If by agree you mean, "the Echo will not 'poof'", then yes, we agree. We do not, however, agree on your tone. Whether or not you think it's a likely sequence of actions is irrelevant. You lacked the curiosity and/or imagination so see if it was even possible. Which also means you lack the imagination to find a use for it. That's for the people, players and DMs alike, who care to try it to figure out. You also, incorrectly and repeatedly, use the term "plane-shift" to describe something which expressly is not. I won't deny being a pedant. I also have no issue with "dropping some knowledge" so people can shed their ignorance. We should be here to help one another. Griping about what we think is "never-ever-ever-going-to-happen" when it very clearly and easily can isn't helpful.
I'd say we can start by coming up with ideas on how this kind of shenanigans could be useful, but that probably goes outside the scope of this thread. Probably something best saved for the warlock class forum.
Dudes... c'mon. It's all weeds with this subclass. It's going to get frustrating for some so lets try to stay helpful. I will make sure to check in more often to try to lessen the load on the rest of the regulars here.
I appreciate the reply brother honestly but I never said it would be in combat. I'll keep wording in mind for y'all in the future if I have other questions. I ultimately wanted to know, could the echo move the bottle (and by extension my warlock/fighter and rest of the party) around for various out of combat scenarios. FYI, I came up with tons scenarios and I got my answer.
I'm relatively new to the hobby and did not understand how extradimensional space worked in relation to distancing in the game so forgive the "unfathomable" question buddy.
Hope your Tuesday goes better than your Monday champ.
I'm... not sure what the issue was around this. It sounded more like a hypothetical or rule-of-cool question than anything. I doubt there's anything game-breaking over "dude wants the echo to hold the bottle after the character pops into it." Seems like just a bit of fluff.
If you want to get super pedantic, the character is inside the bottle, and no more than 30' from the echo, so chances are the echo won't disappear. However, the PC can't see what the echo sees (until they get the Echo Avatar feature), so it's not like they can direct the echo to go anywhere or do anything except stand there and hold the bottle. I can think of some ways around this limitation.
The best idea I can give is to work something like this out with your DM in advance and don't try to spring it last-minute. Most DMs are on your side and just want to tell cool stories with you.
I'm... not sure what the issue was around this. It sounded more like a hypothetical or rule-of-cool question than anything. I doubt there's anything game-breaking over "dude wants the echo to hold the bottle after the character pops into it." Seems like just a bit of fluff.
If you want to get super pedantic, the character is inside the bottle, and no more than 30' from the echo, so chances are the echo won't disappear. However, the PC can't see what the echo sees (until they get the Echo Avatar feature), so it's not like they can direct the echo to go anywhere or do anything except stand there and hold the bottle. I can think of some ways around this limitation.
The best idea I can give is to work something like this out with your DM in advance and don't try to spring it last-minute. Most DMs are on your side and just want to tell cool stories with you.
To throw in my opinion and how I would rule this at my table, the RAW doesn't support the Echo being capable of of any action other than the attack action (technically the Echo isn't even doing the action itself rather, its the Knight taking the attack action through the Echo.) I do not believe that the Echo is capable of the Object Interact action which is where I would group the action of "holding the bottle." Holding an object is a pretty cut and dry example of interacting with an object, IMO, and not entirely pedantic.
I'm... not sure what the issue was around this. It sounded more like a hypothetical or rule-of-cool question than anything. I doubt there's anything game-breaking over "dude wants the echo to hold the bottle after the character pops into it." Seems like just a bit of fluff.
If you want to get super pedantic, the character is inside the bottle, and no more than 30' from the echo, so chances are the echo won't disappear. However, the PC can't see what the echo sees (until they get the Echo Avatar feature), so it's not like they can direct the echo to go anywhere or do anything except stand there and hold the bottle. I can think of some ways around this limitation.
The best idea I can give is to work something like this out with your DM in advance and don't try to spring it last-minute. Most DMs are on your side and just want to tell cool stories with you.
To throw in my opinion and how I would rule this at my table, the RAW doesn't support the Echo being capable of of any action other than the attack action (technically the Echo isn't even doing the action itself rather, its the Knight taking the attack action through the Echo.) I do not believe that the Echo is capable of the Object Interact action which is where I would group the action of "holding the bottle." Holding an object is a pretty cut and dry example of interacting with an object, IMO, and not entirely pedantic.
This discussion does bring up a number of good questions for me. Yes, by RAW, there is nothing that lets an Echo do object interactions, as much as I think it would be cool if they could. But where is the line? Assuming an Echo can't open a door (as an object interaction) for example, can a Knight use an Echo to "attack" a door, or presumably kick or push it open? If you can grapple with a Echo (regardless of how long different DMs might rule that you can maintain the grapple), can you grapple or grab a 'thing' instead of a creature, even if only temporarily? This is predicated on the fact that you can technically 'attack' objects as well.
That said, I personally would probably rule that maintained actions, like grapples or holding bottle, would not be permissible through an Echo.
That then leads me to another fun question. I presume an Echo couldn't grab a bottle (or other object) on its own and then throw it. But interestingly, if a Knight grabbed the bottle, can he then thrown the bottle through or using the Echo – causing the object to essentially teleport over to the Echo? If a Knight can use an Echo to make a ranged attack (with a spear for example), then could the Knight not use the Echo to attack with or throw anything? I assume a spear, once thrown through an Echo, would be gone from the Knight's inventory. As would other objects?
Okay, this is a bit lawyer-y, but I think the FAQ has an interpretation that is more in question than as presented. It is located at Question 5 under Movement, which pertains to the following:
“If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed.”
The FAQ reads that as meaning that if the Knight’s echo is more than 30 ft. from the Knight during the round, it goes away at the end of the Knight’s next turn. If this if-then statement had a then, then I think there would be no question to this interpretation. Unfortunately, it doesn't, but it does have a comma.
Again, super lawyer-y, but I think it makes a difference.
If that ability read: “If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you, at the end of your turn it is destroyed.” then I fully agree with the FAQ’s interpretation. The comma isn't there though.
Let's put a then into the statement at the two different comma points, and I think it becomes much more clear.
1) “If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you at the end of your turn, then it is destroyed.”
2) "If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you, then at the end of your turn it is destroyed.”
#1 inserts the "then" at the EGtW's comma placement. To me, that means that the knight has an opportunity during their turn to bring the echo back into the 30 ft. range to prevent it from being destroyed.
#2 moves the comma from where it appears in EGtW and inserts a "then" to make the FAQ's interpretation the obvious reading.
It's all about that then.
If the goal was to destroy the echo for straying more than 30 ft. from the knight at any point during a round, then the clearest phrasing to achieve that would be as follows:
"If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you, then it is destroyed at the end of your turn."
The fact that it doesn't say that makes me think the intention is to have the knight be able to preserve the echo by bringing it back within range.
Anyway, anyone else share my interpretation? Has anyone heard Matt or Jeremy chime in on this point?
That's how I read it , as that's how it is written . If you are within 30' at the end of turn , it wouldn't be destroyed. I don't know where the interpretation came from that insinuates it gets destroyed regardless if at any point it is 30' away
Q: Can an Echo move more than 30’ from the Knight without it disappearing?
A: Yes. However if the Echo moves more than 30’ from the Knight at any time, it will disappear at the end of Knight's round. The exception to this rule is the use of the Echo Avatar ability. When using this feature, you can move an Echo more than 30’ away.
I disagree with that interpretation, as it seems you do as well. I think the missing "then" and the word "ever" in the EGtW wording that make it confusing.
Question about using a lance to attack though my echo:
I have an Echo knight that uses a lance as his main weapon. Although the GM agrees with me to not have a disadvantage when attacking an enemy within 5ft through my echo(that 10 ft away from the enemy). This question has always struggled with me for a long time.
Manifest Echo said: "When you take the Attack action on your turn, any attack you make with that action can originate from your space or the echo’s space. You make this choice for each attack." And Lance said: "You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you."
Someone said you have disadvantage, because your attack is originating from within 5 feet of the target.
And someone thinks that, when you are making an attack, you are attacking from the echo space, which is 10 ft away from the enemy, which should not have disadvantage.
In RAW disadvantage seem to make sense, but in RAI, that sounds kind of weird...
The reason Lance has issues hitting targets within 5ft is that it is long and heavy. Unlike ranged weapons that need to be concentrated to use, if you can attack from a longer distance, I don't see the reason why would you get a disadvantage from that.
What do you guys think?
If the attack is measured from the character's place, do you think echo should not have a disadvantage when using OA? Can echo use net without having disadvantage?
Probably a weird question, and most definitely something of an individually DM ruling, but I'm wondering how would DMs around here would do it.
Echo Knight feature:
"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."
War Caster feature:
"When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack."
So, intuitively my first thought is that the spell comes out of the Echo.
But... another line of thought seeps in.
The Manifest Echo feature says you can make an opportunity attack as if you were in the echo's space. War Caster says you can cast a spell as a reaction instead of an opportunity attack; but once it's no longer opportunity attack and a spell instead, the "as if you were in the echo's space" part of Manifest Echo... technically isn't true anymore.
Which, if this line of thought is to be followed, there is the argument to be made that the spell cast via War Caster, other than the timing, is cast as normal from your own space...?
I can't be sure on this one genuinely. What do you guys think?
Currently reading through the thread to see if it had been discussed already XD
Concerning interactions with objects, if you want to follow the RAW to the letter, the echo can't use the object interact action but it can make the attack action. This covers anything that the rules consider an attack, which would include throwing a bottle as long as throwing that bottle is meant to be an attack against a creature or object. Same goes for attacking a door with a weapon. I don't think it matters if the attack is made with an improvised weapon or not. As long as the knight is capable of making an attack with an improvised weapon, they can do it through the echo. I would say the same goes for unarmed strikes so kicking said door would be pheasible also. Pushing isn't inherently an attack. By RAW that would fall under an ability check but certain special attacks carry riders that push targets so those would apply as normal since they're part of an attack.
The rules for grappling are pretty clearly written to cover creatures grappling other creatures and makes no mention of objects. Part of the grapple process is the target making an ability check to resist. Any object that can resist a grapple falls into a very rare and gray area that will probably require a DM ruling. In these cases, the target in question is most likely classified as a creature even if it looks like an object (constructs are a type of creature), like the Battlesmith Artificer's steel defender.
You're correct on both accounts that the echo itself couldn't pick up the bottle and throw it, but the knight could do so through the echo. Again, attacking with an improvised weapon doesn't contradict what the echo is for. And just as it would disappear from the knights inventory if they threw if themselves, it would also disappear if they did so through th echo.
What helps me to play my echo knight without any headaches is keeping in mind that the echo is simply a "portal" for the Knight's attack actions. The attack action is the only thing the echo is interested in and it's just a thru-route for that action. It isn't actually taking any actions itself. Period. It's moving where the knight puts it and it can be the origin point for the Knight's attacks because magic. It's an object.
My interpretation is that the spell originates from the Knight, not the Echo for the reasons you've outlined.
This is following up on the War Caster discussion, no? I meant to quote Humble Giant's post deep diving the subject of object interaction with my last post. But coincidentally, that's exactly the reason that I feel the War Caster opportunity attack does not originate from the echo. I would say that it still triggers, but comes from the Knight's space. Mainly because the "cast a spell" action is different from the opportunity attack action and the attack action itself.
My interpretation is that the spell originates from the Knight, not the Echo for the reasons you've outlined.
This is following up on the War Caster discussion, no? I meant to quote Humble Giant's post deep diving the subject of object interaction with my last post. But coincidentally, that's exactly the reason that I feel the War Caster opportunity attack does not originate from the echo. I would say that it still triggers, but comes from the Knight's space. Mainly because the "cast a spell" action is different from the opportunity attack action and the attack action itself.
Yes, but when they make an Opportunity Attack they're not using the [Tooltip Not Found]. Just as they're not using the Attack when they take a normal Opportunity Attack. Opportunity Attacks are governed by their own rules, and if we're even attempting a RAW discussion then we cannot ignore this distinction.
Earlier, you mentioned how a bottle could be thrown from the echo's space as an Improvised Weapon. The reality is that depends on the Improvised Weapon. If you try to throw acid or alchemist's fire, those require the [Tooltip Not Found] because of the wording in their item descriptions.
Feats are optional rules. Core rules are not written with them in mind. Subclasses from other books are not written with them in mind. You can't plan for every eventuality, and attempting to write a description for how every feat might interact with a given feature is a recipe for bloat. It weighs down the necessary rules to the point where the relevant information becomes nigh-impossible to parse, and the barrier for entry becomes that might higher. So, knowing this, there isn't really a RAW for a lot of these interactions. I get why some people want to be able to point to a rule for everything, as if that's going to solve all their problems. But D&D already tried that for two and a half editions of the game, and it was a disaster.
Whether you think the spell granted by War Caster can originate from the echo or not is a matter of interpretation. There's no explicit wording to grant it, but why not? If the Opportunity Attack can originate from that space, can't the echo that's cast in its place? Rhetorical, I know, but worth asking nonetheless.
would letting the player choose where its coming from be too much, i wonder
What happens if the spell used for the opportunity attack via warcaster is booming blade?
And, if the OA spell came from the knight instead of the Echo, would this defeat the illusion or purpose of the Echo — or the idea of the Echo as a “portal” for attacks?
would letting the player choose where its coming from be too much, i wonder
What happens if the spell used for the opportunity attack via warcaster is booming blade?
And, if the OA spell came from the knight instead of the Echo, would this defeat the illusion or purpose of the Echo — or the idea of the Echo as a “portal” for attacks?
Then you've just unlocked the best OA in the game, congrats, buddy! Lol, yeah its one of the reasons I'll be grabbing War Caster for my Echo Knight once I decide to level up their fighter side to 4. I love BB as an OA, whether it comes from the knight or the echo, its just so good. Comparing it to the Sentinel's special OA, which simply stops the target's movement, I prefer the ultimatum of "sure, you can move, but you're going to take even more damage if you do."
Narratively speaking, it might help other combatants understand what they're dealing with but it will probably not help them escape the echo knight's wrath since there's no illusion at play. That's definitely my greatsword hitting you from 30 feet away, yet I still hold it my hands! Good luck getting away from it.
We've established that the Echo in "Avatar state" cannot attack. But if the Knight is blind, you could use the Echo Avatar to see, since it's immune.
The question is, can the Knight attack while using Echo Avatar? RAW he's "only" blinded and deafened so he should be able to move and attack.
And if so, can he attack without disadvantage, since he can now hear and see his opponent, albeit from outside of himself. Since we rule that all attacks taken from the Echo are made with the advantage/disadvantage of the fighter, this should move to the Echo if we are using Avatar, at least for things concerning hearing and sight. No?
If by agree you mean, "the Echo will not 'poof'", then yes, we agree. We do not, however, agree on your tone. Whether or not you think it's a likely sequence of actions is irrelevant. You lacked the curiosity and/or imagination so see if it was even possible. Which also means you lack the imagination to find a use for it. That's for the people, players and DMs alike, who care to try it to figure out. You also, incorrectly and repeatedly, use the term "plane-shift" to describe something which expressly is not. I won't deny being a pedant. I also have no issue with "dropping some knowledge" so people can shed their ignorance. We should be here to help one another. Griping about what we think is "never-ever-ever-going-to-happen" when it very clearly and easily can isn't helpful.
I'd say we can start by coming up with ideas on how this kind of shenanigans could be useful, but that probably goes outside the scope of this thread. Probably something best saved for the warlock class forum.
*eye roll*
Pedantically, labouriously, torturously correct.
Dudes... c'mon. It's all weeds with this subclass. It's going to get frustrating for some so lets try to stay helpful. I will make sure to check in more often to try to lessen the load on the rest of the regulars here.
I appreciate the reply brother honestly but I never said it would be in combat. I'll keep wording in mind for y'all in the future if I have other questions. I ultimately wanted to know, could the echo move the bottle (and by extension my warlock/fighter and rest of the party) around for various out of combat scenarios. FYI, I came up with tons scenarios and I got my answer.
I'm relatively new to the hobby and did not understand how extradimensional space worked in relation to distancing in the game so forgive the "unfathomable" question buddy.
Hope your Tuesday goes better than your Monday champ.
I'm... not sure what the issue was around this. It sounded more like a hypothetical or rule-of-cool question than anything. I doubt there's anything game-breaking over "dude wants the echo to hold the bottle after the character pops into it." Seems like just a bit of fluff.
If you want to get super pedantic, the character is inside the bottle, and no more than 30' from the echo, so chances are the echo won't disappear. However, the PC can't see what the echo sees (until they get the Echo Avatar feature), so it's not like they can direct the echo to go anywhere or do anything except stand there and hold the bottle. I can think of some ways around this limitation.
The best idea I can give is to work something like this out with your DM in advance and don't try to spring it last-minute. Most DMs are on your side and just want to tell cool stories with you.
To throw in my opinion and how I would rule this at my table, the RAW doesn't support the Echo being capable of of any action other than the attack action (technically the Echo isn't even doing the action itself rather, its the Knight taking the attack action through the Echo.) I do not believe that the Echo is capable of the Object Interact action which is where I would group the action of "holding the bottle." Holding an object is a pretty cut and dry example of interacting with an object, IMO, and not entirely pedantic.
This discussion does bring up a number of good questions for me. Yes, by RAW, there is nothing that lets an Echo do object interactions, as much as I think it would be cool if they could. But where is the line? Assuming an Echo can't open a door (as an object interaction) for example, can a Knight use an Echo to "attack" a door, or presumably kick or push it open? If you can grapple with a Echo (regardless of how long different DMs might rule that you can maintain the grapple), can you grapple or grab a 'thing' instead of a creature, even if only temporarily? This is predicated on the fact that you can technically 'attack' objects as well.
That said, I personally would probably rule that maintained actions, like grapples or holding bottle, would not be permissible through an Echo.
That then leads me to another fun question. I presume an Echo couldn't grab a bottle (or other object) on its own and then throw it. But interestingly, if a Knight grabbed the bottle, can he then thrown the bottle through or using the Echo – causing the object to essentially teleport over to the Echo? If a Knight can use an Echo to make a ranged attack (with a spear for example), then could the Knight not use the Echo to attack with or throw anything? I assume a spear, once thrown through an Echo, would be gone from the Knight's inventory. As would other objects?
Okay, this is a bit lawyer-y, but I think the FAQ has an interpretation that is more in question than as presented. It is located at Question 5 under Movement, which pertains to the following:
“If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed.”
The FAQ reads that as meaning that if the Knight’s echo is more than 30 ft. from the Knight during the round, it goes away at the end of the Knight’s next turn. If this if-then statement had a then, then I think there would be no question to this interpretation. Unfortunately, it doesn't, but it does have a comma.
Again, super lawyer-y, but I think it makes a difference.
If that ability read: “If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you, at the end of your turn it is destroyed.” then I fully agree with the FAQ’s interpretation. The comma isn't there though.
Let's put a then into the statement at the two different comma points, and I think it becomes much more clear.
1) “If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you at the end of your turn, then it is destroyed.”
2) "If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you, then at the end of your turn it is destroyed.”
#1 inserts the "then" at the EGtW's comma placement. To me, that means that the knight has an opportunity during their turn to bring the echo back into the 30 ft. range to prevent it from being destroyed.
#2 moves the comma from where it appears in EGtW and inserts a "then" to make the FAQ's interpretation the obvious reading.
It's all about that then.
If the goal was to destroy the echo for straying more than 30 ft. from the knight at any point during a round, then the clearest phrasing to achieve that would be as follows:
"If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you, then it is destroyed at the end of your turn."
The fact that it doesn't say that makes me think the intention is to have the knight be able to preserve the echo by bringing it back within range.
Anyway, anyone else share my interpretation? Has anyone heard Matt or Jeremy chime in on this point?
That's how I read it , as that's how it is written . If you are within 30' at the end of turn , it wouldn't be destroyed. I don't know where the interpretation came from that insinuates it gets destroyed regardless if at any point it is 30' away
Under Movement #5 in the FAQ it says.
Q: Can an Echo move more than 30’ from the Knight without it disappearing?
A: Yes. However if the Echo moves more than 30’ from the Knight at any time, it will disappear at the end of Knight's round. The exception to this rule is the use of the Echo Avatar ability. When using this feature, you can move an Echo more than 30’ away.
I disagree with that interpretation, as it seems you do as well. I think the missing "then" and the word "ever" in the EGtW wording that make it confusing.
Question about using a lance to attack though my echo:
I have an Echo knight that uses a lance as his main weapon. Although the GM agrees with me to not have a disadvantage when attacking an enemy within 5ft through my echo(that 10 ft away from the enemy). This question has always struggled with me for a long time.
Manifest Echo said:
"When you take the Attack action on your turn, any attack you make with that action can originate from your space or the echo’s space. You make this choice for each attack."
And Lance said:
"You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you."
This is the only post I find online that talks about this question:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/ms6gcm/echo_knight_and_lance_disadvantage/
Someone said you have disadvantage, because your attack is originating from within 5 feet of the target.
And someone thinks that, when you are making an attack, you are attacking from the echo space, which is 10 ft away from the enemy, which should not have disadvantage.
In RAW disadvantage seem to make sense, but in RAI, that sounds kind of weird...
The reason Lance has issues hitting targets within 5ft is that it is long and heavy. Unlike ranged weapons that need to be concentrated to use, if you can attack from a longer distance, I don't see the reason why would you get a disadvantage from that.
What do you guys think?
If the attack is measured from the character's place, do you think echo should not have a disadvantage when using OA? Can echo use net without having disadvantage?
Probably a weird question, and most definitely something of an individually DM ruling, but I'm wondering how would DMs around here would do it.
Echo Knight feature:
"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."
War Caster feature:
"When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack."
So, intuitively my first thought is that the spell comes out of the Echo.
But... another line of thought seeps in.
The Manifest Echo feature says you can make an opportunity attack as if you were in the echo's space. War Caster says you can cast a spell as a reaction instead of an opportunity attack; but once it's no longer opportunity attack and a spell instead, the "as if you were in the echo's space" part of Manifest Echo... technically isn't true anymore.
Which, if this line of thought is to be followed, there is the argument to be made that the spell cast via War Caster, other than the timing, is cast as normal from your own space...?
I can't be sure on this one genuinely. What do you guys think?
Currently reading through the thread to see if it had been discussed already XD
Concerning interactions with objects, if you want to follow the RAW to the letter, the echo can't use the object interact action but it can make the attack action. This covers anything that the rules consider an attack, which would include throwing a bottle as long as throwing that bottle is meant to be an attack against a creature or object. Same goes for attacking a door with a weapon. I don't think it matters if the attack is made with an improvised weapon or not. As long as the knight is capable of making an attack with an improvised weapon, they can do it through the echo. I would say the same goes for unarmed strikes so kicking said door would be pheasible also. Pushing isn't inherently an attack. By RAW that would fall under an ability check but certain special attacks carry riders that push targets so those would apply as normal since they're part of an attack.
The rules for grappling are pretty clearly written to cover creatures grappling other creatures and makes no mention of objects. Part of the grapple process is the target making an ability check to resist. Any object that can resist a grapple falls into a very rare and gray area that will probably require a DM ruling. In these cases, the target in question is most likely classified as a creature even if it looks like an object (constructs are a type of creature), like the Battlesmith Artificer's steel defender.
You're correct on both accounts that the echo itself couldn't pick up the bottle and throw it, but the knight could do so through the echo. Again, attacking with an improvised weapon doesn't contradict what the echo is for. And just as it would disappear from the knights inventory if they threw if themselves, it would also disappear if they did so through th echo.
What helps me to play my echo knight without any headaches is keeping in mind that the echo is simply a "portal" for the Knight's attack actions. The attack action is the only thing the echo is interested in and it's just a thru-route for that action. It isn't actually taking any actions itself. Period. It's moving where the knight puts it and it can be the origin point for the Knight's attacks because magic. It's an object.
My interpretation is that the spell originates from the Knight, not the Echo for the reasons you've outlined.
This is following up on the War Caster discussion, no? I meant to quote Humble Giant's post deep diving the subject of object interaction with my last post. But coincidentally, that's exactly the reason that I feel the War Caster opportunity attack does not originate from the echo. I would say that it still triggers, but comes from the Knight's space. Mainly because the "cast a spell" action is different from the opportunity attack action and the attack action itself.
Yes, but when they make an Opportunity Attack they're not using the [Tooltip Not Found]. Just as they're not using the Attack when they take a normal Opportunity Attack. Opportunity Attacks are governed by their own rules, and if we're even attempting a RAW discussion then we cannot ignore this distinction.
Earlier, you mentioned how a bottle could be thrown from the echo's space as an Improvised Weapon. The reality is that depends on the Improvised Weapon. If you try to throw acid or alchemist's fire, those require the [Tooltip Not Found] because of the wording in their item descriptions.
Feats are optional rules. Core rules are not written with them in mind. Subclasses from other books are not written with them in mind. You can't plan for every eventuality, and attempting to write a description for how every feat might interact with a given feature is a recipe for bloat. It weighs down the necessary rules to the point where the relevant information becomes nigh-impossible to parse, and the barrier for entry becomes that might higher. So, knowing this, there isn't really a RAW for a lot of these interactions. I get why some people want to be able to point to a rule for everything, as if that's going to solve all their problems. But D&D already tried that for two and a half editions of the game, and it was a disaster.
Whether you think the spell granted by War Caster can originate from the echo or not is a matter of interpretation. There's no explicit wording to grant it, but why not? If the Opportunity Attack can originate from that space, can't the echo that's cast in its place? Rhetorical, I know, but worth asking nonetheless.
would letting the player choose where its coming from be too much, i wonder
What happens if the spell used for the opportunity attack via warcaster is booming blade?
And, if the OA spell came from the knight instead of the Echo, would this defeat the illusion or purpose of the Echo — or the idea of the Echo as a “portal” for attacks?
Then you've just unlocked the best OA in the game, congrats, buddy! Lol, yeah its one of the reasons I'll be grabbing War Caster for my Echo Knight once I decide to level up their fighter side to 4. I love BB as an OA, whether it comes from the knight or the echo, its just so good. Comparing it to the Sentinel's special OA, which simply stops the target's movement, I prefer the ultimatum of "sure, you can move, but you're going to take even more damage if you do."
Narratively speaking, it might help other combatants understand what they're dealing with but it will probably not help them escape the echo knight's wrath since there's no illusion at play. That's definitely my greatsword hitting you from 30 feet away, yet I still hold it my hands! Good luck getting away from it.
We've established that the Echo in "Avatar state" cannot attack. But if the Knight is blind, you could use the Echo Avatar to see, since it's immune.
The question is, can the Knight attack while using Echo Avatar? RAW he's "only" blinded and deafened so he should be able to move and attack.
And if so, can he attack without disadvantage, since he can now hear and see his opponent, albeit from outside of himself. Since we rule that all attacks taken from the Echo are made with the advantage/disadvantage of the fighter, this should move to the Echo if we are using Avatar, at least for things concerning hearing and sight. No?