Awakened Mind

[Confused Dad]

Can a GOO Warlock's 'Awakened Mind' broadcast to many? A single message to all visible party members, mooks, or other sub-group w/in 30'?

"Starting at 1st level, your alien knowledge gives you the ability to touch the minds of other creatures. You can communicate telepathically with any creature you can see within 30 feet of you. You don't need to share a language with the creature for it to understand your telepathic utterances, but the creature must be able to understand at least one language."


The use of the plurals "minds" and "creatures", along with "any" instead of "a creature" seems to imply that the Warlock can send a telepathic shout to any number of select select, visible beings who have at least 1 language within 30' without including unwanted recipients.

EDIT: I am aware that there has already been a ruling that it is one-way, I'm only asking if the Warlock can include multiple recipients.

[PhantomSoul]

I'd say just one at a time: "any creature" not "any creatures", and then "the creature" (which mildly reinforces it). The flavour text doesn't suggest you target multiple creatures simultaneously either.

[Segev]

Whether he can speak to multiple or not, there's no action specified for the communication, so there's nothing preventing him from serially communicating with every creature in 30 ft., if he so desires. Because this is clunkier than just allowing mass targeted broadcasts, I'm inclined to suggest that DMs should rule to permit it.

[DarkKnightJin]

I'd allow Awakened Mind to serve as a 'conference call' with the entire party, provided they're within 30ft of the Warlock.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Awakened Mind is similar to message. Add infinite language, no length restrictions, shorten the range, and there you are.

I want it to be "telepathy is my speech," but it's not.

[Segev]

Awakened Mind is similar to message. Add infinite language, no length restrictions, shorten the range, and there you are.

I want it to be "telepathy is my speech," but it's not.

It can be. Again, no action specified, so using it is a free action. Sending to multiple people is thus pretty easy, subject only to the DM arbitrarily limiting the number of free actions you can take. Given that talking to multiple people isn't broken, I imagine few DMs will really have a problem with it.

Serving as a telepathic hub for the party is more problematic. Not only is there the possible reading that means the Warlock can't receive, only transmit his own thoughts, but even if he could receive, that would mean he's relaying everything others are saying. Imagine having to talk to only one person, who then has to repeat everything you say to everyone else, then wait for him to get replies and repeat them. Even with "talking is a free action," that's getting silly, just due to the amount of processing and concentration the Warlock has to do.

I believe the GOO Patron adds telepathic bond as a possible spell the Warlock can learn, though; that's probably his best bet for serving that function, and gives an idea of what level the designers thought appropriate for such a feature.

[Millstone85]

I believe the GOO Patron adds telepathic bond as a possible spell the Warlock can learn, thoughIt does not.

[Kurt Kurageous]

It can be. Again, no action specified, so using it is a free action.

Free action? No such thing in 5e! That's a pathfinder or 3.5 thing.

I'd be willing to say out of combat or high stress, ok. In combat? Tighter.

So I'd put it in the DM's rule and not wait for some tweet from some person who thinks they control your game from California.

[Vs’shtak]

Free action? No such thing in 5e! That's a pathfinder or 3.5 thing.

I'd be willing to say out of combat or high stress, ok. In combat? Tighter.

Actually, on page 190 of the PHB, there are several examples of free actions listed. Talking is one of them.

[JackPhoenix]

Actually, on page 190 of the PHB, there are several examples of free actions listed. Talking is one of them.

There aren't. Non-action isn't the same thing as free action.

[Galithar]

There aren't. Non-action isn't the same thing as free action.

Are both of them things that are done without using any form of action? Yes? Then they are indeed the same thing, or rather they mean exactly the same thing. Why do people always insist on being pedantic to such an asinine degree??

[Kane0]

Also for consideration is the ghostwise halfling for similarity.

[JackPhoenix]

Are both of them things that are done without using any form of action? Yes? Then they are indeed the same thing, or rather they mean exactly the same thing. Why do people always insist on being pedantic to such an asinine degree??

No, they are not. "Free action" implies it's still a type of action, which does have mechanical consequences.

[Galithar]

No, they are not. "Free action" implies it's still a type of action, which does have mechanical consequences.

The mechanical consequence of being free? Aka done at any time with no cost. This is in contrast to a non-action with no mechanical implication? Other then that because it takes no action it can... Be done at any time with no cost?
Same damn thing buddy. You can say a poodle isn't a dog all day, but it's still gonna bark.

[JackPhoenix]

The mechanical consequence of being free? Aka done at any time with no cost. This is in contrast to a non-action with no mechanical implication? Other then that because it takes no action it can... Be done at any time with no cost?
Same damn thing buddy. You can say a poodle isn't a dog all day, but it's still gonna bark.

No, the mechanical consequences of being (or not) an action. Incapacitated condition, for example, prevents you from taking actions, but you can still talk and move around, because those aren't actions. In contrast, Paralyzed and Unconscious conditions mention you're also Incapacitated, but also specifically add you can't speak or move. Similarily, there are abilities (spells, generally) that prevent the target from taking actions, but doesn't prevent non-actions.

So you may call it dog all you want, but when it's got retractable claws and meows, the fact is that it's a cat. (I wanted to mention being immune to a disease that only affects dogs, to make the simile more fitting, but I don't know any and can't be bothered to make more than one quick goodle search that doesn't really answer that, so yeah)

[Galithar]

No, the mechanical consequences of being (or not) an action. Incapacitated condition, for example, prevents you from taking actions, but you can still talk and move around, because those aren't actions. In contrast, Paralyzed and Unconscious conditions mention you're also Incapacitated, but also specifically add you can't speak or move. Similarily, there are abilities (spells, generally) that prevent the target from taking actions, but doesn't prevent non-actions.

So you may call it dog all you want, but when it's got retractable claws and meows, the fact is that it's a cat. (I wanted to mention being immune to a disease that only affects dogs, to make the simile more fitting, but I don't know any and can't be bothered to make more than one quick goodle search that doesn't really answer that, so yeah)

You're completely missing the point. Since 'free action' has no meaning in 5e saying something is a free action has no mechanical implication. All it means is that you don't have to spend an action of any kind to do it. Using the fact that Free Action was something that existed in another edition that may or may not have had any additional mechanical implication is irrelevant. But if you want to argue it that way I present that you're still wrong below.

Something that takes away your ability to take Actions and Reactions would NOT impede your ability to take a free action. A free action is a free action, not an action. Note that the portion of the PHB (PG 189) that describes bonus actions specifically calls out that bonus actions are lost if something is preventing you from taking actions. No where are free actions called out, therefore they would still be available to you.

[JackPhoenix]

Something that takes away your ability to take Actions and Reactions would NOT impede your ability to take a free action. A free action is a free action, not an action. Note that the portion of the PHB (PG 189) that describes bonus actions specifically calls out that bonus actions are lost if something is preventing you from taking actions. No where are free actions called out, therefore they would still be available to you.

Free actions aren't called out because there's no such thing as free action. If there was, it would be (presumably, writters made ton of mistakes) listed as one of the prevented actions. But as "free action" doesn't exist, logically, it can't be mentioned anywhere in the rules.