|
It sound like illusions are very easy to detect in your game Serum. You just need to listen, and the ones producing a stream of gibberish are the illusions. It appears that the divide in this thread is along the lines of illusions are a weak school/you can do a lot of interesting things with illusions.
...There's a ton you can do with all of the image spells that don't include talking. There's a ton you can do with ghost sound that doesn't involve talking.
|
|
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.
Easy. The when I talk, I don't consider it noise. Not all sound is noise.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'm trying to figure out how it's even logically possible to ban all intelligible speech from a spell that creates arbitrary sound.
Does it depend on what the caster speaks? Does a caster putting points in linguistics reduce the range of sounds he is allowed to use? Or are all words in every language banned right from the start? Can the caster use real words if no one around can understand the language?
I assume everyone thinks the caster can make simple high pitched and low pitched tones. If the party sets up a code where high pitched tones mean "yes" and low mean "no" does the caster suddenly lose the ability to make simple tones because now they have meaning? If that's okay, can the caster create a simple sequence of tones to allow for more concepts - "monsters this way," "watch out a trap," and so forth? But isn't that a simple language?
If I can make only gibberish, can I make gibberish that sounds like different languages? Could I set use a code with my party like the tones thing where different sounding gibberish (different "languages", different emotional tenor to the "speech") has different meanings? Does that suddenly make it language that then can't be made? What if my party squeezes their eyes shut and tries to forget really hard that we set up a code, does that restore my ability to use it?
I have yet to hear any argument against actual speech that doesn't open up a morass of logical inconsistencies. I'm not saying there is no such thing as unintelligible speech - I'm saying with effort, you can create a language out of any such speech, at which point it is no longer unintelligible. You can create a language out of any adjustable sequence of noises.
|
|
I'm trying to figure out how it's even logically possible to ban all intelligible speech from a spell that creates arbitrary sound.
Does it depend on what the caster speaks? Does a caster putting points in linguistics reduce the range of sounds he is allowed to use? Or are all words in every language banned right from the start? Can the caster use real words if no one around can understand the language?
I assume everyone thinks the caster can make simple high pitched and low pitched tones. If the party sets up a code where high pitched tones mean "yes" and low mean "no" does the caster suddenly lose the ability to make simple tones because now they have meaning? If that's okay, can the caster create a simple sequence of tones to allow for more concepts - "monsters this way," "watch out a trap," and so forth? But isn't that a simple language?
If I can make only gibberish, can I make gibberish that sounds like different languages? Could I set use a code with my party like the tones thing where different sounding gibberish (different "languages", different emotional tenor to the "speech") has different meanings? Does that suddenly make it language that then can't be made? What if my party squeezes their eyes shut and tries to forget really hard that we set up a code, does that restore my ability to use it?
I have yet to hear any argument against actual speech that doesn't open up a morass of logical inconsistencies. I'm not saying there is no such thing as unintelligible speech - I'm saying with effort, you can create a language out of any such speech, at which point it is no longer unintelligible. You can create a language out of any adjustable sequence of noises.
You should know that most of the rules don't generally cover corner cases. I think most of what you're doing there falls under 'creative 'uses'.
I have no problem with a wild shaped druid using ghost sound to, for example, produce the call of an owl that the party has decided, ahead of time, to mean that enemies are ahead, or the squeak of a mouse to mean 'no'. That's completely different from being able to engage in a full-out conversation.
|
|
...I've never quoted you, Drachasor. Just because your name is in the quote doesn't mean that you said it... likely the opposite, unless you have a habit of talking about yourself in the third person.
I presume the rules try to take into account the standard ways of doing things, ie. Speaking languages that are already defined (for example, in the Linguistics section, or in the bestiary entries). Going beyond that, you'll probably need to make your own house rules.
I don't think that when the rules were written, that the developers were even thinking of players creating their own languages.
Anyway, I hit the FAQ button, and I'm pretty much done.
Without reading through the entire thread, and making the wild assumption that the topic under debate is the question of the original poster, I cannot understand how this discussion has gone on for 156 (now 157) posts.
"A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can."
The spell description does not say "This spell can be used to duplicate intelligible speech."
Unless there is some new definition of specifically out there, ghost sound cannot do this.
There's no reason why a gm and a group of players can't redefine it, but RAW, this is a non-debate.
My apologies if in fact the topic is now debating the meaning of intelligible for its own sake, rather than for the purposes of determining what a specific spell can do.
Drachasor is sorry about the mistake, Serum.
The point I'm trying to make is that starting with simple words and sounds like "hi" and "leave" and "bye", it is rather ridiculous to propose Ghost Sound can't produce such things. It can apparently make music, bird calls, etc. It's simply hard to imagine that it can do all that, produce all the sounds of speech, and yet somehow not form words.
Elinor, we've been over this. "Intelligible speech" is not a game term, it's a descriptive phrase. It doesn't have to appear in any particular way in a spell for that spell to be able to produce speech.
The argument is basically that ghost sound can produce speech because it can make virtually any type of sound, including the sounds of talking, singing, etc. Understandable words fit in there perfectly. Many of us think it is the equivalent.
I think the problem is that you are thinking about speech in an atomistic or reductionistic way. "Volume of sound" strongly suggests to me that the spell is intended to create a gestalt sound effect, if you will. As others have said, similar to the sound you recognize as a bunch of people talking when you walk into a mall, bar, stadium, etc. Intelligible is not a useful word here. Theoretically, you could capture all those sounds and isolate the units of meaning. But the sound is not intelligible in any meaningful sense to the casual hearer.
Well, I think the rules are pretty clear. If it meant for it to be able to be used as a form of communication, it would say so. If you want to communicate with people with a cantrip, use message. Way over powered imho, but it does what it says on the package (message), as does ghost sound (sound).
But in any event, what's the big deal? Other than being an entertaining argument which can't possibly be won given the delightful lack of specificity that the English language provides us with.
|
In the Shattered Star AP, part 4: Beyond the Doomsday Door, the party runs into a
It could be a case of the writer having misunderstood the rules, but if I was asked to make a ruling at a table I was running, I'd take that as proof.
EDIT: Corrected the source.
I'll see you one mouthless boogey man and raise you one Orc Warrior with no favored class bonuses.
I would say that if the description alludes to the ability to do so by specifying you can do so, and the official APs have creatures that do so, then yes, yes you can.
Official Rules Response
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9quv
Ghost Sound: Can this create intelligible speech?
Making something that sounds like speech, and actually making intelligible speech are two different things. Ghost sound can sound like people talking, but anyone listening can't make out what the "people" are saying. After all, it is a cantrip, and shouldn't be as good as ventriloquism (which is a higher-level spell).