7

In the SRD, it is noted in the table under Intelligent Items ~ Languages Spoken By Item two footnotes 2 and 4.

Footnote 2 reads

'Like a character, an intelligent item speaks Common plus one language per point of Intelligence bonus. It can communicate telepathically with the wielder.'

And footnote 4 reads

The item can use either communication mode at will, with language use as any speaking item. It can communicate telepathically with the wielder.

Is there any particular reason why footnote 4 should repeat and emphasize the same information contained in footnote 2 'It can communicate telepathically with the wielder' when footnote 4 already acknowledges the item possesses both speech and telepathy and can use either communication mode at will?

Dale M
  • 210,673
  • 42
  • 528
  • 889
MichaelDorf
  • 1,564
  • 6
  • 12

1 Answers1

9

The line serves no purpose

Any of the weapons in Footnote 4 already has telepathy, and telepathy is never tied to a specific language, so it does not matter if the wielder or anyone else also speaks the same language as the weapon. It can communicate telepathically with anyone. This makes the line entirely superfluous.

For what it's worth if with the languages the weapon would need to communicate telepathically with the wielder in the language it speaks, then the line would serve to ensure it can communicate, even if it does not speak the wielder's language. But that is not how telepathy works in 3.5.

Nobody the Hobgoblin
  • 112,387
  • 14
  • 326
  • 684
  • 1
    Per the last bit there, it doesn’t say that because the telepathy doesn’t use the language—no telepathy does. The definition of D&D 3.5e telepathy includes communication between any two creatures (where at least one has telepathy) that both speak any language—no need for them to both speak any one same language. And since this is defined as the baseline for telepathy, individual telepathic creatures don’t need to specify it. See this Q&A. – KRyan Jan 31 '22 at 14:31
  • Hi KRyan, in that case the line on Footnote 4 about telepathy is clearly superflous, as any of these weapons can speak common and use telepathy. In that case, I could only speculate that the authors followed the same erronous logic as I. What is the process here - should I delete the answer? – Nobody the Hobgoblin Jan 31 '22 at 14:36
  • @kryan Footnote 2 states 'Like a character' in respect to speech but notes telepathy with the wielder. Then footnote 4 states 'either communication mode at will, with language use as any speaking item.' how the person you're responding to describes it and that particular line in footnote 4 lends weight to the supposition telepathy is not working here the same as language independent divination spells. – MichaelDorf Jan 31 '22 at 14:37
  • I disagree. Yes, “4. […] It can communicate telepathically with the wielder,” is superfluous here, since the item can communicate telepathically with anything. There is no indication whatsoever that the telepathy is in any way limited relative to the telepathy of every other creature in 3.5e, and I’d honestly missed your answer claiming there was. I’m afraid I’m downvoting that, because I don’t think that’s true and I know you haven’t backed it up enough to convince me I’m wrong. – KRyan Jan 31 '22 at 14:46
  • Hi @KRyan, no problem. I do not disagree with you. I am pretty new here, so my question is what is the process here -- should I edit the answer, or just delete it? I don't think there is value in speculating why the line is there when it serves no real purpose (which is the original question). I will edit it for now. – Nobody the Hobgoblin Jan 31 '22 at 14:51
  • @GroodytheHobgoblin If you no longer believe the answer is correct, you have the option of deleting it or editing it. Substantially editing an answer with a lot of upvotes is sometimes seen as problematic (since it’s probable that a number of people who voted for it aren’t going to come back and reread it and now they’re supporting something they haven’t read), and editing something with a bunch of downvotes can have practical issues (people may not come back to those either, saddling a now-good answer with downvotes it doesn’t deserve), so sometimes it is preferable to delete and re-answer. – KRyan Jan 31 '22 at 14:54
  • @GroodytheHobgoblin In this case, neither of those really applies—I’m the only vote on the answer and I’m paying attention, so an edit is perfectly reasonable if there is an edit you would like to apply. If not, you can choose to delete it if you like. You also don’t have to; I’m not the arbiter of truth and rightness here. If you still support the idea of language-based telepathy, you can just accept that some may disagree but stick to your guns. Heavily-downvoted answers can cause trouble, but a single mildly-downvoted answer is not going to. Maybe others will come along who agree with you – KRyan Jan 31 '22 at 14:58
  • @KRyan, thank you for the explanation. I agree, none of the potential issues with an edit seems likely here, so I did that. – Nobody the Hobgoblin Jan 31 '22 at 15:02
  • I'm going to mark this answer as correct solely for the reason @KRyan pointed out https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#telepathy However I will note this particular statement 'The item can use either communication mode at will, with language use as any speaking item. ' rather than add clarity it does the opposite. It could potentially imply the reader should refer to column 'Communication' and the cells above titled 'Speech' providing support to a false assumption that the intelligent item's telepathy is operating under a clause not inherent to the telepathy special ability. – MichaelDorf Jan 31 '22 at 15:10
  • 3
    If you want to delve deeper into this topic—because I think this is a good start, and it's tough to argue the developers screwed up and never fixed it—, this looks like an error inserted by the 3.5 revision (specifically when going from symbol to numeric footnotes—I'm not even kidding). You can see how it was in 3E using this SRD in the Intelligent Items tabs. – Hey I Can Chan Jan 31 '22 at 15:11
  • @HeyICanChan My guess would be, telepathy mention in a footnote 2 is a mistake, and footnote 4 explains telepaty inteligent items posess - it isn't given any range, so it is probably wielder only. – annoying imp Feb 01 '22 at 07:26