What is meant by telepathic communication?

[AidenStorm]

So, I'm relatively new to D&D. I noticed that under the Find Familiar and the Find Steed spells that the PC can communicate telepathically with the familiar or steed. The question is thus: is this communication uni-directional (only allows you to communicate orders and such to the familiar/steed) or is in bi-directional (the familiar and PC can both send some sort of data--thoughts, words, images, etc--to the each other)?

I feel like it should be bi-directional, but the same words, "can communicate telepathically with," are used to describe the Warlock's level 1 Great Old One trait, which from perusing forums is seen as uni-directional by RAI.

[MaxWilson]

In standard English, "communication with" implies bidirectionality. "Communicate to" is unidirectional (and is grammatically transitive). You can communicate an idea to me or you can communicate with me, but if you're doing all the talking most people will say you're talking at me, not with me.

[Shining Wrath]

"Communications" also has the somewhat archaic meaning of "being able to travel between", i.e., "The door allowed communication between the pantry and the kitchen". That helps to resolve this; communication is a two-way street.

If you get subjected to "improved communication" classes at work, they'll also emphasize the two-way nature of things.

[Shadow]

The intent was that it was one way. Even an owl familiar can only send simple concepts in the designer's game, and even that is DM fiat.

Dastion @Dastion
@JeremyECrawford For the Warlock Old One Pact Telepathy power. Is it one way or two way communication? I read it as one, but others don't.
Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@Dastion The intent is for it to be one-way communication, but a DM could certainly rule that it's two-way telepathy, as in monsters.

Brail @Brail4
@mikemearls @JeremyECrawford @ChrisPerkinsDnD Owl familiar spying.It Cant speak common.How much would you let it relay to its master later?
Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@Brail4 @mikemearls @ChrisPerkinsDnD I allow a familiar to telepathically communicate simple concepts to its master.

[Mr.Moron]

I'd probably make it two-way. Like being on a mental telephone. On a mental telephone with a horse mind you so the communication might be fuzzy at first. Spending time (months, years) with the same creature makes it clearer and clearer. In the extreme, decades on I'd imagine such a link would basically functioning as having a second set of eyes and ears as the mind/body of the bonded creature becomes an extension of your own.

Seems like a very subjective area to me.

[MaxWilson]

Shadow, thanks for the tweets. In this case I'm going to say it's a good thing that they accidentally wrote RAW different than RAI, because one-way telepathy makes Cthulhu warlocks lame. So lame that even Crawford (in the quote) admits that he wouldn't run the rule as RAI.

Fortunately, avoiding RAI in this case doesn't even require a house rule.

[MinaBee]

So far for Adventurer's League my DMs (it's a big store, so I don't always have the same DM every week) have ruled that the communication works two ways, that my character never has trouble expressing herself to the familiar (since it always follows my commands, as per the spell), but that I only get a limited amount of information back through the link.

For instance, if my cat is lurking in another room, I couldn't ask her "how many monsters are in that room with you" and have her answer "three". DM would instead give me something like 'you feel a definite sense of fear coming back through your link." If I wanted to know how many monsters were in the room, that would take an action for me to jump into my familiar's senses.

I think you could argue for, at least in the case of the find familiar spell, that since familiars are all fey, celestial, or fiendish, that if you character is fluent in the language associated with your familiar's type, that you and your familiar could actually speak.

[Easy_Lee]

I'd also like to submit that I see no reason why awaken wouldn't work on familiars. That would increase the opportunities for communication.

[Daishain]

Whatever happened to animal familiars gaining plenty of the intelligence needed to communicate properly?

I really like the idea of the familiar's mind being augmented by the knowledge and skills of the master, I hope they haven't done away with it.


I'd also like to submit that I see no reason why awaken wouldn't work on familiars. That would increase the opportunities for communication.
Technically, they are now celestials, fey, or fiends, not beasts. Awaken doesn't work, and it didn't work in prior editions either when they were defined as magical beasts.

[Easy_Lee]

Technically, they are now celestials, fey, or fiends, not beasts. Awaken doesn't work, and it didn't work in prior editions either when they were defined as magical beasts.

Even familiars like owls, ravens, and frogs? That's unfortunate.

I kind of assumed anything labeled fey, fiend, or celestial would have the intellect to understand speech. Communicating simple thoughts (counting, conveying emotions, a picture of how something looks) seems reasonable in my mind, but YMMV. I can certainly respect someone wanting to limit telepathy for story reasons.

[Shining Wrath]

I'd also like to submit that I see no reason why awaken wouldn't work on familiars. That would increase the opportunities for communication.

AFB, but are familiars still "magical beasts" while Awaken is limited to "beasts"?

[MaxWilson]

Whatever happened to animal familiars gaining plenty of the intelligence needed to communicate properly?

I really like the idea of the familiar's mind being augmented by the knowledge and skills of the master, I hope they haven't done away with it.


Technically, they are now celestials, fey, or fiends, not beasts. Awaken doesn't work, and it didn't work in prior editions either when they were defined as magical beasts.

But you could polymorph a Celestial into a beast and then Awaken it.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It would have to be a permanent polymorph or logically the awaken effect would end when the polymorph does.

[Mr.Moron]

Communicating simple thoughts (counting, conveying emotions, a picture of how something looks) seems reasonable in my mind, but YMMV. I can certainly respect someone wanting to limit telepathy for story reasons.

This isn't strictly defined in the RAW so please keep it out of this thread as it's massively off-topic.

[Easy_Lee]

This isn't strictly defined in the RAW so please keep it out of this thread as it's massively off-topic.

A rule isn't strictly defined so we have nothing but interpretation to work with. The words "communicate with" do have clear definitions, so we can assume it's two way from how it's written. The discussion at this point is what, exactly, a familiar could communicate, which I'm basing on intelligence scores and the capabilities of actual animals. I did not feel the need to restate what has already been said; I am still firmly on-topic.

I can't help but feel you're trying to be ironic, berating me for something I called others out for doing in a different thread. But this is not the same; I'm not trying to argue with RAW, merely interpret it. You have succeeded only in making yourself seem rude.

[Galen]

The intent was that it was one way. Even an owl familiar can only send simple concepts in the designer's game, and even that is DM fiat.

Dastion @Dastion
@JeremyECrawford For the Warlock Old One Pact Telepathy power. Is it one way or two way communication? I read it as one, but others don't.
Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@Dastion The intent is for it to be one-way communication, but a DM could certainly rule that it's two-way telepathy, as in monsters.
If that indeed was the intent, then they messed up the wording big time. Because communicate with clearly denotes a 2-way communication in the English language.

[Easy_Lee]

If that indeed was the intent, then they messed up the wording big time. Because communicate with clearly denotes a 2-way communication in the English language.

I agree. I'm getting the feeling that they didn't think this one through.

If it's two way, is that too strong for a level 1 spell / low level feature? The in-combat applications seem minimal.
If it's one-way, is it really any more beneficial than just talking?

What do you think?

[MaxWilson]

A rule isn't strictly defined so we have nothing but interpretation to work with. The words "communicate with" do have clear definitions, so we can assume it's two way from how it's written. The discussion at this point is what, exactly, a familiar could communicate, which I'm basing on intelligence scores and the capabilities of actual animals. I did not feel the need to restate what has already been said; I am still firmly on-topic.

I can't help but feel you're trying to be ironic, berating me for something I called others out for doing in a different thread. But this is not the same; I'm not trying to argue with RAW, merely interpret it. You have succeeded only in making yourself seem rude.

MrMoron was being blatantly ironic.