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.
Speech IS sound. The "sounds of speech" is what speech is.
Ample demonstrations have already been made that this is not true. The phrase "I thought you said something" would be meaningless if you could not have the sounds of speech without producing intelligible speech. We are not trying to define "speech" here, only to delineate between "the sounds of speech" from "intelligible speech." While a banana and a glass of orange juice might both be "fruit" they are not the same sense of the word fruit, much less interchangeable.
Saying that you can make the individual sounds of speech one at a time, but somehow not put two or three together to make a word doesn't really make a lot of sense. Ghost Sounds makes the "sounds of talking" so it should be able to do "Hello, how are you?".
What makes you think ghost sound can make the individual sounds of speech one at a time? It might be able to produce some recognizable sounds, perhaps, but the spell states that the basic nature of the sound is unchanging. Babies can make individual sounds of speech, yet they learn to produce words only slowly.
That is composed of the sounds of talking. It becomes especially bizarre when you consider what is a gibberish in one language could easily mean something in another.
It is remotely possible that a meaningless jumble of sounds could produce a recognizable phrase, but that doesn't make it meaningful. My wife used to own a mechanical breast pump that could, I kid you not, be made out to be saying a couple of phrases, notably "knee deep" and "pop creak." But that doesn't mean the breast pump was talking.
Unless you are saying you have no control over the sound. If that's the case, how can you make the roar of a lion? The hiss of a snake? You have to be able to selectively choose the sounds you will be making and arrange them in an order so it produces the illusion you are aiming for. Otherwise you can't duplicate the song of a particular bird, the howl of a wolf, or any sound that fluctuates in a precise way.
You can't duplicate the song of a particular bird, because the spell doesn't say you can. It's "ghost sound," not Magic MP3 player. If it could perfectly reproduce anything that is a sound, the spell would say so. It isn't necessary to exactly reproduce Alfie the Parrot's voice, but if it were, the spell wouldn't be up to it. Hopefully, the sound of a parrot of Alfie's general characteristics speaking indistinctly is enough for your purposes, or it just won't work.
Again, I ask you, can you spell out words in your view?
No. And further... how?
It can produce almost any type of sound. So it can produce every sound that is in a verbal language.You can duplicate rats, singing sounds, lions, etc, etc. This requires the sounds follow certain relationships to each other. Singing is MUSIC, which is not just random noise. Harmonies, disharmonies, melodies, and etc, should all be possible. This can be done in any instrument of your choice.
Similar, spoken language obeys a lot of rules. You can't just take the individuals sounds in a language and jumble them together. It won't sound remotely like speech. Relationships between...
And all this spell does is take the sounds of language and jumble them together. But you are wrong that this can't sound like speech. First, real world thing here, people muttering "rhubarb, rhubarb" in the background of restaurants on TV shows does sound exactly like speech. That's how they do it. You can also hear voices in the trees, in the voices of owls, in air conditioner vents.... none of which is capable of producing recognizable, intelligible speech, although it can be mistaken for the sounds of speech. You might be under the impression that what you hear and see are recordings of physical phenomena, but that is actually not true. Have you ever remembered how a song went but not been able to remember the words? That's because the impression of something is different from its content.
Second, magic thing here, the spell produces a sensation. Simply perceiving something as speech does not mean there is speech. Have you ever thought a pile of laundry was a human shape? Figments are spells that can basically produce that, but more robustly. They are false impressions. Ghost sound can make you think you hear voices, or lions, or running, but there are no people running, no lions, and no one actually talking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is hands down the most pedantic thread I've ever seen.
I can't fathom how there are actually people here who think that you could make sounds that sound like words, but the moment they are actually used to convey meaning, the spell breaks down.
So then what makes it break? Is it the fact that when you cast it you understand what you're trying to convey? Would it work if the listener didn't speak the language? It would be gibberish to them. What if you don't speak the language you're creating with the spell? What if you just copied something you heard earlier? It's gibberish to you, right?
Why in the world could the spell itself be able to differentiate between meaningless and meaningful sounds? Why would it have any way of knowing whether or not the sounds being created have recognizable meaning or not?
If you wanted to trick people into thinking they were hearing music, why would Ode to Joy be fine, but Row Row Row Your Boat be off limits?
If you wanted to trick people into thinking they were hearing Chellish, why would the spell differentiate between "sounds like Chellish" and "actual Chellish"?
Limiting the spell like this makes no sense at all. It raises more questions than it's worth. Why would it be so bad to let it make speech? So it eliminates a feat tax for druids? So what? Good! What a fantastic idea to work around an arbitrary limitation. Whoever came up with it is clever. Why punish them? Why nerf the spell because some people think druids shouldn't be able talk in wildshape?
The only valid argument so far has been about the Ventriloquism spell. That's a pretty good case. My counter argument is that Ventriloquism is still a good spell because of the higher save DC. Arguably, a Heightened Ghost Sound would be more useful than Ventriloquism. Personally, I'm fine with that since Heighten Spell requires the use of a feat.
For the rest, if you really think Ghost Sound whould only be able to make sounds without meaning, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "badwrongfun!"
This is hands down the most pedantic thread I've ever seen.
I can't fathom how there are actually people here who think that you could make sounds that sound like words, but the moment they are actually used to convey meaning, the spell breaks down.
The sounds cannot be used to convey meaning via the medium of intelligible speech. The spell doesn't "break down," that's just not what the spell does.
It's true, the spell does not forbid transmitting messages. It could certainly generate a signal tone, and it might be able to generate a simple, repetitive sound. "SOS" might be within the parameters of the spell. Maybe.
Let's take a new tack here, which satisfies all conditions expressed without actually allowing useful meaning to be conveyed directly...
When you use Ghost Sound to produce the sound of talking, that's all you get to select. You might want to have it say something specific, but you don't get to choose that part. Maybe it's the sound of people reading this thread out loud. Not terribly helpful, but definitely intelligible speech. It might even be that you can choose the general character of the conversation (e.g. a pair of guards chatting), but again you don't get to pick the exact phrases they use.
So... You chose the basic character of the sound, the volume, the number of voices, but not the words they use. You can also have tones play that are Morse Code, but you don't get to set the rhythm. You can have a song play, but it could be any song you know in a given genre of music. It's an MP3 Player where you get to pick the song list, but not the specific song.
Now, you can assign meaning to those sounds (e.g. a Bird Whistle means "Come in", a Dog Bark means "Stay out of sight"), and that's fine, but you can't have a sound convey meaning in and of itself.
IF you cannot use Ghost Sound to produce intelligble speech, then which spell would work for the following effect?
You're in a dungeon and futher down the hallway, about 50 feet, you can hear a little girl crying, she quietly implores into the gloom "please, please help me".
This is an illusionary sound, not made by Ventriloquism (which states "your voice or any sound that you can normally make vocally" and you definitely don't do falsettos).
So which spell does the trickster use for this effect?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It specifically says 'talking'. Therefore, it can replicate talking, which is synonymous with speech.
Normally the way I play it is something along the lines of the system Anguriel has described. But I think Lemonfresh has a good point here.
Of course, I personally think Ventriloquism is a particularly weak spell that ought to have been a cantrip, and as it is not I would probably allow the caster to make a perform (acting) check to sound like someone else.
Peet
IF you cannot use Ghost Sound to produce intelligble speech, then which spell would work for the following effect?
You're in a dungeon and futher down the hallway, about 50 feet, you can hear a little girl crying, she quietly implores into the gloom "please, please help me".
This is an illusionary sound, not made by Ventriloquism (which states "your voice or any sound that you can normally make vocally" and you definitely don't do falsettos).
So which spell does the trickster use for this effect?
If this were first edition and you were an illusionist--the go-to caster class for tricksters--you would use the Noise cantrip from the Unearthed Arcana to make the sound of a child sobbing or, if you actually want "Please help me!" said in a girlish voice you use the 1st level illusionist spell Audible Glamer.
If you were a 1st ed magic-user, you'd pick between the Moan or Groan cantrip and the 2nd level Audible Glamer spell.
In the current edition? You ask your GM if you can add Audible Glamer back in as a 1st level Sorcerer/Wizard and possibly Bard spell.
Audible Glamer isn't currently in Pathfinder since it was never put into the SRD and thus is product identity. But it is very easy to houserule in.
Having the Ghost Sound cantrip function like the 1st ed Audible Glamer rather than the 1st ed Noise cantrip makes it overpowerful for a cantrip.
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...
If ghost sound can do talking/short messages, you simply cast it at Caster Level 1 each round with a new message, which lets you capture the functionality of ventrioloquism at the expense of spending actions rather than talking while acting. But given the likely usage of the spells in most cases, that's not much of a drawback.
Given your post below the quoted one suggesting that you'd be okay with Whale Song (which is fairly obviously a form of verbal communication)
It is sound based communication, but it is not intelligible speech.
D'ziriak: The insectoid d'ziriak language consists of buzzes and chitters. It is an obscure one known by few outside their race. (Bestiary 2).
For the record, I'd allow intelligible speech as well, as long as you weren't a Druid trying to sneak past your level 7 feat tax--I just would consider it a houserule. I would allow this language, too, but i don't think it'd be a houserule to do so, since it's not speech.
Vegepygmy: Vegepygmy is not a spoken language since vegepygmies cannot speak. They communicate via a crude language of rhythmic taps, beats, and clicks. (Bestiary 1)
Also fine.
This is hands down the most pedantic thread I've ever seen.
I agree. I've never seen so many people refuse to accept the concept of unintelligible speech.
I can't fathom how there are actually people here who think that you could make sounds that sound like words, but the moment they are actually used to convey meaning, the spell breaks down.
Yeah, it's almost like all those people who think they can use Acid Splash to melt objects only to find out that half of 1d3 isn't going to pass the hardness of anything you'd care to slag. It's magic--it follows its own set of rules.
So then what makes it break?
Magic.
Is it the fact that when you cast it you understand what you're trying to convey?
Nope, it stops when you're trying to make intelligible speech, because, magic.
Would it work if the listener didn't speak the language?
Nope.
It would be gibberish to them.
Too bad it's not actually gibberish or it would fit under the purview of the spell.
What if you don't speak the language you're creating with the spell?
Then how are you creating the language's sounds correctly in the first place?
What if you just copied something you heard earlier? It's gibberish to you, right?
And it'd either fizzle or be actual gibberish when you tried.
Why in the world could the spell itself be able to differentiate between meaningless and meaningful sounds?
A wizard did it.
If you wanted to trick people into thinking they were hearing music, why would Ode to Joy be fine, but Row Row Row Your Boat be off limits?
Because one contains intelligible speech.
If you wanted to trick people into thinking they were hearing Chellish, why would the spell differentiate between "sounds like Chellish" and "actual Chellish"?
Because one is intelligible speech and the other isn't.
Limiting the spell like this makes no sense at all.
It makes magical sense, because, magic.
How can you question magic? It's magic. It follows its own rules because it does. That's the end of it.
So it eliminates a feat tax for druids? So what?
Some might think feat taxes are in place for balance reasons, and consider balance to be important...
IF you cannot use Ghost Sound to produce intelligble speech, then which spell would work for the following effect?
You're in a dungeon and futher down the hallway, about 50 feet, you can hear a little girl crying, she quietly implores into the gloom "please, please help me".
This is an illusionary sound, not made by Ventriloquism (which states "your voice or any sound that you can normally make vocally" and you definitely don't do falsettos).
So which spell does the trickster use for this effect?
Several options:
Have a good Disguise/Bluff check and Ventriloquism
Vocal Alteration and Ventriloquism
Persistent or Programmed Image
Sculpt Sound
GM Fiat
It specifically says 'talking'. Therefore, it can replicate talking, which is synonymous with speech.
Ah, but not necessarily intelligible speech.
Reasons why Ventriloquism is better than Ghost Sound(and thus a 1st level spell rather than a 0 level cantrip):
Ventriloquism allows you to cast once, and for 1 min/level speak as though your voice were coming from another place.
Ghost Sound is a programmable sound that you can only set the content of once, at the time of casting, and thereafter it makes only that sound. Additional sounds require additional castings, which require additional actions.
Ventriloquism allows you to continuously speak through the spell for as long as the duration lasts.
As far as I can see, the level issue is the best argument to prohibit Ghost Sound making intelligible speech. However, Ghost Sound clearly states that you can cause it to make ANY sound. Talking is not a special type of sound...it is made up of sound waves just like any other sound. And Ventriloquism is arguably "better".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's not intelligible, it's not speech. It's gibberish.
Sayeth Dictionary.com:
a. The faculty or act of speaking.
b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
If it's not intelligible, it's not speech. It's gibberish.
Sayeth Dictionary.com:
a. The faculty or act of speaking.
b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
So, then why did the authors use the phrase "intelligible speech," if there is no other possible kind of speech?
It specifically says 'talking'. Therefore, it can replicate talking, which is synonymous with speech.
No, it doesn't. It says the sound of talking.
Can one make the sound of talking, without talking?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can one make the sound of talking, without talking?
Sure. It's just like the art of fighting... without fighting. (We miss you Master Dragon!)
You folks do what you want with this thing. Me? I'm going to continue using it to convey intelligible messages in short bursts over the moments at a time. Traffic lights in the rain that mutter in obviously fake, programmed voices: "Walk...Walk...Walk..."; rotating black discs which issue short musical arias from a long ago King named Elvis who was apparently a lycanthrope (hound dog) and some say still lives.
The spell in no way conveys the ability of ongoing conversation, but it easily transmits singular sounds of "virtually" any kind. I will continue to use this for specific words "Ok men, we've got him surrounded! On my signal, attack!" and then a Prestidigitation to rustle the bushes... even though you are all right; there is no RAW to support this use.
|
Can one make the sound of talking, without talking?Sure. I direct your attention to glossolalia, which sounds very convincingly like speech but isn't.
One could also make other sounds which are unintelligible but sound like speech, such as:
- background noise of many conversations, as in a noisy restaurant where you can't catch any one conversation.
- speech which cannot be made out, such as an argument muffled by intervening walls.
- Aphasic speech, in which what the speaker intends to say bears no relation to the words actually produced. For example, "That guy stole my hairpiece!" might come out as "Bamboo dirt chameleon retort!"
That last one would actually be pretty neat for flavoring Ghost Sound speech as unintelligible. Maybe it can make recognizable words which just don't make any kind of sense when strung together.
+1
I think this is exactly what the spell was meant to do.Moreover, I do not think the caster would have detailed control over the sounds produced. He might say, "Roaring lion", but not "A four year old male lion, whose weight is in the 76th percentile, roaring three times, each roar 2.8 seconds duration, frequency 58 Hz, with 3.7 second pauses between the roars."
The thing, is if you can't create intelligible speech, then it becomes a divination spell that allows you to know if a phrase/sentence has any meaning or if it is gibberish. True, spells like comprehend language and similar allow this as well, but Ghost Sound is a much lower level ability that may have some impact on certain mystery/Indian Jones style adventures at low levels.
No, it doesn't. The spell cannot distinguish what is gibberish. What you're saying is that you can use a million monkeys and a typewriter to determine if a lost work is really by Shakespeare.
According to the PRD Spell Database there are 22 spells that are classified as Figments. Persistent Image, Ventriloquism, and Programmed Image are the only ones that use the words "Intelligible Sound" either in the effect or the spell description. The other 19 don't use those exact words which would exclude them from having intelligible verbal components of the spell. Yet Mirror Image, Symbol of Mirroring, and Fearsome Duplicate all state that their audible components mimic the casters exactly. So since they don't specifically state that the illusions have "Intelligible Sound" does that mean that even though they are copying the casters words exactly that they are unintelligible?
The emphasis of the arguments against Ghost Sound having Intelligible Speech capabilities seems to be that the rules about Figment state that unless it specifically says "Intelligible Speech" that it doesn't offer it.
Ghost Sound can be used to enhance a Silent Image spell. How believable could an illusory creature threatening you away be if you can't understand what it's saying even if you share it's language. As far as game mechanics go, it's not the realism of how the player or GM describes the illusion that makes it powerful, it's the DC to save against.
Ventriloquism obviously isn't a great 1st level spell, and I've seen it argued in here that it should most likely be considered a cantrip. I disagree with that, it's just obviously more useful to NPC's played by the GM than the player characters in most cases.
Can one make the sound of talking, without talking?
Yeah.
Have you ever been in a crowded cafeteria (or the like) where EVERYONE is talking, creating an unintelligible din? Sure, you can usually pick out a few words here or there, maybe a snippet of conversation, but I would think that Ghost Sound could be making speech that is unintelligible, not because it's gibberish, but because it is distorted, like in the above example, or if you were listening to a conversation through a thick door, as another example.
In the first example, I know that I can, personally, often identify the language(s) being spoken around me in such an instance, without being able to figure out what anyone is talking about--can hear a particular accent, or part of a word that says to me English, or French, or German, or Hebrew, etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far I haven't seen any rules-based argument against ghost sound as a means of communication. Just a lot of poor inferences, and the completely dismissible "because magic" argument.
Sure, you could use ghost sound to create the sound of an unintelligible din.
You could also create the sound of gilbert godfried singing "I am the very model of a modern major general."
Why?
Because the rules say "virtually any type of sound within the volume limit." No other caveats or limitations.
You might not like it, you can even house-rule it with whatever limits you want, but RAW, "any sound" is pretty damn clear.
So far I haven't seen any rules-based argument against ghost sound as a means of communication. Just a lot of poor inferences, and the completely dismissible "because magic" argument.
Sure, you could use ghost sound to create the sound of an unintelligible din.
You could also create the sound of gilbert godfried singing "I am the very model of a modern major general."
Why?
Because the rules say "virtually any type of sound within the volume limit." No other caveats or limitations.
You might not like it, you can even house-rule it with whatever limits you want, but RAW, "any sound" is pretty damn clear.
Your post is short, but full of win IMO.
@Drachasor : For Image spells, it's written when you can't create intelligible speech (for example for Minor image).
Concerning Ghost sound, it is EXPLICIT that you can create "any type of sound within the volume limit".
It is also explicit that you can create "talking, singing, shouting, walking, marching, or running sounds".
Writting other interpretations is just being a jerk concerning magic and wizard, that's all. All you need to do for this spell is being able to read, and take 1 min to read that text. Nothing hard.
@Drachasor : For Image spells, it's written when you can't create intelligible speech (for example for Minor image).I'm just saying it is odd from a design perspective. Make ANY sort of visual image? SURE! Smell? Not too hard! Heat and Cold? Ain't that bad. Sound...woah, buddy, that's crazy talk! Gotta limit that! The spell level required for speech is ridiculous.
Well... That only applies to minor image. For every single other, you can have any visual, any sound, any thermal and any smell you want (besides silent image, that only have visual, obviously).
The sentence in the Illusion school, Figment subschool only applies to Minor image for the Image line of spells. That's all.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it were one of those rules that aren't applied in the game, like for example the rules for negative levels (the rule that is NEVER applied, as any means to do negative levels have their own rules, that are different from the standard rule).
I was just saying there's a semantic argument to be made. I don't agree with it, and I don't think "sounds of talking...etc" is nearly as definitive as the anti-talking crowd says. That is, I'm agreeing with you.Concerning Ghost sound, it is EXPLICIT that you can create "any type of sound within the volume limit".
It is also explicit that you can create "talking, singing, shouting, walking, marching, or running sounds".
Writting other interpretations is just being a jerk concerning magic and wizard, that's all. All you need to do for this spell is being able to read, and take 1 min to read that text. Nothing hard.
If the semantic here consists of "You can make any type of sound, but not any type of sound", then it is b*llshit.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=yW4nfveKW5s&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dy W4nfveKW5s
Simlish. Google it.
It doesn't really answer any of the difficult questions about where you draw the line on what sort of sounds this spell can make. Especially if you start considering simple words. As written any restrictions are going to be extremely artificial given that it can make virtually any sound.http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=yW4nfveKW5s&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dy W4nfveKW5s
Simlish. Google it.
By definition a spell is somewhat arbitrary ....
Apparently, some people around here don't know how to read. I don't have the time to teach.
Continue your foolish arguments amongst yourself, you will certainly have a FAQ answer in a couple months or something for what I care, and that will either confirm the rule and make you feel like idiots, or maybe they will change the rule for unknown reasons (they do it sometimes). It might depends on the weather.
EDIT : in order to make a proper post, I will argue with proper arguments, to explain like you're seven.
The list of figment spells (in CRB) :
Ghost sound : Can create any type of sound, including speaking (it is explicit in the description of the spell). Speech is made of words that are pronounced. Words have meaning by themselves (even not in the right order, a single word can have a meaning, be intelligible). So if intelligible speech wasn't possible, you could make the sound of "Car Donkey Guldo Sword", but not the word "Sword" only, because it will make sense, be intelligible. Sounds crazy enough ?
Ventriloquism : Can create ONLY intelligible sound, and speech is given as an example.
Silent image : Can not create sound. Lets pass over it.
Minor image : Like Silent image, but can create minor sound WITH THE EXPLICIT absence of intelligible sound, like speech. It's clear enough for me.
Mirror image : Create clones of you, that mimicks everything you do or say, either by visual or sound. It is explicit. Yet, it is a figment spell, and it doesn't have the word intelligible in it. Yet, if it can't copy your speech, then it wouldn't mimick the sound you make, right ? I will stop here with that spell, it is already silly.
Major image : As Silent image, but with sound, smell and thermal illusions with it. No limits on either.
Illusory wall : No sound for a wall normally...
Persistent image : As major image, but without concentration.
Mislead : As invisibility and major image. If it couldn't speak intelligibly, you could recognize it very easily, wouldn't you ?
Permanent image : As major image, but permanent
Programmed image : As major image (well, Silent image with sound, smell and thermal) but triggerred.
|
@Drachasor : For Image spells, it's written when you can't create intelligible speech (for example for Minor image).
Concerning Ghost sound, it is EXPLICIT that you can create "any type of sound within the volume limit".
It is also explicit that you can create "talking, singing, shouting, walking, marching, or running sounds".
Writting other interpretations is just being a jerk concerning magic and wizard, that's all. All you need to do for this spell is being able to read, and take 1 min to read that text. Nothing hard.
Ghost Sound isn't an Image spell. It is a figment, and therefore must follow the rules for figments.
It is EXPLICIT that you can create "virtually any type of sound within the volume limit" for noise ('virtually any' isn't equivalent to 'any', by the way). Unless you're taking extreme interpretations, noise doesn't generally refer to something that is intelligible.
"Talking, singing, shouting, walking, marching, or running sounds" = talking sounds, singing sounds, shouting sounds, walking sounds, marching sounds or running sounds. To infer otherwise means that the spell can actually produce the effect of "walking" or "marching". Talking sounds that are noise don't sound like something that is intelligible.
|
|
Minor image : Like Silent image, but can create minor sound WITH THE EXPLICIT absence of intelligible sound, like speech. It's clear enough for me.
Mirror image : Create clones of you, that mimicks everything you do or say, either by visual or sound. It is explicit. Yet, it is a figment spell, and it doesn't have the word intelligible in it. Yet, if it can't copy your speech, then it wouldn't mimick the sound you make, right ? I will stop here with that spell, it is already silly.
"mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly." Right there, it says that it mimics any sound you make exactly. It's fine.
Major image : As Silent image, but with sound, smell and thermal illusions with it. No limits on either.
Sound is not necessarily speech. It doesn't have the same permissive clauses that Mislead and Mirror Image have.
Mislead : As invisibility and major image. If it couldn't speak intelligibly, you could recognize it very easily, wouldn't you ?
Luckily, it has the phrase "The double moves at your speed and can talk and gesture as if it were real, but it cannot attack or cast spells, though it can pretend to do so." This is in addition to what major image can do.
A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can.
Does mirror image say that it can duplicate speech? Does it mimic the caster's sounds exactly? Yes?
Does mislead say that it can duplicate speech? Does it say that the double can talk as if it were real? Yes?Does major image say that it can duplicate speech? No? then it can't.
Thanks for pointing out that none of the spells in the silent image line can produce speech. Major image's description is exactly the kind of paragraph that the figment restriction is referring to. The spell can produce an audible effect, but doesn't mention that this sound is allowed to be speech.
@Serum :
[playing dumb]But it doesn't explicitly say you that with those illusions you can make intelligible speech, right ? Only copying sound you make. But as it is a figment spell, and it doesn't precise you can make intelligible sound explicitly, you can't, right ?[/playing]
Does it seem silly enough ? The only spell that have the precision Intelligible speech is Ventriloquism. It is the only one. If the word "Intelligible" is a prerequisite, then Ventriloquism is the only figment spell to allow speech.
If that word is not a prerequisite by itself, but the word "any type of sound" are enough, or "copying what you say", or any other things like that are enough, then this whole topic have no meaning.
|
|
/shrug. If the spell says specifically that it copies all sounds you make, then it copies all sounds you make, talking included. Sounds pretty specific to me. Major image doesn't even come close to having that sort of permissive clause.
Ghost sound lets you make noise. This noise can be virtually any sound. Noise isn't commonly considered speech.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the spell says specifically that it copies all sounds you make, then it copies all sounds you make, talking included. Sounds pretty specific to me. Major image doesn't even come close to having that sort of permissive clause.
The word Intelligible is not included in any of those spells. Why would one of them be treated differently ? Does the word "Any sound" are not enough ?
Ghost sound lets you make noise. This noise can be virtually any sound. Noise isn't commonly considered speech.
How do you call the noise you make when you speak ?
If you can fix me right in the eye and say it's not speech, and not Intelligible speech to be precise, then I will be able to understand why you can't understand why Ghost sound, who can create sound of speaking, can not make intelligible speech.
Gibberish is not speaking. Talking in an unknown language can be taken for Gibberish sometimes, I give you that, but that's it. Gibberish by itself is NOT speaking. And Ghost sound allow speaking explicitly.
Concerning the guy that used the Simlish language as an argument : know what ? Simlish language is... a language. You and I don't know how to speak it, but it's not gibberish either. I could say the same with Elven in LOTR. The fact that you don't know the language does not allow you (or me) to understand it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have a meaning (be intelligible).