|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 2:51PM
#1
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out how exactly Sending is supposed to work in 3.5. Basically, is the spell speech dependant or is the message sent mentally?
The issue came up because the party is trying to contact a party member that's been kidnapped, bound, and gagged. I responded that the response is muffled and incoherent. One of the players, who DMs our other game said that he has always assumed the message to be mental in nature.
The only clue in the spell that I can see is the sentence that reads, "It (the subject) can answer in like manner immediately." The way I interpret this is that the communication must be made in whatever method the caster has available to him, that being speech for most PC races (the caster in this case is a gnome), and therefore the response must be spoken as well. If the caster in question happens to have the Telepathy special quality and he chooses to do the Sending mentally, then the response would have to be mental as well, thereby allowing a gagged recipient to respond normally.
Any insight?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 3:08PM
#2
|
|
|
The Sending spell has a verbal component to it so I persume speach is required for the outgoing message. I assume the "answer in a like manner immediately," means the recipient must speak his reply IF HE CHOOSES TO GIVE ONE. I do not believe the Sending could be done using Telepathy and definitely do not believe it could be used to receive the reply. You should remember that the target can choose not to reply which would be acting on the Sending. If the caster's telepathy could be used to receive a reply then it would almost always get something back even if the target didn't want to reply. While I believe the reply needs to be "spoken" I do NOT believe it needs to be "clearly" spoken so a reply may be possible despite being gagged although understanding that reply should be a lot harder. As for the thought that Sending in Mental in nature I would point out that it is an Evocation spell. These spells "produce something out of nothing" which in the case of Sending would be the messages exchanged.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 3:15PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2011
|
Well in this case the spell is a Evocation Spell.
then the spell will make you speak as normal with the other person but the target is the only one that can listen the message non other in the area of the spellcaster or in the area of the Target person.
Pepe pecas pica papas con un pico con un pico pepe pecas pica papas si pepe pecas pica papas con un pico donde esta el pico con que pepe pecas pica papas.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 10:05PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2012
|
I will start by saying I am the player in Ahruhn’s campaign who also DMs our other game. As a player in his campaign, I abide by his decisions, so I have no problem accepting that sending requires the message to be spoken. With that said, I will share how I view the spell and allow it to be used in my own campaign. Sending requires a verbal component to cast. But is the verbal component the spoken message, or is it the arcane words that trigger the spell? Many spells that have a verbal component do not produce a message, so I do not feel that by virtue of having a verbal component it means that the message to be sent must be spoken (I am not saying that it does not make sense however). For me, the verbal component is the arcane words spoken to trigger the spell (along with the somatic and material components). The message itself is a separate part of the spell and can be spoken aloud or merely thought.
The Silent Spell feat removes the required use of a verbal component. If we assume the verbal component IS the spoken message, than the sending spell would require no spoken words. The message is received the same regardless. Now would the reply require spoken words? Or would the reply be bound by the Silent Spell feat? If we assume that the verbal component and the spoken message are separate components of the spell, and that the spoken message is still required, it would render this feat useless for this particular spell (which could very well be the case).
For me, the verbal component is separate from the message, so by using this feat, one can send a message without uttering a word. Combined with Eschew Materials, a few hand gestures and the spell is complete. Great for secret messages over a distance, etc.
The sending is received by the target in a pure mental form. There is no actual audible message delivered. Ie. Someone sitting next to the target will not hear the message, because there is nothing to hear. So if the message received is mental, and the reply is in a like manner, would the reply not also be mental?
For me, because the message received is mental, the reply is mental.
Sending is an evocation spell, so it makes something out of nothing. If we say the message if spoken, would that mean the spoken message (something) becomes nothing (mental message received)? Or the spoken message (something) becomes something (exchanged messages)? It all comes down to what we define as something and nothing, and that could vary widely.
For me, the mental message (nothing) becomes an exchange of messages (something).
That’s how I envision the spell and use it in my campaigns anyways. I’ll add that the same effect of preventing the recipient from replying is still available (drugged, concussed, etc.), so in the end the result is largely the same with the exception of the spoken message required being noticeable by others surrounding the caster and target, rendering it slightly less useful.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 10:30PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2001
|
Purely going on the spell's text, the message would have to be mental (or something very similar), since the spell doesn't have the language-dependent descriptor, and doesn't describe any possibility of the effect being blocked by an obvious means, such as a deaf or silenced target not hearing the message, or a gagged or mouthless creature being unable to reply.
Since the target can answer in a like manner, its response would similarly be mental.
I'd leave the judgement on unconsciousness up to the DM; maybe you can reply while you're knocked out or asleep, maybe not.
The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens
Co-Author of the Dreamfane, Euralden Eye, Gajuisan Crawler, Gruesome Lurker, Fulminating Crab, Ironglass Rose, Sheengrass Swarm, Spryjack, Usunag, and Warp Drifter, and author of the Magmal Horror from Force of Nature.
= My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.
Show
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed.
• When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle.
• When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets.
• When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall.
• When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade.
• When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water.
If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours.
Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 11:12PM
#6
|
|
|
I'd casually remind you that Sending takes 10 MINUTES to cast. I recognize that Silent Spell can get rid of the Verbal Component of the spell but without it you're going to be making sound the entire time so I really believe the message you carry will be verbal.
Slagger is right about the spell NOT being language dependent but because the target is in no way compelled to act there is also no reason to believe that it must be able to understand the message. While the spell does say anything with INT 1 or higher can understand the sending I take that to mean they can recognize what it is.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 4:53AM
#7
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses so far, and thanks to Vieh for contributing his points to the thread. Since the Sending spell is so vague on the subject I'm sure this will come down to a split decision.
I do agree with StevenO's point that the fact that this is an Evocation spell that it has to create some effect, in this case sound at the location of the subject and at the caster if the subject chooses or is capable of responding. If the Sending were meant to be mental in nature then it would fall into the Divination school (i.e.- Rary's Telepathic Bond, Detect Thoughts, etc.). The player attempting the Sending has another question.
If the spell creates sound for the person recieving the message then can others around the recipient hear the message? In the case I detailed above, would other people in the room when her cleric recieves her companions muffled response, would others in the room be able to make Listen checks in order to understand what he's saying?
In order to preserve the usefulness of the spell in communicating with people that may be in compromising situations I'm of the opinion that it would create a sound in the recipient's ear canal that he can hear clearly but that those around him could not, reminiscent of someone wearing earphones. In this case, others in the room would not be able to hear the response, or, if they succeed on a Listen check to hear the words, they would be straining too much to actually hear anything at all to be able to interpret severely muffled speech.
On the subject of Language-dependancy, the spell specifically states that the recipient understands the message. I interpret this to mean that, like the language translating technology in Star Trek, the spell has the effect of Tongues/Comprehend Languages between the caster and target.
So now, if the spell does in fact require spoken words, does that mean that the recipient needs vocal cords or the ability to speak at all in order to respond? Say you're trying to do a Sending with your Ranger friend's animal companion (Int 1 or 2) or your half'orc barbarian friend that's been Polymorphed into a newt (Int 7 or 8), can they respond (answers reflecting their capability/experience), effectively having the spell also create a Speak with Animals effect?
A wizard trying to do a Sending with his familiar with the Speak with Master ability should work without question I think.
As a Cleric4, Wiz/Sor5 spell it seems reasonable that it could produce these effects for a single 25 word message over 1000s of miles and across the planes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 5:46AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2003
|
IMO since the spell doesn't have the magic descriptor language-dependent, you don't have to understand the language(s) the caster knows. So an Int 1 creature would understand, but just couldn't respond by speech (since most likely it couldn't speak).
This doesn't mean the spell works on a mental basis only.
If the caster speaks the message, the target hears the message and understands it, and can speak a response back that the caster hears and understands even if they don't speak a similar language. If the target can't speak, then it only understands the message.
If the caster has telepathy (such as from Rary's), then the target "hears" the message in its mind and "thinks" it's response so the caster telepathically "hears" it.
I don't believe anyone but the caster and target hear each other, unlike the Whispering Wind spell that specifically says so (a 2nd level spell).
If it wasn't for Shadowfax, Gandalf never would have made it.
Shadowfax, the real hero of LotR.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 8:10AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2011
|
as was saying for StevenO i don't think that the spell make the target creature understand the message or to you understand what he is saying, as example what happen if the target is the tarrasque that have int 3 and no language.
This spell let you Send a speaking Message that only the target can listen, then the target hears it like any other normal conversation and he can no understand it as normal, or he can understand it and send a repply in her own language and you can no understand it as normal.
But Unlike that StevenO i think that the spell come in play after the cast then you can cast it as silence spell and then send the message that is described that only the target can listen.
Pepe pecas pica papas con un pico con un pico pepe pecas pica papas si pepe pecas pica papas con un pico donde esta el pico con que pepe pecas pica papas.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 9:39AM
#10
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the intent of this sentence,
"A creature with an intelligence score as low as 1 can understand the Sending, though the subject's ability to react is limited as normal by its Intelligence score."
indicates that it understands the message being sent despite any language barriers. If this wasn't the case then it should read that "the subject recognizes the Sending for what it is."
As far as trying to do a Sending to the Tarrasque, the spell says that the caster needs to be Familiar with the target creature. I can't find an official definition of familiar in any 3,5 books (if someone knows of one please let me know), but the Scrying spell defines it as "You know the subject well". This is a more intinate knowledge than Firsthand, which says "you have met the subject". So, it stands to reason that in order to do a Sending to the Tarrasque you would have to have met it and know it well. I don't think that is going to happen.
|
|
|
