things easy for the PCs.

You know how the PCs are those "special people" who get to weild magic and money so much more than everyone else around them?  Well, they are also the "special people" who have assassins, evil wizards, dragons, and the archlich after them.  And the King's Tax Collector.  And their dog got the flu.  And they just discovered that their castle was built on an old orcish burial ground.  You get the idea.

This is the only way the players fight to advance their characters.

I say to DMs everywhere:  When in doubt, go with your gut instinct.  Then be prepared to be consistent.  Which means, take notes on your rulings.  Then get back to the game.  It's as simple as that.

*(If you need to make it more simple, tell your players when they sit down that what they know about the game is lore that may or may not be accurate, that you can and do change monsters and magic items to fit your vision of the world, and that you control the rules in your game.  Even if you change nothing.  Then you can always remind them that they were warned.)*​
I say to players everwhere:  Your plan didn't work the way you thought it would?  Too bad.  If this was the first time your character ever cast _speak with dead_ (or at least the first time under these circumstances, or in this world), chalk it up to a learning experience.  Then get on with the game.  Because, while the DM is supposed to provide an entertaining experience for _*you*_, the DM gets to expect *you* to provide an entertaining experience as well.  It's a two-way street.  Otherwise, why DM?

*(What I am trying to say here is stop whining.  If you really think this call was such a biggie that it ruined the game, quit and find another DM.  If not, keep your part of the DM/player contract and make the game fun.  If you're a player arguing with the DM because something didn't work the way you hoped it would, based upon a difference in interpretaion of the rules as written, you're in no position to claim that the DM is "rules lawyering"!)​*
I seriously wonder how DM-Rocco's players would fare in my campaign world....?    

RC


----------



## HeavyG (Aug 30, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> I have a great new idea for DMing in general: When in doubt, SAY YES! The players have fought to advance their characters, let them use the abilities!




Hear, hear !

It took me a looooong time to realize that.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 30, 2004)

So far as the spell reads, I'm with Hypersmurf.  Intact is intact.  I see Speak With Dead as the "who killed you, Mr. Boddy?" spell.  It's a way to get some info off a freshly dead guy about his last few moments.

Actually, as far as "intact" goes, I used to run an evil campaign in a city environment that was very legalistic and restrictive.  The players could get away with a lot, so long as they left no evidence.  Evidence like a body with an intact head that could Speak With Dead for the authorities.  So standard operating procedure was for the characters to either remove the heads and chuck them into the sewers, or to smash the heads flat with a special head-smashing mace if they were in a hurry.

I always saw Speak With Dead as a slightly-improved "Miracle Max" trick.
"...truuuuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeellllllllooooooooooovvvvvvvvvvvveeee...."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 30, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So far as the spell reads, I'm with Hypersmurf.




Wait... you are?

I don't even know if _I'm_ with Hypersmurf... I haven't expressed an opinion yet, just asked questions 

-Hyp.


----------



## rkanodia (Aug 30, 2004)

I think your questions tend to come across as Socratic irony, Smurf.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 30, 2004)

Indeed.

How does a skeleton talk without any talking apparatus?  It's like asking it to dance with no legs.


----------



## DemonAtheist (Aug 30, 2004)

i think allowing an intact skeleton to speak is fine, i would say no if it was missing its mandible or too much of its body (like having only a skull woulndt work).  The corpse becomes animated...even tho it has no muscles, why cant it speak without vocal chords?  Its magic after all.  

I would however rule that fresher corpses give better information.  An ages old skeleton might answer with "i think i recall it was somewhere over there, guarded by some magic user", while a fresh cadaver could say "the magic ring was in the castle of the lich"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2004)

DemonAtheist said:
			
		

> i think allowing an intact skeleton to speak is fine, i would say no if it was missing its mandible or too much of its body (like having only a skull woulndt work).  The corpse becomes animated...even tho it has no muscles, why cant it speak without vocal chords?  Its magic after all.





I would hate for the point to get lost:  the question is not, is it okay to allow _speak with dead_ to make a skeleton speak vocally, but rather, is it okay to restrict a skeleton to speaking nonverbally when affected by _sepak with dead_?

I don't think anyone on this thread, DM-Rocco included, would claim that the DM could *not* allow the skeleton to speak vocally, if the DM so ruled from the spell description.  The question was simply, if the DM ruled not, is this somehow wrong?  I believe that the answer is clearly a resounding _*no*_.

Based upon the description of the spell, who determines how the spell works?  The DM or the player casting the spell?  Should the DM revise his ruling because the players started whining when he made it?

Anything else is irrelevent to the original question.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 30, 2004)

Interesting no one has brought up the biggest change from previous editions - namely, removing the rules regarding length of time that the body has been dead as a limitation on the spell.  I had always assumed that the "intact corpse"  bit was meant to imply that the body had to have flesh, and all the parts that would normally be required to make speech.  That then creates a time limitation in terms of how long the body can have been dead - though not an absolute one.

My interpretation is the body must be "fleshy" and must have all the bits that a live person needs to talk - throat, tongue, jaw, lungs, etc.  The arms could be missing, the legs even, but the majority of the torso would have to be there as well as an intact head.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 30, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is some question as to what the word "corpse" means. To DM-Rocco, myself, and (apparently) WotC, the terms "corpse" implies that there is flesh on those bones. As for the "of any age," the discovery of a mummified "Ice Man" from prehistoric times in the Alps is a perfect example of how _speak with dead _could be used to speak with an intact body "of any age."



Whoa whoa whoa! I have to comment on that! You're saying that you can't cast Ressurection on a skeleton!

Morte would be rolling in his grave right now if he were buried. (Planescape: Torment). As would many Intelligent magical items, I suppose.


----------



## uzagi_akimbo (Aug 30, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Indeed.
> 
> How does a skeleton talk without any talking apparatus?  It's like asking it to dance with no legs.




Oh, sorry, but weren't we talking magic and magical effects in a fantasy world ?   How do Shadows float btw ? Or Wraiths pass through walls - or how does a Ghost wail, if he is incorporeal and certainly missing any physcial vocal chords and thorax ? *Because*  its a world that is kept ticking by slightly different rules, laws and universal field theories than the real one perhaps ?
 If I can accept a divine being channeling power through its mortal servants to speak with corpses rather frequently, but flinch at the lack of a thorax to faciliate communication, something smells fishy.... 
The question IMHO ought to  be - is the lack of a voicebox/thorax/throat too much an impedienment for a spell of the 3rd level to overcome or would it be unbalacing to the game if allowed ?

In all honesty - I don't see all that many problems with magic conjuring up a disembodied voice to speak up for the dead body about information the caster is arguably extracting from the cadaverous remains of the deceased ( strikes me - YMMV -  as slightly more difficult then a mere "ghost sound" parlour trick to convey the information )....
So game-effect balancing looks allright from here.

As for the more difficult question of the rules for "Speak with Dead" making sense - taking the WotC email's text verbatim will lead to some massive adjucating problems (not that WotC ever really worried about those) , because if applied universally, a plethora of wounds will preclude the use of the spell. 
E.g. having your throat cut (happens to guards all too often ), torn out (always a favourite way of dispatching by large predators - wolves, lions etc. ), smashed, getting decapitated (be it by bite, blow, blade or guillotine) or even simply having you jaws smashed by some wicked blows. Things like a smashed chest, lungs punctured by bundles of arrows etc etc etc  _ad nauseam_ might prove pretty much of an obstacle, too (no air pressure form those lungs)  - from a medical/physical point of view. But D&D V3.5. is not - or rather "shouldn't be" - a pathology class, right ? Again YMMV.

D&D v3.5 does not support a "hit-location" and "type-of-wound" system, so any description of a wound is an arbitary, unsupported by the rules act by a GM (not that there is anything wrong with that ).  But what *precisely* then makes a corpse a " mostly intact" one ? Personally, as long as the limbs are all there and accounted for, and the body has not been ground to dust or splinters, we have a candidate for "Speak with Dead". Victims of headhunters, things swallowed by dragons, dissolved by green slime, gelantinous cubes, puddings of any colour, taste or size etc need not apply. Or basically, if you can animate it, you can interrogate and cross-examine it.

Besides deep freezing someone (and except for some unlucky alpine tourists, that happens very rarely, mostly to polar explorers ), there is hardly any way to preserve a corpse "intact" (well, do the maggots and other decaying symptoms count - and what knowledge is lost in what way by that , if one wants to stick to high percentage "intact" corpses ?) over any amount of time.  Mummies - it helps taking a good look at mummification processes here - are not really "intact" anymore, once they are ready for the afterlife. Ritual disembowelment, removal of the brain and several other procedures do not really keep a corpse complete.... Other real life mummified corpses like those created through exposure to a dry cold (e.g. Incan mummies, or the more or less famous ice age corpse "Oetzi") are usually pretty much damaged by the environment, including massive shrinking and distortion, abrasion from wind and particles... the works. Intact ?
As for "Moorleichen" corpses, preserved through immersion in oxygen-poor bogs (which keeps them from rotting - but at the same time tans them much like hide is tanned to become leather), the same phenomenon applies - and I sincerly wonder how (and why, in a fantasy campaign ) one would get access to one of those in the first place underneath several feet of peat and bog.

The main troubling question with "Speak with Dead" is - how much does it ruin the plot, if the players cast the spell on a key corpse and ask precisely the right questions ?  And whether they do not deserve the information if they do everything right... 
Keeping such knowledge from players on a technicality like "oh, no thorax, sorry guys, your spell fails" seems like a cheap cop-out to me. If it ruins your plot, be vague, distort things by the corpses prejudices, lack of information  and point of view. As noted in the spell's description - be brief, cryptic and repetitive. Besides, the corpse does usually get a Will-save... which the GM is free to "fudge", in the interest of keeping the plot interesting and fun. YMMV.

As a short-cut solution  - IMC, villains commonly take the head as a trophy, if they are afraid someone may spill the beans (and drop it off some miles away, if the PCs then find and recover it, more power to them ). Oftentimes though , that gesture alone is clue enough to help the players along and in a way, verify their suspicions.


----------



## Gnarlo (Aug 30, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone on this thread, DM-Rocco included, would claim that the DM could *not* allow the skeleton to speak vocally, if the DM so ruled from the spell description.  The question was simply, if the DM ruled not, is this somehow wrong?  I believe that the answer is clearly a resounding _*no*_.
> 
> Based upon the description of the spell, who determines how the spell works?  The DM or the player casting the spell?  Should the DM revise his ruling because the players started whining when he made it?




Well, of course the DM can rule that the spell does or doesn't work a certain way under DM perogative; hell, if he wants to say that Speak with Dead allows someone to fly that's his _right_. But the... mmm... _atmosphere_... of the question (or perhaps the way you're phrasing it) strikes me as of the KODT "DM vs players" theory of gaming; especially the "because the players stated whining" phrase. 

I would be afraid that a DM that stated "woops, sorry boys, the skeleton doesn't have a tounge or larynx, so your speak with dead doesn't work" would be the same DM that would screw me over on the wording of a Wish ("Give me enough gold to last the rest of my life" =  seal me inside of a hollow gold cube and let me suffocate). 

Unless the DM also makes all his skeletons and zombies take the blind fight feat or else fight with a penalty, since they probably don't have eyes, either.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2004)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Whoa whoa whoa! I have to comment on that! You're saying that you can't cast Ressurection on a skeleton!
> 
> Morte would be rolling in his grave right now if he were buried. (Planescape: Torment). As would many Intelligent magical items, I suppose.





Admittedly, I am looking at 3.0 right now, but the wording in that book for _ressurection_ is "any deceased creature" whereas the wording in _speak with dead_ is "a corpse" and animate dead specifies "the bones _*or*_ bodies of dead creatures" (emphasis mine).  Again, it appears that the distinction in WotC is clear.

Lest there be any doubt, _resurrection_ goes on to specify that "The condition of the remains is not a factor.  So long as some small portion of the creature's body exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature's body at the time of death."

Compare this to "...but the body must be mostly intact to bbe able to respond.  A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all."

Clearly, the bodily conditions for _resurrection_ and _speak with dead _ are not even remotely similar, apart from both dealing with dead people.  Equally obviously, this makes your comment specious at best.

You will also note that a partial corpse can give only partially correct, or partial answers.  This seems to imply that the information given resides in the body rather than the spirit of the creature questioned.  One would assume it resides in the creature's brain.  If this is the case, then DM-Rocco's ruling is actually quite generous, as a skeleton has no brain at all!    

Perhaps things are different in 3.5.  Perhaps your book is different than mine.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2004)

uzagi_akimbo said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry, but weren't we talking magic and magical effects in a fantasy world ?   How do Shadows float btw ? Or Wraiths pass through walls - or how does a Ghost wail, if he is incorporeal and certainly missing any physcial vocal chords and thorax ? *Because*  its a world that is kept ticking by slightly different rules, laws and universal field theories than the real one perhaps ?
> 
> If I can accept a divine being channeling power through its mortal servants to speak with corpses rather frequently, but flinch at the lack of a thorax to faciliate communication, something smells fishy....




Yet, you have a hard time accepting a DM ruling that, while they _can_, they do not?  At least not through the use of this spell?




> As a short-cut solution - IMC, villains commonly take the head as a trophy, if they are afraid someone may spill the beans (and drop it off some miles away, if the PCs then find and recover it, more power to them ). Oftentimes though , that gesture alone is clue enough to help the players along and in a way, verify their suspicions.





Why would those same gods flinch at the lack of a head?  Hmmm?  If they can provide a ghostly throat, surely they can provide the rest?  Hell, why do you need the body at all by that reasoning?

As you said above, "it's a world that is kept ticking by slightly different rules, laws and universal field theories."  All limitations on spellcasting are part of those slightly different rules.  None of them has a hard-and-fast reason for being.  They are either what the rules designers felt would have the right "feel" or would work based upon game requirements.

Yes, you should work to give your world versimilitude.  But anyone arguing on the basis of how magic must be limited by real-world physics (such as the post you were responding to) or on what presumably near-omnipotent gods could do if they desired it (which your post seems to do) isn't actually going to resolve anything.  If it works for your campaign, that's all that matters.




RC


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 30, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Without muscles, tendons, ligaments...?  How does it do that?
> 
> -Hyp.




[Doug Henning] It's maaagic!" [/Doug Henning]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2004)

Gnarlo said:
			
		

> Well, of course the DM can rule that the spell does or doesn't work a certain way under DM perogative; hell, if he wants to say that Speak with Dead allows someone to fly that's his _right_. But the... mmm... _atmosphere_... of the question (or perhaps the way you're phrasing it) strikes me as of the KODT "DM vs players" theory of gaming; especially the "because the players stated whining" phrase.





For the record, I have been DMing since Christmas of 1979, so I've been at it for a while.  I have gone both routes, the "when in doubt, say YES" route, and the "when in doubt, do what you think is best" route.  In my experience, the second route has always been better *for both players and DM* in the long run.  Right now, I have a game with eleven players in it, and there are more waiting in the wings, hoping for a chance to play if someone drops out.  This is not DM vs. player.  Rather, making a rules call and then having it immediately questioned _*is*_ players vs. DM.  

While disputes have arisen at my table many, many times, I have undoubtably been blessed with players (including quite young players) who realize that D&D is a co-operative game.  We are *all* working to make it fun.  Consequently, if a dispute arises, it is over very quickly ("Did you consider point A?"  "Yes, sorry, but the ruling stands" or "No, good point, so this happens instead."  "Okay."  End of dispute.) and/or it is about something that relates to the characters in a life-or-death manner (which might last a _little_, but not a _lot_, longer).  Perhaps it is just that I have been lucky with players lo these many years, or perhaps it is because they trust me.    




> I would be afraid that a DM that stated "woops, sorry boys, the skeleton doesn't have a tounge or larynx, so your speak with dead doesn't work" would be the same DM that would screw me over on the wording of a Wish ("Give me enough gold to last the rest of my life" =  seal me inside of a hollow gold cube and let me suffocate).





"You may wish for greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous.  Such a _wish_ gives you the opportunity to fulfill your request without fulfilling it completely.  (The _wish_ may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)  For example, wishing for a _staff of the magi_ might get you instantly transported to the presence of the staff's current owner.  Wishing to be immortal could get you imprisoned in a hidden extradimensional space (as in _imprisonment_), where you could "live" indefinately."

If you expect to spend 5,000 XP to gain access to unlimited wealth, then you can bet that something'll go wrong.  Say D&D isn't meant to emulate literature or folklore if you like, Midas, but the...atmosphere...of the thing is important to me.  How would this wish be rewarded in folklore or mythology?  What would granting the wish the way you want it do to the game?  All the gold you'll ever need is a lot more than a single _staff of the magi_, potentially.  Should the DM screw you over (as you say) or screw the entire game over?

I think you know what my response would be.  Twenty-five years and running.  Never had an empty spot at the table.  Support DM-Rocco's ruling 100%.




> Unless the DM also makes all his skeletons and zombies take the blind fight feat or else fight with a penalty, since they probably don't have eyes, either.





"Most undead have darkvision with a range of 60 feet."

"Pinpoints of red light smoulder in their eyesockets."

From these two lines in the Monster Manual, I would rule that skeletons have darkvision 60 feet.  Usually, if a monster is blind, it is mentioned specifically as a special quality (see Grimlock).

From _animate dead_:  "A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton.  The corpse must have bones (so purple worm skeletons are not allowed).  If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones."  Note again, the distinction between corpse and skeleton, _*consistent throughout the entire product*_.

Really, people, what is the problem here?

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 30, 2004)

> Admittedly, I am looking at 3.0 right now, but the wording in that book for _ressurection_ is "any deceased creature" whereas the wording in _speak with dead_ is "a corpse"



I was thinking more along the lines of "Target: Dead creature touched" but if you're going to make a distinction between a "dead creature" and a "corpse" then I suppose that's your perogative.

EDIT: I do have a question, however. Can intelligent skeletal undead not speak in your games?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2004)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I was thinking more along the lines of "Target: Dead creature touched" but if you're going to make a distinction between a "dead creature" and a "corpse" then I suppose that's your perogative.





(Shrug) 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.     

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.

Of course, again, you're welcome to do whatever you want in your campaign.  We call that "house rules" where I come from.  To make the claim that DM-Rocco cannot do the same, or that his reasoning isn't reasonable, requires a better argument than any I've read in this thread so far.  _Especially_ when you take into consideration that DM-Rocco's ruling is, in fact, the default ruling from WotC.    

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.    




> EDIT: I do have a question, however. Can intelligent skeletal undead not speak in your games?





Actually, I believe that this question (or something similar) was already brought up.  DM-Rocco rightly pointed out that the magic required to create intelligent skeletal undead is much more powerful, and distinct from, the _speak with dead_ spell.  The question is utterly irrelevant.

Certainly, I wouldn't accept the argument that Spell X requires no attack roll because _magic missile_ doesn't.  This line of reasoning seems to be much the same, imho.

But, because you asked, the answer is "it depends".  The Bonewardens, who got their powers from infernal magic, could speak.  Certainly a lich would be able to speak.  An _awaken_ed animated skeleton (could such a thing exist) would not be able to speak, nor could a necromancer make his animated skeletons speak unless he used further magic (such as a _magic mouth_ spell).

In any event, trying to adjudicate magic on the basis of physics, or on the basis of what _could_ happen, is a pointless endeavour.  You either follow the spell description or you do not.  No matter how clever game designers try to be, some of those descriptions will require adjudication.  The DM makes a decision, and, barring a strong reason not to, he ought to stick to it.  That means, stick to it for _everyone_: PC, NPC, and that guy who used to be a PC but never makes it to the game.

Again, I think when you examine the wording of the spell description, this is fairly simple to adjudicate.  _Resurrection_ and _speak with dead _ are not the same.  Very clearly differentiated in their descriptions, as my previous quotes show.

RC


----------



## MerakSpielman (Aug 30, 2004)

One of the things normally required for a person to speak is electrical impulses directed from the brain to the tissue in question...

Believe me, there's no way a dead creature, however fresh, has all the bits required for speech that a alive person does. How can I know this? Because dead people DON'T TALK. 

Those of you saying that a skeliton can't talk and a fleshy corpse can are doing little more than drawing a very arbitrary line in the dirt. MAGIC can make the corpse breath and make words, but only if the vocal cords haven't decomposed? Why is that? Why can't MAGIC make a dead person talk even if they don't have vocal cords? Can you neutralize the spell by removing the tongue? Cutting the throat? Punching a few holes in the lungs? If a person died from inhaling chlorine gas, can Speak with Dead talk to him (certain important bits have been disolved, after all)?

I find it far more reasonable, in a MAGIC world, that the spell handles all that. If the corpse in question is reasonably intact, the magic finds a way to allow it to speak. If it's a pile of bones, then the magic is doing a bit more work than if it's a freshly-dead dude.

My major beef with SwD is that, other than the Will save, the corpse is magically bound to answer any question honestly. 

"I'll never tell you where your friend is imprisoned!" 
Player makes a Diplomacy check, offers a bribe, and it all fails. 
So they just kill the guy and interrogate him. If he makes his Will save, just try again until he fails.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 30, 2004)

> _Especially_ when you take into consideration that DM-Rocco's ruling is, in fact, the default ruling from WotC.



Yeah... WotC support actually doesn't have much credibility. Email them again and you might get a different answer depending on who your email ends up with. And the Sage? Maybe he used to know what he was talking about. Does Skip even write that anymore or do they just throw his name on it and claim he writes it, anyway? Because, if he does, then maybe he needs to spend a little more time with the rules that he himself helped to write.

Just a slight rant. Has no bearing on the actual discussion, sorry.


----------



## uzagi_akimbo (Aug 30, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yet, you have a hard time accepting a DM ruling that, while they _can_, they do not?  At least not through the use of this spell?




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. 





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why would those same gods flinch at the lack of a head?  Hmmm?  If they can provide a ghostly throat, surely they can provide the rest?  Hell, why do you need the body at all by that reasoning?
> 
> As you said above, "it's a world that is kept ticking by slightly different rules, laws and universal field theories."  All limitations on spellcasting are part of those slightly different rules.  None of them has a hard-and-fast reason for being.  They are either what the rules designers felt would have the right "feel" or would work based upon game requirements.
> 
> ...




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  communication

And, 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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> Those of you saying that a skeliton can't talk and a fleshy corpse can are doing little more than drawing a very arbitrary line in the dirt.





If that was what the spell did, then obviously it could do that.  Unfortunately, in this case, the DM clearly ruled (based upon the spell description) that this is not what the spell does.  The line is not arbitrary, excepting the decisions made by the game design staff, and it was drawn in the dirt prior to the release of 3.0.

Simply put, DM-Rocco correctly discerned the intent of the game designers, as was confirmed by Wizards of the Coast.

You can house rule that _speak with dead_ makes skeletons talk.  No harm done there.  But _going by the rules as written_, and as confirmed by WotC, _speak with dead_ doesn't make skeletons talk for the same reason that _burning hands_ doesn't grant wishes:  not because a spell cannot grant wishes, but because that is not what _burning hands_ does.

Real world physics, and the possibilities of what magic _*can*_ do, are both irrelevant.

RC

*EDIT:*




> My major beef with SwD is that, other than the Will save, the corpse is magically bound to answer any question honestly.
> 
> "I'll never tell you where your friend is imprisoned!"
> Player makes a Diplomacy check, offers a bribe, and it all fails.
> So they just kill the guy and interrogate him. If he makes his Will save, just try again until he fails.





Hey, if you want to get into the "magic in 3.X is way overpowered" discussion, I'm right there with you.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 30, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> [Doug Henning] It's maaagic!" [/Doug Henning]




See, I'd been hoping for that response _within an hour_ or so, so I could reply with "Ahhhh."

But it sort of loses its impact several days later 

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2004)

uzagi_akimbo said:
			
		

> 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.






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.




> 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.






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?




> 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.






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.





> And, 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" ?






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.  *​




> 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.  <snip>  I offered it as a piece of possible advice to the initial poster, no more, no less.






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.

RC

P.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


----------



## MerakSpielman (Aug 30, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Simply put, DM-Rocco correctly discerned the intent of the game designers, as was confirmed by Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> You can house rule that _speak with dead_ makes skeletons talk. No harm done there. But _going by the rules as written_, and as confirmed by WotC, _speak with dead_ doesn't make skeletons talk for the same reason that _burning hands_ doesn't grant wishes: not because a spell cannot grant wishes, but because that is not what _burning hands_ does.



I don't consider the help emails gotten from WOTC to be official. Hell, ask them the same question 5 different times and you'll get 5 different interpretations.

The spell says "Corpse with mouth." I can point at a skull and say "That is a mouth" with total accuracy, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 30, 2004)

Oh is that all you want? You should have said so more clearly.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Animate Dead
> Necromancy [Evil]
> *Level:* Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4
> *Components:* V, S, M
> ...





EDIT: copy/paste was evil to me


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> I don't consider the help emails gotten from WOTC to be official. Hell, ask them the same question 5 different times and you'll get 5 different interpretations.
> 
> The spell says "Corpse with mouth." I can point at a skull and say "That is a mouth" with total accuracy, as far as I'm concerned.





If you examine the spell descriptions of _animate dead_, _speak with dead_, and _resurrection_, as I did much earlier in this thread, you'll notice that, within the rules, the terms "corpse" and "skeleton" are not synonomous.  It is quite clear that a "corpse" includes soft tissue.  Within the _animate dead_ spell description, a corpse can be animated to become a skeleton, but it has to slough off its flesh to do so.  Conversely, a skeleton cannot be animated to become a zombie.

At this point, it becomes a question of semantics.

I don't think that there is any confusion within the rules themselves, as written.  I would be more than happy for a more complete answer from WotC.  Perhaps over the course of examining the rules human error does creep in, but I don't think "ask them the same question 5 different times and you'll get 5 different interpretations" is either fair or accurate.

You are, of course, perfectly correct in houseruling anything you think is fair.  No problem with that whatsoever.

Otherwise, so far as I can see, there are a number of possible arguments here:

*(1)  Argue by authority:  Someone wrote the rules, and should therefore presumably be an authority as to what they mean.*

Response:  Sorry, I only accept that argument when it upholds my position.​
*(2)  Argue by what physics suggests is possible:  No mouth (or tongue or whatever), therefore no talking.*

Response:  Dead guy, therefore no talking.​
*(3)  Argue by what the spell description says the spell does:  Not an intact corpse, therefore no talking.*

Responses:

A.  But magic can do anything, so this spell should do what I want it to.

Good luck finding a DM who'll agree with this argument.​
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.

(2)  By connotation, if not by denotation, the term "corpse" implies flesh.​
C.  Who are you to say what is a corpse or isn't?

(1)  The definitions are implied in the rules.  See _animate dead_ and _resurection_ for example.  So, this isn't really simply *my* decision, but even if it were, 

(2)  Refer to Rule 0 in your _Player's Handbook_.​
Is there any part of this argument that I've missed?

Is there any response to the points I've raised, apart from what amounts to essentially "but that's not the way I want it to work"?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2004)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Oh is that all you want? You should have said so more clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Now allow me to cut and paste from my previous response to...why, to YOU!

*(Shrug) 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.​*
_*EDIT:  This is no different from having a spell target "creature touched" and then specify in its description that the spell does not affect oozes.  One would not claim that it affects oozes because it does not exclude them in the summary data.  Moreover, the description may include targets or effects that are not listed in the summary data, as we all know.*_

Yes, _*if*_ you assume that the summary data in the spell listing is a full account of the spell, *then* you have provided a counter example.  However, as the detailed description includes all of the following statments in red, I am not surprised that you failed to quote it:

This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands.

The bones or bodies?  What is this?  Surely bones *are* bodies!​
Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.  

How can a skeleton be made from a corpse if they are the same thing?  What's the difference between the two?  Why the flesh on the bones!​
Zombies: A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a true anatomy.

Wait a second...where have I heard that "mostly intact corpse" phrase from before?  Perhaps I am thinking of "You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond" from _speak with dead_!​
But, then, you already know this because it's been previously pointed out, right?  So how is this a counter example?

RC


p.s.:  It's easy to make an argument if your goal isn't discovery of the truth.  All you have to do is throw out anything, no matter what, that seems to support your position.  And make sure you avoid responding to anything that directly refutes what you've thrown out.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2004)

The last couple of posts might seem a little...antagonistic.  If so, I apologize.

As I said before, I'll be happy to concede that, at the very least, WotC is using an "obviously leaky, incomplete and self-contradicting definition and idea", as uzagi_akimbo put it.  But the responses thus far do not contain cognizant arguments to that point.  Nor do they address the seperation between the terms "corpse" and "skeleton" in the rules, which I believe I have more than amply demonstrated.

What the rules say may not be what the rules *should* say.  WotC's version of the _speak with dead_ spell is not objectively superior to anyone else's version, interpretation, or houseruling.  However, it _is_ what the rules say, the definitions _are_ internally consistent.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2004)

Shakespeare said "Brevity is the soul of wit."  I suppose I should also apologize for being rather souless up there.

RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 31, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton.




Of course, given that only "one or more corpses touched" are valid targets for the spell, you can't actually use _Animate Dead_ to create a skeleton from a mostly-intact skeleton.

You'd have to use something else that can target skeletons as well as "one or more corpses touched".

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Of course, given that only "one or more corpses touched" are valid targets for the spell, you can't actually use _Animate Dead_ to create a skeleton from a mostly-intact skeleton.
> 
> You'd have to use something else that can target skeletons as well as "one or more corpses touched".
> 
> -Hyp.




(Shrug) 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.

This is no different from having a spell target "creature touched" and then specify in its description that the spell does not affect oozes. One would not claim that it affects oozes because it does not exclude them in the summary data. Moreover, the description may include targets or effects that are not listed in the summary data, as we all know.

RC


EDIT:

_Animate objects_ has its target as "Objects or matter, 1 cu. ft./level" and it has no save.  Does this mean that I can use it to control Bob the Necromancer?  No, because in the descriptive text it says "You imbue inanimate objects wioth mobility and a semblance of life."

_Awaken_ has its target as "Animal or tree touched."  Can I use it to awaken a non-tree plant?  I would say yes, because the descriptive text, "Awakened plants gain the ability to move through their limbs, roots, vines, creepers, etc., and have senses similar to a human's," implies non-tree plants as well (trees do not have vines and creepers which are actually part of themselves).

_Bless water_ has its target as "Flask of water touched."  Does the water have to be in a flask?  I would say no, because the quantity a flask represents (1 pint) is listed in the descriptive text.

The "targets" section of _calm animals_ doesn't specify whether or not the creatures calmed have to be all the same species.  The descriptive text does.  Do the creatures all have to be one species?

The desriptive text of chain lightning states specifically "You can choose to affect fewer secondary targets than the maximum (to avoid allies in the area, for example)."  

Doesn't the descriptive text, _*where it adds more detail*_, trump the summary data?  

Is there any doubt whatsoever that this is the case with _animate dead_?

Weren't you fully aware of this when you posted your question?

RC


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 31, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is no different from having a spell target "creature touched" and then specify in its description that the spell does not affect oozes. One would not claim that it affects oozes because it does not exclude them in the summary data.




Not at all.  One would claim that it doesn't affect rocks because they are invalid targets.  One would claim that it doesn't affect oozes because the spell states it doesn't affect oozes.

Likewise, one would claim that Animate Dead doesn't affect skeletons because they are invalid targets.  One would claim that Animate Dead doesn't affect the corpse of an ooze because the spell description states that bones or 'an anatomy' are required.

When a spell is cast on an invalid target, the spell has no effect.

If skeletons are not corpses, they are an invalid target.

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Likewise, one would claim that Animate Dead doesn't affect skeletons because they are invalid targets.  One would claim that Animate Dead doesn't affect the corpse of an ooze because the spell description states that bones or 'an anatomy' are required.
> 
> When a spell is cast on an invalid target, the spell has no effect.
> 
> ...





(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.    

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


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 31, 2004)

Here's what I don't get:

If _speak with dead_ doesn't allow the questioning of skeletons, then, well, why does the spell even allow skeletons as a valid target?  Why, in the description, does it consistently refer to the target "corpse," yet clearly allow for the spell to target -- efficacy aside -- a skeleton?

Consistency of the usage of the word "corpse" throughout the rest of 3.5E  aside, it's extremely clear that in the description of _speak with dead_, at least, "skeleton" is a sub-category of "corpse."


Jeff

P.S.  Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep."
Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man / But will they come when you do call for them?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> Here's what I don't get:
> 
> If _speak with dead_ doesn't allow the questioning of skeletons, then, well, why does the spell even allow skeletons as a valid target?  Why, in the description, does it consistently refer to the target "corpse," yet clearly allow for the spell to target -- efficacy aside -- a skeleton?
> 
> Consistency of the usage of the word "corpse" throughout the rest of 3.5E  aside, it's extremely clear that in the description of _speak with dead_, at least, "skeleton" is a sub-category of "corpse."





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 _speak with dead_ 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 _speak with dead_.

RC

P.S.:  Thank you for a clear and answerable post!

P.P.S.:  I had mentioned making a revised version of the _speak with dead _ spell.  Now I am thinking we could use, perhaps, two versions:  _speak with dead_, which does what the current spell does, and _commune with dead_, which would actually contact the spirits of the dead.  What do you think?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2004)

double post.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 31, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The response from WotC clearly indicated that a skeleton was not a corpse.




I agree that's what WotC said.  WotC is wrong, by the spell listing itself.

The target of 3.5 _speak with dead_ 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 _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_?  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 _speak with dead_ 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 _speak with dead_, 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, _includes_ 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 _isn't_ included: a severed arm, _avec_ flesh or not, is _not_ a "corpse" or "dead creature."  An undead creature, skeletal or not, is _not_ a "corpse" or "dead creature."  A pile of cremains is _not_ a "corpse" or "dead creature."

A "skeleton," on the other hand, is, by the unambiguous spell listing.  An intact skeleton, for the purposes of _speak with dead_ is an "intact corpse," since, for purposes of _speak with dead_, "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."



> 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.




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.



> 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.  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.




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 _fireball_ is an evocation.  Limiting _speak with dead_ 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.



> A lot of this stuff requires the DM to make rulings, and then stick with those rulings.




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.



> 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 _speak with dead_.




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 _speak with dead_.  The truth is the exact opposite ... since "skeletons" aren't _excluded_ from the "dead creatures" that the spell works on, they're a valid and workable target.



> P.S.:  Thank you for a clear and answerable post!




Thanks.  You, too, although I'm really not entirely sure we're doing anything worthy of special gratitude.



> P.P.S.:  I had mentioned making a revised version of the _speak with dead _ spell.  Now I am thinking we could use, perhaps, two versions:  _speak with dead_, which does what the current spell does, and _commune with dead_, which would actually contact the spirits of the dead.  What do you think?




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


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 3, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> I agree that's what WotC said.  WotC is wrong, by the spell listing itself.
> 
> 
> The target of 3.5 _speak with dead_ 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.




A human skeleton is a _*part*_ of a dead creature, in the same way that a a severed arm is a part of a dead creature.  But that is neither here nor there, because D&D 3.X uses "dead creature" as a sort of cover-all for a number of things, including severed arms, severed fingers, a single bone, a lock of hair, and even the residue from a _disintegrate_ spell.

There are several spells that target one dead creature (or, more properly, "dead creature touched"); in all of these cases, the descriptive text clarifies just how much of the creature must remain.  Examining _raise dead_, _resurrection_, _true resurrection_, and _speak with dead_ should verify that a spell which targets a "dead creature" has a large range of actual targets, depending upon the spell.

If you had asked your question about, say, _raise dead_, rather than _speak with dead_, the target would be essentially the same.  _Raise dead_ reads, in part, "While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life. None of the dead creature’s equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell."

If a skeleton is a valid target for _raise dead_, yet _raise dead_ cannot actually produce any results from a skeleton, then _why_ is a skeleton a valid target for _raise dead_?  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 _raise dead_ as "one corpse"?

You are indeed adding weight to the argument that WotC could have been more careful in its phraseology, however.




> (BTW, in plain English, a "skeleton" is most certainly also a "corpse.")





Corpse:  A dead body. esp. of a person.

Body:  The whole physical structure and substance of a man, animal, or plant.

Skeleton:  The hard framework of an animal body for supporting the tissues and protecting the organs; specif., all the bones collectively, or the bony framework, of a human being or other vertebrate animal.

These are the relevant definitions from the _New World Dictionary of the American Language_, second college edition, published by Simon and Schuster in 1984.

If a corpse is a dead body, and a body is the whole physical structure, by definition a corpse cannot be a _portion_ of the physical structure.  Under normal parlance, for example, a hand is not a corpse.  

Obviously, as with all language, there is a degree of "fudge factor" in every definition.  This is because words are defined not by actual objects, but by the relationship between objects and speakers.  One speaks of a "headless body," for example, or a "bloodless corpse" without apparent dichotomy.  This is because our relationship with the remains allows us to decide that this is, or this is not, a body.  Essentially, we decide how much can be missing before a "dead creature" is just a particular part or group of parts of a dead creature.  In general, the majority of a body, including at least part of most subsystems of that body, must be present for most people to conclude that they are seeing a corpse rather than, say, a hank of hair, a head, an eye, a large intestine, or a skeleton.

For most purposes, a head is not a dead creature.  On the evening news, the anchor would surely say "A head was found today," rather than "A bodiless corpse was found today."  Likewise, I can think of no example in common parlance, in literature, or elsewhere, where a skeleton is referred to as a corpse.  A head is sufficient to qualify as a "dead creature" for _resurrection_ in the D&D game, however.  It is not sufficient to qualify for _raise dead_.  A mostly intact corpse is required for _speak with dead_.

In the case of most of the aforementioned spells, having been turned into an undead creature precludes the use of the spell, even if the undead creature is a corpse (such as a zombie), or has previously been an undead creature and is now an inanimate corpse.  This is not the same as claiming that a zombie (or former zombie) is *not* a corpse.

A pile of cremains is a "dead creature" though not a corpse for the purpose of casting _resurrection_ or _true resurrection_, btw.




> The mistake you're making is in thinking that the exclusion of the word "skeleton" helps establish that skeletons don't work with _speak with dead_.  The truth is the exact opposite ... since "skeletons" aren't _excluded_ from the "dead creatures" that the spell works on, they're a valid and workable target.





No, I am thinking that spell affects a mostly intact corpse because that is what the spell description says:

"You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. 

This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned."​



> Thanks.  You, too, although I'm really not entirely sure we're doing anything worthy of special gratitude.





There's a huge difference between arguing on the basis of "That's not what I want it to do," and having an argument that can be accepted or refuted on the basis of logic and/or rules interpretation.  Whether or not you come to an agreement, at least a logical argument can cause you to examine the topic in a new light.

Obviously, for the purposes of this discussion, the most relevant piece of information upon which there is no agreement is the definition of the term "corpse," particularly as it pertains to the D&D 3.X game.

I think that I have demonstrated ad infinitum ad nauseum that, at the very least, within the context of the 3.X rules the term "skeleton" is not synonomous with the term "corpse".  I would further argue that a skeleton is a portion of a corpse, not a subset of the term.

I do appreciate the argument you made, though, because it is clear that if you accept "skeleton" as a subset of "corpse", then your argument is correct.  I hope that I have been clear, in this post and others, why I do not accept that premise.  

In general, your premise depends upon an acceptance of the "target" portion of the spell description being full and accurate.  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.  In all cases, where the descriptive text adds more detail to the information in the summary data, including where it places restrictions or removes limitations on said data, the descriptive text takes priority.

Although WotC has made some effort to keep the summary descriptions of spells clear and accurate, one can easily examine the descriptions of the spells in this thread to demonstrate that there are places where Wizards dropped the ball.  I think, however, that given the information in the more detailed spell description, most spells are simple enough to adjudicate.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2004)

I imagine at this point that the subject has been done to death.  Since I mentioned it earlier, I would like to submit the following, which you may use as you will.  In fact, I grant blanket rights unconditionally to consider the following OGC:


*Speak with Dead* (Revised Version)
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: 10 ft.
Target: One corpse
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: No

You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The corpse’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any). Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.

If the corpse has been subject to _speak with dead_ within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. 

This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned.

A corpse is defined as a dead body, and for this spell must be mostly intact to be able to respond.  These means that, at the very minimum, there must be a head, and sufficient bodily tissue for an animate dead spell to turn the corpse into a zombie.   A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature.​
(NOTE:  All revisions and editions are in yellow green for clarity.  The line, "A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all" was moved, but not altered.)



*Commune with Dead*
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 hour
Range: Touch
Target: Dead creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

By touching the remains of a deceased creature, you are able to commune with its departed soul, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it. You may ask one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The soul’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any), and the condition of the soul in the afterlife (including knowledge of the plane to which the soul has been consigned).

The soul is able to answer as though it were alive, although answers may be brief or cryptic, depending upon the nature of the questions asked.  Although the soul is compelled to answer, in general, most souls that have gone on to planes with the "evil" descriptor are more interested in their torment than in the questions they are asked.  Petitioners to some planes may lose the memory of their mortal lives; these souls may, however, answer questions about their current plane of existence.

If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, or was antagonistic to you during life, the soul gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.  Even if this check fails, the soul is allowed to attempt Bluff checks to give misleading answers.

If the remains have been subject to _commune with dead_ within the past week, the new spell fails. You can cast this spell on remains that have been deceased for any amount of time, and the body need not be intact.  Even a single fingerbone is enough to allow _commune with dead_ to be cast.

Unlike _speak with dead_, the recipient of a _commune with dead_ can remember being questioned, including knowledge of who the questioner was, and the memory of previous questionings may color the answers given by subsequent castings.

This spell does not affect remains that have been turned into an undead creature.  Further, it does not affect remains whose soul has turned into an undead creature (such as a ghost), or whose soul has been somehow destroyed.​

Hope someone gains some use from these.

RC


----------



## uzagi_akimbo (Sep 7, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I imagine at this point that the subject has been done to death.  Since I mentioned it earlier, I would like to submit the following, which you may use as you will.  In fact, I grant blanket rights unconditionally to consider the following OGC:
> 
> 
> *Speak with Dead* (Revised Version)
> ...




Great work RC. Now, lets cross fingers and hope silently, if intensely (adding a sacrificial goat here and there for good benefit  /jk ) that someone at WotC takes up the ball and runs with it, for a workable spell to end campaign specific house-rules. If the boards can do it, so should WotC.


----------



## uzagi_akimbo (Sep 7, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I imagine at this point that the subject has been done to death.  Since I mentioned it earlier, I would like to submit the following, which you may use as you will.  In fact, I grant blanket rights unconditionally to consider the following OGC:
> 
> 
> *Speak with Dead* (Revised Version)
> ...




Great work RC. Now, lets cross fingers and hope silently, if intensely (adding a sacrificial goat here and there for good benefit  /jk ) that someone at WotC takes up the ball and runs with it, for a workable spell to end campaign specific house-rules. If the boards can do it, so should WotC.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2004)

uzagi_akimbo said:
			
		

> Great work RC. Now, lets cross fingers and hope silently, if intensely (adding a sacrificial goat here and there for good benefit  /jk ) that someone at WotC takes up the ball and runs with it, for a workable spell to end campaign specific house-rules. If the boards can do it, so should WotC.




Thanks.  Use it if you want to.  Ignore it if you want to.  Anyone who wants to throw it into a project is free to do so.


RC


----------



## Rel (Sep 8, 2004)

I'm chiming in VERY late, so I'll make this brief:

My ruling would have been to allow the spell to work on the skeleton and then to have spoken without using my tongue when roleplaying the skeleton's response.  We'd have had the fun of the spell working combined with the fun of the players trying to understand my grunting responses.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

Dang, I didn't know that my little thread had gained in such a fashion. Special thanks to Raven Crownking for standing up to the pack of hungry players.





			
				MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> I don't consider the help emails gotten from WOTC to be official. Hell, ask them the same question 5 different times and you'll get 5 different interpretations.
> 
> The spell says "Corpse with mouth." I can point at a skull and say "That is a mouth" with total accuracy, as far as I'm concerned.



You really have to be kidding me with this one. A corpse has a mouth, a 5,000 year old skeleton does not. If you look at a skeleton and see a mouth, then you need glasses.

A skeleton has a jaw bone at most, most of the debate came from the fact that a mouth needs at least lips and a throat to be considered a mouth. Yes, undead can speak, if they have Intelligence, like vampires, liches and the like, but non intelligent undead can't speak, like skeletons and zombies. Zombies might moan, but skeletons make no noise what-so-ever. (clarification for you Liberals out there, yes, if they walk over a creaky floor board they make noise, I mean they can't speak)

Why? You could say that it is because they are dumb, or that they have no vocal cords, or that magic didn't work that way for them, but if you did, you would be reading to much into it. 

I did love the people who replied that they always follow what the DM says and then in the next paragraph say that this DM, being me, was wrong.

The sad thing is that the player didn't even try to make an attempt to even try and communicate with the dead. So the spell didn't work as intended, so what. If you cast a fireball for 10d6 damage and you roll all 1s and the enemies make their saving throw, so the hoard of 11 hit point Orcs only take ten damage, what do you do? Do you A) whine and moan that the game sucks, B) blame the DM for your misfortune, C) throw out your dice, D) get mad at WOTC for making rules that cap a fireball at 10D6 and piss and moan about it to everyone who will listen or E) cast another one?

As a DM you can't go through all spells and hand out a sheet saying that this spell and that spell doesn't work as you want it too. Most players meta game around knowing how all spells work and build their character accordingly. So, why get mad when I decide that the spell works exactly as it is stated. Also, for the person who commented that I would try to kill a player for casting a wish, if I was so mean on a simple speak with dead spell, you are mistaken.

I am more than fair on high level magic. Yes, I will seek a way to thwart your wish if you say, 'I wish for the power of Elminster' or 'I wish for the staff of Asmodeos,' but if you follow the guidelines in the book, I offer great leway. 

Bottomline, I was the DM making a ruling and I am sticking by it. I have my style of play and if he really didn't like it, he would drop out. He has, however, remained in the game, in fact, he is the one who always shows up, so as a DM, I must be doing something right.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 9, 2004)

DM-Rocco - recall the 'No Politics' rule we have around here.

An edit would be appreciated.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Yeah... WotC support actually doesn't have much credibility. Email them again and you might get a different answer depending on who your email ends up with. And the Sage? Maybe he used to know what he was talking about. Does Skip even write that anymore or do they just throw his name on it and claim he writes it, anyway? Because, if he does, then maybe he needs to spend a little more time with the rules that he himself helped to write.
> 
> Just a slight rant. Has no bearing on the actual discussion, sorry.



So, hmm, if you are such an expert, why haven't you either taken over the job at WOTC for answering these questions or made your own gaming system by now. And the answer is, because you don't know the answer either. Don't criticize WOTC reps for conflicting answers if you don't know yourself. You are not so high and mighty that you have all the answers, otherwise, there would be a article in Dragon Magazine called, 'Ask The Third Wizard', but there isn't.

As a DM we have to make tough calls at times in the interest of balance, and so do they.  The rules leave a lot of room for interpretation, as we all know, and they do their best, as do I, as do you, as do we all.  However, if you can't, don't or won't even take the answers from WOTC as a partail or whole truth, then what are you playing for.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> One of the things normally required for a person to speak is electrical impulses directed from the brain to the tissue in question...
> 
> Believe me, there's no way a dead creature, however fresh, has all the bits required for speech that a alive person does. How can I know this? Because dead people DON'T TALK.
> 
> ...



Your argument if flawed in this respect.  The SPELL, not the DM, says that you need an intact mouth.  You show me a 5,000 year old skeleton with a mouth and I will show you a partial or intact corpse, not a skeleton, which this was.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> I don't consider the help emails gotten from WOTC to be official. Hell, ask them the same question 5 different times and you'll get 5 different interpretations.
> 
> The spell says "Corpse with mouth." I can point at a skull and say "That is a mouth" with total accuracy, as far as I'm concerned.



Hey, see reply above to similar post.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> I don't consider the help emails gotten from WOTC to be official. Hell, ask them the same question 5 different times and you'll get 5 different interpretations.
> 
> The spell says "Corpse with mouth." I can point at a skull and say "That is a mouth" with total accuracy, as far as I'm concerned.



Oh, and you and the Third Wizard don't have a leg to stand on since you have not emailed them about this to ask them.  If you and four others email WOTC and get different answers and then post them here, then you may have a right to make that statement, but you didn't, so you don't.  It doesn't matter if you tried this on another topic, it was not this topic.

Even if you do this, which you most likely won't, then see above where I address the Thrid Wizard.  Don't like tough medicine, too bad.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> Here's what I don't get:
> 
> If _speak with dead_ doesn't allow the questioning of skeletons, then, well, why does the spell even allow skeletons as a valid target? Why, in the description, does it consistently refer to the target "corpse," yet clearly allow for the spell to target -- efficacy aside -- a skeleton?
> 
> ...



It also states that the corpse needs a mouth.  See above for witty reply.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I imagine at this point that the subject has been done to death. Since I mentioned it earlier, I would like to submit the following, which you may use as you will. In fact, I grant blanket rights unconditionally to consider the following OGC:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See, this is all I wanted.  Good job on the spells.  If it would have been written like this, I wouldn't have had to post on this thread.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> I agree that's what WotC said. WotC is wrong, by the spell listing itself.
> 
> The target of 3.5 _speak with dead_ 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.



I don't agree, but let's go on anyway.


			
				wilder_jw said:
			
		

> 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_? 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 _speak with dead_ as "one corpse"?
> 
> ...



From the plain english Webster's dictionary - skeleton- the hard framework of bones of an animal body, a supporting framework, an outline, as of a book
Corpse-a dead body of a person

they are not the same thing.  If you have frame of a house, it is not the same as a house, just as a jaw bone is not a mouth, just the frame work


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

Sorry hyp, didn't mean to get political.  Fixed it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 9, 2004)

> So, hmm, if you are such an expert, why haven't you either taken over the job at WOTC for answering these questions or made your own gaming system by now. And the answer is, because you don't know the answer either. Don't criticize WOTC reps for conflicting answers if you don't know yourself. You are not so high and mighty that you have all the answers, otherwise, there would be a article in Dragon Magazine called, 'Ask The Third Wizard', but there isn't.



I don't have to be able to play an instrument to know when someone is flat. I don't have to be able to make my own RPG system to know when a help line contradicts themselves repeatedly. Skip helped create D&D 3E, does that mean I think everything he says is correct? Actually, I don't even read the FAQ or Sage Advice anymore. It's just that bad. The Rules of the Game articles are all right, but there are still problems with them.



> As a DM we have to make tough calls at times in the interest of balance, and so do they. The rules leave a lot of room for interpretation, as we all know, and they do their best, as do I, as do you, as do we all. However, if you can't, don't or won't even take the answers from WOTC as a partail or whole truth, then what are you playing for.



I'm playing to have fun, as I think we all are. I agree that there are tough calls, and that my interprietation of some rules are probably going to be different than others' interprietations, but that's still no reason for me to trust the WotC help line. Personally I've never used it, and I never will. I find discussions on these boards to be much more beneficial.



> Oh, and you and the Third Wizard don't have a leg to stand on since you have not emailed them about this to ask them. If you and four others email WOTC and get different answers and then post them here, then you may have a right to make that statement, but you didn't, so you don't. It doesn't matter if you tried this on another topic, it was not this topic.



I believe emailing four identical emails to WotC would be somehow improper. The employees arn't paid to settle quabbles on this board, and even if I don't trust them, I'm not looking to make their job more difficult than it already is.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 9, 2004)

Well third wizard, I find that these boards help more often than not, but I humble myself to not only asking on this forum but also the WOTC help line.  I have not seen such contradictions as you describe, however, I am willing to bet that they do make mistakes.  I also happen to think that they have a better chance of being correct than a bunch of people who have nothing but opinions to offer.

Of course I value these opinions, otherwise I wouldn't have asked for them, but I must decide what is best for my game and when an unbiased source gives me an answer, I am more apt to go by that source.  People who respond to these post try to give answers that are helpful, and they are for the most part, but when you get a statement like "you should always give in to the players because they have worked hard to get where they are" I have to say, no, they got there because of structure, good role playing and a bit of die luck.  Following that line of thinking, a player could wish for a million gold, and since they worked hard to get where they are, I should just give it to them, I don't think so.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 9, 2004)

That's fine, I never said that. If they make that Wish, I simply point out that it is beyond the power of the spell as defined in its (very clear) description and tell them to mark away the xp cost from their character sheets.

You'd be much more likely to convince me that Speak With Dead cannot be cast on a skeleton than you ever would of convincing me that CustServ has credibility.


----------



## HeavyG (Sep 10, 2004)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> but when you get a statement like "you should always give in to the players because they have worked hard to get where they are"




Assuming you are referring to Numion's statement, that's not what he said. He said :




			
				Numion said:
			
		

> When in doubt, SAY YES! The players have fought to advance their characters, let them use the abilities!




It doesn't mean :
Player : "Does my spell work to do X ?"
DM : "I don't think it's supposed to, but yes sure whatever !"

It means :
Player : "Does my spell work to do X ?"
DM : *checks* *isn't sure* "Ah hell, sure, why not ?"

as opposed to 

Player : "Does my spell work to do X ?"
DM : *checks* *isn't sure* *had not thought of the PCs using this to get ahead* "Nope."


If a player's request immediately strikes you are unreasonable or if you're pretty sure that a player's interpretation of the rules is wrong, you should put your foot down and refuse, but if you're not sure whether or not that's supposed to work, why not let it work ?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2004)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Dang, I didn't know that my little thread had gained in such a fashion. Special thanks to Raven Crownking for standing up to the pack of hungry players.





And a special "you're welcome" in return.

RC


P.S.:  After reading through the rest of these posts, I decided to go back, edit, and add.

First off, DM-Rocco, don't sweat the help.  I was happy to do it.  However, I can see where some of the other posters are coming from.  I do think that the rule was fairly clear, and that your ruling was correct.  However, had WotC written the spell more clearly, I doubt that this thread would ever have come up.  Of course, you've already noted that.

Seemed some of your posts were a bit...angry.      While I don't know what's going on in your game right now, I'd actually hoped that your group had moved on from the _speak with dead_ question by now.  I would have thought that just the diehards who actually enjoy these kinds of things would still be here!  

The comment about "when in doubt...say YES" is, I still strongly think, a bad idea.  When in doubt, do what seems most reasonable to you.  Otherwise, you simply encourage players to try to make the DM doubt his decisions.  Unless a character's life is on the line, or the decision is so bad that it would ruin the game, once the DM calls it final, it's done.

RC


----------



## Markn (May 9, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well third wizard, I find that these boards help more often than not, but I humble myself to not only asking on this forum but also the WOTC help line.  I have not seen such contradictions as you describe, however, I am willing to bet that they do make mistakes.  I also happen to think that they have a better chance of being correct than a bunch of people who have nothing but opinions to offer.
> 
> Of course I value these opinions, otherwise I wouldn't have asked for them, but I must decide what is best for my game and when an unbiased source gives me an answer, I am more apt to go by that source.  People who respond to these post try to give answers that are helpful, and they are for the most part, but when you get a statement like "you should always give in to the players because they have worked hard to get where they are" I have to say, no, they got there because of structure, good role playing and a bit of die luck.  Following that line of thinking, a player could wish for a million gold, and since they worked hard to get where they are, I should just give it to them, I don't think so.




DM-Rocco, first let me say that I respect you for making a stand on your ruling and by no means am I trying to change your mind.  I just wanted to chime in with a few points of interest...

I for one actually contact WotC on a fairly regular basis.  I find it more informational to call them than email them as speaking is a higher form of communication than email (and by higher form I mean that you get a better idea of the knowledge of the person on the other end and its a 1-800 number so why not...).  As for Speak with Dead I have called them three times and recieved three different answers.  One was yes it will work on a skeleton and one was no it won't and the third was DM's discretion.  Each time there were different levels of knowledge.  One could anwser right away with supporting information, one had to put me on hold to check different sections of the PHB and one I had to lead by the nose to check different sections of the book before he made a full ruling as he wasn't taking everything into account.  In my mind the answer should be DM's discretion from the information gleaned from WotC.

In the adventure path in Dungeon there is a module called Test of the Smoking Eye.  In it, the PC's come across a cleric of Wee Jas that holds a severed head in his hand and is using speak with dead on it.  Now there are several things that you can extrapolate from this.  1 - The ONLY intact portion was the head and so it is the ONLY thing necessary 2 - Since the head is the only thing left, that means the vocal chords have been severed.  From this we can rule out the necessity of vocal chords.  That then begs the question, does one need a tongue or muscles to answer?  From an earlier poster we learn that a tongue is not necessary so then do we need muscle?  In my view, no (since we see instances that rule out physical necessities for living people to speak).  So, no tongue, no muscle, no vocal chords, hell take the body away even - That pretty much leaves a skeletal head.  That should then conclude that a mouth (meaning an upper and lower jaw) is all that is necessary.

In case my position needs to be stated, I am for ruling that speak with dead works on a skeleton.  Besides, as a DM (which I am almost always finding myself in that position), if the answers could potentially ruin the story its not that difficult to 'change' the knowledge of the skeleton/zombie/corpse and thus be unable to answer certain key questions but still reward the PCs with some insight for their foresight in using this to advance the story.  Besides, I think the spell is pretty limited in scope that making it zombie only would likely cause my players to stop memorizing the spell.  And the reverse of allowing them to talk to a skeleton isn't a game breaker either so I am for the latter.  I guess in a nutshell, does it ruin the game if they can speak with a skeleton?  Not in my game anyways so I allow it.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 9, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that the player didn't even try to make an attempt to even try and communicate with the dead. So the spell didn't work as intended, so what. If you cast a fireball for 10d6 damage and you roll all 1s and the enemies make their saving throw, so the hoard of 11 hit point Orcs only take ten damage, what do you do? Do you A) whine and moan that the game sucks, B) blame the DM for your misfortune, C) throw out your dice, D) get mad at WOTC for making rules that cap a fireball at 10D6 and piss and moan about it to everyone who will listen or E) cast another one?




This is just a tad bit different. This is the equivalent of you saying "I put my fireball there" and the DM saying "roll to hit".

"huh? Roll to hit?"

"the book says the fireball could hit a solid body - you have to roll to hit the narrow opening between the orcs"

"You realise they're standing in 5 foot squares, right? That means there's like a 5 foot gap between each orc"

"Hey, I'm just reading what the rules say. Roll to hit"

"Fine, I cast lightning bolt"

Beyond that, Rocco, why did you even post here? It's pretty clear you're not after any genuine discussion - you just want some vindication. And frankly, you're not going to get everyone to agree to your ruling, so you may as well let the thread die.


----------



## blargney the second (May 9, 2005)

On a slightly different note, in traditional chinese medicine memory is associated very strongly with muscles and tendons.

-blarg


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 9, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> In the adventure path in Dungeon there is a module called Test of the Smoking Eye.  In it, the PC's come across a cleric of Wee Jas that holds a severed head in his hand and is using speak with dead on it.  Now there are several things that you can extrapolate from this.  1 - The ONLY intact portion was the head and so it is the ONLY thing necessary 2 - Since the head is the only thing left, that means the vocal chords have been severed.  From this we can rule out the necessity of vocal chords.  That then begs the question, does one need a tongue or muscles to answer?  From an earlier poster we learn that a tongue is not necessary so then do we need muscle?  In my view, no (since we see instances that rule out physical necessities for living people to speak).  So, no tongue, no muscle, no vocal chords, hell take the body away even - That pretty much leaves a skeletal head.  That should then conclude that a mouth (meaning an upper and lower jaw) is all that is necessary.






There have been frequent cases of altering rules to fit an adventure throughout the history of D&D, including in the pages of Dungeon magazine and published modules.  The fact that Dungeon published an adventure that doesn't follow the rules is not evidence that the rules have changed.


RC



EDIT:  And as for the fireball/lightning bolt analogy, the resemblance to what DM Rocco ruled is so remote as to make the analogy useless.  Closer would be a spell that stated a 50 gp ruby as a required focus, and the player having a ruby of unknown value and claiming that it would do.


----------



## Markn (May 9, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There have been frequent cases of altering rules to fit an adventure throughout the history of D&D, including in the pages of Dungeon magazine and published modules.  The fact that Dungeon published an adventure that doesn't follow the rules is not evidence that the rules have changed.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Any chances of providing 3.5 examples?  I have only followed Dungeon for several years and granted they aren't perfect but I haven't seen any examples of mistakes being that flagrant.


----------



## radferth (May 9, 2005)

Sorry to be late to this thread, I just came across.  I think DMR made an innovative ruling, and kudos to Raven for writing up the stats for an old-style speak with dead.  My campaign is in need of such a spell, so I will be making use of it quite soon.  I thought the whole point of rule 0 was so no one would have to spend time arguing RAW.  Of course the whole point of these boards is to have interesting discussions, so I would like to add some other points to consider.  
 I tend to be very strict on "can my spell do this" rulings, but mainly because I have had lots of loophole-seeking players.  That being said, I will ususally allow a player to take a new spell if I totally nerf what he wanted to do.  I use the excuse that the character would have known that limitation, so they would have chosen something different.  Clerics rarely bother to take me up on that, since they can use it for healing anyway.
As for the restrictions on speak with dead, I like that it is a bit vague ("A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all."), so I have a bit more leeway on a spell that grants info to players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 9, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> Any chances of providing 3.5 examples?  I have only followed Dungeon for several years and granted they aren't perfect but I haven't seen any examples of mistakes being that flagrant.





I should be careful to note that, if the head in question does not give full (or fully correct) answers, this might not be an alteration of the rules for _speak with dead_:


You can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. ​

For reference, DM-Rocco's original post says:


I had a player try and cast speak with dead last night and I told him I was going to limit him to yes or no questions because it was a skeleton and didn't have a mouth. The spell says you need a way of communicating with the creature and they must have a mouth, which a skeleton doesn't have, just a jaw and some teeth.​

Which, to me, sounds exactly like what the SRD spell description implies.

If the head in question (Test of the Smoking Eye) can give full/fully correct answers, then this is an example of flagrant rules alterations to match the adventure.  If not, then there is no error at all (in this particular case).  Does the adventure specify?  Or does it assume that the DM knows the rules?

Admittedly, in 3.X, it is much easier to simply make a rules addition.  I.e., adding a new feat, spell, prestige class, etc., allows the adventure writer to do just about anything without violating the rules.  Hence, fewer flagrant errors creep into adventure production.


RC


----------



## Markn (May 9, 2005)

I can truly understand your point of view RC.  It is reasonable to rule the way DM-Rocco did and I respect him for that.  I just disagree.

As far as the Test of the Smoking Eye goes, they don't go into detail as to what the corpse was answering with so I guess whether it is a flagrant violation of the rules or not, it is debatable.  

I just think the key points are: Must have a mouth, must be a corpse, can be a corpse of any length of time (1 minute to 1 billion years - time in this case is not important) and therefore what the corpse is, is not important.  As far as talking goes, you don't need a leg, an arm, a stomach or any of those things.  You really only need a mouth and that is where I base my decision.  As stated before this just doesn't kill the game in any way so why not allow it.  I CAN see how others see the need for vocal chords and a lung and in which case skeletons would be ruled out.  But then I wouldn't even allow yes or no questions.  The spell doesn't say the skeleton can nod his head to answer questions.  Soooo, if he can asnwer yes and no, why can't he speak other words?  There doesn't seem to be any partial answers with skeletons.  Just my 2 cp.


----------



## dcollins (May 10, 2005)

Ah, one of my favorite necromantic spells... _Speak with Dead Thread_.


----------



## Veander (May 10, 2005)

This debate is going back and forth but I just can't get past the idea that those who feel intact mouths will keep one from speaking with the dead, but yet the same spell somehow moves this skeleton around to utilize head shakes and fingers drawn in the dirt.  

I actually don't email WotC email anymore because I find the argument on these things goes on anyways.  If it's in one of their books then it maye settle the debate in one of my groups, but otherwise the emails just haven't proven solid enough.  That might be due to the nature of the beast.  Different reps have different opinions about very subjective rules.  

It is the DM's decision and this DM will always think of Speak with Dead as it's been used in every movie and story I have every enjoyed - a seance.  In fact, I've never had the mouth move in these situations.  The "cold, detached voice eminates from the skeleton (or whatever) in the grave" and the PCs hear the info they need.  I usually speak in a sort of ghostly voice for this sort of role-playing to ham-up the idea that it's a floating, distant voice that comes from the skeleton.  I didn't know people had their skellies sitting up and chatting with this spell.

IMO, as long as the DM is giving the skeleton a way to communicate, I'm happy as a player.  If I was given this "intact" argument at the table, I'd probably have a very puzzled look on my face - though I'd go with it if the DM really wanted that effect.


----------



## moritheil (May 10, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> So, hmm, if you are such an expert, why haven't you either taken over the job at WOTC for answering these questions or made your own gaming system by now. And the answer is, because you don't know the answer either. Don't criticize WOTC reps for conflicting answers if you don't know yourself. You are not so high and mighty that you have all the answers, otherwise, there would be a article in Dragon Magazine called, 'Ask The Third Wizard', but there isn't.
> 
> As a DM we have to make tough calls at times in the interest of balance, and so do they. The rules leave a lot of room for interpretation, as we all know, and they do their best, as do I, as do you, as do we all. However, if you can't, don't or won't even take the answers from WOTC as a partail or whole truth, then what are you playing for.




WOTC's ineptitude, if accepted as a postulate, is indefensible. DMs are not paid at a regular job to rule on these things. WOTC people are. Just because any one DM is incapable of something does not make it OK for WOTC staff to be incapable of the same thing.

(Put another way, perhaps you can't win a case in court, so you go to a lawyer.  If the lawyer fails to win the case for you, is it OK for him to say, "Well, you wouldn't have won anyway, so I don't have to win either?"  It is not; you are paying him to be more skilled at interpreting law than you yourself are.)

Is there some reason you are apparently flame-mongering in this thread? I don't like to point fingers, but you have something like 6-8 responses in a row aimed at an array of people, and very few of them are pleasant in tone.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> I just think the key points are: Must have a mouth, must be a corpse, can be a corpse of any length of time (1 minute to 1 billion years - time in this case is not important) and therefore what the corpse is, is not important.  As far as talking goes, you don't need a leg, an arm, a stomach or any of those things.  You really only need a mouth and that is where I base my decision.  As stated before this just doesn't kill the game in any way so why not allow it.  I CAN see how others see the need for vocal chords and a lung and in which case skeletons would be ruled out.  But then I wouldn't even allow yes or no questions.  The spell doesn't say the skeleton can nod his head to answer questions.  Soooo, if he can asnwer yes and no, why can't he speak other words?  There doesn't seem to be any partial answers with skeletons.  Just my 2 cp.







Recall, please, that magic is not physics.  The information that the dead person can provide is stored in its body, not in any specific part of its body, nor (apparently) in its brain (as a brain is not required).  Apparently, from the spell description, remembering how to speak is stored in the mouth.  Other than that, information can be stored anywhere, and missing body parts thus can cause missing information.


RC


----------



## Markn (May 10, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Recall, please, that magic is not physics.  The information that the dead person can provide is stored in its body, not in any specific part of its body, nor (apparently) in its brain (as a brain is not required).  Apparently, from the spell description, remembering how to speak is stored in the mouth.  Other than that, information can be stored anywhere, and missing body parts thus can cause missing information.
> 
> 
> RC




I agree with your first line - magic is not physics - thus physical aspects of the body (other than a mouth) are not required.  Remember, the spell calls upon imprinted knowledge of that person.  How that is tied to a body part makes zero sense to me.  How do you account for age of a corpse not being a factor?  Eventually a corpse becomes a skeleton (barring bizarre circumstances) and if these bizarre circumstances were important don't you think they would be mentioned in the spell?  I do.  Since there not, since time is irrelevant and since skeletons are not specifically excluded (since 99% of players will think at some point - 'Hey theres a skeleton, lets talk to him') I would think it is allowable.

Looking forward to your reply.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> I agree with your first line - magic is not physics - thus physical aspects of the body (other than a mouth) are not required.  Remember, the spell calls upon imprinted knowledge of that person.  How that is tied to a body part makes zero sense to me.  How do you account for age of a corpse not being a factor?  Eventually a corpse becomes a skeleton (barring bizarre circumstances) and if these bizarre circumstances were important don't you think they would be mentioned in the spell?  I do.  Since there not, since time is irrelevant and since skeletons are not specifically excluded (since 99% of players will think at some point - 'Hey theres a skeleton, lets talk to him') I would think it is allowable.
> 
> Looking forward to your reply.






Actually, you are assuming that age directly relates to the condition of a body, which many examples (the Ice Man, peat bog mummies, etc.) can disprove.  Therefore, the spell description is precise in saying that the _condition_, not the _age_, of the body is the critical issue.

The source of the knowledge is also clear:


This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive.​

Assuming that the soul imprints on the entire body, then as the body degrades the imprint degrades as well.  The spell description seems to bear out that assumption, as the condition of the body determines the amount of information that the soul imprint can impart.


RC


----------



## Markn (May 10, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Actually, you are assuming that age directly relates to the condition of a body, which many examples (the Ice Man, peat bog mummies, etc.) can disprove.  Therefore, the spell description is precise in saying that the _condition_, not the _age_, of the body is the critical issue.
> 
> The source of the knowledge is also clear:
> 
> ...




IMO, your last paragraph is a big assumption.  Is it not reasonable to think that the designers of the spell would have said that skeletons don't work?  If it was their intention to limit the spell this way then that is a huge omission, moreso than any other facet of the spell we have discussed.  I do agree, in part, that the condition of the corpse is important and I recognize the difference between time and condition but since the spell does not provide example of ONLY humanoids that have been preserved then one must agree that age and condition CAN go hand in hand thus giving an end result of a skeleton.  Now if the skeleton is whole then there can be no debate that it can answer any and all questions as opposed to partial answers.

In terms of 'mostly intact', that would be DM's discretion.  You could go with 1) body is not damaged in any way so regardless of age (meaning rotting flesh vs bone only) the skeleton would give all the answers it can 2) body is partly damaged (via combat, a fall or what have you) so it may or may not give complete answers.

You have convinced me that 'body damage' is relevant, however I don't consider age to be damage and thus a skeleton would not be limited in any way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> You have convinced me that 'body damage' is relevant, however I don't consider age to be damage and thus a skeleton would not be limited in any way.






I do not argue that a spell cannot make a skeleton speak; I only argue that the wording of this spell in particular makes it reasonable for a DM to assume otherwise.  

You are correct in saying that the spell does not make clear what a "corpse" or a "mouth" specifically are.  Other spells in D&D 3.5, though, (such as _animate dead_) do specify a difference between a "corpse" or a "skeleton."  This certainly lends some legitimacy to DM-Rocco's ruling.

Whether or not age is damage, in D&D terms, is an interesting question.  Once the corpse is a corpse, it has hardness and hp as an object.  Does a body lose hp as it decomposes?  Does a wooden door?  If not, then one could claim, despite the condition of the body, that it was "undamaged" even if it was now actually mostly part of the lawn.

My alternative to _speak with dead_ was provided to allow DMs to make use of the classic spell, btw, and avoid the semantics.


RC


----------



## Veander (May 10, 2005)

Is there a higher level spell that allows the caster to speak with someone in the "afterlife" without a body?  Or maybe with only a personal item (such as a seance might mention).  

If so, then I see the importance of laying such a limitation on this 3rd level spell.  Otherwise, if this is indeed the only way to speak with those who have passed on in D&D then I can't see why strict limitations should be placed.  It's unclear what intact is referring to and it is unclear how much of a mouth the spell asks for.  

I'd certainlylean towards the players regardless.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2005)

Veander said:
			
		

> Is there a higher level spell that allows the caster to speak with someone in the "afterlife" without a body?  Or maybe with only a personal item (such as a seance might mention).
> 
> If so, then I see the importance of laying such a limitation on this 3rd level spell.  Otherwise, if this is indeed the only way to speak with those who have passed on in D&D then I can't see why strict limitations should be placed.  It's unclear what intact is referring to and it is unclear how much of a mouth the spell asks for.
> 
> I'd certainlylean towards the players regardless.






(Shrug)  You're certainly allowed to.  

The original question was:


I had a player try and cast speak with dead last night and I told him I was going to limit him to yes or no questions because it was a skeleton and didn't have a mouth. The spell says you need a way of communicating with the creature and they must have a mouth, which a skeleton doesn't have, just a jaw and some teeth.

He decided not to cast it since he couldn't ask full questions. We stopped shortly thereafter so I may back up a bit depending on the nature of this discussion. What is the correct usage of this spell? Can you engage in a full verbal conversation with a skeleton without a mouth? Shouldn't the dead creature have vocal cords inorder to verbally communicate with you?​

It seems clear that the DM is allowed quite a bit of leeway in this, because some of the terms may be considered vague.  The limitations on the spell, though (i.e., relatively complete body, requires a mouth to talk) are from the SRD, not DM-Rocco.


RC


----------



## werk (May 10, 2005)

Was the skeleton ever a 'skeleton'?

SRD: This spell does not affect a corpse that has been turned into an undead creature. 


I didn't read all this thread once I saw a post with large font, just wanted to tack on my .02 

I wouldn't allow any answers, bones can't speak, and the spell is not 'commune with dead' or 'non-verbal communication with dead'.  That seems to be the stipulation with the corpse in the text of the spell, needs to be able to 'speak'.

The developers have my sympathy.  It's hard to explain something in text flawlessly when you understand it as a concept.


----------



## Markn (May 10, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I do not argue that a spell cannot make a skeleton speak; I only argue that the wording of this spell in particular makes it reasonable for a DM to assume otherwise.
> 
> You are correct in saying that the spell does not make clear what a "corpse" or a "mouth" specifically are.  Other spells in D&D 3.5, though, (such as _animate dead_) do specify a difference between a "corpse" or a "skeleton."  This certainly lends some legitimacy to DM-Rocco's ruling.
> 
> Whether or not age is damage, in D&D terms, is an interesting question.  Once the corpse is a corpse, it has hardness and hp as an object.  Does a body lose hp as it decomposes?  Does a wooden door?  If not, then one could claim, despite the condition of the body, that it was "undamaged" even if it was now actually mostly part of the lawn.




I agree that a lot of spells are ambiguous in nature - whether they were planned that way or not - so I can see some DM's ruling otherwise.  I certainly don't dispute this.

As for other spells making references to corpse or skeleton such as animate dead then, to me, that lends credence to the fact that there should be no difference.  Other spells make the distinction and specifically point it out.  This one doesn't, so it does not seem to matter (although I CAN see how others would think the opposite).

Soo, Crowing, how do you use the spell in your campaigns?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> As for other spells making references to corpse or skeleton such as animate dead then, to me, that lends credence to the fact that there should be no difference.  Other spells make the distinction and specifically point it out.  This one doesn't, so it does not seem to matter (although I CAN see how others would think the opposite).





Are you saying that if a spell states that it works on a "corpse *or* skeleton" (emphasis mine) that this means that "corpse" and "skeleton" are synonomous?  To my mind, saying that X works on A or B implies that, while A and B might be related, they are not the same thing.  Websters, by the way, bears this out.  A corpse is a dead body.  A skeleton is part of a body, whether living or dead.




> Soo, Crowing, how do you use the spell in your campaigns?





Hasn't come up in 3.X   .

In DM-Rocco's shoes, I would probably have made a similar ruling, though I wouldn't have told the player until the spell was cast.  And, while old nodding-and-rattling-bones might have frustrated the players, I am pretty certain that they would have had fun as well.

However, since I did a revision for this thread, I'll probably make it the "official" spell for my campaign.  


RC


----------



## Markn (May 10, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Are you saying that if a spell states that it works on a "corpse *or* skeleton" (emphasis mine) that this means that "corpse" and "skeleton" are synonomous?  To my mind, saying that X works on A or B implies that, while A and B might be related, they are not the same thing.  Websters, by the way, bears this out.  A corpse is a dead body.  A skeleton is part of a body, whether living or dead.





What I am saying is, since other spells go so far as to point out the differences between skeleton and corpse, then it matters to those spells.  Since Speak with Dead does not differentiate that to me means there is not a difference.

As for your interpretation of my last email (quoted above) if a spell states that it works on A or B and does not define any differences between A or B then A and B must have equal results and therefore in this case skeleton and zombie are one and the same.

As for Webster, or any other dictionary, I would caution as using these to define words found in D&D (or most other games for that matter).  In D&D, skeleton and corpse are keywords or classifications if you will.  They are not meant to be used with literal translations from dictionaries... For example, I don't think you'll find walking undead as the definition for skeleton in the dictionary (although I could be wrong since I haven't checked).


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> What I am saying is, since other spells go so far as to point out the differences between skeleton and corpse, then it matters to those spells.  Since Speak with Dead does not differentiate that to me means there is not a difference.
> 
> As for your interpretation of my last email (quoted above) if a spell states that it works on A or B and does not define any differences between A or B then A and B must have equal results and therefore in this case skeleton and zombie are one and the same.






I have to be honest; I'm not quite sure that I follow your logic here.  Say that we have two spells.  In Spell 1, the spell works on items A and B, but it has different effects if cast on item A than it does if cast on item B.  In spell 2, the spell states that it works on item A, and has specific effects if item A is damaged or if certain parts of item A are not present.

Would this lead you to conclude that items A and B are the same or different?

Now we add the complication that item B is _a part_ of item A.

Is an arm the same as a body?  Is an intestinal tract a corpse?  If not, why not?

Or, another way to look at it:  You have two spells, both of which work on item A, but both of which work differently if some particular part of parts of item A are missing.  In the case of animate dead, the parts are the soft tissues.  In the case of speak with dead, the part is the mouth.  If skeleton is synonomous with corpse, why isn't mouth?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> As for Webster, or any other dictionary, I would caution as using these to define words found in D&D (or most other games for that matter).  In D&D, skeleton and corpse are keywords or classifications if you will.  They are not meant to be used with literal translations from dictionaries... For example, I don't think you'll find walking undead as the definition for skeleton in the dictionary (although I could be wrong since I haven't checked).






Obviously, if there is a specific definition inherent in the game system, then that definition takes precedence where it applies.  Otherwise, standard language usage must apply.  What possible value can any game manual have if it cannot be read and understood in the language in which it is printed?


----------



## Markn (May 12, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have to be honest; I'm not quite sure that I follow your logic here.  Say that we have two spells.  In Spell 1, the spell works on items A and B, but it has different effects if cast on item A than it does if cast on item B.  In spell 2, the spell states that it works on item A, and has specific effects if item A is damaged or if certain parts of item A are not present.
> 
> Would this lead you to conclude that items A and B are the same or different?
> 
> ...




OK, here's what I was trying to say...If spell 1 specifically talks about A and B and they are defined as different (meaning B is a skeleton and A is a zombie) then spell 1 is stating it has different effects for A and B.  Now Spell 2, talks about A and I have always thought that B included A in this case and thus did not need to be quantified.  However, after reading Animate Dead and seeing the detail they use to discuss corspe, skeleton and zombie you now have convinced me that my ruling is wrong.  Kudos to you for winning the battle of attrition...

Now my next question to you is:  What do you do for a living?  I feel like I have been discussing this with all my high school/college teachers combined....Sheesh.  Either that or some Harvard debate champion.  Good job.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> OK, here's what I was trying to say...If spell 1 specifically talks about A and B and they are defined as different (meaning B is a skeleton and A is a zombie) then spell 1 is stating it has different effects for A and B.  Now Spell 2, talks about A and I have always thought that B included A in this case and thus did not need to be quantified.  However, after reading Animate Dead and seeing the detail they use to discuss corspe, skeleton and zombie you now have convinced me that my ruling is wrong.  Kudos to you for winning the battle of attrition...





What if spell 1 says a corpse turns into a zombie and a skeleton turns into an animated skeleton?  Object A is corpse, object B is animated skeleton.

In any event, it is not my intention to convince you that your ruling is wrong; merely to demonstrate that DM-Rocco's ruling is neither wrong nor unreasonable.

Certainly, I wouldn't want to win a "battle of attrition."  Either a point has merit or it does not; repeating an invalid point does not make it any more valid.



{QUOTE]Now my next question to you is:  What do you do for a living?  I feel like I have been discussing this with all my high school/college teachers combined....Sheesh.  Either that or some Harvard debate champion.  Good job.  [/QUOTE]



 

I'll take that as a compliment.

I've done a lot of things over the years.  I spent four years in the U.S. Army, where I worked as a paralegal and a generator mechanic.  I've worked supply, payroll, and courier administration.  Currently, I co-own Golden City Comics in Toronto, I write some freelance fantasy & science fiction, and I work for the CPSO in their mailroom/copy room.


RC


----------



## The Great Bear King (May 12, 2005)

If the undead can use sign language it doesn't need a mouth.


----------



## Markn (May 12, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'll take that as a compliment.
> 
> I've done a lot of things over the years.  I spent four years in the U.S. Army, where I worked as a paralegal and a generator mechanic.  I've worked supply, payroll, and courier administration.  Currently, I co-own Golden City Comics in Toronto, I write some freelance fantasy & science fiction, and I work for the CPSO in their mailroom/copy room.




You should take it as a compliment since it was...You should become a lawyer as you really present sound arguments and their very well rounded.  Anyways, now that I know you own a comic shop in TO, do you sell D&D minis?  If so, how much would you sell them by the case for?  I live in Grande Prairie AB and I usuallly buy 2.5 cases and I am always looking for a better price...

PS - I may be hijacking the thread here but it's mainly you and me anyways.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> You should take it as a compliment since it was...You should become a lawyer as you really present sound arguments and their very well rounded.  Anyways, now that I know you own a comic shop in TO, do you sell D&D minis?  If so, how much would you sell them by the case for?  I live in Grande Prairie AB and I usuallly buy 2.5 cases and I am always looking for a better price...
> 
> PS - I may be hijacking the thread here but it's mainly you and me anyways.






I would be the least well-paid lawyer in the history of all law.  I would forever be taking hard-luck cases pro bono, or allow clients to pay in produce (like in _To Kill a Mockingbird_.  In fact, to some degree that's already true, as I have interceded on behalf of people with various Ontario utility and insurance companies, and (once) the Labour Board.  

The Labour Board case was great, because the Board was very impressed with my submission.  This was when I was working for Brookfield Property Management at BCE Place, doing light administrative duties for their internal courier department.  An outside courier had quit, and the company he worked for refused to pay him for time owing.  So, I made some calls.  They figured out who was making the calls, and tried to get me fired.  The entire case went from the Provincial to the Federal level when it was discovered that the courier company wasn't paying its employees vacation hours.

The guy got his pay, then stiffed me for $20.00.    

Like I said, I'd be the most under-payed lawyer of all time!    

As to D&D minis, the big question is, are you paying for shipping right now?  I could probably work a good deal on price, but the shipping might be a bear.


RC


----------



## Markn (May 12, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As to D&D minis, the big question is, are you paying for shipping right now?  I could probably work a good deal on price, but the shipping might be a bear.
> 
> 
> RC




Right now I purchase locally to support our local store but I have been less than happy with the price and wait time.  I like to pick up my minis the day they are released.  Throw me a number and an estimated shipping cost and we can go from there.


----------



## Thondor (May 12, 2005)

Excuse me if this is a tad off topic but . . .

What's the point of being a necromancer if a cleric can ace you in everyway when it comes to the dead? Why can't a wizard/necromancer cast this spell? It makes no sense. Why does a cleric get all the good necromancer spells before the necromancer? (besides fear and damage/death)

Personally I think the spell needs to be reworked. I think in a case like this were your dragging someone back from thousand of years there should be some cost. Or danger. The amount of viable information should directly correspond to the danger.

As for your ruling. Stick with it. It's certainly not wrong and going back and changing it isn't worth it. I personally would have let the PC's chat, but what's the good? I suppose a language like Draconic might get them around the time-language barrier. But what are the chances both parties know it.

Unless you wish to rework the entire spell/system(necromancers) like I do I'd just stick with your ruling.


----------



## blargney the second (May 12, 2005)

Markn said:
			
		

> Right now I purchase locally to support our local store but I have been less than happy with the price and wait time.  I like to pick up my minis the day they are released.  Throw me a number and an estimated shipping cost and we can go from there.




I live in Victoria, BC, and I'm interested to hear a price as well! 
-blarg


----------



## werk (May 12, 2005)

The Great Bear King said:
			
		

> If the undead can use sign language it doesn't need a mouth.




Where did you pull that out of?


----------



## Celebrim (May 12, 2005)

As far as I'm concerned, there is no one right answer to the original question - and this thread is proof enough that the one wrong answer to this question is to spend alot of time trying to debate how the spell works with the DM if you don't like his reasoning.

If the DM wants to rule that the skull can talk dispite a lack of vocal cords, then that is how the spell works in that campaign.
If the DM wants to rule that the skull will attempt to communicate but can't talk, then that is how the spell works in that campaign.
If the DM wants to rule that a skeleton is not a 'mostly intact' corpse, and that the spell fails completely, then that is how the spell works in that campaign.
If the DM wants to rule that the longer the skeleton has been dead, the less it remembers about its former life, then that is perfectly fine to even if it seems to contridict the explicit statement that the spell 'works' no matter how long the corpse has been dead.  

The game is about having fun.  It's not about 'winning'.   So, if you disagree, shrug it off and keep playing.  It's not important whether everything goes your way and the be-all-end-all of being a player is not to try to maximize the advantage you have in every circumstance.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 12, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> Where did you pull that out of?




Well, it's certainly a potentially valid interpretation of the spell.

1. The name of the spell is 'Speak With Dead'.  But that's okay - Protection from Arrows protects you against javelins, so we know that the name of the spell is not rules text.

2. The spell allows the corpse to *answer questions* - answers are brief, cryptic, and repetitive.

3. The body must be mostly intact in order to *respond*.

4. A damaged body can give partial/partially correct answers, but requires a mouth in order to *speak at all*.

5. The animated body can speak with the knowledge the creature had while alive.

So, in summary - if we have a corpse missing its face, we can say that it's mostly intact, but is damaged and lacking a mouth.

Therefore it a/ can answer questions (point 2); b/ can respond (point 3); c/ gives partial answers (point 4a); d/ cannot speak at all (point 4b).

Point 5 says it can speak, but this is prohibited by point 4b.

So our damaged-but-mostly-intact animated corpse can give partial answers in response to questions, as long as it doesn't speak.

Simple sign language sounds about right.

-Hyp.


----------



## werk (May 13, 2005)

*Dropping mad knowledge.*

As always, thanks hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, it's certainly a potentially valid interpretation of the spell.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> ...





Such as, perhaps, nodding its head "yes" or "no"?


RC


----------



## werk (May 13, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Such as, perhaps, nodding its head "yes" or "no"?




Hyp convinced me so hard I think the dead could play charades...

"ok, first syllable, sounds like...bone!  oh, right! sounds like leg!"

Wait, the spell description says "The partially animated body" Now I'm back to my original position.  No movement except for speaking-type movement (mouth area).

Sorry for not having a rock-solid opinion on this.   I think better while typing.

I want to go with the 'intent' of the spell or caster, but the description text is really making it hard for me to believe that's the way they wanted the spell to be used...I mean, why have that: "but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. " text in there at all if you want it to work properly most of the time?  If they had left that out, I'd be on-board.

Speak with Dead is lvl 3, same as Animate Dead, so I'd say there is enough magic power to fully animate the skeleton for the duration, but the text gets in the way, for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> I want to go with the 'intent' of the spell or caster, but the description text is really making it hard for me to believe that's the way they wanted the spell to be used...I mean, why have that: "but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all. " text in there at all if you want it to work properly most of the time?  If they had left that out, I'd be on-board.
> 
> Speak with Dead is lvl 3, same as Animate Dead, so I'd say there is enough magic power to fully animate the skeleton for the duration, but the text gets in the way, for me.






If _speak with dead_ animated the skeleton fully, then wouldn't _animate dead_ also allow the skeleton to speak?  I would certainly argue that _speak with dead_ probably animates the head so as to allow for communication (assuming that the creature's mouth is/was in its head area), and additionally grants access to the soul imprint stored in the body (which _animate dead_ does not -- the spell/monster descriptions make clear that _animate dead_ creates a new imprint on the body, resulting in a new skill set and making it much harder to restore the original character to life).


RC


----------



## werk (May 13, 2005)

I wasn't suggesting anything by comparing SwD to AD other than they are the same level.

So you are saying that he can nod/shake because the whole head is animated, not just the mouth?  
Interesting that the muscles that move the mouth are in the head and (most) the muscles that control the head shake/nod are in the neck...And that implies that he cannot use sign-language or play charades as well. 

I think the question is, really, what do they mean by 'partially animated'?


----------

