(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)
I'd like to point you to this RPGbot article which argues otherwise, using logic derived from Jeremy Crawford's tweets. And yes it does point out that the feature description doesn't include a Grapple-specific exception, but you should still mention the Freedom of Movement logic.
(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)
I'd like to point you to this RPGbot article which argues otherwise, using logic derived from Jeremy Crawford's tweets. And yes it does point out that the feature description doesn't include a Grapple-specific exception, but you should still mention the Freedom of Movement logic.
How might you rewrite to A: to accommodate this? I personally don’t agree that Jeremy’s statement extends to Echo’s movement, but it is ultimately the DMs decision. I do agree that Freedom of Movement would allow escaping a grapple, Echo or no Echo.
On Movement 13, I believe it is possible to use Echo Avatar to teleport 1000 feet even when applying Crawford's RAI.
Activating Echo Avatar requires an action, but makes no mention of the range between the Knight and the Echo. Echo Avatar can be ended with no action used. Swapping places requires a bonus action, and explicitly works regardless of distance. The Echo is destroyed at the END of the Knight's turn.
So it is entirely possible for the Knight to: 1. Drop Echo Avatar (no action) 2. Swap places with the Echo (bonus action) 3. Reactivate Echo Avatar or do something else (action)
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.
The Echo unambiguously does notimpact the fighter's reach, at least persistently. The fighter only takes on the echo's position at the instant of an attack - otherwise, they are in their own position, and their reach is determined by that position and completely ignores the existence of the echo.
That's why they need to include an additional rule to enable echo-based opportunity attacks, why Echo-based Opportunity Attacks don't benefit from 'reach' weapons, and why features like Sentinel reactions and PAM reactions do not work with the Echo.
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.
The Echo unambiguously does notimpact the fighter's reach, at least persistently. The fighter only takes on the echo's position at the instant of an attack - otherwise, they are in their own position, and their reach is determined by that position and completely ignores the existence of the echo.
That's why they need to include an additional rule to enable echo-based opportunity attacks, why Echo-based Opportunity Attacks don't benefit from 'reach' weapons, and why features like Sentinel reactions and PAM reactions do not work with the Echo.
I wouldn't use the word "unambiguously" so casually. Not when the term "reach" is actually pretty nebulous. As in it's never clearly defined by the rules. In fact, the term "reach" is first used in the PHB before anything approaching a definition is even used. Case in point, the first sentence section on Melee Attacks in Chapter 9, which contains the closest thing the PHB has to a definition, includes the third reference to reach in that chapter alone. So, knowing that, whether the echo impacts a fighter's reach is up to interpretation. The DM decides whether the space around the echo counts as part of the fighter's reach. And, personally, I don't see why not.
When an echo knight uses the Attack and attacks from their echo's location, has their reach actually been extended? Can a PC bugbear, with their Long-Limbed trait, still benefit from the increased five feet of reach on their turn? It certainly seems that way, but only with their action and not their reaction. Which brings to mind a curious observation: RAW, the opportunity attack is actually more powerful when it originates from the echo than it originates from the fighter. If the weapon has the Reach property, the target must move at least ten feet away and out of the fighter's reach. But the echo allows the fighter to strike with their Reach weapon even if the target moves only five feet. Is that actually intended, or are they just using the five feet because reach is typically five feet. Sure, it could be cleaner. But is it necessary to convey the meaning?
Of course, you also have some people arguing the Telekinetic feat doesn't actually increase the functioning range of Mage Hand because of a quirk of language. I mean, shoot, even a moderator stepped into that thread and laid out their reasoning for why it should work. I implore that people resist the urge to be Lawful Stupid.
(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)
I'd like to point you to this RPGbot article which argues otherwise, using logic derived from Jeremy Crawford's tweets. And yes it does point out that the feature description doesn't include a Grapple-specific exception, but you should still mention the Freedom of Movement logic.
How might you rewrite to A: to accommodate this? I personally don’t agree that Jeremy’s statement extends to Echo’s movement, but it is ultimately the DMs decision. I do agree that Freedom of Movement would allow escaping a grapple, Echo or no Echo.
Umm... just append that info? It's not that hard really.
A: No, but there is a potential ambiguity. RAW, it costs... ... ... using Manifest Echo. However, Jeremy Crawford's tweets about the Freedom of Movement spell suggest a logic where the Echo Knight can swap. A player with Freedom of Movement has no movement while grappled, and by strict RAW cannot spend 5 feet of movement to escape the grapple. The logic being applied is that once you escape the grapple, your movement speed is restored and you can now use that movement after the fact to pay the 5 feet of movement. By the same logic, an Echo Knight should be able to spend 15 feet of movement from the movement he would have had after escaping grapple. On the other hand, Freedom of Movement specifically calls out escaping grapples, while the Echo Knight swap does not. Be sure to clarify with your DM whether they will allow Echo Knight swaps to escape a grapple. (thanks to @A and @B)
Q: Can you cast Darkness and Light on an Echo? How does this affect the Knight's attacks and attacks made on the Echo?
A: Both Darkness and Light can be cast on an Echo. The Knight's attack and perception are from the Knight, so the Knight would not have advantage or disadvantage on the attack based on the Darkness. However the Darkness would give disadvantage on attacks against the Echo.
Q: Can you cast Darkness and Light on an Echo? How does this affect the Knight's attacks and attacks made on the Echo?
A: Both Darkness and Light can be cast on an Echo. The Knight's attack and perception are from the Knight, so the Knight would not have advantage or disadvantage on the attack based on the Darkness. However the Darkness would give disadvantage on attacks against the Echo.
Assuming the knight uses their own vision to make the attack it would depend on if the creature they are attacking is in the darkness as well.
If the creature is in the darkness with the echo: Both the knight and the creature will roll normally (Both have ADV from being unseen but both also have DIS due to not seeing their target)
If the creature is NOT in the darkness (Example: Knight fires crossbow from Echo's location within the darkness at a creature outside of it): Knight would get ADV on the attack (ADV due to source of attack being unseen but the knight can see the target).
That is how I would think it would work too. The arrow or bolt coming out of a sphere of darkness should have advantage logically. But if what I've read, that the source is you, not the echo and not being in darkness yourself you would not have advantage. I think darkness on the echo would still at least give attacks against it disadvantage.
This is a previous question: "Q: If a Knight would have disadvantage on an attack, would the attack from the Echo also have disadvantage? A: Yes, since the Echo is not really attacking. It is the Knight that is attacking, the attack only appears to come from the Echo’s position."
I was thinking of using minor illusion to make a bush for cover but still able to see through, or a wall with a loophole to see through giving you cover I would think.
Q: Does an Echo occupy its space, and can an enemy pass through an Echo’s space? A: Yes, an Echo occupies a square. And thus it prevents enemies from passing through its space.
I'm not sure that this is the case.
Manifest Echo says '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.' and "It is the same size as you, and it occupies its space"
per the PHB "A typical medium creature isn't 5ft wide... but does control a space that wide.", and provides the example "If a medium hobgoblin stands in a 5-foot-wide doorway, other creatures cant go through unless the hobgoblin lets them" (PHB 191)
My interpretation is that the echo is an image of a character, which does not physically occupy the entire space. So if an enemy goes to move through the Echo's square it can, because there is space to do so, and because the Echo, not being a creature, can not actively prevent them (Objects don't generally "control" combat space). Thoughts?
Q: Does an Echo occupy its space, and can an enemy pass through an Echo’s space? A: Yes, an Echo occupies a square. And thus it prevents enemies from passing through its space.
I'm not sure that this is the case.
Manifest Echo says '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.' and "It is the same size as you, and it occupies its space"
per the PHB "A typical medium creature isn't 5ft wide... but does control a space that wide.", and provides the example "If a medium hobgoblin stands in a 5-foot-wide doorway, other creatures cant go through unless the hobgoblin lets them" (PHB 191)
My interpretation is that the echo is an image of a character, which does not physically occupy the entire space. So if an enemy goes to move through the Echo's square it can, because there is space to do so, and because the Echo, not being a creature, can not actively prevent them (Objects don't generally "control" combat space). Thoughts?
I think in general, objects don't generally control a space, unless they take up the whole space. But I think the "...it occupies its space," gives us that this is an exception to the general situation. The echo is your size and "occupies" the same space that you would, if you were there. In this sense, "occupies" and "controls" have the same meaning from this snippet from the spacing section, which you quote from above.
"
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them."
All objects occupies space on the battlefield, Creatures can let or refuse to let something pass, an echo can not. Its a bit like arguing you cant squeeze past a carboard cut out, if it doesn't want you to.
EDIT: Moving around creatures: "you can move through a nonhostile creatures space". The echo is not a creature But occupies the same space and is non-hostile which would indicate that you can move through it.
Similarly the Echo has no listed weight, so it should be movable by any character, like ay other object.
You are arguing logic. I am saying that the rules say "it occupies its space." Which to me means it has control over the space and creatures can't move through it. There are a lot of things about the Echo that don't really make sense. But, in this case, I think the rule is already defined and explained. The echo is not a creature, but "itoccupies its space," which is an attribute normally only ascribed to creatures, means you treat it as one for the purpose of control of it's space.
Like a lot about the Echo Knight. I think it's arguable either way. But I think the stronger case is for you can't move through it.
You are arguing logic. I am saying that the rules say "it occupies its space." Which to me means it has control over the space and creatures can't move through it. There are a lot of things about the Echo that don't really make sense. But, in this case, I think the rule is already defined and explained. The echo is not a creature, but "itoccupies its space," which is an attribute normally only ascribed to creatures, means you treat it as one for the purpose of control of it's space.
Like a lot about the Echo Knight. I think it's arguable either way. But I think the stronger case is for you can't move through it.
The only rules preventing entering a square with an object in it is on PHB 192 and refers to when the object or terrain feature "fills its space". As established a player character doesn't fill its 5x5 space and neither does the Echo (being the same dimensions as the character), it simply occupies the same space. Occupies and Fills are treated differently for movement.
EDIT: An stool can occupy a space, (causing difficut terrain), and a wall fills a space preventing movement
You are arguing logic. I am saying that the rules say "it occupies its space." Which to me means it has control over the space and creatures can't move through it. There are a lot of things about the Echo that don't really make sense. But, in this case, I think the rule is already defined and explained. The echo is not a creature, but "itoccupies its space," which is an attribute normally only ascribed to creatures, means you treat it as one for the purpose of control of it's space.
Like a lot about the Echo Knight. I think it's arguable either way. But I think the stronger case is for you can't move through it.
The only rules preventing entering a square with an object in it is on PHB 192 and refers to when the object or terrain feature "fills its space". As established a player character doesn't fill its 5x5 space and neither does the Echo (being the same dimensions as the character), it simply occupies the same space. Occupies and Fills are treated differently for movement.
EDIT: An stool can occupy a space, (causing difficut terrain), and a wall fills a space preventing movement
Your edit is venturing into house rules territory. However a stool interacts with the space and terrain is up to the DM, and that can vary from table to table since there's no hard or fast rule of it counting as difficult terrain. In any case, I find your reasoning both inconsistent and specious. Bigby's hand both does not fill its space and counts as difficult terrain for any creature attempting to pass through its space.
Having said that, a character occupies its space; controlling it in terms of who or what can move through it. The same language is used for the echo, so you treat that space as if a friendly creature occupies it. The terms "fill" and "occupy" while technically different, are used interchangeably. They functionally have the same meaning. You can no more pass through a space filled by a pillar or wall than you can pass through the space of a hostile creature. The only notable difference is the occupying creature can let a friendly creature through their space.
Can you give me an example of a case different where occupies and fills are used interchangeably? Biggby's hand cuts against that argument because it specifically calls out that occupying the space is not the same as filling the space in its rules. E.G. "the hand doesn't fill the space" in the description.
Page 190 says that "the space of another creature, whether hostile or not, also counts as difficult terrain". The Echo is the same size as the base creature and occupies it space. So you have a non-hostile object in the size and shape of a creature, which could normally be moved through as difficut terrain (unless hostile, which it is not, as its an object). A creature only stops the movement because it is hostile (per the PHB). The argument here seems to be that as a bonus action the Echo Knight summons a wall sized immovable rod at level 3. Which seems off.
Is there a comparable example where summoning an object blocks all movement without directly saying so? I have physical copies of the books in front of me, so I can't do a keyword search. But is there another... spell, item description...etc. that behaves the same way as what is proposed? In which case I will concede the point.
By your own admission, objects both occupy (despite lacking explicit language) and fill spaces at the same time. Except when they don't, like with Bigby's hand. Your imposing your interpretation, absent any RAW to support it. That's the definition of a house rule. It doesn't matter if think it's logical or not.
The difference between the echo (an object which occupies its space) and Bigby's hand (an object which does not fill its space) is the latter explicitly states a creature can pass through it, counting the space as difficult terrain. The echo lacks such language, so a hostile creature cannot pass through it as difficult terrain. The only hint that even a friendly creature can pass though it is the use of the word "occupy"; which up until this point has been reserved for characters.
Remember, features tell you what they say they do. Seeming omissions should not be taken as permissions. The echo, conspicuously, does not describe itself as an object. In fact, the only reference we have to it being an object is a tweet from Jeremy Crawford. There's no Sage Advice on the matter, and there's no errata. Nor does it use language such as filling its space.
So, if we assume the echo is an object then, following your logic, it either must fill its space or it does not fill its space. Then, logically, "occupies its space" and "fills its space" are functionally the same thing within the context of whatever legalese you're attempting to impose on the PHB. After all, the echo is an object so it cannot consent to letting people through the space. Nevermind that the echo belongs to the Echo Knight, a character, so really the character is the one controlling the space. And, let's be honest, the PHB was never intended to be read and interpreted in anything approaching legalese. You're attempting to argue that it does not fill its space and does occupy its space.
You might think these words mean different, and I'd wager you do. But you haven't taken efforts to actually draw the distinction. I mean, I can go through the the PHB and find any number of references to creatures occupying their respective spaces or needing an unoccupied space: Invoke Duplicity, Arcane Charge, Shadow Step, Wild Magic Surge, Hurl Through Hell, and Benign Transposition─just to name a few. But the words, the idea being conveyed, are never explicitly defined. So the PHB is relying on common understanding.
You could say, and it seems that you're arguing, that "occupies its space" is a pointless turn of phrase because it just means this is where the creature or object resides. It should be self-evident that anything and everything needs to exist somewhere. But then why bother with using it in the PHB at all? It does, actually matter. And this brings me back to the inconsistency I see. Following your train of thought to its natural conclusion, a creature could not teleport into that space. But they could move though it as if the echo wasn't even there. Except it is there. It's not just an image. It's not an apparition of a barrel or brick wall one might conjure up with silent image. It has a hit point.
If you don't believe the the echo is not an abject per the the tweet from Jeremy Crawford, then the discussion is wide open because if it is treated a non-hostile creature the point is moot. Fills and occupies are distinctly different from a movement perspective per the PHB. I am not saying that my interpretation is correct, rather that the situation is not cut and dry enough to claim that it can block all movement, as a matter of course.
The FAQ is quite good at laying out an argument for its points. In this case, it is not. If occupies and fills are interchangeable, Darkness would prevent movement into the 15ft sphere. Nothing RAW says you CAN enter the area of darkness (the spell), so by your logic it is a wall, if your are outside of the initial casting.
If you don't believe the the echo is not an abject per the the tweet from Jeremy Crawford, then the discussion is wide open because if it is treated a non-hostile creature the point is moot. Fills and occupies are distinctly different from a movement perspective per the PHB. I am not saying that my interpretation is correct, rather that the situation is not cut and dry enough to claim that it can block all movement, as a matter of course.
The FAQ is quite good at laying out an argument for its points. In this case, it is not. If occupies and fills are interchangeable, Darkness would prevent movement into the 15ft sphere. Nothing RAW says you CAN enter the area of darkness (the spell), so by your logic it is a wall, if your are outside of the initial casting.
A thing only does what it says it does. The spell darkness does not state it is an object which fills its space or otherwise prevents movement. So it's not an object, it does not fill the space, does not occupy its space, and it does not displace creatures or unsecured objects that fall within its radius when evoked. You keep reading things that aren't there, and I'm curious as to why.
And, admittedly, the ruling that the echo occupies and controls space like a creature is a inference. Because the word "occupy" is consistent with the rules for creatures, not objects. It's not explicitly stated they control their space as creatures do, but it is implied. Which is more than anyone can say for it halting teleportation but permitting smooth movement through it. Again, your interpretation lacks an internal consistency.
As for Crawford, his tweets have not been considered official rulings (by WotC) for several years. His interpretation, while helpful, is not the only interpretation. I fundamentally disagree on the echo being permitted to move in three dimensions if the Echo Knight cannot. And he explicitly allows for booming blade and shadow blade to work together; despite the RAW no longer permitting it.
This is a very interesting debate. There are a number of unanswered and challenging questions throughout the rules and FAQ. And I still think the problem of a “wall sized immovable rod” is a problem. By the rules (or based on the interpretation in this FAQ so far), an Echo can act as a 5’x5’ floating platform that others can stand on or use to fly. There is also the question on if anyone can pass through an Echo’s space, even if is standing still.
For the FAQ, I also tried to take two other things into account, now just the RAW. The first is intent (RAI), which we largely have to base on things like the description of the Echo Knight since we don’t have a lot of sources. And as an extension of intent, I was also trying to take things through to their logical conclusion. If an Echo is immovable, what does that mean for the game, or how can it be abused. I personally believe 5e is a game of “rulings, not rules” as I read someone else, so I hope to info people about their options rather than say it has to be exactly one way or another.
I think the question on if an Echo takes up a full 5x5 square is a good one. I would also encourage considering the logical extensions of the different interpretations. The Echo Knight is full of contradictions. The FAQ makes the assumption that a Echo can’t be pushed or pass through it’s 5x5 space, but what would change if we interpreted it otherwise? I don’t consider myself an expert in all the rules, and all the points raised here have been very interesting.
As for the discussion on what “occupies” means, we can always try to present both options, though I’m still undecided on the best ruling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd like to point you to this RPGbot article which argues otherwise, using logic derived from Jeremy Crawford's tweets. And yes it does point out that the feature description doesn't include a Grapple-specific exception, but you should still mention the Freedom of Movement logic.
How might you rewrite to A: to accommodate this? I personally don’t agree that Jeremy’s statement extends to Echo’s movement, but it is ultimately the DMs decision. I do agree that Freedom of Movement would allow escaping a grapple, Echo or no Echo.
On Movement 13, I believe it is possible to use Echo Avatar to teleport 1000 feet even when applying Crawford's RAI.
Activating Echo Avatar requires an action, but makes no mention of the range between the Knight and the Echo. Echo Avatar can be ended with no action used. Swapping places requires a bonus action, and explicitly works regardless of distance. The Echo is destroyed at the END of the Knight's turn.
So it is entirely possible for the Knight to:
1. Drop Echo Avatar (no action)
2. Swap places with the Echo (bonus action)
3. Reactivate Echo Avatar or do something else (action)
It's a bit of a loophole though.
The Echo unambiguously does not impact the fighter's reach, at least persistently. The fighter only takes on the echo's position at the instant of an attack - otherwise, they are in their own position, and their reach is determined by that position and completely ignores the existence of the echo.
That's why they need to include an additional rule to enable echo-based opportunity attacks, why Echo-based Opportunity Attacks don't benefit from 'reach' weapons, and why features like Sentinel reactions and PAM reactions do not work with the Echo.
I wouldn't use the word "unambiguously" so casually. Not when the term "reach" is actually pretty nebulous. As in it's never clearly defined by the rules. In fact, the term "reach" is first used in the PHB before anything approaching a definition is even used. Case in point, the first sentence section on Melee Attacks in Chapter 9, which contains the closest thing the PHB has to a definition, includes the third reference to reach in that chapter alone. So, knowing that, whether the echo impacts a fighter's reach is up to interpretation. The DM decides whether the space around the echo counts as part of the fighter's reach. And, personally, I don't see why not.
When an echo knight uses the Attack and attacks from their echo's location, has their reach actually been extended? Can a PC bugbear, with their Long-Limbed trait, still benefit from the increased five feet of reach on their turn? It certainly seems that way, but only with their action and not their reaction. Which brings to mind a curious observation: RAW, the opportunity attack is actually more powerful when it originates from the echo than it originates from the fighter. If the weapon has the Reach property, the target must move at least ten feet away and out of the fighter's reach. But the echo allows the fighter to strike with their Reach weapon even if the target moves only five feet. Is that actually intended, or are they just using the five feet because reach is typically five feet. Sure, it could be cleaner. But is it necessary to convey the meaning?
Of course, you also have some people arguing the Telekinetic feat doesn't actually increase the functioning range of Mage Hand because of a quirk of language. I mean, shoot, even a moderator stepped into that thread and laid out their reasoning for why it should work. I implore that people resist the urge to be Lawful Stupid.
Umm... just append that info? It's not that hard really.
A: No, but there is a potential ambiguity. RAW, it costs... ... ... using Manifest Echo. However, Jeremy Crawford's tweets about the Freedom of Movement spell suggest a logic where the Echo Knight can swap. A player with Freedom of Movement has no movement while grappled, and by strict RAW cannot spend 5 feet of movement to escape the grapple. The logic being applied is that once you escape the grapple, your movement speed is restored and you can now use that movement after the fact to pay the 5 feet of movement. By the same logic, an Echo Knight should be able to spend 15 feet of movement from the movement he would have had after escaping grapple. On the other hand, Freedom of Movement specifically calls out escaping grapples, while the Echo Knight swap does not. Be sure to clarify with your DM whether they will allow Echo Knight swaps to escape a grapple. (thanks to @A and @B)
Q: Can you cast Darkness and Light on an Echo? How does this affect the Knight's attacks and attacks made on the Echo?
A: Both Darkness and Light can be cast on an Echo. The Knight's attack and perception are from the Knight, so the Knight would not have advantage or disadvantage on the attack based on the Darkness. However the Darkness would give disadvantage on attacks against the Echo.
Assuming the knight uses their own vision to make the attack it would depend on if the creature they are attacking is in the darkness as well.
If the creature is in the darkness with the echo: Both the knight and the creature will roll normally (Both have ADV from being unseen but both also have DIS due to not seeing their target)
If the creature is NOT in the darkness (Example: Knight fires crossbow from Echo's location within the darkness at a creature outside of it): Knight would get ADV on the attack (ADV due to source of attack being unseen but the knight can see the target).
That is how I would think it would work too. The arrow or bolt coming out of a sphere of darkness should have advantage logically. But if what I've read, that the source is you, not the echo and not being in darkness yourself you would not have advantage. I think darkness on the echo would still at least give attacks against it disadvantage.
This is a previous question: "Q: If a Knight would have disadvantage on an attack, would the attack from the Echo also have disadvantage?
A: Yes, since the Echo is not really attacking. It is the Knight that is attacking, the attack only appears to come from the Echo’s position."
I was thinking of using minor illusion to make a bush for cover but still able to see through, or a wall with a loophole to see through giving you cover I would think.
I have a question, the FAQ says:
Q: Does an Echo occupy its space, and can an enemy pass through an Echo’s space?
A: Yes, an Echo occupies a square. And thus it prevents enemies from passing through its space.
I'm not sure that this is the case.
Manifest Echo says '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.' and "It is the same size as you, and it occupies its space"
per the PHB "A typical medium creature isn't 5ft wide... but does control a space that wide.", and provides the example "If a medium hobgoblin stands in a 5-foot-wide doorway, other creatures cant go through unless the hobgoblin lets them" (PHB 191)
My interpretation is that the echo is an image of a character, which does not physically occupy the entire space. So if an enemy goes to move through the Echo's square it can, because there is space to do so, and because the Echo, not being a creature, can not actively prevent them (Objects don't generally "control" combat space). Thoughts?
I think in general, objects don't generally control a space, unless they take up the whole space. But I think the "...it occupies its space," gives us that this is an exception to the general situation. The echo is your size and "occupies" the same space that you would, if you were there. In this sense, "occupies" and "controls" have the same meaning from this snippet from the spacing section, which you quote from above.
"
Space
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them."
All objects occupies space on the battlefield, Creatures can let or refuse to let something pass, an echo can not. Its a bit like arguing you cant squeeze past a carboard cut out, if it doesn't want you to.
EDIT: Moving around creatures: "you can move through a nonhostile creatures space". The echo is not a creature But occupies the same space and is non-hostile which would indicate that you can move through it.
Similarly the Echo has no listed weight, so it should be movable by any character, like ay other object.
You are arguing logic. I am saying that the rules say "it occupies its space." Which to me means it has control over the space and creatures can't move through it. There are a lot of things about the Echo that don't really make sense. But, in this case, I think the rule is already defined and explained. The echo is not a creature, but "it occupies its space," which is an attribute normally only ascribed to creatures, means you treat it as one for the purpose of control of it's space.
Like a lot about the Echo Knight. I think it's arguable either way. But I think the stronger case is for you can't move through it.
The only rules preventing entering a square with an object in it is on PHB 192 and refers to when the object or terrain feature "fills its space". As established a player character doesn't fill its 5x5 space and neither does the Echo (being the same dimensions as the character), it simply occupies the same space. Occupies and Fills are treated differently for movement.
EDIT:
An stool can occupy a space, (causing difficut terrain), and a wall fills a space preventing movement
Your edit is venturing into house rules territory. However a stool interacts with the space and terrain is up to the DM, and that can vary from table to table since there's no hard or fast rule of it counting as difficult terrain. In any case, I find your reasoning both inconsistent and specious. Bigby's hand both does not fill its space and counts as difficult terrain for any creature attempting to pass through its space.
Having said that, a character occupies its space; controlling it in terms of who or what can move through it. The same language is used for the echo, so you treat that space as if a friendly creature occupies it. The terms "fill" and "occupy" while technically different, are used interchangeably. They functionally have the same meaning. You can no more pass through a space filled by a pillar or wall than you can pass through the space of a hostile creature. The only notable difference is the occupying creature can let a friendly creature through their space.
This isn't difficult.
I'll bite,
Can you give me an example of a case different where occupies and fills are used interchangeably? Biggby's hand cuts against that argument because it specifically calls out that occupying the space is not the same as filling the space in its rules. E.G. "the hand doesn't fill the space" in the description.
Page 190 says that "the space of another creature, whether hostile or not, also counts as difficult terrain". The Echo is the same size as the base creature and occupies it space. So you have a non-hostile object in the size and shape of a creature, which could normally be moved through as difficut terrain (unless hostile, which it is not, as its an object). A creature only stops the movement because it is hostile (per the PHB). The argument here seems to be that as a bonus action the Echo Knight summons a wall sized immovable rod at level 3. Which seems off.
Is there a comparable example where summoning an object blocks all movement without directly saying so? I have physical copies of the books in front of me, so I can't do a keyword search. But is there another... spell, item description...etc. that behaves the same way as what is proposed? In which case I will concede the point.
By your own admission, objects both occupy (despite lacking explicit language) and fill spaces at the same time. Except when they don't, like with Bigby's hand. Your imposing your interpretation, absent any RAW to support it. That's the definition of a house rule. It doesn't matter if think it's logical or not.
The difference between the echo (an object which occupies its space) and Bigby's hand (an object which does not fill its space) is the latter explicitly states a creature can pass through it, counting the space as difficult terrain. The echo lacks such language, so a hostile creature cannot pass through it as difficult terrain. The only hint that even a friendly creature can pass though it is the use of the word "occupy"; which up until this point has been reserved for characters.
Remember, features tell you what they say they do. Seeming omissions should not be taken as permissions. The echo, conspicuously, does not describe itself as an object. In fact, the only reference we have to it being an object is a tweet from Jeremy Crawford. There's no Sage Advice on the matter, and there's no errata. Nor does it use language such as filling its space.
So, if we assume the echo is an object then, following your logic, it either must fill its space or it does not fill its space. Then, logically, "occupies its space" and "fills its space" are functionally the same thing within the context of whatever legalese you're attempting to impose on the PHB. After all, the echo is an object so it cannot consent to letting people through the space. Nevermind that the echo belongs to the Echo Knight, a character, so really the character is the one controlling the space. And, let's be honest, the PHB was never intended to be read and interpreted in anything approaching legalese. You're attempting to argue that it does not fill its space and does occupy its space.
You might think these words mean different, and I'd wager you do. But you haven't taken efforts to actually draw the distinction. I mean, I can go through the the PHB and find any number of references to creatures occupying their respective spaces or needing an unoccupied space: Invoke Duplicity, Arcane Charge, Shadow Step, Wild Magic Surge, Hurl Through Hell, and Benign Transposition─just to name a few. But the words, the idea being conveyed, are never explicitly defined. So the PHB is relying on common understanding.
You could say, and it seems that you're arguing, that "occupies its space" is a pointless turn of phrase because it just means this is where the creature or object resides. It should be self-evident that anything and everything needs to exist somewhere. But then why bother with using it in the PHB at all? It does, actually matter. And this brings me back to the inconsistency I see. Following your train of thought to its natural conclusion, a creature could not teleport into that space. But they could move though it as if the echo wasn't even there. Except it is there. It's not just an image. It's not an apparition of a barrel or brick wall one might conjure up with silent image. It has a hit point.
If you don't believe the the echo is not an abject per the the tweet from Jeremy Crawford, then the discussion is wide open because if it is treated a non-hostile creature the point is moot. Fills and occupies are distinctly different from a movement perspective per the PHB. I am not saying that my interpretation is correct, rather that the situation is not cut and dry enough to claim that it can block all movement, as a matter of course.
The FAQ is quite good at laying out an argument for its points. In this case, it is not. If occupies and fills are interchangeable, Darkness would prevent movement into the 15ft sphere. Nothing RAW says you CAN enter the area of darkness (the spell), so by your logic it is a wall, if your are outside of the initial casting.
A thing only does what it says it does. The spell darkness does not state it is an object which fills its space or otherwise prevents movement. So it's not an object, it does not fill the space, does not occupy its space, and it does not displace creatures or unsecured objects that fall within its radius when evoked. You keep reading things that aren't there, and I'm curious as to why.
And, admittedly, the ruling that the echo occupies and controls space like a creature is a inference. Because the word "occupy" is consistent with the rules for creatures, not objects. It's not explicitly stated they control their space as creatures do, but it is implied. Which is more than anyone can say for it halting teleportation but permitting smooth movement through it. Again, your interpretation lacks an internal consistency.
As for Crawford, his tweets have not been considered official rulings (by WotC) for several years. His interpretation, while helpful, is not the only interpretation. I fundamentally disagree on the echo being permitted to move in three dimensions if the Echo Knight cannot. And he explicitly allows for booming blade and shadow blade to work together; despite the RAW no longer permitting it.
This is a very interesting debate. There are a number of unanswered and challenging questions throughout the rules and FAQ. And I still think the problem of a “wall sized immovable rod” is a problem. By the rules (or based on the interpretation in this FAQ so far), an Echo can act as a 5’x5’ floating platform that others can stand on or use to fly. There is also the question on if anyone can pass through an Echo’s space, even if is standing still.
For the FAQ, I also tried to take two other things into account, now just the RAW. The first is intent (RAI), which we largely have to base on things like the description of the Echo Knight since we don’t have a lot of sources. And as an extension of intent, I was also trying to take things through to their logical conclusion. If an Echo is immovable, what does that mean for the game, or how can it be abused. I personally believe 5e is a game of “rulings, not rules” as I read someone else, so I hope to info people about their options rather than say it has to be exactly one way or another.
I think the question on if an Echo takes up a full 5x5 square is a good one. I would also encourage considering the logical extensions of the different interpretations. The Echo Knight is full of contradictions. The FAQ makes the assumption that a Echo can’t be pushed or pass through it’s 5x5 space, but what would change if we interpreted it otherwise? I don’t consider myself an expert in all the rules, and all the points raised here have been very interesting.
As for the discussion on what “occupies” means, we can always try to present both options, though I’m still undecided on the best ruling.