Thanks. Though because the echo knight I spoke of is level five, they already have two attacks without action surge.
But as Jeremy said: "No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action."
According to another Crawford tweet:
"My tweet below was addressing bonus actions and reactions that have triggers. A bonus action that has no trigger—such as Cunning Action and the misty step spell—can take place whenever you want on your turn (PH, 189) (StackExchange Discussion, Tweet)
Not only do the rules seem to support this, but... this is a cool strategy I'm going to give a spin if it becomes available. I've already been in a situation where my echo knight has been grappled, but I sent her echo on a killing spree against her captors in her place.
Heck, in that case, why not just teleport out of the grapple, then create a new Echo? Either way, it works.
I don't believe you can teleport out of a grapple. It costs 15 feet of movement to do so, and when you're grappled you have 0 feet of movement. Or is that wrong?
I don't believe you can teleport out of a grapple. It costs 15 feet of movement to do so, and when you're grappled you have 0 feet of movement. Or is that wrong?
That's actually a great point, & another one I hadn't thought of. I believe you're correct.
... I've already been in a situation where my echo knight has been grappled, but I sent her echo on a killing spree against her captors in her place.
Heck, in that case, why not just teleport out of the grapple, then create a new Echo? Either way, it works.
I don't believe you can teleport out of a grapple. It costs 15 feet of movement to do so, and when you're grappled you have 0 feet of movement. Or is that wrong?
I've added a question to the FAQ regarding grappling per the comment above. See the question below. If anyone has changes or a disagreement, please let me know:
Movement 20:
(new - 12/4/21) Q: Assuming the Knight has been grappled, can the Knight escape the grapple by swapping places with his Echo? A: No. It costs the Knight 15 feet of movement to swap places, and when you're grappled you have 0 feet of movement. Thus the Knight cannot teleport using Manifest Echo. (thanks @FLYINGvDUTCHMAN)
Movement 5. This is a grammatical argument, & I'm not sure if anything's been officially clarified or not. The text reads "If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed." Not 'If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you, at the end of your turn it is destroyed.' The placement of that comma tells me that the Echo is destroyed if it is more than 30 feet away at the end of your turn, not that it's destroyed at the end of your turn if it's ever more than 30 feet away from you. Thus, an Echo could be 45 feet away at one point during your turn, but so long as you end your turn within 30 feet of one another, the Echo is maintained. Now that I've read a few comments, I can see this has been asked & answered.
...
Thanks @BearTormohlen. I've correct the Movement 5 question based on the argument made above and also mentioned earlier in the thread. Below is the correction, please let me know if you have further feedback, or catch any of my errors.
(correction - 12/4/21) Q: Can an Echo move more than 30’ from the Knight without it disappearing? A: Yes. The Echo only disappears if it is more than 30' from the Knight at the end of your turn. 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. The previous answer stated that "if the Echo moves more than 30’ from the Knight at any time, it will disappear at the end of Knight's round." This was an incorrect interpretation of the grammar. The text reads "If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed." Not 'If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you, at the end of your turn it is destroyed.' The placement of that comma tells us that the Echo is destroyed if it is more than 30 feet away at the end of your turn, not that it's destroyed at the end of your turn if it's ever more than 30 feet away from you. Thus, an Echo could be 45 feet away at one point during your turn, but so long as you end your turn within 30 feet of one another, the Echo is maintained. (thanks @BearTormohlen and many others)
This is comprehensive & great! You helped clarify a few things I didn't even realize were issues, but it makes a lot of sense. I have a few nit-picks I'll share, & one specific question. Let's start there.
Q: Assuming the Knight has some levels as a Barbarian, can the Barbarian's Reckless Attack be applied to an attack through an Echo? If so, does the Echo, the Knight, or both have all incoming attacks made against them at advantage?
I'm assuming, just like Attacks 7., it can as the attacks are made by the Knight, from the Echo's space. But I'm not sure about the incoming attacks. We've been house-ruling that incoming attacks are made at advantage against both the Echo, & the Knight for balance purposes. Otherwise there's no reason an Echo couldn't make all attacks recklessly to preserve the Knight from taking those advantage attacks.
...
Also, I'm not a fan of the wording of the question, "Can an Echo use class features of the Knight?" If you buy the premise of my question above, or yours in Attacks 7., it can benefit from some class or subclass features; Divine Smite, Reckless Attack, Monk's Diamond Soul. Arguably even Paladin's Aura of Protection. It doesn't affect objects, but if you are a Paladin of sufficient level, or a Knight within range of a Paladin of sufficient level, it does boost your saving throw bonus, & the Echo uses your saving throw bonus, whatever it happens to be. The Echo just can't benefit from features that specify an action that the Echo isn't capable of taking, like Uncanny Dodge, Cast a Spell, or Second Wind.
...
Thank BearTormohlen for your comments question and comments about multi-classing at attack. There have been a number of questions and clarifications around multi-classing and related abilities. I've decided to combine all of these into a new section, and tried to clarify the answers and add new questions.
I'd love to request help from everyone on this thread to fill out the Multi-classing section, and ensure we both cover many of the open questions and make sure they are accurate. Below is my first take at the section (already posted). I have the following questions for others:
Are the below answers accurate?
Are there any typos or errors?
What additional questions and answers should be added (for example, can Echo benefit from class abilities that enhance saving throws)?
Are there any questions in other sections that should get moved to this section?
Thanks all for your assistance.
MULTI-CLASSING
(updated - 12/4/21) Q: Can features of other classes be applied to an Echo when multi-classing? A: Generally no. In most cases, class abilities only apply to the main character per the description of the feature. Echos are only objects that allow a Knight to attack through them. For more specific class feature, see the questions below. [Edit: questions previously in other parts of the FAQ have been consolidated in this 'Multi-classing' section and corrected.]
(new - 12/4/21) Q: Could the Rogue's Evasion ability to reduce AOE spell damage be applied to an Echo? A: No, Evasion would only applies to the Knight. Per the text, "...you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw...", thus would not apply to the Echo since it is separate object and not "you". (thanks @BearTormohlen)
(new - 12/4/21) Q: Assuming the Knight has some levels as a Rogue, could the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge ability to reduce damage be applied to an Echo? A: No, for two reasons. Echo's themselves cannot take Reactions, and the Knight wouldn't be the target of the attack that triggers those reactions, the Echo is. The only Reaction the Echo can "take" is allowing the Knight to make an opportunity attack from its position. (thanks @LeviRocks)
(new - 12/4/21) Q: Assuming the Knight has some levels as a Barbarian, could the Barbarian's Reckless Attack be applied to attacks through the Echo? And if so, would attacks then against the Knight, the Echo, or both have advantage until your next turn? A: Yes, Reckless would grant advantage to attacks through the Echo, because the Reckless attack is still from the Knight, and the only thing that changes is from where the attack originates. Note that per Reckless Attack, the attack would still need to be a strength-based and in melee. Likewise, per the rules "..attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn." Thus, attackers subsequently would only have advantage against the Knight (as "you") until its next turn, and would not have advantage against the Echo. Note that this thus allows Knights to make Reckless attacks through their Echo at range, thus avoiding some of the downside of the ability. Some DMs might house rule this ability.
(updated - 12/4/21) Q: Assuming the Knight has some levels as a Paladin, can the Paladin’s Divine Smith be applied to an attack though an Echo? A: Yes, because the attack is still from the Knight, and the only thing that changes is from where the attack originates. [Edit: This question was moved form the Attack section to here.]
Can we talk about this a bit? The FAQ seems to just be wrong, and I don’t see anyone really addressing it.
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.
That’s not what the ability says. It says…
“If your echo is ever more than 30 ft. from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed.”
The Echo has to be more than 30 ft. from the Knight “at the end of your turn” not “at any time” as the FAQ says. Why else would that comma split “end of your turn” and “it is destroyed” ?
I agree with this interpretation but wasn't this just brought up and a new consensus agreed on? Was the FAQ not updated? Usually Humble Giant pipes up when they make a change to it.
Sorry for my slow reply and not updating the FAQ. I think the change makes sense. Can anyone write up an alternate answer (A:) for me, and I can post it.
This one pertains to a couple of your questions, & I'm not sure what the answer is. Attacks 13. -Echo can't attack a target if the Knight can't see it. Ok, I'm with you, Knight has to have line of sight. Defense 4. -Echos are immune to conditions, have no senses, but rely on the senses of the Knight. So if the Knight's blinded, or can't see the target, neither can the Echo. Totally agree. These seem to disagree with Attacks 14. If the creature is obscured or covered from the Knight, but not the Echo, it's the Knight's attack that originates from the Echo's space. So the target gains to benefit from being obscured or covered. Makes sense. But the Echo uses the Knight's senses. Which are obscured... So which is it? I don't think anything you've written is wrong. It's just not clear, & seems to contradict. It's a problem with RAW, not your explanations.
Thanks BearTormohlen for the questions, they've been great. Regarding the question above, I've listed the relation FAQ questions below.
Defense 4: Q: If an Echo is immune to being blinded, how is it affected by obscurement? And can it see in darkness? A: Not applicable. Because Echos are immune to blindness, they technically aren't affected by darkness, but they also don't have any perceptions. They don't have functioning eyes and ears (unless you're using the level 7 ability), which means that darkness doesn't affect them, but this doesn't give any advantage to them either. Attacks made through an Echo are from the perspective and perception of the Knight. (thanks @LeviRocks)
Attack 13: Q: Can a Knight attack a creature through his Echo if only the Echo has line-of-sight to that creature? Is there any penalty if the Knight can’t see the target? A: No by RAW, because the Echo has no "senses" without you using the level 7 ability. Thus an Echo cannot help a Knight see her target. (thanks @LeviRocks)
Attack 14: Q: If a creature has obscurement or cover from the Knight, but the Echo has a clear line-of-sight, is there any penalty to the attack if it originates from the Echo? A: No, because the attack would originate from a position that wouldn't have the cover. (thanks @LeviRocks)
So I think you are correct that the Attack 14 question is confusing and incorrect. Instead of "obscurement or cover", it should only say "cover". Obscurement only pertains to the Knight.
Let's take a couple examples, and let me know if this makes sense to folks.
Example 1: Let's assume a Knight is firing her bow at a target through her Echo. If the Knight has clear line of sight to the target, it would not matter if the Echo is in a sphere of darkness. The Knight could still target and attack her enemy through her Echo without penalty – even if her enemy is obscured from the position of the Echo. The Echo simply let's the Knight attack originate from another position.
Example 2: Again, let's assume a Knight is firing her bow at her enemy throw her Echo. This time however, her enemy has 3/4 cover from the Knight because they are behind a low wall. However her Echo is floating 15' above the wall, and thus her enemy has no cover from the Echo's position. Since the Knight can see her enemy, she can still aim and fire her bow at it through the Echo. However, since there is nothing to get in the way of the arrow on its flight, there is no cover penalty to attack the target from the Echo's position.
Example 3: What if the Knight is blind, can she still attack through her Echo? Presumably it would be exactly the same blindness penalty if the Knight attacked her target without using the Echo. The Echo just lets the attack originate from another position. The Knight can still target a square that she can't see (or has total obscurement), with or without her Echo. If she uses her Echo, the Echo just needs line of effect.
So... do the above examples sound correct? They are all predicated on the fact that the Echo itself as no senses, or provided no additional senses for the Knight. How might we combine or better answer the questions? Or for that matter, better phrase the questions.
Interestingly, I'm not totally sure how the above examples might interact with Echo Avatar, which does provide sense.
About cover: "A target can benefit from cover, only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover"
This would seem to reinforce the notion that the Echo can be used to bypass half and three-quarter cover.
When it comes to total cover, it says "can't be targeted directly by an attack or spell". But it should still fall under the rule above. Thus you could argue that the Echo can still attack, albeit with disadvantage, since you cannot see the target.
So I agree with the 3 examples above.
Regarding the use of Avatar, I recently asked about these scenarios. Consensus seems to be to not use it in combat. But I think it's kind of fair, that if we normally attack from the echo using our senses, we could attack from our position using the senses of the echo Avatar.
Seeker95 asked these questions long ago, but I never got around to answering them in the FAQ. I thought I’d post them here to get people’s opinions. This is one of those questions where the RAW and logic might be in conflict.
If the Knight is hidden at the time that it makes an attack from the Echo's position, is the attack made with Advantage?
Does the Knight become unhidden when making this attack?
Interestingly this leads me to ask this question:
Does a Knight have to move to make an attack through an Echo? For example, is it sufficient enough for the Knight to hold her sword or bow, and not have to swing or draw it for the Echo to appear to attack with the sword or bow?
Seeker95 asked these questions long ago, but I never got around to answering them in the FAQ. I thought I’d post them here to get people’s opinions. This is one of those questions where the RAW and logic might be in conflict.
If the Knight is hidden at the time that it makes an attack from the Echo's position, is the attack made with Advantage?
Does the Knight become unhidden when making this attack?
Interestingly this leads me to ask this question:
Do a Knight have to move to make an attack through an Echo? For example, is it sufficient enough for the Knight to hold her sword or bow, and not have to swing it for the Echo to appear to attack with the sword or bow?
Thoughts welcomed.
1: Yes, because they are still making the attack. 2. Yes, because of the rules for Attacks Revealing you... RAW, at least. (It's dumb, but it IS necessary for balance)
3. Yes, if only because you still expend the ammunition you use in the case of a bow. (buuuuuuut I'm also not opposed to "no it isn't strictly necessary as long as other mechanics are still met")
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
On Movement question 1, your answer is incorrect. While you may choose when to take a bonus action on your turn, you cannot use a bonus action to interrupt an action, which teleporting between attacks would be, as extra attack grants an extra attack, not an attack action. You can however use your normal movement(s) between attacks.
On Movement Question 17, I would make the Argument it is clear. The Echo Knight is immune to conditions including grappled, and therefore cannot be held, and has already been said not to be able to hold things.
Incorrect, on both counts.
So long as the bonus action is not dependent on a trigger, it can be invoked whenever. If an Eldritch Knight wanted to use misty step between two attacks, due to their Extra Attack feature, they could. It's a perfectly legal move. The only restriction on teleporting via Manifest Echo is how much movement the Echo Knight has remaining. So long as they have at least 15 feet of unspent movement, they can teleport.
Sorry to Necro this, haven't been on in a while, but RAW, a bonus action cannot interrupt an action. Casting misty step would be an interruption of the action. The Extra Attack actions states "When you take the attack action," therefore it is, in fact, not a perfectly legal move. It is a blatantly illegal move. Moving 15ft between attacks is fine, but using a bonus action to do so is a break in the rules. A DM can rule however they want, but RAW, no. See Sage advice regarding fury of blows and shield master feat, a bonus action cannot interrupt an action. A reaction could movement can, but a bonus action cannot.
On Movement question 1, your answer is incorrect. While you may choose when to take a bonus action on your turn, you cannot use a bonus action to interrupt an action, which teleporting between attacks would be, as extra attack grants an extra attack, not an attack action. You can however use your normal movement(s) between attacks.
On Movement Question 17, I would make the Argument it is clear. The Echo Knight is immune to conditions including grappled, and therefore cannot be held, and has already been said not to be able to hold things.
Incorrect, on both counts.
So long as the bonus action is not dependent on a trigger, it can be invoked whenever. If an Eldritch Knight wanted to use misty step between two attacks, due to their Extra Attack feature, they could. It's a perfectly legal move. The only restriction on teleporting via Manifest Echo is how much movement the Echo Knight has remaining. So long as they have at least 15 feet of unspent movement, they can teleport.
Sorry to Necro this, haven't been on in a while, but RAW, a bonus action cannot interrupt an action. Casting misty step would be an interruption of the action. The Extra Attack actions states "When you take the attack action," therefore it is, in fact, not a perfectly legal move. It is a blatantly illegal move. Moving 15ft between attacks is fine, but using a bonus action to do so is a break in the rules. A DM can rule however they want, but RAW, no. See Sage advice regarding fury of blows and shield master feat, a bonus action cannot interrupt an action. A reaction could movement can, but a bonus action cannot.
That's a specific interaction based on the wording of the Shield Master feat. As a general rule, nothing expressly permits or prevents an "interruption" so it's perfectly fine.
Q: The Knight, level 3, attacks and hitting a creature taking the Shove (Attack) action. This drops the creature prone. With Unleash Incarnation have the Echo make a second attack, would this be a normal attack then with Advantage?
I envision using this at level 5, making up to 5 attacks with advantage when using Second Wind and Unleash Incarnation.
*edit* removed insinuation that grappling a prone creature would have advantage.
*edit2* remove grapple completely as it doesn't add to the situation
Q: The Knight, level 3, attacks and hitting a creature taking the Shove (Attack) action. This drops the creature prone. With Unleash Incarnation have the Echo make a second attack, would this be a normal attack then with Advantage?
I envision using this at level 5, making up to 5 attacks with advantage when using Second Wind and Unleash Incarnation.
*edit* removed insinuation that grappling a prone creature would have advantage.
*edit2* remove grapple completely as it doesn't add to the situation
Re: Grappling (General Questions, Attacks, part 4)
I do not belive the Echo can, RAW, grapple.
Manifest Echo states that during the Attack action on your turn, any ATTACK that the knight makes can originate either from the knight's square or the Echo's square. Attacks in this situation refering to Melee/Ranged Weapon/Spell attacks. A grapple and shove attempt are not attacks as such, but special opposed skill tests which replace an attack and are not as such, actual attacks.
Re: Grappling (General Questions, Attacks, part 4)
I do not belive the Echo can, RAW, grapple.
Manifest Echo states that during the Attack action on your turn, any ATTACK that the knight makes can originate either from the knight's square or the Echo's square. Attacks in this situation refering to Melee/Ranged Weapon/Spell attacks. A grapple and shove attempt are not attacks as such, but special opposed skill tests which replace an attack and are not as such, actual attacks.
Based on the wording of grapple and shove, they are actually considered attacks:
Using the Attack action, you can make a Special melee Attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them.
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a Special melee Attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them.
Though the question as to whether an echo can maintain a grapple is unresolved. My practical advice would be to only use the echo to shove, and not grapple.
Grappling automatically ends when the target leaves the grappler's reach. So the question is have they left the grappler's reach if they can attack and grapple through the echo?
And I don't think that's the case. They're not directly adjacent, but the echo knight attacks from the echo's space as if they were there. It functionally increases their potential reach.
I cannot see how an echo could hold a grapple beyond the initial "grab", as following that the knight's hands would return to the knight.
Exactly why I said that the issue of whether an echo can maintain a grapple is unresolved. To avoid issues with your DM I would recommend only using the shove, and not the grapple
I cannot see how an echo could hold a grapple beyond the initial "grab", as following that the knight's hands would return to the knight.
Exactly why I said that the issue of whether an echo can maintain a grapple is unresolved. To avoid issues with your DM I would recommend only using the shove, and not the grapple
There's no issue with the DM because the DM will just make a ruling and that's the end of it. You don't really get to argue; at least not in the middle of a session.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't believe you can teleport out of a grapple. It costs 15 feet of movement to do so, and when you're grappled you have 0 feet of movement. Or is that wrong?
That's actually a great point, & another one I hadn't thought of. I believe you're correct.
I've added a question to the FAQ regarding grappling per the comment above. See the question below. If anyone has changes or a disagreement, please let me know:
Movement 20:
(new - 12/4/21) Q: Assuming the Knight has been grappled, can the Knight escape the grapple by swapping places with his Echo?
A: No. It costs the Knight 15 feet of movement to swap places, and when you're grappled you have 0 feet of movement. Thus the Knight cannot teleport using Manifest Echo. (thanks @FLYINGvDUTCHMAN)
Thanks @BearTormohlen. I've correct the Movement 5 question based on the argument made above and also mentioned earlier in the thread. Below is the correction, please let me know if you have further feedback, or catch any of my errors.
(correction - 12/4/21) Q: Can an Echo move more than 30’ from the Knight without it disappearing?
A: Yes. The Echo only disappears if it is more than 30' from the Knight at the end of your turn. 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.
The previous answer stated that "if the Echo moves more than 30’ from the Knight at any time, it will disappear at the end of Knight's round." This was an incorrect interpretation of the grammar. The text reads "If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed." Not 'If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you, at the end of your turn it is destroyed.' The placement of that comma tells us that the Echo is destroyed if it is more than 30 feet away at the end of your turn, not that it's destroyed at the end of your turn if it's ever more than 30 feet away from you. Thus, an Echo could be 45 feet away at one point during your turn, but so long as you end your turn within 30 feet of one another, the Echo is maintained. (thanks @BearTormohlen and many others)
Thank BearTormohlen for your comments question and comments about multi-classing at attack. There have been a number of questions and clarifications around multi-classing and related abilities. I've decided to combine all of these into a new section, and tried to clarify the answers and add new questions.
I'd love to request help from everyone on this thread to fill out the Multi-classing section, and ensure we both cover many of the open questions and make sure they are accurate. Below is my first take at the section (already posted). I have the following questions for others:
Thanks all for your assistance.
MULTI-CLASSING
A: Generally no. In most cases, class abilities only apply to the main character per the description of the feature. Echos are only objects that allow a Knight to attack through them. For more specific class feature, see the questions below.
[Edit: questions previously in other parts of the FAQ have been consolidated in this 'Multi-classing' section and corrected.]
A: No, Evasion would only applies to the Knight.
Per the text, "...you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw...", thus would not apply to the Echo since it is separate object and not "you". (thanks @BearTormohlen)
A: No, for two reasons. Echo's themselves cannot take Reactions, and the Knight wouldn't be the target of the attack that triggers those reactions, the Echo is. The only Reaction the Echo can "take" is allowing the Knight to make an opportunity attack from its position. (thanks @LeviRocks)
A: Yes, Reckless would grant advantage to attacks through the Echo, because the Reckless attack is still from the Knight, and the only thing that changes is from where the attack originates. Note that per Reckless Attack, the attack would still need to be a strength-based and in melee. Likewise, per the rules "..attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn." Thus, attackers subsequently would only have advantage against the Knight (as "you") until its next turn, and would not have advantage against the Echo.
Note that this thus allows Knights to make Reckless attacks through their Echo at range, thus avoiding some of the downside of the ability. Some DMs might house rule this ability.
A: Yes, because the attack is still from the Knight, and the only thing that changes is from where the attack originates.
[Edit: This question was moved form the Attack section to here.]
Change made. Thanks!
Thanks BearTormohlen for the questions, they've been great. Regarding the question above, I've listed the relation FAQ questions below.
Q: If an Echo is immune to being blinded, how is it affected by obscurement? And can it see in darkness?
A: Not applicable. Because Echos are immune to blindness, they technically aren't affected by darkness, but they also don't have any perceptions.
They don't have functioning eyes and ears (unless you're using the level 7 ability), which means that darkness doesn't affect them, but this doesn't give any advantage to them either. Attacks made through an Echo are from the perspective and perception of the Knight. (thanks @LeviRocks)
Q: Can a Knight attack a creature through his Echo if only the Echo has line-of-sight to that creature? Is there any penalty if the Knight can’t see the target?
A: No by RAW, because the Echo has no "senses" without you using the level 7 ability. Thus an Echo cannot help a Knight see her target. (thanks @LeviRocks)
Q: If a creature has obscurement or cover from the Knight, but the Echo has a clear line-of-sight, is there any penalty to the attack if it originates from the Echo?
A: No, because the attack would originate from a position that wouldn't have the cover. (thanks @LeviRocks)
So I think you are correct that the Attack 14 question is confusing and incorrect. Instead of "obscurement or cover", it should only say "cover". Obscurement only pertains to the Knight.
Let's take a couple examples, and let me know if this makes sense to folks.
Example 1:
Let's assume a Knight is firing her bow at a target through her Echo. If the Knight has clear line of sight to the target, it would not matter if the Echo is in a sphere of darkness. The Knight could still target and attack her enemy through her Echo without penalty – even if her enemy is obscured from the position of the Echo. The Echo simply let's the Knight attack originate from another position.
Example 2:
Again, let's assume a Knight is firing her bow at her enemy throw her Echo. This time however, her enemy has 3/4 cover from the Knight because they are behind a low wall. However her Echo is floating 15' above the wall, and thus her enemy has no cover from the Echo's position. Since the Knight can see her enemy, she can still aim and fire her bow at it through the Echo. However, since there is nothing to get in the way of the arrow on its flight, there is no cover penalty to attack the target from the Echo's position.
Example 3:
What if the Knight is blind, can she still attack through her Echo? Presumably it would be exactly the same blindness penalty if the Knight attacked her target without using the Echo. The Echo just lets the attack originate from another position. The Knight can still target a square that she can't see (or has total obscurement), with or without her Echo. If she uses her Echo, the Echo just needs line of effect.
So... do the above examples sound correct? They are all predicated on the fact that the Echo itself as no senses, or provided no additional senses for the Knight. How might we combine or better answer the questions? Or for that matter, better phrase the questions.
Interestingly, I'm not totally sure how the above examples might interact with Echo Avatar, which does provide sense.
About cover: "A target can benefit from cover, only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover"
This would seem to reinforce the notion that the Echo can be used to bypass half and three-quarter cover.
When it comes to total cover, it says "can't be targeted directly by an attack or spell". But it should still fall under the rule above. Thus you could argue that the Echo can still attack, albeit with disadvantage, since you cannot see the target.
So I agree with the 3 examples above.
Regarding the use of Avatar, I recently asked about these scenarios. Consensus seems to be to not use it in combat. But I think it's kind of fair, that if we normally attack from the echo using our senses, we could attack from our position using the senses of the echo Avatar.
Seeker95 asked these questions long ago, but I never got around to answering them in the FAQ. I thought I’d post them here to get people’s opinions. This is one of those questions where the RAW and logic might be in conflict.
Interestingly this leads me to ask this question:
Thoughts welcomed.
1: Yes, because they are still making the attack.
2. Yes, because of the rules for Attacks Revealing you... RAW, at least. (It's dumb, but it IS necessary for balance)
3. Yes, if only because you still expend the ammunition you use in the case of a bow. (buuuuuuut I'm also not opposed to "no it isn't strictly necessary as long as other mechanics are still met")
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Sorry to Necro this, haven't been on in a while, but RAW, a bonus action cannot interrupt an action. Casting misty step would be an interruption of the action. The Extra Attack actions states "When you take the attack action," therefore it is, in fact, not a perfectly legal move. It is a blatantly illegal move. Moving 15ft between attacks is fine, but using a bonus action to do so is a break in the rules. A DM can rule however they want, but RAW, no. See Sage advice regarding fury of blows and shield master feat, a bonus action cannot interrupt an action. A reaction could movement can, but a bonus action cannot.
That's a specific interaction based on the wording of the Shield Master feat. As a general rule, nothing expressly permits or prevents an "interruption" so it's perfectly fine.
Q: The Knight, level 3, attacks and hitting a creature taking the Shove (Attack) action. This drops the creature prone. With Unleash Incarnation have the Echo make a second attack, would this be a normal attack then with Advantage?
I envision using this at level 5, making up to 5 attacks with advantage when using Second Wind and Unleash Incarnation.
*edit* removed insinuation that grappling a prone creature would have advantage.
*edit2* remove grapple completely as it doesn't add to the situation
Yes, the unleashed attack would have advantage
Re: Grappling (General Questions, Attacks, part 4)
I do not belive the Echo can, RAW, grapple.
Manifest Echo states that during the Attack action on your turn, any ATTACK that the knight makes can originate either from the knight's square or the Echo's square. Attacks in this situation refering to Melee/Ranged Weapon/Spell attacks. A grapple and shove attempt are not attacks as such, but special opposed skill tests which replace an attack and are not as such, actual attacks.
Based on the wording of grapple and shove, they are actually considered attacks:
Shoving a Creature
Using the Attack action, you can make a Special melee Attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them.
Grappling
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a Special melee Attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them.
Though the question as to whether an echo can maintain a grapple is unresolved. My practical advice would be to only use the echo to shove, and not grapple.
Grappling automatically ends when the target leaves the grappler's reach. So the question is have they left the grappler's reach if they can attack and grapple through the echo?
And I don't think that's the case. They're not directly adjacent, but the echo knight attacks from the echo's space as if they were there. It functionally increases their potential reach.
I cannot see how an echo could hold a grapple beyond the initial "grab", as following that the knight's hands would return to the knight.
Exactly why I said that the issue of whether an echo can maintain a grapple is unresolved. To avoid issues with your DM I would recommend only using the shove, and not the grapple
There's no issue with the DM because the DM will just make a ruling and that's the end of it. You don't really get to argue; at least not in the middle of a session.