People are going to read the same thing and get different things out of it. We see it with literature all the time. Same thing with movies and music. So don't pay too much attention to what other people are doing. Do what's right by you and your table.
The difference between literature/movies/music, is that these are largely one-way media. How people feel about any particular book, movie or piece of music will vary, but their reactions to it do not affect other people unless they then take the time to create something new from the media they read/watched/listened to. Then other people choose whether to read/watch/listen to this subsequent reaction.
However, a TTRPG is very much Not a one-way medium. There is constant and often rapid feedback between the DM and the players. A lot of DMs go to Reddit, DDB, or some other forum to hash out the ambiguity of particular rules, which is partially what this posting is about: an attempt to get rules clarifications. It is also a way to tell any developers reading this forum that there are some potential issues here with the RAW, so please issue some Sage Advice so that DMs have clearer guidelines.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Once again, you're almost, but not quite, there.
It doesn't matter that the difference in media is one-way; a debatable claim unto itself. One doesn't have to look any further than how songs are utilized for other media or political events. Heck, the GOP's fundamental misunderstanding and appropriation of Born in the USA I find particularly egregious. But the chorus is nice, and that's what they gravitate towards. Not the verses about a Vietnam veteran's desperate circumstances. And I don't think I need to go into how books can be adapted to different media, namely film and television, and are reinterpreted to mean something else. But I could, if the tangent wouldn't wildly derail this thread. Death of the Author is a valid school of criticism for a reason.
My point is that people who read the rules are going to interpret the rules differently from one another. The departures could be minor or major, but there will be departures. And it doesn't matter how clear or ambiguous you think the rules are. People carry biases, and those biases will inform their reading. Even if everyone agreed on what the rules explicitly said, and they don't, that doesn't guarantee they'll all play the same way. Those rule books are little more than codified suggestions. No one is going to storm into your home and take your books away, or confiscate your D&D Beyond account, if you don't run the game RAW. Heck, Jeremy Crawford doesn't even run it RAW, and he wrote several of them.
So while this FAQ is useful, it won't cover every situation. It can't. And this edition of the game is expressly written that way. Wizards of the Coast tried that before, with two previous editions. There were rules for everything, and they were detailed. Now, you would think that would make running the game easier. But, surprisingly, it had the inverse effect. Many people were intimidated by the elaborate rules. And when people would invariably come up with situations the rules didn't actually cover, because of course they would, it would halt the game.
That's why "rulings, not rules" is the guiding principle behind this edition. If that's not your cup of tea, fine, but it isn't worth complaining about.
I think we really need some clarification on whether an Echo has any mass.
The Eco explicitly has volume (it occupies its space) but does not explicitly have mass, so it has as much mass as your DM wants it to have. Mass 0 is popular on this board, since so many people want an Echo that won't fall when you move it up. If your DM is an idiot, see if you can get your hands on Mass Infinity.
This brings to mind a related physics question: If the EK is being grappled by a flying or swimming creature but not restrained, can the EK "summon" the Echo to appear in front of the creature while it is in flight if the creature's fly speed while carrying said EK is faster than 30 feet/round?
Sure, but either the echo will fall down or have no mass, so either way, this is a harmless plan.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Once again, you're almost, but not quite, there.
It doesn't matter that the difference in media is one-way; a debatable claim unto itself. One doesn't have to look any further than how songs are utilized for other media or political events. Heck, the GOP's fundamental misunderstanding and appropriation of Born in the USA I find particularly egregious. But the chorus is nice, and that's what they gravitate towards. Not the verses about a Vietnam veteran's desperate circumstances. And I don't think I need to go into how books can be adapted to different media, namely film and television, and are reinterpreted to mean something else. But I could, if the tangent wouldn't wildly derail this thread. Death of the Author is a valid school of criticism for a reason.
My point is that people who read the rules are going to interpret the rules differently from one another. The departures could be minor or major, but there will be departures. And it doesn't matter how clear or ambiguous you think the rules are. People carry biases, and those biases will inform their reading. Even if everyone agreed on what the rules explicitly said, and they don't, that doesn't guarantee they'll all play the same way. Those rule books are little more than codified suggestions. No one is going to storm into your home and take your books away, or confiscate your D&D Beyond account, if you don't run the game RAW. Heck, Jeremy Crawford doesn't even run it RAW, and he wrote several of them.
So while this FAQ is useful, it won't cover every situation. It can't. And this edition of the game is expressly written that way. Wizards of the Coast tried that before, with two previous editions. There were rules for everything, and they were detailed. Now, you would think that would make running the game easier. But, surprisingly, it had the inverse effect. Many people were intimidated by the elaborate rules. And when people would invariably come up with situations the rules didn't actually cover, because of course they would, it would halt the game.
That's why "rulings, not rules" is the guiding principle behind this edition. If that's not your cup of tea, fine, but it isn't worth complaining about.
There will always be situations where ambiguity enters the picture. I'm very familiar with that, as I have participated in some of the most heated discussions on DDB about rules that are contradictory, vague rules, and even the "simple" topic of what illusions should be allowed to do.
The issue here is not that everybody should get on the same page about every detail of the game, but rather, are the rules for playing so vague as to make life difficult for DMs? Imagine if you will, a table where a group of friends convince one of their number to be the DM. That person has never DMed before. The other players are an Echo Knight, a Wizard with Find Familiar, and a Rogue. For whatever reason, all three of these players want to outdo one another. What gets tricky is that all three arguably have scouting abilities even though they are playing different classes, which might be fine except for two factors: 1) These are competitive people who want to one-up another and therefore don't want to share the spotlight at something they think their character does well; and 2) There is a rules dispute about what the Echo is capable of doing as a scout. The DM is forced to step in to adjudicate, but is unsure about themselves because A) they are a new DM and B) the Echo Knight description provides little useful guidance. The DM makes a decision that clearly favors or clearly disadvantages the Echo Knight player. Then one of the players, unsatisfied with the ruling, questions the DM's personal loyalties, suggesting that the DM's personal bias is causing them to rule in such a way that favors or harms the capabilities of the EK player. Suddenly, what should be a friendly game becomes a major source of conflict between friends. The DM feels uncomfortable about this and stops DMing.
Now, is this an unusual scenario? Probably not as uncommon as you might assume if you are a veteran player and most of your RPG friend circle also consists of veteran players. And, yes, arguably, this is a situation that would not have happened if the Wizard, Rogue, and EK players just got along better and didn't feel a need to show off, but they're only human, after all, and human beings are often competitive. It's not the DM's fault for lacking the experience. However, can we really say that the vagueness of the rules had nothing to do with this?
My point is not that this exact conflict scenario is common, but that rules do exist for a reason. It's the same reason why there are dice in a combat-focused game: to mitigate disputes between players over whether something that happens in the game is fair or not. When there are glaring ambiguities in the rules in a popular hobby that asks one player (the DM) to bear the brunt of responsibility for facilitating "a good time," that can make things difficult and frustrating for that one player, who is arguably the focal point of the group. No DM, no game, right? What I'm asking for, is that the developers pay more attention to their rules so that new and potentially great DMs do not get discouraged by the interaction of vague game rules and "the human element" of desire for advantage to boil into something that, in the long run, results in a less prolific (and probably less diverse) group of DMs down the line.
What I'm asking for, is that the developers pay more attention to their rules so that new and potentially great DMs do not get discouraged by the interaction of vague game rules and "the human element" of desire for advantage to boil into something that, in the long run, results in a less prolific (and probably less diverse) group of DMs down the line.
Never going to happen. WOTC has been trending more and more strongly towards lazy, ambiguous rules-writing, not the other way round. We're already at a point where new races a) don't tell the DM if they should be strong, healthy, agile, smart, intuitive, or guileful and b) don't tell the DM if they even have a racial language of their own (new elves don't speak Elvish, it's on the DM to figure that out). Have you seen Tasha's? Do you have any idea how to handle a fey from Summon Fey wielding a magic shortsword trying to injure a Rakshasa? I know I don't.
The issue here is not that everybody should get on the same page about every detail of the game, but rather, are the rules for playing so vague as to make life difficult for DMs? Imagine if you will, a table where a group of friends convince one of their number to be the DM. That person has never DMed before. The other players are an Echo Knight, a Wizard with Find Familiar, and a Rogue. For whatever reason, all three of these players want to outdo one another. What gets tricky is that all three arguably have scouting abilities even though they are playing different classes, which might be fine except for two factors: 1) These are competitive people who want to one-up another and therefore don't want to share the spotlight at something they think their character does well; and 2) There is a rules dispute about what the Echo is capable of doing as a scout. The DM is forced to step in to adjudicate, but is unsure about themselves because A) they are a new DM and B) the Echo Knight description provides little useful guidance. The DM makes a decision that clearly favors or clearly disadvantages the Echo Knight player. Then one of the players, unsatisfied with the ruling, questions the DM's personal loyalties, suggesting that the DM's personal bias is causing them to rule in such a way that favors or harms the capabilities of the EK player. Suddenly, what should be a friendly game becomes a major source of conflict between friends. The DM feels uncomfortable about this and stops DMing.
Now, is this an unusual scenario? Probably not as uncommon as you might assume if you are a veteran player and most of your RPG friend circle also consists of veteran players. And, yes, arguably, this is a situation that would not have happened if the Wizard, Rogue, and EK players just got along better and didn't feel a need to show off, but they're only human, after all, and human beings are often competitive. It's not the DM's fault for lacking the experience. However, can we really say that the vagueness of the rules had nothing to do with this?
I would hope that a group of novices wouldn't start their game above 1st level, and certainly not at 7th level or higher. That gives them plenty of time to figure out their group dynamics. The wizard could act as a scout, in theory, but it costs 10 gp to summon their familiar. Which means nobody is really scouting until 2nd level. That's five levels before the echo knight can even try their thing. You're making a lot of assumptions in what is, quite frankly, a poorly-composed hypothetical. And we can keep coming up with hypothetical after hypothetical; arriving at no conclusion. This isn't a helpful exercise.
The vagueness you so deride affords everyone at the table freedom. Freedom to tailor the game as they see fit and make full use of their imagination. And this freedom isn't new. There's vagueness in the Player's Handbook. If nothing else, spellcasters have the freedom to choose the somatic and verbal (incantation) components for their spells. Likewise, the echo knight is free to decide how their echo appears. It could be a 1-for-1 copy, or there could be differences reflecting an alternate reality and timeline. It could be in color or grayscale. And while the echo could scout, it cannot hide. The echo knight cannot take ability checks through their echo, so Dexterity (Stealth) is out of the question. It isn't usable as forward reconnaissance in a dungeon. It's best used as a decoy for when you need to appear somewhere potentially dangerous to see or hear something; like as a silent bodyguard in a meeting with a hostile party.
And that's not going to be spelled out explicitly because why should it? The feature shouldn't have just one use, and if the rules prescribed it so, then it would appear limiting. I don't like that the feature lets the echo move in ways the echo knight cannot, because it doesn't make sense to me, but I can see how that can be exploited. You can have the echo float up into the air, draw attention to itself, and disappear beyond sight. You could literally reenact the Ascension of Jesus (ascensio Iesu) can cause religious shenanigans. Probably safe to say that wasn't intended, but it's possible and creative AF.
My point is not that this exact conflict scenario is common, but that rules do exist for a reason. It's the same reason why there are dice in a combat-focused game: to mitigate disputes between players over whether something that happens in the game is fair or not. When there are glaring ambiguities in the rules in a popular hobby that asks one player (the DM) to bear the brunt of responsibility for facilitating "a good time," that can make things difficult and frustrating for that one player, who is arguably the focal point of the group. No DM, no game, right? What I'm asking for, is that the developers pay more attention to their rules so that new and potentially great DMs do not get discouraged by the interaction of vague game rules and "the human element" of desire for advantage to boil into something that, in the long run, results in a less prolific (and probably less diverse) group of DMs down the line.
We've been over this: Rulings, not Rules. Yes, the rules exist, but they're not the be-all end-all. What matters is keeping the game moving. If we're stopping to argue over the rules, then we aren't playing. So, in the moment, it doesn't matter if the DM is correct. What matters is whether their ruling feels right and is good enough. If the DM is familiar with the rules, and the rules are largely consistent, then they can make an educated guess. If there is a specific rule covering the situation, it can be looked up later. Matt Colville says it better than I can.
Again, this is about freedom and empowerment. And it works. If you think this governing philosophy, this thesis statement, leads to a less diverse group of DMs down the line, then I don't know what else to tell you.
Here’s an edge case. Unleash Incarnation. If you ready an attack for a trigger, and then attack using your reaction, would you be able to unleash incarnation as well?
The wording for Unleash incarnation suggests it’s when you take the attack action. Is a readied attack an attack action? The rules for readying indicate you must ready an action. So, does that mean you’re reading the attack action? If you are, would RAW allow you to Unleash a part of that reactive attack?
Unleash incarnation requires “No Action” on the Knight’s part. So, that seems to line up.
Here’s an edge case. Unleash Incarnation. If you ready an attack for a trigger, and then attack using your reaction, would you be able to unleash incarnation as well?
The wording for Unleash incarnation suggests it’s when you take the attack action. Is a readied attack an attack action?
Ready is its own action. Using the Ready action on your turn lets you use your reaction to complete the readied action. It is not an attack action, even if the action you Ready is an attack.
it's not a spell and doesn't require concentration, so... yes
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Would the Rogue Soulknife work with Echo Knight? For attacks I'm thinking it would but what about the Unleash incarnate and tthe attack of opportunity?
Would the Rogue Soulknife work with Echo Knight? For attacks I'm thinking it would but what about the Unleash incarnate and tthe attack of opportunity?
No, because Unleash Incarnate and Opportunity Attacks are not Attack actions, and thus you cannot use the Psychic Blades of Soulknife (which key off of the Attack Action only).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Q: When taking an opportunity attack through an Echo, can the Echo utilize the Sentinel feat? A: Yes, but only the first part of the Sentinel feat’s features applies.
The second and third parts of the feat only apply to the Knight herself because of the wording “your reach”, and the wording of the Manifest Echo feature as it relates to the timing. The Manifest Echo feature says: "When a creature that you can see within 5 feet of your echo moves at least 5 feet away from it, you can use your reaction to make an opportunity attack against that creature as if you were in the echo’s space." Sentinel's three parts are:
Whenever you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, its speed drops to 0 for the rest of the turn. This stops any movement they may have been taking.
Creatures within your reach provoke opportunity attacks even if they took the Disengage action.
When a creature within your reach makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature
So I'm gonna assume this is pre-errata sentinel, my question is does Echo still only triggers the first effect or can it now trigger it's second effect too?
The issue here is not that everybody should get on the same page about every detail of the game, but rather, are the rules for playing so vague as to make life difficult for DMs? Imagine if you will, a table where a group of friends convince one of their number to be the DM. That person has never DMed before. The other players are an Echo Knight, a Wizard with Find Familiar, and a Rogue. For whatever reason, all three of these players want to outdo one another. What gets tricky is that all three arguably have scouting abilities even though they are playing different classes, which might be fine except for two factors: 1) These are competitive people who want to one-up another and therefore don't want to share the spotlight at something they think their character does well; and 2) There is a rules dispute about what the Echo is capable of doing as a scout. The DM is forced to step in to adjudicate, but is unsure about themselves because A) they are a new DM and B) the Echo Knight description provides little useful guidance. The DM makes a decision that clearly favors or clearly disadvantages the Echo Knight player. Then one of the players, unsatisfied with the ruling, questions the DM's personal loyalties, suggesting that the DM's personal bias is causing them to rule in such a way that favors or harms the capabilities of the EK player. Suddenly, what should be a friendly game becomes a major source of conflict between friends. The DM feels uncomfortable about this and stops DMing.
Now, is this an unusual scenario? Probably not as uncommon as you might assume if you are a veteran player and most of your RPG friend circle also consists of veteran players. And, yes, arguably, this is a situation that would not have happened if the Wizard, Rogue, and EK players just got along better and didn't feel a need to show off, but they're only human, after all, and human beings are often competitive. It's not the DM's fault for lacking the experience. However, can we really say that the vagueness of the rules had nothing to do with this?
I would hope that a group of novices wouldn't start their game above 1st level, and certainly not at 7th level or higher. That gives them plenty of time to figure out their group dynamics. The wizard could act as a scout, in theory, but it costs 10 gp to summon their familiar. Which means nobody is really scouting until 2nd level. That's five levels before the echo knight can even try their thing. You're making a lot of assumptions in what is, quite frankly, a poorly-composed hypothetical. And we can keep coming up with hypothetical after hypothetical; arriving at no conclusion. This isn't a helpful exercise.
Like I said, the hypothetical I provided is just one example of what can happen when the devs don't put in time to carefully edit stuff before publishing. There are plenty of other scenarios where players might get into disputes with one another even without intentionally being in a PvP mindset.
I don't know why you think 7th level is necessary for the scouting features of the Echo to come into play. The range limitation of the 3rd level Echo kicks in at the end of the PC's turn. So the Echo could be further than 30 feet away, at any given time before the end of the PC's turn. Six seconds is definitely long enough to see whether an Echo (possibly using the attack action) interacting with an object would trigger any traps.
While I agree that rules don't need to cover every situation, having vague rules about a Major and Core feature of a subclass is unnecessarily burdensome on DMs. New DMs already have enough to think about and adapt to without giving them yet more "homework."
The issue here is not that everybody should get on the same page about every detail of the game, but rather, are the rules for playing so vague as to make life difficult for DMs? Imagine if you will, a table where a group of friends convince one of their number to be the DM. That person has never DMed before. The other players are an Echo Knight, a Wizard with Find Familiar, and a Rogue. For whatever reason, all three of these players want to outdo one another. What gets tricky is that all three arguably have scouting abilities even though they are playing different classes, which might be fine except for two factors: 1) These are competitive people who want to one-up another and therefore don't want to share the spotlight at something they think their character does well; and 2) There is a rules dispute about what the Echo is capable of doing as a scout. The DM is forced to step in to adjudicate, but is unsure about themselves because A) they are a new DM and B) the Echo Knight description provides little useful guidance. The DM makes a decision that clearly favors or clearly disadvantages the Echo Knight player. Then one of the players, unsatisfied with the ruling, questions the DM's personal loyalties, suggesting that the DM's personal bias is causing them to rule in such a way that favors or harms the capabilities of the EK player. Suddenly, what should be a friendly game becomes a major source of conflict between friends. The DM feels uncomfortable about this and stops DMing.
Now, is this an unusual scenario? Probably not as uncommon as you might assume if you are a veteran player and most of your RPG friend circle also consists of veteran players. And, yes, arguably, this is a situation that would not have happened if the Wizard, Rogue, and EK players just got along better and didn't feel a need to show off, but they're only human, after all, and human beings are often competitive. It's not the DM's fault for lacking the experience. However, can we really say that the vagueness of the rules had nothing to do with this?
I would hope that a group of novices wouldn't start their game above 1st level, and certainly not at 7th level or higher. That gives them plenty of time to figure out their group dynamics. The wizard could act as a scout, in theory, but it costs 10 gp to summon their familiar. Which means nobody is really scouting until 2nd level. That's five levels before the echo knight can even try their thing. You're making a lot of assumptions in what is, quite frankly, a poorly-composed hypothetical. And we can keep coming up with hypothetical after hypothetical; arriving at no conclusion. This isn't a helpful exercise.
Like I said, the hypothetical I provided is just one example of what can happen when the devs don't put in time to carefully edit stuff before publishing. There are plenty of other scenarios where players might get into disputes with one another even without intentionally being in a PvP mindset.
I don't know why you think 7th level is necessary for the scouting features of the Echo to come into play. The range limitation of the 3rd level Echo kicks in at the end of the PC's turn. So the Echo could be further than 30 feet away, at any given time before the end of the PC's turn. Six seconds is definitely long enough to see whether an Echo (possibly using the attack action) interacting with an object would trigger any traps.
While I agree that rules don't need to cover every situation, having vague rules about a Major and Core feature of a subclass is unnecessarily burdensome on DMs. New DMs already have enough to think about and adapt to without giving them yet more "homework."
No, the devs put in plenty of time. No one is being given homework to do. You just refuse to accept the idea that rigid limitations actually limit use. Which is, paradoxically, what's tripping you up. The feature is written, in your opinion, vaguely. This doesn't jive with you because you already hold a narrow idea of what can be done with it. So your entire argument is predicated on denying the potential of the feature. You're imposing limitations to make your case, rather than just look at it and see what it can do. I don't know if you deleted the rest of the paragraphs from my post you quoted because you didn't bother reading them, or because you are trying to undercut my argument. Either way, it is dishonest argumentation, and you shouldn't go there.
So, here's the rest of my answer; where I believe I answer all your criticisms.
The vagueness you so deride affords everyone at the table freedom. Freedom to tailor the game as they see fit and make full use of their imagination. And this freedom isn't new. There's vagueness in the Player's Handbook. If nothing else, spellcasters have the freedom to choose the somatic and verbal (incantation) components for their spells. Likewise, the echo knight is free to decide how their echo appears. It could be a 1-for-1 copy, or there could be differences reflecting an alternate reality and timeline. It could be in color or grayscale. And while the echo could scout, it cannot hide. The echo knight cannot take ability checks through their echo, so Dexterity (Stealth) is out of the question. It isn't usable as forward reconnaissance in a dungeon. It's best used as a decoy for when you need to appear somewhere potentially dangerous to see or hear something; like as a silent bodyguard in a meeting with a hostile party.
And that's not going to be spelled out explicitly because why should it? The feature shouldn't have just one use, and if the rules prescribed it so, then it would appear limiting. I don't like that the feature lets the echo move in ways the echo knight cannot, because it doesn't make sense to me, but I can see how that can be exploited. You can have the echo float up into the air, draw attention to itself, and disappear beyond sight. You could literally reenact the Ascension of Jesus (ascensio Iesu) can cause religious shenanigans. Probably safe to say that wasn't intended, but it's possible and creative AF.
My point is not that this exact conflict scenario is common, but that rules do exist for a reason. It's the same reason why there are dice in a combat-focused game: to mitigate disputes between players over whether something that happens in the game is fair or not. When there are glaring ambiguities in the rules in a popular hobby that asks one player (the DM) to bear the brunt of responsibility for facilitating "a good time," that can make things difficult and frustrating for that one player, who is arguably the focal point of the group. No DM, no game, right? What I'm asking for, is that the developers pay more attention to their rules so that new and potentially great DMs do not get discouraged by the interaction of vague game rules and "the human element" of desire for advantage to boil into something that, in the long run, results in a less prolific (and probably less diverse) group of DMs down the line.
We've been over this: Rulings, not Rules. Yes, the rules exist, but they're not the be-all end-all. What matters is keeping the game moving. If we're stopping to argue over the rules, then we aren't playing. So, in the moment, it doesn't matter if the DM is correct. What matters is whether their ruling feels right and is good enough. If the DM is familiar with the rules, and the rules are largely consistent, then they can make an educated guess. If there is a specific rule covering the situation, it can be looked up later. Matt Colville says it better than I can.
Again, this is about freedom and empowerment. And it works. If you think this governing philosophy, this thesis statement, leads to a less diverse group of DMs down the line, then I don't know what else to tell you.
To sum up, if you think the echo is meant to be used to "scout" the same way a rogue or familiar can, then you don't understand the feature. It lets them hide in plain sight by appearing somewhere they are not. And they can still see and hear. It's incredibly inventive.
The only other thing I'd like to add is I played a game of Homeworld last night for Free RPG Day. It utilizes the same 2d20 system that Star Trek Adventures does. Combat isn't the focus of either game, but we still utilized dice for all conflict resolution. There's nothing special about using dice in a combat-focused game. So, if that's where your attention falls then, once again, you're missing the forest for the trees.
I don't know why you think 7th level is necessary for the scouting features of the Echo to come into play. The range limitation of the 3rd level Echo kicks in at the end of the PC's turn. So the Echo could be further than 30 feet away, at any given time before the end of the PC's turn. Six seconds is definitely long enough to see whether an Echo (possibly using the attack action) interacting with an object would trigger any traps.
Echo Avatar
7th-level Echo Knight feature You can temporarily transfer your consciousness to your echo. As an action, you can see through your echo’s eyes and hear through its ears.
Until you are seventh level, you cannot see through your echo. Using it to scout is extremely limited before then. (It is, however, quite effective at triggering opponents' readied actions depending on how they were worded.)
As for interacting with objects, I don't see how you can do that at any time. The only action you can take through an echo is make an attack, a very different action than "interact with objects". Attacking objects is possible, and I guess that could trigger some traps. But you could accomplish the same thing by throwing a rock at the thing you are trying to trigger, since you need line of site to accomplish this "through the echo" in the first place.
You can’t do anything with the echo while using Echo Avatar, but after you finish the Echo stays there till the end of your turn, right? Can you swap places with it then?
The capstone ability for Echo Knight should be switching places with your Echo when using it as a scout 1,000 feet away. Ideally, with the ability to keep your eyes open, etc. Not be in a trance.
I don't know why you think 7th level is necessary for the scouting features of the Echo to come into play. The range limitation of the 3rd level Echo kicks in at the end of the PC's turn. So the Echo could be further than 30 feet away, at any given time before the end of the PC's turn. Six seconds is definitely long enough to see whether an Echo (possibly using the attack action) interacting with an object would trigger any traps.
Echo Avatar
7th-level Echo Knight feature You can temporarily transfer your consciousness to your echo. As an action, you can see through your echo’s eyes and hear through its ears.
Until you are seventh level, you cannot see through your echo. Using it to scout is extremely limited before then. (It is, however, quite effective at triggering opponents' readied actions depending on how they were worded.)
As for interacting with objects, I don't see how you can do that at any time. The only action you can take through an echo is make an attack, a very different action than "interact with objects". Attacking objects is possible, and I guess that could trigger some traps. But you could accomplish the same thing by throwing a rock at the thing you are trying to trigger, since you need line of site to accomplish this "through the echo" in the first place.
I don't see how you thought that I said an Echo Knight can see through the Echo before level 7.
Anyway, "attacking" an object, for instance, with the blunt side of a sword might be deemed allowable by a DM. Or not. Some DMs would say this is an object interaction since hitting with the blunt side of a sword is far less likely to destroy the object touched by the sword. Moving an Echo 45 feet is very doable in a round and 45 feet away is a pretty good distance from many traps. Thus, the Echo is arguably usable to "interact" with a variety of traps and could do so from a safer distance than even an Arcane Trickster Rogue.
To sum up, if you think the echo is meant to be used to "scout" the same way a rogue or familiar can, then you don't understand the feature. It lets them hide in plain sight by appearing somewhere they are not. And they can still see and hear. It's incredibly inventive.
The only other thing I'd like to add is I played a game of Homeworld last night for Free RPG Day. It utilizes the same 2d20 system that Star Trek Adventures does. Combat isn't the focus of either game, but we still utilized dice for all conflict resolution. There's nothing special about using dice in a combat-focused game. So, if that's where your attention falls then, once again, you're missing the forest for the trees.
What you clearly do not understand is my point about the dice: which is that they are Objective so long as they are rolled where all players can see them. A DM's adjudication, when unsupported by rules, can easily be argued by players as being unfair. This creates, intentionally or not, the likelihood of the DM being accused of bias in favor of one player or another. That was my point, not that dice should not be used to resolve conflict.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The difference between literature/movies/music, is that these are largely one-way media. How people feel about any particular book, movie or piece of music will vary, but their reactions to it do not affect other people unless they then take the time to create something new from the media they read/watched/listened to. Then other people choose whether to read/watch/listen to this subsequent reaction.
However, a TTRPG is very much Not a one-way medium. There is constant and often rapid feedback between the DM and the players. A lot of DMs go to Reddit, DDB, or some other forum to hash out the ambiguity of particular rules, which is partially what this posting is about: an attempt to get rules clarifications. It is also a way to tell any developers reading this forum that there are some potential issues here with the RAW, so please issue some Sage Advice so that DMs have clearer guidelines.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Once again, you're almost, but not quite, there.
It doesn't matter that the difference in media is one-way; a debatable claim unto itself. One doesn't have to look any further than how songs are utilized for other media or political events. Heck, the GOP's fundamental misunderstanding and appropriation of Born in the USA I find particularly egregious. But the chorus is nice, and that's what they gravitate towards. Not the verses about a Vietnam veteran's desperate circumstances. And I don't think I need to go into how books can be adapted to different media, namely film and television, and are reinterpreted to mean something else. But I could, if the tangent wouldn't wildly derail this thread. Death of the Author is a valid school of criticism for a reason.
My point is that people who read the rules are going to interpret the rules differently from one another. The departures could be minor or major, but there will be departures. And it doesn't matter how clear or ambiguous you think the rules are. People carry biases, and those biases will inform their reading. Even if everyone agreed on what the rules explicitly said, and they don't, that doesn't guarantee they'll all play the same way. Those rule books are little more than codified suggestions. No one is going to storm into your home and take your books away, or confiscate your D&D Beyond account, if you don't run the game RAW. Heck, Jeremy Crawford doesn't even run it RAW, and he wrote several of them.
So while this FAQ is useful, it won't cover every situation. It can't. And this edition of the game is expressly written that way. Wizards of the Coast tried that before, with two previous editions. There were rules for everything, and they were detailed. Now, you would think that would make running the game easier. But, surprisingly, it had the inverse effect. Many people were intimidated by the elaborate rules. And when people would invariably come up with situations the rules didn't actually cover, because of course they would, it would halt the game.
That's why "rulings, not rules" is the guiding principle behind this edition. If that's not your cup of tea, fine, but it isn't worth complaining about.
The Eco explicitly has volume (it occupies its space) but does not explicitly have mass, so it has as much mass as your DM wants it to have. Mass 0 is popular on this board, since so many people want an Echo that won't fall when you move it up. If your DM is an idiot, see if you can get your hands on Mass Infinity.
Sure, but either the echo will fall down or have no mass, so either way, this is a harmless plan.
There will always be situations where ambiguity enters the picture. I'm very familiar with that, as I have participated in some of the most heated discussions on DDB about rules that are contradictory, vague rules, and even the "simple" topic of what illusions should be allowed to do.
The issue here is not that everybody should get on the same page about every detail of the game, but rather, are the rules for playing so vague as to make life difficult for DMs? Imagine if you will, a table where a group of friends convince one of their number to be the DM. That person has never DMed before. The other players are an Echo Knight, a Wizard with Find Familiar, and a Rogue. For whatever reason, all three of these players want to outdo one another. What gets tricky is that all three arguably have scouting abilities even though they are playing different classes, which might be fine except for two factors: 1) These are competitive people who want to one-up another and therefore don't want to share the spotlight at something they think their character does well; and 2) There is a rules dispute about what the Echo is capable of doing as a scout. The DM is forced to step in to adjudicate, but is unsure about themselves because A) they are a new DM and B) the Echo Knight description provides little useful guidance. The DM makes a decision that clearly favors or clearly disadvantages the Echo Knight player. Then one of the players, unsatisfied with the ruling, questions the DM's personal loyalties, suggesting that the DM's personal bias is causing them to rule in such a way that favors or harms the capabilities of the EK player. Suddenly, what should be a friendly game becomes a major source of conflict between friends. The DM feels uncomfortable about this and stops DMing.
Now, is this an unusual scenario? Probably not as uncommon as you might assume if you are a veteran player and most of your RPG friend circle also consists of veteran players. And, yes, arguably, this is a situation that would not have happened if the Wizard, Rogue, and EK players just got along better and didn't feel a need to show off, but they're only human, after all, and human beings are often competitive. It's not the DM's fault for lacking the experience. However, can we really say that the vagueness of the rules had nothing to do with this?
My point is not that this exact conflict scenario is common, but that rules do exist for a reason. It's the same reason why there are dice in a combat-focused game: to mitigate disputes between players over whether something that happens in the game is fair or not. When there are glaring ambiguities in the rules in a popular hobby that asks one player (the DM) to bear the brunt of responsibility for facilitating "a good time," that can make things difficult and frustrating for that one player, who is arguably the focal point of the group. No DM, no game, right? What I'm asking for, is that the developers pay more attention to their rules so that new and potentially great DMs do not get discouraged by the interaction of vague game rules and "the human element" of desire for advantage to boil into something that, in the long run, results in a less prolific (and probably less diverse) group of DMs down the line.
Never going to happen. WOTC has been trending more and more strongly towards lazy, ambiguous rules-writing, not the other way round. We're already at a point where new races a) don't tell the DM if they should be strong, healthy, agile, smart, intuitive, or guileful and b) don't tell the DM if they even have a racial language of their own (new elves don't speak Elvish, it's on the DM to figure that out). Have you seen Tasha's? Do you have any idea how to handle a fey from Summon Fey wielding a magic shortsword trying to injure a Rakshasa? I know I don't.
I would hope that a group of novices wouldn't start their game above 1st level, and certainly not at 7th level or higher. That gives them plenty of time to figure out their group dynamics. The wizard could act as a scout, in theory, but it costs 10 gp to summon their familiar. Which means nobody is really scouting until 2nd level. That's five levels before the echo knight can even try their thing. You're making a lot of assumptions in what is, quite frankly, a poorly-composed hypothetical. And we can keep coming up with hypothetical after hypothetical; arriving at no conclusion. This isn't a helpful exercise.
The vagueness you so deride affords everyone at the table freedom. Freedom to tailor the game as they see fit and make full use of their imagination. And this freedom isn't new. There's vagueness in the Player's Handbook. If nothing else, spellcasters have the freedom to choose the somatic and verbal (incantation) components for their spells. Likewise, the echo knight is free to decide how their echo appears. It could be a 1-for-1 copy, or there could be differences reflecting an alternate reality and timeline. It could be in color or grayscale. And while the echo could scout, it cannot hide. The echo knight cannot take ability checks through their echo, so Dexterity (Stealth) is out of the question. It isn't usable as forward reconnaissance in a dungeon. It's best used as a decoy for when you need to appear somewhere potentially dangerous to see or hear something; like as a silent bodyguard in a meeting with a hostile party.
And that's not going to be spelled out explicitly because why should it? The feature shouldn't have just one use, and if the rules prescribed it so, then it would appear limiting. I don't like that the feature lets the echo move in ways the echo knight cannot, because it doesn't make sense to me, but I can see how that can be exploited. You can have the echo float up into the air, draw attention to itself, and disappear beyond sight. You could literally reenact the Ascension of Jesus (ascensio Iesu) can cause religious shenanigans. Probably safe to say that wasn't intended, but it's possible and creative AF.
We've been over this: Rulings, not Rules. Yes, the rules exist, but they're not the be-all end-all. What matters is keeping the game moving. If we're stopping to argue over the rules, then we aren't playing. So, in the moment, it doesn't matter if the DM is correct. What matters is whether their ruling feels right and is good enough. If the DM is familiar with the rules, and the rules are largely consistent, then they can make an educated guess. If there is a specific rule covering the situation, it can be looked up later. Matt Colville says it better than I can.
Again, this is about freedom and empowerment. And it works. If you think this governing philosophy, this thesis statement, leads to a less diverse group of DMs down the line, then I don't know what else to tell you.
Here’s an edge case. Unleash Incarnation. If you ready an attack for a trigger, and then attack using your reaction, would you be able to unleash incarnation as well?
The wording for Unleash incarnation suggests it’s when you take the attack action. Is a readied attack an attack action? The rules for readying indicate you must ready an action. So, does that mean you’re reading the attack action? If you are, would RAW allow you to Unleash a part of that reactive attack?
Unleash incarnation requires “No Action” on the Knight’s part. So, that seems to line up.
Anyone have any idea on this?
Ready is its own action. Using the Ready action on your turn lets you use your reaction to complete the readied action. It is not an attack action, even if the action you Ready is an attack.
Can you summon an echo while in rage?
it's not a spell and doesn't require concentration, so... yes
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Would the Rogue Soulknife work with Echo Knight? For attacks I'm thinking it would but what about the Unleash incarnate and tthe attack of opportunity?
No, because Unleash Incarnate and Opportunity Attacks are not Attack actions, and thus you cannot use the Psychic Blades of Soulknife (which key off of the Attack Action only).
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
So I'm gonna assume this is pre-errata sentinel, my question is does Echo still only triggers the first effect or can it now trigger it's second effect too?
Useful resources: Catbox, Free BG/Scenery/WP (Pixiv), Free Patterns (Pixiv), Game-icons, PetPet Generator
Like I said, the hypothetical I provided is just one example of what can happen when the devs don't put in time to carefully edit stuff before publishing. There are plenty of other scenarios where players might get into disputes with one another even without intentionally being in a PvP mindset.
I don't know why you think 7th level is necessary for the scouting features of the Echo to come into play. The range limitation of the 3rd level Echo kicks in at the end of the PC's turn. So the Echo could be further than 30 feet away, at any given time before the end of the PC's turn. Six seconds is definitely long enough to see whether an Echo (possibly using the attack action) interacting with an object would trigger any traps.
While I agree that rules don't need to cover every situation, having vague rules about a Major and Core feature of a subclass is unnecessarily burdensome on DMs. New DMs already have enough to think about and adapt to without giving them yet more "homework."
No, the devs put in plenty of time. No one is being given homework to do. You just refuse to accept the idea that rigid limitations actually limit use. Which is, paradoxically, what's tripping you up. The feature is written, in your opinion, vaguely. This doesn't jive with you because you already hold a narrow idea of what can be done with it. So your entire argument is predicated on denying the potential of the feature. You're imposing limitations to make your case, rather than just look at it and see what it can do. I don't know if you deleted the rest of the paragraphs from my post you quoted because you didn't bother reading them, or because you are trying to undercut my argument. Either way, it is dishonest argumentation, and you shouldn't go there.
So, here's the rest of my answer; where I believe I answer all your criticisms.
To sum up, if you think the echo is meant to be used to "scout" the same way a rogue or familiar can, then you don't understand the feature. It lets them hide in plain sight by appearing somewhere they are not. And they can still see and hear. It's incredibly inventive.
The only other thing I'd like to add is I played a game of Homeworld last night for Free RPG Day. It utilizes the same 2d20 system that Star Trek Adventures does. Combat isn't the focus of either game, but we still utilized dice for all conflict resolution. There's nothing special about using dice in a combat-focused game. So, if that's where your attention falls then, once again, you're missing the forest for the trees.
Echo Avatar
7th-level Echo Knight feature
You can temporarily transfer your consciousness to your echo. As an action, you can see through your echo’s eyes and hear through its ears.
Until you are seventh level, you cannot see through your echo. Using it to scout is extremely limited before then. (It is, however, quite effective at triggering opponents' readied actions depending on how they were worded.)
As for interacting with objects, I don't see how you can do that at any time. The only action you can take through an echo is make an attack, a very different action than "interact with objects". Attacking objects is possible, and I guess that could trigger some traps. But you could accomplish the same thing by throwing a rock at the thing you are trying to trigger, since you need line of site to accomplish this "through the echo" in the first place.
Regarding Q13 in movement section:
You can’t do anything with the echo while using Echo Avatar, but after you finish the Echo stays there till the end of your turn, right? Can you swap places with it then?
The capstone ability for Echo Knight should be switching places with your Echo when using it as a scout 1,000 feet away. Ideally, with the ability to keep your eyes open, etc. Not be in a trance.
I don't see how you thought that I said an Echo Knight can see through the Echo before level 7.
Anyway, "attacking" an object, for instance, with the blunt side of a sword might be deemed allowable by a DM. Or not. Some DMs would say this is an object interaction since hitting with the blunt side of a sword is far less likely to destroy the object touched by the sword. Moving an Echo 45 feet is very doable in a round and 45 feet away is a pretty good distance from many traps. Thus, the Echo is arguably usable to "interact" with a variety of traps and could do so from a safer distance than even an Arcane Trickster Rogue.
What you clearly do not understand is my point about the dice: which is that they are Objective so long as they are rolled where all players can see them. A DM's adjudication, when unsupported by rules, can easily be argued by players as being unfair. This creates, intentionally or not, the likelihood of the DM being accused of bias in favor of one player or another. That was my point, not that dice should not be used to resolve conflict.