| 38 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
The spell description does say "talking, singing, shouting, walking, marching, or running sounds can be created. The noise a ghost sound spell produces can be virtually any type of sound within the volume limit."
However, expicitly, can the spell create intelligible speech?
The core rules, under figments, state "A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can."
Does Ghost Sound's spell description fit this criteria?
Yes it can. Talking and etc counts, otherwise it would be gibberish.
I don't think it can, no. Gibberish is exactly the sort of talking I assume it can create. I'll FAQ it anyway, just to be safe.
What is "talking, singing," if not intelligible speech?
If it just sounds like "hsiufdnfs jduiodfosnf", that is not intelligible speech, and is definitely not talking. It is just making noise.
Singing, talking, and shouting sounds can all be done with out understanding what is said, and its a cantrip. It is also called ghost sound. I'm leaning towards no.
Edit for ws.
Crowds make sound, it can be fake languages (ie numerous video games).
Talking involves an actual language. If it is a language someone can understand it. That makes it intelligible.
Babytalk as an example has the word "talk", but it is not really talking.<--Had to kill that one before it began
Now if you have an example of actual talking that is not intelligible I would like to hear about it, and mumbling can also be understood, but the spell does not say mumbling which has its own definition anyway.
PS: Since it is hard to read tone of voice online I am calm.
PS2: "But it is a cantrip" is not enough to say what a rule is, and a fake language means it is not a language. The video game idea fails because even in the video game someone understands the language just like in Pathfinder which is also not real someone understands.
The noise a ghost sound spell produces can be virtually any type of sound within the volume limit.
You can produce as much noise as four normal humans per caster level (maximum 40 humans).
As far as I know, intelligible speech qualifies as "any type of sound" and can easily be within that volume limit.
Major Image doesn't *specifically* say intelligible speech is possible either! Dammit, this rabbit hole doesn't stop!
"if you have an example of actual talking that is not intelligible" - yeah, that would be me after a few drinks!
Searching the archives of nethys, I was able to find that only two Figment spells mention intelligible speech: Persistent Image and Programmed Image.
If you can't accept unintelligible speech as talking or singing, I don't know how else to convince you. I'm pretty sure most people would consider sim-speak to be talking, even though it's nonsense that doesn't mean anything to the listener. Background noise in a crowded restaurant is similar. I can definitely shout without using and words, and I can sing "la la la" and other nonsense syllables as well.
Ventriloquism is also a figment spell that mentions intelligible speech, but only in the "effect" line.
Interestingly, minor image specifies "not understandable speech", while major image does not. That has always made me believe the latter could create understandable speech, at least.
Edit: I'm pretty sure I've read WotC or Paizo adventures where major image was used to create understandable speech, too.
That is why I am focusing on "talking"..
If sim-speak(whatever it is) can be understood then it might be talking even if few people can understand it. And no I can't accept it(talking as not intelligible) because talking and gibberish are two different things. One is actually talking. The other is someone just making noise. They might think they are talking, but that does not mean they are.
You might not be talking Lemonfresh. You may just think you are talking when you are drunk. :)
In case anyone needs it.
in·tel·li·gi·ble
/inˈtelijəbəl/
Adjective
Able to be understood; comprehensible.
Able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses.
Synonyms
comprehensible - understandable - clear - lucid
1. To articulate (words): The baby is talking sentences now.
2. To give expression to in words: talk treason.
3. To speak of or discuss (something): talk music; talk business;
4. To speak or know how to speak in (an idiom or language): talked French with the flight crew.
5. To gain, influence, or bring into a specified state by talking: talked me into coming; talked their way out of trouble.
6. To spend (a period of time) by or as if by talking: talked the evening away.
v.intr.
1. To converse by means of spoken language: We talked for hours. See Synonyms at speak.
2. To articulate words: The baby can talk.
3. To imitate the sounds of human speech: The parrot talks.
4. To express one's thoughts or emotions by means of spoken language: talked about the pros and cons of the issue.
5. To convey one's thoughts in a way other than by spoken words: talk with one's hands.
6. To express one's thoughts in writing: Voltaire talks about London in this book.
7. To parley or negotiate with someone: Let's talk before continuing to fight.
8. To spread rumors; gossip: If you do that, people will talk.
9. To allude to something: Are you talking about last week?
10. To consult or confer with someone: I talked with the doctor.
11. To reveal information concerning oneself or others, especially under pressure: Has the prisoner talked?
12. Informal To be efficacious: Money talks.
Well OP you can make your decision now based on what you have before you.
Programmed image also specifies intelligible speech, so by RAW ghost sound does not. I guess you can flavor it so that people know someone is talking, but can't make out the words.
But permanent image does not. It doesn't make sense to me that the natural spell to follow persistent image would not have the ability to create intelligible speech, when its "predecessor" does have that ability.
Edit: By RAW, though, I suppose ghost sound, major image, and permanent image are indeed out of luck.
Personally, I believe that Ghost Sound does allow intelligible speech, it makes sense from a story point of view and illusionists would quickly demand an equivalent 1st or 2nd level spell if it didn't. Besides, the spell does mention 'talking' which (in agreement with Wraithstrike) I consider falls under intelligible.
However I do see the opposing point of view considering the level of the spell, and the poor wording of its description. I am intrigued if the FAQ is answered and resolves this.
But permanent image does not. It doesn't make sense to me that the natural spell to follow persistent image would not have the ability to create intelligible speech, when its "predecessor" does have that ability.
Edit: By RAW, though, I suppose ghost sound, major image, and permanent image are indeed out of luck.
Programmed which is the same level as permanent is actually next in line after persistent, and they have capabilities.
It does invade ventriloquism to a certain extent so I kinda understand, but I dont like how the spell is written anymore. Why use that spell if you can use a cantrip?
Personally, I believe that Ghost Sound does allow intelligible speech, it makes sense from a story point of view and illusionists would quickly demand an equivalent 1st or 2nd level spell if it didn't.
You mean like Ventriloquism?
I am having trouble backing up my no speech leanings. If it can clearly say fahuwaghads then it can say pear tree. Even OooooooOoooOoo is almost a word, if it can do that why not a real word?
Because it's magic. And I'm actually not joking with that answer.
Sorry Lemonfresh as of a few post ago I have changed my stance. That is why I mentioned ventriloquism. It is basically a better ghost sound, which I see is a badly written spell.
I see your point, Ventriloquism leaves no doubt that intelligible speech is the result, and Ghost Sound is poorly written. It's hard to say a cantrip does an effect exactly just like a higher level spell, case in point, a 1st level spell which is clearly designed to do that one thing. I enjoyed the debate though.
It does invade ventriloquism to a certain extent so I kinda understand, but I dont like how the spell is written anymore. Why use that spell if you can use a cantrip?
Yes, but ghost sound cannot be altered after casting. So it is like 'conjure: invisible tape recorder.' I;d imagine it would take a bluff check to make it seem like you are talking to the person you wish to fool with out tipping them off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Ghost Sound cantrip is a folding together of the 1st ed Unearthed Arcana magic-user "Haunting-Sound Cantrips" (Creak, Footfall, Groan, Moan, Rattle, Tap, Thump & Whistle) and the superior illusionist Noise cantrip which reads much the same as the current Ghost Sound cantrip except that the clarifying words "illusory sound of whatever nature he or she desires, although it is indistinct and confusing" were dropped.
Following that precedent, I'd treat Ghost Sound the same way. Any speaking is confused gibberish, sounding close to words but never forming them. Singing, likewise, is like trying to make out the lyrics of "Louie Louie" or at best a bunch of "La la la la la la la" folderol. And while you can get the sound of squeaking rats, if the druid tried a Speak with Animals to understand what the rats were squeaking about, it would be as garbled as the human sounds.
I would note that "intelligible speech" is NOT a game term. There is no reason to think an illusion is incapable of intelligent speech unless it uses those exact words.
It is a game term.
"Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it)." (emphasis mine)
That first line establishes "intelligible speech" as a game term, and at least 4 spells use those exact words (Ventriloquism, Minor Image, Persistent Image, and Programmed Image).
The second line, I think, establishes gibberish as a valid form of "talking."
I always imagined ghost sound producing a wala like noise. you know its there, but can't quite pick out the words.
The Ghost Sound cantrip is a folding together of the 1st ed Unearthed Arcana magic-user "Haunting-Sound Cantrips" (Creak, Footfall, Groan, Moan, Rattle, Tap, Thump & Whistle) and the superior illusionist Noise cantrip which reads much the same as the current Ghost Sound cantrip except that the clarifying words "illusory sound of whatever nature he or she desires, although it is indistinct and confusing" were dropped.
Following that precedent, I'd treat Ghost Sound the same way. Any speaking is confused gibberish, sounding close to words but never forming them. Singing, likewise, is like trying to make out the lyrics of "Louie Louie" or at best a bunch of "La la la la la la la" folderol. And while you can get the sound of squeaking rats, if the druid tried a Speak with Animals to understand what the rats were squeaking about, it would be as garbled as the human sounds.
Umm, wow. Constitutional Law meets D&D. I see you advocate Original Intent. Unfortunately, we can't really know if that intent changed when the person merged them together. Also, it really isn't part of the rules to look back a couple editions or more and see what spells were like then.
Textualism wins the day here, I think. The rules aren't intended for you to go backtracking through editions. If that's the only way you can hold up your side, then you gotta give up.
While we can't know for certain--short of asking the authors for clarification, which is certainly a possibility with 3.5 and Pathfinder--there are two reasons the wording of rules changes between editions. One reason is to actually make a change in the rules which is generally done to fix something that's broken or to prevent problems with new rules mechanics. The other reason is to make the verbiage look different enough that it doesn't look like a direct copy/paste and also matches the aesthetic style of the new book as a whole. I know because that's exactly what I did when I rewrote the Spheres from Mage 1st ed to Mage 2nd.
Trouble is, whenever that happens, there are invariably editing and transcription errors. Some small string of words, which looks at first glance to be a mere rhetorical flourish and thus prime candidate for pruning, turns out to be an important clarification put in to avoid ruling troubles.
And to be fair, the 1st ed Noise cantrip is based on the 1st ed PHB 2nd level magic-user/1st level illusionist spell Audible Glamer. Audible Glamer can specifically make any sound you want, without any troubles with clarity. Want to hear the "Queen of the Night" aria? You've got it, with perfect enunciation.
The question basically comes down to whether the current Ghost Sound cantrip is the 1st ed Noise cantrip partially renamed by rolling it together with the Haunting Sounds cantrips series or if it's the 2nd/1st level spell Audible Glamer dropped to a cantrip and renamed.
It should also be pointed out that a lot of 3.x cantrips, when moved to Pathfinder, were made overpowerful by the ability to use them continuously. If you rule that Ghost Sound works like Audible Glamer, then you can have someone use it continuously to get around all sorts of problems. Is the "Queen of the Night" aria out of your vocal range or did slavers maybe cut out your tongue? No problem. All you have to do is lip synch. Did the orcs smash your lute to kindling? Just grab a frying pan and do air guitar while Ghost Sound gives you full concert-quality audio. Does reading the Dark Language of Blood aloud have an unfortunate habit of making the speaker gag, human vocal chords not meant to make such demonic sounds? Easy. Just have Ghost Sound provide the voices as you read the text.
Admittedly, for my personal games, I port Audible Glamer back in as a 1st level spell, especially since it avoids the trouble with the at-will cantrips in Pathfinder. So it's a rules call. But keeping the divide from 1st edition avoids having the need to make it.
|
I guess I never really looked to deeply into the description. I've always thought of ghost sound as creating a sound you want, but just "almost". Kind of like how when you're not paying attention and you hear a sound and think it is "A", but upon closer investigation it is really "B". Or, you can hear people talking but are too far away to understand what is being said: you know a conversation is happening, you can hear things being said, but it's juuuuust outside the range of clarity that you can't understand what is being said.
Eh, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to work.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, wow. Constitutional Law meets D&D. I see you advocate Original Intent. Unfortunately, we can't really know if that intent changed when the person merged them together. Also, it really isn't part of the rules to look back a couple editions or more and see what spells were like then.
Textualism wins the day here, I think. The rules aren't intended for you to go backtracking through editions. If that's the only way you can hold up your side, then you gotta give up.
This must be your first trip to the rules forum.
Drachasor: ventriloquism very much uses the term:
Effect intelligible sound, usually speech
Mislead is a good example, though, although "can talk and gesture as if it was real" probably is a sufficiently RAW way to say it can speak intelligibly.
Gibberish is most certainly speech. It's just nonsense speech. If you make an illusion of a Swedish chef, but you don't speak Swedish, then your illusion sounds like the Swedish chef from the Muppet Show: "Yaybe horg de inkydoo. Mork! Mork! Mork!" But if those perceiving the illusory Swedish chef don't speak Swedish either? Then the gibberish sounds like Swedish.
I've always assumed that the talking and singing lines mean the sort of muffled sound you can hear if someone's arguing three rooms over, or singing loudly in their shower next door - you can hear it easily, but it's too muffled/distorted to make out words.
Begin pedantry alert....
The word "gibberish" comes from the name "Geber" which was the Latinization of the name of the Arabic alchemist Jabir ibn Hayan who set the standard for a mixture of highflown language, poetic diction, alchemical shop talk, and deliberate ciphers that his writings were pronounced "gibberish."
End pedantry....
So gibberish is speech, but it's incomprehensible speech. It sounds like it means something. In fact, you may be quite certain it means something. But you can't make heads or tails what that is.
I agree that intelligible speech is not a game term, but it does not have to be. We know that it means speech that can be understood.
If they had replaced it with "words you can understand" it would be the same effect.
No, I don't like this new discovery because ghost sounds and ventriloquism are pretty close together, but I ghost sounds is also a way to bypass the speech limitation while you are polymorphed or wild shaped, and I don't like loopholes either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ghost sounds says it produces "speech sounds," not speech. The end.
Speech sounds:
Prisecolinensinenciousol
Charlie Chaplin not speaking German
John Cleese explaining the brain
Is there a reason you think the answer would be yes?
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.
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.