No, you really can't do all that. It's only an "object" because it's not a "creature", but it's really just an image. It's no different than creating an illusory barrel with minor illusion, and you can't interact with those.
No, a minor illusion doesn't occupy its space. An echo does, which is why it's corporeal - it explicitly blocks movement, which also means it explicitly can have a rope tied to it.
You're basing that entirely on the word of Dan Dillon. I'm familiar with the tweet, I love his work, but it's ridiculous. The echo is your character pulled from an alternate timeline. It represents other possibilities at that moment. If your echo knight can't fly or otherwise hover in the air, then there's no reasonable way for your time-displaced duplicate to do the same. After all, it doesn't have anything you don't.
None of that is rules text. The actual rules text is identical to the rules text for, say, Mage Hand. Unless you want to argue I can't move Mage Hand vertically because all movement is horizontal unless otherwise specified, which would be novel and potentially interesting, then the Echo can move vertically, because, again, the relevant rules text is the same.
Edit: In fact, that very tangibility is why you should NOT be able to ride the echo directly. You can't end any part of your move on an occupied space, so you can't end you move by climbing onto an holding the echo. Mounting rules and Grappling rules won't work either. You'd have to move into the same vague rope-tugging territory.
Of course you can end your move on an occupied space. You do it every time you walk anywhere - the ground beneath you is occupied by the ground. You're thinking of creature-specific rules, which don't apply to the echo, as it isn't a creature. The rules for standing on it are the same as for standing on a stool, or on a ball, or on a pile of loose marbles - it might be physically challenging, maybe even to the point of being completely impractical, but it's not intrinsically banned by any rule in the book.
When you start to ask questions like "How slippery is the Echo?", then everything gets murky. If I were the GM, I'd rule it behaves in every way like a 3d-printed version of the original Fighter, only made entirely out of Force magic, exactly like (and in fact identical to, just in a different shape) a Wall of Force. Since we don't have rules for that either, we'd have to turn to whatever my generally ruling was for physical manifestations of Force magic. But that's all homebrew - it's actually made of illusion magic, not force magic. Actual RAW is just plain silent on finely grained details, here. Another question we technically don't know the answer to is whether or not the Echo is flammable, so if you could somehow hit it with a 0-damage firebolt, it would be an open question if it would catch fire.
Q: Can an Echo Knight move its Echo 30 feet, then summon a new Echo, and move that new one 30 feet as well?
no, because until you hit level Echo Knight capstone you can only have one echo at a time. Summon a new echo, the older one perishes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Q: Can an Echo Knight move its Echo 30 feet, then summon a new Echo, and move that new one 30 feet as well?
no, because until you hit level Echo Knight capstone you can only have one echo at a time. Summon a new echo, the older one perishes.
True, but i could still take my attacks and Unleash Incarnations at the spot i want, and then move the new Echo to another enemy while the old one disappears, if this worked.
The question moreso is, in this case, does resummoning the Echo count it as a new Echo with new movement, or as the old one?
I'd suggest that you can only move an echo 30 feet in any one turn, if you have used it's movement, then a 2nd one couldn't move again.
On your turn, you can mentally command the echo to move up to 30 feet in any direction (no action required). If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed.
You're basing that entirely on the word of Dan Dillon. I'm familiar with the tweet, I love his work, but it's ridiculous. The echo is your character pulled from an alternate timeline. It represents other possibilities at that moment. If your echo knight can't fly or otherwise hover in the air, then there's no reasonable way for your time-displaced duplicate to do the same. After all, it doesn't have anything you don't.
None of that is rules text. The actual rules text is identical to the rules text for, say, Mage Hand. Unless you want to argue I can't move Mage Hand vertically because all movement is horizontal unless otherwise specified, which would be novel and potentially interesting, then the Echo can move vertically, because, again, the relevant rules text is the same.
It's actually not identical to mage hand, but that's beside the point. The flavor text informs what the feature can do. They're not wholly inseperable. You can't just jetisson one and pretend everything is okay.
Let's revisit the subject of whether or not you can tie a rope around the echo. I say you can't, and I think I've actually got a pretty good reason why. The echo occupies its space, sure, but what does that mean? The 4th-level spell guardian of faith also occupies its space, but you can't physically interact with it. You can't shove it prone or teleport it away. It can't roll the ability check or saving throw to resist either. It doesn't have an AC or hit points, so you can't target it with an attack. It's just sort of there; blocking movement.
The 8th-level spell illusory dragon, like Manifest Echo, also creates an illusion that occupies its space. But it also includes language missing from both Manifest Echo and guardian of faith. The dragon is expressly tangible. This means the echo and guardian aren't. And if they aren't tangible, then you cannot interact with them as such.
I am sorry if this has been covered before, did not see it. Here goes...
1. Ranged attack using the Echo but it is within 5ft of a hostile creature but the character is in the clear. Disadvantage YES or NO? VICE VERSA 2. Ranged attack using the Echo but the character is within 5ft of a hostile creature but the echo is in the clear. Disadvantage YES or NO?
I am sorry if this has been covered before, did not see it. Here goes...
1. Ranged attack using the Echo but it is within 5ft of a hostile creature but the character is in the clear. Disadvantage YES or NO? VICE VERSA 2. Ranged attack using the Echo but the character is within 5ft of a hostile creature but the echo is in the clear. Disadvantage YES or NO?
Many thanks.
1. Since it originates from the Echo's space, the attack would have disadvantage.
2. Since it originates from the Echo's space, the attack would not have disadvantage.
Additional note: when mixing ranged and melee attacks among the Knight and the Echo, watch out for line of sight as the knight still needs clear LOS to a target of a ranged attack from the Echo's position.
It's also still merely advice with little actual weight behind it. The Echo Knight isn't permitted in organized play, so there's no standardized ruling for how the feature behaves. I respect Crawford, but Sage Advice has always had a little asterisk next to it.
It's also still merely advice with little actual weight behind it. The Echo Knight isn't permitted in organized play, so there's no standardized ruling for how the feature behaves. I respect Crawford, but Sage Advice has always had a little asterisk next to it.
I'm pretty sure all campaign-specific material is prohibited in organized play. I think that tweet does firmly establish the RAI, though. A 2nd printing of the subclass could potentially include something about the echo remaining in place wherever the knight puts it. This could be how they also clear up any confusion about other creatures physically moving the echo as well.
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.
"at any time" This is wrong.
The text reads:
"If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed." which is critically different from "If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you, at the end of your turn it is destroyed."
Your Echo can be any distance from you during your turn and will not disappear as long as you end your turn within 30 feet of it.
It's also still merely advice with little actual weight behind it. The Echo Knight isn't permitted in organized play, so there's no standardized ruling for how the feature behaves. I respect Crawford, but Sage Advice has always had a little asterisk next to it.
I'm pretty sure all campaign-specific material is prohibited in organized play. I think that tweet does firmly establish the RAI, though. A 2nd printing of the subclass could potentially include something about the echo remaining in place wherever the knight puts it. This could be how they also clear up any confusion about other creatures physically moving the echo as well.
Oh, there's no confusion about whether or not the echo can be forcibly moved by others. It's an intangible image. If it were tangible, it would say so.
Could a level 15 Beastmaster Ranger, with 3-5 levels in Echo-Knight Fighter use Manifest Echo, and have it apply to your pet too? Does Manifest Echo count as a magical spell in that regard?
"You can use a bonus action to magically manifest an echo of yourself in an unoccupied space you can see within 15 feet of you. This echo is a magical, translucent, gray image of you that lasts until it is destroyed, until you dismiss it as a bonus action, until you manifest another echo, or until you’re incapacitated."
The Beastmaster's 15th ability Share Spells; "Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When in doubt, go left. And don't get scared, get angry.
It's also still merely advice with little actual weight behind it. The Echo Knight isn't permitted in organized play, so there's no standardized ruling for how the feature behaves. I respect Crawford, but Sage Advice has always had a little asterisk next to it.
I'm pretty sure all campaign-specific material is prohibited in organized play. I think that tweet does firmly establish the RAI, though. A 2nd printing of the subclass could potentially include something about the echo remaining in place wherever the knight puts it. This could be how they also clear up any confusion about other creatures physically moving the echo as well.
Oh, there's no confusion about whether or not the echo can be forcibly moved by others. It's an intangible image. If it were tangible, it would say so.
Maybe not for you but this is one of the issues that I see debated the most when it comes to the echo. IMO I think it comes from people getting tripped up over the classification of the echo as an object. It is a fairly cut and dry issue on the surface but then you can raise questions involving Levitate, Catapult and other spells or effects that interact with objects and aren't so black and white where tangibilty is considered. I feel like they could settle these issues definitively with a carefully worded rewrite.
Oh, there's no confusion about whether or not the echo can be forcibly moved by others. It's an intangible image. If it were tangible, it would say so.
It does say it's tangible, right where it says it occupies its space. By definition, anything which occupies its space is tangible.
It's also still merely advice with little actual weight behind it. The Echo Knight isn't permitted in organized play, so there's no standardized ruling for how the feature behaves. I respect Crawford, but Sage Advice has always had a little asterisk next to it.
I'm pretty sure all campaign-specific material is prohibited in organized play. I think that tweet does firmly establish the RAI, though. A 2nd printing of the subclass could potentially include something about the echo remaining in place wherever the knight puts it. This could be how they also clear up any confusion about other creatures physically moving the echo as well.
Oh, there's no confusion about whether or not the echo can be forcibly moved by others. It's an intangible image. If it were tangible, it would say so.
Maybe not for you but this is one of the issues that I see debated the most when it comes to the echo. IMO I think it comes from people getting tripped up over the classification of the echo as an object. It is a fairly cut and dry issue on the surface but then you can raise questions involving Levitate, Catapult and other spells or effects that interact with objects and aren't so black and white where tangibilty is considered. I feel like they could settle these issues definitively with a carefully worded rewrite.
Anyone confused simply hasn't been looking at all the relevant information. See my post in this very thread from just five days ago.
Calling something an object is just an abstraction because the game doesn't define what an object is. In the simplest of terms, an object is anything which isn't a creature. A brick wall or cart full of straw conjured up by minor illusion is just as much an object as something created via fabricate. What matters is (A) whether something "occupies its space" and (B) what, exactly, that means.
As mentioned in the linked post, the number of comparison points is breathtakingly small. But we do know that (A) the spell illusory dragon explicitly creates a tangible object while no other comparison point does and (B) a thing only does what it says it does and. As Jeremy Crawford has repeatedly stated, if some mechanical interaction were intended, a spell or feature would say so.
Sometimes, I do think, they are overly-permissive; such as saying just any old echo can move vertically. But, in this case, the pendulum swings the other direction. It's not intended for the echo to be physically interacted beyond what is explicitly stated in the feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, a minor illusion doesn't occupy its space. An echo does, which is why it's corporeal - it explicitly blocks movement, which also means it explicitly can have a rope tied to it.
None of that is rules text. The actual rules text is identical to the rules text for, say, Mage Hand. Unless you want to argue I can't move Mage Hand vertically because all movement is horizontal unless otherwise specified, which would be novel and potentially interesting, then the Echo can move vertically, because, again, the relevant rules text is the same.
Of course you can end your move on an occupied space. You do it every time you walk anywhere - the ground beneath you is occupied by the ground. You're thinking of creature-specific rules, which don't apply to the echo, as it isn't a creature. The rules for standing on it are the same as for standing on a stool, or on a ball, or on a pile of loose marbles - it might be physically challenging, maybe even to the point of being completely impractical, but it's not intrinsically banned by any rule in the book.
When you start to ask questions like "How slippery is the Echo?", then everything gets murky. If I were the GM, I'd rule it behaves in every way like a 3d-printed version of the original Fighter, only made entirely out of Force magic, exactly like (and in fact identical to, just in a different shape) a Wall of Force. Since we don't have rules for that either, we'd have to turn to whatever my generally ruling was for physical manifestations of Force magic. But that's all homebrew - it's actually made of illusion magic, not force magic. Actual RAW is just plain silent on finely grained details, here. Another question we technically don't know the answer to is whether or not the Echo is flammable, so if you could somehow hit it with a 0-damage firebolt, it would be an open question if it would catch fire.
Q: Can an Echo Knight move its Echo 30 feet, then summon a new Echo, and move that new one 30 feet as well?
no, because until you hit level Echo Knight capstone you can only have one echo at a time. Summon a new echo, the older one perishes.
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!"
True, but i could still take my attacks and Unleash Incarnations at the spot i want, and then move the new Echo to another enemy while the old one disappears, if this worked.
The question moreso is, in this case, does resummoning the Echo count it as a new Echo with new movement, or as the old one?
I'd suggest that you can only move an echo 30 feet in any one turn, if you have used it's movement, then a 2nd one couldn't move again.
On your turn, you can mentally command the echo to move up to 30 feet in any direction (no action required). If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed.
It's actually not identical to mage hand, but that's beside the point. The flavor text informs what the feature can do. They're not wholly inseperable. You can't just jetisson one and pretend everything is okay.
Let's revisit the subject of whether or not you can tie a rope around the echo. I say you can't, and I think I've actually got a pretty good reason why. The echo occupies its space, sure, but what does that mean? The 4th-level spell guardian of faith also occupies its space, but you can't physically interact with it. You can't shove it prone or teleport it away. It can't roll the ability check or saving throw to resist either. It doesn't have an AC or hit points, so you can't target it with an attack. It's just sort of there; blocking movement.
The 8th-level spell illusory dragon, like Manifest Echo, also creates an illusion that occupies its space. But it also includes language missing from both Manifest Echo and guardian of faith. The dragon is expressly tangible. This means the echo and guardian aren't. And if they aren't tangible, then you cannot interact with them as such.
I am sorry if this has been covered before, did not see it. Here goes...
1. Ranged attack using the Echo but it is within 5ft of a hostile creature but the character is in the clear. Disadvantage YES or NO?
VICE VERSA
2. Ranged attack using the Echo but the character is within 5ft of a hostile creature but the echo is in the clear. Disadvantage YES or NO?
Many thanks.
1. Since it originates from the Echo's space, the attack would have disadvantage.
2. Since it originates from the Echo's space, the attack would not have disadvantage.
Additional note: when mixing ranged and melee attacks among the Knight and the Echo, watch out for line of sight as the knight still needs clear LOS to a target of a ranged attack from the Echo's position.
Hopefully to end this debate, here is a tweet from Jeremy Crawford where he explicitly states that it floats and stays in the air.
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1242186507433070592?lang=pt
It's also still merely advice with little actual weight behind it. The Echo Knight isn't permitted in organized play, so there's no standardized ruling for how the feature behaves. I respect Crawford, but Sage Advice has always had a little asterisk next to it.
I'm pretty sure all campaign-specific material is prohibited in organized play. I think that tweet does firmly establish the RAI, though. A 2nd printing of the subclass could potentially include something about the echo remaining in place wherever the knight puts it. This could be how they also clear up any confusion about other creatures physically moving the echo as well.
Could we get an Update to the post, with correction on Movement question #5?
"at any time" This is wrong.
The text reads:
"If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you at the end of your turn, it is destroyed."
which is critically different from
"If your echo is ever more than 30 feet from you, at the end of your turn it is destroyed."
Your Echo can be any distance from you during your turn and will not disappear as long as you end your turn within 30 feet of it.
Oh, there's no confusion about whether or not the echo can be forcibly moved by others. It's an intangible image. If it were tangible, it would say so.
Could a level 15 Beastmaster Ranger, with 3-5 levels in Echo-Knight Fighter use Manifest Echo, and have it apply to your pet too? Does Manifest Echo count as a magical spell in that regard?
"You can use a bonus action to magically manifest an echo of yourself in an unoccupied space you can see within 15 feet of you. This echo is a magical, translucent, gray image of you that lasts until it is destroyed, until you dismiss it as a bonus action, until you manifest another echo, or until you’re incapacitated."
The Beastmaster's 15th ability Share Spells;
"Beginning at 15th level, when you cast a spell targeting yourself, you can also affect your beast companion with the spell if the beast is within 30 feet of you."
When in doubt, go left. And don't get scared, get angry.
No, manifest echo is not a spell. It's an innate ability
Maybe not for you but this is one of the issues that I see debated the most when it comes to the echo. IMO I think it comes from people getting tripped up over the classification of the echo as an object. It is a fairly cut and dry issue on the surface but then you can raise questions involving Levitate, Catapult and other spells or effects that interact with objects and aren't so black and white where tangibilty is considered. I feel like they could settle these issues definitively with a carefully worded rewrite.
It does say it's tangible, right where it says it occupies its space. By definition, anything which occupies its space is tangible.
Anyone confused simply hasn't been looking at all the relevant information. See my post in this very thread from just five days ago.
Calling something an object is just an abstraction because the game doesn't define what an object is. In the simplest of terms, an object is anything which isn't a creature. A brick wall or cart full of straw conjured up by minor illusion is just as much an object as something created via fabricate. What matters is (A) whether something "occupies its space" and (B) what, exactly, that means.
As mentioned in the linked post, the number of comparison points is breathtakingly small. But we do know that (A) the spell illusory dragon explicitly creates a tangible object while no other comparison point does and (B) a thing only does what it says it does and. As Jeremy Crawford has repeatedly stated, if some mechanical interaction were intended, a spell or feature would say so.
Sometimes, I do think, they are overly-permissive; such as saying just any old echo can move vertically. But, in this case, the pendulum swings the other direction. It's not intended for the echo to be physically interacted beyond what is explicitly stated in the feature.