Telepathy vs Read Thoughts

[Stryyke]

I just started a pseudodragon character, who's communicates primarily through telepathy. All of the cultural things I read on the species indicates that they stalk a group for days, listening to their thoughts, to determine if they are worthy. But there's nothing in core that indicates that. My DM said that my character cannot read thoughts with Telepathy, but that doesn't seem right. Isn't reading thoughts an aspect of telepathy?

[Troacctid]

Nope. Mind-reading is a different kind of telepathy. It's doppelgangers who read surface thoughts; pseudodragons merely have the ability to communicate mind-to-mind.

[Stryyke]

I'm slightly confuse about that difference. Pseudodragons can only send thoughts? Can they not hear a telepathic response? Do they have to hear a response audibly?

[TheFamilarRaven]

That is correct. Having telepathic capabilities does not impart telepathic capabilities to others. The Pseudodragon can send thought messages, but unless the receiving creature also has telepathy, they must respond verbally.

[Stryyke]

Learn something new every day. Thanks for the clarification.

[VenomTongue]

From the SRD

Telepathy
A creature with this ability can communicate telepathically 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.

Some creatures have a limited form of telepathy, while others have a more powerful form of the ability.

[Quickblade]

I disagree. I have always had the understanding that telepathy allows the sending of thoughts and - if the recipient wishes to ALLOW - a response in thought from the recipient. The definition just posted does not state messages CANT be reciprocated and the part about multiple telepathic "conversations" also infers two way communication is possible. Feel free to disagree of course. What are you playing?

[Crake]

Huh, I've always run it as telepathy letting you both send and recieve telepathic communication from someone you're having a conversation with. It doesn't let you read thoughts they hold back from you, but it lets you hear thoughts the specifically project back at you as a response.

Have I been playing it wrong all of this time?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Huh, I've always run it as telepathy letting you both send and recieve telepathic communication from someone you're having a conversation with. It doesn't let you read thoughts they hold back from you, but it lets you hear thoughts the specifically project back at you as a response.
That's how I assume it works. The MM definition uses 'communicate with', which I take to be two-sided, as opposed to 'send at' or similar.

[Crake]

That's how I assume it works. The MM definition uses 'communicate with', which I take to be two-sided, as opposed to 'send at' or similar.

Yeah, I've been looking at some old threads and people seem to unanimously consider it two way, but I still haven't seen any actual direct support for it, though the way you read it does seem to ring true.

[Larrx]

Yeah, I've been looking at some old threads and people seem to unanimously consider it two way, but I still haven't seen any actual direct support for it, though the way you read it does seem to ring true.

It rings true for me as well (it's the communicate bit that seems like it should be two way, communication just 'feels' like it should be call and response), but he RAW is really very limited.

There are a lot of situations were telepathy should, according to our intuition, be applicable. That intuition comes from other media though. As much as I want telepathy to work in the ways it's commonly understood (and I want that very much!) it seems like it doesn't.

Can you speak telepathically to someone in another room? No, you don't have line of effect. Seems like you should be able to though.

Can you speak to someone telepathically without being overheard by people without telepathy? Again, no.

Can you speak to someone and 'hear' their reply? Nope. Not unless they have telepathy too.

Can you read minds with telepathy? Super not, regardless of what flavor text might suggest.

For the record, I would recommend to anyone that they relax or ignore most of this for their games, but the 'out of the box' telepathy in 3.5 allows you to be understood by people regardless of the languages you each speak, and that's it.

And it lets you qualify for some neat feats, I guess.

[Zanos]

Huh, I've always run it as telepathy letting you both send and recieve telepathic communication from someone you're having a conversation with. It doesn't let you read thoughts they hold back from you, but it lets you hear thoughts the specifically project back at you as a response.

Have I been playing it wrong all of this time?
I've always played it this way as well. It's important to remember that telepathy confers no ability to the minds of people, though. You can only receive thoughts they specifically want to send across the link.

[zergling.exe]

Can you speak to someone telepathically without being overheard by people without telepathy? Again, no.

Actually, the way it is written, it seems that the default is one person only, but you are allowed to speak to multiple recipients simultaneously:

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.

[Segev]

Indeed, the wording indicates that a single creature with the telepathy special ability can, in fact, send and receive thoughts. However, nothing in the ability says he can receive thoughts not intended as communication to him.

So if somebody is trying to communicate with him, the pseudodragon can receive the thoughts associated with it. Because the pseudodragon's telepathy is limited in the languages it can pick up, he either can't "hear" thoughts in the wrong languages, or he can't understand them. Most creatures with telepathy don't have that limitation, and can understand any thoughts they can pick up. That is: thoughts deliberately intended as communication to them.

I would personally rule that this includes "some guy is speaking out loud in response to the voice in his head," since he has thoughts associated with what he says and he's trying to communicate with the telepath, so the telepath can read those thoughts.


Read thoughts allows reading minds which are NOT trying to communicate, and which may even be resisting (as represented by a saving throw).

[Larrx]

Actually, the way it is written, it seems that the default is one person only, but you are allowed to speak to multiple recipients simultaneously:

The way I read that clause, they are explaining the difficulty inherent in 'talking' to more than one person about different things.

As opposed to, for example, giving a speech.

I just think that telepathy is very poorly defined in 3.5.

[TheFamilarRaven]

I think the RAW supports that it's one-way communication. I'll admit, communicate may be an ambiguous term because the dictionary definition of the word is "to impart or to exchange information". The SRD seems to be using the 'to impart' form of communication.

Reposting the SRD



From the SRD

Telepathy
A creature with this ability can communicate telepathically 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.

Some creatures have a limited form of telepathy, while others have a more powerful form of the ability.


breaking it down: The first sentence seems to indicate that as long as creature has a language, they can understand a creature who uses telepathy. The 2nd sentence explicitly says a creature can telepathically send out a massage to multiple creatures, specifically using the term address, which is a one-way form of dialogue. The second half of the sentence doesn't mean that creatures can respond, it means that it is just a difficult to carry out a telepathic conversation with other creatures who have telepathy, as it is to simultaneously listen and respond to multiple verbal conversations.

If my character is communicating verbally to someone without vocal cords, even if they understand me, they can't respond vocally. The same is true for telepathy. If a creature doesn't have "telepathic vocal cords", how can they speak telepathically?

Claiming that since the text does not state it is not allowed for the recipient to respond doesn't mean recipients can respond. If you follow that logic you open up a whole other can of worms. "Well, there's no text saying my longsword doesn't instantly kill Balors...".

Of course, your own table is your own table. But I don't believe there's any RAW support for "it let's recipients respond" other than people saying "well that's how I've understood it".

EDIT:


t

Can you speak to someone telepathically without being overheard by people without telepathy? Again, no.


I agreed with everyone of your assessments about telepathy except this one. The RAW text is very clear that it is optional to address multiple creatures. If you choose not to, then creatures who are not targets of your telepathic message cannot hear the message. Even other creatures with telepathy can't hear it! It's like listening to someone's telephone conversation. The phone is pressed up to their ear so you can't hear what the person on the other end is saying, but you can hear the person's verbal response. If they were both telepathic, then it would be like text messages. You can't read each telepath's messages unless you hacked their network, like with Detect Thoughts, or something.

[Segev]

The way I read that clause, they are explaining the difficulty inherent in 'talking' to more than one person about different things.

As opposed to, for example, giving a speech.

I just think that telepathy is very poorly defined in 3.5.

It's not poorly defined, honestly. It does what it says it does. You can talk to people with your mind, and they can talk back with theirs.

The reason the "difficult to carry on multiple conversations" clause comes up is because people might otherwise think telepathy gives them a special gift for multi-chatting, since each "other" participant hears only the one conversation going on.

One thing that is oft abused by PCs in my experience (and I'm guilty of this, too) is using a single telepath to link the whole party. The mechanically legal way to do this is to literally have the telepath repeat what each person tells him. Which is akin to having one guy with a radio that can talk to everyone, and everyone else's radio talking only to his. He can choose to send to all, some, or none, but can't rebroadcast. So he literally has to repeat what each other person says to the group. Which should be slow and potentially confusing. But most groups wind up playing it as if they're all having conversation in real time.

M'gann's trick in Young Justice is not technically something base D&D can do. There are powers and spells that do set up a psychic "com channel" that everybody's on, but base D&D telepathy (the special ability) doesn't work that way, even though many players treat it like it does.

[Deophaun]

Consider the following sentence: "I am communicating electronically with the President."

If someone said that to you, would you understand them to be receiving responses from the President, or are they just sending?
Would you understand those responses to come electronically, or through some other method, like written letters?

[TheFamilarRaven]

I would understand that the president and you are both sending and receiving messages via email, or in this case, telepathy, because you both have access to telepathy.

Begrudgingly :smalltongue:, I think I'll concede to the fact that it allows for two-way communication. The SRD does say "communicate with", rather than "communicate to", semantics being what they are.

EDT: Also, the Helm of Telepathy seems to be more explicit in allowing two-way communication

[Necroticplague]

Communication isn't inherently two-way. It's possible for you to communicate with someone, and for them to not communicate back. In this case, it's because they're the equivalent of mute, since they lack the means to communicate in kind.

[Segev]

Communication isn't inherently two-way. It's possible for you to communicate with someone, and for them to not communicate back. In this case, it's because they're the equivalent of mute, since they lack the means to communicate in kind.

While you're welcome to rule it that way, it doesn't seem implied by anything in the way the game's portrayed. And the two-way method is no less valid an interpretation of the RAW. I think it slightly moreso, in fact, because "with" does seem to imply bi-directional. I can see the argument for it not, but that seems like the kind of restriction that would have been called out.

[Afgncaap5]

Hmm... that last line is bugging me. What do they mean by "limited" vs "more powerful" forms of telepathy? Communication with someone seems pretty much boolean; either you can communicate with someone or you can't. Might that refer to range?

Or is this permission for GMs homebrewing things to tweak the specifics of telepathy? Like, give rider effects similar to the kinds of things that you can cast via crystal balls?

Also: the fact that a Pseudodragon's entry in the monster manual says "It stalks a candidate silently for days, reading his or her thoughts and judging his or her deeds" is telling. Even if the listed ability doesn't specifically grant the ability to read thoughts by RAW, it seems to me like it might have been RAI. Is it possible that the line about it reading thoughts, coupled with the telepathy descriptor's mention of there being "more powerful" forms of telepathy, could be sufficient for some GMs to allow it as possible RAI?

It's speculative, to be sure, but I could see a GM handwaving it and saying "Over the course of three days you get vague impressions of their minds, and most of them are sour and unpleasant except for one who's mind feels gritty but not bad" or something. Or if a GM needed a way to quantify it, maybe treating it as a slow-burn Detect Thoughts that can take hours or days to reach the third step instead of rounds.

As another thought: does anyone know anything about 2e Psuedodragons and telepathy and any differences that there might be in 3.5? I could see this being a case of a 2e game designer flipping terms while writing a monster's flavor-text description. That wouldn't necessarily change the RAI or the RAW, but it might shed some light on things.

[Flickerdart]

Also: the fact that a Pseudodragon's entry in the monster manual says "It stalks a candidate silently for days, reading his or her thoughts and judging his or her deeds" is telling. Even if the listed ability doesn't specifically grant the ability to read thoughts by RAW, it seems to me like it might have been RAI. Is it possible that the line about it reading thoughts, coupled with the telepathy descriptor's mention of there being "more powerful" forms of telepathy, sufficient for some GMs to allow it as possible RAI?

It's equally possible (and much more likely) that Pseudodragons could originally read minds (through a detect thoughts SLA or an extra ability of Telepathy), and then were changed not to do so sometime before release. WotC's editing team is awful, after all.

[Afgncaap5]

It's equally possible (and much more likely) that Pseudodragons could originally read minds (through a detect thoughts SLA or an extra ability of Telepathy), and then were changed not to do so sometime before release. WotC's editing team is awful, after all.

Indeed. That's why I wonder about the change-over between 2e and 3.5, honestly.

[Flickerdart]

Indeed. That's why I wonder about the change-over between 2e and 3.5, honestly.

2e pseudodragons (in the Monstrous Compendium v1, 1989) don't even have "real" telepathy.


Pseudodragons communicate via a limited form of telepathy. If one elects to take a human companion, it can transmit what it sees and hears at a distance of up to 240 yards.

However, the descriptive text is the same.


The pseudodragon that searches for companionship will stalk a candidate silently for days, reading his thoughts via telepathy, judging his deeds to be good or evil.

Going all the way back to the original Monster Manual from 1977, we get 24 feet of "limited" telepathy, transmission of what it sees and hears, and no mention of mind reading.

So the pseudodragon was never able to read minds - even if the general telepathy ability granted this, pseudodragon telepathy was always limited.

[Duke of Urrel]

I originally considered telepathy – as a supernatural ability – to work in only one direction. My justification was that without bestowing magic upon the recipient of a telepathic message, the recipient shouldn't be able to send any message back. In contrast, the Telepathic Bond spell, which is bestowed upon several individuals at once, obviously enables two-way communication, but with the spellcaster as the necessary switchboard operator between other linked individuals, just as Segev has explained.

I eventually came around to the view that magic can work in places far beyond where it is even detectable. For example, I believe the magic aura that represents the Silence spell appears around the object or the immobile point in space that the spell is bestowed upon. The magic aura (as I imagine it) is not an enormous blob with a 20-foot radius just because this is the radius of the Silence spell's spherical area of effect.

Similarly, telepathy is carried only by the creature that possesses telepathy as a supernatural ability. (Since this magic is supernatural, it is is not detectable by ordinary means (such as the Detect Magic spell) at all.) But from the general claim that magic works beyond its carrier, we can deduce the specific claim that the magical power of telepathic sending can be bestowed by its carrier upon non-carriers within the power's range.

That having been said, we need to be careful not to claim that telepathy can do anything more than what the rules say. Telepathy enables communication – yes – and we can say that this communication goes in two directions too. But this does not imply that a telepath or anybody who communicates with a telepath has the ability to Detect Thoughts. If a telepath sends you a message and you choose not to send any message in reply, the telepath cannot simply read your mind. In other words, telepathic communication should work just like normal communication, only without sound.

I do believe the rules for telepathy imply one thing. Since "t is possible to address multiple creatures at once telepathically," I believe it is implicitly [I]also possible to address only one creature, excluding all others except for telepathic creatures. In other words, I believe it is possible to use telepathy to avoid eavesdropping by non-telepaths. On the other hand, I believe a telepath can always eavesdrop upon telepathic discussions within range of its own telepathic power – with no chance of failure. (This presumably keeps Evil telepaths from plotting betrayal against other Evil telepaths known to be within 100 feet.) I offer these interpretations (or house rules) only for your consideration.

POSTSCRIPT: The mention of mind reading in the description of the pseudodragon (in the Monster Manual, not in the SRD) has me stumped, because this doesn't seem to belong to telepathy generally. Indeed, the pseudodragon's telepathy is limited to creatures that speak Common or Sylvan, which makes it more limited than "universal" telepathy.

[nyjastul69]

Indeed. That's why I wonder about the change-over between 2e and 3.5, honestly.

In 1st and 2nd Ed. pseudodragons 'communicate via a limited form of telepathy'. The description goes on to say that they can transmit what they see and hear out to 240'. Note that communicate is used in a single direction here.

I've always ruled that telepathy works in only a single direction unless both parties posses it.

[Lord Vukodlak]

A creature with this ability can communicate telepathically 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.
Nothing says the communication is one way, Nothing. Saying its only one way is purely an assumption. However it uses the word conversation and listening which is NOT possible unless its a two way link.

But that doesn't mean telepathy lets you read thoughts.

[Duke of Urrel]

The general objection to the idea that telepathy includes mind reading may come from the fact that illithids have both telepathy and a Detect Thoughts ability. If telepathy included the power to read minds, then the Detect Thoughts ability would not be necessary.

But this is not to say that pseudodragons cannot have some limited mind-reading power as an exception to the general rule.

[Afgncaap5]

But this is not to say that pseudodragons cannot have some limited mind-reading power as an exception to the general rule.

Right. However, I think I'd prefer it if it was actually given some clarification that it had it as an exception, a sort of "sense the heart" ability. As it is, it sort of puts the onus on both players and GMs to give it a "fairy tale exception" of some sort.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Hmm... that last line is bugging me. What do they mean by "limited" vs "more powerful" forms of telepathy? Communication with someone seems pretty much boolean; either you can communicate with someone or you can't. Might that refer to range?
I suppose creatures may have telepathy that only works on creatures they share a language with, or one that works on all creatures with a language (built-in tongues), or one that works on all creatures with an intelligence score (built-in speak with animals). Constructs may be telepathically communicating with eachother, despite having no intelligence score or language, and maybe drow have a telepathy that works on spiders and other vermin.

(note: I'm not sure these exist, I'm just saying different types of telepathy can easily be imagined. That sentence is just there to remind people to check the specifics of a given Telepathy (Su).)

[Afgncaap5]

I suppose creatures may have telepathy that only works on creatures they share a language with, or one that works on all creatures with a language (built-in tongues), or one that works on all creatures with an intelligence score (built-in speak with animals). Constructs may be telepathically communicating with eachother, despite having no intelligence score or language, and maybe drow have a telepathy that works on spiders and other vermin.

(note: I'm not sure these exist, I'm just saying different types of telepathy can easily be imagined. That sentence is just there to remind people to check the specifics of a given Telepathy (Su).)

Ah! Good thought, yes that would work.

And it fits the current example, too, since the Telepathy of Pseudodragons is stated to work with creatures who can speak Common or Sylvan.

(I wonder, though: if they tried it on creatures who couldn't speak that language, would the ability simply not work, or would the listener just hear sporadic sounds of a language they don't know? "Can communicate with creatures" that speak the language is just vague enough to go either way for me.)

[Necroticplague]

Ah! Good thought, yes that would work.

And it fits the current example, too, since the Telepathy of Pseudodragons is stated to work with creatures who can speak Common or Sylvan.

(I wonder, though: if they tried it on creatures who couldn't speak that language, would the ability simply not work, or would the listener just hear sporadic sounds of a language they don't know? "Can communicate with creatures" that speak the language is just vague enough to go either way for me.)

Personally, I would just go with "they hear your 'mental voice', but they don't undertand it, since it's not in a language they get." Just like how you can talk in whatever language you want using normal speech, no guarantee they know WTF you mean. Most stronger telepathies bypass this barrier (transmit meaning instead of words).

[Troacctid]

I grew up with Animorphs, so I just rule it like Andalite thought-speak.

[Deophaun]

Right. However, I think I'd prefer it if it was actually given some clarification that it had it as an exception, a sort of "sense the heart" ability. As it is, it sort of puts the onus on both players and GMs to give it a "fairy tale exception" of some sort.
What about something like...

Sense Motive +7
If you're following them for a week, it's probably going to give you a massive circumstance bonus on your Sense Motive check for a hunch as to what these people are all about.

[Stryyke]

Lot's of good detail and thoughts. I think I'll just link my DM to this thread and let him read the various arguments.

[Afgncaap5]

I grew up with Animorphs, so I just rule it like Andalite thought-speak.

Same here! This thread made me start to figure out some discrepancies between how thought-speak worked in the first books when compared to the later ones.

[Psyren]

Indeed, the wording indicates that a single creature with the telepathy special ability can, in fact, send and receive thoughts. However, nothing in the ability says he can receive thoughts not intended as communication to him.

+1

You can both send and receive, but not get any unintended communication.

[Quickblade]

Just for the sake of it
Helm of Telepathy from Basic red book rules DMG pg 45 (2e D&D not AD&D)
"The wearer of this helm may send messages, by mere thought , to any creature within 90'. The creature will understand them.(The creature may refuse to respond.) The wearer may also read the thoughts of a living creature within range. If the creature fails a Saving Throw vs Spells ( or permits the thought reading), the wearer will understand the creature's thoughts.
Just in case the issue wasn't confused enough.
In response to "it doesn't state that I don't instantly kill therefore I can" it does actually. It's called a damage table

[Vaz]

While you're welcome to rule it that way, it doesn't seem implied by anything in the way the game's portrayed. And the two-way method is no less valid an interpretation of the RAW. I think it slightly moreso, in fact, because "with" does seem to imply bi-directional. I can see the argument for it not, but that seems like the kind of restriction that would have been called out.

Can you communicate to a mute? Yes. What happens if they are paralysed? You are still communicating, but they don't have the wherewithal to communicate back.

The rules say what the rules say. Anything else is DM's purview.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Can you communicate to a mute? Yes. What happens if they are paralysed? You are still communicating, but they don't have the wherewithal to communicate back.

The rules say what the rules say. Anything else is DM's purview.

I made the same analogy (kinda) earlier. But the RAW says communicate with, not communicate to. You are very very correct in your analogy. If you communicate to someone/thing, then it is one-way, or, you are "imparting information", as the dictionary would say it.

If however, you are communicating with someone/thing, that's including the object you are referring to, making it to-way. Or, as the dictionary would put it, you are "exchanging information".

[Deophaun]

Can you communicate to a mute? Yes. What happens if they are paralysed? You are still communicating, but they don't have the wherewithal to communicate back.
But are you communicating in the sense that the writers are using the word?

The truth is, you don't know. No one knows except the writers. Just because you can find a particular definition of the word that fits what you're saying, it doesn't mean that particular definition is the correct definition for that particular statement. The best we can do is look at contextual clues, and those point to it being two way. Doesn't mean it is; doesn't mean it's not RAW to say it's one-way. Just, in all likelihood, RAI is that it's two.

The rules say what the rules say. Anything else is DM's purview.
And the rules, shockingly, are vague. They don't specify whether it means interchange or transmit.

[TheFamilarRaven]

In response to "it doesn't state that I don't instantly kill therefore I can" it does actually. It's called a damage table

And what about death effects that instantly kill creatures without HP damage? So my longsword does 1d8 damage, but since no where does it state that it doesn't instantly kill balors, there's no reason why it shouldn't. Dealing damage is not the same as saying explicitly "no insta kill". Certainly it's implied, but no where is the actual restriction wirrten down that a longsword does not instantly slay balors. Or, if your still not convinced, no where does it say I can't make infinite money by staring at my longsword.

Look, obviously I am incorrect in that a longsword clearly doesn't instantly slay a balor, or give me infinite money, just because there's no text saying it doesn't. Buts that's the point. When analyzing rules, one should focus on what the rules says the user CAN do.

[Segev]

Can you communicate to a mute? Yes. What happens if they are paralysed? You are still communicating, but they don't have the wherewithal to communicate back.Note that you said "communicate to," in order to make this a correct statement. As TheFamiliarRaven says here...


I made the same analogy (kinda) earlier. But the RAW says communicate with, not communicate to. You are very very correct in your analogy. If you communicate to someone/thing, then it is one-way, or, you are "imparting information", as the dictionary would say it.

If however, you are communicating with someone/thing, that's including the object you are referring to, making it to-way. Or, as the dictionary would put it, you are "exchanging information".

...communicating "with" implies (if not outright requires) that they communicate back.

Now, of course, you can communicate with a mute who uses some non-verbal means to communicate back, but unless you're going to argue that, despite not allowing the telepath to "hear" thoughts directed back at them, they can "communicate with any creature with a language," so they can understand that mute who uses grunts and gestures to try to get things across even though he merely understands, but cannot speak, at least one language, you're violating the RAW.

Since you can rule that way within the RAW, you can make the claim. But it starts to get awfully silly to think you'd have to go through such specific shenanigans and the RAW wouldn't spell out these extra requirements. The simplest reading that is fully consistent with the text is that it's two-way mental communication.