So then this Mind can see 2x as far as the Arcane Eye, doesn't consume a spell slot or any other resources (including the all-important concentration). From this, I don't see any reason why it should be "Awakened" at all in any sense similar to the 5th level Awaken spell. That would imply that it has an INT score higher than 3 and imply that it actually has a will of its own apart from that of the Wizard.
As for whether a canvas sack or a cave-in would affect it, I don't understand the argument that it is "intangible" (it can go through creatures) but somehow can't just go through a solid wall. So it can phase through a Gelatinous Cube but not through a Wall of Stone? How does that make sense?
So then this Mind can see 2x as far as the Arcane Eye, doesn't consume a spell slot or any other resources (including the all-important concentration). From this, I don't see any reason why it should be "Awakened" at all in any sense similar to the 5th level Awaken spell. That would imply that it has an INT score higher than 3 and imply that it actually has a will of its own apart from that of the Wizard.
As for whether a canvas sack or a cave-in would affect it, I don't understand the argument that it is "intangible" (it can go through creatures) but somehow can't just go through a solid wall. So it can phase through a Gelatinous Cube but not through a Wall of Stone? How does that make sense?
Here is the actual block of text because a lot of what you keep asking is just answered here:
Manifest Mind
6th-level Order of Scribes feature
You can conjure forth the mind of your Awakened Spellbook. As a bonus action while the book is on your person, you can cause the mind to manifest as a Tiny spectral object, hovering in an unoccupied space of your choice within 60 feet of you. The spectral mind is intangible and doesn’t occupy its space, and it sheds dim light in a 10-foot radius. It looks like a ghostly tome, a cascade of text, or a scholar from the past (your choice).
While manifested, the spectral mind can hear and see, and it has darkvision with a range of 60 feet. The mind can telepathically share with you what it sees and hears (no action required).
Whenever you cast a wizard spell on your turn, you can cast it as if you were in the spectral mind’s space, instead of your own, using its senses. You can do so a number of times per day equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
As a bonus action, you can cause the spectral mind to hover up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space that you or it can see. It can pass through creatures but not objects.
The spectral mind stops manifesting if it is ever more than 300 feet away from you, if someone casts dispel magic on it, if the Awakened Spellbook is destroyed, if you die, or if you dismiss the spectral mind as a bonus action. Once you conjure the mind, you can’t do so again until you finish a long rest, unless you expend a spell slot of any level to conjure it again.
About the Awakened part, the same could be said about a familiar or a summon or a beast companion-- in fact many of them do have wills of their own according to the text-- but they're still controlled by the player because this is a game and that's fun.
As for the context around it being "intangible", I think it's useful to look at the clear developer intent behind suggesting that it cannot go through walls but it can go through creatures. Ambiguity aside, it is clear that the designers merely intended this to mean that it's not able to be targeted by attacks ("intangible" "does not take up it's space"), and that it is not meant to be abused for exploration purposes and can't instantly get anywhere and everywhere("can pass through creatures but not objects").
That's all you really need to "explain" the mechanics. Its a thing that can scout within 300 ft, can cast spells from, can't be attacked, and can't go through walls. All that is stated explicitly in the text, so I think questions of how it "works" are entirely irrelevant. In d&d, if the rules say something works a certain way, then it works. If the dm wants to change it, they can change it. I'm not even certain I understand what "how does this work?" even really means in this context.
If the creature vs object thing really bothers you then you can do two things. 1, change it via homebrew-- d&d is again very open to allowing players to do so to the point that there's a section in the DMG stating in the DM is the final arbitrator of any rules. Or 2, just treat the Mind like a size Tiny object, as size Tiny things (which the text also states the Mind is) can ignore when creatures take up a space, because they're so small they can get around them. Creatures taking up a 5-foot gridsquare in the fiction of the game do not instantly become 5 foot cubes, and there's plenty of room for a being small enough to essentially go "through" that space without incurring penalty. If it truly bothers you that it can go "through" creatures, then go with that explanation. If you think that still shouldn't be allowed to go through gelatinous cubes, then that's called a DM ruling and you're free to make them however you interpret. Same with Wall of Stone, as id rule that a wall made of stone is an object, same as a collapsed roof from a cave-in.
If you expect every mechanics question to also have an in-lore answer though, we're gunna be doing this for a while.
However, if the Mind cannot pass through walls, then why can't a canvas sack be able to blind it? I'm asking for clarification because I hope that Wizards approves this UA for official play But I want it to be better edited and more clearly written than its Fighter counterpart, the Echo Knight, with its many, many rules ambiguities.
However, if the Mind cannot pass through walls, then why can't a canvas sack be able to blind it? I'm asking for clarification because I hope that Wizards approves this UA for official play But I want it to be better edited and more clearly written than its Fighter counterpart, the Echo Knight, with its many, many rules ambiguities.
Yo - this is an offical subclass now - it is in Tasha's...
Other than that, I don't know what kind of answer you're looking for. I could say that Manifested Minds are composed of positive magic and attuned to the inherent magical forces that permeate living beings, undead, and constructs, and aren't able to phase through large amounts of magically neutral energy like that which suffuses nonmagical substances, however in small amounts (such as weapons or other small objects) they are able to tolerate small amounts of magically-neutral charge which is why you might see a burlap sack pass through it.
You're free to use that explanation if you will die without one, it's easy enough to BS a lore explanation for the mechanics if you need to, but that's a lot of text to expect them to print it in full legalese for just a level 3 subclass ability when the utility is already decently explained, for a circumstance that is already pretty unlikely to even come up.
The real answer though, and the only answer that matters in regards to "why not walls?" is that it would be OP if it could.
I have two videos on Order of Scribes at my channel (D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room). One is a review; the other is tactical optimization. Feel free to check them out for thoughts about Manifest Mind (particularly the optimization vid).
However, if the Mind cannot pass through walls, then why can't a canvas sack be able to blind it? I'm asking for clarification because I hope that Wizards approves this UA for official play But I want it to be better edited and more clearly written than its Fighter counterpart, the Echo Knight, with its many, many rules ambiguities.
Yo - this is an offical subclass now - it is in Tasha's...
Well, in that case, my worries about the lackluster quality of the editing department at WotC is confirmed.
However, if the Mind cannot pass through walls, then why can't a canvas sack be able to blind it? I'm asking for clarification because I hope that Wizards approves this UA for official play But I want it to be better edited and more clearly written than its Fighter counterpart, the Echo Knight, with its many, many rules ambiguities.
Yo - this is an offical subclass now - it is in Tasha's...
Well, in that case, my worries about the lackluster quality of the editing department at WotC is confirmed.
Why? BECause they didn't take 10 pages in the new book to explain every single instance of what could or could not happen with the manifested mind?
You want them to lay out ever single possible interaction which is by itself ridiculous, but then claim this is poor quality editing? Please. Read Tasha's before you complain about a subclass you didn't even know was official when you started making comments on it's features.
Because they are presenting something that changes the mechanics of a class but not presenting any guidelines for how that thing interacts with the environment. And it's contradictory. It's somehow Intangible, but cannot go through walls? If they were afraid of it being OP, just make it a tangible, but invisible object. That solves the problem of it being targeted by most creatures while also providing justification for why it cannot just go through a window or a wall.
For my own DM purposes, I'll be adding 3 clarifications:
It cannot pass through creatures - rather it can pass through squares occupied by creatures.
It can only pass through openings if they are at least 1 inch wide and 1 inch high.
If pushed by an object it moves with it, offering no resistance. If it is pressed between two objects, it stops manifesting.
We can complain all we want, but in the end it's up to us to make it work.
All that is stated explicitly in the text, so I think questions of how it "works" are entirely irrelevant. In d&d, if the rules say something works a certain way, then it works. If the dm wants to change it, they can change it. I'm not even certain I understand what "how does this work?" even really means in this context.
D&D is obviously a world of supernatural and magical things, but things should still behave consistently. The better your players can predict how the world reacts to their actions, the more tools they have to solve problems. When you just throw in a bunch of things that behave a certain way without any ultimate rhyme or reason, the world feels so capricious and random that free will seems pointless because you can't predict the consequences of your choices. In some cases like Wild Magic or certain fey settings this is appropriate. But generally a world holds up better if it sticks to a coherent set of natural laws.
It has a lot of similarities with arcane eye.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]Good catch.
So then this Mind can see 2x as far as the Arcane Eye, doesn't consume a spell slot or any other resources (including the all-important concentration). From this, I don't see any reason why it should be "Awakened" at all in any sense similar to the 5th level Awaken spell. That would imply that it has an INT score higher than 3 and imply that it actually has a will of its own apart from that of the Wizard.
As for whether a canvas sack or a cave-in would affect it, I don't understand the argument that it is "intangible" (it can go through creatures) but somehow can't just go through a solid wall. So it can phase through a Gelatinous Cube but not through a Wall of Stone? How does that make sense?
Here is the actual block of text because a lot of what you keep asking is just answered here:
About the Awakened part, the same could be said about a familiar or a summon or a beast companion-- in fact many of them do have wills of their own according to the text-- but they're still controlled by the player because this is a game and that's fun.
As for the context around it being "intangible", I think it's useful to look at the clear developer intent behind suggesting that it cannot go through walls but it can go through creatures. Ambiguity aside, it is clear that the designers merely intended this to mean that it's not able to be targeted by attacks ("intangible" "does not take up it's space"), and that it is not meant to be abused for exploration purposes and can't instantly get anywhere and everywhere("can pass through creatures but not objects").
That's all you really need to "explain" the mechanics. Its a thing that can scout within 300 ft, can cast spells from, can't be attacked, and can't go through walls. All that is stated explicitly in the text, so I think questions of how it "works" are entirely irrelevant. In d&d, if the rules say something works a certain way, then it works. If the dm wants to change it, they can change it. I'm not even certain I understand what "how does this work?" even really means in this context.
If the creature vs object thing really bothers you then you can do two things. 1, change it via homebrew-- d&d is again very open to allowing players to do so to the point that there's a section in the DMG stating in the DM is the final arbitrator of any rules. Or 2, just treat the Mind like a size Tiny object, as size Tiny things (which the text also states the Mind is) can ignore when creatures take up a space, because they're so small they can get around them. Creatures taking up a 5-foot gridsquare in the fiction of the game do not instantly become 5 foot cubes, and there's plenty of room for a being small enough to essentially go "through" that space without incurring penalty. If it truly bothers you that it can go "through" creatures, then go with that explanation. If you think that still shouldn't be allowed to go through gelatinous cubes, then that's called a DM ruling and you're free to make them however you interpret. Same with Wall of Stone, as id rule that a wall made of stone is an object, same as a collapsed roof from a cave-in.
If you expect every mechanics question to also have an in-lore answer though, we're gunna be doing this for a while.
However, if the Mind cannot pass through walls, then why can't a canvas sack be able to blind it? I'm asking for clarification because I hope that Wizards approves this UA for official play But I want it to be better edited and more clearly written than its Fighter counterpart, the Echo Knight, with its many, many rules ambiguities.
Yo - this is an offical subclass now - it is in Tasha's...
This isn't UA, this is published material.
Other than that, I don't know what kind of answer you're looking for. I could say that Manifested Minds are composed of positive magic and attuned to the inherent magical forces that permeate living beings, undead, and constructs, and aren't able to phase through large amounts of magically neutral energy like that which suffuses nonmagical substances, however in small amounts (such as weapons or other small objects) they are able to tolerate small amounts of magically-neutral charge which is why you might see a burlap sack pass through it.
You're free to use that explanation if you will die without one, it's easy enough to BS a lore explanation for the mechanics if you need to, but that's a lot of text to expect them to print it in full legalese for just a level 3 subclass ability when the utility is already decently explained, for a circumstance that is already pretty unlikely to even come up.
The real answer though, and the only answer that matters in regards to "why not walls?" is that it would be OP if it could.
I have two videos on Order of Scribes at my channel (D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room). One is a review; the other is tactical optimization. Feel free to check them out for thoughts about Manifest Mind (particularly the optimization vid).
My D&D YouTube channel, Bilbrons & Dragons
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxbubmFuZ_fNGSif081zaAA
Well, in that case, my worries about the lackluster quality of the editing department at WotC is confirmed.
Why? BECause they didn't take 10 pages in the new book to explain every single instance of what could or could not happen with the manifested mind?
You want them to lay out ever single possible interaction which is by itself ridiculous, but then claim this is poor quality editing? Please. Read Tasha's before you complain about a subclass you didn't even know was official when you started making comments on it's features.
Because they are presenting something that changes the mechanics of a class but not presenting any guidelines for how that thing interacts with the environment. And it's contradictory. It's somehow Intangible, but cannot go through walls? If they were afraid of it being OP, just make it a tangible, but invisible object. That solves the problem of it being targeted by most creatures while also providing justification for why it cannot just go through a window or a wall.
For my own DM purposes, I'll be adding 3 clarifications:
We can complain all we want, but in the end it's up to us to make it work.
D&D is obviously a world of supernatural and magical things, but things should still behave consistently. The better your players can predict how the world reacts to their actions, the more tools they have to solve problems. When you just throw in a bunch of things that behave a certain way without any ultimate rhyme or reason, the world feels so capricious and random that free will seems pointless because you can't predict the consequences of your choices. In some cases like Wild Magic or certain fey settings this is appropriate. But generally a world holds up better if it sticks to a coherent set of natural laws.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm