What are the limitations of the Keen Mind Feat

The following point arose as I granted my D&D group their choice of feats. One of them choose Keen Mind as described in the PHB:

Keen Mind

You have a mind that can track time, direction, and detail with uncanny precision. You gain the following benefits…

You can accurately recall anything you have seen or heard within the past month.

Because I only skimmed the feats beforehand and only blocked the Lucky Feat explicitly, some problems followed right after. As a homebrew rule, I established that the players themselves should (must) take notes on what happened, where, by whom, etc. They are absolute free to just not do it, but I clearly stated that this can have negative effects on the story.

Now they got to the point where it is (or better was) necessary to know certain things that happened to and by my players. As the last benefit states:

You can accurately recall anything you have seen or heard within the past month.

From that a, little problem arose with regards to my DM handling. And therefore some questions:

  • What is the limiting factor on this benefit? (I.e.: does the player recognize any little detail of a room he went through or can he recite word by word a conversation with a major NPC?)
  • Is it reasonable to say: “I got this Feat, so now you (the DM) have to tell me what I heard? If so, how do I put this in balance?

These are the major points that happened last Saturday in our session. I will be honest this broke a part of my narrative because my players didn’t recall a major plot point correctly (back from last December) and because of this this feat I needed to fumble the reaction of the archmage who asked them what happened.

As far as I see it this really can break some narrative elements of my game even further. So I need some measurements to prevent a abuse (or rather lazy approach) of this benefit.

Are illusions just mind tricks or do they produce physical images and sounds?

Do illusions exist as images and sounds in the world, like holograms, or do they exist only in the beholder’s mind, like mass hallucinations? There are paragraphs in the PHB that can support both assumptions.

Clarification: the question primarily concerns illusions produced by Minor Illusion, Programmed Illusion, Silent Image, Major Image, Disguise Self spells. Spells like Fear or Phantasmal Killer explicitly says they affect creatures, so they are out of the scope.

Illusions as actual images and sounds

Spell description explicitly says that the caster “creates a sound or an image”:

You create a sound or an image of an object within range

When casting an illusion, the caster have to specify a location, not a creature. Anyone who looks at the location perceives the illusion.

Many obviously mind-affecting spells like “friends” or “charm person” are enchantments, not illusions.

While there are creatures immune to charm, there is no creatures immune to illusions. Even a construct can perceive an illusion.

Illusions as mind tricks

The wizard’s arcane tradition describes the School of Illusion as

magic that dazzles the senses, befuddles the mind

Being revealed, an illusion looks different to the perceiving person only:

If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature.

When does it matter

There are several cases when the outcome might depend on where the spell effect is located:

Antimagic Field – to be negated, should the illusion “itself” be in the field, or does any creature in the field become immune to illusions?

Detect Magic – assuming that Detect Magic spell can detect illusions, what exactly should be in the 30 feet range to be detected?

Also there are ambiguity with light, vision and line of sight:

Block light – A caster tries to use an illusion to cover a window, or conceal a lit torch.

Block vision – Many cases. A caster tries to hide an object “under” an illusion, but the spell description says it can only “create an image” and not “hide an object”. If we assume an illusion actually can cover an object or a creature, Disguise Self would protect from all LoS-dependent spells, etc.

Does the Kenku racial curse prevent the Awakened Mind class feature and similar telepathy effects from helping them communicate?

A Great Old One warlock is granted awakened mind at first level — a limited form of conversational telepathy that allows communication (with range limitations) with any being that can understand at least one language.

Kenku, however, are under a racial curse that prevents them from speaking except via mimicry of sounds they’ve heard in the past (as if a talking crow or myna had the intelligence to carry on a conversation with its mimicked words). Obviously, a Kenku could be a target of this ability from another being, because they understand speech — but could the Kenku reply other than by mimicry of words and phrases he’d heard? Beyond this, could a Kenku Great Old One warlock use this ability to carry out one-on-one conversation without having to dig through his memory for words or phrases that fit the need?

Note: most upvoted vs. accepted answer here; there seems to be some conflict yet on whether awakened mind is even two-way…

Is the Warlock’s Awakened Mind telepathy two-way, or only one-way?

When warlock chooses a pact with The Great Old One, he gains a feature called Awakened Mind:

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.

My question is, is the communication two-ways, or only one-way?

I assume it’s only one-way: I can “send” messages to target creature’s mind but I can’t receive any responses. So it’s not possible for this creature to “send” me back any thoughts or messages and I can’t read any of the creature’s thoughts.

Can an invisible creature with Mind Blank be seen by a creature with True Seeing?

True Seeing is a Divination spell that states

For the Duration, the creature has Truesight

While Mind Blank states

one willing creature you touch is immune to […] Divination Spells

Let’s say that the Rogue was cast Invisibility and Mind Blank, and the Wizard cast True Seeing on himself. The discussion at my table hinges on the fact that True Seeing doesn’t target or affect the Mind Blanked rogue, so his immunity is not relevant. The Wizard would simply gain Truesight and would spot him.

How do these spells interact?

Can a Great Old One warlock use the Awakened Mind feature as a universal translator for Suggestion spells? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

  • Can awakened mind be used with suggestion? 1 answer
  • Can Awakened Mind let you affect creatures that don’t share your language with spells that require them to understand you? [duplicate] 1 answer

Warlocks with the Great Old One patron start out with a universal translator that works on one target within 30 feet – the Awakened Mind feature (PHB, p. 110):

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.

This “universal translator” ability appears to be just as powerful as the 3rd level spell “Tongues,” and possibly more so in limited situations because it is always on.

A warlock can also get suggestion as a 2nd-level spell:

You suggest a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two) and magically influence a creature you can see within range that can hear and understand you.

So it seems to me that a Great Old One warlock who speaks only Common could get within 30 feet of a goblinoid who speaks only Goblin, and communicate telepathically with Awakened Mind while speaking suggestion as a 2nd level spell. The goblinoid can hear the voice, and the goblinoid can understand the telepathy.

However, I suspect that some DMs would rule that the Warlock must be able to be understood just from the spoken words and not from any additional telepathy.

Does this work? Can a Great Old One warlock use Awakened Mind as a universal translator for Suggestion spells?

Can either nondetection or mind blank prevent information about oneself being divined from others through legend lore?

In this instance the party was trying to legend lore the true name of a legendary creature that had protected itself with nondetection and mind blank.

However this entity’s parents were not given the same security and were still in existence. Would legend before be able to find the information through them?

Especially in question is the line from mind blank:

The spell even foils wish spells and spells or effects of similar power used to affect the target’s mind or to gain information about the target.

Does the Monk need to be aware of a charm effect to use the Stillness of Mind feature to end it?

I’ve done some research on the site and nothing is really concrete on the subject.

Monks’ Stillness of Mind feature states:

Starting at 7th level, you can use your action to end one effect on yourself that is causing you to be charmed or frightened.

Most charm spells and effects, however, do not inform the character that they are charmed. As a player, I see this as “no matter if I know in character or not, as a player, I can end a charm at the sacrifice of an action.”

My GM rules that “You have to be aware of the charm to end the spell.”

  1. Knowing that you’re charmed is OOC, so it’d be meta-gaming to suddenly use the effect without your character being given any reason to use it.
  2. Your character wouldn’t be using stillness of mind all day every day to avoid charm.
  3. Giving you the ability to end all charms would make charming you pointless
  4. Why doesn’t it just say “immunity to charm?” (which I respond by saying I have to sacrifice an action instead of just not being charmed).

A monk should know immediately if they are being charmed, as their training has developing their mind to detect outside influences and purge them accordingly. The common perception we came to is that “if I act out of character when charmed, I can detect the foreign influence and purge it.” But determining what is out of character in game can become a Meta-gaming issue due to everyone having different perspectives of my character.

Is this rule decided by DM discretion or is there concrete evidence supporting either side that has come to light?

(I’m biased as a player, but I would believe most GMs would not allow a monk to be basically immune to charm because it ruins a lot of clever encounters.)

What should I keep in mind when running a Star Wars game?

It is our group’s first time running a Star Wars campaign ever, and it seems that the role of GM has fallen to me.

(For context, our group has previously played:

  • D&D 5e
  • AD&D 1e
  • Call of Cthulhu 5e
  • Mutants and Masterminds 3e {ongoing}


My record of GMing, in general, is rather shoddy as every campaign I have ever run (5e only) has wound up a massive disappointment as compared to some of the more enjoyable campaigns.

Most of my player complaints consist of me not having a clear enough storyline (ie they have no clue where to go). This is most definitely valid advice, but I am worried I am going to end up railroading the whole affair and ruining it for my group yet again.

So I suppose my question is this: How can I keep my Star Wars Storyline clear without it devolving into railroading or ruining the fun for my players?

What considerations should I mind when designing methods or functions that take in a lot of parameters?

What considerations should I mind when designing methods or functions that take in a lot of parameters? A lot meaning over 4 but less than 10.

Example, I am debating whether to pass in an array like so:

function makeAssembly(array $  params) {     $  pump = $  factory->fromModelNumber($  params['modelNumber'], $  params['stages'], $  params['x']);             $  motor = $  factory->createMotor($  params['frameId'], $  params['productId'], $  params['x']); } 

versus spelling out parameters in the method header:

function makeAssembly($  modelNumber, $  stages, $  x, $  frameId, $  productId) {     $  pump = $  factory->fromModelNumber($  modelNumber, $  stages, $  x);     $  motor = $  factory->createMotor($  frameId, $  roductId, $  x); } 

Is there a way that is clearly better or are both interchangeable?

In particular, are there any tenants that can be attributed to dependency injection, such as Tell Don’t Ask principles that can be reused in this case as well?