Still coordination is a choice that could mean giving up another beneficial option. The echo actually can actually make attacks of opportunity, albeit they share your reaction, and can activate things like sentinel's and warcaster's first parts. If you'd like there is a thread over on the Fighter forums that goes over RAW/confirmed-RAI echo usage. Otherwisez I think we'll have to agree to disagree, though I want to say I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
This whole subject makes me feel (again) like 5e has just reverted to board game rules, where the rules themselves are considered more important than the rules making sense. To me, and I freely acknowledge that this goes against the official rulings and seemingly the majority player opinion (at least among players in this thread), if an object is behaving like a creature, it is effectively a creature for purposes of things like flanking.
The echo behaves like a creature. If you are being attacked from different angles more than 90 degrees apart, you are flanked. Technically even 90 degrees should be enough if you are too stupid to turn 45° to compensate for the second opponent. However you are being attacked by opponents separated by too wide an angle to properly compensate for. It should not matter if the second opponent is a person, creature, force creation, trap, conceptional idea of damage, or whatever.
And static terrain (including walls) is a red herring and a bit of a straw man since it does not attack. It is a hazard, not a flanker.
The echo doesn't attack either, and you clearly don't know what a strawman is. Both a wall and an echo are objects that take no actions, and don't move or harm others without outside help.
Yes, the 'It doesn't attack, you attack through it and you cannot provide flanking for yourself' rule. Sorry that I did not respond to that specifically. The only reason you cannot provide flanking for yourself is that you cannot normally be in two places at the same time. However an Echo Knight can via their echo. If the attack is not coming from the echo but rather from the knight, then it definitely is an attack from a creature and since the knight can decide where the attack comes from (from self or from echo) for any given attack action, the opponent is still effectively flanked.
All other interpretations are ignoring the situation in favour of semantics.
Yes, that rule. The reason you can't provide flanking for yourself isn't because "you can't be in two places at once" and even if that was the reason, it wouldn't matter. The rule says, "A creature and one of its allies". You are not your own ally, an echo isn't a creature and therefore not an ally, and echoes are not "you being in two places at once".
And a straw man is a weak, easily defeated counter-argument put forward and shot down to make one's own argument sound stronger. It is possible that the idea terrain as an ally was put forward as a legitimate attempt at a defence or as merely a joke, but defenders repeating it even after easily winning that point comes across as a straw man.
It's not a strawman, because both echoes and walls are objects, neither attack, neither move nor deal damage on their own, and both are not considered allies to grant flanking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
That is false. A wall of fire does damage on its own within its AE. The wall is different because the potential threat is unchanging.
As for the Echo, that it is technically not the Echo attacking does not change the fact it is a conventional attack, through a source that occupies space, has HP and an AC. It is only semantic dances being used to differentiate it from a creature attack. A familiar can generate flanking while providing even less of a threat.
Now look who's pulling out strawmen. A wall of fire isn't an object, it's a spell. Also, it isn't relevant to flanking either, because it's not an ally or a creature.
It does change the fact of the following:
It isn't making the attacks, you are from its position.
It isn't a creature, and instead is an object.
It isn't an ally, because nonliving rocks aren't allies.
Familiars are creatures, can provide flanking, and aren't objects.
It doesn't matter if it has HP and AC, so do rocks. RAW and RAI, they cannot flank or give flanking to anyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Can the RAW faction please finally *read* the posts of all other people? *Nobody* argues RAW or RAI. *Everybody* agrees on the rules and their meanings, so it is beyond pointless iterating the rules again and again.
No matter how often you quote them and no matter how often you repeat that the Echo is not a creature it won't change anything since all people agree on that.
The only argument is that some DMs (including myself) don't like the rules and overrule them as part of their houserules.This is perfectly valid, and works well for their tables, otherwise they wouldn't change it.
I really don't get how we can argue for seven pages about a thing we all agree on, nor do I understand why people feel the need to attempt and peer-pressure DMs into not using a houserule that increases the fun at their tables.
You're not a bad DM for overruling RAW. You're a bad DM if your players don't enjoy the game anymore, whatever the reason for that may be.
Can the RAW faction please finally *read* the posts of all other people? *Nobody* argues RAW or RAI. *Everybody* agrees on the rules and their meanings, so it is beyond pointless iterating the rules again and again.
No matter how often you quote them and no matter how often you repeat that the Echo is not a creature it won't change anything since all people agree on that.
The only argument is that some DMs (including myself) don't like the rules and overrule them as part of their houserules.This is perfectly valid, and works well for their tables, otherwise they wouldn't change it.
I really don't get how we can argue for seven pages about a thing we all agree on, nor do I understand why people feel the need to attempt and peer-pressure DMs into not using a houserule that increases the fun at their tables.
You're not a bad DM for overruling RAW. You're a bad DM if your players don't enjoy the game anymore, whatever the reason for that may be.
Well I think the problem here is that I created this thread with the intent of answering a RAW/RAI question. RAF vs RAW/RAI discussion spiraled after that. You're absolutely entitled to your views, but if you bring them, criticism and discussion may follow. What I will say is that, as always, the internet is a breeding ground for vitriolic discussion. While I wish we could be more civil about it, that seldom becomes the case. I guess an even bigger problem then, is that this thread constantly gets necro'd by people wanting to argue their point. I'm now guilty of this, but I still think we should put it to rest as you say.
That is false. A wall of fire does damage on its own within its AE. The wall is different because the potential threat is unchanging.
As for the Echo, that it is technically not the Echo attacking does not change the fact it is a conventional attack, through a source that occupies space, has HP and an AC. It is only semantic dances being used to differentiate it from a creature attack. A familiar can generate flanking while providing even less of a threat.
Now look who's pulling out strawmen. A wall of fire isn't an object, it's a spell. Also, it isn't relevant to flanking either, because it's not an ally or a creature.
It does change the fact of the following:
It isn't making the attacks, you are from its position.
It isn't a creature, and instead is an object.
It isn't an ally, because nonliving rocks aren't allies.
Familiars are creatures, can provide flanking, and aren't objects.
It doesn't matter if it has HP and AC, so do rocks. RAW and RAI, they cannot flank or give flanking to anyone.
Ok, it is a magical energy construct. How about instead you have a sturdy wooden wall that will take some time to burn down, cover it with lamp oil or other flammables and light it on fire. Now it is a flaming wall that would damage anyone who contacted it (or got an inch or less away). It is an object that does damage.
I could instead have used spread caltrops or some other example. And I only mentioned it as an aside, since you insisted objects cannot do damage.
Everything else you are saying is semantics, completely arbitrary. I agree that is RAW. I also agree that is RAI. I disagree that it bears any significant consistency with the rest of the rules. And I am really starting to dislike 5e due to all this 'letter of the law' approach.
Fine, you do that in your games.
(Also, pointing out I never said objects can't do damage.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If I have an enemy on my left and another on my right, they have advantage to hit me because it is a heck of a lot more difficult to adequately defend myself when they are both simultaneously trying to chop my face of with axes.
When only one enemy is trying to chop my face off, even if that enemy is blinking behind me like Goku, they do not get advantage because RAW.
I can totally understand not agreeing with RAW. In reality, a Sling should have greater range than a Shortbow. In reality, a warhorse in full barding should be able to run faster than in D&D. In reality, a Wizard able to fling Meteors, cause detonations at a distance, and wield The Power of Zeus, would be able to obliterate an angry, axe-wielding psychopath at such a range that the psychopath would never even have a chance to threaten the Wizard. Yet Barbarians can still weather all of that and keep going and going like a bunny with a drum until they close the distance and then it’s face choppin’ time. The rules are riddled with those kinds of inaccuracies.
Why you ask? Because D&D is a game, not a combat simulator. A game cannot be married to reality in the same ways as a simulator. A game has to at least try to maintain a sense of balance between classes, as well as internal balance between subclasses. If the Echo Knight can provide its own Advantage to every one of its attacks, free of resources, then that makes all of the other Fighter Subclasses inferior by comparison.
You do you, but I gotta go with RAW on this one for the campaign I DM.
Furthermore, there is another option besides RAW, namely simply not allowing the sub-class if you think it is unbalancing.
I don't care what class or subclass it is, permanent advantage on all your attacks on your own is unbalanced, and that's why it's not allowed RAW or RAI.
Thank you for your completely unnecessary permission :) As for what you said, check your last sentence on post #130. To be fair, you said walls, which is why I went with wall of fire, and when you objected to that, a wooden wall that is on fire.
Again, I said "on their own". Do walls light themselves on fire on their own? Do caltrops find their way into existence or on the ground on their own? If you managed to ignore that crucial part of my post on purpose, which it seems you did, that is a literal strawman argument. Also, not giving you permission, as you do not need that, just agreeing with the post above saying that it isn't relevant to talk about your own games. If you do your games that way, fine, but I'm still going to argue with the premise of permanent advantage at nearly no cost.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You really insist on debating this? Natural lightning strike, the wall is on fire. However the wall, once on fire, does not need outside help to burn or to do damage to anyone that gets too close to the flames. Likewise it does not matter how the caltrops got on the ground they could have been scattered there for days or months, the person who scattered them dead in a ditch somewhere. They are there and need no outside help to damage someone who steps on them. There are places where there is uneven terrain with sharp enough edges that it effectively is the equivalent of caltrops.
People talk here in these forums about various home brews all the time. And it is not a 'permanent advantage.' It can actually be destroyed. A flaming wall or some other damage field is an easy counter. Besides, compromise options are possible, such as limiting the summoning so it is not always available if the echo is banished.
No, I don't insist on debating this. I would stop if you do, but I do insist you stop blatantly misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position. Lightning is outside help. Sure, it's natural, but no one in the world would say that the wall "caught on fire on its own". Who cares if the people who scattered the caltrops are gone or dead? The caltrops did not get there (or even come into existence) on their own. Objects need an outside creature or force to cause them to deal damage. Gravity causes falls to be deadly, swords require force to cause someone to bleed to death.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You really insist on debating this? Natural lightning strike, the wall is on fire. However the wall, once on fire, does not need outside help to burn or to do damage to anyone that gets too close to the flames. Likewise it does not matter how the caltrops got on the ground they could have been scattered there for days or months, the person who scattered them dead in a ditch somewhere. They are there and need no outside help to damage someone who steps on them. There are places where there is uneven terrain with sharp enough edges that it effectively is the equivalent of caltrops.
People talk here in these forums about various home brews all the time. And it is not a 'permanent advantage.' It can actually be destroyed. A flaming wall or some other damage field is an easy counter. Besides, compromise options are possible, such as limiting the summoning so it is not always available if the echo is banished.
No, I don't insist on debating this. I would stop if you do, but I do insist you stop blatantly misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position. Lightning is outside help. Sure, it's natural, but no one in the world would say that the wall "caught on fire on its own". Who cares if the people who scattered the caltrops are gone or dead? The caltrops did not get there (or even come into existence) on their own. Objects need an outside creature or force to cause them to deal damage. Gravity causes falls to be deadly, swords require force to cause someone to bleed to death.
its like saying " I stick my pike in the ground behind them. because they could walk into it and it would do damage, it counts as an ally, therefore allowing me to flank.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
To me, the Echo Knight under RAW requires too much suspension of disbelief. Normally, as others have pointed out, it is a magical world, so suspension of disbelief is expected, but even magical worlds still have logic to them. This, as written, goes beyond my limit on that. Your mileage may vary.
The problem for me is if you allow the Echo to provide flanking - you would have to do the same for a lot of other things - namely Illusion spells like Phantasmal Force where an illusory creature (that only the enemy can see) could provide flanking with a player character (that can't see the illusion).
If I have an enemy on my left and another on my right, they have advantage to hit me because it is a heck of a lot more difficult to adequately defend myself when they are both simultaneously trying to chop my face of with axes.
When only one enemy is trying to chop my face off, even if that enemy is blinking behind me like Goku, they do not get advantage because RAW.
I can totally understand not agreeing with RAW. In reality, a Sling should have greater range than a Shortbow. In reality, a warhorse in full barding should be able to run faster than in D&D. In reality, a Wizard able to fling Meteors, cause detonations at a distance, and wield The Power of Zeus, would be able to obliterate an angry, axe-wielding psychopath at such a range that the psychopath would never even have a chance to threaten the Wizard. Yet Barbarians can still weather all of that and keep going and going like a bunny with a drum until they close the distance and then it’s face choppin’ time. The rules are riddled with those kinds of inaccuracies.
Why you ask? Because D&D is a game, not a combat simulator. A game cannot be married to reality in the same ways as a simulator. A game has to at least try to maintain a sense of balance between classes, as well as internal balance between subclasses. If the Echo Knight can provide its own Advantage to every on of its attacks, free of resources, then that makes all of the other Fighter Subclasses inferior by comparison.
You do you, but I gotta go with RAW on this one for the campaign I DM.
Mongol horse bows were effectively composite short bows and were quite powerful. If slings were the better weapons, there is no way anyone would have bothered with bows, since bows are a lot harder to make.
I didn’t say “slings are better than bows” I said that they have better range than a bow. Please do not misquote me, or argue against points I have not made. Let’s just not go down that slippery slope and stick to the points we are each actually making.
Bows are more difficult to manufacture, but are also a wackton easier to use. When I used to shoot bows down at the archery range I had a half decent chance to hit the squirrel target moving tree to tree on a zip line at 50 feet. I struggled to hit a tree with a sling.
Also, while a sling can definitely kill a medium sized target like a human or a dear, you gotta be very accurate to do it on the first shot, because you probably won’t get a second. If you hit a spot protected by a lot of meat, it might break bones, but might not be lethal. The penetrative power of an arrow means that if you shoot someone with a high enough poundage bow basically anywhere in the torso or head, that shot can be lethal.
In addition, mongol short bows were not “effectively composite bows” as you claim. They ware actually composite freaking bows made of recurved wood frame, horn for resistance, sinew for power, and adhesive to hold those three other materials together. They were kinda the granddaddies of the very concept of composite bows.
Meteor swarm is not flinging literal meteors, and the barbarian is not strictly operating on pure RL equivalent skill. The wizard almost certainly has better options than direct damage regardless... minimum, taking to the air.
Thank you, I guess, for further illustrating my point? That point being that D&D was not actually designed to represent reality, but to be a fun, mostly balancedish game.
Also, I didn’t link to Meteor Swarm, but instead Melf’s Minute Meteors. I specifically used all 3rd-level spells in my example to further prove my point that allowances have to be made in game mechanics to impose game balance. Since a Wizard should be able to obliterate a Barbarian with 3rd-level spells, and since Wizards have access to far more powerful spells (such as Meteor Swarm), obviously things have been artificially manipulated to maintain game balance or else there would be the same disparity between Martial and Spellcasting classes that we had in previous editions.
Regardless, those examples are all fantasy tropes. In fact in fantasy it is next to never that anyone uses a sling at all. Flanking having no effect unless the opponent has some sort of super speed or 360° fighting style to compensate is no such fantasy trope.
I have to admit that I am not quite sure I correctly understand the exact point you were making in that highlighted sentence.
And again, the Echo does not actually grant any extra attacks, costs a bonus action to summon and is relatively easily removed from play and if you are playing an Echo Knight you are not playing any of the other fighter subclasses. You are actually giving up something to have it, so it is not actually cost free.
It is obviously true that if one’s character is an Echo Knight, then they must not be any other Fighter Subclass. But there are likely to be other players in the campaign, and one of them might very well be playing as a Fighter of a different subclass. There are also most likely also going to be enemy NPCs built using other Fighter subclasses. That’s why the Echo Knight has to be balanced with the other fighter subclasses. Not to balance it against stuff the player didn’t choose, but to balance it with what the other players (including the DM) might choose.
Furthermore, there is another option besides RAW, namely simply not allowing the sub-class if you think it is unbalancing.
Luckily for me, that’s not an issue in this case. Since RAW has dictated that the Echo is not a creature, and therefore neither grants nor benefits from flanking, it is balanced. So I don’t have to disallow the subclass. 😁 So, I guess, thank you again for further illustrating my point.
Except that I was not saying unattended static objects such as walls counted as an allies. I was merely saying that an object, on its own, still can do damage and can provide a tactical benefit or detriment. I was not saying that such an object would generate flanking. My original comment regarding walls was questioning why they were still being discussed. Way back in post #119, I said this:
You were arguing that objects on their own can do damage. I disagree heavily with that, as it takes natural processes or creatures to cause objects to do damage. I don't think anyone would say that if someone drops a rock on your head, it's the rock that was dealing the damage, which seems to be what you are saying.
And static terrain (including walls) is a red herring and a bit of a straw man since it does not attack. It is a hazard, not a flanker. Levi nevertheless persisted in trying to equate echoes and walls and the whole issue of objects doing damage on their own seems to have gained a life of its own.
It's not a strawman now, and wasn't then. Echoes are objects and don't deal damage on their own, just like every other object in the game. The argument is relevant, as echoes are objects, and cannot do anything unless you command them to, using your own power.
The difference between an unattended spike stuck in the ground and an Echo is that the unattended spike cannot aim. The Echo can, and whether that is technically the Echo Knight doing the aiming rather than their Echo is clinging to the letter of the rules rather than the reality of the situation. The opponent has an active threat on either side of them, just as if that set spear was attended by a second player instead of merely being an unattended set spear.
The echo isn't aiming, you are. That is the reality of the situation. The Echo Knight states "You may attack through its position" making it clear that you are doing the attacking, not the echo. The echo isn't an active threat if it is an object, and it also does not do damage on its own.
To me, the Echo Knight under RAW requires too much suspension of disbelief. Normally, as others have pointed out, it is a magical world, so suspension of disbelief is expected, but even magical worlds still have logic to them. This, as written, goes beyond my limit on that. Your mileage may vary.
To me, the Echo Knight is very poorly written, but it's clear what it was intended to do. D&D requires a lot of suspension of disbelief. I like playing the game logically too, and that's what leads me to believe that echoes cannot flank or grant flanking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
listen. the OP was stating RAW not RAI or RAF. as per RAW the echo is an object. if it could flank it would cause immense mechanical problems (permanent sneak attack on an elf with Elven Accuracy? what could go wrong) can we now talk about something that is a proper build instead of arguing an irrelevant point. you want it changed? change it. but lets move onto some RAW stuffs.
how bout using it as a one man bridge? a 20 foot gap? jump as far as you can, manifest it and teleport to it. voila.
ooh, what if you cast mirror image with legion of one(ring of spell storing, spell storing item, etc.) do you suddenly have 12 of you running round the battlefield?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
listen. the OP was stating RAW not RAI or RAF. as per RAW the echo is an object. if it could flank it would cause immense mechanical problems (permanent sneak attack on an elf with Elven Accuracy? what could go wrong) can we now talk about something that is a proper build instead of arguing an irrelevant point. you want it changed? change it. but lets move onto some RAW stuffs.
I agree with @GoodBovine, I'd love to move on from the debate about whether an object can provide flanking or not. The debate seems to be about RAW vs realism. RAW is clear, but anyone an rule any way they want at their table. And this thread is getting mired in a back and forth debate that is dragging it down overall.
listen. the OP was stating RAW not RAI or RAF. as per RAW the echo is an object. if it could flank it would cause immense mechanical problems (permanent sneak attack on an elf with Elven Accuracy? what could go wrong) can we now talk about something that is a proper build instead of arguing an irrelevant point. you want it changed? change it. but lets move onto some RAW stuffs.
how bout using it as a one man bridge? a 20 foot gap? jump as far as you can, manifest it and teleport to it. voila.
ooh, what if you cast mirror image with legion of one(ring of spell storing, spell storing item, etc.) do you suddenly have 12 of you running round the battlefield?
Sneak streak lasts until the opponent is smart enough to hit the Echo. At higher levels, hitting 14 should not be particularly difficult for any opponent you really need such fancy tricks against.
Manifesting it in freefall would be problematic since it is one bonus round to manifest and a separate bonus action, which you do not have because of the one bonus per round limit, to teleport. The better question is whether it has to move conventional (i.e. walk places) or whether you can literally move it anywhere in range.
Mirror Image would only affect you, not the Echo. Your Echo is an Echo of yourself. The mirror images are not part of yourself (hence no harm to you if one gets hit)
hehe. ok it wasn't that well thought through, I was just trying to move the thread along.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Sneak streak lasts until the opponent is smart enough to hit the Echo. At higher levels, hitting 14 should not be particularly difficult for any opponent you really need such fancy tricks against.
So the Echo Knight just makes the Echo again on their next turn - puts it in flanking spot again to gain free advantage Sneak Attack and Elven Accuracy again.
In fact the Echo being attacked is highly advantageous for the Echo Knight because it means at least one attack didn't go for them and all they've lost is their bonus action - and that's if the Echo does "die" - it might not.
Also - the Echo AC is 14 + Proficiency. So it's not that easy to hit.
A sharp rock can cut without any third party intervention, nor with any additional environmental energy added. Corrosive materials are corrosive, simply by nature. Why is this an important point to you? It is not really relevant to the overall discussion. Even if someone (or something) had to set the wall of fire, doing so need not have anything whatsoever to do with direct events causing someone to contact it and be burnt.
A pact of the chain warlock's familiar cannot attack on its own either. You must forego one of your own actions for it to attack. Clearly an echo is not equivalent to a static object. Even if it does technically not itself attack, it is an unpredictable source of attacks, thereby functioning just as a creature would.
Note that a flanker need not even actually attack, which is why normal familiars can flank despite not actually being able to attack.
Besides the fact that it requires a creature to step on a rock, and is in fact the action of stepping on it that produces the damage, not the object specifically which is similar to taking fall damage, and that acids would require someone to throw them at the creature, or another circumstance similar to this, my point is that objects aren't threats. They're hazards. There's a difference. A threat is something that provides an active possibility of harm, and a hazard is something that can be harmful but not on its own.
Yes, a familiar counts as a threat for flanking, and that's because it's a creature. The thing is, familiars "act independently of you" which echoes straight up cannot do. An echo is the equivalent of a static object when you don't tell it to do anything.
The flanker not needing to attack doesn't matter in this argument, because they're creatures and can act on their own.
The others have requested we moved on, so lets end it here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The others have requested we moved on, so lets end it here.
LeviRock, thank you for being the bigger person by letting Kotath have the last word so this argument can end. Both perspectives are valid, and trying to convince each other one is right is a fruitless task.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Still coordination is a choice that could mean giving up another beneficial option. The echo actually can actually make attacks of opportunity, albeit they share your reaction, and can activate things like sentinel's and warcaster's first parts. If you'd like there is a thread over on the Fighter forums that goes over RAW/confirmed-RAI echo usage. Otherwisez I think we'll have to agree to disagree, though I want to say I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Yes, that rule. The reason you can't provide flanking for yourself isn't because "you can't be in two places at once" and even if that was the reason, it wouldn't matter. The rule says, "A creature and one of its allies". You are not your own ally, an echo isn't a creature and therefore not an ally, and echoes are not "you being in two places at once".
It's not a strawman, because both echoes and walls are objects, neither attack, neither move nor deal damage on their own, and both are not considered allies to grant flanking.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Now look who's pulling out strawmen. A wall of fire isn't an object, it's a spell. Also, it isn't relevant to flanking either, because it's not an ally or a creature.
It does change the fact of the following:
It doesn't matter if it has HP and AC, so do rocks. RAW and RAI, they cannot flank or give flanking to anyone.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Can the RAW faction please finally *read* the posts of all other people? *Nobody* argues RAW or RAI. *Everybody* agrees on the rules and their meanings, so it is beyond pointless iterating the rules again and again.
No matter how often you quote them and no matter how often you repeat that the Echo is not a creature it won't change anything since all people agree on that.
The only argument is that some DMs (including myself) don't like the rules and overrule them as part of their houserules.This is perfectly valid, and works well for their tables, otherwise they wouldn't change it.
I really don't get how we can argue for seven pages about a thing we all agree on, nor do I understand why people feel the need to attempt and peer-pressure DMs into not using a houserule that increases the fun at their tables.
You're not a bad DM for overruling RAW. You're a bad DM if your players don't enjoy the game anymore, whatever the reason for that may be.
Well I think the problem here is that I created this thread with the intent of answering a RAW/RAI question. RAF vs RAW/RAI discussion spiraled after that. You're absolutely entitled to your views, but if you bring them, criticism and discussion may follow. What I will say is that, as always, the internet is a breeding ground for vitriolic discussion. While I wish we could be more civil about it, that seldom becomes the case. I guess an even bigger problem then, is that this thread constantly gets necro'd by people wanting to argue their point. I'm now guilty of this, but I still think we should put it to rest as you say.
Fine, you do that in your games.
(Also, pointing out I never said objects can't do damage.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If I have an enemy on my left and another on my right, they have advantage to hit me because it is a heck of a lot more difficult to adequately defend myself when they are both simultaneously trying to chop my face of with axes.
When only one enemy is trying to chop my face off, even if that enemy is blinking behind me like Goku, they do not get advantage because RAW.
I can totally understand not agreeing with RAW. In reality, a Sling should have greater range than a Shortbow. In reality, a warhorse in full barding should be able to run faster than in D&D. In reality, a Wizard able to fling Meteors, cause detonations at a distance, and wield The Power of Zeus, would be able to obliterate an angry, axe-wielding psychopath at such a range that the psychopath would never even have a chance to threaten the Wizard. Yet Barbarians can still weather all of that and keep going and going like a bunny with a drum until they close the distance and then it’s face choppin’ time. The rules are riddled with those kinds of inaccuracies.
Why you ask? Because D&D is a game, not a combat simulator. A game cannot be married to reality in the same ways as a simulator. A game has to at least try to maintain a sense of balance between classes, as well as internal balance between subclasses. If the Echo Knight can provide its own Advantage to every one of its attacks, free of resources, then that makes all of the other Fighter Subclasses inferior by comparison.
You do you, but I gotta go with RAW on this one for the campaign I DM.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't care what class or subclass it is, permanent advantage on all your attacks on your own is unbalanced, and that's why it's not allowed RAW or RAI.
Again, I said "on their own". Do walls light themselves on fire on their own? Do caltrops find their way into existence or on the ground on their own? If you managed to ignore that crucial part of my post on purpose, which it seems you did, that is a literal strawman argument. Also, not giving you permission, as you do not need that, just agreeing with the post above saying that it isn't relevant to talk about your own games. If you do your games that way, fine, but I'm still going to argue with the premise of permanent advantage at nearly no cost.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No, I don't insist on debating this. I would stop if you do, but I do insist you stop blatantly misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position. Lightning is outside help. Sure, it's natural, but no one in the world would say that the wall "caught on fire on its own". Who cares if the people who scattered the caltrops are gone or dead? The caltrops did not get there (or even come into existence) on their own. Objects need an outside creature or force to cause them to deal damage. Gravity causes falls to be deadly, swords require force to cause someone to bleed to death.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
its like saying " I stick my pike in the ground behind them. because they could walk into it and it would do damage, it counts as an ally, therefore allowing me to flank.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The problem for me is if you allow the Echo to provide flanking - you would have to do the same for a lot of other things - namely Illusion spells like Phantasmal Force where an illusory creature (that only the enemy can see) could provide flanking with a player character (that can't see the illusion).
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I didn’t say “slings are better than bows” I said that they have better range than a bow. Please do not misquote me, or argue against points I have not made. Let’s just not go down that slippery slope and stick to the points we are each actually making.
Bows are more difficult to manufacture, but are also a wackton easier to use. When I used to shoot bows down at the archery range I had a half decent chance to hit the squirrel target moving tree to tree on a zip line at 50 feet. I struggled to hit a tree with a sling.
Also, while a sling can definitely kill a medium sized target like a human or a dear, you gotta be very accurate to do it on the first shot, because you probably won’t get a second. If you hit a spot protected by a lot of meat, it might break bones, but might not be lethal. The penetrative power of an arrow means that if you shoot someone with a high enough poundage bow basically anywhere in the torso or head, that shot can be lethal.
In addition, mongol short bows were not “effectively composite bows” as you claim. They ware actually composite freaking bows made of recurved wood frame, horn for resistance, sinew for power, and adhesive to hold those three other materials together. They were kinda the granddaddies of the very concept of composite bows.
Thank you, I guess, for further illustrating my point? That point being that D&D was not actually designed to represent reality, but to be a fun, mostly balancedish game.
Also, I didn’t link to Meteor Swarm, but instead Melf’s Minute Meteors. I specifically used all 3rd-level spells in my example to further prove my point that allowances have to be made in game mechanics to impose game balance. Since a Wizard should be able to obliterate a Barbarian with 3rd-level spells, and since Wizards have access to far more powerful spells (such as Meteor Swarm), obviously things have been artificially manipulated to maintain game balance or else there would be the same disparity between Martial and Spellcasting classes that we had in previous editions.
I have to admit that I am not quite sure I correctly understand the exact point you were making in that highlighted sentence.
It is obviously true that if one’s character is an Echo Knight, then they must not be any other Fighter Subclass. But there are likely to be other players in the campaign, and one of them might very well be playing as a Fighter of a different subclass. There are also most likely also going to be enemy NPCs built using other Fighter subclasses. That’s why the Echo Knight has to be balanced with the other fighter subclasses. Not to balance it against stuff the player didn’t choose, but to balance it with what the other players (including the DM) might choose.
Luckily for me, that’s not an issue in this case. Since RAW has dictated that the Echo is not a creature, and therefore neither grants nor benefits from flanking, it is balanced. So I don’t have to disallow the subclass. 😁 So, I guess, thank you again for further illustrating my point.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You were arguing that objects on their own can do damage. I disagree heavily with that, as it takes natural processes or creatures to cause objects to do damage. I don't think anyone would say that if someone drops a rock on your head, it's the rock that was dealing the damage, which seems to be what you are saying.
It's not a strawman now, and wasn't then. Echoes are objects and don't deal damage on their own, just like every other object in the game. The argument is relevant, as echoes are objects, and cannot do anything unless you command them to, using your own power.
The echo isn't aiming, you are. That is the reality of the situation. The Echo Knight states "You may attack through its position" making it clear that you are doing the attacking, not the echo. The echo isn't an active threat if it is an object, and it also does not do damage on its own.
To me, the Echo Knight is very poorly written, but it's clear what it was intended to do. D&D requires a lot of suspension of disbelief. I like playing the game logically too, and that's what leads me to believe that echoes cannot flank or grant flanking.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm curious if you missed my reply #145. Interested to know your opinion on that given your recent replies.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
listen. the OP was stating RAW not RAI or RAF. as per RAW the echo is an object. if it could flank it would cause immense mechanical problems (permanent sneak attack on an elf with Elven Accuracy? what could go wrong) can we now talk about something that is a proper build instead of arguing an irrelevant point. you want it changed? change it. but lets move onto some RAW stuffs.
how bout using it as a one man bridge? a 20 foot gap? jump as far as you can, manifest it and teleport to it. voila.
ooh, what if you cast mirror image with legion of one(ring of spell storing, spell storing item, etc.) do you suddenly have 12 of you running round the battlefield?
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I agree with @GoodBovine, I'd love to move on from the debate about whether an object can provide flanking or not. The debate seems to be about RAW vs realism. RAW is clear, but anyone an rule any way they want at their table. And this thread is getting mired in a back and forth debate that is dragging it down overall.
hehe. ok it wasn't that well thought through, I was just trying to move the thread along.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
So the Echo Knight just makes the Echo again on their next turn - puts it in flanking spot again to gain free advantage Sneak Attack and Elven Accuracy again.
In fact the Echo being attacked is highly advantageous for the Echo Knight because it means at least one attack didn't go for them and all they've lost is their bonus action - and that's if the Echo does "die" - it might not.
Also - the Echo AC is 14 + Proficiency. So it's not that easy to hit.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Besides the fact that it requires a creature to step on a rock, and is in fact the action of stepping on it that produces the damage, not the object specifically which is similar to taking fall damage, and that acids would require someone to throw them at the creature, or another circumstance similar to this, my point is that objects aren't threats. They're hazards. There's a difference. A threat is something that provides an active possibility of harm, and a hazard is something that can be harmful but not on its own.
Yes, a familiar counts as a threat for flanking, and that's because it's a creature. The thing is, familiars "act independently of you" which echoes straight up cannot do. An echo is the equivalent of a static object when you don't tell it to do anything.
The flanker not needing to attack doesn't matter in this argument, because they're creatures and can act on their own.
The others have requested we moved on, so lets end it here.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
LeviRock, thank you for being the bigger person by letting Kotath have the last word so this argument can end. Both perspectives are valid, and trying to convince each other one is right is a fruitless task.