| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There are a couple old threads on this topic with no consensus and no FAQ button hits. Seemed worth a new thread.
Telepathy (Su) The creature can mentally communicate with any other creature within a certain range (specified in the creature's entry, usually 100 feet) that has a language. It is possible to address multiple creatures at once telepathically, although maintaining a telepathic conversation with more than one creature at a time is just as difficult as simultaneously speaking and listening to multiple people at the same time.
It seems obvious that two creatures with telepathy can communicate telepathically with each other. What isn't clear is how telepathy works with one telepath and one non-telepath.
To use a specific scenario, when a human receives telepathic communication from a demon, can the human respond telepathically or must they respond in manner normally allowed to humans? If they can respond telepathically, what enables that? Is the demon granting them an ability they don't normally have or is the demon able to read the surface thoughts of the human, indicating this ability should likely grant a save?
I have seen a lot of variation on this issue (non-PFS), but I am merely looking to get a definitive answer for the games I run.
I think I recall a place somewhere that says a telepathic creature can "lift" surface thoughts of someone they just communicated with in such a way as to enable a two-way conversation. I need to find the source, though.
It says right in there that you can have conversations with people. That means they're answering.
I disagree. The sentence talking about "conversations" doesn't say anything about giving non-telepaths telepathic abilities.
I see what you're saying, but you're then ignoring my follow-up question. Is the demon reading the surface thoughts of the human?
Fiction isn't useful in this case because we are getting the rules from Paizo, not from the fiction. In most cases of telepaths in fiction that I've read/watched, the telepath can read surface thoughts (or even memories, etc.) of other beings. I'm not sure that is the intention of the rule though so it's important exactly what it enables to happen.
Bizbag, it sounds like you are going with the interpretation that a telepath using telepathy on a non-telepath grants the non-telepath the ability to project their thoughts for an indefinite period, which I do acknowledge as possibly the intent of the rules. I'm interested in hearing more thoughts on the issue though.
A telepathic conversation requires two telepaths. Telepathy does not let a non-telepath send words to a telepath. The ability you're looking for is telepathic bond so each of you can be linked to each other telepathically.
Telepathic Bond
School divination; Level sorcerer/wizard 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (two eggshells from two different creatures)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets you plus one willing creature per three levels, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration 10 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You forge a telepathic bond among yourself and a number of willing creatures, each of which must have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher. Each creature included in the link is linked to all the others. The creatures can communicate telepathically through the bond regardless of language. No special power or influence is established as a result of the bond. Once the bond is formed, it works over any distance (although not from one plane to another).
If desired, you may leave yourself out of the telepathic bond forged. This decision must be made at the time of casting.
Telepathic bond can be made permanent with a permanency spell, though it only bonds two creatures per casting of permanency.
Failing that, you could try a Helm of Telepathy.
This pale metal or ivory helm covers much of the head when worn.
The wearer can use detect thoughts at will. Furthermore, he can send a telepathic message to anyone whose surface thoughts he is reading (allowing two-way communication). Once per day, the wearer of the helm can implant a suggestion (as the spell, Will DC 14 negates) along with his telepathic message.
Also, too, a simple message spell would work just fine.
Only one party needs to have telepathy. The one without telepathy can do nothing more than reply to the one with telepathy, though, he could not communicate with another creature w/o telepathy. If telepathy only worked 1-way (and thus the other creature needs telepathy to "talk" back), the entry would say so. Instead, it says "communicate", which is 2-way, and compares it specifically to speaking AND listening.
Telepathic Bond is a specific exception and is not "true/genuine telepathy," in that it only lets you communicate with other targets of the spell. Even if you use the (wrong and) harsher interpretation that telepathy only works 2-ways when you have another telepath, the spell is *still* a horrible example to prove anything and is pointless to even bring up. Because then, someone with telepathic bond still can't have 2-way comm. with a telepathic creature as the telepathic creature is not a target of the spell.
Show me anywhere where you can speak with your mind minus telepathy. Nothing in telepathy confers the ability for a target creature to respond to you in kind. All that bit about carrying on a conversation means is that two telepaths talking are exerting themselves the same way as if they were talking aloud. Meaning, being a telepath does not let you talk faster or do anything quicker than non-telepaths.
It doesn't. That's reading something into what's simply not there.
So, just because a telepath puts words in your head means you can't speak with your mouth?
There's some ambiguity as to the meaning of "communicate with". Some readers read that as "convey information to", and others read it as "exchange information with".
The best RAW answer I can give is that RAW doesn't clarify this, so you'll have to make a judgment call.
Note that Telepathy (Su) doesn't actually say that the ability allows you to have a telepathic conversation with anyone. It clarifies the difficulty of having such a conversation. It still may or may not require the other party or parties to also have some form of telepathy.
Of course you could but that wouldn't be a telepathic conversation would it? (the quote is taken from the second sentence of the ability above).
If someone is talking to you telepathically, it most certainly is even if you can only respond verbally. Have you never watched Star Trek? It showcased several telepaths who weren't also empaths. The two are distinct ideals. The fact that a Helm of Telepathy also includes a detect thoughts to facilitate two-way communication says Pathfinder believes the two abilities are distinct as well. Why not simply confer telepathy?
Listening telepathically implies being sent a telepathic response. If a creature can't do that then all you're getting is static. Telepathy is not "read surface thoughts." That is DISTINCTLY AND ONLY the realm of detect and seek thoughts and items that include those spells in how they work.
Dude, you're missing it. See ya.
|
If there are items/spells that call out specifically how to do two way communication, and this ability leaves all of that out, wouldn't that mean this is a one way communication?
Conversations are achieved normally, just person a is speaking to the person b's mind while the person b speaks to person a's ears. Remember, you have a right to privacy!
Placing thoughts into other's mind is one thing.
Taking thoughts from a person's mind is another.
There's some ambiguity as to the meaning of "communicate with". Some readers read that as "convey information to", and others read it as "exchange information with".
The best RAW answer I can give is that RAW doesn't clarify this, so you'll have to make a judgment call.
Note that Telepathy (Su) doesn't actually say that the ability allows you to have a telepathic conversation with anyone. It clarifies the difficulty of having such a conversation. It still may or may not require the other party or parties to also have some form of telepathy.
Incorrect
The text really does in fact say the words telepathic conversation - you can see in the RAW below.
Telepathy (Su) The creature can mentally communicate with any other creature within a certain range (specified in the creature's entry, usually 100 feet) that has a language. It is possible to address multiple creatures at once telepathically, although maintaining a telepathic conversation with more than one creature at a time is just as difficult as simultaneously speaking and listening to multiple people at the same time.
Format: telepathy 100 ft.; Location: Languages.Consider the word conversation, What you and Buri is suggesting is a shout or broadcast for example, and there is a subtle and distinct difference between the two types of communication...
I never said that the text didn't have the words "telepathic conversation". Please read my post again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only if it were possible in the first place. It'd be difficult for me to have multiple conversations in Swahili, but it wouldn't be any easier for me to have one such conversation.
I'm open to a rule or clarification for what "communicates with" means eith respect to direction; otherwise, I'd respect any GM's decision on the subject as one of those 1.4 jillion things that RAW doesn't cover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding languages, is there any indication that two creatures must share a language to communicate telepathically? I only see that a creature must have a language.
helm of telepathy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, thought I heard something. Must have been in my mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Telepathy is the ability to read a person's mind and project your own voice into their mind.
That's a common language definition, not a rules definition. Since a rules definition exists, it supersedes the common language definition (see: "Unbreakable").
I read and understand it much like Kazaan.
The ability allows you to have a conversation with another creature. You have to initiate the first conversation with the creature then you can converse with them. You have to establish the "link" with that other creature which then allows them to mentally communicate across it.
It does not work the other way around however, someone with out the ability cannot start up a conversation with someone with the ability.
Since there is a line in the rule that says you can speak with a creature that has a language, I would interpret that as the spell magically translates the creatures normally spoken language to one that you can understand and vice versa.
The ability allows you to have a conversation with another creature.
Nowhere in the Telepathy (Su) rules states this.
The ability allows you to have a conversation with another creature.Nowhere in the Telepathy (Su) rules states this.
Are you reading the same ability? It is quite clear and stated.
Telepathy (Su) The creature can mentally communicate with any other creature within a certain range (specified in the creature's entry, usually 100 feet) that has a language. It is possible to address multiple creatures at once telepathically, although maintaining a telepathic conversation with more than one creature at a time is just as difficult as simultaneously speaking and listening to multiple people at the same time.
Communicate and Conversation, however, do rely on common language definition and it's with these terms by which the Telepathy abilities for both creatures and intelligent items state that Telepathy establishes a two-way communication. The more you know.Telepathy (Su): The creature can mentally communicate with any other creature within a certain range (specified in the creature's entry, usually 100 feet) that has a language. It is possible to address multiple creatures at once telepathically, although maintaining a telepathic conversation with more than one creature at a time is just as difficult as simultaneously speaking and listening to multiple people at the same time.
Telepathy (Su): Telepathy allows an intelligent item to hold private mental conversations with its wielder, regardless of their known languages. The wielder must be touching the item to communicate in this way.
The first ability is the one in question. Intelligent items can have two-way communication with their wielder, full stop. But intelligent item abilities differ from those of other creatures all the time.
Read the first ability again, and parse the sentence with the word "conversation" in it. It never says that a person with telepathy can hold a conversation with someone without telepathy. It only says that holding a telepathic conversation with multiple people is as difficult as holding a normal conversation with multiple people. Assuming that the "multiple people" in the sentence don't also have telepathy is reading more into the text than it actually holds--it is just as likely that the hypothetical conversation is between members of the same species, all of which would possess telepathy.
Regarding "communicate with": Again, "communicate with" is not the same as "hold a conversation with". I can communicate with someone who is mute and has full-body paralysis, but we can't hold a conversation.
Whether the designers intended "communicate with" to mean "communicate back and forth with" has not been clarified, so it's up to the GM to decide.
The ability allows you to have a conversation with another creature.Nowhere in the Telepathy (Su) rules states this.Are you reading the same ability? It is quite clear and stated.
Telepathy (Su) The creature can mentally communicate with any other creature within a certain range (specified in the creature's entry, usually 100 feet) that has a language. It is possible to address multiple creatures at once telepathically, although maintaining a telepathic conversation with more than one creature at a time is just as difficult as simultaneously speaking and listening to multiple people at the same time.
No, it isn't. See above.
Read the first ability again, and parse the sentence with the word "conversation" in it. It never says that a person with telepathy can hold a conversation with someone without telepathy. It only says that holding a telepathic conversation with multiple people is as difficult as holding a normal conversation with multiple people. Assuming that the "multiple people" in the sentence don't also have telepathy is reading more into the text than it actually holds--it is just as likely that the hypothetical conversation is between members of the same species, all of which would possess telepathy.
You're reading too much in to it. It doesn't say the creatures have to also have the ability. Since it doesn't state it in the rule it doesn't have to be, unless a member of the design team chimes in and says yes it is supposed to say you can communicate with any other creature with telepathy.
The second sentence states that you can use telepathy with multiple creatures and also defines the rules for it. Since it is stated you maintain a telepathic conversation with multiple creatures. The rules wouldn't change if you are using the ability with many or one creature and since you actually have a conversation with many creatures you also interact the same way with a single creature. Therefore the term communicate in this instance means to actually have a conversation.
|
|
I think it's kind of funny how both sides say they are reading too much into it.
RAW, Blaphers is right.
A. You have to "read in to it" to say that people without telepathy can mentally communicate back to those who do have telepathy.
B. No where does it say that you can do the above in the rules.
It doesn't specify what kind of creature we are talking about, it's anyone's best guess. But with other rules to support it, the most conservative approach is best. The conservative approach is always accepted at tables :) (except in one case, but that GM hated my guts for one rounding his BBG... I didn't know that he was planning on having someone buff him during his speech! I just wanted him dead, not hear what he had to say!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's still quite possible that the intent was to allow two-way communication. And "communicate with" can certainly be interpreted that way, which is why I can't really say RAW prevents it outright. But it is ambiguous, so ask your GM (or FAQ it, which I'll happily click).
Edit: I think I've only seen one BBEG that could survive long enough to give the BBEG speech without having to stop and fight, and that's one I designed with a practically impervious plot coupon. PCs are rarely stupid enough to let a villain prattle on unless the info would be useful--and usually not even then.
I think it's kind of funny how both sides say they are reading too much into it.
RAW, Blaphers is right.
A. You have to "read in to it" to say that people without telepathy can mentally communicate back to those who do have telepathy.
B. No where does it say that you can do the above in the rules.It doesn't specify what kind of creature we are talking about, it's anyone's best guess. But with other rules to support it, the most conservative approach is best. The conservative approach is always accepted at tables :) (except in one case, but that GM hated my guts for one rounding his BBG... I didn't know that he was planning on having someone buff him during his speech! I just wanted him dead, not hear what he had to say!)
Yes, RAW Blaphers is right by the most conservative approach, but this isn't always accepted at all tables, even if people in question generally think it is.
It's also not borne out in any of the fiction, fluff, or Adventures that have utilized the ability - none of which are RAW, but all of which give us the general interpretation of RAW as it's applied in practice - the RAI.
Added to that, is the fact that you are not wrong to parse the sentence as "communication" meaning "two way communication" - it is clearly a more liberal interpretation, but there's nothing wrong with that, or that invalidates said interpretation. Instead of "RAW not covering" the question, then, it's more, "RAW allows multiple correct interpretations due to the inherent ambiguity of the English language, though if you're going for conservative, you're left with <this one>" which kind of happens a lot to me, recently. Pathfinder is big like that.
Buri's humorous suggestion of "Helm of Telepathy" aside (which references specific rules that clearly aren't utilized in the Telepathy ability, ala other minorly-misnamed items), we use the two-way telepathic reading, as has every group I've ever played in (I would guess that's five "semi-distinct" ones, by the way).
This, though, isn't reading the mind of the person who is talking.
Rather, in our interpretation, the creature with Telepathy has a kind of "telepathic field" by which they can communicate with others (sending it to them) and others can communicate with them in response (by consciously directing their thoughts). The other creatures don't gain telepathy - the field in question only applies to the one with telepathy, thus creatures without telepathy couldn't communicate with other creatures without telepathy even if both are in the "field" because the "field" is bi-directional: to/from the one with telepathy only.
The only other telepathy in action we've seen is that of Intelligent Items which does allow two-way communication. Again, that doesn't apply to the (Su) ability, but it does allow a GM to make an informed decision on when they rule the specifics of the otherwise ambiguous (Su) ability.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I'm thinking about it a bit more, communication is both a one way and two way word. It's the very next word that gives it away: with.
If they intended it to be one way communication, then it would say "Communicate to" instead of "Communicate with".
So, I switch my vote... if that even mattered...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definition time. An assorted collection of definitions to educate the boards on what words mean. Yay.
Communicate:
1. exchange information
2. To have an interchange, as of ideas
3. understand one another
4. Archaic. to share in or partake of.
A fun intransitive verb definition of communicate is: to open into each other
So…
What’s up with this thread?
If you are mentally communicating with another creature, that is two way yo. If you’re having a mental conversation with another creature, that is two way yo.
Check out Conversation’s definitions:
1. informal interchange of thoughts, information, etc.
2. exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas
etc.
Basically, both Communicate and Conversation are a two way kind of thing. Especially in the usage which regards another subject.
I cannot have a conversation with Jenny from apartment 2B if she ignores me. I can talk to her if she ignores me. But we never communicated if she ignores me. I tried to communicate, but failed, when it wasn’t reciprocal.
Haha. The way I’ve ‘explained’ this to people for their ease of understanding is as follows.
The only surface thoughts that someone/thing with Telepathy can hear are the surface thoughts a creature wants heard. Anyone can choose to “mentally speak”. Anyone can. Most everything cannot hear this. So it would be a wasted effort 99.999% of the time… A creature with telepathy can hear it though. A creature with telepathy can also ‘mentally speak’ so ‘loud’ that people who normally cannot hear this, do. They can also tune the ‘frequency’ of this communication so that only certain people are involved.
Now that I'm thinking about it a bit more, communication is both a one way and two way word. It's the very next word that gives it away: with.
If they intended it to be one way communication, then it would say "Communicate to" instead of "Communicate with".
So, I switch my vote... if that even mattered...
Communicate is only one way when absent a second subject in the sentence.
The usage we are looking at includes another creature, thus is necessarily two way.
The 'with' is a very strong deciding factor, over and above that, as it essentially leaves no room for interpretation 'other than' a two way interaction.
Good call.
I'm just not a fan of adding things to a rule just to be on the safe side. The rule says you can communicate with a creature. It doesn't say telepathic creature so why would you rule it that way? Play it the way it is written. By RAW it allows communication with a creature, substituting in communicate with another telepathic creature is fine but not RAW.