Interpreting Empathic Link

[clark411]

Firstly, I'm unsure if this is best for DnD Rules or House Rules, as it has to do both with well... Rules interpretations, and it also has to do with alternate ways to use the mechanic.

That said, I've had a discussion with a player regarding the special mount his paladin is about to recieve, and the empathic link that he has with it. I'm less strict with how rules are interpreted and more interested in playing a diverse game that might diverge from the rules in interesting (but not hampering/weakening ways).

What I'd like to know is if empathic link can be interpreted as communication through a way that doesn't involve sentences, words, etc. PHB pg 43 states "The paladin cannot see through the mount's eyes, but they can communicate telepathically." Despite popular media uses of telepathy, and Star Trek differences between empathy and telepathy, telepathy proper lists verbal communication as a possibility amongst others- like emotion, sensation/perception, and pure thought.

This being the case, I'd argue that an interaction could be something other than a direct dialogue in something the paladin perceives in common and the mount percieves in... horse or whatever you have. The paladin feels pain, the mount's link allows it to percieve it, and it rushes to his side. The paladin wants the mount to do something, the mount senses it and, hopefully, performs the action in the best way its animal mind can do so. The paladin wonders what the horse is up to... and percieves the bite of cold and satisfaction of a strong desire in the horse to drink... ah- it's drinking at the bubbling brook we passed before camping.

What are some of the limitations of this alternate interpretation? Is it unreasonable, or restrictive? Have you DMed or played with a similar kind of empathic link to a familiar or mount?

 

[AuraSeer]

Your interpretation is a bit limiting for my taste. I've always allowed the empathic link to be explicit communication. That is, the linked beings can always communicate exactly what they mean-- not just basic impressions that could be misunderstood.

Also, note that a paladin's mount has far more than animal intelligence. Animals in the MM have Int 1 or 2; even the lowest-level paladin mount has Int 6. It won't be casting spells or passing freshman algebra, but it's bright enough to take actions without needing explicit commands at every turn. (Worgs also have Int 6, and they are stated to have their own language and use complex battle tactics.)

 

[shilsen]

I agree with AuraSeer. Last gaming session, one of the other party-members went up to my paladin's warhorse and excitedly asked it to call him (the paladin was a few buildings away). The horse relayed the message that the other PC seemed excited, and my paladin decided something was up and returned. Seems reasonable enough.

 

[Femerus the Gnecro]

As the player in question here, I'd love for more people to reply.

So...

BUMP!

-F

 

[bret]

I would argue that the Empathic Link is better at ability to communicate than speaking.

The link is telepathic. It conveys the concepts and emotional impact of the message in ways that most people just can't comprehend until they experience it. Think of the closest bond you've ever experience with another person, and now add Telepathy.

When the Paladin's mount looks at a person, the Paladin should get a feeling for how the mount percieves it. The scent of them, the look of them, and if the horse likes them or not. The link the other way should be just as strong.

I use the broken link as the main reason that you can't join with another familair or mount for a year. It takes that long before you are once again ready to get that close to another, for the pain to subside enough where you can attempt that level of trust again.

 

[BlindKobold]

I also think the "bond" you've described is too limiting. Telepathic in my opinion... and in the opinion of COUNTLESS sci-fi and fantasy authors... usually involves a way of communication that simulates speech, but is universal in that the two need not share a common language. How it works is irrelevant... it's magical... leave it at that. It DOES work. That's the important thing. If you have questions about what telepathy does in D&D... look at the various spells that do similiar things.

Now... that said... the ability to communicate (the vocabualry, if you will) is based on the INT of the two people. Asking a horse with an INT of 6 a question, is like talking with a 3 year old. It lacks the vocabulary to convey complicated concepts. Sure, a 3 year old knows what you mean when you say "Put on your shoes"... but they don't know what you mean when you ask them if they think Bush should be allowed unilateral military powers to topple Saddam in Iraq.

It's up to you, as DM, to interpret how a horse would see the world... and then interact appropriately.