D&D 5E (2014) Awakened Mind

[FormerlyHemlock]

Next aspect, can I fake a different 'mental voice'?
Perhaps with the use of the Performance or Deception check? It should obviously be something that can be resisted with an 'Insight' check or similar.

If it were at my table--I'm a Julian May fan, so I'd say no. Your farspeaking voice has a unique mental signature. On the other hand, you can use it as an infallible method of authentication, so it's not all bad.

 

[Yaarel]

Cool, nice to see both sides of view on this ability. So far we've been having the rogue attempt to communicate back to me, but before I've initiated the "telepathic channel", so most people just thinks he's talking to the voices in his head. However he's playing a character that's convinced he has a GREAT DESTINY ahead so... it sorta works out.

Next aspect, can I fake a different 'mental voice'?
Perhaps with the use of the Performance or Deception check? It should obviously be something that can be resisted with an 'Insight' check or similar.

As DM, I would happily allow a Deception check to ‘fake’ a thought. Depending on context, it might have advantage or disadvantage, or else be a normal roll.

It wouldnt allow a ‘Suggestion’ spell, of course, but it could ‘hide’ the sender.

 

[Tanaka Chris]

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]: Ahhh, unique mental signatures as an authentication method, how intriguing. Yes, I've been reading some of Julian May's work so I know what you mean. Though even in her works, skilled psychics could fake their mental signatures and even downplay their auras to go undercover. The Hydra from the Galactic Mileau series for example.
[MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION]: I was thinking of the applications, especially in a Spy context. DM has suggested that if I want to IMITATE and IMPERSONATE a specific person's voice however, that will require the Actor feat. Which seems very fair all things considered.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]: Ahhh, unique mental signatures as an authentication method, how intriguing. Yes, I've been reading some of Julian May's work so I know what you mean. Though even in her works, skilled psychics could fake their mental signatures and even downplay their auras to go undercover. The Hydra from the Galactic Mileau series for example.

Yep. My ruling would be that a basic 1st level warlock can't fake a mental signature, but a psionicist potentially could.

Enjoy the books!

 

[Ancalagon]

ARISE DREAD THREAD, ARISE!

ahem

So erm, in my phb, the warlock ability does *not* say "communicate". It says "speak to". So... did the text change? I find no mention of that in the errata (most recent version I could find is 1.1)

 

[flametitan]

ARISE DREAD THREAD, ARISE!

ahem

So erm, in my phb, the warlock ability does *not* say "communicate". It says "speak to". So... did the text change? I find no mention of that in the errata (most recent version I could find is 1.1)

There was a reddit thread a while back with two PHBs directly compared, and it was found to be a case of silent Errata, like you suspect.

 

[Ancalagon]

There was a reddit thread a while back with two PHBs directly compared, and it was found to be a case of silent Errata, like you suspect.

So which is the "new" version? Speak or communicate?

 

[flametitan]

So which is the "new" version? Speak or communicate?

"Speak to." I don't remember much about the contents of the thread aside from the players realizing it was a change in text the errata didn't cover, but my PHB is from one of the earliest print runs, (so there's little to no possibility of "invisible Errata") and uses "communicate" in its language, so "speak to" must therefore be the newer version.

It makes sense, the Devs intended it to be one way, and it's more clear that it's one way when the wording is "speak to."