If the speech or singing is intelligible, you probably don't have fine control over what it's saying, compared to ventriloquism or programmed image, which deliver exactly what you say or exactly what you program it to say, or at least that's more or less how I'd rule it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Boo!"
"OOOoooooooOOOOOOOoooOOOOOhhhh! AaaaaaAAAAAaaaaAAAAaahhHH!"
"Whoogity-boogity!"
^ Ghost sounds. Not intelligible.
Q.E.D.
Logically(real life logic) you would think that, but rules logic say that intelligible speech must be specified. There is also precedent since it is specified in other figment spells. Rules logic trump real life logic most of the time.Given that the examples include a lion roaring and a comment that virtually any sort of sound can be created, I'd think that it could produce a noise like a series of bells, or series of chimes such as a bell/clock tolling. These seem to be fairly iconic uses of the spell, and if it can handle patterns such as these, then one would expect that it could handle more.
If there's a time limit, then you'd just have to compress the duration of the sound, similar to what prairie dogs and other species that communicate using whistles and clicks do.
It's specified in some other figment spells. In most of the others it is no more specified than it is for Ghost Sounds.
In a few it is specified against -- which you think would indicate that Ghost Sounds should explicitly say it can't produce intelligible speech. Then again, you might consider that it producing "talking" is intelligible speech so there's no reason for it to be more specific.
The rules say it has to be specified in order for it be available. So following rules logic ghost sounds does not make the cut.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Morse code style communication would certainly work. It's not speech as such, even if it is intelligible.
If a druid with Ghost Sound (via the Two-World Magic trait) and Natural Spell wanted to use Ghost Sound to produce morse code or similar, I'd allow it. But I'd make the other party members do a Sense Motive check to discern secret messages. Or they could invest a skill point in Linguistics to understand the Druid's code-speech.
Or the Morse-code-proficient druid could just crack snails on a rock while wearing the form of a thrush and skip using spells entirely.
Morse code would not work. Just because the spell can produce tapping does not mean the tapping is going to be in any way synchronous, much less under the control of the caster.
By this logic, you can only create a cacophany of fart noises, not three long farts followed by three short farts? Wow, some GM's are way too harsh on this spell. What happened to "The noise a ghost sound spell produces can be virtually any type of sound within the volume limit"?
If the tapping can't be synchronous, how on earth would you make the sound of drums? Can you only make the illusion of ghosts with no rhythm?
At some point some coded message is going to be possible. If you can make the tolling of a bell with the clock striking twelve--a fairly reasonable use of Ghost Sound--you will have anyone with the ability to count able to realize the number twelve has been rung. If you can have it play music with any variation in notes, you can either encode a message in the progression of notes or just play an instrumental passage of a well known piece such that a savvy bard, knowing the lyrics that go with that passage, would be able to comprehend the message.
By what logic does "any sound" mean "excluding sounds that could convey meaning"
What would be so game-breaking about ghost sound being able to mimic actual speech?
By what logic does "any sound" mean "excluding sounds that could convey meaning"
I don't think it does. I think it specifically excludes intelligible spoken language. If you want to Ghost Sound Morse Code, that's fine. Figments don't require anything special to create Language (you can use Silent Image to write in the sky, for example), they only specifically deny intelligible speech (side note, if unintelligible speech did not exist, this line would just say "speech").
Morse Code is language, but not intelligible speech. Signing nonsense syllables in a predetermined melody conveys meaning but it is not intelligible speech.
Of course, I also wouldn't let you get away with picking up morse code with a rank of Linguistics.
What would be so game-breaking about ghost sound being able to mimic actual speech?
Druids are specifically feat taxed in Pathfinder. They have to take Natural Spell at 5th and Wild Speech at 7th. The proposed work-around is using the Two-World Magic trait to pick up Ghost Sound as an orison and get your 7th level feat back.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the number of languages spoken on Golarion, I believe that the Ghost Sound spell could be interpreted to sound like speech, but speech in a language that no one who hears it happens to speak. If I overhear people speaking Russian, I recognize that they are speaking, not merely making random sounds, but I do not understand a word they say.
Besides, when several people are talking at once, you might not be able to understand anything they are saying, even though they are speaking your own native language.
Or, perhaps, if someone could make out the actual words, he might hear, "Mambo dog face in the banana patch. Rhubarb amphora pine tree armchair."
I do not think Ghost Sound could be used to convey a message, for example.
So I guess the argument is that based on an ethnocentric/humanocentric definition of speech, ghost sound is incapable of creating speech. I can work with that. There's lots of other examples of the ethnocentric/humanocentric assumptions in the base game where it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
When I see a human use the word "humanocentric," I never know whether to laugh or sigh and shake my head. Maybe both.
Yes, I, a human, am using a human definition of a word in a human language. Amazing!
So, no rhythm, no synchronous sounds, nothing?
How can there even be anything that sounds like talking, singing, shouting, walking, marching, or running, if the above restrictions apply?
It's very easy to imagine something that sounds like walking but isn't. Figments are sensory impressions. Their basic level of effect does not convey the meaningfulness of speech. On television, much of the time the extras are just muttering "rhubarb, rhubarb" (I mean that literally; you can look it up) and it sounds just like intelligible speech but it isn't. It gives the sensory impression of speech but isn't.
So you can have chimes, but you can't have chimes that mimic the international clock's accuracy. You can have speech sounds, but it isn't speech. You can have walking, but it won't have the acoustic qualities of natural sound. It is a versatile spell. You could even have it make the sound of elvish, if you know what that sounds like, and it could well fool others into thinking there are elves about.... even though it can't actually create intelligible elven speech.
Morse code is kind of an iffy thing. Can you used it for rapid coded messages? No. Could you deliberately create a series of short and long sounds, by varying the parameters of the spell? I suppose so.
Morse code is kind of an iffy thing. Can you used it for rapid coded messages? No. Could you deliberately create a series of short and long sounds, by varying the parameters of the spell? I suppose so.If you insist it can't do language, then you cannot let it do this, because that is a language (and talking is just a auditory language).
I'd like to note that I'm not arguing on the basis of "It can't do speech because magic." Rather, I'm going by the idea it creates a sensory impression, and spells of its type generally create only an impression, not intelligible speech. So I don't think what you are saying is self-evident. But as noted above, it's not language or meaning that is prohibited. It doesn't produce speech because the spell is incapable of it. It cannot create sensations of that complexity, just as it cannot create a sound of a fog horn powerful enough in intensity to stun someone.
Intelligible speech is a subset of talking, which mislead allows. Ghost sound only creates speech sounds, however, not intelligible speech. I don't see any advancement in your argument.
Ghost sound does not say it can produce talking. It says it can produce "talking.... sounds." To parse it otherwise is to suggest it can produce actual marching and not just the sound of it. It says:
Ghost sound allows you to create a volume of sound that rises, recedes, approaches, or remains at a fixed place. You choose what type of sound ghost sound creates when casting it and cannot thereafter change the sound's basic character.The volume of sound created depends on your level. You can produce as much noise as four normal humans per caster level (maximum 40 humans). Thus, talking, singing, shouting, walking, marching, or running sounds can be created.
I don't see anything in there that suggests you can modulate it to produce speech, and it's not even 100% clear to me that Morse code is possible. A pattern is not exactly a "basic character" but something fairly specific and precise. It creates a "volume of sound," not speech.
|
|
I have not read the whole thread, but here is an example of something that sounds like people talking but is not intelligable:
How English sounds to non-English speakers
:)
Given this, what of the following are you saying it can't handle?
1. The word "hi" or "boo"
2. Someone shouting for help
3. The mating call of a bird
4. Whalesong
5. A name
6. A full name
7. A short sentence.
8. A long sentence.
9. A little girl saying "I'm lonely."
It can't do "hi" but "boo" is not a word, it's an onomatopoeia, which is probably ok.
It can do someone shouting in an urgent way to suggest help, but not specifically the word "help."
3 and 4 are completely fine--neither are intelligible speech.
5-9 are all no good.
I always assumed it could produce intelligible speech until this topic was started but now I kind of like the idea that it is just the sound of someone/thing talking but you can't make out what they are saying.
I know Ghost Sound is a Figment and Magic Mouth is a Glamer but do you realize that Magic Mouth doesn't specify "Intelligible speech" either? Maybe it doesn't have to because it's a different kind of illusion subschool, but I just thought it was interesting and relevant to the debate.
To be frank, I don't think I'll weigh in on RAW, RAI or defining terms like intelligible speech or gibberish. You've all done a masterful job of these things so far and I would't presume to add a speedbump to the highway of debate being raced along in here.
I would however just humbly ask: if Ghost Sound DID in fact produce speech, what game impact would it have. Being a cantrip and with no RAW in the spell stating it can magically compulse anyone, there's no reason to suggest that the speech in Ghost Sound could convince anyone of anything, ever. A kind GM might allow it to not only create speech but ALSO to provoke a Bluff check; this would function NO differently than if a particularly stealthy character suggested: "I'm going to use Bluff to create a distraction."
Personally in my games I've allowed words that could be understood. In point of fact I created a bunch of sprites with JUST this part of the Ghost Sound spell in mind. Quartet Sprites use Ghost Sound to appear as though they travel in groups of 4 though they always work alone; they are charged with singing to plants and flowers to encourage growth, so they harmonize with their figments to create 4-part harmonies.
What's so bad about that?
But I can still make vuvuzela sounds with Ghost Sound?
Good question Mr Hoover. I started this thread as I'm about to play a druid and thought I could get around the need to buy the wild speech feat with a trait that gave me access to ghost sound. With the ghost sound cantrip I could 'talk' to the party while in wild shape, albeit in a more roundabout way.
Granted, some of the arguments here make sense why my plan wouldn't work, especially the point of what I am trying to do should be done by the ventriloquism spell instead but I also play a wizard who enjoys illusions and have used ghost sound to create speech in games past. I've also used this cantrip for NPCs, tricky satyrs, rogues with minor magic, even a magic music box that plays a sad tune when opened, made only with the ghost sound cantrip, and you know what, it hasn't broken the game.
When a loophole is found in a rule though, the trick is to fix it without breaking the original intent. The original intent of ghost sound was to, in my mind, to allow players creativity in its effect, hence the vague spell description, and thus our debate in what exactly is its effect.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I think the clincher here is the fact that there is a spell called Ventriloquism.
That spell is a 1st level Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard spell (higher level than Ghost Sound), and allows the caster to create the sound of her voice (with an Effect of "intelligible sound, usually speech") that appears to issue from anywhere within range.
Ventriloquism can only produce "[the caster's] voice (or any sound that [the caster] can normally make vocally)", whereas Ghost Sound can produce "virtually any type of sound within the volume limit".
If Ghost Sound were able to produce intelligible speech, it would completely eclipse Ventriloquism, and there would be no reason for the higher-level spell to exist. Therefore, it seems clear to me that the intent of the Ghost Sound spell is not to allow for intelligible speech.
Now, if players want to get creative by using Morse code or creating the melodies to well-known songs (awesome idea, BTW, Kevin Andrew Murphy), I say let 'em have it! They're making things fun! But straight from the box, I don't think the spell would allow for you to produce more than language-sounding gibberish.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Every group I've played in has allowed ghost sound to produce speech. I can definitely see the arguments both ways though and I don't think RAW is clear on the issue; like an earlier poster, I've always played ghost sound as the updated version of audible glamer.
While I can see the comparisons to ventriloquism, there are some issues there. First, ventrilioquism is a fairly weak first level spell; I'm not sure anyone would cry "broken!" if it had been bumped down to a cantrip itself. Secondly, ventriloquism lasts minutes per level instead of ghost sound's rounds. Sometimes, that is considered enough for a level bump (compare vanish to invisibility).
Using ghost sound to get around Wild Speech is still taking a standard action to talk. At that point you might as well scratch words in the dirt with your claws.
|
|
A bit off topic but one of the only things I've ever used Ghost Sound for was on my egotistical mage who used a contingency spell so that when he cast a spell with a long casting time (like summon monster) it would trigger a ghost sound to seemingly play "The Final Countdown". Sure, I claimed it was to mask my audible component while trying to throw the enemies into confusion whilst I finished my spell, but we all knew I was just showboating.
On topic, though, I'd have no problems allowing it to produce some legible speech. It doesn't much change it from what ghost sound's best at doing (that is, creating a distraction). Functionally, there's not much difference between the enemies hearing "Come, Jim, for we shall heartily sneak down yon hallway and flank our foes" then hearing what sounds like footsteps going down yon hallway. It's still the same will save to disbelieve.
In general I'll let the players perform it unless it would be too obviously against the rules or common sense would say otherwise...although the comedic value modifier is always a swing vote.
People keep saying: Ghost Sound can't make speech b/cause Ventriloquism does. Look at the 2 spells though:
Ghost Sound: creates sound for 1 round/level. During that time the sound is the same, over and over (as someone said before: a tape recorder) and that sound can be modulated but not changed or altered in any way. The sound can be (per the description) "virtually any type of sound" and goes on to describe the examples of talking and singing that are currently under debate in this thread. It is specifically called out as an enhancment to other spells and require v/s/m components to cast over the course of a single Standard Action.
Ventriloquism: this spell requires the same amount of time and a material focus, but is otherwise only V. It lasts 1 minute/level and emits your voice or any vocalized sound from any spot w/in the range of the spell. These sounds and in fact the entirety of it's modulation is solely dependant on your will so that you can in fact hold a conversation w/it. By bouncing the sound around you can keep your foes guessing where you are though there are no mechanics in the spell to reflect this.
Now neither spell allows SR and both are Figments which allow a Will save based on Disbelief. However while Ghost Sound seems vague Ventriloquism is fairly specific in use and method.
It seems to me though that Ghost Sound doesn't violate the rule that a lower level spell replaces the effect of higher one though if you allow it speech, and here's why: Ghost Sound specifically calls out that you can't change the sound once it's running; Ventriloquism you can.
Ghost Sound: the caster puts it out there to say to his friends: "hey, how ya doin?" and the spell lasts 3 rounds. He issues it, they respond "fine", "Can't complain", and "My back hurts". Round 2 he either mutes the spell or it once again calls out "Hey, how ya doin?"
Now, if you want to hold a quiet conversation w/your friends using cantrips, Message is your best option...
|
|
I kind of agree with Mark Hoover. If you use the Ghost Sound to produce a short message you might, at the best, make 1 round distraction after which it would become obvious that the sound is wierd and repeating. If the sound was echo of thousand voices or a horde of rats or lions, it might still be believable for some time.
On the other hand, I used to believe that it can't produce normal speech. At least I got the impression like that from reading the spell.